Brit In/Out EU Referendum

[i claudius]

After Merkel and Hollande stitched him up today,I reckon a yes vote to get out just got one he'll of a lot closer,no matter what the two,yes only two guys on here think,they had better start praying

[7by7]

Already Cameron has shiifted the Goalposts,what started off as a straight forward IN / OUT Referendom is biased towards talk of concessions,which shows that Cameron has never really wanted out of Europe,he's desperate to show the people,that we should stay in Europe, and I doubt there will be too much talk of what the people want,except from UKIP.

There has been no shifting of goalposts.

What Cameron is doing is trying to improve the terms of the UK's membership; secure a deal which he believes will make the UK's position in the EU stronger and more advantageous than at present.

If he succeeds in this, doubtful, he will then put this new deal to the UK voters with a simple question; stay in or get out; the Yes/No referendum that was promised and that you wish for.

If he doesn't get a new deal, more likely, then we will still get the promised referendum; it would be political suicide for the Tories to renege on that promise.

This is virtually the same as Harold Wilson did in1975. He renegotiated the terms of the UK's membership of what was then the EEC previously agreed by Ted Heath and put those new terms to the British people in a simple Yes/No, In/Out referendum.

Of course, one can argue, and I often have, that what is now the EU is very different to the EEC I and many others voted to remain a member of.

However, I believe that the advantages of British membership far outweigh the disadvantages.

One thing many people are unaware of is that leaving the EU would have no effect on EU/EEA migrants coming to the UK, nor British migrants going to other EU/EEA countries.

The freedom of movement treaty was signed not only by European Union states, but European Economic Area ones as well. EEA members are as bound by it and the directive as EU members are.

All EU members are also members of the EEA, but not all EEA members are also members of the EU.

So if the UK were to leave the EU it would still be bound by the directive, unless it also left the EEA.

Leaving the EU would cause enough problems; leaving the EEA as well could be disastrous for the UK's trade with Europe; by far our biggest export market.

As for immigration from outside the EEA; leaving the EU, the EEA or both will have absolutely no effect on that; it's a completely different issue.

Apart, that is, from closing the Surinder Singh route for British citizens who wish to live in the UK with their foreign, e.g. Thai, spouse but, even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without state aid, can't meet the UK's absurd financial requirement.

Edited May 26, 2015 by 7by7

[elliss]

The main issue against EU. membership is NOT, being addressed , meaning uncontrolled immigration.

Where to ? Not to France , Germany , Italy , Poland, Rumania etc

Immigrants choose the UK, where the lame and lazy , are more than welcome , to enjoy social security benefits....FREE

This hand out culture must stop , and the immigrants will not find the UK so welcoming , hence the eagerly awaited budget.

Neither of the major UK political parties has,, or in the case of the the ex Labour Party , had the balls to address immigration problem.

This is what made UKIP so popular with the UK voters

Also, the UK electorate , will vote itself out of the burden of uncontrolled Greek debt ,

and probably Spain, Italy and other EU countries. will follow soon . Why pay back debt ??

Germany and France will be the ultimate controllers of the EU.

UK. may as well jump , before we are pushed .

Edited May 26, 2015 by elliss

[GinBoy2]

Maybe I'm afu, but last year I vacationed in Spain and was to be honest shocked that southern Spain actually felt more British than Spanish. Bad food, and I think the expression is 'lager louts' seemed to be the norm. I'm wondering if the Spanish might be praying for an 'out' vote?

[JockPieandBeans]

Already Cameron has shiifted the Goalposts,what started off as a straight forward IN / OUT Referendom is biased towards talk of concessions,which shows that Cameron has never really wanted out of Europe,he's desperate to show the people,that we should stay in Europe, and I doubt there will be too much talk of what the people want,except from UKIP.

There has been no shifting of goalposts.

What Cameron is doing is trying to improve the terms of the UK's membership; secure a deal which he believes will make the UK's position in the EU stronger and more advantageous than at present.

If he succeeds in this, doubtful, he will then put this new deal to the UK voters with a simple question; stay in or get out; the Yes/No referendum that was promised and that you wish for.

If he doesn't get a new deal, more likely, then we will still get the promised referendum; it would be political suicide for the Tories to renege on that promise.

This is virtually the same as Harold Wilson did in1975. He renegotiated the terms of the UK's membership of what was then the EEC previously agreed by Ted Heath and put those new terms to the British people in a simple Yes/No, In/Out referendum.

Of course, one can argue, and I often have, that what is now the EU is very different to the EEC I and many others voted to remain a member of.

However, I believe that the advantages of British membership far outweigh the disadvantages.

One thing many people are unaware of is that leaving the EU would have no effect on EU/EEA migrants coming to the UK, nor British migrants going to other EU/EEA countries.

The freedom of movement treaty was signed not only by European Union states, but European Economic Area ones as well. EEA members are as bound by it and the directive as EU members are.

All EU members are also members of the EEA, but not all EEA members are also members of the EU.

So if the UK were to leave the EU it would still be bound by the directive, unless it also left the EEA.

Leaving the EU would cause enough problems; leaving the EEA as well could be disastrous for the UK's trade with Europe; by far our biggest export market.

As for immigration from outside the EEA; leaving the EU, the EEA or both will have absolutely no effect on that; it's a completely different issue.

Apart, that is, from closing the Surinder Singh route for British citizens who wish to live in the UK with their foreign, e.g. Thai, spouse but, even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without state aid, can't meet the UK's absurd financial requirement.

Why I am not surprised that you are an vocal advocate of a method of circumventing the UK's immigration requirements ?

[emilymat]

It's interesting that the question will be ;

"Do you wish the UK to remain a member of the EU. Yes or No"

Whereas, in the Scottish Referendum the question, I think, was "Should Scotland become an independent country"

A very subtle difference and invites the person to vote for the status quo (So the headshrinkers believe).

[JockPieandBeans]

Maybe I'm afu, but last year I vacationed in Spain and was to be honest shocked that southern Spain actually felt more British than Spanish. Bad food, and I think the expression is 'lager louts' seemed to be the norm. I'm wondering if the Spanish might be praying for an 'out' vote?

All those Londoners and Brummies had to go somewhere

[worgeordie]

So 15 years out of UK and you cannot vote ?,they really do want to forget about us,

and look to make things more difficult ie getting new passports,taking G/F,wife home,

just even if its only for a visit.

Regards EU, in/out, better out ,they have too much control over every ones lives,i don't

need straight bananas,there is a whole world out the to export to,we dumped the

Commonwealth,to cosy up to the EU, now look what's happened, regards the EU been

good for peace,its not the Germans we need to worry about ,but the Yellow peril from

the East.

Count me OUT, but I cannot vote !

regards Worgeordie

[worgeordie]

Well I am afraid as some Farangs like to say about the Majority voters here, many people in the UK are not educated or aware enough to vote on such a fundamental subject to the UKs future, Many little Englander Daily mail Readers will vote on pure prejudice, Shaking with rage as they thumb through the Daily mail and Telegraph after reading how much Johnny Foreigner , The Hun the Frogs and the Dago;s are ripping us off. Disaster if we come out

Also many Americans,could not even find Europe,let alone the UK on a map,

regards Worgeordie

[billd766]

@Bild

A million people agreeing with you o this forum will not make a blind bit of difference.

In the real world - ie - the UK, not a Thai expat forum - there is not a chance in hell that the British electorate will vote us out of the EU.

Not a chance.

Your words and not mine, nor is it the words of the UK electorate who have a couple of years to decide.

[billd766]

So 15 years out of UK and you cannot vote ?,they really do want to forget about us,

and look to make things more difficult ie getting new passports,taking G/F,wife home,

just even if its only for a visit.

Regards EU, in/out, better out ,they have too much control over every ones lives,i don't

need straight bananas,there is a whole world out the to export to,we dumped the

Commonwealth,to cosy up to the EU, now look what's happened, regards the EU been

good for peace,its not the Germans we need to worry about ,but the Yellow peril from

the East.

Count me OUT, but I cannot vote !

regards Worgeordie

Actually that is not quite correct.

If you had not registered to vote during those 15 years then you are correct.

If, however you did register to vote in those 15 years since you left the UK then the 15 year clock starts from the last year that you were a registered voter, either physically living at the address, had a postal vote or a proxy vote.

