Brexit and EU general chit chat

Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • The way I read it; Madame Priti is using -- horror of horrors! -- an EU law to force Channel refugees back to Calais.

    What if France refuses to accept them?

    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out

  • What if France refuses to accept them?

    That's the confusion in my head. If we were still in the EU; Britain could apply the Dublin Agreement to force France. But we're already out and that's because we don't want to follow EU rules anymore; be free; independent; take back control.


    But here's Madame Priti using EU rules when we already said we're not using them anymore. Shouldn't she grumble at the UNHCR office instead?


    Maybe I'm getting it all wrong.

  • You have a vivid, and warped imagination, Jenny.


    In any case, this has nothing whatsoever to do with leaving the EU.

    The situation regarding Yemen specifically is nothing to do with leaving the EU, but the mentality of the British people towards foreign aid and allowing migrants fleeing from famine, starvation and war to come here has been engendered by the Brexit vote..


    Brexit has enabled an uncaring mentality of indifference to the suffering of others to flourish. It has encouraged those who propogate the mentality of "Charity begins and ends at home" to become mainstream thought.


    Today it is Yemen. Tomorrow it will be somewhere else. The source of refugees may be different, but the mentality of the British people will be the same. And it began with the Brexit vote.


    Before then we were far more caring, compassionate and tolerant as a people. My father once told me how he "ran the world" to raise money for Ethiopian famine relief. .... How millions of people responded to the call..... How Michael Buerke's film from Ethiopia touched the conscience of the entire country. I doubt such an item would touch many people here today.


    You say I have a vivid imagination. What a pity you don't. You're unable to see because you don't care. The lives of other people mean nothing to you.


    You criticise me because that is all you're capable of doing. It's all you've got.

  • Yemen is like a modern era Ethiopia. Back before your time I guess we had live aid to save the starving masses of Ethiopia and off the back of it we got one of the best Music Concerts the world ever saw but anyway. We started to pour aid into Ethiopia in 1985 when the population was 40 million. Now in 2020 we are still pouring aid into Ethiopia even though it has to a great extent been transformed in the intervening years with Addis Ababa now a relatively modern city by a lot of African standards. The population in the meantime has exploded off the back of western aid and is now approx 100 million. In 35 years the population of a group of starving peasants has grown by the same as the current UK population (ish). And there I think lies the problem.


    Whilst there is no doubt that we need to do something from our relative comfort and security of the west, we need to make sure we do not fuel another population explosion. Aid has to come as a package not just food, water and money. There needs to be some education and importantly birth control/family planning which is sorely missing right now.


    Obviously family planning will grate against the cultural norms of Yemen of that I have no doubt but we cannot just feed starving people without some eye on the potential unwanted consequences i.e. a population explosion. We don't have population explosions over here except by immigration so they should play by the same rules.

  • So Schmaltz, you want to let in the refugees. These people are more often than not Muslims who can't speak English, have nothing to offer the country, almost certainly young men who have run away rather than stood and fought, and will almost certainly create ghettos anywhere you put them. Angela Merkel just loves em, so lets put them on a plain and send them to Germany, because we don't want them over here thank you

    Long Live Rich People

  • So Schmaltz, you want to let in the refugees. These people are more often than not Muslims who can't speak English, have nothing to offer the country, almost certainly young men who have run away rather than stood and fought, and will almost certainly create ghettos anywhere you put them. Angela Merkel just loves em, so lets put them on a plain and send them to Germany, because we don't want them over here thank you

    Oh, no, no! You don't get to twist things. The article is not a matter of whether or not I want to let in refugees. It is about that specific Brexit dream of ridding Britain of the EU altogether including and most notably, their rules and laws.


    Remember your Brexit slogan "We are not rule takers!?" Well. We're now out of the EU so we're not supposed to be using or following EU rules anymore. So, how come your Madame Priti is about to use an EU rule to force the return of refugees back to France?


    Why, tell me. That or tell me if I'm wrong in my reading of it.

  • Oh, no, no! You don't get to twist things. The article is not a matter of whether or not I want to let in refugees. It is about that specific Brexit dream of ridding Britain of the EU altogether including and most notably, their rules and laws.


    Remember your Brexit slogan "We are not rule takers!?" Well. We're now out of the EU so we're not supposed to be using or following EU rules anymore. So, how come your Madame Priti is about to use an EU rule to force the return of refugees back to France?


    Why, tell me. That or tell me if I'm wrong in my reading of it.

