On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...lin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

--
Colin Bignell

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

"Ever closer union".

On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...lin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

--
Colin Bignell

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.


--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

On 20/01/2016 18:17, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?


You seem to be under the impression that Harry and facts have some sort
of common ground.

--
Colin Bignell

On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:21:00 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You seem to be under the impression that Harry and facts have some sort
of common ground.

Oh, don't worry - I'm under no such impression at all.

But I do need a laugh.

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:13:59 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...lin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

--
Colin Bignell

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.


--
Colin Bignell

Drivel.
In any case that applies with the rest of the world anyway.
Opt out is not allowed in many cases.
And opting out will not be an option in the near future.
They need us far more than we need them.

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:18:02 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You're not clever are you?
It means that "refugee" that entered say Italy, could legally come here and register here rather than in Italy.
At the moment none of the ones in Calais can legally expect to register in the UK as "refugees".

On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:23:20 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:21:00 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You seem to be under the impression that Harry and facts have some sort
of common ground.

Oh, don't worry - I'm under no such impression at all.

But I do need a laugh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_shopping

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:13:59 UTC,
wrote:
On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC,
wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...lin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

--
Colin Bignell

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes
to impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Drivel.

Your sig is sposed to be last, with a line with just -- on it in front of
it, bigot boy.

In any case that applies with the rest of the world anyway.
Opt out is not allowed in many cases.

It is in that one.

And opting out will not be an option in the near future.

BULL****.

They need us far more than we need them.

BULL****.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:18:02 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like.
It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does
not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You're not clever are you?

No need to ask you that, the answer is obvious.

It means that "refugee" that entered say Italy, could legally come here
and register here rather than in Italy.
At the moment none of the ones in Calais can legally expect to register in
the UK as "refugees".

And that won't change given that **** all of them can get to Britain.

On 21/01/2016 07:19, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:13:59 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...lin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.
....
Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

...
In any case that applies with the rest of the world anyway.

If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

Opt out is not allowed in many cases.

We have more opt-out options than any other EU state.

And opting out will not be an option in the near future.

Only if we leave the EU.

They need us far more than we need them.

A fallacy.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...needs-britain/


--
Colin Bignell

On 21/01/2016 07:23, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:18:02 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You're not clever are you?
It means that "refugee" that entered say Italy, could legally come here and register here rather than in Italy.

So, you are saying that all refugees are rapists?

At the moment none of the ones in Calais can legally expect to register in the UK as "refugees".

Which will not change unless we choose to opt into whatever replaces the
current rules.

--
Colin Bignell

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:30:36 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

They need us far more than we need them.

A fallacy.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...-europe-a-lot-
more-than-europe-needs-britain/

And a link from that page to...
"A multi-disciplinary, evidence-based blog informing the debate on UK's
EU referendum"

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/

"Evidence-based"...? That'll go down like a cup of cold sick around the
kipper corners of this group...

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:34:23 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2.../fresh-battle-
awaits-cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like.
It opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It
does not have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently
have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be
any kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You're not clever are you?
It means that "refugee" that entered say Italy, could legally come here
and register here rather than in Italy.

So, you are saying that all refugees are rapists?

Even ignoring that, it doesn't mean that at all.

It means that a piece of pan-European co-operation and information
sharing is being suspended. No more, no less.

Of course, the kippers would have had us out of that anyway, so it would
never have been available to the UK to start with, so anybody that came
here and applied for asylum in the UK will be in exactly the same
situation post-Dublin as they would be if the UK had never joined the EEC/
EU in the first place, since the UK's asylum obligations are actually
part of our having signed various UN treaties.

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

On 21/01/16 09:35, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:30:36 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

They need us far more than we need them.

A fallacy.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...-europe-a-lot-
more-than-europe-needs-britain/

And a link from that page to...
"A multi-disciplinary, evidence-based blog informing the debate on UK's
EU referendum"

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/


The London school of economics preaches undiluted Marxist economics.

What on earth did you expect?

"Evidence-based"...? That'll go down like a cup of cold sick around the
kipper corners of this group...



--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 21/01/16 09:39, Adrian wrote:
So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

Well we have as much of a vote there as Tonga, so probably, yes.


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
....
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

--
Colin Bignell

Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
...
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

In your dreams of being ruled by Brussels, more lies. We don't
care if they want to do a deal with us, over all, we're the buyer and
can walk away. Our trade is worldwide and there's always another
supplier. As the 6th largest world economy we can pick and choose our
partners. Economics always trumps politics and we're richer ouside the
EUSSR.

In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ttle-awaits-ca
meron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

--
Colin Bignell

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.


That's a big assumption considering that we have a net trade deficit
with the rest of the EU.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?
The Dublin Agreement allows a country to send immigrants and asylum
seekers back to the first country of arrival within the EU. Suspending
it means or the UK in particular any such person getting here across the
channel couldn't for example be sent back to France. I think we can
ignore the comments about rapists if we wish to have any sort of
rational discussion on a very serious issue.
--
bert

In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 21/01/2016 07:23, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:18:02 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You're not clever are you?
It means that "refugee" that entered say Italy, could legally come
here and register here rather than in Italy.

So, you are saying that all refugees are rapists?

At the moment none of the ones in Calais can legally expect to
register in the UK as "refugees".

Which will not change unless we choose to opt into whatever replaces
the current rules.

Not according to the article in the DT which quotes the EU president.
--
bert

In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:34:23 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2.../fresh-battle-
awaits-cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like.
It opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It
does not have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently
have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be
any kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?

You're not clever are you?
It means that "refugee" that entered say Italy, could legally come here
and register here rather than in Italy.

So, you are saying that all refugees are rapists?

Even ignoring that, it doesn't mean that at all.

It means that a piece of pan-European co-operation and information
sharing is being suspended. No more, no less.

Of course, the kippers would have had us out of that anyway, so it would
never have been available to the UK to start with, so anybody that came
here and applied for asylum in the UK will be in exactly the same
situation post-Dublin as they would be if the UK had never joined the EEC/
EU in the first place, since the UK's asylum obligations are actually
part of our having signed various UN treaties.

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?
The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country. The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including UK is treated as one country.
--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 21/01/2016 07:19, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:13:59 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC,
wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/20/fresh-battle-awaits-camero
n-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.
...
Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

..
In any case that applies with the rest of the world anyway.

If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.

And given their utter incompetence in dealing with China and steel
dumping we could undoubtedly negotiate better deals ourselves.
--
bert

In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
...
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

Deals are usually arrived at by negotiation, by give and take so this
level of argument is rather like pantomime.
--
bert

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 11:07:01 UTC, wrote:
On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
...
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

--
Colin Bignell

Yes we are.
We are only behind Germany in terms ofeconomic importance.
They might even be behind us now in view of the latest madness

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 16:02:24 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:

On 21/01/2016 07:19, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:13:59 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC,
wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:


http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/20/fresh-battle-awaits-camero
n-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.
...
Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

..
In any case that applies with the rest of the world anyway.

If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.

And given their utter incompetence in dealing with China and steel
dumping we could undoubtedly negotiate better deals ourselves.
--
bert

They're imcompetent in everything they do.
They just want a tit too suck on.
And somewhere to export the rapists they unilaterally invited.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
Nightjar cpb wrote:
On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
...
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

In your dreams of being ruled by Brussels, more lies. We don't
care if they want to do a deal with us, over all, we're the buyer and
can walk away. Our trade is worldwide and there's always another
supplier. As the 6th largest world economy we can pick and choose our
partners. Economics always trumps politics and we're richer ouside the
EUSSR.

Our positive balance of payments comes from Financial Services, not selling
goods abroad.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

In article ,
bert wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 20/01/2016 15:46, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 January 2016 10:01:52 UTC, wrote:
On 20/01/2016 09:20, harry wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...ttle-awaits-ca
meron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

--
Colin Bignell

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.


That's a big assumption considering that we have a net trade deficit
with the rest of the EU.

we have a trade deficit with everybody.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better life.
It would, of course, be impossible for the neighbouring (safe) countries
to grant asylum to every single genuine refugee.

On 21/01/2016 16:49, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 11:07:01 UTC, wrote:
On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
...
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.


Yes we are.
We are only behind Germany in terms ofeconomic importance.
They might even be behind us now in view of the latest madness

EU exports to the UK are around 3% of the EU GDP. Only Ireland and
Cyprus and possibly the Netherlands would seriously miss us as a trading
partner.


--
Colin Bignell

On 21/01/2016 15:50, bert wrote:
In article , Adrian
writes
On Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:13:30 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2...battle-awaits-
cameron-as-eu-plans-to-scrap-dublin-regulation

The UK can opt out of any rules on migration that it does not like. It
opted in to Dublin, because that was beneficial to the UK. It does not
have to adopt any alternative agreement.

Don't bank on anything if we remain in.

If we leave, then we would have to accept any rules the EU wishes to
impose for us to be permitted to trade with them. If we stay in, we
continue to keep the exemptions and opt out options we currently have.

Have to admit, I'm struggling to see how suspending Dublin would be any
kind of "first step in letting rapists come to UK"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_Regulation

Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to explain?
The Dublin Agreement allows a country to send immigrants and asylum
seekers back to the first country of arrival within the EU. Suspending
it means or the UK in particular any such person getting here across the
channel couldn't for example be sent back to France. I think we can
ignore the comments about rapists if we wish to have any sort of
rational discussion on a very serious issue.

Unless we opt in to whatever replaces Dublin, we would then only be
bound by the UN Convention, which says we should send them back to the
first safe country they reached, which includes non-EU countries.

--
Colin Bignell

On 21/01/2016 15:52, bert wrote:
....
Not according to the article in the DT which quotes the EU president.

The media quoting a politician.

--
Colin Bignell

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/16 09:39, Adrian wrote:
So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

Well we have as much of a vote there as Tonga,

Not with the security council.

so probably, yes.

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 08:50:56 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:


And that won't change given that **** all of them can get to Britain.

They do get in. They use lorries buses coaches whatever they can and some do make it to the UK.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...ts-in-hampton/

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...-10324670.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-miles-7116936


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-station.html


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594...e-Robin-Onions


Must be the education system is AUS where 1+anythingy=**** all.

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 09:35:11 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 09:30:36 +0000, Nightjar cpb wrote:

They need us far more than we need them.

A fallacy.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...-europe-a-lot-
more-than-europe-needs-britain/

And a link from that page to...
"A multi-disciplinary, evidence-based blog informing the debate on UK's
EU referendum"

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/

"Evidence-based"...? That'll go down like a cup of cold sick around the
kipper corners of this group...


The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how fantastic and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't work as well as we were told it would, If eurpoe was that good we wouldn't need to travel to France for cheap food and other products.
I'm not sure whether getting out is the right move but we're certainly getting conned by staying in.

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 09:39:42 UTC, Adrian wrote:


So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united very much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the world, I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before I'd decide.

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 11:07:01 UTC, wrote:
On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
...
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

Yeah the french might refuse to have our sheep and burn them all.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ce-Europe.html

with china and india being the biggest markets in the future do we really need to worry.

We know which countries have the highest population growth and we know which countires will require products and services and NONE of them are in europe.

And the last time I checked there were NO plans on making china, india, pakistan, Africa, and many other countries that are emergering from being a 3rd world country to be joing the EU.

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 16:02:24 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 21/01/2016 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote:
...
If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect much more stringent
application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.


They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

Deals are usually arrived at by negotiation, by give and take so this
level of argument is rather like pantomime.

But how are those negotiations settled. Are you sure if for the benifit(s) to a particular country, or are they outweighed by the benifts of a few individuals.

Now it took the USA to come in and sort FIFA out europe couldn;t do **** all and were even less interested, they couldn't even work out that that Qatar bid was fixed, so why do you or anyone trust them so much with anything else. ?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how fantastic
and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't work as well
as we were told it would,

And you can only speculate what would have happened if the UK had been in
the Euro.

At least some of the problems with the Euro were caused by allowing
countries to join before they'd put their economy in order. And the UK is
equally as responsible as other EU countries for allowing this.

--
*Middle age is when work is a lot less fun - and fun a lot more work.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Friday, 22 January 2016 13:43:42 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how fantastic
and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't work as well
as we were told it would,

And you can only speculate what would have happened if the UK had been in
the Euro.

We don't have to specualte what happens if the rest of europe adopted the Euro do we.



At least some of the problems with the Euro were caused by allowing
countries to join before they'd put their economy in order.

And who or which countries were pushing that I wonder.

So who does decide who joins and who doesn't.

And the UK is
equally as responsible as other EU countries for allowing this.

Shows you just how flawed the EU system is then doesn;t it.