Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    As for fruit pickers, I know strawberry farmers who bring seasonal workers from non-Eu countries every year (eg Russia etc) and have queues of people wanting to work the picking season here...no unpicked fruit there.
    Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

    Comment


      Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
      When you are in a hole.....
      It would help if you recognised who it is who is 'in a hole' regarding whether or not the 2016 referendum was advisory or obligated parliament to take a particular course of action.
      If you look up I'll wave at you while you are down there.



      Originally posted by ram View Post
      You get taken to court in U.K.for calling some one a Nazi
      You could do, if they claimed libel/slander and took you to court in a civil case.
      Otherwise, no you don't - unless violence, or incitement to violence, is also involved (and then it is the violence, or incitement, that leads to you being charged, not the fact that you called someone a Nazi.

      [QUOTE=ram;n1083791]"May" signed the pact, and not one of the U.K. citizens were asked if they want to financially support 3rd world unskilled people, apart from having no where to put them, and our homeless are still homeless.
      If they "were" asked, they would say No., but remainers are happy with millions coming to U.K. - and come they will if we stay in the E.U.

      But all we hear is "It's propaganda"
      /QUOTE]
      Yes, May signed the pact. In other words, the UK government willingly agreed to this United Nations pact and the Prime Minister signed it on behalf of the UK.
      It does not make criticism of migration illegal, and does not make migration a right:
      https://fullfact.org/immigration/ina...igration-pact/
      It also doesn't mean 'replacing' skilled immigrant with unskilled immigrants as your previous post (#711) falsely claimed.

      This was not something that was forced on us by the EU, in fact there are a number of EU countries that did not sign the pact (and I think still haven't): Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovakia.
      This means that, as I have already pointed out, it has never whatsoever to do with Brexit.
      Signing the UN Global Compact on Migration was a sovereign decision made by the UK government.

      You really aren't doing the 'leave' argument any favours at all with this argument ram. All you are doing is demonstrating that your own objection to the EU seems to be based on irrational xenophobia - even when the EU has nothing at all to do with the potential immigration that you are objecting to.

      ​​​​​​​

      Originally posted by Kape65 View Post
      "EU immigration has continued to fall since 2016 and is at its lowest level since 2013. This is mainly because of a fall in immigration for work, which is now less than half the level it was at its peak in the year ending June 2016." Office for National Statistics

      That's a major benefit if ever I saw one!
      Firstly, since we haven't actually left the EU yet, what do you attribute this reduction in immigration from EU countries to? It's not because the rules on free movement have changed, because they haven't. I would suggest that the reason is that the UK is now seen as unwelcoming to immigrants and the perception is that we are xenophobic and racist. Is this really a benefit?

      Secondly, how is a reduction in the number of immigrants from the EU a benefit?
      The job vacancies that the immigrants from other EU countries were doing are now remaining unfilled (the post from theartfullodger is one example, but there are also others, including in the NHS).
      Sure, we can look for immigrant from outside of the EU to fill job vacancies, but why is it an advantage to bring in immigrants from outside the EU?
      Seriously, what is the benefit?

      Comment


        There's a difference between seasonal workers, who come here on a work visa for 3 to 6 months ( prior to '72 ). pick the fruit, then go home,
        and bringing people from 3rd world countries and allowing them to stay, with no prospect of a job, and If I was allowed to immigrate into U.K. there is no way I would work in the fields in a back breaking job, and rain ( It's England, U.K. - it rains a LOT

        So people want to import people to do part time jobs, ( not a full year ) then You have to pay them for not working when the harvest is over. Sitting on their backsides, as the say, but i am a fruit picker, i cant take another job, as i have to be free to pick fruit on such and such a date.

        Absolutely ludicrous.

        We have too many people here already, and we import 50% of our food because of that, and remainers want to bring in MORE people.

        Hate speech, someone said U.K. wont "take you to court" for criticising immigration policies if we remain in the E.U..
        Hate speech is is under the umbrella of the Human rights dept of the E.U.and they support the U.N. Global pact for REGULAR immigration. ( of unskilled people ), so think again, sunshine.


        .

        Comment


          No person can be taken to court by the EU or for breaching the Human Rights Act.
          EU regulations and the Human Rights Act apply to governments only.

          No one can be taken to court in the UK for criticising immigration policy.

          Hate speech is covered by UK law under the Public Order Act 1986.
          " A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—
          (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred [amended later to include religious hatred], or
          (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby."
          Criticising immigration policy doesn't fit that.

          Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 has sections that would cover anything "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" that causes " another person harassment, alarm or distress".
          So you could criticise immigration policy in that way, but it would be the manner in which you did it that would be the offence, not what you were talking about.

          When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
          Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

          Comment


            "It would help if you recognised who it is who is 'in a hole' regarding whether or not the 2016 referendum was advisory or obligated parliament to take a particular course of action." Climb out of that hole Mac and take a tea break and then get Mr Cameron down there to help you dig with his "whatever you decide we will implement" multi million pound leaflet sent to every household! This is a big hole for one man alone to dig.

            We have had this debate before and we Leavers believe, as Full Fact says: "there’s plenty of evidence that the referendum was politically binding...the referendum process sent clear instructions to MPs that they should support the decision made by a majority of voters—even if the formalities don’t require them to...during one of the debates on the referendum bill on 9 June 2015, the then Foreign Secretary said “decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.

            So having better things to do than go round in circles on this one again, I suggest the spade is left at the bottom of the hole for now until this point comes round again on this endlessly amusing and wonderful thread and you can climb back down and get on with digging it again!
            Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

            Comment


              'islandgirl': Full Fact confirms that the 2016 referendum was not legally binding on parliament (in other words it was legally only advisory).
              The conclusion given was:
              "The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway."

              I have taken the liberty of adding the parts you left out from the quote mine that you posted (in red below):
              Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
              We have had this debate before and we Leavers believe, as Full Fact says: "But some people who support leaving the EU say there's plenty of evidence that the referendum was politically binding. They say that the referendum process sent clear instructions to MPs that they should support the decision made by a majority of voters—even if the formalities don’t require them to. They point to the fact that, during one of the debates on the referendum bill on 9 June 2015, the then Foreign Secretary said “decision about our membership should be taken by the British people, not by Whitehall bureaucrats, certainly not by Brussels Eurocrats; not even by Government Ministers or parliamentarians in this Chamber”.
              What you posted made it sound like 'Full Fact' were saying that there was plenty of evidence that the referendum was politically binding (and so on), when what they were actually saying was that some people claim that it was politically binding.
              I don't think you are stupid, so it seems to me that this was intentional.

              https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

              Fact: The June 2016 Brexit referendum was not legally binding on any member of parliament (the High Court confirmed this on 3rd Nov 2016 when they made it clear that, if the act that makes a referendum possible does not state that it will be binding, it "can only be advisory for the lawmakers in parliament.").

              Whether or not any member of parliament should feel morally obligated to treat the result of the referendum as binding is another matter altogether - but since the reality is far removed from what the leave campaigns promised, I very much doubt that a convincing argument can be made (even for the individuals who specifically promised that they would honour the result).

              Now, why don't you just accept that the referendum was advisory and switch to arguing something that you haven't already lost?

              If leaving the EU genuinely is the best option, and will actually benefit the UK and it's people, the fact that the referendum was advisory really wouldn't matter. It would be an easy decision for parliament to make because they could honour the result of the referendum at the same time as doing what is best for the UK (and, because it would be the best option, they would be able to justify their decision to the voters who choose remain).

              So...
              Were back to the question of how the UK benefits from leaving the EU (again)...

              Comment


                The issue about the referendum being advisory or not isn't just a matter of varying opinions, it's a fundamental problem.

                The UK doesn't have that many referendums, but when we do, they are either binding or not (which is advisory).
                A non-binding referendum doesn't have to say what happens when the referendum is decided, a binding one does.

                And the legislation for a binding referendum contains the sets of outcomes possible.
                So the one about proportional representation had a specific set of things that would happen if "Yes" had won.

                Where it's non-binding, there's no need for that, because it is simply giving politicians a view of what the people think.
                The problems with Brexit arise directly from making it non-binding in form and treating it as binding in effect.

                No-one can say with any certainty what people voted for, as opposed to what they voted against, which was quite clear.

                Did we vote to leave without any kind of deal with the EU or only when we'd agreed one?
                Over what time scale did we vote to leave?
                Did we vote to leave in stages or all at once?
                No one can answer those questions with any kind of credibility.

                Let alone the specifics like what is going to happen to all the EU nationals living in the UK and all the UK nationals living in the EU?
                What happens to the Good Friday Agreement and UK's land border with the Republic of Ireland?

                The government basically copied the referendum from 1975 which was also non-binding (but we weren't so embedded into the EU (then EC/EEC) in 1975.

                The same problem would have arisen with the Scottish Devolution referendum if Yes had won, because no one could agree how Scotland would operate as a separate country and how it would change from not being one to be one.

