Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Stanley Road said:
Do you like the idea of terrorists moving around freely, not having a check in place to catch them early?

Bizarre
Click to expand...
I find the idea of someone offering "perspective" then almost immediately being completely narrow-minded on a huge issue quite amusing and more than a little bit pitiful. The fact it was followed by this response too just caps it off.
 
Dobba said:
I find the idea of someone offering "perspective" then almost immediately being completely narrow-minded on a huge issue quite amusing and more than a little bit pitiful. The fact it was followed by this response too just caps it off.
Click to expand...

Ok answer the question and tell me how you would have dealt with this better
 
Stanley Road said:
Is it wrong to have targets? Atm they have no cap over eu citz. If they have a cap and fail to control it then thats uk problem. If they manage it then fair enuff
Click to expand...

They do have some control over EU citizens as well, but it's all a ruse.
Don't forget Nick, our leading Brexiteer on here, is not against immigration but objects to a large proportion of the immigrants coming from the EU and wants to share the immigration from throughout the countries of the world.

How do you appeal to British Leavers, promise them money , better NHS , better trade deals, get rid of foreigners - it's all a farce trying to blame anyone but themselves and the EU is the current scapegoat. When none of what they promised happens, then what..
 
Stanley Road said:
Well i kind of expected that answer from yourself.

Just some perspective.

Interesting to see the dutch are shocked that the berlin terrorist travelled through NL, Belgium and Lyon on his way to italy.

Thats open borders for you, great idea.
Click to expand...

The 7/7 bombers travelled from Leeds to London, we should throw up some borders
 
Stanley Road said:
Is it wrong to have targets? Atm they have no cap over eu citz. If they have a cap and fail to control it then thats uk problem. If they manage it then fair enuff
Click to expand...

Its wrong to have a target. If the UK needs 100,001 immigrants but the targets 100000, do we go without the last person. What if that 1 is a world class surgeon? He has to wait a year?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
They do have some control over EU citizens as well, but it's all a ruse.
Don't forget Nick, our leading Brexiteer on here, is not against immigration but objects to a large proportion of the immigrants coming from the EU and wants to share the immigration from throughout the countries of the world.

How do you appeal to British Leavers, promise them money , better NHS , better trade deals, get rid of foreigners - it's all a farce trying to blame anyone but themselves and the EU is the current scapegoat. When none of what they promised happens, then what..
Click to expand...
Well its only remain thinking bods that have seen the bus and use it as a stick, people like you listen too much to poliricians and forget lies from the other side so when plague, ww3 and locusts doesnt happen then what?
 
Mozza said:
They can move freely within a country, you going to set up internal check points?
Click to expand...

Plus depending on what happens with the NI border they may not even be able to prevent EU citizens moving across the UK border anyway.
 
Stanley Road said:
Same country, would not be practical, have they ever existed those controls? Cross nation ones have.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they were expensive to maintain, easily circumvented, and impractical.

Oh and using the money they saved not maintaining such pointless internal borders they all pooled in to fund the external borders and reduce the burden.
 
Stanley Road said:
Well its only remain thinking bods that have seen the bus and use it as a stick, people like you listen too much to poliricians and forget lies from the other side so when plague, ww3 and locusts doesnt happen then what?
Click to expand...

I've never mentioned plague locusts or ww3, I don't take much notice of politicians from any side, I'd rather gather information myself - point is people should have enough intelligence to differentiate between obvious bs and some sense of reality. People were brainwashed by rags like the Mail, Sun and Express and it's still going on now.

Those articles about 24bn or even 40bn savings are from this week not on the bus, they're even more ridiculous than the bus ... why , because the sentiment is dawning on a certain section of the Leave camp that what they are expecting is not going to happen, so let's exaggerate a bit more to offer a bit more bait to those who may doubt.

Reading the comments on articles on all types of paper, the amount of ignorance is astonishing, and these people are deciding the fate of a major country.

Out of the thousands of idiotic comments I've seen, one I saw recently stuck in my mind
"My mum voted Leave because she doesn't like sitting next to black people on buses" - speechless
 
So, some posters still think that the EU prevents anyone from having hard borders or from checking every single travelers?
 
Last edited:
Stanley Road said:
Where do you think you should have to show your passport and why?
Click to expand...
Stanley Road said:
Do you like the idea of terrorists moving around freely, not having a check in place to catch them early?
Click to expand...
You have some pretty strong opinions, but you really have no clue at all mate. You seem to think that borders and passport checks will somehow deter terrorists or other suitably motivated and financed people from coming in or out. They won't. While I don't agree hard borders will solve immigration, I can at least understand why you might have a valid argument it would. But unless you mean a Berlin Wall style curtain surrounding the entire UK, with every person checked to the nth degree (and how much would that cost?) borders and passport checks do not stop people bypassing them, which terrorists undoubtedly will.
 
Stanley Road said:
Aha, youd like to cherry pick, not on the eu agenda im afraid
Click to expand...

I don't want to cherry pick, you do.

You mentioned before your misses is non EU. If you had to return to the UK would you be happy to live years apart because the quota for migration was full for the next 2 years? That's what targets bring about
 
Mozza said:
Check points within a nation? Of course they have. So you want check points across and within European nations?
Click to expand...

Just to make it clear, the EU doesn't have that power.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But individual nations within the EU do
Click to expand...

Yeah, which is the point I have made several times, blame the countries and their government not the EU. Currently every country is responsible of his borders, every country is responsible of his police, they all have the right to check however they want wherever they want on their territory.
 
This whole Brexit fiasco is just depressing and embarrassing. Watching this from afar, and listening to the outside commentary from the US, and international organizations; you really fear for the future of the UK. It's certainly a massive reduction of international relevance, and it's only going to hurt business.

2016 has been a shocking year.
 
endless_wheelies said:
http://news.sky.com/story/second-legal-challenge-to-brexit-could-be-tabled-in-irish-courts-10689932

This is still the big one for me. If it does indeed become apparent that Article 50 can be reversed once triggered the exit negotiations with the EU will essentially turn into Cameron's 2014/2015 negotiations v2.
Click to expand...

From all the texts available one of his questions is easy to answer, there is no terms for Brexit from the EU standpoint; when you leave, you leave and then you negotiate for new deals and treaties but the second part has nothing to do with Brexit.
In theory there is no deal that leads to Brexit, it's Brexit that eventually leads to deals.

I don't know if it's clear.
 
I got as far as 'Should Parliament control the terms on which we Brexit?'.

It just won't sink in will it JPR, the terms will only be negotiated after article 50, and not by parliament, but by the government.
Whatever the government manages to agree, that is what we will be stuck with, the voter's say is over, parliament's say is over, like it or lump it we're in the hands of Theresa May now. Best of luck to all of us.
 
712 said:
Whatever the government manages to agree, that is what we will be stuck with, the voter's say is over, parliament's say is over, like it or lump it we're in the hands of Theresa May now. Best of luck to all of us.
Click to expand...
Do not agree.
 
Xeno said:
Do not agree.
Click to expand...

I think they'll get a say on the deal negotiated, but what choice is it?

Accept a deal even if its shit (which it will be because the goverment is incompetent, the time scale is ridiculous, and the complexity is absurd), or reject it and leave with nobody knowing where they stand?
 
712 said:
I got as far as 'Should Parliament control the terms on which we Brexit?'.

It just won't sink in will it JPR, the terms will only be negotiated after article 50, and not by parliament, but by the government.
Whatever the government manages to agree, that is what we will be stuck with, the voter's say is over, parliament's say is over, like it or lump it we're in the hands of Theresa May now. Best of luck to all of us.
Click to expand...

I don't know how the UK foreign policy works but in most EU countries the parliament has the last word on treaties and bilateral agreements. The problem here is that there is a timing confusion, when a country leaves the EU he is free to negotiate with the EU for future eventual treaties and deals, that part isn't an exit process, it's posterior to the exit and some people want to make it anterior to the exit.

But that's nonsensical and fairly dangerous, because if you allow something like that, you create a situation where a country could use article 50 as a bargaining tool. For example a country could trigger the article 50 at the end of a negotiation process with for example Australia and ask for a rebate or they exit which would make the negotiations with Australia nill.
 
JPRouve said:
I don't know how the UK foreign policy works but in most EU countries the parliament has the last word on treaties and bilateral agreements. The problem here is that there is a timing confusion, when a country leaves the EU he is free to negotiate with the EU for future eventual treaties and deals, that part isn't an exit process, it's posterior to the exit and some people want to make it anterior to the exit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the difference is that normally if agreements fall down you are left with the status quo. In this case that is not an option, as article 50 is irrevocable and change will happen, so lack of agreement would be of no benefit to anybody.
 
712 said:
Yeah, the difference is that normally if agreements fall down you are left with the status quo. In this case that is not an option, as article 50 is irrevocable and change will happen, so lack of agreement would be of no benefit to anybody.
Click to expand...

Which is why the exit is only effective after two years, as long as both sides aren't greedy it should be easy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.