Article 50

Been to Dublin. Another busy European city with young people and some middle aged, from all over Europe. Some of them tourists, some of them working. Felt sad.

Still gives him plenty of time to hamper the Brexit negotiations in any way he can, though...

I see that jean claude junker has seen the writing on the wall: he's not going to run for office again in 2019. He announced it on a radio programme that's going to be aired in Germany on Sunday.
is he getting worried about France and Holland?

Merited = inherited ( sorry)

I think it might be difficult to discuss this without it sounding wrong but my take would be nothing to do with banning marriages but to do with genetic counselling and if wished the option of genetic screening of embryos prior to implantation. This happens already with several merited conditions and is completely voluntary of course but people do take the option up. If people know hey run a significant risk of having a child that will not reach adulthood and during their limited lives will suffer pain and multiple disabilities, what is wrong with offering them genetic screening and the choice of the screening? It would only be wrong if it were compulsory and NI one is suggesting that

I don't need to. I think that calling them foreign is far more acceptable.
My EU born daughters in law know that they are foreigners in this country. Calling them alien is another thing entirely.

Durhamjen
Perhaps you should check the dictionary definition of 'alien'

It's smoke and mirrors dj try confusing people as much as you can to deflect from a reality which is unpredictable, scary and probably disastrous.

I think we agree, trisher.
My husband did not discover until he was 60 that he had a disease that was potentially inheritable, by which time we not only had two children, but four grandchildren.

Again, nothing to do with Article 50, and one wonders at the reason for conflating the two.

@Ana sometimes when the contents of a deleted post are repeated , subsequent posts are deleted too. I can only assume this was not exactly the case here.

Looking at the first graph, I had a 9% risk of my eldest son having a birth defect as I was a teenager when he was born.
First cousins having a child only has a 1.5% risk.
Perhaps we should legislate against teenagers having children?

If we are going down the route of banning or preventing marriages because of possible genetic abnormalities which may or may not occur in the children of such marriages we are on very dodgy ground. I wonder how many on GN have a child or grandchild with what might be described as an 'abnormality' that was probably inherited? Even with genetic counselling the decision to have a child when there is evidence of inherited problems is a difficult one. My disabled friends would argue that there is nothing wrong with them and it is society that needs to change to accommodate their needs.

www.cousincouples.com/?page=overview

Not nearly as risky as other factors for which there is no legislation.
Interesting tables here, Rigby.
Perhaps some people have an interest in the risk being thought to be worse than it is.

Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with article 50, though. Just a strange way to try and keep immigrants out.

Why was Joelsnan's post deleted? Everything she mentioned in it has been referred to in subsequent posts by others.

Very odd.

I advisable = inadvisable

The issues of FGM and children with very severe disabilities born because of consanguineous marriages are very serious with heartbreaking consequences for those concerned. We are talking about FGM and of course legislated against it a long while ago but it still clearly is a problem. It is being talked about far more than it was and there are various iniatives with schools and so on. Consanguineous marriages are of course quite legal but in some, not all cases, genetically I advisable.DJ , the figures you give are I think only relevant to all such marriages across the board - the % is much greater I believe ( will try and find the link) when there are several generations involved - for example a child of such a marriage marries another child of such a marriage and they then have children. The % would go up again if those children then had children IYSWIM. Areas affected are trying very hard to encourage genetic counselling etc but it's clearly a hard slog to bring about change. I do think it needs to be discussed in a very calm and unemotive way so that it doesn't feed racist outbursts and my understanding is that a lot of work is being done to address the issue as the suffering of the children and parents is very great

700 altogether or 700 from consanguineous marriage?
How does stopping immigration prevent that?
The risk of having a disabled child is 2-3%. The risk of having one consanguineously is 5-6%, so twice as high.
Why do we need to talk about it? What do we need to say to stop it?

joelsnan Consanguineous marriage, now you really are entering a ' no go area'
Do you remember when Ann Cryer, the MP for kieghly received abuse for stating that this must be talked about. The cost to the NHS because of this practise is horrendous.
It is estimated that 700 disabled children are born every year.
But 'we' still can't talk about it. But I think that things will change: go back a few years and 'we' couldn't talk about immigration. This is the last taboo.

Sorry, Joelsnan, you've lost me. When have I said that FGM is okay because there's an economic benefit from those who practice it here?
It is actually illegal in the UK, as are all the other practices you cite.
I don't need to travel more to know what they are but they are illegal and anyone practising them should go to court and possibly jail.
I think the word illegal is preferable to alien. No point in making people feel more alienised than they already do.

Joelsnan 15.34

"Did anyone watch the BBC2 programme last night, 9:00pm...After Brexit: The Battle for Europe."

It was very interesting and as you quite rightly say :-

"A very interesting programme which gives a wider perspective to the Brexit arguments."

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

From Jonathan Portes.

ukandeu.ac.uk/another-debate-on-immigration-how-about-starting-with-the-facts/

I can't recall seeing anything about Tuesday having been the 25th anniversary of the Maastricht treaty.
Here's an interesting article about it.

ukandeu.ac.uk/unhappy-anniversary-maastricht-25-years-on/

fullfact.org/immigration/how-immigrants-affect-public-finances/

"Alien culture practices"?

Sorry, but we are not the Empire now, although some obviously still think so.