|
|
Post by Northy on Oct 3, 2018 16:00:51 GMT
Because Blair and the labour party had a secret policy to flood the country with socialist labour voters on handouts dependant on them so they would get voted in for the long term. According to gov.uk you have to be British,Irish or qualifying commonwealth by birth to vote in U.K. elections so i can`t see that being correct? You can apply for British citizenship after 5 years, and from the EEA you can apply after 12 months of permanent residence. |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Oct 3, 2018 16:10:51 GMT
Not as cut and dried as you put it, it is described as a far from simple process however,life in the U.K. tests with questions which many British born citizens would struggle with?
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 16:23:38 GMT
" 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave." That's what DID happen isn't it? ".... unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means." I think most of us DID understand what 'leave' meant and means. There was a lot of discussion and debate about it at the time. It was only 'not understood' by those who, with hindsight, chose not to understand it. I beg to differ,a lot of people foolishly believed the £350 million slogan for the N.H.S., believed the statement we will get deal like Norway but with extra advantages,nobody mentioned the Irish border issue,nobody mentioned so many of the issues voting leave as created so most of you did NOT know exactly what it entailed. Did you vote leave because of the slogan on the bus Skem? |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 16:28:15 GMT
Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. Or, how about we have two questions as follows... 1. Leave or Remain. If Leave wins we leave, as in leave every aspect of the EU as a 'leave' vote would suggest. 2. Assuming Remain wins we vote again on what type of Remain it should be, IE should we just Remain in the customs union, should we Remain even stronger & join the Euro etc, do we accept any future laws/changes/etc... that the EU make, or do we just remain exactly as it is now down to the very last detail forever more. Seems fair to me, gotta be clear afterall so as we'd know what we were voting for. This post clearly exposes the hypocrisy and real intent of the Remoaners....the meaning of "Remain" is easily and simply understood. There is only a problem when the people don't do as expected and as pressurised through fear to dare to vote " Leave". As you infer DC, there would not be a debate about the meaning of "Remain" if that had been the outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Oct 3, 2018 16:29:28 GMT
No i would not vote leave under any circumstances, but my brother and sister to my shame did. And i know loads of people who were swayed by the LIE. In defence of my siblings my sister has M.S. and my brother mobility issues ( and thought extra funding WAS going to be provided)but both regret voting leave.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 16:49:09 GMT
No i would not vote leave under any circumstances, but my brother and sister to my shame did. And i know loads of people who were swayed by the LIE. In defence of my siblings my sister has M.S. and my brother mobility issues ( and thought extra funding WAS going to be provided)but both regret voting leave. Do you think that they could be justified in voting leave if the NHS benefitted by say £50 m of the money we send to the EU |
|
|
|
Post by skemstokie on Oct 3, 2018 16:58:02 GMT
Bye, i see no point in conversing with someone who talks crap  |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 17:04:48 GMT
Bye, i see no point in conversing with someone who talks crap I know what you mean |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Oct 3, 2018 17:25:10 GMT
Or, how about we have two questions as follows... 1. Leave or Remain. If Leave wins we leave, as in leave every aspect of the EU as a 'leave' vote would suggest. 2. Assuming Remain wins we vote again on what type of Remain it should be, IE should we just Remain in the customs union, should we Remain even stronger & join the Euro etc, do we accept any future laws/changes/etc... that the EU make, or do we just remain exactly as it is now down to the very last detail forever more. Seems fair to me, gotta be clear afterall so as we'd know what we were voting for. This post clearly exposes the hypocrisy and real intent of the Remoaners....the meaning of "Remain" is easily and simply understood. There is only a problem when the people don't do as expected and as pressurised through fear to dare to vote " Leave". As you infer DC, there would not be a debate about the meaning of "Remain" if that had been the outcome. There would be a discussion if someone tried saying remain meant we had to join the Euro and Schengen (to name two programmes that we're not a part of). Because much like people trying to saying leaving the EU is not what a leave vote was about, it would be utter bollocks. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 17:26:07 GMT
Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. Apart from we've already done the leave/remain bit do you honestly think 35+ million electorate would have the capacity to vote on a deal to remain or leave? Even the 'clued up' on here can't agree on what's already been voted on and that was a simple in/out question. Referendum 12 Thursday 6th Feb 2020. Would you prefer to leave with a Canada plus plus over a Norway deal? Would you prefer to remain with a subjugated fiscal policy or exclude membership of the ECJ? Anyway you don't want another referendum as it's up to our elected representatives to fuck it up now, we've done our bit. We'll have 'Vote Hammond's remain deal or the hens will stop laying'. 'Vote Boris's leave deal or invading aliens will breech our open borders'. No thanks. A referendum that very few wanted got us in this mess, another may be the only way to get us out. Otherwise all I can see is a no deal brexit (that only extreme nutters really want) and then a Corbyn government a few months later once we our economy has binned completely. It’s not the most optimistic of futures but looks most likely to me. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 17:29:07 GMT
Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. Or, how about we have two questions as follows... 1. Leave or Remain. If Leave wins we leave, as in leave every aspect of the EU as a 'leave' vote would suggest. 2. Assuming Remain wins we vote again on what type of Remain it should be, IE should we just Remain in the customs union, should we Remain even stronger & join the Euro etc, do we accept any future laws/changes/etc... that the EU make, or do we just remain exactly as it is now down to the very last detail forever more. Seems fair to me, gotta be clear afterall so as we'd know what we were voting for. If you knew anything about the EU, voting to remain means staying as we are, which means in the customs union. It’s very simple. So your leave vote is so we can no longer fly to the EU or do business with them? You want no single agreement with the EU. Pulling out of every international treaty they too are a signatory to which means no rules for trading whatsoever (as they have WTO as default and you don’t want to agree to that as that would be an agreement with the EU!). |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 17:30:02 GMT
This post clearly exposes the hypocrisy and real intent of the Remoaners....the meaning of "Remain" is easily and simply understood. There is only a problem when the people don't do as expected and as pressurised through fear to dare to vote " Leave". As you infer DC, there would not be a debate about the meaning of "Remain" if that had been the outcome. There would be a discussion if someone tried saying remain meant we had to join the Euro and Schengen (to name two programmes that we're not a part of). Because much like people trying to saying leaving the EU is not what a leave vote was about, it would be utter bollocks. I don't understand what you are saying there Rip, to be honest, but it doesn't really matter because that's the normal state of affairs for us |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 17:33:53 GMT
Yes, although the sensible thing to do would be to ask the EU before the second vote if we could have the same deal as we currently have if remain wins. Then you just need the one vote. Also I wouldn’t split the vote as you propose. I’d have two stages: 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave. 2. Assuming leave wins 1, would you prefer May’s deal (if there is one) or no deal? 1 tells us whether we stay or go, 2 tells us how we go if we are to go. Everyone votes on both. That way the leave vote wouldn’t be split and it would be fairer. If the above had been done for the original vote then I wouldn’t now be complaining about it being quite so anti democratic to have a complete unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means. " 1. Leave or remain. If remain wins we stay, if leave wins we leave." That's what DID happen isn't it? ".... unknown option of “leave” on the ballot paper without spelling out what that actually means." I think most of us DID understand what 'leave' meant and means. There was a lot of discussion and debate about it at the time. It was only 'not understood' by those who, with hindsight, chose not to understand it. So can you tell me what the leave vote was on the Brussels 2 regs as everyone in my profession is dying to know. Also on reciprocity of judgements. If you genuinely know the answers, you can make a fortune on talks to major law firms, chambers and the law society. I can put you in touch as you seem to know more than the lawyers who have been appointed by the government to advise on these issues. If you cannot answer those questions, you don’t know what the leave vote was for. Not to mention the bigger more obvious problems like customs, irish border etc that we still don’t know about following the leave vote. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 18:14:02 GMT
Apart from we've already done the leave/remain bit do you honestly think 35+ million electorate would have the capacity to vote on a deal to remain or leave? Even the 'clued up' on here can't agree on what's already been voted on and that was a simple in/out question. Referendum 12 Thursday 6th Feb 2020. Would you prefer to leave with a Canada plus plus over a Norway deal? Would you prefer to remain with a subjugated fiscal policy or exclude membership of the ECJ? Anyway you don't want another referendum as it's up to our elected representatives to fuck it up now, we've done our bit. We'll have 'Vote Hammond's remain deal or the hens will stop laying'. 'Vote Boris's leave deal or invading aliens will breech our open borders'. No thanks. A referendum that very few wanted got us in this mess, another may be the only way to get us out. Otherwise all I can see is a no deal brexit (that only extreme nutters really want) and then a Corbyn government a few months later once we our economy has binned completely. It’s not the most optimistic of futures but looks most likely to me. Why do you think so many people turned out to vote, many of whom hadn't voted before? |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 19:07:02 GMT
Do you honestly think I reckon the EU won the Ryder Cup? It's an allegory. Hidden meaning in an event. An analogy. A parallel symbolism of working together. A throw-away comment to signify the futility and personal sadness I feel that we are leaving the European Union. We only let European golfers join in with us in 1979, it was GB and then GB and Ireland until then  Yes. Just a few years after we joined the Common Market/EU Your foot well and truly shot. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 19:08:11 GMT
A referendum that very few wanted got us in this mess, another may be the only way to get us out. Otherwise all I can see is a no deal brexit (that only extreme nutters really want) and then a Corbyn government a few months later once we our economy has binned completely. It’s not the most optimistic of futures but looks most likely to me. Why do you think so many people turned out to vote, many of whom hadn't voted before? Because it was the only thing talked about and reported upon in the weeks and months before (and that has barely stopped since to the massive detriment of the UK public as there has been very little domestic focus at all). |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 19:14:32 GMT
Why do you think so many people turned out to vote, many of whom hadn't voted before? Because it was the only thing talked about and reported upon in the weeks and months before (and that has barely stopped since to the massive detriment of the UK public as there has been very little domestic focus at all). I think that they saw it as an issue that they could relate to...they wanted sovereignty and not to be interfered with by Brussels |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Oct 3, 2018 19:16:58 GMT
Apart from we've already done the leave/remain bit do you honestly think 35+ million electorate would have the capacity to vote on a deal to remain or leave? Even the 'clued up' on here can't agree on what's already been voted on and that was a simple in/out question. Referendum 12 Thursday 6th Feb 2020. Would you prefer to leave with a Canada plus plus over a Norway deal? Would you prefer to remain with a subjugated fiscal policy or exclude membership of the ECJ? Anyway you don't want another referendum as it's up to our elected representatives to fuck it up now, we've done our bit. We'll have 'Vote Hammond's remain deal or the hens will stop laying'. 'Vote Boris's leave deal or invading aliens will breech our open borders'. No thanks. got us in this mess, another may be the only way to get us out. Otherwise all I can see is a no deal brexit (that only extreme nutters really want) and then a Corbyn government a few months later once we our economy has binned completely. It’s not the most optimistic of futures but looks most likely to me. Unfortunately, the very few amounted to 544 to 53 in favour of granting the referendum. That 544 included Cameron, Mr David; Soubry, Anna; Khan, Sadiq; Umunna, Mr Chuka; Greening, Justine; Farron, Tim. All happy to give the question over to the public to decide. Presumably happy to draw a full salary despite reneging on doing their duty to the full. That's where all this started. If you let someone else do your job don't moan about the outcome if it's not to your liking. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 19:19:55 GMT
Because it was the only thing talked about and reported upon in the weeks and months before (and that has barely stopped since to the massive detriment of the UK public as there has been very little domestic focus at all). I think that they saw it as an issue that they could relate to...they wanted sovereignty and not to be interfered with by Brussels Apart from the fact it was about 10th in the list of what was the most important issue in politics less than a year before the referendum. There was a really interesting chart on it but I don’t know where from. About 40 of the millionaire elite on the far, far right of the Tory party (and millionaire elite Nigel Farage) wanted a referendum. Those tories have brought down every leader from Thatcher to Cameron. They forced the vote. Millionaire elites Paul Dacre, Lord Rothermere (or whatever he’s called - that non-dom racist owner of the Mail), and Rupert Murdoch (aussie) lied and won the day. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 19:20:48 GMT
A referendum that very few wanted got us in this mess, another may be the only way to get us out. Otherwise all I can see is a no deal brexit (that only extreme nutters really want) and then a Corbyn government a few months later once we our economy has binned completely. It’s not the most optimistic of futures but looks most likely to me. Unfortunately, the very few amounted to 544 to 53 in favour of granting the referendum. That 544 included Cameron, Mr David; Soubry, Anna; Khan, Sadiq; Umunna, Mr Chuka; Greening, Justine; Farron, Tim. All happy to give the question over to the public to decide. Presumably happy to draw a full salary despite reneging on doing their duty to the full. That's where all this started. If you let someone else do your job don't moan about the outcome if it's not to your liking. Go back a year before. Nobody wanted the vote. It just wasn’t considered an issue until Cameron made it one. |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 19:24:59 GMT
I think that they saw it as an issue that they could relate to...they wanted sovereignty and not to be interfered with by Brussels Apart from the fact it was about 10th in the list of what was the most important issue in politics less than a year before the referendum. There was a really interesting chart on it but I don’t know where from. About 40 of the millionaire elite on the far, far right of the Tory party (and millionaire elite Nigel Farage) wanted a referendum. Those tories have brought down every leader from Thatcher to Cameron. They forced the vote. Millionaire elites Paul Dacre, Lord Rothermere (or whatever he’s called - that non-dom racist owner of the Mail), and Rupert Murdoch (aussie) lied and won the day. Many people who previously felt disenfranchised were motivated to vote through patriotism |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 19:28:09 GMT
