The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 CambridgeEagle  Sydenham 25 Apr 17 9.11am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I don't know and it doesn't matter. All that matters is the government's plan. I voted for Ukip to get out of the EU. If I vote for them again it would only really be over EU related matters. As for the press coverage. I'd say getting four million votes does deserve some....It's more than the SNP got and they get quite a lot in England. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2017 8.45am) SNP got more votes per seat where they stood. They also have 50 odd MPs so actually have some say in Parliament. UKIP don't. Also SNP are in power in Holyrood so actually have power to make some decisions in an important part of the UK. SNP are a lot more relevant than UKIP, especially as they are currently pushing for a second independence referendum. If Scotland leaves the UK they will then cease to be quite so relevant!
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| legaleagle 25 Apr 17 9.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Man oh man this made me so fecking angry. No Nick, people like you with the policies you supported, policies which created so much division for so many....That's what created Ukip.... Farage only had to represent it. So sorry people don't see the world you do...You know. The c--ts who decided how we should live...making huge changes without asking first....they created Farage and you fecking completely deserve him.
I presume you are referring immigration? Forgive me if I am wrong. You suggest its all people like Nick's "fault". So far as I can see,when you refer to C**ts telling you how to live,you must mean telling you to live alongside people who are not the English "volk".Well,that rules out Wilf, Punch, Bolasie,Victor Moses, Nat Clyne etc.None of them have enriched our local football culture at all,have they? Well,without getting into your game of "fault",ie something to blame,let's look at fundamentals. Non EU pre 1990's immigration, fundamental starting point was the Tory governments 1951-64.This included the "muslim" immigration that vexes you so. EU immigration (almost all non Muslim immigration).The key fundamental starting point was Thatcher's vision of an enlarged EU moving eastwards to take in the former Soviet bloc countries in Europe. Mind you,I'd have to agree with you that Thatcher was a c**t,but for different reasons! Edited by legaleagle (25 Apr 2017 9.19am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 25 Apr 17 9.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Haven't got the figures but would be very surprised if the SNP % of the Scottish vote was not significently higher than UKIPs % of the English/Scot/Welsh/Northern Irish vote combined. Their respective target audiences.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Apr 17 9.17am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
SNP got more votes per seat where they stood. They also have 50 odd MPs so actually have some say in Parliament. UKIP don't. Also SNP are in power in Holyrood so actually have power to make some decisions in an important part of the UK. SNP are a lot more relevant than UKIP, especially as they are currently pushing for a second independence referendum. If Scotland leaves the UK they will then cease to be quite so relevant! What does it matter whether they got 'more votes per seat'? Hahaha! It's a UK election and it's a question about UK coverage. Ukip actually had more votes and the question was as too whether they deserved the press they received. They quite plainly did. Though in matters that aren't related to the EU....I'm not quite so sure.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Apr 17 9.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by legaleagle
I presume you are referring immigration? Forgive me if I am wrong. You suggest its all people like Nick's "fault". So far as I can see,when you refer to C**ts telling you how to live,you must mean telling you to live alongside people who are not the English "volk".Well,that rules out Wilf, Punch, Bolasie,Victor Moses, Nat Clyne etc.None of them have enriched our local football culture at all,have they? Well,without getting into your game of "fault",ie something to blame,let's look at fundamentals. Non EU pre 1990's immigration, fundamental starting point was the Tory governments 1951-64.This included the "muslim" immigration that vexes you so. EU immigration (almost all non Muslim immigration).The key fundamental starting point was Thatcher's vision of an enlarged EU moving eastwards to take in the former Soviet bloc countries in Europe. Mind you,I'd have to agree with you that Thatcher was a c**t,but for different reasons! Edited by legaleagle (25 Apr 2017 9.19am) Oh my god this is so stupid! Nearly every time you get this simplistic misunderstanding or maybe it's deliberate who knows. Ok....read slowly so you can take it in. I'm not against immigration that the government can control.....Hang on....have you got that? Let's say this again...so we don't have to put up with stupid posts like the one you just wrote....and just in case you weren't quite taking notice. Me...hell Ukip policy was not to stop immigration. It was to control it. Bring it down certainly but to have the power to decide who we let in. So sorry...you point about football players is completely stupid. And yes, I blame anyone who supported uncontrolled immigration from anywhere, EU or non EU. So that does appear to be people like you and Nick. Congratulations, you created Ukip. You got exactly what you deserved. Islamic immigration....so pleasing to learn that it doesn't 'vex' you. That is a definite issue I have it's true but it's completely unrelated to EU immigration and concerns me on a different level. If it had no effect upon secular society it wouldn't bother me.....But you see...unlike you it appears...I take note of what happens in different countries that undergo different demographic changes. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2017 9.31am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 25 Apr 17 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
As a starting point? A one-size fits all solution like that is way, way too simplistic. There are just so many factors/variables from country to country that will influence relationships and deals. Personalities, positional strengths and weaknesses, public opinion, length of time to finalise a deal, hubris, etc. Don't forget, these are politicians we are talking about. Canada won't rely on EU fruit and veg pickers, for example, to maximise productivity in that sector nor have nearly 20% of Uni Academics from EU countries as we have here [Link] so, perhaps, aspects which are convoluted for the UK/EU are much more black and white for Canada/EU This is not the time for naive idealism. That ended with Article 50 being invoked. Hard practical solutions, please. Canada and the USA are the biggest trade partners in the world 75% of Canadian exports go just over the border. The deal was a last minute political fix but I don't think much actual trade is expected between the EU and Canada its an add-on really. The EU includes us so are in this deal in case we have forgotten we are actually in the EU. It seems most trade is with the country near to you as its just so much easier so its pretty silly not to continue in the single market particularly as its a British initiative from a conservative PM Mrs Thatcher. I am sure I would be quite happy to buy Canadian things but I cannot remember seeing any perhaps McDonalds will do moose-burgers.......
