The EU debate - Part III

Care to explain that, and provide a few examples?

Since you have expressed this as an unequivical opinion, you can presumably flesh it out without having to post links.

 

I don't know what you're googling.

It's a basic version, but this was the first hit https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-states-reject-camerons-migrant-benefits-plan

 

That's not them blocking changes to the UK's social security system though, is it?
That's why I thought you were talking about something else.
It was an attempt to change agreements with the EU.

Cameron also got the emergency break for this that he was looking for, so they didn't even block it.

 

Are you suggesting Hull is answering a different question to the one asked? That wouldn't happen.

 

Oooh, I love it when you get all masterful and demanding, and think you're trying to turn the tables.

Yep, racism against white people doesn't get the same treatment from the authorities or coverage in the media as racism against blacks.

In my view it's one of the failings dragged in by the social justice bigots.

I'm not sure of recent figures, but the last I saw, nearly half the victims of racially motivated murders, were white. It doesn't seem to get much recognition in the debate.

For me, the issue of racism avoids the real problems, and adds a fair few of its own. It's the view held by the former chairman of the Campaign for Racial Equality, who initiated many of the ideas, who now says he got it wrong.

The focus should be on the core values of unity, tolerance and understanding, all under the umbrella of being a citizen of these Islands.

 

And among the agreements he was trying to change were elements of our benefits system.

 

No, he's pointing out he missed the bit about changes to the benefit system.

Stop trying too bang that drum, it's out of tune and just shows your ignorance.

 

It's an enormous drum that has been banged by several people on this thread, some of whom rarely agree on anything. It's really no coincidence that so many people come to the same conclusion about you, sometimes from a starting point of taking your side.

 

Some other fool tried banging that 'majority' argument not that long ago, it was bollocks then, and is bollocks now for the self and same reasons. I'll summarise them in case you get all demanding for a link.

Most people don't even look at this thread. When the first thread was created, I posted a link on our board so that we could limit political discussion on there. Most looked in and dismissed it as being full of tossers. Not everyone on this thread agrees with you.

Over and above that, I don't give a ****. I'll leave such concerns to the delicate flowers that need others for comfort.

 

Nope. It's about who has access to it, not about the system itself.

 

I agree with the last paragraph. I could take issue with some of the rest, although it is true that Trevor Philips - former chair of the CRE - has expressed doubts about the counter productivity of initiatives like positive discrimination.

Question for you; have you ever personally experienced direct discrimination on the grounds of your race? By which I mean actual in-your-face racism, rather than a percieved injustice that can't actually be proved.

I am white and English and I have never experienced this, unless you include northerners and Scots taking the piss out of my accent, which I don't. I suspect most black and asian people in the UK will have had a different experience.

 

Somewhat semantic. There were also considered options to cut benefits for all, but whether you describe it as changes to access or not, and the system would still need to changing to accommodate that, even if it was only at the application stage, the fact remains that domestic policy was vetoed by people in countries many miles away that we didn't elect.

 

No, not everyone on this thread agrees with me but when you manage to turn posters from all walks of life against you with such regularity it might give you a clue that it might not be bollocks.

 

Domestic policy wasn't changed. This was an attempt to change how EU policy affected the UK.
You're complaining about an EU country affecting EU policy. That's entirely democratic.

 

Yep, I've had direct discrimination in various areas of the UK including London, and I know you'll now dismiss it, but no, I'm not going into detail. The 'perceived' injustice could actually be proven if someone looked at the figures with an open mind.

For me, it's the wrong argument, the injustice should be looked at in terms of equality of opportunity to live, learn and earn.

Going back to Trevor Phillips, in one of his talks he makes the point that London has changed from having failing schools to meeting the standards, and he offers a big reason being that diversity has helped encourage groups such as African, Asian and Polish to get the standards up, but that it's now white British and afro-caribbean at the bottom. He makes the point that there's a reluctance to look at the experience and see how lessons learned can be applied to those now at the bottom.

 

As I said, I couldn't give a ****, so put your drum away, it's boring and out of tune.

 

Hence we've ****ed them off so we can make such domestic decisions.

 

Except that we haven't, as we don't know the details yet and they're not domestic decisions, either.
As your orange hero would say, "Wrong".

 

No, it's not bollocks, Dull, and I suspect you know it!...

There's about 6-7 people on this thread all basically telling you the same thing. Putting you old copper's hat back on, you'd begin to suspect there might be a case, mightn't you?.....

 

I have no idea who my 'orange hero' is supposed to be, but no matter how you spin it, the democratically elected UK Government wanted to make changes to domestic arrangements, and people many miles away that we didn't vote for blocked it so their people could get money from us.

The next democratic step was a referendum, which was a lever being applied by our democratically elected government. The outcome was that the majority thought **** 'em. The majority supporting the issue was probably larger than just those that voted leave, as a reasonable number of remainers, agreed the EU was ****ed, but felt they could change it within. That's a tad optimistic given what brought the referendum about.

How that now pans out is guesswork.