Good point saddo, & they are still coming relentless.

6,000 migrants saved from boats off Libyan coast in ONE DAY

.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3821395/6-000-migrants-saved-boats-Libyan-coast-ONE-DAY.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline

Just seen the headline from today's Times: "Firms must list foreign workers".

I've not agreed with using it before but by god that's pretty damn fascist if it comes to pass and f*cking scary. What the hell are we doing to our country?

Theresa May walks into a Brexit trap

The UK prime minister announces she will trigger an exit from the EU before getting any guarantees

Gideon Rachman

Theresa May has one great advantage as a politician. She looks serious and responsible. But appearances can be deceptive. If you examine how the UK prime minister is handling Brexit, a different sort of politician emerges.

By announcing that she will start the formal negotiations for Britain to leave the EU by March 2017, the prime minister has walked into a trap. She has given away what little leverage Britain has in the negotiations — without receiving any of the assurances that she needs to achieve a successful outcome.
The announcement of the decision about when the UK will trigger Article 50 — the process by which Britain gives formal notice that it intends to leave the EU — was made in a statesmanlike fashion. But the actual content of the decision is reckless and driven by politics, rather than Britain’s national interest.
Once Mrs May triggers Article 50, she has precisely two years to negotiate a new deal with the EU. Senior civil servants have told the prime minister that it is highly unlikely that the UK will be able to negotiate both the terms of its divorce and a new trade deal with the EU within the two-year deadline. As a result, they warned the prime minister that she must have assurances on what an interim trade agreement with the EU would look like in the long period between the UK leaving the bloc and a definitive new deal being put into place.
Mrs May has chosen to ignore this advice. In doing so, she has knowingly placed Britain at a massive disadvantage in the forthcoming negotiations.
As soon as Britain triggers Article 50, the EU can simply run the clock down — knowing that the UK will be in an increasingly difficult situation, the longer the negotiations drag on without agreement. At the end of two years, Britain will be out of the EU — and would face tariffs on manufactured goods and the loss of “passporting” rights that allow financial services firms based in the City to do business across the bloc. The economic damage from this kind of “hard Brexit” would be severe, blowing a hole in the government finances as tax revenues from the City shrink, ushering in a new period of austerity.
The most ardent Brexiters claim that this is all scaremongering. Why, they ask, would the EU contemplate the restoration of tariffs when this could be damaging to its own economic interests? The Leavers can answer that question by looking in the mirror. It is clear that the main motivation of the pro-Brexit camp in Britain is political, not economic. And the same will be true of the EU side in the negotiations.
In the British case, the political goal is to restore parliamentary sovereignty and to regain control of immigration. On the EU side, the goal will be to make sure that Brexit does not lead to the unravelling of a European project that has been built up over 60 years. That will mean making sure that the UK pays a clear and heavy price for leaving the EU. As a result, both sides will accept some economic damage rather than sacrifice their political goals.
The difficulty for the UK is that the economic damage the EU will sustain is likely to be smaller and more manageable than that borne by the British side. The fact is that the EU represents a far larger market for Britain than Britain represents for the rest of Europe. Britain sends 44 per cent of its exports to the EU, while the UK takes only about 16 per cent of EU exports.
The negotiation process itself is also likely to be stacked against the UK. While the British will need a quick deal to minimise uncertainty for investors, the EU can afford to spin things out. Even if this is not a deliberate strategy on the European side, the realities of trying to secure a common position among 27 nations — and then secure ratification in all 27 countries, plus regional legislatures and the European Parliament — will be long and laborious.
Some in Britain speak blithely of relying on the rules of the World Trade Organisation after Britain has left the EU. They ignore the fact that Britain is a member of the WTO under the auspices of the EU. Creating an entirely separate British WTO membership requires another set of complex negotiations.
That is a much bigger problem for Britain than the EU, since the longer the process is dragged out, the longer Britain is likely to be suspended in a legal limbo that will discourage long-term investment. For that reason it was absolutely vital that Mrs May should get some clarity on what happens after two years of negotiations — if and when the EU and the UK have failed to reach a definitive new deal. The obvious solution would have been for Britain to remain inside the EU’s single market, but outside the EU until such time as a new deal was struck. By failing to get that assurance, the British government has severely weakened its position — even before negotiations start.
So why has Mrs May been so reckless? The short answer is politics. If the prime minister had delayed triggering Article 50 any longer she might have faced a revolt from Conservative MPs, who would have feared that she was backsliding on Brexit. By making her announcement just before the Tory party conference, she has also guaranteed herself some favourable headlines and applause in the conference hall. She may have bought herself another couple of years in 10 Downing Street. But she has also significantly increased the chances that Brexit will cause severe damage to the British economy.

apparently this ones hate crime at the very top level!

