The 'No to the EU' campaign Vol 2
Discussion
///ajd said:
I'm no fan of Junker and indeed I consider Martin Schultz to be a real tit who has said some stupid things about the UK. They should know their place as servants of the member states and sometimes they forget that.
And you are about to vote to encourage them, and more like them, to carry on exactly as they have been. Axionknight said:
If the pro Brexit groups weren't totally incompetent beyond belief it wouldn't be much of a problem, I'll be voting to leave but in my opinion the people heading up the argument on the public stage have s
t it so badly it almost beggars belief, hopeless.
Totally agree. Politics now is at such a dumb level it hurts.t it so badly it almost beggars belief, hopeless.zygalski said:
Cat herding doesn't get any easier over the years it would seem.
The remain groups aren't much better I'd say - the whole affair is deeply disheartening, the quality of the public debate, it's all ste, a stark reminder of the independence referendum we had up here in 2014, that was garbage too.No wonder so many people are apathetic regarding politics these days,
Edited timestamp
Edited by Axionknight on Thursday 26th May 00:00
Edited by Axionknight on Thursday 26th May 10:21
zbc said:
wiggy001 said:
zbc said:
wc98 said:
any thoughts on this statement from juncker ?
"The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said."
now while i have no love for the far right or left i have even less love for the thought and free speech police. those willing to ride roughshod over democratically elected people/parties should be held in utter contempt as the lowest of the low. who gets to decide what constitutes "populism" ?
the argument surrounding democracy is now completely over after this statement by juncker afaic .
The difficulty is though that one of the common behaviours of extreme parties is to limit freedom of speech. Look at the recent actions of the Polish and Hungarian governments. What should the EU do in this case? Ignore the abuse of free speech and restriction of diplomacy by media manipulation or rather use whatever limited powers they may have to try to ensure a certain level of freedoms?"The EU will isolate and use sanctions against any far-right or populist governments that are swept to power or presidential office on the wave of popular anger against migration.
Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission, made clear at the weekend that Norbert Hofer would have been frozen out of EU decision-making if he had been elected president of Austria. “There is no debate or dialogue with the far-right,” Mr Juncker said."
now while i have no love for the far right or left i have even less love for the thought and free speech police. those willing to ride roughshod over democratically elected people/parties should be held in utter contempt as the lowest of the low. who gets to decide what constitutes "populism" ?
the argument surrounding democracy is now completely over after this statement by juncker afaic .
Well at least some people are beginning to get the pragmatic sense behind the Leave Alliance message.
Brexit will make us richer
Brexit will make us richer
FiF said:
Well at least some people are beginning to get the pragmatic sense behind the Leave Alliance message.
Brexit will make us richer
Good link, I doubt very much Vote Leave will adopt this route though, they have proven disastrous as a campaigning group. Brexit will make us richer
Blunkett on the Today programme mithering about how it will be the end of the world if France sticks out its bottom lip and says we can't have customs checks on their side of the ditch any more; the pragmatic solution of checking them on the ferry is apparently lost on this simpleton.
Axionknight said:
Guybrush said:
Remainians have done nothing to justify staying in the EU because they can't, which is why they are trying to unbalance those wishing to leave, by simply issuing scare stories which are easy to churn out.
If the pro Brexit groups weren't totally incompetent beyond belief it wouldn't be much of a problem, I'll be voting to leave but in my opinion the people heading up the argument on the public stage have st it so badly it almost beggars belief, hopeless.hidetheelephants said:
Blunkett on the Today programme mithering about how it will be the end of the world if France sticks out its bottom lip and says we can't have customs checks on their side of the ditch any more; the pragmatic solution of checking them on the ferry is apparently lost on this simpleton.
Exactly. Bbeef up the check in areas, as in airports the first people to check passorts are the ticket clerks , no valid passport = no travel, inspect vehicles in the lorry parks, make the ferry companies responsible for security and relocate customs and final passport control in Dover.Works fine for airlines.
