Why bother with facts …
Entrenched positions have become the acceptable position for distortions of fact, ignoring electoral legislation and total disregard for their fellow citizens who have chosen to live and work in the EU.
1 Like
And here we go
Would like to thank all the people that have shown support for me and my views, it is good to know that there are like minded people still out there.
Just a reply to Peter, I would loved to have given more punch and information to my responses to James. but all my life I have struggled with Dyslexia and find it very very difficult to put a letter together, it takes me such a long time to correct my mistakes because I am nearly always pressing the key next to the one that I intended to press and I get very frustrated with myself which in turn creates a different me and I lose patience, hence the jack it in response and not a chuck the dummy out of the pram spat.
Once again thank you for your support.
1 Like
I find the moderation here pretty fair. On another forum I visit but don’t post on , the moderators are openly critical of posters. Those that don’t share their views are wrong etc and it’s useage is dropping because of that
2 Likes
I think there are some people, usually older, who have a nostalgic view of the UK as it was to them in the 50’s and 60’s when everything was great if you were middle class and had a nice family. These people think that’s how the UK should be. But it never will be. It’s no different to the Republicans saying make America great again.
2 Likes
I have sympathies for both camps. Had i been allowed to vote, on balance i would have voted leave. But perhaps not for the traditional reasons. The referendum campaigns by both sides, were a misleading mockery of our democratic process, full of lies, misinformation, and massive overspending, and NOT for the sake of the country. I do not believe the EU should exist for a start. It should never have progressed beyond the EEC.
The number of laws of our country, made or influenced by the EU vary between 13% and 62%, depending on how they are calculated and appraised. In 2014 the EU said 70% are EU laws. Now they say 80%. Why ? Well, ALL EU regulations/laws are binding, on ALL EU members, bar none. Also many of the laws passed by our parliament, were/are EU laws, but passed through our parliament as British legislation. Most worrying is the fact that the EU have clearly stated, that many of the EU laws and regulations have been made solely by the EU commission, and have not been, and will not be, subject to any law making, or voting process, other than the commissions. - No thank you.
The EU proposals for countries joining, ‘The Union’, as it is apparently often referred to behind closed commission doors, is simply wrong. Since when were any of the following countries European. - Turkey, Syria, Palestinian Authority, Jordan, Israel, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania ? The others are, Monaco, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Albania. In addition, one of the demands made by some of these countries, is that ALL illegal immigration laws are repealed. (UN based regulation) - No thank you.
The EU armed forces. Firstly it’s a nothing new, and it is not for defence. It should be obvious to anyone, that it is to ensure internal security, and enforce EU law on any member that does not bow to the commission’s will. Macron’s contention that it is to defend the EU has made him look the fool that he really is. Nobody in their right mind, would believe that the EU could withstand attacks by the USA or Russia. It’s simply an army of occupation to enforce the EU’s directives. - No thank you.
There are and have been, 100’s and 100’s of billions of euros missing from the EU accounts for decades, and building year on year. Where is that money ? Marta Andreason, the then EU’s chief accountant tried to find out, and was forced out by the then EU commissioner, a certain Neil Kinnock. The fact is, the EU accounts have NEVER been signed off as being totally correct, and until fairly recently auditors refused point blank to sign them off. Until the missing billions, now probably trillions, are accounted for, they never can be. As Marta Andreason said in the EU parliament, ‘This is not your money. It is the EU peoples tax money, and as such they have a right to know where that money has gone, and what it was used for.’ Financially the EU is a law unto itself, and EU members have no right to know what THEIR money has been spent on. - No thank you.
There are many other reasons that would take up far too much space here. It has taken years to research many of them, and direct conversations with people such as Marta Andreason, then an MEP, and Dennis Healey. RIP.
I love Europe as individual countries, with their own traditions, customs, and cultures. It is part of the reason, i have lived abroad for so long, in different countries. Germany, Spain and France. But too many of those with power, want to all but destroy the very reason so many value Europe so highly.
Suffice to say i detest the EU with a passion, and short of major and radical reform, i always will. BUT, i respect the opinions of others, and would just ask that everyone does the same. Differing opinions and spirited debate, doesn’t have to end up with anyone being enemies. Heaven knows there is more than enough conflict in the world.
2 Likes
Well done Stephen. I think you have summed perfectly why so many people voted Leave. Be careful though, if given the chance you would have voted leave so according to some people on this forum and makes you a xenophobic racist moron! Or one of them will kindly point out a spelling/grammar mistake.
1 Like
On what we are being told is the Proposed Brexit deal i wish the British public had never been given this referendum. It is nothing like what was voted for and after watching last weeks question time and listening to Jordan Patterson on the negatives of any referendum we should never be given one again.
Whilst I can’t really speak for the millions who voted leave my suspicion is that Stephen has only accounted for the reasons that a handful of people voted Leave.
Many more had legitimate complaint with the UK government (housing, schools, austerity, lack of investment) but were told this was the fault of the EU, plus we could have more money for the NHS, plus it was all going to be easy and there would be no downside. I’m not surprised the vote turned out the way that it did.
