Brexit has created chaos in Britain – nobody voted for this

[billd766]

19 hours ago, talahtnut said:

Peanuts.

 

Chuck some of those peanuts my way, please.

[billd766]

17 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The UK has the lowest state pensions in the Western world.  Those who can afford it pay into a private pension, those people give a damn about themselves by earning a high salary, the pensioners who created the wealth are the richest pensioners the country has ever seen.  The other pensioners didn't earn enough money to give a damn about themselves so we don't give a damn about them.  This has nothing to do with WWII, we call it Thatcherism.

 

Great at blaming Margaret Thatcher.

 

How about also blaming ALL the PMs both Labour and Conservative who followed her and did nothing about the state pension rates either?

[transam]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Great at blaming Margaret Thatcher.

 

How about also blaming ALL the PMs both Labour and Conservative who followed her and did nothing about the state pension rates either?

They are to busy sending our tax cash in the zillions to other countries, that have done sod all, to look cool cos the politicians will never have to worry about their guaranteed payouts...

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Great at blaming Margaret Thatcher.

 

How about also blaming ALL the PMs both Labour and Conservative who followed her and did nothing about the state pension rates either?

 

I didn't blame Thatcher, I blamed Thatcherism, something that many politicians are to blame for, but she is the biggest single cause, that is indisputable as it was her who reformed the pension system, its not about the rates, she scrapped compulsory membership of occupational pensions and replaced it with optional private pensions, once that move has been made it is very difficult to undo as those companies have rights.

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

They are to busy sending our tax cash in the zillions to other countries, that have done sod all, to look cool cos the politicians will never have to worry about their guaranteed payouts...

 

We spend 7% of our GDP on pensions and 0.7% on foreign aid, perhaps we could use this money to increase pensions by 10%, but then we would see more suffering around the world and more refugees as a result, are you looking for more refugees?

[transam]

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We spend 7% of our GDP on pensions and 0.7% on foreign aid, perhaps we could use this money to increase pensions by 10%, but then we would see more suffering around the world and more refugees as a result, are you looking for more refugees?

The refugee problem in the UK is because the UK (and others) is a soft touch..It is a yellow brick road for folk who's countries have done nothing, just milk those that have..Why are they heading to the UK and not  Saudi, OK Africa countries etc....?....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kieran00001]

1 minute ago, transam said:

The refugee problem in the UK is because the UK (and others) is a soft touch..It is a yellow brick road for folk who's countries have done nothing, just milk those that have..Why are they heading to the UK and not  Saudi, OK Africa countries etc....?....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You want the UK to be more like Saudi?  What? 

 

Anyway, it's not like other Middle Eastern countries do not take refugees, of the Syrians the Middle East have taken the most, Lebanon alone has taken in over 1 million despite being the size of Yorkshire.  Meanwhile the UK has taken 216 Syrians.  As for Africa, Uganda has taken in over 1 million refugees in the last 5 years.  The UK has taken in 118,995, nothing like what some African and Middle Eastern countries have done, so what exactly are you bleating about?  What is this mythical soft tough and yellow brick road that the vast majority of refugees are not actually drawn to at all? 

 

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You want the UK to be more like Saudi?  What? 

 

Anyway, it's not like other Middle Eastern countries do not take refugees, of the Syrians the Middle East have taken the most, Lebanon alone has taken in over 1 million despite being the size of Yorkshire.  Meanwhile the UK has taken 216 Syrians.  As for Africa, Uganda has taken in over 1 million refugees in the last 5 years.  The UK has taken in 118,995, nothing like what some African and Middle Eastern countries have done, so what exactly are you bleating about?  What is this mythical soft tough and yellow brick road that the vast majority of refugees are not actually drawn to at all? 

 

So why is there a camp at Calais, why is the UK spending zillions trying to catch them boarding trucks or finding them in the UK..

Why does the UK have 30 manned offices around the UK that cost zillions to get folk out...

Thankfully the UK now fines anyone employing those that have crept into the UK 20,000 quid per naughty employee..

Foreign folk are being told by those who make money from telling these folk about the UK yellow brick road that's how the UK is...

