Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 13:26:29 GMT
You need to read down to the page that says "asylum seekers do not have to claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 13:27:12 GMT
Part of the reason we have left the EU is so we can make our own rules so why the hell does it matter anymore what they do? Besides by leaving the EU we created a situation that forced all EU nationals either to leave or proactively apply for the right of residency. In doing the latter they have further proactively demonstrated their commitment to the UK as their chosen home and place of work. Besides - unlike as the Tory press would have all the usual kneejerk gullible fools believe, the proposal is not limited to EU nationals but is proposed for all nationals after a period of residency. New Zealand allows all nationals including British ones the right to vote after being resident in New Zealand for 2 years. So I will turn your risibly predictable argument on its head. Why should New Zealanders be denied the vote here when our nationals are allowed the vote there? You can prevaricate all you like, the bottom line is this: The EU do not allow UK citizens living in the EU to vote in the EU. Therefor, why on earth should we allow EU citizens living in the UK to vote in the UK? It's madness. It's pro EU appeasement and totally expected from pro EU Starmer. Rubbish, it is giving the right of everyone resident here, working here, and paying their taxes here a right to a say in how their taxes are spent. And the proposal is for all nationals not just EU ones. And why should we give a fuck what the EU does. Wasn't Brexit all about doing our own thing? And you dodged my question as I knew you would. Why should New Zealand nationals be denied the vote here when ours have the vote there. If your risible EU comparison has any validity at all, so does my question. And who really gives a fuck what anyone anywhere else does? We should do the right thing by all those living and working here and thereby set an example. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 15, 2023 13:27:40 GMT
Given the backlash over his EU appeasing voting policy, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer pulls yet another U turn out of the bag.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on May 15, 2023 13:31:49 GMT
You can prevaricate all you like, the bottom line is this: The EU do not allow UK citizens living in the EU to vote in the EU. Therefor, why on earth should we allow EU citizens living in the UK to vote in the UK? It's madness. It's pro EU appeasement and totally expected from pro EU Starmer. Rubbish, it is giving the right of everyone resident here, working here, and paying their taxes here a right to a say in how their taxes are spent. And the proposal is for all nationals not just EU ones. And why should we give a fuck what the EU does. Wasn't Brexit all about doing our own thing? And you dodged my question as I knew you would. Why should New Zealand nationals be denied the vote here when ours have the vote there. If your risible EU comparison has any validity at all, so does my question. And who really gives a fuck what anyone anywhere else does? We should do the right thing by all those living and working here and thereby set an example. So in your opinion, it's OK for UK citizens living in the EU to be banned from voting in the EU. But EU citizens living in the UK should be allowed to vote in the UK! I see the problem. You're weak pro EU appeaser. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 13:32:26 GMT
Calling illegal economic migrants "asylum seekers" when they've come from a safe country, is not the language of moderates. Keep in mind that there are Marxists who abuse the rules and use them against the country. Even though this has become increasingly obvious, all attempts to stop this is prevented, whilst the people are basically lied to. Time was never on our side. They are all about mass-immigration, illegal immigration and just about anything that will support them, even at the tax-payers full expense.
There's no reasoning with these people.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 13:35:49 GMT
And you think they dont pay their taxes like the rest of us? Get real and stop trying to hide behind lies. Most of them came here as adults and have worked and paid their taxes just like you and me, but without ever burdening our nation with the cost of their education as you and I have. Though clearly that was not money well spent in your case. Oh stop blubbing, if you wanted to be able to vote in the United States of America you'd have to take out citizenship, if you wanted to vote in Norway you'd have to take out citizenship. And you'd have to pay for it. This is how the real world works. Stop complaining that we are doing what everyone else does. Bollocks. If I think giving the vote to all who live and work here after a certain period of residency that is my right. And I am not simply complaining in the wilderness. I am supporting proposals actually being put forward by the leader of a political party, which is why the subject is even under discussion and why the usual suspects including you have decided to indulge in a whinge fest because you fear anyone newly franchised might not vote as you want. And I dont give a flying fuck what anyone else does. I want to do right by all the people living and working here regardless of nationality. And do you know what? You and others of your dubious ilk in this thread are coming closer than the Labour supporters like see 2 ever have in making me consider a vote for Labour. Because your contempt makes me want to elect someone who will ram it down your obnoxious throats. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 15, 2023 13:36:31 GMT
An foreign individual working in the UK should have access to facilitate that UK citizens enjoy, Health care , police service, upkeep of infrastructure etc but not necessarily the right to choose the government. It doesn’t follow that tax payers should be able to vote . If it did then foreign companies and investors who pay tax to HMRC should have a vote .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 13:42:03 GMT
Given the backlash over his EU appeasing voting policy, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer pulls yet another U turn out of the bag. Starmer is capable of any dishonesty. It is not what he promises before an election that matters but what he intends to do after being elected. Because the two can be very different and it is the latter that actually counts in the end. And I think if elected Starmer will do it anyway, not because he believes, as I do, that it is the right thing to do but because he thinks it will work in his favour electorally. His motivations are every bit as partisan as yours are, purely based on thoughts about how he thinks the newly enfranchised will vote. But I will take someone doing the right thing for the wrong reasons over anyone opposing the right thing for any reasons, any day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 13:51:26 GMT
An foreign individual working in the UK should have access to facilitate that UK citizens enjoy, Health care , police service, upkeep of infrastructure etc but nit necessarily the right to choose the government. It doesn’t follow that tax payers should be able to vote . If it did then foreign companies and investors who pay tax to HMRC should have a vote . Clearly the vote should be limited to individual human beings and not corporate entities of any kind. To conflate the two just because corporate entities pay taxes is clearly a dubiously motivated diversion. And in any case everyone who works in that corporate entity in the UK from top to bottom has a vote - unless as at present they are foreign nationals who cannot afford to buy citizenship. And every individual resident in the UK pays taxes. Even if they do not earn enough to pay income tax or national insurance or are retired, they will often pay council tax and almost everyone, even children spending their pocket money, will pay VAT. If we drive anything from a moped to a rolls royce we will pay fuel duty. Anyone who smokes will be taxed to the hilt on it, likewise anyone who drinks. So all UK residents are also UK taxpayers to some extent. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 15, 2023 13:55:13 GMT
An foreign individual working in the UK should have access to facilitate that UK citizens enjoy, Health care , police service, upkeep of infrastructure etc but nit necessarily the right to choose the government. It doesn’t follow that tax payers should be able to vote . If it did then foreign companies and investors who pay tax to HMRC should have a vote . Clearly the vote should be limited to individual human beings and not corporate entities of any kind. To conflate the two just because corporate entities pay taxes is clearly a dubiously motivated diversion. And in any case everyone who works in that corporate entity in the UK from top to bottom has a vote - unless as at present they are foreign nationals who cannot afford to buy citizenship. And every individual resident in the UK pays taxes. Even if they do not earn enough to pay income tax or national insurance or are retired, they will often pay council tax and almost everyone, even children spending their pocket money, will pay VAT. If we drive anything from a moped to a rolls royce we will pay fuel duty. Anyone who smokes will be taxed to the hilt on it, likewise anyone who drinks. So all UK residents are also UK taxpayers to some extent. So we can disregard the notion of no taxation without representation as a general principle then. If that’s the case then we can disregard the notion that any individual taxpayers should have the vote on principle . The right to vote should only be given to UK citizens who have reached the required age to be considered an adult . |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on May 15, 2023 14:00:37 GMT
So Srb7677,
You are saying that people should immediately be given the vote as soon as they lawfully move here.
Your logic is such that you are saying Roman Abramovic and other oligarchs who came here legally should have the vote.
And anyone able to vote, is also able to stand for office as a politician.
No other country in the world operates that way, not even ones in the EU.
You have failed to give a reason why someone with the means to pay £1400 who wants citizenship, should not pay it.
It is not the same as giving someone asylum.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 15, 2023 14:08:53 GMT
Given the backlash over his EU appeasing voting policy, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer pulls yet another U turn out of the bag. Its quite comical when the possibility of a New Labour style of opposition poses the possibility of a New Labour style of government, there is an explosion of insinuated lies, denigration and allegations thrown at it. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on May 15, 2023 14:12:01 GMT
Given the backlash over his EU appeasing voting policy, I wouldn't be surprised if Starmer pulls yet another U turn out of the bag. Starmer is capable of any dishonesty. It is not what he promises before an election that matters but what he intends to do after being elected. Because the two can be very different and it is the latter that actually counts in the end. And I think if elected Starmer will do it anyway, not because he believes, as I do, that it is the right thing to do but because he thinks it will work in his favour electorally. His motivations are every bit as partisan as yours are, purely based on thoughts about how he thinks the newly enfranchised will vote. But I will take someone doing the right thing for the wrong reasons over anyone opposing the right thing for any reasons, any day. Your level of political naivety might upset the king of naivety, namely Mr. Corbyn. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on May 15, 2023 14:12:58 GMT
I have just heard that Starmer intends to ban smoking if he wins the general election. As widespread drug abuse is now endemic and unchallenged it seems to be rather harsh and pointless to stop people having a fag, but that's socialism for you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2023 14:19:02 GMT
Clearly the vote should be limited to individual human beings and not corporate entities of any kind. To conflate the two just because corporate entities pay taxes is clearly a dubiously motivated diversion. And in any case everyone who works in that corporate entity in the UK from top to bottom has a vote - unless as at present they are foreign nationals who cannot afford to buy citizenship. And every individual resident in the UK pays taxes. Even if they do not earn enough to pay income tax or national insurance or are retired, they will often pay council tax and almost everyone, even children spending their pocket money, will pay VAT. If we drive anything from a moped to a rolls royce we will pay fuel duty. Anyone who smokes will be taxed to the hilt on it, likewise anyone who drinks. So all UK residents are also UK taxpayers to some extent. So we can disregard the notion of no taxation without representation as a general principle then. If that’s the case then we can disregard the notion that any individual taxpayers should have the vote on principle . The right to vote should only be given to UK citizens who have reached the required age to be considered an adult . Absolute rubbish. Everyone resident in the UK pays UK taxes, even if not on their incomes. Anyone individually resident here and liable to taxes here of a suitable age and who has been resident here for a suitable period should have the vote as of right. How long you should need to be a resident for I have no fixed ideas but it should be at least two years I would suggest. I am also in favour of lowering the voting age to 16 for reasons already given in earlier posts. I have seen no compelling argument against this that goes much beyond partisan political considerations relating to fears about the newly enfranchised ones voting in ways they disagree with them doing, and perhaps occasionally a dollop of obvious condescension and disdain for young people. I do not find any of this very convincing, as it seems to be putting selfish political motivations above any wider principle, with actual nationality being used as a barely effective fig leaf of a justification. Because the same people are quite happy to extend the vote to those foreigners rich enough to easily pay the price, who are also reliably rich enough to be more likely to safely vote Tory. My support for extending the franchise is a principled one - I dont actually care how they vote - and not one of dubious partisan considerations as it mostly seems to be for the naysayers such as yourself. Even if polling were to reveal that two thirds of foreign nationals wanted to vote Tory, and a clear majority did not favour rejoining the EU I would still support their right to vote. But the opposition of you lot would melt away. Because yours are brazenly partisan considerations attempting and pathetically failing to masquerade as principled ones, whilst mine are genuinely principled. I know my Latvian friend would be far more likely to vote Tory than for anything on the left but I still want her to have the right to vote because giving her that is the right thing to do. |
|
