The European Parliament is to consider a plan that would allow British citizens to opt-in and keep their European Union citizenship – and its associated benefits – once the UK leaves the EU. The proposal, which has been put before a parliamentary committee as an amendment, would grant the citizens of former member states the voluntary right to retain “associate citizenship” of the EU, such as after Brexit. Associate citizens would be allowed to keep free movement across the EU as full citizens currently enjoy and would be allowed to vote in European Parliament elections, meaning they were still represented in Brussels. The proposal could potentially give Brits who live and work across borders a workaround to the disruption caused by the Leave vote – and young people looking to flee an increasingly insular UK greater choice over where to move to. Amendment 882 was proposed by Charles Goerens, a liberal MEP from Luxembourg. It will be considered by the European Parliament’s Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is drawing up a report with recommendations on “Possible evolutions of and adjustments to the current institutional set-up of the European Union”. ... The amendment suggests the provision of “European associate citizenship for those who feel and wish to be part of the European project but are nationals of a former Member State; offers these associate citizens the rights of freedom of movement and to reside on its territory as well as being represented in the Parliament through a vote in the European elections on the European lists”. Sounds great right? A compromise for the near half the the UK who didn't want to leave? Who could object to that... Brexit campaigners in Britain reacted with anger to the idea, arguing that it would discriminate against Leave voters and that it was “an outrage”. It's discrimination to let people having something they want, that we too could have but don't want.... Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign described the proposal as divisive and said it was “totally unacceptable” for British people to retain the advantages of EU membership. “This is an outrage. The EU is now attempting to divide the great British public at the exact moment we need unity. 17.4 million people voted to Leave the EU on 23 June and as a result the UK as a whole will get Brexit,” she said. “Brexit means laws which impact the people of the UK will be created by accountable politicians in Westminster. It is totally unacceptable for certain citizens in the UK to subject themselves to laws which are created by politicians who are not accountable the British people as a whole. Discriminating against people based on their political views shows there are no depths the EU will not sink to.” When did Unity become bend to my will lmao. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7405196.html
That and trying to put a couple of idiots having a go at a white person for their hair and white people shouting white power on the same level.
I am telling you what is one of the drivers of people being set against each other. They are seeing a perceived different set of rules. I am saying that those with power and influence are playing a deliberately divisive game for their own benefits. Whether that be race vs race, religion vs religion, class vs class, or wealth vs poor. They know what they are doing and no matter how many words of unity hides what they are actually doing. My last sentence is that from my side of the window I am here thinking "why can these people not see that this is happening" while from your side of the window you are believing the words. I can fully accept that from your side of the window you think the same of me and think "how can he think that rubbish." That is politics, getting more people to see from your side of the window. The goal for humanity is to remove the window. The goal for the politicians is to make sure the window never disappears because the window is what maintains their power over people and gets their votes. They stoke the divides under the guise of unity because it is those divides that maintains their voterbase. As for seeing racism in me. You are free to consider me a racist. The only person that matter is my Black Portuguese lapsed jehovah wife and she doesn't think I'm racist. She is the only opinion on the matter that I bother about and while we have a lot of disagreements on all sorts of things and have a tempestuous love/hate relationship at times race and culture is something we are both on the same page with. She doesn't think I'm racist and knows I enjoy experiencing all sorts of cultures. My point is not about race or culture. It is about how those with influence and power abuse those differences to further their own goals. They do not care about either side. People talk about the fascist right but it is the left that is oppressing freedom of speech and opinion. They are using society to do it instead using them as a shield. The left are all over the internet and in public life demonising normal thoughts. "Tory Scum" etc etc. and what we have ended up with is the "shy" vote. We are hearing a lot of "minorities are waking up scared." A section of society has been "scared" for a long time, not just for fear of some leftie lunatic physically or verbally assaulting them but also for fear that it could hurt them in terms of their employment in some cases just for openly stating they vote Tory. There is and has been hate on all sides for a long time. Both sides are as guilty as the other. No-one seems interested in unity. They prefer insulation form others and have become accustomed to their echo chambers with Social media helping to mould people's minds into thinking their viewpoint is much more "standard" than it actually is.
You are only seeing one side of the violence on TV. They don't show the UAF beating up people or Momentum/SWP spitting on people shouting Tory Scum.
