Don't like Farage but..

[TheBlueKoala]

I do agree with him that foreign nationals shouldn't be able to claim benefits and to scrap PIP for mild mental health issues. And that the money saved should go into mental health care so that everyone with mild mental health problems can access NHS care rapidly.

I think "absolutely sovereignty " must be all us serfs back in the mud eating turnips ruled over by the King and his advisors. And hopefully too poor to be attacked by any foreign power. Sounds great.

My point is is that you've spent this thread inferring that benefit claimants are liars and scroungers and even when you've been told that some people get them for serious mental health conditions your response was "doesn't everyone suffer from mental health. Shouldn't we all say we can't cope and claim".

And you are suggesting that someone on Pip - who gets everything paid for will have more money than yourself who has a full time job and two part time ones.

You do realise that some people get just over 400 pounds a month universal credit and around 290 pounds a month in Pip to live on. Some people also don't get their full rent paid for - particularly if they are in a private let. They'll get the LHA rate for the area and have to make up the difference

Some people also pay full council tax irrespective of whether they are on benefits or not. It's area dependant

What the pp is probably envisaging more like Aus, NZ or Canada. With their own laws, influenced by citizens, who are happy with that, and that top human rights tables.

Anyone who thinks Reform will give us that is an idiot.

It would be nice to have a civil discussion on this site for one. To allege that I am against giving UK youth any advantages is verging on being unpleasant and a bit judgemental. I have children and grandchildren and I absolutely want to give youths advantages but I just disagree on how this can be achieved. I believe Turin was better value and benefited UK kids more. However I’d still like to address hopefully civilly some of your points.
I admitted I didn’t know what was in peoples minds when they voted but given the current level of support for Reform I don’t think I’m totally wrong in my views.
Maybe not absolute sovereignty but as much as we can get. Any treaty we enter gives up some sovereignty but It should always be as little as possible and only when there is a demonstrably strong advantages which I do not believe was the case with EU membership. I have my doubts about membership of some international bodies. The UN has just appointed Iran to one of the women’s rights organisations (can’t remember which but come on). NATO might be becoming slightly problematic and without the US ineffective.
The £42 Billion was a result of appalling negotiations and was not a necessary outcome of Brexit.
Re giving votes to citizens on issues. Again I don’t agree. It works well in Switzerland but I suppose if I didn’t like the outcomes I’d maybe agree. Eg abortion, death penalty, assisted dying etc are all issues I’d be worried about if they were decided by a referendum but I think it was correct on Brexit as we got a vote (sort of) when going in.
Look forward to your views but hope you can keep them civil and not just attack me for my views and accept while you don’t agree with me I am not trying to harm or disadvantage anyone just supporting policies that I think would be best for me, my family, my community and my country.

It keeps coming back to that letter E

That poster wants to keep all the rights from the ECHR, so why change it?

Apparently sovereignty

This is the issue I have. Posters who think we should keep our rights but under a different acronym - which would mean bringing in new legislation which would cost money and Parliamentary time that would be better spent on not reinventing the wheel. It's wasteful and performative.

All that is aside from the knowledge that both the Tories and Reform would live to erode the rights of workers, renters and women.

That’s a different argument to what countries do look like without an extra layer of courts. It is done well, citizens have more ability to vote for changes and get policies that are kept on a bi-partisan level and human rights are high.

Currently some EU countries are seeing the stress of inability to change, although about six wrote to the ECHR who have said they’ll do whatever to remain relevant as an organisation, so perhaps that will happen and they’ll change.

But this thread is about Nigel Farage, so the point is relevant.

And that post was about leaving the ECHR and examples of other countries show how they do it. Not having an extra layer of courts doesn’t automatically mean worse human rights. The countries mentioned by the pp top the tables.

Updating the ECHR is something countries can look at. There is no need to leave the convention for that.

Canada, Australia, NZ were never part of the ECHR, so that is a different scenario for starters and a different geography.

Russia and Belarus have left the ECHR, nobody uses them as an example.

Culturally and legally we have much more in common with Aus, NZ and Canada. NZ modelled its system on the Westminster one.

The ECHR seem to be realising the threat that countries might leave is real enough to say tell us how to change, so they probably will do that.

I am perfectly happy to discuss in a civil way . As someone with a business that involves import/export and logistics, I don’t agree with you and I don’t think any advantages outweigh a boatload of disadvantages however I do think over the years the UK got very lax and suffered can’t be arsed syndrome on the aspects that negatively impact more working class people - when we lived in Denmark they were incredibly hot on the immigration issue from non EU countries and even from within EU too - lots of teams of random inspectors going round businesses checking on visas, people deported within 3 months if they lost their jobs ( non EU) - constant registering if you didn’t have permanent right to remain, access to benefits very limited, certainly no priorities when it came to housing etc . Even if EU you had to register really quickly . Problem is UK was seen as a bit of a soft touch, plenty of businesses too prepared to pay people ‘on the side/cash in hand’ - lots of people who are very anti EU and in business are pretty dodgy, they want to be able to ‘do business’ that is on the side - abd this is both working class and wealthy businessmen wanting to ship any profits out of the eyes of the taxman and actually contribute as little as they can to the country - Denmark became virtually cashless so you could see money trails via bank if needed. I think many people misguidedly associated the growth in the amount of Africans and Asians here as something related to the EU when in reality it was a totally separate issue . We are now in the position where we are having to bribe some big employers to keep operations within the UK because the reality is it doesn’t make commercial sense unless you have a sufficient UK market on its own - the fact is we had enough clout ( and used it under Major and Blair and Brown ) to be a major dictating force within EU and then due to political dogma and fear of Farage and ukip let it all backslide so it looked as if we had little say when this need not have been the case. If you compare to say USand Australia we are in a very different situation - US is ‘its own’ EU, with big enough domestic markets to warrant investment in manufacture and internal markets without having to factor in exports - we on the other hand have 27 competing nations for business and investment on our doorstep counting as one big easy to trade in market - many of which are very very easy to use English as the common business language - the other biggie is we mainly had in the last 15 years and before Brexit -young , mobile EU youth coming here , staying for awhile , sharing houses , making some money and then going back to their improving home countries- so instead Boris Johnson then brings in lots of 3rd world immigration to cover off the gaps in employment in essential services , not just individuals but whole families of all ages needing whole homes, more medical needs, school places etc - it’s certainly not what people voted for but was entirely predictable, given that a ton of lower earning Brits don’t want to do certain jobs-

personally I would join the EEA immediately for commercial reasons and then get like the Danes on being tough on aspects that the Tory’s couldn’t be arsed on - I think once money started flowing a little better, most people wouldn’t actually care

All Brexit supporting parties are against the Erasmus scheme which we have rcently signed up too, which give far more opportunities to our youth, why is suggesting you, as a Brexitier, would be against Erasmus and these greater opportunities?

Turing doesn't cover Tuition fees, which can be massive, it also is not reciprocal, so non participating uk students don't benefit from meeting more foreign students across more levels of education/training.

You say you want the best for the UK and its peoples but after 10 years can you point to the advantages Brexit has given us and will continue to give us?

Right now, the big disadvantage is we have no international back-up, compare to Spain which Trump also wants to punish, they have the EU to support them on trade, we have nothing.

the few additional FTA we have struck, are worse for the UK and rushed in order to make it look like we are some sort of global super power... thanks Liz..

I cant see how deliberately knocking 8% off GDP can ever be dressed up as good for the average British citizen.

It's funny. When Labour were campaigning in the GE, all the Mumsnetters were saying 'ooh, the grown ups will be in charge, we must all vote Labour, it will be amazing, time for a change.'

So forgive if I take your prediction with a pinch of salt.

I don't vote Labour and haven't for at least 16 years now. If you are pro Reform fair enough - but I'm not and never will be

If this had been the approach under Tony Blair, I doubt we would have suffered Brexit.

There is no doubt that frictionless trade with Europe makes sense. Thatcher was a proponent of economic union with Europe and oversaw the legislation that created the single market. But she was against a strong political union which she saw as federalisation. That is what I am also not in favour of.

Tony Blair opened the gates to immigration when the rest of the EU put limits on it - we got loads of east Europeans willing to work for low wages and swamping of some areas contributed greatly to Brexit.

Yes I agreed with Tony Blair on many things but I didn’t agree with some aspects related to immigration from the new joiners without their economies first being pulled to a more level playing field . I felt it would easily be used by those with skin in the game as a negative - and it was . I can’t stand Thatcher either but yes I partly agreed with her view on this subject - however as things are, I can’t see the point of isolationism either with the world as it is and I would prefer relinking in whatever capacity - to me it would make more sense initially to have an EEA type arrangement

You do realise it’s not income related? You could be extremely wealthy and claim? Which is exactly what happens.

That was a mistake, the ‘rub their nose in it’ strategy. Crazy to think you can deliberately wind up the electorate and not get something like Brexit out of it.

Allowing the accession countries immediate full access was a huge mistake - but never forget that it was the business lobby who were behind the pressure for Blair to do this. That same business community who must now be appeased at all costs. You can't have it both ways. Blair was weak and should have drawn a line - but the CBI and their fellows must accept their share of the responsibility.

Yes funnily enough they do have a 6 bed house and a brand new BMW. And not in school today, as they are still on holiday . I mean why would they need to encourage their kids to be at school when they can live like that? And of course they come to school by taxi……

Comparison is the thief of joy.