Sad article and sad replies

Just now, angryguy said:

Sad article and sad replies

What, all of them..........?...

3 hours ago, oxo1947 said:

 

Most people in the 1970s wanted to join the common market---it made a lot of sense then, No tariffs just send your goods there.   6 countries , so we joined along with Ireland  Denmark.

But we didn't join to latter be told we should all change our money, or that another 17 countries the majority which had sub standard living wages or Health care---would then be allowed to just walk in--pile up the numbers waiting for health care and take  a lower wage.

 

We didn't vote then to have a 2nd parliament making rules ---or to have  a 2nd high court (E C J) which could over ride the directions of our own supreme court.

If you are American imagine that you did join with Greenland--Canada -Mexico + some other countries -- Just for trade, it then morphed into the same-- a higher court then your own, maybe giving directions that...... well,   maybe all this "Amendments"  are not really needed ---yer not all of them. 

We had some overriding decisions from the EU high court mainly when we wanted to deport someone after their custodial sentence--and we had to abide by them.

 

So... yes the EU -as it was  ie... a trading block was a good idea--what it  morphed into wasn't , hence the majority of the UK population could see this and voted to leave.

 

*** Prior to Brexit, EU law, including decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), had direct effect in the UK and could override conflicting UK law. This was a consequence of the UK's membership in the European Union and its acceptance of EU law supremacy

 

The EU came into being as a result of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the ECJ's powers were formalised as part of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. The UK could have vetoed either or both of these treaties if it had wished to do so. It did not; it chose to endorse them. 

 

In a similar vein, to become an EU member, there needs to be unanimity amongst the existing member states i.e.  One existing member can effectively veto a country's application; Germany and latterly, Greece has effectively blocked Turkiye's application. If the UK was against EU enlargement it could have vetoed it.

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

 

The UK joined the EEC without a referendum after a very marginal vote in Parliament after Heath's Conservatives prompted the process with the European Communities Act. The 1975 referendum (under Labour) was a confirmation YES for continued member ship but with the main implications of joining still not well understood by UK voters. So, unfortunately, we did actually vote then to continue accepting EEC/EU rules, with European Law having primacy over our own. This level of EU control increased but was only slowly realized after years of EEC/EC/EU mutations and treaties.

 

Yes, the EEC was a good idea but only as the "Common Market" that most of the British believed it to be at the time. But, by the Treaty of Rome, it was never going to be just that. People like Macron talk about Brexit lies and such, but they never mention the lies told in 1972 by Heath et al ("no essential loss of sovereignty" (my a$$)).

 

 

You can't have it both ways, Nauseus.

 

On the one hand, you complain that we joined the EC without a referendum, but then complain that the result of the 1975 referendum was 'tainted' because the electorate did not fully understand the complexity of the issues: It's the same argument used by those who were in favour of a "People's" vote following the result of the 2016 referendum. Neither has any validity.

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Not Brexit really as Brexit hasn't really being delivered due to spinless politicians. 

 

 

I've asked these questions many times before to many different people, but have yet to receive any constructive answers:

 

What should Brexit look like? What deal (with the EU) could and should have been brokered? 

As far as the French are concerned its  Vive la France and stuff le Rosbif

12 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

What should Brexit look like? What deal (with the EU) could and should have been brokered? 

You confused people would not like the real answer to that... hence why Reform UK is crushing it. If you are not Bristish, then I forgive your ignorance... but if you are from the UK, then you might as well vote for the Illiberal undemocrats with that opinion.

8 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

You confused people would not like the real answer to that... hence why Reform UK is crushing it. If you are not Bristish, then I forgive your ignorance... but if you are from the UK, then you might as well vote for the Illiberal undemocrats with that opinion.

 

Congratulations. As incoherent mutterings go that is near the top of the list.

 

You have just proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are just another in the long list of those who doesn't have the faintest idea what he thinks Brexit should look like.

4 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

But they cannot abrogate their responsibilities under French Law or International Agreements.

