cogitobcn
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 159
๐๐ป 97
August 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2019 14:07:26 GMT 1
Brexit, by cogitobcn on Jan 2, 2019 14:07:26 GMT 1, Some of the "EU immigrants" descriptions I have read in this pages seems to match better the immigrants that arrive regularly to the south European shores crossing the Mediterranean in boats than the French/German/Italian/Polish citizens that just took a plane and moved to UK.
Sure. And 3m EU citizens arrived here without CSI because they were pulling a fast one. These people do not know the rules. They run scared of what they think they might be and act on the advice of others who offer them a better life.
I must assume that you were being ironic, specially in the last sentence. EU citizens don't need CSI because UK has reciprocal' healthcare arrangements with all EU countries.
What this proves is that we've always had control of our borders and that because we have that control on French soil it is not easy to get to the UK and claim asylum. No paperwork, no travel. Simple.
I agree with this one, is one of the funniest points I heard from the leavers ("to take control back of our borders"): UK has never part of the Schengen Area, so you always had control on who entered your country. I can move between European countries without showing a passport or even being stopped by any public servant, but every time I come back to UK a customs agent check my passport and approves my entry.
The only/real problem you have with EU citizens was caused by:
1) You have a too "generous" welfare system, mostly used by your government to buy "social peace" and that disincentivise people to work by themselves.
2) The ECoJ ruled that you must offer the same benefits to the British worker that has paid contributions during 30 years than to the EU immigrant that just moved two weeks ago with all his cousins and nephews, and that's nonsense.
The result is that a small percentage of EU citizens moved to UK with the only reason to live off of your welfare system and do not contribute to your society. If you should have solved this loophole, the remainers would have won the referendum, and most of the EU citizens could continue living in the UK happily ever after... 
Some of the "EU immigrants" descriptions I have read in this pages seems to match better the immigrants that arrive regularly to the south European shores crossing the Mediterranean in boats than the French/German/Italian/Polish citizens that just took a plane and moved to UK. Sure. And 3m EU citizens arrived here without CSI because they were pulling a fast one. These people do not know the rules. They run scared of what they think they might be and act on the advice of others who offer them a better life. I must assume that you were being ironic, specially in the last sentence. EU citizens don't need CSI because UK has reciprocal' healthcare arrangements with all EU countries. What this proves is that we've always had control of our borders and that because we have that control on French soil it is not easy to get to the UK and claim asylum. No paperwork, no travel. Simple. I agree with this one, is one of the funniest points I heard from the leavers ("to take control back of our borders"): UK has never part of the Schengen Area, so you always had control on who entered your country. I can move between European countries without showing a passport or even being stopped by any public servant, but every time I come back to UK a customs agent check my passport and approves my entry. The only/real problem you have with EU citizens was caused by: 1) You have a too "generous" welfare system, mostly used by your government to buy "social peace" and that disincentivise people to work by themselves. 2) The ECoJ ruled that you must offer the same benefits to the British worker that has paid contributions during 30 years than to the EU immigrant that just moved two weeks ago with all his cousins and nephews, and that's nonsense. The result is that a small percentage of EU citizens moved to UK with the only reason to live off of your welfare system and do not contribute to your society. If you should have solved this loophole, the remainers would have won the referendum, and most of the EU citizens could continue living in the UK happily ever after... |
|
Leo Boyd
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,476
๐๐ป 2,090
June 2016
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2019 15:06:53 GMT 1
Brexit, by Leo Boyd on Jan 2, 2019 15:06:53 GMT 1, What I meant was that the 'crisis' was manufactured and not that the migrants were manufactured.
Also happy new year ya'll!
What I meant was that the 'crisis' was manufactured and not that the migrants were manufactured.
Also happy new year ya'll!
