If they're extracting responses from people that requires registering and provides an incentive in return, then that might point to why ...I'm not sure why anyone places any weight in those things is beyond me
The USA is a country the EU is not.And the US is a federation, whereas the Eu is something of a confederation. Both consist of a number of states. So how does for example moving between states in the USA relate to immigrating from outside the states? Would it be discrimiation if individual states i the US accepted more immigrants from other US states that from outside the US?
I actually do, I am a member of YouGov, so I regularly do the polls, you get points for each one you do and when you accrue so many points you get £50
You can join it through their app.
It's probably no surprise to the Remainers on here but I think Bridgen was perfectly consistent in that interview and on most occasions answered the unnecessarily hostile questions accurately. It's not that I agree with any of his central argument but that Sebastian actually managed to make him look measured! The problem with many on both sides of the debate is that they think the democratic process should only be about the issues they are concerned with and not what the electorate want to be to be addressed. Politics is about gaining power through the support of the people for solving their problems not about what your own party's shibboleths are .
What I say is a simple and undeniable fact - for fuller context read my reply to FD
Yes - I did ignore the other half of your reply. Not because of any 'dodging' - I just saw it as another obvious example of your tactic of deflection whilst I was trying to be clear on a simple fact
Good attempt at deflection - but missing the point entirelyThe EU doesn't to my knowledge stop you allowing FOM from other countries. So any discrimination imposed is a political choice made by each member state.
It seems odd that CARICOM, MERCOSUR, ASEAN, GCC and I'm sure many other blocs around the world have varying levels of freedom of movement for citizens of their member states, whether it's full FoM, FoM for skilled labour or other criteria, and they manage to do this without being labelled as discriminatory against non-members of their respective blocs.
A level of FoM around any regional grouping in the world is absolutely normal and attempts by some to use the supposed discriminatory nature of FoM as a stick to beat the EU with is fucking ridiculous. They need to learn about how the world works.
Norway population 5m UK population 60mWell technicly Birtain is afaik a "royal union"? It is atleast a union of somewhat distinct cultural groups rather than centered around being the nation state of a certain nationalistic identity. (it shows during Brexit i must say) It's not like say Norway which is pretty much exclusivly inhabited by Norwegians.
The thread will be poorer for the loss of your sage input.Best ignored.
It's too ludicrous even to bother about.
Exactly my point, Sebastian contrived to portray him as a misunderstood liberal.This Andrew Bridgen:
The USA is a country the EU is not.
You can keep trying to put words into my mouth - even when I have been clear - but that is not how debating works (well of course these threads do sometimes prove me to be wrong there)So you support FoM for everyone irrespective of nationality. Can’t have a citizen of one commonwealth country, say Scotland, having an advantage over a citizen of another commonwealth country, say Australia or Cameroon, when it comes to living or working in England can we? That would be inherent and intentional discrimination.
This Andrew Bridgen:
With a bit of extra effort you can find the answer to your question in your own posts but please save yourself some time by reading Wiki on why countries are different to trading groups.What is "is structures that govern". The USA is a federation of states. Whatever the EU is (which seems food for discussion here) the reality is that FoM applies as agreed upon by all member states of the EU. So from a legalist perspective it boils down to "on the matter of immigration we all accept that we act as if one country", and this is justified under the fact that it took unanimous consent. It would thus be on the head of all these goverments that they enacted somethign that would be "discriminatory", perhaps so but it absolutly makes no difference whatsoever in terms of international politics to hold that view as many similar structures exist within a global reality where the interrests and choices of nation states are determinal. The legalist basis within the USA flows from the same "as individual states we recognise that we act as 1 country on these matters".
You can keep trying to put words into my mouth - even when I have been clear - but that is not how debating works (well of course these threads do sometimes prove me to be wrong there)
FlemishDuck was much more knowledgeable than you have been as he was explaining the context Nation States. The UK is one, Australia is one etc. - the EU is not
Swinson claiming a liberal democrat government would have a democratic mandate to revoke as the electorate had voted for it.
Anyone want to point out the problem with her argument there and her own behaviour this last 3 years re a democratic mandate and vote?
Your posts are utter drivel. As I've explained, the FoM within the EU is replicated to some extent in numerous regional blocs around the world and is perfectly normal. Why don't you address that point? Maybe because it's easier to deflect and focus on minor irrelevancies.The thread will be poorer for the loss of your sage input.
But you are right - ignoring is the best option when you wish to - well 'ignore' someone.
So why not place me on ignore rather than keep making these cheap posts
Good attempt at deflection - but missing the point entirely
As much as I might be positive - the UK could not offer FOM to the world.
The point is though that the EU rules force the UK to discriminate against immigrants from the ROW and this is a simple fact.
I can see from the responses that this undeniable truth is inconvenient and therefore must be shouted down.
We’re a parliamentary democracy and parliament is sovereign. A direct piece of democracy is at odds with out constitution so she is correct to say that they’ll have a mandate to revoke, should they win.
This isn’t me saying the referendum should be ignored, as it hasn’t been but the above is still true.