« Ming has begun preparations for coalition talks | Main | Cameron asks Blair about the Chancellor's unpopularity with his colleagues »

Comments

Are you sure that they have refused these ads? Newspaper ad depts and editors usually only refuse ads for very specific reasons. Isn't it more likely that the people behind this ad simply cannot afford the rates these papers charge.

Dear me... In no way is the ad offensive. What is offensive are the politicians ( from all parties) refusing to take this issue seriously ( ie) more than their pension increases). Let's face it we were lie...innocently misled by the government about potential immigration from Eastern Europe ( ie) 5 immigrants forecast- reality 500,00+ ).

The idea of the Sun, Mail and Express thinking an immigration advert is too inflammatory does seem rather strange as it merely calls for a debate. I wonder what the Guardian response was?

SpeakOut have certainly achieved free publicity on ConservativeHome!!!

"Isn't it more likely that the people behind this ad simply cannot afford the rates these papers charge."

Not when Speak Out's backed by a multimillionaire!

I am very glad that I have the freedom to live wherever I want in Europe. I would certainly leave the UK if that freedom were to be removed.

Free movement of people was established in 1973. Has Paul Sykes only just noticed?Of course his underlying fear is correct-the 1973 politicians had no idea what free movement could entail-itwas just a bath in some warm words to them.

You guys really should have a referendum on the EU, as it's just plain painful watching you twist and turn over the thing every five minutes.
It would be sad if you did leave the EU. Britain makes a positive contribution to the EU, but the union is a democratic institution, and the rest of us would have to respect your decision. But for the love of God make a decision and stop whinging about it!

The ad makes some perfectly valid points. Why should this issue not be discussed, especially with public opinion opposed to mass immigration?

I recieved this literature through the post today, that particular headline is rather sensationalist and does I think play to the lowest common denominator.

Seems okay to me.

I have no objection to the ad if the facts are correct. Are they?

More important, will EU law allow David Davis and DC in practice to deploy 10,000 border guards?

Jason, in what way is the EU a democratic institution? What say did I have over the election of the EU president and the commision?

The ad is rather misleading in that it looks like it is about immigration and looking to change the way that this is handled, whereas in fact the group is campaigning for withdrawal from the EU. While it is true that as a practical matter we could never achieve a Treaty amendment removing the free movement of workers provisions from the Treaty and so would need to leave the EU to achieve the control the ad talks about, this is a legal and institutional nicety of the sort that would be lost on most readers of the ad.

Indeed, it isn't immediately clear even from their own website what exactly they are asking for a referendum on- I presume they are looking for a referendum on EU membership/withdrawal but the ad and the website is less specific. As a misleading ad apparently calling for a referendum on immigration from the EU but most likely advertising a different and wider anti-EU campaign I can see why even papers which sympathise with its line might decide that they would not want to publish it.

Graham in what way is this advertisement sensationilist? It is as far as I'm aware completely factual.
If the national press all refuse to carry this ad I think the backers of speakout.co.uk will achieve their aims anyway 'through the free PR that will be generated from this decision. In all my years in advertising I've never heard of political advertisements (which are generally exempt from ASA guidelines) being banned across the board.

The headline is not only sensationalist, it doesn't even match their data.

The survey found that 77% would like a referendum. From that statistic there's no data to conclude how many "want our borders back". It certainly doesn't follow that everyone who wants a referendum would vote against the EU.

The 88% figure seems to be an ad-friendly version of the 87% you get by excluding don't-cares, although it's very questionable that it's valid to remove somebody who doesn't care from the result.

This is not the place to explain how the free movement of workers, which was enshrined in the Treaty of Rome, morphed in to the 2006 Free Movement of People Directive - if Anthony needs the detail, I am happy to provide. The ads were banned because the Mail thought it was 'potentially racist', the Sun because the editor thought it was possibly 'inflammatory' and the Express thought it so controversial they would only run it if we paid them a premium (good to know that their principles have a price!). As a number of people have said, it is a bit rich for these papers to ban the ad, when their own headlines are far more inflammatory. The other point, that this directive became law without a debate or vote on the floor of teh House of Commons, is perhaps the most important. It shows how little control we now have over EU legislation.

I hope the Conservatives don't "lurch" on this issue. Free movement within the EU is a positive free market policy - and EU citizens coming to the UK enrich us and diversity is a good thing.

Also, I don't think the EU does have control of our external borders but neither does anyone - hence the logic of forming a border force as proposed by DC.