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 2, 2019 19:53:59 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Jan 2, 2019 19:53:59 GMT 1, Some of the "EU immigrants" descriptions I have read in this pages seems to match better the immigrants that arrive regularly to the south European shores crossing the Mediterranean in boats than the French/German/Italian/Polish citizens that just took a plane and moved to UK. Sure. And 3m EU citizens arrived here without CSI because they were pulling a fast one. These people do not know the rules. They run scared of what they think they might be and act on the advice of others who offer them a better life. I must assume that you were being ironic, specially in the last sentence. EU citizens don't need CSI because UK has reciprocal' healthcare arrangements with all EU countries. What this proves is that we've always had control of our borders and that because we have that control on French soil it is not easy to get to the UK and claim asylum. No paperwork, no travel. Simple. I agree with this one, is one of the funniest points I heard from the leavers ("to take control back of our borders"): UK has never part of the Schengen Area, so you always had control on who entered your country. I can move between European countries without showing a passport or even being stopped by any public servant, but every time I come back to UK a customs agent check my passport and approves my entry. The only/real problem you have with EU citizens was caused by: 1) You have a too "generous" welfare system, mostly used by your government to buy "social peace" and that disincentivise people to work by themselves. 2) The ECoJ ruled that you must offer the same benefits to the British worker that has paid contributions during 30 years than to the EU immigrant that just moved two weeks ago with all his cousins and nephews, and that's nonsense. The result is that a small percentage of EU citizens moved to UK with the only reason to live off of your welfare system and do not contribute to your society. If you should have solved this loophole, the remainers would have won the referendum, and most of the EU citizens could continue living in the UK happily ever after...
And now I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or actually proving the point. Reciprocal health care arrangements with other EU countries doesn't mean CSI isn't required. Not that many from the EU knew this before Brexit threw it into focus. Plenty of EU migrants (particularly women) who it would seem should've had it, but didn't, whilst not working. When bringing up kids for example.
Some of the "EU immigrants" descriptions I have read in this pages seems to match better the immigrants that arrive regularly to the south European shores crossing the Mediterranean in boats than the French/German/Italian/Polish citizens that just took a plane and moved to UK. Sure. And 3m EU citizens arrived here without CSI because they were pulling a fast one. These people do not know the rules. They run scared of what they think they might be and act on the advice of others who offer them a better life. I must assume that you were being ironic, specially in the last sentence. EU citizens don't need CSI because UK has reciprocal' healthcare arrangements with all EU countries. What this proves is that we've always had control of our borders and that because we have that control on French soil it is not easy to get to the UK and claim asylum. No paperwork, no travel. Simple. I agree with this one, is one of the funniest points I heard from the leavers ("to take control back of our borders"): UK has never part of the Schengen Area, so you always had control on who entered your country. I can move between European countries without showing a passport or even being stopped by any public servant, but every time I come back to UK a customs agent check my passport and approves my entry. The only/real problem you have with EU citizens was caused by: 1) You have a too "generous" welfare system, mostly used by your government to buy "social peace" and that disincentivise people to work by themselves. 2) The ECoJ ruled that you must offer the same benefits to the British worker that has paid contributions during 30 years than to the EU immigrant that just moved two weeks ago with all his cousins and nephews, and that's nonsense. The result is that a small percentage of EU citizens moved to UK with the only reason to live off of your welfare system and do not contribute to your society. If you should have solved this loophole, the remainers would have won the referendum, and most of the EU citizens could continue living in the UK happily ever after... And now I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or actually proving the point. Reciprocal health care arrangements with other EU countries doesn't mean CSI isn't required. Not that many from the EU knew this before Brexit threw it into focus. Plenty of EU migrants (particularly women) who it would seem should've had it, but didn't, whilst not working. When bringing up kids for example. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 13:43:28 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Daniel Silk on Jan 7, 2019 13:43:28 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal.
The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer.
I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
No deal IS better than a bad deal.
The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer.
I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
|
|
barsukauk
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 713
๐๐ป 129
May 2010
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 13:44:39 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by barsukauk on Jan 7, 2019 13:44:39 GMT 1, It will be a long recesiรณn
It will be a long recesiรณn
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 6,194
๐๐ป 9,453
October 2015
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 13:58:13 GMT 1
Brexit, by Dive Jedi on Jan 7, 2019 13:58:13 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
But what was the plan before the referendum?
What did the Brexiteers propose then?
Seems rather complicated, because you can't have open borders.
And you can't have a closed one either.
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. One of the biggest issues is the Irish border, I think. But what was the plan before the referendum? What did the Brexiteers propose then? Seems rather complicated, because you can't have open borders. And you can't have a closed one either. |
|
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 14:09:17 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 14:09:17 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
I'm not so sure about the other way round though.
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. I'm sure the EU can live perfectly well without the UK. I'm not so sure about the other way round though. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 14:14:17 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Coach on Jan 7, 2019 14:14:17 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
Happy new year to you and your family Dan.
Couple of questions
Why should we want the EU to suffer, especially if it means we suffer much more?
And, what makes Mayโs deal a bad deal? Iโve yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that from anyone.
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. Happy new year to you and your family Dan. Couple of questions Why should we want the EU to suffer, especially if it means we suffer much more? And, what makes Mayโs deal a bad deal? Iโve yet to hear a satisfactory answer to that from anyone. |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 14:15:14 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 14:15:14 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. One of the biggest issues is the Irish border, I think. But what was the plan before the referendum? What did the Brexiteers propose then? Seems rather complicated, because you can't have open borders. And you can't have a closed one either.
Theresa May says we will never agree to an Irish border.
The DUP says it will never agree to an Irish border.
And yet, if we leave without a deal, there will be an Irish border. I can't see how there can not be.
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. One of the biggest issues is the Irish border, I think. But what was the plan before the referendum? What did the Brexiteers propose then? Seems rather complicated, because you can't have open borders. And you can't have a closed one either. The Irish border question always was going to be the sticking point. Theresa May says we will never agree to an Irish border. The DUP says it will never agree to an Irish border. And yet, if we leave without a deal, there will be an Irish border. I can't see how there can not be. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Brexit, by Chris JL on Jan 7, 2019 14:21:35 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science).
Just a fact, not an opinion.
But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric...
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric... |
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 14:33:23 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 14:33:23 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric...
None of what we have negotiated is better than what we had though, is it?
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric... None of what we have negotiated is better than what we had though, is it? |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 14:50:56 GMT 1
Brexit, by moron on Jan 7, 2019 14:50:56 GMT 1, Fact is no one can do a deal with the EU. The people running the EU are corrupt and insane. The Japanese and the EU have just done an enormous deal, covering 1/3 of the world's GDP, together. Meanwhile, the UK government have just ignored procurement regulations and awarded a ยฃ14m contract to a ferry company that owns no ferries! When looking at competence vs corruption I know who I trust more. You're talkings**te again.
No idea about the UK gov and the ferry company fiasco.
Fact is no one can do a deal with the EU. The people running the EU are corrupt and insane. The Japanese and the EU have just done an enormous deal, covering 1/3 of the world's GDP, together. Meanwhile, the UK government have just ignored procurement regulations and awarded a ยฃ14m contract to a ferry company that owns no ferries! When looking at competence vs corruption I know who I trust more. You're talkings**te again. You have missed my point. I was referring to negotiating a Brexit deal with the EU, not the Japs throwing millions at the EU. Juncker Tush and Verhofsadt are corrupt and dishonest. No idea about the UK gov and the ferry company fiasco. |
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 1,766
๐๐ป 1,852
March 2017
|
Brexit, by Chris JL on Jan 7, 2019 14:52:34 GMT 1, As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric... None of what we have negotiated is better than what we had though, is it?
Totally correct. As long as employment, growth, gdp, public finances, nhs, pensions etc etc are concerned - ie along all measurable dimensions of well-being of a country - UK staying in the EU is still the best option.