                We've reached the point where we are going to have to have a general election so the parties can propose their particular versions of brexit so people can pick one they prefer.
                Which was never the idea (as we know, the idea was that remain would win and the far right of the tories would have to shut up).
                When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                Comment


                  I knew you would get hot and bothered about that Mac which is why I prefaced my quotes with " we Leavers believe" but you were perhaps too busy jumping up and down to read that bit. We have had this discussion lots of times and my view is clear - politicians should be obliged to implement the result. "I don't think you are stupid," - thank you kind sir, I feel so much better knowing that , though surely you should reconsider as all us leavers are stupid aren't we??!!
                  Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                  Comment


                    I suppose it really doesn't matter whether the referendum is legally binding or advisory. For good or evil, the government thought it was a good idea to ask the people to make the decision, the people decided, the government thought - Oh, wasn't expecting that, but better do it anyway as they pay our salaries. But now Parliament thinks - Well this is all far too difficult and it's getting boring, maybe if we ask the people again they might change their minds and then we can carry on as before in happy subservience to the EU. But watch out Parliament, it'll soon be 5th November - remember, remember!

                    Comment


                      https://www.facebook.com/EC.DG.MEME/...1974956574173/

                      Comment


                        At least we have the probability of a General Election (which will result in no dominant party) and the framework of a deal that can be amended by Parliament just like any other bill.
                        I can't imagine that a divided parliament would want to include too much that the EU wouldn't prefer anyway (because the extremes would be unable to push anything too stupid through).

                        Alternaitively:
                        A big labour majority means a new deal and a referendum.
                        A big tory majority means we leave with this deal and Scotland has a new referendum with no detail and we start all over again.
                        A lib dem majority (unlikely) means we stay in the EU for the time being.
                        When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                        Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                        Comment


                          Alternatively, just get remain done!
                          I am legally unqualified: If you need to rely on advice check it with a suitable authority - eg a solicitor specialising in landlord/tenant law...

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                            ...which is why I prefaced my quotes with " we Leavers believe"...
                            That is something I left in when I quoted you. That way, there is no doubt about what was actually said.
                            The same cannot be said about the original comment that you posted - which can very easily be interpreted in different ways (as I am sure you were aware).

                            Originally posted by islandgirl View Post
                            "I don't think you are stupid," - thank you kind sir, I feel so much better knowing that , though surely you should reconsider as all us leavers are stupid aren't we??!!
                            There are a lot of words that could be used to describe people who take the same position as you regarding Brexit (with the same sort of arguments). "Stupid" would be an appropriate, if somewhat insulting, description for some, but does not apply to most.
                            The inflexible insistence that the UK must leave the EU is stupid, as are the arguments that are usually made for leaving the EU, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the people are stupid.



                            Originally posted by kennyj52 View Post
                            I suppose it really doesn't matter whether the referendum is legally binding or advisory.
                            That's not quite correct, if the referendum had been binding on parliament there would have been very clear guidelines telling parliament what the actions they had to take were, and they would be obligated to follow these.
                            What would be true to say is that justified arguments as to why the UK should, or should not, leave the EU are far more important that whether or not the outcome of a referendum is binding - but sadly most of the 'leave' supporters aren't willing to accept this and pretty much the only 'argument' that is ever made is that the UK has to leave the EU because that is what was voted for.

                            Originally posted by kennyj52 View Post
                            But now Parliament thinks - Well this is all far too difficult and it's getting boring, maybe if we ask the people again they might change their minds and then we can carry on as before in happy subservience to the EU. But watch out Parliament, it'll soon be 5th November - remember, remember!
                            That's not true at all.
                            The main reason why we have so far not left the EU is that there are enough MP's in parliament who recognise that it will not benefit the UK, or its people. The idea of having another referendum is in the hope that it will demonstrate that "the will of the people" is no longer to leave the EU (if it ever really was in the first place) - because this would potentially remove the deadlock and lead to more decisive majorities against leaving the EU in parliament.
                            Importantly the UK has never been subservient to the EU. The has a strong influence on the decisions that the EU makes, and does not accept everything that other EU states agree to (we are not in the Euro or the Schengen Zone being two prime examples).
                            You do realise that 5th November is remembered as an example of a failed attempt to destroy parliament, don't you?


                            ​​​​​​​
                            Originally posted by theartfullodger View Post
                            Alternatively, just get remain done!
                            This would be by fast the best option for everyone.

                            Revoke Article 50 and parliament can then get on with more important things (as well as trying to repair the divide in the British people).

                            Comment


                              and the only reply to all that is...bring on the General Election!
                              Unshackled by the chains of idle vanity, A modest manatee, that's me

                              Comment


                                Unfortunately a general election alone won't solve anything - at least, not unless there is is an extreme result such as well over 50% of seats being won by the Lib Dems and SNP (which would be a very strong indication that the majority of people in the country want to remain in the EU), or well over 50% of seats being won by the Brexit Party and UKIP (which would be a very strong indication that the majority of people want to leave the EU).

                                Votes for the Conservatives and Labour can't be taken as a strong indication either way because they have a large number of core supporters who will vote for them regardless of their personal position on Brexit.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X