That's partly what I told him....................but I think he sits there and waits for someone to post or he a posts a subject for debate in which he lays a trap and then jumps in waving his degree and MBE purely to provoke and criticise..........basically a troll in reverse.......
I didn't. I implied that it distorts outcomes in Washington (that will be the USA, then) and Brussels to a greater extent than in London. I saw a very good programme about lobbying in Brussels. It has reached ridiculous proportions. I forget the number of permanent lobbyists there but it is enormous. The problem it appears in Brussels is that many MEPs are ill-informed about so many things (hardly surprising - they can't know about everything). The lobbyists do do a job of informing them about issues, but necessarily from very biased viewpoints. Whatever I feel about the EU (there is more good than bad, essentially), I think it can be massively improved and reformed. The lobbying does distort democracy. When you find the EU making a daft decision, you can bet that lobbyists have been largely responsible.
Yes, of course that is how I wish to be seen. It is not my objective to respond to every foolish post on the forum!
What you describe as a "daft decision" is always a decision which suits somebody very well but does not suit somebody else. The ones whose interests are not served (or who just want to make mischief) are the ones who call it daft. Again, a universal point, not just for the EU.
No its not................it's a mouthpiece for political and social reform by the unelected and grossly opinionated. Twats :tongue:
Here's a thought (puerile of course), what aren't all votes in parliaments done blind? Why is there such a thing as the party whip? Is this not fundamentally non democratic? Do you vote for a person or a party in elections. Can the political parties be likened to reach around clubs?
Given that after freely entering into this discussion you posted and I replied Could you explain how this is 'not worth bothering to reply to' and 'foolish'? Maybe I am missing something ?
Now, now, fight nicely boys!!! Back to the central question. There is not a lot of evidence to support there being a greater % of benefit claimants from outside the UK VS home grown (that's a very loose term now....). BUT we have had years of Government making the safety net too easy (and too generous) for those that choose to maximise their income with ficticious split families, disabilities, more children (benefits should be capped at 2 MAX) etc. The media loudly broadcast the bad news but it really does exist out there. Should immigrants to this country have the right to benefits straight away? Clearly not and even the 3 months that's been brought in is too short (and other EU countries have much stiffer restrictions). But this isn't an EU thing it's a UK benefit system problem. We need to make it affordable for all our futures. Those that go out and work hard for little need to be better off than those that choose not to bother. It makes sense doesn't it? Bottom line; The world's population is out of control, there will be massive migration tensions ahead and we haven't seen anything yet. Oh and the benefit cost is going to be too massive to fund (we are now in debt to the tune of about £1.3 trillions and it'll continue growing until 2018? - that will take some paying back! Merry Christmas!
There are some of these immigrants living near me, none of them work they are always hanging around the same street, they all have cars, mobile phones and all very over weight so obviously are eating very well too! So who is paying for all of this? I do know of actual instances of others who are also recieving child benefit and guess where their children are living? Yep back in their home country in Poland. Benefit tourisim is a fact, it already exists and will only get worse once Romania and Bulgaria are allowed to do the same.
You make a number of points with little or no clarification or supporting evidence, for example you ask whether Immigrants should have the right to benefits right away and offer your opinion as fact. I disagree, anyone coming here to work should have the same support as local people. There may be a case for limiting the time you can claim or introducing some means of billing a non indigenous claimant's benefts back to their home country or the EU, a course of action which is being investigated at the moment. You seem to suggest that the best course of action would be to reduce the available benefits in an effort to make work more attractive, I would prefer to see work made more attractive by making it pay better than the available benefits or, if this would put too much of a burden on the employer then allow benefit claiming whilst working up to a minimum subsistence level. You rightly state the level of national debt but as a figure this is useless without the corresponding GNP figures which are around 2.3 Trillion, also growing. The service cost of that debt is around 3% of GNP. If you compare it to household income it's as if you had a combined mortgage, credit card and bank debt of £100k but an income of £50k, it actually means you're in a relatively comfortable position.
Anyone watch that Beeb prog on The Romanians Are Coming? Seems half a million have already migrated to Spain and Italy...like they have lots of jobs...but interestingly the work seminars were full of recruiters from all over Europe desperate to get high quality, well educated Romanians
