Snap General Election?

[robemcdonald]

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

So the doctor can stay, but his wife and kids can do one?

Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.

A strange response.

Not really:
Doctor contributes - fixes broken people and pays tax
Wife and kids - tale our taxes to pay for education etc - non contributor not required.

If the decision is not made based on contribution. Then how is it made? And by whom?

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

Not really:
Doctor contributes - fixes broken people and pays tax
Wife and kids - tale our taxes to pay for education etc - non contributor not required.

If the decision is not made based on contribution. Then how is it made? And by whom?

If the doctor is needed then his family will also stay - isn't that how it currently works?

Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 25th April 13:06

[Smollet]

Tankrizzo said:

Listening to R4 this morning, I breathed a huge sigh of relief that Keir Starmer isn't in charge of Labour; I think the election would be very different if it were.

Indeed. He's bordering on sanity compared to some of the rest.

[Jockman]

dro said:

P5BNij said:

Other half has relatives just outside Inverness, they're fairly cocooned from most of it but loath Sturgeon and the SNP

Same scenario here, we have relatives in Wester Ross and they "jist canny bide the wummin" so they keep telling us anyway, but they reckon most of their neighbours are thinking the same.

Then you read all the bad mouthing her on here along with all the personal communication I have daily with folk, it really is starting to look like she has shat her own bed.

Oh little Nicola what have you done!.

Similar position. Aberfeldy and Aberdeen this time.

[Burwood]

robemcdonald said:

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

So the doctor can stay, but his wife and kids can do one?

Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.

A strange response.

Not really:
Doctor contributes - fixes broken people and pays tax
Wife and kids - tale our taxes to pay for education etc - non contributor not required.

If the decision is not made based on contribution. Then how is it made? And by whom?

Rob, if you bothered to read the thread just a bit you'd realise this nonsense has been rolled out by several ill informed posters and it has been dealt with.

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

We have always been able to decide who we allow to stay in the UK.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/dis...
Our government has chosen not to implement the rules for some reason (damn Brussels giving us the ability to decide exactly who we allow to stay in our country)

So now you're saying that we aren't making any retrospective changes after all, we are just implementing a policy that had already been agreed and for which those concerned were fully aware?

Great, even less reason for complaint then!!

[robemcdonald]

Burwood said:

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

So the doctor can stay, but his wife and kids can do one?

Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.

A strange response.

he's a troll. Mr Ts alto ego back to haunt us.

So everyone that doesn't agree is a troll? That's actually pretty insulting.

What I am is an undecided voter. I have simply asked questions and then further questions based on the replies.

Based on my own personal circumstances I'm pretty confident that I would be better off voting Conservatives, from a purely financial point of view. The unpleasant replies (like yours) of posters who I assume would also be voting this way really put me off doing so.
I also think that there is more to life and society generally than my own personal circumstances. For example I do feel strongly that people that have made their lives here should be allowed to stay here. If the rest of the EU follow suit and allow U.K. Immigrants to stay in their countries then excellent. If not then I will be glad that we will have nothing more to do with them.

Maybe you should ask the mods to rename the thread as snap general election (for those with right wing views only)

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

So everyone that doesn't agree is a troll? That's actually pretty insulting.

What I am is an undecided voter. I have simply asked questions and then further questions based on the replies.

Based on my own personal circumstances I'm pretty confident that I would be better off voting Conservatives, from a purely financial point of view. The unpleasant replies (like yours) of posters who I assume would also be voting this way really put me off doing so.
I also think that there is more to life and society generally than my own personal circumstances. For example I do feel strongly that people that have made their lives here should be allowed to stay here. If the rest of the EU follow suit and allow U.K. Immigrants to stay in their countries then excellent. If not then I will be glad that we will have nothing more to do with them.

Maybe you should ask the mods to rename the thread as snap general election (for those with right wing views only)

So you don't think that the government should be allowed to implement rules that were already in place when people chose to (temporarily) move here? Why not?

[robemcdonald]

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

We have always been able to decide who we allow to stay in the UK.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/dis...
Our government has chosen not to implement the rules for some reason (damn Brussels giving us the ability to decide exactly who we allow to stay in our country)

So now you're saying that we aren't making any retrospective changes after all, we are just implementing a policy that had already been agreed and for which those concerned were fully aware?

Great, even less reason for complaint then!!

nope I'm not saying anything. Just quoting EU law.

Anecdote alert: a mate emigrated to Austria around 4 years ago and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to do so.


We have always been able to do this, but just haven't.

[mx-6]

sidicks said:

mx-6 said:

Yes there were no contrete guarantees you are right, but we can say that about anything, any laws.

That's why laws are changed all the time. HTH

mx-6 said:

I just don't see any benefit in asking some EU nationals to leave, what do you hope is going to be gained from that?

Well if the ones who are living here are no longer required then itnshoukd be quite obvious what the benefits are!!

mx-6 said:

Why discriminate between european and indigenous people once they are living here?

The country is short of money, we can't support everyone!!

Yes, laws do change, thanks for helping me understand that as I was having trouble before you replied. What I wouldn't expect is a change in law to be applied retrospectively. People have come here and made settled lives as was their right, you seem to advocate treating them like they are redundant automatons that should be cast aside if they momentarily cease to perform a given economic function.

As for being short of money, I'd suggest that we should focus on creating new jobs rather than actively reducing the number of potential workers and consumers in the economy.

[Burwood]

robemcdonald said:

Burwood said:

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

So the doctor can stay, but his wife and kids can do one?

Maybe he can get a superior non EU immigrant family.

A strange response.

he's a troll. Mr Ts alto ego back to haunt us.

So everyone that doesn't agree is a troll? That's actually pretty insulting.

What I am is an undecided voter. I have simply asked questions and then further questions based on the replies.

Based on my own personal circumstances I'm pretty confident that I would be better off voting Conservatives, from a purely financial point of view. The unpleasant replies (like yours) of posters who I assume would also be voting this way really put me off doing so.
I also think that there is more to life and society generally than my own personal circumstances. For example I do feel strongly that people that have made their lives here should be allowed to stay here. If the rest of the EU follow suit and allow U.K. Immigrants to stay in their countries then excellent. If not then I will be glad that we will have nothing more to do with them.

Maybe you should ask the mods to rename the thread as snap general election (for those with right wing views only)

Undecided voter you say. Tory v Labour? If that is the case then you have bigger issues to deal with than immigration. And your question is so ridiculous I'm calling it trolling.

[sidicks]

robemcdonald said:

nope I'm not saying anything. Just quoting EU law.

Anecdote alert: a mate emigrated to Austria around 4 years ago and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to do so.


We have always been able to do this, but just haven't.

And? Is there a point to this anecdote?

[sidicks]

mx-6 said:

Yes, laws do change, thanks for helping me understand that as I was having trouble before you replied. What I wouldn't expect is a change in law to be applied retrospectively.

And yet you've said yourself that we have always been able to send people home.
And nothing will happen until after Brexit, 2 years down the line.
So to talk of retrospective changes is nonsense.

mx-6 said:

People have come here and made settled lives as was their right, you seem to advocate treating them like they are redundant automatons that should be cast aside if they momentarily cease to perform a given economic function.

Wrong, people have come here temporarily. Sorry you don't understand the difference.

mx-6 said:

As for being short of money, I'd suggest that we should focus on creating new jobs rather than actively reducing the number of potential workers and consumers in the economy.

As explained already, if they are required (as workers) why would we send them back?

[Likes Fast Cars]

sidicks said:

robemcdonald said:

nope I'm not saying anything. Just quoting EU law.

Anecdote alert: a mate emigrated to Austria around 4 years ago and had to jump through all sorts of hoops to do so.


We have always been able to do this, but just haven't.

And? Is there a point to this anecdote?

Rob - was your mate from the UK or EU? Why was getting into Austria so difficult for him?

[confused_buyer]

Tankrizzo said:

Listening to R4 this morning, I breathed a huge sigh of relief that Keir Starmer isn't in charge of Labour; I think the election would be very different if it were.

He looks good compared to Corbyn but then who wouldn't.

I'm struggling to see how "free movement has to go, so we can't be part of the single market but we wan't to retain as much access and benefits as we can" is any different to the Government's position.

It is not as if the Government is saying "we can't have free movement, so we are deliberately going to make it as difficult as possible to trade even if the EU offer us better terms..."

To paraphrase Basil Fawlty, Starmer's specialised subject seems to be stating the bleeding obvious.

[anonymous-user]

mx-6 said:

I think borders of nation states are obviously necessary for a number of practical reasons particularly security, but ultimately they are somewhat arbitary lines in the sand and a barrier to freedom. In an ideal world it would be great to be able to freely live and work anywhere without restriction, but in practice that can can very problematic with highly imbalanced economies of the developing world that we have over there. But sharing a free moving area with other economically properous neighbouring countries seems progressive to me.

Which is why before the EU decided to expand East it worked relatively well, as the economies of the member states were relatively similar and stable.

When the EU expansion happened, we were told we would see a few thousand people emigrate from the Eastern states, we saw Millions, with zero planning or infrastructure changes to accommodate it.

There is your driver for Brexit. You can Blame Blair for that, the lying toe rag.

[Fastdruid]

P5BNij said:

Corbyn said he'd do away with zero hours contracts a few days ago, not sure if it's been mentioned, I can see how it will appeal to some voters but a recent piece on our local news said that a fair number of ZH workers actually like the flexibility it gives them. Typically, Jezza always seems to overlook such details.

Not sure of the numbers but from what I recall more people were happy with their zero hour contracts than people were happy with their fixed hour contracts...

It's not a black and white issue. Zero hour contracts work for lots of people. You'd ps off more people taking away zero hour contracts than you'd make happy.

Yes some employers take the piss but that needs to be stamped down on rather than just banning zero hour contracts.
Personally I'd be more interested in seeing a crack down on forcing people to be "self-employed" when they're blatantly not. Especially as it's really just a way to bypass paying tax and having to adhere to employment rights.

[Bullett]

What is going to be the alternative to ZHC's?

1 hour contracts? 8 hours?

[sidicks]

mx-6 said:

Yes, laws do change, thanks for helping me understand that as I was having trouble before you replied. What I wouldn't expect is a change in law to be applied retrospectively. People have come here and made settled lives as was their right, you seem to advocate treating them like they are redundant automatons that should be cast aside if they momentarily cease to perform a given economic function.

As for being short of money, I'd suggest that we should focus on creating new jobs rather than actively reducing the number of potential workers and consumers in the economy.

And yet you claim you are considering voting Labour!! Surely you shouldn't need reminding that they are the cause of high debt / shortage of funds we are facing. They certainly aren't the solution!

[anonymous-user]

Bullett said:

What is going to be the alternative to ZHC's?

1 hour contracts? 8 hours?

If Zero hour contracts where two way then the argument would be different.

I am sure someone with a brain could find a way off allowing zero hour contracts for those who have a genuinely flexible two way relationship with their employer whilst stopping the abuse of such contracts by many employers.

Unlikely to find such a person in the House of Commons.