 

Naughty folk are told to tear up your PP, then the UK will have a prob getting you out...

The UK has an estimated 1,000,000 "lost" folk in the country, they are surviving on whose money...?

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

So why is there a camp at Calais, why is the UK spending zillions trying to catch them boarding trucks or finding them in the UK..

Why does the UK have 30 manned offices around the UK that cost zillions to get folk out...

Thankfully the UK now fines anyone employing those that have crept into the UK 20,000 quid per naughty employee..

Foreign folk are being told by those who make money from telling these folk about the UK yellow brick road that's how the UK is...

 

Naughty folk are told to tear up your PP, then the UK will have a prob getting you out...

The UK has an estimated 1,000,000 "lost" folk in the country, they are surviving on whose money...?

 

Because there are so many conflicts around the world and so many refugees that some of them make it as far the UK, but they fill up nearby choices first and in far greater numbers, so your belief that the UK is something of the most attractive choice for them is clearly false.

 

You go on to conflate illegal immigrants with refugees, it is not refugees getting caught working illegally, any asylum seeker who makes it in and is a genuine refugee has to be accepted, the ones who come in as tourists or however else and then find illegal work are those who do not have a case for asylum, they are just regular immigrants who do not have the skills desired by the UK, to get a work visa, completely different issues.  Tearing up the passport is a way to slow down the process, they then claim to be a refugee, but they are not otherwise they would just present their passport, we were talking about refugees, remember?

 

[transam]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Because there are so many conflicts around the world and so many refugees that some of them make it as far the UK, but they fill up nearby choices first and in far greater numbers, so your belief that the UK is something of the most attractive choice for them is clearly false.

 

You go on to conflate illegal immigrants with refugees, it is not refugees getting caught working illegally, any asylum seeker who makes it in and is a genuine refugee has to be accepted, the ones who come in as tourists or however else and then find illegal work are those who do not have a case for asylum, they are just regular immigrants who do not have the skills desired by the UK, to get a work visa, completely different issues.  Tearing up the passport is a way to slow down the process, they then claim to be a refugee, but they are not otherwise they would just present their passport, we were talking about refugees, remember?

 

 

May I suggest you watch episodes of UK Border Force 1 & 2, also Ross Kemp's BRITAIN episode on immigration etc was worth watching too.

 

 

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

 

May I suggest you watch episodes of UK Border Force 1 & 2, also Ross Kemp's BRITAIN episode on immigration etc was worth watching too.

 

 

 

May I suggest you watch these, they should help you gain some perspective on this global issue, an issue that the UK is not really feeling.  Even in the EU as a whole, Germany alone taking in about 1 million Syrians, the cost to the EU as a whole is estimated as 0.16% of the GDP.  

 

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2016/07/14/helping-lebanese-communities-cope-with-syrian-refugees

• Lebanon is a small country with 4.5 million citizens. The influx of about 1.5 million Syrian refugees has added another 30% to its population, giving it the highest ratio of refugees per capita in the world.

• The proportion of Syrian refugees is a huge burden for a small country already struggling to deliver services to local communities after 25 years of civil war.

• An innovative project is enhancing the resilience of communities, moving from a humanitarian to a development-oriented approach, and engaging citizens in identifying priority investments.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTpWoA3w_CE

• Uganda is home to more than 800-thousand South Sudanese refugees according to UNHCR. That makes it the largest host country of refugees in all of Africa. But Uganda suffers from chronic under-funding. And as TRT World's Fidelis Mbah reports from Neeumanzee, on the Uganda - South Sudan border, more people keep arriving.

 

 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I didn't blame Thatcher, I blamed Thatcherism, something that many politicians are to blame for, but she is the biggest single cause, that is indisputable as it was her who reformed the pension system, its not about the rates, she scrapped compulsory membership of occupational pensions and replaced it with optional private pensions, once that move has been made it is very difficult to undo as those companies have rights.

 

If Margaret Thatcher reformed the pension system, then equally it could have been reformed by a different government but NONE of them did so.

 

She was also blamed for forcing councils to sell off their council houses and not replacing them. Once again it could have been changed by ANY government that followed hers, but none of them did so.

