BREXIT Just Happened...

So with regards to the not being able to inquire as to if they have a criminal record are those people causing a large ruckus in your country? Are they damaging it and the like? Is there a percentage out that defines how many crimes they've committed? Will taking back control of this significantly reduce the threat of violence or crime in your nation?

Yes but for employment their legal standing is absolutely up for scrutiny.

ANeither can anyone else who has signed the Geneva conventions.

All countries have terrorists and the majority of them are homegrown. I don't see how leaving the EU has solved this for the UK.

Kara, you're addressing reasonable issues about an unreasonable group.

They don't care about numbers. They just see people with different customs/culture/skin color on their home turf, taking their jobs, "abusing" their public benefits.

We also can't ask them if they have employment awaiting them. It's just a free pass. If one group of people have more rights than another group, the system is unfair at it's core.

[/quote]
The one's I'm refering to are of South African descent. Nothing to do with the EU, yet EU law prevents us from removing these men.

If there's one thing I'm sure of, people only care if a system is unfair if it's to them. Otherwise it's met with the "Stiff upper lip! Life isn't fair, deal with it!" response.

Which, admittedly, is just human nature on one side of the coin.

But on the other, maybe consider if 1) it's truly an unfair situation and 2) if it is, what's an equitable way to fix it without simply making it unfair for the other party instead of yourself.

Well, again. As Odinz stated.

Geneva Convention and all.

Unless I'm wildly misunderstanding the situation you're describing.

Reposting since it was paged and it was also the only relevant thing posted all day..


Sturgeon met with Juncker and Schultz. She's trying to secure special concessions for Scotland as that <state>(I'm not sure how it is defined currently sorry)was staunchly pro-remain.

Let's see if I can translate one of the pervasive messages here:

"Be civil, you &@%&$#% racists. Free speech means you can bash concerned citizens with hateful rhetoric, but not illegal immigrants."

And yet according to the radicals on here, the Brexit wasn't about National Sovereignty and was instead just a bunch of racist ignorant old white people getting in the way.

Not really. As many of the targets of this racism are perfectly legal citizens, that are rightfully concerned about their safety and well-being in the face of the increasingly bold hateful minority we've been referencing.

No no wrong word, that's not Politically Correct and implies they have broken a law. Should be "Undocumented Immigrants", sounds better and easier to sell to the tax payers who have to pay for it.

The message of who?
Make the names.

Too often too many completely baseless attacks in this section. Let's start addressing actual people instead of some generic entity.

I'd imagine Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Whales all merit consideration as their own states at this point.

The one's I'm refering to are of South African descent. Nothing to do with the EU, yet EU law prevents us from removing these men.[/quote]

If I was a UK citizen I would have likely voted for Brexit, but for different reasons.

It would have been a "protest" vote, assuming that the majority would have voted to stay. Which might be the case in the UK, as unfortunate as it turns out, many people voted "leave" in protest not expecting it to actually happen.

Sometimes I think Borris Johnson didn't actually think this would happen.

Anyways, the reasons I would have protested is because I don't particularly like the fact that many EU policy makers are unelected, I don't like how little coverage serious politics gets by any of the news agencies across europe, I don't like how there are debates behind closed doors.

That is the real problem with the EU and it needs to change and change quick.

National TV will broadcast 24/7 how a suicide took place, or a mosque was threatened, but it will never discuss a new policy that is being voted on or enacted. We find out about by a few hard working true journalists.

This is bothersome.

But they're not illegal NOR undocumented.

Or at least they weren't in the EU guidelines.

*** if I know about Britain sans EU, but clearly not many of the people who voted knew either.

Frankly the whole thing wreaks of the global aspect of what's going on in the U.S. with Trump supporters. "We're not 100% sure what we're getting into but we want different! What we have doesn't work and we'd rather *** the whole thing up than keep it like it is, only kind of working for me!"

I mean, I get it. On one level it's hard to argue against.

But it's not the easiest thing to argue for either.

The point I'm making is, we currently have a rule for 1 group of people just because of where they come from. Immigration policy should be a matter for each individual Country, not a matter for a common market. We have 2 types of immigration here. Uncontrolled from the EU, and controlled from everywhere else. The split is pretty close to 50/50. The difference is, EU immigration is unrestricted so if we have an excess of construction workers, we can't prevent another 200,000 construction workers entering the country and overflowing the system, putting people out of work and putting a higher strain on our welfare system as a result.

Serious question, not a flippant one:

Many EU countries manage to work with this as previously discussed in this thread. What stopped the UK from doing something similar?

So it's not a crime issue its a jobs issue? So why did you mention criminal history and "convicted" terrorists if this is actually your point?

If it's a jobs thing I mean the 200,000 number seems extremely high for one industry as the numbers people put up prior to this noted that there wasn't even that many immigrants from the su living and working there in all industries... Has there been an issue already in your country where immigrants have taken over an entire industry?