[GinBoy2]

Well I am afraid as some Farangs like to say about the Majority voters here, many people in the UK are not educated or aware enough to vote on such a fundamental subject to the UKs future, Many little Englander Daily mail Readers will vote on pure prejudice, Shaking with rage as they thumb through the Daily mail and Telegraph after reading how much Johnny Foreigner , The Hun the Frogs and the Dago;s are ripping us off. Disaster if we come out

Also many Americans,could not even find Europe,let alone the UK on a map,

regards Worgeordie

Oh that is such a tired old stereotype. Oh course most 'mercians can find Europe & the UK on a map. It's the historical theme park, with the little islands being the one's with the old lady with the crown. LOL

[7by7]

<snip>

As for immigration from outside the EEA; leaving the EU, the EEA or both will have absolutely no effect on that; it's a completely different issue.

Apart, that is, from closing the Surinder Singh route for British citizens who wish to live in the UK with their foreign, e.g. Thai, spouse but, even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without state aid, can't meet the UK's absurd financial requirement.

(JPB's emphasis)

Why I am not surprised that you are an vocal advocate of a method of circumventing the UK's immigration requirements ?

I am a vocal advocate of a fair and equitable immigration policy; as anyone who has read any of my posts in the Visas and immigration to other countries forum will know.

If you knew anything at all about the UK's financial requirement you would know that it is not fair and equitable and has unfairly prevented members of this forum from returning to the UK to live with their Thai spouse; even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without state aid.

If you knew anything at all about the EEA freedom of movement directive and the Surinder Singh ruling you would know that it is a perfectly legal way for EEA nationals living in an EEA state other than their own with a non EEA national spouse to return to their home state.

N.B. I have edited the quote to show only the part I am responding to, as you do so often yourself, not for any other reason.

[MAJIC]

After Merkel and Hollande stitched him up today,I reckon a yes vote to get out just got one he'll of a lot closer,no matter what the two,yes only two guys on here think,they had better start praying

He's been stitched up by Merkel before,when he needed her support,didn't teach him a lesson though!

[TommyUK1960]

I want out of the EU. The EU has done nothing for the British people. I don't want to be ruled from Brussels. The EU has shown its nasty side in recent times with Cyprus and Greece. It has stolen money from peoples bank accounts, It takes over 50+ million a day from the UK, It has to much red tape strangling business's into bankruptcy. It stole fish from British waters, It forces us to take excessive amount of migrants, It's not addressing the Muslim issue. The list is endless. The UK will be a better place to live out of the corrupt EU

What is always better for any country is less government. less tax and it's about time people looked after them selves.

[JockPieandBeans]

<snip>

As for immigration from outside the EEA; leaving the EU, the EEA or both will have absolutely no effect on that; it's a completely different issue.

Apart, that is, from closing the Surinder Singh route for British citizens who wish to live in the UK with their foreign, e.g. Thai, spouse but, even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without state aid, can't meet the UK's absurd financial requirement.

(JPB's emphasis)

Why I am not surprised that you are an vocal advocate of a method of circumventing the UK's immigration requirements ?

I am a vocal advocate of a fair and equitable immigration policy; as anyone who has read any of my posts in the Visas and immigration to other countries forum will know.

If you knew anything at all about the UK's financial requirement you would know that it is not fair and equitable and has unfairly prevented members of this forum from returning to the UK to live with their Thai spouse; even though they are perfectly capable of supporting themselves without state aid.

If you knew anything at all about the EEA freedom of movement directive and the Surinder Singh ruling you would know that it is a perfectly legal way for EEA nationals living in an EEA state other than their own with a non EEA national spouse to return to their home state.

N.B. I have edited the quote to show only the part I am responding to, as you do so often yourself, not for any other reason.

Who are you to decide what is a fair Policy ? Laws, Rules, Regulations and Policies are written for the greater good of Society, not for individuals.

Of course I know about the financial requirements for the UK. How could I not ? You never shut up about them. Here is a little gem for you. My financial requirements to stay in Thailand ( A Supposed 3rd World Country ) is just less than the UK's financial requirement ( A supposed 1st World Country ) So do you think Thailand's should be lower or the UK's higher ? Yes, you are correct, there are people who cannot return to the UK from Thailand due to financial requirements. I am going to go out on a limb here. It is probably fact, that their will be some, not all, but some, that cannot meet the financial requirements that would definitely not manage in the UK without state aid.

Surinder Singh is a legal way to enter the UK. No, it is a loophole that can be used that do not meet the financial requirements. If it was legal nobody would go down the legal route and everyone would use the Surinder Singh route. It is a loophole nothing more, nothing less.

