***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 70 *****
IMPORTANT - PLEASE READ
Before discussions start in this thread, I would like to point out that any petty arguments, personal attacks, or any other infringement of house rules, etc. will be deleted where we feel fit from now on.
We will not give notice that we have deleted something. Nor will we enter into discussion why something was deleted. That will also be deleted.
It seems that discussion about Brexit brings out the worst in some people.
Be nice, Play nice, and control your temper. Your co-operation would be appreciated.
Dave.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 4 Dec 18 at 01:41
|
|
One for Brexiteers: www.westmonster.com/
|
>> One for Brexiteers: www.westmonster.com/
Like most of the pro-Brexit sites you and Roger send us to it's full of tendentious rubbish. Can't you actual find some hard facts?
Headline story on Westmonster is from Yeovil MP Marcus Fysh and May's deal being end of democracy. His entry on Wikipedia includes a quote that "Fysh was arrogant and smug, and showed "impenetrable stupidity".
|
With all the uncertainty about Brexit and the future arrangements, there are a few positives in the what they used to call the Humberside area which names the locals hated here. It is East Yorkshire again and the East Riding area.
Siemens a massive German company is building a brand new factory in Goole.They will be producing trains for the London area.Also they are manufacturing a windfarm of the East coast in the North Sea.
This company must be positive about the future they wouldn't be investing money in the U.K.
Immingham is taking more cargo from the continent and Hull Docks added container ships from Belgium.What we are lacking here is proper road infrastructure to carry all the extra heavy goods traffic.
There is talk about a motorway link to the Humber Bridge but talk is cheap get it done.Also make the bridge toll free which would help business on both sides of the river.Have you noticed how we are linked to Europe and these ports always have been.People need jobs decent housing and good healthcare.Population here is mostly white British but the vote was strong Brexit strange.
|
>> Siemens a massive German company is building a brand new factory in Goole.They will be
>> producing trains for the London area.
A few years ago train building in UK seemed under threat. Bombardier at Derby lost an order to (I think) Siemens and there was a massive hoo-hah. Since then it's been de-riguer for bidders to promise to build, or at least assemble, trains in UK.
Danger now is we have too many plants.......
|
>>Population here is mostly white British but the vote was strong Brexit strange.
Another oddity. Lots of the most Brexity areas are relatively untouched by immigration whether of white or brown/black people.
Fear of being next to be 'invaded' is worse than reality.
|
Cave man stuff. If you don't know the people from the other nearby caves and aren't familiar with their accents and customs, you fear and mistrust them. Only when you realise that they are pretty similar to you, you then realise that forming a bigger, allied community, is to your mutual advantage.
Villages form, in turn they team up with other villages and become towns, kingdoms, even countries eventually.
Even at country level, you fear and mistrust the other countries and conflicts arise. Then the countries decide to join forces to strengthen their links and reduce the conflicts of interest, the strong ones protect the weak ones and the alliances work reasonably well.
Until, those of the population still inclined to think like cave men, get stirred up by self serving leaders who use them and play on their fears, mistrust and prejudices, to further their own careers...
But social evolution, like flowing water, has a tendency to follow the line of least resistance, and in due course it will start to flow in the direction of cooperation rather than isolationism again.
Just a pity that there are those who would build a dam in the meanwhile.
|
>> Another oddity. Lots of the most Brexity areas are relatively untouched by immigration whether of white or brown/black people.
I don't find it odd - it is normal (though counter intuitive).
Situation A: 1 brown + 1 black person in a bus + 18 native people.
Situation B: 5 brown + 5 black + 10 native people in a bus
In situation A, 18 people would think their town is full of immigrants. They think they can change it.
In situation B, 10 people will shrug shoulders and accept this as new normal. They can't be bothered anymore.
So in short, the "psychological" impact of immigration is much higher in areas with lower immigration.
|
If I live for a million years I swear I will never understand why the colour of skin is perceived to be important by some.
Or why some people think it is indicative of anything in particular.
|
>> If I live for a million years I swear I will never understand why the
>> colour of skin is perceived to be important by some.
Same as the language you speak or the school you went to, or the valley or village in which you grew up. To a cosmopolitan chap like you who has travelled the world and mixed with countless others, it is of no import.
Just ask the Sentinelese what they think about immigrants. www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/missionary-india-tribe-killing-police-face-off-allen-chau--10966798
|
>>Same as the language you speak or the school you went to, or the valley or village in which you grew up.
I see your point, but colour is quite different.
Colour is an indicator of nothing. Not value, not character, not nationality, nothing. It doesn't even mean that you are an immigrant or a native.
Caring about it is stupid. Treating colour as part of a value judgement is ridiculous. I don't have words for how ridiculous it is, or what I think of people who do it.
|
I've said before that anything which distinguishes a specific group of people can and is often used to group people and paint them with the same brush. Some people would do it to be humorous, and certainly not meaning any offence, but others are often harbouring genuine prejudices.
For instance, as we're on a motoring forum:
Taxi drivers
Women drivers
Volvo drivers
Drivers wearing specific headgear e.g. flat caps, baseball caps or turbans
Lorry drivers
Delivery drivers
German car drivers
Young drivers
Old drivers
Cyclists
Skin colour is just another way to readily group people and make them a target for prejudice.
|
>> I will never understand why the colour of skin is perceived to be important by some.
I remember a phrase that a colleague used to use whenever colour came into the conversation.
"We're all pink inside".
|
>> I will never understand why the colour of skin is perceived to be important by some.
Why there is need for ethnic diversity survey on almost anything nowadays?
|
A SHORT HISTORY OF BRITAIN AND THE EU
UK: We want a rebate on the fees.
EU: OK.
UK: We don't want to be in the Euro.
EU: OK.
UK: We don't want to be in Shengen.
EU: OK.
UK: We want a restriction on benefits until people have worked here for some time.
EU: OK.
UK: We want to stop child benefit being paid for children who aren't in the UK.
EU: OK.
UK: We want to kick out people who come here but don‘t work and can't afford to support themselves.
EU: That's fine, you already can.
UK: We want loads of preferential treatment that other countries don't get.
EU: Errr, we can‘t really give that without everyone agreeing.
UK: Don't give us what we want and we'll leave.
EU: That's a bit of an over-reaction, but your choice.
UK: OK we're leaving.
EU: Bye then.
UK: Now that we're leaving, we want all the things we had before.
EU: Errr, no, it doesn't work like that.
UK: Don't give us what we want and we'll leave with nothing.
EU: [Scratches head] OK, umm, well, yeah.
UK: We're serious, we'll walk away with nothing to teach you a lesson.
EU: Bye (again).
|
>> Why there is need for ethnic diversity survey on almost anything nowadays?
Questions about ethnicity look at much more than skin colour.
|
It is indirectly about skin color though. If you look at the questions and replace Asian with brown, then you will understand my point.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_ethnicity_in_the_United_Kingdom
I am asking why there is even need for collecting these statistics.
|
>> I am asking why there is even need for collecting these statistics.
Working at the moment, will try and reply later.
|
>> Working at the moment, will try and reply later.
As an advice agency we gather information on client's ethnicity. It's done via a tick box on a form that also covers things like disability and housing status. Mainly used anonymised for statistical purposes. Our funders might, for example, want us to show our client base reflected the diversity of the local populace.
It can also help focus on particular issues. let's suppose, hypothetically, there was a perception that people of British nationality but with Asian (Indian) ethnicity were persistently victims of underpayment by a particular local employer. Surely it would be useful to have some statistics to back that up?
Do you differ from that proposition?
Answers to the question have no bearing on the advice we give. The only exception might be where there is a recognised body which helps particular (usually minority) groups. In my hypothetical example above 'signposting' to the local branch of the Indian Workers Association would be such an example.
|
>>
>>
>> Do you differ from that proposition?
>>
Put like that, with that example, it's difficult to disagree.
But it's when viewed as a generality, with no specific purpose, that people can be a bit resentful. I remember some years ago my employer introduced ethnicity questions for all staff. These weren't anonymous, it went down in our personnel files.
Most people seemed quite content just to tick the boxes without giving it too much thought.
I objected on principle - this is a free country and it is irrelevant what my race happens to be.
My only supporter was a black South African, recently escaped from apatheid, who got very upset. He had just come from a country with racial laws where he was subject to such classification and pass laws, and thought he had come to a place of freedom.
It was ironic that we were united, from two extreme ends of the colour spectrum.
Nothing every happened - I have a feeling staff section simply marked the forms anyway, which was pretty obvious.
|
It is a balance. When such data is used to me4asure or monitor behaviour it is mostly a good thing. Where it is used to drive behaviour it is typically a bad thing.
In both cases it is misused by the myopically obsessed.
I was once dealing with a very pompous and self-satisfied group of senior managers who were almost bursting with pride over their success at recruiting 35% non-white out of an application group which was 20% non-white in a catchment area which was 10% non-white.
They couldn't see the problem.
|
>> They couldn't see the problem.
Without further indications as to e.g. the suitability of the applicants for the jobs, nor can we...
|
>>Without further indications as to e.g. the suitability of the applicants for the jobs, nor can we...
Bless. Well, don't worry too much.
|
Actually, neither can I.
Surely if we concentrated on a person's qualifications and suitability for a job, or in fact anything, instead of their country of origin or the colour of their skin, wouldn't the world be a better place?
It would run far more efficiently and any prejudice would eventually die.
Pat
|
>>Surely if we concentrated on a person's qualifications and suitability for a job, or in fact anything instead of their country of origin or the colour of their skin, wouldn't the world be a
better place?
Exactly correct. Now what was the information given to me concentrating on? Suitability for the job or colour?
Were they proud that they had got the best people for the jobs?
Or were they proud of the figures not related to that and entirely centred on colour?
|
>> Surely if we concentrated on a person's qualifications and suitability for a job, or in
>> fact anything, instead of their country of origin or the colour of their skin, wouldn't
>> the world be a better place?
One would like to think it worked that way. The reality is different.
Let's assume we take it as a given that possession of qualifications and ability to meet competency qualifications for job are equally dispersed between genders and races.*
It's still almost certainly the case that a selection panel will, albeit perhaps subconsciously, appoint people like themselves. White males will appoint white males. That's why you need monitoring and targets.
*There may be instances where this is not the case. An example I'm familiar with is appointment of judges. Aspiring candidates for High Court will be (mostly) barristers of 20+ years standing. If the bar in 1990 was biased towards recruiting public school males then that will reflect in pool of those in scope for appointment today.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 29 Nov 18 at 18:51
|
>> Nothing every happened - I have a feeling staff section simply marked the forms anyway,
>> which was pretty obvious.
Civil Service started gathering information on ethnicity long before I retired; late nineties/early noughties? It was recorded on my staff file but only used in aggregated/anonymised form for stats etc. Pretty sure there was an option to refuse. There was the usual hoo-haa from the usual 'awkward squad' about disclosing but it soon became just another piece of data.
Didn't turn a hair when CA pre-employment questionnaire asked.
Can quite understand your SA colleagues reticence though. While I trust those holding the information not to abuse it those with a very different background are entitled to come to a different conclusion.
Under GDPR Ethnicity is 'special category data' the recording of which requires explicit consent. People attending the drop in have to tick a box for this and sign. Those using the telephone service are asked verbally.
In four years I've seen i think one form where client refused to answer question.
One of my former colleagues is British but of Indian heritage. Privately educated she has a cut glass accent/delivery. Asking an elderly female client over phone to describe her ethnicity and got answer 'White British my dear - same as you'
|
No news on the 48 signatures for some time, in spite of increasingly widespread rejection of May's deal propsal. I wonder why that is?
|
Depends which newspaper you read...
This is the Daily Mail. I believe it no more than I believe any other paper, but lots of people read it. Difficult to say how much the DM is an influencer and how much a reflector. But it's an expert and aligning itself with it's readership one way or the other.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6435545/British-people-Mays-Brexit-deal-exclusive-poll-finds.html
So, which "increasingly widespread rejection" are you referring to? I suspect you mean talked about more and more by your chosen and about 4 politicians.
Echo chambers are dangerous places but we all fall into them from time to time.
Polls are often rubbish, but this will give people pause for thought, I should think.
|
>> No news on the 48 signatures for some time, in spite of increasingly widespread rejection
>> of May's deal propsal. I wonder why that is?
Because they only summoned up about 24 signatures, falling well short. No-one is prepared to stand up as Leader at this moment in time, so they all balked at calling for a leadership ballot.
Still its shut Rees Mog up, he is now acting like a badly deflated gasbag, sorry balloon.
|
Chabuddy G from "People Just Do Nothing" on BBC2 gives his opinion of TM's deal:
twitter.com/i/status/1067833868756099073
|
To selectively quote from this article
Osborne also used a visit to B&Q’s head office to predict a “Do-It-Yourself” recession as a result of a Leave vote. He prophesised falling house prices .......
.....Needless to say, none of this spine-chilling nonsense came to pass."
www.theguardian.com/business/2018/aug/31/uk-house-prices-record-biggest-month-on-month-fall-in-six-years
So is it really project fear (as brexieers like to call unpalatable facts) or is it Brexiteer fake news?
|
|
Or is it the result of uncertainty - more likely. Whether Brexit will, in the long term, be a good thing or a bad thing nobody will ever know. What is without doubt is that the uncertainty around Brexit is a bad thing.
|
If Brexit uncertanty is causing house price to fall, then I consider it as good thing.
This is also a reason why Leavers and Remainers won't ever agree on whether Brexit is good or bad - because these good/bad is often relative to individuals.
|
>> If Brexit uncertanty is causing house price to fall, then I consider it as good
>> thing.
>>
>> This is also a reason why Leavers and Remainers won't ever agree on whether Brexit
>> is good or bad - because these good/bad is often relative to individuals.
House prices falling or rising is neither here nor there, it was merely an example of fake news. From Brexiteers as well as remainers.
|
>> If Brexit uncertanty is causing house price to fall, then I consider it as good
>> thing.
>>
>> This is also a reason why Leavers and Remainers won't ever agree on whether Brexit
>> is good or bad - because these good/bad is often relative to individuals.
>>
Yes, as you have said before on this forum .
Don't expect many new business start ups if the do fall as banks lend on equity .
|
>> If Brexit uncertanty is causing house price to fall, then I consider it as good
>> thing.
According to Which Magazine you can currently get a 95% mortgage in the UK. If you can get it, then it's a safe bet that many people have.
What do you think happens if house prices fall 7%?
What do you think happens to people if have 95% mortgages? People who would like to get 95% mortgages? What happens to House Sales? What happens to people's willingness to move up the chain? Since it's all driven by market uncertainty, what happens to mortgage availability? What %age mortgage is now available? People's credit ratings? Ability to by other major purchases? Other industries? etc. etc. etc.
Willingness/ability to start a new business? Business finance availability? Consumer market instability or shrinkage?
So how is uncertainty causing prices to fall conceivably a good thing?
Lower prices may be a good thing, under certain circumstances in a certain environment, but falling prices caused by uncertainty? Not.
|
www.bbc.com/news/business-46395379
Tell me again about how the WTO is the solution? Seems like there is as much chaos there as anywhere.
