You obviosuly believe that all of these people entering Europe are genuine refugees fleeing persecution, I don't. We'll agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that, or it'll continue in the vein of the previous 109 pages.
Not at all, many are simply hoping for a better life. Personally, I'd rather we support them in their own beds, rather than encouraging them to take dangerous jourenys across thousands of miles
Admirable sentiments,but the West has sent uncountable billions in aid to African and middle Eastern countries,and achieved very little. Same wars,same despots,same suffering,same droughts and famines. The majority of the aid never seems to reach those it is intended to help,and it's a political hot potato with most of their Governments anyway. Who wants to admit to their electorate that the population can only eat due to the charity of others? Or for some,why bother working hard to feed your nation when Western guilt will do it for you? Foreign aid enriches Foreign Governments,and enables them in some cases to control their people even more. For instance,would Assad be in such a strong position if he had to rely on just the income from Syria to pay for his war against some of his people? I do not think Western,"civilised",thinking has ever understood what goes on in the minds of people in these countries.In many places,there is fierce opposition to female education,child marriage is common,no attempts are made to limit the number of your offspring to the amount you can feed,weapons are freely available,brutality is routine,etc,etc.And religion takes our money with one hand while the other is reaching for an AK47 to shoot us. As hard-hearted as it sounds,I think it's time these countries should be left to develop without Western interference of any kind. If you are a Churchill/Rothschild/Krupp/Rhodes/Goldsmith/the House of Windsor resident and you've profited from British military involvement over the decades,then you SHOULD send YOUR guilty payments. But stop sending mine:it's not buying influence,it's not imposing our dubious values,and it's not going to the right people anyway.
Switzerland's bid to halt migration is on the EU agend now as Juncker greenlights talks | Politics | News | Daily Express
All MPs should be paid and funded by the Treasury with a low limit on the costs they are allowed to spend on their electioneering. That way they would have to get off their arse and get out there and talk to their electorate rather than hide in their Palaces as many of them do. No MP should be allowed to receive any funding or salary from anyone else whilst an MP. That way they can only voted in by representing their local electorate rather than any Party.
Not many of us grew up in a soviet controlled dictatorship where party membership was virtually compulsory, where compromises with our core beliefs were necessary on a daily basis and where non compliance meant being sidelined at best and disappearance at worst so applying our values to other peoples circumstances is pointless. It strikes me as either being disingenuous or showing a terrifying simplicity to dredge up pictures from the past like this and those of Pope Benedict in the Hitler Youth or even Cameron and Boris in the Bullingdon Club. If Angela Merkel had denied her past then there may be a point but she has never made a secret of it so I see no point to this sort of image, judge people on their actions now by all means but to produce old images that bear no relation to their current actions is no more than trolling.
good post and should of been obvious. and here was thinking (being constantly told) i was a mad nat. :Hilarious: whats the craic with hinkley then? :smileys:
Foreign Aid, a fine tradition of the liberal Left: taking money from poor people in rich countries and giving it to rich people in poor countries.
How much is the right sum to pay them? So we make it a qualified profession? How long can they serve? Can anyone serve? What about if they are doing a bad job: who sacks them?
Rumbled! It's Ambrose Evans Prichard, so you have to find the facts in the piece, but ultimately, you can't argue with the facts! IMF admits disastrous love affair with the euro, apologises for the immolation of Greece
They should have their salaries tied to a senior civil servant's level. The current level for a back bench MP is just under £75k which puts them in the lower level of Senior Civil Servant. This would have the added benefit of not having MPs vote on their own pay rise and all the petty headlines in the tabloids and all the posturing from those trying to prove their credentials as being in touch with the people. They are elected to do a bloody hard job and should be rewarded appropriately. I believe there should be a limit to how long a Prime Minister can serve as such, 2 terms would be my preferred limit. Thatcher and Blair both seemed to lose it in their third terms and I can't remember what Gladstone was like in his third term so that's all the comparisons I can make. Anyone can serve, anyone should be able to serve as long as they are a UK taxpayer and if they do a bad job they don't get elected next time round, their constituents do the sacking. If they get convicted of a crime requiring a custodial sentence in most cases I'd see them out of parliament, the exceptions being matters of conscience.
Say £150-200k per annum but that has to cover all their costs. No expenses will be paid. They serve as they do now for a 5 year term before seeking re-election unless they stand down for any reason.
