What laws do the Brexiteers want to change?

The majority refugees don't want to stay here forever, they want to live in their own country but it's blown to shreds. Understand that post-war, infrastructures are severely damaged and so it takes a lot of money (which the country usually doesn't have) and necessary stability to allow everyone to go back. As soon as the troops left Iraq before, the country was unstable quickly and then the growth of groups such as ISIS occurred. This isn't just "wait till the bombs stop going off", you do realise that people's houses and towns are completely obliterated? These refugees are fleeing war and persecution, not coming for a sunny holiday. So misinformed it hurts.

Michael Gove says:



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e7b2d4d4-daea-11e5-98fd-06d75973fe09.html#axzz493llcXli

We keep hearing these kinds of things from the LEAVE campaign, and how they will rid us of red tape - but no one has anything concrete to say about it.

I know Gove and other Tories want to get rid of the Human Rights Act, and take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights - but that isn't a treaty of the EU anyway.

While I understand that the EU generates legislation and red tape, I'm not really sure I believe that a standalone UK government with no EU oversight would be any better. Government likes rules and regulation - left to their own devices they seem to generate enough. Look at the measures announced in the Queen's speech:

Digital Economy Bill
Modern Transport Bill
Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Local Growth and Jobs Bill
Better Markets Bill
Bus Services Bill
NHS (Overseas Visitors Chanrging) Bill
Pensions Bill
Children and Social Work Bill
Education for All Bill
Higher Education and Research Bill
Prison and Courts Reform Bill
National Citizen Service Bill
Lifetime Savings Bill
Finance Bill
Small Charitable Donations Bill
Bill of Rights
Counter-extremism and Safeguarding Bill
Criminal Finances Bill
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill
Wales Bill

None of these are imposed by the EU.

The ones that says we may not negotiate our own trade deals and provide state aid for our own industries.

Maybe isis would not be a threat if they stayed to fight. The Iraq war did not create ISIS they are al-queda operating under a different name. Even our small army of around 80000 troops would beat ISIS in 2 days. I do not care if the houses are ****ed ,who helped us when we was blitzed by the germans in the 1940's. The truth is the government had to go millions in debt to rebuild. Syria of Iraq was never paved of gold we bear no responsibility for the rise of ISIS and the bombing of their county ISIS comfortably kill more then all our airstrike missions in thd last 40 years. In short send them back after the conflict finishes it ks up to their government not us what is done with them. I wouldn't of let sny refugees here in the first place when have Syria ever helped us?

"When has Syria ever helped us?", I think they're a bit preoccupied most of the time to worry about an extremely developed country - wouldn't you agree?

ISIS isn't just a group of a few men all camped out in Syria. It is an extemist ideology and that is why - despite all the air strikes very few have been killed. For every one killed there are many more civilians dying as a result. Secondly, they are all over the world. There are terrorists in this country and not because they have gotten in but because they are born and bred here and have bought into the ideology. It has been shown that in countries like Brussels that suffer youth unemployment and racial/xenophobic attacks, young people are more likely to buy into this because they feel they have nothing else to give. Being a part of it makes them feel useful, like they are doing service. That's how it is sold to them. They are a network which isn't just in the Middle East, they are all over the place and to say that they're not is ignorant. They don't have to travel to indoctrinate people, they have started a new way of swearing allegiance which can be done over Skype. They are directing people from their bases and people are carrying it out in their own countries. Hence why the Brussels attacks were basically all (if not all) Belgium-born and the French ones were just over the border. It's an ideology that needs to be stopped by protecting the male youths in our countries - further stigmatising them isn't going to help anyone, you're reinforcing the whole idea and playing into it.