Men pelt worshippers at a mosque with BACON just before evening prayers

Piotr Czak-Zukowski, 28, and Mateusz Pawlikowski, 21, also threw rashers at the shoe rack of the Al-Rahman Mosque in Camden

.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/men-pelt-worshippers-mosque-bacon-8984499

now id put that in the banter category

Muslims attacked by immigrants, a difficult one for the Guardianistas.

If you want to keep the UK as the UK then we don't want anymore foreigners.  But it is too late anyway

PP this guy tried debating immigration as you say your quite happy to
do...but it still didn't work out?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYsL2RbmbIQ

Tricky one and I see where you are coming from.

It's the old 'At what point do we stop tolerance of intolerance - and become intolerant?'

I suggest that most citizens settling in the UK understand and abide by the idea that the UK is, primarily, a secular democracy, where a wide spectrum of views (religious, political, social) will be tolerated because all cultures bring something to our country i.e multi-culturalism.

I guess it's at this point we disagree in that I believe multi-culturalism (true multiculturalism) is a good thing, providing of course all citizens adhere to the belief in secular democracy trumps all.

It's when (and I still believe it is vociferous minorities) some groups don't buy into this latter point that issues arise.

Because with secular democracy comes associated belief in hard work, toleration of all, abiding by the rule of law tested over time, democracy, the will of the people, paying of taxes and at least a nod to the indiginous culture, (not in the asinine Norman Tebbit cricket test, but in an attempt to learn the native language and adopt our basic cultural idioms. When this is sidelined then the gobby extremists, aided by easy access to the Internet and therefore a mass audience, start to gain traction.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3824396/How-dare-Eurocrats-call-Britain-racist-Far-Right-s-marching-backyard-writes-DANIEL-HANNAN.html

How dare these Eurocrats call Britain racist while the Far Right's marching in their own backyard, writes DANIEL HANNAN

In France and Belgium, Jewish schools and synagogues require armed guards
Racist violence across much of Europe is now becoming almost routine
The European Commission on Racism and Intolerance says it is alarmed at the ‘intolerant political discourse in the UK'
By DANIEL HANNAN FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 01:45, 6 October 2016 | UPDATED: 07:55, 6 October 2016

Across parts of Germany, running battles between immigrants and neo-Nazis are becoming so frequent that they no longer lead the news.

In France and Belgium, Jewish schools and synagogues require armed guards. In Toulouse, a mosque has been burned to the ground. In Sweden, neo-Nazi thugs warned of a ‘year of violence’ against immigrants.

Racist violence across much of Europe is now becoming almost routine.


The European Commission on Racism and Intolerance says it is alarmed at the ‘intolerant political discourse in the UK, particularly focusing on immigration’

So which country has the Strasbourg-based Council of Europe decided to accuse of ‘anti-foreigner sentiment’? You guessed it. The European Commission on Racism and Intolerance, which reports to the Council, says it is alarmed at the ‘intolerant political discourse in the UK, particularly focusing on immigration’.

Seriously? Political discourse in the UK? Let’s compare how politicians talk here with what passes unremarked in other EU states. Czech prime minister Bohuslav Sobotka says: ‘To be honest, we don’t want a large Muslim population here.’ His Slovak counterpart, Robert Fico, is just as blunt: ‘Islam has no place in Slovakia.’

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy calls Islamic dress ‘a provocation’, and promises laws against it. (And, of course, a ban on the wearing of burkas on French beaches sparked huge rows over the summer.)


In Britain, by contrast, Theresa May was cheered by her party members yesterday when she said: ‘I want us to be a country where it doesn’t matter where you were born.’

By what measure is ours an intolerant country? To be sure, we have our bigots, as every nation does. But against whom are we being so harshly judged?

Look at the strength of authoritarian, anti-immigrant parties across Europe.