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 25 Apr 17 10.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
Canada and the USA are the biggest trade partners in the world 75% of Canadian exports go just over the border. The deal was a last minute political fix but I don't think much actual trade is expected between the EU and Canada its an add-on really. The EU includes us so are in this deal in case we have forgotten we are actually in the EU. It seems most trade is with the country near to you as its just so much easier so its pretty silly not to continue in the single market particularly as its a British initiative from a conservative PM Mrs Thatcher. I am sure I would be quite happy to buy Canadian things but I cannot remember seeing any perhaps McDonalds will do moose-burgers.......
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 25 Apr 17 10.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
What does it matter whether they got 'more votes per seat'? Hahaha! It's a UK election and it's a question about UK coverage. Ukip actually had more votes and the question was as too whether they deserved the press they received. They quite plainly did. Though in matters that aren't related to the EU....I'm not quite so sure. Well that's how you win seats in Parliament and become relevant. It's also a gauge of how well you're supported by your target audience. Share of the vote is much more important than absolute numbers. SNP are clearly much more important than UKIP and hold much more power. UKIP get way too much airtime and largely it has been due to a cult of personality (Farage), racist things their members come out with in public (Bongo Bongo land for example), or more recently revelations that Paul Nuttall performed just after the Hoff on top of the Berlin wall when it came down and was the lesser known fourth spaceman in the 1969 moon landings, staying in the space craft to keep Michael Collins company.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 25 Apr 17 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CambridgeEagle
Well that's how you win seats in Parliament and become relevant. It's also a gauge of how well you're supported by your target audience. Share of the vote is much more important than absolute numbers. SNP are clearly much more important than UKIP and hold much more power. UKIP get way too much airtime and largely it has been due to a cult of personality (Farage), racist things their members come out with in public (Bongo Bongo land for example), or more recently revelations that Paul Nuttall performed just after the Hoff on top of the Berlin wall when it came down and was the lesser known fourth spaceman in the 1969 moon landings, staying in the space craft to keep Michael Collins company. Well, you say the SNP are more important than Ukip....In Scotland they certainly are....But Ukip's affect upon politics has been far more effective than the Scottish nationalists has. The SNP lost their vote on separation. It is not certain they will be allowed one again. If they are it is unlikely that they will succeed in a vote for independence....though that's just my take on that. The fact that Ukip gained four million votes...which again is more than the SNP....yet had just one MP shows a weakness in the democratic process. You can go on about seats all you like...and in a way I agree with you but the point still remains that sheer vote size wasn't rewarded with representation. Regardless, none of these are points to do with the one I made. Nick implied that Ukip's press was unwarranted. In fact the vote size shows that it clearly was warranted all along. The fact that you agree with him tells us all we need to know. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2017 10.53am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 25 Apr 17 11.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Oh my god this is so stupid! Nearly every time you get this simplistic misunderstanding or maybe it's deliberate who knows. Ok....read slowly so you can take it in. I'm not against immigration that the government can control.....Hang on....have you got that? Let's say this again...so we don't have to put up with stupid posts like the one you just wrote....and just in case you weren't quite taking notice. Me...hell Ukip policy was not to stop immigration. It was to control it. Bring it down certainly but to have the power to decide who we let in. So sorry...you point about football players is completely stupid. And yes, I blame anyone who supported uncontrolled immigration from anywhere, EU or non EU. So that does appear to be people like you and Nick. Congratulations, you created Ukip. You got exactly what you deserved. Islamic immigration....so pleasing to learn that it doesn't 'vex' you. That is a definite issue I have it's true but it's completely unrelated to EU immigration and concerns me on a different level. If it had no effect upon secular society it wouldn't bother me.....But you see...unlike you it appears...I take note of what happens in different countries that undergo different demographic changes. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2017 9.31am) I challenge you to point out where I have supported uncontrolled immigration. Do we even have uncontrolled immigration or is that a fallacy perpetuated by the media?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Hrolf The Ganger 25 Apr 17 11.13am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I challenge you to point out where I have supported uncontrolled immigration. Do we even have uncontrolled immigration or is that a fallacy perpetuated by the media? Certainly European immigration is not controlled by British government.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| CambridgeEagle Sydenham 25 Apr 17 11.28am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Well, you say the SNP are more important than Ukip....In Scotland they certainly are....But Ukip's affect upon politics has been far more effective than the Scottish nationalists has. The SNP lost their vote on separation. It is not certain they will be allowed one again. If they are it is unlikely that they will succeed in a vote for independence....though that's just my take on that. The fact that Ukip gained four million votes...which again is more than the SNP....yet had just one MP shows a weakness in the democratic process. You can go on about seats all you like...and in a way I agree with you but the point still remains that sheer vote size wasn't rewarded with representation. Regardless, none of these are points to do with the one I made. Nick implied that Ukip's press was unwarranted. In fact the vote size shows that it clearly was warranted all along. The fact that you agree with him tells us all we need to know. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Apr 2017 10.53am) You seemed to suggest UKIP warranted more or equal press compared with the SNP based on number of votes. I disagreed with that. Irrespective of what Nick said. We had a vote on changing the voting system and the Tories wanted to keep FPTP and that's what happened. That's the system we've got and so that's what is relevant. I'd prefer a system closer to PR myself but that's not the system we have. Under the current system their press coverage was unwarranted. You're perfectly right that UKIP have had a significant impact in the past 7 years, however this has been driven by the press giving them disproportionate air time largely as a result of the points I mentioned previously. A lot of their coverage has come for non-policy based reasons!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.