Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 24 of 1552 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 16 11.02am
Originally posted by Superfly I think I'm marginally swaying towards OUT but it'll be IN. Anyone who think the public gets a fair, honest and open input into things that impact on business profits hasn't been paying attention. I suspect that even an out, will turn out to develop into a differently named 'business as usual' approach (such as joining the ETA). "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 16 11.02am

Originally posted by Superfly

I think I'm marginally swaying towards OUT but it'll be IN.

Anyone who think the public gets a fair, honest and open input into things that impact on business profits hasn't been paying attention.

I suspect that even an out, will turn out to develop into a differently named 'business as usual' approach (such as joining the ETA).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 07 Mar 16 1.38pm
Out. Why would any one want to be part of an organisation that is intrinsically linked to the Turkish Government, who are currently using the levels of Syrian refugee's they have at their borders (trying to cross to Greece) as a bargaining chip. Loathsome government (should get on well with our own.) "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 07 Mar 16 1.38pm

Out.

Why would any one want to be part of an organisation that is intrinsically linked to the Turkish Government, who are currently using the levels of Syrian refugee's they have at their borders (trying to cross to Greece) as a bargaining chip.

Loathsome government (should get on well with our own.)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 16 2.04pm
Originally posted by dannyh Out. Why would any one want to be part of an organisation that is intrinsically linked to the Turkish Government, who are currently using the levels of Syrian refugee's they have at their borders (trying to cross to Greece) as a bargaining chip. Loathsome government (should get on well with our own.) Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey. Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 16 2.04pm

Originally posted by dannyh

Out.

Loathsome government (should get on well with our own.)

Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey.

Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

exitstageright London 07 Mar 16 2.30pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey. Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out. Well, yes, just one of the many reasons for voting 'out'.

exitstageright

London 07 Mar 16 2.30pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey.

Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out.

Well, yes, just one of the many reasons for voting 'out'.

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 16 2.36pm
Originally posted by exitstageright Well, yes, just one of the many reasons for voting 'out'. Except it has no impact on Syrian refugees and responsibilities of the UK, as those are defined by the United Nations commitments and articles on Refugees, under international law. In fact arguably it would leave us with less options thinking about it, as we couldn't class them as migrants once they leave the country of arrival (EU rulings). Voting out, would like give us less leeway in influencing asylum numbers. I know people like to think voting out means 'we could do what we want and f**k everyone' but it doesn't. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 16 2.36pm

Originally posted by exitstageright

Well, yes, just one of the many reasons for voting 'out'.

Except it has no impact on Syrian refugees and responsibilities of the UK, as those are defined by the United Nations commitments and articles on Refugees, under international law.

In fact arguably it would leave us with less options thinking about it, as we couldn't class them as migrants once they leave the country of arrival (EU rulings).

Voting out, would like give us less leeway in influencing asylum numbers. I know people like to think voting out means 'we could do what we want and f**k everyone' but it doesn't.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 07 Mar 16 2.43pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey. Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out. Well they would do Jamie mate, it's a fact, one of the few available on the subject. "It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

dannyh

wherever I lay my hat....... 07 Mar 16 2.43pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey.

Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out.

Well they would do Jamie mate, it's a fact, one of the few available on the subject.

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 16 5.07pm
Originally posted by dannyh Well they would do Jamie mate, it's a fact, one of the few available on the subject. When I said, here, I meant in the UK. Obviously on HOL there is the assumed cavet that we should accept the fit ones, preferably with the best tits. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 16 5.07pm

Originally posted by dannyh

Well they would do Jamie mate, it's a fact, one of the few available on the subject.

When I said, here, I meant in the UK. Obviously on HOL there is the assumed cavet that we should accept the fit ones, preferably with the best tits.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

exitstageright London 07 Mar 16 5.49pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Except it has no impact on Syrian refugees and responsibilities of the UK, as those are defined by the United Nations commitments and articles on Refugees, under international law. In fact arguably it would leave us with less options thinking about it, as we couldn't class them as migrants once they leave the country of arrival (EU rulings). Voting out, would like give us less leeway in influencing asylum numbers. I know people like to think voting out means 'we could do what we want and fk everyone' but it doesn't. Quite happy to take the few genuine refugees that have not passed through another 'safe country' first. Also being outside the EU will allow us to, in your words, 'fk' more people than we can now.

exitstageright

London 07 Mar 16 5.49pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Except it has no impact on Syrian refugees and responsibilities of the UK, as those are defined by the United Nations commitments and articles on Refugees, under international law.

In fact arguably it would leave us with less options thinking about it, as we couldn't class them as migrants once they leave the country of arrival (EU rulings).

Voting out, would like give us less leeway in influencing asylum numbers. I know people like to think voting out means 'we could do what we want and f**k everyone' but it doesn't.

Quite happy to take the few genuine refugees that have not passed through another 'safe country' first. Also being outside the EU will allow us to, in your words, 'f**k' more people than we can now.

chris123 hove actually 07 Mar 16 6.21pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey. Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out. Not necessarily the spectre of refugees, more the way the EU is incapable of dealing with this due to so many vested interests. The irony of pandering to Turkey on this crisis while overlooking the ongoing domestic abuses that have hampered Turkey's joining the EU in the past.

chris123

hove actually 07 Mar 16 6.21pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

Turkey is part of NATO and a huge trade partner of the UK. UK Engineering firms get a lot of work in Turkey.

Of course plenty of people here are using the 'spectre of Syrian refugees' to push for a out.

Not necessarily the spectre of refugees, more the way the EU is incapable of dealing with this due to so many vested interests. The irony of pandering to Turkey on this crisis while overlooking the ongoing domestic abuses that have hampered Turkey's joining the EU in the past.

davenotamonkey 07 Mar 16 7.31pm
Originally posted by legaleagle So,an organisation has an express policy of neutrality re the issue .Not surprising given likely to have members of varying viewpoints.A senior member of the organisation elects to deliberately ignore the organisation's policy,so is suspended.Again,hardly surprising. Not clear how this could lead any reasonable observer (as opposed to a highly biased one) to suggest he was "suspended by the establishment for saying this" . Interesting indeed,eh? [Link] Except that today it's been confirmed that No. 10 was indeed in touch with the BCC. Clearly they were just after a weather forecast or something, got the wrong number perhaps? David Davis has submitted a Freedom of Information request to determine the exact nature of the communication from the government. What's the legal position on "being forced to resign" by the board legaleagle? Constructive dismissal? I'm no expert on these things. So why not sack him 2 years ago when he said this then? [Link] And while we're at it, why has BCC not sacked Kim Conchie: [Link] nor Tim Allen: [Link] For the same transgression. Ah, because they are against leaving the EU. The penny drops. No wonder business leaders etc are terrified to speak out. All it takes is a tap on someone's shoulder and you're history. If you're on the wrong side, of course.

davenotamonkey

07 Mar 16 7.31pm

Originally posted by legaleagle

So,an organisation has an express policy of neutrality re the issue .Not surprising given likely to have members of varying viewpoints.A senior member of the organisation elects to deliberately ignore the organisation's policy,so is suspended.Again,hardly surprising.

Not clear how this could lead any reasonable observer (as opposed to a highly biased one) to suggest he was "suspended by the establishment for saying this" .

Interesting indeed,eh?

[Link]

Except that today it's been confirmed that No. 10 was indeed in touch with the BCC. Clearly they were just after a weather forecast or something, got the wrong number perhaps?

David Davis has submitted a Freedom of Information request to determine the exact nature of the communication from the government. What's the legal position on "being forced to resign" by the board legaleagle? Constructive dismissal? I'm no expert on these things.

So why not sack him 2 years ago when he said this then?
[Link]

And while we're at it, why has BCC not sacked Kim Conchie:
[Link]

nor Tim Allen:
[Link]

For the same transgression. Ah, because they are against leaving the EU. The penny drops.

No wonder business leaders etc are terrified to speak out. All it takes is a tap on someone's shoulder and you're history. If you're on the wrong side, of course.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Mar 16 8.09pm
Originally posted by exitstageright Quite happy to take the few genuine refugees that have not passed through another 'safe country' first. Also being outside the EU will allow us to, in your words, 'f**k' more people than we can now. is there a way refugees can get to the UK without passing through another 'safe country'?

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 07 Mar 16 8.09pm

Originally posted by exitstageright

Quite happy to take the few genuine refugees that have not passed through another 'safe country' first. Also being outside the EU will allow us to, in your words, 'f**k' more people than we can now.

is there a way refugees can get to the UK without passing through another 'safe country'?

johnfirewall 07 Mar 16 8.31pm
Originally posted by nickgusset is there a way refugees can get to the UK without passing through another 'safe country'? "Why would they?" "Because we should take them" is back to page 1 of the Syria thread.

johnfirewall

07 Mar 16 8.31pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

is there a way refugees can get to the UK without passing through another 'safe country'?

"Why would they?"
"Because we should take them"

is back to page 1 of the Syria thread.

chris123 hove actually 07 Mar 16 8.56pm
Originally posted by nickgusset is there a way refugees can get to the UK without passing through another 'safe country'? If they are economic migrants, rather than refugees?

chris123

hove actually 07 Mar 16 8.56pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

is there a way refugees can get to the UK without passing through another 'safe country'?

If they are economic migrants, rather than refugees?

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Mar 16 8.58pm
Originally posted by chris123 If they are economic migrants, rather than refugees? So by that logic, the UK don't take any refugees.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 07 Mar 16 8.58pm

Originally posted by chris123

If they are economic migrants, rather than refugees?

So by that logic, the UK don't take any refugees.

chris123 hove actually 07 Mar 16 8.59pm
Originally posted by nickgusset So by that logic, the UK don't take any refugees. If the UK is the first safe haven, then yes.

chris123

hove actually 07 Mar 16 8.59pm

Originally posted by nickgusset

So by that logic, the UK don't take any refugees.

If the UK is the first safe haven, then yes.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 07 Mar 16 9.45pm
Originally posted by chris123 If the UK is the first safe haven, then yes. So by your logic, then all refugees crossing into Greece should stay there. Bit unfair on Greece. In fact, would you care to list the countries for whom the U.K is the first geographical safe haven. Edited by nickgusset (07 Mar 2016 10.06pm)

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 07 Mar 16 9.45pm

Originally posted by chris123

If the UK is the first safe haven, then yes.

So by your logic, then all refugees crossing into Greece should stay there. Bit unfair on Greece.
In fact, would you care to list the countries for whom the U.K is the first geographical safe haven.

Edited by nickgusset (07 Mar 2016 10.06pm)

jamiemartin721 Reading 07 Mar 16 10.36pm
Originally posted by johnfirewall "Why would they?" "Because we should take them" is back to page 1 of the Syria thread. Because its inherently unfair to expect every other country to do more than us. I think we should take our fair share, no more and no less. Lebanon's population has increased by 20% due to the problems in Syria. Just leaving them to cope will destabilise and already fragile country. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]

jamiemartin721

Reading 07 Mar 16 10.36pm

Originally posted by johnfirewall

"Why would they?"
"Because we should take them"

is back to page 1 of the Syria thread.

Because its inherently unfair to expect every other country to do more than us. I think we should take our fair share, no more and no less.

Lebanon's population has increased by 20% due to the problems in Syria. Just leaving them to cope will destabilise and already fragile country.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

chris123 hove actually 08 Mar 16 5.12am
Originally posted by nickgusset So by your logic, then all refugees crossing into Greece should stay there. Bit unfair on Greece. In fact, would you care to list the countries for whom the U.K is the first geographical safe haven. Edited by nickgusset (07 Mar 2016 10.06pm) Not my logic, it's what the Dublin Convention protocol states.

chris123

hove actually 08 Mar 16 5.12am

Originally posted by nickgusset

So by your logic, then all refugees crossing into Greece should stay there. Bit unfair on Greece.
In fact, would you care to list the countries for whom the U.K is the first geographical safe haven.

Edited by nickgusset (07 Mar 2016 10.06pm)

Not my logic, it's what the Dublin Convention protocol states.

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 08 Mar 16 7.28am
Originally posted by chris123 Not my logic, it's what the Dublin Convention protocol states. What is your opinion? I've heard many people use the 'first safe haven' argument, but I suspect that some of these are of the 'no more bloody foreigners over here' type.

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 08 Mar 16 7.28am

Originally posted by chris123

Not my logic, it's what the Dublin Convention protocol states.

What is your opinion? I've heard many people use the 'first safe haven' argument, but I suspect that some of these are of the 'no more bloody foreigners over here' type.

chris123 hove actually 08 Mar 16 8.27am
Originally posted by nickgusset What is your opinion? I've heard many people use the 'first safe haven' argument, but I suspect that some of these are of the 'no more bloody foreigners over here' type. My opinion is that anyone who passes through the first safe haven is no longer a refugee but an economic migrant and so I'd be a no in that case. I also think and have stated elsewhere on these boards, that the rest of the region has done little to take Syrians and the main Gulf States in particular have failed in this. There has been poor control of Turkish borders with Greece and this has meant many more have come through Greece rather than Bulgaria.

chris123

hove actually 08 Mar 16 8.27am

Originally posted by nickgusset

What is your opinion? I've heard many people use the 'first safe haven' argument, but I suspect that some of these are of the 'no more bloody foreigners over here' type.

My opinion is that anyone who passes through the first safe haven is no longer a refugee but an economic migrant and so I'd be a no in that case.

I also think and have stated elsewhere on these boards, that the rest of the region has done little to take Syrians and the main Gulf States in particular have failed in this.

There has been poor control of Turkish borders with Greece and this has meant many more have come through Greece rather than Bulgaria.

Page 24 of 1552 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map