I agree there is home grown terrorists and to my knowledge there is around 400 ISIS members in the UK. What i will say is this is 0% our fault, so why should we care? RE your point about SKYPE that is how they are actually caught here in the UK, the snoopers charter may not have been passed yet but GCHQ filter through your communications for buzz words. I believe they have the ability to brick your internet connection aswell, obviously with the cooperation of the service providers. My question to you is why should we take refugees? You haven't made much of a case for it. In terms ofyour top sentence what about when we was the most debt ridden country in the world after WW2 and we had nothing? Did syia help us? Of course they didnt, so why should we help them? I only agree with taking ISIS down because they have killed Brits, if they didn't kill Brits i really would not care

Well your last sentence is just awful. "If they didn't kill Brits I really would not care". That speaks for itself, really.Interesting info about the recruitment and things. My case for refugees is that they are fleeing war and persecution. If this country was as blown to shreds like countries dealing with this in the Middle East and we began fleeing for our lives, we would expect everyone to take us. These people have no where to go. You don't just give all your money to a manipulative man, put your children or yourself in a rubber dinghy and go sailing across the ocean unless you're desperate. I never once claimed that this is exclusively the UK's problem, but compared to others who are carrying the burden we should be taking a greater load. It's simple humanity and we are NOT experiencing a population crisis. Countries like Lebanon, on the other hand, are. The last grand influx of immigrants occurred post-World War and statistically, there was more emigration than immigration. We should shelter these people and many want to go home ASAP because they love their country but it's blown to shreds. A decent and humane thing is to take more than we are and be hospitable until the situation clears up, then they should be given the choice to go back. Most will. Most don't want to be here but they have no choice and are desperate for safety. There are also additional benefits which come from migration, our NHS is barely surviving and many people from these countries have a lot to give. Many are willing to do anything just to receive hospitality in return. This is a crisis, not everyone rushing in because it's nice here. People are losing their homes, family members, friends and sanity living in consistent war and terrorism. We all need to pull together better and frankly, the U.K. Government is an embarrassment in this situation.

Well your last sentence is just awful. "If they didn't kill Brits I really would not care". That speaks for itself, really.Interesting info about the recruitment and things. My case for refugees is that they are fleeing war and persecution. If this country was as blown to shreds like countries dealing with this in the Middle East and we began fleeing for our lives, we would expect everyone to take us. These people have no where to go. You don't just give all your money to a manipulative man, put your children or yourself in a rubber dinghy and go sailing across the ocean unless you're desperate. I never once claimed that this is exclusively the UK's problem, but compared to others who are carrying the burden we should be taking a greater load. It's simple humanity and we are NOT experiencing a population crisis. Countries like Lebanon, on the other hand, are. The last grand influx of immigrants occurred post-World War and statistically, there was more emigration than immigration. We should shelter these people and many want to go home ASAP because they love their country but it's blown to shreds. A decent and humane thing is to take more than we are and be hospitable until the situation clears up, then they should be given the choice to go back. Most will. Most don't want to be here but they have no choice and are desperate for safety. There are also additional benefits which come from migration, our NHS is barely surviving and many people from these countries have a lot to give. Many are willing to do anything just to receive hospitality in return. This is a crisis, not everyone rushing in because it's nice here. People are losing their homes, family members, friends and sanity living in consistent war and terrorism. We all need to pull together better and frankly, the U.K. Government is an embarrassment in this situation.

But both of these statements are absolutely false.
We have HUGE new trade deals with China which we agreed last year independently from the EU. Yes we can't negotiate our of tariff agreements, but by and large the EU negotiates a far better deal than we have ever done on the international trade front due to their much bigger clout. And with extremely low to no tariffs on EU goods, the UK consumer better off within the EU with respect to prices of EU goods sold in the UK.
As for providing state aid, not only is that not true in the sense that numerous UK markets have seen investment and help from the UK government (e.g. driverless tech has had large government support) but the type of state aid I'm guessing you are talking about (e.g. propping up Tata Steel) has been proven to be negative for the UK. Nick Craft and Christopher Wren I believe (an economic historian) have both written very good papers, and there is a paper commissioned by the government (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/future-manufacturing-impact-of-government-policies-since-1945) analysing government state intervention in the last 60 odd years and found that almost all large scale state intervention was "backing losers" rather than helping "young markets". In essence, where as support for driverless cars is helping a young market grow to potentially be a world leader, due to political pressure most of our state aid to markets in the past has been propping up failing markets like steel or coal, at a HUGE net loss to the UK.
And anyway, if we leave the EU we will undoubtedly join the WTO (unless you don't want to trade at all), which largely forbids large scale state aid of domestic markets due to the unfair competition disparity it brings between nations. And lots of the trade deals in the WTO are bilarteral and individual (although this is starting to change), so it isn't an exaggeration to say negotiating with every important country on every goods market will take years and more likely DECADES to do.