    There you go again with your "facts".


    This is what it says on Government Websites right now:


    "There is now a transition period until the end of 2020 while the UK and EU negotiate additional arrangements.


    The current rules on trade, travel, and business for the UK and EU will continue to apply during the transition period.


    New rules will take effect on 1 January 2021."


    I highlighted the appropriate bit of that for you.

  • It is a fact that we're out of the EU. It is a fact that it is hypocritical, at best, to declare no regulatory alignment at the start of the transition period but then use EU rules to our advantage in the middle of it. It is a fact that I have qualified my argument for any misinterpretation on my part. So....????:whistling::whistling:

  • It is a fact that we're out of the EU. It is a fact that it is hypocritical, at best, to declare no regulatory alignment at the start of the transition period but then use EU rules to our advantage in the middle of it. It is a fact that I have qualified my argument for any misinterpretation on my part. So....????:whistling::whistling:

    Yes we have left the EU in name only and we are now in the Transition period where no rules have changed. Therefore we still abide by all the rules and "enjoy" all the benefits of membership. We are currently not "back in control", that starts on 1st January 2021.


    As we are still governed by and accepting the governance of the full suite of EU regulation it is not even remotely hypocritical to use the laws that we must obey whether we like it or not. Let me be honest, not everything about the EU was bad, but the FoM was too high a price to pay, so we had no choice but to get out.


    Why do you find this an issue on any level?

  • Yes we have left the EU in name only and we are now in the Transition period where no rules have changed. Therefore we still abide by all the rules and "enjoy" all the benefits of membership. We are currently not "back in control", that starts on 1st January 2021.


    As we are still governed by and accepting the governance of the full suite of EU regulation it is not even remotely hypocritical to use the laws that we must obey whether we like it or not. Let me be honest, not everything about the EU was bad, but the FoM was too high a price to pay, so we had no choice but to get out.


    Why do you find this an issue on any level?

    Because the issue goes back to Britain's credibility. And IMO, we need to maintain credibility and integrity now, more than ever, because we are now on our own in seeking trade deals and further diplomatic relations.

  • Because the issue goes back to Britain's credibility. And IMO, we need to maintain credibility and integrity now, more than ever, because we are now on our own in seeking trade deals and further diplomatic relations.

    We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ by legally binding agreement. How can we enhance our credibility by refusing to accept legal obligations to be bound by a set of rules?


    And how would our credibility be enhanced if the world became aware that we won't use the rule book to our own advantage even when we need to and it is allowed?


    Lets face it during our membership of the EU, the rules have hardly been stacked in our favour have they? This is probably one of the first times we have been able to pull a lever and I bet with you that it doesn't work and all these illegal immigrants end up in the UK regardless.

  • This country is acting as if we had already completely left and as far as this hard right government and their supporters are concerned we have had the transition, and gone

    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out

  • We are still under the jurisdiction of the ECJ by legally binding agreement. How can we enhance our credibility by refusing to accept legal obligations to be bound by a set of rules?


    And how would our credibility be enhanced if the world became aware that we won't use the rule book to our own advantage even when we need to and it is allowed?


    Lets face it during our membership of the EU, the rules have hardly been stacked in our favour have they? This is probably one of the first times we have been able to pull a lever and I bet with you that it doesn't work and all these illegal immigrants end up in the UK regardless.


    Whether you accept it or not; there is an international consensus that Brexit has given Britain a reputation for being an unreliable and untrustworthy partner. Whether it is fair or not is not the issue.


    We are so big on being rule-makers, not rule-takers, yet we see the government declare at the start of the transition that there would be no regulatory alignment only for the HO secretary to do a 180 and realign the country and take a specific regulation in order to deport refugees. It is another hole in our already tattered reputation abroad, IMO.


    You want to re-litigate Brexit? Maybe you should tell us which rules were not stacked in our favour. I ask since, this rule that Madame Priti is using to deport refugees back to France is very clearly and completely stacked in our favour.

  • Whether you accept it or not; there is an international consensus that Brexit has given Britain a reputation for being an unreliable and untrustworthy partner. Whether it is fair or not is not the issue.


    We are so big on being rule-makers, not rule-takers, yet we see the government declare at the start of the transition that there would be no regulatory alignment only for the HO secretary to do a 180 and realign the country and take a specific regulation in order to deport refugees. It is another hole in our already tattered reputation abroad, IMO.


