# How Can The BBC Justify.....



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Already known as the Brexit Broadcasting Corporation the state broadcaster have sunk to a new low:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...-powells-rivers-of-blood-speech-a3812551.html










What do they hope to achieve by this?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

When I saw the title, I knew what the thread would be about. Absolutely disgraceful. Shame on the BBC!


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

The BBC; The ministry of truth. Visionaries, liars, fraudsters and profiteers. Propaganda funded and paid for by the TV licence fee.

Have you ever noticed how those _'Rivers of Blood'_ rarely ever flow with the blood of those who first incite the hatred.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Has anyone ever heard the actual speech? Too many people refer to this without actually knowing it's full content (IMO). 

For me this sections stood out in the article ..... "BBC Media Editor Amol Rajan defended the broadcast, saying it would be "broken up, and critiqued by voices from across the spectrum. Not just read out in a single go." 

I think it sounds interesting & will be listening to others' interpretation & views on it


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> Has anyone ever heard the actual speech? Too many people refer to this without actually knowing it's full content (IMO).
> 
> For me this sections stood out in the article ..... "BBC Media Editor Amol Rajan defended the broadcast, saying it would be "broken up, and critiqued by voices from across the spectrum. Not just read out in a single go."
> 
> I think it sounds interesting & will be listening to others' interpretation & views on it


Has anyone read Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? I don't think we need to do without getting an idea what that's about.

Perhaps the BBC should serialise an English translation read by Nigel Farage?

Powell's speech was enough to get him fired from the Conservative Party at the time. I think that says enough!

I'm too young to remember it myself but did see a local news item featuring a group of people who held a petition in support of the speech.

The Tyne Tees reporter asked one of them who said she was not racist but..... Anyway the reporter put it to her she must be racist if she declares supporting the speech.
She replied after a pause, "You got me there".

Actually I don't believe in censorship but I find the timing of this very wrong with the rising of the far right and reports of increasing racial hatred we've seen recently.

Powell's speech was made, that can't be unchanged. That was the attitude of the time.

But it belongs in the past.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

KittenKong said:


> Has anyone read Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? I don't think we need to do without getting an idea what that's about.
> 
> Perhaps the BBC should serialise an English translation read by Nigel Farage?
> 
> ...


I haven't read it all no but I have listed to & watched various programmes about it. We shouldn't hide the past but try to understand & learn from it which sounds exactly what this programme will be about ... & for me, the timing will be spot on.

I also think there is too much censorship now which is stifling debate, people are offended by everything they disagree with & feel that people should be silenced for having opposing views (not directing this at anyone her btw!) & I feel this is leading to people feeling they are being marginalised.

Lets talk about this speech & how people feel about it now, how it's being used by the far right, etc .... why is that wrong?


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

I don't see the fuss. It's history. 
Maybe done as Cleo says, sounds interesting/educational/ balanced

I'd put more energies into being upset by divisive headlines on some of the newspapers, leaning right and left !


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

Surely it depends on the context?? If its to disprove and debunk any inappropriate comments then isnt that a good thing? You shouldnt brush this stuff under the carpet...as the quote goes 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.

As for sending everybody back where they came from, I really hope not. Was working last night and not sure the ward would of coped if 6 of the staff had suddenly vanished and left just the 2 of us!LOL:Hilarious


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

catz4m8z said:


> Surely it depends on the context?? If its to disprove and debunk any inappropriate comments then isnt that a good thing? You shouldnt brush this stuff under the carpet...as the quote goes 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it'.
> 
> As for sending everybody back where they came from, I really hope not. Was working last night and not sure the ward would of coped if 6 of the staff had suddenly vanished and left just the 2 of us!LOL:Hilarious


Good points! And good humour.
Yeah I don't think I'll judge a political angle until I've watched it.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

For any one who feels the need you can read it here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html

and an article from the Guardian last year which shows that there have always been, and I hope will always be, at least two sides
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...they-fell-out-over-his-rivers-of-blood-speech

(The couple who were friends and were babysitting for Powell while he made that speech did not speak to him again for many years, the woman never did, the man eventually did)


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Interesting points raised by all. Had the speech been printed in, "The Guardian" for example may have come over differently to how it may do on the BBC.

The broadcaster have adopted a firm pro right agenda in recent months with multiple appearances of Farage on, "Question Time" for example.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

KittenKong said:


> Interesting points raised by all. Had the speech been printed in, "The Guardian" for example may have come over differently to how it may do on the BBC.
> 
> The broadcaster have adopted a firm pro right agenda in recent months with multiple appearances of Farage on, "Question Time" for example.


But why shouldn't he be on there? Or should we only have people who's opinions are more PC?


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Does anyone remember it.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

It’s 50 years old. Surely it is now a matter of historical interest. I don’t think the idea of broadcasting it is so awful. I wasn’t really old enough to analyse it all those years ago so I am quite interested. I do know my very hazy memory of it doesn’t necessarily gel with the way it’s been portrayed since. I’d rather hear the whole thing rather than carefully selected sound bites which is what we’ve been fed over the years.


----------



## Smuge (Feb 6, 2017)

Maybe we should only cover the parts of history you personally agree with and approve of? School textbooks, museums, documentaries, historical records etc are all going to need to be censored. I suppose removing every mention of Nazi Germany alone will take an awful lot of work. And what if they learn about WW2 from a non British source? Best to just shut down the internet/radio/tv/books?



KittenKong said:


> Interesting points raised by all. Had the speech been printed in, "The Guardian" for example may have come over differently to how it may do on the BBC.
> 
> The broadcaster have adopted a firm pro right agenda in recent months with multiple appearances of Farage on, "Question Time" for example.


Well for example, when Farage is on Question time there is always at least one (lets be realistic, usually more) EU supporter on the other side of the panel. This is because the BBC has to show both sides, not just the one each individual viewer supports. You may not like Farage, but he is the favoured politician of a large number of voters and license payers.

The idea that politicians you don't like shouldn't be allowed on the BBC is absurd. if this changes? I personally will look forward to Jerermy Corbyn being banned from the BBC for life.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

KittenKong said:


> Has anyone read Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? I don't think we need to do without getting an idea what that's about.
> 
> Perhaps the BBC should serialise an English translation read by Nigel Farage?
> 
> ...


Funnily enough my OH is reading Mein Kampf at the moment and we've both been reading about eugenics in the USA and about the number of women who were sterilised against their will way before Hitler came on the scene. Its shocking but its history and how will young people learn about the mistakes of the past if we don't let them hear it?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I would also say that seeing it as it was spoken has more value than reading the transcript. How often do we say on here that you don’t always get proper context or intended emotion from the written word? 

We can’t ignore things we don’t like and it can be very dangerous to do so. There are still plenty of people with horrendously racist views, if anything I think it’s worse in some ways than it was fifty years ago.


----------



## Smuge (Feb 6, 2017)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Funnily enough my OH is reading Mein Kampf at the moment and we've both been reading about eugenics in the USA and about the number of women who were sterilised against their will way before Hitler came on the scene. Its shocking but its history and how will young people learn about the mistakes of the past if we don't let them hear it?


I did a history degree, I have read parts of it and several communist books. That is kind of what history and education is about.

Someone said something in this thread along the lines of 'if something represents the attitudes of the past it should be left in the past' this attitude is frankly scary. Should we not learn about the holocaust? Some of the recent antisemitism reports in the news over the last few weeks shows what happens when people don't understand these issues. We should look at and learn from history both good and bad.

I was born in the 90's, should I not have learned about slavery? the holocaust, the nazi's, World War 1, the foundation of America, the industrial revolution etc because somewhere in all those stories there was always something that made someone feel uncomfortable? I know that we live in an era of trigger warnings and twitter witch haunts, but applying this to history is frankly scary.

If you censor every part of history you find distasteful, well what was the famous quote? Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Happy Paws said:


> Does anyone remember it.


From the extracts I've seen and heard anyone today would be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred for such a speech. Even his own party were appalled - In 1968.

With so much, "Looking to the past" We've witnessed in recent times we can only hope some won't get the impression such a statement would be deemed acceptable today.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> From the extracts I've seen and heard anyone today would be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred for such a speech. Even his own party were appalled - In 1968.
> 
> With so much, "Looking to the past" We've witnessed in recent times we can only hope some won't get the impression such a statement would be deemed acceptable today.


I think it will show how far we have come and how we as a country have dealt with rascism and that Powell was wrong .


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> But why shouldn't he be on there? Or should we only have people who's opinions are more PC?





Smuge said:


> Maybe we should only cover the parts of history you personally agree with and approve of? School textbooks, museums, documentaries, historical records etc are all going to need to be censored. I suppose removing every mention of Nazi Germany alone will take an awful lot of work. And what if they learn about WW2 from a non British source? Best to just shut down the internet/radio/tv/books?
> 
> Well for example, when Farage is on Question time there is always at least one (lets be realistic, usually more) EU supporter on the other side of the panel. This is because the BBC has to show both sides, not just the one each individual viewer supports. You may not like Farage, but he is the favoured politician of a large number of voters and license payers.
> 
> The idea that politicians you don't like shouldn't be allowed on the BBC is absurd. if this changes? I personally will look forward to Jerermy Corbyn being banned from the BBC for life.


Farage is a hate monger, the BBC by constantly giving him & his ilk a platform have helped normalise xenophobia. The hard right get far more air time than the left. Farage isnt even an MP yet he has more appearances on the BBC than ,say, our only Green MP -Caroline Lucas.

*FARAGE HAS MADE THE JOINT HIGHEST NUMBER OF QUESTION TIME APPEARANCES THIS CENTURY*

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2018...er-of-question-time-appearances-this-century/



kimthecat said:


> I think it will show how far we have come and how we as a country have dealt with rascism and that Powell was wrong .


Xenophobia & hate crimes are on the rise here & elsewhere thanks to the likes of Farage & Trump. Its thanks to the lies peddled by Farage et al that people believed/believe pressure from immigrants was/is responsible for the crisis facing our NHS, public services & housing.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Farage is a hate monger, the BBC by constantly giving him & his ilk a platform have helped normalise xenophobia. The hard right get far more air time than the left. Farage isnt even an MP yet he has more appearances on the BBC than say, the likes of Caroline Lucas.
> 
> *FARAGE HAS MADE THE JOINT HIGHEST NUMBER OF QUESTION TIME APPEARANCES THIS CENTURY*
> 
> ...


I disagree, I don;t like the man but he is relevent. It's not about 'nomalising' ehaviours of views but representing them & having debate. Tbh I think alot of people feel they haven't got a voice & are constantly being shouted down for their opirions if they are not PC or are seen as being old fashioned Before Brext I was shocked at the amount of vitriol directed at those who wanted to leave by the some off the remainers (I also voted to remain in the EU), accusations of racisim, etc that simply weren't true for lot of people.

For alot of people Nigel Farage is relevent so why should their views be disregarded? Silencing people or telling them they are wrong does not change opinions, surely active debates & discussions with facts is far more effective for exposing people


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

KittenKong said:


> From the extracts I've seen and heard anyone today would be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred for such a speech. Even his own party were appalled - In 1968.
> 
> With so much, "Looking to the past" We've witnessed in recent times we can only hope some won't get the impression such a statement would be deemed acceptable today.


Maybe not in todays climate, but if you read between the lines he spoke a lot of truth but he could have handled it better, even so there was a lot of support for him as well.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> I disagree, I don;t like the man but he is relevent. It's not about 'nomalising' ehaviours of views but representing them & having debate. Tbh I think alot of people feel they haven't got a voice & are constantly being shouted down for their opirions if they are not PC or are seen as being old fashioned Before Brext I was shocked at the amount of vitriol directed at those who wanted to leave by the some off the remainers (I also voted to remain in the EU), accusations of racisim, etc that simply weren't true for lot of people.
> 
> For alot of people Nigel Farage is relevent so why should their views be disregarded? Silencing people or telling them they are wrong does not change opinions, surely active debates & discussions with facts is far more effective for exposing people


When hatemongers like Farage are allowed a platform & their lies go unchallenged it is extremely dangerous for democracy. He has been allowed to spread his hate & fear into the mainstream in the same way Trump has in America. I certainly dont think everyone who voted leave is a racist but most racists did vote leave. The whole leave campaign was xenophobic.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

*I cannot see why it should not be shown. This speech has been spoken about and quoted so many times over the years. Perhaps by showing it people that haven't seen it, or heard about it will get the chance to make up their own minds.*


----------



## Boxerluver30 (Jun 14, 2017)

I think it will depend on how it is discussed, if there is a balanced discussion about it with views for and against and clear reasons explaining why they support these viewpoints (not just oh I hate immigrants) then it could prove quite interesting. I don't like it personally and would never support views like his but that doesn't mean I wont listen to people who do so long as they are able to back up their viewpoint. History is one of my favourite subjects and always has been, lots of horrible things have happened historically, and yes it is important we know about this and learn from it I think. IF the BBC do a discussion basically agreeing with it then yes I can understand people getting angry (Would they though?). But just getting angry at the idea of them broadcasting and discussing it without even knowing how this will be done, do some people not like learning about anything that they dislike? (I'm not saying that In a judgy way, just genuinely curious?)


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

Boxerluver30 said:


> I think it will depend on how it is discussed, if there is a balanced discussion about it with views for and against and clear reasons explaining why they support these viewpoints (not just oh I hate immigrants) then it could prove quite interesting. I don't like it personally and would never support views like his but that doesn't mean I wont listen to people who do so long as they are able to back up their viewpoint. History is one of my favourite subjects and always has been, lots of horrible things have happened historically, and yes it is important we know about this and learn from it I think. IF the BBC do a discussion basically agreeing with it then yes I can understand people getting angry (Would they though?). But just getting angry at the idea of them broadcasting and discussing it without even knowing how this will be done, do some people not like learning about anything that they dislike? (I'm not saying that In a judgy way, just genuinely curious?)


*I dread to think what a debate on the BBC would turn out like. *


----------



## Boxerluver30 (Jun 14, 2017)

JANICE199 said:


> *I dread to think what a debate on the BBC would turn out like. *


I don't watch it (or TV in general really) so I wouldn't know, just thinking out loud really. I'll take your word for it though lol


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

An example of why people are concerned about broadcasting the speech >>>

*Leave.EU*‏Verified [email protected]
_People still listen to Enoch Powell half a century after his famous speech, while nobody cares what @Andrew_Adonis says about anything. 
No wonder he's so bitter about the BBC broadcasting the Rivers of Blood speech tomorrow! 
Support us at http://leave.eu/get-involved_










Andrew Adonis's letter










And tweets from a commentator on the program, now bitterly regretting taking part.

*Shirin Hirsch*‏@ShirinHirsch
Shirin Hirsch Retweeted Amol Rajan

Disgusted by the way the BBC are promoting this show. I made a mistake and was interviewed for this but I have been sick with worry since
seeing the way this is being presented.

*Shirin Hirsch*‏@ShirinHirsch 24h24 hours ago
Thanks. I'm still hoping my section will be withdrawn from the show. When I was asked to be interviewed I wasn't told the full speech would be played. 
but I should have been more careful. 
Whole experience has been terrible


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> When hatemongers like Farage are allowed a platform & their lies go unchallenged it is extremely dangerous for democracy. He has been allowed to spread his hate & fear into the mainstream in the same way Trump has in America. I certainly dont think everyone who voted leave is a racist but most racists did vote leave. The whole leave campaign was xenophobic.


But they don't go unchallenged though, these are the perfect platforms to give them not only as they are relevent to the discussion but also to challenge them. You can't ban people from having a voice just because they hold different opinions to you, that's madness .

They had an Islamic hate preacher on the Jeremy Vine show a few months ago & people were saying similar (now he really was a hate preacher) but really it could have been a really interesting way in seeing his arguements shot down by someone who really knew their history & the Koran .... but instead they had the dreadful Saira Khan on there as a counter arguement & she was terrible. Such a shame I thought.

And whilst not wanting to turn this in to another Brexit thread I think both campaigns were appalling & based on lies but I think for once people had a chance to do something & felt they could make a difference (in both camps). Regarding the immigration aspect, how many times have concerns been raised by people & they have been shot down & accused of racism? It seems that it has become a subject that we can no longer discuss with the R word being thrown in .. at times it be right to use that terminology but surely listening & understanding why people feel like that is a better way than shouting them down.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> But they don't go unchallenged though, these are the perfect platforms to give them not only as they are relevent to the discussion but also to challenge them. You can't ban people from having a voice just because they hold different opinions to you, that's madness .
> 
> They had an Islamic hate preacher on the Jeremy Vine show a few months ago & people were saying similar (now he really was a hate preacher) but really it could have been a really interesting way in seeing his arguements shot down by someone who really knew their history & the Koran .... but instead they had the dreadful Saira Khan on there as a counter arguement & she was terrible. Such a shame I thought.
> 
> And whilst not wanting to turn this in to another Brexit thread I think both campaigns were appalling & based on lies but I think for once people had a chance to do something & felt they could make a difference (in both camps). Regarding the immigration aspect, how many times have concerns been raised by people & they have been shot down & accused of racism? It seems that it has become a subject that we can no longer discuss with the R word being thrown in .. at times it be right to use that terminology but surely listening & understanding why people feel like that is a better way than shouting them down.


But many people now believe immigration is having a negative impact on the health service, public services etc - & a big part of that is our state broadcaster failing to do its job of presenting facts & holding politicians like Farage to account when they peddle lies. It should be about facts not opinion. Journalists are supposed to find out what is supported by evidence & challenge politicians when they deliberately mislead & lie to us.

The people trying to present the facts on immigration based on evidence were drowned out by the likes of Farage & other right wing populist politicians. And herein lies the problem with BBC.


----------



## JANICE199 (Feb 1, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> An example of why people are concerned about broadcasting the speech >>>
> 
> *Leave.EU*‏Verified [email protected]
> _People still listen to Enoch Powell half a century after his famous speech, while nobody cares what @Andrew_Adonis says about anything.
> ...


*Noushka, i was born in 1950, i can't say i remember hearing this speech in full. But i do remember that " black" people were few and far between. I also remember in the early 60's " the paddies" ( irish men workers), were more or less frowned on in the same way. Then we had Pakistanie people, or the uproar then too. I can remember people being worried these new people were going to steel our jobs, homes and so on. Sound familiar? *
*I don't think it is right to stop the speech, but as i have said, i DO worry about the way the bbc handles it. *


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

KittenKong said:


> From the extracts I've seen and heard anyone today would be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred for such a speech


Of course they would but that doesn't mean people aren't thinking such things or speaking them where they feel safe to do so. Making something illegal doesn't suddenly make everyone nice, it just gives society the chance to punish those who get caught. This country may be less overtly racist than in the past but that's all.


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

Sez it all


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

havoc said:


> Of course they would but that doesn't mean people aren't thinking such things or speaking them where they feel safe to do so. Making something illegal doesn't suddenly make everyone nice, it just gives society the chance to punish those who get caught. This country may be less overtly racist than in the past but that's all.


I agree to a point. However the BBC have given Farage much platform and hardy challenged Nigel Lawson over his climate change denials.

The UK may have been less racist in the past but in recent times its seems some find it acceptable again.

The BBC have showed much lacking in impartiality lately even Murdoch's Sky News is now seen as being more balanced!

That's why I don't believe they are the right organisation to give fresh publicly to the speech, whether good or bad.

Having said that I have read all your comments with interest and accept what you've all said.

Listening to a racist doesn't automatically turn one into a racist in much the same way watching a horror film doesn't automatically turn the viewer into a cold blooded killer.


----------



## Boxerluver30 (Jun 14, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> I agree to a point. However the BBC have given Farage much platform and hardy challenged Nigel Lawson over his climate change denials.
> 
> The UK may have been less racist in the past but in recent times its seems some find it acceptable again.
> 
> ...


So i'm interested now, would you be more happy with it being broadcast and discussed by a different organisation who you think would be more willing to discuss in a balanced manner? Or would you rather it wasn't broadcast and discussed at all? Just curious


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

I am trying to work out myself whether the arguments are against it being shown at all or about who shows it and how. The only unbiased way of showing it at all is in it’s entirety, without interruptions and probably without comment. I’d trust people to make up their own minds and I doubt many (if any) would change from an original position having seen it.


----------



## steveshanks (Feb 19, 2015)

I've read the speech (forgot most of it) and have read some of Mein Kampf while studying modern history, and guess what, I'm not a racist  One very important thing i learned on that course was never to forget the bad parts of history and some (many) would say this is the reason we ended up in WW2. There are so many 20 somethings these days that have no idea what our parents and grandparents went through and why and that is a very dangerous thing to happen as they need to learn from past generations mistakes.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Boxerluver30 said:


> So i'm interested now, would you be more happy with it being broadcast and discussed by a different organisation who you think would be more willing to discuss in a balanced manner? Or would you rather it wasn't broadcast and discussed at all? Just curious


No, I wouldn't want any UK broadcaster to show it. My point about the BBC is they're giving a platform for a modern day xenophobe and now want an audience for a dead one to mark the 50th Anniversary of a deeply offensive and divisive speech which will only re-open wounds.

The country has moved on considerably since then until a couple of years ago when it was put into reverse gear.

Only recently there was a far right campaign to, "Punish a Muslim". The BBC do choose their moments don't they.

Yes, Powell's speech happened, it's indeed part of history but a very dark moment as far as British history is concerned. Would anyone support a German state broadcaster showing the Speeches of Adolf Hitler on the centenary of him becoming Chancellor?

If this must be broadcast it should be after the watershed (2100hrs+), which I believe applies to radio as well as television.


----------



## Boxerluver30 (Jun 14, 2017)

KittenKong said:


> No, I wouldn't want any UK broadcaster to show it. My point about the BBC is they're giving a platform for a modern day xenophobe and now want an audience for a dead one to mark the 50th Anniversary of a deeply offensive and divisive speech which will only re-open wounds.
> 
> The country has moved on considerably since then until a couple of years ago when it was put into reverse gear.
> 
> ...


Ok thanks for clarifying as I wasn't sure. I do think the timing is a bit off, maybe it would be best to wait a little before broadcasting it (unlikely though what with it being the 50th anniversary). So your main worry is it will incite more racial hatred and xenophobia? That is a genuine concern and one I can understand however it really is up to individuals to make up their own minds and I don't think it's neccesarily good to hide these things away. Like I said I think the speech is awful too and I hope this doesn't cause a massive backlash inciting more racial hatred/xenophobia. But it's going to be broadcast either way so let's just hope most people see it for what it is.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

KittenKong said:


> Would anyone support a German state broadcaster showing the Speeches of Adolf Hitler on the centenary of him becoming Chancellor?


But they are shown often and we consider doing so a warning rather an incitement. Maybe the real problem here is that Powell's speech hasn't been shown enough so has been built up in people's minds rather than being dismissed with contempt.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

JANICE199 said:


> *Noushka, i was born in 1950, i can't say i remember hearing this speech in full. But i do remember that " black" people were few and far between. I also remember in the early 60's " the paddies" ( irish men workers), were more or less frowned on in the same way. Then we had Pakistanie people, or the uproar then too. I can remember people being worried these new people were going to steel our jobs, homes and so on. Sound familiar? *
> *I don't think it is right to stop the speech, but as i have said, i DO worry about the way the bbc handles it. *


I believe the full speech was banned because of fears it would stir up racial hatred. This is why many are so concerned now. Especially so in the current climate . I think we've probably always needed more education on the benefits migrants bring to this country. The right wing press & certain politicians have been drip feeding us lies for decades - using migrants as a scapegoat & distraction for governments failures.(its a well used tactic particularly of right wing governments)

The way the BBC are presenting it online isnt very reassuring. Well see I guess.



foxiesummer said:


> Sez it all
> View attachment 351494


Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to incite hatred.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

LOL

*David Schneider*‏Verified [email protected] Apr 12
[#bbcqt office]

"This Powell guy seems good. Maybe we can get him on in the weeks Farage can't make it"


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

noushka05 said:


> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to incite hatred


It absolutely doesn't, at least not nowadays under our current laws. The original speech was in response to the introduction of race relation legislation. It was a political act which happened to expose the views of a politician. His own party reacted correctly and I do think it's been allowed to be built up to much more than it should. That's the danger when you try to silence people - whatever their views.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to incite hatred.


No, but then it also doesn't mean that controversial or diverse topics shouldn't be discussed. We have so many subjects now off the agenda for sensible debate because people deem them to be 'offensive' or may cause offense, people sign online petitions to try & stop elected heads of state coming to the country, requesting removal of historical statues, even art galleries now removing works as nudity may offend ......

Having listened to several programmes presented by Amol Rajan I doubt there will be any content that could be deemed to incite any sort of hatred.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

It’s a really important historical moment.

You’ll find most children study this in their history lessons in secondary school, as we should try to learn from history instead of pretending it didn’t happen. 

If you don’t want to be reminded of awful things that have happened, then don’t listen to/read them. 

As someone who studied A-level history ready my struggle was compulsory, are we now trying to forget Hitler as well?!


----------



## Julesky (Feb 10, 2012)

On theme, but on a different slant...
Did anyone watch, 'Louis meets the Nazis' in the Louise Theroux series.. or the Westboro maniacs?

We could well argue giving these people any kind of publicity facilitates people with the same ideals to join their numbers/strengthen their ranks. But equally I think showing that actually there is a segment of society that do foster racist ideals or fascist beliefs is a discussion as a society we need to have.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Julesky said:


> On theme, but on a different slant...
> Did anyone watch, 'Louis meets the Nazis' in the Louise Theroux series.. or the Westboro maniacs?
> 
> We could well argue giving these people any kind of publicity facilitates people with the same ideals to join their numbers/strengthen their ranks. But equally I think showing that actually there is a segment of society that do foster racist ideals or fascist beliefs is a discussion as a society we need to have.


I think there was an episode of, "The Tomorrow People" where one of them was brainwashed by an alien source disguised as Adolf Hitler! The leader John eventually snapped his colleague out of it and expressed how evil Hitler was to him.

I remember a BBCtv drama years ago involving a far right fascist group. The fictional one they created beared Powell's portrait and name.


----------



## Boxerluver30 (Jun 14, 2017)

Julesky said:


> On theme, but on a different slant...
> Did anyone watch, 'Louis meets the Nazis' in the Louise Theroux series.. or the Westboro maniacs?
> 
> We could well argue giving these people any kind of publicity facilitates people with the same ideals to join their numbers/strengthen their ranks. But equally I think showing that actually there is a segment of society that do foster racist ideals or fascist beliefs is a discussion as a society we need to have.


I've seen the westboro one he did, I remember watching it in RE at school as well. They were crazy and like I said about the speech I would hope most people would see them for what they are


----------



## mewtoo (Aug 31, 2017)

Communists are upset that this speech was aired.
Globalists are upset that this speech was aired.
And that's it. No one else minds.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

KittenKong said:


> Powell's speech was enough to get him fired from the Conservative Party at the time. I think that says enough!


This is actually my first post on the forum and I never thought I would make my first post responding to a thread about the BBC's decision to air the "Rivers of Blood" speech.

Many prominent Conservatives disagreed with the sacking of Powell and his speech is regarded as having a decisive roll in the 1970 Conservative election win. The most prominent was Margaret Thatcher who told Heath that he should have waited. After Heath sacked Powell he never once criticised him because he knew he had a large backing in the party. Also, polls after the speech stated that up to 74% of the British population agreed with the basic points of the speech.

According to George L. Bernstein, the speech made the British people think that Powell, "was the first British politician who was actually listening to them".

Heath himself later reflected 30 years after the speech and said that Powell's arguments against mass immigration were "not without prescience".



> I'm too young to remember it myself but did see a local news item featuring a group of people who held a petition in support of the speech.


I was in my early twenties when he made the speech and I remember quite clearly the amount of support he had for making what many people were thinking. The speech made him a national figure.



> The Tyne Tees reporter asked one of them who said she was not racist but..... Anyway the reporter put it to her she must be racist if she declares supporting the speech.
> She replied after a pause, "You got me there".


I will take your word for that but that does not mean the speech was racist.



> Actually I don't believe in censorship but I find the timing of this very wrong with the rising of the far right and reports of increasing racial hatred we've seen recently.
> 
> Powell's speech was made, that can't be unchanged. That was the attitude of the time.
> 
> But it belongs in the past.


I wholeheartedly disagree with you. The idea that any attempt at criticisng immigration equates to being far-right is a boogeyman and holds no credit whatsoever. If you actually bothered to look at Powell's own beliefs, known as Powellism, you will soon discover that many of his views were actually left-wing. For example, he was one of the few Conservative politicians at that time who supported gay marriage. He was against capital punishment and the use of nuclear weapons. His social views were very different from many of his fellow Conservative friends.

The basic tenets of the speech hold as true today as they did in 1968. Which part(s) of the speech are no longer relevant?



KittenKong said:


> From the extracts I've seen and heard anyone today would be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred for such a speech. Even his own party were appalled - In 1968.


I do hope you are aware that many of the things he said were actually quotes from his constituents and not his own words. I have watched documentaries in which the people have edited the snippets to make it appear that those were his words, the most known is the sentence, "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man." Those were the words of one of his constituents and he went on to say, "I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation? The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so."

Some party members were appalled but the vast majority were not, Heseltine told one of his friends that if Powell had attempted to become leader of the Conservative Party after he made that speech he would have done so with ease.



> With so much, "Looking to the past" We've witnessed in recent times we can only hope some won't get the impression such a statement would be deemed acceptable today.


Freedom of speech should allow someone to say something, no matter how offensive it is considered to be by another person. After all, the feeling of being offended is subjective. I disagree with what some politicians say but I still think they should be allowed to have the ability to say those things.

I am almost certain that if a speech similar were made today then it would be the same as 1968, the vast majority of the British people would support the basic points.



noushka05 said:


> When hatemongers like Farage are allowed a platform & their lies go unchallenged it is extremely dangerous for democracy. He has been allowed to spread his hate & fear into the mainstream in the same way Trump has in America. I certainly dont think everyone who voted leave is a racist but most racists did vote leave. The whole leave campaign was xenophobic.


How is Farage a hatemonger? I have listened to him speak before and I have never found anything he said to be anything remotely liable to be considered hateful. Perhaps you could cite me some examples.

No, democracy allows all forms of opinions and views to be heard. Attempting to censor someone's views because you disagree with them is hardly compatible with democracy.

The idea that "most racists" voted leave is almost certainly an argument from ignorance. How do you know that? Also, how was the "whole leave campaign" xenophobic? Someone being critical of uncontrolled immigration which the EU permits from the other countries that are part of the EU is not xenophobic. How is being considered about the vast influx of uncontrolled immigrants an irrational fear? Even many immigrant descended people voted to leave because of the immigration problem.



noushka05 said:


> But many people now believe immigration is having a negative impact on the health service, public services etc - & a big part of that is our state broadcaster failing to do its job of presenting facts & holding politicians like Farage to account when they peddle lies. It should be about facts not opinion. Journalists are supposed to find out what is supported by evidence & challenge politicians when they deliberately mislead & lie to us.


I don't think you have to be Albert Einstein to know that if you have too many people with limited services then there are going to be strains on those services and problems are going to arise. There is ample evidence that immigration is causing problems.

One example is the NHS, the NHS is having a problem at the moment, consequently the more people using that service will cause more problems in the future. What about other services like the doctors?

Maybe you could cite some sources that claim immigration is not having any negative impacts on society as a whole? I would be very interested to read such sources (if they exist).

If you want to look at journalists that deliberately mislead and lie to the public then look no further than those that work for The Guardian.



> The people trying to present the facts on immigration based on evidence were drowned out by the likes of Farage & other right wing populist politicians. And herein lies the problem with BBC.


No. The statistics are there for everyone to see. You could also visit certain areas to see that whole areas have undergone change that is unprecedented in the whole history of the British Isles. In the last consensus of London less than half of the population ticked "White British", are you going to seriously tell me that is not troublesome for the existence of the British people? Of course people are concerned.

The most prominent left-wing populist so-called politician Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly said that immigration is not a problem and that he doesn't think immigration is too high. Whom is he trying to fool?



KittenKong said:


> No, I wouldn't want any UK broadcaster to show it. My point about the BBC is they're giving a platform for a modern day xenophobe and now want an audience for a dead one to mark the 50th Anniversary of a deeply offensive and divisive speech which will only re-open wounds.


So you are basically advocating censorship. There is no difference between refusing something to be aired and book burning, banning things, etc. There are dozens of Nazi documentaries on the TV every single day, do you think that makes anyone who watches one a Nazi? History is history and should be available for everyone to access.

I listened to the BBC airing of the speech and the reporters did not praise Powell in the slightest apart from the odd neutral comment the rest were negative from anti-racist campaigners and the alike.

Only a minority of people considered it to be "deeply offensive", I will assume those were left-wing Marxists and the alike, the vast majority of the British people actually supported Powell. In 1998 after his death a BBC poll stated that 64% of people questioned said that Powell was not a racist.



> The country has moved on considerably since then until a couple of years ago when it was put into reverse gear.


Are you kidding me? Immigration has been the main key issue for decades now. In the late 1970s the National Front gained huge popularity, not because people necessarily agreed with white supremacy and neo-Nazism but because it was the only party that openly stated that it would stop all immigration. Thatcher was swift and managed to get many of the ex-Conservative voters back to the Conservative Party. Even as far as a few years ago now David Cameron stated that multiculturalism has failed. Apart from those on the far-left, any moderate centre to right politician has stated that immigration needs to be reduced.

Powell said in the 1968 speech:

"There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population."

Have you looked at the demographics of some towns in the UK recently?



> Only recently there was a far right campaign to, "Punish a Muslim". The BBC do choose their moments don't they.


Powell would have wanted nothing to do with such crap. He rejected any idea of joining the National Front. He actually spoke fluent Urdu and highly respected India, I have never read a single word of his that had anything bad to say about Muslims or Islam.



> Yes, Powell's speech happened, it's indeed part of history but a very dark moment as far as British history is concerned. Would anyone support a German state broadcaster showing the Speeches of Adolf Hitler on the centenary of him becoming Chancellor?
> 
> If this must be broadcast it should be after the watershed (2100hrs+), which I believe applies to radio as well as television.


I would support Germany broadcasting Hitler's Chancellor speech on the radio and the television and analysing it, why not?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

noushka05 said:


> Farage is a hate monger,


According to whom?



> the BBC by constantly giving him & his ilk a platform have helped normalise xenophobia. The hard right get far more air time than the left. Farage isnt even an MP yet he has more appearances on the BBC than ,say, our only Green MP -Caroline Lucas.


You seriously think Farage is "hard right"? May I ask, can you cite me one example of Farage's xenophobia?

I think you will find that the left-wing get far more airtime than the right-wing. Political correctness is everywhere.



> Xenophobia & hate crimes are on the rise here & elsewhere thanks to the likes of Farage & Trump. Its thanks to the lies peddled by Farage et al that people believed/believe pressure from immigrants was/is responsible for the crisis facing our NHS, public services & housing.


