Hendrickxz wrote:New Home Secretary

Almost always voted against a right to remain for EU nationals already in living in the UK
1 vote for, 13 votes against, 2 absences, between 2016–2017

Consistently voted for a stricter asylum system
6 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, between 2015–2016

Generally voted for requiring the mass retention of information about communications
3 votes for, 0 votes against, 4 absences, between 2014–2016

Almost always voted for stronger enforcement of immigration rules
7 votes for, 0 votes against, 2 absences, between 2015–2016

Consistently voted for mass surveillance of people’s communications and activities
3 votes for, 0 votes against, in 2016

Almost always voted for restricting the scope of legal aid
11 votes for, 1 vote against, between 2011–2014

Lancasterclaret wrote:You are fine with people using Facebook?!?

Crikey

Lancasterclaret wrote:You are fine with the mass surveillance of people's communications and activities?!?

Crikey

Colburn_Claret wrote: To refuse to do it because someone is ashamed of going on some porn site is mind numbingly stupid.

Colburn_Claret wrote:If it helps protect the country, then yes. Only the guilty have things to hide, and the nations safety is far more important than an individual.
The only issue I would have is how do you Police the Police, if they are the ones with access.
All the terrorist atrocities in the world, or most of them are brought about via e-mails, texting, internet sites. We have the ability to stop that. To refuse to do it because someone is ashamed of going on some porn site is mind numbingly stupid.
I know there are other issues, but there is a bigger picture here.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Only the guilty have things to hide...

Lancasterclaret wrote:There is a balance to be had though Colburn, and what we have at the moment is already pushing what is acceptable in a democratic society.

Falcon wrote:Got to judge him on his actions rather than his past of course, but the post above listing his past votes on mass surveillance and restriction of legal aid is very worrying.

Weird his opposition to immigration given his background, but he can have whatever opinion he wants.

Falcon wrote:Got to judge him on his actions rather than his past of course, but the post above listing his past votes on mass surveillance and restriction of legal aid is very worrying.
Weird his opposition to immigration given his background, but he can have whatever opinion he wants.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Not weird at all. Many people of ethnic origin can see that immigration was out of control. It's only the PC brigade that chuck the racist argument.

as long as there are accurate estimates of how many are living here.

It's clear now that the United Kingdom should never have joined the European Union. In many ways, it’s a failing project, an overblown bureaucracy in need of wide-ranging and urgent reform.

Had we never taken the fateful decision to sign up, the UK would still, of course, be a successful country with a strong economy.

We would be an independent trading nation like the US, Japan, or Canada.

Over the years, we would have developed trade agreements with the EU and with others, all without surrendering control over immigration or our economic independence.

If this year’s referendum were a vote on whether to join in the first place, I wouldn’t hesitate to stand up and say Britain would be better off staying out.

But the question we’re faced with is not about what we should have done 43 years ago. It’s about what we should do now, in 2016.

That’s why, with a heavy heart and no enthusiasm, I shall be voting for the UK to remain a member of the European Union.

As I’ve said before, a vote to leave the EU is not something I’m afraid of. I’d embrace the opportunities such a move would create and I have no doubt that, after leaving, Britain would be able to secure trade agreements not just with the EU, but with many others too.

The great unanswerable question is how long that would all take – and at what short-term cost?

Ignore the scare stories about a vindictive EU snubbing the UK – it simply couldn’t afford to, and an agreement letting the UK maintain its current level of access to EU markets would, eventually, materialise. But it would require the unanimous consent of all 27 remaining members – something that simply cannot be achieved overnight.

When a deal is reached, it may require us to accept the same blizzard of regulations that’s imposed by Brussels not just on member states, but on countries like Norway and Switzerland that need access to European markets.

And, like them, it’s possible we would have no say over what those regulations contained, while still potentially paying an access fee.

The same applies further afield. The EU – including the UK – currently has preferential trade deals in place with 53 countries and territories around the world.

These complex agreements have been built up over the course of nearly half a century, and nobody can say how many years will pass while they are unpicked and rewoven for a post-Brexit Britain. I worked in international business long enough to know that uncertainty is the single biggest enemy of growth.

The negotiations would end well for Britain, but we have no idea what the economic cost would be in the meantime – how much foreign investment would go elsewhere, how much domestic investment would be deferred or cancelled.

Even the most committed members of the ‘leave’ camp accept that there will inevitably be a short-term cost to leaving.

The question is whether it is balanced out by the long-term gains. It’s a very reasonable question – and I came incredibly close to answering ‘Yes, yes it is.’

But, in recent months, we have once again seen storm clouds gathering over the global economy. As a former financial analyst, I still take a keen interest in the markets. Far more important than what the commentators are saying is what the markets are forecasting: a significant global economic downturn.

The fallout from a ‘leave’ vote this summer would only add to economic turbulence that is, quite possibly, about to engulf the world.

Some have even warned that Brexit could precipitate the total collapse of the EU, and while I know that many might welcome such a prospect, the shockwaves could prove catastrophic in the current climate.

My heart says we are better off out. My head says it’s too risky right now. For the past six years, I’ve been doing everything I can to repair the damage Labour did to our national economy.

I’m no europhile, but nor am I prepared to risk undoing all that work and casting aside all the sacrifices we asked of this country while the post-Brexit talks drag on and investor confidence wavers. Staying in the EU for now doesn’t have to mean accepting the status quo.

I am disappointed by the scope and scale of the reforms offered by the European Council. However, thanks to the Prime Minister, it is definitely a step in the right direction – and, crucially, one that shows reform is possible.

This package shows that Britain can exert influence over the future direction of the EU. And an opportunity to secure more significant reform is just around the corner. Even fans of the EU will admit that further treaty changes are needed to fix crises such as the Eurozone meltdown.

And when that happens, pro-reform nations will be in an extremely strong negotiating position. ‘Yes, we will give you the change you want, but only if you give us the change we need’ – and I’m particularly thinking of taking back control of immigration by ending the unrestricted freedom of movement.

For me, this referendum does not have to be a once-in-a-generation event. The fight for reform is not over and if Brussels fails to recognise that, I can see a time when walking away may be the right thing to do – but in a more benign global economic environment and under a UK Government that makes a credible case for leaving.

For now, we stay, and we fight.

So when I go to cast my vote in June, I’ll only be thinking about one thing – what is right for my country and for my family.

And whether it means agreeing with me or not, I’d urge you to do the same.

Sajid Javid last year described the Single Market as a “great invention” and praised the extent to which it has benefited British businesses.

"I still believe that Britain is better off in. And that’s all because of the Single Market. It’s a great invention, one that even Lady Thatcher campaigned enthusiastically to create. The world’s largest economic bloc, it gives every business in Britain access to 500 million customers with no barriers, no tariffs and no local legislation to worry about."

Sajid Javid, Telegraph, 16 May 2016

Rowls wrote:Let's see what this lad can do.

He was a very promising young candidate until a few years ago. Since then he turned his back on his pro-Brexit political beliefs (and found himself on the losing side) and has stalled in his career progress. However, I still like the lad.

On a side note, it is always good to see people from different backgrounds engaging thoroughly with British society like Javid and Kahn but let's judge them both by their words and their actions.

Falcon wrote:Please don't use phrases like 'PC Brigade', it devalues your point.


Attack the argument, not the person. That's the issue with about 90% of online political debate (including on here) and it comes from both sides of every argument. Stop labelling your opponents.

Falcon wrote:Please don't use phrases like 'PC Brigade', it devalues your point.


Attack the argument, not the person. That's the issue with about 90% of online political debate (including on here) and it comes from both sides of every argument. Stop labelling your opponents.

Colburn_Claret wrote:Perhaps it's because I get tired of being called a racist because I support Brexit. I hate racism, always have. The immigration situation has spiralled out of control for years, yet the main argument supporting it is so flawed, including the racist card. I can recall a poll in a Polish community, who all thought immigration was out of control.
It doesn't appear to be the ethnic community shouting it's unfair, but a vocal minority of well intentioned but naive left wingers. Who like to make capital of how ' fair minded ' they are by pursuing a cause no one but themselves can find a problem with.

Stayingup wrote:Khan is experiencing a blood bath in London and so far has come up very short of answers.

Rowls wrote:I don't see why there shouldn't be targets for deporting illegal immigrants - as long as there are accurate estimates of how many are living here.

The problem with the windrush scandal is that politicians and officials failed to take their situation into account and also went after easy targets rather than tackling genuine illegal immigrants. Then they confounded it all by apparently ignoring several warnings.

Rowls wrote: Javid's background doesn't make his position on immigration weird; it explains his position on immigration.

Rowls wrote:Those postings are worrying at all - they are just a bunch of subjective statements by our resident troll who isn't even worth engaging.

Javid's background doesn't make his position on immigration weird; it explains his position on immigration. If you stop thinking of immigration as an issue where people are "pro" or "anti" and start thinking about it in terms of "what kind of controls should we, as a sovereign nation, put in place to control immigration?" then everything starts to make sense.

Javid simply wants to place effective controls on immigration and for immigration control to be decided by our elected Parliament. He's a fan of controlled, legal immigration and not keen on uncontrolled immigration or illegal immigration. That's perfectly in line with his background as he is the son of perfectly legal and upstanding immigrants.

kentonclaret wrote:It is no coincidence that since the imposition of the Tories ideological austerity in 2010, knife crime, gang violence and fatalities in the capital have soared.