How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 6)

[amusingduck]

Helicopter123 said:

otis criblecoblis said:

There is no 50k limit. The number is half the current target and used as a hypothetical. You were asked how the controls your cite for the EU might meet that number, or really any number. You avoided answering, just like Nick.

So why are you bringing up 50k?

Is this your personal preference?

Is that for EU or non-EU immigration? Is it net or gross? Over what time frame? Skilled or unskilled?

You seem to want to ask questions but never answer, why is that?

He says in his post which consists of nothing but seven questions in response to a post containing no questions

[Helicopter123]

otis criblecoblis said:

It's been answered 3 times now. You don't seem smart enough to understand, but one more time for special people.

1, The current immigration target of the government is 100k net a year
2, As a hypothetical situation in how the rules you cite may work in controlling EU immigration, half that figure has been taken to be used as an example as a simple split from RoW and EU.
3, 50k has never been given my myself as a number for all immigration.
4, You've been asked how the controls you cite may work in achieving this number, and failed.

So 50k is just a meaningless number with no economic or social underpin to it?

Point 4 has been answered (many, many times). Maybe this will jog your memory.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...

[Helicopter123]

amusingduck said:

Helicopter123 said:

otis criblecoblis said:

There is no 50k limit. The number is half the current target and used as a hypothetical. You were asked how the controls your cite for the EU might meet that number, or really any number. You avoided answering, just like Nick.

So why are you bringing up 50k?

Is this your personal preference?

Is that for EU or non-EU immigration? Is it net or gross? Over what time frame? Skilled or unskilled?

You seem to want to ask questions but never answer, why is that?

He says in his post which consists of nothing but seven questions in response to a post containing no questions

Brexit falls apart the moment you have to write it down.

[amusingduck]

Helicopter123 said:

amusingduck said:

Helicopter123 said:

otis criblecoblis said:

There is no 50k limit. The number is half the current target and used as a hypothetical. You were asked how the controls your cite for the EU might meet that number, or really any number. You avoided answering, just like Nick.

So why are you bringing up 50k?

Is this your personal preference?

Is that for EU or non-EU immigration? Is it net or gross? Over what time frame? Skilled or unskilled?

You seem to want to ask questions but never answer, why is that?

He says in his post which consists of nothing but seven questions in response to a post containing no questions

Brexit falls apart the moment you have to write it down.

I'd say it's more "The EU falls apart the moment you have to ask the people"

[don'tbesilly]

don'tbesilly said:

Helicopter123 said:

Nickgnome said:

otis criblecoblis said:

You answered the ability to remove people was your answer to controlling numbers. You of course declined to say how that would really control, or get near to the current governments target, mainly because you know it is useless at doing so.
You want to pretend this is a control to be used, but just isn't isn't in use. Everyone else knows you are pissing down their back while saying it's raining.

Lets see if you want to dodge the question again. How would any of the things you cite control numbers and meet a target of 50K ?

How can I make it any clearer?

I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH F.o.M

Why should I need to come up with a solution to an issue that for me does not exist? Surely that's your problem as it seems you have an issue with immigration?

I merely pointed you to the relevant clauses that enable the government to ensure Eu citizens do not stay without a job. If you feel the need for legal advise on how the clauses work speak to a lawyer.

If you do not think the Clauses are inadequate then it is for you to advise that why, in your opinion, they fail.

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 17th December 11:36

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 17th December 11:36

Good post.

I look forward to the reply.

Where does this target of 50k net immigration come from? Looks very very low for an economy such as ours...

I'm still waiting for a reply to a question posed to you twice now, can I look forward to an answer any time soon?

Budgie said:

No

Helicopter123 said:

I get asked questions but never want to answer them, why is that?

Budgie nails it

[Helicopter123]

don'tbesilly said:

don'tbesilly said:

Helicopter123 said:

Nickgnome said:

otis criblecoblis said:

You answered the ability to remove people was your answer to controlling numbers. You of course declined to say how that would really control, or get near to the current governments target, mainly because you know it is useless at doing so.
You want to pretend this is a control to be used, but just isn't isn't in use. Everyone else knows you are pissing down their back while saying it's raining.

Lets see if you want to dodge the question again. How would any of the things you cite control numbers and meet a target of 50K ?

How can I make it any clearer?

I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH F.o.M

Why should I need to come up with a solution to an issue that for me does not exist? Surely that's your problem as it seems you have an issue with immigration?

I merely pointed you to the relevant clauses that enable the government to ensure Eu citizens do not stay without a job. If you feel the need for legal advise on how the clauses work speak to a lawyer.

If you do not think the Clauses are inadequate then it is for you to advise that why, in your opinion, they fail.

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 17th December 11:36

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 17th December 11:36

Good post.

I look forward to the reply.

Where does this target of 50k net immigration come from? Looks very very low for an economy such as ours...

I'm still waiting for a reply to a question posed to you twice now, can I look forward to an answer any time soon?

Budgie said:

No

Helicopter123 said:

I get asked questions but never want to answer them, why is that?

Budgie nails it

Every relevant question asked by you has been answered, but you don't want to debate as you exist in a world of denial.

[thetrickcyclist]

alfie2244 said:

kurt535 said:

He will be better off staying there rather than come back to the disaster zone that the NHS is turning into due to brexit.

Good to see you are still making stuff up

Indeed, let's see some facts and not ones that come out of christmas crackers either.

[otis criblecoblis]

Helicopter123 said:

otis criblecoblis said:

It's been answered 3 times now. You don't seem smart enough to understand, but one more time for special people.

1, The current immigration target of the government is 100k net a year
2, As a hypothetical situation in how the rules you cite may work in controlling EU immigration, half that figure has been taken to be used as an example as a simple split from RoW and EU.
3, 50k has never been given my myself as a number for all immigration.
4, You've been asked how the controls you cite may work in achieving this number, and failed.

So 50k is just a meaningless number with no economic or social underpin to it?

Point 4 has been answered (many, many times). Maybe this will jog your memory.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul...

I try to go slowly for those least able, I really do.
You kinda got the 50k bit. Yes, the number is semi meaningless , only in that it is half of current government target and represent a equal split between RoW and EU, which comes out at.... 50K

I know there are rules in place where Remainers are now advocating kicking people out the country along with the kids from schools etc if the working person is jobless after 3 months.
What you are being asked is that even if there were rigidly enforced, how would it control numbers to get to half the current government target, or what effect would it have at all ?

This is what it's like talking to you and Nick. We can move on to elementary dress design if you wish

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSlfttDnurw

[gooner1]

Helicopter123 said:

I've worked in Dublin and Paris.

I've studied in Scotland.

Why do you want to know?

Just curious. What years did you work in Dublin and Paris, or study in Scotland?
Also what manner of employment and study did you take part in?

[Nickgnome]

otis criblecoblis said:

You replied to a citing the clauses as a control. You don't wish to answer any question on their effectiveness to meet current targets. That looks stupid given you intervened on a question directed to Helicopter about what controls there were.
Why are you afraid to answer question of the effectiveness of things your cite ?

You are coming across as an ill-informed and argumentative person.

If you choose not to do your own research and then understand what you are reading, that is not my problem.

My so-called stupidity has served me well and as my clients and staff did not notice and enabled to retire a few years ago and will be drawing my rather insignificant state pension in a couple of years time.

[Helicopter123]

gooner1 said:

Helicopter123 said:

I've worked in Dublin and Paris.

I've studied in Scotland.

Why do you want to know?

Just curious. What years did you work in Dublin and Paris, or study in Scotland?
Also what manner of employment and study did you take part in?

Why do you want to know? Of what relevance is it?

[don'tbesilly]

Helicopter123 said:

don'tbesilly said:

don'tbesilly said:

Helicopter123 said:

Nickgnome said:

otis criblecoblis said:

You answered the ability to remove people was your answer to controlling numbers. You of course declined to say how that would really control, or get near to the current governments target, mainly because you know it is useless at doing so.
You want to pretend this is a control to be used, but just isn't isn't in use. Everyone else knows you are pissing down their back while saying it's raining.

Lets see if you want to dodge the question again. How would any of the things you cite control numbers and meet a target of 50K ?

How can I make it any clearer?

I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH F.o.M

Why should I need to come up with a solution to an issue that for me does not exist? Surely that's your problem as it seems you have an issue with immigration?

I merely pointed you to the relevant clauses that enable the government to ensure Eu citizens do not stay without a job. If you feel the need for legal advise on how the clauses work speak to a lawyer.