The politicalscrapbook is a left-wing political blog. Can you actually cite a reliable source? The editor stated it was set up to "to make life difficult for the right".



noushka05 said:


> I believe the full speech was banned because of fears it would stir up racial hatred. This is why many are so concerned now. Especially so in the current climate . I think we've probably always needed more education on the benefits migrants bring to this country. The right wing press & certain politicians have been drip feeding us lies for decades - using migrants as a scapegoat & distraction for governments failures.(its a well used tactic particularly of right wing governments)
> 
> The way the BBC are presenting it online isnt very reassuring. Well see I guess.
> 
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to incite hatred.


Can you please tell me those "benefits"?

Which lies?

The left-wing use migrants as scapegoats, look at the way Diane Abbott responded to the recent Windrush controversy.

Which person gets to decide what is classified as "hatred"?

Politicians have a duty to represent their constituents, as Powell finished his speech, he said, "All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal."



havoc said:


> It absolutely doesn't, at least not nowadays under our current laws. The original speech was in response to the introduction of race relation legislation. It was a political act which happened to expose the views of a politician. His own party reacted correctly and I do think it's been allowed to be built up to much more than it should. That's the danger when you try to silence people - whatever their views.


He made the speech because he believed the legislation would discriminate against the indigenous population. What views were exposed?

Heath sacked Powell but he later reflected on the speech and stated that Powell's concerns were "not without prescience". Hindsight can be a lovely thing!

The aftermath of the speech:

"The speech generated much correspondence to newspapers, most markedly with the _Express & Star_ in Wolverhampton itself, whose local sorting office over the following week received 40,000 postcards and 8,000 letters addressed to its local newspaper. Clem Jones recalled:

Ted Heath made a martyr out of Enoch, but as far as _Express & Star's_ circulation area was concerned, virtually the whole area was determined to make a saint out of him. From the Tuesday through to the end of the week, I had ten, fifteen to twenty bags full of readers' letters: 95 per cent of them were pro-Enoch."

After the 'Rivers of Blood' speech Powell was transformed into a national public figure and won huge support across the UK. Three days after the speech, on 23 April, as the Race Relations Bill was being debated in the House of Commons, 1,000 dockers marched on Westminster protesting against the "victimisation" of Powell, with slogans such as "we want Enoch Powell!" and "Enoch here, Enoch there, we want Enoch everywhere". The next day, 400 meat porters from Smithfield market handed in a 92-page petition in support of Powell, amidst other mass demonstrations of working class support, much of it from trade unionists, in London and Wolverhampton.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

The only people that seem to have a problem with Enoch Powell's speech and the recent airing of it are left-wing people that don't like anything that may challenge their own preconceived beliefs. Many also have misconceptions about Powell and his beliefs.

Can someone actually refute any of Powell's arguments?

Also, just for the record, Powell never once argued against race, he argued against mass immigration. I've not seen any evidence that Powell was racist.

Powell was a highly intelligent man and principled politician, unlike the so-called politicians of today. He was a classic scholar and became a full professor at Ancient Greek at the age of 25. He fought during WW2 in staff and intelligent positions. He was a for a few weeks the youngest brigadier in the British army. He could speak several different languages and was fluent in German, Italian, French, Urdu, Russian, Welsh, modern Greek, Portuguese, etc. At the age of 70 he was learning his 14th language, Hebrew. He was noted for his gift of oratory and his ability to speak in different languages.

He wrote poetry and books about social and political subjects.

For those generally interested in the life of Enoch Powell, I recommend you to read Simon Heffer's biography: _Like The Roman: The Life of Enoch Powell_. There are other books available but that book is the best one out so far.

Also, some of his comments about immigration and race:

In 1964 he said:

"I have and always will set my face like flint against making any difference between one citizen of this country and another on the grounds of his origins."

David Frost asked him "are you a racialist?", he replied:

"It depends on how you define the word "racialist." If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No."

In The Guardian he wrote in 1970:

"It so happens that I never talk about race. I do not know what race is."

In 1968 on _Any Questions?_:

"...it depends indeed on whether the immigrants are different, and different in important respects from the existing population. Clearly, if they are identical, then no change for the good or bad can be brought about by the immigration. But if they are different, and to the extent that they are different, then numbers clearly are of the essence and this is not wholly - or mainly, necessarily - a matter of colour. For example, if the immigrants were Germans or Russians, their colour would be approximately the same as ours, but the problems which would be created and the change which could be brought about by a large introduction of a bloc of Germans or Russians into five areas in this country would be as serious - and in some respects more serious - than could follow from an introduction of a similar number of West Indians or Pakistanis."

In 1969 on the BBC TV:

"Trevor Huddleston: ...what I still want to know from you, really, is why the presence of a coloured immigrant group is objectionable, when the presence of a non-coloured immigrant is not objectionable.
Enoch Powell: Oh no, oh no! On the contrary, I have often said that if we saw the prospect of five million Germans in this country at the end of the century, the risks of disruption and violence would probably be greater, and the antagonism which would be aroused would be more severe. The reason why the whole debate in this country on immigration is related to coloured immigration, is because there has been no net immigration of white Commonwealth citizens, and there could be no migration of aliens. This is merely an automatic consequence of the facts of the case; it is not because there is anything different, because there is anything necessarily more dangerous, about the alienness of a community from Asia, than about the alienness of a community from Turkey or from Germany, that we discuss this inevitably in terms of colour. It is because it is that problem."

Also, let us not forget that in 1959 he made a speech about the Hola Massacre:

"On 27 July 1959, Powell gave his speech on the Hola Camp of Kenya, where eleven Mau Mau were killed after refusing work in the camp. Powell noted that some MPs had described the eleven as "sub-human", but Powell responded by saying: "In general, I would say that it is a fearful doctrine, which must recoil upon the heads of those who pronounce it, to stand in judgement on a fellow human being and to say, 'Because he was such-and-such, therefore the consequences which would otherwise flow from his death shall not flow'." Powell also disagreed with the notion that because it was in Africa, different methods were acceptable:

Nor can we ourselves pick and choose where and in what parts of the world we shall use this or that kind of standard. We cannot say, 'We will have African standards in Africa, Asian standards in Asia and perhaps British standards here at home'. We have not that choice to make. We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained of the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility.

Denis Healeey, a member of parliament from 1952 to 1992, later said this speech was "the greatest parliamentary speech I ever heard... it had all the moral passion and rhetorical force of Demosthenes". _The Daily Telegraph _report of the speech said that "as Mr Powell sat down, he put his hand across his eyes. His emotion was justified, for he had made a great and sincere speech"."

I find it really sad that if anyone seems to say anything positive about Enoch Powell some will regard that person as far-right, racist, fascist and lots of other nonsense. The same can be said if anyone criticises immigration, etc.

Nevertheless, those people that resort to name calling clearly cannot hold an argument so it's pointless even trying to debate with such people.

Recently the Express & Star did an online poll about the question of whether or not Powell should get a blue plaque and out of the 20,000 asked 70% of people agreed he should.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

@David Jason Jones One fine example of Farage's xenophobia and hate mongering, as requested. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> One fine example of Farage's xenophobia and hate mongering.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants


That poster is neither xenophobic nor hate mongering.

Left-wing newspapers regard anything that criticises immigration as a form of xenophobia. It's a boogeyman.

If you actually looked up the definition of 'xenophobia' you would see that it means fear or hatred of people from different countries and cultures, criticising mass immigration does not fall into that category.

I think you will find that if you asked the average person in the street he or she would agree with Farage's poster. Immigration is the main concern for people these days and has been for decades. This also includes those British citizens who are immigrant-descended themselves.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> That poster is neither xenophobic nor hate mongering.


The purpose of the poster was to incite hatred towards other nationals, particularly people with darker skin tones.
Farage openly supported/condoned the poster's message and used it to advantage.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Zaros said:


> The purpose of the poster was to incite hatred towards other nationals, particularly people with darker skin tones.
> Farage openly supported/condoned the poster's message and used it to advantage.


And of course this sort of thing:
















While not Farage personally it's suggesting a predominantly Muslim country is joining the EU with much of this population about to move to the UK!

Wonder what the advertising standards agency have to say about that too?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

So did anyone actually listen in the end? I did & found it very interesting


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> The purpose of the poster was to incite hatred towards other nationals, particularly people with darker skin tones.
> Farage openly supported/condoned the poster's message and used it to advantage.


According to whom?

If you were to try and claim that in a court you would have to provide proof and the chances are that Farage would be able to get you prosecuted for slander.

Are you seriously suggesting that a poster of a potential country joining the EU and displaying its overall population is inciting hatred?

Can you provide some proof that he discriminates against "particularly people with darker skin tones"? I have never heard him once criticise a population because of their skin colour. He is against mass immigration, not all immigration.



KittenKong said:


> And of course this sort of thing:
> View attachment 352660
> View attachment 352661
> 
> ...


The poster does not mention religion, it clearly only states the overall population of the country and the potential that millions of people would be entitled to openly come to the UK if Turkey joined the EU.

Clearly nothing because it is not breaking any rules.



Cleo38 said:


> So did anyone actually listen in the end? I did & found it very interesting


I did. I don't even know what the fuss was all about, the speaker sounded like an idiot most of the time and apart from a couple of somewhat neutral comments the rest were clearly very much against the speech.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

David Jason Jones said:


> I did. I don't even know what the fuss was all about, the speaker sounded like an idiot most of the time and apart from a couple of somewhat neutral comments the rest were clearly very much against the speech.


Yes, I have never heard the speech in full & tbh was slightly disappointed not to hear the actual speech, I don't know why hearing it from an actor is deemed more 'acceptable'.

I did enjoy the programme but in some ways I wish it had been longer, I also wish they had gotten a more diverse group to give their opinions of the speech but then I suppose an already controversial topic would not have been aired if people had seemed to agree with certain sections.

Funny that a big fuss was made & yet I'll bet alot of people didn't even listen in the end


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Cleo38 said:


> Yes, I have never heard the speech in full & tbh was slightly disappointed not to hear the actual speech, I don't know why hearing it from an actor is deemed more 'acceptable'.
> 
> I did enjoy the programme but in some ways I wish it had been longer, I also wish they had gotten a more diverse group to give their opinions of the speech but then I suppose an already controversial topic would not have been aired if people had seemed to agree with certain sections.
> 
> Funny that a big fuss was made & yet I'll bet alot of people didn't even listen in the end


The whole speech was not recorded and there are only snippets available.






Unfortunately, because of this, many left-wing so-called journalists have been and will continue to be disingenuous and claim that the words he spoke were always his words when in fact that was not the case.

Powell replies to David Frost about the quotation, "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.":






A "journalist" used that quote when he asked people in Wolverhampton about what they thought of Powell, pretty shameful journalism really.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> According to whom?
> If you were to try and claim that in a court you would have to provide proof and the chances are that Farage would be able to get you prosecuted for slander.
> Are you seriously suggesting that a poster of a potential country joining the EU and displaying its overall population is inciting hatred?
> Can you provide some proof that he discriminates against "particularly people with darker skin tones"? I have never heard him once criticise a population because of their skin colour. He is against mass immigration, not all immigration.


I think you should take a much closer look at this poster again before you so eagerly defend Farage. Tell me what you do not see.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> I think you should take a much closer look at this poster again before you so eagerly defend Farage. Tell me what you do not see.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-ukip-breaking-point-poster-queue-of-migrants


Please do not make assumptions, I have not personally attacked you. I am not defending Farage. I am simply stating that the poster is not inciting racial hatred. The poster was reported as inciting racial hatred, why did nothing happen? Simple, it did not break any rules. The only people that will claim that sort of poster is inciting racial hatred are those deluded far-left people that consider anything right of Corbyn as racist, fascist, etc.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> Please do not make assumptions,* I have not personally attacked you.* I am not defending Farage. I am simply stating that the poster is not inciting racial hatred. The poster was reported as inciting racial hatred, why did nothing happen? Simple, it did not break any rules. The only people that will claim that sort of poster is inciting racial hatred are *those deluded far-left people* that consider anything right of Corbyn as racist, fascist, etc.


Nor I, you. Yet, with particular regard to attacks, you attack the far left people by calling them deluded.:Wacky

However, what you don't see in the controversial picture is the presence of a white man. What's more, the only visible white man in the entire contentious picture is the Farage himself.

Oh, and I didn't see immigrants either. I saw people.


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Ignoring the haters ..........was Knocker right?

many would say he was bang on the money


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> Nor I, you. Yet, with particular regard to attacks, you attack the far left people by calling them deluded.:Wacky
> 
> However, what you don't see in the controversial picture is the presence of a white man. What's more, the only visible white man in the entire contentious picture is the Farage himself.
> 
> Oh, and I didn't see immigrants either. I saw people.


The far-left are deluded when they like to preach that immigration has no consequences on the native population and on society as a whole.

Immigration and race are not the same. So what if Farage is the only white person in that poster? He has also criticised mass immigration from other European countries.

The immigrants are still people and people can be immigrants.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Immigration and race are not the same. So what if Farage is the only white person in that poster? He has also criticised mass immigration from other European countries.


If you don't understand marketing and playing on people's fears there's no hope. Farage plays on people's fears, scapegoats wherever possible and lies constantly. The poster was used to scare people about immigration from the EU using non-eu people. A blatant propaganda lie.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> If you don't understand marketing and playing on people's fears there's no hope. Farage plays on people's fears, scapegoats wherever possible and lies constantly. The poster was used to scare people about immigration from the EU using non-eu people. A blatant propaganda lie.


Of course I understand what marketing is all about, thank you for your concern. Clearly the poster was not enough for him to be prosecuted after it was reported to the police.

Can you cite quite a few of the lies he has told? Since he "lies constantly" I am sure you will have no problem.

I think you are confused. There were talks of Turkey joining the EU at the time and if Turkey were to join the EU then the overall population potentially could move to other countries that are part of the EU, including the UK. Where is the lie?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> Can you cite quite a few of the lies he has told? Since he "lies constantly" I am sure you will have no problem.


I can. Didn't he once say that 70% of UK laws are made in the EU. And then he claimed the EU cost the UK £55 million every day, which was actually double the real figure.
And, of course, the biggest bloody lie of all, £350 million per week for the NHS?

The grinning idiot is an accomplished bloody liar.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Zaros said:


> I can. Didn't he once say that 70% of UK laws are made in the EU. And then he claimed the EU cost the UK £55 million every day, which was actually double the real figure.
> And, of course, the biggest bloody lie of all, £350 million per week for the NHS?
> 
> The grinning idiot is an accomplished bloody liar.


Lol! Maybe not accomplished or he would be getting away with his lies and he isn't, so maybe accomplished is stretching it a bit.


----------



## Satori (Apr 7, 2013)

Zaros said:


> And, of course, the biggest bloody lie of all, £350 million per week for the NHS?
> 
> The grinning idiot is an accomplished bloody liar.


Can you cite one single occasion of Nigel Farage saying that the NHS would receive £350 million per week?

(The question is rhetorical of course, because we both know that you cannot.)

.... and you have the audacity to call him a liar!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Can you cite quite a few of the lies he has told? Since he "lies constantly" I am sure you will have no problem.


Well you can start with unelected bureaucrats. MEP's never having done any real work perhaps. He pushes how he stands for the UK fishermen, yet only rarely turned up to EU meetings where he was supposed to represent them Maybe if he did he would know the discard policy he was railing about while throwing fish into the thames is being abolished and the process started some time ago. Then you can look at him blaming the EU for stopping chinese dumping of steel on the market. Yet the EU actually had over 15 measures to stop it. Of course Farage stated he is intimately familiar with UK steel, just like he is intimately familiar with fishing.

Let's look at his actions: He courted popularity by warning that tens of millions from Europe are coming to take British jobs, while employing his ex-wife (German) as his secretary. He denounces "the political class" for living like princes at the taxpayers' expense while pocketing every taxpayer-funded allowance he can claim for himself and his colleagues.

He pushed for removing freedom of movement for the next generation knowing his own children will not suffer that restriction.



> There were talks of Turkey joining the EU at the time and if Turkey were to join the EU then the overall population potentially could move to other countries that are part of the EU, including the UK. Where is the lie?


Because it wasn't going to happen unless Turkey fulfilled many EU requirements which even at the time, it was recognised, it wasn't going to happen. Once again he was playing to people's fears, providing a focus on a scapegoat, the EU.

As to far right.. maybe Farage and the UKIP under his leadership joining the Europe for Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group can be explained away as political expedience. However joining an alliance of far right groups says something simply through action.

By the way, do you have any pets?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> I can. Didn't he once say that 70% of UK laws are made in the EU. And then he claimed the EU cost the UK £55 million every day, which was actually double the real figure.
> And, of course, the biggest bloody lie of all, £350 million per week for the NHS?
> 
> The grinning idiot is an accomplished bloody liar.


You have literally just typed into Google, "Nigel Farage lies" and used the examples given from the first link titled, "Does Nigel Farage Tell Lies? Yes, Here's Five Of Them". Surprise surprise, the editor is the Labour MEP Seb Dance.

Firstly, the actual percentage given for the amount of influence the EU has over UK Law has been debated and has actually been suggested with figures as high as 70%. If anything, Dance is being dishonest because he uses thee House of Commons claim of 13.2% but this has been reviewed and is claimed to be too low.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

Farage never once said anything about £350 per week for the NHS. You are confusing Farage with Johnson.

Again, check this source:

https://fullfact.org/europe/350-million-week-boris-johnson-statistics-authority-misuse/

So far, you have not proved your claim about Farage that he "lies constantly". The very fact you have only managed to find two claims which both have turned out to be unfounded clearly puts doubt over your claim.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> Well you can start with unelected bureaucrats. MEP's never having done any real work perhaps. He pushes how he stands for the UK fishermen, yet only rarely turned up to EU meetings where he was supposed to represent them Maybe if he did he would know the discard policy he was railing about while throwing fish into the thames is being abolished and the process started some time ago. Then you can look at him blaming the EU for stopping chinese dumping of steel on the market. Yet the EU actually had over 15 measures to stop it. Of course Farage stated he is intimately familiar with UK steel, just like he is intimately familiar with fishing.


Many politicians have done some form of real work before entering politics becoming a politician. Margaret Thatcher is a great example. Jeremy Corbyn is a great example of a lazy half-wit that has never so much as sweated in his whole life since he has spent decades living off taxpayers' money. A true example of a bum.

He gave his reason why he never bothered turning up to many meetings, he had no power so it would have been a waste of time.

Throwing the fish into the water was politically motivated as a form of protest over the deal that happened.

Farage believes in the independence of Britain, why would he want to vote for an EU move that would act on the behalf of Britain? He has always been anti-EU.

Also, none of the things you have mentioned consist of "lies".

You seem to only be citing rhetoric from _The Guardian_, why is that?



> Let's look at his actions: He courted popularity by warning that tens of millions from Europe are coming to take British jobs, while employing his ex-wife (German) as his secretary. He denounces "the political class" for living like princes at the taxpayers' expense while pocketing every taxpayer-funded allowance he can claim for himself and his colleagues.


He is not wrong in stating that hundreds upon hundreds of people from other EU countries have come here to both work and claim benefits. Of course there are going to be cases in which those people "take" the jobs from the British people. Several industries have suffered because of cheap labour. He has always stated he is against mass immigration, not controlled immigration. He wants the UK to have a points-based immigration system like Australia. He often cites Australia as a good example of controlled and moderate immigration.

I have never actually seen him claim that the political class live like princes, I can only see this used in an article from _The Guardian_ which appears to be the editor's own words. Can you find the actual original source of him making that claim?



> He pushed for removing freedom of movement for the next generation knowing his own children will not suffer that restriction.


Can you provide a source for that claim? I'm fairly sure that is just your opinion.



> Because it wasn't going to happen unless Turkey fulfilled many EU requirements which even at the time, it was recognised, it wasn't going to happen. Once again he was playing to people's fears, providing a focus on a scapegoat, the EU.


People at that time were already aware of how many people could potentially come over to the UK, what was wrong with him in mentioning the truth of Turkey's population that could potentially have come over if Turkey had joined the EU?

The EU hasn't really needed to have been used as a scapegoat, it has enough problems without being blamed for anyone or anything else.



> As to far right.. maybe Farage and the UKIP under his leadership joining the Europe for Freedom and Democracy (EFD) group can be explained away as political expedience. However joining an alliance of far right groups says something simply through action.


Farage is right-wing but he is not far-right. The terms "right-wing" and "far-right" are not interchangeable.



> By the way, do you have any pets?


Yes I do, why?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The issue isn’t whether the poster is a lie or not, the issue is that people are afraid of Others imo.

Say to me ‘omg Turkey might join the Eu’ I’d say ‘So what’, the poster would mean nothing to me and it shouldn’t mean anything to anyone else. That it does is the problem imo and speaks in some way to the lack of success of the Eu and its supporters.

Would it be a problem if Turkey (or other country) met the criteria and did join the Eu and should it be?

Farage wasn’t the only mep who didn’t turn up to debates.  Apparently it’s known that if you aren’t of specific politics there’s no point and Nigel wasn’t of those specific politics. One of the Europeans complained about it and there’s statistical analysis, except I cba to look for it again lol. I think Corbyn complained about it too.

I don’t think Farage lies particularly, he doesn’t need to, it’s a mess.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Zaros said:


> Nor I, you. Yet, with particular regard to attacks, you attack the far left people by calling them deluded.:Wacky
> 
> However, what you don't see in the controversial picture is the presence of a white man. What's more, the only visible white man in the entire contentious picture is the Farage himself.
> 
> Oh, and I didn't see immigrants either. I saw people.


I saw people not colour.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Elles said:


> The issue isn't whether the poster is a lie or not, the issue is that people are afraid of Others imo.


A user has claimed that Farage "lies constantly", that claim is simply not true.



> Say to me 'omg Turkey might join the Eu' I'd say 'So what', the poster would mean nothing to me and it shouldn't mean anything to anyone else. That it does is the problem imo and speaks in some way to the lack of success of the Eu and its supporters.
> 
> Would it be a problem if Turkey (or other country) met the criteria and did join the Eu and should it be?


I am not necessarily speaking about you personally but I can never understand people that say things like "so what?" to things that will clearly more than likely have either a direct or indirect impact on their life (or their family) at some point in the future. It is very easy for people to say "I don't care" if it doesn't affect them at that time but when it actually does then their opinions change. There are now whole areas, especially in England that are no longer British. The last consensus of London revealed that less than half of London is now White British. Are the British people supposed to just stay quiet?

Immigration either from inside of the EU or anywhere is causing huge problems all over Europe. Look at Germany. Merkel's open-door immigration policy has caused the rise of nationalism because ordinary Germans have had enough. In a very short period of time the native Germans have found that there are now villages, cities and parts of towns that are literally no longer German. Are the German people supposed to just ignore the fact that their country is changing beyond recognition? I can easily cite other European countries which have the same problems.

Yes, any country joining the EU and giving the potential for more immigration is a problem that faces us all.

How is assimilation supposed to take place when we have huge numbers of immigrants that are retaining their identities such as Indian, Chinese, Jamaican, etc instead of actually adopting British culture and traditions? This is where the problem lies. Years ago people came to the country and generally speaking integrated and most people accepted and had no problem. However, to give a couple of examples, since Poland joined the EU in 2004 in just over a decade the Polish language is now the second most spoken language in England. There are second and third generation Indians living in the UK that think they are still in India and don't even speak a word of English and still regard themselves as Indian.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> He gave his reason why he never bothered turning up to many meetings, he had no power so it would have been a waste of time.


And a lie to start off with. As an MEP he has power even without attending specialised meetings.



> Throwing the fish into the water was politically motivated as a form of protest over the deal that happened.


Yet he pushed a lie whilst doing so.



> Farage believes in the independence of Britain, why would he want to vote for an EU move that would act on the behalf of Britain? He has always been anti-EU.


Yet he lied about it blaming the EU.



> Also, none of the things you have mentioned consist of "lies".


Beg to differ, simply you don't like admitting they are.



> You seem to only be citing rhetoric from _The Guardian_, why is that?


No, I look at what he has stated and compare it with reality and the truth.



> He is not wrong in stating that hundreds upon hundreds of people from other EU countries have come here to both work and claim benefits.


Yet EU immigrants are a net positive to the UK. EU freedom of movement rules do not allow someone to simply come to the UK to claim benefits. After 3 months they must be in employment or able to support themselves financially and that support must include the cost of healthcare. Whilst the lower wage bracket may be affected (no conclusive evidence) evidence suggests you are wrong overall. Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers. Now if the UK government actually enforced EU rules...



> He wants the UK to have a points-based immigration system like Australia. He often cites Australia as a good example of controlled and moderate immigration


Great marketing isn't it but if he had done any research, not that someone wouldn't have already told him, the UK government looked into it and determined it would not work. It's also interesting that the Australian immigration policy does not stop low wage employment. Instead of cheap labour from the European Union, temporary visas granted to working holiday makers fulfill the same niche. So tell me, how does it help. What's more how does it help in terms of the high number of non-eu immigrants?



> Can you provide a source for that claim? I'm fairly sure that is just your opinion.


Really, so he didn't recently acknowledge his children have german passports and it's simply my opinion.



> People at that time were already aware of how many people could potentially come over to the UK, what was wrong with him in mentioning the truth of Turkey's population that could potentially have come over if Turkey had joined the EU?


They were not though actually going to join were they. Turkey applied and had been told they had to fundamentally change to have any chance of joining.



> Farage is right-wing but he is not far-right. The terms "right-wing" and "far-right" are not interchangeable


Actions speak louder than words.



> Yes I do, why?


Well you joined a pet forum but not posted anything about pets.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> You have literally just typed into Google, "Nigel Farage lies"


Don't tell me what you think I did because you're wrong.

As for the sum of 350 squillion for the NHS, it was the sweetener exploited by many suited crooks and many became aware that this carrot before the donkey turned out to be the greatest lie of all.

As for my political leanings, I do not favour anyone of the corrupt, egocentric little liars and cheats, and most who know me here, not those who have accused me of all manner of nefarious deeds without ground or stable foundation to their accusations, will reliably confirm.
I, personally, think today's politicians, without exception, should be hurled onto a pyre and we should start again with upright, principled and hardworking folk.
Folk who favour all the people and not just their family, friends and affiliated gang members.

Now, excluding politicians, what animals do you care for?


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

You heard it right here guys, if you’re not white you’re not British!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> I don't think you have to be Albert Einstein to know that if you have too many people with limited services then there are going to be strains on those services and problems are going to arise. There is ample evidence that immigration is causing problems.
> 
> One example is the NHS, the NHS is having a problem at the moment, consequently the more people using that service will cause more problems in the future. What about other services like the doctors?
> 
> ...


I've provided plenty of evidence on this forum about the benefits of migrants. So lets see this ample evidence proving the contrary? No dodgy right wing think tanks either. Lets see all those trusted sources which prove immigration is causing problems.

No, the NHS is on the verge of collapse due to underfunding & ramped up privatisation by the tories - you have just regurgitated one of those lies peddled by Farage. This shows how dangerous hate mongers are.

Migrants are the backbone of our NHS - it cannot function without them but thanks to Farage & co we're driving them away.





















David Jason Jones said:


> No. The statistics are there for everyone to see. You could also visit certain areas to see that whole areas have undergone change that is unprecedented in the whole history of the British Isles. In the last consensus of London less than half of the population ticked "White British", are you going to seriously tell me that is not troublesome for the existence of the British people? Of course people are concerned.
> 
> The most prominent left-wing populist so-called politician Jeremy Corbyn has repeatedly said that immigration is not a problem and that he doesn't think immigration is too high. Whom is he trying to fool?





David Jason Jones said:


> According to whom?


If you don't think the language of Enoch Powell was inflammatory you're hardly going to see pound shop Enoch for the xenophobe that he is lol












David Jason Jones said:


> You seriously think Farage is "hard right"? May I ask, can you cite me one example of Farage's xenophobia?
> 
> I think you will find that the left-wing get far more airtime than the right-wing. Political correctness is everywhere


Practically everything that spills out of his mouth is anti immigration. But as you cant see that, maybe these will ring your alarm bells??

Roy Moore is a white supremacist & alleged child molester!










*Nigel Farage to campaign with far-right AfD Party ahead of German elections*

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...erman-elections-far-right-Party-Angela-Merkel

Neo Nazi's love Farage too!.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/en...c3ae4b0e18d11a64429?ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

*Stephen Bannon, Donald Trump's Chief Strategist, Praised By KKK And American Nazis*



Cleo38 said:


> Yes, I have never heard the speech in full & tbh was slightly disappointed not to hear the actual speech, I don't know why hearing it from an actor is deemed more 'acceptable'.
> 
> I did enjoy the programme but in some ways I wish it had been longer, I also wish they had gotten a more diverse group to give their opinions of the speech but then I suppose an already controversial topic would not have been aired if people had seemed to agree with certain sections.
> 
> Funny that a big fuss was made & yet I'll bet alot of people didn't even listen in the end


I'll be honest, I didn't get chance to listen. The way the bbc were presenting it appeared like they were sensationalising it .

As I said I didnt hear it but this the reaction of someone I follow on twitter.
_
To all the white people asking people of colour, immigrants, and their children if we ACTUALLY listened to the #RiversOfBlood BBC broadcast, before offering your critique of it- How dare you. We've ACTUALLY been listening to it for fifty years

"Did you ACTUALLY listen to it? Do you REALLY think we should censor history? Don't you ACTUALLY think its useful to hear how racist it is?" White men are the Columbo's of the universe with your, "Just one more thing!"

No one is asking you for your thoughts (or your questions!) on this. Here's why: your perceived intellectualism and philosophising, is worth less than the actual safety of people who are not like you.

Families are being separated in the U.K. as people are deported after decades of residency. Enoch Powell's speech supports these inhumane actions.

Violence and racial aggression escalates after racist rhetoric has been given a platform, whatever the context (hello, Brexit!), so people of colour are rightfully scared, tired, and equally worried for their mental health.

Its v telling that so many of you think this broadcast was just access to British history. Its not history. It's NOW. Enoch Powell's speech is regurgitated in the Tory party, in our media, in the entire Brexit campaign. What IN THE PAST HISTORY do you think the speech is???

This was not your average documentary or TV series in which lines from key moments in time are presented to you with context-this was essentially framed as an anniversary special, with fascist rhetoric at the heart of the applause.

Historical programmes showing the actions and thoughts of the Nazi party (eg), show the destruction & devastation this caused. @BBCRadio4 centred UK fascism, without ANY presentation of the vast victims of racism, and without giving a voice to immigrants. For this, they failed._rs.



Vanessa131 said:


> You heard it right here guys, if you're not white you're not British!


Says it all


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> That poster is neither xenophobic nor hate mongering.
> 
> Left-wing newspapers regard anything that criticises immigration as a form of xenophobia. It's a boogeyman.
> 
> ...


Hungarys far right Viktor Oborn using the same image as UKIPs brexit poster to win by landslide. Dehumanisation of refugees & migrants is always a recipe for success.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Vanessa131 said:


> You heard it right here guys, if you're not white you're not British!


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Goblin said:


> Well you joined a pet forum but not posted anything about pets.


:Hilarious He only joined yesterday .
Wasn't similar said to some PF members in the Brexit and other political threads?
If you want to have political threads this is what you get .
There's no rule that says you have to post in the pet sections. 
BTW It was nice to see you posting more in the pet sections when there were or few political threads running.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

@noushka05, maybe stop simply copying memes or whatever they are & actually listen to programmes or read articles! Tbf the BBC didn't sensationally advertise this at all, it was more hysteria from people who immediately decided they didn't like something & the rest of us who wanted to listen to it shouldn't be allowed to!

Even now you haven't listened to the programme but have simply quoted someone else ... this is really lazy & shows a very narrow minded viewpoint. Maybe have a listen on the iplayer, it's still there (I have checked!) & make your own judgement rather than relying on someone else to decide how you should think


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> :Hilarious He only joined yesterday .
> Wasn't similar said to some PF members in the Brexit and other political threads?
> If you want to have political threads this is what you get .
> There's no rule that says you have to post in the pet sections.
> BTW It was nice to see you posting more in the pet sections when there were or few political threads running.


I know some forums only allow off topic posts after the poster has made so many on topic posts, ie Pets in this case.

The UK Vintage Radio Restoration and Repair forum for example has a "Modern Technology" section where we can discuss PCs, flat screen TVs etc. but forum members must make at least 10 on topic posts (ie on vintage matters) before being allowed to post on the Modern Technology section.

I think that's a very sensible policy to prevent people joining just to discuss modern technology, they are forums for that.

Perhaps this is something this forum could think about for new members?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> I know some forums only allow off topic posts after the poster has made so many on topic posts, ie Pets in this case.
> Perhaps this is something this forum could think about. There's plenty of political forums Mr Jason Jones could join if it turns out he doesn't have, or wish to discuss pets.


What ever happened to free speech? Weren't you all complaining a few days about the censorship here and political threads being closed by the Mods? 
I don't agree with his politics but if you wish for free speech and no censorship on PF surely you can't pick and chose who's allowed to post and in what threads because that's, um , censorship and not free speech.

He can be reported to a Mod though and it is up the owner of the site and the Mods to decide if he should be banned .

I'm sure Mr JJ is already a member of political forums , he may well wish to post about his pets in the future .


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

kimthecat said:


> What ever happened to free speech? Weren't you all complaining a few days about the censorship here and political threads being closed by the Mods?
> I don't agree with his politics but if you wish for free speech and no censorship on PF surely you can't pick and chose who's allowed to post and in what threads because that's, um , censorship and not free speech.
> 
> He can be reported to a Mod though and it is up the owner of the site and the Mods to decide if he should be banned .
> ...


Of course it's down to the moderators at the end of the day. I was not calling for the poster in question to be banned or anything.

Still, discussing individual forum members is rightfully against forum rules. I apologise to the forum member in question and everyone here for doing that and have edited my post.

Just with the mention of very few pet related posts got me thinking of the policy adopted by the UKVRRR forum not to allow access or contributions to an off topic section before 10 posts are made to an on topic one.

It is ultimately up to this site owner and moderators how they run Pet Forums. It certainly wasn't my intention to dictate my own ideas for forum policy.

Again, apologies if my post came over this way.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Cleo38 said:


> @noushka05, maybe stop simply copying memes or whatever they are & actually listen to programmes or read articles! Tbf the BBC didn't sensationally advertise this at all, it was more hysteria from people who immediately decided they didn't like something & the rest of us who wanted to listen to it shouldn't be allowed to!
> 
> Even now you haven't listened to the programme but have simply quoted someone else ... this is really lazy & shows a very narrow minded viewpoint. Maybe have a listen on the iplayer, it's still there (I have checked!) & make your own judgement rather than relying on someone else to decide how you should think


I saw for myself how the far right were gloryfying Enoch prior to the broadcast. Look at this? This how racists become emboldened. Some of the responses under this were awful.