As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric... None of what we have negotiated is better than what we had though, is it? Totally correct. As long as employment, growth, gdp, public finances, nhs, pensions etc etc are concerned - ie along all measurable dimensions of well-being of a country - UK staying in the EU is still the best option. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 14:58:01 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Coach on Jan 7, 2019 14:58:01 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric...
I also believe that Mayโs deal is much better than no deal. Iโd rather we werenโt leaving, but if we are, then of the two options, it is a no brainier that we take the deal.
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric... I also believe that Mayโs deal is much better than no deal. Iโd rather we werenโt leaving, but if we are, then of the two options, it is a no brainier that we take the deal. |
|
|
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 14:59:48 GMT 1
Brexit, by moron on Jan 7, 2019 14:59:48 GMT 1, Manufactured Migrant Crisis Alert! Except the migrants are real. They're not actors. I wonder what will happen post-Brexit? Presumably the French will be quite happy for all the illegal migrants to cross the channel in to a non-EU country like the UK. It takes the problem out of their hands.
Manufactured Migrant Crisis Alert! Except the migrants are real. They're not actors. I wonder what will happen post-Brexit? Presumably the French will be quite happy for all the illegal migrants to cross the channel in to a non-EU country like the UK. It takes the problem out of their hands. French police have allready been caught driving people to Italy late at nights and dumping them in Italy. So I won't be surprised if the French gov are behind starting off this exodus to UK by boat and when the first boats arrived in UK waters at night, with so called Iranians it was obvious that they had been dropped off by a bigger boat close to the UK shores. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 15:00:20 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Coach on Jan 7, 2019 15:00:20 GMT 1, As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric... None of what we have negotiated is better than what we had though, is it?
Correct, my friend
As long as reality (not pipe dreams) is concerned, Mayโs deal is significantly better than no deal. All major and reputable research centres agree on this (and itโs actually no rocket science). Just a fact, not an opinion. But hey, reality never got in the way of Brexiteersโ rethoric... None of what we have negotiated is better than what we had though, is it? Correct, my friend |
|
Matt
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,357
๐๐ป 3,449
September 2014
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 15:07:46 GMT 1
Brexit, by Matt on Jan 7, 2019 15:07:46 GMT 1, (...) I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
Going back to the beginning of this thread none of your optimistic predictions have panned out (it could take less than 6 months to strike a deal, many countries are lining up to sign trade deals).
In fact quite the contrary : 2 years down still no suitable deal, and not one meaningful country (from a trade pov) has expressed any interest in a deal with the UK
In the interim, the cost of Brexit is several billion and growing, and still no sight of a single real upside to leaving, whilst the number of downsides grows daily.
Yet this does not seem to have tarnished your point of view or your optimism in the least !
I guess this somewhat explains why both parties seem to be closed to the idea of another referendum, because the result would probably be the same.
(...) I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. Going back to the beginning of this thread none of your optimistic predictions have panned out (it could take less than 6 months to strike a deal, many countries are lining up to sign trade deals). In fact quite the contrary : 2 years down still no suitable deal, and not one meaningful country (from a trade pov) has expressed any interest in a deal with the UK In the interim, the cost of Brexit is several billion and growing, and still no sight of a single real upside to leaving, whilst the number of downsides grows daily. Yet this does not seem to have tarnished your point of view or your optimism in the least ! I guess this somewhat explains why both parties seem to be closed to the idea of another referendum, because the result would probably be the same. |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 15:08:23 GMT 1
Brexit, by moron on Jan 7, 2019 15:08:23 GMT 1, Thats correct. So I would expect the people coming across the channel on small precarious boats are actually asylum seekers or would be as soon as they meet the first Border Force Officer, where they can initiate their claim for asylum as opposed to an illegal migrant who would try to evade being captured by Border Force officers and probably use a faster boat.
