It's high time someone tries to mitigate the damage caused by Brexit!

37 minutes ago, DonniePeverley said:

And before Brexit there was ZERO boat crossings, as we had return agreements in place to return everyone to France.

So essentially you are saying Farage is the answer to the problem Farage created.

Back to Brexit - TELL ME ONE BENEFIT. What law has changed that has really helped you that is any different from Europe?

No one can answer. They continue their racism as they are protected with their pension and benefits.

The electorate is not responsible for implementing or changing laws . The reasons people voted for brexit were simple enough,

They wanted to prevent the UK being absorbed into the EU.

They wanted to ensure that their country was ruled by their elected leaders, under british law, without interference from unelected and often faceless EU bureaucrats, or ECHR rules and regulations

They wanted to avoid the arrival en mass of cheap labour from east european countries

They wanted to avoid the arrival en mass of benefit claimants abusing our welfare system

They wanted to end the endless payments of billions into a system that the saw was giving them nothing in return.

Freedom of movement means little to those who only go on holiday once a year, and applying for a visa is a minor inconvenience , as everybody here knows

That is what those voting in the referendum were voting for, what they did not vote for was the half baked effort by the government in negotiating the exit from the EU. Although what could they expect from a remoaner government lead by a pathetic remoaner female PM. ?

I can still remember all those news reports of the "emergency ,last minute, last chance, meetings that we were expected to believe were continuing into the early hours of the morning, as our tireless negotiators worked to thrash out and secure the best deals, best deals for who exactly ? Absolute load of rubbish,

The conservative government alone are responsible for letting down the electorate and have clearly been punished for it, Labour have failed to improve things and will also be punished in due course.

None of this is Farage's fault , he was not even an elected MP at the time , but now as a politician he is head and shoulders above any in Westminster and this is reflected in the polls, so he will more than likely be the next PM. and then he will have his chance to sort things out, and if he fails he will also be punished

I only hope he gets a fair chance and does not become the target of a hate campaign similar to that targeted at Trump , where all of his opponents are simply wishing for him to fail, regardless of any negative impacts on the country or even themselves

You seem to be suggesting that brexit its self was noting more than a cunning plan by farage to deceive the electorate in order to get him to the position of PM , well its looks like its worked so you might be right.

Like him or loathe him, if what you think is true, then its further proof that the man is a very capable politician, just the sort of chap we should have leading the UK

Based on your final sentence you clearly consider every UK pensioner to be a "racist "

Well i doubt that would bother them , the term racist just like fascist and Nazi has lost any meaning due to excessive misuse Yes the British don't want to be outnumbered by foreigners , and if that makes them "racist" in your opinion then well spotted but boo hoo, so what To suggest that a country cannot function without them is ridiculous

Oh one benefit of brexit , For uk citizens who need one , an IDP is now valid for 3 years That is what they must have been thrashing out during all those vital last minute all night meetings. See they weren't wasting their time

As for problems , there is no problem here that cannot be solved if those tasked with solving it actually want to . No point in moaning about it on here

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

The question isn't whether some individuals benefited it's whether the country as a whole is better off. And eight years on, the answer is unambiguously no.

The question should be , and who's fault is that,? its not Farage's and its not the public's.

and its not the fault of anybody on here

Tories , Labour, and those faceless creeps in whitehall, that's who bears the blame

1 hour ago, DonniePeverley said:

How is the boat problem his fault ? He inherited from the mess Farage, Boris and the racist Brits themselves created with Brexit.

Again its nothing to do with Farage, It may not have been starmers fault , but it became his problem when he was elected, as PM , he new it would , and he said he would sort it out ,,, he has not done so , he is not upto the job

"Racist Brits" that your problem pal get over yourself you sound like a lefty student

1 hour ago, candide said:

It's high time someone tries to mitigate the damage caused by Brexit!

you mean rather than just continually moan about it, why not try to make it work, ? its for the good of the country after all

2 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

And before Brexit there was ZERO boat crossings, as we had return agreements in place to return everyone to France.

And how do you think France would have responded if we tried to dump 40,000 illegals on them every year ? any"return agreements" would soon be getting burnt in protests on the streets of Calais France would now struggle to receive any throwbacks from the UK though as they are fully infected, "no room at the in " most of their cities are disaster zones and no-go areas,,, truly awful,,, full muslim apocalypse

And they can hardly blame brexit for that can they

59 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

you mean rather than just continually moan about it, why not try to make it work, ? its for the good of the country after all

That's exactly what he's doing! Trying to make it work! 😅

52 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

And how do you think France would have responded if we tried to dump 40,000 illegals on them every year ? any"return agreements" would soon be getting burnt in protests on the streets of Calais France would now struggle to receive any throwbacks from the UK though as they are fully infected, "no room at the in " most of their cities are disaster zones and no-go areas,,, truly awful,,, full muslim apocalypse

And they can hardly blame brexit for that can they

According to the agreement, they should be sent to the EU country they first entered, which is not likely to be France in most cases.

2 hours ago, candide said:

That's exactly what he's doing! Trying to make it work! 😅

Not sure who you are talking about, but who ever he is , he needs to try a bit harder doesn't he ?

2 hours ago, candide said:

According to the agreement, they should be sent to the EU country they first entered, which is not likely to be France in most cases.

ok then ..... presumably there is one or two EU countries where most of the illegals land first, I imagine that these countries would soon be ripping up any agreement they had in respect of that .once we started sending 50,000 a year back to them. Whether we were in the EU or not

So we send them back to france , just like you would return all the rubbish you would receive if your neighbour decided to empty his bin into you garden.

No need to be in the EU to do that just send them back, and if they are not too keen to go, then we have a royal navy to help persuade them

France can then deal with the EU bureaucracy involved in ridding itself of them

11 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

And before Brexit there was ZERO boat crossings, as we had return agreements in place to return everyone to France.

So essentially you are saying Farage is the answer to the problem Farage created.

Back to Brexit - TELL ME ONE BENEFIT. What law has changed that has really helped you that is any different from Europe?

No one can answer. They continue their racism as they are protected with their pension and benefits.

Boat crossings occurred prior to 2020, albeit in few numbers. Unauthorized migrants were arriving by other means and still overstaying visas. Since Brexit, France has encouraged and facilitated the crossings. The issue is France, not Brexit. The French are dumping their problem on the UK and attempting to bully the UK. Because the current UK political class is a cadre of passive aggressive grammar school debate and cosplay club members, there has been an inadequate response. If Churchill or Thatcher were around, this debacle would not have occurred. Jenkinson would have disposed of the French just as he did with Napoleon. Brexit has not been able to progress because many people in the UK are unwilling to accept short term pain and inconvenience for long term gain. They want all the benefits without any of the investment.

On 2/3/2026 at 10:34 PM, DonniePeverley said:

fantastic news.

I challenge one racist Brexiteer to tell me one single benefit of Brexit? These racists have left the UK on their own in a world where super powers are taking full advantage of them.

Sick of the entitled racists. Most of them voted Brexit didn't have to suffer the consequences either ... their benefits and pensions kept coming.

It is utterly cringe that people who think those in favour of Brexit are racist by default. While you don’t state ‘ALL’ here, many remoaners (yes, sorry, that word, since we’re doing words I couldn’t help myself) equate it that way and it makes my blood boil. So incredulous and puke-worthy that it is worth a punch in the face. Just how one can make that connection solely based on another party not agreeing with them at the governmental level is beyond me. It is messed up and childish. We’re talking millions of people here. It was not only wife-beater-wearing white w*nkers with tats and crewcuts that voted for it, you know, but nice folks of all races, creeds, persuasions and professions... black people, Asian people, gay people, trans people, whatever gender people, doctors, lawyers, judges etc etc etc that really care about their country. Are they all f’ing racist for ticking a box? Or is it just the white, straight fellas with crew cuts that gets the funny folk all riled up?

Tell you what, how would you guys feel if, for example, every time a remoaner argued on the perceived merits of staying in the EU, we call them a pedo for doing so because, you know, prostitution is legal on parts of the continent right, so it’s the same as being a pedo isn’t it? No? Why not? There is relevance is there not? In short, if not wanting to be part of a politico-economic union is racist then either the word needs redefining or people’s concept of it. Of course it is the latter due to agenda, stigma and childishness. The word, ‘Brexit’, in itself has become so stigmatised in the weak of mind that it now roughly translates as swastika. Gross!

