The EU debate - Part III
- Thread starter Jürgenmeiʃter
- Start date
-
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
-
- Status
See there's the rub. It isn't. It's simply a way of turning it into a discussion you can just object to, rather than one that supports the opinion you've already posted.
How about this for an answer, I don't know if I'd support her, as I don't know enough about her policies. You've expressed a strong opinion on her policies, so should be better informed, so you can educate me on what they are, and then I can make an informed opinion.
Last edited:
So you just post links about her which you've presumably read/watched but don't know enough about her to have an opinion.
From this article- I know nothing about the source to determine if it's right, left or neither:
http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/15/what-do-we-know-about-marine-le-pen-s-policies
"The FN’s last election manifesto contained proposals to cut legal immigration to 10,000 “entries” a year, a twentieth of its then total; to deport all illegal immigrants and ban protests supporting them; to tighten rules on nationality and punish racism more harshly if it was “anti-French”. Economic agreements with North African countries would be renegotiated with a view to “stopping their migratory flow” to France."
Having an arbitrary absolute number target for immigration sounds like a vote winner but is impractical and unlikely to be positive economically, not to mention the hostility it will likely add to an already hostile country towards ethnic minorities. Feel free to give an opinion at some point today.
The previous chancellors policies are indeed a considerable factor in the reasons for the difference.
National Front France policies
Now thought of as a centre right party.
Law & order
Zero tolerance, harsher sentencing, increased prison capacity, and a referendum on re-introducing the death penalty.
Immigration
Since becoming leader of the party in 2011, Marine Le Pen has focused mostly on the perceived threat against the secular value system of the French Republic. She has criticised Muslims, for what she perceives as their alleged intents to impose their own values on the country. Following the Arab Spring rebellions in several countries, she has been active in campaigning on halting the migration to Europe of Tunisian and Libyan immigrants.
Economy
Under her leadership, Marine Le Pen has been more clear in her support for protectionism, while she has criticised globalism and capitalism for certain industries. She has been characterised as a proponent of letting the government take care of health, education, transportation, banking and energy.
Foreign policy
Marine Le Pen has advocated that France should leave the euro (along with Spain, Greece and Portugal). She also wants to reintroduce customs borders and has campaigned against allowing dual citizenship. During both the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis and the 2011 Libyan civil war, she opposed the French military involvements. She has recast the party's image towards Israel, after affirming Israel's right to secure itself from terrorism, and criticising the leadership of Iran.
Marine Le Pen described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "defender of the Christian heritage of European civilisation." She thinks Ukraine should be sovereign and free as any other nation.
During the 2012 presidential elections, Marine Le Pen sought the support of Jewish people in France.
Now thought of as a centre right party.
Law & order
Zero tolerance, harsher sentencing, increased prison capacity, and a referendum on re-introducing the death penalty.
Immigration
Since becoming leader of the party in 2011, Marine Le Pen has focused mostly on the perceived threat against the secular value system of the French Republic. She has criticised Muslims, for what she perceives as their alleged intents to impose their own values on the country. Following the Arab Spring rebellions in several countries, she has been active in campaigning on halting the migration to Europe of Tunisian and Libyan immigrants.
Economy
Under her leadership, Marine Le Pen has been more clear in her support for protectionism, while she has criticised globalism and capitalism for certain industries. She has been characterised as a proponent of letting the government take care of health, education, transportation, banking and energy.
Foreign policy
Marine Le Pen has advocated that France should leave the euro (along with Spain, Greece and Portugal). She also wants to reintroduce customs borders and has campaigned against allowing dual citizenship. During both the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis and the 2011 Libyan civil war, she opposed the French military involvements. She has recast the party's image towards Israel, after affirming Israel's right to secure itself from terrorism, and criticising the leadership of Iran.
Marine Le Pen described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a "defender of the Christian heritage of European civilisation." She thinks Ukraine should be sovereign and free as any other nation.
During the 2012 presidential elections, Marine Le Pen sought the support of Jewish people in France.
John Redwood MP, chief global strategist at Charles Stanley
"Staying a member of the Single Market is likely to entail continuing to make some financial contributions to the EU and accepting freedom of movement. Brexit to those who voted Out means taking back control of UK money, borders, taxes and laws. The IFS claims that we will be 4 per cent better off remaining in the Single Market. To get to such a loss, you need to be very pessimistic about trade between the UK and the rest of the EU on leaving. There is every chance, for example, that the UK will keep financial passporting. Why would the EU wish to make access to London more difficult? Why wouldn’t the UK qualify for passports under the MIFID equivalence of regulation rules? There is also the issue of tariffs. The UK may wish to continue with tariff-free trade. Will EU member states agree on specific tariffs they wish to impose on profitable trade with the UK, that are permissible under WTO rules? Do they want the UK to have to retaliate? It is not possible to predict the outcome before any exit and trade negotiations. It is not sensible to put a number on such uncertainty."
The fact is that it's all still to play for.
A big risk for the UK is the determination of the losers to ensure we fail in our negotiations with the EU, just so they can enjoy some kind of twisted, masochistic victory. Examples of remainers revelling in every 'bad news' headline can be found throughout this thread.
"Staying a member of the Single Market is likely to entail continuing to make some financial contributions to the EU and accepting freedom of movement. Brexit to those who voted Out means taking back control of UK money, borders, taxes and laws. The IFS claims that we will be 4 per cent better off remaining in the Single Market. To get to such a loss, you need to be very pessimistic about trade between the UK and the rest of the EU on leaving. There is every chance, for example, that the UK will keep financial passporting. Why would the EU wish to make access to London more difficult? Why wouldn’t the UK qualify for passports under the MIFID equivalence of regulation rules? There is also the issue of tariffs. The UK may wish to continue with tariff-free trade. Will EU member states agree on specific tariffs they wish to impose on profitable trade with the UK, that are permissible under WTO rules? Do they want the UK to have to retaliate? It is not possible to predict the outcome before any exit and trade negotiations. It is not sensible to put a number on such uncertainty."
The fact is that it's all still to play for.
A big risk for the UK is the determination of the losers to ensure we fail in our negotiations with the EU, just so they can enjoy some kind of twisted, masochistic victory. Examples of remainers revelling in every 'bad news' headline can be found throughout this thread.
You must log in or register to see images
Yep, I posted and asked for others views, so I could inform my opinion. I think that's better than guessing based on media sound bites.
Your quotes leads to the questions I've already asked and points I've made several times.
It seems to me, the border policies you don't like of Le Penn are less discriminatory and similar in principle to the existing EU border control and protectionist policies that have a negative impact on areas like Africa. The EU limits access to 90% of the world's population, and all predominantly non-white and Muslim countries.
A common immigration policy that doesn't give open access to EU citizens means that all are treated equally. The current regime, and the one imposed by the EU restricts the access from 90% of the world, including Africa. The protectionist policy means we pay more for food due to CAP, produce a surplus, and dump the excess on Africa, scuppering their own local producers.
There are number based schemes in EU states, as shown by the recognised folly of Labour in the UK and Merkel.
You can't have been listening.
"In view of the uncertainty facing the economy, and in the face of slower growth forecasts, we no longer seek to deliver a surplus in 2019-20.
But the Prime Minister and I remain firmly committed to seeing the public finances return to balance as soon as practicable.
While leaving enough flexibility to support the economy in the near-term."
Trasnslated. 'We haven't got a chance in hell of balancing the books as we're staring at a £2 trillion black hole and Brexit is going to set the economy back another decade, so we're abandoning any commitment to return to surplus'
And we'll leave it to whoever is in next to deal with it.
Your translation seems to have been done by a particularly bad translation app.
Hammond also said:
"First, the public finances should be returned to balance as early as possible in the next Parliament, and, in the interim, cyclically-adjusted borrowing should be below 2% by the end of this Parliament."
You posted a link to an article stating this...
"If Muslims are not a race, than which group is? Some people might immediately point to Black people, and say, “that is definitely a race. Look at their skin color.” But, to be exact, Black people are not a race either. Neither, for that matter, are White people.
Okay, now you might wonder about Jewish people? Certainly they are a race, right? Science proves they — like White and Blacks — are not a race either. And what about Asians? Are they a race? Nope. Asians are not a race. The Indigenous People of America, a race? Nope, not a race.
You see, there is no such thing as race or races, traditionally understood. Scientists long ago proved that race is not a biological reality but a myth, a socially constructed concept."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-considine/muslims-are-not-a-race_b_8591660.html
To which I started my reply with this...
"I've taken them for what they are and see them as a ringing endorsement for your own beliefs with no differences of opinion, that's the risk you take with these tactics."
http://www.not606.com/threads/the-eu-debate-part-iii.335684/page-847#post-9939949
To which you directly responded with this...
"The pieces posted mirrored my own opinion..."
http://www.not606.com/threads/the-eu-debate-part-iii.335684/page-848#post-9940669
Nothing has been taken out of context. All you've done is proven yet again that you are spineless, and all of your Internet friends have once again seen you make a fool of yourself. And if you are still latching on to it being out of context, then go back and reply to what I said about 'cultural racism'. Just because you post incessant **** to try and distance yourself from your ******ed posts doesn't mean they will be forgotten, so stop dragging this conversation down, be a big boy and reply to my post. If you don't, I don't care, just stop trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with these short and erratic posts and simply ignore it.
And yet you can't prove anything I said wrong.
Cherry picking of parts of the piece whilst deliberately completely ignoring the salient point and why I ****ing posted it
According to Hall, there is a new type of racism — “cultural racism,” which is my focus here. Racism is no longer about race (skin color) but culture. People are Othered and discriminated against not (simply) because of the color of their skin (or other phenotypes) but because of their beliefs and practices associated with some “imagined culture.”
Cultural racism, therefore, happens when certain people perceive their beliefs and customs as being culturally superior to the beliefs and customs of other groups of people. Cultural racism, in-turn, reproduces the idea of “the hierarchy of cultures,” meaning, in the context of current affairs, that “our” Western culture is superior to “their” Islamic culture. This way of thinking is problematic because it essentializes diverse classifications like “Westerners” and “Muslims.” It creates a binary of “Western = civilized” and “Islamic = uncivilized.”
There's your beliefs summed up in a paragraph.
The idea that your attempted semantics somehow makes you - a person who thinks that the spread of black skin amongst the UK populous is something that needs to be countered and is an open Islamophobe - not a racist, is laughable in it's idiocy. You're a racist pure and simple, your views are akin to White Supremacists, you judge people on their skin colour or religion not their actual individual beliefs about where they live i.e. in the UK.
As in your tiny little warped mind, you've concluded that Muslims full stop are a threat. You have lumped the entire Muslim UK community into the same category, based solely on your small minded, bigoted and racist outlook. Your fascist 'solution' to the 'problem' is to promote a breeding programme amongst whites ffs, and yet you're somehow not a racist? Get to **** to absolute belter.
Too slow off the draw Pete. as @Watford_R has shown, they've just used the old excuse 'we'll leave it to the next lot to worry about'
Nice spin attempt, but too obvious. The short answer is that it depends, but is liable to points based.
So you seem to be saying that Le Penn's border policy and protectionism is no worse, and possibly less discriminatory than the EU's.
Which of her other policies did you use to form your earlier stated opinon?
I've always intensely disliked Osbourne and hate the fact that Brexit will allow him to walk away from his failed austerity measures,with his credibility intact.
- Status