I see nothing inflammatory or even potentially racist in the advert. Surely planting the seeds of a national debate should be welcomed.

Free movement of people goes hand in hand with free movement of capital. If you are in favour of the free market, you have to take both.

Again the idea that the Sun who produced the headline 'achtung surrender' think this is possibly 'inflammatory' has me in stitches.

I'm unfussed. Who's behind it? Looks like a boring UKIP front to me. Tediously peripheral.

It's spot on. Not watch Dave run in the opposite direction at some speed.

"Achtung surrender" was actually the Daily Mirror during Euro 96.

Angelo Basu @ 12:40 wrote, Indeed, it isn't immediately clear even from their own website what exactly they are asking for a referendum on- I presume they are looking for a referendum on EU membership/withdrawal but the ad and the website is less specific.

I visited the Speakout Campaign website and discovered it said,
Seven deadly sins
It is more than 30 years since we last had a referendum on what is now called the European Union.

Back then people thought they were voting to stay in a common market. In fact, they had signed up to the creation of a common country. That country is called Europe, and its capital is Brussels.

It is time we had another referendum to return seven vital powers from Brussels to Britain. We want the power:

* To make our own laws
* To set our own spending limits
* To manage the countryside
* To exclusively fish our own territorial coastal waters
* To trade with who we want and how we want
* To scrap the Brussels-inspired regions and end the break up of Britain
* To decide who we let into the country by getting control of our own borders back.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Ed Clarke,

"Free movement within the EU is a positive free market policy - and EU citizens coming to the UK enrich us and diversity is a good thing."

This is the usual infuriating waffle - How exactly does immigration "enrich" us, and why is "diversity" automatically a good thing?

Andrew,

You voted for your MP who voted for a PM who voted for President Barrosso. Unless you live in Sedgefield, you've never voted for your prime minister either.
Actually, I'm all in favour of the people of Europe directly electing the Commission president. Funny how you guys never seem to suggest that.

A migrant a minute entering Britain? Is that the number of EU citizens entering the country (which, of course, includes short term visitors, students, tourists, business people, those already settled here returning from holiday, etc...), or is it the number of new arrivals coming into Britain for settlement purposes?

Is the one migrant a minute only EU immigration or does it include immigration from outside the EU as well - and, if so, for what purposes, i.e., students?

A "debate" is only good if people have the proper facts.

Well two of the three shown need deporting. ;)

Sorry William, I remember now. I'm sure the Sun did some equally as xenophobic.

Jason, even if you you live in Sedgefield you don't vote for your prime minister. You vote for a local MP, and the parliamentary party and the wider electoral college then decide who will lead that party.

the headline about a migrant a minute makes no mention of the EU, it is only when you read the detail you realize this is an attack on free movement within the EU, What we don't see in this emotive propaganda is how many British people have taken advantage of free movement between EU states to move to other countries.

The problem with this sort of ad is that it could indeed encourage the BNP and their supporters.

Jon Gale, as DavidDPD said:

Free movement of people goes hand in hand with free movement of capital. If you are in favour of the free market, you have to take both.

Migrants enrich us by bringing new bits and pieces from their own backgrounds and widen the gene pool. Would England be as interesting if we were all blonde-haired and blue-eyed? Would London have such a range of restaurants, bars, cafes and other activities if there were no migrants? My own ancestors migrated from Normandy in 1066 - should I be deported?

The ad is indeed inflammatory and does not seem to give a balanced view/argument on immigration, instead as Graham D'Amiral points out it does play to the lowest common denominator.
Meatloaf hits it on the nail "A "debate" is only good if people have the proper facts."
This type of poster helps one party and that is the BNP, and it does nothing to address the problems we face.

I received it yesterday in the post. There isn't anything *offensive* about the ad per se, it's just rather dreary. I dislike middle-aged men who wear polyester suits with £ signs pinned to them, think M&S is "posh" and bang on about Europe all the bloody time. These of the kind of bores one meets in one’s local Con/Working Men’s’ Clubs.

Needless to say, I binned the letter!

Apologies if this is boring but it is an important issue we should be addressing instead of looking forward to government.