In Austria, the Far-Right candidate got half the vote at the last presidential election, which is now being re-run after irregularities in the poll. In France, Marine Le Pen’s Front National leads in some national polls. In Greece, an unashamedly neo-Nazi party came third at the last election.

Nativist parties — that is, ones that argue for the rights of established inhabitants of a nation over immigrants — are polling solidly in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden and many post-Communist states. Here, though, the British National Party barely registers. It has never come close to winning an MP, and currently has just two councillors.

We keep being told, usually by Remainers, that our EU referendum was ‘all about immigration’. In fact, the polls showed throughout that the top issue for Leave voters was democracy and the supremacy of the British Parliament.

If you want a referendum that really was ‘all about immigration’, look at Hungary, where 98 per cent of those who went to the polls have just voted against an EU plan to settle 1,200 refugees on their territory. The prime minister, Viktor Orban, said migrants were ‘over-running’ Hungary. In Britain, 1,200 immigrants enter the country every 30 hours!





Of course, to say that other places have a worse record than ours is hardly a knockout defence. Any racial abuse is shameful, and Britain has its share of dunderheads, just like anywhere else.

Still, be honest: does the Council of Europe’s report match your experience? Do you, in your daily life, see evidence of what the BBC has taken to calling an ‘epidemic’ of racism?

If you’re old enough to remember the Seventies or Eighties, you must have noticed the improvement in race relations.

You can measure it in any way you like: the decline in violence, the increased approval of mixed-race marriages, the rising number of multi-ethnic neighbourhoods, the success of ethnic minorities in our professions.

Ours is a tolerant, comfortable, multi-racial society, which is one of many reasons that migrants prefer to come here.

A minority of Remain supporters spent the campaign dismissing all anti-EU sentiment as ‘racist’
A minority of Remain supporters spent the campaign dismissing all anti-EU sentiment as ‘racist’

What is it based on, this idea that we are in the grip of some new xenophobia unleashed by the referendum? Much of it comes from people’s determination to see what they want. A minority of Remain supporters spent the campaign dismissing all anti-EU sentiment as ‘racist’.

By the end, they had convinced themselves, and were determined to pounce on any news item as evidence of what they took to calling on social media ‘#PostRefRacism’. Three incidents were widely reported straight after the vote as evidence of an ugly new mood: an attack on a tapas bar in South London; a demonstration in Newcastle calling for foreigners to be repatriated; and graffiti outside a Polish community centre.

It emerged that the attack on the tapas bar had, in fact, been a burglary, and that the idiots in Newcastle had been holding the same demonstration every weekend since long before the vote. As for the graffiti, no one yet knows whether it had anything to do with the referendum.

That, though, hasn’t stopped some irreconcilables from continuing to use all three episodes as evidence of what they want to believe. They are thrown at me several times a day by pro-EU campaigners who accuse me of complicity in violence for playing a leading role in the Leave campaign.

It’s nothing new. Two years ago, an Italian constituent of mine, a waiter, was horribly murdered in Kent. Immediately, his death was blamed on Eurosceptics. The leader of the Socialist MEPs’ group said that he was a victim of David Cameron’s anti-EU rhetoric. Not long afterwards, it emerged that the killers were a Lithuanian gang.


Some of the ‘reports’ of hate crime after the Brexit vote appear to have been people letting off steam after the vote, including some complaining about Nigel Farage (above)
Some of the ‘reports’ of hate crime after the Brexit vote appear to have been people letting off steam after the vote, including some complaining about Nigel Farage (above)

Did the Socialist leader apologise to David Cameron? Did he admit that, now he had the full facts, he could see that the incident made a case for stronger controls on who entered the country from the EU, rather than blaming racist Britons?

Of course not. People are very good at fitting facts into their existing prejudices.

One such ‘fact’, endlessly quoted, is that hate crimes have ‘risen by 57 per cent’ since the referendum. A moment’s reflection tells us that this figure is implausible and, sure enough, it turns out to be ludicrously misleading.

The police have a website that encourages people to report hate crimes. In the first four days after the vote, 85 people logged such incidents, up from 54 people in the corresponding period the previous month. The numbers had been rising for some time, because the website was more widely advertised. As yet, there has been no increase in the number of incidents that have triggered prosecutions.

