The EU debate - Part II

Difficult to define, probably impossible in fact.

For me though, I don't think foreigners not being allowed into the UK or those who are allowed in having to live in certain areas to protect "White, Christian born" areas as some like to call them, is the way forward.

I find it particularly ironic when someone like Pete wants foreigners deported apart from his Polish wife, daughter and tenants. He clearly had no problem with foreigners before but he's gradually evolved into a bitter, scared old man.

 

Multiculturalism will never work when you have different cultures that don't like/trust each other.
Add that to the overcrowding and i'm afraid large parts of the UK are like ticking time bombs,

 

Your statements are too sweeping. They imply that people want all foreigners removing or refused access, or the creation of ghettos and that is rarely, if ever the case.

Over simplified I grant you, but if the UK was a club, with it's own rules, it could welcome new members, on the understanding that the existing rules apply and it's accepted that by being a member, you make a positive contribution.

Over time, those rules will adapt to changes in the make up and purpose of the club. Any special needs for new members can be accommodated where possible within the rules. Where they can't be accommodated the potential member can decide if their needs are so great, they can't give them up, and can't be a member, or not that important relative to joining the club. What they can't do is join, and insist on a change just for them.

There are bodies that ensure the existing rules are fair. Ours must be, as people go to great lengths to get here. The exception is the multicultural experiment, which those involve at the top of it say has failed, and failed badly.

 

I don't disagree with any of your proposals. I think we would have had a better chance of that kind of immigration reform by working hand in hand with the EU and playing a key role in its restructuring which would have been and will be inevitable to prevent it from collapsing. As it is, we will be on the outside looking in and it only takes a minority of EU member states who feel spurned or snubbed to make the negotiations, that will inevitably link trade with immigration, problematic.

My sweeping statements (as you put them) are based on the comments of people in this and the previous thread. One quote in my sig is effectively promoting ethnic and religious segregation.

 

Being outside the EU is a positive. Merkel just repeated her version of the failed experiment, and France's work on multiculturalism seems to be biting them hard.

 

And this is the point where we will never agree.

I believe that we have either handed the power to the EU or at best evened it up.

Had we voted Remain, the PM had the power to go to the EU and tell them that whilst the UK was staying in, it was a close run call and unless there were reforms on immigration and freedom of movement, the next referendum would be a Leave result. I believe they would have come up with a deal that kept the UK happy and saved face for the EU, after all, we already cut a deal with regards to the GBP not being replaced by the Euro. The EU needs the UK, there's no question about that.

However, we have now given them a better hand to play with. They know we want freedom of trade as much as that is possible for a country outside of the EU. They very quickly linked trade to freedom of movement, probably out of spite but what can we do about that?

As I've said many times, I wasn't pro-EU, I was pro a plan and we have gone into this without a plan which is going to make getting our preferred outcome much harder. The sad thing is, there's no doubt in my mind that the swing vote was people who were sucked into Boris and Nigel's lies and, privately, are surprised that they aren't getting and won't get what they thought they were voting for.

 

Hardly, Custard. It was expected that whoever was the PM would attempt to do that, as Gvt lawyers are of the opinion that the PM has the privilege to do so.

As has been said many times before, other legal minds disagree that the PM has privilege and that it belongs only to the Queen and to parliament. And therefore a vote of parliament is necessary before article 50 can be invoked.,

The legal challenges will come!...

 

Here we go, concentrating on the race issue again! Really show your true colours sometimes, don't you?...

Of course, as we all know, getting rid of all the darkies is all that matters?....

 

It's a brilliant and factual article.
Pound is steady above 1.32 - nope, it's at 1.31 which is the same as it was 3 weeks ago.

 

Pretty much what Cameron tried and got mugged off in return.

You can't have a plan, other than to leave and negotiate. There are too many variables.

I know nobody personally that voted on the strength of what you describe as lies. The only people I know that voted to remain, are happy with how things are.

 

Where did I mention race? Do you know the difference between race and culture? I posted a couple of links about China that could help fill the gaps.

 

Corbyn has gotten rid of them, to be more accurate!...

 

Well, what else are you suggesting by multiculturism!.?...

You try and hide it the best you can, but it's so obvious where you come from!...

 

It's fantasist, you ignoramus,..

And you're a dickhead! And yes, I've spelt that correctly!...

 

It's written in my username. I mean 'many cultures'.

Like my username, there's a clue in the word I used.

 

I know several people who voted Leave based on the lies. Sadly I'm related to a few.

 

You hide behind it. But, like I say, your true colours come shining through!...

 

They probably do. They're nothing like the picture you're desperately trying to paint though.

 

The legal challenges will fail, parliament is after all sovereign and the vote was discussed in parliament and they accepted the outcome (but it did not go the way it was expected)

I just can see how the Gov can lose this.

 

And you're a seriously sad man.