The EU question has nothing to do with immigration, never has, it is about all the values the Tory party is supposed to care about. Falling for the immigration/EU connection merely shows how political correctness has stifled not only debate but thought. We should allow as many Polish plumbers as we need but let’s do it based on the facts not on deception. Comments like "Freedom of movement is enshrined in blah law....and is good for a market economy" do not stand up. Why would anyone move from Germany to the UK?. They have always been able to do that anyway as they would be economically viable citizens in small numbers. Freedom of movement may well be good for the economy in the long term, just a shame it won’t be ours, freedom of movement is fine in a free market, and best in a homogenous market which clearly means one with the same currency, same laws, same language etc. Did anyone sign up for allowing our country to settle at the European average? The average of course drops lower every time a new member joins as they are always poor countries. That alone tells you it is not in our interest.

The EU is a socialist ideal, that cannot be achieved by democratic means and that requires a wealth transfer from rich countries to poor, fact. None of which is a problem if we agree that’s the plan, do we?

Browns racist proposal yesterday and Cameron’s border police idea are addressing a different problem avoiding the fundamental question, they have no connection. Simply attempts to harness public anger and xenophobia without admitting the truth about their cause. If your motivation in politics is power then maybe you can reconcile EU membership with democracy, freedom, fairness and honesty, to me they just are opposing forces. I would rather help the Polish plumber by sending a bigger cheque to Poland to help them improve their country in a transparent way, not hiding that increased cost in the budget of every strand of government so the public cannot work it out. We have seen what a government that has no principles has done to the country, I will not vote for more of the same.

Below is a response to Michael White in the Guardian who managed to include the names of Cameron and Enoch Powell in his assessment of Brown's blatant use of racism to improve his image.

What racial tension exists does so as a direct result of government policy. The government will not tell the truth about Iraq, Afghanistan and the EU because we will not like it. Brown not only refuses to accept responsibility for his own policy but uses it to mislead the public for personal gain and to bury the truth.

The UK has no control over the immigration causing most problems in society. The inexhaustible supply of cheap EU labour cannot be stopped; they have a legal right to entry and work. So the massive strain on local services and the penal tax system are a result of the 2 or 3 million economic migrants that have flooded the country, without any warning or consultation. You might contest that figure but ask a politician for an answer, see what you get back. The polish plumber is here to make money, not to become a UK citizen, you dont need to be a UK citizen to come and work thanks to EU law. 60,000 migrant worker registrations were approved in Q4 2006, 85% of those seeking an extension to existing approvals were allowed to stay.

The reason he doesn’t want anyone to know the truth is that it has been allowed by this government and is one of the major reasons the tax burden is crippling. 60,000 have registered, allowing them access to schools healthcare and other government services, registration comes at a price; if you register you pay tax. It is more than obvious that most arriving dont really want to pay tax, they are not uneconomic migrants after all, so how many people are here working illegally? It doesn’t take much of an understanding of human nature to double or treble the official figure. I dont know and nor do the government, that is the unpalatable truth be kept from the electorate.

If they knew they might question his economic management that see us pay the EU for membership, lose the tax revenue from those not registered, sees taxed revenue sent home when we have 1 million on the dole. This is the cause of the tension he seeks to exploit with his statement.

The other source of tension is the presence of a large Muslim community in Britain and we all know what drives this. Browns demand to learn English deliberately conjures an image of reclusive Muslim communities, of Muslim women not allowed to learn English and the inevitable connection to terrorism. More proof that the government has deliberately fanned anti-Muslim feeling, the veil was used by Straw to kick this off, in order to justify its folly overseas. These are UK citizens already, but he is happy to allow the connection to be made. More vindictive, spiteful, criminal spin to disguise the truth, doesn’t his statement encourage racial tension?

Brown introduced a minimum wage and income support to help the poor but what economic logic is behind artificially raising income and then allowing the market to be swamped by legal workers? It only encourages migrants to the UK guaranteeing wage levels above the market and why should we pay a higher rate for migrant workers than market forces would produce? Wages cannot rise if there is an inexhaustible supply of cheap labour; those previously in work see wages held down by supply creating a widening of pay differentials in society, until Poland starts exporting City traders anyway.

Brown, so hated for imposing a crippling tax burden, happily signs the cheque for EU membership that already subsidizes poor members, for 1 million unemployed, for extra public services required, for an huge income support cost that can only rise, for an ever increasing series of initiatives aimed at the poor and then tries to cover his tracks with irresponsible, disingenuous, racist proposals. Welcome to "renewal in office".

What was being debated in the House of Lords yesterday? Unbelievably it was the funding crisis facing the service that provides FREE English lessons to all migrants!