 

That is the wonderful thing about democracy in the west. It keeps evolving. 

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

If Margaret Thatcher reformed the pension system, then equally it could have been reformed by a different government but NONE of them did so.

 

She was also blamed for forcing councils to sell off their council houses and not replacing them. Once again it could have been changed by ANY government that followed hers, but none of them did so.

 

That is the wonderful thing about democracy in the west. It keeps evolving. 

 

 

There is a difference between Thatcher and Thatcherism.  Major, Blair and Cameron were all inspired by Thatcher.  And regardless, for whatever reason you don't like Thatcher getting singled out, it was her who undid the good work done before her and also her who inspired those who followed her, she is the most deserving of blame, but of course I also blame the others who did similar things ,which is mostly Blair and Cameron.  The only government we have had since Thatcher that was not practising a good degree of Thatcherism was Browns, and he only had it for three years and during the global financial crisis, so he had little hope of being able to reform the social welfare system.

 

How does any of this relate to the evolution of the British democracy system?  I don't follow.

[Airbagwill]

20 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

There is a difference between Thatcher and Thatcherism.  Major, Blair and Cameron were all inspired by Thatcher.  And regardless, for whatever reason you don't like Thatcher getting singled out, it was her who undid the good work done before her and also her who inspired those who followed her, she is the most deserving of blame, but of course I also blame the others who did similar things ,which is mostly Blair and Cameron.  The only government we have had since Thatcher that was not practising a good degree of Thatcherism was Browns, and he only had it for three years and during the global financial crisis, so he had little hope of being able to reform the social welfare system.

 

How does any of this relate to the evolution of the British democracy system?  I don't follow.

Thatcher was probably the most division PM in UK history.

If you want to she how she curtailed liberties and interfered with democracy, there were plenty of papers written at the time.

I'd recommend McAuslan's papers on her undemocratic effects. As they are written at the time you may find his work hard to find these days.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, you just don't understand it at all.

 

The British Commission member, just like the 27 other members, does not represent British interests, they are bound by law to represent the interest of the EU, the parliament and the Council, both democratic houses, the parliament has 73 British MEP's, so you see unlike how you assumed, we actually have a 10% representation in all that the Commission propose and then we also have our 10% representation to vote on that proposal.  And I did explain to you about how groups work in the EU, you seem to have neglected to consider the importance of groups in the parliament, individual countries are never voting together, it is groups who vote together, they are cross country groups who share common views, so even a British MEP who is not connected to any other British MEP through a sub-party can still have a great deal of voting power through the group they joined.

 

But yes, it isn't like our cabinet, as unlike in the UK where a party win through having a relative majority and then get to propose and write all legislation, and so do not represent anyone who voted for anyone other than the winning party, in the EU the legislation all has to made in consultation with the parliament and the council, so even those who did not win still get to make recommendations for the Commission to propose legislature for, and also get to have their vote on all legislation that they produce.  There is no one but the mislead who claim that the EU is less democratic than the seriously flawed UK system, it is a far superior system, the most democratic in the world according to the UN, NATO and the WTO.

 

The Common Market did not lie about anything in 1975, it is all in the manifesto and was in the pamphlet sent to every household in the UK.  They did not claim that the association was all about trade, you made that up. This is what it stated:

 

The aims of the Common Market are:

To bring together the peoples of Europe.

To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

To promote growth and boost world trade.

To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

To help maintain peace and freedom.

 

Note the first aim. We voted into the EEC, the aim was to bring the people of Europe together, now you are bleating about the aim of the EU being to bring the people together and claiming it was a lie, what tosh.

 

But of course we only have our share of EU representation, the EU has other countries in it, it is a group, obviously no one is going to have a greater proportion of representation over their individual country or it actually wouldn't be democratic.  Did you actually just think that the EU would be more democratic if the UK had 100% of the representation on EU issues? 

 

And what have extreme right wingers in the lower house got to do with your notion of a loss of democracy?  Surely it is democratic if they are allowed in?

 

If you can actually produce something that is not democratic, or less than the UK, then please reply, if it is just more unsubstantiated assertions then please do not bother, that's something you can do down the pub, here you are going to have to back it up with hard fact, something your posts have so far been devoid of.