    You want to re-litigate Brexit? Maybe you should tell us which rules were not stacked in our favour. I ask since, this rule that Madame Priti is using to deport refugees back to France is very clearly and completely stacked in our favour.

    Got some link to this international consensus? I just did a Google of your exact phrase and the nearest hit was a two year old article from The Guardian so enough said on that. I fully expect that people like you are saying it all the time but that isn’t really the point because what we are looking for is the international consensus that you specifically mentioned. How many nations does that take? A general agreement which is the standard definition of consensus would suggest at least 51% to make it true. Since there are 195 countries in the world today that would require 98 countries to agree that we were no longer trustworthy or reliable.


    Do you know what I think?


    I think you are making this up.


    Rules stacked in our favour? Call me frickin Dave went round the EU with his begging bowl looking for the smallest crumb of a concession to the rule book and came away empty handed, nothing of note came from that embarrassment mission lead by our embarrassment of a Prime Minister so we went to referendum and here we are at Brexit.

  • Call me frickin Dave went round the EU with his begging bowl looking for the smallest crumb of a concession to the rule book and came away empty handed, nothing of note came from that embarrassment mission lead by our embarrassment of a Prime Minister so we went to referendum and here we are at Brexit.

    And Brexiteers naively believe that the EU will now bend over backwards to accommodate us

    I don't think so

    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out

  • And Brexiteers naively believe that the EU will now bend over backwards to accommodate us

    I don't think so

    We don't want them to bend over backwards we just won't be "bent over" ourselves. Nobody has to "take it" if sensible heads prevail but I fear your beloved EU are incapable of the art of compromise.

  • We don't want them to bend over backwards we just won't be "bent over" ourselves. Nobody has to "take it" if sensible heads prevail but I fear your beloved EU are incapable of the art of compromise.

    As I have said repeatedly if you belong to a club and you tell them you don't like them or the way they run their club they are not going to offer you any future concessions about using or visiting that club

    There is a certain arrogance from the British that they owe us something, No chance

    A Hand Up Not A Hand Out

  • You seriously expected Google to give you comprehensive information when you typed my exact phrase in the search box?


    So, Cameron came away with nothing. Tell us, then, which rules were stacked against him in Brussels. It is interesting to know which EU rules are stacked against us since Madame Priti herself has shown us that at least one works in our favour so much so that she is using that EU rule to force deportation of refugees back to France.

    Edited once, last by schmaltz ().

  • As I have said repeatedly if you belong to a club and you tell them you don't like them or the way they run their club they are not going to offer you any future concessions about using or visiting that club

    There is a certain arrogance from the British that they owe us something, No chance

    We are not asking for concessions Bryan. Call me frickin Dave did that and got nowhere. We are negotiating a new relationship not concessions from the current arrangements, is that too difficult to grasp?

  • You seriously expected Google to give you comprehensive information when you typed my exact phrase in the search box?


    So, Cameron came away with nothing. Tell us, then, which rules were stacked against him in Brussels. It is interesting to know which EU rules are stacked against us since Madame Priti herself has shown us that at least one works in our favour so much so that she is using that EU rule to force deportation of refugees back to France.

    Lets start with this international consensus shall we? No running away now, that was your opening statement in your previous post, if there was anything at all in that, Google would've found it, especially as it is a "pro-remain" phrase. What a stupid response you gave to me searching for it, fancy me typing into Google "International consensus that UK is untrustworthy and unreliable" ...I have since tried multiple combinations of words and search strings, all to zero results, so I stick by what I said, you are just making it up and then have the temerity to demand that I start giving you examples of what I said.


    Convince me that there is an International Consensus that the UK is untrustworthy and unreliable and we can take it from there, otherwise there is little point wasting my time debating you because you just make stuff up.


    Look, it's simple, don't lie, don't make stuff up, be prepared to back up what you say with a detailed explanation or link and don't push a bad position because it just makes you look stupid. It's OK to admit you are wrong, it can be very therapeutic. I accept that there are no links to your opinions, so when it is your opinion just say so.


    It is for you to do the work and provide the proof, after all it is you saying there is a problem not me, you have to provide positive evidence that can be debated. Don't try to saddle me with fact checking your every word for the rest of days. If you don't like me calling you out for your bollocks everyday, don't post bollocks. It is the simple equation of cause and effect.


    I can see English is not your first language so I will cut you some slack, I wish I had a second language like you.

  • So many words just to cover up his own limitations. :rolleyes: Here: type "Brexit Damage to UK reputation" and for balance, type "Brexit Impact on UK Reputation". And when you formulate your rebuttal, you must apply your critical thinking skills, if any.


    You can hardly write in your native language -- forget a second!

  • So many words just to cover up his own limitations. :rolleyes: Here: type "Brexit Damage to UK reputation" and for balance, type "Brexit Impact on UK Reputation". And when you formulate your rebuttal, you must apply your critical thinking skills, if any.


    You can hardly write in your native language -- forget a second!

    Lot’s of links to economic impact but that is deflection. We are looking for “International consensus that UK is untrustworthy and unreliable” they were your words and your assertion. There was no challenge made by me to you about economic impact. That has nothing to do with our debate.


    Who is in the international consensus?

    When was this declared?

    Where is the link?


    So far my critical thinking skills do not need to be applied. We are still awaiting the appearance of the first fact.

  • Exactly -- MY assertion! Assertion formulated from articles and opinion pieces I've read; interviews I've watched; discussions with a few relevant people.


    What do you mean, "Who is in the international consensus?" Do you even know what "consensus" means? You clearly believe that there must have been a conference of some sort somewhere in which a consensus was declared. :D


    BTW, as a test, I Googled "Brexit Damage to UK Reputation" and top of the SEO list was an article about the outgoing British High Commissioner in Singapore saying that Britain is seen as "divided and careless of truth."

  • Exactly -- MY assertion! Assertion formulated from articles and opinion pieces I've read; interviews I've watched; discussions with a few relevant people.


    What do you mean, "Who is in the international consensus?" Do you even know what "consensus" means? You clearly believe that there must have been a conference of some sort somewhere in which a consensus was declared. :D


    BTW, as a test, I Googled "Brexit Damage to UK Reputation" and top of the SEO list was an article about the outgoing British High Commissioner in Singapore saying that Britain is seen as "divided and careless of truth."

    Oh dear!


    I have quoted the definition of consensus in my first answer. The whole post was developed around the definition of consensus. You have not been paying attention.


    Don’t forget we are looking for the phrase untrustworthy and unreliable as per your post. Who are the international consensus?


    Even if the quote from the Singapore high commissioner was relevant which it isn’t, it was said by a British citizen so doesn’t even qualify as international let alone consensus.

  • I already said that it was MY assertion. And MY assertion is not about whether or not there is international consensus. Not that you would get it; but take away the point of "international consensus" and you're still left with my assertion that Britain can not be selective about the people it wants to bring in.

  • You don't know me, Jenny, and once again you are letting your assumptions take on a life of their own.


    I am a staunch Brexiteer, but I don't think in the way you assume all people who voted leave do. You and other more vocal remainers are making the incorrect assumption that all leavers are racists. That is a very broad brush approach and bears no relation to reality. I don't know whether you are deliberately trying to smear the majority of the electorate or whether you are just sucking up the rhetoric of the hard left, Whichever it is, it is incorrect.


    It is certainly true that those people who are racist are most likely to support having a reduction in immigration, but they are a small minority who may well be UKIP supporters. The majority want restrictions on immigration because:


    1. We are a small country geographically and the high level of immigration has been putting a strain on our public services.


    2. With free movement, it has been possible for unskilled and low skilled labour to compete for our low paid jobs and they are driving down wage levels to the minimum wage and even less in some areas. This has created a problem for our own people who can only do these jobs.


    3. There is also a fear that terrorists from abroad can enter more freely if there are no checks at airports and seaports.


    These are the three main reasons people want to control (not stop) immigration. You cannot allow a situation where more and more people are coming in unless there are similar numbers moving out.


    As far as foreign aid is concerned, Britain has an excellent reputation when it comes to helping people in times of famine and natural disasters. Certainly, I do not begrudge our foreign aid money being used for such purposes. What I do object to is money being wasted on pointless projects which do not really benefit those it is intended to help. You must have read that civil servants have found it difficult to spend the money allocated to foreign aid because the budget is far too generous. What we actually need is a contingency fund to be used for emergencies, and these vanity projects that are of little benefit should cease.


    Brexit has absolutely nothing to do with foreign aid and certainly not Yemen. This government is actively supporting the Yemen government to fight off those seeking to overthrow it, and I am sure will continue to do so.

  • I already said that it was MY assertion. And MY assertion is not about whether or not there is international consensus. Not that you would get it; but take away the point of "international consensus" and you're still left with my assertion that Britain can not be selective about the people it wants to bring in.

    I’m lost. You have now mixed up two separate topics that are in separate threads