Interesting perspective on UK Trade though.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Fri 30 Nov 18 at 14:00
|
Aren't trade wars the prelude to real wars where people blow each other to pieces for a good cause?
Sometimes when I listen to Trump with his jibberish nonsense there much be very powerfull people putting him up to this or allow him to carry on.Bush used stumble his way through.
If half our trade is with the E.U and tariffs are put up after a no deal of course it will affect jobs.
Proper sincere Brexiteers don't care about that they want sovereignty back no matter what the cost.and they are entitled to their view.
If we ever start proper dealings with the U.S.A we will know who rules what.Just a small excample our Dentistry has been taken over by a U.S.company.
Waiting times have doubled to many patients and not enough dentist because so many have left.
|
Exchange rate question directed to people with bigger brains than myself! Early January I need to pay €2100 for our villa rental commencing February. Depending on the impending Brexit deal vote in Parliament on Dec 11th, does the panel think I should pay now or wait until the due date in January?
We might only be talking a few bottles of gin difference, and the lemons are free, but nonetheless.
|
If anybody genuinely knows the answer I expect they will be too busy counting their billions on their yacht in the Bahamas to be reading this forum.
I guess it all depends on whether you like certainty - pay now, or like a bit of a gamble - wait.
|
|
Quite so. Divided between us, it’s less than €13 pppn for the duration, so I don’t envisage any huge fluctuation in our daily overheads when taking into account beer, wine, gin and curry ( there are 3 excellent curry houses within walking distance).
Last edited by: legacylad on Fri 30 Nov 18 at 20:09
|
Why not a Norway-style Brexit?
betterbrexit.org.uk/
|
Amongst other issues, because legally EFTA and Norway are subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Various people make much of the fact that it is rarely used, which is true, but nonetheless that is the legal position. And TM, as well as many originally on the Leave side of things, say that ECJ jurisdiction is an absolutely no-no.
Also, Norway is part of the ECAA (The Aviation agreement allowing planes to fly throughout Europe) and the ECAA is also subject to ECJ jurisdiction. In fact it is a condition of membership. Which TM et al have also stated is 100% unacceptable.
There's other examples, also.
In any case, that link you point to says that we should accept the transition agreement but renegotiate the political statement. I agree with the first, I do not understand the second. There is little in that article which is contradicted by the Political Statement.
Well, there is one thing; The Political Statement states that Freedom of Movement must and will stop. The article you point to insists that it must continue.
Is that the bit you think should be renegotiated?
Other than that though, brilliant idea.
|
|
Would you consider the Norway option preferable to the May/Robbins deal.
|
I think defining a future "deal" at this point is a mistake.
We have the transition agreement. Honestly the most important thing about that agreement is that it comes with a transition period. And we so desperately need that.
I think we should stop trying to find an easy route by just looking for someone we can copy.
We should work out what *WE* want to be. We should not hamstring ourselves with statements about the ECJ, FoM, Northern Ireland, EFTA, EU membership, Canada, agriculture or fisheries policies or anything else.
We should write our own Political Statement which gives an overview of where *we* want to be and how *we* want things to be.
And then we should use the transition period, and longer if we need it, to go from here to there.
Not seek EU membership, not run from every involvement. Not seek ECJ jurisdiction, or ban it, but understand where it is useful and where it is not. To what degree FoM is good and to what it is bad. To what degree product alignment is good or bad.
etc. etc.
And if he EU wants a close relationship with us, then they will have to work with us to achieve that future point. And if we want a close relationship with the EU, then we need to acknowledge that.
IMO what we *NEED* is a transition period and then the political freedom to negotiate the future *we* want.
And it seems to be that the TM transition deal is the best shot we have of getting that.
The threat is not the EU. The big, major, show-stopping threat is our own self-serving politicians playing the whole game for their own benefit and our electorate not taking an open-minded approach.
|
I got sent this the other day
www.craigwhittaker.org.uk/news/draft-withdrawal-agreement-vote-brexit
Seemed quite a pragmatic and realistic viewpoint of the current situation, to me anyway. Nice to read someone in the HoC that's not kicking up a fuss to get on tv.
|
Oh I like him and his views. Excellent pointer.
|
>> Oh I like him and his views. Excellent pointer.
I agree, odd use of the word 'poignant', I think he meant 'pertinent', but otherwise spot on and very comprehensible.
It's not a brilliant deal, because the deal hasn't been struck yet, but nothing is ruled out by it if the relevant parties agree. Whilst we shouldn't kid ourselves that everybody's red lines can stand forever, let alone that we can keep the halfpenny, and get the bun plus the shirts off their backs, it allows UK to resign from the EU without leaving an immediate void which is the minimum we need to achieve by March.
I never thought red lines were especially helpful in negotiations anyway. There will always be some things that can never be agreed to in any negotiation but they are usually obvious; otherwise there are usually very few that can be ruled out unconditionally. In fact I would bet that some Brexit 'red lines' will be crossed conditionally on both sides to find solutions.
I've bust a good few of other parties' red lines myself in the past. 'Right of termination', the more nuclear the better, is often a good one to concede there. It saves face on the other side even when they know that they would never use it, for fear of blowing themselves up. Not sure that will work here, but you get the drift - there's a price for everything, and sometimes the price can be a fig leaf if it gets somebody out of a corner they have painted themselves into.
I think that if we knew where to look, we'd find quite a lot of buried clauses in existing treaties that, from a legal perspective, turn long-standing arrangements into "at will" agreements.
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 1 Dec 18 at 16:01
|
>> Oh I like him and his views. Excellent pointer.
>>
>>
I wish he was my MP, we've got one of the 'look at me!' brigade. *Sigh*
|
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNh3312dTtA
The voice of reason and exactly what I thought I was signing up for when I voted to join the Common Market.
Pat
|
|
Except that you didn't, of course. (Vote to join the Common Market, that is.)
|
I most certainly did.
Pat
|
|
I think he's trying to say, in a round about way, there was no vote to join the common market. The vote was to stay in or not, we were already in when the vote took place.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 07:34
|
It seemed a completely straightforward way to say it.
Unless you were an MP at the time you didn't have a vote whether to join The Common Market, or not.
|
I know exactly what he's *trying* to say Sooty, thanks:)
My reply is correct too because in my (and most) constituencies at the time, this is the question we were asked, the one that appeared on all the leaflets, and on the never-ending party political broadcasts.
....at least it was in the industrial Midlands, of course, it may have been defined differently to the affluent Southerners.
Pat
|
>> ....at least it was in the industrial Midlands, of course, it may have been defined
>> differently to the affluent Southerners.
>>
>> Pat
Your feelings of bitterness and self pity have surfaced again.
|
>> Your feelings of bitterness and self pity have surfaced again.
Why do you say that?
The North/South divide may not have been as great in the seventies as now but it was certainly present.
The West Riding, even in the relatively affluent suburbs of Leeds, was a very different place to Surrey.
|
>> >> Your feelings of bitterness and self pity have surfaced again.
>>
>> Why do you say that?
Because of the context in the way it was used.
|
Try looking at the context you read remarks Z, and try keeping an open mind.
No bitterness, no self-pity whatsoever.
Have you ever thought that we don't envy affluent Southerners anymore than you envy more down to earth Midlanders or even the salt of the earth Northerners.
We're all just as proud of our roots and are able to appreciate a bit of banter......that is if you live North of Watford.
Pat
|
>> Try looking at the context you read remarks Z, and try keeping an open mind.
>>
>> No bitterness, no self-pity whatsoever.
>>
>> Have you ever thought that we don't envy affluent Southerners anymore than you envy more
>> down to earth Midlanders or even the salt of the earth Northerners.
So why the "affluent southerners" then, a remark completely out of context.
Sorry doesent wash.
|
Simple, Southerners are more affluent....would you argue that point?
Pat
|
No, on the whole they are, but what has that got to do with Brexit. You do know my "affluent" (very affluent ward 8th most affluent in the country) voted leave?
So given that it has nothing to do with brexit, why did you deem fit to bring it up? I surmise only because you are in some way feeling inferior or resentful.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 13:03
|
>> Simple, Southerners are more affluent....would you argue that point?
As a generalisation perhaps true but Zero's from the East End.......
|
>> I know exactly what he's *trying* to say Sooty, thanks:)
>>
>> My reply is correct too because in my (and most) constituencies at the time, this is the question we were asked, the one that appeared on all the leaflets, and
>> on the never-ending party political broadcasts.
>>
You felt it was 'sold' as a join or not, even though we were already in at the time ?
|
>> You felt it was 'sold' as a join or not, even though we were already
>> in at the time ?
Pat may refer to 1970 GE when the Conservative promise was to negotiate our entry?
|
>>
>> You felt it was 'sold' as a join or not, even though we were already
>> in at the time ?
>>
In a sense that was true, because "In" has had a steadily evolving meaning as the institution has developed.
One of the beefs the Eurosceptics have is that the final "in" is deeper than the one they thought they were joining (or voted to stay in).
Some people could quite reasonably have voted "stay in" in 1975 meaning they were happy with it as it is. Others might have voted "stay in" meaning they agreed with the moving stairway of progresive integration, the Euro, and ultimate political unity.
|
Yes, it most certainly was Sooty, and remember we were not as savvy back then and didn't have the internet to research stuff.
We believed what we read in the local and national press, we listened to what the local MP said when he knocked at the door and we believed that too....we had no reason not to.
Pat
|
>> Yes, it most certainly was Sooty, and remember we were not as savvy back then
>> and didn't have the internet to research stuff.
>>
>> We believed what we read in the local and national press, we listened to what
>> the local MP said when he knocked at the door and we believed that too....we
>> had no reason not to.
That we would be dragged up from the sick man of europe (remember that phrase? a reality carefully forgotten by some) to one of the most wealthy and influential in europe?
He was right, you did well to listen to him
|
>> Yes, it most certainly was Sooty, and remember we were not as savvy back then
>> and didn't have the internet to research stuff.
>>
>> We believed what we read in the local and national press, we listened to what
>> the local MP said when he knocked at the door and we believed that too....we had no reason not to.
interesting, so fair to say, as far as you know, there was little awareness that we were already in the common market?
|
Absolutely, certainly not in Leicestershire where I lived at the time and not among the working classes.
Pat
|
>> We believed what we read in the local and national press, we listened to what
>> the local MP said when he knocked at the door and we believed that too....we
>> had no reason not to.
>>
>>
Hadn’t TV and Radio been invented then? Was not there a rather broader spectrum of Newspaper opinion than there is is now.? Is not the internet probably the worse place to seek balanced opinion?
Blaming the media seems a rather poor excuse.
|
>> www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNh3312dTtA
>>
>> The voice of reason and exactly what I thought I was signing up for when
>> I voted to join the Common Market.
>>
>> Pat
The voice of reason is the spokesman for the AFD
The AFD has been described as a German nationalist, right-wing populist, and Eurosceptic party. Since about 2015, the AfD has been increasingly open to working with far-right extremist groups such as Pegida. Parts of the AfD have racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic tendencies linked to far-right movements such as neo-Nazism and identitarianism.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 10:09
|
>>>The AFD has been described as a German nationalist, right-wing populist, and Eurosceptic party. Since about 2015, the AfD has been increasingly open to working with far-right extremist groups such as Pegida. Parts of the AfD have racist, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic and xenophobic tendencies linked to far-right movements such as neo-Nazism and identitarianism.<<
Funny that, because your first paragraph could well have been talking about the Conservative Party.
Despite the origin, the woman talks more sense than I've heard in the last 2 years.
Pat
|
This may, or at least should, interest some...
m.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o
|
I've just watched 7 minutes of that and got so angry I will post this whether it offends or pleases. You will all probably twist my words but I know exactly what I mean.
Immigration.
Brexiteers are NOT against immigration, in fact, the voting figures in that clip prove it.
But hold on.....there is a difference with immigration, there is legal immigration and illegal immigration.
I spent 2 terrifying hours yesterday trying to travel 6 miles between Calais and the Eurotunnel terminal.
The motorway was at a standstill while the French Fuel Protesters protested, which they have every right to do and I respect that right completely.
BUT among those fuel protesters were loads of illegal immigrants (who had travelled through many countries to get the Calais and could have settled in any of them legally) who had managed to get hold of high viz vests and were running amok, climbing over car bonnets, climbing over lorries and trailers and trying doors on every vehicle to try and get to the UK. They were lighting fires and generally running the show.
What did the French Police and the CRS do.....nothing.
Absolutely nothing, they followed them, they held tear gas, riot shields and used them on the fuel protesters but not on the illegals.
They lost control of the Fuel Protesters within 10 minutes of them gathering, which is where we were, but at no time did they make any attempt to approach or apprehend an illegal who was so easy to identify by their colour and language used.
This is the sort of immigration we are against and if that makes me racist then so be it.
We, along with a lot of other car and lorry drivers feared for our safety yesterday and the French did nothing to help.
For every illegal who managed to stow away on the axle of a lorry, gain access to a trailer even by cutting a hole in the roof or manage to get in a car boot will mean that the driver, yes the driver not the employer, will be fined £2000 per immigrant on entry to the UK.
So, let's be clear.
When Brexiteers are against immigration it is ILLEGAL immigration NOT legal immigration.
The sooner we all understand that, the better we will begin to see where the other side is actually coming from.
Pat
|
>> When Brexiteers are against immigration it is ILLEGAL immigration NOT legal immigration.
>>
>> The sooner we all understand that, the better we will begin to see where the
>> other side is actually coming from.
Which is why we are not in the Shengen area, and very few illegal immigrants get through the our border security, which we maintain ON THE FRENCH SIDE of the channel.
Right as there is no difference between in or out of the EU, you going to change your thinking now? Or is it really about European languages on the notice board in your canteen?
|
>> and very few illegal immigrants get through the our border security, which we maintain ON THE FRENCH SIDE of the channel. >>
Rubbish they are arriving in boat loads at Dover and what happens to them before they get to our border....nothing.
>>Right as there is no difference between in or out of the EU<<
Understatement of the year.
Pat
|
>> Rubbish they are arriving in boat loads at Dover and what happens to them before
>> they get to our border....nothing.
And Brexit changes that how?
>> >>Right as there is no difference between in or out of the EU<<
>>
>> Understatement of the year.
>>
>> Pat
You really don't understand do you, in our out of Europe is not going to change that. The border posts remain, as they are, the passport control remains, as it is. the illegals in France stay where they are, the attempts to smuggle into the Uk remains the same. Brexit hard or soft deal or no deal does not alter the situation at Dover one jot.
Tell you what, lets give you a chance to justify that statement of yours. Tell me, in practical and official ways, how is Brexit going to change the illegal immigration thing at Dover?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 14:00
|
Where did I say that Brexit would change it?
You, like many others, brand Brexiteers racists simply because you cannot separate the two and then go on to ask us who is going fill all the jobs in the NHS.
Pat
|
>> Where did I say that Brexit would change it?
OOO lets see, when you said Brexiteers are against illegal immigration, and again when you called my comment about Brexit not changing it an understatement.
|
Pat,
There are other reports that suggest the french police forces are very enthusiastic in moving migrants on, destroying their tents and beating them up.
www.theguardian.com/world/calais
Since the French protesters are threatening civil disobedience on the scale of 1968 it's hardly surprising they rather than migrants, were targets yesterday. Assuming you were in France on a pre Xmas booze and fags run had you not considered the possibility of getting caught up in the protests?
Surely French will be more likely to act to deter those stealing boats etc to aim for a fellow EU country rather than one outside of it?
Brexit has NOTHING to do with desire of Afghans etc with relatives in settled communities in UK (or hoping to disappear into the black economy)from trying to reach our shores.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 14:05
|
>> There are other reports that suggest the french police forces are very enthusiastic in moving
>> migrants on, destroying their tents and beating them up.
Yes, to move them on across the border to UK
>>
>> Since the French protesters are threatening civil disobedience on the scale of 1968 it's hardly
>> surprising they rather than migrants, were targets yesterday.
They did nothing to deter either
>>Assuming you were in France on a
>> pre Xmas booze and fags run had you not considered the possibility of getting caught
>> up in the protests?
Yes, but some of us have to book a weekend off work well ahead to do stuff for ourselves.
>>
>> Surely French will be more likely to act to deter those stealing boats etc to
>> aim for a fellow EU country rather than one outside of it?
>>
Bromp, they do nothing to deter them, never have since before Sangatte in 2002 and still nothing now. The French don't care a jot as long as they go somewhere, anywhere but France.
>> Brexit has NOTHING to do with desire of Afghans etc with relatives in settled communities
>> in UK (or hoping to disappear into the black economy)from trying to reach our shores.
>>
>>
Again, like Z, you are entirely missing the point I am trying to make.
Pat
|
>
>> Again, like Z, you are entirely missing the point I am trying to make.
>>
>> Pat
That is because the point you are trying to make is nonsensical. You do realise after Brexit the French are going to do LESS to assist us with illegal immigration?
|
>>But hold on.....there is a difference with immigration, there is legal immigration and illegal immigration.
Agreed. But *ALL* of those illegal immigrants, *ALL* of them, 100% of them, are from outside the EU, what exactly will change as we leave the EU?
I have done my very best to listen to you and explain the issues. But then you start with this anti-immigration rubbish again. You need to stop being so confrontational, stop being so emotional, stop with the persecution complex and just talk about the issues. And try to stick to stuff you actually know, rather than just recycling the last headline you liked.
FWIW;
EU *legal* immigration is a substantial net profit to the UK.
Illegal immigrants ARE NOT FROM THE EU.
How do you expect leaving the EU to have any positive impact? It gives us NO power against non-EU immigrants that we do not already have.
The legal immigration will probably reduce, costing us money, and the illegal immigration will continue, perhaps increase, costing us money. And what motivation France seems to have to stop this, will surely disappear when they realise that letting them cross into the UK gets them out of the EU?
Why does immigration worry you so much? At least in is current state.
Because if it is about that old chestnut about our resources being overloaded, then I repeat, EU immigration is a net *benefit* to our infrastructure.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 14:08
|
>>So, let's be clear.
>>
>>When Brexiteers are against immigration it is ILLEGAL immigration NOT legal immigration.
>>
>>The sooner we all understand that, the better we will begin to see where the other side is actually coming from.
How can they be against illegal immigration? How is that related to the EU?
|
Completely missing the point until your second post Mark.
My point is that it's NOT related to Brexit but we are accused of being against immigration because we are against ILLEGAL immigration.
I give up, how can so many fail to understand what I'm getting at?
Pat
|
>>I give up, how can so many fail to understand what I'm getting at?
I am not missing your point. I am categorically saying that your point is nonsense.
However, effective communication is the responsibility of the "speaker", not the "listener". So, if you feel that everybody here is missing your point, then you need to find a better or more effective way of explaining it.
I hear many of those supporting our leaving rattling on about immigration. Even Movilogo, a man who you say holds views that you respect, is always talking about Freedom of Movement, how EU immigrants have to go through less checks than he did, etc. etc.
Try this; Freedom of movement concerns legal immigration. Many campaigners for leave seem to revile Freedom of Movement and 100% want it to stop..
That is *ENTIRELY* talking about legal immigration.
|
>> Try this; Freedom of movement concerns legal immigration. Many campaigners for leave seem to revile
>> Freedom of Movement and 100% want it to stop..
>>
>> That is *ENTIRELY* talking about legal immigration.
That sums it up. If the PM gets her debate with Corbyn listen how many times she says her deal will 'End Free Movement Once and for All'.
It's the current iteration of the Maybot mode that gave is 'strong and stable' in last year's GE.
Whatever her skills as PM and CEO of the Cabinet she's not cut out for campaigning.
Ending free movement of LEGAL migrants from EU is absolutely what Brexit was about.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 14:32
|
>>However, effective communication is the responsibility of the "speaker", not the "listener". So, if you feel that everybody here is missing your point, then you need to find a better or more effective way of explaining it.<<
The measure of how well educated and informed a person is, is to be able to understand other people whatever level they are on.
Pat
|
Don't dodge the issue...………..
I repeat..
"Try this; Freedom of movement concerns legal immigration. Many campaigners for leave seem to revile Freedom of Movement and 100% want it to stop..
That is *ENTIRELY* talking about legal immigration."
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 15:04
|
....and your quote is from where? from who?
Is it credible? Is it propaganda?
Pat
|
>> ....and your quote is from where? from who?
>> Is it credible? Is it propaganda?
It's a statement about what out voters think of free movement.
Since Mrs May, in any interview, talks about Ending Free Movement Once and For All we must assume she at least thinks it was a driver and probably the main ne when it comes to Brexit.
What do you think?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 15:19
|
It's a quote from ME!!!!! I am quoting MY OWN WORDS.
Maybe this will help..
Part of Brexit is the ending of Freedom of Movement? Yes/No
Many, many 'Brexiteers' go on and on about ending Freedom of Movement? Yes/No
Freedom of Movement concerns Legal Immigration? Yes/No
And here is another quote [from you].
"When Brexiteers are against immigration it is ILLEGAL immigration NOT legal immigration."
So, Brexiteers are perfectly happy for Freedom of Movement of people to continue? Yes/No
|
Really? Seriously?
You are perfectly happy for Freedom of Movement of people within the current EU and The UK to continue?
Well, if that is the case then I am at a loss. And surprised. And you are quite correct, I was wrong because I have never understood that from you before. And if that is my fault, then I apologise.
I think you find yourself at odds with most supporters of Leave; including Movilogo who absolutely does not want it to continue
So, if Freedom of Movement is no issue for you and if ECJ jurisdiction is unavoidable (which is 100% the case) then what do you want from Brexit? What else is there?
Are you, and I mean this quite seriously, sure you want Brexit?
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sun 2 Dec 18 at 16:18
|
>> Are you, and I mean this quite seriously, sure you want Brexit?
>>
By the sounds of it, there is only a problem with the current illegals.
Unfortunately the problem is likely to get worse with Brexit as the Frogs are likely to say they're our problem now.
|
I’ve chewed this over since very early this morning and am still reluctant to write it because Z will tell me I have an attitude problem or I’m being confrontational and Mark will tell me I’m talking rubbish and know nothing so it’s really not an inviting position to be starting from.
I’m not going to try and formulate it in any order because the reaction will be the same however much effort I put into it.
I really do believe we as a country need to see the Freedom of Movement of people within the UK/EU continue.