While it is just a word, enough is enough and personally think there needs to be repercussions (fines at the least) for blatantly bandying it about. I just cannot get with that mindset. It is imbalanced and wrong. Putting people into groups, but the Left does seem quick to chuck it around with abandon while spitting their dummy, and they get away with it. This needs to change. If handing out custodial sentences to ordinary British people questioning the UK government’s stance on illegal immigrants is a thing (merely mentioning it online), then it should also be so for people lazily labelling others as being racist will-nilly. I would happily report them because it is damaging and disgusting.

Bottomline for me: ANYONE can come in LEGALLY and contribute… but wanting to preserve one’s culture and wish it not be completely overrun by millions of illegals (from wherever—Nigeria, Iran, USA, Oz, Timbuktu, I couldn’t give a monkeys) is not racist. It is logic and normal. Just try forcing the alternative nonsense mindset onto the Thais to have ASEAN make important decisions for them, who is allowed into their country etc, and see how you go. Would they all be racist for telling ASEAN, no? Just think yourself lucky your ancestors had the foresight to note the above or you would not have the luxury of being able to whine like a ninny.

On topic, if Starmer can wangle a good business deal, then great, but cosying up to the EU again is fraught with danger. Get with as much business as you can—that’s what it was all about originally—but other parties laying down the law with whom one can talk to etc is not cool and will put a target on his head... if the so n so hasn't got one already.

And fyi, there has been no Brexit. The politicians are all too typical and weak. Any perceived detriment and ruination thereafter the vote is immaterial. Look to covid, metoo and poor state management (down to councils, army and NHS, you name it) along with division caused by the diseased mindset of both the far right and extreme left.

2 hours ago, daveAustin said:

It is utterly cringe that people who think those in favour of Brexit are racist by default. While you don’t state ‘ALL’ here, many remoaners (yes, sorry, that word, since we’re doing words I couldn’t help myself) equate it that way and it makes my blood boil. So incredulous and puke-worthy that it is worth a punch in the face. Just how one can make that connection solely based on another party not agreeing with them at the governmental level is beyond me. It is messed up and childish. We’re talking millions of people here. It was not only wife-beater-wearing white w*nkers with tats and crewcuts that voted for it, you know, but nice folks of all races, creeds, persuasions and professions... black people, Asian people, gay people, trans people, whatever gender people, doctors, lawyers, judges etc etc etc that really care about their country. Are they all f’ing racist for ticking a box? Or is it just the white, straight fellas with crew cuts that gets the funny folk all riled up?

Tell you what, how would you guys feel if, for example, every time a remoaner argued on the perceived merits of staying in the EU, we call them a pedo for doing so because, you know, prostitution is legal on parts of the continent right, so it’s the same as being a pedo isn’t it? No? Why not? There is relevance is there not? In short, if not wanting to be part of a politico-economic union is racist then either the word needs redefining or people’s concept of it. Of course it is the latter due to agenda, stigma and childishness. The word, ‘Brexit’, in itself has become so stigmatised in the weak of mind that it now roughly translates as swastika. Gross!

While it is just a word, enough is enough and personally think there needs to be repercussions (fines at the least) for blatantly bandying it about. I just cannot get with that mindset. It is imbalanced and wrong. Putting people into groups, but the Left does seem quick to chuck it around with abandon while spitting their dummy, and they get away with it. This needs to change. If handing out custodial sentences to ordinary British people questioning the UK government’s stance on illegal immigrants is a thing (merely mentioning it online), then it should also be so for people lazily labelling others as being racist will-nilly. I would happily report them because it is damaging and disgusting.

Bottomline for me: ANYONE can come in LEGALLY and contribute… but wanting to preserve one’s culture and wish it not be completely overrun by millions of illegals (from wherever—Nigeria, Iran, USA, Oz, Timbuktu, I couldn’t give a monkeys) is not racist. It is logic and normal. Just try forcing the alternative nonsense mindset onto the Thais to have ASEAN make important decisions for them, who is allowed into their country etc, and see how you go. Would they all be racist for telling ASEAN, no? Just think yourself lucky your ancestors had the foresight to note the above or you would not have the luxury of being able to whine like a ninny.

On topic, if Starmer can wangle a good business deal, then great, but cosying up to the EU again is fraught with danger. Get with as much business as you can—that’s what it was all about originally—but other parties laying down the law with whom one can talk to etc is not cool and will put a target on his head... if the so n so hasn't got one already.

