Drummond
Senior Member
On the EU's lack of democracy ...
The Undemocratic EU Explained - It Will Never Change
On the NHS ... which you doubt is one of the biggest employers around ...
NHS is fifth biggest employer in world
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Brexit busted.
- Thread starter Tommy Tainant
- Start date
On the EU's lack of democracy ...
The Undemocratic EU Explained - It Will Never Change
On the NHS ... which you doubt is one of the biggest employers around ...
NHS is fifth biggest employer in world
No it is like America having a vote to elect a muslim president and then moaning when he wins. It is not Brexit it is freedom to make our own decisions again, to be allowed to deport foreign criminals, stop unwanted migrants and cut our costs at a time the world is losing. Look at the nations that failed under the EU and what they had to do to get out of trouble. Getting safety and security back does improve peoples lives, getting a surplus on the housing market means that people can have a home again and having jobs available means they can get work.
Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
I think immigration has a big impact.
However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
Why the UK?
Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws
What I'm arguing for is freedom. Freedom to shake off the domineering EU once and for all. Regardless of your quibbling about what occurs within the UK's borders, at least those Parties you mention ARE operating within the UK's borders, taking decisions for people within the UK. What you're fighting for is an ever-greater reduction of that, over time.
You disparagingly say ... 'in London they've been elected by the people, then again the people don't seem to have much sense for what makes a good politician either.'. This is more of your 'we aren't fit to govern ourselves' argumentation. You are so centred on power being taken away from the peoples of the UK !!
What's wrong with having the hope that you acquire freedom, and from people prepared to hate us if we don't do as they expect us to ?
You talk of facing reality. I say, WE MAKE OUR OWN. We're not incapable of it, any more than any other non-EU country is. There is nothing 'deficient' in us that makes us incapable of dealing with our own fate in a responsible and profitable manner. However, the 'Remain' people rely on our fearing anything that involves change from the status quo ... as if we have that fictional, imaginary, 'deficiency' encoded into our DNA.
I say: we do not. Time we ruled ourselves, determined our own future, emerged as responsible adults to make our own way in the world ... and forsook the sometimes-dysfunctional playpen of the control-freaking EU !
Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
You say ... 'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'
Is this a joke ?? It makes all the difference in the world, between the freedom to totally determine our own laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
That's the theory.
In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
Which decisions does the UK not make, exactly?
I know there are some, but exactly how does it impact the normal person?
What's the difference if the same law is passed in Brussels or London? What difference does that make?
You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
I think immigration has a big impact.
However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
Why the UK?
Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws
So, how is it the UK can't change the laws, but everyone else has better laws?
No, I think you're wrong. The EU doesn't ban the UK changing these laws at all. It's just the British politicians haven't managed to bother finding a decent way of making welfare WORK.
This is ONLY a problem of the UK government. This has NOTHING to do with the EU government.
The UK govt could make it harder for migrants to live in the UK.
The problem is that welfare needs to be "fair". Well, make it fair and make it so migrants can't get the welfare. It's not hard. I have plenty of suggestions for how this could work.
Also, don't tell me I know nothing about the EU, you're the one telling me something that is clearly incorrect right now.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
Yes, I know what you're arguing for. Doesn't mean that it will ever happen.
You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have?
Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?
You talk about taking decisions for the people of the UK, er.... hasn't this been happening anyway? Didn't Labour let in a lot of people, and the Tories still letting in a lot of people? And it's mostly non-EU citizens that people are getting annoyed about anyway?
So, how will this change by leaving the EU? The simple answer is, it won't, unless the govt in London does something about it, and they can do something about it while BEING IN THE EU anyway.
Basically, the UK govt goes to Europe and doesn't do a good job, then you expect them to do a good job in the UK......
Again, you're hoping for something that isn't going to happen.
You say ... 'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'
Is this a joke ?? It makes all the difference in the world, between the freedom to totally determine our own laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
That's the theory.
In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
Drummond
Senior Member
You say ... 'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'
Is this a joke ?? It makes all the difference in the world, between the freedom to totally determine our own laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
That's the theory.
In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
The BNP truly WAS too extreme .. hoe can you claim otherwise ? Griffin, its leader, was - I understand - a Holocaust denier ...
An obvious point to make,though ... while we're in the EU, though we're not actually 'blocked' from exerting an influence (and so, in theory have an input into the issue of the laws and diktats they want to bind us to) .. the TRUTH is that we're heavily outvoted. So, unless we have broad consensus from those foreign powers in the EU who see things our way, in truth, we can make no headway.
