pitrevie

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

As my post pointed out - yes, its likely immigration was the main concern.  EU immigration from poorer countries keeping wages for those at the bottom in the UK (and consequently those in the middle) v low.

 

Not sure why you keep trying to turn this into "little brown people"?  Something first mentioned by you....

I am not sure whether you have even looked at the poster but it was clearly nothing to do with immigrants coming from within the EU but refugees from without. It was condemned by all the leaders of the Brexit and Remain campaigns.

As I have pointed out repeatedly the UK has 100% control on immigration from outside the EU. In other words we didn't have to accept even one person on that poster it was bogus but that is what Farage intended. 

1 minute ago, Khun Han said:

 

You're wasting your time Dick. He has plenty of intelligence but zero intellectual honesty. It's purely about 'winning' every little sub-debate for him, and he has an endless supply of highly selective factoids at hand to 'prove' that he is 'right' about everything under the sun. Best place for him is the ignore list.

Wow the man who is ignoring me but still posts his reply.

Just to remind anyone since he constantly uses this "intellectual dishonesty label"

Khun Han earned himself a suspension as a result of accusing me of being someone who I am not and revealing that identity along with accusing me of banning him from some twitter account that I have never had and then trying to connect me to some guy called Andrew who I have never heard of who apparently writes books about kings.

Then he uses the same criticism about another of my replies and it was easy to show that he had never even read the posts in questions as I was able to show relatively easily that both links he was referring in the OP  were bogus.

When you ask for evidence to support his ridiculous assertions you are told you are being facetious or engaging in debating tricks. Yep that is the level of discourse he comes up with.

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I've deleted the rest of your post as I've addressed those points earlier, and the 'conversation' seems to have moved on to "little brown people" as first mentioned in your post.

 

You're convinced that leave voters were worried about the above, whereas I'm convinced that they were more concerned about immigration from poorer EU countries as a result of 'open borders' - allowing employers to keep wages (for those at the bottom - then reflected to those on ordinary salaries) very low.

 

They're obviously also v concerned about Moslem immigrants - regardless of whether they come from EU countries/relatives of those already in the UK/'refugees'.

 

"Little brown people" didn't come into this referendum vote as far as I know - its just your interpretation of the result that prefers to believe that people who voted leave had this derogatory nonsense in their mind.

Polls since the vote have indicated that immigration was the No 1 concern. The poster from Farage even made Gove shudder which must be a first and was deliberately constructed to show masses of Brown people wanting to enter the UK whereas the EU issue was about the free movement of people within the EU.

We always have had 100% control of people entering the UK from outside the EU. If what you say was true then why didn't that poster reflect those coming from the poorer EU countries and not what Farage intended all along.

2 minutes ago, shanesox said:

That poster referred to uncontrolled immigrants not only "brown" ,the remain losers got what they deserved.Portraying Leave voters as racist. All that losing bile came out from June 24 onwards !


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

The poster consisted entirely of brown people nothing to do with the EU. We had 100% control of anyone entering the UK from outside the EU but Farage deliberately used that poster to give the impression that it was connected to the freedom of movement issue within the EU.

4 minutes ago, shanesox said:

Who's playing the race card now! Pathetic


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

It was intended to be a reference to the poster that Farage used, but I see it went straight over your head. The one where is he pointing to a huge line of exclusively brown people or perhaps that too went over your head

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

A bit like govt. ministers thinking that Osborne's promised emergency budget in the event of a brexit vote would frighten people into voting remain...   I suspect this back-fired badly and resulted in quite a few voters realising that the entire remain campaign was based on fear tactics?

 

Perhaps they'd have been better off concentrating on the positives of remaining within the EU?  Although thinking about it, it would have been political suicide to point out that the EU has promoted more policies to help the 'ordinary' worker than UK governments!