The truth is that the government is deliberately wasting taxpayer’s money, deliberately misleading them on why tax is so high and is following either an illogical agenda or one they are keeping secret?

Well spotted.

Great timing .I do hope Gideon reads it!

To Ed Clarke and David DPD, please don't patronise us with the garbage that all immigration is an unalloyed good, however many people immigrate. This leftist propaganda is now wholly discredited. I have no problem with SOME immigration (I am descended from immigrants) but the assertion that ALL immigration is enriching is the dogma of Ken Livingstone not observation. In any case, the question is as much about who gets to decide the level of immigration: a key question of democratic accountability, which you have ducked.

I also appreciate the free movement of workers within the EEA: being a linguist I may well be better placed than you to take advantage of it. But to equate the free movement of people with the free movement of capital is also dognatic nonsense: people aren't simply passive digits in a computer.

Doesn't seem terribly inflammatory to me, beyond the dodgy "poll". There's a pretty comprehensive consensus that our systems of immigration management are completely broken. Of course, this is largely incompetence - it probably doesn't help to confuse things by lumping it together with the EU issue.

Hits the spot for me, and is undeniably factual.

"the assertion that ALL immigration is enriching "

Did I say that?

" Jason, even if you you live in Sedgefield you don't vote for your prime minister. You vote for a local MP, and the parliamentary party and the wider electoral college then decide who will lead that party."

Well then what's the problem with a Commission appointed by elected national leaders?

Apologies: you did not - your point was the one about free movement of people and capital being two sides of the same coin.

How are they not related Michael? (capital and people movement). I'm another of those odd eurosceptics that think the free movement of people within the EU is one of the more obvious Good Things to have arisen from our membership. It's obviously easier for educated middle-class types to take advantage of it (the linguistic barrier is that which prevents the Euro from working -- skilled manual labour simply cannot "get on its bike" to relocate from an impoverished to a thriving region, in the way that it can within a mono-linguistic nation - hence uniform interest rate must adversely affect the economic reality for too many people at any one time).

It's a silly advert, an Aunt Sally. If no-one in the country was talking about the importance of controlled immigration then maybe a pressure group would have a raison d'etre, but given that DC gave a great speech on the importance of a border police, and the lack of utility of ID cards, only this week, I'm not sure what the point of this is.

After the Electoral Commission's attempt to steal UKIP's money, we have another establishment attempt to silence debate on the EU and the effect of membership. Coincidence? I think not!

"skilled manual labour simply cannot "get on its bike" to relocate from an impoverished to a thriving region, in the way that it can within a mono-linguistic nation "

Huh? Isn't that precisely what is happening with the majority of the migrants coming from the accession states?

"How are they not related Michael? (capital and people movement)."

People, unlike capital, make claims on the societies they move to. Plenty of people who move to this country make no economic contribution to our society, but can make claims against it. Obviously, there are also plenty of people who move here who make a very positive economic contribution.

But while the free movement of capital is almost invariably a good thing, that can't really be said of the free movement of people.

I don't find the ad offensive,but it only addresses part of the issue: EU immigration. While we may be thankful for half a loaf, we can see that the motive is not to discuss immigration in the round, but to indulge in EU-bashing.

We need an honest debate about the costs as well as the benefits of immigration. I despair at the way politicians become innumerate as soon as this topic is broached and are reduced to twee generalisations like "immigration has been good for this country." How do you know, if you are not prepared to quantify the benefits and costs???

I accept that we should not confine the debate to purely economic factors, but it would be nice to begin with some figures before we move on to non-financial factors such as cohesion and culture. I would recommend searching the FT archive for articles by Martin Wolffon the topic. Very interesting because this economist is quite clear that it is legitimate for nations to decide their immigration policies on factors other than pure economics.

My own particular standpoint is that I doubt that there is an overall economic benefit to the UK from mass immigration. True GDP will grow, but importing large numbers of low paid workers inevitably reduces per capita income. The tax take from the low paid is also disproportionately low (if you dont believe me look at a set of tax and NIC tables).People are at last recognising all the costs that a sudden influx of people causes.

As a society we probably could absorb a reasonable flow of immigrants (between 50k and 100k per annum?) without too many problems. But the rate of flow in the last 10 years whether from the EU or elsewhere has undoubtedly caused strains .

The reason that migrants have appeared to put a burden on services is that the services are so inflexible. New housing is restricted, schools and hospitals are funded on the basis of flawed and out of date census information, etc. etc.