In reality they are all illegal immigrants. To be eligible for asylum they have to make their claim in the first safe country. France is a safe country and they are not claiming any asylum status or help in France and instead are heading for the UK and entering the UK territory illegally.
With the help of some very dodgy legal aid funded UK lawyers and also criminal gangs they are setting up or have set up a network to get into Britain. They know the system very well and with the likes of Soros and some so called migrant non profit groups who play with words and use the word "refugee" when they should be saying economic migrants or illegal immigrants (some media plays this word game too).
The last lot of alledged Iranians were said to be wealthy and paid smugglers thousands to get to UK. Why have they gone through numerous safe countries and not made their claim in France or previous safe countries?
Who are these people and what is their real agenda?
Who elected that senile old crook Soros, king of Europe?
Thats correct. So I would expect the people coming across the channel on small precarious boats are actually asylum seekers or would be as soon as they meet the first Border Force Officer, where they can initiate their claim for asylum as opposed to an illegal migrant who would try to evade being captured by Border Force officers and probably use a faster boat. Not so, In reality they are all illegal immigrants. To be eligible for asylum they have to make their claim in the first safe country. France is a safe country and they are not claiming any asylum status or help in France and instead are heading for the UK and entering the UK territory illegally. With the help of some very dodgy legal aid funded UK lawyers and also criminal gangs they are setting up or have set up a network to get into Britain. They know the system very well and with the likes of Soros and some so called migrant non profit groups who play with words and use the word "refugee" when they should be saying economic migrants or illegal immigrants (some media plays this word game too). The last lot of alledged Iranians were said to be wealthy and paid smugglers thousands to get to UK. Why have they gone through numerous safe countries and not made their claim in France or previous safe countries? Who are these people and what is their real agenda? Who elected that senile old crook Soros, king of Europe? |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 15:19:04 GMT 1
Brexit, by moron on Jan 7, 2019 15:19:04 GMT 1, Except illegal migrants and asylum seekers are two completely different things. In fact, asylum seekers are never illegal migrants. No one should ever be treated as illegal until all the facts are established. I appreciate that there is a 'correct' way of doing things and that ignorance is not an excuse, but do you really think that people desperate enough to risk their lives, travelling across continents know exactly what the correct procedure is?
They know the correct procedure and they know how to play the system to be able to stay in the UK once they have entered UK territory. They are supported by Soros and also smugglers and so called migrant no borders activists who give them leaflets and advice on how what to do.
Do you know who these people are exactly? The majority being men of a certain age.
Do you know if the so called Iranians are actually Iranians, or Iranian agents, or jihadi sleepers or other?
The four guys from Nigeria who hijacked the Italian ship when they decided to use iron bars to threaten the crew are criminals. At least they are on remand and being tried for their actions. Even though some UK legal aid lawyers have allready stated that they will be applying for them to be allowed to be able to stay in the UK because there is poverty in Nigeria. You couldn't make this shit up but these legal aid funded UK lawyers certainly know how to milk the system and their reasoning is just a con game to tangle things up in legality for months costing the taxpayer tens of thousands to allow any criminal to enter and stay in the UK.
There is poverty in Nigeria just as there is poverty in all countries worldwide. Nigeria also has a lot of wealth and is not a third world country.
