Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

That article us just about visa free travel for the small number of Turks with E-passports. They will not be able to work and is just for tourism. They can come here already but have to get a visa. No indication of joining EU.

You have to realise that the Express is a comic

Martini,

Do you have a brother you genuflect to?

"You have to realise that the Express is a comic"

Haystacks world revolves around the FT and Wall St Journal, along with the in
house 'Conservative Monthly', so is oblivious to the 'real' world.

The Express is not the real world. There are plenty of newspapers to read better than that. It has a reputation of printing made up stories for sensationalism. It is the last paper to believe.

You can't expect to be taken seriously If you quote the Express.

Buy the Mail, Telegraph or the Times.

You will have the truth then!

LOL.

Europe[edit]
Macmillan worked with states outside the European Economic Community (EEC) to form the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which from 3 May 1960 established a free-trade area. Macmillan also saw the value of rapprochement with the EEC, to which his government sought belated entry, but Britain's application was vetoed by French president Charles de Gaulle on 29 January 1963. De Gaulle was always strongly opposed to British entry for many reasons. He sensed the British were inevitably closely linked to the Americans. He saw the EEC as a continental arrangement primarily between France and Germany, and if Britain joined France's role would diminish.[1

Philip Hammond is to guarantee billions of pounds of UK government investment after Brexit for projects currently funded by the EU, including science grants and agricultural subsidies.
The chancellor’s funding commitment is designed to give a boost to the economy in what he expects to be a difficult period after the surprise result of the EU referendum in June.
The Treasury is expected to continue its funding beyond the UK’s departure from the EU for all structural and investment fund projects, as long as they are agreed before the autumn statement. If a project obtains EU funding after that, an assessment process by the Treasury will determine whether funding should be guaranteed by the UK government post-Brexit.
Current levels of agriculture funding will also be guaranteed until 2020, when the Treasury says there will be a “transition to new domestic arrangements”.

Now all that seems fair enough and clear enough to anyone of normal intellect. But the usual crowd of Mackay, Jones and McDonnell continue rabitting on about it not being enough. It is in their DNA I suppose to want to live off the state forever, regardless of the consequences.

just as is striking by the RMT and (nowadays) the BMA

Revealed: False claims by thousands of illegal immigrants clog asylum system - METRO

Claims: Labour's Keith Vaz said it was 'deeply concerning' that a third of all asylum applications had been made by illegal migrants and overstayers PA
Concerns have been raised about abuse of the asylum application process after figures showed tens of thousands seeking sanctuary in the UK were already living here illegally or had overstayed their visas.

Between 2005 and 2014, 83,912 asylum claims were made by people "encountered by local immigration and enforcement staff" - meaning they did not apply as soon as they arrived in Britain or when they thought it was unsafe to return home, as set out by immigration rules.

A total of 11,035 of those claims were made in 2014, the latest year for which Home Office figures were available, compared with just 2,150 in 2005. The 2014 figure was the highest for the decade.

Just 13,892 were granted asylum, while 5,388 received another form of immigration status. The claims of the vast majority (48,489) were refused.

Commons Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz told the Times, which analysed the figures: "It is deeply concerning that a third of all asylum applications have been made by illegal migrants and overstayers.

"The very principle of seeking asylum is that you feel persecuted at the time you arrive, not saying you feel persecuted after arriving illegally or for different reasons and then remaining in the country until you are apprehended.

"This is a significant clog in the immigration system, and we should ensure that this is not to the detriment of vulnerable people with a legitimate claim of asylum. It is one thing for the Government to say it's tough on illegal immigration - it's another to actually take control of issues like these."

A spokeswoman for the Refugee Council said delayed asylum claims were not necessarily false.

Advocacy manager Anna Musgrave said: "It's misguided to believe that asylum claims which aren't made immediately are somehow invalid.

"People's circumstances can change as in the case of Syrian students and business people who were in the UK when war erupted in their country and they found themselves unable to return when their visas ran out.

"Obviously decisions on asylum claims must be based on whether or not someone's life is at risk, not on arbitrary timescales."

One of the questions asked by immigration "enforcement" when apprehending these individuals is "do you wish to apply for asylum in this country?" Many will try it on. Nothing to lose. They will be requested to visit a centre every month while their application is processed but just disappear again until the next time they are caught. And so it goes on.

i note the bleeding heart bleat above
if you overstay your visa by a given margin (say 3 months) and have made no application for an extension, then out you should go ..... or send them to live at fred's under house arrest

The immigration system is NOT fit for purpose, the authorities have and still do
not do their jobs, but when you have successive governments who don't have
the will or inclination to stop mass immigration then expect it to continue, and
the immigrants to take advantage of the ECHR and the UK's legal aid system.