This isn't a matter of 'effort' on anyone's part over here in the UK. It's simply an issue of others outvoting us, overriding us, so much of the time.
Get shot of the EU ... and the UK Government will exert its decision-making one HUNDRED percent of the time !! Not just 'every now and again, if we're really lucky !!'.
You don't think that immigration has an impact on the availability of jobs to those who originally came from the UK ? And a rather big one, at that ? Seriously ?
'The same law' passed in Brussels surely means that the EU determined its existence, and the degree to which it would be implemented ? This is not self-rule, it is not freedom. This is what's missing from the equation.
June 23rd gives us the chance to remedy that. Not before time, either ...
I think immigration has a big impact.
However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
Why the UK?
Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws
So, how is it the UK can't change the laws, but everyone else has better laws?
No, I think you're wrong. The EU doesn't ban the UK changing these laws at all. It's just the British politicians haven't managed to bother finding a decent way of making welfare WORK.
This is ONLY a problem of the UK government. This has NOTHING to do with the EU government.
The UK govt could make it harder for migrants to live in the UK.
The problem is that welfare needs to be "fair". Well, make it fair and make it so migrants can't get the welfare. It's not hard. I have plenty of suggestions for how this could work.
Also, don't tell me I know nothing about the EU, you're the one telling me something that is clearly incorrect right now.
Here you go
Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits.
As you have been told the EU stops the UK from making it's own laws, and this is what the Labour party legacy is.
You say ... 'You talk about freedom. Come off it, what freedom don't you have? Freedom to have to follow laws from London instead of Brussels? Makes not much difference, does it?'
Is this a joke ?? It makes all the difference in the world, between the freedom to totally determine our own laws, and have them decided upon instead by - primarily, anyway - foreigners !!
We might have ONE contributing vote between a couple of dozen ! That's not nearly good enough, in 'autonomy' terms.
Our votes get watered down by all those others from competing powers. Get shot of the EU ... we likewise get shot of that interference. Simple !
Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
That's the theory.
In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything. And letting in more and more pensioners
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
That's the theory.
In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
The BNP truly WAS too extreme .. hoe can you claim otherwise ? Griffin, its leader, was - I understand - a Holocaust denier ...
An obvious point to make,though ... while we're in the EU, though we're not actually 'blocked' from exerting an influence (and so, in theory have an input into the issue of the laws and diktats they want to bind us to) .. the TRUTH is that we're heavily outvoted. So, unless we have broad consensus from those foreign powers in the EU who see things our way, in truth, we can make no headway.
This isn't a matter of 'effort' on anyone's part over here in the UK. It's simply an issue of others outvoting us, overriding us, so much of the time.
Get shot of the EU ... and the UK Government will exert its decision-making one HUNDRED percent of the time !! Not just 'every now and again, if we're really lucky !!'.
I didn't say the BNP wasn't too extreme. I was not supporter of the BNP or any other far right or far left group.
What I said was that the rise of UKIP was not because the BNP were too extreme, but because the BNP imploded.If you read what I wrote correctly you'll see I didn't say the BNP weren't too extreme. I said UKIP rose because the BNP imploded and not because of the BNP's extremism.
You say the UK is heavily outvoted. Would that be because the people who are skeptics don't do anything? Don't exert influence? Don't get their point across well? Don't state viable alternatives? Don't act on realistic goals? Don't do what people vote them in for in the first place?
Vote leave because we're too incompetent to do good deals, but after we leave we'll give you the best deals ever..... how's that going to happen if they can hardly get their point across and aren't even in charge of government?
Again, so the UK government exerts its decision making 100% of the time. Does that CHANGE ANYTHING?
Immigration is an issue in the UK because of the UK government and NOT because of the EU government. So how will that change if the incompetence of the UK govt is there 100% of the time instead of 95% of the time?
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
I think immigration has a big impact.
However I also understand that immigration is a big problem BECAUSE OF THE UK GOVERNMENT.
Look, immigrants are camping outside British borders in France. Why? They can walk into most EU countries without a problem, and yet risk going to the UK. Why not stay in France? Why not stay in Germany? Why not go to the other countries?
Why the UK?
Could it be that the UK Government has fucked things up so badly that it's a magnet for immigrants? And you think leaving the EU will somehow make the UK govt better? I don't get it. Perhaps you can tell me how Cameron will instantly change from being a guy destroying the fabric of the UK, to a good old honest chap the day after the UK leaves the EU.