You can try to put these general comments like "we want control back" but generally, when you actually look into it, you find most of these comments are absolute rubbish

Why would you want to elect civil servants? We don't elect civil servants in Britain. If we did, we then need another lot of civil servants to carry out the work done by the civil servants we just elected like collecting taxes and issuing driving licences.

Well your last sentence is just awful. "If they didn't kill Brits I really would not care". That speaks for itself, really.Interesting info about the recruitment and things. My case for refugees is that they are fleeing war and persecution. If this country was as blown to shreds like countries dealing with this in the Middle East and we began fleeing for our lives, we would expect everyone to take us. These people have no where to go. You don't just give all your money to a manipulative man, put your children or yourself in a rubber dinghy and go sailing across the ocean unless you're desperate. I never once claimed that this is exclusively the UK's problem, but compared to others who are carrying the burden we should be taking a greater load. It's simple humanity and we are NOT experiencing a population crisis. Countries like Lebanon, on the other hand, are. The last grand influx of immigrants occurred post-World War and statistically, there was more emigration than immigration. We should shelter these people and many want to go home ASAP because they love their country but it's blown to shreds. A decent and humane thing is to take more than we are and be hospitable until the situation clears up, then they should be given the choice to go back. Most will. Most don't want to be here but they have no choice and are desperate for safety. There are also additional benefits which come from migration, our NHS is barely surviving and many people from these countries have a lot to give. Many are willing to do anything just to receive hospitality in return. This is a crisis, not everyone rushing in because it's nice here. People are losing their homes, family members, friends and sanity living in consistent war and terrorism. We all need to pull together better and frankly, the U.K. Government is an embarrassment in this situation.

Your case for refugees fleeing war is a valid case, but you do realise the more refugees who run- the less resources Syria will have to fight ISIS, the impact this will have on the war is ISIS will have more power and control over Syria which had one outcome, which is ISIS will gain territory. Syrians started running in 2011 over 6 million have fleed for Isis- this is where I am basing an argument 6 million syrians would beat a few thousand Isis militants with relative ease. A lot of people say that our airstrikes are forcing syrians to flee,as if we are deliberately bombing their houses of course this is incorrect we can only bomb ISIS target-they are co-ordinated airstrikes which implies their is some strategy behind the airstrikes. We have bombed ISIS's training resources where they recruit and train fighters and activists, destroying one of these is worth killing 100 civilians in a airstrike. We have also bomned oil resources which ISIS was selling to the turkish government (which some people want to join the Eu)
In terms of taking refugees in they will all need vetting, but I am not sire whether I would feel comfortable accepting refugees from Europe-If ISIS anticipated thousands running away they would shove some senior members if not leaders in the ISIS organisational structure. We should nt take any refugees in my opinion for the reasons outlayed in the previous sentence ,this would have a negative impact because if ISIS members are let in the chances of a terror attack goes higher and wirh the more ISIS members let in they will radicalise our muslims create a bigger problem-we cant deport home grown terrorists.
Interesting point about migration helping the NHS, infact I think its a hindrance the more people the NHS has to cater for the less funding per head the NHS has-im many cases migrants take from the NHS before paying into it,especially older migrants who if they come to the UK to work they may have 2 year at tops

If they are willing to do anything to come here make them do community service 40hrs a week until they get a job-that's if they can prove they are not in ISIS through our vetting system. Here in the UK we have our own housing crisis, extortionate prices weather you are renting or buying , there is a demand supply formula to house prices allowing thousands of syria refugees is going to add to demand whilst the supply is stagnant pushing the prices up. Thats unless we teach them to build houses ,then when the war is over they can help in the rebuild project. Normally I slate a tory government where I can but I cant criticise the in this situation. Many of our homeless fought in wars so in my opinion they are more entitled to a house then a refugee not sure if you agree

People are fleeing, yes. And I would argue to your next point about ISIS gaining territory that refusing displaced refugees leads to higher levels of human-trafficking and abductions. Many of these will also be at a greater risk of being indoctrinated, because what do they have to lose? These people are likely to be psychologically traumatised and damaged, the perfect breeding ground for extremist indoctrination. Interesting that you accept the surface info supplied to you about the air strikes being "controlled".

