Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

typically, none of the above answers the question posed, but merely adopt the customary political posturing ......

come on then, you lot, what would YOU do and how would you implement your solution and how quickly? ..... and as a supplementary, if your solution would run contrary to various european or even (inter)national laws, how would you resolve that aspect, bearing in mind that "time is of the essence"?

Hays,

Once again I have to remind you that the way the con party got in was by preaching that they had the solution to everything and could walk on water. It seems they were recovering from weeding at the time.

=======

Cynic,.

There is no simple solution and the way other than negotiation with other members of the EU to modify the rules.

I think Cameron should stop pouncing on the stage, learn a little humility and negotiate quietly and stop trying to get word bites for the rampant right of his party and to appeal to the far right he may be a little more successful.

Somehow, or other, I don't think there will be the massive inflows into the UK which some are suggesting.

=====

As a side, what surprised me when I was in Paris is what a Rainbow society it has become over the years.

Good or bad? Don't know, but it is a beautiful city whose wealth was based on it past colonisation of the still underdeveloped nations. Similar to the UK.

What Cameron is doing is the only policy that can work under current EU legislation. That is that new rules will mean the tightening up of the criteria for getting benefits by having language requirements and other requirements that look at the chances of gaining employment.

One of the UK's biggest draws is the excellent levels of benefits and the ease of getting them. If we can change that perception then we may not be such a favoured destination for migrants.

The more general problems regarding overloading our services and jobs going to immigrants are far more difficult to solve while in the EU.

It is a bit rich for the 'lefties' to complain when once again about problems that they mainly caused.

READ THIS FRED - LABOUR ARE NO BETTER. IT WOULD BE SO GOOD TO BALANCE YOUR VIEWS UP, AS THEY ARE ALL AS BAD AS ONE ANOTHER.


By Jeff Randall, Sky News Business Presenter

Since Ed Miliband became leader, the Labour Party has tried to reformulate its stance on immigration.

The new approach contains an admission that the last government "got it wrong", largely because it did not listen to the people's concerns, in particular those of Labour supporters such as Gillian Duffy, who was dismissed by Gordon Brown as a "bigoted woman" simply for airing her anxieties.

That ghastly moment grabbed the headlines, but the flaw in the Blair-Brown immigration policy was far more fundamental than the casual traducing of a Rochdale voter who dared to challenge an angst-ridden Prime Minister.

From 2002 to 2010, Labour opened the United Kingdom's doors to more than 500,000 legal incomers a year.

At the same time, it launched a propaganda offensive to persuade us that immigration on this scale would not only make us all better off, because it expanded national output by £6bn a year, but also help solve our long-term pensions crisis, because diligent newcomers would pay into the nation's retirement pot, which an ageing indigenous population was rapidly exhausting.

These were fallacies masquerading as serious politics. Neither element was true, as a House of Lords report, The Economic Impact of Immigration, made clear in 2008. Its conclusion was, in effect, the British public had been sold a false prospectus.

Gillian Duffy
Gordon Brown insulted concerned voter Gillian Duffy in Rochdale

Yes, mass immigration increases GDP, but not GDP per head, because the expanded cake has to be shared amongst many more people.

As for pensions, the arrival of half a million overseas workers a year merely delays the day of reckoning, because they too will grow old and need retirement care. Expecting ever greater numbers of immigrants to keep the system in credit is to have faith in a Ponzi scheme.

That's not to say immigration changes nothing. For the employer class, it provides a ready supply of child-minders, cleaners and plumbers who are grateful for a job and prepared to work for the minimum wage. Life for the rich improves.

But, as Cambridge University economist Professor Robert Rowthorn points out: "It does not benefit indigenous, unskilled Britons who have to compete with immigrants willing to work hard for very low wages in unpleasant conditions."

What's more, British companies have little incentive to train domestic workers if they able to import foreign staff with higher skills and a stronger work ethic.

Sadly all the conservatives can do is try and sort the mess (yes total mess) labour has caused. So do your homework and don't keep going on about the conservatives.
If you care to put into your computer labours history of immigration, pages come up and it all boils down to a shambles by labour. So if labour supporters will not record this I will.

It is the same left wing agenda that has Labour seeking a more integrated federal EU with less sovereignty for members and central control. In the longer term there is no point in the UK being a member of the EU if we don't adopt the Euro.

DC - Commendable that you answer these Red Flag Flyers, but really I see no point GF is as fickle as the football team he supports, I ask you, not content in backing Labour just in case he is a member of the local Conservative,Lib Dem and Labour Clubs. If Man Utd don't improve he and his mates are giving up their box at Old Trafford, (no doubt try and get one at Man City) :O) As for Fred? He's just a Prick!

There is no simple solution and the way other than negotiation with other members of the EU to modify the rules
the above is the one bit of sense in fawlty's post
and of course that there is no simple solution says it all.
heavy-handed unilateral action would almost inevitably create more of a morass than already exists
unfortunately, the alternative of negotiating with (all) the other eu states is likely to be similarly unproductive as they will (correctly) see only negative results for themselves, and at the very least will ensure that any negotiations are protracted for the next 10 years

on balance, i think at least some form of unilateral action will be required
it won't be as draconian as perhaps would be the ideal
however, i'ld guess there are certain restrictive actions and practices that uk could impose that will make it very difficult for the rest of the eu to challenge in court, and if they choose to do so, then that action will also take many years to conclude

Lol. Yep their managers going to get the sack. Especially when he spends millions on the transfer list in Jan,with no improvement to the team play. Never the right man for the job .

He is as far as Evertonians are concerned DC, thank you Sir Alex :O)

DC,

The CON Party before they came to "power" had all the solutions but it can be seen to increasing the shambles they will leave behind every day.

The only thing saving them at the moment is low “interest rates” the deficit will increase once again and the debt level become more rampant.

Cloud cuckoo economics.


Look at the successes of Cameron, Osborn, Lansley, IDS and May.

1) NHS falling apart after crazy expensive reorganisation. Failing to provide what is required, spiralling costs and alienation of working staff.
2) IDS Welfare service failing, wasting money on “bright ideas” and not defining tasks that programming is suppose to have as goals. Chaos
3) May, more holes in immigration and borders now than previously. Alienation of staff.
4) Fragmentation of society and racist propaganda to placate the Right side of the Con artists party.
5) Alienation of many in Europe who should be allies in negotiation in Europe.
6) Mind they are shrinking the Arm forces and have carriers in moth balls for future scrap metal.
7) Developing ability to sell of the country’s silver at below market value.
8) Propping up the housing bubble again and transferring risk from the private purse to the public's. (Good tory policy.)

Economy, check the figures, carefully.

A clap trap of a government, which to my mind led by Con Men.

-----------

You are talking rubbish Fred. I give up. :-)) Again people do not trust the Labour party. I cannot see for one minute why. lol

as always, fawlty is all mouth and trousers, and nothing else

We will both await the next election with interest.

But if they vote for Cameron, they will be voting for a failure.

whichever way the election goes, the summation i made of you is true regardless of same

Good news -

Plan to cap benefit at two children: New mothers with three children would lose £700 in £5bn welfare crackdown
Parents with three children would lose out on £696 a year in plan
Those earning less than £30k will also be denied credits worth £2,725
Proposed by Tory MP Nadhim Zahawi - recently appointed to No 10's policy board to come up with vote-winning policies




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523819/Plan-cap-benefit-children-New-mothers-children-lose-700-5bn-welfare-crackdown.html

Those earning less than £30k will also be denied credits worth £2,725
why? .... have you really got that right? .... or is it just part of the cap for having more than 2 children?

A few more couples need to get a television on these cold winter nights instead of having kids and relying on the state. I hope the council house given to the youngster goes soon as well. I went over Harlow new town yesterday, no joke the amount of teens pushing a baby about. No idea where the dads are. :-)) Its me and you paying for their new mobiles, designer trainers and bloody council house.

The country is in a mess and these sorts have to be squeezed, then perhaps they may have a think about their actions. These youngsters are not daft a baby gets you on the property market.

Sorry you have kids you pay for them.

DC - it's not quite that easy, though parental collusion for sure is sometimes applied - e.g. the mother has to be made homeless and not of her own volition .... indeed, i'm unsure whether a baby is a prerequisite in the equation, though for sure it will add pressure on the council who are obligated to find suitable or at least adequate housing

I know cynic :-)) .The daughter can soon be made homeless (or more a threat to the council of being thrown onto the street). Lets say the system can be played very well at the moment. These sorts may well regret their actions as the national debt has to start falling in the near future. No I would not like to be in their position in future years as no doubt things are going to change. Retirement ages are being lengthened
and these sorts are to me not a lot different to the immigrants that drain the country.

The council list for a house in these parts when I last looked was about 7 yrs for mr average on the street. He/she has no chance with the goings on above.