The welfare system shouldn't encourage people to migrate here so that they can claim benefits but that's a criticism of the welfare system not of the migration rules. We already pay too many people not to work in this country.

There is too much blurring of the boundaries between legal and illegal immigration in this debate. A border force would hopefully cut down on illegal immigration.

"If no-one in the country was talking about the importance of controlled immigration then maybe a pressure group would have a raison d'etre, but given that DC gave a great speech on the importance of a border police, and the lack of utility of ID cards, only this week, I'm not sure what the point of this is."

Graeme Archer, I normally find myself agreeing with you but here there is an important distinction you have missed. The fact is, the party immigration policy never applies to EU immigration because Britain has sacrificed control of it. For example, the document DD published last autumn specifically didn't cover the topic.

There are of course some benefits to migration but as I understand it, Speak Out are saying that whatever the immigration policy is it should be controlled by our democratic parliament, not the EU Commission.

You would have thought the current leadership would sign right up to having Westminster fully in charge of our migration. After all, it smacks of racism that if you are European you have a free right to move to Britain but if you are from elsewhere you don't. Especially in the case of the Commonwealth, who have stood by us for so long, this is ridiculous.

The Conservative Party should make clear it believes that managing migration is a power Westminster should have, not Brussels.

This will have absolutely no influence on policy including that of the Conservative Party. There is clear evidence of blatant fraud in the issuance of work permits in the IT sector. It is accepted as being true by almost everyone apart from the government and the opposition parties. The damage it is causing is well documented too. The government not only is fully aware of what is going on, it is encouraging it.

Despite attempts to raise this issue with David Davis as the Shadow Home Secretary and David Cameron, it is impossible to get anyone interested. This is a clear and provable example of the problem with uncontrolled migration and the damage it causes. However, the Conservatives will do nothing to make use of it. They need to come clean on what their policies are in this matter.

Free movement of people was established in 1973.

My you are very misinformed, suggest you do some reading.

There was a provision allowing people to seek work for 3 Months but after that to return to their country of origin if none found.

Most countries have Residence Permits which you cannot obtain without a job. You must register with the local office and show where you are living. Britain has no registration system.

Portugal had a 10 year transitional arrangement when it joined. It is only Britain which wants to drive wages down and tax credit payments up that does such daft things as this....there is now no limit and technically all 420 million other EU citizens could move here and work for 12 months then claim benefit.

God help Brown if unemployment increases in Britain

I really can’t bring myself to get upset about the newspapers’ alleged refusal to carry this advertisement. It’s a campaign ad from a small pressure group bankrolled by a former UKIP donor which (obliquely in this case) demands a policy (EU withdrawal) that we’re not going to offer. Commercial news organisations don’t want the business? Fine, it saves us the cost of rebuttal. I’m not sure that giving them oxygen here isn’t eroding that, but that’s the difficult line between politics and journalism.

On some of the broader issues raised, I think it is unfair to attack our policy work for not yet bringing forward concrete proposals on migration within the EU. I believe that the home affairs team stated originally and openly that the publication late last year was the first of a series of papers that will deal with immigration issues in three logical tranches; economic migration, asylum and EU migration.

I have to say that while there are obviously genuine concerns in some areas over the potential effects of net immigration, there does seem to be a trend among a vocal minority that while free movement of people is a good thing, they honestly didn’t realise that you meant free movement of other people too…

There are obviously a lot of very varied issues behind this, but I think that a concerted effort in working together towards encouraging economic development of the newer member states in particular has a key role in reducing the supply side of migrant labour from those areas in the long term. In this regard, some of George Osborne’s remarks today on improving the EU’s abysmal performance in this area are definitely helpful.

When we Bakers arrived with the Norman invasion of 1066 the miserable creatures we found here put up a fight.
Following that, we defeated the Spanish attempt; otherwise Spanish would have become the language of the world.
In 1939 we again put up a fight.
Now we are not even allowed to discuss the issue without being labelled racist!
All those thousands of our kin killed in the war – to no avail!
If you are British and trace your family history you will find that all other Brits are distant cousins - we are all relations.
There was an MP (in the days when nick names were fun) called Sunken Glands, he started this, with the short sighted view of beating the Unions. Now many areas have been completely taken over by his invaders and those due to his friend the Grocer.
I feel more at home back in France actually.