But at least he was kind enough to say, when asked if labour voters were thinking that staying in EU was not their fight, that people like him should talk to them in words they can understand.
This is how labour old and new treat their sheep/ cattle like franchise.
" We'll make it easy for you to understand and then you can vote the way we tell you to."
Cheers,
Tony
Tony427 said:
hidetheelephants said:
Blunkett on the Today programme mithering about how it will be the end of the world if France sticks out its bottom lip and says we can't have customs checks on their side of the ditch any more; the pragmatic solution of checking them on the ferry is apparently lost on this simpleton.
Exactly. Bbeef up the check in areas, as in airports the first people to check passorts are the ticket clerks , no valid passport = no travel, inspect vehicles in the lorry parks, make the ferry companies responsible for security and relocate customs and final passport control in Dover.Works fine for airlines.
But at least he was kind enough to say, when asked if labour voters were thinking that staying in EU was not their fight, that people like him should talk to them in words they can understand.
This is how labour old and new treat their sheep/ cattle like franchise.
" We'll make it easy for you to understand and then you can vote the way we tell you to."
Cheers,
Tony
The issue of irregular immigration through Dover/Folkstone is not about "checked in" passengers but about those hiding in lorries and cars. Moving border control from France would completely change their legal position.
Guybrush said:
Axionknight said:
Guybrush said:
Remainians have done nothing to justify staying in the EU because they can't, which is why they are trying to unbalance those wishing to leave, by simply issuing scare stories which are easy to churn out.
If the pro Brexit groups weren't totally incompetent beyond belief it wouldn't be much of a problem, I'll be voting to leave but in my opinion the people heading up the argument on the public stage have st it so badly it almost beggars belief, hopeless.- shrug* st happens, right?
Mrr T said:
Tony427 said:
hidetheelephants said:
Blunkett on the Today programme mithering about how it will be the end of the world if France sticks out its bottom lip and says we can't have customs checks on their side of the ditch any more; the pragmatic solution of checking them on the ferry is apparently lost on this simpleton.
Exactly. Bbeef up the check in areas, as in airports the first people to check passorts are the ticket clerks , no valid passport = no travel, inspect vehicles in the lorry parks, make the ferry companies responsible for security and relocate customs and final passport control in Dover.Works fine for airlines.
But at least he was kind enough to say, when asked if labour voters were thinking that staying in EU was not their fight, that people like him should talk to them in words they can understand.
This is how labour old and new treat their sheep/ cattle like franchise.
" We'll make it easy for you to understand and then you can vote the way we tell you to."
Cheers,
Tony
The issue of irregular immigration through Dover/Folkstone is not about "checked in" passengers but about those hiding in lorries and cars. Moving border control from France would completely change their legal position.
If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Mr_B said:
Take a calm look at both threads and where you come in. In both it was me asking if that was really the case and debating the points and open to listening. You turn up in both and say it is falt-out not the case. In the German migrant thread you may remember the point in case was did the initial positive response then translate in to what was talk of a million plus migrants coming in a very short space of time that was months.
I said I doubted it and those that posted polling saying this seemed to back that up. You took 4 people on PH telling you the early scenes of arriving migrants as positive as translating that it meant any number was being positively received. The actual evidence posted to the thread by some of those you actually relied on said not. Most pompously of all, you declared it "settled" and beyond argument now.
You brought up 'unanimous' and Germany refugees. That you can think that anyone can argue that the whole country, 80+ mil people with such diverse views can be 'unanimous' on anything, is, to a normal person at least, laughable. Hence you are laughed at. When you are proven wrong, you do what all thickos / liars do. As before, entertaining to watch, even for a bit. I said I doubted it and those that posted polling saying this seemed to back that up. You took 4 people on PH telling you the early scenes of arriving migrants as positive as translating that it meant any number was being positively received. The actual evidence posted to the thread by some of those you actually relied on said not. Most pompously of all, you declared it "settled" and beyond argument now.
