How many Romanian/Bulgarian migrants are you predicting?

[JagLover]

Even without the increased EU migration the government would have still missed the target of reducing net migration to under £100K due to migration from outside the EU.

If we want to regain control of our borders we need to start by scrapping the Human Rights Act.

[mph1977]

JagLover said:

Even without the increased EU migration the government would have still missed the target of reducing net migration to under £100K due to migration from outside the EU.

If we want to regain control of our borders we need to start by scrapping the Human Rights Act.

or as you are into extreme and uncalled measures culling all of Tony's Cronies in human rights law.

Human rights law has been gratuituously mis used by lawyers mire interested in lining their pockets and/or gaining column inches.

[Amateurish]

Let me know which particular human rights you do not agree with:

Here's a link to refresh your memory http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedu...

If you could specify exactly which ones should be abolished.

[Mermaid]

Government is disappointed so many came to the UK!!!!!!!

Treasure Island.

[Yazar]

Amateurish said:

Let me know which particular human rights you do not agree with:

Here's a link to refresh your memory http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedu...

If you could specify exactly which ones should be abolished.

All if it, due to the interpretation of it taken by the council of europe, where judges are often not up to the job - inexperienced or politically appointed. I would rather have British judges than Romanian, Albanian and Russian.

Lord Sumpton senior UK judge on Article 8 said:

“This perfectly straightforward provision was originally devised,as a protection against the surveillance state by totalitarian governments.

But in the hands of the Strasbourg court it has been extended to cover the legal status of illegitimate children, immigration and deportation, extradition, aspects of criminal sentencing, abortion, homosexuality, assisted suicide, child abduction, the law of landlord and tenant, and a great deal else besides.

None of these extensions are warranted by the express language of the Convention.”

[Amateurish]

Yazar said:

Amateurish said:

Let me know which particular human rights you do not agree with:

Here's a link to refresh your memory http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedu...

If you could specify exactly which ones should be abolished.

All if it, due to the interpretation of it taken by the council of europe, where judges are often not up to the job - inexperienced or politically appointed. I would rather have British judges than Romanian, Albanian and Russian.

We are talking about the Act here, not the Treaty. The Act *is* interpreted by judges in the UK (who may or may not be British - not that it matters what nationality they are).

[Amateurish]

I also note that you rather selectively quote Lord Sumption out of context to suggest that he does not agree with the actions of the ECHR, when in fact the opposite is true. "Personally, if I may be allowed to speak as a citizen, I think that most of the values which underlie judicial decisions on human rights, both at Strasbourg and in the domestic courts of the United Kingdom, are wholly admirable."

[Yazar]

Amateurish said:

Yazar said:

Amateurish said:

Let me know which particular human rights you do not agree with:

Here's a link to refresh your memory http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedu...

If you could specify exactly which ones should be abolished.

All if it, due to the interpretation of it taken by the council of europe, where judges are often not up to the job - inexperienced or politically appointed. I would rather have British judges than Romanian, Albanian and Russian.

We are talking about the Act here, not the Treaty. The Act *is* interpreted by judges in the UK (who may or may not be British - not that it matters what nationality they are).

Nationality matters, as Europe contains some countries high in the global corruption index.

I match and raise your * with my bolds.

"The Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of any other primary legislation provides no other choice. It also requires the judiciary (including tribunals) to take account of any decisions, judgement or opinion of the European Court of Human Rights, known as the Strasbourg court, and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with Convention rights. However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with the Convention, the judges are not allowed to override it. All they can do is issue a declaration of incompatibility. This declaration does not affect the validity of the Act of Parliament: in that way, the Human Rights Act seeks to maintain the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty (see: Constitution of the United Kingdom). However, judges may strike down secondary legislation. Under the Act, individuals retain the right to sue in the Strasbourg court".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_199...

[JagLover]

Amateurish said:

Let me know which particular human rights you do not agree with:

Here's a link to refresh your memory http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedu...

If you could specify exactly which ones should be abolished.

The problem is not the European convention on human rights, but our own judges interpretation of it.

As one example the "primary purpose" rule was never ruled unlawful by the ECHR, but recently considerably milder restrictions on family reunification visas were struck down by our courts.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the alternatives. Personally I prefer laws to be made by parliament than an unelected cabal of judges.

[Mermaid]

Coming to a suburb near you - for work, or other activity if no work available.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855348/Da...

[JagLover]

Mermaid said:

Coming to a suburb near you - for work, or other activity if no work available.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855348/Da...

No doubt this "off the books" work is all part of the massive fiscal benefits from mass immigration.

[Mermaid]

JagLover said:

No doubt this "off the books" work is all part of the massive fiscal benefits from mass immigration.

People previously in some eastern european country, but now here, think the world of Tony Blair.

As to his popularity here...

[The Don of Croy]

On a related note, a Polish lady rang in to Radio 4's 'Any Answers' prog on Saturday lunchtime and said she felt the UK owed it to former Eastern European nations due to our hand in the division of Europe after WWII.