Many of the votes seem to have been protest votes against the Government due to massive cuts over the last 5 years pushing many people into poverty. If you look at the map of the UK, the places who voted to remain are those places where Govt. spending was high. The out areas have mostly been hit with massive spending cuts and jobs have been moved either into the london area or abroad.

He for sure didn't expect it to happen. You could tell when he gave his speech after the result. Nobody in the leave camp made any plans for what to do in the event of an exit vote because they didn't think it would ever happen. It just highlights how out of touch our politicians are.

This was also a huge factor in many peoples decision. Mostly that we can't vote out these unelected officials when they do a bad job.

Because electing someone like Trump is a whole lot more sane then the alternative which is complete revolution and overthrow of the government.

Neither party would allow a reformist to be elected nor would they allow a change in the status quot. It takes a radical action in order to break the inertia that has maintained the status quot for all these decades. The fact that the Democrats still insisted on supporting even after it came to light that she either

A) broke a very serious federal law (See General Petraeus) or
B) is so incompetent as Secretary of State, the second highest executive position in the nation, that she wasn't aware she was violating NSA regulations regarding national security.

The moment that came to light she should of resigned as Secretary of State and the Democrats should of shifted to another candidate. President Nixon's scandal was less severe then what Hillary is involved in now, and yet the establishment is insisting in her being the next President. What other evidence is required to demonstrate how dramatic an event is needed to change the status quot?

Now I'm not an expert on British politics, and I wouldn't dare make assumptions on positions held be each party, but I can imagine the average citizen feeling the need for some sort of big change to get off whatever path they feel is ill fated. Which is why I suggested the proponents stop using insulting condescension when referring to mass groups of potentially angry voters.

The one's I'm refering to are of South African descent. Nothing to do with the EU, yet EU law prevents us from removing these men.[/quote]
Are you sure about that? I mean it seems unlikely that an EU law protects non EU citizens... Can you show us this rule that prevents you from doing this?

So like usual you have no real argument but you play off the hypocritical nature on which people approach the situation to try to devalue their statements?

I really have no argument against the fact that people do react just as harshly as they accuse others of acting for sure... But idk if you actually think your constant stance of pointing this out makes some kind of difference in an argument... It doesn't... At best you're defending a group of people that are just plainly intolerant while you're trying to defame a group of intemperance against the intolerant... If people would just let others live their lives without senseless hate you wouldn't give them anything to react too... This by no means is giving one side a pass as they'd do themselves a favor by reacting in a more composed manor... But like others have said don't you think it's only the vocal minority of the group that you try to lump everyone else in with as some accuse the other side of doing as well?

You asked how our borders were not controlled. Those were 2 examples of us not having control over our borders. It's neither a crime or a jobs issue, it's a lack of control of our own borders issue.

As far as the 200,000 workers go, it could be any number but the effect is still the same. When an industry is already at capacity, introducing more people who want those jobs results in an excess of workers who end up being supported by the welfare system. Under a controlled system, if we have no use for pig farm workers, then we should be able to reject people coming to seek work as a pig farmer as it will just mean that for every extra pig farmer we let in, we end up with 1 more person on the welfare system. The same way Australia works for example. If the jobs don't exist, we shouldn't be forced to take people who are looking for those jobs.

EU nationals are not illegal immigrants.

Status quo

you don't seem to actually be able to answer any of my questions.. I asked you how your border was unsecured which you then went into a criminal background thing which you couldn't back up and then a terrorist thing which seems to have nothing to do with the eu at all... After you seemed to not be able to say anything more about that you went into an example about at the level of a South Park episode of they too er jobs! Which you don't seem to know how many immigrants are employed in the uk r how it affects English employment rates or your nhs...

Don't get me wrong Idc what you guys choose to do you make a choice and then you live with it and hope it works out for ya... But don't you think it would have been wise to actually inform yourself a bit more before you made this decision?

Jesus Christ, don't give the Tories license to repeal the Human Rights Act.

The UK industries have been slowly sold off or wiped out. Our fishing industry has seen a massive decline, and EU regulations mean many of the fish caught have to be thrown back overboard dead (This pushed our cod population to the brink of collapse). Our steel industry has crumbled because we are unable to place tarrifs on below cost chinese steel. Our car factories have been moved to Eastern Europe because EU minimum wage is lower than UK minimum wage. Workers in the UK have more rights than workers in Romania/Poland for example. Maternity pay/leave, minimum wage, holiday pay etc is all higher in the UK. So factories and industries are moved out of the country to take advantage of cheaper labor, while retaining access to the same market.

Because wages/workers rights are high, we have more people looking for work, but for the same reason, our businesses are moving to eastern european countries to take advantage of the lower costs.

Gee, none of that sounds familiar at all.

The Trump comparison continues to be legitimate.