Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

dandarez

13,244 posts

282 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
The 57% rise in race hate crime post referendum debunked:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/Th...

It will have some frothing at the mouth and apoplectic with rage.
Undoubtedly!

I like the Dondes Tapas incident, shows 'they' will use anything to promote their hate crime agenda(s).


dandarez

13,244 posts

282 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
PurpleMoonlight said:
bmw535i said:
1. Yes

2. Already answered
1. That really isn't an answer to my question.

2. Why won't you do so again?


You are acting like a petulant child.
For someone who (apparently) has never, ever, voted in any election, you certainly leave a purple haze on here. rolleyes

'scuse me while I kiss the sky!

confused_buyer

6,610 posts

180 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
b2hbm said:
Pretty definitive I'd say, we pay subs but no vote. No arguments on that, I stand corrected.
We don't get a vote on the leaving deal or to be in the room when the EU27 discuss it, no. We still get a vote on everything else. We are a member with full rights until the day we leave - not when Article 50 is triggered.

So, as long as we are a member and paying subs, our MEP's, Ministers, Commissioner etc. have exactly the same right as they always have had and we also have a right of veto on certain things.

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
b2hbm said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
(clipped quote)

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty...

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 25th September 08:08
Pretty definitive I'd say, we pay subs but no vote. No arguments on that, I stand corrected.

In which case I can't imagine the UK continuing to extend the negotiation into 2020, the public won't stand for membership payment with no voting rights. UKIP would have a field day and Farage would be in meltdown. Presumably the Reuters article I saw was in reference to something that's going to happen later this year, before A50 is triggered.
No.

Until we exit the EU we still retain all rights and obligations.



PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
jsf said:
No.

Until we exit the EU we still retain all rights and obligations.
Happy to stand corrected on that.


anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
craigjm said:
Greg66 said:
I suspect we will compromise on immigration but it will be in the form of Free movement of LABOUR as against FMO CITIZENS.
How does that differ from the current freedom of movement defined in article 45 of the treaty of the functioning of the EU?
Ask b2hbm. I screwed up the formatting. That's his statement.

craigjm

17,907 posts

199 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
Greg66 said:
Ask b2hbm. I screwed up the formatting. That's his statement.
oh right sorry mate hehe

b2hbm

1,291 posts

221 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
jsf said:
b2hbm said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
(clipped quote)

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty...

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 25th September 08:08
Pretty definitive I'd say, we pay subs but no vote. No arguments on that, I stand corrected.

In which case I can't imagine the UK continuing to extend the negotiation into 2020, the public won't stand for membership payment with no voting rights. UKIP would have a field day and Farage would be in meltdown. Presumably the Reuters article I saw was in reference to something that's going to happen later this year, before A50 is triggered.
No.

Until we exit the EU we still retain all rights and obligations.
Do you mean we only are excluded from voting on the A50 withdrawal treaty and still get to vote everywhere else ? My original thought was that if you pay membership you get full member rights, including legislation and voting. But after reading the link and thinking about it, why would the EU let a leaving state influence what happens after they have left, you could really mess things up for them.

I'd be obliged if someone has a definitive answer on that, I'm now hesitant. It could be a real nuisance for the EU though, I can't see them letting that go on !

b2hbm

1,291 posts

221 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
craigjm said:
Greg66 said:
I suspect we will compromise on immigration but it will be in the form of Free movement of LABOUR as against FMO CITIZENS.
How does that differ from the current freedom of movement defined in article 45 of the treaty of the functioning of the EU?
If you mean me.....

The thought was that at the moment you can turn up in any EU country without hindrance, claim to be looking for work and stay for 3 months without registration. If you are a "worker" you don't have to prove you can look after yourself, the part I saw mentioned only that "non workers" would need to prove they wouldn't be a burden on the state.

There could be a fudge where the right to wander in and out is reduced, one way would be to allow free movement where a job is offered and accepted. Thus engineers, etc, would get in with job offers from companies, but casual labourers less so easy. Another way would be to insist on being able to prove sufficient income or savings in order to stay.

No doubt there would be ways around this, claiming tourism, etc, but it would be a fudge for both sides and more in line with the original concept of free movement. Initially it was all about people moving for work and leaving when that work finished, but with differences in benefits, healthcare, housing, etc, we now have a different environment.

I can't see a blanket "stop" happening. I do expect some way of tailoring the type of worker getting easy access.

This was one of the references I read if it's of interest.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/free-moveme...

this was one part which caught my eye.

"The very definition of "worker" was also gradually expanded to include not only workers in industry, but those in seasonal or short-term employment and apprenticeship placements in Member States as well. Then in 1990, freedom of movement came to be guaranteed for students, pensioners, and the unemployed, as well as for their families.

The process of establishing freedom of movement for all nationals of Member States was finalized with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, which created the European Union (EU) and introduced the concept of a common European citizenship."

Edited by b2hbm on Sunday 25th September 17:17

anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
b2hbm said:
jsf said:
b2hbm said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
(clipped quote)

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty...

Edited by PurpleMoonlight on Sunday 25th September 08:08
Pretty definitive I'd say, we pay subs but no vote. No arguments on that, I stand corrected.

In which case I can't imagine the UK continuing to extend the negotiation into 2020, the public won't stand for membership payment with no voting rights. UKIP would have a field day and Farage would be in meltdown. Presumably the Reuters article I saw was in reference to something that's going to happen later this year, before A50 is triggered.
No.

Until we exit the EU we still retain all rights and obligations.
Do you mean we only are excluded from voting on the A50 withdrawal treaty and still get to vote everywhere else ? My original thought was that if you pay membership you get full member rights, including legislation and voting. But after reading the link and thinking about it, why would the EU let a leaving state influence what happens after they have left, you could really mess things up for them.

I'd be obliged if someone has a definitive answer on that, I'm now hesitant. It could be a real nuisance for the EU though, I can't see them letting that go on !
I gave you the definitive answer.



///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
dandarez said:
don'tbesilly said:
The 57% rise in race hate crime post referendum debunked:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3805008/Th...

It will have some frothing at the mouth and apoplectic with rage.
Undoubtedly!

I like the Dondes Tapas incident, shows 'they' will use anything to promote their hate crime agenda(s).
As articles go its a good example of why critical thinking skills need to be applied to any media output.

The article creates the impression that hate crime is a big invented pyramid scam, a new mini cottage industry and the growth in stats has nothing to do with brexit but starts to build a story its just PC nonsense because wolf whistles and even goths might soon be included in the stats.

The stats themselves from the last three years (buried in the article) are 42k, 44k, then 52k. It will be revealing to see what the 2016 stats are.

Nothing to see here? I wish that were the case, but even the tone of certain parts of PH recently suggests otherwise.


///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
Some insight here from Hannah White.

She is pretty dismissive of hard brexit as overly simplistic - looks like a more gradual approach is being planned.

She also seems to confirm the opinion here (from Derek I recall?) that our WTO position is not a trivial matter to clarify.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...




confused_buyer

6,610 posts

180 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
b2hbm said:
Do you mean we only are excluded from voting on the A50 withdrawal treaty and still get to vote everywhere else ? My original thought was that if you pay membership you get full member rights, including legislation and voting. But after reading the link and thinking about it, why would the EU let a leaving state influence what happens after they have left, you could really mess things up for them.
Yes, until we actually Leave we have full rights (and obligations). We are obviously not included in meetings to discuss the EU's negotiating position and neither are they included in ours. Other than that we are full members. We could just veto and block everything but to what end I'm not sure and is not likely to foster a very positive atmosphere!

I'm not 100% but I think UK MEPs even get to vote on the deal.

The Treaty actually says:

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

So the only discussions we are excluded from are those in Paragraphs 2 & 3. The day-to-day working of the EU goes on as normal.


Edited by confused_buyer on Sunday 25th September 18:04

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
As articles go its a good example of why critical thinking skills need to be applied to any media output.

The article creates the impression that hate crime is a big invented pyramid scam, a new mini cottage industry and the growth in stats has nothing to do with brexit but starts to build a story its just PC nonsense because wolf whistles and even goths might soon be included in the stats.

The stats themselves from the last three years (buried in the article) are 42k, 44k, then 52k. It will be revealing to see what the 2016 stats are.

Nothing to see here? I wish that were the case, but even the tone of certain parts of PH recently suggests otherwise.
Perhaps you can apply the skills you refer to and describe why the article is such a good example.

You can of course cite these certain parts of PH where the suggestion or demonstration of race hate crime has been evidenced by yourself, it should be fairly easy, it's happened recently according to your post.

I'm expecting a deafening silence, making claims/accusations comes easy, please substantiate them.


///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
///ajd said:
As articles go its a good example of why critical thinking skills need to be applied to any media output.

The article creates the impression that hate crime is a big invented pyramid scam, a new mini cottage industry and the growth in stats has nothing to do with brexit but starts to build a story its just PC nonsense because wolf whistles and even goths might soon be included in the stats.

The stats themselves from the last three years (buried in the article) are 42k, 44k, then 52k. It will be revealing to see what the 2016 stats are.

Nothing to see here? I wish that were the case, but even the tone of certain parts of PH recently suggests otherwise.
Perhaps you can apply the skills you refer to and describe why the article is such a good example.

You can of course cite these certain parts of PH where the suggestion or demonstration of race hate crime has been evidenced by yourself, it should be fairly easy, it's happened recently according to your post.

I'm expecting a deafening silence, making claims/accusations comes easy, please substantiate them.
I already picked out the key stats that are massaged behind the rhetoric of nothing to see here. It was quoted as a 'nothing to see here' story, but the basic facts don't match that. Questioning the 57% stat doesn't make the whole thing a fake/sham. I don't think you really think that is the case either, do you?

As for PH you may have noticed the number of threads descending into barely concealed religious bigotry, and requiring extensive mod action etc. I might be mistaken but I suspect many would consider that has got worse in the decade or so I've been on PH.


PurpleMoonlight

22,362 posts

156 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
Some insight here from Hannah White.

She is pretty dismissive of hard brexit as overly simplistic - looks like a more gradual approach is being planned.

She also seems to confirm the opinion here (from Derek I recall?) that our WTO position is not a trivial matter to clarify.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brex...
2022 is my bet.

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
don'tbesilly said:
///ajd said:
As articles go its a good example of why critical thinking skills need to be applied to any media output.

The article creates the impression that hate crime is a big invented pyramid scam, a new mini cottage industry and the growth in stats has nothing to do with brexit but starts to build a story its just PC nonsense because wolf whistles and even goths might soon be included in the stats.

The stats themselves from the last three years (buried in the article) are 42k, 44k, then 52k. It will be revealing to see what the 2016 stats are.

Nothing to see here? I wish that were the case, but even the tone of certain parts of PH recently suggests otherwise.
Perhaps you can apply the skills you refer to and describe why the article is such a good example.

You can of course cite these certain parts of PH where the suggestion or demonstration of race hate crime has been evidenced by yourself, it should be fairly easy, it's happened recently according to your post.

I'm expecting a deafening silence, making claims/accusations comes easy, please substantiate them.
I already picked out the key stats that are massaged behind the rhetoric of nothing to see here. It was quoted as a 'nothing to see here' story, but the basic facts don't match that. Questioning the 57% stat doesn't make the whole thing a fake/sham. I don't think you really think that is the case either, do you?

As for PH you may have noticed the number of threads descending into barely concealed religious bigotry, and requiring extensive mod action etc. I might be mistaken but I suspect many would consider that has got worse in the decade or so I've been on PH.
An online reporting system that requires no evidence of a crime,just an allegation, made by an individual/s anonymously which then becomes a recordable and reportable offence couldn't possibly be abused could it?
You think that's the case?
What percentage of the 57% increase is credible, the whole 57% or a % of the 57%?

The reports that were investigated and proven to not be race hate crimes, you disagreed with what the Police uncovered?

I don't frequent all the forums on PH that you do, clearly.
Perhaps the particular topics are ones you are drawn to and see things that I don't,of course I wasn't expecting you to cite specific posts or even threads,an anecdotal response was what was expected and received.