That wasn't a meme. It was thread by a writer of ethnic race.

This to me seems like the BBC were sensationalising. Amol Rajan apologised - but then still made a hash of it (see link). ( I will have a listen to it myself though - and with an open mind  )










https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2018/04/1...ech-full-not-going-well/#.Wt--TkQUOiU.twitter


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

@KittenKong One of my forums had a private members only section and you had to post 25 times in other sections before you had access to it which I thought a good idea . 
I think the 10 posts is useful but if someone really does want to post or political reasons then that wouldn't stop them.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> What ever happened to free speech? Weren't you all complaining a few days about the censorship here and political threads being closed by the Mods?
> I don't agree with his politics but if you wish for free speech and no censorship on PF surely you can't pick and chose who's allowed to post and in what threads because that's, um , censorship and not free speech.
> 
> He can be reported to a Mod though and it is up the owner of the site and the Mods to decide if he should be banned .
> ...


Theres notorious super tweeter, hard right propaganda peddler, David Jones, on twitter. Could they be one and the same?:Watching


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

KittenKong said:


> Of course it's down to the moderators at the end of the day. I was not calling for the poster in question to be banned or anything.
> 
> Still, discussing individual forum members is rightfully against forum rules. I apologise to the forum member in question and everyone here for doing that and have edited my post.
> 
> ...


I love the fact he's posted, it's created some very interesting responses. I don't really join in with political threads too much but I love to read them.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

KittenKong said:


> I know some forums only allow off topic posts after the poster has made so many on topic posts, ie Pets in this case.
> 
> The UK Vintage Radio Restoration and Repair forum for example has a "Modern Technology" section where we can discuss PCs, flat screen TVs etc. but forum members must make at least 10 on topic posts (ie on vintage matters) before being allowed to post on the Modern Technology section.
> 
> ...


Why? What difference does it make? As long as people are following forum rules then why can't thety post on certain subjects?

If he had been agreeing with you then would this have made a difference? It really does seem like another example of trying to stifle debate. Why can't people have different ideas or opinions without being drowned out of discussions?


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> Why? What difference does it make? As long as people are following forum rules then why can't thety post on certain subjects?
> 
> If he had been agreeing with you then would this have made a difference? It really does seem like another example of trying to stifle debate. Why can't people have different ideas or opinions without being drowned out of discussions?


100% agree with this, you can't go banning people just because they don't agree with your point of view or stop them from joining because they only participate in certain types of thread. If he chooses not to participate in pet threads that's his choice; I don't see what difference it makes to anyone else. If you have political threads, it's bound to attract people interested in politics. Besides which, what is the point of having a political thread where everyone agrees with everyone else! It would be pretty boring.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Cleo38 said:


> Why? What difference does it make? As long as people are following forum rules then why can't thety post on certain subjects?
> 
> If he had been agreeing with you then would this have made a difference? It really does seem like another example of trying to stifle debate. Why can't people have different ideas or opinions without being drowned out of discussions?


Whether we agree or not isn't the point. It's why a new forum member posted on a political thread before discussing pets. If this forum allows for that it's not for me to criticise.

I would have thought the same if the poster spoke my language actually.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> Whether we agree or not isn't the point. It's why a new forum member posted on a political thread before discussing pets.


Remind me again of how often we're all reminded this is a Pet Forum.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

There are lots of members who rarely post in the pet section, does that mean their contributions are not as worthy? Of course not. Yes, this is a 'pet' forum but am sure this forum pops up in various internet searches so people will be attracted to it for whatever reason. As long as they keep to the rules of the forum then I honestly don't see what difference it makes. 

There are all sorts of topics discussed here & whilst I may not be interested in some, I may contribute to others. I contribute to the running thread which has little to do with animals but is motivational & interesting for me (not others perhaps).

Personally I don't care who posts in what section, debate is healthy & surely it's much better if there are opinions from a wide range of people so discussion is varied


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

KittenKong said:


> Whether we agree or not isn't the point. It's why a new forum member posted on a political thread before discussing pets. If this forum allows for that it's not for me to criticise.
> .


I think this thread is going well for a Political thread. Its been reasonably polite so far despite the extreme differences so far.  Hope I haven't jinxed things and it stays that way . Lets get back the subject back on track.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

KittenKong said:


> why a new forum member posted on a political thread before discussing pets.


The poster in question has a thread running in dog chat sooooooo........
There are a few posters that don't talk about their pets much, should they be scrutinized to?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> Even now you haven't listened to the programme but have simply quoted someone else ... this is really lazy & shows a very narrow minded viewpoint. Maybe have a listen on the iplayer, it's still there (I have checked!) & make your own judgement rather than relying on someone else to decide how you should think


Quoted someone else who also hadn't listened to it.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

Elles said:


> Quoted someone else who also hadn't listened to it.


I think she watched the programme that was on recently, just not the whole speech, because apparently, the whole speech is unavailable.


----------



## Sacrechat (Feb 27, 2011)

It says this Youtube video is the full speech, however:


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> And a lie to start off with. As an MEP he has power even without attending specialised meetings.


Not enough to do anything.



> Yet he pushed a lie whilst doing so.


Where is the lie? Britain will not get full control until the back end of 2020.



> Yet he lied about it blaming the EU.


No, he was not so much as lying as what could be considered hypocrisy.



> Beg to differ, simply you don't like admitting they are.


Possible hypocrisy is not the same as lying. Also, even if those claims are to be granted as lies, it hardly backs up the claim that he "lies constantly".



> No, I look at what he has stated and compare it with reality and the truth.


If you say so.



> Yet EU immigrants are a net positive to the UK. EU freedom of movement rules do not allow someone to simply come to the UK to claim benefits. After 3 months they must be in employment or able to support themselves financially and that support must include the cost of healthcare. Whilst the lower wage bracket may be affected (no conclusive evidence) evidence suggests you are wrong overall. Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers. Now if the UK government actually enforced EU rules...


You can make an argument that economically EU immigrants contribute to the UK but there are a number of other factors that must be taken into consideration. I am already aware of what you have mentioned and I have never once even made the claim that every single EU immigrant has come here to simply claim benefits.

However, there are a proportionate amount that have been here for years and claim benefits.

You wrote, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers", do you have a source for that claim?



> Great marketing isn't it but if he had done any research, not that someone wouldn't have already told him, the UK government looked into it and determined it would not work. It's also interesting that the Australian immigration policy does not stop low wage employment. Instead of cheap labour from the European Union, temporary visas granted to working holiday makers fulfill the same niche. So tell me, how does it help. What's more how does it help in terms of the high number of non-eu immigrants?


He was using it as a cited example of how a system should be put into practice to control immigration. I assume Farage meant the system would be used for all immigration, not just those from the EU.



> Really, so he didn't recently acknowledge his children have german passports and it's simply my opinion.


Well that doesn't back up your claim why he voted to stop the freedom of movement. He is against mass immigration, not controlled immigration. Well as long as you admit that it is only your opinion rather than trying to portray it as a fact which is what you initially did.

You claim stopping the freedom of movement is a restriction that causes suffering, what do you mean?



> They were not though actually going to join were they. Turkey applied and had been told they had to fundamentally change to have any chance of joining.


We have already been through this. At the time, there were talks about Turkey joining the EU and he simply informed people on the overall population of Turkey.



> Actions speak louder than words.


Are left-wing and far-left the same? I don't think Attlee would want to be associated with the people like Antifa members.



> Well you joined a pet forum but not posted anything about pets.


I have, check my posts. I don't need any advice on my other pets.



Zaros said:


> Don't tell me what you think I did because you're wrong.
> 
> As for the sum of 350 squillion for the NHS, it was the sweetener exploited by many suited crooks and many became aware that this carrot before the donkey turned out to be the greatest lie of all.
> 
> ...


I am still waiting for you to provide proof that he "lies constantly".

Interesting little rant, I do wonder how you would imply the notion of making people "favour all the people and not just their family, friends and affiliated gang members." I've not met too many people that care about Joe Bloggs down the street, why should people?



Vanessa131 said:


> You heard it right here guys, if you're not white you're not British!


I don't believe anyone has posted such a thing. Nevertheless, thatt depends on how the word 'British' is defined.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

noushka05 said:


> I've provided plenty of evidence on this forum about the benefits of migrants. So lets see this ample evidence proving the contrary? No dodgy right wing think tanks either. Lets see all those trusted sources which prove immigration is causing problems.


Quite clearly you are going to regard any source that criticises immigration as right-wing so what is the point?

Do you not like to listen to or read anything that questions your beliefs? Your mentality is pretty much the same as those religious fanatics that like to preach and preach but have not read arguments against their beliefs.

I think the following quote is relevant to you:

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed."

This type of mentality is all too common from those on the political left. They have no interest in a debate, anything and anyone that they disagree with is regarded as far-right, Nazi, fascist, racist, etc.
The loony left hate free speech and attempt to shut down anything that is contrary to their beliefs.

Classic liberals like John Locke would be disgusted to see the way modern-day "liberals" behave.

Everyone knows immigration is causing huge problems, why do you think immigration is the number one concern for the majority of the country?

May I ask, since you have allegedly provided the benefits of migrants, can you name a few? Also, do you have any criticism of immigration?



> No, the NHS is on the verge of collapse due to underfunding & ramped up privatisation by the tories - you have just regurgitated one of those lies peddled by Farage. This shows how dangerous hate mongers are.


Do you think just simply pouring billions into the NHS would solve the problems it has at the moment?

Why is privatisation a problem? I hope you do realise that Labour started to partially privatise the NHS back in the early 2000s.



> Migrants are the backbone of our NHS - it cannot function without them but thanks to Farage & co we're driving them away.


When has anyone said anything about immigrants that work for the NHS? By the way, Farage criticises mass immigration, not controlled immigration.

Why can the NHS not function with British workers?



> If you don't think the language of Enoch Powell was inflammatory you're hardly going to see pound shop Enoch for the xenophobe that he is lol


No, I do not think his choice of words were inflammatory. He said openly what people had been saying for years.

Have you gone as low as copying a phrase from Russell Brand? Brand is another champagne socialist who loves to preach against capitalism and endorses Marxist thoughts but is quite happy to reap the rewards of capitalism. He's an absolute waste of space.



> Practically everything that spills out of his mouth is anti immigration. But as you cant see that, maybe these will ring your alarm bells??
> 
> Roy Moore is a white supremacist & alleged child molester!
> 
> ...


Anything appears to be far-right to you, do you actually have any arguments?



noushka05 said:


> Theres notorious super tweeter, hard right propaganda peddler, David Jones, on twitter. Could they be one and the same?:Watching


I can assure you that I do not use Twitter. Why would you even Google my name? I find that a bit weird.

By the way, I find it highly ironic that you have ""When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser." Socrates." as your signature when most of your posts are just full of ad hominems with no real arguments. Everyone that you disagree with is considered to be far-right.

Can I ask you, what do you consider yourself to be politically?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

KittenKong said:


> Still, discussing individual forum members is rightfully against forum rules. I apologise to the forum member in question and everyone here for doing that and have edited my post.


Are you reading noushka05's posts about me? He has even went to the length of finding someone with the same name as I have on Twitter and claiming I could potentially be that person. He said, "Theres notorious super tweeter, hard right propaganda peddler, David Jones, on twitter. Could they be one and the same?"

The very fact noushka05 did that I find rather bizarre and eerie.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Not enough to do anything


Ah so it's not any power, it's simply he cannot be bothered as people don't take him seriously. Why is that I wonder.



> Possible hypocrisy is not the same as lying. Also, even if those claims are to be granted as lies, it hardly backs up the claim that he "lies constantly".


when you blame a group who is not to blame that is not hypocrisy, that is lying.



> You can make an argument that economically EU immigrants contribute to the UK but there are a number of other factors that must be taken into consideration. I am already aware of what you have mentioned and I have never once even made the claim that every single EU immigrant has come here to simply claim benefits.


Yet studies show the overall net impact is positive.



> However, there are a proportionate amount that have been here for years and claim benefits.


So legal immigrants. So instead of blaming the EU why didn't Farage call to enforce EU freedom of movement rules. Because it didn't serve his goal. The only rule applied by EU freedom of movement is when in employment you are treated the same as everyone else.



> You wrote, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers", do you have a source for that claim?


Several around and easily found but you can start with https://startups.co.uk/immigrant-entrepreneurs-behind-fantastic-uk-businesses/ Also replicated in Germany and America that I know of.



> He was using it as a cited example of how a system should be put into practice to control immigration. I assume Farage meant the system would be used for all immigration, not just those from the EU.


Yet he would know it was flawed and would not solve the problem in the first place. He's selling something that would not achieve what he stated.



> Well that doesn't back up your claim why he voted to stop the freedom of movement. He is against mass immigration, not controlled immigration. Well as long as you admit that it is only your opinion rather than trying to portray it as a fact which is what you initially did.


No, stopping freedom of movement will affect out children, but not his. This isn't my opinion it is fact.



> We have already been through this. At the time, there were talks about Turkey joining the EU and he simply informed people on the overall population of Turkey.


You can talk about unicorns but when you know they are fantasy you do not pretend we are going to be invaded by them.



> Are left-wing and far-left the same? I don't think Attlee would want to be associated with the people like Antifa members.


Allying yourself to far-right and campaigning for them.. your logic does not stand up.



> I am still waiting for you to provide proof that he "lies constantly".


Already have, you just excuse anything.



> I've not met too many people that care about Joe Bloggs down the street, why should people?


If you do not know the answer to that question, it highlights a major problem in modern society.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> Ah so it's not any power, it's simply he cannot be bothered as people don't take him seriously. Why is that I wonder.


Really? You tell that to all of the people that voted for UKIP in the European Parliament Election in 2009.



> when you blame a group who is not to blame that is not hypocrisy, that is lying.


The hypocrisy was about the fact that he refused to vote for an EU proposal about the steel.



> Yet studies show the overall net impact is positive.


If you're strictly referring to the net impact then there is an argument but other things must also be taken into consideration.



> So legal immigrants. So instead of blaming the EU why didn't Farage call to enforce EU freedom of movement rules. Because it didn't serve his goal. The only rule applied by EU freedom of movement is when in employment you are treated the same as everyone else.





> Several around and easily found but you can start with https://startups.co.uk/immigrant-entrepreneurs-behind-fantastic-uk-businesses/ Also replicated in Germany and America that I know of.


You said, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers."

The source does not state that. The source states that, "A 2016 study by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) found that immigrants are far more likely to be entrepreneurial than people born and brought up in the UK… three times as much in fact."

That is not the same as your claim.

There is also no mention that those people hire UK workers.



> Yet he would know it was flawed and would not solve the problem in the first place. He's selling something that would not achieve what he stated.


Theresa May does not hold the best record for staying true to her claims about reducing immigration so just because she rejected the proposal it does not mean that it is not a valid way of controlling immigration.



> No, stopping freedom of movement will affect out children, but not his. This isn't my opinion it is fact.


Stopping the freedom of movement will benefit every single citizen of the UK.



> You can talk about unicorns but when you know they are fantasy you do not pretend we are going to be invaded by them.


The poster was made in 2016, there were talks in 2016 about Turkey joining the EU.



> Allying yourself to far-right and campaigning for them.. your logic does not stand up.


Therefore, according to your logic, Corbyn is a Marxist because he has been allied to and campaigned with Marxists.

This does not justify the claim that right-wing and far-right are interchangeable in the slightest. Plenty of politicians ally and campaign with even their political opponents on a certain topic.

The word "far-right" gets thrown around too easily these days, according those on the left any sort of nationalism is "far-right".



> Already have, you just excuse anything.


No, I even said that if these examples were accepted as lies it does not justify the claim he "lies constantly". In fact, you have only mentioned one potential lie.



> If you do not know the answer to that question, it highlights a major problem in modern society.


Actually answer me. Why are someone else's problems mine as well?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> Interesting little rant..


Me..:Wideyed..rant? 

_You want to have a word with yourself, lad_ (Jim Royle)

Strange, but you've done nowt but rant since you joined.:Facepalm

Surely, you're not posting for the good of your health....Are you?:Smuggrin

Why, of course not.

You must be getting a backhander. :Shifty


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> Me..:Wideyed..rant?
> 
> _You want to have a word with yourself, lad_ (Jim Royle)
> 
> ...


Open up a dictionary and find the definition of the word 'rant'. Replying to people's posts is not ranting.

Do you not like it when people criticise your opinions and beliefs?

By the way, I am still waiting for you to elaborate on your statement.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> Do you not like it when people criticise your opinions and beliefs?


I get criticised quite often actually. It doesn't bother me.

Most of the time it's for owning over sized rare breed dogs.:Jawdrop

Sometimes it's for my lack of concentration.:Meh

And sometimes it's for tell me again what Nigel Farage's initials are?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> I get criticised quite often actually. It doesn't bother me.
> 
> Most of the time it's for owning over sized rare breed dogs.:Jawdrop
> 
> ...


Great.

On a more serious note, what do you consider yourself politically?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> what do you consider yourself politically?


Incorrect. :Smug

Have you got any dogs?:Watching


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> Incorrect. :Smug
> 
> Have you got any dogs?:Watching


In other words, you will not tell me your political position. Why is that? I have read between the lines after your little rant but I just wanted you to clarify your political position. Perhaps then we could discuss the actual topic of this thread.

No, I do not.

This is the General section, you can talk about dogs in the Dog Chat section.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Really? You tell that to all of the people that voted for UKIP in the European Parliament Election in 2009.


Wow.. that's your argument. He cannot even get elected in the UK as an MP.



> The hypocrisy was about the fact that he refused to vote for an EU proposal about the steel.


Yet he lied aboutt the EU and how it supports industry.



> If you're strictly referring to the net impact then there is an argument but other things must also be taken into consideration.


You mean how it enhances society in general.



> You said, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers."
> 
> The source does not state that. The source states that, "A 2016 study by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) found that immigrants are far more likely to be entrepreneurial than people born and brought up in the UK… three times as much in fact."


Being in the UK, employing people means that they employ UK workers. Can you provide sources to prove otherwise please.



> Theresa May does not hold the best record for staying true to her claims about reducing immigration so just because she rejected the proposal it does not mean that it is not a valid way of controlling immigration.


Once again, you fail to see what you not want to see. Your argument fails in that it DOES NOT ACHIEVE WHAT YOU AND FARAGE STATE IT DOES. This is known. You cannot use australia as a solution when it doesn't solve the problem even in australia.



> Stopping the freedom of movement will benefit every single citizen of the UK.


How.. you have yet to show any benefit despite positives for it being in place being given. This would be even more the case if the UK enforced EU rules on freedom of movement.



> The poster was made in 2016, there were talks in 2016 about Turkey joining the EU.


Yet it was well known well before that it would take decades, if ever before it would happen. UK could have prevented it if they did. Talks happen about unicorns.. according to your logic, it means they exist.



> This does not justify the claim that right-wing and far-right are interchangeable in the slightest. Plenty of politicians ally and campaign with even their political opponents on a certain topic.


Ah that excuse. The UKIP talk as opposed to actions. Plenty of political opponents refuse to condone the actions of others.



> No, I even said that if these examples were accepted as lies it does not justify the claim he "lies constantly". In fact, you have only mentioned one potential lie.


Several have been shown, you simply argue the definition of lie. Demonstrable falsehood then, is that any better for you.



> The word "far-right" gets thrown around too easily these days, according those on the left any sort of nationalism is "far-right".


I agree but it fits here. Albert Einstein called nationalism "an infantile disease, the measles of mankind." There's a different between it and patriotism. It's an important one.



> Actually answer me. Why are someone else's problems mine as well?


Society needs the willingness to help others. Everyone looking after themselves is called anarchy. As stated the need to explain that is telling.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> In other words, you will not tell me your political position. Why is that? I have read between the lines after your little rant but I just wanted you to clarify your political position. Perhaps then we could discuss the actual topic of this thread.
> 
> No, I do not.
> 
> This is the General section, you can talk about dogs in the Dog Chat section.


Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do? 

If you had not been drowning in your own self importance you might have discovered the answer to your question in my post #79.
Politics happens to feature more prominently in my life because my dogs have enough controversial 'political' background to keep me intrigued. It's far more interesting and certainly not as crooked as the the variant you're peddling.

However, you claimed to have had dogs at some point in your life and this following quote of yours rather amused me. Particularly because I didn't think you had a sense of humour.



David Jason Jones said:


> I never really bothered with the training aspect of things although I was of course the alpha in the house and all of the dogs always looked up to me as their boss.


You can try to teach a dog the alpha role but, I guarantee you one thing, he's going to be a lot better at it than you mate. You must think you're Shaun Ellis.:Hilarious

Or Cesar Millan.:Nailbiting


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> Wow.. that's your argument. He cannot even get elected in the UK as an MP.


I am referring to the fact that 2,498,226 voted for him in 2009. You also don't become the leader of a party if people don't listen to you.



> Yet he lied aboutt the EU and how it supports industry.


We have already discussed this matter. He did not "lie" about anything, he simply did not vote for an alleged EU proposal about the same thing.



> You mean how it enhances society in general.


Are you referring to controlled immigration or mass immigration?



> Being in the UK, employing people means that they employ UK workers. Can you provide sources to prove otherwise please.


No, it does not. I don't need to provide any source, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.



> Once again, you fail to see what you not want to see. Your argument fails in that it DOES NOT ACHIEVE WHAT YOU AND FARAGE STATE IT DOES. This is known. You cannot use australia as a solution when it doesn't solve the problem even in australia.


That is not the case, you were the one that mentioned that the government had refused to adopt that system as "proof" that it does not work. May does not give a good record when it comes to immigration so I don't she is the best person to rely on when it comes to judging what is right as an immigration policy.



> How.. you have yet to show any benefit despite positives for it being in place being given. This would be even more the case if the UK enforced EU rules on freedom of movement.


Leaving the EU and being a self-governing nation triumphs any day of the week.



> Yet it was well known well before that it would take decades, if ever before it would happen. UK could have prevented it if they did. Talks happen about unicorns.. according to your logic, it means they exist.


The point wasn't about how long it would take, he was simply pointing out the overall population. I will ask you again, where is the lie?



> Ah that excuse. The UKIP talk as opposed to actions. Plenty of political opponents refuse to condone the actions of others.


Corbyn, McDonnell and other Labour members have spoken to crowds with communist flags. Is the Labour Party a communist party?



> Several have been shown, you simply argue the definition of lie. Demonstrable falsehood then, is that any better for you.


"Several"? You have been discussing two alleged lies, not many.



> I agree but it fits here. Albert Einstein called nationalism "an infantile disease, the measles of mankind." There's a different between it and patriotism. It's an important one.


I couldn't care less what Einstein thought of nationalism. His opinion is no more valid than an opinion that favours nationalism. Indeed there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism but someone being the latter does not make that person far-right.



> Society needs the willingness to help others. Everyone looking after themselves is called anarchy. As stated the need to explain that is telling.


What do you mean by helping others?

Economic individualism is not the same as anarchism.



Zaros said:


> Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do?
> 
> If you had not been drowning in your own self importance you might have discovered the answer to your question in my post #79.
> Politics happens to feature more prominently in my life because my dogs have enough controversial 'political' background to keep me intrigued. It's far more interesting and certainly not as crooked as the the variant you're peddling.
> ...


Well my dear friend, it was that interesting rant in your post #79 that made me ask you about your political beliefs. I would be interested if you could actually elaborate on what you meant.

I have had dogs all my life. With regards to you quoting me about the alpha stance and making a comment about it, you are entitled to your opinion.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> you are entitled to your opinion.


Evidently not. You've had mine and you still don't appear to be content with it.

Politician: _An individual who will double cross that bridge when he/she gets to it. _

Fark 'em all!


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> Evidently not. You've had mine and you still don't appear to be content with it.
> 
> Politician: _An individual who will double cross that bridge when he/she gets to it. _
> 
> Fark 'em all!


I haven't said anything against what you posted. I am simply asking you to clarify your political stance.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> I am referring to the fact that 2,498,226 voted for him in 2009. You also don't become the leader of a party if people don't listen to you.


He gets voted for because he says what people want to hear, playing on their fears, not the truth.



> We have already discussed this matter. He did not "lie" about anything, he simply did not vote for an alleged EU proposal about the same thing.


No, you've decided to ignore the reality.



> Are you referring to controlled immigration or mass immigration?


Immigration.. The UK governent controls immigration and our borders.



> No, it does not. I don't need to provide any source, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.


Already have, you simply do not accept it.



> That is not the case, you were the one that mentioned that the government had refused to adopt that system as "proof" that it does not work. May does not give a good record when it comes to immigration so I don't she is the best person to rely on when it comes to judging what is right as an immigration policy.


Again, you ignore the evidence as it does not match what you want. Now you blame May when it's not May but the evidence which shows it doesn't work even in australia to control your stated main point of argument.



> Leaving the EU and being a self-governing nation triumphs any day of the week.


Ah that common lie. We are already a self-governing nation even within the EU. Haven't you seen parliament?



> The point wasn't about how long it would take, he was simply pointing out the overall population. I will ask you again, where is the lie?


Talking about unicorns doesn't make it real. He (and others) exploited and encouraged racism. There was no chance that Turkey would join the EU unless the UK wanted it to. It was not the threat which he stated and played it up as.



> "Several"? You have been discussing two alleged lies, not many.


You simply ignore the rest.



> Economic individualism is not the same as anarchism.


We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> I haven't said anything against what you posted. I am simply asking you to clarify your political stance.


FFS, man! I clarified my feelings towards politicians. All politicians, without exception, can be summed up by the enclosed photograph.








​What the [email protected]@k more do you want?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> He gets voted for because he says what people want to hear, playing on their fears, not the truth.


If anyone is guilty of telling people what they want to hear, it is Corbyn and his kind.

Why are genuine concerns over the future of the British people and Britain described as "fears" by you?

Actually, he often speaks the truth and those on the left do not like that. Has it never occurred to you the reason why people on the left use ad hominems at him is because they can't actually refute his arguments? I've watched him on Question Time several times and people like Russell Brand and Eddie Izzard never refuted his arguments with logic but resorted to name calling.



> No, you've decided to ignore the reality.


You should read your own sources. His refusal to vote on an EU proposal about the steel is where he has been questioned over hypocrisy, there is no lie.



> Immigration.. The UK governent controls immigration and our borders.


There is a clear difference between uncontrolled immigration and controlled immigration. Are you trying to suggest that any amount of immigration "enhances society"?



> Already have, you simply do not accept it.





> Again, you ignore the evidence as it does not match what you want. Now you blame May when it's not May but the evidence which shows it doesn't work even in australia to control your stated main point of argument.


Who do you think was in charge of the government when the idea was rejected? The rejection of the system by May does not mean that it would not work.



> Ah that common lie. We are already a self-governing nation even within the EU. Haven't you seen parliament?


What an oxymoron! I think you should stop being so dishonest. How can a country be self-governing when it is part of a union? A self-governing nation does not have other people determining their laws. Are you actually reading what you are posting? Every single country in the EU is by definition not a self-governing country.



> Talking about unicorns doesn't make it real. He (and others) exploited and encouraged racism. There was no chance that Turkey would join the EU unless the UK wanted it to. It was not the threat which he stated and played it up as.


Can you please explain how the mention of a country's population and potential to join the EU encouraged racism? The word 'racism' is thrown around these days far too easily, it has lost its initial meaning to simply mean anything someone on the left does not agree with and is regarded as far-right. In 2016 there were talks about the possibility that Turkey was going to join the EU.



> You simply ignore the rest.


Not at all. There is simply no prove he lied about the steel.



> We'll have to agree to disagree.


This is not about a difference of opinion. Anarchism and economic individualism are two separate things. Can I ask, what political books have you read?

I'm also waiting for you to cite sources that actually state your initial post, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers." The source you cited said no such thing.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> FFS, man! I clarified my feelings towards politicians. All politicians, without exception, can be summed up by the enclosed photograph.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Interesting. At least I now know not to take you too seriously when discussing politics. Have a nice day.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Interesting. At least I now know not to take you too seriously when discussing politics. Have a nice day.


I suspect the feeling is mutual


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> If anyone is guilty of telling people what they want to hear, it is Corbyn and his kind.


We are not discussing Corbyn are we.



> Why are genuine concerns over the future of the British people and Britain described as "fears" by you?


Because they are genuine concerns can be mitigated by application of truth rather than feeding those fears by lies.

[quot€]I've watched him on Question Time several times and people like Russell Brand and Eddie Izzard never refuted his arguments with logic but resorted to name calling.[/quote]
There's a difference between being able to refute and having such nebulous comments you acuse without any facts yourself.



> You should read your own sources. His refusal to vote on an EU proposal about the steel is where he has been questioned over hypocrisy, there is no lie.


Blaming the EU is nothing to do with his vote on an EU proposal as you well now.



> There is a clear difference between uncontrolled immigration and controlled immigration. Are you trying to suggest that any amount of immigration "enhances society"?


Throughout history, immigration has happened. Even within the EU freedom of movement is not uncontrolled immigration, another lie Farage repeats. Some of that control the government(s) both labour and conservative simply haven't implemented. Try moving to many countries in the EU without employment and you'll soon find yourself on the next plane whatever out. Statistics show the majority of those taking advantage of freedom of movement are young professionals enhancing the country even without the UK pushing the possible control.



> Who do you think was in charge of the government when the idea was rejected? The rejection of the system by May does not mean that it would not work.


You really do not read and understand plain english. It doesn't work in australia either, the system Farage and you are championing does not work to solve your stated problem.



> How can a country be self-governing when it is part of a union? A self-governing nation does not have other people determining their laws. Are you actually reading what you are posting? Every single country in the EU is by definition not a self-governing country.


How stupid can you be. Being in a union does not prevent you making up your own rules. Some areas are limited where you have agreed to work together for the common good. Even here quite often a goal is given and it is up to the elected governments how those goals are achieved. Tell me, you did vote for a government didn't you? That government does create laws doesn't it? It does set it's own budget doesn't it? 37% of the population did vote to leave and in negotiations to do that are taking place aren't they. Proof that we are self-governing and can make our own decisions. When you cannot even get that right...



> There is simply no prove he lied about the steel.


Only what came out of his mouth. Did you know, according to him, he worked in the steel industry...



> I'm also waiting for you to cite sources that actually state your initial post, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers." The source you cited said no such thing.


So you are saying UK companies employ only immigrants then. What a load of rubbish.

What becomes apparant is that you are unable to back anything up yourself but ask others to do so then argue details simply because it supports a counter to your view. You seem unable to back your viewpoints up with evidence, something Farage supporters seem unable to do for some reason.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> We are not discussing Corbyn are we.


I'm giving you an example of a current "politician" (I really don't think he should be called one) that says what many people like to hear. Free this, free that.



> Because they are genuine concerns can be mitigated by application of truth rather than feeding those fears by lies.


Which truths make the concerns any less genuine? How does pointing out the demographics of certain areas or the fact that the UK has had uncontrolled immigration in the last few decades equate to "lies"? Tony Blair even admitted he had no idea how many immigrants would come due to his policies.

If anything, ignoring the realities and pretending that it isn't a problem makes people fear even more.



> There's a difference between being able to refute and having such nebulous comments you acuse without any facts yourself.


The whole point in a discussion is to debate about things but for many on the left it is simply a matter of ignoring any argument that is considered even remotely conservative and name calling.

I'll give you an example:






Here is an example of Farage debating in a civil manner:








> Blaming the EU is nothing to do with his vote on an EU proposal as you well now.


I think you will find that is why he has been accused of hypocrisy. He blamed the EU but refused to vote an EU proposal to help with the steel. What the hell are you on about exactly? Nevertheless, no "lie" was told.



> Throughout history, immigration has happened. Even within the EU freedom of movement is not uncontrolled immigration, another lie Farage repeats. Some of that control the government(s) both labour and conservative simply haven't implemented. Try moving to many countries in the EU without employment and you'll soon find yourself on the next plane whatever out. Statistics show the majority of those taking advantage of freedom of movement are young professionals enhancing the country even without the UK pushing the possible control.


Firstly, there is a difference between controlled immigration and mass immigration or uncontrolled immigration. Compare the history of immigration prior to 1945 to post 1945.

Secondly, how is it a lie? The EU freedom of movement principle allows people to freely come to the UK from other EU countries without any control. Have you never read the stories about how criminals from other EU countries fled to the UK? It is a red herring to point out that if someone is unable to find work that he or she will return to their native country. Why was that person allowed to enter the UK in the first place? Uncontrolled immigration.

Thirdly, I am still waiting for a source that states that because the source you provided for did not. Are you ignoring the fact all of the Eastern Europeans that are often unskilled will work for minimum wage?

Show me a single source that states "the majority" of people that come to the UK from other EU countries are "young professionals".



> You really do not read and understand plain english. It doesn't work in australia either, the system Farage and you are championing does not work to solve your stated problem.


The irony in that statement. Did no one teach you basic English grammar at school? Use a capital letter for countries.

When have I ever said I champion the Australian points-based system? Don't misquote me.



> How stupid can you be. Being in a union does not prevent you making up your own rules. Some areas are limited where you have agreed to work together for the common good. Even here quite often a goal is given and it is up to the elected governments how those goals are achieved. Tell me, you did vote for a government didn't you? That government does create laws doesn't it? It does set it's own budget doesn't it? 37% of the population did vote to leave and in negotiations to do that are taking place aren't they. Proof that we are self-governing and can make our own decisions. When you cannot even get that right...


Here comes the ad hominems, a typical response from a leftie.

Do you actually understand the concept of self-governing?

self-governing
ˌsɛlfˈɡʌv(ə)nɪŋ/
_adjective_

exercising control over one's own affairs, in particular:

A country that is part of a union that determines a certain percentage of all the countries that are part of it means that every single of those countries are not self-governing.

Of course I voted, I have voted ever since I was 18.

Do you have problems reading numbers? 52% of the British people voted in the referendum to leave the EU. Ah, so you are a Remoaner, who could ever have guessed? Who are you to decide what is "right"? Again, more dishonesty from you. Negotiations are taking place and it's not long until we finally get to leave the EU. I, like many others, can finally say, "Good riddance!"



> Only what came out of his mouth. Did you know, according to him, he worked in the steel industry...


Are you going to call him a liar about his job history as well? A quick Google search will tell you he worked at the London Metal Exchange. He was quite popular with people there.



> So you are saying UK companies employ only immigrants then. What a load of rubbish.


You made the claim that the foreigners employ "UK Workers", provide a source. I think if you bothered to research this matter, you would know fine well that certain companies only hire what they consider to be their own kind. Indian restaurants generally employ Indians, Chinese shops generally employ Chinese, Pakistani shops generally are run by a family and their friends, many Eastern Europeans go through the same job agency and work with each other, etc.



> What becomes apparant is that you are unable to back anything up yourself but ask others to do so then argue details simply because it supports a counter to your view. You seem unable to back your viewpoints up with evidence, something Farage supporters seem unable to do for some reason.


You cite sources that don't even verify what you claim and quite frankly you are embarrassing yourself.

When have I ever said I was a Farage supporter? This is the exact kind of mentality I mentioned before, anyone who so much as defends someone or something a left-wing person does not like is all of a sudden a supporter of that person or thing, etc.

Again, petty personal attacks because you can't provide proof for any of your claims. Spend more time finding a reliable source to support your outrageous and quite blatant lie. It is absolutely hilarious that you accuse Farage of lying when so far you have been caught out lying a few times now.

Have you noticed how I have refrained from personally attacking you? I don't need to post anything about you, your posts do enough of it for me. Plus, I actually enjoy a discussion rather than petty name calling.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> *You made the claim that the foreigners employ "UK Workers",* provide a source.* I think if you bothered to research this matter, you would know fine well that certain companies only hire what they consider to be their* *own kind*. Indian restaurants generally employ Indians, Chinese shops generally employ Chinese, Pakistani shops generally are run by a family and their friends, many Eastern Europeans go through the same job agency and work with each other, etc.
> .


I've worked for 'foreigners' 
I'm not obliged to provide you with any source, but I can tell you, from experience, the above is absolute utter bloody nonsense.

Nevertheless, I'd be very interested in a list of those companies which you claim only employ 'their own kind'


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

David Jason Jones said:









You are the last person who should be lecturing me on that.

You do realise the ending of FOM not only restricts EU citizens from moving to the UK, but also vice versa. Perhaps you have the audacity to suggest we must remain in the UK for the rest of our lives for our own good unless you're Farage who retains his rights and those of his children after his contribution to persuading 37% of the population to give up theirs and their children's rights.

If I were you I'd be asking why doesn't he lead by example by sacrificing his own FOM rights?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> Quite clearly you are going to regard any source that criticises immigration as right-wing so what is the point?
> 
> Everyone knows immigration is causing huge problems, why do you think immigration is the number one concern for the majority of the country?
> 
> ...


(Goblin seems to have covered most of your claims (& so much more succinctly than I ever could) but just to add ...)

No I'm not going to regard everything as right wing You're so adamant you're right, you can surely provide some trustworthy sources of reference to support your claim?

I know why immigration is the number one concern of the country - because of certain politicians using them as scapegoats and their mates in the media pumping out relentless anti migrant propaganda. I bet most people who read these rags are more concerned about immigration than anything else. (& the EU second!)










This Michael Rosen poem is fantastic.










I thought pound shop Enoch was funny - as did the audience if I recall

No, I have no problem with immigrants , I'd welcome a sensible fact based debate on the subject though. We know without migrants our NHS will collapse - they no longer feel welcome & leaving in droves (so whether you like it its already affecting our NHS). Social care will collapse. Crops left rotting in the fields

. 95% of veterinarians working in abatoirs are non UK EU citizens. Animal welfare & food safety standards are being put at risk even before we brexit as vets are already leaving!.

Restaurants will go out of business & our economy will lose all those tax receipts.










*MIGRANTS IN THE CARE SECTOR CONTRIBUTE £17 MILLION TO THE ENGLISH ECONOMY EVERY DAY*
*NEW FIGURES REVEAL HUGE CONTRIBUTION MIGRANTS MAKE TO SOCIAL CARE*

http://neweconomics.org/2018/02/mig...his-week-17-feb-18&source=this-week-17-feb-18

We already had 'control of our borders' (May chose not to). Even the governments own white paper admitted as much. Another Farage lie you were duped by.



















As I stated previously, all this anti immigration talk & the hostile environment the government has created is already affecting our NHS. And there is a massive shortage of British Doctors & Nurses - we NEED migrants. The NHS isnt having billions pumped into it it is deliberately being underfunded. I thought you said the NHS is getting better because the tories _are_ pouring billions into it. Now you're saying why not privatise it??



David Jason Jones said:


> he NHS has been in trouble for a while now and things are getting better, the Conservatives are putting billions into the NHS and are trying to sort the problem out


(have you provided references to back up the above claim? Apologies if you have, I haven't caught up with all the new posts yet)

Yes I'm well aware new labour ran with PFIs. You do know privatisation of health care is neoliberal ideolgy? - Corbyn has always rejected PFIs. He voted against PFIs & under his leadership labour have now abandoned them and the neoliberal con, full stop This is why many support him, they dont want a tory lite party which doesn't put their interests first.

Only the far right looks far right to me. I don't think everyone who disagree with me is far right at all  - who's the one using ad hominem attacks? And I didn't google your name. I'm on twitter & have been well aware of David Jones the avid right wing, pro brexit tweeter even before he came under suspicion of being a Russian bot. I can't see his tweets anymore though, as hes tightened his security.. As you share pretty much the same views I merely wondered if you were one & the same. That's all. I apologies if you feel I had slandered you though. And it isn't slander to call Farage, Moore & Powell racists - because that is exactly what they are. Trumps followers will argue till the cows come home that he isn't a racist liar too. This is because hate speak is being normalised across the media.

I'm a member of the green party, because their values reflect mine. Like my party I want environmental & social justice & I desperately want radical action on climate change before its too late.... which it almost is.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Secondly, how is it a lie? The EU freedom of movement principle allows people to freely come to the UK from other EU countries without any control.


As previously stated, repeating something Farage has said makes it no more true than when he stated it. There are controls even under freedom of movement even if the UK does not implement them.



> Show me a single source that states "the majority" of people that come to the UK from other EU countries are "young professionals".


Show me anything to back up your contrary statements, despite being asked frequently you haven't provided anything. Ah I get it, Farage said...



> When have I ever said I champion the Australian points-based system? Don't misquote me.


You heralded the australian point system.. it doesn't work even in australia.



> Here comes the ad hominems, a typical response from a leftie.


You have no idea what my political viewpoint is.



> Do you actually understand the concept of self-governing?
> 
> self-governing
> ˌsɛlfˈɡʌv(ə)nɪŋ/
> ...


Well it's obvious you do not even when looking at a dictionary.



> Do you have problems reading numbers? 52% of the British people voted in the referendum to leave the EU. Ah, so you are a Remoaner, who could ever have guessed? Who are you to decide what is "right"? Again, more dishonesty from you. Negotiations are taking place and it's not long until we finally get to leave the EU. I, like many others, can finally say, "Good riddance!"


Ah here we go.. 37% of the population voted to leave in a non-binding referendum for a multitude of reasons. In doing so they voted for something which had no definition. Many of the reasons for voting were based on lies. Others can be dealt with without leaving. So why leave? We don't have anything which shows advantages to leaving based on facts and reality. We do have soundbites like take back control (never lost it), sovereignty (never lost it). How strange that since the referendum it's no longer "ah it will be brilliant", it's now become "it will not be a mad max dystopia".



> Are you going to call him a liar about his job history as well? A quick Google search will tell you he worked at the London Metal Exchange. He was quite popular with people there.


That is not a job within the steel industry, that's a suit job trading.



> Have you noticed how I have refrained from personally attacking you? I don't need to post anything about you, your posts do enough of it for me. Plus, I actually enjoy a discussion rather than petty name calling.


Oh dear, oh dear.

As previously stated.. still nothing from you to back up anything.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

I found it! Just for you @David Jason Jones . Rather than making ad hominem attacks on Brand, actually listen to what he is saying David, because his message is factual.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Goblin said:


> You have no idea what my political viewpoint is.
> .


I wouldn't worry about it, Goblin, he calls everyone who doesn't quite see things as he does, a _'leftie'_

Typical response from a right-hander.:Smuggrin


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

In the southwest of England they couldn’t blame immigrants, so they’ve been blaming old people for years. ‘Old people move here to retire, which puts strain on our services. Many of them are from London. They sell their house and buy one here, which means our young people who were born here can’t afford housing. It’s all old people’s fault’. I don’t know what they want to do about the elderly and wealthy. Kick them out of Devon and refuse to let any more in? Our hospitals and local gp surgeries are getting worse, we can have to wait 2 months for a doctor’s appt, but it’s the elderly who get the blame for it here and they’re still in their country of birth, they might have just moved a few miles down the road.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Freedom of movement rules allow EU nationals to come to the UK with very little control; although we can refuse entry on a number of grounds. What it doesn't do is allow them to _stay_ without control. Our implementation of the available EU rules is a matter for the UK, not the EU.

-------------

Everyone in the UK is an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant. I have yet to hear a convincing 'cut-off' period before which that apparently doesn't count.

-------------

There is, in my opinion, an issue surrounding the concentration of migrants in a particular area. Although the feeling that one's home is no longer home is based on age-old instinctive fears, it is a feeling which cannot and should not be dismissed. It should instead be addressed - again in my opinion - at a local / regional level and not by the application of a sledgehammer v. nut national approach.

-------------

No country in the world is entirely free of rules and regulations determined by supranational bodies, be they laws, regulations or standards. By some definitions this makes no country entirely self-governing, although any country is free to cease adherence to those rules, regulations and standards whenever it wants; which freedom of choice in effect makes it self-governing.

The UK is no different, and has chosen to abide by the rules, regulations and standards of the EU since by doing so we gain the unquestionable economic benefits of the Single Market. As with all other supranational rules etc. we can choose to stop abiding by those of the EU, as we are in the process of doing. This proving that, in fact - and I use the word advisedly - we are, and always have been, self-governing.

------------

My mother always told me that if I couldn't say anything nice not to say anything at all. So on the subject of Farage ...


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> I've worked for 'foreigners'
> I'm not obliged to provide you with any source, but I can tell you, from experience, the above is absolute utter bloody nonsense.
> 
> Nevertheless, I'd be very interested in a list of those companies which you claim only employ 'their own kind'


Of course you are obliged to provide a source if you're making a positive claim. Perhaps you should be reading about how the burden of proof works.

Go and take a lovely walk into any of the things I have mentioned and you will understand what I mean.



KittenKong said:


> David Jason Jones said:
> View attachment 352928
> 
> 
> ...


Of course I understand that. I don't want British people to be allowed to freely go to other countries as well. The EU is crumbling, the sooner the better.

I will remind you that 52% of the British people voted to 'Leave' in the referendum. People that did not vote are irrelevant. How do you know all of those people would have voted to remain? No one knows. The people that refused to vote obviously had the mentality of "I don't care" and simply go along with the majority.

Perhaps you can elaborate on your last sentence.



noushka05 said:


> (Goblin seems to have covered most of your claims (& so much more succinctly than I ever could) but just to add ...)


Well if you think Goblin is a good debater then I pity you.



> No I'm not going to regard everything as right wing You're so adamant you're right, you can surely provide some trustworthy sources of reference to support your claim?


Of course you are. By the way you go on, anything to the right of Corbyn is far-right.



> I know why immigration is the number one concern of the country - because of certain politicians using them as scapegoats and their mates in the media pumping out relentless anti migrant propaganda. I bet most people who read these rags are more concerned about immigration than anything else. (& the EU second!)


I think you're thinking about this in a very simplistic manner. There are undoubtedly going to be problems when a country has a large amount of immigration. Are you dismissing the fact that people have genuine concerns about the future of the country? There are whole areas all over the UK that have undergone a change that has made those places unrecognisable, do you think people should just sit back and accept that? There is a reason why a lot of British people think that multiculturalism has failed.

You seem to be regarding all immigrants coming into the country as the same type of people, that is simply not the case.

Ignoring the issue causes more problems than highlighting the issue.

Do you think there should be any immigration restrictions? I ask this because you have mentioned support for the Green Party and Lucas has openly said that the party has and always will support the freedom of movement.



> I thought pound shop Enoch was funny - as did the audience if I recall


You do realise that BBC audience is selected?



> No, I have no problem with immigrants , I'd welcome a sensible fact based debate on the subject though. We know without migrants our NHS will collapse - they no longer feel welcome & leaving in droves (so whether you like it its already affecting our NHS). Social care will collapse. Crops left rotting in the fields


How many immigrants coming over here do you think is acceptable?

I asked you before, why can the British people not fill in those job vacancies?



> . 95% of veterinarians working in abatoirs are non UK EU citizens. Animal welfare & food safety standards are being put at risk even before we brexit as vets are already leaving!.


You have said you have no problem with immigrants but you are highlighting a concern you have that is caused by those immigrants working in the abattoirs in the UK. This problem would never have occurred if we were not part of the EU.



> Restaurants will go out of business & our economy will lose all those tax receipts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have already posted about the economic argument. There are both pros and cons when it comes to the economic contribution that immigrants make to this country.



> We already had 'control of our borders' (May chose not to). Even the governments own white paper admitted as much. Another Farage lie you were duped by.


We do not have control over our borders. There are hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants living in the UK and the sheer number of immigrants in recent years clearly prove we are not in control of our own borders.

Are you that naive to think that every EU citizen that entered the UK and failed to find work after three months will just happily return to their native country? Plenty of EU citizens have been caught on the run in the country.



> As I stated previously, all this anti immigration talk & the hostile environment the government has created is already affecting our NHS. And there is a massive shortage of British Doctors & Nurses - we NEED migrants. The NHS isnt having billions pumped into it it is deliberately being underfunded. I thought you said the NHS is getting better because the tories _are_ pouring billions into it. Now you're saying why not privatise it??


You don't seem to want to accept that plenty of ordinary British citizens have genuine concerns over immigration. We do not "NEED" migrants at all, there is nothing stopping British people from working in the NHS.

You've been listening to too much of Corbyn's rhetoric about the NHS. Do you think simply just giving the NHS billions of pounds will solve all of the problems? May is allowing billions to go to the NHS and is looking at future long-term plans to try and solve the problems the NHS is having at the moment.

You do realise that it was Labour that started to partially privatise the NHS back in the 2000s?

I don't have any problem with the concept of privatisation.



> (have you provided references to back up the above claim? Apologies if you have, I haven't caught up with all the new posts yet)


https://fullfact.org/health/spending-english-nhs/



> Yes I'm well aware new labour ran with PFIs. You do know privatisation of health care is neoliberal ideolgy? - Corbyn has always rejected PFIs. He voted against PFIs & under his leadership labour have now abandoned them and the neoliberal con, full stop This is why many support him, they dont want a tory lite party which doesn't put their interests first.


Corbyn doesn't understand anything about economics and thinks that he can just give billions here, there and everywhere.










The idea that the NHS problems are just solely down to the Conservative government is misleading and simply not true.



> Only the far right looks far right to me. I don't think everyone who disagree with me is far right at all  - who's the one using ad hominem attacks?


I am going by what you have posted.



> And I didn't google your name. I'm on twitter & have been well aware of David Jones the avid right wing, pro brexit tweeter even before he came under suspicion of being a Russian bot. I can't see his tweets anymore though, as hes tightened his security.. As you share pretty much the same views I merely wondered if you were one & the same. That's all. I apologies if you feel I had slandered you though.


I have a common name, I can assure you that I have never used Twitter, I don't have time for that sort of stuff.



> And it isn't slander to call Farage, Moore & Powell racists - because that is exactly what they are.


Why do you consider them to be racist? The word 'racist' is used by those with no argument and is simply thrown around these days too often with the notion of, "I don't agree with your stance on immigration so you are a racist" kind of narrative.



> Trumps followers will argue till the cows come home that he isn't a racist liar too. This is because hate speak is being normalised across the media.


I'm no fan of Trump but I don't think he is racist. I am not defending some of the controversial things he has said and done but to describe him as 'racist' is too simple. Plenty of African Americans seem to think he is fine and studies have shown under his leadership the black community in America are doing quite well.

Is something considered "hate speak" because you simply do not like it?

At least in America the people truly respect the notion of freedom of speech, unlike the various forms of censorship that those on the left here like to try and pursue.



> I'm a member of the green party, because their values reflect mine. Like my party I want environmental & social justice & I desperately want radical action on climate change before its too late.... which it almost is.


You have the exact same mentality as a brainwashed Jehovah's Witness.



Goblin said:


> As previously stated, repeating something Farage has said makes it no more true than when he stated it. There are controls even under freedom of movement even if the UK does not implement them.


Does the EU allow people to freely move to other countries? Yes. There is no lie. Stop trying to create one that is simply not there.



> Show me anything to back up your contrary statements, despite being asked frequently you haven't provided anything. Ah I get it, Farage said...


Are you kidding me? You have claimed that, "the majority" of people that come to the UK from other EU countries are "young professionals" so it is up to you to provide proof for that claim. Why don't you just admit that you are making things up to suit your agenda?



> You heralded the australian point system.. it doesn't work even in australia.


I said that it is an alternative system to uncontrolled immigration. Why should a talented Indian have to go through a process to come to the UK when an unskilled Czech can come here and work in a factory with no questions asked?



> You have no idea what my political viewpoint is.


Are you going to deny being left-wing? Don't make me laugh.

What is your political position?



> Well it's obvious you do not even when looking at a dictionary.


The definition of self-governing does not coincide with the regulations of the EU.



> Ah here we go.. 37% of the population voted to leave in a non-binding referendum for a multitude of reasons. In doing so they voted for something which had no definition. Many of the reasons for voting were based on lies. Others can be dealt with without leaving. So why leave? We don't have anything which shows advantages to leaving based on facts and reality. We do have soundbites like take back control (never lost it), sovereignty (never lost it). How strange that since the referendum it's no longer "ah it will be brilliant", it's now become "it will not be a mad max dystopia".


Remoaners such as yourself try and put a spin on percentages but when it is analysed you will be shown up to be a fool. Even less voted to 'Remain' by your logic! People that did not vote are totally irrelevant. The mentality of people that did not vote was basically, "I do not care" and so were happy to just accept whatever the result. How do you know all of those people that did not vote would have voted 'Remain'? You do not. The fact remains that out of all of the people that voted in the EU referendum, a clear majority of 52% voted to leave.



> That is not a job within the steel industry, that's a suit job trading.


Steel is included in the London Metal Exchange. I don't believe he has ever said that he has worked with steel as in a factory or something.



> Oh dear, oh dear.
> 
> As previously stated.. still nothing from you to back up anything.


I have provided sources when required. Unlike you, I have a good reading comprehension and don't interpret a source to mean something that it does not. I await your sources to provide proof for your outrageous claim that, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers".

You used https://startups.co.uk/immigrant-entrepreneurs-behind-fantastic-uk-businesses/ as a source but this clearly does not state what you initially said. You claim there are several sources around that prove the statement so you can post some more sources.



noushka05 said:


> I found it! Just for you @David Jason Jones . Rather than making ad hominem attacks on Brand, actually listen to what he is saying David, because his message is factual.


I don't hear any refutation of Farage's arguments. Plus, I don't think too many people take Brand seriously.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Nice to know we have no control or sovereignty leaving the EU as we are going to be under WTO rules.



David Jason Jones said:


> ....


So once again, nothing to support your views, deliberately ignoring the evidence provided by others, repeating proven lies as though it will change it to truth simply by repetition.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> Nice to know we have no control or sovereignty leaving the EU as we are going to be under WTO rules.


A failed _non sequitur_.

There is a massive difference between the rules of the EU and the rules of the WTO.



> So once again, nothing to support your views, deliberately ignoring the evidence provided by others, repeating proven lies as though it will change it to truth simply by repetition.


You are the one making the claim, provide proof for your claim or just admit that you lied.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> There is a massive difference between the rules of the EU and the rules of the WTO


Ah that's right, EU we have a say in a democratic body which creates the rules, unlike the WTO.



> You are the one making the claim, provide proof for your claim or just admit that you lied.


Funny considering you having backed up any of your claims. I already have. Your response that all EU entrepreneurs only employ immigrants is ridiculous and unworthy of further comment.

Still nothing to back up your claims then...


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

noushka05, you are a self-proclaimed member of the Green Party and agree with their policies, according to the policy of the party under the section "Migration", the following is said for medium-term policies:

"We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls."

For the Immigration Law:

"We will allow the partners, prospective partners, immediate families and prospective families of British residents to join them without excessive delays or unreasonable requirements for proof of relationship. This will be independent of the financial status of the resident and will not be dependent on her/him providing accommodation (We recognise that this must be implemented in association with a housing policy)."

"A person's right to stay will not be linked to that of partners or families but will be independent. Families will not be divided by deportation unless the deportee poses a serious danger to public safety."

"Migrants illegally in the UK for over five years will be allowed to remain unless they pose a serious danger to public safety."

For the Other:

"We will encourage periods of temporary residence in the UK and abroad, particularly by young people, to promote intercultural awareness."

A sneaky little bit of populism and appealing to a specific group of people does not go a miss:

"The Green Party will recognise the contribution of migrants and people of colour to the UK by making the 1st Monday on or after 22nd June, Windrush Day, a public holiday."

https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/mg.html

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the Green Party's immigration policies are logical and substantial? If you do, consult your doctor for an appointment.

No wonder very few people take the Green Party and its members seriously. On the contrary, people regard the members as tree-huggers and loonies.

Pretty much every single policy of the Green Party can be debunked and dismissed rather easily but for the time being we'll focus on the immigration issue since that is what we are discussing.

The utopia of the Green Party is clearly nothing more than a fantasy and absolute drivel.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> Ah that's right, EU we have a say in a democratic body which creates the rules, unlike the WTO.


Calling the EU "democratic" is an oxymoron. The concept of 'democracy' in the EU is flawed from every angle. Do you actually understand the definition of democracy?

I'll also make the assumption that you would like another referendum because the result was not what you wanted. Every single person that wants another referendum is also anti-democratic.



> Funny considering you having backed up any of your claims. I already have. Your response that all EU entrepreneurs only employ immigrants is ridiculous and unworthy of further comment.
> 
> Still nothing to back up your claims then...


Provide proof that, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers".

I'll quote from your initial source:

"A 2016 study by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) found that immigrants are far more likely to be entrepreneurial than people born and brought up in the UK… three times as much in fact."

"Studies and analysis aside, Startups.co.uk's own coverage shows that there are a vast number of incredibly inspiring immigrants who have moved to the UK to set up and build businesses which have driven economic growth and supported job creation."

https://startups.co.uk/immigrant-entrepreneurs-behind-fantastic-uk-businesses/

No mention of what you have claimed. Try again.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> You have the exact same mentality as a brainwashed Jehovah's Witness.


Strange you should mention a JW because that's exactly the conclusion I drew of you.

Having already had my door slammed in your face, you're now rapping on my bleedin' windows.:Meh


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> Strange you should mention a JW because that's exactly the conclusion I drew of you.
> 
> Having already had my door slammed in your face, you're now rapping on my bleedin' windows.:Meh


Do you fancy me or something? I haven't quoted you for a while because I'm not interested in responding to someone that has no real desire to have a genuine political discussion.

I told you to have a nice day a little while ago. Off you go...


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> There is a massive difference between the rules of the EU and the rules of the WTO.


The UK is of course voluntarily subject to the rules of the former, and, should we leave the EU will be voluntarily subject to the rules of the other, so the similarities are plain.

But what measure is generally used to determine whether a country following such rules is self-governing or not? And what exactly is the point beyond which a country ceases to be such?



David Jason Jones said:


> Do you actually understand the definition of democracy?


What, in your own words, is the definition of democracy?


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> I haven't quoted you for a while.


On but yes you did.:Stop

Ya see, you're posting that much drivel of late, you're forgetting exactly what drivel you have posted.

Below you will find your post numbered 134, which I believe you will discover is your response to my post numbered 126.:Smug



David Jason Jones said:


> Of course you are obliged to provide a source if you're making a positive claim.


Now, off you go.:Yawn


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Apropos of nothing in particular, a quote ...

"Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door." Nigel Farage.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> The UK is of course voluntarily subject to the rules of the former, and, should we leave the EU will be voluntarily subject to the rules of the other, so the similarities are plain.


Well it is true that if you are trading with other countries then there will be set rules with regards to the trade but when it comes to the EU there are so many other regulations and rules. Also, although the percentage is debated (it varies from very low to very high) about how much influence the EU has over the UK law, the fact exists that there is a union that is governing a certain amount of the UK law.



> But what measure is generally used to determine whether a country following such rules is self-governing or not? And what exactly is the point beyond which a country ceases to be such?


A sovereign country is self-governing, a country that is part of any union that is able to pass laws in that country is under no definition self-governing.

The phrase "taking back control" pretty much sums it up. The ability to govern the country and pass your own laws without interference of anything else.

Countries that are part of a union, puppet states, etc, are not self-governing.



> What, in your own words, is the definition of democracy?


Although there are different types of democracy, I am quite happy to accept any of the conventional definitions given in any dictionary.

Oxford Dictionary definition:

"A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> On but yes you did.:Stop
> 
> Ya see, you're posting that much drivel of late, you're forgetting exactly what drivel you have posted.
> 
> ...


"A while" or "awhile" do not give a specific amount of time. Nice try.

Why are you still even quoting me?



Arnie83 said:


> Apropos of nothing in particular, a quote ...
> 
> "Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door." Nigel Farage.


The quote needs to be put into context.

"In an interview for LBC Radio on Friday, Mr Farage was asked what the difference was between having a group of Romanian men and German children as neighbours.

"You know what the difference is," Mr Farage replied.

He added: "I was asked if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned? And if you lived in London, I think you would be."

He also said many migrants coming to the UK had been "forced into a life of crime" by "real poverty" in their country.

In a statement following the interview he said: "Any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door.""

I don't see how he is wrong in all fairness, many people would feel intimidated and slightly apprehensive if a group of Romanians or any group moved next door.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> Why are you still even quoting me?


I'm simply extending to you the courtesy of a reply, dear boy.:Cigar

And to show you I have good manners which is something you evidently lack.:Wacky


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Calling the EU "democratic" is an oxymoron. The concept of 'democracy' in the EU is flawed from every angle. Do you actually understand the definition of democracy?


Strange when you obviously do not. It's more than a single non-binding referendum but an ongoing process with people allowed to change their minds. Added to which we live in a representative democracy where in theory those we elect are there to represent us and our best interests.



> I'll also make the assumption that you would like another referendum because the result was not what you wanted. Every single person that wants another referendum is also anti-democratic.


Seems you like making assumptions. No I would like the government to stop brexit as it is bad for the country and the population of the UK. Even their own studies have shown that. They should be looking at protecting the UK and representing the best interests of it's population. Some of the issues raised in the referendum could be resolved without leaving.



David Jason Jones said:


> Well it is true that if you are trading with other countries then there will be set rules with regards to the trade but when it comes to the EU there are so many other regulations and rules.


Ah so what is the defined number of rules and regulations between acceptable and not? Wait, even one still goes against your definition.



> A sovereign country is self-governing, a country that is part of any union that is able to pass laws in that country is under no definition self-governing.


Which laws would that be? You mean the ones where we add EU policy into UK law. Then again we obviously cannot make up our own laws as that would be self-governing. We also get the budget set by the EU as to do otherwise would be self governing. In fact we don't need a parliament at all do we.



> Countries that are part of a union, puppet states, etc, are not self-governing.


So the Irish, welsh and scottish assemblies are also pointless. So glad the DUP recognise that.



> "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."


Only thing not matching is that the EU is not a state. You do vote for MEP's and the government who actually hold the power in the EU don't you? The EU even uses proportional representation to make sure people's votes actually matter. Do you vote in all the civil servants as well? Did you vote who holds UK cabinet posts? Why should the EU be called undemocratic when they do not either? Being different does not equate to being undemocratic.



> Provide proof that, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers".


Oh dear.. still trying that line of obfuscation as you cannot provide any evidence to support your claims on anything. This is proven by your next text...



> "A 2016 study by the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) found that immigrants are far more likely to be entrepreneurial than people born and brought up in the UK… three times as much in fact."
> 
> "Studies and analysis aside, Startups.co.uk's own coverage shows that there are *a vast number of incredibly inspiring immigrants who have moved to the UK to set up and build businesses which have driven economic growth and supported job creation."*


The fact that you claim only immigrant workers are employed by these entrepreneurs is both stupid and ridiculous. Even more if you try to suggest economic growth <> UK jobs. Try again using facts.



Arnie83 said:


> The UK is of course voluntarily subject to the rules of the former, and, should we leave the EU will be voluntarily subject to the rules of the other, so the similarities are plain.


We already are subject to the rules of the WTO regardless. On the flip side, we also have the power of the EU to fight in our corner during any disputes.

Interesting what having a body like the EU can provide, especially in regards to Farage blaming the EU for the reduction in UK steel. In 2002/2003 the US tried slapping protective tariffs on steel which hurt UK high-grade steel. UK pleading and complaining did nothing, much like now. The EU employed exactly the same strategy as it did when Trump recently tried pushing for it - countermeasures targeting politically-sensitive US states. Then as now, they backed down.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> A sovereign country is self-governing, a country that is part of any union that is able to pass laws in that country is under no definition self-governing.


If the country has no power over the imposition of laws from outside its borders, then I would agree with you.

In the case of the UK and the EU, the former voted to accept the system whereby EU laws would become UK laws. At any time, of course, Parliament had the power revoke that decision simply by repealing the law that granted those powers. The UK, therefore, remained sovereign.

Proof of that is self-evident at the moment since we are leaving the Union and the EU has no power to prevent it. Sovereignty is not regained by Brexit, but proven by it.



> Although there are different types of democracy, I am quite happy to accept any of the conventional definitions given in any dictionary.
> 
> Oxford Dictionary definition:
> 
> "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."


Well given that the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are both elected - the latter indirectly - by the population, and are involved in passing all EU legislation, the OD definition would seem to be satisfied.

I've often wondered why some people get so aerated about the supposed democratic deficit in the EU, and meekly accept that their mortgage rate is set by a completely unelected body in the bowels of the Bank of England.

Of course, Parliament has the power to rescind the Monetary Committee's powers, just as it has the power to remove the EU's powers, but one is subject to much vilification while the other - with much greater impact on the lives of most ordinary folk - is accepted without question.

I wonder why that would be.



> The [Farage] quote needs to be put into context.


Context may be helpful if one is trying to excuse what he said, but, regardless, it is still out and out racism.

Positing that all people from a specific nation should engender fear solely by their proximity is pretty much a dictionary definition of the term.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> Strange when you obviously do not. It's more than a single non-binding referendum but an ongoing process with people allowed to change their minds. Added to which we live in a representative democracy where in theory those we elect are there to represent us and our best interests.


I do which is why I don't understand why the Remoaners are marching against a democratic referendum result. You and your inkling will come up with all sorts to try and portray the outcome as wrong but no one actually cares. Brexit is happening, accept it.



> Seems you like making assumptions. No I would like the government to stop brexit as it is bad for the country and the population of the UK. Even their own studies have shown that. They should be looking at protecting the UK and representing the best interests of it's population. Some of the issues raised in the referendum could be resolved without leaving.


How do you know it is bad for the country? There is no hindsight so unless you're the future female version of Nostradamus, you are posting utter claptrap. No one knows what the future holds completely and there have been studies to show that there will be positive impacts.

The Government is respecting the result of the referendum. You don't think that you can please everyone, do you? There will always be people that agree and disagree over things. People voted in a democratic referendum for Brexit, if you don't like the result then that is your problem.



> Ah so what is the defined number of rules and regulations between acceptable and not? Wait, even one still goes against your definition.


Do you not understand that there is a difference between rules with regards to trade and rules that are enforced on countries when part of a union?



> Which laws would that be? You mean the ones where we add EU policy into UK law. Then again we obviously cannot make up our own laws as that would be self-governing. We also get the budget set by the EU as to do otherwise would be self governing. In fact we don't need a parliament at all do we.


I have already explained this point several times. It doesn't matter what percentage, it is a fact that the EU has some control over the influence of UK law, what is so difficult for you to understand?



> So the Irish, welsh and scottish assemblies are also pointless. So glad the DUP recognise that.


The law of the UK is called the "British law", not the "English law". Stop making up stuff to suit your agenda.



> Only thing not matching is that the EU is not a state. You do vote for MEP's and the government who actually hold the power in the EU don't you? The EU even uses proportional representation to make sure people's votes actually matter. Do you vote in all the civil servants as well? Did you vote who holds UK cabinet posts? Why should the EU be called undemocratic when they do not either? Being different does not equate to being undemocratic.


I don't understand why you're having such a hard time understanding the difference between a self-governing and sovereign country to a country being part of a union. As my earlier post explained, under any definition of 'self-governing', countries that are part of a union, such as the EU, are not self-governing nations.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-law-what-proportion-influenced-eu/

Perhaps if you took the time to actually read the criticism of the EU you would know fine well why many people describe it as anti-democratic. The concept of democracy within the EU is flawed.

Have a read of:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/criticism-eu/

You seem to think the EU is this wonderful thing, have you actually analytically looked at every part of the regulations and rules?



> Oh dear.. still trying that line of obfuscation as you cannot provide any evidence to support your claims on anything. This is proven by your next text...
> 
> The fact that you claim only immigrant workers are employed by these entrepreneurs is both stupid and ridiculous. Even more if you try to suggest economic growth <> UK jobs. Try again using facts.


If you think those statements are proof of your initial claim then you clearly are not too bright.

The report from that article doesn't even tell the reader how many people were used in the study. There is also no mention of "UK Workers" being employed by those people.

Like I also said before, why are you ignoring the fact that millions of unskilled Eastern Europeans are happy to work for minimum wage in factories and other places?

You claimed there were several sources, post some others.



> We already are subject to the rules of the WTO regardless. On the flip side, we also have the power of the EU to fight in our corner during any disputes.


The rules are completely different, there is no anti-democratic stance in the WTO, it regulates trade, nothing else. There is no influence from the WTO in UK law, unlike the EU.



> Interesting what having a body like the EU can provide, especially in regards to Farage blaming the EU for the reduction in UK steel. In 2002/2003 the US tried slapping protective tariffs on steel which hurt UK high-grade steel. UK pleading and complaining did nothing, much like now. The EU employed exactly the same strategy as it did when Trump recently tried pushing for it - countermeasures targeting politically-sensitive US states. Then as now, they backed down.


I have already told you, Farage has been accused of hypocrisy not lying over the steel issue.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...could-have-helped-british-steel-a6964476.html


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> If the country has no power over the imposition of laws from outside its borders, then I would agree with you.


Although the percentage is debated, the EU has some sort of influence of the UK law, this goes against the concept of democracy.



> In the case of the UK and the EU, the former voted to accept the system whereby EU laws would become UK laws. At any time, of course, Parliament had the power revoke that decision simply by repealing the law that granted those powers. The UK, therefore, remained sovereign.


Does the EU have any influence over the UK laws? The answer, as you know, is yes. Thus, there is not complete sovereignty. The UK has a bit more control and say over their own matters than some other countries in the EU but it's still not self-governing.



> Proof of that is self-evident at the moment since we are leaving the Union and the EU has no power to prevent it. Sovereignty is not regained by Brexit, but proven by it.


Not quite. The referendum has allowed the UK to leave the EU as a matter of a referendum but the actual outcome of Brexit will give the UK sovereignty again. For every action there is a consequence. The action of leaving the EU gives the UK complete sovereignty.



> Well given that the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers are both elected - the latter indirectly - by the population, and are involved in passing all EU legislation, the OD definition would seem to be satisfied.


As far back as when this country unfortunately joined the EEC, we gave away some form of our sovereignty.

"
The EU's powers to make and enforce laws have a bearing on the UK's sovereignty.

When we speak of the sovereignty of Parliament, we mean the right of the House of Commons and the House of Lords - with the formal approval of the monarch - to make any laws Parliament may choose.

Parliament can be said to have given up some of its sovereignty when it passed the European Communities Act 1972, enabling the UK to join what was then the European Economic Community, at the beginning of 1973, and requiring courts in the UK to apply EU law.""

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35630757

The concept of sovereignty and the contradiction of it as being part of the EU is well known.



> I've often wondered why some people get so aerated about the supposed democratic deficit in the EU, and meekly accept that their mortgage rate is set by a completely unelected body in the bowels of the Bank of England.


Perhaps due to the fact that the Bank of England is the central bank of the UK, nowhere else.



> Of course, Parliament has the power to rescind the Monetary Committee's powers, just as it has the power to remove the EU's powers, but one is subject to much vilification while the other - with much greater impact on the lives of most ordinary folk - is accepted without question.


I wonder why that would be.[/quote]

As long as the UK is part of the EU, the powers of the EU are enforced by legislation.



> Context may be helpful if one is trying to excuse what he said, but, regardless, it is still out and out racism.


No it is not. If it had been, he would have been prosecuted for his statement. He simply said what the vast majority of people would have said (when put into context). There is a great difference between German children and a Romanian group of men moving next door to you.



> Positing that all people from a specific nation should engender fear solely by their proximity is pretty much a dictionary definition of the term.


The guy was asked about the Romanian people, he did not just bring up that specific ethnic group.

I wouldn't like a group of young English lads moving next door to me. I wouldn't like an adult group of any kind moving next door to me for that matter.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> I do which is why I don't understand why the Remoaners are marching against a democratic referendum result. You and your inkling will come up with all sorts to try and portray the outcome as wrong but no one actually cares. Brexit is happening, accept it.


So you do not believe in democracy.



> Stop making up stuff to suit your agenda.


ROFL...


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> The concept of sovereignty and the contradiction of it as being part of the EU *is well known*.


I don't know if it was intended as any more than opinion, but I'm afraid that most of the first part of your post didn't strike me as any sort of refutation of what I said, so I'm not going to respond in detail. I would note, however, that the above is a familiar device when factual arguments are, shall we say, somewhat elusive.

The facts, however, remain that

- if a country voluntarily cedes powers and can take them back at any time, that country is sovereign, and that

- the EU is democratic by the definition you provided given the involvement of the elected European Parliament and / or the [indirectly] elected Council of Ministers in the enactment of all EU law

I won't be discussing this any further.

I would actually say, however, that my own definition of democracy would require Proportional Representation, and would be invalidated where its decisions were influence by lies. On at least one count this makes the EU more democratic than the UK. I won't be discussing that view, either.



David Jason Jones said:


> If it had been [racist], he would have been prosecuted for his statement.


There is no law in the UK that I know of against making racist comments. Certainly they can turn 'ordinary' crimes into 'hate' crimes, or if they include incitement to violence will no doubt lead to prosecution, but the sort of racist comment in which Farage indulged is not illegal, merely informative of the man, and revolting to most decent folk.

I've been wrong before, though, so do point me at the racist comment law if it does exist.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

David Jason Jones said:


> I do which is why I don't understand why the Remoaners are marching against a democratic referendum result. You and your inkling will come up with all sorts to try and portray the outcome as wrong but no one actually cares. Brexit is happening, accept it.


Mr Jason Jones: If you wish to put your point of view across you are entitled to do so, but labelling people you disagree by the popular tabloid term, "Remoaners" will not earn you any respect.

I might have read your post but that insult completely put me off.

Not a good way to get your message across.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> So you do not believe in democracy.
> 
> ROFL...


How do you come to that conclusion? I am democratic and respect the referendum result. Thankfully the government is respecting the result as well.

People that want a second referendum is the exact same as those football supporters that want a rematch until they get the result they want.






Are you still having problems with replying with the alleged several reliable sources for your claim?



Arnie83 said:


> I don't know if it was intended as any more than opinion, but I'm afraid that most of the first part of your post didn't strike me as any sort of refutation of what I said, so I'm not going to respond in detail. I would note, however, that the above is a familiar device when factual arguments are, shall we say, somewhat elusive.
> 
> The facts, however, remain that
> 
> ...


The question of how legitimate the principle of democracy and UK being part of the EU has been questioned since the early 1970s when the UK joined the EEC. The fact that the EU has some influence over UK law questions how legitimate the claim that the UK can still be democratic if it is part of the EU.

Why make the comment if you will not be discussing that view? I would seriously enjoy to read any reliable source that supports the claim that the EU is more democratic than the UK.

The comment was not racist because it doesn't fit the definition of 'racist'. The hate speech laws of the UK make any expression of hatred towards race to be illegal.

I would be interested if you know of any polls or surveys that claim the comment is "revolting" to "most decent folk". As I have pointed out, I think many people would be apprehensive of living next door to a group of any kind of adults, regardless of religion, ethnic group, race, etc. I even told you, I would not be comfortable living next to a group of young English lads.

May I just point out, I don't particularly care for Farage. I am not a UKIP member or supporter. However, the idea that Farage is somehow far-right and a racist is absolute nonsense.



KittenKong said:


> Mr Jason Jones: If you wish to put your point of view across you are entitled to do so, but labelling people you disagree by the popular tabloid term, "Remoaners" will not earn you any respect.
> 
> I might have read your post but that insult completely put me off.
> 
> Not a good way to get your message across.


What else should those people wanting a second referendum be called because they don't want to accept the result of the referendum?


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

@David Jason Jones 
I generally find that people who behave as rudely as you in an argument do so to deflect from the fact that their viewpoint does not hold water. Frankly I'm amazed that anyone can be bothered to engage with you.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> How do you come to that conclusion? I am democratic and respect the referendum result. Thankfully the government is respecting the result as well.


I respect the non-binding referendum result which showed people want changes. What is does not show is that we should leave the customs union and single market. It doesn't even show we should actually leave the EU considering people did not have the necessary information to make an informed choice. It did show that people did not understand what the EU is and does.



> People that want a second referendum is the exact same as those football supporters that want a rematch until they get the result they want.


What a shock, pulling that excuse out. So you are pushing the idea that general elections are not democratic. In addition, you fail to recognise that the referendum was non-binding.



> Are you still having problems with replying with the alleged several reliable sources for your claim?


Don't need to considering you are unable to provide ones supporting your claims. One is all I need or you can use a search engine.. they are easy enough to find.



> What else should those people wanting a second referendum be called because they don't want to accept the result of the referendum?


Well you could call them patriots especially considering those voting leave cannot provide any advantages to leaving which are based on facts and reality.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Blaise in Surrey said:


> @David Jason Jones
> I generally find that people who behave as rudely as you in an argument do so to deflect from the fact that their viewpoint does not hold water. Frankly I'm amazed that anyone can be bothered to engage with you.


Hear, hear, me dear.

But just be careful, because Nigel just might also label you a leftie as he has so many of us who don't agree with his views.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

David Jason Jones said:


> What else should those people wanting a second referendum be called because they don't want to accept the result of the referendum?


So perhaps we should respect the banks with PPI seeing we all volunteered to take it out with our loans etc. , having been sold the benefits in the event of redundancy, sickness etc.

In other words, we were sold a lie but, hey we fell for it. We didn't have to take it out but in doing so was the will of the customer wasn't it?!

So perhaps the banks should have chanted, "We mis-sold, you fell for it, get over it".

Perhaps you might consider calling your opponents the, "None believers in Brexit ", rather than resorting to a well known tabloid derogatory term towards those with a different viewpoint.

Hardly original is it and gives the impression you're using sources like the Sun, Mail and Express for your information.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> The question of how legitimate the principle of democracy and UK being part of the EU has been questioned since the early 1970s when the UK joined the EEC. The fact that the EU has some influence over UK law questions how legitimate the claim that the UK can still be democratic if it is part of the EU.
> 
> Why make the comment if you will not be discussing that view? I would seriously enjoy to read any reliable source that supports the claim that the EU is more democratic than the UK.
> 
> ...





Arnie83 said:


> The facts, however, remain that
> 
> - if a country voluntarily cedes powers and can take them back at any time, that country is sovereign, and that
> 
> ...


Actually I will make one more point, also not for discussion, and mostly for the interest of others.

In the elections for MEPs I have a vote which will count towards the total and will influence the make-up of the European Parliament according to the equation 1 / Total Votes.

In the Westminster elections my constituency has returned a Tory MP in every election since something like 27 BC. I don't vote Tory - though if I did it wouldn't change the maths. My vote counts towards the make-up of the Westminster Parliament according to the equation 0 / Total Votes.

Democracy, for me, demands that each one of the People has an equal influence over the make-up of whatever Parliament determines the rules that govern them.

The European Parliamentary system is therefore, for me, more democratic than that of the UK.


----------



## Blaise in Surrey (Jun 10, 2014)

Zaros said:


> Hear, hear, me dear.
> 
> But just be careful, because Nigel just might also label you a leftie as he has so many of us who don't agree with his views.


Ooh I'm scared


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Blaise in Surrey said:


> @David Jason Jones
> I generally find that people who behave as rudely as you in an argument do so to deflect from the fact that their viewpoint does not hold water. Frankly I'm amazed that anyone can be bothered to engage with you.


I've actually tried to discuss the various subjects and have been on the receiving end of personal abuse. I don't think ad hominems do anything for a decent discussion.

Can you give me some examples of my alleged rudeness? I think any of my posts clearly need to be put into context.



Goblin said:


> I respect the non-binding referendum result which showed people want changes. What is does not show is that we should leave the customs union and single market. It doesn't even show we should actually leave the EU considering people did not have the necessary information to make an informed choice. It did show that people did not understand what the EU is and does.


When did I ever say that the referendum was binding? I'm well aware that referendums are not "legally binding". However, it was certainly politically binding, hence why Cameron resigned as Prime Minister.

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

Those are part of the EU so leaving the EU also entails leaving those as well.

You're basically making the claim that everyone who voted 'Leave' was uninformed about the EU. Would you like to provide a source for such an outrageous claim?



> What a shock, pulling that excuse out. So you are pushing the idea that general elections are not democratic. In addition, you fail to recognise that the referendum was non-binding.


Are you deliberately making things up? I have never once made the claim that the referendum was legally binding. However, referendums are advisory and it would be a slap in thee face of democracy to not go through with the result of a referendum.

The government also promised to implement the result.



> Don't need to considering you are unable to provide ones supporting your claims. One is all I need or you can use a search engine.. they are easy enough to find.


Actually provide a source that states your initial claim. The source you provided does not provide any sort of proof about the claim you have made regarding migrants. Instead of quoting my post concerning this claim, why don't you just post some more sources? Remember, according to you, there are "several".

Stop wasting my time and actually provide proof for your claim.



> Well you could call them patriots especially considering those voting leave cannot provide any advantages to leaving which are based on facts and reality.


I would say that anyone who voted 'Remain' is the complete opposite of a patriot.

There are pros and cons about everything.

There were both Leave and Remain arguments used during the EU campaign, a person decided to vote on which he or she thought those points were more important and valid to him or her.

Are you seriously trying to suggest there are no pros from leaving the EU?

Here are a few: we will decide who comes into the country, we will be able to make our own laws again without any interference from the EU, courts will have the final say over the laws, we won't have to accept any regulations and rules forced on us by other countries, there will be no more funding the European Commission, we will be able to set our own tax rates, we will finally have our own passport again, we won't have to fund the EU foreign aid, the freedom to make trade deals with other nations, etc.



KittenKong said:


> So perhaps we should respect the banks with PPI seeing we all volunteered to take it out with our loans etc. , having been sold the benefits in the event of redundancy, sickness etc.
> 
> In other words, we were sold a lie but, hey we fell for it. We didn't have to take it out but in doing so was the will of the customer wasn't it?!
> 
> ...


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Blaise in Surrey said:


> @David Jason Jones
> I generally find that people who behave as rudely as you in an argument do so to deflect from the fact that their viewpoint does not hold water. *Frankly I'm amazed that anyone can be bothered to engage with you*.


Popcorn value, mainly, ATM...


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Those are part of the EU so leaving the EU also entails leaving those as well.


Not what was stated before the referendum was it.



> You're basically making the claim that everyone who voted 'Leave' was uninformed about the EU. Would you like to provide a source for such an outrageous claim?


So tell me what the terms of leaving are going to be? What you don't know... Tell me how you can have controlled borders whilst having an open border? Please provide a detailed mapping of all the losses of the UK including access to euratom etc. What you cannot.. but you are adamant you knew what you were voting for.



> Are you deliberately making things up? I have never once made the claim that the referendum was legally binding. However, referendums are advisory and it would be a slap in thee face of democracy to not go through with the result of a referendum.
> 
> The government also promised to implement the result.


So if it's not binding the government is under no obligation to leave but is obligated to address the issues raised. Would only take solving the issues of 2% of those who voted leave to negate the majority. Simple education could achieve that. Then there's actually enforcing EU freedom of movement rules.



> Actually provide a source that states your initial claim. The source you provided does not provide any sort of proof about the claim you have made regarding migrants. Instead of quoting my post concerning this claim, why don't you just post some more sources? Remember, according to you, there are "several".


Oh dear... Simply denying proof <> it does not provide proof. You are unable to back your post up. In fact according to you, Sergey Brin, one of the founders of Google would only employ immigrants or is this only a UK thing?



> I would say that anyone who voted 'Remain' is the complete opposite of a patriot.


Own government impact reports show brexit damages the UK.



> There are pros and cons about everything.


So list the pros which make up for what the UK loses.



> Are you seriously trying to suggest there are no pros from leaving the EU?


Well previously you haven't been able to provide any. You've pushed sovereignty despite evidence showing we never lost it. You've pushed the EU isn't democratic despite evidence showing it is. In fact you're the poster boy for simply repeating the proven lies of the leave campaign.



> Here are a few: we will decide who comes into the country, we will be able to make our own laws again without any interference from the EU, courts will have the final say over the laws, we won't have to accept any regulations and rules forced on us by other countries, there will be no more funding the European Commission, we will be able to set our own tax rates, we will finally have our own passport again, we won't have to fund the EU foreign aid, the freedom to make trade deals with other nations, etc.



We generally decide who comes into the country already. Majority of immigration will not be affected. EU immigration reduction is already having a negative impact to the UK. We already could have enforced EU rules more vigorously but UK government simply didn't.

We make up our own laws except in areas where we relinquished control due to the benefits for the UK. Overall the UK loses due to the divergence of standards which require that level of control. This will require additional red tape at borders and checks having a knock on negative affect to the country.

We will lose out far more than the funding of the EC. Currently brexit is costing 200million a week in lost GDP. It will get worse. There will be no promised brexit dividend.

Make trade deals.. the change from a 3 course meal for a packet of crisps you mean. You do realise all trade deals have some form of adjudication like the EU courts don't you. We will still be restricted by WTO rules. Guess a trade deal with the US in on the cards.. to what gain? Who has a strong negotiation position? So we want a trade deal with a country with a stronger negotiating position and a policy of America First.

Passport.. you mean the passport where no EU rules stated which colour they had to be. Where biometric data is actually to conform to US requirements and other rules are set by another international body.
Seriously.. soundbites as pros...


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

David Jason Jones said:


> Can you give me some examples of my alleged rudeness?


I can.

You accused me of being gay, a leftie, a label you also applied to others, and you used the term 'remoaner' which you bloody well know is pejorative.

And don't you try to deny it, Nigel, because it's all there in black and white.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Zaros said:


> I can.
> 
> You accused me of being gay, .


 What is wrong with being gay ? Asking or suggesting if you are gay isn't insulting unless you find it so which perhaps you do as you used the word "accused. "


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

I love this


David Jason Jones said:


> You're basically making the claim that everyone who voted 'Leave' was uninformed about the EU. Would you like to provide a source for such an outrageous claim?


followed by this as a benefit of leaving ...


David Jason Jones said:


> we will finally have our own passport again,


QED, methinks.

Clearly, though, and generalisations aside - because very little applies to all Leavers or all Remainers apart from the way they voted - everyone was uninformed about the EU. You've only got to rewind the comments of Davis, Fox & co to prove that. And, talking of passports, how many people understood passporting? How many do even now?

The 'outrageous claim' is patently true, as your own comment proved. However ...



David Jason Jones said:


> I would say that anyone who voted 'Remain' is the complete opposite of a patriot.


This is the line in your post that I found interesting.

My view would be that a 'patriot' wants the best for the people who are deemed citizens of the administrative area / country in which they live.

What definition would you use, which results in your expressed opinion above?


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

David Jason Jones said:


> Here are a few: we will decide who comes into the country, we will be able to make our own laws again without any interference from the EU, courts will have the final say over the laws, we won't have to accept any regulations and rules forced on us by other countries, there will be no more funding the European Commission, we will be able to set our own tax rates, we will finally have our own passport again, we won't have to fund the EU foreign aid, the freedom to make trade deals with other nations, etc.


You are so very wrong. "We" don't get to decide who can come into the country, or stay in it for that matter as we've seen on the Windrush scandal.

Theresa May and her government decide who can live and work in the UK, not you and I.

As for your love of blue passports you do realise it was 30 years since they were last seen in the UK. Many current holders weren't even born then!

And yes, the UK/EU passports were made in Britain. The restrictive blue passport will be made in France! You couldn't make it up!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Although I agree that ‘we’ don’t and the government does, we do in a way. We were the ones who voted them in. However, we’ve never been asked if we’d like PR, so we’re back to we don’t have control or any say in reality. The we that are we, are all puppets really.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...abinet-ministers-pleas-for-more-a3828141.html
Theresa May faces a new immigration crisis after it emerged that she overruled Cabinet ministers pleading for more doctors from overseas to fill empty NHS posts.

At least three government departments lobbied for a relaxation of visa rules to let in desperately needed doctors as well as specialist staff sought by businesses, the Evening Standard has learned.

The issue erupted on Friday when several NHS trusts went public about fears that patient safety was being put at risk by doctor shortages.

The crisis came as then home secretary Amber Rudd was fighting for her political life over the Windrush scandal - but No 10's hard line meant her hands were tied.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Doesn’t this all seem a bit deliberate? Like Theresa May doesn’t know that no one bar real extremists has a problem with doctors and commonwealth citizens of long standing coming to the U.K. and/or staying here. So they are picking on the most needed, or sympathetic people to demonstrate how bad immigration control is and how terrible it will be to leave the Eu?

Not that we’re leaving anyway, but it looks like manipulation to me.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> Doesn't this all seem a bit deliberate?


No it's what some of those pushing for "leave" were asking for without admitting the consequences.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Zaros said:


> I can.
> 
> You accused me of being gay, a leftie, a label you also applied to others, and you used the term 'remoaner' which you bloody well know is pejorative.
> 
> And don't you try to deny it, Nigel, because it's all there in black and white.


When did I accuse you of being gay? I don't believe I have ever mentioned anyone's sexuality. Quote what I said with a link.

I don't believe I have ever personally ever described you as a leftie. However, I have used the term to describe left-wing nonsense.

According to whom is the word "Remoaner" a pejorative?

You're now calling me "Nigel", have you any wonder why have contempt for you? You have not been interested in having a reasonable discussion since you started to respond to my posts.

By the way, since when are you Blaise in Surrey? Why are you still quoting me when I told you to have a nice day?



Arnie83 said:


> I love this
> 
> followed by this as a benefit of leaving ...
> 
> ...


The allegation that the people who voted 'Leave' were simply uninformed bigots is a lie spread by lefties. The idea that a person did not know everything about what the EU contains apart from the basics can be used for both sides of the argument.



> The 'outrageous claim' is patently true, as your own comment proved.


How? We will have our own passport.



> However ...
> 
> This is the line in your post that I found interesting.
> 
> ...


How is sacrificing your country's sovereign and total democracy the best thing for the people?



KittenKong said:


> You are so very wrong. "We" don't get to decide who can come into the country, or stay in it for that matter as we've seen on the Windrush scandal.


Of course we do. Using the Windrush scandal as prove is a non sequitur.



> Theresa May and her government decide who can live and work in the UK, not you and I.


Who decides which party is in government? The British people.



> As for your love of blue passports you do realise it was 30 years since they were last seen in the UK. Many current holders weren't even born then!


How is this even a valid argument? Plenty of people want their passport to say 'British'.



> And yes, the UK/EU passports were made in Britain. The restrictive blue passport will be made in France! You couldn't make it up!


What difference does it make if the passports are made in France? The manufacturer is British and most importantly it will say 'British'. There are plenty of things like gas and electricity that have headquarters in a foreign country but are used in the UK.

Your argument holds no merit.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Goblin said:


> No it's what some of those pushing for "leave" were asking for without admitting the consequences.


Even Farage talked about selective immigration and included doctors. Who suggested we'd refuse to admit doctors and kick out hard working people who have lived here all their lives? It must have been a very small minority. Besides, let's say people did vote to leave the Eu to gain control of our borders, they voted for control, not an impenetrable wall and to reduce immigration and get rid of people like Hamza, not reverse it and kick out Gandhi. Something Theresa May who voted remain knows full well.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> We will have our own passport.


We could have had our own passport at any time. There were no EU rules we had to follow. We could have had it a nice blue colour with little bunnies on it if we wanted.

Or are you, perhaps, referring to the change that removes the words 'European Union' from it? It really would seem to be scraping the barrel to describe that as a benefit of leaving! 



David Jason Jones said:


> How is sacrificing your country's sovereign and total democracy the best thing for the people?


Without, I hope, giving the impression that I agree with the implications within it, I'm afraid that isn't an answer to the question I asked, which was:

My view would be that a 'patriot' wants the best for the people who are deemed citizens of the administrative area / country in which they live.

What definition would you use, which results in your expressed opinion above [that anyone who voted Remain is the exact opposite of a patriot] ?​
So what is your definition of 'patriot'?

Let me add a second, but linked question, which might help. Does a 'patriot', do you think, want what is economically best for the people who live in the country concerned?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> Even Farage talked about selective immigration and included doctors. Who suggested we'd refuse to admit doctors and kick out hard working people who have lived here all their lives?


Obviously you fail to recognise is that when stirring up fear of immigrants in general and using them as scapegoats, logic and qualifiers go out the window. People like Farage relied on feeding an atmosphere where any immigrant is not welcome, hence the sudden rise in racial attacks after the referendum.



David Jason Jones said:


> How? We will have our own passport.


We already do. Mine is a "United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Passport." That will not change. Only change is colour which we could already change at any time.



> How is sacrificing your country's sovereign and total democracy the best thing for the people


We never have sacrificed sovereignty. Repeating we have doesn't make it any more true than the first time. Total democracy is an interesting phrase considering we do not have it in the UK. We have a representative democracy.



> Who decides which party is in government? The British people.


Who decides who has the power in the EU? The european people via proportional representation. Then again you seem to be arguing when a party is in government they should have no accountability and be able to do what they like. Democracy means having the ability to hold the government to account for it's actions including having opposition.



> Your argument holds no merit.


Sums up your posts in this thread doesn't it.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don’t ‘obviously fail to recognise’ anything. The government alone are responsible for the recent scandals and of following this particular programme. They weren’t asked to and I doubt very much that Theresa May is afraid of immigrants, or acting illogically. I seriously have no idea what you’re on about.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

David Cameron went cap in hand to the Eu before the referendum. The Eu said no. That is how it looked.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

David Jason Jones said:


> most importantly it will say 'British'.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but they already do









Not sure how they could be more British than they are already...


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

StormyThai said:


> Not sure how they could be more British than they are already...


Blue, ST! They need to be BLUE!!! If you don't want a blue passport, how can you ever be considered patriotic again?!?!?!! 

(the fact we could have made them blue anyway - the same as some EU countries already do, incidentally - is, of course, completely irrelevent...  )


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> David Cameron went cap in hand to the Eu before the referendum. The Eu said no. That is how it looked.


Why should the EU allow additional control of freedom of movement when the UK didn't enforce the rules already in existance or educate it's population of the possibility that the government could already tighten procedures?

Interestingly though, the current palava isn't anything to do with the EU. Brexit has no impact on what happens to a large number immigrants and their treatment, although all were made scapegoats by the leave campaign for the ills of the country.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Which demonstrates that you missed the point I was making, the question I was asking @Goblin

Is the current controversial control, a ploy by the government to make us regret Brexit, or at least more amenable towards the Eu. By deporting the windrush people and controversially refusing to admit doctors, immigration is being highlighted. We haven't left the Eu, yet apparently our government does have control and power. Power to deport and refuse the most desirable members of our immigrant communities and most desirable skilled workers. Theresa May knows that isn't what the majority of British people wanted, whether they voted remain or leave and I doubt she's scared of immigrants, or influenced by newspapers. Just a numbers game? I doubt that too. Manipulation of the masses seems more likely to me. I'm not arguing over realities or Brexit, I'm discussing conspiracies and appearances.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> Is the current controversial control, a ploy by the government to make us regret Brexit, or at least more amenable towards the Eu.


No, it's simply incompetence. This government isn't able to be that sophisticated. As for being influenced by newspapers, the referendum showed that people are which has a knock on effect for the government.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

So the Russian government, American government, Syrian government, even the German government can manage it, but our government bodies are just incompetent.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Elles said:


> So the Russian government, American government, Syrian government, even the German government can manage it, but our government bodies are just incompetent.


Sounds about right to me!


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> So the Russian government, American government, Syrian government, even the German government can manage it, but our government bodies are just incompetent.


This is something that should have been happening and tightened for years. Governments (not only tory) haven't. If you want conspiricy theory, a more likely one is which minister is stabbing another to gain something politically from it all.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)




----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> We could have had our own passport at any time. There were no EU rules we had to follow. We could have had it a nice blue colour with little bunnies on it if we wanted.


I don't want to see "EUROPEAN UNION" anywhere on my passport, thank you.



> Or are you, perhaps, referring to the change that removes the words 'European Union' from it? It really would seem to be scraping the barrel to describe that as a benefit of leaving!


For some it may not mean a lot, to others it means a lot. I don't want anything to do with the EU.



> Without, I hope, giving the impression that I agree with the implications within it, I'm afraid that isn't an answer to the question I asked, which was:
> 
> My view would be that a 'patriot' wants the best for the people who are deemed citizens of the administrative area / country in which they live.
> 
> ...


You keep asking what is my definition of a certain word, why don't you just use a dictionary? A standard definition is fine. The subjective issue is what someone considers to be a patriotic move. I don't understand how anyone could argue rationally that accepting the loss of total democracy and sovereignty is a form of patriotism.



> Let me add a second, but linked question, which might help. Does a 'patriot', do you think, want what is economically best for the people who live in the country concerned?


That is a loaded question.

Economics is certainly an important factor for any decision a government decides to make. I hope you're not forgetting that an economy can change. Sovereignty on the other hand is extremely important for any country and should be held as a top priority.



Goblin said:


> Obviously you fail to recognise is that when stirring up fear of immigrants in general and using them as scapegoats, logic and qualifiers go out the window. People like Farage relied on feeding an atmosphere where any immigrant is not welcome, hence the sudden rise in racial attacks after the referendum.


What an absolute load of rubbish. You constantly claim Farage stirs up fear of immigrants and uses them as scapegoats but you never provide any actual evidence to support this ridiculous statement. You claim, "logic and qualifiers go out the window." Clearly you do not even listen to Farage or his arguments. The arguments that Farage makes about the level of immigration are based on logic and qualifiers; he wants a system that does not allow uncontrolled immigration, especially those that are unskilled, and makes it much harder for a trained doctor from India to come to the UK.



> We already do. Mine is a "United Kingdom Of Great Britain And Northern Ireland Passport." That will not change. Only change is colour which we could already change at any time.


You are simply being dishonest. Passports contain the words "EUROPEAN UNION".



> We never have sacrificed sovereignty. Repeating we have doesn't make it any more true than the first time. Total democracy is an interesting phrase considering we do not have it in the UK. We have a representative democracy.


You should practice what you preach!

How many times do you need to be told? Any country that is part of a union lacks sovereignty.



> Who decides who has the power in the EU? The european people via proportional representation. Then again you seem to be arguing when a party is in government they should have no accountability and be able to do what they like. Democracy means having the ability to hold the government to account for it's actions including having opposition.


The EU has a certain influence over the UK law, are you going to deny that?



> Sums up your posts in this thread doesn't it.


Where are the several sources for your bizarre statement about immigrants in the UK? I'm still waiting. The simple tactic of not quoting the request for sources and failing to provide any that actually support your claim tells me that you were simply lying.

You claim, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers."

I have asked over a few pages now for the several sources that prove this claim, why are you not posting any sources? A Google search brings up no such thing.

May I ask, is English your first language? I can only put this down to either the fact that English is not your native language or you are not too bright. Which one is it?



StormyThai said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble, but they already do
> View attachment 353279
> 
> 
> Not sure how they could be more British than they are already...


Are you blind? The passport contains the words "EUROPEAN UNION".


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

I'm laughing at the local election results. Bye Bye the Labour Party hahahahahahahahaha! Corbyn and his far-left Marxist morons have failed to convince the British people into believing their BS. Corbyn's lies have been exposed and the results prove this without any doubt. His false promises and populist appeals have failed to convince any significant amount of the British people.

I can't wait until the general election. Anyway, hopefully by that time Corbyn will no longer be the leader of the Labour Party.






A recent interview between Piers Morgan and Diane Abbott. Typical Abbott at her best! She can't even explain what Labour's policy are on illegal immigrants.

No wonder any sane British person despises Labour and the prominent members.











Diane Abbott shouldn't even be called a politician, she is an utter disgrace to politics.

Anyone who would want that to be the Shadow Home Secretary of this country, book an appointment at the doctors.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Book an appointment at the doctors? :Hilarious:Hilarious

It would be funny if it wasn’t.

I agree that Diane Abbott should probably retire now. She isn’t well and it’s clear she’s struggling. I don’t think there’s any need to insult her though. She has many achievements to her name and resorting to cheap insults on either side, is in part why discussions involving politics often fall apart.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

It is much more fun to discuss politics rather than personalities in my view, but sadly not in everyone's. I can't engage with someone who refers to another person as "that", nor anyone who bandies around words like "sane" when they mean "anyone who doesn't agree with me".


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Mr Jason Jones,
You might not even see the words British or United Kingdom in the not too distant future on passports if Scotland and NI break away from the union seeing the will of their people isn't being respected: IE you're getting a hard border because England and Wales voted for you to have one.

And of course the mumblings in Gibralter. See above.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> I'm laughing at the local election results. Bye Bye the Labour Party hahahahahahahahaha! Corbyn and his far-left Marxist morons have failed to convince the British people into believing their BS. Corbyn's lies have been exposed and the results prove this without any doubt. His false promises and populist appeals have failed to convince any significant amount of the British people.
> 
> I can't wait until the general election. Anyway, hopefully by that time Corbyn will no longer be the leader of the Labour Party.
> 
> ...


Perhaps you are the one who should be booking an appointment with the doctor as you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Diane Abbott. There are plenty of inept politicians sadly so I have to wonder why it is you pick on her in such a mean spirited way. You have reminded me of this article which was posted on a thread we had last year before that ill fated election about just this subject

https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/

PS reality check. I've never voted in local council elections the same way as I vote in a general election. Different issues. Different folks.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> I don't want to see "EUROPEAN UNION" anywhere on my passport, thank you.
> For some it may not mean a lot, to others it means a lot. I don't want anything to do with the EU.


So it really is the words on the front that bother you! I hope you'll excuse me, but I find that odd.

Maybe it's because I feel more European than I do British. But then I feel more human that I do European. All countries and nations are just made up by people, historically through the desire for greater power or because tribal instincts have, falsely, convinced them that they are sufficiently different from others to justify creating a new administrative group with claims of uniqueness.

I guess a little booklet with the group's name exclusively on the front acts as a sort of tribal comfort blanket, but it's really not for me.



David Jason Jones said:


> You keep asking what is my definition of a certain word. A standard definition is fine. The subjective issue is what someone considers to be a patriotic move. I don't understand how anyone could argue rationally that accepting the loss of total democracy and sovereignty is a form of patriotism.


My view would be that the welfare of the people who inhabit the territory of the relevant administrative construct - or 'country' as we call it - would be the most important aim. Sharing the administrative responsibility with other countries, resulting in the enhancement of that welfare, strikes me as a good thing for the people, and therefore a good thing for the country. And therefore 'patriotic'.

It seems perverse to me that damaging the welfare of the people can be thought of as a 'patriotic' act. As you could probably infer from the above I think actual people are more important than protecting the perceived integrity of the man-made administrative area in which they live. But ...



David Jason Jones said:


> Economics is certainly an important factor for any decision a government decides to make. I hope you're not forgetting that an economy can change. Sovereignty on the other hand is extremely important for any country and should be held as a top priority.


... it is clear from what you say that you think exactly that.

In history the medieval elite on this island agreed after much bloodshed that the kingdoms should come together and be called England, under the rule of a single king - the one that beat the others on the battlefield. Over the years England annexed Wales and agreed a Union with Scotland (who agreed largely for financial reasons).

I don't really understand those who think not only that the resulting 'country' was always somehow meant to be - that Great Britain was the proper configuration of the squabbling tribes - nor how now that configuration is seen by some to be a glorious 'nation' and something of which they, personally, should be proud. It's just another man-made area resulting from the tribal - we called them kingdoms then - urge to be the most powerful and to subjugate those in neighbouring territories. Countries are remnants of our evolutionary past. I don't, personally, see anything glorious about that. It's just what the human animal has always done, and which we apparently haven't grown out of.

But that's by the by. What I mostly don't understand is how the administrative arrangements of this mish-mash of formerly separate - and, incidentally, sovereign - tribes is seen as more important than the prosperity of those who live here. Breaking away from the Union of European countries will cause economic damage to the UK population. Just as Scotland breaking away from the Union of Great Britain would cause damage to the Scottish people. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn't understand economics.

Neither act of withdrawal seems sensible to me, any more than I understand those who clamour for the UK to leave the EU but think the UK itself is somehow sacrosanct. But that's maybe because I come back to people being more important than the paper tribes under the jurisdiction of which they happen to live.