The problem is that Brexit as offered by the Leave campaign is impossible.
The options really are simple - leave but stay in the EEA which minimises economic harm but brings little, if any, political gain (in fact, I would argue, a political loss).
Alternatively Leave fully (the only way to control borders, trade and revenues) which brings political gain but economic loss.
Honouring the GFA makes the latter impossible.
Now take your pick.
Afternoon Paul, we the public where asked vote on a subject that has totally divided the country and i see no end to it. They either need to make clean break and suffer the decade that follows or make vote null and void and suffer the next decade. These idiots that we vote for every 4 years has the choice.
1 Like
I think I can agree with that analysis 
As i said Paul, there are many other reasons, but it would take up too much space. In fact a very large book. For me the saddest part of the referendum debate, and the part that angers me the most, is the fact that both sides were totally untruthful about virtually every subject. At best they distorted the truth, which made a mockery of the whole process. I very much doubt a second referendum would be conducted any differently either. Although it could be said that voters might be better informed. Having said that, judging by the rhetoric spewed forth in reams by both parliaments, it is probably even more confusing, and difficult to unravel, and that’s before delving into the bowels of the EU’s own website, and the various other associated sites/subplots. It has indeed divided our country, but in the end it is in our own hands to work together for a solution, or fall by the wayside. Sadly, these days i suspect it will be the latter.
There are many ways to criticize the running of the gravy train EU, but even so I would rather benefit from the freedom of movement and trade that being a member offers.
Hopefully given time the accountability that you and so many of us would like could come but it would take significant change - which previous actions suggest there is little appetite for in Brussels.
1 Like
Torcaz, i learnt a long time ago to scroll past those that respond in a less than intelligent manner. Sticks and stones etc… and those that comment on spelling/grammar mistakes, usually do so because they have no valid response, and have already lost their argument. The scroll wheel is a wonderful device for maintaining low stress levels.
As for racism. Well, i suppose if wanting to maintain immigration levels to a sustainable number, and a desire to tighten immigration laws to a similar level as those of Australia and New Zealand, then yes, this Anglo Indian (Indian great grandmother) is a racist, and will remain so. Britain surpassed the sustainable population level by 6 and a half million people some time ago. I don’t believe that any country, should accept anyone as an immigrant/resident, if they are unable to support themselves, house themselves, are willing to integrate, and generally make some contribution to their adopted country. It is ridiculous for anyone to believe otherwise. Uncontrolled immigration, as advocated by the EU and the UN, will simply lead to the destruction of nations, which is precisely their joint ambition. But then the UN is simply the global version of the EU anyway.
3 Likes
To live in France one has to have a minimum income so there is no need for uncontrolled immigration in the EU. If the UK accept uncontrolled immigration that is not the fault of the EU.
6 Likes
The UK has no intention of accepting uncontrolled immigration, which is why they will not accept Schengen. Schengen, equals uncontrolled borders, equals uncontrolled immigration. Precisely what the EU has now. The mass migration the EU has experienced, is of unprecedented proportions, and is of people, with no income, no housing, no employment or intention of being employed, no intention to integrate, and no intention of obeying the laws, customs, or culture of the countries they wish to live in. None of them meet France’s minimum income requirement, and by the EU and UN’s own admission, at least 85% are NOT refugees, but economic migrants, that Europe cannot in any way afford. They are simply a massive, lawless, uncontrolled drain on every countries resources, and the taxes/finances of all Europeans. You and i included. They will bankrupt Europe if they are not repatriated. Yet, EU leaders such as Macron want to encourage more to enter the country, against EU law. Precisely what Merkel did, and what caused all these migrant problems in the first place. Sweden is the prime example of what can happen, and what is happening in other EU countries.
3 Likes
Evidence for that claim please, or at least an explanation of what population you are counting and how you came to the 85% figure.
3 Likes
Firstly my research is my work. If it was not available, i would request permission from the source to share it. The evidence is freely available on the internet, and was actually a press release from the EU and UN jointly about a year ago, possibly a little longer. It followed the major disagreement, where the EU tried to apply the description ‘refugee’ to all the migrants, and then had to retract what they had said. Those included were all those from Africa and the Middle East, and also included some from ‘European’ countries not yet admitted by the EU, but have applications pending. When i say all i mean all, as they were illegally entering the EU, and refused to register with the first country of entry. Most refused to identify themselves, and that included most of those trying to enter by refugee status. Sadly, those that they harmed the most, were the real refugees, thousands of whom never made it, and who remain unaccounted for.
1 Like
Apart from the genuine case of those fleeing conflict I would agree that if you wish to settle in another country you should be able to support yourself there, however I don’t think the UN advocates uncontrolled immigration - reference please?
And, within the EU it [exercising FOM rights] is not considered immigration, so the EU does not advocate uncontrolled immigration either.
Hmmm, I have a feeling you have misconstrued the function of one or both of these institutions………
4 Likes