The voting followed agreement with the majority Tories on the issue, under huge pressure to do so. If they'd disagreed they'd still have lost but not gained on the PR and House of Lords reform issues.
smaller countries want naturally money to be spent on them.
the issue of tuition fee may be just a fudge. Universities need funding, tory chancellor does not want to write it as legitimate government spending so put it into ex balance sheet and pretends it's a loan to students.
Not so. MEPs join into larger groups with similar sympathies. If we'd had the sense to vote in constructively helpful MEPs instead of the destructive Farage and his yobs, we'd have power in the European Parliament way beyond 87 MEPs.
You really haven't got the hang of how the EU works, have you? we aren't the only member, why do you want complete control of it?
Sounds lovely....So the EU propose a change in immigration where illegal immigrants no longer have to apply for asylum in the first safe country they come to but can choose where to apply. What percentage would want to come to the UK??? How many countries would vote with us??
Your point now being?. Since your intention is to LEAVE, none of these strictures will apply . Nor of course the corresponding benefits.
A lot lower than would want to go to Germany, or even less proportionally than choosing Sweden, The Netherlands, Denmark, Austria or Ireland. These immigrants are far from daft and do their homework on our economies, living conditions and prospects.
And as "Leaver" Fingers has often posted, we probably never will leave properly.
Good word "proportionally" Maybe it would be better to go on country size by how many people per acre rather than population.
50 said in his first preamble he thought it was complete BS..
Not necessarily. For example much of Sweden and Finland are icebound much of the year, those areas making little contribution to their economies. The same goes for EFTA members Norway and Iceland who are also bound by the same immigration rules. And some smaller countries are heavily dependent on fishing, so it's the sea area that's more relevant.
There's a little reason called economics at work that make it difficult, is that what you find funny?oldgroaner said:
Why do you think it isn't?
Do you really imagine the difficulties are due to some EU politicians?
the EU wants to solve the asylum seekers problem, not immigration.
......and free money and free healthcare systems. Of which ours are particularly attractive.
But we already don’t have enough housing, land on which to build houses, health care funding, social services funding, police, schools. Adding more people is a great way to FU what is left.
And the free racism. No matter how much as leavers protest their vote was not about racism, the immigrants don't see it that way. The very obvious upset and sense of rejection those here already felt about the vote, and that very large numbers who've already left for home have made that clear.
We should out the horse before the cart and solve those problems, not ban immigrants. If we try to solve them by people limitation, we might as well go the whole hog and adopt China's current enforced two child limit for families.
