Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
By the same people predicting / hoping for victory by dutch numpty and Le Pen.
We voted to leave the EU which has nothing to do with the French fascist Le Pen. 10 1/2 million voted for the Le Pen which in this country would be like 10 1/2 million voting for the BNP which would never happen. It's not the UK that has a fascist/racist problem it's Europe. Just a reminder for any Liberal who can see no wrong with Europe.jjlynn27 said:
jsf said:
jjlynn27 said:
jsf said:
jjlynn27 said:
jsf said:
Any agreement on anything has an impact on people. It's just as abhorrent to try and damage the financial standing of a country as it is to damage the persons rights to residence, the former tends to have more impact in practice, both can have a negative material impact to the person. So its a bit silly to try and isolate the rights to reside from the overall impact of any decisions made, they all matter if you want to discuss material impacts on peoples lives.
The EU by definition is a construct that uses human horsetrading, it could be argued its racist as it favours white Europeans over anyone else. It restricts trade from the developing world which has a larger material impact on those people than any nonsense that will come out of the EU regarding freedom of movement within the block.
It 'favours white Europeans over anyone else'? Really, it favours them over 'non-white' Europeans?The EU by definition is a construct that uses human horsetrading, it could be argued its racist as it favours white Europeans over anyone else. It restricts trade from the developing world which has a larger material impact on those people than any nonsense that will come out of the EU regarding freedom of movement within the block.
I also did not say it was racist, I said it could be argued it is, but you are far too involved in your own mind games to try and understand the subtleties of a debate.
jsf said:
There is nothing ridiculous about the statement I made, the EU is a protectionist block that has a demographic that is mainly white European. This is especially so in the newer entry countries that had very little inward migration from ethnic minorities because they were isolated via the policies of the USSR. The vast majority of people using the free movement rights so far have been white Europeans from the former soviet block, Poland for example has a demographic that is 98.4% white European.
I also did not say it was racist, I said it could be argued it is, but you are far too involved in your own mind games to try and understand the subtleties of a debate.
No. I also did not say it was racist, I said it could be argued it is, but you are far too involved in your own mind games to try and understand the subtleties of a debate.
This is what you said (the relevant part);
jsf said:
, it could be argued its racist as it favours white Europeans over anyone else.
You made the ridiculous statement that it 'favours white Europeans'. It doesn't. 'Non-white Europeans' have exactly the same rights. Asian, Black, purple. No difference at all. The only discrimination is based on nationality/citizenship. It doesn't discriminate between people with, for example, USA passports, regardless of their colour. The common denominator of people exercising FMoL is citizenship/nationality. Not their colour. So no, you can't argue that EU is racist.
jjlynn27 said:
You made the ridiculous statement that it 'favours white Europeans'. It doesn't. 'Non-white Europeans' have exactly the same rights. Asian, Black, purple. No difference at all. The only discrimination is based on nationality/citizenship. It doesn't discriminate between people with, for example, USA passports, regardless of their colour.
The common denominator of people exercising FMoL is citizenship/nationality. Not their colour. So no, you can't argue that EU is racist.
That's right. It's xenophobic, not racist.The common denominator of people exercising FMoL is citizenship/nationality. Not their colour. So no, you can't argue that EU is racist.
jjlynn27 said:
TEKNOPUG said:
That's right. It's xenophobic, not racist.
Is the UK xenophobic?TEKNOPUG said:
As it's just left voted to leave an organisation that discriminates against the people of 169 countries, in favour of those from just 27 countries and such discrimination is it's core legal framework; to instead treat all peoples of the world equally, I'd suggest no. You?
So, the EU is xenophobic because it discriminates based on nationality/citizenship. The UK, doing exactly the same, but it's not xenophobic because we voted to leave EU?As for 'treat all peoples of the world equally', I'm afraid, you are wrong once again;
I don't think that either UK or EU are xenophobic.
jjlynn27 said:
jsf said:
There is nothing ridiculous about the statement I made, the EU is a protectionist block that has a demographic that is mainly white European. This is especially so in the newer entry countries that had very little inward migration from ethnic minorities because they were isolated via the policies of the USSR. The vast majority of people using the free movement rights so far have been white Europeans from the former soviet block, Poland for example has a demographic that is 98.4% white European.
I also did not say it was racist, I said it could be argued it is, but you are far too involved in your own mind games to try and understand the subtleties of a debate.
No. I also did not say it was racist, I said it could be argued it is, but you are far too involved in your own mind games to try and understand the subtleties of a debate.
This is what you said (the relevant part);
jsf said:
, it could be argued its racist as it favours white Europeans over anyone else.
You made the ridiculous statement that it 'favours white Europeans'. It doesn't. 'Non-white Europeans' have exactly the same rights. Asian, Black, purple. No difference at all. The only discrimination is based on nationality/citizenship. It doesn't discriminate between people with, for example, USA passports, regardless of their colour. The common denominator of people exercising FMoL is citizenship/nationality. Not their colour. So no, you can't argue that EU is racist.
You are impossible to debate with, you purposely make the effort to ignore what the other poster is trying to convey and concentrate on the narrative you invent in your mind.
Why do you post on a forum, if you are not prepared to put the effort into developing or understanding a narrative like a normal human being?
egomeister said:
jsf said:
Why do you post on a forum, if you are not prepared to put the effort into developing or understanding a narrative like a normal human being?
I wouldn't take it personally, it's just the standard of debate these days.Maybe this clown is paid to troll the internet, I dunno. There are enough bulls
t job tittles out there to enable that these days.jsf said:
I also then added "Sorry, that doesn't quite read as intended. Add predominantly to it."
You are impossible to debate with, you purposely make the effort to ignore what the other poster is trying to convey and concentrate on the narrative you invent in your mind.
Why do you post on a forum, if you are not prepared to put the effort into developing or understanding a narrative like a normal human being?
You were not debating. You were presenting opinion as a fact that EU favours white Europeans. Add 'predominantly', if you like, it's still wrong. As explained quite a few times. The only favouritism is based on nationality/citizenship. The UK does EXACTLY the same. Not sure why is this so difficult for you to understand. You are impossible to debate with, you purposely make the effort to ignore what the other poster is trying to convey and concentrate on the narrative you invent in your mind.
Why do you post on a forum, if you are not prepared to put the effort into developing or understanding a narrative like a normal human being?
You can either accept that your post made very little sense (I'm being kind here), or you can rely on echo-chamber of NP&E; 'EU bad, 'arguably racist'.
jjlynn27 said:
You were not debating. You were presenting opinion as a fact that EU favours white Europeans. Add 'predominantly', if you like, it's still wrong. As explained quite a few times. The only favouritism is based on nationality/citizenship. The UK does EXACTLY the same. Not sure why is this so difficult for you to understand.
You can either accept that your post made very little sense (I'm being kind here), or you can rely on echo-chamber of NP&E; 'EU bad, 'arguably racist'.
What could have been an interesting discussion has been turned into utter boredom through stupid pedantry and someone who must always have the last word on everything. Why do some people so enjoy killing off the better threads ?You can either accept that your post made very little sense (I'm being kind here), or you can rely on echo-chamber of NP&E; 'EU bad, 'arguably racist'.
jjlynn27 said:
jsf said:
I also then added "Sorry, that doesn't quite read as intended. Add predominantly to it."
You are impossible to debate with, you purposely make the effort to ignore what the other poster is trying to convey and concentrate on the narrative you invent in your mind.
Why do you post on a forum, if you are not prepared to put the effort into developing or understanding a narrative like a normal human being?
You were not debating. You were presenting opinion as a fact that EU favours white Europeans. Add 'predominantly', if you like, it's still wrong. As explained quite a few times. The only favouritism is based on nationality/citizenship. The UK does EXACTLY the same. Not sure why is this so difficult for you to understand. You are impossible to debate with, you purposely make the effort to ignore what the other poster is trying to convey and concentrate on the narrative you invent in your mind.
Why do you post on a forum, if you are not prepared to put the effort into developing or understanding a narrative like a normal human being?
You can either accept that your post made very little sense (I'm being kind here), or you can rely on echo-chamber of NP&E; 'EU bad, 'arguably racist'.
Thick as mince. I am done with you.
Sway said:
So I'm not sure some specific comment aimed at clearly harming German businesses will go down well at all. Probably not sufficient to have a material impact on her election, and I suppose it's at least feasible those companies are located in areas she's effectively given up on anyway.
I cannot help but find her stance very, very odd though!
German business does not seem to share your view.I cannot help but find her stance very, very odd though!
Kampeter said:
German industrialists have warned that British hopes of their support in Brexit negotiations are misplaced and could backfire with dangerous consequences for international trade.
Business leaders in Europe’s biggest economy are instead calling on Conservatives to rethink their commitment to leaving the single market, even though the party has doubled down on this promise in its election manifesto.
“The top priority of European business is the integrity of the single market; the second priority is making good business with the UK. We will see if there is a conflict, but the message is: do not harm the single market by cherry-picking deals,” he told a conference of British business leaders in London this week.
“It’s not the German carmakers that are directing the negotiations,” added Kampeter, who said he knew of no one who thought a trade deal within 18 months was possible and called for “rhetorical disarmament on all sides”.
Business leaders in Europe’s biggest economy are instead calling on Conservatives to rethink their commitment to leaving the single market, even though the party has doubled down on this promise in its election manifesto.
“The top priority of European business is the integrity of the single market; the second priority is making good business with the UK. We will see if there is a conflict, but the message is: do not harm the single market by cherry-picking deals,” he told a conference of British business leaders in London this week.
“It’s not the German carmakers that are directing the negotiations,” added Kampeter, who said he knew of no one who thought a trade deal within 18 months was possible and called for “rhetorical disarmament on all sides”.
BOR said:
Sway said:
So I'm not sure some specific comment aimed at clearly harming German businesses will go down well at all. Probably not sufficient to have a material impact on her election, and I suppose it's at least feasible those companies are located in areas she's effectively given up on anyway.
I cannot help but find her stance very, very odd though!
German business does not seem to share your view.I cannot help but find her stance very, very odd though!
Kampeter said:
German industrialists have warned that British hopes of their support in Brexit negotiations are misplaced and could backfire with dangerous consequences for international trade.
Business leaders in Europe’s biggest economy are instead calling on Conservatives to rethink their commitment to leaving the single market, even though the party has doubled down on this promise in its election manifesto.
“The top priority of European business is the integrity of the single market; the second priority is making good business with the UK. We will see if there is a conflict, but the message is: do not harm the single market by cherry-picking deals,” he told a conference of British business leaders in London this week.
“It’s not the German carmakers that are directing the negotiations,” added Kampeter, who said he knew of no one who thought a trade deal within 18 months was possible and called for “rhetorical disarmament on all sides”.
Business leaders in Europe’s biggest economy are instead calling on Conservatives to rethink their commitment to leaving the single market, even though the party has doubled down on this promise in its election manifesto.
“The top priority of European business is the integrity of the single market; the second priority is making good business with the UK. We will see if there is a conflict, but the message is: do not harm the single market by cherry-picking deals,” he told a conference of British business leaders in London this week.
“It’s not the German carmakers that are directing the negotiations,” added Kampeter, who said he knew of no one who thought a trade deal within 18 months was possible and called for “rhetorical disarmament on all sides”.
"Making such a “reverse Efta” a temporary stepping stone would avert irreparable damage to the British and German economy and allow Theresa May to satisfy the tabloid press’s demand for a swift exit, argued Albrecht Ritschl, one of the four authors of the letter."...
Dropping the need for FoM would also avert it. As would myriad other options. So come on Albrecht, think a bit harder. Especially about what the "integrity of the single market" really means.
Dropping the need for FoM would also avert it. As would myriad other options. So come on Albrecht, think a bit harder. Especially about what the "integrity of the single market" really means.
Robertj21a said:
jjlynn27 said:
You were not debating. You were presenting opinion as a fact that EU favours white Europeans. Add 'predominantly', if you like, it's still wrong. As explained quite a few times. The only favouritism is based on nationality/citizenship. The UK does EXACTLY the same. Not sure why is this so difficult for you to understand.
You can either accept that your post made very little sense (I'm being kind here), or you can rely on echo-chamber of NP&E; 'EU bad, 'arguably racist'.
What could have been an interesting discussion has been turned into utter boredom through stupid pedantry and someone who must always have the last word on everything. You can either accept that your post made very little sense (I'm being kind here), or you can rely on echo-chamber of NP&E; 'EU bad, 'arguably racist'.
Why do TROLLS
Especially jjlynn27.
Trolling, just trolling...
Difficult for us to understand.
So sad. So very, very sad
And I'm being really, really extra kind here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff