Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[bubbs999]

Originally posted by G-Type

Look at China nowadays. This country is the biggest challenge we all have to face. I know the Chinese mentality a bit and I can assure you that they -being on the passing lane already - will be the Super-Nation (Force) of the near future.

China recently changed it's election process, where the encumbant leader remains until death, mental failure or self resignation.
Whilst not a blueprint for democracy, what it does provide is consistent planning, continuity of medium to long term goals, and the ability to carry out necessary changes and major projects, un-hindered.
We have 2 basic choices to vote for in the UK, with each party hell bent on dismantling whatever the previous government implemented, whilst introducing whatever policy they believe will keep them in office. The notion of a long term strategic plan for an improved and greater Britain is so unlikely to be carried to fruition, that it is farcical.
We have no burgeoning 'LEADER' waiting in the wings. So many UK politicians are encumbered by self-interest, ambition and ego. Far too many come from the richer, priveledged classes, and the few with self-less ideologies, quickly become soured and jaded by their innability to pass the simplest of reforms through a parlimentary system which allows too much influence from wealthy business magnots, who bank-role the coffers of each political party.
I want a Prime Minister from modest beginnings, who has worked a proper job before becoming a politician :- an NHS nurse or doctor, a policeman, fireman or ex-soldier, invalided out the army with wounds received fighting for this country.
I know I'm an idealist - I know I'll never see this in my lifetime, and so we'll have an endless procession of public schoolboys, ex-city bankers, career politicians, or at best, ex-student activists.
We have become too comfortable in this country, content with our lot.
Take away broadband media, Sky tv, central heating, cheap car finance. Increase income tax to REAL levels - enough to sufficiently fund the health service, police, schools, social care, and give the British army enough money to make them proud again. Do this, and see what really matters to people in this country - there'd be riots within a few months.
Social media, cheap beer & entertainment are keeping the Britosh people sedated. We have forgotten what real organised protesting is, and what change it can achieve. The Jarrow march is history - but history we have forgotten.

[bubbs999]

Originally Posted by ********

These days we can't even build HS2 on a sensible budget or with moderately fast trains.

HS2 is a joke. It makes me laugh everytime I hear it. The UK governments great White Elephant.

What is the point of a super high speed rail line (that is already planned to be slower than other countries existing railways) on a network that is antiquated and falling apart at the seems. We have one of the most expensive (for passengers) in-efficient, poorly run rail networks on the European continent - and light years behind Japan and South Korea.

It is like buying expensive wallpaper for a house which has subsidence, and has already half collapsed.

[judy84]

[QUOTE=********;4496647]

Originally Posted by judy84

Apparently you didn't even read your reference thought because if you had you would have realized that it doesn't support your position.

The HO was systematically targetting homeless people and detaining them while they did immigration checks. They also were not giving those people the required leeway to find a new job before being deported, not least because it's hard to find a job when you are locked up in detention.

If you want to learn about this then try starting with Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedo...European_Union

Particularly pay attention to the section on transitional provisions. Here's an article from the BBC that is more readable: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25237742

"In recent years France has carried out mass deportations of marginalised Roma"

"The EU has a three-month rule for migrants from EU countries - after three months it is the national authorities' duty to screen them with a "habitual residence test". That involves checking on their activity, including their source of income if they are students; their family status; whether they have a job offer and their housing situation."

Yes, that's right, the EU places a DUTY on the UK government to check and ultimately deport people from the UK who are not working.

MIND. BLOWN.

I did read the references though....also read my own posts. This was the 4th reference, by way of variation, one of which was removed for some reason.
So I repeat what I said:


The UK cannot deport people who fail to find a job if they are still seeking employment.


And an EU citizen who can support themselves without calling on the welfare system can also stay, eg beggars.


http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-...in-six-months/
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/60...n-Union-judges


I notice your reference is from an article in 2014. In Sept 2015


Judges at the European Court of Justice ruled that it would be illegal for Britain to expel a jobless person from another EU country so long as they could demonstrate that they were looking for work. (see 2nd reference).
Maybe you should keep up to date.

[scoundrel]

[QUOTE=********;4496647]

Originally Posted by judy84

"The EU has a three-month rule for migrants from EU countries - after three months it is the national authorities' duty to screen them with a "habitual residence test". That involves checking on their activity, including their source of income if they are students; their family status; whether they have a job offer and their housing situation."

Yes, that's right, the EU places a DUTY on the UK government to check and ultimately deport people from the UK who are not working.

MIND. BLOWN.

Interesting that you make this observation. I have repeatedly passed by the same distinctly unattractive Romanian traveller woman begging very assertively from motorists at various different junctions all over North London. She is a public nuisance and she lowers the tone; and it is self-evident at first glance that she came to the UK from elsewhere without adding value. Do you suppose she could have come to the UK before the Treaty of Maastrict? Yet here she is.

You might be correct. It may be that the UK government has a duty under EU rules to forcibly remove such people from our midst. But if they do, it is clear enough that they have not done it, are not doing it and have no intention of doing it; while meanwhile telling us all that the EU has their hands tied. When we have departed from the EU, the British government will be unable to palm off its own laziness and indifference to duty onto the EU. It will be obliged to take responsibility. I will know that the obnoxious Romanian begger-woman is still here because the British authorities are not doing their job rather than because their hands are tied by the EU. Division of authority doesn't really work. Its better that Britain takes charge of her own gaff.

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by judy84

It is not a question of UK government "laziness and indifference". It is a question of legality.

That's far too simplistic.

Governments make laws, and they also have great influence in how they are interpreted by their country's law enforcement servants.

We've had two governments - one in Westminster and one in Brussels. The Westminster one has been voluntarily subservient to the ECJ, ECHR and the UN Declaration Of Human Rights.

Our legal system has followed this up by taking a far more permissive interpretation of rulings and judgements by these external bodies than those in other countries have taken, and it would be entirely correct to say that Westminster has been "lazy and indifferent" to the challenge of reducing that permissiveness.

So yes, it is a matter of legality, but legality is a question of interpretation.

.

[judy84]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

That's far too simplistic.

Governments make laws, and they also have great influence in how they are interpreted by their country's law enforcement servants.

We've had two governments - one in Westminster and one in Brussels. The Westminster one has been voluntarily subservient to the ECJ, ECHR and the UN Declaration Of Human Rights.

Our legal system has followed this up by taking a far more permissive interpretation of rulings and judgements by these external bodies than those in other countries have taken, and it would be entirely correct to say that Westminster has been "lazy and indifferent" to the challenge of reducing that permissiveness.

So yes, it is a matter of legality, but legality is a question of interpretation.

.

That is an opinion. I have only presented the facts with respect to one particular discussion.
As to whether governments should follow rulings and judgements of the ECJ, ECHR and the UN Declaration Of Human Rights, that should warrant a new thread independent of "Leave The EU or stay in The EU?"

[Roger Allott]

Originally Posted by judy84

As to whether governments should follow rulings and judgements of the ECJ, ECHR and the UN Declaration Of Human Rights, that should warrant a new thread independent of "Leave The EU or stay in The EU?"

There is a multitude of ideas proffered in this thread that could have been separated into offshoot threads, so there's little reason to start that malarkey now.

Indeed, there are many who saw the UK's subservience to the ECJ & ECHR as being the fundamental and critical issue underpinning their decision to vote one way or another, so suggesting it to be separate from the central theme here is rather naive.

.

[judy84]

Originally Posted by Roger Allott

There is a multitude of ideas proffered in this thread that could have been separated into offshoot threads, so there's little reason to start that malarkey now.

Indeed, there are many who saw the UK's subservience to the ECJ & ECHR as being the fundamental and critical issue underpinning their decision to vote one way or another, so suggesting it to be separate from the central theme here is rather naive.

.

I think it is naive to suggest we can ignore the judgements of the ECJ and ECHR without incurring large daily fines, eg


https://www.researchgate.net/post/Ho..._Infringements


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ghts_judgments


https://anfenglish.com/human-rights/...t-turkey-19347


If you are suggesting this is an additional reason for leaving the EU and ECHR then I would agree.

[palo5]

[Wendigo]

Ouch that hurts