Because the EU pulled the rug from under our feet when they passed laws on welfare rights for migrants. And it was during the neo Marxists watch that this happened. They gave away our gold and signed for the EU to have more say in our affairs so they could stay in power. Now we as a nation are suffering, and Labour are hanging on the shirt tails of the leave campaign. If you notice Corbyn changes his mind about staying or leaving as often as he changes his socks.
So, again, how is it that only the UK seems to have welfare laws that the immigrants love, while everyone else seems to not have such laws?
No, the reality is this is about UK welfare laws, NOT EU welfare laws.
Which the EU bans us from changing, if we do they fine us for doing so out of our rebate. Is this so hard for you to understand, the EU bans any activity that would give one member state an advantage over any other. So we cant change our welfare laws to make it hard for migrants to live in the UK as it would be unfair. If we had changed the laws before the Rome conference like France and Germany did then they would stand. So the reality is you know nothing abut the EU and how it enforces its laws and how the UK can not change its welfare laws
So, how is it the UK can't change the laws, but everyone else has better laws?
No, I think you're wrong. The EU doesn't ban the UK changing these laws at all. It's just the British politicians haven't managed to bother finding a decent way of making welfare WORK.
This is ONLY a problem of the UK government. This has NOTHING to do with the EU government.
The UK govt could make it harder for migrants to live in the UK.
The problem is that welfare needs to be "fair". Well, make it fair and make it so migrants can't get the welfare. It's not hard. I have plenty of suggestions for how this could work.
Also, don't tell me I know nothing about the EU, you're the one telling me something that is clearly incorrect right now.
Here you go
Why current EU rules won't let Britain reform its benefits.
As you have been told the EU stops the UK from making it's own laws, and this is what the Labour party legacy is.
Again, if you READ the article, you'll see what the case is.
"But this is not quite true. "Tougher rules" is often shorthand for welfare systems which are also less generous to all citizens (many EU member states have no equivalent to housing benefit or in-work tax credits). The actual rules governing access to these benefits are determined nationally, but once in place they have to apply to all EU citizens, just as they do in the UK."
Basically, laws have to be FAIR for EU citizens.
If you have housing benefits and your law reads "all citizens will get housing benefits if they're not working" then you have what I'd describe as a "shit law".
If the govt actually used their brain, they could not only solve the problem of dossers who happen to also be British citizens, but also deal with the issues of immigrants.
I'm sorry, but if the UK govt cannot cope with making laws that have to be fair for EU citizens, and yet OTHER COUNTRIES CAN, then why the hell would you want the UK government in charge of the UK? (Ie, elect someone else who is competent for once).
"Our country has now gone as far as it can to limit restrict EU migrants’ access under the current legal regime. This current situation fails to accommodate the unique nature of the British welfare system compared to the prevailing continental model."
Ah, the "unique nature of the British welfare system", ie, read , the British welfare system is shit. But let's call it "unique" instead so they don't look bad for being totally incapable of making decent laws.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
Again, I've said this before. YOU don't make your laws. The politicians do.
Also, the EU doesn't have a police force, ALL implementation is done by the government at home anyway.
The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
That's the theory.
In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything. And letting in more and more pensioners
No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Drummond
Senior Member
The politicians make laws. Ideally, they'd be doing so as a result of representations made to them by the general public, at home ... or, those laws would follow from promises made to the public that were sold as manifesto commitments. Either way, input from voters AT HOME help determine the content of the laws in question.
That's the theory.
In practice .. not nearly as simple as that. The EU comes up with its own laws and directives, and Member States are expected to bend their laws to accommodate what the EU wants of them. That's an extra and critical tier of bureaucracy, which the voters at home had NO say in.
We disobey at our peril. The EU has fine-creating powers if a Member State dares defies them.
I say again: the sooner we're shot of that lot, the better !!
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything. And letting in more and more pensioners
No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
Frigidweirdo, I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. Will you do that ?
Last edited:
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
Ideally. But then again I think most of the people believe the NHS should remain. If the facts were presented (like if costs half what the US system costs) then the people would be in favor of the continued nature of the NHS as it was under Labour.
However, again, the UK has done what to change the EU? Almost nothing. It hasn't tried to unite the skeptic factions into changing the EU, it sits and moans. And then if the UK leaves, then what? More moaning, more not doing things properly?
What's the difference?
Does Cameron put the interests of the people first? No.... did Labour?