Which will be closed if the UK leaves the EU.

But you already know that.

[7by7]

I have as much right to call any law unfair as anyone else does; the UK is a democracy, even though you may wish that it wasn't.

When comparing the UK's family immigration rules and those of Thailand, you are very much preaching to the choir. I have often said that, harsh though the UK's rules are, it is easier for a Thai spouse of a British citizen to obtain ILR in the UK and then British citizenship than it is for the British spouse of a Thai to obtain PR in Thailand; let alone citizenship.

But the financial requirement for the spouse of a Thai national to stay in Thailand is not 'just less' than the financial requirement for the UK.

At today's Money Converter rate £18600 p.a. is equivalent to 962,333.31 baht p.a, or 80,194.44 baht p.m.

The required income for the spouse of a Thai in Thailand is half that; 40,000 baht p.m. Even for a retirement visa it's 60,000 baht p.m; two thirds!

One big difference, of course, is that once the Thai spouse has been living in the UK for 5 years and has ILR they no longer have to meet any financial requirement. The British spouse of a Thai living in Thailand has to meet the requirement for as long as they remain in Thailand; unless they are one of the lucky 100 per year to be granted PR.

But, however you look at it, two wrongs do not make a right.

My opinion is that for both countries the requirement should be that the immigrant spouse should simply be able to show that they can be supported, from their own resources or their spouse's, without the need for state aid.

BTW, the UK says that a couple where one is an immigrant must have an income of at least £18,600 pa. Care to guess at how much a British couple living off income support alone gets?

£5972.20 p.a., plus rent. Why can't that be the minimum income required to meet the financial requirement for settlement?

But I digress way off topic; this is about the UK and the EU.

You call Surinder Singh a loophole!

You say that is not legal!

Your ignorance is, yet again, showing.

Surinder Singh is so called as it comes from a ruling by the European Court of Justice in the case of Surinder Singh vs the UK..

You may not like the ECJ and it's being able to overrule judgements by member state's courts; but it is the highest court of appeal in Europe and it's rulings are legal in every sense of the word.

[evadgib]

The gaping omission in the previous post is that Brit females married to Thais in Thailand are exempt of any financial hurdles.

The Surinder Singh route is perfectly legal & worth considering for those that need it.

Edited May 27, 2015 by evadgib

[JockPieandBeans]

At today's Money Converter rate £18600 p.a. is equivalent to 962,333.31 baht p.a, or 80,194.44 baht p.m.

The required income for the spouse of a Thai in Thailand is half that; 40,000 baht p.m. Even for a retirement visa it's 60,000 baht p.m; two thirds!

As I explained. For a ( Supposedly 1st World Country ) 962,233 Baht for a coupe. A single man in a ( Supposedly 3rd World Country ) 800,000 Baht.

I believe the figure for those that use the income method is 65,000 Baht monthly. So a massive difference of £300 a month against a couple and a single man. So your 2 thirds is way out.

So I will ask you again, who's financial requirements are wrong ?

However, that does not help those who may wish to return to the UK but cannot. Sometimes life is a b!tch and we cannot always get what we want. Laws, rules and regulations are their for the greater good of Society. Sometimes, innocents will get caught up in that, against their wishes.

£5972.20 p.a., plus rent. Why can't that be the minimum income required to meet the financial requirement for settlement?

Are you really so naïve that you think that your above statement is correct ? I suggest that you check your facts and find out the true cost. It will be upwards of £ 16,000 when all benefits are taken into account. Makes your $18,600 seem even more on the low side.

Surinder Singh is so called as it comes from a ruling by the European Court of Justice in the case of Surinder Singh vs the UK..

You may not like the ECJ and it's being able to overrule judgements by member state's courts; but it is the highest court of appeal in Europe and it's rulings are legal in every sense of the word.

Exactly, thank you for proving my point. It is actually nothing to do with the UK, it was foisted upon the UK by the EU. So it is in effect a loophole.

I will say it again, for anyone that needs to return to the UK using this method, you have got 2 years to make and execute your plan.

Should the UK vote to leave the EU, this loophole will be closed.

Edited May 28, 2015 by JockPieandBeans

[7by7]

The gaping omission in the previous post is that Brit females married to Thais in Thailand are exempt of any financial hurdles.........

Indeed, but as the pieman was commenting on his position I responded to that on the assumption that he is male.