Some of the ‘reports’ appear to have been people letting off steam after the vote, including some complaining about Nigel Farage. Yet, under police guidelines, all such reports have to be recorded as ‘hate crime’ incidents.

The police press release from which the 57 per cent figure was taken was, in fairness, quite clear about what it meant: ‘This should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent but an increase in reporting through one mechanism.’

People of every background campaigned on both sides in the referendum, but many seen determined to tell us that we are a narrow, nasty, prejudiced nation
People of every background campaigned on both sides in the referendum, but many seen determined to tell us that we are a narrow, nasty, prejudiced nation

In other words, an extra 31 people during the 96 hours after the vote complained to police, triggering no extra prosecutions. And yet that 57 per cent figure has assumed almost canonical force among Remoaners. Simply to question it is taken as evidence that you are a racist yourself.

People of every background campaigned on both sides in the referendum. There were several Leave organisations run by Brits of Commonwealth background: Bangladeshis for Britain, Africans for Britain, Sikhs for Britain and so on. We also had support from people of Continental European origins who had come to see the EU as a racket.

Such people don’t fit the anti-Brexit, pro-Brussels narrative. Many broadcasters, in particular, are determined to tell us that we are a narrow, nasty, prejudiced nation — and won’t be distracted by inconvenient facts.

Here, though, is the most inconvenient fact of all. The rise of actual bigotry in Europe is being exacerbated by two EU policies: the euro, which has caused needless poverty and unemployment, especially among southern European nations who have found themselves growing ever closer to the breadline; and the Schengen agreement on open borders, which has left countries unable to regulate migratory flows.

This has meant that the hundreds of thousands arriving in Europe from Africa and the Middle East have to a large degree been able to travel northwards and westwards unhindered.

So, far from soothing national antagonisms, it is Brussels that is stoking them. When we leave, we shall be a more global, more outward-looking and, yes, more tolerant country.

Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP. His book What Next will be published next month by Head of Zeus.

Having more and more foreigners into the country will invite more problems. There is one particular cult already deeply embedded into the system that is going to cause the most amazing strife.  They have already started.

Here, though, is the most inconvenient fact of all. The rise of actual bigotry in Europe is being exacerbated by two EU policies: the euro, which has caused needless poverty and unemployment, especially among southern European nations who have found themselves growing ever closer to the breadline; and the Schengen agreement on open borders, which has left countries unable to regulate migratory flows.

not true

spain and portugal have immigrants...loads of eastern europeans....russians....brits...north africans..chinese....they have more romanians than we do.

they dont get the same problems we do.

italy and greece may get problems but they get the bulk of refugees from syria.
its a problem because they are the first port of call.

if we were in their position we would ask for other countries to take more.

Has no one told the foreigners their opinions and insight aren't valid any more?

I'll judge a person's insight on its merits not by what passport it's owner holds.

y'see, it's easy to judge your level of insight...

I don't think anyone's ever asked me a direct question on that. Feel free to check.

He actually said this, didn't he

“I think it should be that, wherever the asylum seekers arrive in that particular place, you have a responsibility for their care, their love,” the Daily Mail reported him saying.

“Schengen countries have not done that with the ‘Jungle’ and I, for one – as much as I am sympathetic and I feel sorry for the number of people genuinely seeking asylum – I think really the issue lies with the Schengen countries and they cannot see Britain as a soft touch.”

Sentamu, who fled Idi Amin’s regime in Uganda in 1973 for the UK, visited the Calais camp in June.

He said the UK could not be held responsible for the camp because it had never been part of the visa-free zone.

“They have gone from nation to nation which signed up in Europe,” Sentamu told the festival audience. “Those Schengen countries ought to resolve the problem that belongs there because they have entered Europe because of free movement.

“Every nation is shunting them and shunting them and shunting them in the hope that they will end up in the UK.”



If so, I think it's short-sighted. Is he saying everyone who lands on Lampedusa should stay on Lampedusa. How's that going to work exactly? Also the idea that they're all being shunted towards the UK is obviously silly and not based in reality. Wouldn't remotely call it racist though.

Everyone? No zen, I don't. Easy that to be fair.

It's not good for the women thats for sure!

Fine words don't solve practical problems PP. Admitting there is a problem is the beginning to finding a solution. They have already brought the public to the point of exasperation by refusing them the right to speak, as you try to do. That's why brexit came about.