The rise of UKIP was because people are fed up with the political elite, same in the US with Trump and Sanders, but then the political elite always wins out anyway because the people vote mindlessly, and they'll vote on the 23rd mindlessly, and they'll vote in 2020 mindlessly.
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything. And letting in more and more pensioners
No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
Frigidweirdo, I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. Will you do that ?
Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
Drummond
Senior Member
Labour put the needs and perversions of a minority first after their own greed. That is why we are in the state we are regards immigration and the EU. The rise of UKIP was because the BNP were seem as too extreme for most peoples tastes, so the UKIP was formed
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything. And letting in more and more pensioners
No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
Frigidweirdo, I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. Will you do that ?
Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a foreign preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
We British have a right to decide OUR decisions, OUR way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, we have a right to know that.
Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
Labour was wrong on the immigration issue. Their needs might well have been an aging population and not enough workers, however they still were wrong in how they let a lot of people in.
HOWEVER the welfare system in the UK hasn't been changed enough by the Tories to deal with the problem. So it's a multiparty problems.
Yes, UKIP rose, not because the BNP was too extreme, but because the BNP imploded. You do know Griffin got kicked out of the party and the majority left the party, now you have the "Britain First" and other such groups.
However, the problem points to the UK government, not to the EU.
UKIP were saying there was a problem and pointing in the wrong direction to where the problem was being caused from.
That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything. And letting in more and more pensioners
No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
Frigidweirdo, I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. Will you do that ?
Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a foreign preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
We British have a right to decide OUR decisions, OUR way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, we have a right to know that.
Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.
I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
Drummond
Senior Member
That was their excuse to import more Labour voters, and in doing so they increased the welfare bills because the majority were unemployable through age, education and ability.
Actually he left when the BNP started to go under because of splits in the party. The EDL took many members away, which was its whole purpose from the outset.
The problem was the Labour party handling of the situation prior to the collapse of the banks, when the4y gave away control of just about everything. And letting in more and more pensioners
No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
Frigidweirdo, I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. Will you do that ?
Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a foreign preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
We British have a right to decide OUR decisions, OUR way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, we have a right to know that.
Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.
I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda foreign to, and outside of, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide our future, for us, in terms of what best serves that future.
This we have every conceivable right to do.
Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
WHY ? Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?
With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
So - are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
No, I disagree. Labour, and many liberals, have a big problem. They don't see the impact of the laws that they're implementing. How they think is in terms of "fairness", and they'll have their heads so far up their asses that they won't see any consequences, and then they'll see the BNP and other groups railing against this, then they'll think it's racist to ever say anything against immigration etc, and so they'll become so entrenched in their position, it's a disaster.
Liberals don't necessarily think they need to import voters, they just need to educate voters, because the more educated a voter, the more likely they're going to lean towards Labour.
No, Griffin got kicked out of the BNP. He was very lucky not to go earlier. Brons lost the leadership election by like 1 or 2 votes. Then Griffin stepped down as leader and was expelled from the party a few months later. He didn't leave the party voluntarily.
The EDL didn't take its members because the EDL isn't a political party. It's a get drunk, go onto the streets and try and cause violence group. The guy who started it, Lennon (or whatever damn name he chooses to go by at any one time) was a Luton Town "supporter", in the early days almost all the protests were done not on Luton Town home games days. Lennon was convicted of leading "supporters" against Newport County fans in mass organized violence.
In fact Brons left the BNP too, and went to the "British Democratic Party", I mean, what a name for a bunch of thugs who hate democracy. He's president of the party and has been for 4 years.
British Democratic Party (2013) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
Frigidweirdo, I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. Will you do that ?
Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a foreign preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
We British have a right to decide OUR decisions, OUR way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, we have a right to know that.
Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.
I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda foreign to, and outside of, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide our future, for us, in terms of what best serves that future.
This we have every conceivable right to do.
Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
WHY ? Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?
With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
So - are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?
I seem rattled? Why's that?
Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
Drummond
Senior Member
A point of interest: 'Lennon', aka Tommy Robinson, left the EDL ... and instead contributed towards 'Quilliam', a think-tank that exists to champion freedom of expression, and to counter extremism (its focus is on Islam). Seems to me that Robinson has chosen a recognisably reputable path for himself, one proving that there's more to him than anti-EDL propaganda would ever admit to ?
As for 'a bunch of thugs who hate democracy' ... wouldn't that description fit, to a degree, anyway, anyone wanting to be heavily involved in the EU ? The EU is known for its ANTI-democratic opaqueness ... and they exist to crush autonomy within their Member States, which must devolve any residual 'democracy' in a Member State to that of a colossus where it can be drowned out by literally hundreds of millions of other such 'voices' ....