Except illegal migrants and asylum seekers are two completely different things. In fact, asylum seekers are never illegal migrants. No one should ever be treated as illegal until all the facts are established. I appreciate that there is a 'correct' way of doing things and that ignorance is not an excuse, but do you really think that people desperate enough to risk their lives, travelling across continents know exactly what the correct procedure is? How exactly do they risk their lives travelling through numerous safe countries and their agenda being to get into the UK by non legal methods? They know the correct procedure and they know how to play the system to be able to stay in the UK once they have entered UK territory. They are supported by Soros and also smugglers and so called migrant no borders activists who give them leaflets and advice on how what to do. Do you know who these people are exactly? The majority being men of a certain age. Do you know if the so called Iranians are actually Iranians, or Iranian agents, or jihadi sleepers or other? The four guys from Nigeria who hijacked the Italian ship when they decided to use iron bars to threaten the crew are criminals. At least they are on remand and being tried for their actions. Even though some UK legal aid lawyers have allready stated that they will be applying for them to be allowed to be able to stay in the UK because there is poverty in Nigeria. You couldn't make this shit up but these legal aid funded UK lawyers certainly know how to milk the system and their reasoning is just a con game to tangle things up in legality for months costing the taxpayer tens of thousands to allow any criminal to enter and stay in the UK. There is poverty in Nigeria just as there is poverty in all countries worldwide. Nigeria also has a lot of wealth and is not a third world country. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 15:26:09 GMT 1
Brexit, by Happy Shopper on Jan 7, 2019 15:26:09 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal.
I'm a "remainer"... but I've heard this deal is bad from so many "leavers". What exactly is bad about it?
But don't forget, we will still have to negotiate our future relationship with Europe AFTER we leave. So that part is still to come.
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. I'm a "remainer"... but I've heard this deal is bad from so many "leavers". What exactly is bad about it? But don't forget, we will still have to negotiate our future relationship with Europe AFTER we leave. So that part is still to come. |
|
dogstar
New Member
๐จ๏ธ 665
๐๐ป 811
October 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 15:43:32 GMT 1
Brexit, by dogstar on Jan 7, 2019 15:43:32 GMT 1, Under the legally binding 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no obligation whatsoever for asylum seekers to apply for asylum in the first country they come to. They are allowed to apply wherever they can get to under international law and must be treated fairly and their claim properly assessed, regardless of how many other safe countries they may have passed through on their way.
Ironically, there is a caveat to this due to our membership of the EU. Under EU rules we can return them to the EU country they first entered and insist their asylum claim is processed there. So we can theoretically return them to France or any other EU country we can prove they passed through, and insist their asylum claim is processed there. This option will disappear as soon as we leave the EU and we will then be obliged, under international law, to deal with them ourselves.
"Take back control of our borders" by leaving the EU? Brexit Bigots ain't got a clue.
Under the legally binding 1951 Refugee Convention, there is no obligation whatsoever for asylum seekers to apply for asylum in the first country they come to. They are allowed to apply wherever they can get to under international law and must be treated fairly and their claim properly assessed, regardless of how many other safe countries they may have passed through on their way. Ironically, there is a caveat to this due to our membership of the EU. Under EU rules we can return them to the EU country they first entered and insist their asylum claim is processed there. So we can theoretically return them to France or any other EU country we can prove they passed through, and insist their asylum claim is processed there. This option will disappear as soon as we leave the EU and we will then be obliged, under international law, to deal with them ourselves.
"Take back control of our borders" by leaving the EU? Brexit Bigots ain't got a clue.
|
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 15:53:36 GMT 1
Brexit, by moron on Jan 7, 2019 15:53:36 GMT 1,
Soros lying and contradicting himself. He calls all migrants refugees and says that no country should eb forced to take them and at the same time says that none of the migrants should be forced to settle in countries they do not want to settle in. There again Soros is buying people including EU officials to play his game.
Farage exposes EU collusion with Soros.
Soros lying and contradicting himself. He calls all migrants refugees and says that no country should eb forced to take them and at the same time says that none of the migrants should be forced to settle in countries they do not want to settle in. There again Soros is buying people including EU officials to play his game.
Farage exposes EU collusion with Soros.
|
|
|
|
Fake
Artist
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,376
๐๐ป 2,144
July 2008
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 16:02:57 GMT 1
Brexit, by Fake on Jan 7, 2019 16:02:57 GMT 1, Is it a bit strange to have political views that are the total opposite of 98% of the artists one collects?
Is it a bit strange to have political views that are the total opposite of 98% of the artists one collects?