Yes he did make some wild statements and far be it from me to defend Osborne but given that Hammond announced Brexit had blown a 122 billion pound hole in the public finances and also given that Osborne stated that he intended to balance the books within this parliament I think with that time scale he would have had no option but to introduce an emergency budget. Hammond has taken a more leisurely approach to the public debt. I really think it was a case that the economic situation which was still in a hole following the 2008 financial crisis caught up with them. That plus all those little brown people who were going to swamp us.

20 minutes ago, evadgib said:

If you're that perfect how did you lose?

Now you have just given a perfect example of what I mean, Please show me where I have made that claim.

I note also you avoided answering the question I put to you, but then I didn't expect an answer. I have posed the same question to several people on here and at no time have I got a answer. These are people who will tell you that having a say on Lisbon and Maastricht was so important to them but ask them about the the final deal and the silence is deafening.

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That's a change in direction, you now think the concept of a Common Travel Area is madness. Each to his own.

You have to laugh at Khun Han's statements. This is a guy who obviously doesn't want the UK in Schengen, in fact he doesn't even want the UK in the EU but this doesn't stop him sticking his nose and voicing an opinion on the Schengen agreement which in no way affects him. In any poll of Europeans the Schengen agreement is popular, these are the people who use it and experience it.

It reminds me of the stance taken by Johnson warning us about all those little brown men eager to get into the UK especially from Turkey which was drowning our country. As soon as the vote was over everyone started walking back the promises on immigration but Johnson went further. As Foreign Secretary he pops up in Turkey and tells the Turks he will do everything to assist them joining the EU the organisation he had just succeeded in voting to withdraw from.

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

I have yet to meet a Brexiter who believes the nonsense you're peddling in their name. A common ploy by you lot is to assume that the opposite camp are mentally deficient simply because they aren't toeing the line.

 

The starting gun will be fired on Wednesday, starting a process that will end with UK being more 'out' than Michael Barrymore 

 

"toeing the line" nope its just that many of them keep getting their facts wrong as we have just recently seen.  However please explain  what is meant by OUT. Is that the OUT we were promised by many of the Prncipal Brexiters including Johnson where we would retain access to the single market despite leaving the EU or the OUT as the PM has said where we leave the single market. Did you pick up on the link I posted earlier where 9 out of 10 poll wanted the UK to retain access to the single market irrespective of whether they voted to remain or leave. What camp are you in or don't you give a damn?

4 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I won't argue with that but it might take a couple of years to complete the departure.

How many times have Brexiters stated in recent weeks that come Wednesday we are out of the EU. These are the very people who would have you believe that Maastrich, Lisbon etc was a step to far. So they have paid so much attention to these complex treaties and that was the tipping point but something that has been in the news for almost the past year has gone right past them.

1 minute ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Another incorrect fact

Sorry but I was being sarcastic if you read my reply to George FC I made just that point. Then you followed by accusing correctly Brexiters of misrepresenting the facts which Nauseus asked what would they be.

One of the most common stated claims of Brexiters on the forum is that on Wednesday we are out of the  EU. I have lost count of the times they have been corrected on that. In fact the more enthusiastic often claim we are out already.

27 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What facts are those then?

We are leaving on Wednesday. (I will add to make clear this is something often stated by Brexiters and is NOT a fact)

4 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

And the remoaners bleat on and on when both sides agreed and it was as plain as night from day there would be one vote, only one vote, and the result was final... They should have got out of bed on 23rd June 2016..

 

Yes I know fine well what the Treaty of Rome says, but it is not as plain as night from day what they intended. The Lisbon treaty changed the game after the EU Constitution was thrown out, it was recovered and repackaged like processed cheese and sold as a new product. Maastricht was another that introduced the Euro as a further step not in the ToR.

You have been hoodwinked by Brussels/Strasbourg spin. You need to look into the history a bit closer.

March if you want, Wednesday we are OUT!

Well once again I have to start correcting you and your last sentence really does speak volumes to your understanding of what was intended for the EU.