Firstly both sides are not equally worse. Minorities have been treated like **** by the majority (white people mainly) for 100's and hundreds of years. That is what some people don't understand. You chose to vote Tory and if people disagree with you that is up to them ( I don't agree with the abuse). People didn't choose to be black, Polish, from the Middle East etc etc. There is a clear difference. You are being called out on your believes, while others are being called out on where they were born. One is clearly different then the other. Also it doesn't matter who your wife is. She could be pink with yellow spots (not having a go at your wife btw). You can still be racist and be married to a person of a different colour. Do I agree abuse needs to stop: Yes Do I agree how minorities are treated is the same as people voting for Tory etc: No way.
Yes, but then they vote for Trump. It doesn't make any sense. "We are tired of wealthy billionaires using their money to buy off politicians. So we will simply elect the wealthy billionaire directly and cut out the middle man."
They are the same. You can't pick and choose what is more important than the other. They are equal and they both need to be stopped. Crying you are worse than us is no progressive argument. They are both as bad. This is why we have this negative kind of politics these days. I agree violence is worse than words but that is you choosing to take my words literally and not seeing the argument that both are equally discrimination (or seen to be.) The end result is different but the tactics are the same on both sides. Divide and conquer. That is their policy. The left have seen their divides slip and have got the petrol can out to open them up again. The "far" right have seen it happening and been delighted. Those in the centre right are getting admonished because the far right have been empowered when it is the left policies that has enabled the far right to become "relevant" again. Is violence as bad as words? No, sticks and stones etc. Tell society that when they jump on any words they see no matter how innocent those words are. I still go to the chinky for a takeaway. Doesn't mean I am racist towards Chinese. If that was in a tweet I would be outed as a full on KKK madman by the end of the day. I am not degree or A level educated, merely a guy with 10 GCSEs at C or above. My language will reflect that I am not highly educated and there will be a lot of common speak. People will delight in picking out things that I say innocently as proof of my 'ism or "phobe. These people should be looking for intention and the meaning and not merely jump on the words I speak. I have said for years, come to Lincoln and many people will call you chav or chavvy. It means "mate", Friend" You will be getting offended for no reason. The English example: "We are tired of capitalist Left politicians pretending they aren't capitalists so we will simply elect the Torys." Not much difference here. People can see those on the left aren't interested in anything but their votes. I am not highly educated as in degree level and my language will have a lot of common speak
An Excerpt from one Spectator article where those Celebs that said they would move to........if Trump won yet now when questioned are saying "It was just a joke." These celebs might forgive regular Americans who fail to see the humour – the ones who can’t afford holidays abroad, much less relocation fees and immigration lawyers, and who have spent the last year absorbing the message that a Trump win would mean apocalypse for America. Some of those Americans are now agitating through the streets of New York, Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago – vandalising buildings, jamming traffic, and beating up suspected Trump voters. Lady Gaga and Cher have intermittently joined in the protests, before being whisked away in secure limos. Next time they pop by, they might consider informing the plebs that all the high-profile catastrophising was meant in jest. http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/us-election-fallout-celebrity-edition/
They are not the same and don't know how you can say that. One has suffered years and years of oppression. The other is a person who chose to vote Tory. I agree politics is **** and the poor/ill are treated like ****. But that isn't the fault of minorites here, that is the fault of the Government. I wouldn't call you racist for saying chinky, but I would call you ignorant. You fully know why it is being fazed out due to how it is used, but choose to use it anyway. I will leave it there. We aren't ever going to agree and I don't want to have a whole thread of us just disagreeing over and over.
We aren't disagreeing. You have agreed with me. I never said it was the fault of minorities. I said it was the fault of those in power. They are using minorities and majorities as tools to set against each other. I never said it was minorities at fault.
You are missing the point. I didn't vote for "anti-establishment." I don't think HRC is "one of the people." I don't believe "she tells it like it is." I completely accept the fact that she is a career politician, and her advisors will be lobbyists and career politicians. Those things were a big deal to Trump supporters. But they are not and never were "anti-establishment." They were only "anti-Clinton" (which is fine if that's how they felt) and deluded themselves into thinking that Clinton was "establishment" and somehow Trump was not.
Putting yourself down a bit here I'd say - you could just as easily say going for a Chinese and if you had my daughters you would be! and if you have 10 GCSEs that means you're at the same educational level as a degree educated person but didn't actually go. Your vocabulary will only be bettered by someone who did a namby pamby arty farty degree and not a good Engineering degree like what I did innit?