I have no problems with numbers of people entering the UK, but it is a fact that any member state can admit people and give them citizenship and then they can go anywhere else in the EU - I think the UK should leave the EU and this would give control of UK borders fully, but if the EU continues it really needs either to scrap the concept of EU citizenship and end free movement of Labour within the EU as something enforced on all member states, or it needs a single immigration body and to have a joint policy making and enforcement across the EU, for reasons of stopping members of suspect political groups or people suspected of being criminal from entering and deporting people considered so who are already here.

"Free movement of people goes hand in hand with free movement of capital. If you are in favour of the free market, you have to take both."

No I don't. I can quite happily be in favour of free trade and a deregulated economy but be opposed to mass immigration for non-economic reasons.

"Would England be as interesting if we were all blonde-haired and blue-eyed?"

I live in a predominantly white area and it has never bothered me. I do rather like my local Chinese but it's hardly the keystone of my existence.

"Would London have such a range of restaurants, bars, cafes and other activities if there were no migrants?"

To be honest having a wide range of such things doesn't really bother me.

"My own ancestors migrated from Normandy in 1066 - should I be deported?"

So did some of mine. And they integrated, adopting the English language and English culture.

A couple of great pro-immigration cliches above. Let's get this straight, immigration is good because:

1. It spices up our impoverished white-bread genes. So one of the problems with England is that there are too many English people living here? Funny that you never catch any of our immigrants talking about themselves in this derogatory way. I suppose they have a good deal of catching up to do before they can reach this level of sophisticated indifference towards their own people.

2. Those restaurants! Fine, I like ethnic cuisine as much as the next epicure, but given what a small proportion of immigrants actually work in the restaurant business, that's hardly a good reason for mass immigration. Besides, is it really a national priority that every village and hamlet in the land gets a Nepalese restaurant?

Richard Carey:-

"It’s a campaign ad from a small pressure group bankrolled by a former UKIP donor which (obliquely in this case) demands a policy (EU withdrawal) that we’re not going to offer."

erm as I seem to remember isn't Sykes a former Tory donor too?

Also, Speak Out asks for referendums to repatriate powers from the EU, which far from being something we're not going to offer is actually meant to be our party policy. You might not agree with the policy, and some would argue that the only way to bring those powers back is to leave the EU, but it still is our policy they are in agreement with. Surely we should be a little thankful they have been spending millions on adverts that are in agreement with us?

Admittedly this ad is not the best, but they have been by and large on target.

Its the fact they wont carry a factually correct statement in case it is 'viewed as racist' is the point surely. Brown can suggest humiliating new citizens by forcing them to carry out the same tasks as petty criminals but this doesnt fly. Come on.

Speak Out campaign: my response is in the post. And before you ask, it is favourable to them.

Nicko,

To take your points one at a time:

erm as I seem to remember isn't Sykes a former Tory donor too?

Mr Sykes has the absolute right to donate to whichever political party he chooses, of course, and I understand that he has also been a donor in mainstream politics in the past. I raised his past history of contributions to the likes of UKIP only as a likely indicator of his agenda in this policy area.

Surely we should be a little thankful they have been spending millions on adverts that are in agreement with us?

If they are only backing return of some powers (for example some of those under the social chapter), then you would be quite correct that they were backing items on which we might agree.

However, they feature a deliberately provocative headline over a picture of the leader of our party. If it looks and smells like an attack ad, I hope you'll forgive me for being pretty wary that it might just be one.

You might not agree with the policy, ... but it still is our policy

You misunderstand and inadvertantly misrepresent me - I wholly agree with the policy position suggesting the default presumption should be that most powers are best exercised at a national level and those that benefit from pan-european co-operation should only be moved to that level with consent. Cross-border environmental issues, for example, have been suggested for this category.

I'm really pleased to have my attention drawn to this site- I might have missed it without all the 'hoo-haa'! I certainly live in an area that has seen a huge deluge of migrants. I work in the community and have witnessed the huge strain this has put on our local services including education. Of-course it is vastly unpopular with local townspeople but no-one is allowed to voice their concern in anyway! I can't imagine this happening in any other E.U. country!! If I decided to try my luck at working in Portugal (for example) without speaking the language..I know full well I would not receive the full rush of support that we stupidly offer here!

And I think all those millions of UK expat 'immigrants' to other countries should be repatriated at the same time as foreigners here are expelled (all things being equal).

The funny thing is that it would probably overcrowd the UK even more than it is at present – and consequently create much worse problems with employment etc! Well, at least they’d all be speaking English. LOL!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker