We weren’t the least conned. We weren’t involved and said we would never get involved in any kind of move towards federalism. If and when it happens will be the time when the two speed Europe, which has been predicted for at least 40 years, will finally occur.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You talk of the people being conned. Let us go back to 1971 when Ted Heath, arguably the worst Prime Minster we have ever had was steering us towards joining the EEC.

He told the House of Commons that, "Joining the community does not entail a loss of national identity or an erosion of essential national sovereignty." In June 1971, a leaflet was sent to every home in the UK, promising that, “there is no question of Britain losing essential sovereignty”. Then, in a television broadcast in January 1973 to mark the signing of the Treaty of Rome, Edward Heath blithely stated, “There are some in this country who fear that, in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

This despite him commissioning a secret Treasury report that stated that if Britain entered the Common Market it could end up inside a federal Europe with a single currency, and be left with less independence than individual states in the US.

The loss of national sovereignty was confirmed by Judge Bruce Morgan on April 9, 2001. He said that, when the UK joined the Common Market in the 1970s, parliament and the British people “quite voluntarily surrendered the once seemingly immortal concept of the sovereignty of parliament and legislative freedom”.

I certainly don't confuse anything you say with sense.

You think that the ECHR will have any meaning when we are unable to sustain our society owing to weight of numbers? Will the average Briton be weeping for economic migrants when their child can't be seen by a doctor when he is seriously ill.
How about when the crime rate is so high that the police are no longer able to control the streets?
What happens if we go to war with the new axis of evil and we are under attack from within by millions of Muslims?

But you keep talking about our'reputation'. Do you think people will be worrying about that when our society crumbles because we can't even dictate who enters our country?
How many do you think can arrive here yearly before even you realise that this is completely unsustainable? A million? 2 million? 10 million? They will keep coming in greater numbers, be sure of that.

You are as dim as the fools that run this place, and you won't be here to reap the consequences of this utter madness.

You would be much less likely to get treatment for your child if we restricted immigration in the way you want.

No one wants economic migrants to be freely admitted. Let’s lay that myth for good. The problem is not the shared desire, it’s the practicalities of achieving it

Spreading scare stories about crime rates caused by immigration helps no one. We need to sufficiently resource the police and justice system to deal with any issues and then ensure our new citizens understand, accept and abide by our laws and expectations. The answer to that lies in our own hands. It requires action. Not moaning.

How many can arrive? That depends on how many we need to keep our economy functioning and that’s unknown. What’s not unknown is what we must do when they arrive. Which is to ensure they become hardworking, responsible and respectful citizens as soon as possible. We need to make them one of us, and no longer one of them.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

But he did make the offer. Unlike anyone else.
And haven't the subsequent reports, for which we were told to wait, endorsed the points he made about officials' lack of action in the matter?

We don’t know that, or if people quietly donated. Not everyone seeks to make a political gesture out of something he knows very well he won’t have to fulfil.

I am not going to tell you all my charitable acts, who I support or how extensively.

The opinion of all the authorities trying to handle these awful cases is that Y-L made their work much more difficult and diverted resources onto having to deal with him that were better used elsewhere.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.