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 16:27:21 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 16:27:21 GMT 1, No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. I'm a "remainer"... but I've heard this deal is bad from so many "leavers". What exactly is bad about it? But don't forget, we will still have to negotiate our future relationship with Europe AFTER we leave. So that part is still to come.
Brexiters think it's a bad deal because...they are not getting everything they want.
Good deal or bad deal, it's the only one on offer. Brexiters need to swallow their pride and face reality.
No deal IS better than a bad deal. The deal on offer is more advantageous to the EU, so a No Deal situation is better, as at least the EU will also suffer. I think over the next 6 months after the UK leaves, the EU will be forced to take things more seriously and come back around the table offering a more sensible deal. I'm a "remainer"... but I've heard this deal is bad from so many "leavers". What exactly is bad about it? But don't forget, we will still have to negotiate our future relationship with Europe AFTER we leave. So that part is still to come. Remainers think it's a bad deal because...we're leaving. Brexiters think it's a bad deal because...they are not getting everything they want. Good deal or bad deal, it's the only one on offer. Brexiters need to swallow their pride and face reality. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 16:39:09 GMT 1
Brexit, by Happy Shopper on Jan 7, 2019 16:39:09 GMT 1, I'm a "remainer"... but I've heard this deal is bad from so many "leavers". What exactly is bad about it? But don't forget, we will still have to negotiate our future relationship with Europe AFTER we leave. So that part is still to come. Brexiters think it's a bad deal because...they are not getting everything they want.
This is all I hear from them... but what is that they want? How could the deal be better?
Anyone have an idea?
I'm a "remainer"... but I've heard this deal is bad from so many "leavers". What exactly is bad about it? But don't forget, we will still have to negotiate our future relationship with Europe AFTER we leave. So that part is still to come. Brexiters think it's a bad deal because...they are not getting everything they want. This is all I hear from them... but what is that they want? How could the deal be better? Anyone have an idea? |
|
moron
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,711
๐๐ป 1,051
September 2017
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 16:46:01 GMT 1
Brexit, by moron on Jan 7, 2019 16:46:01 GMT 1, "Who is a refugee?
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."
www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/
The fact is that everyone and their dog knows that most of these men of a certain age heading for europe
are not fleeing violence. Where are the women and children and old people?
The percentages do not add up.
The same way that 25 year olds are not child migrants or refugees but accepted as children and even attend schools with children in Europe because there is an agenda of dishonesty by people who ignore the fact that these men are adults because they have a no borders left wing marxist ideology.
There is a war ongoing in eastern Ukraine and if for example a million Ukranians headed for EU countries and arrived on the shores of Britain too. The same people who are calling migrants refugees and supporting allowing them in would be dead set and against any of the people from Ukraine being allowed in.
There is definately an agenda which includes no borders, no vetting and not caring if any of these unvetted migrant army commits serious crime in europe.
Plus the question not one of the no borders mob on here will ever answer is how many of these unvetted migrants do they want or support entering europe before they say that they will not accept any more. Is it one million or ten million or a hundred million or more?
Their agenda is to let everyone in regardless of whether they are genuine refugees or not.
"Who is a refugee?
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/ The fact is that everyone and their dog knows that most of these men of a certain age heading for europe are not fleeing violence. Where are the women and children and old people? The percentages do not add up. The same way that 25 year olds are not child migrants or refugees but accepted as children and even attend schools with children in Europe because there is an agenda of dishonesty by people who ignore the fact that these men are adults because they have a no borders left wing marxist ideology. There is a war ongoing in eastern Ukraine and if for example a million Ukranians headed for EU countries and arrived on the shores of Britain too. The same people who are calling migrants refugees and supporting allowing them in would be dead set and against any of the people from Ukraine being allowed in. There is definately an agenda which includes no borders, no vetting and not caring if any of these unvetted migrant army commits serious crime in europe. Plus the question not one of the no borders mob on here will ever answer is how many of these unvetted migrants do they want or support entering europe before they say that they will not accept any more. Is it one million or ten million or a hundred million or more? Their agenda is to let everyone in regardless of whether they are genuine refugees or not.
|
|
Shoot Again
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 5,594
๐๐ป 2,816
April 2011
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 16:50:41 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 16:58:42 GMT 1
Brexit, by Happy Shopper on Jan 7, 2019 16:58:42 GMT 1, "Who is a refugee?
