The UK Babe Channels Forum

(28-01-2017 14:25 )terence Wrote: [ -> ]freedom of movement is essential, it's the price you pay to be in the single market. smaller countries don't charge bigger countries tariffs, but you have to accept their citizens.
why would they let Britain into the single market without charging them 'freedom of movement'. it's nonsensical.

don't you think all the bigger countries would want to control their borders if the could. they obviously think (correctly imo) that freedom of movement is a price worth paying for membership and access to the worlds biggest free trading bloc..

With this we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

1, Freedom of movement only came in in 2004 (the EU functioned before with out it) and seems to have brought in a whole heap of problems. There is a reason there is an influx eastern Europeans seeking better paid work; there is no exedus from Gremany, France etc' and they certainly wouldn't pour into eastern EU countries.

2, People from all over the world live and work in the UK with the correct paper work, including huge amounts of Aussie and other none EU countries. I'm pretty sure a visa based solution could have been found, any immigrant the finds they have a settle life here, application could be made to stay permanately. You would have control of imigration and a controlled movement of people.

3, any areas that has employment crisis can recruit from abroad as they did with the NHS from the commonwealth, the UK owes them more than they do the rest of Europe.

4, granted it may seems to have been a good idea, i get were it's coming from, but I don't think anybody could have thought through what could be the problems; like Merkel opening her boarders; but the call it ESSENTIAL I do not accept, remove that and the UK would have still been in the EU.

People should accept that, with all the good will in the world, freedom of movement is not somehting that will work.

Hundred years and more ago, that amount of people entering a country to take what they can from that country would have been called an invasion, now they don't have to pick up as much as a stick.

(28-01-2017 18:37 )Matt77 Wrote: [ -> ]Pertinent points:

1. She is a British citizen, as are many people regardless of where they happened to have been born.

Where did I say she wasn't? But you do realise an immigrant not in the UK?

Quote:2. She was RIGHT! By ruling in her favour the supreme court reaffirmed that parliament is sovereign and not the executive. She has done HER country a tremendous service!

Were did I say she wasn't? However, three of those judges disagree. It all depends on how you look at it.

My point was this was about Brexit and not a point of law, thats an excuse or a loophole she found.

Quote:3. You clearly, like many people of limited intelligence, do not fully grasp the concept of irony!

I like your irony.

+++++BREAKING NEWS******
MP'S HAVE JUST VOTED 498 TO 114 IN FAVOUR OF BILL TO TRIGGER ARTICLE 50


MORE TO FOLLOW...

I wouldn't say it is a decisive victory but at least they made history

(01-02-2017 21:23 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't say it is a decisive victory but at least they made history

If that's not decisive, what does that make the referendum result?

Thought it would be closer, 59 of those are SNP, and they voted against for shits and giggles, whether they want brexit or not.

Okay it is decisive

Amazed that Ken Clarke was supposedly the only Tory rebel. ONE?!

the older ones are all euro septics and the new intake 2010-2015 thinking about there careers to give a fuck about dropping us in the shite

love the fact Labour whips who were the ones to stop the rebellion voted agianst corbyn as well see daily mail being as calm headed as ever about MP's who voted against being enemys of the people

Big fuss about Corbyn rebellion, when more people voted as he wanted them to, than voted against him in that no confidence rubbish last Summer.

His rebels know they can't sack him because they keep cocking it up when they try.