Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t find them offensive, but I also don’t understand why they are sold still. Who is buying them?
Offended? too right im offended!!!
But why do they offend you as an idividual specifically? You didn’t actually state a reason, other than that slavery affected people, and that may or may not be related to golliwogs somehow.
1 member liked this post.
For purely strategic reasons. Accepting Muslims in society normalises the existence of Islam, and normalising the existence of Islam–viewing it as just an ordinary part of society–will lead to it ultimately dominating the Western world.
What do you propose to do with muslims who are British (or your native country’s) citizens?
The UK’s treaties are signed through the EU – there have been 161 since joining the EEC in january, 1973 (that is, over 43 years).
With 32 entities, many of which are part of Britain, and the others are mostly poor countries who are not going to buy anything that Britain exports (Cars, Aerospace components, ect).
The most friendly countries take many years of hard negotiations to create a deal – think of Canada’s travails with the EU.
Yes, the EU is terrible at making trade deals, that’s why I don’t want to be in the customs union. While it might still take awhile to negotiate on our own, it will be much faster than inside of the EU.
Canada has made it clear that the UK is not high on their agenda.
Canada’s government is very contraversial (There is even a conspiracy theory that Trudeau is Fidel Castro’s son) and I don’t see them being in office much longer. Regardless of that, a lot of the right wing Tories want to join NAFTA, which means trade with Canada. This might not be a bad option as Trump wants to leave it, and we might be able to work with him to reform it instead.
Whistling up trade is no substitute. And if there’s another almighty banking crash like 2008. Gawd help us all. You need a vaiable strategy..
The 2008 crash was caused by house price inflation and preditory loan offers, not by trade. They are very different problems with different effects and solutions. I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up. But my solution is EFTA membership, which avoids any potential issues with loss of trade.
An EFTA is better than none. There are various possibilities.
But we have to leave the EU slowly, under our own steam, and under our own terms. This headlong break is very dangerous. We should be leaving when we want, not when our trading rivals want us to.
EFTA has nearly all of the advantages of membership, but without a lot of the restrictions, and I think it’s the option that the government will take.
And we should be free to rejoin; people should be free to change their minds, as you acknowledged.. That is where the European Court of Justice may well come in – in a ruling that Article 50 is not irreversible. There are various moves under way (outside the UK at the moment – in Dublin) to bring that case forward.
I don’t think anywone is arguing that we shouldn’t, I certainly am not.
I think you’re very wrong in your other points, but it would be distracting to take them up now.
I just don’t want people comming into the country who have an obvious disregard for our laws and customs.
The present dangers are clear, and they’re caused by Brexit. The 161 trade treaties which the Uk has are all negotiated by the EU. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has judged that all 161 are null and void. We will have no trade treaties. We’ll have to build all of them again – and each one takes a long time.
The EU has active trade deals with 32 entities (including countries in the EFTA and EEA), not 161. Even then, several of those are British crown dependancies (Jersey, Guernsey, Isle of Man, Akrotiri and Dhekelia). The WTO has no authority over these deals anyway, its up to the entities that negotiated those deals if they want to apply the same conditions to Britain after leaving.
Regardless of that, I would prefer the EFTA membership Brexit, which would mean we aren’t at risk of losing deals.
The pound has slumped already over the mere uncertainty, and once we leave it is liekly to fall much further because of britains’ precarious trading position.
Whistling trade treaties and allies up is no substitute for real trade treaties and real trading allies.
Australia, New Zealand and America (Trump) have expressed significant interest in opening trade negotiations with us, all countries that the EU has failed to so far. They are far more valuable markets than Morocco and Egypt.
The deceit of the leavers was very cruel – the use of lines of refugees in the pretence that they were immigrants, the scare story that a huge number of Turkish immigrants were about to sweep into the UK, the deceit that there would be no cost in leaving the EU (!!!), the lie that we could push £350 million a month into the NHS. A cruel deceit. Don’t blame those who are warning of the dangers when it hits us.
A very large number of the ‘refugees’ are immigrants, there are no wars in Pakistan or Macedonia. It is also worth remembering that the EU refused to take refugees from Ukraine when Russia was annexing Crimea. Even a lot of the genuine refugees lie about their age, or attack lorries to get into the country illegally.
The EU giving Turkish citizens visa free travel was a valid issue until the coup happened.
The NHS claim was only made by Vote Leave, it was refuted by both the Leave.EU and Grassroots Out campaigns. This is only an issue created by remain voters, virtually nobody voted to leave because of Boris’ claims about the NHS.
It’s wrong to say thaat the exclusion from the euro was temporary. It wasn’t. A permanent two-speed Europe was becoming formalised, though the EU federalists would have liked to think it was temporary. Ther eality was very different from their wishes.
The people who make the laws wanted it to be temporary, that makes it temporary in my oppinion.
the UK isn’t the only country in the EU to refuse to join the euro.
Their opt-outs are also thought of as being temporary by the EU.
In or out of the EU, the euro’s days are numbered if they can’t reform it. It doesn’t work as it is presently constituted.
What changes would you propose making, and how would you elect someone to make those changes? (You can’t)
I know you don’t want a European starte, but it’s hardly worth arguing the toss about it, as very few people in this country do.
I don’t really care if there is a European state or not, I just don’t think Britain should be part of it for the reasons I explained in my last post.
The referendum, however much it was based ona cruel deceit by Leavers imho, has achieved a legitimacy. All but the most angry leavers accept we are on our way out.
I think you will find it was the remain campaign who lied about everything (the referendum is binding, there is no plans for a EU army, the EU is democratic, we wouldn’t be able to trade with European countries, you wouldn’t be able to travel to Europe, it would cause WW3, ect).
Most of the ‘angry leavers’ know nothing about the EU, nor do most of the remoaners.
So whya re you so worried?
I’m not worried, but this is the kind of thing that civil wars start over.
do you think ‘the people’ have a right to change their minds on the EU?
Yes
and if there is an economic crisis, I mean a bad one, what do you propose to do to meet it.
Economic problems require very different solutions depending on their cause, so there is no way I can answer that.
There is that possibility of impoverishment, you know. So…answers, as you helped to land us in this gamble?
That hasn’t happened yet, and I don’t see why it would unless the EU 27 wants to damage their own ecconomies out of spite.
It sounds arcane, but is fundamental to constitutional law. The ECJ may yet decide that UK withdrawal is illegal, and that will present a stange case – it’s entirely possible.
The posibility that this can even happen is the problem I was trying to explain, parliment isn’t sovereign if it can be bound by the ECJ.
The fact is that the EU is a two-speed area in practice. There are those states – France, Germany, the Netherlands etc – which want to proceed (theoretically) towards a European State*. The second layer are states like the UK which refuse to travel along the route of a European state, but wish to retain parliamentary sovereignty.
This two-speed Europe was moving towards a formal structure, and this may yet happen without the UK (provided the EU doesn’t unravel, which a Le Pen victory in France may succeed in doing).
It was never intended to be this way though, our opt-out of the Euro and Schengen was always seen as temporary by the EU establishment. They will eventually try to force us to change if we were to remain full members of the union.
Like the Supreme Court in the US, there is no appeal (I think – I don’t think Gina Miller can appeal to the European Court of Justice if she loses, but I may be wrong).
If she wins, drac, you and Pete and lord Farage can appeal to he ECJ? There is no way other than an armed coup by which you’ll gainsay it.
If the ECJ were to block Brexit, it wouldn’t be an armed coup it would be full scale war. I don’t think the British people would tollerate such a decission at all.
If the UK parliament agreed to give up sovereignty to a European state, then it would still be a (final) exercise of sovereignty. Personally I would want such a European state too (as long as it’e genuinely democratic), though I accept that I am in a relatively small minority in the UK, and that you and Pete are in the overwhelming majority on this. Whatever happens, the UK would never agree to it.
I don’t think a European state is the right decision for Britain.If we were to form such a state it should be with the English speaking Commonwealth countries (and Ireland). There wouldn’t be nearly as much cultural or communication conflict, and we would still be using a parlimentary form of governance, which we all use now.
I know the history of the constitution, I was refering specifically to the 1689 Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta, both of which are completely ignored by a lot of the laws we have.
I strongly disagree with you that parliment didn’t give up sovereignty to the EU, EU law overrides British law wherever there is a conflict as the European Court of Justice is supreme. Or another example is that parliment is forbidden from starting trade talks with a foreign power. How can it be sovereign when an external power can prohibit it from doing things such as trade deals.
It seems pretty obvious to me what the Supreme Court will do, they have a very obvious bias towards remaining in the EU and they will rule anything that interferes with leaving.
The constitution states that parliament must always be sovereign. This is clearly isn’t the case with EU membership, and so is unconstitutional.
But let’s not pretend that the constitution is actually ever applied. This isn’t an area I know a lot about, but even I know of a few laws that directly contradict what the constitutional documents say.
We’re a constitutional democracy; that is, we are not not a democracy which disregards constitutional law, though some would like that.
Funny that, they didn’t care about our non-existant constitution when we joined the EU/EC.
very bad news for labour, in fourth place
Labour is dead, i’ve been saying this for a few months now.
May’s Brexit approach has held the voters in this strong brexit constituence, but her anti-Brexit wing must be a real worry after Witney and Richmond
Parliment voted to to trigger article 50 by March at the very latest, 461 to 89. I don’t see any reason for the government to be worried, it has legitimacy from both the referendum and parliment now.
