Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 40 of 2586 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

Topic Locked

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

davenotamonkey

07 Mar 16 7.31pm

Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

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'?
Alert a moderator to this post

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'?

Alert a moderator to this post

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

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?
Alert a moderator to this post

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?

Alert a moderator to this post

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

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)
Alert a moderator to this post

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)

Alert a moderator to this post

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]
Alert a moderator to this post

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]

Alert a moderator to this post

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

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.
Alert a moderator to this post

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.

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 40 of 2586 < 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors