Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

Yes, I know "others" are. That does not alter the fact that it's called The European Union - not The European and anybody else who wants to join Union.

His point is baseless, groundless nonsense.

 

It doesn't differentiate between countries that are non EU countries based on colour of skin.

A non EU country doesn't get freedom of movement within the EU irrespective of their 'predominate colour' you bone head, and for your original premise that freedom of movement was 'racist' to be correct you'd have to prove that it did. Good luck with that.

Keep going though, as you're making a right twat of yourself over this issue and it's fun to watch.

 

I think most are amused at you scrabbling at different ways to avoid answering a very simple question.

 

It's hilarious that his massive ego just can't let it go and therefore he won't back down from it.

 

A consequence of the EU policy is that it favours countries that are predominantly white over countries that are predominantly black. True or false?

 

I've answered it, about 6 times, it's a false statement, a false narrative and stupid argument that you're putting forward.

 

But there's the rub, it isn't false at all. It's a clear consequence.

 

As far as I understand his point - and I use the word understand lightly - the EU is racist and discrimatory because they won't allow non European countries to join The European Union?...

Possibly because they're not in ****ing Europe??....

 

Consequence doesn't alter your assertion, as it's not a consequence that it favours white over black, it favours EU over non EU, and there's plenty of non EU white countries out there love

I note that you're trying to back slide away from your original statement on this via semantics btw.

For the purposes of clarity, you've maintained throughout that free movement of people is racist.

 

Bullshit!...

 

I thought we were all one happy clappy global village though?

Is that not the case?

 

That's a plain enough response mate.

He'll probably ask you what shade of bullshit

 

Now I see what you're doing here. You're trying to make the point that everyone is as racist as you are.

Not true I'm afraid. Colour, in this case, is irrelevant. Unless you're a bit racist.

 

**** that.

 

Racist!!!

 

No countries require a visa for their citizens to travel to the UK.

 

Please accept my apologies - using my phone so cutting out any sections of a quote which I'm not referencing isn't easy - I'm staying well clear of the white/non white EU/non EU argument mainly because it's not an argument.

I'm really engaging more widely on the Treaty of Rome and freedom of movement (although the Latvian issue does touch heavily on racism within the EU).

Russian speaking Latvians, and Estonians and Lithuanians are not truly stateless in the same light as the definitions given I'm the 1951 and 1954 conventions.

They are Latvian (I'll stick to Latvia for now) all that seperates them from the wider population is the convention of their family name and their language....it is the Latvian state that makes them stateless.

The state will let have a passport if they speak fluent Latvian the old generations are stubborn and not educated so won't or can't learn a new language the young simply can't - you'd also be shocked at the cost of obtaining a passport for a Russian speaking Latvian.

You're correct that there is a strong element of Latvian internal policy involved but we are talking about EU citizens here who have no freedom of movement.

Equally I cannot overstate the risk to European security as a result of these policies designed to oppress a cultural difference based on a hatred (which understandably will not be forgotten) of which the majority of those affected, by the policy and the EUs failure to do something, had no part in.

I'm not making an anti EU argument just trying to demonstrate that the various positives we put so much credence in don't exist for all our EU fellow men.

 

Interesting read

http://www.dailyglobe.co.uk/comment/an-overview-of-the-eu/

 

Then you clearly don't understand the point.

 

... I'm just gonna take a guess on this one ... perhaps because leading figures in the Tory party opposed the leader's (and therefore the government's) view on the best way forward for the country ... thereby making the leader's position both as PM and party leader untenable ...this followed by two of the most prominent opposing members of the party (with obvious ambition to lead it) catastrophically failing to take over at the helm (albeit for differing reasons) ... onwards to a final leadership contest that quickly became a 'no contest' largely due to comments on motherhood... finally culminating with a new leader elect with more or less the same stance as the prevous one had on the very issue that forced the previous one out of office .... disarray? ... what disarray?