600,000?

[joinerjohn]

Strange how the EU allowed countries to have referendums on the EU Constitution then when a country rejected that, they allow them another vote on the same. . Ireland would still be having referendums now if the EU hadn't bought their votes with promises of even more help and money.

GB sold this country down the river. He must have been promised a nice cushy job in Brussels after this election as the EU knew with his policies he'd never hold on to power.

 

[PeterOHara]

We have an unelected prime minister (dictator), the voted-in PM didn't have the bottle to see out his term, so what chance have we got with these clowns in charge, you only have to listen to Labour's Ed Balls, David Milliband, etc to see they are not over bright.

Time for a change

They gave our country away, now we want it back. No to the EU YES to a referndum!

 

[skitzee2k]

We have an unelected prime minister (dictator), the voted-in PM didn't have the bottle to see out his term, so what chance have we got with these clowns in charge, you only have to listen to Labour's Ed Balls, David Milliband, etc to see they are not over bright.

Time for a change

They gave our country away, now we want it back. No to the EU YES to a referndum!

....ahh, you people! The public have NEVER elected a prime minister.... they elect the party and the party members decide who they want to lead them!!! Jeez, why do you all insist on talking nonsense?

 

[PeterOHara]

now you are talking nonsense, as the LEADER of the party has a major effect on who gets in, ie under William Hague, Torries had no chance!!

 

[skitzee2k]

now you are talking nonsense, as the LEADER of the party has a major effect on who gets in, ie under William Hague, Torries had no chance!!

Where have I said that leaders don't have an effect on their party??
Of course they do.

What I am saying is that the Public do not elect the leaders of parties, the parties do it themselves.

 

[PeterOHara]

people don't just vote for a party, they vote for the leader as well as he makes a difference on how people portray the party. Brown would never have got voted in. Hence why Hague didn't get in with Torries, people couldn't stand him!!

It really does make a difference who the leader of a party is

 

[Lincsbodger]

In other words you don't know.

I just told you exactly how i would do it. Did i type 'i dont know' - didnt look like it to me.

Who are they? Where do they live?

wait, ive a complete list here somewhere..................













you really are an idiot sometimes joe.................

In other words you don't know who they are and you don't know where they live - but you are going to round them up? worra plonka.

SO, i personally need to know every single illegal immigrant , so that I personally have to round them up.? You're an idiot...........

We have the Police and the Borders Authority, and Customs and Immigration for that job, they are paid to know who and where to look, and are far better at doing it than i would be. I dont need to know any of them, thats there job. Thats why we have Civil Servants.

Gordon Brown authorises all the funding for the Schools in this country, being PM, but he doesnt need to know the names of any of the pupils...........

I repeat, you really are an idiot sometimes, joe.

 

[joinerjohn]

It really does make a difference who the leader of a party is

In that case, Screaming Lord Sutch, and the Monster Raving Loony Party should have been elected many times.

 

[Lincsbodger]

people don't just vote for a party, they vote for the leader as well as he makes a difference on how people portray the party. Brown would never have got voted in. Hence why Hague didn't get in with Torries, people couldn't stand him!!

It really does make a difference who the leader of a party is

ofc it does. People vote for the whole package, the party and the leading members of the party, and the elected leader of the party.

Labour got in 4 elections ago because people voted against the tories and for tony blair. Thats why it was so outrageous that Blair handed the top job in the country to his mate without asking us first. I dont care whos in power, i want a say on who gets the top job every time it comes up. No more of the left wing nepotism, handing jobs to your mates, labour is appalling for doing that from trade union branches upwards. The law wants changing so that if the ruling party changed leaders, the new PM has to calll a general election straight away. We want accountability, and we want a new PM to be forced to obtain a mandate to rule, and not rule because they have mate whos says they can.

 

[skitzee2k]

people don't just vote for a party, they vote for the leader as well as he makes a difference on how people portray the party. Brown would never have got voted in. Hence why Hague didn't get in with Torries, people couldn't stand him!!

It really does make a difference who the leader of a party is

Again I am not saying that leaders don't make a difference, I am saying that he is not

a dictator because he was unelected

because they are ALL UNELECTED.
ALSO it was very common knowledge that Tony and Gordon had a deal that Tony would leave halfway through the term if he was re-elected.
...VERY common knowledge

 

[joinerjohn]

"ALSO it was very common knowledge that Tony and Gordon had a deal that Tony would leave halfway through the term if he was re-elected.
...VERY common knowledge""

Yep and the Labour party have the cheek to criticise the Tories for the Old School Tie network. Specially when most of the Labour MP's send their kids to private schools.

 

[joe-90]

Joe 90 wrote

"In other words you don't know who they are and you don't know where they live - but you are going to round them up?""

Joe, even the government and it's agencies don't know who they are!! So how on earth is anyone else going to bloody know?.
What Lincs really means, is when they are found out, then deport them, instead of releasing them to disappear back into the community.
You seem to like the fact that there are illegal immigrants in the country and support this through your arguements,,,
You sure your not Cherie Blair in disguise???? After all, she seems to make her living, stopping the deportation of criminal, illegals here in the UK.

They can stay after 14 years anyway - so why bother attempting to find them and deport them? Who's going to foot the legal bill for all the hearings and appeals?

 

[joe-90]

In other words you don't know.

I just told you exactly how i would do it. Did i type 'i dont know' - didnt look like it to me.

Who are they? Where do they live?

wait, ive a complete list here somewhere..................













you really are an idiot sometimes joe.................

In other words you don't know who they are and you don't know where they live - but you are going to round them up? worra plonka.

SO, i personally need to know every single illegal immigrant , so that I personally have to round them up.? You're an idiot...........

We have the Police and the Borders Authority, and Customs and Immigration for that job, they are paid to know who and where to look, and are far better at doing it than i would be. I dont need to know any of them, thats there job. Thats why we have Civil Servants.

Gordon Brown authorises all the funding for the Schools in this country, being PM, but he doesnt need to know the names of any of the pupils...........

I repeat, you really are an idiot sometimes, joe.

Well why haven't they been rounded up then? First of all the Government are happy to let them stay.
Secondly, they become legal after 14 years anyway,
Thirdly - it would cost billions to round them up and then to process them.

Fourthly, most of them get some fat ugly Brit bird up the duff so they can claim on human rights law for a 'right to a family'.

Who's going to pay for all that? It would send the country bust - and we are there already. So quit the silly bluster and admit they are going nowhere.

Even if 10,000 were deported yearly and not a single new illagal arrived - it would take a hundred years to clear the backlog.

Time for pragmatism isn't it?

 

[Lincsbodger]

Well why haven't they been rounded up then? First of all the Government are happy to let them stay.
Secondly, they become legal after 14 years anyway,
Thirdly - it would cost billions to round them up and then to process them.

Fourthly, most of them get some fat ugly Brit bird up the duff so they can claim on human rights law for a 'right to a family'.

Who's going to pay for all that? It would send the country bust - and we are there already. So quit the silly bluster and admit they are going nowhere.

Even if 10,000 were deported yearly and not a single new illagal arrived - it would take a hundred years to clear the backlog.

Time for pragmatism isn't it?

they have onl;y been flooding in for 14 years, so only about 1/14 are legal.

Ive already pointed out if we get rid of the human rights crap and pull out the Eu, then theres no hiding place. The only reason they rounded up so few is because theres no political will to. We could argue all day on hypothetical numbers, but anything can be achieved if there the political will to do it. Including rounding up 600k illegal immigrants. As it stand they manage 5000 a year, with better resources they could easily make that 50,000, and so ten years to get rid of most , provided you stopped immigration to a trickle. Its not as hard as you think. You can also pass laws to make it easier to track em down, such as making it illegal to treat anyone in hospital if they cant prove citizenship, there a hundred ways you can change the game to our advantage.

 

[joe-90]

But it isn't going to happen is it? As I've illustrated in the past - the Government NEEDS cheap labour to keep the UK afloat.