" The sheer pace of the strikes adds to the risk to civilians.....pre-planned missions made up approximately 10% of strikes. The vast majority are on “emerging targets”. In these strikes the targeting process takes “anywhere from minutes to hours depending on collateral damage concerns" (SOURCE: The Guardian) Most of these emerging targets are in cities, which is where civilians are - obviously. Poorly and quickly planned, leading to countless deaths and more bloodbaths - from the wrong side.

You say "destroying one base where they recruit and train fighters is worth killing 100 civilians in an air strike". Really? If you put a blowing up a single camp in perspective, against the international network of increasing indoctrination and underground ties.. That's barely a drop in the ocean. And for what? You really do put a low price on civilian deaths - the statistics have blinded you. How many more dead babies have to wash up on the shore before we take off our rose-tinted glasses? These are human beings - children, women, men. They have just as much of a right to life as you. And they have a right to run - God knows I would!

"If ISIS members were let in the chances of a terrorist attacks goes higher" - well yes. But out of the thousands and thousands of refugees that have rightly fled, how many have been part of a terrorist attack? One? Zero? Like I mentioned, they're home grown. They don't need to waste time and money and effort smuggling everyone across when there are plenty of vulnerable youths that are happy to join up.You're right in that we can't deport homegrown terrorists. So what do we do? We need to attack the heart of the issue, and that's the ideology and minds of the (mainly) young males in our countries. We need to provide centres where they can come off the streets and be given a shot at life. There are places like this in Brussels and they have been proven effective at battling the problem - if I recall correctly there were actually people in this youth centre who had considered extremism but were pulled out of the ideology thanks to the centre. We need to protect people, not bomb senselessly and actually aggravate the problem.

Just some info:
"The majority of asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and so must rely on state support.Housing is provided, but asylum seekers cannot choose where it is, and it is often ‘hard to let’ properties which Council tenants do not want to live in.Cash support is available, and is currently set at £36.95 per person, per week, which makes it £5.28 a day for food, sanitation and clothing." (SOURCE: Home Office)
They do not 'jump housing queues' as they do not get to choose where they live, which are often 'hard to let' properties. They are not paid for by the local council.

Additional facts:
• It is estimated that it costs around £25,000 to support a refugee doctor to practise in the UK. Training a new doctor is estimated to cost between £200,000 and £250,000 (source: http://www.nhsemployers.org/Aboutus/Publications/Pages/ReapingTheRewards.aspx - October 2009 NHS employers)

• The UK is home to less than 1% of the world’s refugees – out of more than 59.5 million forcibly displaced people worldwide. (Source: UNHCR Mid-Year Trends 2015)

• Immigrants, including refugees, pay more into the public purse compared to their UK born counterparts. (Source: Institute for Public Policy Research, Paying their way: the fiscal contribution of immigrants in the UK, 2005)

Hope this informed you a little bit!

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

http://www.cityam.com/assets/uploads/content/2015/08/uk-net-migration-immigration-emigration-net-migration-chartbuilder-55dedca135616.png

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/resources/chdltmigrationestimates_tcm77-354471.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/15/Countries_by_population_density.svg

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2006/09/images/picture1.gif

http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v293/n3/images/scientificamerican0905-48-I2.jpg

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/images/BP6_1/figure-1.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/United_Kingdom_foreign_born_population_by_country_of_birth.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/09/the-dividing-of-a-continent-africas-separatist-problem/262171/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generations#Genocide_debate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London

Keys points for me. Sort that out and then we can get back to sorting the rest of our country out.

Zionism? Stolen Generations? Forgive my ignorance, but what exactly do you propose?

The "good" ideas of the left on things like "diversity", "multiculturalism", "globalism" are becoming so extreme that they themselves are becoming racist and beginning to resemble atrocities of the past. There is a lot of hypocrisy on this subject. I don't understand how the cognitive dissonance of mainstream left has become so extreme.

This thread pretty much shows how weak the brexit argument is. They just use buzzwords and key phrases, no real substance in their arguments, even their precious red tape argument.