[7by7]

Pieman;

Unless it has changed very recently, the minimum income for a marriage visa extension is 40,000 baht per month. If it has changed, perhaps you will post a link to the relevant change from the MFA?

You post "So I will ask you again, who's financial requirements are wrong ?"

If you had actually bothered to read all of my previous post, you would have seen that I said that in my opinion both countries' are!

The income support figure I posted comes from the weekly figure on Gov.UK multiplied by 52. Yes, a couple may get more depending on circumstances, if they have children etc., but I was talking about minimum figures for a couple, as I made clear by using the words 'couple' and 'minimum!'

Like it or not, and you obviously don't, the Surinder Singh route is not a loophole; it is the law.

This topic is about the UK and the EU, not about the UK family immigration regulations vs. the Thai ones. Can we now stick to the topic?

[rocketboybkk]

Out

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[elliss]

So, Britain leaves the EU , we can expect a war in Europe , between who .?

Maybe, the olive throwing Greeks , who along with uncontrolled immigration , are the main cause of discontent in Britain.

Maybe the Italians , known historically for their retreat and surrender policies in war situations .

Maybe Germany , with its limited and controlled Military , Air force , etc .

oops , I nearly forget France , nothing personal.

IS.. is the biggest problem , these fanatics, are non negotiable going Nuclear soon. Bang.

Spend now, while you can you have been warned .

Hilarious - think about it for a moment.

The Russian Bear has just invaded a sovereign country that they guaranteed they would never invade in return for that country giving up their nuclear weapons.

Just about every other day NATO aircraft are being scrambled to fend off Russian incursions into NATO airspace.

The Finnish government has just ordered their reservists to a higher state of alert.

Going back to Ukraine - Russia is openly subverting Ukraine democracy by planting Russian troops with the rebels - and have already admitted that it was their troops who led the operation to seize Crimea.

Do I think it will lead to full scale war? no -

Do I think this is the time for the greatest force for peace in European history to be unsettled by this stupid referendum? not a chance.

The UK should stand by the EU - it should stand by NATO ( instead of stripping our armed forces to the bone ) -

And it should stand by countries that were dominated by Russia for so long -

Anyway - I'm wasting my time on this thread.

This referendum is the last thrash of the Idiot Generation - the generation that ruined Britain.

This referendum will be a crushing humiliation for them.

A deserved humiliation.

[evadgib]

The 2015 general election was the "most disproportionate in British history", the Electoral Reform Society has said.

In a new analysis the society - which campaigns to change the voting system - has assessed how the make up of Parliament would have differed had other voting systems been used.

The research shows UKIP could have won as many as 80 MPs and the Greens 20.

UKIP received 3.9 million votes and the Greens 1.2 million, and they ended up with one MP each.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32954807

Mods: Feel free to move if there's a better place elsewhere.

Edited June 1, 2015 by evadgib

[Eff1n2ret]

The original topic of this thread was about the right of expats to vote in the EU In/Out Referendum. It may be of interest to note the following paragraphs in the latest newsletter from Sir Roger Gale MP which I'm sure he won't mind me reproducing here. Sir Roger has an honourable record of supporting the interests of expats in general and of "frozen pensioners" in particular. These remarks follow his comments about the Queen's Speech:-

"The omission of a specific bill to extend the franchise for ex-pat UK citizens from 15 years to perpetuity prompted near-hysteria until it was realised that the intention was there. Indeed, the Leader of the House told me personally that he hopes and expects that the necessary legislation will be introduced “in this session” which I take to mean to be before May 2016. If that is correct then there ought to be time for the Electoral Commission to make the necessary arrangements for ex-pat UK voters to vote in an EU referendum.

Which begs the question “What the hell happened at this last General election?” The EC, backed by organisations like Conservatives Abroad, went to some lengths to ensure that as many of those living overseas as are currently eligible to vote were registered and able to do so. Failure on the part of some Returning Officers to get their act together, though, made a pig`s ear of the process and there were numerous reports of ballot papers not being received in time for votes to be returned and counted. There will be small point in extending the franchise unless a better system, which probably means some form of electronic voting, is introduced."

One swallow does not a summer make, nor does one MP make the law, but it's good to see that the disappointment expressed by many about their non-receipt of ballot papers in time to vote has been noted.

[elliss]

The 2015 general election was the "most disproportionate in British history", the Electoral Reform Society has said.

In a new analysis the society - which campaigns to change the voting system - has assessed how the make up of Parliament would have differed had other voting systems been used.

The research shows UKIP could have won as many as 80 MPs and the Greens 20.

UKIP received 3.9 million votes and the Greens 1.2 million, and they ended up with one MP each.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-32954807

Mods: Feel free to move if there's a better place elsewhere.

So true,,

Those err ,, elected democratically,,, Members of the House , will not be eager to change a unfair voting system ..

that has put them into high office , with the associated perks, etc.

With Democracy , significant changes are not allowed .

Edited June 5, 2015 by elliss

[Ricardo]

Perhaps, and in the light also of global climate change, the UK-government might explore the potential for the cultivation of bananas ?

[NanLaew]

The original topic of this thread was about the right of expats to vote in the EU In/Out Referendum. It may be of interest to note the following paragraphs in the latest newsletter from Sir Roger Gale MP which I'm sure he won't mind me reproducing here. Sir Roger has an honourable record of supporting the interests of expats in general and of "frozen pensioners" in particular. These remarks follow his comments about the Queen's Speech:-

"The omission of a specific bill to extend the franchise for ex-pat UK citizens from 15 years to perpetuity prompted near-hysteria until it was realised that the intention was there. Indeed, the Leader of the House told me personally that he hopes and expects that the necessary legislation will be introduced “in this session” which I take to mean to be before May 2016. If that is correct then there ought to be time for the Electoral Commission to make the necessary arrangements for ex-pat UK voters to vote in an EU referendum.

Which begs the question “What the hell happened at this last General election?” The EC, backed by organisations like Conservatives Abroad, went to some lengths to ensure that as many of those living overseas as are currently eligible to vote were registered and able to do so. Failure on the part of some Returning Officers to get their act together, though, made a pig`s ear of the process and there were numerous reports of ballot papers not being received in time for votes to be returned and counted. There will be small point in extending the franchise unless a better system, which probably means some form of electronic voting, is introduced."

One swallow does not a summer make, nor does one MP make the law, but it's good to see that the disappointment expressed by many about their non-receipt of ballot papers in time to vote has been noted.

That's an interesting note, thanks. I will wait to see how Alex Salmond votes on this since he chose to totally disenfranchise the large Scottish diaspora in his ill-fated referendum on Scottish Independence. Maybe he was legally bound to apply the 15-year franchise or maybe the total imponderable of how a more savvy, more worldly and more canny Scot would vote was just too scary to countenance. Call it the X-factor. Personally, I consider it dishonorable for any nation's government to prevent any of their citizenry from voting on matters of such national import just because they don't live in their home country. Furthermore, there's not much to like about Australia* but hefty fines for not voting is very admirable.

* Just joking Blue.

[elliss]

Perhaps, and in the light also of global climate change, the UK-government might explore the potential for the cultivation of bananas ?

A valid point , any species be it , fruit or Animal , with traceable DNA , should be allowed to join civilisation.

Made welcome to the UK , and replanted or housed . Freedom of choice. more biscuits please.

GB . gone bananas.

[nong38]

If as seems likely the Greeks get the boot imagine then if the UK votes to leave what affect that will have, there are only 3 big guns in the EU and I am giving France the benefit ( not an entitlement you note) of that and if one decided it had had enough.In the UK last week it was revealed that we actually do more trade outside of the EU than within it and the EU surely cannot do without our trade anymore than we would wish not trade with those in the Union, that life would gone on as normal, IMHO.

We are one of the big contributors and yet we have no more voting power than places like Romania or the Baltic states, how right can that be? Asking them to vote to change the status quo is like the Turkeys at Christmas position.

I am not going to even go on about the Immigration situation today either although, if anyones interested, have a look at the Peter Hitchens column in last Sunday's Mail, the last paragraph is a killer, nothing is so true and yet we seem powerless to control our own destiny.

We need to get rid of that well meaning but terribly obused "EU Bill of Human Rights" its like every nare do wells "ace up the sleeve" which costs the courts an arm and a leg. We can do a much better job it and produce our own, the Magna Carta was good in its time and we could build on that, so long as the PC brigade are kept out of the way.

I also voted UKIP, more votes that the SNP 58 MP's less. Still their leader makes me laugh, everytime I see her it reminds me of the "Krankies", you know the little one.

Edited June 16, 2015 by nong38