The EU debate - Part III

Yes, in the same way just about every country in the world is.

Unlike Le Pen it promotes equality for immigrants once they're in and it doesn't produce populist arbitrary figures as an immigration target.

Your same response, as usual, isn't true as it is a yes or no answer. That doesn't mean you can't explain your position but you make a habit of avoiding giving an opinion and just trying to find holes in others'.

 

I have explained my position. I said quite clearly that my position is that I don't know enough and need someone that should be informed, as they've made a decision, to inform me on what her policies are.

I did say when this started that what I wanted to do was get some to actually post a view to be explored, rather than their usual tactic of waiting for others to do it and then objecting and personalising. Pointing that out is rather meaningless.

If people become French Citizens, they'll have equal rights under Le Penn. The EU discriminates on people before they even get in, and then limits them once they're here unless they acquire permission to stay.

 

Dull still crapping on about the EU being racist? Fair play to the horse for refusing to die

 

You really don't need to be informed what her policies are though Pete provided a list. Google is your friend.

Your second paragraph is just hypocrisy. All you do is avoid giving an opinion and try and disagree when certain others do.

Your third contradicts your first. It's also wrong.

 

Outside of the EU all will be treated equally like all the current non-EU countries like Russia and America.

 

Feel free to elaborate.

 

Are you saying that other Countries discriminate too? I thought that was your objection to Le Penn?

 

I didn't say that I was against Sarah's Law.

 

In which case, I apologise for misunderstanding your post.

I initially thought it was an autocorrect, and I'm not sure what point you were making, but it's moved on.

 

If she's always as condescending and insulting to her daughter, then I'm not surprised that she doesn't want to speak to her.
Even her own husband won't back her, which speaks volumes.

 

The National Front's policy is to punish racism more strongly if it's "anti-French". The disparity in punishment isn't clear. That doesn't strike me as very equal. Why declare one type of racism worse than another?

 

The application of our racism laws are not equal, but largely in the opposite direction.

 

It's Le Pen. All countries (or blocs) discriminate to the extent they don't just let anyone in from outside. Not all advocate small, arbitrary immigration targets. Your lack of opinion is getting lame, not for the first time. Any opinion on Le Pen yet

 

Depends if you read the Mail or not.

 

Your argument seems too wooly to form an opinion yet.

So you don't disagree with discrimination in principle, just how it's applied. Isn't that just a variation on the EU position?

The Turk's spot the issue, and are using the threat of opening up their border to Syrians as a lever for joining the EU, which points to the similarities between the EU and Le Pen.

 

Like with Sinn Fein, it probably shouldn't be allowed but if he's not acting outside of the rules then I blame the rules.

 

I rarely read it, so I'll take your word for it, as you must read it regularly to form that view on your own. It doesn't alter what I put either way.

 

The problem with many of society's rules is that they have loopholes and unintended consequences.
There's plenty of blame to go around, in my opinion.
Getting paid to do a job and then not doing it? Sounds quite crooked, to me.

 

What's woolly about it? I agree with not completely open borders with just any country. I disagree with low, arbitrary immigration targets, economically and socially. If that's similar to the EU's position, so be it.

Any chance of you nailing your colours to a mast on anything today?