And fyi, there has been no Brexit. The politicians are all too typical and weak. Any perceived detriment and ruination thereafter the vote is immaterial. Look to covid, metoo and poor state management (down to councils, army and NHS, you name it) along with division caused by the diseased mindset of both the far right and extreme left.

Re the racist slur directed towards Brexit supporters. While there is no data, I don't doubt that +/-100% of racists/ xenophobes - who could be bothered to vote - voted Brexit. However, it doesn't logically follow that all Brexit supporters are racists/ xenophobes? I agree that Brexit supporters come in all shapes, sizes, colour, sexual orientation and probably any other variable so, yes, it is unfair to label Brexit supporters as racist.

Re Brexit not yet being implemented: Yes it has. This is what the Withdrawal Agreement looks like in practice. I'll issue the same challenge to you that I issue to everyone who uses this as an excuse for Brexit's failure: What does the 'Real Brexit' look like? How would it it differ in practice to what we have now?

What does "cosying up to the EU again" mean in practice and how is it " ..fraught with danger"?

5 hours ago, daveAustin said:

It is utterly cringe that people who think those in favour of Brexit are racist by default. While you don’t state ‘ALL’ here, many remoaners (yes, sorry, that word, since we’re doing words I couldn’t help myself) equate it that way and it makes my blood boil. So incredulous and puke-worthy that it is worth a punch in the face. Just how one can make that connection solely based on another party not agreeing with them at the governmental level is beyond me. It is messed up and childish. We’re talking millions of people here. It was not only wife-beater-wearing white w*nkers with tats and crewcuts that voted for it, you know, but nice folks of all races, creeds, persuasions and professions... black people, Asian people, gay people, trans people, whatever gender people, doctors, lawyers, judges etc etc etc that really care about their country. Are they all f’ing racist for ticking a box? Or is it just the white, straight fellas with crew cuts that gets the funny folk all riled up?

Tell you what, how would you guys feel if, for example, every time a remoaner argued on the perceived merits of staying in the EU, we call them a pedo for doing so because, you know, prostitution is legal on parts of the continent right, so it’s the same as being a pedo isn’t it? No? Why not? There is relevance is there not? In short, if not wanting to be part of a politico-economic union is racist then either the word needs redefining or people’s concept of it. Of course it is the latter due to agenda, stigma and childishness. The word, ‘Brexit’, in itself has become so stigmatised in the weak of mind that it now roughly translates as swastika. Gross!

While it is just a word, enough is enough and personally think there needs to be repercussions (fines at the least) for blatantly bandying it about. I just cannot get with that mindset. It is imbalanced and wrong. Putting people into groups, but the Left does seem quick to chuck it around with abandon while spitting their dummy, and they get away with it. This needs to change. If handing out custodial sentences to ordinary British people questioning the UK government’s stance on illegal immigrants is a thing (merely mentioning it online), then it should also be so for people lazily labelling others as being racist will-nilly. I would happily report them because it is damaging and disgusting.

Bottomline for me: ANYONE can come in LEGALLY and contribute… but wanting to preserve one’s culture and wish it not be completely overrun by millions of illegals (from wherever—Nigeria, Iran, USA, Oz, Timbuktu, I couldn’t give a monkeys) is not racist. It is logic and normal. Just try forcing the alternative nonsense mindset onto the Thais to have ASEAN make important decisions for them, who is allowed into their country etc, and see how you go. Would they all be racist for telling ASEAN, no? Just think yourself lucky your ancestors had the foresight to note the above or you would not have the luxury of being able to whine like a ninny.

On topic, if Starmer can wangle a good business deal, then great, but cosying up to the EU again is fraught with danger. Get with as much business as you can—that’s what it was all about originally—but other parties laying down the law with whom one can talk to etc is not cool and will put a target on his head... if the so n so hasn't got one already.

And fyi, there has been no Brexit. The politicians are all too typical and weak. Any perceived detriment and ruination thereafter the vote is immaterial. Look to covid, metoo and poor state management (down to councils, army and NHS, you name it) along with division caused by the diseased mindset of both the far right and extreme left.

One of the main issue about Brexit is that there isn't (and never was) any coherent and shared project. I'm not even talking about remainers, as there isn't a common stance inside the Brexiters' camp itself (apart from bashing immigrants).