 

France should be rounding them up and deporting them, if France does not want them.

to where, the UK ? that's agreed upon since they are not EU member

1 hour ago, angryguy said:

Sad article and sad replies

why? because it doesn't fit your narrative or because it's not about maga

1 hour ago, transam said:

Not a Russian one then.....?   🤔

Clearly not, Putin is the strongestof them all and in the litteral sense too as he is a black belt in judo. Whip any of them. the US & western allies screwed Gorbachev over, Putin isnt letting that happen again

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Congratulations. As incoherent mutterings go that is near the top of the list.

 

You have just proved beyond reasonable doubt that you are just another in the long list of those who doesn't have the faintest idea what he thinks Brexit should look like.

Subjective topic....  haters going to hate. No need for personal attacks... stick to the topic.

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You got them back and couldn’t control them.

Your lot have made it worse since they came into power……

10 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

to where, the UK ? that's agreed upon since they are not EU member

 

I suppose that made sense, in your head.

 

People normally get deported back to their Country of origin, in the case of the Channel hoppers, that Country is not the UK

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s always somebody else fault.

 

who’s fault is it? 

 

They are streaming over multiple European countries borders…

1 minute ago, sungod said:

who’s fault is it? 

 

They are streaming over multiple European countries borders…

 

In breach of Schengen

20 minutes ago, frank83628 said:

he is a black belt in judo.

Even if not self awarded, what relevance does that have on the world stage and even individually now at his age?

7 hours ago, Will B Good said:

 

And why wouldn't they?

 

In the absence of any agreement with the EU, another Brexit bonus (Dublin Regulation III)........Why would the French stop them and make it their problem rather than the UK's

Ireland which is in the EU is having great problems with returning these  illegal Economic Migrants back to their previous EU country. Hence the riots now taking place throughout that country.

On UK tv I’ve just seen a previous leader of boarder force state that prior to The UK leaving the Eu, that it was impossible to return these Illegals.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

You can't have it both ways, Nauseus.

 

On the one hand, you complain that we joined the EC without a referendum, but then complain that the result of the 1975 referendum was 'tainted' because the electorate did not fully understand the complexity of the issues: It's the same argument used by those who were in favour of a "People's" vote following the result of the 2016 referendum. Neither has any validity.

 

Read again what I say. I said "The 1975 referendum (under Labour) was a confirmation YES for continued member ship but with the main implications of joining still not well understood by UK voters". 

 

I have also said that Heath lied before we went in and there was no referendum before then, probably because a divided electorate might have said NO in 1972. My arguments have remained the same over time, that are valid, they preceded Brexit, and have nothing to do with whatever any other arguments you are on about.

 

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, Tiger1980 said:

Ireland which is in the EU is having great problems with returning these  illegal Economic Migrants back to their previous EU country. Hence the riots now taking place throughout that country.

On UK tv I’ve just seen a previous leader of boarder force state that prior to The UK leaving the Eu, that it was impossible to return these Illegals.

 

It's basically just one serious bad consequence of EU membership. More and more Europeans are seeing that now.

38 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Subjective topic....  haters going to hate. No need for personal attacks... stick to the topic.

 

Hardly a personal attack. I was replying in kind to your patronising tone.

3 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Not Brexit really as Brexit hasn't really being delivered due to spinless politicians. The reason the immies are all coming to the UK is because of the far-left policies and pull factors, which make it so easy for them, and that is not the case in most EU countries. The UK system prioritizes illegal immigrants over our own homeless and veterans etc., which is not just dumb but dangerous in the long run as people will eventually boil over, and we are starting to see signs of that already. The only way to stop the boats is to take away the pull factors and make it less attractive than other places... do a Denmark or Australia, that will work.

The clock is ticking for the UK government to do something meaningful about it or soon Farage will be PM... which might be a good wakeup call for the deluded and lost two traditional parties. Even the far-lefties like Unite union baron types are getting pi$$ed off with Labour, as no-one really knows what they stand for, same goes for the Tories (won't call them conservatives because they aren't).

 

Gibberish. Absolutely nonsense.

(Take away the pull factor would mean to make UK citizens as poor as the migrants)

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Hardly a personal attack. I was replying in kind to your patronising tone.

Again... subjective response... opinions are like <deleted>, everyone has one (Clint Eastwood). Try to challenge the idea or statement... not attack the person, as you'll get more respect if you do that.

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Read again what I say. I said "The 1975 referendum (under Labour) was a confirmation YES for continued member ship but with the main implications of joining still not well understood by UK voters". 

 

How does a referendum about continuing membership differ in essence from one about joining? The individual will decide whether they think that being a member of the EU is a good thing or not.

 

11 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I have also said that Heath lied before we went in and there was no referendum before then, probably because a divided electorate might have said NO in 1972. My arguments have remained the same over time, that are valid, they preceded Brexit, and have nothing to do with whatever any other arguments you are on about.

 

 

I have not suggested otherwise (although what the result of a hypothetical election would have been is, of course, pure conjecture).

1 hour ago, RayC said:

 

The EU came into being as a result of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 and the ECJ's powers were formalised as part of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997. The UK could have vetoed either or both of these treaties if it had wished to do so. It did not; it chose to endorse them. 

 

In a similar vein, to become an EU member, there needs to be unanimity amongst the existing member states i.e.  One existing member can effectively veto a country's application; Germany and latterly, Greece has effectively blocked Turkiye's application. If the UK was against EU enlargement it could have vetoed it.

 

Signed under another installed closet Europhile, Major. NO referendum then either, was there??? Then ratification just scraped through in Parliament (again) after the Masstricht Rebels nearly got us out of the EU before it really started, because if the UK had stalled long enough then the EU would have had to kick the UK out in order to continue with their political project.

26 minutes ago, Tiger1980 said:

Ireland which is in the EU is having great problems with returning these  illegal Economic Migrants back to their previous EU country. Hence the riots now taking place throughout that country.

On UK tv I’ve just seen a previous leader of boarder force state that prior to The UK leaving the Eu, that it was impossible to return these Illegals.

 

More than were ever going to be sent to Rwanda....... these are the Dublin Regulation transfers

7 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Again... subjective response... opinions are like <deleted>, everyone has one (Clint Eastwood). Try to challenge the idea or statement... not attack the person, as you'll get more respect if you do that.

 

That's exactly what I did: Challenge your idea.

 

You stated that Brexit has not been delivered, so I asked you to explain what it should have looked like. 

 

You made no attempt to answer the question, but instead adopted a condescending, patronising tone ("You confused people ..."; ".. I forgive your ignorance ..."). When I replied in kind, you play the injured party when you have no grounds for complaint.

10 hours ago, newbee2022 said:

Macron ist right.

The most stupid British decision in this century 

 

why do they wish to enter the UK and what do they expect.

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1416913619644289?fs=e&fs=e

8 hours ago, UWEB said:

In the past the Britain's went all over the world to conquered foreign Countries and have taken whatever they could get, now the people of this Countries rightful coming to Britain. It's just Karma. 

Britain's ruling class built an empire, one of the many that have existed (Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Mongol, Ottoman, Chinese, etc.)  They made use of Britons and non-Britons of many origins.  (E.g. In the 14-18 War more than one million Indian ssoldiers served abroad, and by 1945 the Indian Army numbered 2.5 million).  The ordinary Briton, the man on the Clapham omnibus, was mostly an unwitting pawn in this process.

 

With bankrupcy finally brought about by the second of two world wars and the loss of the Indian Army at independence, the rentier-capitalist ruling class built a fresh, financial, empire in the shadow of the now-dominant U.S. one.

 

This involved participating in the destitution of many independent states whose often-autocratic rulers stood in the way of the game-plan, essentially the control of raw materials, especially the energy market.

 

Despite sophisticated spin-doctoring and increasing media control, there was sometimes widespread opposition (witness the mass-protests against the invasion of Iraq).  But the 'democratic' leaders forced the issue.

 

It is understandable that citizens of bombed-out countries - some previously quite developed in terms of living standards, culture, health, and education - should seek to flee their ruins in search of a better life.  The fault is not theirs.

 

Neither is the fault that of the ordinary people of Britain, who bear the brunt of unrestricted immigration.

 

The burden must be laid upon the political class, the civil servants, and above all the media-moghuls and mega-financiers.  They must be made to pay.  The cost of what they have destroyed.  That is karma.

5 minutes ago, Tiger1980 said:

 

why do they wish to enter the UK and what do they expect.

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1416913619644289?fs=e&fs=e

Who wish to enter?

Macron took the plane.