If it is, why is this not the case within sovereign countries borders? Surely Mississippi should be as wealthy as Delaware and the Rhondda could be similar to Surrey?Yes,common sense really, isn't it?
Depends on your age and patriotism I suppose. Anyway I for one hope it has legs.
"Buckingham Palace last night moved to deny extraordinary claims that the Queen backs Brexit in the EU referendum.
She is said to have told former Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg during a lunch at Windsor Castle that she thought Europe was going in the wrong direction, according to The Sun.
A source told the paper the pro-EU then deputy PM was reprimanded by the Queen – who is politically neutral in public – for ‘quite a while’ over the issue of Europe.
Mr Clegg last night said he had ‘no recollection’ of such a conversation and branded the story ‘nonsense’ but did not offer an outright denial.
The paper does not specify exactly when the meeting took place, other than it was in 2011.
According to official Court Circular records, Mr Clegg was a guest at Windsor Castle for a Council with the Queen on April 7 that year.
Buckingham Palace said in a strongly-worded statement last night: ‘The Queen remains politically neutral, as she has for 63 years. We would never comment on spurious, anonymously-sourced claims.
‘The referendum will be a matter for the British people.’
However, the suggestion that the Queen is sympathetic to Euroscepticism will intrigue many people. Her intervention during the Scottish independence referendum in September 2014 proved explosive.
She warned well-wishers after a Sunday church service that voters should ‘think very carefully’ before making a decision on whether to become independent.
With the EU referendum taking place on June 23, her every word is likely to be pored over for clues about her feelings towards a possible split.
According to The Sun, the Queen told Mr Clegg she thought Europe was going the wrong way. However, from the report, it was not clear that the paper’s source actually heard the conversation.
‘People who heard their conversation were left in no doubt at all about the Queen’s views on European integration,’ the unnamed source told the newspaper. ‘It was really something, and it went on for quite a while. The EU is clearly something Her Majesty feels passionately about.’
On another occasion, according to the paper, a Parliamentarian asked the Queen what her thoughts on Brussels, to which she replied: ‘I don’t understand Europe.’
A parliamentary source said: ‘It was said with quite some venom and emotion. I shall never forget it.’
Last night Mr Clegg told The Sun: ‘I have absolutely no recollection of it. I don’t have a photographic memory. But I would have remembered something as stark or significant as you have made it out to be.
‘No doubt you’ll speak to someone else and they’ll say, “I was there, I heard it”. Fine. But I really can’t remember it at all.
‘Anyway, without sounding pompous, I find it rather distasteful to reveal conversations with the Queen.’
Last night Mr Clegg tweeted: ‘As I told the journalist this is nonsense. I’ve no recollection of this happening and it’s not the sort of thing I would forget.’
Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg told the paper: ‘I’d be delighted if this was true and Her Majesty is a Brexiter. The reason we all sing God Save The Queen so heartily is we believe she is there to protect us from European encroachment.’
The Palace had no choice but to stop short of an outright public denial that the Queen was in favour of Brexit because of her constitutional political neutrality.
Whoever reported her alleged comments will be deemed to have broken the convention that private conversations with the Queen are not publicly reported."
Jacob Rees-Mogg...... LMFAO
Sovereign countries have the option/ability to manage their own regions, if they don't then the people of that sovereign countryIf it is, why is this not the case within sovereign countries borders? Surely Mississippi should be as wealthy as Delaware and the Rhondda could be similar to Surrey?
Many thousands of 'refugees' are from countries throughout North Africa, Eritrea, Sudan included. Nobody has bombed these countries.
Many are from Afghanistan, the country where a coalition of over 50 countries worldwide cooperated in removing the Taliban. The EU has now taken a collective
decision to remove these people from it's territory, including Syrians, and they will be returned Turkey, an action considered by many to be akin to ethnic cleansing.
So it appears the EU isn't as compassionate and inclusive as people would have us believe.
The point is, however, is that they are, in the main, fit young men who are, according to your reckoning, very valuable, as mass immigration is beneficial,
irrespective of nationality.
Apparently not.
So you mean that it doesn't happen like that at all and that's not a fact, but were this fact actually a fact you could choose to vote against it.Sovereign countries have the option/ability to manage their own regions, if they don't then the people of that sovereign country
can remove the people trusted with that responsibility. When these sovereign countries are forced to accept people or rules they neither want
nor need, because of an organisation like the EU, their ability to manage their own affairs is severely compromised.
I'd have thought that if you create a single market/currency composed of both very rich and poor countries with free movement of labour and citizens there can only be one outcome? The rich bits will get poorer, and the poor bits richer until they level off. The idea that we can all be winners in the EU 'project' is wishfull thinking. As one of thevricher countries we stand to lose. The poor countries gain.
Yes,common sense really, isn't it?
My copy/ paste thingy abilities are poor I'm afraid mate, but if you check the International Office for Migration, they report the following;-you got some figures to support this claim?
So what's actually happened is that hundreds of thousands of Brits have decamped to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania etc; not the other way round.yeah total common sense, only pretty much the exact opposite happened
facts my dears, facts
that the single currency allowed the wealthy Northern nations (the Germans in particular) to completely shaft the Southern European countries is actually an argument against further unification but you are too keen to push you own (factually incorrect) agenda you don't even see it
shame that somebody who will probably vote to stay has a more coherent and fact based argument about why we should leave, makes me wonder where most on here actually get their information from, methinks its mainly via our friend Rupert
So what's actually happened is that hundreds of thousands of Brits have decamped to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania etc; not the other way round.
I don't know about Rupert, but fairyland seems nice.
I'm very aware the single currency, championed by Germany, has favoured the German economy via it's exports to Southern Europe,
the federalist agenda being promoted by them is a reason for their desire to cling to the Euro, and is yet another sound reason for leaving.
Hundreds of thousands of educated and motivated Brits have certainly fled to places like Aus, the US, the Middle East etc.So what's actually happened is that hundreds of thousands of Brits have decamped to Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Lithuania etc; not the other way round.
I don't know about Rupert, but fairyland seems nice.
I'm very aware the single currency, championed by Germany, has favoured the German economy via it's exports to Southern Europe,
the federalist agenda being promoted by them is a reason for their desire to cling to the Euro, and is yet another sound reason for leaving.
That may well be true, although it's subjective, to say the least. It also ignores completely what has just been discussed, but hey ho.What generally happens is fairly well educated, hard working , productive people with the character and get up and go move countries in an attempt to better themselves through hard work and effort. They move countries and improve productivity in that country and often get jobs over locals as they are prepared to work harder for less. See the intra EU immigration or a huge chunk of Mexican migration into the US though that is obviously often illegal and thus harder to collect and quantify the benefit.
The poorest, the least educated, the lazy and those who contribute least to society rarely move, rarely chase bettering themselves in this way be that due to lack of opportunity, aspiration, expectation - each will have different reasons. So it has never been the "dregs of society" ( or whatever the latest nom du jour is from the right) - they stay where they are.
It is true for intra EU immigration the type that should be discussed on this thread IE the assertion the poor move to the rush and make the rich poorer.That may well be true, although it's subjective, to say the least. It also ignores completely what has just been discussed, but hey ho.
Hundreds of thousands of educated and motivated Brits have certainly fled to places like Aus, the US, the Middle East etc.
No one has suggested that capital and labour doesn't flow to the wealthier areas, it is just it usually makes those areas wealthier, rather than the equaliser nonsense
They do pick and choose and it is causing in many cases more harm than good. Australia's policy is now costing billions a year And we are housing people off shore at the cost of 6 figure sums per person when they could be here paying taxI know they have. The big difference is that the countries you mention get to pick and choose who they let in, something that being
in the EU denies recipient countries from doing. This is being wilfully ignored in your ever more frantic efforts to promote unlimited
migration as beneficial. Someone has very recently suggested what you say they haven't in your second paragraph.
It is true for intra EU immigration the type that should be discussed on this thread IE the assertion the poor move to the rush and make the rich poorer.
The othe issue of immigrants/refugees etc fleeing the Middle East and North Africa and the war zones /regimes there is a very different issue and topic and bigger than an away issue and in many ways irellevant to an in out vote
Whether we want to take them or not! Or whether we can take them without anyone in the UK suffering any negative impact! That is a different issue , a very different issue.I don't think it's irrelevant. Merkel invited millions of people into Europe, some refugees and some opportunists. Once they've been in the EU for 5 years they'll be eligible for citizenship and then they can move wherever they please. Those who have been settled in less wealthy EU states are going to move to the richer EU states as soon as they get the opportunity.
I agree that the debate of how many refugees to choose to house is different to the EU debate, but the EU throws in the idea that some refugees may be imposed upon us whether we can take them or not.
They are fascist human rights though forced on youSeriously when did any British government have the best interests of the British people at the hart of their policy's.
They talk about human rights as if they are the worst thing that has ever happened to the citizens of the EU.
.What happens often is people from the wealthier areas of the poorer countries move to the poorest areas of the wealthy countries - same as happens within countries . Aside from refugees it is the poorest least educated who are least mobile