If you do not think the Clauses are inadequate then it is for you to advise that why, in your opinion, they fail.

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 17th December 11:36

Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 17th December 11:36

Good post.

I look forward to the reply.

Where does this target of 50k net immigration come from? Looks very very low for an economy such as ours...

I'm still waiting for a reply to a question posed to you twice now, can I look forward to an answer any time soon?

Budgie said:

No

Helicopter123 said:

I get asked questions but never want to answer them, why is that?

Budgie nails it

Every relevant question asked by you has been answered, but you don't want to debate as you exist in a world of denial.

In your own time, give me an answer if you want to debate:

don'tbesilly said:

Helicopter123 said:

Fittster said:

ash73 said:

sunbeam alpine said:

What am I missing?

It's not just about money.

It was about immigrants but we have to come up with a fig leaf to hide that one.

Refreshing honesty.

Yet neither words reflect reality.

If you were honest you'd acknowledge this, but I suspect the word you bandy about is not a word you either understand or are yourself.

I've asked you before and will do again, what problem do you have with a countries desire to control immigration?

Can you point out what exactly you see as a problem that the administrations of the USA/Canada/Australia/New Zealand and other countries don't have?

Have you contacted each countries administrators as above to register your displeasure at the controls they have, and let them know it's not something you agree with or do was it in your power to do so?

Edited by don'tbesilly on Sunday 16th December 14:26

[thetrickcyclist]

Helicopter123 said:

gooner1 said:

Helicopter123 said:

I've worked in Dublin and Paris.

I've studied in Scotland.

Why do you want to know?

Just curious. What years did you work in Dublin and Paris, or study in Scotland?
Also what manner of employment and study did you take part in?

Why do you want to know? Of what relevance is it?

Do you know what a "float" is?

[otis criblecoblis]

Nickgnome said:

otis criblecoblis said:

You replied to a citing the clauses as a control. You don't wish to answer any question on their effectiveness to meet current targets. That looks stupid given you intervened on a question directed to Helicopter about what controls there were.
Why are you afraid to answer question of the effectiveness of things your cite ?

You are coming across as an ill-informed and argumentative person.

If you choose not to do your own research and then understand what you are reading, that is not my problem.

My so-called stupidity has served me well and as my clients and staff did not notice and enabled to retire a few years ago and will be drawing my rather insignificant state pension in a couple of years time.

You voluntarily answered a question that was aimed at someone else by providing a link to the Guardian about rules in which people can be removed.
You are asked how effective those rules are in meeting current targets,or really what they would achieve at all, but then clam-up and don't wish to answer with the lame ' do your research' non answer.

If I cite a rule or law in answer to someone, it's not unreasonable I might also be asked to comment on it's effectiveness.
If this were a discussion about crime and I cited a rule or law, you may well say it's ineffectual and achieves nothing. It's perfectly reasonable as part of a debate for you to ask that, and me to defend it.

[toppstuff]

FX markets starting to anticipate a Referendum 2. The rise in sterling is driven by a belief that Hard Brexit under WTO ain’t gonna be allowed to happen.

Ref 2 will be for TM plan or remain.

[p1stonhead]

toppstuff said:

FX markets starting to anticipate a Referendum 2. The rise in sterling is driven by a belief that Hard Brexit under WTO ain’t gonna be allowed to happen.

Ref 2 will be for TM plan or remain.

Wishful thinking. If anything surely it’ll be no deal / TM deal?

[saaby93]

p1stonhead said:

Wishful thinking. If anything surely it’ll be no deal / TM deal?

No deal disappeared last week when JRM lost handsomely

The chance of a so called better deal (no one seems to know what it might be) disappeared when the EU roundly stated that the done deal was it.

All roads lead to the deal

[p1stonhead]

saaby93 said:

p1stonhead said:

Wishful thinking. If anything surely it’ll be no deal / TM deal?

All roads lead to the deal

I agree. I don’t think it’ll be via a referendum though.

[TTwiggy]

Nickgnome said:

You are coming across as an ill-informed and argumentative person.

You should have met his previous incarnation. That one could start an argument in a vacuum.

[don'tbesilly]

TTwiggy said:

Nickgnome said:

You are coming across as an ill-informed and argumentative person.

You should have met his previous incarnation. That one could start an argument in a vacuum.

The name would be useful, who is it?