For me, it has never been about that and a lot of people who voted to Leave feel the same way.
I also think we need to remain able to work closely together for security purposes.
Unfortunately the vocal few get us all tarred with the same aims and objectives.
Having said that, I certainly am sure I want Brexit.
My vision (and don’t ask how that would be achieved) is to see us leave but retain a close relationship with the EU BUT on an equal partner basis.
We do need to get our national identity back and believe in ourselves again as a Country.
I want us to have the right to self-government.
All those years ago we were told we were joining a trading partnership as equals but instead the EU has steadily become more and more like a Central Government ruling over all the member countries
I want us to be free to make our own laws, instead of as we are now where 62% are influenced by the EU.
I want us to be allowed to deport criminals and terrorists as well us to demand that legal migrants have the proper ID, issued by the UK.
I think the UK should control how we combat terrorism without influence from the EU and every Brussels Treaty gives them more and more power and takes it away from the individual countries.
Had we have gone into these negotiations 2 years ago as a UNITED kingdom and not a DIVIDED Kingdom we could have had a better deal than that on offer and I believe there is still a far better deal to be had.
I’m concerned, as I have been for a while why TM won’t allow anyone else to negotiate, or have the information she has to hand.
The latest fiasco where she is withholding the full legal advice given to her, from her politicians who are required to vote on it, is unbelievable. If there is nothing to hide what is the problem?
A far better deal is possible, I’m sure of it.
Pat
|
Thanks for posting that Pat.
There's stuff there I disagree with and some where I question your facts. As an explanation of Brexit thinking outside of Immigration though it's illuminating.
I'll respond as and when I can and probably in bite size chunks.
MODS - Now would be an ideal place to start a new volume with Pat's post first.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 16:02
|
>>because Z will tell me I have an attitude problem or I’m being confrontational and Mark will tell me I’m talking rubbish and know nothin
Are you *really* trying to start personal battles again? Why do you insist on doing that?
Can you not simply talk about the issues without all the martyrdom and soap-opera drama?
|
Every time I do exactly that Mark, you and Z react just as I stated....check back and see for yourself.
I think you have a problem with a sensible post and if you can't find an argument with the post you just have to try and make one with the poster.
There is something I forgot to add.
From talking to a lot of people I get the feeling that there are a lot of Remainers teetering on the edge of leave if a better deal could be found just as there are a lot of Brexiteers looking for common ground so a sensible compromise is decided upon.
If only both sides would accept what has happened won't be undone, we could all be in a better place and be looking at a better future.
Pat
|
Under current rule,
[1] If UK wants to deport any illegal immigrants to [a] their non-EU home country [b] to any EU country (for whatever reason), can EU prevent that?
[2] Can UK deport EU criminals to their home countries?
[3] Can UK prevent any known EU criminal from coming to UK?
|
How do you feel about the continuation of EU/UK Freedom of Movement of people, Movilogo?
In answer to your questions;
1) No
2) Yes
3) Yes
Exactly the same as another EU country deporting Brits back to us. You may need to refer to ECHR rules, which may help you..
|
I want every legal migrant to be treated in same way - whether from EU or non-EU.
I consider treating non-EU migrants different from EU migrants as discriminatory behavior.
So there is no change of my opinion.
|
>> I consider treating non-EU migrants different from EU migrants as discriminatory behavior.
we just cant go and live in India or pakistan or Australia etc.
We can in Europe, and therefore so can they in the UK
Thats not discrimination. thats reciprocation.
|
3.8 million EU citizens in the UK
1.3 million UK citizens in the EU
So reciprocation not really working in UK's favour.
|
>> 3.8 million EU citizens in the UK
>> 1.3 million UK citizens in the EU
>>
>> So reciprocation not really working in UK's favour.
>>
Stands to reason it would be so. Their population is far larger, I'm not sure it says much beyond that.
|
|
It shows that people are drawn to live in a country for which they have some knowledge of the language and that comparatively few Brits have the language skills to live and work in Europe.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 19:50
|
"It shows that people are drawn to live in a country for which they have some knowledge of the language and that comparatively few Brits have the language skills to live and work in Europe."
Presumably, when we leave and take our language with us, the EU chaps will resort to grunting at one another? Or will they all be compelled to learn German?
|
>> >> 3.8 million EU citizens in the UK
>> >> 1.3 million UK citizens in the EU
>> >>
>> >> So reciprocation not really working in UK's favour.
>> >>
>>
>> Stands to reason it would be so. Their population is far larger, I'm not sure
>> it says much beyond that.
It does say something of course because if every EU country were to gain 3 people for every 1 it exported, where would all the extra people have come from? The emigrants and immigrants have to balance.
I suspect the UK's net gain is for two reasons - the relative opportunities compared with other EU countries, and the language.
|
>> I suspect the UK's net gain is for two reasons - the relative opportunities compared with other EU countries, and the language.
Yes, UK's problem is that English language is spoken by half of world's population.
Other EU countries are somewhat protected as their language acts as a barrier to immigrants. It is not easy to integrate with a country where one needs to learn the local language.
UK is also one of the richest countries in EU. People seldom have advantage moving to poorer countries.
England is one of most densely populated countries in EU.
|
|
Surely 66.5 Million EU citizens in the UK!
|
Your hatred of the EU and desperate need to see bad in it just vecause you are bitter that you needed to go through more tests than an EU citizen is quite remarkable.
Do you understand that when many people bang on about the evils of immigration that you are still included in that group, at least in their mind?
Read the tabloids, according to them you are merely an immigrant with one of our passports. That's why they so often differentiate by describing someone as "British born". Your attitude plays to and perhaps exacerbates the current perception of immigrants.
Are you sure that's the right way to play it?
|
P.s. did you notice that Pat, and according to her many other supporters of Brexit, believe that Freedom of Movement of people should continue.
|
>> You may need to refer to ECHR rules, which may help you..
As Zero has pointed out European Convention on Human Rights and the associated court in Strasbourg are not EU bodies.
The Convention and Court are very much in play where deportations are concerned much to Mrs May's vexation when she was Home Secretary; see Abu Qatada.
It was a UK court applying EU residence rules that decided Learco Chindamo wh murdered his school headmaster could not be deported to Italy.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 17:05
|
>> Under current rule,
>>
>> [1] If UK wants to deport any illegal immigrants to [a] their non-EU home country
you need a reason, being an illegal immigrant can be that reason, and we do exactly that.
>> [b] to any EU country (for whatever reason), can EU prevent that?
No you cant just dump your illegals in any country in the Eu you choose. You wouldnt want them doing that to us would you?
>> [2] Can UK deport EU criminals to their home countries?
Yes we can and so can they, we do it, so do they.
>>
>> [3] Can UK prevent any known EU criminal from coming to UK?
Yes we can, that is why we are not in Shengen.
And before you go on about the European court of Human rights, that is not an EU institution.
|
>> Under current rule,
>>
>> [1] If UK wants to deport any illegal immigrants to [a] their non-EU home country
>> [b] to any EU country (for whatever reason), can EU prevent that?
>>
>> [2] Can UK deport EU criminals to their home countries?
>>
>> [3] Can UK prevent any known EU criminal from coming to UK?
You're doing your usual thing of portraying the EU as some sort of supranational third party ordering member states around. As a rules based organisation governed by international treaties movement of people between member countries is covered by rules and treaties.
Sometimes one person or country will say the rules/treaties mean one thing and another person or country says they mean something different. Treaties provide for those disputes to be adjudicated.
In general terms though:
EU has no role if we want to deport non EU illegal immigrants to their home country.
