Merkel to ban migrants from getting benefits

[Himaginn]

So you are not in favour of the Canadian refugee / migrant model than ? i.e sponsorship of a migrant/refugee by individual citizens ?

And you will not be dipping your hand in your pocket ? to sponsor a migrant/refugee ?

(Its a rhetorical question)

Because there is no system available for any type of sponsoring refugees in UK, the question is also a hypothetical question. Therefore any answer would also be hypothetical.
So why bother asking hypothetical, rhetorical questions?

 

[noseall]

So you are not in favour of the Canadian refugee / migrant model than ? i.e sponsorship of a migrant/refugee by individual citizens

Sounds like a great idea for the wealthy. But what has it got to do with me?

 

[noseall]

So you are not in favour of the Canadian refugee / migrant model than ? i.e sponsorship of a migrant/refugee by individual citizens ?

And you will not be dipping your hand in your pocket ? to sponsor a migrant/refugee ?

(Its a rhetorical question)

I will if you will.

 

[noseall]

I'd bet that many of those voted Leave because they did not want to stay in an EU in its current form, with little likelihood of meaningful reform offered by arrogant and pompous career paper-pushers / trough-snouters like Juncker (who subsequently have been shown to have not had their fingers on the pulse of large numbers of the EU people; see Tusk's address to the EU Parliament about the need to reform the EU, after the Leave vote, and in (panic, knee-jerk?) response to other EU member states making their positions heard.)

Perception is reality; people voted on what they thought was the case. The Remainers should turn their scorn to the politicians who did such a shoite job of getting the "truth" out there, that Leave won.

Great speech, rousing. Are the outers gonna get their hand in their pockets? No, of course not. We will all suffer together.

 

[Brigadier]

Great speech, rousing. Are the outers gonna get their hand in their pockets? No, of course not. We will all suffer together.

Everyone was sharing the cost, whatever the outcome of the vote.

 

[JohnD]

Considerable scorn should be reserved for Lord Rothermere, the notorious tax-dodging billionaire chairman and controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail, who although British-Born of British parents, educated in Britain, and owning substantial British homes and a large country estate, as well as a British newspaper, is not a British taxpayer. His despicable rag is one of the main sources of anti-EU propaganda, much of it false. Both the newspaper and Rothermere's family have a shameful history.

As he is not a taxpayer, he will not be sharing the cost.

 

[Brigadier]

Considerable scorn should be reserved for Lord Rothermere, the notorious tax-dodging billionaire chairman and controlling shareholder of the Daily Mail, who although British-Born of British parents, educated in Britain, and owning substantial British homes and a large country estate, as well as a British newspaper, is not a British taxpayer. His despicable rag is one of the main sources of anti-EU propaganda, much of it false. Both the newspaper and Rothermere's family have a shameful history.

As he is not a taxpayer, he will not be sharing the cost.

Taking the above as correct, neither would he have been sharing any cost from staying in the EU then.

 

[noseall]

Everyone was sharing the cost, whatever the outcome of the vote.

Would you mind telling this to Transam. He doesn't quite get the cost sharing thing.

 

[transam]

Would you mind telling this to Transam. He doesn't quite get the cost sharing thing.

Cost ? assuming there is one

of course I understand , what do u take me for a complete idiot ?

(Incidentally its a rhetorical question)

 

[noseall]

of course I understand , what do u take me for a complete idiot ?

I doubt you will ever make a complete idiot.

 

[noseall]

Cost ? assuming there is one

Yes cost. You turned this post (rather unskillfully - post no 6) from a migrant thing into a refugee thing and they cost the taxpayer money. You then asked me directly if I would personally like to contribute, imagining that I am in favour of them coming to the UK, citing Canada's example of sponsoring.
I'm happy to contribute through my taxes just like anyone else.


Am I making myself clear?

 

[transam]

Yes cost. You turned this post (rather unskillfully - post no 6) from a migrant thing into a refugee thing and they cost the taxpayer money. You then asked me directly if I would personally like to contribute, imagining that I am in favour of them coming to the UK, citing Canada's example of sponsoring.
I'm happy to contribute through my taxes just like anyone else.


Am I making myself clear?

Blimey & there was me thinking u were in favour of all this immigration caper.

 

[transam]

I doubt you will ever make a complete idiot.

Hmmmm

( I will have to think about that response )

 

[noseall]

Blimey & there was me thinking u were in favour of all this immigration caper.

You are not alone. The RWR often make the same mistake. Just because you present an argument that discredits or ridicules their point of view, they automatically assume that you must be in favour of the opposing argument.
Apparently I'm a pro-Muslim, pro-immigration hand wringing liberal.

You (for example) are not a complete idiot. I know your are far from complete.

 

[gasbanni]

What a stupid post.

That Merkel is banning EU migrants from benefits for five years ?