Mr_B said:
Now fast forward to penny Mordaunt's comments and again I make a point asking if it really is a clear cut as portrayed, while being open to the fact it may not be. Enter you and another declaration it is again beyond argument. When asking if that's the case you display your normal anger at anyone not blindly willing to accept you word on it, most amusingly manifesting itself with your Ukip tourettes. I still have no idea why you mention them. Does anyone ?
We then get to you wanting to argue the toss over Cameron and his pro Turkish accession to the EU... to which you promptly say nothing at all even though it was at the heart of the matter about the effect it would have being in or out the EU.
What she was answering to is, once again, as you need things repeated to you multiple times in order to get them, if ever, is clear to anyone but you. And once again, you are trying, and failing, to construct a scenario where random brexiter appears less dim, or to excuse an obvious lie. We then get to you wanting to argue the toss over Cameron and his pro Turkish accession to the EU... to which you promptly say nothing at all even though it was at the heart of the matter about the effect it would have being in or out the EU.
Another day another lie. I did say that what Cameron thinks/says is irrelevant to this paritcular discussion, as he can be democratically elected/removed from his post. You quoted me saying that. So now saying that I said nothing at all is another obvious lie. You just can't help yourself.
Mr_B said:
I can't tell what you've done with your posts, you either edited them or deleted one. I don't have screen grabs either way, so no, I can't prove it.
Bottom line, do try to not just turn up on a thread and decree something and get angry when others don't see it as you desperately want to.
The thing with liars, like yourself, is that they are not particularly bright, and that they try to cover previous lie with the new one. Bottom line, do try to not just turn up on a thread and decree something and get angry when others don't see it as you desperately want to.
I couldn't delete the post, as you made quite clear reference to which post you were referring to. That post is still there for everyone to see. Once again, there is a time stamp for last edit, that's impossible to 'fake' and you did quote that entire post as it still stands.
So, no I didn't delete or edited post in a way suggested and/or after your reply. You are lying again. You brought that 'editing' up as a proof how 'honest' I am.
I invite any mod, if they care, to confirm that time stamp of the last edit can't be edited/removed/faked. It's that simple.
Now now chaps! 
superlightr said:
How is that? Say lorry comes over and gets inspected by customs in Dover. 10 ii's are found and claim asylum. As they have entered illegally and come from France a safe country they get shipped back to France.
If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Getting another nation to accept them isn't so easy, however.If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Axionknight said:
Now now chaps!
The ferry stays in Calais until they get off.superlightr said:
How is that? Say lorry comes over and gets inspected by customs in Dover. 10 ii's are found and claim asylum. As they have entered illegally and come from France a safe country they get shipped back to France.
If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Getting another nation to accept them isn't so easy, however.If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Esseesse said:
Axionknight said:
Now now chaps!
The ferry stays in Calais until they get off.superlightr said:
How is that? Say lorry comes over and gets inspected by customs in Dover. 10 ii's are found and claim asylum. As they have entered illegally and come from France a safe country they get shipped back to France.
If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Getting another nation to accept them isn't so easy, however.If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
hidetheelephants said:
Blunkett on the Today programme mithering about how it will be the end of the world if France sticks out its bottom lip and says we can't have customs checks on their side of the ditch any more; the pragmatic solution of checking them on the ferry is apparently lost on this simpleton.
On the ferry is pragmatic? And you're calling him a simpleton???Einion Yrth said:
Esseesse said:
Axionknight said:
Now now chaps!
The ferry stays in Calais until they get off.superlightr said:
How is that? Say lorry comes over and gets inspected by customs in Dover. 10 ii's are found and claim asylum. As they have entered illegally and come from France a safe country they get shipped back to France.
If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Getting another nation to accept them isn't so easy, however.If its 'not allowed' under a treaty of some sort then we come out of that treaty or change it. As a sovereign nation we could do that.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff