Brexit slowly becoming a Farce.

[Cerberus]

 

[beefybake]

4 hours ago, weegienative said:

I keep hearing this again and again, Brexit voters didn't know what they were voting for. I only ever hear it for those who voted remain funny enough.

If you want to go down the road of not having clarity on how negotiations would go post referendum, that's because the EU would not allow negotiations to commence until article 50 had been triggered.

There have been numerous policy changes within the EU since 2016, many which would affect us if article 50 were to be revoked and the Brexit vote consigned to history. Do you know what they are? Did you know what you're voting for?

I think we have to plow ahead as clearly people who voted remain didn't know what they were voting for.

Actually, I knew very well what I was voting for in the referendum.  World War 2 ended.  First there was, I think, the Common Market, then the European Economic Community (EEC ), then the EU.   The common thread to all of this is that the countries concerned decided to be friends, rather than enemies.  With binding agreements to , in the end,, prevent falling back into the wars that have blighted Europe for just about ever, at the cost of millions of lives. 

Yes, I knew exactly what I was voting for, even if Cameron etc were too stupid, or lazy, to bother spelling out all the great things about membership of the EU.

As for you,  weegienative, you're basically ".. Brexit means Brexit...", and you'll keep returning to that.

For me...,  I look at..

1. Boris Johnson. It was his decision on the referendum to support Brexit, which, I think, swung the votes of a significant number of people.

     Johnson is, by inclination, and actuality, a newspaper columnist.  He earns an exceedingly healthy living at that.  The job of a columnist is to stir controversy,

     and gain  attention for him/her self, and the newspaper.  His talent is for upsetting apple carts, it doesn't really matter which apple cart. He doesn't really

    care for  anything other than  himself. 

    It's all just words to him.

    Even his editor at the Daily Telegraph has described Johnson as ".. careless with the truth...". 

    Given a position of real responsibility, Johnson is little more than a clown. As he amply demonstrated as Foreign Secretary. 

 

2.  The investigations into who was supplying the money to fund the various Vote Leave campaigns increasingly indicate that it was  very murky.

       A major funder, Aaron Banks, is refusing to divulge the accounts of the offshore company through which he channelled the money.

      The whole thing stinks.  And more and more, it's starting to look like the money came from Russia. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by beefybake

[Iabella Duke]

4 minutes ago, MixuFixit said:

We're doing that now, yet you seem fine with soldiering on under one flag but not the other.

 

I am less convinced it'd necessarily involve austerity in the Scottish case, though the SNP obsession with relying on the BoE would need to be dealt with.

 

 

 

Two wrongs don't make a right!

Your second sentence is an admission that I'm right!

[Iabella Duke]

16 minutes ago, Jeff Venom said:

Oh look, another new member shouting the same things at the same people with precisely zero to back them up. Zzzzzz.

Don't be so harsh on yourself.

[weegienative]

1 hour ago, AUFC90 said:

2 hours ago, weegienative said:

Neither is Scotland. The UK is though.
You gloss over the fact that no matter how strong the economy is, it's reliant on these countries getting their act together. See the impact of Germany as a reference.
I notice you also gloss over the non eu immigrant issue you so confidently raised previously.... telling. Please accept my "sit down, shut up" with all the arrogance it is intended.
Kudos on picking up a predictive text error though. 
No seriously, well done.

There's only one part of the UK with a trade surplus. 3 guesses which part that is.

Haha is there aye?

Still no mention of the immigrant issue? Sweep sweep

[weegienative]

1 hour ago, dee_62 said:

oh ffs.  You're comparing apples and oranges.  Please stop.

It's called precedent.

But thank your for highlighting your complete hypocrisy on the issue.

[wastecoatwilly]

This delay tactic is heading for a no deal brexit, there is no compromise on the backstop plus patsy may knows her career in politics is over.
GE incoming what a fecking mess to get into,civil unrest is plan B.

[Mark Connolly]

With all the pish that’s going on now, I’m starting to realise I miss the time when the main rhetoric was “Australian-style points-based system”

Simpler times.

[Hedgecutter]

Aberdeen's local government snubbing the result of the Union Terrace Gardens referendum set a precedent 6 years ago.  

Get Brexit in the f***ing sea.

[MSU]

2 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Getting bored of ye dodging this. Just gonna rip it apart.

"Unrestricted immigration"

Nonsense. We have complete control of our borders for both EU and non EU citizens entering the country. Just because someone is Slovenian and not, say, Venezuelan does not mean we have to let them enter the country. We are not part of Schengen. On top of that even if/once we've let EU nationals into the country the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC gives us, as it gives all EU nations, the right to expel any EU citizen. To quote it this directive "allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves". Other EU nations do this. We choose not to.

"Unchecked immigration"

Every person who enters the UK has to go through border security unless they do so illegally but, as an island nation, this isn't much of an issue. There are some illegal entrants to the country but these are rare. What's far more common is people entering the country legally but staying beyond their accredited time through their visa. The majority of folk who do this are from the anglosphere (Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis, Saffas, Canucks) and aren't from "3rd world countries". So don't fall foul of your "respect our values or traditions" nonsense (although one could argue Yanks would fall under this with alarming regularlity)

"large scale immigration"

This is entirely subjective but, in any case, we can easily compare it to other nations. According to the World Bank net migration when taken as a ratio of the population shows that the UK has a net migration of 14 people per 1,000 citizens. This puts us about 40th in the world (of nations that monitor these statistics. Some of the countries ahead of us, such as Afghanistan (former refugees returning after the fall of the Taliban), Lebanon (huge refugee influx) and UAE (cheap foreign labour for building projects) are outliers, obviously, but if we narrow it down to other European and anglosphere nations we're still behind Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, Curacao, Canada, Cyprus, Sweden, Turkey, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, New Caledonia, Hong Kong, Finland, Austria, Denmark, USA, Germany, Malaysia and Malta. Unless you can put a cap figure on how much migration is healthy and how much is too much, and, more importantly, give solid reasons for this rather than just subjective rhetoric all it becomes is a xenophobic dog whistle.

"unskilled men"

There is, as far as I know, no statistics available that sort immigration by gender. Why their genders matters is a mystery to me unless yer scared Julio from Guatemala's gonna shaft yer missus but, for all we know, she might run off with Sook-Wah from Cambodia instead. As for the unskilled part I've already pointed out we have complete control of our borders re: EU migrants so if unskilled migrants come for work, and fail to find any, we can boot them out. If you're coming from outwith the EU there is a five tiered point system in place that mean unskilled immigration is near impossible for many people so the migrants we receive from these nations have a higher proportion of skilled or trained professionals than the UK populace as it stands.

"third world who don't respect our values or traditions. "

The overwhelming majority of our immigrants come from ten nations: India, Poland, Pakistan, Ireland, Germany, Bangladesh, South Africa, Nigeria, United States, China. Most of these are historic with Asian and African immigration during the 50s-70s as well as a good century of so of Irish immigration. China is there due to the large number of Chinese students and historic migration. Yet, amazingly, despite coming from strictly Muslim Pakistan, patriarchal India, Apartheid South Africa, Communist China, deeply Catholic Ireland and post-communist Poland the vast majority have respected our values and traditions just fine. It's weird you claim "acceptance of LGBT" people as a value and tradition considering it was illegal to even mention the existence of homosexual relationships in school until the 90s or that homosexual sex between men was only legalised in Scotland in the 80s. We don't get to invade countries, demand they follow our ideas of civility, which, at the time, included the demonization of LGBT people, change our mind and expect them to suddenly be on the same footing as us. The thing is, however, for the most part they do learn to adapt and change upon migrating to the UK.

Assuming, however, you're talking about more recent immigration from outwith the EU the top ten countries now are China, India, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Africa, Thailand. A very similar spread to the historic immigration of the last century. So not much is changing in that regard. In fact almost half of these migrants come from China and India and the majority of them are student visas. Although a few will be on scholarships the majority are paying a fair price to go to university in the UK and then buggering off home when they're done and the ones that remain are clearly helping the economy when they do remain. The Russian and Saudi immigrants are doing so for either study or business reasons so are, in theory, also contributing to the economy but, then again, people who worry about foreigners views on LGBT rights seem to go quite quiet when Russians and Saudis are involved due to something that rhymes with "oil noney". A breakdown of these visas shows (excluding short stay travel visas) that over half (225,000) are for study. Of the remaining over half of them (100,000) are for tier 1/2 skilled jobs (most of whom are sponsored to come here) and only 65,000 are for non-skilled and temporary workers (a large portion of temporary workers will be Aussies and Kiwis doing their year overseas wanting bar work).

"What a crazy thing to be concerned about right? "

Yes. Yes it is fucking crazy. It's crazy to concerned about unchecked immigration when we are entirely able to control it. It's crazy to be worried about large scale immigration when it's a bit of a push to call the immigration to our nation large scale. It's crazy to be worried about unskilled men when the majority of migrants are skilled or here to study and it's batshit mental to worry about them coming from the third world (they don't) or that they don't respect our values or traditions (they do)

(I know, I know... tl;dr)

What a beautiful #telt. Well played, sir.

[weegienative]

1 hour ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Getting bored of ye dodging this. Just gonna rip it apart.

"Unrestricted immigration"

Nonsense. We have complete control of our borders for both EU and non EU citizens entering the country. Just because someone is Slovenian and not, say, Venezuelan does not mean we have to let them enter the country. We are not part of Schengen. On top of that even if/once we've let EU nationals into the country the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC gives us, as it gives all EU nations, the right to expel any EU citizen. To quote it this directive "allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves". Other EU nations do this. We choose not to.

"Unchecked immigration"

Every person who enters the UK has to go through border security unless they do so illegally but, as an island nation, this isn't much of an issue. There are some illegal entrants to the country but these are rare. What's far more common is people entering the country legally but staying beyond their accredited time through their visa. The majority of folk who do this are from the anglosphere (Aussies, Yanks, Kiwis, Saffas, Canucks) and aren't from "3rd world countries". So don't fall foul of your "respect our values or traditions" nonsense (although one could argue Yanks would fall under this with alarming regularlity)

"large scale immigration"

This is entirely subjective but, in any case, we can easily compare it to other nations. According to the World Bank net migration when taken as a ratio of the population shows that the UK has a net migration of 14 people per 1,000 citizens. This puts us about 40th in the world (of nations that monitor these statistics. Some of the countries ahead of us, such as Afghanistan (former refugees returning after the fall of the Taliban), Lebanon (huge refugee influx) and UAE (cheap foreign labour for building projects) are outliers, obviously, but if we narrow it down to other European and anglosphere nations we're still behind Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, Curacao, Canada, Cyprus, Sweden, Turkey, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, New Caledonia, Hong Kong, Finland, Austria, Denmark, USA, Germany, Malaysia and Malta. Unless you can put a cap figure on how much migration is healthy and how much is too much, and, more importantly, give solid reasons for this rather than just subjective rhetoric all it becomes is a xenophobic dog whistle.

"unskilled men"

There is, as far as I know, no statistics available that sort immigration by gender. Why their genders matters is a mystery to me unless yer scared Julio from Guatemala's gonna shaft yer missus but, for all we know, she might run off with Sook-Wah from Cambodia instead. As for the unskilled part I've already pointed out we have complete control of our borders re: EU migrants so if unskilled migrants come for work, and fail to find any, we can boot them out. If you're coming from outwith the EU there is a five tiered point system in place that mean unskilled immigration is near impossible for many people so the migrants we receive from these nations have a higher proportion of skilled or trained professionals than the UK populace as it stands.

"third world who don't respect our values or traditions. "

The overwhelming majority of our immigrants come from ten nations: India, Poland, Pakistan, Ireland, Germany, Bangladesh, South Africa, Nigeria, United States, China. Most of these are historic with Asian and African immigration during the 50s-70s as well as a good century of so of Irish immigration. China is there due to the large number of Chinese students and historic migration. Yet, amazingly, despite coming from strictly Muslim Pakistan, patriarchal India, Apartheid South Africa, Communist China, deeply Catholic Ireland and post-communist Poland the vast majority have respected our values and traditions just fine. It's weird you claim "acceptance of LGBT" people as a value and tradition considering it was illegal to even mention the existence of homosexual relationships in school until the 90s or that homosexual sex between men was only legalised in Scotland in the 80s. We don't get to invade countries, demand they follow our ideas of civility, which, at the time, included the demonization of LGBT people, change our mind and expect them to suddenly be on the same footing as us. The thing is, however, for the most part they do learn to adapt and change upon migrating to the UK.

Assuming, however, you're talking about more recent immigration from outwith the EU the top ten countries now are China, India, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Nigeria, South Africa, Thailand. A very similar spread to the historic immigration of the last century. So not much is changing in that regard. In fact almost half of these migrants come from China and India and the majority of them are student visas. Although a few will be on scholarships the majority are paying a fair price to go to university in the UK and then buggering off home when they're done and the ones that remain are clearly helping the economy when they do remain. The Russian and Saudi immigrants are doing so for either study or business reasons so are, in theory, also contributing to the economy but, then again, people who worry about foreigners views on LGBT rights seem to go quite quiet when Russians and Saudis are involved due to something that rhymes with "oil noney". A breakdown of these visas shows (excluding short stay travel visas) that over half (225,000) are for study. Of the remaining over half of them (100,000) are for tier 1/2 skilled jobs (most of whom are sponsored to come here) and only 65,000 are for non-skilled and temporary workers (a large portion of temporary workers will be Aussies and Kiwis doing their year overseas wanting bar work).

"What a crazy thing to be concerned about right? "

Yes. Yes it is fucking crazy. It's crazy to concerned about unchecked immigration when we are entirely able to control it. It's crazy to be worried about large scale immigration when it's a bit of a push to call the immigration to our nation large scale. It's crazy to be worried about unskilled men when the majority of migrants are skilled or here to study and it's batshit mental to worry about them coming from the third world (they don't) or that they don't respect our values or traditions (they do)

(I know, I know... tl;dr)

I appreciate the thought gone into your response. You diminish your credibility slightly by swearing in the last paragraph, but I do similar on occasion so fair enough.

As an example, the current rate of migrants entering Spain illegally is around 7000 per month (which are discovered). That's one country of several with a Mediterranean coast. These people can claim asylum upon landing. As part of Dublin rule reforms they will then be allocated/dispersed by the EU across all member states to ease the strain on the border nations. These people are unchecked as they ditch their passports to avoid deportation and so quite simply, any background check is impossible.

It takes months and years to deport failed asylum seekers at a huge cost to the tax payer. Meanwhile they are eligible for numerous benefits.

Unskilled migration quotas? What is needed without any detriment to the unemployment levels of UK nationals.

Historic lgbt laws which hasn't been modernised are different to people coming from cultures which believe gay people should be killed is quite different. Although it doesn't fit the agenda you're trying to push.

Why concern yourself that the majority are young working age men? Because they are coming from a patriarchal society where women are not deemed to be the equal of men. Cologne, Malmo, Glasgow, Newcastle, Rotherham and Telford to name a few provide decent evidence of this. Several Muslim commentators agree, so quite why you're trying to pretend otherwise I'm not quite sure. The impact on Swedish and German towns who have received these migrants has been significant with the residents being asked to change their practices in order to accommodate the migrant culture. The cover up of the Rotherham abuse for years tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of government stats and indeed their willingness to protect their citizens.

 

 

[weegienative]

2 hours ago, Suspect Device said:

 

Quick google figures.

Scotland's GDP per capita is £31,376 ($39,533)

UK's is $39,720

Greece's is $18,316

Germany's $44,469

Scotland's exports in 2015 were £78.6bn

Greece's exports in 2017 were €28.9bn

Exactly, but Scotland isn't an independent country. The UK is.

[weegienative]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Conservatives mostly do not give a shit about LGBT and have demonstrated this historically so it’s always funny to see them use the spectre of foreign homophobes coming over here and taking our rights away.

conservatives (small c) want no or minimal interference by government in their lives other than to protect life, liberty and property. A by product of this is letting people do what they want as long as they aren't affecting either of those 3. So no, as a life long conservative (small c) I couldn't give a shit about if people who people want to shag.

[weegienative]

2 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

Just make the referendum result legally binding before you have it. The Brexit referendum was nothing more than expensive opinion poll.

Nope, precedent has been set. Any future indyref should just be another "expensive opinion poll".

You see what happens when you put short term selfishness ahead of principles.

As much of a cock as the guy is, piers Morgan is one of the few remainers I've heard who actually respects a democratic vote.

[weegienative]

2 hours ago, Iabella Duke said:

Always find it ironic when I hear the SNP banging on about how Brexit will cost jobs and make us poorer.

The impact of Scexit would be 10 times worse!

Voted No, voted remain. The only consistent, sensible votes.

 

I agree with you.

I voted No and Brexit. The difference for me between the two votes is that Scottish people have a vote on Westminster. The EU is full of unelected bureaucrats.

[Ross.]

8 minutes ago, weegienative said:

The cover up of the Rotherham abuse for years tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of government stats and indeed their willingness to protect their citizens.