But I mix with the plebs and I speak like them. That is what I meant. I have some Uni educated friends in my close circle and some that went apprenticeship route. I am just trying to say that much is made of the language used without ever trying to understand what it means. Lots of people on the street say stuff that would send the Beeb into meltdown but if they delved into the meaning behind things they would find that in 99:1 cases it is not literal nor even meant in an offensive way. Like above where Beefy says if I say Chinky then he would consider me to be ignorant. If speaking in the laguage of those that you are brought up around and with means ignorance then so be it. I don't actually say Chinky and do say Chinese. Like I say Indian but there are many that do and they don't mean anything "sinister" about it. It is a common language but many like to use it call others ignorant or "ill educated" or simply stupid. My Dad votes LibDem and is very liberal but he still uses terms that these days are branded as "casual racism." I keep telling him to say "black" but he still says coloured. He also says Chinky and (spelling) I-Ti but he isn't saying it with any sinister meaning. Like Jock, Paddy, Mick, Taffy, Ginge. HE is an old school southerner born to a southern English father and an Irish mother. The left don;t seem at all concerned whether people are actually racist or not. They just see something to target people on and shame them to get "on message." All the time they give ammunition to the real discriminators.
Tell me Imps, what is the difference between calling a person "Tory scum" and a "Loony Leftie"?....both are intended to cause offence to the other person because of their political views.
It doesn't? Maybe you should re-think this assumption. We have been taught that so long as you don't believe that one race is inherently inferior to another, you are not racist. Perhaps it is time to raise the bar. I don't freak out about the use of certain words, because they are only words. And sometimes people don't know the right term and the terms are always changing and it can be frustrating. I get that. I also get that sometimes people aren't aware of the history of words. And that people were brought up with a certain vocabulary and sometimes they will slip up and use a verboten term by accident. None of this offends me. But at the point where you know that a word is considered racially offensive, and it's easy enough to say "Chinese" (same number of syllables after all), but you continue to use the offensive term... how am I to interpret that? Sure, you're not "racist" in the old-school sense. But you are okay with using insulting names for other races and by doing so sustain or deepen racial divides for really no reason at all. That to me, is racist. There is a difference between letting a bad word slip BY ACCIDENT and doing so intentionally. edit: Should clarify that by "you" I mean a hypothetical person.
Tory Scum is intended to offend the masses of normal people and is spoken with vitriol aimed at anyone that voted Tory as if they are disgusting. Loony leftie is not intentionally aimed at branding masses of normal people. It is a term that is known to point at the extremist left. The "fruitcakes" and not just people who are left leaning. People who vote Tory are not scum. Some might be. Loonie lefties are loony. They are the far left, very violent, intimidatory and dangerous. People are not calling normal left leaning folks "loony lefties" whereas they are labelling normal right leaning folks as "Tory Scum." You know this and you are playing the semantics of not knowing what people are meaning when they say these things just as ISIRTP focused on the word "professional" the other day to say "these are not paid to do this when we all know Trump was referring to the "rent-a-mob." that are mobilised by the same groups to get things going. Like I say, people don't seem to care what someone means anymore. They are very quick to jump on words rather than their meaning or intent. Good job my Dad isn't on social media telling people he just bought his ***got. He likes ***got with his fry ups. He would be amazed at how popular the comments below his innocent post were.
Yes, but it is only the far left "loonies" that use the language you speak of and maybe they are angry because people voting Tory affects their lives, like the deliberate austerity policies and rises in zero hour contracts and poverty causing people the shame of having to go to food banks.
I can't remember where I read about the Ultimatum Game, if it was on here I apologise. There's an economics experiment called the Ultimatum Game. It's played by two people. Person 1 is given a sum of money and has to propose to Person 2 how they split it. Person 2 then has to choose whether to accept or reject Person 1's proposal. If Person 2 accepts the proposal they both get the amount proposed by Person 1 and if Person 2 rejects the proposal neither of them gets any money at all. Logically speaking Person 2 should accept almost any offer. After all even a 99% - 1% split in favour of Person 1 will leave Person 2 better off than rejecting the offer. People's minds don't work that way though. Many people, if they see the offer as unfair, reject it even though that decision means they end up worse off as well. I think a similar thing is happening here. A large part of society feels that a smaller part of society is getting an unfair share in various ways and in response they're choosing to reject the whole deal, choosing to reject mainstream politics and politicians. Michael Moore gets it: I should point out the video has been clipped and he goes on to point out that the good feeling will last maybe a month before people realise Trump is no better than anyone else and may well be much worse in many ways.
