RayC

Official Home Office data vs. individual anecdotal evidence. Which is more credible?

Seasons greetings. I see that you are back to your pedantic self.

Second in line to the throne at one point.

I think that you should check the source of the data quoted by the "open borders brigade"; it's the Home Office. The report you link to is from 2013 so is now completely outdated and irrelevant. The link that I provided is from July this year so still very much relevant.

Most of you are being beastly to Prince Andrew. He worked very hard on behalf of the UK. More importantly in this context, he much prefers nights out at Woking's Pizza Hut to sordid sex parties. He said so and he was nearly King, so it must be true.

Unfortunately, there is currently no mechanism to expel Hungary. Introducing a mechanism would require Treaty change and unanimous support from member states. Hungary would not, of course, support any such measure.

Singapore has a "strongman" government but imo it is not authoritarian. Opposition is allowed and there are relatively free elections. A mixed economy is, of course, entirely possible but I'm not sure how you can have "selective fascism", and I'm even less sure that it would be desirable even if it were.

"Fascism isn't all bad". I guess that is true. Apparently Hitler was a vegetarian and an animal lover, and some of those Nazi uniforms did look very smart, so "all bad", no. The big "But ....." is when you look at Fascism as a political ideology and/or system of government. Then it is all bad and I cannot even try to understand how anyone could think otherwise.

Those in search of a desolate moral vacuum look no further.

That'll be why 75% of asylum applications are approved at the initial stage🙄

MSM, X. You seem to question the validity of any source which doesn't fit your narrative. Presumably Pravda and 'Russia Today' are to be believed?

And that makes it ok?

The easiest way to refute an accusation of racism is to tackle it head on. So when I suggest that a statement has racist undertones, show me where I am wrong and/or how the statement might be interpreted differently. Pointing out that tourists in Thailand are st to discriminatory pricing does not do that.

Absolute tosh. In this particular instance, you suggested that migrant workers in the UK should not be treated the same as native-born workers until they became permanent residents i.e. until at least 5 years had elapsed. I asked you directly if you would then withhold access to the NHS/ education for those migrant workers and their families who did not meet your threshold, and explained why I thought this could be racist/ xenophobic. You (still) have the opportunity to refute that view by addressing the questions which I posed directly, and/or pointing out flaws in my argument. You have chosen not to do so but, now instead attempt to play the 'victim' card.

I'm never usually in favour of suicide or murder but, in this instance, it would almost certainly* prove greatly beneficial. * "almost certainly" because, unfortunately, there is the slim possibility that his replacement could be worse

Adding a laughing emoji would be inappropriate but what absolute nonsense as usual. Did you read the article? Did you miss the bit about your hero Putin's seemingly casual attitude towards the death of Russian troops?

Whether Ukraine joins the EU whilst at war, at peace or not at all is irrelevant. One thing remains true: It ,in no way, helps explain - let alone justify - Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Replacing 'money' with 'land' rings true as well, don't you think?

And the reason for your conclusion? I would hazard a guess that it has something to do with it being a slap in the face for Putin.

I agree but opinion doesn't lend itself to meaningful debate. What is required is "informed opinion".

It was an opportunity to explain your position and explain to me what I had overlooked. You have a good day too.

Rather childish, Jonny.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct, given that there is no mechanism for ejecting Hungary. Maybe the other 26 EU members should form another organisation? They could also invite the UK to join.

Straw clutching. We are talking about worker's rights. The fact that an overseas tourist pays more to feed Jumbo bananas in Thailand than a local is discrimination, but is relatively unimportant. I pointed out that Australia treats (legal) migrant workers and native-born workers equally when it comes to their rights. How you can conclude that I therefore hate the UK is yet another example of your failed logic. So it's all about the absolute amount that a worker has (financially) contributed to the system? Should the individuals' entitlement to services, such as the NHS therefore be proportionate to the amount of NI/tax contributions which they have made? Where does that leave the school leaver, new graduate? Presumably, you'd withhold access to NHS services for them until they had built up a big enough pot? Ex-servicemen sleeping on the streets or OAPs freezing to death on their homes has nothing to do with illegal immigrants posting on social media, and everything to do with the failure of the authorities to safeguard those individuals. It's not race baiting, Jonny. I'll repeat what I posted previously: The government estimates that this piece of legislation will cut immigration by 300,000, of which 70,000 are 'family visas' which suggests there will be 230,000 fewer 'worker' visas. This, in turn, suggests that there will be 230,000 unfilled job vacancies (unless the need for these jobs has disappeared overnight): I can't see the economic rationale for this, so a cut in immigration must be 'good' in its' own right. My question is simply: 'Why?'. Racism/ Xenophobia is a possible explanation. In fact, I struggle to see what other explanation there can be. You have stated that you would go further than the bill proposes, "Migrant workers should not have the same benefits as UK nationals until they become UK nationals". I asked you if this meant that you would withhold access to the NHS and schooling for their kids until this threshold had been reached? (You avoid answering these questions directly). In this case, there probably would be cost savings but imo it is a morally bankrupt proposal and, again, imo smacks of racism/ xenophobia. I'd be interested to know what the other explanations might be.

There are problems in making an organisation representing 27 member states comprising 450 million people more accountable to the electorate. There will never be a perfect system. Imo the transfer of some of the responsibilities of the Commission e.g. the ability to propose legislation would be a start. I would prefer that the Commissioners or, at least, the PEC were directly elected. The problem then is a lack of knowledge of the individuals concerned. For example, very few people outside of Germany had any idea who v.d Leyden was. That said, the majority of the UK electorate couldn't tell you who their local MP was but they still vote.