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/ The fact is that everyone and their dog knows that most of these men of a certain age heading for europe are not fleeing violence. Where are the women and children and old people? The percentages do not add up. The same way that 25 year olds are not child migrants or refugees but accepted as children and even attend schools with children in Europe because there is an agenda of dishonesty by people who ignore the fact that these men are adults because they have a no borders left wing marxist ideology. There is a war ongoing in eastern Ukraine and if for example a million Ukranians headed for EU countries and arrived on the shores of Britain too. The same people who are calling migrants refugees and supporting allowing them in would be dead set and against any of the people from Ukraine being allowed in. There is definately an agenda which includes no borders, no vetting and not caring if any of these unvetted migrant army commits serious crime in europe. Plus the question not one of the no borders mob on here will ever answer is how many of these unvetted migrants do they want or support entering europe before they say that they will not accept any more. Is it one million or ten million or a hundred million or more? Their agenda is to let everyone in regardless of whether they are genuine refugees or not.
I think you'll find very few people welcome unvetted migration from all over the world.
I also doubt you'd find many people who'd prefer unvetted migrants from the Middle East and Africa over Ukrainian refugees! Where would you even get that idea from? Bizarre.
Genuine refugees shouldn't suffer because of illegal migrants... but sorting them out is obviously the hardest part.
"Who is a refugee?
A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries."www.unrefugees.org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/ The fact is that everyone and their dog knows that most of these men of a certain age heading for europe are not fleeing violence. Where are the women and children and old people? The percentages do not add up. The same way that 25 year olds are not child migrants or refugees but accepted as children and even attend schools with children in Europe because there is an agenda of dishonesty by people who ignore the fact that these men are adults because they have a no borders left wing marxist ideology. There is a war ongoing in eastern Ukraine and if for example a million Ukranians headed for EU countries and arrived on the shores of Britain too. The same people who are calling migrants refugees and supporting allowing them in would be dead set and against any of the people from Ukraine being allowed in. There is definately an agenda which includes no borders, no vetting and not caring if any of these unvetted migrant army commits serious crime in europe. Plus the question not one of the no borders mob on here will ever answer is how many of these unvetted migrants do they want or support entering europe before they say that they will not accept any more. Is it one million or ten million or a hundred million or more? Their agenda is to let everyone in regardless of whether they are genuine refugees or not. I think you'll find very few people welcome unvetted migration from all over the world. I also doubt you'd find many people who'd prefer unvetted migrants from the Middle East and Africa over Ukrainian refugees! Where would you even get that idea from? Bizarre. Genuine refugees shouldn't suffer because of illegal migrants... but sorting them out is obviously the hardest part. |
|
mojo
Junior Member
๐จ๏ธ 2,190
๐๐ป 3,720
May 2014
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 17:00:59 GMT 1
Brexit, by mojo on Jan 7, 2019 17:00:59 GMT 1,
C4 tonight@9
link - worth reading
|
|
Deleted
๐จ๏ธ 0
๐๐ป
January 1970
|
Brexit
Jan 7, 2019 17:01:04 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Jan 7, 2019 17:01:04 GMT 1, Brexiters think it's a bad deal because...they are not getting everything they want. This is all I hear from them... but what is that they want? How could the deal be better? Anyone have an idea?
Brexiters think it's a bad deal because...they are not getting everything they want. This is all I hear from them... but what is that they want? How could the deal be better? Anyone have an idea? As far as I can see, Brexters want all the good bits from the EU but without all the bad bits...and without paying for it. It's totally pie-in-the-sky stuff. It was doomed to failure from the start. |
|