I think that they saw it as an issue that they could relate to...they wanted sovereignty and not to be interfered with by Brussels Apart from the fact it was about 10th in the list of what was the most important issue in politics less than a year before the referendum. There was a really interesting chart on it but I don’t know where from. About 40 of the millionaire elite on the far, far right of the Tory party (and millionaire elite Nigel Farage) wanted a referendum. Those tories have brought down every leader from Thatcher to Cameron. They forced the vote. Millionaire elites Paul Dacre, Lord Rothermere (or whatever he’s called - that non-dom racist owner of the Mail), and Rupert Murdoch (aussie) lied and won the day. Fantastic post |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 19:34:34 GMT
Apart from the fact it was about 10th in the list of what was the most important issue in politics less than a year before the referendum. There was a really interesting chart on it but I don’t know where from. About 40 of the millionaire elite on the far, far right of the Tory party (and millionaire elite Nigel Farage) wanted a referendum. Those tories have brought down every leader from Thatcher to Cameron. They forced the vote. Millionaire elites Paul Dacre, Lord Rothermere (or whatever he’s called - that non-dom racist owner of the Mail), and Rupert Murdoch (aussie) lied and won the day. Many people who previously felt disenfranchised were motivated to vote through patriotism I agree with the first bit. It was a protest vote. Unfortunately it was the worst vote to protest on. The poorest will be hit the hardest by brexit and they are already feeling it by the increased cost of living brought about by our significantly devalued currency |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Oct 3, 2018 19:40:39 GMT
Many people who previously felt disenfranchised were motivated to vote through patriotism I agree with the first bit. It was a protest vote. Unfortunately it was the worst vote to protest on. The poorest will be hit the hardest by brexit and they are already feeling it by the increased cost of living brought about by our significantly devalued currency Not a protest vote. Simply answered the question, made clear in the Remain supporting government's letter. Wanted out of the EU and our own sovereignty. Much of the working class is patriotic and don't like to give away control of our country. |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 19:42:20 GMT
Many people who previously felt disenfranchised were motivated to vote through patriotism I agree with the first bit. It was a protest vote. Unfortunately it was the worst vote to protest on. The poorest will be hit the hardest by brexit and they are already feeling it by the increased cost of living brought about by our significantly devalued currency Absolutely. Said it the Day after the Vote. Protest vote... Rank and file protesting against the wrong thing, at the wrong time for the wrong reason. What makes me laugh is this "establishment" thing. Talk about wrong end of the stick.😊 |
|
|
|
Post by Clayton Wood on Oct 3, 2018 19:47:40 GMT
Unfortunately, the very few amounted to 544 to 53 in favour of granting the referendum. That 544 included Cameron, Mr David; Soubry, Anna; Khan, Sadiq; Umunna, Mr Chuka; Greening, Justine; Farron, Tim. All happy to give the question over to the public to decide. Presumably happy to draw a full salary despite reneging on doing their duty to the full. That's where all this started. If you let someone else do your job don't moan about the outcome if it's not to your liking. Go back a year before. Nobody wanted the vote. It just wasn’t considered an issue until Cameron made it one. Irrelevant. If you go back to 1066 it was pretty much 100% against Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 20:06:38 GMT
Go back a year before. Nobody wanted the vote. It just wasn’t considered an issue until Cameron made it one. Irrelevant. If you go back to 1066 it was pretty much 100% against Europe. Yes. The Saxon and Danish kings didn't want any poncy Frenchmen on the soil. Henry 8th Kickstarted Brexit anyway 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Oct 3, 2018 20:11:24 GMT
Go back a year before. Nobody wanted the vote. It just wasn’t considered an issue until Cameron made it one. Irrelevant. If you go back to 1066 it was pretty much 100% against Europe. France fighting for us you mean...I don’t think wishing for a return to the good old days of 1066 is the best argument I have heard for Brexit or against the EU. Mind you, it’s not the worst either! |
|
|
|
Post by smallthorner on Oct 3, 2018 20:36:44 GMT
Go back a year before. Nobody wanted the vote. It just wasn’t considered an issue until Cameron made it one. Irrelevant. If you go back to 1066 it was pretty much 100% against Europe. You want do your DNA map Clayton. You'll be a Remainer in no time 😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Kilo on Oct 3, 2018 20:49:54 GMT
Irrelevant. If you go back to 1066 it was pretty much 100% against Europe. France fighting for us you mean...I don’t think wishing for a return to the good old days of 1066 is the best argument I have heard for Brexit or against the EU. Mind you, it’s not the worst either! Wow... I've read it all now - you think the Norman conquest of England was the French fighting for us?..... No wait, I've finally seen the light and worked it out, you're French aren't you? |
|