What exactly has that got to do with Brexit? Are you suggesting that had the UK not been a member of the EU that this would not have happened?

[AUFC90]

Haha is there aye?

Still no mention of the immigrant issue? Sweep sweep

Please explain how leaving the EU curbs immigration from outwith the EU ? You wont answer this question.

There isn't an immigration issue. The only issue regarding immigrants is that we need more of them...especially in Scotland.

 

[Ross.]

1 minute ago, weegienative said:

I agree with you.

I voted No and Brexit. The difference for me between the two votes is that Scottish people have a vote on Westminster. The EU is full of unelected bureaucrats.

Nah, f**k it. I'm out.

[weegienative]

2 hours ago, GordonD said:

Don't you object to having to vote every 5 years? I mean, the people decided in 2017 so their wishes should be respected!

Unless Gordon Brown is still PM then I think it's fair to assume things are enacted after the elections.

Well done on the crap comparison though.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

4 minutes ago, weegienative said:

I appreciate the thought gone into your response. You diminish your credibility slightly by swearing in the last paragraph, but I do similar on occasion so fair enough.

As an example, the current rate of migrants entering Spain illegally is around 7000 per month (which are discovered). That's one country of several with a Mediterranean coast. These people can claim asylum upon landing. As part of Dublin rule reforms they will then be allocated/dispersed by the EU across all member states to ease the strain on the border nations. These people are unchecked as they ditch their passports to avoid deportation and so quite simply, any background check is impossible.

It takes months and years to deport failed asylum seekers at a huge cost to the tax payer. Meanwhile they are eligible for numerous benefits.

Unskilled migration quotas? What is needed without any detriment to the unemployment levels of UK nationals.

Historic lgbt laws which hasn't been modernised are different to people coming from cultures which believe gay people should be killed is quite different. Although it doesn't fit the agenda you're trying to push.

Why concern yourself that the majority are young working age men? Because they are coming from a patriarchal society where women are not deemed to be the equal of men. Cologne, Malmo, Glasgow, Newcastle, Rotherham and Telford to name a few provide decent evidence of this. Several Muslim commentators agree, so quite why you're trying to pretend otherwise I'm not quite sure. The impact on Swedish and German towns who have received these migrants has been significant with the residents being asked to change their practices in order to accommodate the migrant culture. The cover up of the Rotherham abuse for years tells you everything you need to know about the reliability of government stats and indeed their willingness to protect their citizens.

 

 

I diminish f**k all by swearing. f**k you.

The amount of people entering Spain has no different to the UK as, as pointed out previously, UK has an opt out on EU Refugee Settlement. We can say "Nope. Don't want any"

It does take time to deport asylum seekers because, as part of these "values and ideals" you are scared they will not concur with, we believe in the right to a fair trial and also believe in the Human Rights Act. Don't pick and choose. We either follow these values and ideals or don't. Also the boost to the UK economy from successful asylum seekers living and working in the UK outweighs the cost repatriating those who don't. They also are not eligible for numerous benefits. They get one flat payment paid out to them which is well below the poverty line.

Dunno why yer talking about unskilled migration quotas. The UK Government handles them on a case by case, year to year, basis and it works fine. Nations with quotas, such as Switzerland and Australia have more migration than the UK and set their quotas far ahead of what is expected or needed for this reason. Quotas are only there to look good on paper and appease numpties who are worried about brown people.

Glasgow, Newcastle, Rotherham and Telford? Oh michty me. Yer talking about people who moved here, or are descended from people who moved here, before the EU passed free movement of peoples laws. It has nothing to do with the EU. It's also frighteningly dog whistley of you to point out sexual abuse cases by a tiny minority of Muslim men whilst ignoring the far greater numbers of sexual abuse cases committed by British born and bred white men under the auspices of the CoS, CoE, Catholic Church, Boy Scouts, football clubs, youth groups and every other avenue which gave men unlimited access to vulnerable children. There was no "cover up" of the Rotherham abuse. In any case NONE of this has anything to do with Brexit and if yer worried about immigration from patriarchal societies I can only presume you, yourself, are against patriarchal societies and norms and, as such, have committed time to learning about modern feminism and are familiar with the works of Roxanne Gay so I don't need to explain to you the clear link between colonialism, poverty and sexual abuse amongst poor immigrant or native communities.

No one is being asked to change their practises in Sweden or Germany. You just plain made that up.