There are various EU rules around deportation within EU and particularly around people seeking Asylum. These are designed (a) to prevent migrants 'gaming' the system with multiple applications and (b) to ensure provisions are used fairly. There are disputes and they need to be adjudicated.
UK can absolutely deport EU Criminals back to their home country. They can also be deported if they're not working, seeking work or self supporting. Freedom of movement is not absolute. Again, disputes arise and need to be adjudicated.
A known EU criminal can be stopped but can (rightly) challenge on basis of other rights.
|
>>EU has no role if we want to deport non EU illegal immigrants to their home country.
There are various EU rules around deportation within EU and particularly around people seeking Asylum. These are designed (a) to prevent migrants 'gaming' the system with multiple applications and (b) to ensure provisions are used fairly. There are disputes and they need to be adjudicated.
UK can absolutely deport EU Criminals back to their home country. They can also be deported if they're not working, seeking work or self supporting. Freedom of movement is not absolute. Again, disputes arise and need to be adjudicated.
A known EU criminal can be stopped but can (rightly) challenge on basis of other rights. <<
I realise that is the legal position but in practice, it isn't how it has worked for the UK over the years and I guess that's down to 'our' interpretation.
Which is part of my point, the UK government over the years, have been complicit in allowing the EU to take away our national identity and get us to the point of a referendum vote which shocked everyone.
Look at just how long it takes to deport illegal immigrants and the benefits they are allowed to claim in the meantime.
Pat
|
>> Look at just how long it takes to deport illegal immigrants and the benefits they
>> are allowed to claim in the meantime.
>>
>> Pat
Nothing to do with the Eu and will be the same outside the EU.
|
>> Which is part of my point, the UK government over the years, have been complicit
>> in allowing the EU to take away our national identity and get us to the
>> point of a referendum vote which shocked everyone.
I genuinely don't know what you mean there. How has the EU taken our national identity? We're just as British now as we were when I was born in 1959. The miracles of affordable international travel, like nipping over to Pidou and Belgium for wine and fags, have though changed our perspective. So has instant communication with other countries/cultures whether in Europe or not.
>> Look at just how long it takes to deport illegal immigrants and the benefits they
>> are allowed to claim in the meantime.
Illegal immigrants don't get benefits because they're errr illegal.
Asylum seekers get funded while their cases are considered but at rates and with conditions far worse than those of indigenes. They're entitled to have their cases looked at properly and to have decisions looked at again if they look wrong. Cases take far too long to progress but that's down to funding/organisation in Home Office.
There are also far too many lawyers who'll take these people's money (their's and their families NOT legal aid) to renew hopeless applications.
As an avid reader of law reports I know that judges are clamping down on this stuff.
None of it though has anything to do with EU - absent reform and funding it will be just the same in 2028.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 18:55
|
|
Legal immigrants find it hard enough to get benefits !
|
>> I also think we need to remain able to work closely together for security purposes.
Brexit is going to curb that
>> We do need to get our national identity back and believe in ourselves again as
>> a Country.
We did, it built up after the "sick man of europe 70's" with the aid of the EU.
Our national identity is now a farce.
>> I want us to be free to make our own laws, instead of as we
>> are now where 62% are influenced by the EU.
A lot of the "eu laws" are excelent
>> I want us to be allowed to deport criminals and terrorists as well us to
we can now, and do. DONT fall into the European court of Human rights trap, its not an EU institution.
>> demand that legal migrants have the proper ID, issued by the UK.
And for all UK citizens then, a long overdue need.
>> I think the UK should control how we combat terrorism without influence from the EU
>> and every Brussels Treaty gives them more and more power and takes it away from
>> the individual countries.
Wrong, completely untrue on every level. WE the uk lead European anti terrorism
>> Had we have gone into these negotiations 2 years ago as a UNITED kingdom and
>> not a DIVIDED Kingdom we could have had a better deal than that on offer
>> and I believe there is still a far better deal to be had.
Given that Brexiteers are prepared to "pay a price" inflicting that price on those who dont - United is not what we are. In fact the vote has ensured the break up of the UK in future years. You have achieved the exact opposite to that you set out.
>> I’m concerned, as I have been for a while why TM won’t allow anyone else
>> to negotiate, or have the information she has to hand.
the cabinet did, the Tory cabinet did, tories who got voted in on the back of a brexit vote.
>> The latest fiasco where she is withholding the full legal advice given to her, from
>> her politicians who are required to vote on it, is unbelievable. If there is nothing
>> to hide what is the problem?
It was shared with her cabinet, the labour party or parliament are not "her" politicians.
This legal saga shows how little control we as subjects have, getting less so, and will be even worse when europe is not there to rain it in.
>>
>> A far better deal is possible, I’m sure of it.
Its not. They dont need us.
|
>>Its not. They dont need us.<<
Oh yes, they do.
and this is why I said >>We do need to get our national identity back and believe in ourselves again as a Country.<<
You may not like her or her party but listen to the words of Dr Alice Weidel.
Pat
|
>> >>Its not. They dont need us.<<
>>
>> Oh yes, they do.
Ok, apart from the Irish Border, why do they need us as much as we need them, Your own words please, backed up with factual independent source please.
The Irish Border, our only high card. We have Ireland by the balls there for sure. Trouble is if we play that card we get the troubles back and bombs on the mainland, you know that pre EU stuff?
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 17:22
|
>>Ok, apart from the Irish Border, why do they need us as much as we need them, Your own words please, backed up with factual independent source please.<<
You may have the time, I don't, I've been up since 1 AM.
You need to understand that this is much like any deal such as buying a car, house or business.
If you go in with the attitude that the seller doesn't want to sell you will get a bad, take it or leave it deal.
The EU needs freedom of movement, it needs our trade, our intelligence and more to the point it needs to be seen to be saving face over us voting to leave, mostly to prevent others following suit.
There's a lot to be bargained for there and a lot could be achieved with a bit of British Back Bone.
But we've lost that.
A few weeks ago we all wore poppies to remember those who lost their lives for our freedom.
I bet they are turning in their graves now.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 17:32
|
>
>> I bet they are turning in their graves now.
>>
>> Pat
I bet they are not. I bet that are resting in peace knowing they liberated Europe and have prevented further bloodshed in mainland Europe.
That really is a pathetic statement of yours, you have in effect said they died for no good reason and you wonder why I take time to berate you?
And stuff like "I dont have time to explain" EVERY time you get caught exposed
Sorry Pat and you wonder why I have no respect for brexiteers.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 17:49
|
Try answering the post instead of berating the poster Z, that's Mark's tactics. I'm sure you don't have to follow like a sheep.
My Father fought in WW1 and WW2 and I can assure you he would be horrified at this.
Pat
PS Dinner is ready so any replies will have to wait until tomorrow morning after 1am.
Last edited by: Pat on Mon 3 Dec 18 at 18:27
|
|
Well I have read your posts Pat and have come to the conclusion that you really don't understand either how the EU works. You seem completely confused. I really was hoping for some sort of coherent argument.
|
I didn't post to argue CG, I posted my opinion which I'm quite entitled to and a view of what I believe is possible for the future.
Belittling Brexiteers views is really rather silly.
A sensible person would look at them and consider that at least some of them, align with their own.
Others may not but it should be possible to discuss the views without attacking the poster...that sort of shows you've lost the argument:)
Pat
|
I didn’t say I wanted an argument,with you Pat, I said I was hoping to see you give us a reasoned and coherent argument as to your reasons why you think we should leave the EU. Something which I and others have regularly hoped for but unfortunately never been given.