It's just the same with the subjects of 'preventing litter' and 'mending pot holes'. These are not 'fit for purpose' either, IMHO.

Around where I live, the litter bins themselves are not fit for purpose, they're badly positioned, inadequate in number and not emptied frequently enough.

Consequently, no one has any respect for either the bins or the council, or anything else for that matter, which is connected to the general concept of litter prevention.

We have lots of drivers who buy a 'take out meal', drive to somewhere where there is free parking, eat the meal and then dump the whole lot of packaging which came with said meal, out of the car onto the floor of the car park. Then they drive off leaving it.

Now let me have a bit of a brief say about 'pot hole repairs':

My council doesn't seem to have any kind of a pothole repairing policy at all. All repairs to the roads are 'subbed out' to contractors without any apparent specification as to what kind of repair is required or to what standard (eg. using mastic to seal joints so as to further protect against future frost damge). Neither does there appear to be any later inspection or supervision.

On the one hand, the council chuck away £millions on weird one off projects. On the other hand they say they don't have enough money to do all the pot hole repairs.

We also have roundabouts which are overgrown with vegetation and verges which are not cut/mowed. There are many road signs which are obliterated by tree leaves and suchlike.

The grass in our parks and open areas is actually cut quite frequently. However, that would appear to be ALL the work that is done to these areas. The mower machine men aren't taught to do anything else other than cut the grass. Several of the mower machine men even cut the grass when the ground is sopping wet and too soft for the mower wheels, so we get loads of 'trenching' ruts too.

Aaargh! Spit!

Anyhow, rant over now. Going to have a coffee and a sandwich.

:-)

A UK Supreme Court case will provide a clear legal path to block Article 50 and stop Brexit
Business Insider UK
Jim Edwards 2016-08-14T09:32:53Z
A lawsuit brought by a hairdresser, an investment-firm manager, and a handful of other plaintiffs that demands Parliament hold a vote on whether to trigger Article 50 will be heard by the UK Supreme Court, according to Bloomberg.

GET - On Google Play.
Business Insider uses cookies to make this website better. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Cookie Policy ×

POLITICS

A UK Supreme Court case will provide a clear legal path to block Article 50 and stop Brexit
Jim Edwards Aug. 14, 2016, 10:32 AM 63,155 139
Gina Miller
Gina Miller.Gina Miller / Linkedin
A lawsuit brought by a hairdresser, an investment-firm manager, and a handful of other plaintiffs that demands Parliament hold a vote on whether to trigger Article 50 will be heard by the UK Supreme Court, according to Bloomberg.

The case is crucial because it sets out a legal path that could allow the House of Commons to ignore the result of the EU referendum.

The plaintiffs argue that an Article 50 request to leave the EU can only be triggered by a vote in Parliament, not the mere request of the prime minister.

If the Supreme Court agrees, then the Article 50 request would be put to the House of Commons. It is not certain that Article 50 would get enough votes.

The lawsuits have been bundled together into a single case. Among the plaintiffs are Gina Miller, founder of SCM Private, an investment firm, and Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser. Bloomberg says:

"'This will be one of the most important constitutional law cases ever decided,' said Jeff King, a professor at University College London. Britain, unlike the U.S., doesn't have a written constitution, but rather an accumulation of laws, customs and judicial decisions that date back centuries."

"'The court takes this litigation very seriously and will move expeditiously,' Judge Brian Leveson said at a preliminary hearing on July 19. The matter is 'of such constitutional importance it is difficult to see why' it won't move quickly to the Supreme Court, he said."

Prime Minister Theresa May's cabinet will be under pressure to proceed with an Article 50 request without putting it to a vote of the House of Commons. But in theory, a high court judge can imprison a minister for not obeying the law.

If MPs vote against Article 50, the case could be appealed all the way up to the European Court of Justice - putting the pro-Leave camp in the odd position of begging the EU's top judicial forum to overrule the UK government.

The supreme Court should and in all probability will throw the objection
to artice50 and Brexit out of court..

It was a democratic decision with Brexit being the democratic decision..

And of course it would fall into the hands of UKIP if the westminster
establishment attempted such a stitch up..

UKIP could do nothing if the courts and Parliament ruled that way. It would be a done deal. It wouldn't matter how many UKIP MPs there were

A three line whip would end the matter if it ever went to a vote.

And any mp voting to ignore the wishes of the electorate...well, they can always look for another job.

A three lube whip on such a matter would be unlikely as the majority of all MPs support remain

They might support remain, but they also support the monthly pay packet and position.

Would the everage mp really sacrifice their future for the €uro union?

Labour MPs have done even more recently. When MPs rebel in large numbers the party has to swallow it. Nay can't sack a large number.