How many times does it have to be stated to Brexiters, on Wednesday we are going to notify the EU of our intent to leave, we are not out we are just invoking Article 50.

That has been in the news for the last almost 12 months and you still don't understand the process and yet you will have us believe that you somehow understood what the EU was all about re the various treaties.

My guess is that you paid as much attention to the original application to join the EEC as you have shown to our intention to leave.

The UK government has handed a Chinese state transport and property company a seven-year deal to run one of the Britain’s biggest rail franchises in a controversial deal that brings together train and track operations.

We cant even run our own rail system it seems, roll on Brexit

15 minutes ago, shanesox said:

Yeah the electorate made its decision June '16. The only ones wanting to define what "leave the EU" meant on the ballot paper are the hard core Europhile losers !


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

The electorate was told by many of the principal Brexit leaders and especially by Boris Johnson that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market. Although to be fair he has also claimed Britain can get an even better trade deal with Europe after it leaves the EU, dismissing concerns about leaving the single market. So we are no longer members of the club but we can obtain a better trade deal than those who are members, that is what you call an optimist but perhaps others will have more colourful words to describe that stance. 

Extensive polling carried out by NatCen, the independent social research agency, and overseen by the elections expert John Curtice suggests 90% of people favour remaining in the single market, regardless of how they voted in the referendum. Funny old world isn't it?

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

It's alright saying Farage or Cash would never accept it, but in reality the result would have had to stand, do you honestly think that the government would have held another? They would have never had the referendum if they thought they were going to lose it, but mother doesn't always know best. 

 

That was the point about 1975 then the result was something like 2:1 but that didn't stop the then anti-marketeers from spending the next 40 years trying to get a second referendum and reverse the result. Nobody expects a third referendum any time in the next few weeks.

Just now, vogie said:

If the vote had gone the other way Farage would have had to accept it, same as you have to accept our leaving. 

I have accepted leaving which I did the day following the vote. However Farage stated that he would not accept it and presumably that would mean campaigning until he got the result he wanted. Bill Cash another leading Brexiter also stated that he would not accept the result as final. Just like those in 1975 never accepted that vote as final.

I also pasted a link from the Brexit Secretary of state David Davis which I think is very appropriate.

David Davis said nations 'not democracies' if they can't change their mind. However since writing that apparently David Davis has changed his mind about that.

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Which one to believe eh, mmnn tricky one, oh I know lets believe the one that suits our agenda best.

Well if Dougan is lying about receiving funding from the EU then by all means produce the evidence not just smear the guy. Does that suit your agenda?

1 minute ago, vogie said:

I don't take it seriously at all, but I am guessing if the referendum result had gone your way we would not be having this debate.

You have read the quotations I posted from Farage and Bill Cash both stating that they would not accept the result as being final in Farage's case if it was 52/48? So yes we would be having this debate which has been going on for over 40 years since the Out side never accepted the 1975 result which resulted in an overwhelming majory for staying in as final. Now apparently we are expected to accept 52/48 as final.

1 minute ago, vogie said:

This link suggests otherwise.

 

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86112

If you bothered to look at the Dougan video he addresses this smear. His university received a small grant many years ago to set up a chair in European Law that is a matter of public record. There are no ongoing payments to Professor Dougan he receives a salary from Liverpool University.

3 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The EU principle of primacy means that EU law prevails if it conflicts with national law.

 

Many EU regulations become UK law immediately and automatically, without needing UK approval, which is given as part of The Treaty of Rome (1972). I have seen Prof. Dougan, who is is funded by the EU and is a solid supporter of it, so his views are obviously biased. 

I really think you should read Professor Dougan who is an expert in his field. An EU Law can only take primacy if it has been given the approval of our Parliament otherwise it is meaningless. Just now our civil servants are busy trying to entangle the EU Law which have received Parliamentary approval and are on the statue book.