I am not belittling anybody. Just giving my opinion. You are very quick to claim people are attacking you but you are very quick to resort to such tactics yourself.
|
>>You may have the time, I don't, I've been up since 1 AM.
Oh look, Pat is asked to back up her wild statements and suddenly she is too tired.
Well, I guess it makes a change from I thought I already did / I forgot / it didn't seem like the right moment and all the other pathetic excuses she uses to cover her lack of understanding.
|
>>The EU needs freedom of movement, it needs our trade, our intelligence and more to the point it needs to be seen to be saving face over us voting to leave, mostly to prevent others following suit.
.**********
Look at the trade figures country by country. Understand that without us the EU will still be in the same position globally, but we will not be. We will be diminished. Look at the reports issued last week on the cost to our GDP of leaving.
>>and a lot could be achieved with a bit of British Back Bone.
jingoistic garbage.
|
>> because Z will tell me I have an attitude problem or I’m being confrontational
>> and Mark will tell me I’m talking rubbish and know nothing so it’s really not
>> an inviting position to be starting from.
No, it's not. So it's a wonder you don't try and work out what causes that reaction to you and try working out how not to be seen as being confrontational, having an attitude problem and talking rubbish.
>> For me, it has never been about that and a lot of people who voted
>> to Leave feel the same way.
I couldn't say about all people, but it's been a pretty firm statement from everybody from Farage forward that FoM should end.
>> I also think we need to remain able to work closely together for security purposes.
Seems to make little sense to move away then, and bearing that in mind do you understand that data sharing, data security and data usage is all overseen by the ECJ and can only be used by those who sign up to that regulation? Though the transition agreement and Political Statement suggest that an alternative can be negotiated over the 2 year transition stage.
>> My vision (and don’t ask how that would be achieved) is to see us leave
>> but retain a close relationship with the EU BUT on an equal partner basis.
All members are equal and where they are not it has been to our advantage. How do you imagine that you can improve upon that? Better than equal?
>> We do need to get our national identity back and believe in ourselves again as
>> a Country.
What has that got to do with the EU?
>> I want us to have the right to self-government.
Do you know what that means?
>> All those years ago we were told we were joining a trading partnership as equals
>> but instead the EU has steadily become more and more like a Central Government ruling
>> over all the member countries
It is a central organisation consisting of all the states including our won. The fault was in sending clowns like Farage to look after our interests.
>> I want us to be free to make our own laws, instead of as we are now where 62% are influenced by the EU.
62% influenced? What does that mean? Surely we will always be influenced by those around us, EU Member or not?
>> I want us to be allowed to deport criminals and terrorists as well us to
>> demand that legal migrants have the proper ID, issued by the UK.
We do deport terrorists and we can insist legal migrants carry IDs if we carry them to. Surely that isn't free movement if it is a pre-requisite?
>> I think the UK should control how we combat terrorism without influence from the EU
We do. What influence are you imagining?
>> and every Brussels Treaty gives them more and more power and takes it away from
>> the individual countries.
Utter garbage.
>> Had we have gone into these negotiations 2 years ago as a UNITED kingdom and
>> not a DIVIDED Kingdom we could have had a better deal than that on offer
>> and I believe there is still a far better deal to be had.
I DON'T know WHY we USE UPPER case letters for SOME words, but HEY, if it WORKs for YOU.
How could be be UNITED when 50% of the country voted to LEAVE the EU but didn't know WHY or in fact WHAT it WANTED?
> I’m concerned, as I have been for a while why TM won’t allow anyone else
>> to negotiate, or have the information she has to hand.
She has shared with people who are involved. Why should she share with people who are not if it is her judgement that it is best not to do so? After all, it was you that said she was the right person for this job. Or did you forget that?
>> The latest fiasco where she is withholding the full legal advice given to her, from
>> her politicians who are required to vote on it, is unbelievable. If there is nothing
>> to hide what is the problem?
Ridiculous argument. My children can do better than that when trying to get secrets out of each other.
> A far better deal is possible, I’m sure of it.
Given the standard of your knowledge and understanding everywhere else, I don't give that statement any credence at all.
|
>> I really do believe we as a country need to see the Freedom of Movement
>> of people within the UK/EU continue.
I'm not entirely convinced that's consistent with what you've said before but let's move on. There's plenty of research out there, with word clouds etc, that say Immigration was the sole/main driver for the majority of Brexiters. www.politico.eu/article/brexit-britain-is-in-denial-over-immigration/
>> We do need to get our national identity back and believe in ourselves again as
>> a Country.
Which national identity? The Scots and both sides in Ireland seem to have that sorted. Do you mean England's identity? Which ever, it's nothing to do with EU membership
>> I want us to have the right to self-government.
>> I want us to be free to make our own laws, instead of as we
>> are now where 62% are influenced by the EU.
Where does 62% come from? The usual rationale is to add up every individual piece of legislation. That means some utterly non contentious three page Statutory Instrument enacting a small modification to say the joint airworthiness regulations has same weight as a whole new new Town and Country Planning Act. Elephants being compared to (straight?) bananas
>> I want us to be allowed to deport criminals and terrorists as well us to
>> demand that legal migrants have the proper ID, issued by the UK.
We can and do deport criminals whether they're terrorists or fraudsters. A tiny handful, like Learco Chindamo who murdered his headmaster, can use EU residence rules to argue against deportation. That's about checks and balances on use of executive power, something anyone with an interest in liberty of subject needs to think about.
>> I think the UK should control how we combat terrorism without influence from the EU
>> and every Brussels Treaty gives them more and more power and takes it away from
>> the individual countries.
Hang on. I thought you wanted to be able to work closely with EU. Close working will only be achieved by treaties and those may mean pooling sovereignty for greater good.
>> Had we have gone into these negotiations 2 years ago as a UNITED kingdom and
>> not a DIVIDED Kingdom we could have had a better deal than that on offer
>> and I believe there is still a far better deal to be had.
Those of us who think Brexit is a equivalent to a miss-sold Endowment Mortgage are entitled to say so, to campaign for it's cancellation, and demand to be put back where we were before.
Biggest division problem isn't 'remoaners', it's leavers who still cannot enunciate their vision.
>> I’m concerned, as I have been for a while why TM won’t allow anyone else
>> to negotiate, or have the information she has to hand.
That's her style.
>> The latest fiasco where she is withholding the full legal advice given to her, from
>> her politicians who are required to vote on it, is unbelievable. If there is nothing
>> to hide what is the problem?
Advice from a lawyer (the Attorney General) to his client (PM/Cabinet) is normally privileged. Government has been over this dozens of times from Westland, via arms to Iraq, Iraq War, stuff about Northern Ireland etc etc. There's a good case this time to make it public but for understandable reasons government see that as a precedent for less clear cut instances.
That ball is still in play.
|
I see the thread is degenerating again.
I tried, I really did.
|
No, you didn't try Mark, you tried your usual tactics, to belittle anyone else who had a view that differs from yours.
But at least that, in your eyes, makes you right, so I'm pleased you're happy.
Now, if you've nothing constructive to add can I suggest you just scroll past and let some of us discuss it sensibly without interfering please?
Pat
|
No Pat, you cannot suggest that.
Your notes so far show a lack of understanding of the workings of the EU, and lack of understanding of the different organisations and no understanding of the issues at hand.
I have tried no tactics with you beyond spending a great deal of time answering your questions, explaining various documents to you and trying to help you understand the issues only to have you drop back into your usual behaviour.
I couldn't give a flying crap what makes you happy, your pathetic sense of paranoia or your ridiculous attempts to be condescending.
So, since you clearly behave the previous approach, let's get to it.
|
Brexit Discussion - Volume 68 - Dog