Perhaps if I thought otherwise I would be more upset that my passport has 'United Kingdom' on it when actually I am only English. :shrug:


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> How many times do you need to be told? Any country that is part of a union lacks sovereignty


Which is absolute rubbish. You can be in a union without giving up soveriegnty. We already are in a union where we retain our own sovereignty. We can also leave which is proof of sovereignty in itself. Interestingly https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjp9vyDp-3aAhUkDJoKHYayBWwQFjABegQIABA3&url=https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazine-extras/Politics%20Review/Pol%20Rev%20Vol%2026%20No%204/PoliticsReview26_4_UK_Article_50.docx?ext=.docx&usg=AOvVaw3yJ552ToOSvzpzRVhEztCR also shows how we retain sovereignty.

You should also note section 2.1 of the government's article 50 white paper:


> The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. *Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU*, it has not always felt like that.


---------------​


David Jason Jones said:


> The EU has a certain influence over the UK law, are you going to deny that?


Of course it has influence, after all the UK influences EU law, therefore the UK influenced German and French law through the democratic EU process. It allows advantages to all participants and is restricted in scope. In all other areas the UK makes it own laws. The same as WTO rules will continue to influence UK laws as well as any separate trade deals we make.



> Where are the several sources for your bizarre statement about immigrants in the UK? I'm still waiting. The simple tactic of not quoting the request for sources and failing to provide any that actually support your claim tells me that you were simply lying.


Back to that despite a source being given. Yet you are unable to provide even one source to back your claim that immigrants only employ immigrants in an attempt to invalidate the source provided. Tell you what you provide evidence of that and I will provide another backing my claim.



> You claim, "Also immigrants in general have a high number of entrepreneurs which employ UK workers."
> 
> I have asked over a few pages now for the several sources that prove this claim, why are you not posting any sources? A Google search brings up no such thing.
> 
> May I ask, is English your first language? I can only put this down to either the fact that English is not your native language or you are not too bright. Which one is it?


Funny when I provide a source which you seem to be unable to read even when specific applicable text is highlighted. You seem to also be unable to use a search engine. Interesting...



David Jason Jones said:


> I'm laughing at the local election results. Bye Bye the Labour Party hahahahahahahahaha!


You mean the fact that the Labour had far more gains than the Tories perhaps?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

As an addendum to my post above, I notice that Farage told the European Parliament a day or so back that

"We want to live in nation states, not artificial creations"​
Apart from being unimpressed with the generalisation of "we", what on earth does he think "nation states" are if not artificial creations!?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Elles said:


> Book an appointment at the doctors? :Hilarious:Hilarious
> 
> It would be funny if it wasn't.
> 
> I agree that Diane Abbott should probably retire now. She isn't well and it's clear she's struggling. I don't think there's any need to insult her though. She has many achievements to her name and resorting to cheap insults on either side, is in part why discussions involving politics often fall apart.


I personally insult Dianne Abbott because she doesn't even deserve the description 'politician'. She is incompetent, racist, hypocrite and quite clearly thick as pig shit.

She should never have been allowed to stay in politics since the 1980s. Are you actually aware that in the actual true sense of the word she is a racist?

Abbott in her own words:

In 1984 she was asked if she regarded herself as black British, she replied:

"No - I would self-define myself just as Black. Though I was born here in London, I couldn't identify as British and anyway most British people don't accept us as British. God! British people can be so racist".

In a 1988 black studies conference she claimed that the British invented racism.

In 1996, she claimed that "blonde, blue-eyed Finnish girls" were unstable as nurses because they had never met a black person before.

In 2012 she tweeted, "White people love playing 'divide and rule' We should not play their game". In response to this tweet, Nadhim Zahawi, Conservative MP,
said: "This is racism. If this was a white member of Parliament saying that all black people want to do bad things to us he would have resigned within the hour or been sacked." Why was she not sacked for this comment? She only apologised after she was told by the Labour Party that it was unacceptable and had the audacity to state that she was not making a generalisation about white people.

Again, in 2012, she claimed that taxi drivers discriminate racially, she tweeted, "Dubious of black people claiming they've never experienced racism. Ever tried hailing a taxi I always wonder?"

She is anti-British. In 1984 she backed the IRA during an interview with _Labour and Ireland_, a pro-republican journal. Unionist population of Northern Ireland as an "enclave of white supremacist ideology comparable to white settlers in Zimbabwe" and called for their views to be ignored on the question of Unification adding "Ireland is our struggle - every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed". In 2017, Andrew Marr during an interview asked if she would like to retract any of the comments and the best she could come up with was that "some" of her views had changed and, "It was 34 years ago and I've moved on".

Remember all of the uproar about Ken Livingstone's comments about Hitler? Why was there no outrage in 2008 when she defended the dictator Mao Zedong? She said:

"I suppose some people will judge that on balance Mao did more good than harm... He led his country from feudalism, he helped to defeat the Japanese and he left his country on the verge of the great economic success they are having now." She finished by saying: "I was just putting the case for Mao."

Also, she constantly claims that selective schools are "indefensible" and "intellectually incoherent" yet she sent her son to a private school.



Jonescat said:


> It is much more fun to discuss politics rather than personalities in my view, but sadly not in everyone's. I can't engage with someone who refers to another person as "that", nor anyone who bandies around words like "sane" when they mean "anyone who doesn't agree with me".


I'm quite happy to discuss politics. However, when a politician is as incompetent as Dianne Abbott then it is obvious that people will use personal insults. Throughout her whole "political career" she has constantly shown her lack of ability to be given the title "politician". Youtube her recent interview with Piers Morgan and you will see what I mean.

Abbott, Corbyn and others on the left like to use the Tories as a scapegoat. I've never once heard Dianne Abbott argue anything that is rational.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Perhaps you are the one who should be booking an appointment with the doctor as you seem to have an unhealthy obsession with Diane Abbott. There are plenty of inept politicians sadly so I have to wonder why it is you pick on her in such a mean spirited way. You have reminded me of this article which was posted on a thread we had last year before that ill fated election about just this subject
> 
> https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2017/06/07/we-need-to-talk-about-diane-abbott-now-explicit-content/
> 
> PS reality check. I've never voted in local council elections the same way as I vote in a general election. Different issues. Different folks.


Not quite, her incompetence never fails to make me laugh though.

The article you posted also likes to use the same arguments that Abbott uses time and time again, she likes to use the Tories as a scapegoat. I've never once heard make a single authentic and rational argument for any policy.

I suggest you look at the comments I have quoted and you will see that those comments she has made ostensibly alone override any of her so-called achievements. For example, she claims to be racially abused yet she has been racist towards white people.

Why would you want to defend a racist that is anti-British? She deserves no gratitude, she is an absolute disgrace.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> So it really is the words on the front that bother you! I hope you'll excuse me, but I find that odd.


Indeed. As long as those vile words are on my passport, it is not a British passport.



> Maybe it's because I feel more European than I do British. But then I feel more human that I do European. All countries and nations are just made up by people, historically through the desire for greater power or because tribal instincts have, falsely, convinced them that they are sufficiently different from others to justify creating a new administrative group with claims of uniqueness.


You can feel "European" without wishing to remain as part of the European Union. I also feel European, since I am European.

Your last comment is strikingly odd, where is the falseness? Different races and ethnic groups have formed by human nature and natural laws. For example, there are clear differences between even the tribes in Africa.

A country's borders are made up but the actual nation itself is not made up, it is the ethnic group that formed the country.



> I guess a little booklet with the group's name exclusively on the front acts as a sort of tribal comfort blanket, but it's really not for me.


Well it certainly erases the concept of a British passport.



> My view would be that the welfare of the people who inhabit the territory of the relevant administrative construct - or 'country' as we call it - would be the most important aim. Sharing the administrative responsibility with other countries, resulting in the enhancement of that welfare, strikes me as a good thing for the people, and therefore a good thing for the country. And therefore 'patriotic'.


Can you tell me any of the economic things that have been achieved as part of the EU that were not possible remaining outside of the EU?

Brexit will enhance certain parts of the economy, the withdrawal of money to the EU will allow the government to cut taxes and spend more money on important things. The actual true economic impact is not possible to accurately judge since there is no hindsight, only time will tell. Nevertheless, economies can change and being part of the EU or not does not necessarily mean that an economy would stay the same.



> It seems perverse to me that damaging the welfare of the people can be thought of as a 'patriotic' act. As you could probably infer from the above I think actual people are more important than protecting the perceived integrity of the man-made administrative area in which they live. But ...


Except Brexit will not be damaging anyone, on the contrary, it will give the British people more say over matters more close to home.



> ... it is clear from what you say that you think exactly that.
> 
> In history the medieval elite on this island agreed after much bloodshed that the kingdoms should come together and be called England, under the rule of a single king - the one that beat the others on the battlefield. Over the years England annexed Wales and agreed a Union with Scotland (who agreed largely for financial reasons).


Red herring. This is completely off-topic and is not even related to the EU and the way it works.



> I don't really understand those who think not only that the resulting 'country' was always somehow meant to be - that Great Britain was the proper configuration of the squabbling tribes - nor how now that configuration is seen by some to be a glorious 'nation' and something of which they, personally, should be proud. It's just another man-made area resulting from the tribal - we called them kingdoms then - urge to be the most powerful and to subjugate those in neighbouring territories. Countries are remnants of our evolutionary past. I don't, personally, see anything glorious about that. It's just what the human animal has always done, and which we apparently haven't grown out of.


Do you want to deny nature anymore? Nations were formed by people and you can call the borders of countries as "man-made" but the fact remains that all of the different ethnic groups on Earth have formed separately and are segregated by those borders. What is wrong with evolution? It is a natural law.

What is your alternative? Open borders?



> But that's by the by. What I mostly don't understand is how the administrative arrangements of this mish-mash of formerly separate - and, incidentally, sovereign - tribes is seen as more important than the prosperity of those who live here. Breaking away from the Union of European countries will cause economic damage to the UK population. Just as Scotland breaking away from the Union of Great Britain would cause damage to the Scottish people. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn't understand economics.


Practice what you preach. I don't think you understand that the economy of a country is not indefinite.

What economic books have you read?



> Neither act of withdrawal seems sensible to me, any more than I understand those who clamour for the UK to leave the EU but think the UK itself is somehow sacrosanct. But that's maybe because I come back to people being more important than the paper tribes under the jurisdiction of which they happen to live.


Countries do better when they are self-governing and have total sovereignty, what do you find so difficult to understand?

Also, you seem to be trying to push the notion that any anti-EU argument is somehow anti-people, what a load of rubbish.



> Perhaps if I thought otherwise I would be more upset that my passport has 'United Kingdom' on it when actually I am only English. :shrug:


Even though England is part of the United Kingdom and England is ruled by British law not English law. Nice try, not.



Goblin said:


> Which is absolute rubbish. You can be in a union without giving up soveriegnty. We already are in a union where we retain our own sovereignty. We can also leave which is proof of sovereignty in itself. Interestingly https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjp9vyDp-3aAhUkDJoKHYayBWwQFjABegQIABA3&url=https://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/media/Documents/magazine-extras/Politics%20Review/Pol%20Rev%20Vol%2026%20No%204/PoliticsReview26_4_UK_Article_50.docx?ext=.docx&usg=AOvVaw3yJ552ToOSvzpzRVhEztCR also shows how we retain sovereignty.


Is English your native language? I don't understand what you are finding so difficult to understand. Any country that is part of a union loses complete sovereignty.



> You should also note section 2.1 of the government's article 50 white paper:
> 
> ---------------​


​Perhaps you should read the whole thing from the White Paper:

"2.1 The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that. The extent of EU activity relevant to the UK can be demonstrated by the fact that 1,056 EU-related documents were deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in 2016. These include proposals for EU Directives, Regulations, Decisions and Recommendations, as well as Commission delegated acts, and other documents such as Commission Communications, Reports and Opinions submitted to the Council, Court of Auditors Reports and more.

2.2 Leaving the EU will mean that our laws will be made in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and will be based on the specific interests and values of the UK. In chapter 1 we set out how the Great Repeal Bill will ensure that our legislatures and courts will be the final decision makers in our country."

You can also read, https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...opean-union--2#taking-control-of-our-own-laws



> Of course it has influence, after all the UK influences EU law, therefore the UK influenced German and French law through the democratic EU process. It allows advantages to all participants and is restricted in scope. In all other areas the UK makes it own laws. The same as WTO rules will continue to influence UK laws as well as any separate trade deals we make.


The fact it has any influence over the UK means that the UK is not completely self-governing.



> Back to that despite a source being given. Yet you are unable to provide even one source to back your claim that immigrants only employ immigrants in an attempt to invalidate the source provided. Tell you what you provide evidence of that and I will provide another backing my claim.


The burden of proof doesn't work like that. I never said that the immigrants only employ immigrants, I responded to your statement that they hire "UK workers" and gave examples of immigrants that generally hire other immigrants. You will not find a single quote from me claiming that immigrants only employ immigrants.

Are you purposely lying or genuinely having problems understanding English?



> Funny when I provide a source which you seem to be unable to read even when specific applicable text is highlighted. You seem to also be unable to use a search engine. Interesting...


The source you used did not provide proof for your claim.



> You mean the fact that the Labour had far more gains than the Tories perhaps?


Labour failed to make any significant gains. Unlucky.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43997872

Corbyn said: "There's much more to come and it's going to get even better". He's a delusional fool.



Arnie83 said:


> As an addendum to my post above, I notice that Farage told the European Parliament a day or so back that
> 
> "We want to live in nation states, not artificial creations"​
> Apart from being unimpressed with the generalisation of "we", what on earth does he think "nation states" are if not artificial creations!?


A nation-state is a territory that is inhabited by a nation (people) that typically govern the place. Nations sometimes go beyond current borders.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Brexit will enhance certain parts of the economy, the withdrawal of money to the EU will allow the government to cut taxes and spend more money on important things. The actual true economic impact is not possible to accurately judge since there is no hindsight, only time will tell. Nevertheless, economies can change and being part of the EU or not does not necessarily mean that an economy would stay the same.


False logic when brexit will actually lose money. How about brexit is already costing an estimated 200million a week. That is actually happening. That's 200million we could have been spending on the NHS now.



> Except Brexit will not be damaging anyone, on the contrary, it will give the British people more say over matters more close to home.


Wait.. didn't you say you couldn't make predictions.. ah I get it, only when it matches your argument... Already has damaged people so that's another lie. Maybe you can explain: how does actually removing a level of accountability for the average person give them more say? Tell me how accountable is the government going to be after brexit when they want to strip things like workers rights? Why is it May is deliberately trying to bypass parliament removing yet another level of accountability and silencing one of the few avenues the british people have to be heard? How exactly do the people of the UK have more say?



> Countries do better when they are self-governing and have total sovereignty, what do you find so difficult to understand?


Since when? If that was the case you wouldn't have countries forming partnerships in the first place.



> Is English your native language? I don't understand what you are finding so difficult to understand. Any country that is part of a union loses complete sovereignty.


No *we allow *jurisdiction for limited areas to be controlled. We retain sovereignty. Oh I've read the white paper but your argument of sovereignty is disproven by the actual words I quoted as it states quite clearly and unambiguously we never lost sovereignty. Interestingly Directives, Regulation etc aren't generally imposed. The *government decides how to implement them* and makes relevant changes to the law if necessary. Another proof we retain sovereignty.



> The fact it has any influence over the UK means that the UK is not completely self-governing.


Well in that case even leaving the EU we will not be self-governing by your definition. Let's see there's the UN, WTO, any trade deal which as an arbitrator (most if not all) and goodness knows or many other treaties etc like say the US-UK extradition treaty.



> The burden of proof doesn't work like that. I never said that the immigrants only employ immigrants


Making rules up as you go along.. Well in any case the source proves my assertion if you are now denying immigrants only employ immigrants. There are a high number of immigrant entrepreneurs adding to the economy and providing UK jobs. Proof has been provided, not my fault your understanding of english is lacking somewhat.



> Labour failed to make any significant gains. Unlucky.


Did not make significant gains.. didn't lose did they. Oh wait..
​








shows labour is doing really badly doesn't it.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> I personally insult Dianne Abbott because she doesn't even deserve the description 'politician'. She is incompetent, racist, hypocrite and quite clearly thick as pig shit.
> 
> Not quite, her incompetence never fails to make me laugh though.
> 
> ...


Firstly I am not aware that I did "defend her" as you put it. I pointed out that you appear to have an unhealthy obsession with her and called your comments mean spirited which was a polite way of saying bloody nasty.

Secondly clearly she isn't as "thick as pig shit" as she obtained a degree in history from Cambridge University in 1973, back in the day when degrees were a true academic achievement.

Thirdly I tend to stick up for anyone who is being bullied or trolled as I find it distasteful and unChristian.

Hope that clears things up for you


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Who’s lost 200m? I haven’t noticed any difference. If they weren’t spending this imaginary money on the nhs before, what makes you think they would now. One of the richest countries in the world is the Congo. It does ordinary people living there a fat lot of good doesn’t it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> Who's lost 200m? I haven't noticed any difference. If they weren't spending this imaginary money on the nhs before, what makes you think they would now. One of the richest countries in the world is the Congo. It does ordinary people living there a fat lot of good doesn't it.


A report by the London School of Economics' Centre for Economics Performance in November 2017 estimated that the Brexit-related spike in inflation in the UK had already cost the average UK household around £400 a year so it has already affected people. As for the NHS.. losing 200million per week (300 million according to some) is a far cry from the lie of having 350million per week the government could spend on the NHS shown on a big red bus. https://www.businessinsider.de/brexit-dividend-myth-eu-referendum-boris-johnson-nhs-2018-1 In regards to brexit and the NHS http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Brexit-and-the-NHS-.pdf hardly paints a positive light does it.



David Jason Jones said:


> Brexit will enhance certain parts of the economy, the withdrawal of money to the EU will allow the government to cut taxes and spend more money on important things.


Even the government's own impact reports show this is not expected. Where is all this money coming from considering we lose out on 50+ trade arrangements to start with? The UK will have to fund things to make up for losses.. extra border controls, agencies, funding for science, even arbitration schemes as part of any trade deal ignoring any economic knock on effect. Talking about things to pay for.. whilst the UK saves the £8.5 billion it sends to the EU (actually £163million a week), barriers etc on trade with the UK could well be in the region of £22 billion. That's according to an advisor to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis. So let's get this right.. we pay 22billion to save 8.5billion.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

It’s hopeless telling people that the average U.K. household has lost £400 because of Brexit, when most of them haven’t, or can’t actually see it. I haven’t and I don’t know anyone else who would demonstrate that they were £400 worse off because of Brexit either. It’s this imaginary estimated money again. Yet again the bus is mentioned. There were exaggerations and fantasy on both sides of the debate. I’m sure the fear mongering from the other side persuaded some to vote remain too. There’s more to it than fear mongering and posters on buses. Did you think it was promising money for the NHS? Did your friends, colleagues and family think it? Did it sway your or their vote? A small minority voted to stay in the Eu. The rest either didn’t care, or voted to leave. You’re saying they were all wrong? 

Yes there’ll be more jobs if we need more customs control and medicine tests. Given what big pharma get up to and the under performing (nothing to do with brexit) nhs, it’s not high on my list of priorities.

Plenty of countries cope fine outside the Eu. Countries that aren’t as wealthy as the U.K. How can you persuade people that leaving is, or will be a disaster, when we can all look at examples outside the Eu, and maybe don’t think things have been that grand inside it.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> Plenty of countries cope fine outside the Eu. Countries that aren't as wealthy as the U.K. How can you persuade people that leaving is, or will be a disaster, when we can all look at examples outside the Eu, and maybe don't think things have been that grand inside it.


UK will survive in or out. The more apt question is why damage the future for no gain? Why restrict future generations? Why reduce our influence with our closest neighbours? Why not give companies the best chance possible to grow, to export etc?

Take back control is a proven lie, sovereignty is a proven lie, economic advantages to leaving is a proven lie. So why leave when there are so many advantages to being in the EU?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

There is no proof of no gain, or of future damage, or restricting future generations. There is proof of the Eu gravy train. It’s very easy to prove that the Eu is bureaucratic leviathan that earns wealthy, powerful people goodly sums. There’s not really much proof that the average bod gains anything much from it and would be worse off outside of it. We need PR and better alternative government in the U.K. imo. I already pointed out something the Eu has control over unless we leave, something I don’t agree with and proof enough to dismantle it for me, even though I voted remain. It would be easier for my family if we stay in too. However, there’s no point in going over old ground is there?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

There is proof of some of what leaving means. Simply removing freedom of movement is restricting future generations and the opportunities available. There is proof leaving things like Euratom is going to be negative. There is proof that the UK is going to be worse off economically. There is proof Brexit is harming people's lives, now and will in the future. There is proof that we had a voice we are losing within the EU. What there isn't, is enough people prepared to look at the evidence and facts available prefering to listen to propaganda instead. There's a reason the leave politicians are no longer pushing advantages of leaving and coming up with comments like "it will not be a mad max dystopia".


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

Elles said:


> There is proof of the Eu gravy train. It's very easy to prove that the Eu is bureaucratic leviathan that earns wealthy, powerful people goodly sums.


Without doubt there is the proof because it's an open institution. I've got a nasty feeling our future will be less and less so while protecting those wealthy and powerful people more and more. If leaving meant otherwise and creating a fairer society I'd be all for it.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Different races and ethnic groups have formed by human nature and natural laws. For example, there are clear differences between even the tribes in Africa.
> 
> A country's borders are made up but the actual nation itself is not made up, *it is the ethnic group that formed the country*.


What 'natural laws' I wonder? But that is probably tangential.

The bolded bit, though, I think is interesting since it implies that the UK is formed of a single ethnic group. I'm not sure which one that would be.

Cheddar Man represents the first known member of continuous habitation of the islands that make up what we now call the UK, but very few of us are directly descended from them.

Farmers, originally from Turkey, migrated through northern Europe and arrived here about 7000 years ago, massively changing the culture.

Perhaps the biggest change came from what are called the 'beaker folk', who arrived 4500 years ago and replaced 90% of the population.

The Romans brought lots of ethnicities with them, and encountered those already milling around - Picts, Celts, Scots etc.

When they left - leaving much DNA behind - came the Anglo- Saxon period, followed by the Vikings and Norsemen. I've recently discovered that my own DNA is significantly Scandinavian.

Then 1066 and all that ... etc etc

It seems to me that the 'United Kingdom' is a conglomeration of many different ethnicities, and always has been since Cheddar Man saw someone in the distance. To suggest that the population is an ethnic group, rather than a grouping of ethnicities, would seem hard to argue.



David Jason Jones said:


> Can you tell me any of the economic things that have been achieved as part of the EU that were not possible remaining outside of the EU?


I can, but with no alternative history against which to compare it would be a futile exercise. And of course the word 'possible' makes it even more so, since many things are possible without ever being likely.

One thing, though: A 'single market' of half a billion people would not have been available to our businesses without the being part of the EU. Which is why Thatcher worked so hard to bring it about.



David Jason Jones said:


> Brexit will enhance certain parts of the economy, the withdrawal of money to the EU will allow the government to cut taxes and spend more money on important things.


Ceteris paribus, yes. But of course there are other factors which have to be taken into consideration. Unless Brexit is very soft the amount of money available to the government for tax cuts and spending on 'important things' will be less than it otherwise would be.

It already is, of course, since our economic growth, even in a period of strong global growth, has become anaemic since the referendum. Without the boost from world growth I would not be surprised if the next quarter's figures represented a technical recession. That also cannot be proven, of course.



David Jason Jones said:


> The actual true economic impact is not possible to accurately judge since there is no hindsight, only time will tell. Nevertheless, economies can change and being part of the EU or not does not necessarily mean that an economy would stay the same.


This is true. Nevertheless, the current economic effects are evident, and practically all economists agree that the harder the Brexit, the greater the economic damage in the short and medium term. How long it will take to get back to where we would otherwise have been - if ever - is a matter of speculation. It will, though, be quite a long time.



David Jason Jones said:


> Except Brexit will not be damaging anyone, on the contrary, it will give the British people more say over matters more close to home.


I wrote - and you quoted - damaging *the welfare* of people. Unless it is incredibly soft, Brexit most certainly will damage the welfare of a great many people in terms of the money they have available. Personally I put little store in the supposed benefits.



David Jason Jones said:


> Red herring. This is completely off-topic and is not even related to the EU and the way it works.


To you it may be a red herring. To me it is the crux of the whole debate. Brexiteers complain that the EU forces differing peoples together in an artificial construct - exactly what Farage called it last week. What they seem to overlook is that the United Kingdom was also forced together - except by force of arms rather than the signing of treaties.

Indeed, a substantial part of your post seems to concentrate on how the British are one distinct ethnic group whereas historical fact shows that could barely be further from the truth.

Given the vast differences in history, heritage and culture, whether on an individual or regional basis, 'British' people are defined pretty much exclusively by where they happen to live. The man-made country within its man-made borders.

Farage even managed verbally to attack Belgium for having more than one language. He perhaps forgot Welsh, Gaelic, Scots, Cornish, Manx ...



David Jason Jones said:


> Do you want to deny nature anymore? Nations were formed by people and you can call the borders of countries as "man-made" but the fact remains that all of the different ethnic groups on Earth have formed separately and are segregated by those borders. What is wrong with evolution? It is a natural law.


I want us to examine our nature and be aware of it. Nothing is wrong with evolution. It is how we change to best fit the environment in which we live.

200,000 years ago, we fought other tribes for food, territory and a larger gene pool. Those that didn't died out.

These days technology allows us to survive much more easily, except for those who are unlucky enough to live in areas of famine, largely ignored by the luckier ones.

But technology has also given us the ability to fight far more effectively. And that actually threatens our future rather than protects it.

I think it is time we tried consciously to evolve beyond the instinctively competitive animals who had to fight for existence and who saw every other tribe as a threat. I think it is time we evolved to a single ethnic group called 'people'.



David Jason Jones said:


> What is your alternative? Open borders?


Eventually, yes.



David Jason Jones said:


> Practice what you preach. I don't think you understand that the economy of a country is not indefinite.
> 
> What economic books have you read?


As I said above, the economy of a country most certainly can change. Not very quickly though. The damaging economic effects of a hard Brexit would last for a period reckoned not in months or years, but in decades.

I suppose I could list all the economic books I've read but it would be a very boring list. While I was at university doing my economics degree there were quite a lot of them.



David Jason Jones said:


> Countries do better when they are self-governing and have total sovereignty, what do you find so difficult to understand?


I disagree with that entirely, but generally don't respond to implications that my different point of view is somehow the result of a lesser intellect. I certainly try not to respond in kind.



David Jason Jones said:


> Also, you seem to be trying to push the notion that any anti-EU argument is somehow anti-people, what a load of rubbish.


I think the Brexit argument is largely based on a primitive tribal instinct that we should consign to history, and that those proposing it in government are quite happy for the little people to suffer economically in order to achieve their aims.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> False logic when brexit will actually lose money. How about brexit is already costing an estimated 200million a week. That is actually happening. That's 200million we could have been spending on the NHS now.


The money we give to the EU will be able to freely be spent on other things that are a higher priority, it will allow a bit of leeway.



> Wait.. didn't you say you couldn't make predictions.. ah I get it, only when it matches your argument... Already has damaged people so that's another lie. Maybe you can explain: how does actually removing a level of accountability for the average person give them more say? Tell me how accountable is the government going to be after brexit when they want to strip things like workers rights? Why is it May is deliberately trying to bypass parliament removing yet another level of accountability and silencing one of the few avenues the british people have to be heard? How exactly do the people of the UK have more say?


You've been listening to Labour's BS. Brexit will not be stripping workers of their rights at all.

Have you actually read some of the laws that the EU has passed?

How is May bypassing parliament? What are you referring to exactly?



> Since when? If that was the case you wouldn't have countries forming partnerships in the first place.


The concept of a union does not refute my argument that a country works better when it is governed by itself. There are various reasons why unions are formed.



> No *we allow *jurisdiction for limited areas to be controlled. We retain sovereignty. Oh I've read the white paper but your argument of sovereignty is disproven by the actual words I quoted as it states quite clearly and unambiguously we never lost sovereignty. Interestingly Directives, Regulation etc aren't generally imposed. The *government decides how to implement them* and makes relevant changes to the law if necessary. Another proof we retain sovereignty.


Any definition of the word 'sovereignty' is contradicted if a country is part of a union. A true self-governing nation has no interference from elsewhere. The percentage is disputed but it is a fact that EU has some influence over the UK law.

You have been posting the same thing a few times as a way to try and refute the argument that the EU undermines sovereignty but so far you have failed. You can perhaps try and come up with an actual argument.

It does not matter if the government decides how to implement laws, there are several laws that have been passed because of Britain being part of the EU. How is that sovereignty? The EU is both antidemocratic and takes away the sovereignty of the nation.



> Well in that case even leaving the EU we will not be self-governing by your definition. Let's see there's the UN, WTO, any trade deal which as an arbitrator (most if not all) and goodness knows or many other treaties etc like say the US-UK extradition treaty.





> Making rules up as you go along.. Well in any case the source proves my assertion if you are now denying immigrants only employ immigrants. There are a high number of immigrant entrepreneurs adding to the economy and providing UK jobs. Proof has been provided, not my fault your understanding of english is lacking somewhat.


Surprise surprise, you did not quote my post because I never said such a thing.

There is no dispute that there is a fair amount of immigrants that are entrepreneurs. However, that is not what you said.

The irony in your statement. You claim my understanding of English is "lacking somewhat", yet your posts are full of grammatical mistakes.

I asked before whether or not English is your native language or not. I clicked on your profile and it states you are from Germany so I think it's fair to assume that English is not your native language. I suggest before criticising people on a language, you actually understand the language yourself.



> Did not make significant gains.. didn't lose did they. Oh wait..
> ​
> 
> 
> ...


Labour did not make any significant gains, did not manage to win parts of London they thought they would, did not change anything and even lost seats in some crucial areas. I highly doubt in the next general election there will be as many brainwashed and naive young people voting for Corbyn since his lies have been exposed.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Firstly I am not aware that I did "defend her" as you put it. I pointed out that you appear to have an unhealthy obsession with her and called your comments mean spirited which was a polite way of saying bloody nasty.
> 
> Secondly clearly she isn't as "thick as pig shit" as she obtained a degree in history from Cambridge University in 1973, back in the day when degrees were a true academic achievement.
> 
> ...


I have already given my reasons. If you want to find a real racist, look at Abbott, not Farage. She is anti-British anti-white.

Have you actually seen any videos of her on Youtube when she doesn't have a clue and embarrasses herself?

Do you think any personal criticism is "unChristian"? She is a racist, why would you want to defend her?

She received a degree in history, and? Her other actions clearly defend the statement, "She is thick as pig shit". Perhaps her brief relationship with Corbyn changed things. Who knows?



Goblin said:


> A report by the London School of Economics' Centre for Economics Performance in November 2017 estimated that the Brexit-related spike in inflation in the UK had already cost the average UK household around £400 a year so it has already affected people. As for the NHS.. losing 200million per week (300 million according to some) is a far cry from the lie of having 350million per week the government could spend on the NHS shown on a big red bus. https://www.businessinsider.de/brexit-dividend-myth-eu-referendum-boris-johnson-nhs-2018-1 In regards to brexit and the NHS http://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Brexit-and-the-NHS-.pdf hardly paints a positive light does it.


I have already told you but you don't seem to be comprehending anything. The actual economic effects of Brexit are unknown because there is no hindsight. There will be possible pros and cons (this is the case for anything). The money Britain gives to the EU will be allowed to be spent on other things, etc.



> Even the government's own impact reports show this is not expected. Where is all this money coming from considering we lose out on 50+ trade arrangements to start with? The UK will have to fund things to make up for losses.. extra border controls, agencies, funding for science, even arbitration schemes as part of any trade deal ignoring any economic knock on effect. Talking about things to pay for.. whilst the UK saves the £8.5 billion it sends to the EU (actually £163million a week), barriers etc on trade with the UK could well be in the region of £22 billion. That's according to an advisor to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis. So let's get this right.. we pay 22billion to save 8.5billion.


I'm sure you are aware that after Britain has left the EU then it will open the chances for trade elsewhere.



Goblin said:


> UK will survive in or out. The more apt question is why damage the future for no gain? Why restrict future generations? Why reduce our influence with our closest neighbours? Why not give companies the best chance possible to grow, to export etc?
> 
> Take back control is a proven lie, sovereignty is a proven lie, economic advantages to leaving is a proven lie. So why leave when there are so many advantages to being in the EU?


There are several gains that are incredibly important for a lot of the British people. The concepts of sovereignty and true democracy once we leave the EU are not "lies". The truth is that you don't want to believe in any of the arguments for Brexit.



havoc said:


> Without doubt there is the proof because it's an open institution. I've got a nasty feeling our future will be less and less so while protecting those wealthy and powerful people more and more. If leaving meant otherwise and creating a fairer society I'd be all for it.


What do you mean exactly by a fairer society?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> What do you mean exactly by a fairer society?


Whatever you choose - I'm pretty sure you could write a dissertation on your interpretation


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> What 'natural laws' I wonder? But that is probably tangential.


I'm sure you are aware of what natural law means.



> The bolded bit, though, I think is interesting since it implies that the UK is formed of a single ethnic group. I'm not sure which one that would be.
> 
> Cheddar Man represents the first known member of continuous habitation of the islands that make up what we now call the UK, but very few of us are directly descended from them.
> 
> ...


The indigenous British people are a mixture of Celtic tribes and Germanic tribes. Certain parts of the UK are either predominantly Celtic or Germanic.

The historic tense of the word 'British' refers to the Celtic Britons. Of course the various ethnic groups of the UK are the English, Scottish, Welsh. The Unionists in Northern Ireland tend to be descended from the English and the Scottish.

DNA testing of the British Isles shows that the vast majority of the British people are indigenous.

"There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age."

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene.html

Similar DNA tests have shown that the majority of the indigenous British people are descended from Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans, Vikings, etc. Again, all the indigenous makeup of the British people.



> I can, but with no alternative history against which to compare it would be a futile exercise. And of course the word 'possible' makes it even more so, since many things are possible without ever being likely.


Go ahead then, what exactly?



> One thing, though: A 'single market' of half a billion people would not have been available to our businesses without the being part of the EU. Which is why Thatcher worked so hard to bring it about.


Except she later realised her mistake and did not like how much power the EU had over the UK. Thatcher was a strong critic of the Maastricht Treaty.

A private letter revealed that Thatcher wrote that the EU was:

"contrary to British interests and damaging to our parliamentary democracy."



> Ceteris paribus, yes. But of course there are other factors which have to be taken into consideration. Unless Brexit is very soft the amount of money available to the government for tax cuts and spending on 'important things' will be less than it otherwise would be.


The money we are giving the EU will be spent more wisely on other things such as the NHS.

I have said it before, the lower the taxes, the better for everyone.



> It already is, of course, since our economic growth, even in a period of strong global growth, has become anaemic since the referendum. Without the boost from world growth I would not be surprised if the next quarter's figures represented a technical recession. That also cannot be proven, of course.