The sooner we're shot of the EU, the better !
Oh, and a point of clarification, please .. frigidweirdo, tell me .. your posts read as though they're from another Brit, but as of this moment I'm unsure that's true. Perhaps it's not. Do you post as an outsider, looking 'in', trying to intervene in a political process that in truth you've no actual stake in .. or, as a Brit who truly has ?
Frigidweirdo, I'd like you to tell us what your nationality is. Will you do that ?
Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a foreign preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
We British have a right to decide OUR decisions, OUR way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, we have a right to know that.
Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.
I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda foreign to, and outside of, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide our future, for us, in terms of what best serves that future.
This we have every conceivable right to do.
Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
WHY ? Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?
With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
So - are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?
I seem rattled? Why's that?
Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... but, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion - the illusion - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
For myself ... I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
Lennon is still a thug, Tommy Robinson was a name he took from another thug.
Yes, I think he saw his star rising and realized being a thug limits your income abilities.
No, I don't think anyone who wants to be involved in the EU would be "a bunch of thugs who hate democracy" at all.
Will I tell you my nationality? No, I won't. You don't need to know, I have no desire in releasing information like this to people on the internet.
Let's just say I've lived in a lot of countries and have a lot of knowledge about a lot of places. Some countries' politics interest me, some countries don't.
--- Oho ! Is this perhaps revealing ???
You won't say where you're from, eh ? Would I be correct in thinking you're a foreigner trying to skew British thinking to a foreign preference, then ?? Following an agenda that, in fact, is NOT ours, just dressed up to look like it 'might' be ???
We British have a right to decide OUR decisions, OUR way. Yes, really !! If foreign viewpoints come our way, wanting to be considered ... we have a right to assess their worth, not only in terms of the viewpoints themselves, but also in terms of the agenda that may lay behind them ... the purpose of the comment(s).
If you're an anti-Brexit person who (just for the sake of argument) is German ... and you come on here to change minds to your way of thinking ... if in fact you argue to serve GERMAN interests, and not BRITISH ones, we have a right to know that.
Be clear. If you have a point of view to offer and we can know its origin, we can assess it properly. We can show all due respect or consideration to an 'outsider's' opinion. I'm all in favour of respecting such an opinion, IF I KNOW ITS ORIGIN. You, however, refuse to be that transparent. And I have to wonder .... WHY.
I wonder if I'm alone in that. I strongly suspect ... not.
I won't say where I'm from for a very simple reason. You give personal information on the internet, it might cause you problems, you give personal information on this forum and others like it, and people will attack you for it instead of actually looking at what the person wrote.
I couldn't give a fuck what you think about where I'm from.
If you won't listen to my arguments or my points because you've made an assumption about where I'm from, then why are you here? You're on a US message board, talking about Brexit, and yet you're getting annoyed because someone you've been talking to for ages won't tell you personal information about themselves.
You strongly suspect.... you might have been better off saying that you don't know.
Do you want to debate, or do you just want to feel like you're right? It's up to you really. If you want to vote with your head in the sand, that's your problem.
Oh dear .. you seem rattled ? How unfortunate.
Yes, OK. I am on a US forum. Obviously I take that point. Nonetheless, I am discussing a matter central to the UK's future, I have every right to do so .. and I'm definitely not the only Brit to contribute to this discussion.
You decline to even say what NATIONALITY you are. What harm do you think you could possibly suffer by giving us this simple fact about yourself ? Your 'problems' in doing so make no sense to me, and they come across as a weak excuse to hide other considerations.
What other considerations, I wonder ? The clear, transparent vision of someone arguing his case because it serves an agenda foreign to, and outside of, objective consideration of the merits of Brexit ?
The people of the UK - of which I am one - will, on 23rd June, cast our votes either to stay in, or opt out of, membership of the EU. We'll be doing so because we want to decide our future, for us, in terms of what best serves that future.
This we have every conceivable right to do.
Foreigners serving an agenda which doesn't address the UK's interests, but instead serves other interests instead, could craft arguments which appear good, but which in reality are overridden by other, HIDDEN, considerations instead. Those who those foreigners seek to influence, have a right to know if they're being persuaded of something which supersedes what would have been a more meritorious path.
For example: we know that Obama has tried to actually blackmail Brits into voting for EU membership, saying that if they don't, they are guaranteed to be 'at the back of the queue' for future UK-US trade deals. Never mind that, at the time it becomes pertinent, he'd have no power to arrange such a thing ! No, he was strongly driven to interfere in our affairs, to make that empty threat, regardless.
WHY ? Why make that threat ? What prompted it ? What FOREIGN AGENDA was at work ?
With Obama's transparent intervention,we knew we were getting a threat from a Superpower, who wanted us to dance to THEIR tune. Whereas ... we should instead be dancing to OUR tune. We knew we were being subjected to a blackmail threat ... we could see it for what it was.
We Brits have a right to that form of insight. To know what rival powers intend for us, and what we'd reap if we went along with it. With knowing 'what we'd reap', comes an insight into what lies behind it all.
So - are you sure you want to remain secretive about your national identity ? So that we remain deprived of an insight into what you have to gain by manipulating our thinking into a direction of your preference ?
I seem rattled? Why's that?
Because you think you've found a way to "win" an argument by just attacking the person you're "debating" with by jumping on something you don't know?
Do you know how many times this happens on a board like this?
So, you keep this crap up, I'm not debating with.
You are better able to tell me why you're rattled than I am !! Why not answer your own question ?
But tell me ... AM I really 'attacking' you ? I'm asking you for a piece of information it couldn't possibly harm you to divulge. Not personally, anyway. Ah ... but, would it harm your credibility in continuing to push your case ?
For example, are you driven to argue as you do because the very fact of your true nationality ties you into serving YOUR country's interests, whilst instead trying to push the notion - the illusion - that you're considering, instead, what's really good for the British ?
You can debate with me if you wish. Or, you could avoid doing so instead, because I'm making your position an awkward one by wanting to know what is really driving you to make your case ... whose interests your arguments REALLY serve. It's entirely up to you.
For myself ... I say that it's the freedom, health and wellbeing of the UK that I really care about, and I do so as a citizen of the UK. Consequently, I'm pro-Brexit, and proudly so.
No, you're not making my position awkward. I will discuss British, American, German, Chinese, Australian, Chilean politics all you like, it doesn't matter where I'm from.
What you're doing is personal attacks, and you're doing it without even knowing where I'm from.
So, this is the last time. Stop with the personal attacks, stop with the fake bravado, stop with the bullshit.
I lived in Spain once and someone told me I couldn't talk about Franco. Another time someone told me I couldn't talk about Detroit because I've never (fortunately) been there.
Apparently people like to make reasons why people can't talk about stuff. If this were the case then how many people could talk about WW2? Only the people there? The best book about Franco is written by a British guy. Most of the best books on WW2 were written by people who didn't fight and may not even have been born then.
Go to universities, I doubt there is a single lecturer on WW2 that is alive, certainly none on the Roman times was alive then, yet they do talk about this stuff because they have KNOWLEDGE, they have logic, they have reason.
Your argument is "I don't know where you're from, so I'm saying you're not from Britain" "If you're not from Britain, you can't say anything".
I mean, fucking hell, are you serious?
I know the Brexit people are in to emotion and feeling and like to ignore reality. They did the same when Obama went to the UK.
Obama says his piece, the British people can learn some useful information from him. Instead the Brexit people said "He doesn't have the bust of Churchill outside the Oval Office, you should not listen to this man, he hates Britain".
I mean, the definition of fucking pathetic is right there.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 46,437
- 9,926
- 2,030
How Brexit opinion breaks down by age, class, and political views
Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
This is shocking.
The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
Hmm, well....
Young people, the people have the most to lose from leaving, are the ones who want to stay in. The more settled people are, the more they're looking for hope in their lives, and the more they're taken in by nationalistic rhetoric.
This is shocking.
The people who have most to lose, the poor people, are the ones most likely to be take in by the rhetoric too.
Working class people will save almost nothing from leaving, more likely they'll lose out big time, yet, they're the most likely to be lower educated, or less willing to be informed.
Scotland has a lot to lose from leaving. It's the north that is the most anti-EU, again, poorer, less educated areas.
Hardly surprising. If this is the case then Remain should, in theory, win, seeing how badly UKIP did after predicting their own success. They lost half their MPs when it came down to it.
The extremes, well, the very right wingers are more likely to be in favor of the whole leaving and have a party at the same time sort of thing.
Hmm, well....
Similar threads
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 198
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 90
- Replies
- 7
- Views
- 35
- Replies
- 50
- Views
- 754
- Replies
- 62
- Views
- 467
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 49
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8512
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 483
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-