This is a point of view I've never heard before - that, as victors in the War, we could/should have ensured the benefit of advanced Western liberal free-market society on those countries taken under Soviet control. Like we had a choice. And the money to help them. Also having paid quite a hefty price in fighting the war anyway (signing up after the invasion of....where?) we remained fairly broke for while.

The BBC presenter didn't question the lady further, nor comment. But if that's how 'they' feel (and she does have a point about relative economic progress but that's changing gradually) then I'm surprised there isn't more needle.

[Mrr T]

JagLover said:

Mermaid said:

Coming to a suburb near you - for work, or other activity if no work available.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2855348/Da...

No doubt this "off the books" work is all part of the massive fiscal benefits from mass immigration.

This is a post from the Daily Wail so any connection with reality is purely incidental.

The picture shows no more than 20 people who may or may not be looking for work. An MP quoted as saying he see 200 but no pictures and no supporting evidence.

As for not paying tax in the construction industry look at the CIS scheme. Under the scheme the employer has to deduct tax at source on any payment to a sub contractor unless the sub contractor is correctly registered.

Now I am sure some employers may ignore it but the fines and powers of HMRC mean it rare.

[Mrr T]

The Don of Croy said:

On a related note, a Polish lady rang in to Radio 4's 'Any Answers' prog on Saturday lunchtime and said she felt the UK owed it to former Eastern European nations due to our hand in the division of Europe after WWII.

This is a point of view I've never heard before - that, as victors in the War, we could/should have ensured the benefit of advanced Western liberal free-market society on those countries taken under Soviet control. Like we had a choice. And the money to help them. Also having paid quite a hefty price in fighting the war anyway (signing up after the invasion of....where?) we remained fairly broke for while.

The BBC presenter didn't question the lady further, nor comment. But if that's how 'they' feel (and she does have a point about relative economic progress but that's changing gradually) then I'm surprised there isn't more needle.

I will admit I did think about this when T Blair decided not to impose any work restrictions on Poland in 2004. The fact is my parent fought a war to defend Poland. Many Polish exiles fought with great bravery alongside the allies.

[Foppo]

The Don of Croy said:

On a related note, a Polish lady rang in to Radio 4's 'Any Answers' prog on Saturday lunchtime and said she felt the UK owed it to former Eastern European nations due to our hand in the division of Europe after WWII.

This is a point of view I've never heard before - that, as victors in the War, we could/should have ensured the benefit of advanced Western liberal free-market society on those countries taken under Soviet control. Like we had a choice. And the money to help them. Also having paid quite a hefty price in fighting the war anyway (signing up after the invasion of....where?) we remained fairly broke for while.

The BBC presenter didn't question the lady further, nor comment. But if that's how 'they' feel (and she does have a point about relative economic progress but that's changing gradually) then I'm surprised there isn't more needle.

I've heard this point of few before.How many Poles died in the war fighting with the Brits.And after the war they where controlled by the Russians for fifty years.The Poles where broke and lived in poverty for a lot longer.

[Amateurish]

The Don of Croy said:

On a related note, a Polish lady rang in to Radio 4's 'Any Answers' prog on Saturday lunchtime and said she felt the UK owed it to former Eastern European nations due to our hand in the division of Europe after WWII.

This is a point of view I've never heard before - that, as victors in the War, we could/should have ensured the benefit of advanced Western liberal free-market society on those countries taken under Soviet control. Like we had a choice. And the money to help them. Also having paid quite a hefty price in fighting the war anyway (signing up after the invasion of....where?) we remained fairly broke for while.

The BBC presenter didn't question the lady further, nor comment. But if that's how 'they' feel (and she does have a point about relative economic progress but that's changing gradually) then I'm surprised there isn't more needle.

It is a common view, and to be fair Churchill did sell Poland down the river at Yalta when Stalin was given half their territory. This included the territory belonging to the hundreds of thousands of Poles who fought for Britain. Although Britain was bankrupt at the time, and probably could do little about the fact of the Soviet occupation. A Polish friend has spent many an hour waxing lyrical about this to me.

[Amateurish]

Mrr T said:

I will admit I did think about this when T Blair decided not to impose any work restrictions on Poland in 2004. The fact is my parent fought a war to defend Poland.

Yes, we defended them from the Nazis, but then surrendered them to Stalin.

[Foppo]

In the battle of Britain the Poles where 5%of the overall squadrons but took 12% German fighters down.

It is all history I know but just remember the sacrifices these lads gave.

[Axionknight]

Amateurish said:

Yes, we defended them from the Nazis, but then surrendered them to Stalin.

Considering that the Soviet Union had already invaded Poland several years before the end of world war two, what would you have had us done? Invade the USSR to appease the Polish whilst still at war with Japan?

Might I remind you of Stalins belligerence on the issue - he refused to allow the Western Allies use of Russian airfields to assist in the Warsaw uprising. He obviously had plans for the whole of Eastern Europe, we had already gone to war once over Polands freedom and six years later we were hardly a country with the capability to take on a militarily powerful nation like the USSR.