Therefore it's an argument from ignorance.



> This is true. Nevertheless, the current economic effects are evident, and practically all economists agree that the harder the Brexit, the greater the economic damage in the short and medium term. How long it will take to get back to where we would otherwise have been - if ever - is a matter of speculation. It will, though, be quite a long time.


Except that there is no "soft Brexit" or "hard Brexit", there is simply just Brexit. A lot of the predictions about the economy immediately after the decision to vote Leave have turned out to be false. I also question on how the economists come to such conclusions when there is no hindsight. Economic predictions, like election predictions, can be so far off the mark.



> I wrote - and you quoted - damaging *the welfare* of people. Unless it is incredibly soft, Brexit most certainly will damage the welfare of a great many people in terms of the money they have available. Personally I put little store in the supposed benefits.


I don't think this will be true but time will tell. May I just add, I personally would have no problem losing my job for the sake of sovereignty, my loyalty lies with my country.



> To you it may be a red herring. To me it is the crux of the whole debate. Brexiteers complain that the EU forces differing peoples together in an artificial construct - exactly what Farage called it last week. What they seem to overlook is that the United Kingdom was also forced together - except by force of arms rather than the signing of treaties.


Firstly, comparing battles to the signing of treaties is like comparing apples to oranges, it makes absolutely no sense. Secondly, the UK as a self-governing nation will be ruled by the British law and have no interference from anywhere else. What right does Brussels have to tell the British people how to live?



> Indeed, a substantial part of your post seems to concentrate on how the British are one distinct ethnic group whereas historical fact shows that could barely be further from the truth.


DNA has confirmed that the vast majority of the British people are descended from the indigenous British people.



> Given the vast differences in history, heritage and culture, whether on an individual or regional basis, 'British' people are defined pretty much exclusively by where they happen to live. The man-made country within its man-made borders.


This is entirely not true. There are regional differences but a person from Leeds moving down to Southampton will still feel as British. I have worked all over the country and still felt British.

You seem keen to emphasise the notion of "man-made borders". If you want to go down that road, pretty much everything is man-made, it does not make the concept any less important or true (depending on what exactly).



> Farage even managed verbally to attack Belgium for having more than one language. He perhaps forgot Welsh, Gaelic, Scots, Cornish, Manx ...


The vast majority of the British people speak English. Mentioning the different languages that are spoken by some is splitting hairs.



> I want us to examine our nature and be aware of it. Nothing is wrong with evolution. It is how we change to best fit the environment in which we live.


You should have no problem with an ethnic group wanting to be part of a nation state, after all, that is how nature works. Remember the old saying, "Birds of feather flock together". People are naturally more likely to get along with other people that are similar.



> 200,000 years ago, we fought other tribes for food, territory and a larger gene pool. Those that didn't died out.
> 
> These days technology allows us to survive much more easily, except for those who are unlucky enough to live in areas of famine, largely ignored by the luckier ones.
> 
> But technology has also given us the ability to fight far more effectively. And that actually threatens our future rather than protects it.


That is how nature works, this can be observed when you look at wild animals. As much as technology is a positive, there is also the negative of it interfering with nature.



> I think it is time we tried consciously to evolve beyond the instinctively competitive animals who had to fight for existence and who saw every other tribe as a threat. I think it is time we evolved to a single ethnic group called 'people'.


This statement is an oxymoron. You claim to have no problem with evolution but this statement goes completely against evolution.

This is a complete fantasy, the arguments that, "We are all humans" or "We are all people" does not work when put up to scrutiny. Biologically there are too many differences between people.

This is similar to the old cliche, "Don't judge a book by its cover", it is human nature to judge.



> Eventually, yes.


*sighs*

Are you a Marxist?

It is one thing to describe the act of remaining as part of the EU as 'patriotic' but you can't be serious in implicating that the idea of open borders is 'patriotic'. It is the exact opposite!

Please do enlighten me on why you are in favour of open borders "eventually".



> As I said above, the economy of a country most certainly can change. Not very quickly though. The damaging economic effects of a hard Brexit would last for a period reckoned not in months or years, but in decades.


In my opinion, suppose this were to be the case, in the long run, I think it would be worth it.



> I suppose I could list all the economic books I've read but it would be a very boring list. While I was at university doing my economics degree there were quite a lot of them.


I'm quite intrigued. What are your 10 most influential political books?



> I disagree with that entirely, but generally don't respond to implications that my different point of view is somehow the result of a lesser intellect. I certainly try not to respond in kind.


That's because you have made it quite clear that because borders are man-made it means that it should not matter.



> I think the Brexit argument is largely based on a primitive tribal instinct that we should consign to history, and that those proposing it in government are quite happy for the little people to suffer economically in order to achieve their aims.


Do you have any sources to support this claim?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

havoc said:


> Whatever you choose - I'm pretty sure you could write a dissertation on your interpretation


I'm curious on what you mean by it and whether or not it will require state coercion and influence.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> I'm curious on what you mean by it and whether or not it will require state coercion and influence


Yeah, of course you are.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

I'm going to restrict my response to facts.



David Jason Jones said:


> The indigenous British people are a mixture of Celtic tribes and Germanic tribes.


indigenous

originating or occurring naturally in a particular place
Indigenous Britons are in part Germanic are they? You don't see a contradiction in that statement?

As a matter of fact, every 'ethnicity' in Britain today originated in Africa. We just took different routes to get here.



David Jason Jones said:


> DNA testing of the British Isles shows that the vast majority of the British people are indigenous.
> 
> "There's been a lot of arguing over the last ten years, but it's now more or less agreed that about 80 percent of Britons' genes come from hunter-gatherers who came in immediately after the Ice Age."
> 
> ...


I see your 2005 article, and raise it by 13 years ...

*Arrival of Beaker folk changed Britain for ever, ancient DNA study shows*
At least 90% of the ancestry of Britons was replaced by a wave of migrants, who arrived about 4,500 years ago, say researchers

I'm afraid your "vast majority" just dwindled to 10%.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0218/220218-beaker-people



David Jason Jones said:


> Except she later realised her mistake and did not like how much power the EU had over the UK. Thatcher was a strong critic of the Maastricht Treaty.
> 
> A private letter revealed that Thatcher wrote that the EU was:
> 
> "contrary to British interests and damaging to our parliamentary democracy."


None of which alters the fact that without the EU we would not have had a single market of half a billion people. Sorry.



David Jason Jones said:


> The money we are giving the EU will be spent more wisely on other things such as the NHS.
> 
> I have said it before, the lower the taxes, the better for everyone.


We will lose money from leaving the EU, not gain it. Money from the current fees will be more than soaked up by increased costs and reduced taxes. There's plenty of independent research out there if you're interested. (No I'm not going to find it for you.) Don't believe what the side of the bus told you.



David Jason Jones said:


> A lot of the predictions about the economy immediately after the decision to vote Leave have turned out to be false. I also question on how the economists come to such conclusions when there is no hindsight. Economic predictions, like election predictions, can be so far off the mark.


The immediacy of the predictions was wrong. But then Cameron didn't trigger Article 50 on the day after the vote, as he said he would. The predictions have since pretty much come true, even with the mitigating actions of the BoE and the Treasury.

I apologise but there are a lot of comments in your post that I really have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to.

Suffice to say that your view seems to be dominated by a sense of 'country' and 'nation' - with which I feel no affinity whatever - and a concentration on undefined differences between (also undefined) ethnic groups. I think it is high time our race - the human race - grew out of the instinct which led us to invent such notions and fixate on such perceived differences.

But our points of view are sufficiently far apart that we will not find common ground. I can see little point in arguing logically with someone who has such a nationalistic view that he considers the words 'European Union' to be "vile".


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> I have already given my reasons. If you want to find a real racist, look at Abbott, not Farage. She is anti-British anti-white.
> 
> Have you actually seen any videos of her on Youtube when she doesn't have a clue and embarrasses herself?
> 
> ...


Yes thank you I have seen plenty of videos of all sorts of inept politicians on Youtube and elsewhere which brings me back to wondering why it is you are so hateful about this one in particular  I have not mentioned Farage in this thread and would rather not look at him at all if you don't mind. No I don't think all personal criticism is unchristian but I do find your particular type to be so. Why would I want to defend her? For the same reason I would if I saw someone kicking a dog, stabbing a horse or punching a pig. I do not believe for one minute that anyone with a degree in history from Cambridge is as "thick as pig shit" - intelligence comes in many forms. Being eloquent and smooth or a good debater does not equal intelligence. I would rather have a politician with passion and commitment to their causes than one who slaps backs and drinks pints with their cronies whilst chewing the cud.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> The money we give to the EU will be able to freely be spent on other things that are a higher priority, it will allow a bit of leeway.


No that money will be used up to cover deficit caused by brexit.



> You've been listening to Labour's BS. Brexit will not be stripping workers of their rights at all.


No, I've listened to Ian Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Were not aware they were in the Labour party.



> How is May bypassing parliament? What are you referring to exactly?


Oh dear.. well you could look at the fiasco of the supreme court ruling the government could not trigger Brexit negotiations without the backing of MPs in parliament, bombing of syria to start with 2. There are others.



> The concept of a union does not refute my argument that a country works better when it is governed by itself. There are various reasons why unions are formed.


United Kingdom being an example I suppose. Wait... aren't we "stronger together"?



> Any definition of the word 'sovereignty' is contradicted if a country is part of a union. A true self-governing nation has no interference from elsewhere. The percentage is disputed but it is a fact that EU has some influence over the UK law.


Not according to the UK government. Oh wait.. no interference from elsewhere like the WTO whose rules we'll have to abide by. What about the UN? Any trade deals, can't have them as they will influence UK law. Your argument simply doesn't stand up to reality again.



> You have been posting the same thing a few times as a way to try and refute the argument that the EU undermines sovereignty but so far you have failed. You can perhaps try and come up with an actual argument.


Well other than facts, don't know what I can provide considering all you do is repeat the same lies. UK government says we never lost sovereignty. The fact we can leave shows we still retain sovereignty.



> It does not matter if the government decides how to implement laws, there are several laws that have been passed because of Britain being part of the EU. How is that sovereignty? The EU is both antidemocratic and takes away the sovereignty of the nation.


Maybe you can explain how using proportional representation undemocratic?



> Surprise surprise, you did not quote my post because I never said such a thing.


Simply couldn't be bothered to trawl through your drivel... your posts are there for people to see.



> I asked before whether or not English is your native language or not. I clicked on your profile and it states you are from Germany so I think it's fair to assume that English is not your native language. I suggest before criticising people on a language, you actually understand the language yourself.


Oh dear, attacks on nationality to avoid the fact you continually fail to produce evidence to back up any of your claims.



> Labour did not make any significant gains, did not manage to win parts of London they thought they would, did not change anything and even lost seats in some crucial areas. I highly doubt in the next general election there will be as many brainwashed and naive young people voting for Corbyn since his lies have been exposed.


Didn't lose though did they which is what you were suggesting.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

havoc said:


> Yeah, of course you are.


Are you going to elaborate on what you mean or not? Explain what you mean by a "fairer society" and how you want that to be achieved.



Arnie83 said:


> I'm going to restrict my response to facts.
> 
> indigenous
> 
> ...


Indeed they are, the indigenous British people are a mixture of Celtic and Germanic tribes.



> As a matter of fact, every 'ethnicity' in Britain today originated in Africa. We just took different routes to get here.
> 
> I see your 2005 article, and raise it by 13 years ...
> 
> ...


The report has only examined 1,336 individuals so I would like to know where the figure of 90% came from exactly.

Also, even if it were supposed to be true, the Beaker people were Germanic as well from the Rhine. Nevertheless, the genetic evidence suggests "may be" or "probably", nothing definite.

Do you not think for one moment that there is any political bias in this report? This report reminds me of the Cheddar Man, the DNA results were reported to prove that the first modern Britons were black yet the conclusions have been criticised by geneticists that have said the results have consequently appeared to give misgivings about the conclusions and that it is simply impossible for current genetics to identify the skin colour of any ancient human of this age.

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news...ne-pool-was-replaced-beaker-immigrants-009636

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/p...mpact-of-beaker-phenomenon-on-prehistory.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...lague-archaeology-beaker-people-a8222341.html

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...nned-briton-cheddar-man-find-may-not-be-true/



> None of which alters the fact that without the EU we would not have had a single market of half a billion people. Sorry.





> We will lose money from leaving the EU, not gain it. Money from the current fees will be more than soaked up by increased costs and reduced taxes. There's plenty of independent research out there if you're interested. (No I'm not going to find it for you.) Don't believe what the side of the bus told you.


Once we leave the EU there will be more money for the government to spend on more wiser things. Eventually the economy will pick up and things will strive. No more over-regulation and I look forward to trade deals with China, America, Russia, etc.



> The immediacy of the predictions was wrong. But then Cameron didn't trigger Article 50 on the day after the vote, as he said he would. The predictions have since pretty much come true, even with the mitigating actions of the BoE and the Treasury.


There is no point in using any prediction as some sort of evidence, local elections and economic predictions can often be awfully wrong.

Where are all of the high streets, job losses and crashing markets that the Project Fear claimed would happen if the British people voted to Leave?



> I apologise but there are a lot of comments in your post that I really have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to.
> 
> Suffice to say that your view seems to be dominated by a sense of 'country' and 'nation' - with which I feel no affinity whatever - and a concentration on undefined differences between (also undefined) ethnic groups. I think it is high time our race - the human race - grew out of the instinct which led us to invent such notions and fixate on such perceived differences.


Are you unwilling to actually rationally argue your points?

I view sovereignty and democracy as important points.

If you have no affinity towards any country or nation then you wouldn't care about the economic advantages you claim the EU gives any country. Your statements often contradict each other.

If you bothered to read and had the knowledge about how humans work, evolution, natural selection, etc, you would know fine well there are clearly defined differences. The idea that every single human person is the exact same because we are all people is delusional.

By the way, human is not a race, it is a species.



> But our points of view are sufficiently far apart that we will not find common ground. I can see little point in arguing logically with someone who has such a nationalistic view that he considers the words 'European Union' to be "vile".


I could say the same for someone who holds a Marxism utopia that is basically borderline bonkers. Those on the left never seem too good debating, in my whole life time I have only ever met a handful of socialists, communists, marxists, etc, that are willing to have a honest discussion.

Whenever someone has to resort to a dig at their opponents views then it is a personal insult and the discussion has pretty much ended.

"In my work, you get used to criticisms. Of course you do, because there are a lot of people trying to get you down, but I always cheer up immensely if one is particularly wounding because I think well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left. That is why my father always taught me: never worry about anyone who attacks you personally; it means their arguments carry no weight and they know it." - Margaret Thatcher

Is this your way of basically saying you are unwilling to explain your points and have a genuine discussion? I mean, it is not the first time and it will not be the last time that someone on the left when is called out on their views runs away like a little girl.

Indeed, I have no shame in saying that the EU is a vile thing and I can't wait for Britain to leave. In fact, I am counting down the days! I rarely ever drink but believe me I'll be having a few beers at the local pub once we leave the EU.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Yes thank you I have seen plenty of videos of all sorts of inept politicians on Youtube and elsewhere which brings me back to wondering why it is you are so hateful about this one in particular  I have not mentioned Farage in this thread and would rather not look at him at all if you don't mind. No I don't think all personal criticism is unchristian but I do find your particular type to be so. Why would I want to defend her? For the same reason I would if I saw someone kicking a dog, stabbing a horse or punching a pig. I do not believe for one minute that anyone with a degree in history from Cambridge is as "thick as pig shit" - intelligence comes in many forms. Being eloquent and smooth or a good debater does not equal intelligence. I would rather have a politician with passion and commitment to their causes than one who slaps backs and drinks pints with their cronies whilst chewing the cud.


If you would like me to personally criticise Corbyn, McDonnell or any of the other nutters on the left you only have to ask.

Why would you not like to discuss Farage?

Dianne Abbott is a racist, when she makes anti-British and anti-white comments then she should expect to be personally insulted.

Okay, you want to defend Abbott, would you defend Farage or anyone else in the same case you mentioned other than a left-winger?

She has no intelligence, I wouldn't even trust her to run a bath. A gnat has more intelligence than Abbott.

Abbott has no passion or commitment, she is an absolute disgrace to politics. She loves to jump on the bandwagon when it suits her and her policies are laughable.

I have already stated, I don't particularly care for Farage and UKIP but at least he is a principled politician and speaks his mind without being scared of offending any of the snowflakes on the left. I never actually see anyone on the left genuinely refute any of his arguments, I always just read and hear personal insults, why is that?

He enjoys a few pints, so what? He's just a normal guy.



Goblin said:


> No that money will be used up to cover deficit caused by brexit.


There are many examples of when we leave EU we will have more money to spend elsewhere. For example, the money we give to the EU can be given to the NHS.



> No, I've listened to Ian Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Were not aware they were in the Labour party.


Please do cite where Jacob Rees-Mogg claims leaving the EU will strip workers of their rights.



> Oh dear.. well you could look at the fiasco of the supreme court ruling the government could not trigger Brexit negotiations without the backing of MPs in parliament, bombing of syria to start with 2. There are others.


Both of the cases you have mentioned did not bypass anything. She did not need the backing of MPs for either.



> United Kingdom being an example I suppose. Wait... aren't we "stronger together"?


The United Kingdom is a country, not a union. Are you on drugs?



> Not according to the UK government. Oh wait.. no interference from elsewhere like the WTO whose rules we'll have to abide by. What about the UN? Any trade deals, can't have them as they will influence UK law. Your argument simply doesn't stand up to reality again.


I don't think you grasp the difference between the influence of laws when a country is part of a union and rules and regulations when trading.



> Well other than facts, don't know what I can provide considering all you do is repeat the same lies. UK government says we never lost sovereignty. The fact we can leave shows we still retain sovereignty.


You provided a snippet of a statement from the White Paper and clearly ignored the rest. I hope you are aware that the White Paper is regarded as grey literature and was only someone's opinion.



> Maybe you can explain how using proportional representation undemocratic?


I have already explained why the EU is antidemocratic.

I quite enjoyed reading this:

"This is where Enrico Tortolano, campaign director for Trade Unionists against the EU, fits in. He tells Quartz that "the EU is anti-democratic and beyond reform." He argues that working people fought fiercely for their right to elect those in power and their right to get rid of them, but believes this right is seriously hampered by seemingly distant EU institutions. "We cannot get rid of the European commissioners," he notes."

https://qz.com/708979/the-loudest-supporters-of-brexit-are-on-the-right-but-plenty-on-the-left-want-to-leave-too/



> Simply couldn't be bothered to trawl through your drivel... your posts are there for people to see.


In other words, you have no argument.



> Oh dear, attacks on nationality to avoid the fact you continually fail to produce evidence to back up any of your claims.


I'm simply pointing out that you are not even a native speaker of English and constantly make grammatical errors yet you have the audacity to insult my comprehension of the English language. Remember, it was I that actually quoted from your source and simply pointed out that the source does not support what you initially said.

For around three pages you have failed to provide any new sources and have made up a quote that I never said to try and wiggle out of the mess you have created. Instead of digging a bigger hole for yourself, why don't you just admit that you lied?



> Didn't lose though did they which is what you were suggesting.


Labour did not make any big break through and even prominent leaders of the Labour Party were disappointed. I predict that this country will not have another Labour government for a long long time, if ever again.

On a side note, you have constantly made the unfounded claim that Farage likes to stir up fear against immigrants. I came across this earlier:






What do you disagree with him about exactly?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Raheem Kassam, the former chief advisor of UKIP has released a book titled, "Enoch Was Right: 'Rivers of Blood' 50 Years On' and so far on Amazon UK it has received 79 customer reviews with a rating of 4.5. The description of the book is:

""Fifty years on from the most dramatic post-war speech in Britain, this updated view is a VERY important part of the continuing debate. Enoch never goes away." -- Nigel Farage MEP Enoch Was Right is an explosive new take on a speech that changed the nature of the debate surrounding immigration into the Western world for decades to come. Written by British author Raheem Kassam, himself of Indian-Muslim extraction, the book accuses the political establishment of being complicit in misrepresenting Enoch Powell, or too intellectually lacking to understand and convey the nuances of Powell's speech, instead rejecting it as a "racist" or "fascist" turn. With an exclusive interview on the subject with Brexit leader Nigel Farage, Kassam analyses in depth the changing nature of UK demographics, crime statistics, integration, the race relations industry, and more. More often than not, Kassam finds that "Enoch was right" in his predictions for the future of the United Kingdom. Kassam is the author of the bestselling No Go Zones: How Shariah Law is Coming to a Neighborhood Near You."

I wonder what Kassam thinks of Powell's quote that he said during an interview to the _Birmingham Post_:

"What I would take 'racialist' to mean is a person who believes in the inherent inferiority of one race of mankind to another, and who acts and speaks in that belief. So the answer to the question of whether I am a racialist is 'no'-unless, perhaps, it is to be a racialist in reverse. I regard many of the peoples in India as being superior in many respects-intellectually, for example, and in other respects-to Europeans. Perhaps that is over-correcting."


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

Deleted as already mentioned in the Election thread.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> There are many examples of when we leave EU we will have more money to spend elsewhere. For example, the money we give to the EU can be given to the NHS.


Ignoring the fact that the money will not exist.



> Please do cite where Jacob Rees-Mogg claims leaving the EU will strip workers of their rights.


Why is it we are supposed to believe everything you say without evidence yet your only argument against something is "prove it"?







> Both of the cases you have mentioned did not bypass anything. She did not need the backing of MPs for either.


Too bad the supreme court doesn't agree with you on the first, second was not challenged in court, probably partly as it had already happened.



> The United Kingdom is a country, not a union. Are you on drugs?


You mean the sovereign state actually called _The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland_ (UK). The United Kingdom is made up of the countries England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland or didn't you know that.



> I don't think you grasp the difference between the influence of laws when a country is part of a union and rules and regulations when trading.


But if something influences UK laws we have no sovereignty. WTO, trade deals etc will and do influence UK law.



> You provided a snippet of a statement from the White Paper and clearly ignored the rest. I hope you are aware that the White Paper is regarded as grey literature and was only someone's opinion.


More official than letters from Maggie you use as evidence.



> I have already explained why the EU is antidemocratic.


Yet failed to prove anything again.



> "This is where Enrico Tortolano, campaign director for Trade Unionists against the EU, fits in. He tells Quartz that "the EU is anti-democratic and beyond reform." He argues that working people fought fiercely for their right to elect those in power and their right to get rid of them, but believes this right is seriously hampered by seemingly distant EU institutions. "We cannot get rid of the European commissioners," he notes."
> 
> https://qz.com/708979/the-loudest-supporters-of-brexit-are-on-the-right-but-plenty-on-the-left-want-to-leave-too/


(May want to fix the link by the way)

So TTIP. You realise that is more likely to be a part of any UK/US trade deal. As for the EU, TTIP - the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the EU died. The German economy minister, Sigmar Gabriel, stated that "the talks with the United States have de facto failed". Manuel Valls from France announced the same thing. The reason, people power. The people within mainland europe did make their voice heard. Perhaps you can tell me how much of an input people are going to have over any UK/US trade deal?



> In other words, you have no argument.


Quotes already previously posted.. you can look them up. No point simply repeating.



> I'm simply pointing out that you are not even a native speaker of English and constantly make grammatical errors yet you have the audacity to insult my comprehension of the English language. Remember, it was I that actually quoted from your source and simply pointed out that the source does not support what you initially said.


Still going on about me not being a native speaker, not that that has any relevence. So what is your proof I am not a native speaker? You do seem to have trouble reading english when a source states something you do not agree with.



> On a side note, you have constantly made the unfounded claim that Farage likes to stir up fear against immigrants. I came across this earlier.


Say what you want. Farage stated things like British women could be at risk of sexual assault by immigrants if Britain votes to remain in the EU. He pushed the poster showing non-eu immigration as part of the leave campaign. Plenty of evidence around to support the statement rather than it being unfounded.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> If you would like me to personally criticise Corbyn, McDonnell or any of the other nutters on the left you only have to ask.
> 
> Why would you not like to discuss Farage?
> 
> ...


Criticise who you like - when I said there are plenty of inept politicians I meant across all parties not just the left.

No she should not expect to be personally insulted, she should expect to be criticised about her policies which is completely different.

Why do you assume I am a left winger and only want to defend left wingers? 

I am yet to meet a gnat with a history degree from Cambridge but perhaps you know and converse with more gnats than I do or perhaps you are just being prejudiced against someone you don't happen to like.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> Are you going to elaborate on what you mean or not?


Not.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

David Jason Jones said:


> There are many examples of when we leave EU we will have more money to spend elsewhere. For example, the money we give to the EU can be given to the NHS.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...urope-meps-kidney-dialysis-hunt-a8336776.html

Yes, I've heard the pro Brexit argument that the EHIC card should be lost to UK citizens and that people shouldn't move or go on holiday abroad if they can't afford the medical insurance.

But spare a thought for those suffering from life changing illnesses through no fault of their own who currently benefit from uninsurable conditions such as needing dialysis.

Or do you think only very rich people who need this treatment should have the right to holidays abroad with Butlins for the rest of us?

The NHS will need the extra money (Farage himself said the £350m a week to the NHS pledge was wrong the day after the referendum), to cope with the influx of ex pats forced back to the UK through losing the EHIC.


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

KittenKong said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...urope-meps-kidney-dialysis-hunt-a8336776.html
> 
> Yes, I've heard the pro Brexit argument that the EHIC card should be lost to UK citizens and that people shouldn't move abroad if they can't afford medical insurance.
> 
> ...


Lots of people can't have holidays abroad for either health or financial reasons. A holiday is not a necessity for anyone


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

kirksandallchins said:


> Lots of people can't have holidays abroad for either health or financial reasons. A holiday is not a necessity for anyone


So, is your argument for or against retaining the EHIC for UK citizens?

Many people, including Leave voters, do take holidays abroad and wouldn't think their vote would change anything in that respect.

I wonder how many will accept they can no longer be able to afford such holidays?

People won't miss something they've never had, but taking away something they've enjoyed for many years is something else......


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Indeed they are, the indigenous British people are a mixture of Celtic and Germanic tribes.


What is your definition of "indigenous"? The dictionary one is as I quoted above "Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place".

I don't think Germanic tribes originated in Britain, and "the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically".

The fact, of course is that no tribes originated here. They all came from elsewhere, just as all migrants ever since. Originally, as I said, from Africa. Though on the way the chances are they picked up some Neanderthal DNA as well. We're not even purely sapiens.



David Jason Jones said:


> The report has only examined 1,336 individuals so I would like to know where the figure of 90% came from exactly.
> 
> Also, even if it were supposed to be true, the Beaker people were Germanic as well from the Rhine. Nevertheless, the genetic evidence suggests "may be" or "probably", nothing definite.
> 
> ...


Inconvenient results? Must be political bias! Or the results are just wrong! How very reminiscent of IDS and Rees-Mogg trying to discredit all the independent studies into the economic damage of Brexit!

The first three links report the study I quoted. So thanks for that. An interesting quote in the first one:

*"the orthodoxy -- the assumption that present-day people are directly descended from the people who always lived in that same area -- is wrong almost everywhere."*​
Not sure what the colour of Cheddar man has got to do with anything. He may have been darker than today's average 'white' person, or not. My guess is that he was, but who cares?



David Jason Jones said:


> *Eventually the economy will pick up and things will strive*. No more over-regulation and I look forward to trade deals with China, America, Russia, etc.
> 
> There is no point in using any prediction as some sort of evidence, local elections and *economic predictions can often be awfully wrong*.


Quite. And the further in the future they are, the more wrong they are likely to be. In the short term the UK will be significantly poorer than it would be were we to stay in the EU.

And I'm sure we are all going to strive, but I think you meant thrive. Is English your first language?



David Jason Jones said:


> Where are all of the high streets, job losses and crashing markets that the Project Fear claimed would happen if the British people voted to Leave?


Wait.

(Though crashing markets is not necessarily an outcome, given that the FTSE 100 companies are largely foreign owned, not unlike quite a lot of Britain.)

(And I don't think 'Project Fear' predicted that high streets would happen.)



David Jason Jones said:


> If you have no affinity towards any country or nation then you wouldn't care about the economic advantages you claim the EU gives any country. Your statements often contradict each other.


Only if your extrapolation has logical merit. I care about people's welfare wherever they live. I don't have to feel an affinity for their country in order to do so. But it's quite instructive, though hardly surprising, that you make that assumption.



David Jason Jones said:


> If you bothered to read and had the knowledge about how humans work, evolution, natural selection, etc, you would know fine well there are clearly defined differences.


I have studied human evolution for many years, and yes there are differences. Minor ones in my opinion. (Would you like a bibliography for that study as well?)

And the expression is "full well". (Just trying to help; hope you don't mind.)



David Jason Jones said:


> The idea that every single human person is the exact same because we are all people is delusional.


It certainly would be a peculiar notion. Who proposed it?



David Jason Jones said:


> I could say the same for someone who holds a Marxism utopia that is basically borderline bonkers.


Don't know much about Marxism to be honest, and I haven't mentioned it at all.



David Jason Jones said:


> Those on the left never seem too good debating, in my whole life time I have only ever met a handful of socialists, communists, marxists, etc, that are willing to have a honest discussion.


Hah, yeah! Don't get me started on those Lefties! Where is Corbyn coming from?! The only ones I've come across who are worse are the Righties, especially those who think they always _are_ right. Listening to the lies and half-truths of Rees-Mogg recently has really wound me up!



David Jason Jones said:


> Is this your way of basically saying you are unwilling to explain your points and have a genuine discussion? I mean, it is not the first time and it will not be the last time that someone on the left when is called out on their views runs away like a little girl.


No, it means exactly what I said. I am coming from an inclusive view of humanity in which tribal boundaries, whether physical or mental, do a lot more harm than good and where reinforcing them through Brexit is a retrograde step on the long journey to a more civilised and peaceful future. Your view is that such reinforcement is somehow a good thing, and, apparently, that tribal instincts should still guide our actions, which is why the fantasy of 'sovereignty' is more important to you than the welfare of British people.

Facts regarding economics and the migrant status of pretty much everyone living in Britain today won't change your view, so I see little point in discussing it.

And the - if you'll excuse me - rather immature insults are not really conducive to a reasoned discussion.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Elles said:


> It's hopeless telling people that the average U.K. household has lost £400 because of Brexit, when most of them haven't, or can't actually see it. I haven't and I don't know anyone else who would demonstrate that they were £400 worse off because of Brexit either. It's this imaginary estimated money again.


The logic goes that if inflation rises, then the stuff we buy costs more. (Sorry if that sounds patronisingly simple! )

Inflation has been around 3% for a while - coming down now - so the stuff we bought cost 3% more overall.

On average, this means that we paid £400 more per household to get the stuff we always get.

So we're £400 worse off. Of course other factors - like wage rises - might offset that, and it's just over a pound a day, so who will notice? But it's still a fact.

The inflation was (largely) caused by increased import prices on goods and raw materials as a result of the weaker pound, and the weaker pound was caused by the Brexit vote.

Ergo, we are already £400 worse off because of the vote. You may not have noticed it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Not necessarily the ‘stuff we always get’ though is it? My mortgage costs less, my horse insurance with nfu has gone down in price and we bought a tv for half the price it was last year. Hence I’ve gained, not lost money. How do you persuade individuals that households have lost money, when they have more in their pocket?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Elles said:


> Not necessarily the 'stuff we always get' though is it? My mortgage costs less, my horse insurance with nfu has gone down in price and we bought a tv for half the price it was last year. Hence I've gained, not lost money. How do you persuade individuals that households have lost money, when they have more in their pocket?


Absolutely; the figures can only be an average because all households has different spending patterns and will have experienced different changes in their economic situation. And it depends what the Treasury uses in its 'basket of goods' to determine inflation.

Overall though, if prices _have_ risen - and they have - then We The Households must mathematically be worse off than if they hadn't.

Even if we have had bigger wage rises which mean we are actually _better_ off, we are still worse off than we would have been if the prices hadn't risen.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What if price rises caused wage increases? That’s the problem with this sort of thing, persuading average man that he’s worse off when he isn’t ain’t easy. :Hilarious


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Elles said:


> What if price rises caused wage increases? That's the problem with this sort of thing, persuading average man that he's worse off when he isn't ain't easy. :Hilarious


Then it becomes a race, like we had in the 70s!

Fortunately in this case it's easy to isolate cause and effect: the pound going down makes imports more expensive so you have to pay more if you want to buy them or anything made from them.

It's much more complicated to explain how people would be better off if GDP growth had carried on at its pre-referendum rate, but that is also the case.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

We can speculate the other way too. The pound going down made exports more likely and profitable. As the intention is to start dealing outside of the Eu and selling our goods outside of the Eu that’s not a bad thing for everyone. Plus average man, working 9-5 and buying things off eBay that come from abroad has seen no difference. So what if car parts are more expensive for car manufacturers to import from Europe. I drive a Toyota. Once we’re out of the Eu interested bodies can continue to negotiate deals outside of the Eu and maybe have more chance of success. We can buy home grown and stop making oil for the Germans and barley for Spanish cows. The pound going down was remainers panicking anyway, because they thought it was going to be a disaster, we haven’t even left yet. It was balanced out by leavers continuing business as usual. If the markets and the wealthy hadn’t panicked, nothing would have changed yet and for average man, nothing has. 

That’s the problem. It’s all based on speculation and could have, might have, should have. Experts tell us who will win the Grand National too.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Elles said:


> We can speculate the other way too. The pound going down made exports more likely and profitable. As the intention is to start dealing outside of the Eu and selling our goods outside of the Eu that's not a bad thing for everyone. Plus average man, working 9-5 and buying things off eBay that come from abroad has seen no difference. So what if car parts are more expensive for car manufacturers to import from Europe. I drive a Toyota. Once we're out of the Eu interested bodies can continue to negotiate deals outside of the Eu and maybe have more chance of success. We can buy home grown and stop making oil for the Germans and barley for Spanish cows. The pound going down was remainers panicking anyway, because they thought it was going to be a disaster, we haven't even left yet. It was balanced out by leavers continuing business as usual. If the markets and the wealthy hadn't panicked, nothing would have changed yet and for average man, nothing has.
> 
> That's the problem. It's all based on speculation and could have, might have, should have. Experts tell us who will win the Grand National too.


Some of that is certainly true - exports got a boost. Using maths again, though, we import more than we export, so (a bit simplistically) the pound falling means that we lose even when exports are taken into account.

And yes, lots of people have seen no difference, but the maths still works. Some people's bills will have risen by less than £400 and some by more. The average, though, remains the average regardless of how wide the variance is on either side of it.