On the one hand there is he ultraliberal economics stance of the ERG, as represented by the economists for Brexit (they changed their name since Brexit), i.e. Singapore on Thames.

On the other hand, there are the people who voted Brexit because they felt they had been "left behind" by the City elite. They would be the first to suffer from a global, low tax, deregulated, ultraliberal economy!

I also ask the same question as @RayC.

What is the real Brexit? Practically, what policies should be implemented to make Brexit a success, in particular as concerns the economy.

On 2/5/2026 at 5:25 AM, DonniePeverley said:

And before Brexit there was ZERO boat crossings, as we had return agreements in place to return everyone to France.

So essentially you are saying Farage is the answer to the problem Farage created.

Back to Brexit - TELL ME ONE BENEFIT. What law has changed that has really helped you that is any different from Europe?

No one can answer. They continue their racism as they are protected with their pension and benefits.

The most idiotic post I have read in a very, very long time.

It looks like Australians are on the way to get better work and visa benefits than the UK!

https://www.timeout.com/australia/news/australians-could-soon-live-and-work-visa-free-across-europe-under-a-new-two-way-deal-011426

4 hours ago, Keeps said:

The most idiotic post I have read in a very, very long time.

so it appears you don't have an answer, despite your ad homs.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

so it appears you don't have an answer, despite your ad homs.

As a general rule I don't respond to idiots but I've made an exception for yourself and the idiot I originally responded to.

1 hour ago, Keeps said:

As a general rule I don't respond to idiots but I've made an exception for yourself and the idiot I originally responded to.

so still no answer, then?

On 2/5/2026 at 7:21 AM, Bday Prang said:

Freedom of movement means little to those who only go on holiday once a year,

That just totally sums you up.

On 2/5/2026 at 7:21 AM, Bday Prang said:

The electorate is not responsible for implementing or changing laws . The reasons people voted for brexit were simple enough,

They wanted to prevent the UK being absorbed into the EU.

They wanted to ensure that their country was ruled by their elected leaders, under british law, without interference from unelected and often faceless EU bureaucrats, or ECHR rules and regulations

They wanted to avoid the arrival en mass of cheap labour from east european countries

They wanted to avoid the arrival en mass of benefit claimants abusing our welfare system

They wanted to end the endless payments of billions into a system that the saw was giving them nothing in return.

Freedom of movement means little to those who only go on holiday once a year, and applying for a visa is a minor inconvenience , as everybody here knows

Your simplistic views are characteristic of Brexiteers

1. “Prevent the UK being absorbed into the EU”
Pure fantasy. The EU is a treaty organisation, not a superstate. The UK had vetoes, opt-outs, its own currency, and its own borders. No one was being “absorbed” — that slogan replaced facts.

2. “Ruled by unelected EU bureaucrats”
EU laws were proposed by the Commission but approved by elected governments and MEPs — including British ones. Meanwhile, Brexit handed power away from Parliament to ministers via statutory instruments. Less democracy, not more.

3. “British law without interference”
We still follow EU rules to trade with the EU — except now we don’t write them. That’s not sovereignty; that’s rule-taking with extra paperwork.

4. “Cheap Eastern European labour”
Those workers paid more in tax than they took out and kept whole sectors alive (NHS, care, construction, agriculture). After Brexit? Labour shortages, higher prices, food rotting in fields.

5. “Benefit tourists abusing the system”
This was repeatedly shown to be false. EU migrants were less likely to claim benefits than UK citizens. The abuse narrative was invented because it sounded good on a leaflet.

6. “Billions paid in for nothing”
We paid in, we got trade access, investment, regional funding, science funding, and influence. Since leaving, we’re poorer, weaker, and still paying — just now through lost growth instead of a visible contribution.

7. “Freedom of movement doesn’t matter.”
It mattered a lot — to young people, workers, retirees, families, and businesses. And even if you didn’t use it, voting to remove rights because you personally didn’t need them is the politics of spite.

Bottom line:
Brexit wasn’t about sovereignty, democracy, or facts. It was sold on fear, slogans, and scapegoats — and delivered less control, less prosperity, and fewer rights.

Whatever you thought about Brexit before (mistakenly), Trump has really changed the context of this whole debate, and it’s why the idea that the UK can somehow thrive on its own looks increasingly unrealistic.

Whether Trump is actually back in the White House or just dominating US politics, the message to the rest of the world is clear: the US is no longer a reliable, rules-based partner. It’s more transactional, more unpredictable, and far less committed to maintaining the global order it once led. When that happens, countries don’t drift apart — they band together.

And the centre of that clustering is the EU.

What’s happening quietly in the background is the formation of a “middle alliance”. Countries like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and increasingly India are tying themselves more closely to the EU through deep trade and regulatory agreements. These are not symbolic deals or simple tariff reductions. They set standards for products, data, supply chains, climate policy and emerging technologies — the things that actually determine who can trade and on what terms.

The awkward reality is that many of these countries now have a closer and more stable relationship with the EU than the UK does. That would have sounded absurd a decade ago, but it’s the direct result of choosing to sit outside the room while the rules are being written.

Brexit thinking is still stuck in the idea that trade is just about tariffs and visas. Modern trade agreements go far beyond that. They decide whose regulations count, whose standards are trusted, and who gets privileged access to major markets. If you’re inside the bloc, you help shape those rules. If you’re outside, you either accept them without influence or lose access.

Trump accelerates this bloc-based world. He doesn’t believe in alliances; he believes in leverage. Other countries respond by strengthening collective power wherever they can. That makes the EU more important, not less. And the UK, instead of acting as a bridge, has placed itself in the weakest possible position — too small to dictate terms, too close to the EU to ignore its rules, and too detached to influence them.

This is why “Global Britain” increasingly sounds like a slogan from another era. In a world of mega blocs, medium-sized countries protect their interests by being inside something bigger. Rejoining the EU isn’t about nostalgia or reversing history. It’s about recognising how the world now works — and deciding whether the UK wants to shape it or just react to it.

On 2/5/2026 at 7:21 AM, Bday Prang said:

Freedom of movement means little to those who only go on holiday once a year, and applying for a visa is a minor inconvenience , as everybody here knows

Saying “freedom of movement means little” only works if you reduce it to holidays and visas, which completely misses what it actually is.

Freedom of movement in the EU isn’t about popping over for a weekend break. It means an EU citizen can live, work, retire, start a business, buy property, open bank accounts, access healthcare, and build a life in 26 other countries with effectively the same legal standing as a local. No yearly renewals, no income thresholds, no 90-day limits, no visa runs, no dependence on changing political moods. They can even vote in some elections.

Compare that to Thailand, which everyone here understands very well. Even long-term residents face visas, extensions, reporting requirements, work permits, restrictions on employment, limits on property ownership, and constant uncertainty about rule changes. Nobody would seriously argue that this is a “minor inconvenience” — it shapes your entire life.

That’s the difference freedom of movement makes. It turns borders into administrative lines rather than legal walls.

The irony is that EU citizens still have that level of freedom across an entire continent, while UK citizens now have less freedom in Europe than many third-country nationals with EU agreements. We’ve swapped automatic rights for discretionary permission.

And there’s a second problem people overlook. The UK doesn’t just lose EU freedom of movement — it also sits outside EU agreements with countries like Thailand. When the EU negotiates trade, services, or mobility arrangements with third countries, its citizens benefit collectively. The UK is no longer part of those negotiations, nor does it automatically benefit from the outcomes.

So the claim that “applying for a visa is a minor inconvenience” only sounds plausible if you’ve never tried to actually live and work abroad long-term. Anyone with experience of Thailand knows that visas define your life. EU freedom of movement removed that burden entirely — and the UK chose to give it up.

That wasn’t about holidays. It was about rights.

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

Freedom of movement in the EU isn’t about popping over for a weekend break. It means an EU citizen can live, work, retire, start a business, buy property, open bank accounts, access healthcare, and build a life in 26 other countries with effectively the same legal standing as a local. No yearly renewals, no income thresholds, no 90-day limits, no visa runs, no dependence on changing political moods. They can even vote in some elections.

and that is what we do not want, clearly there will be more coming to the UK than leaving , not many UK citizens want to live in eastern europe there is no balance, and our benefits system is just to attractive to others we cannot cope, the country and economy cannot cope and neither can our useless government. I am quite happy to live here amongst a minority of non immigrants visa issues are a small price to pay