I'll assume you've not seen any demonstrations of bigotry or prejudice in this particular thread.

Murph7355

37,648 posts

255 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
///ajd said:
I already picked out the key stats that are massaged behind the rhetoric of nothing to see here. It was quoted as a 'nothing to see here' story, but the basic facts don't match that. Questioning the 57% stat doesn't make the whole thing a fake/sham. I don't think you really think that is the case either, do you?

As for PH you may have noticed the number of threads descending into barely concealed religious bigotry, and requiring extensive mod action etc. I might be mistaken but I suspect many would consider that has got worse in the decade or so I've been on PH.
I agree with you that the country appears to be getting less tolerant and far ore reactive. I actually think this is a phenomenon of any "developed" country, especially those with more advanced comms.

However...why on earth is any of this being linked to Brexit? (I guess the same question goes to don'tbesilly who I think posted it up first?).

///ajd

8,964 posts

205 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
don'tbesilly said:
///ajd said:
don'tbesilly said:
///ajd said:
As articles go its a good example of why critical thinking skills need to be applied to any media output.

The article creates the impression that hate crime is a big invented pyramid scam, a new mini cottage industry and the growth in stats has nothing to do with brexit but starts to build a story its just PC nonsense because wolf whistles and even goths might soon be included in the stats.

The stats themselves from the last three years (buried in the article) are 42k, 44k, then 52k. It will be revealing to see what the 2016 stats are.

Nothing to see here? I wish that were the case, but even the tone of certain parts of PH recently suggests otherwise.
Perhaps you can apply the skills you refer to and describe why the article is such a good example.

You can of course cite these certain parts of PH where the suggestion or demonstration of race hate crime has been evidenced by yourself, it should be fairly easy, it's happened recently according to your post.

I'm expecting a deafening silence, making claims/accusations comes easy, please substantiate them.
I already picked out the key stats that are massaged behind the rhetoric of nothing to see here. It was quoted as a 'nothing to see here' story, but the basic facts don't match that. Questioning the 57% stat doesn't make the whole thing a fake/sham. I don't think you really think that is the case either, do you?

As for PH you may have noticed the number of threads descending into barely concealed religious bigotry, and requiring extensive mod action etc. I might be mistaken but I suspect many would consider that has got worse in the decade or so I've been on PH.
An online reporting system that requires no evidence of a crime,just an allegation, made by an individual/s anonymously which then becomes a recordable and reportable offence couldn't possibly be abused could it?
You think that's the case?
What percentage of the 57% increase is credible, the whole 57% or a % of the 57%?

The reports that were investigated and proven to not be race hate crimes, you disagreed with what the Police uncovered?

I don't frequent all the forums on PH that you do, clearly.
Perhaps the particular topics are ones you are drawn to and see things that I don't,of course I wasn't expecting you to cite specific posts or even threads,an anecdotal response was what was expected and received.

I'll assume you've not seen any demonstrations of bigotry or prejudice in this particular thread.
I really suspect you know its not all a sham and there has been a spike since brexit. You remember a polish bloke was recently murdered. What about all the "go home" stuff? This wasn't made up or imagined.

The PH threads being deleted for inappropriate content are often in NP&E. Have you not noticed them, and the stickies? One was started by a well known brexiteer contributor, who it seems had a rest as a result. It was commented on at the time, and not by me.

Some here feeling less than welcome:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/25/...

Its ugly and a direct result of the way some chose to run their brexit campaigns - Farage for one has been stoking this bigotry for over a decade. Its hardly news that UKIP have a well deserved reputation for it.




Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 25th September 19:18

don'tbesilly

13,900 posts

162 months

Sunday 25th September 2016
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
However...why on earth is any of this being linked to Brexit? (I guess the same question goes to don'tbesilly who I think posted it up first?).
You need to go back in the thread quite some way to see where the origins started.

It won't surprise you that someone (not me) brought up the 57% rise in hate crime since Brexit theme, it supports their theory that most leavers are racist, this theory crops up repeatedly.

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED