“No, but we need to look at why people cross borders”

To improve their lot. It’s a shocking state of affairs when a Polish graduate can come and earn more here doing a service role than they can at home as a graduate. This is a major failing of the EU, who have seen fit to interfere in all sorts of irrelevant aspects of our lives, but have done nothing to encourage broad wage equalisation across the bloc. We are of course the first choice destination for many, due to our language and relatively low unemployment. Migrants don’t come for benefits on the whole, but that doesn’t mean they (some) aren’t getting them. We have every right to dissuade people from coming here if they aren’t contributing, and those on lower wages are a net drain on the treasury.

Unfortunately, the EU are too consumed with furthering their aspiration of Federalism, and so it is in their best interests to have people moving around as much as possible (the environment be damned), and their corporate paymasters love the cheap labour. Because of this, it will never change.

Peoples freedom of movement is an irrelevance next to protecting the environment.

There are invisible, natural borders everywhere, the diversity of life on this planet is evidence of this. We also have a very visible natural barrier, called the English Channel and the North Sea.

What you are suggesting is deeply irresponsible. Say we keep this record inward migration for another 10 years, that’s an extra 3.3 million people (5% population growth in 10 years!), and then the UK faces a deep economic crash, and many millions of these migrants decide to migrate to somewhere more prosperous. We would have spent hundreds of billions on housing and infrastructure to support this population growth, only for it to be unused. We would have caused devastating damage to our greenbelt, for absolutely no reason. This scenario isn’t just possible, but likely to happen somewhere within the EU at some point.

There have to be limits if we are to have an environmentally sustainable population, and IMO that has to be our main priority, not feeding and housing all who would come.

Ask anyone who has been up there. The odd thing about the earth from space is that those lines we put on maps don’t exist.

What I am getting at is first principles. We define our nations’ boundaries. If you say that economically Europe works as one nation, then from a local (English) point of view one set of conditions – including available workforce and its cost – will pertain. Draw your boundary differently – ie England as an economic entity, not all of Europe, then a different set of conditions (higher wages, fewer willing or available to take on low-paid jobs) will pertain. A different equilibrium. But both are equilibria for the system.

It’s about perspective – geographical and historical. Its where you want to draw boundaries for any particular human activity – like work. Just wanted to highlight that, I am not saying one is right and one is wrong. But why is it right for English northerners to get on their bikes and look for work, but not alright for Poles? Is it because one is ‘us’ and one is ‘them’? What else is there?

So, how do you explain different cultures, languages, skin colours etc? Not everything that exists and is necessary is visible to the naked eye, as the oxygen you’re currently breathing in will attest 😉

“Take away those foreign nationals, what will happen?”

The market would find equilibrium. Either the farmer would stop farming, or they would have to offer greater pay / benefits to entice staff. Saturating the labour market with cheap foreign workers is the epitome of the ‘i’m alright jack’ mindset. If jobs aren’t attractive to UK residents, and they are filled with foreign workers on minimum wage (or less), it shows that our society is happy to exploit people, so long as the consumer gets cheap products. I would rather pay more, get less, and have the satisfaction of knowing that the people through the supply chain were being paid fairly.

I suspect UKIP will lose their seat, and I think the party will now enter a long period of decline, as May sticks the knife in by setting a red line on migration in the EU talks, effectively forcing a hard Brexit. Good riddance to them, they were only ever a one trick pony – calling the EU out on its many flaws.

My point was that anyone who has the ability to be fair and impartial about politics cannot deny that Nigel Farage has been a success. His goal has always been to get Britain out of the EU, and by his direct and indirect actions, has achieved that, while displacing a long established party (Lib Dems) from 3rd place in British politics (by votes). I would suggest that many more than the 4m UKIP voters are very interested in what he has to say about the EU. I know lots of people who would never vote for UKIP, but who agree with Farages views on the EU.

Displaying ‘as is’ in an open, indoor tank would be a spectacular thing to see.

One thing is for certain, if it stays where it is it will be destroyed by a combination of the sea and scavengers.

Presumably the surplus parts/ sections are either kept or passed on in small bits, as the owners of the new build aircraft wouldn’t want anyone contesting the validity of the aircrafts ID.