The Common Market did not lie. Heath did. These quoted stated aims were plainly false (as the Greeks now know) as is your confidence in the democratic nature of the EU, which in practise fulfills the precise definition of bureaucracy.

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

You want the UK to be more like Saudi?  What? 

 

Anyway, it's not like other Middle Eastern countries do not take refugees, of the Syrians the Middle East have taken the most, Lebanon alone has taken in over 1 million despite being the size of Yorkshire.  Meanwhile the UK has taken 216 Syrians.  As for Africa, Uganda has taken in over 1 million refugees in the last 5 years.  The UK has taken in 118,995, nothing like what some African and Middle Eastern countries have done, so what exactly are you bleating about?  What is this mythical soft tough and yellow brick road that the vast majority of refugees are not actually drawn to at all? 

 

Ironic that the Lebanon is the only ME country with any significant Christian population still remaining, eh?

[Orac]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The Common Market did not lie. Heath did. These quoted stated aims were plainly false (as the Greeks now know) as is your confidence in the democratic nature of the EU, which in practise fulfills the precise definition of bureaucracy.

 

Here is another letter from Heath clearly stating that it was more than a free trade  agreement prior to joining and previous referendum:

 

 

[aright]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, you just don't understand it at all.

 

The British Commission member, just like the 27 other members, does not represent British interests, 

Isn't that the point. I want representative democracy which you obviously don't

 

But yes, it isn't like our cabinet, as unlike in the UK where a party win through having a relative majority and then get to propose and write all legislation, and so do not represent anyone who voted for anyone other than the winning party, in the EU the legislation all has to made in consultation with the parliament and the council, so even those who did not win still get to make recommendations for the Commission to propose legislature for, and also get to have their vote on all legislation that they produce.  There is no one but the mislead who claim that the EU is less democratic than the seriously flawed UK system, it is a far superior system, the most democratic in the world according to the UN, NATO and the WTO.

 

The Common Market did not lie about anything in 1975, it is all in the manifesto and was in the pamphlet sent to every household in the UK.  They did not claim that the association was all about trade, you made that up. This is what it stated:   

 

The aims of the Common Market are:

To bring together the peoples of Europe.

To raise living standards and improve working conditions.

To promote growth and boost world trade.

To help the poorest regions of Europe and the rest of the world.

To help maintain peace and freedom.

 

Note the first aim. We voted into the EEC, the aim was to bring the people of Europe together, now you are bleating about the aim of the EU being to bring the people together and claiming it was a lie, what tosh.

Where does it mention a European Parliament? Where does it say one day our political and social future will be governed by the EU

If you are going to quote me at least get it right "The, then Common Market, in 1975 lied to us when they said the association was all about trade." 

 

 Did you actually just think that the EU would be more democratic if the UK had 100% of the representation on EU issues? 

No. IMO the EU will never be democratic that's one of the reasons I voted OUT

 

And what have extreme right wingers in the lower house got to do with your notion of a loss of democracy?  Surely it is democratic if they are allowed in?

We don't have extreme right wingers in the lower house they exist in the EU  It certainly is democratic but it shows the dissatisfaction of centre left voters with the EU's policies when they move to right wing, many, extreme right wing, politics Extreme right wing parties now have MEP's in the German, French, Italian and Dutch Parliaments. hardly an endorsement of EU policies is it. 

 

If you can actually produce something that is not democratic, or less than the UK, then please reply,

The EU forces democratically-elected Governments( Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary spring to mind) to accept into their communities unwanted foreign nationals many of whom practice a religion different to that of the population they join. The migrant crisis shows once again the European Commission has no respect for the will of member states. This may be an acceptable form of democracy to you but it's not to me that's partly why I voted out. 

 

 

 

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Here is another letter from Heath clearly stating that it was more than a free trade  agreement prior to joining and previous referendum:

 

 

Nothing clear here as to the extent of the intended and future EU influence over the UK.

 

Just a slightly more honest lie in the form of a whitewash. The important words missing again are "political union". 

[HAKAPALITA]

10 minutes ago, aright said:

 

Never realy understood Democracy seeing it advocates the wishes of the masses, who are thick as a brick generally.

[aright]

1 minute ago, HAKAPALITA said:

Never realy understood Democracy seeing it advocates the wishes of the masses, who are thick as a brick generally.

Can I assume your level of intelligence sets the standard.

[HAKAPALITA]

4 minutes ago, aright said:

Can I assume your level of intelligence sets the standard.

Thanks for supplying proof, why do younger English all seem to be from the old Grange Hill TV Show surly bad attitude era.?. Are you not Proud of your Sir Churchill resolve in history,and Mrs Thatcher with your Communists insurgents.

[sandyf]

23 hours ago, aright said:

"The appointment sparked a furore in Brussels, with MEPs complaining that the appointment was orchestrated in secret, which made the EU look like an "old boys' club." 

Mr Selmayr was reportedly handed the job by Mr Juncker in a matter of minutes, following the sudden retirement of his predecessor, Alexander Italianer."

It seems to me no one endorsed Mr Selmayr or are you saying in the few minutes it took Mr. Juncker to appoint him he gave Mrs May a phone call. Mr Junkers sense of democracy came to the fore when he threatened to resign if Mr Selmayr was not appointed. 

More tangents than a greengrocer. In the absence of a relevant answer I will post again.

 

So if as you say,

"I use my vote regularly in the UK to vote for officials from the Prime Minister down to local community representatives.", you are also including the EU commissioner among those officials you used your vote for.

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

We spend 7% of our GDP on pensions and 0.7% on foreign aid, perhaps we could use this money to increase pensions by 10%, but then we would see more suffering around the world and more refugees as a result, are you looking for more refugees?

In 2017, pensions were 111 billion and GDP was 2.565 trillion which by my reckoning is 4.3% of GDP.

With the rise in GDP now declining and rise in pensions increasing your 7% may not be far away, but no one will be any better off.

[Grouse]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/cabinet-split-over-amber-rudd-s-handling-of-immigration-bill-l9fz78b86

 

look at the chart showing EU immigration dropping like a stone already (I don't blame people not wanting to a country with a weak currency and so many nasty people). Meanwhile, immigration from non EU countries is rocketing.

 

I would prefer EU neighbours than African or South and Central Asian ones!

[aright]

28 minutes ago, sandyf said:

More tangents than a greengrocer. In the absence of a relevant answer I will post again.

 

So if as you say,

"I use my vote regularly in the UK to vote for officials from the Prime Minister down to local community representatives.", you are also including the EU commissioner among those officials you used your vote for.

In the votes that I cast what ballot paper did Mr Selmayr's name appear on?

As you can see from my quote Mr Selmayr was appointed in secret by Mr Juncker ; Mep's knew nothing about it......this is your idea of representative democracy is it? 

Edited April 21, 2018 by aright

[aright]

10 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I would prefer EU neighbours than African or South and Central Asian ones!

Why? What's wrong with people from Africa, South and Central Asia? 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

Nothing clear here as to the extent of the intended and future EU influence over the UK.

 

Just a slightly more honest lie in the form of a whitewash. The important words missing again are "political union". 

We didn't actually contribute much except our subscriptions. No real commitment or involvement. Just shouting from the back. Massive lost opportunity.

 

We should be leading not leaving! 

[HAKAPALITA]

17 minutes ago, sandyf said:

In 2017, pensions were 111 billion and GDP was 2.565 trillion which by my reckoning is 4.3% of GDP.

With the rise in GDP now declining and rise in pensions increasing your 7% may not be far away, but no one will be any better off.

Dont foreget Pensions were bought by the working man at a very poor rate of interest, they re not handouts but poorly repaid investments

[talahtnut]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/cabinet-split-over-amber-rudd-s-handling-of-immigration-bill-l9fz78b86

 

look at the chart showing EU immigration dropping like a stone already (I don't blame people not wanting to a country with a weak currency and so many nasty people). Meanwhile, immigration from non EU countries is rocketing.

 

I would prefer EU neighbours than African or South and Central Asian ones!

Discrimination Grouse?