The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Zlatan said:
Of course you could, it's called enforcement of a strict immigration policy. Two Brits shouldn't be living in Spain and having children if they can't speak Spanish, especially then if they expect that child to go to school there.

Is that another one of your stock replies?
Click to expand...

Do you know what a mother tongue is? I'm not saying they don't speak Spanish but that if two English people are speaking to each other they'll speak English regardless of where they are unless you're mental enough to suggest it should be illegal to do so. The kid will still learn Spanish.

And yes your paragraph about all the terrible things in society you've decided are due to non-whites is very Powell.
 
The Zlatan said:
£370m is essentially a weeks worth of contribution to the EU. This is worth what we get in return, which is a continuation of our traditions, another layer of cement to our culture and Monarchy abolitionists getting BTFO. Besides, this renovation would be necessary regardless of the Royal family, unless you want the damn thing knocked down and turned into a refugee centre?
Click to expand...

<laugh> 'Another layer of cement to our culture'

They aren't even a part our 'culture' The Coburg-Saxe-Gotha family are from Germany and only adopted the name 'Windsor' after they didn't want to be associated with Germany during the First world war. They are about as authentic to Britain as the Mini car now is made by BMW.

Personally I'd turn it into a museum open it up to the rich tourists and generate some revenue for the exchequer.
 
PISKIE said:
<laugh> 'Another layer of cement to our culture'

They aren't even a part our 'culture' The Coburg-Saxe-Gotha family are from Germany and only adopted the name 'Windsor' after they didn't want to be associated with Germany during the First world war. They are about as authentic to Britain as the Mini car now is made by BMW.

Personally I'd turn it into a museum open it up to the rich tourists and generate some revenue for the exchequer.
Click to expand...

Are you saying they're not English because their ancestors are foreign?

The Monarchy is certainly part of British Culture. It already generates revenue, it'd cost more to keep it repaired if it had to be kept up to spec for tourists. The 80 year old wiring and plumbing would need a lot more work for a kick off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Zlatan
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
Depends how you do the maths. The trade we get from regions after a state visit is no drop in the ocean.

Even if yours is true, they're worth every penny. It's part of our history and culture.

Too many are too quick to forget that.
Click to expand...

Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses.

All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 15% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £36.1m for 2013/2014, rising 29% to £40m this year.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £334m annually.
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
Are you saying they're not English because their ancestors are foreign?

The Monarchy is certainly part of British Culture. It already generates revenue, it'd cost more to keep it repaired if it had to be kept up to spec for tourists. The 80 year old wiring and plumbing would need a lot more work for a kick off.
Click to expand...
Kustard can't like your post for a change.
 
PISKIE said:
Until 2013, the costs of the monarchy – that's the Queen in her role as head of state and the other working royals – were funded by a civil list payment and a number of separate grants covering travel, property maintenance, communications and other expenses.

All these costs have now been rolled into one single annual payment called the “Sovereign Grant”. This has been set at 15% of surplus revenue from the crown estate - a publicly-owned property portfolio - resulting in a payment of £36.1m for 2013/2014, rising 29% to £40m this year.

However, the Sovereign Grant is just one part of the total cost of the monarchy. The royal family's security bill is picked up by the metropolitan police, for example, while the costs of royal visits are borne by local councils.

Meanwhile, income from the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall – despite belonging to the nation - goes directly to the Queen and Prince Charles respectively, depriving the treasury of tens of millions of pounds every year.

When all this hidden expenditure is included, the real cost of the monarchy to British taxpayers is likely to be around £334m annually.
Click to expand...

As I said, it depends how you do the maths. There are alternative versions.

Scrapping them doesn't remove a fair few of the expenses on your scenario, but removes the income.

They're worth it anyway.
 
Grand Wizard said:
Ha! Ha!

You haven't a clue, but the sad part is that if you did, you would do **** all about it.
I eat pussies like you for breakfast.......Just before I **** their 'lady' :emoticon-0136-giggl
Click to expand...
You're some middle aged, washed up, no mark in the building trade you pleb.