Professor Dougan is not funded by the EU, Liverpool University received a minuscule grant many years ago to set up a chair in European Law which Dougan currently occupies. Like any professor he receives his salary from the university he works at. He receives no funding from the EU but nice try to discredit a distinguished professor of law I can see the type of sites you visit to come up with that little gem.

Perhaps you would like to try listing some regulation, which became UK Law immediately without needing UK approval. 

31 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I am aware of the origins of the EU, thanks. The aim of European political union was certainly not explained clearly to the British voters at the time! Heath said “There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”  He deliberately lied, as he feared that he would lose support for the UK's application to the EEC, referred to as the "common market" at the time. That's what most people in the UK assumed it was - a market - that's all!

 

The national identities which you refer to have endured as there has been no pressure for any peoples to lose them, up until now. The influence of the EU will strengthen in member countries, as the EU superstate emerges and their identities are cast aside.

 

My primary issue is with sovereignty, which eventually would be lost completely by any member of this club.  

 

 

I have lost count of the number of times I have posted the link to Professor Michael Dougan explaining sovereignty. Nothing comes out of the EU which can become British Law until it is approved by our own sovereign parliament.  However its also true to say that in any negotiation both sides have to give and take. In the upcoming Brexit negotiations this will be just as true. 

We have been in the EU for some forty years and our parliament is still the ultimate sovereign authority as recently affirmed by the supreme court when the PM tried to over-ride it. As Professor Dougan explains, if a European Law applies over a British Law it is only because our own sovereign parliament has approved that. We have had the Lisbon and Maastrich treaties, the SEA, each and everyone had to be approved by our own sovereign parliament. 

Heath didn't lie he knew exactly the constitutional position, that every treaty, every law could not be enacted in the UK without first getting parliamentary approval. 

Just to add there are many examples where some international law will over-ride a British Law, again that is only the case because the UK has signed up to some treaty or other and sought and been given the approval of our Parliament. Unless our Parliament had given its approval then it would have no affect in a British Court.

Just now, nauseus said:

You do not consider that, during the 1970's, the original (ever closer union) intent of the EEC>EU was hidden from the British public before entry in 1973 and before the (confirmation) referendum of 1975. There was no internet and the small print was intentionally well hidden anyway. This information was not formally disclosed until the turn of the century. If the Heath government had not lied, and if this information had been freely available at the time, then UK voters would not have approved joining in the first place and we would not be having this debate at all. 

I agree that now we have a lot more information available but that rarely leads to more participation in fact the reverse is often the case with declining voter turn out a hall mark of every type of election. However read the history of the European project it started as only coal, iron and steel but the founding fathers never intended that as the end game nor was the EEC the end game. It was stated quite clearly, economic and political union. That is where the scare stories then come in as if they wanted to construct some superstate. Can you imagine the French being any less French 20 years from now. In fact Scotland has been tied to England for some 400 years or so, are the Scots any less Scottish, have they lost their identity in any way?

Nobody hid any information from anyone I think what you really mean is that people couldn't be bothered to inform themselves. However I have no doubt in 1975 the result would still have been an overwhelming majority in favour. 

However if you believe things are hidden away have you read this report? But I think we both know the answer don't we.

The Government’s 2012-2014 Balance of Competences Review he said, was “one of the largest research exercises undertaken by the British Civil Service in its entire history.”

It produced 32 detailed reports, he said, finding that “every major stakeholder across every major sector of our economy and society doesn’t have a problem with our EU membership.  On the contrary, they say it brings real added value to our national policy making.”

26 minutes ago, Aforek said:

As a French european guy, I like what you say, opposite to the too many TV members who don't like EU and think that solution of problems is isolation 

I can tell you that a poll last week showed  that 72% French want to stay with Euro currency

Le Pen will lose because she wants to leave Euro and EU 

Long live to EU and euro 

I agree, I am sad at the direction the UK has taken but unlike many TV posters I wish the EU well. It is certainly not in the interests of anyone least of all the UK for the EU to implode.