47 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Apologies if my words "he claimed" was beyond your vocabulary.

 

Only the mentally challenged would try and interprete what was meant differently.

 

    Sandy :

 You claimed that he said that 60 Million Turks WOULD go to the UK .

What he actually said was 60 Million Turks COULD go to the UK .

  Two very different things ,

I just pointed out your mistake

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

What on earth makes you think that leaving the EU would give the UK any say in how the EU dealt with migrants. Mekel's decision was distorted, it was an increase to, not additional. If Merkel hadn't taken the additional migrants in, where do you think they would have ended up.

There is no dispute that the EU could have handled things better but throwing the toys out of the pram was not the answer. Most of the migrants come overland through France and assylum should have been dealt with there. As an EU member pressure could have been put on France to adhere to that principle.

You and others decided to take what leverage there was away and now struggling to get any co-operation from France which is coming at a heavy cost. Tearing up the Belfast Agreement will only make matters worse.

Of course, as the 51st state it wouldn't be a problem to have them processed in Greenland.

 

Really? You always try to interpret and reword others' comments to fit your own arguments. I did not say that leaving the EU would give the UK any say in how the EU dealt with anything! What I should have said, more accurately, was that Brexit was seen by leave voters as one way of controlling immigration, by removing itself from the EU, the effects of EU pillars, policies and the decisions of its former de facto leader. Of course, this was not sole reason for leaving but it might have been the catalyst. High overall immigration was already a large concern.

 

The (EU) acceptance of genuine refugees in 2015 was necessary, at least temporarily. However the screening was evidently poor and some of the young men (already a high percentage) became immediate problems, committing rapes and sexual assaults (e.g. Cologne station near Christmas time). Unfortunately, this became a popular trend, especially in Germany and Sweden. Many of those crimes were not widely reported but they showed a worrying pattern for the future,

 

However, the scale of "refugee" movement appeared to be quickly seen as a model by migrant smugglers to follow for their own, lucrative, expanding businesses. I would dispute that migrants today come "overland" through France but agree that France is where many of them end up, after most travel through other EU countries, before trying to access the UK.

 

To me, the notion of any leverage/co-operation with France, as a nation, is a pipe dream, EU or no EU. I

 

Unfortunately the Belfast Agreement was tied too close to the EU, particularly its pet ECHR. The EU used it as an anti-Brexit weapon.

 

The ECHR would never allow migrant hopefuls to be sent to Greenland - too cold and non-availability of quality chicken nuggets.

I'm from across the pond and I approve of that Historic Speech!

"Nigel Farage sets out plan to tackle illegal migration".

 

18 minutes ago, riclag said:

I'm from across the pond and I approve of that Historic Speech!

"Nigel Farage sets out plan to tackle illegal migration".

 

We're from the UK and we don't care what you think. You seem to have got lost on the forum, back to your echo chamber thread posting about foreigners being arrested please.

Just now, josephbloggs said:

We're from the UK and we don't care what you think. You seem to have got lost on the forum, back to your echo chamber thread posting about foreigners being arrested please.

 

 

How the hell are you not on his ignore list?????

From the OP article:

However, the challenge remains: how would such a move impact peace in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement? When directly questioned, Farage appeared uncertain.

 

Of course he's uncertain, he doesn't have any clue how things work, doesn't have any detailed plans, he just foghorns from the sidelines - a complete and utter charlatan. So he mouths off about what he's going to do, then when asked for detail or is made aware of complications he can't answer.

3 minutes ago, Will B Good said:

 

 

How the hell are you not on his ignore list?????

I'm pretty sure I am, I'd be terribly disappointed if I wasn't. 90% of the forum is. I can still see his stuff though, but don't think he sees mine.

5 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

 

What has the ECHR ever done for us?

Nine years old!! But still so relevant.

2 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

From the OP article:

However, the challenge remains: how would such a move impact peace in Northern Ireland and the Good Friday Agreement? When directly questioned, Farage appeared uncertain.

 

Of course he's uncertain, he doesn't have any clue how things work, doesn't have any details plans, he just foghorns from the sidelines - a complete and utter charlatan. So he mouths off about what he's going to do, then when asked for detail he can't answer.

 

BJ.....NI Imports from the UK

 

" If somebody asks you to do that, tell them to ring up the prime minister and I will direct them to throw that form in the bin.”

 

Farage is no different to Johnson......bare faced liar........they know they can fool some of the people all of the time......enough to get them to vote them into power at least.

29 minutes ago, riclag said:

I'm from across the pond and I approve of that Historic Speech!

"Nigel Farage sets out plan to tackle illegal migration".

 

 NF: "Are you on the side of women and children being safe on our streets? Or are you on the side of outdated international treaties backed up by a series of dubious courts"?

Choose!! Common Sense or a far left dream scheme?

 

Election is in the bag cos the opposition is so bad  ,all polls show Nigel in the lead for next PM

1 minute ago, riclag said:

 

 NF: "Are you on the side of women and children being safe on our streets? Or are you on the side of outdated international treaties backed up by a series of dubious courts?

Choose!! Common Sense or a far left dream scheme?

 

 

I'm all for pink fluffy unicorns, sunlit uplands and the golden age ahead (oh and blue passports) and anything else the likes of Johnson and Farage tell me.......life is so much better believing everything they say.

2 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Election is in the bag cos the opposition is so bad  ,all polls show Nigel in the lead for next PM

 

If only that election happened to be next week.....damn!!!!!

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/reform-shock-15-point-lead-labour-farage-power-3887857

15 point lead despite opposing scare tactics

1 minute ago, 3NUMBAS said:

15 point lead despite opposing scare tactics

 

 

Just to be clear....are we saying Reform has a 15 point lead in the polls?

Starmer is seen as an oath ,tories and their ethnic unelected leader have no chance

Just now, 3NUMBAS said:

Starmer is seen as an oath ,tories and their ethnic unelected leader have no chance

 

An oath?

 

 

5 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

    Sandy :

 You claimed that he said that 60 Million Turks WOULD go to the UK .

What he actually said was 60 Million Turks COULD go to the UK .

  Two very different things ,

I just pointed out your mistake

 

 

And was it true that the COULD?......Not on holiday, but to live and work in the UK?

Just now, 3NUMBAS said:

 

 

So we are definitely looking at Reform having a 15 point lead?

 

 

16 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

15 point lead despite opposing scare tactics

Ah right, another "project fear", right?

You are aware that nearly everything that "project fear" told you would happen after Brexit actually happened, right?

Oh dear

27 minutes ago, riclag said:

 NF: "Are you on the side of women and children being safe on our streets? Or are you on the side of outdated international treaties backed up by a series of dubious courts"?

Choose!! Common Sense or a far left dream scheme?

 

1. Nobody doesn't want safe women and children.
2. Can you point out which international treaties are outdated and how they should be updated? Which particular clauses bother you exactly?

3. Which are these "dubious courts" you mention. And again please explain what is dubious about them, what dubious acts they have committed, and what is this series of them of which you speak?

I am sure you will be back to expand on these issues.

 

Oh, and you have issues with "outdated international treaties" but you bang on about your second amendment which was passed in 1791 and is totally relevant today and in no way outdated as we still all use muskets. Right?

3 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah right, another "project fear", right?

You are aware that nearly everything that "project fear" told you would happen after Brexit actually happened, right?

 

"project fear" was remainer propaganda.

30 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah right, another "project fear", right?

You are aware that nearly everything that "project fear" told you would happen after Brexit actually happened, right?

 

 

I am sure you will be back to expand on what this "nearly everything" was?

3 hours ago, 3NUMBAS said:

Dream on Nigel 🤣

On 8/30/2025 at 9:52 AM, nauseus said:

 

Unfortunately the Belfast Agreement was tied too close to the EU, particularly its pet ECHR. The EU used it as an anti-Brexit weapon.

 

 

If you objected to the Belfast Agreement at the time of its' signature, then you were in a very small minority: It was lauded by almost everyone, no matter what nationality or political persuasion.

 

The UK was not forced to leave the EU; it chose to do so of its' own volition.

 

Wrt N.Ireland and RoI, the onus was therefore on the UK to propose solutions that were acceptable to both Brussels and Dublin. 

 

Requiring 27 other EU member states to amend the rules of the Single Market and/or Customs Union to facilitate the UK's exit was quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Brussels. 

 

Likewise, requiring the RoI to change its' relationship with the rest of the EU was  quite obviously - and quite correctly - unacceptable to Dublin.

 

That London could not find any acceptable solution(s) to the problem has nothing to do with intransigence on the part of Brussels or Dublin and everything to do with the fact that no solution exists: You cannot have a border and no-border simultaneously. It is as simple as that.

 

This problem created by Brexit is insoluble, a fact that Brexiters either refuse to admit and/or fraudulently try to blame on the EU*

 

Like many other issues, it displays a lack of accountability and responsibility on the part of Brexiters.

 

* Imo the 'Windsor Framework' is a decent work-around, but many loyalists in Northern Ireland don't share my view. A fact that should - and does - concern London, Brussels and Dublin.

On 8/30/2025 at 11:10 AM, nauseus said:

 

"project fear" was remainer propaganda.

 

"Project Fear" may have been overstated but, like many things, the "Sunlit Uplands" were a figment of Johnson's imagination.

On 8/30/2025 at 3:54 PM, Will B Good said:

 

 

So we are definitely looking at Reform having a 15 point lead?

 

 

 

16 now.