The only thing you eat for breakfast is dripping in fat and wrapped in white bread, you sad ****
 
Watford_R said:
Do you know what a mother tongue is? I'm not saying they don't speak Spanish but that if two English people are speaking to each other they'll speak English regardless of where they are unless you're mental enough to suggest it should be illegal to do so. The kid will still learn Spanish.

And yes your paragraph about all the terrible things in society you've decided are due to non-whites is very Powell.
Click to expand...
No, I've just been arguing with you about it for no reason... If you are an immigrant you should speak the language of the nation you emigrated to, if you decide to have children, it is in your and there interest that they are brought up speaking the native language and not the one that has been left behind by the parents. That's not to say they can't speak that other language, it's just about priorities and not being a burden on the host country.

You don't know many immigrants do you?

No it isn't, I haven't decided that those problems are exclusively down to non-whites. Stop being hysterical.
 
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
Are you saying they're not English because their ancestors are foreign?

The Monarchy is certainly part of British Culture. It already generates revenue, it'd cost more to keep it repaired if it had to be kept up to spec for tourists. The 80 year old wiring and plumbing would need a lot more work for a kick off.
Click to expand...

No, I'm disputing the fact that they are a part of our culture as they aren't. What they are is a rich foreign family who were supplanted to power on the back of some political maneuvering. They've got about as much authenticity to rule Britain as Kim Jong-un has <laugh>

It Monarchy doesn't generate surplus revenue, it costs taxpayers £334m. The same figure could be used to employ 15,000 new nurses each year instead. You mentioned that they bring in trade, well that's why we employ Civil servants. But we don't pay them £18.5m per year to do that job, which is what is costs to keep each royal family member.

As for Buck House being opened up for Tourists, the revenue that would generate would be enough to refurb the place and when it's fixed up, provide a real revenue for the exchequer <ok>
 
PISKIE said:
<laugh> 'Another layer of cement to our culture'

They aren't even a part our 'culture' The Coburg-Saxe-Gotha family are from Germany and only adopted the name 'Windsor' after they didn't want to be associated with Germany during the First world war. They are about as authentic to Britain as the Mini car now is made by BMW.

Personally I'd turn it into a museum open it up to the rich tourists and generate some revenue for the exchequer.
Click to expand...
Wow I can't believe how racist you are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: petersaxton and DMD
Hull City AFC (DMD) said:
As I said, it depends how you do the maths. There are alternative versions.

Scrapping them doesn't remove a fair few of the expenses on your scenario, but removes the income.
Click to expand...

Care to give some ?

Scrapping them would remove all of the expenses and none of the income as they don't generate any, they create a net loss to the economy of £334m

I haven't even advocated scrapping them though, I'm saying that they should pay for refurbishing Buck house out of their own pockets.
 
NowsufferinginSpain said:
Anytime you'd like to back up your big, pissed up mouth with some action, Pussy, you let me know!...
Click to expand...
Dear Liam, I'm still waiting for you to let me know when you are coming and which airport to meet you at.

Funny how you seem to miss the same question despite the number of times I've asked. I even offered to buy you a coffee :emoticon-0162-coffe before I sort you and I get started on the 'lady'.

Anyone would think you were ****ting yourself after having your bluff called :rolleyes:
 
The Zlatan said:
No, I've just been arguing with you about it for no reason... If you are an immigrant you should speak the language of the nation you emigrated to, if you decide to have children, it is in your and there interest that they are brought up speaking the native language and not the one that has been left behind by the parents. That's not to say they can't speak that other language, it's just about priorities and not being a burden on the host country.

You don't know many immigrants do you?
Click to expand...

I know plenty of second/third/fourth generation. I'm fourth/fifth myself.

I don't understand (apart from you being mental) why it's so important they speak English more than anything else. As long as they learn English at school and speak it well, I don't see why it matters. Do you think all the Brits in Dubai should be fluent in Arabic and not speak English in public? Arabic is compulsory for an hour a day in schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Prime Minister
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back