@@TerryHall-nm8gt don't hurt yourself. I'm a brown British man who probably owns more of England than you last six gens did combined. Buy me out and I'll leave. Its a sh hole anyway.
@@jhonngreenn8084spent three weeks in Poland, did not see none of that scums, masked up, running around. On the contrary seen a lot of Polish houses flying their national flags without authorities interfering, we all know in the UK is quite the opposite. 😅 I think you are deeply upset that your country is in shambles.
What about our human right to live in peace and without fear of getting knifed ,abused and criminalised for loving our culture ,morals,and way of life .🤔😡🤬
If you want migration to the UK to stop, it's simple. Stop building military bases in other countries. Stop funding rebels to destabilise countries, stop pushing LGBTQ ideology through aid to these countries. Stop bombing where for resources. Stop bombing and starting wars where they live
Everyone knows who's not an idiot knows what's going on. Albania is a safe country and we are having g a conversation about this. Honestly with respect. Do the government really believe the public are idiots? The worst thing the government thinks is we are idiots? I despair.
@@MargaretOHare-p8h Pakistanis, Indians and also Middle eastern and African people will take over your country within the next few decades and you will be still obsessed with Albanians, Romanians, Polish and other eastern European people.
By saying that criminals have right to family life meaning he has right to commit crimes how many times he wants and whatever crime he wants to commit! This is bloody bullshit , he is illegal here, committing crimes as well, he should be arrested, charged and deported for good!
Why are we in it in the first place, we are not European. We are an island with our own great laws. We don't need the European court of human rights. We need to leave as it is a detriment to our own laws.
It is not at the levels of demographic change anywhere outside of the West...and most countries send them all home once the direct conflict is over. Western countries accept them with the intention of keeping them in the country forever. It is part of a different agenda to one of crisis alleviation.
Mr. Haigh is a Tory, so please inform the audience correctly instead of misleading them. You can check his Wikipedia page for more details-according to it, he doesn't even practice, lol.
Why even look for another solution then leaving ECHR? After the Rwanda fiasco it seems pointless. Just leave and detain all migrants without resident permits until they are granted asylum, being deported or 'voluntarily' leaves the country. The latter is of importance since some countries refuses to deal with their own citizens being deported. Also, why interview a human rights layer? You got to be kidding us, their well-being are directly dependent ECHR! On our tab!
Hot shot lawyer here talks quite a lot out of the human rights and procting foreigners ... dont' hear him saying too much about the human rights and safety of birtish cits
Isn't it weird that its a human right for a criminal to stay illegally in a country but noone says a word about the human rights of people wanting ro feel safe, these " human rights " people only protect certain types of people and the worst type of people... They would have been on ole jimmy Savs side.
*unfortunately, only when supporters of ECHR are directly affected, do their views change, but whilst living in their ivory towers & not in the real world where more & more people are either witnessing what’s going on in the UK, or know someone that’s been impacted.*
It's quite simple: The issue is one of fiscal prudence and reciprocity. The ongoing debate regarding whether the UK government should continue to allocate taxpayer money towards supporting foreign nationals amid increasing economic hardship for British citizens is both complex and contentious. It raises fundamental questions about justice, national identity, and the role of government. In a climate where British citizens face rising living costs, substantial national debt, and an uncertain economic future, justifying policies that prioritise foreign nationals' welfare becomes increasingly challenging. These policies, many argue, contribute to the fragmentation of British society and undermine its cultural cohesion. The principle of prudence, which demands wise and judicious governance, is critically relevant in this context. Prudence requires that government decisions be informed by careful consideration of their long-term impacts. With the UK’s national debt exceeding £2.5 trillion, the economic burden on taxpayers is immense. The allocation of substantial resources towards supporting foreign nationals, particularly when these resources could address the immediate needs of British citizens, appears imprudent. The current fiscal strain is evident in deteriorating infrastructure, insufficient public resources, and overstretched essential services like schools and hospitals. For example, the healthcare system is so stretched that many British citizens are unable to access even basic services such as dentistry, while illegal immigrants receive guaranteed access. This disparity raises serious moral and practical concerns about the state’s priorities and effectiveness in managing public resources. In addition to prudence, the principle of reciprocity plays a crucial role. According to natural law, a social contract exists between the government and its citizens. This principle asserts that there is a reciprocal relationship where both parties have duties and rights. Citizens contribute to the state through taxes with the expectation of receiving protection, support, and access to public services in return. When foreign nationals receive disproportionate benefits without having contributed to the tax base, this reciprocity is disrupted. The principle of justice within natural law emphasises that each person should receive their due. In a democratic society, taxpayers expect their contributions to enhance the welfare of their own community. When public funds are disproportionately directed towards foreign nationals, there is a risk of failing in the duty to those who have made these contributions. This shift in priorities can exacerbate the economic hardships faced by British citizens, who are increasingly delaying or abandoning plans to start families or purchase homes due to financial pressures. The argument becomes even more pressing when examined through the lens of human flourishing, another cornerstone of natural law. The family is the fundamental unit of society, and policies that hinder citizens from affording homes or starting families undermine their ability to thrive. As British citizens face financial strain, many are forced to forgo home ownership and family life, while foreign nationals, who may arrive with larger families and more children, receive state support. This situation suggests that the UK government is failing to create an environment in which its citizens can flourish, potentially leading to British citizens becoming a minority in their own communities. Moreover, the principle of the common good, central to both natural law and political philosophy, appears neglected. The common good refers to the conditions that enable individuals and communities to flourish. A government that prioritises the needs of foreign nationals, many of whom may not align with British cultural values and history, over its own citizens is failing in its duty. The welfare system, designed to protect the most vulnerable, is being stretched to accommodate non-citizens, many of whom have not contributed to it or integrated into the community, placing undue strain on public services, housing, and healthcare. Critics might invoke the principle of solidarity, which mandates that societies care for the vulnerable, including foreign nationals fleeing persecution or seeking better opportunities. While this moral consideration is valid, it does not negate the principle of justice, which must be prioritised for the citizens of the state. The government’s primary responsibility is to its own people. When citizens face rising costs, debt, and difficulties in starting families, the needs of foreign nationals cannot take precedence. Balancing justice and solidarity requires a nuanced approach that ensures the native population is not unduly disadvantaged. The long-term implications of current policies are also alarming. A declining birth rate among native British citizens, exacerbated by economic pressures, threatens future stability. If British families are delaying or forgoing children due to financial constraints, this could result in a shrinking workforce, increased reliance on immigration, and heightened pressure on public services. This demographic challenge underscores a failure by the government to safeguard the common good for future generations. Furthermore, the fiscal burden of supporting foreign nationals is significant. Non-EEA migrants, in particular, have been shown to have a net negative fiscal impact on the UK, costing billions annually. This financial strain exacerbates the economic hardship faced by British citizens, who are already struggling with the cost of living. The UK’s welfare system, intended to support its citizens, is increasingly used to accommodate migrants, often at the expense of those who have contributed to the tax base for years. In conclusion, the debate over government spending on foreign nationals versus the economic hardship faced by British citizens highlights the need for a balanced approach informed by the principles of prudence and reciprocity. While the moral obligation to assist those in need is important, justice demands that the needs of UK citizens be prioritised. The government’s primary responsibility is to its own people, and when British citizens are driven into debt, delaying children, and experiencing economic hardship, it is difficult to justify policies that prioritise foreign nationals, especially when many express views contrary to British cultural values and future aspirations. Adhering to the principles of prudence and reciprocity can help ensure that governance is both effective and equitable, supporting the well-being of all citizens while maintaining the social contract that underpins democratic society.
I'm happy. The education system worked for me. I hold dinner parties and smoke an occasional spiff - Because I'm so hip and cool. And both of my children, purely due to their own merit, are studying at Oxford University. So what is the problem?
Sirs..What now... Nit. Sirs we have a problem. The ship is riding too high in the water sirs. our invites have done quit the job sir. they have consumed all the extra provisions and a large portion of the ballast sir. The rudder is nearly out of the water and steerage is becoming very difficult. Some of the crew, fearing a capsize have taken to the lifeboats sir. Lifeboats you say. Look here Nit, put your best guards on watch over our life boat, the one with the golden oars and the ivory inlays. Yes sir.. The invites have become very round sir and now as the ship is too high, she's rolling about and the invites are also rolling about and crashing into the crew, causing quite the dustups, and other serious damages sir. Sir, I've seen some roll right over the side. Look, there's one now sir. What was that gesture you just made Nit? A solute sir, an expression of endearment and gratitude for their contributions..unofficially sir. Very good, well done Nit, quite innovative. Thank you sir. Sir, the crew comes from generations of innovators and improvisers Sir...and with prayer sir, we will survive... See sir they float like corks. A little puff of wind and they are blowing right back across the channel. Sir.. the roundest ones, the ones causing the most problems, should we help them over the side... they float like corks sir and we have a nice gentle breeze. Nit.. Are you watching our lifeboat?
I think the biggest problem is that there is a lack of political will to deal with the ECHR regime. And then of course the whole show continues on their terms.