The pound going down was the market - whether leave or remain voters - calculating that the British economy wasn't going to do as well and that holding pounds was not such a good idea for various reasons. To explain using just one: interest rates are less likely to rise in a sluggish economy (because they are used to slow things down a bit and control inflation), so if you think the UK economy is going to weaken, you don't want to save money there because the interest rates are going to be better elsewhere, so you want to hold fewer pounds, and the 'price' of the pound falls.

It's all in a bit of a "phony war" stage at the moment, because far from triggering Article 50 on June 25th 2016 and leaving in June 2018, we are not now going to Leave until March 2019, when nothing is going to change, and then, in December 2021, the changes might look a lot like Remaining. Or they might extend the transition period for another few years.

While we're waiting to find out, though, the pound is still down, the economy has slowed considerably, and the country (and average households) really are worse off than they would otherwise have been. No doubt some would argue, but they won't be able to present credible economic arguments to back it up.

You're right that there are lots of different things going on and that some of them, looking into the future, are speculative, but we can't dismiss everything on that basis, and especially not what's already happened.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

We haven’t left yet. All the new trade agreements that people say will benefit the U.K. can’t yet be negotiated. 

Let’s say we do need visas and health insurance. Maybe people will look further afield for their holidays seeing as they will need the paperwork anyway. I believe there are plenty of places outside of the Eu that are cheaper to visit and will benefit more from tourism? Backpackers used to do Europe in their gap year, now they do Thailand, or go on volunteering holidays, cleaning up beaches etc. Maybe people will start to think outside of the box. 

ETA as you know, my main speculation is that we won’t actually leave. Too many wealthy powerful people have too much invested for the U.K. to actually leave the Eu, even if we say we have and change the colour of passports lol. I’ll believe it when I see it, if it’s in my lifetime.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Elles said:


> Let's say we do need visas and health insurance. Maybe people will look further afield for their holidays seeing as they will need the paperwork anyway. I believe there are plenty of places outside of the Eu that are cheaper to visit and will benefit more from tourism? Backpackers used to do Europe in their gap year, now they do Thailand, or go on volunteering holidays, cleaning up beaches etc. Maybe people will start to think outside of the box.


I think the original point being raised was that those who have birth or lifetime conditions that may need regular medical intervention and are therefoe excluded from insurance could at least rely on EHIC if they needed to go into hospital in an EU country, and therefore they could afford to holiday in Europe when they otherwise could not have. I very much doubt that people in that category (and yes, I do know a few) would be looking at going anywhere too outside the box even if they _could _get insurance for, say, trekking in Mozambique (which, of course, they can't) - and if EHIC goes, they'll have even less options unless they can afford the extra thousands needed to cover any medical bills.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What about the adverts on tv where they promise to cover elderly people with pre existing conditions while they go scuba diving in the Caribbean? Even so, I don’t think we can ban ‘health tourism’ but ask for free cover abroad. The nhs will be paying for our treatment.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

Elles said:


> What about the adverts on tv where they promise to cover elderly people with pre existing conditions while they go scuba diving in the Caribbean? Even so, I don't think we can ban 'health tourism' but ask for free cover abroad. The nhs will be paying for our treatment.


Those policies would still have exclusions, and would certainly not include routine/common treatments for the condition. The insurers are in it to make money, remember, and will therefore only cover unexpected health issues.

Health tourism is a separate matter entirely.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> Too many wealthy powerful people have too much invested for the U.K. to actually leave the Eu, even if we say we have and change the colour of passports lol. I'll believe it when I see it, if it's in my lifetime.


Just as many "wealthy powerful people" want to actually leave. Many not even living in the UK or EU. A UK which they can control more easily... Remember Jacob Rees-Mogg with his "regulations that were good enough for India could be good enough for the UK". Wealty <> morality leading to potential exploitation. There's a personal reason many of the tabloids push brexit.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Goblin said:


> Just as many "wealthy powerful people" want to actually leave..


And probably for the same reasons.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Goblin said:


> Ignoring the fact that the money will not exist.


Oh, really? That's news to me. Nevertheless, if all else fails, I'll ask Corbyn for some money from his magic money tree.



> Why is it we are supposed to believe everything you say without evidence yet your only argument against something is "prove it"?


Perhaps you should read the comments.

"Typical left-wing bias taking things out of context, JRM never said he would remove all these workers rights. What he does support is the electorate and their right to elect people who represent them and their views. The EU is a corporate scam and it's about time the left caught up to the modern day on these issues."

"This is just a bit jaundiced, don't you think? JRM says only that he doesn't support "all" EU-created employment rights. He does NOT say, nor does he even allude, that he doesn't support "any" of the EU-created employment rights - yet the video poster interprets and re-posts JRM's comment, along with the video poster's own, as if JRM indeed had. Nor did the video poster bother to ascertain and clarify precisely which EU-created employment rights JRM does and does not support before latently implying that JRM supports none of them. Sadly, this video transcends proverbial "thin gruel" and becomes thick bullsh*t - which I, of course, mean in the most constructive manner possible."



> Too bad the supreme court doesn't agree with you on the first, second was not challenged in court, probably partly as it had already happened.


You are wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43731390

"But it is not parliament's right to decide when Britain goes to war.

The ability for a prime minister to take military action is one of their royal prerogatives. A government is allowed to use that power on behalf of the Crown."

https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-russia-chemical-weapons-latest-a8303146.html

"Legally, the decision to go to war is taken by the Queen acting through and on the advice of her ministers. It is a decision of her government, which derives its authority from its command of a majority of MPs in the Commons, but it does not require a vote of MPs beforehand."



> You mean the sovereign state actually called _The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland_ (UK). The United Kingdom is made up of the countries England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland or didn't you know that.


Congratulations, you have managed to inform me of the countries that form the UK. Where does this indicate any "union"?



> But if something influences UK laws we have no sovereignty. WTO, trade deals etc will and do influence UK law.


Try and actually look up the definition of 'sovereignty'. You're just making things up.



> More official than letters from Maggie you use as evidence.


You're mixing things up, I was responding to Thatcher's views of the EU.



> Yet failed to prove anything again.


I don't need to repeat myself. Use Google, there are plenty of arguments about the so-called legitimacy of democracy of the EU.



> (May want to fix the link by the way)
> 
> So TTIP. You realise that is more likely to be a part of any UK/US trade deal. As for the EU, TTIP - the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership for the EU died. The German economy minister, Sigmar Gabriel, stated that "the talks with the United States have de facto failed". Manuel Valls from France announced the same thing. The reason, people power. The people within mainland europe did make their voice heard. Perhaps you can tell me how much of an input people are going to have over any UK/US trade deal?


I said I enjoyed reading the quote. You see, not every single person that has problems with the EU is a right-winger.

You seem to be confusing the influence of the EU over a law and negotiations during a trade deal.



> Still going on about me not being a native speaker, not that that has any relevence. So what is your proof I am not a native speaker? You do seem to have trouble reading english when a source states something you do not agree with.


"relevence", hehe. You don't even capitalise the word "English". It is not rocket science to know that English is not your first language. This is why I'm giving you a bit of leeway when it comes to the definitions of various words and how you are using them in sentences.



> Say what you want. Farage stated things like British women could be at risk of sexual assault by immigrants if Britain votes to remain in the EU. He pushed the poster showing non-eu immigration as part of the leave campaign. Plenty of evidence around to support the statement rather than it being unfounded.


I was not referring to any other comments but the actual video I posted.

He's not exactly wrong. You are a native German, are you totally unaware of what happened in Cologne?

Well it doesn't take a genius to know that a lot of the so-called "refugees" that arrive on the shores of other countries will try and get to Britain. Are you seriously going to deny this? There are even videos on Youtube of immigrants telling people openly they want to go to Britain.



rottiepointerhouse said:


> Criticise who you like - when I said there are plenty of inept politicians I meant across all parties not just the left.


I agree with you. However, most of the loonies tend to be left-wingers.



> No she should not expect to be personally insulted, she should expect to be criticised about her policies which is completely different.


She moans about being racially abused but she has said several racist things over the years. She is racist against the British people and white people.



> Why do you assume I am a left winger and only want to defend left wingers?


You claim my comments are "unChristian", religious people also like to believe in a fantasy utopia and tend to also hold left-wing views. There is a reason why religious people are generally less intelligent.



> I am yet to meet a gnat with a history degree from Cambridge but perhaps you know and converse with more gnats than I do or perhaps you are just being prejudiced against someone you don't happen to like.


You seem to think because she a degree in history this makes her somehow intelligent. Have you read some of the nonsense she has said over the years?

Since you mentioned her degree, she must be more intelligent than her late 1970s lover Corbyn who left school with E-grade A-Levels.



havoc said:


> Not.


Why not?

Surely someone so confident of wanting a fairer society should be able to coherently describe how he or she wants this to happen.



KittenKong said:


> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...urope-meps-kidney-dialysis-hunt-a8336776.html
> 
> Yes, I've heard the pro Brexit argument that the EHIC card should be lost to UK citizens and that people shouldn't move or go on holiday abroad if they can't afford the medical insurance.
> 
> ...





KittenKong said:


> So, is your argument for or against retaining the EHIC for UK citizens?
> 
> Many people, including Leave voters, do take holidays abroad and wouldn't think their vote would change anything in that respect.
> 
> ...


Is this seriously your argument?

A holiday is a choice, not a necessity.



Arnie83 said:


> What is your definition of "indigenous"? The dictionary one is as I quoted above "Originating or occurring naturally in a particular place".


The original inhabitants of a region compared to those immigrants that have settled, colonised, etc more recently. The indigenous British people are a mixture of Celtic, Norse, Anglo-Saxon and Norman ancestry.



> I don't think Germanic tribes originated in Britain, and "the Celtic parts of the UK (Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and Cornwall) are among the most different from each other genetically".


Those people made up the British people.



> The fact, of course is that no tribes originated here. They all came from elsewhere, just as all migrants ever since. Originally, as I said, from Africa. Though on the way the chances are they picked up some Neanderthal DNA as well. We're not even purely sapiens.


Let me guess, "we are all immigrants"? The idea that everyone is an immigrant is completely false. However, it is true that everyone is technically immigrant-descended.

No one has denied that tribes have migrated to different places to form indigenous peoples. All ethnic groups are a mixture of different tribes. I have never once claimed there is such thing as 'pure' or other such nonsense.



> Inconvenient results? Must be political bias! Or the results are just wrong! How very reminiscent of IDS and Rees-Mogg trying to discredit all the independent studies into the economic damage of Brexit!
> 
> The first three links report the study I quoted. So thanks for that. An interesting quote in the first one:
> 
> ...


The geneticist David Reich alleged results have caused controversy. He even claims that races are simply social constructs, this 'widely held' belief by politically people has been refuted by the more honest geneticists.

If we are not pure sapiens, what are we? Humans are _**** Sapiens._

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/ancient-dna-history/554798/

"This work is not without controversy, especially as these replacements can be difficult to explain. Reich once had German collaborators drop out of a study when the initial findings seemed to mirror too closely Nazi propaganda about the Aryan race. We discuss this and other aspects of his work below. Our conversation has been condensed and edited for clarity."

He seems to hold a political bias, he just want to publish results that suit his own agenda.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-02964-5

I was given you an example of political bias used to somehow convey the image that the original British people were dark skinned.



> Quite. And the further in the future they are, the more wrong they are likely to be. In the short term the UK will be significantly poorer than it would be were we to stay in the EU.


Brexit has not happened yet, how do you know?



> And I'm sure we are all going to strive, but I think you meant thrive. Is English your first language?


No, my first language is Hindi.

What do you think? I'm sure I can find errors in your posts if you really want to get technical.



> Wait.
> 
> (Though crashing markets is not necessarily an outcome, given that the FTSE 100 companies are largely foreign owned, not unlike quite a lot of Britain.)
> 
> (And I don't think 'Project Fear' predicted that high streets would happen.)


Loads of predicatons never happened.



> Only if your extrapolation has logical merit. I care about people's welfare wherever they live. I don't have to feel an affinity for their country in order to do so. But it's quite instructive, though hardly surprising, that you make that assumption.


Bless you. What are you doing to help the starving children in Africa?



> I have studied human evolution for many years, and yes there are differences. Minor ones in my opinion. (Would you like a bibliography for that study as well?)


What is the point? You wouldn't even tell me which political books have influenced you.



> And the expression is "full well". (Just trying to help; hope you don't mind.)


Don't start a sentence with a conjunction.



> Don't know much about Marxism to be honest, and I haven't mentioned it at all.


Whom are you trying to fool? It's obvious you're a Marxist. You don't need to mention it, your posts say enough.



> Hah, yeah! Don't get me started on those Lefties! Where is Corbyn coming from?! The only ones I've come across who are worse are the Righties, especially those who think they always _are_ right. Listening to the lies and half-truths of Rees-Mogg recently has really wound me up!


Don't end a sentence with a preposition.

Conservatives are more than willing to have a discussion.

The video below is the typical 'debate' between a Conservative and a left-wing fool.








> No, it means exactly what I said. I am coming from an inclusive view of humanity in which tribal boundaries, whether physical or mental, do a lot more harm than good and where reinforcing them through Brexit is a retrograde step on the long journey to a more civilised and peaceful future. Your view is that such reinforcement is somehow a good thing, and, apparently, that tribal instincts should still guide our actions, which is why the fantasy of 'sovereignty' is more important to you than the welfare of British people.


Your view of humanity is delusional. You are literally living in la-la land. Nevertheless, believe what you want.



> Facts regarding economics and the migrant status of pretty much everyone living in Britain today won't change your view, so I see little point in discussing it.


You can give it your best bit.



> And the - if you'll excuse me - rather immature insults are not really conducive to a reasoned discussion.


You used the hyphen incorrectly. Tut tut.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> I agree with you. However, most of the loonies tend to be left-wingers.
> 
> She moans about being racially abused but she has said several racist things over the years. She is racist against the British people and white people.
> 
> ...


Personally I find ineptitude right across the political spectrum, I think it rather comes with the territory these days.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Whether her comments were racist or not does not entitle anyone to racially abuse her or make the kind of vile and disgusting comments she regularly gets on her social media accounts.

Seriously, it seems to me you have a superiority complex and think everyone who doesn't share your views is less intelligent. By the way just to correct your assumptions I voted to leave the EU and I have voted Conservative in General Elections for many years now apart from the last one. You tend to find more religious people in right wing parties than left by the way - I guess you don't go to church much but if you did try asking the average congregation how they vote and on the whole I bet it won't be Labour.

I have not said holding a degree makes her intelligent but have said that having obtained a history degree from Cambridge clearly means she is not as "thick as pig shit" which you constantly accuse her of. Talking of pigs do you care about the politicians who put their private parts in the mouth of a severed pig's head or is that OK in your book? I would suggest as thick as pig shit would more appropriately describe that behaviour


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Bless you. What are you doing to help the starving children in Africa?


I have sponsored children there - 6 at a time - for the last 25 years. Though I have only visited once, to a small community on the shores of Lake Victoria near Kisumu in Kenya. In their new medical centre was a bowl of used syringes awaiting washing so they could be re-used.

I gave my sponsored child £50 when I signed my first publishing contract. With it he bought a wooden bed for his mother - who had never had a bed before - a tubular metal bed for himself, some clothes for himself and his sisters, a number of school books, two goats, and the rest he spent on food for the family.

And, with that answer, your posts will be ignored unless you say something factually incorrect. Or interesting.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Oh, really? That's news to me. Nevertheless, if all else fails, I'll ask Corbyn for some money from his magic money tree.


Why is it when your arguments fail you bring in Corbyn?



> Perhaps you should read the comments.


Ah comments, opinion like yours. JRM has stated he doesn't believe in the EU worker protections. Neither did I state he would remove all those rights. Doesn't need to remove all to be damaging to people.



> The EU is a corporate scam and it's about time the left caught up to the modern day on these issues."


Hardly, considering it's a democracy you have an input into. If the EU is a corporate scam it can be said just as much that the UK government is a corporate scam.



> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43731390
> 
> "But it is not parliament's right to decide when Britain goes to war.


An opinion or did you not notice that. Neither did you read that previously parliament has made similar decisions and set the precedent. May simply didn't want to for fear of failing.



> https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...-russia-chemical-weapons-latest-a8303146.html
> 
> "Legally, the decision to go to war is taken by the Queen acting through and on the advice of her ministers. It is a decision of her government, which derives its authority from its command of a majority of MPs in the Commons, but it does not require a vote of MPs beforehand."


Which is the same excuse used blown out of the water by the supreme court for other cases. Until it's tested in court it is opinion only.



> Congratulations, you have managed to inform me of the countries that form the UK. Where does this indicate any "union"?


Oh dear... and you complain about my English.



> Try and actually look up the definition of 'sovereignty'. You're just making things up.


I have, we retained sovereignty.



> You're mixing things up, I was responding to Thatcher's views of the EU.


Which is opinion only. Why is it only you can use opinion as evidence in your arguments?



> I don't need to repeat myself. Use Google, there are plenty of arguments about the so-called legitimacy of democracy of the EU.


You are correct. Arguments started, not actual fact which is that the EU is democratic. There's an argument that the world isn't round but flat. Doesn't make it true simply as people started an argument.



> "relevence", hehe. You don't even capitalise the word "English". It is not rocket science to know that English is not your first language. This is why I'm giving you a bit of leeway when it comes to the definitions of various words and how you are using them in sentences.
> 
> I was not referring to any other comments but the actual video I posted.
> 
> He's not exactly wrong. You are a native German, are you totally unaware of what happened in Cologne?


Please do tell me more about myself. I find it funny. Making assumptions without evidence, pushing it as fact. Sums up your entire contribution to this forum. Then again when people resort to grammar correction first it's a sign they've completely lost the argument.



> Well it doesn't take a genius to know that a lot of the so-called "refugees" that arrive on the shores of other countries will try and get to Britain. Are you seriously going to deny this? There are even videos on Youtube of immigrants telling people openly they want to go to Britain.


No, many will try to settle in Germany or other countries in the EU. There are international rules on refugees or are you going to deny that. Let's not forget the Sangatte migrant camp near Calais was formed in 1999, well before the current refugee crises.



> I agree with you. However, most of the loonies tend to be left-wingers.


No, same amount of right wing nationalists.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Goblin said:


> Please do tell me more about myself. I find it funny.


I'm a Marxist, apparently. 

I think it's because I used the word 'eventually' without explaining its contextual meaning.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)




----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

-sticks mod hat on-

Can we have a little less of the personal insults please...as adults we should be able to criticsize someones politics without adding personal insults...we can also disagree with religion without insulting someones intellect.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> Why not?
> 
> Surely someone so confident of wanting a fairer society should be able to coherently describe how he or she wants this to happen.


Because I don't feed trolls.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Personally I find ineptitude right across the political spectrum, I think it rather comes with the territory these days.


Which three prominent Conservative politicians are as inept as the three prominent Labour members Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott?

I never see any mobs from Conservative youth members like the left-wing Antifa and similar groups behave.



> Two wrongs don't make a right. Whether her comments were racist or not does not entitle anyone to racially abuse her or make the kind of vile and disgusting comments she regularly gets on her social media accounts.


According to whom?

I'm sure the biblical phrase "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" could be easily interpreted to support the belief that what is good for the goose is good for the gander! She shouldn't give it if she can't take it.



> Seriously, it seems to me you have a superiority complex and think everyone who doesn't share your views is less intelligent. By the way just to correct your assumptions I voted to leave the EU and I have voted Conservative in General Elections for many years now apart from the last one. You tend to find more religious people in right wing parties than left by the way - I guess you don't go to church much but if you did try asking the average congregation how they vote and on the whole I bet it won't be Labour.


You can think what you want about me.

I'm happy you voted to leave the EU. May I ask, why did you not vote for the Conservative Party in the last general election? Do you regret that decision?

I think you should actually check your statement about people's religious beliefs and their political beliefs. For example, most Muslims vote Labour and in the 2017 general election more Catholics voted Labour.

http://www.brin.ac.uk/2017/religious-affiliation-and-party-choice-at-the-2017-general-election/

You are right, I never go to church. Why would I? I despise religion. I don't really have any problem with someone being religious since it is an individual choice but I don't need that person telling me their beliefs and I do have a problem with someone using their religious belief as a defence. Your word choice of "unChristian" did make me chuckle a bit.



> I have not said holding a degree makes her intelligent but have said that having obtained a history degree from Cambridge clearly means she is not as "thick as pig shit" which you constantly accuse her of. Talking of pigs do you care about the politicians who put their private parts in the mouth of a severed pig's head or is that OK in your book? I would suggest as thick as pig shit would more appropriately describe that behaviour


You are implying that because someone has a degree it means he or she is intelligent. There is a difference between education and intelligence.

What has Abbott done with her history degree? As far as I know, absolutely nothing.

She claims to be a politician but she hasn't got a clue about politics.






She just makes things up as she continues to talk utter crap.

I hope you do realise that the allegation made about David Cameron which is now known as "Piggate" is unfounded and there is no evidence to support the anecdote.



Arnie83 said:


> I have sponsored children there - 6 at a time - for the last 25 years. Though I have only visited once, to a small community on the shores of Lake Victoria near Kisumu in Kenya. In their new medical centre was a bowl of used syringes awaiting washing so they could be re-used.
> 
> I gave my sponsored child £50 when I signed my first publishing contract. With it he bought a wooden bed for his mother - who had never had a bed before - a tubular metal bed for himself, some clothes for himself and his sisters, a number of school books, two goats, and the rest he spent on food for the family.
> 
> And, with that answer, your posts will be ignored unless you say something factually incorrect. Or interesting.


I bet all of that makes you feel like a good Samaritan. Congratulations, would you like a medal?

Have you done anything similar for British people?



Goblin said:


> Why is it when your arguments fail you bring in Corbyn?


This is again another example of how you are not comprehending what I post. I used the word "Nevertheless", do you not know what that means?



> Ah comments, opinion like yours. JRM has stated he doesn't believe in the EU worker protections. Neither did I state he would remove all those rights. Doesn't need to remove all to be damaging to people.


You're now moving the goalposts.

You initially stated:

"Tell me how accountable is the government going to be after brexit when they want to strip things like workers rights?"

I replied:

"You've been listening to Labour's BS. Brexit will not be stripping workers of their rights at all."

You replied:

"No, I've listened to Ian Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg. Were not aware they were in the Labour party."

You then posted a Youtube link that does not support this statement and has been uploaded by a pro-EU Youtuber.



> Hardly, considering it's a democracy you have an input into. If the EU is a corporate scam it can be said just as much that the UK government is a corporate scam.


You're clearly just dismissing any opinion that is contrary to yours. I have yet see you detail coherently how you can defend the statement that the EU is democratic. The even constitution of the EU questions the legitimacy of democracy.



> An opinion or did you not notice that. Neither did you read that previously parliament has made similar decisions and set the precedent. May simply didn't want to for fear of failing.


I think you'll find that according to British law it is a fact that parliament does not decide.



> Which is the same excuse used blown out of the water by the supreme court for other cases. Until it's tested in court it is opinion only.


This is not an opinion, this is how the British law regards such matters. The government does not need an agreement from parliament to go to war.



> Oh dear... and you complain about my English.


Please do point out the grammatical error.



> I have, we retained sovereignty.


No, we have not. You simply don't want to admit something that will undermine all of your misguided beliefs.

How do we have total sovereignty when the EU makes laws on a wide variety of things? Parliament does have some say on some matters but the very fact that the EU can pass laws into this country clearly tells anyone that this undermines the sovereignty of the country.



> Which is opinion only. Why is it only you can use opinion as evidence in your arguments?


I don't think you're following this thread correctly. I was responding in response to someone who mentioned Thatcher.



> You are correct. Arguments started, not actual fact which is that the EU is democratic. There's an argument that the world isn't round but flat. Doesn't make it true simply as people started an argument.


How is the EU democratic when it can make laws for countries?



> Please do tell me more about myself. I find it funny. Making assumptions without evidence, pushing it as fact. Sums up your entire contribution to this forum. Then again when people resort to grammar correction first it's a sign they've completely lost the argument.


You were the one that said to me that I don't understand "plain English". Have you lost your marbles mate? Practice what you preach.



> No, many will try to settle in Germany or other countries in the EU. There are international rules on refugees or are you going to deny that. Let's not forget the Sangatte migrant camp near Calais was formed in 1999, well before the current refugee crises.


More of a reason to leave the EU sooner!

Well first it is necessary to distinguish between a genuine refugee and economic migrants, asylum seekers, Islamic extremists, etc.

Where does a country draw the line for the limit it should accept into the country? I don't think accepting a certain amount of refugees will solve the problem.

Unless you live under a rock, I am sure you are aware that in Germany ordinary citizens are starting to turn more and more nationalist because of Merkel's policies on immigration.



> No, same amount of right wing nationalists.


I don't see any Conservative groups behaving the way Antifa do on a regular basis.



Arnie83 said:


> I'm a Marxist, apparently.
> 
> I think it's because I used the word 'eventually' without explaining its contextual meaning.


Even the idea of open borders is left-wing la-la land wishful thinking that makes absolutely no sense.

Who could ever forget the famous Marxist phrase "Workers of the world unite!"?



havoc said:


> Because I don't feed trolls.


A nice little cop out. Again, this is quite a common tactic from those that are unable to elaborate on their comments.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

reading all that I now have a splitting headache.


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> A nice little cop out. Again, this is quite a common tactic from those that are unable to elaborate on their comments.


Attempting to ridicule others is quite a common tactic of those who need to feel superior.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> I bet all of that makes you feel like a good Samaritan. Congratulations, would you like a medal?
> 
> Have you done anything similar for British people?





Arnie83 said:


> your posts will be ignored unless you say something factually incorrect. Or interesting.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Even the idea of open borders is left-wing la-la land wishful thinking that makes absolutely no sense.


On the basis of being factually incorrect, we have many open borders already. Why, I drove straight into Sussex the other day, and didn't even slow down.

When I said I wanted open borders "eventually" I was looking many many years ahead. Hundreds, probably. It might make me a dreamer, but it doesn't make me a Marxist.

I would be grateful if you didn't address any more posts to me with the snide little digs. Any more in that vein will be reported.


----------



## SusieRainbow (Jan 21, 2013)

I'm keeping an eye on this thread, and believe me , I'd rather eat my own brain ! The personal comments and insults keep flowing in spite of earlier requests, so please keep it civil and be polite to each other.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

havoc said:


> Attempting to ridicule others is quite a common tactic of those who need to feel superior.


I've not ridiculed you. I simply asked you to clarify what you meant.



Arnie83 said:


> On the basis of being factually incorrect, we have many open borders already. Why, I drove straight into Sussex the other day, and didn't even slow down.
> 
> When I said I wanted open borders "eventually" I was looking many many years ahead. Hundreds, probably. It might make me a dreamer, but it doesn't make me a Marxist.
> 
> I would be grateful if you didn't address any more posts to me with the snide little digs. Any more in that vein will be reported.


Whether someone sees open borders as a good or bad thing is subjective, there is no 'correct' or 'incorrect' answer.

Attempting to use your Sussex analogy as the same world-wide open borders is bonkers!

The concept of open borders is associated with the left and in particular Marxism. The only people that argue for open borders are those on the left, whether he or she identifies as a socialist, communist, Marxist or whatever.


----------



## rottiepointerhouse (Feb 9, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Which three prominent Conservative politicians are as inept as the three prominent Labour members Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott?
> 
> Boris, Gove, May.
> 
> ...


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Maybe we could discuss the initial point of this thread. Someone could create a new thread about the EU.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Hi rottiepointerhouse,

I agree with you totally about Gove. Boris not so much, he says some things deliberately to provoke controversy but overall he's a good politician. I liked how he stopped alcohol on the public transport and introduced the cycle hire scheme (too many people are overweight these days and could do with some hard bike rides!). I think May started off shaky when she first became Prime Minister but she has not defied the result of the EU referendum and is negotiating reasonably well. 

I think it's all part of human nature if someone is insulting you either personally or at least indirectly but it affects you then you will retaliate. It is true that some people are more reluctant to do this initially butt everyone has a limit and will crack sooner or later. I think this basically sums up the saying that you better watch out for the quiet ones. 

Which Conservative politician do you think would make a good Prime Minister? Do you still want a Conservative local MP?

I don't have a problem discussing religion and someone stating their religious beliefs but to use religious beliefs as some sort of argument for political beliefs is to me a little bit silly. I will happily discuss religion and you can state your religious beliefs all you want. Have you read any of the philosophers that discuss religion such as Nietzsche, Hitchens, etc? Similarly, have you read any other religious texts such as those about Islam or Judaism?

Abbott's history degree has nothing to do with her political career (if you can even really call it that :S). According to her, the British "invented racism", judging by comments like that, I don't think her history degree means anything. 

Not necessarily, the area is traditionally Labour. The same thing can be observed in other parts of the country.

As you already know, innocent until proven guilty. There is no substantial evidence to support the claim made from an anonymous Member of Parliament that made the anecdote. Perhaps Farage can make you chuckle a little bit if you read what he said about Cameron and the EU referendum. He said there was the "In" campaign and the "Out" camp and then he went on to say, "And then we've got the Prime Minister. Or should I call him, in this context, piggy in the middle".


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

In 1977, Powell defended his "Rivers of Blood" speech.

The interviewer asked him, "nine years after the speech, are we still in your view on a kind of funeral pyre?":

"Yes, I've been guilty I suppose of, I've said this before, of under-estimating rather than over-estimating. And I was just looking back at the figures that I was then talking about in 1968 for the end of the century. Do you know my estimates which were regarded with such ridicule and denounced, behold the academics forgive me, they are less than the official estimate which the Franks reported at the beginning of this year are thought. So upon the whole I have leaned, perhaps it's a fault, towards the under-estimation of the magnitude and of the danger."

And then asked him, "what do you see as the likely prospect now? Still the 'River Tiber foaming with blood'?":

"My prospect is that, politicians of all parties will say "Well Enoch Powell is right, we don't say that in public but we know it in private, Enoch Powell is right and it will no doubt develop as he says. But it's better for us to do nothing now, and let it happen perhaps after our time, than to seize the many poisonous nettles which we would have to seize if we were at this stage going to attempt to avert the outcome." So let it go on until a third of Central London, a third of Birmingham, Wolverhampton, are coloured, until the Civil War comes, let it go on. We won't be blamed, we'll either have gone or we'll slip out from under somehow."






In a documentary about Enoch Powell, the reporter asked Powell about his love for India and his stance on immigration, he said:

"India is India, and England is England and an Englishman can have a love for India without wishing to see India on the streets of Birmingham."


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

rottiepointerhouse said:


> Boris, Gove, May.


Don't forget Jeremy Hunt! 

Ah yes, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I seem to remember a chap called Jesus teaching about that: "You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

> This is again another example of how you are not comprehending what I post. I used the word "Nevertheless", do you not know what that means?


Absolutely nothing in this instance. You consistently fail to support arguments so divert, Corbyn, Abbot, marxism whatever. Even the above quesiton about Nevertheless is a diversion.



> You're now moving the goalposts.


The only one consistently moving goalposts is you.



> You're clearly just dismissing any opinion that is contrary to yours. I have yet see you detail coherently how you can defend the statement that the EU is democratic. The even constitution of the EU questions the legitimacy of democracy.


Power is held by MEP's and governments, both of which are elected. That is democracy.



> This is not an opinion, this is how the British law regards such matters. The government does not need an agreement from parliament to go to war.


Which is what the government argued when taken to high court privately for ignoring parliament in another matter.



> Please do point out the grammatical error.


Who said anything about grammar. You're the one who complains about that. Understanding English is another matter.



> No, we have not. You simply don't want to admit something that will undermine all of your misguided beliefs.


You've expressed opinion, I've stated opinion backed by evidence.



> How do we have total sovereignty when the EU makes laws on a wide variety of things? Parliament does have some say on some matters but the very fact that the EU can pass laws into this country clearly tells anyone that this undermines the sovereignty of the country.


Now you talk about total sovereignty moving the goalposts from simply sovereignty... How about because we reliquished control of certain areas, which we can take back. We retain ultimate control by the ability to leave.



> I don't think you're following this thread correctly. I was responding in response to someone who mentioned Thatcher.


Posting someone's opinion as fact.



> Where does a country draw the line for the limit it should accept into the country? I don't think accepting a certain amount of refugees will solve the problem.


Considering the UK, Ireland and Denmark are allowed to choose whether they will take part in the immigrant quota scheme, the UK government decides, not the EU. These aren't people using Freedom of Movement rules. 


> Unless you live under a rock, I am sure you are aware that in Germany ordinary citizens are starting to turn more and more nationalist because of Merkel's policies on immigration.


Oh I'm aware although more distinct in the east. Like in other countries, nationalists are using scare tactics and scapegoating is commonplace blowing any problems out of proportion.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...sun-seekers-risk-losing-pensions-after-brexit


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The state pension won’t be affected. It may be that the agreed increases in private pensions will, the government may have to come to an agreement as it has with countries outside of the Eu. Eu citizens living in the U.K. won’t be affected, the U.K. government has already agreed that their pension rights will remain the same. If the Eu refuses to reciprocate, it becomes more obvious that it’s isolating not inclusive, because there is absolutely no reason for them not to.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> The state pension won't be affected. It may be that the agreed increases in private pensions will, the government may have to come to an agreement as it has with countries outside of the Eu. Eu citizens living in the U.K. won't be affected, the U.K. government has already agreed that their pension rights will remain the same. If the Eu refuses to reciprocate, it becomes more obvious that it's isolating not inclusive, because there is absolutely no reason for them not to.


Obviously you didn't read the article. It may depend on passporting rights. It may depend on if the government even gets to negotiations on the subject. It may... Remember that no deal option which a lot of those supporting leave are pushing for? All well and good government saying it will not be affected when they haven't done the actions or negotiations to ensure that will be the case. EU's responsibility is to look after the EU and it's population, not those who have decided to leave. Why should they allow perks without membership? That's not isolationist, that's common sense. I would hope the UK looks after it's own in preference to others.


----------



## KittenKong (Oct 30, 2015)

David Jason Jones said:


> The concept of open borders is associated with the left and in particular Marxism. The only people that argue for open borders are those on the left, whether he or she identifies as a socialist, communist, Marxist or whatever.


I think you've forgotten about the days of the Iron Curtain and the Berlin Wall!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I did read the article and to the end of it. I then did further research on it.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

What difference does it make to the Eu whether Brits in Spain carry on getting their private pensions as they are now? The U.K. has already said Eu citizens living in the U.K. will get theirs. Give me one good reason why Brits living in other European countries can’t continue to receive their private pensions?


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> What difference does it make to the Eu whether Brits in Spain carry on getting their private pensions as they are now? The U.K. has already said Eu citizens living in the U.K. will get theirs. Give me one good reason why Brits living in other European countries can't continue to receive their private pensions?


You obviously missed the following from the article...


> That includes many expatriates with private pensions who are covered under *so-called passporting rules for financial companies* that probably won't survive the cut after Britain leaves


Anybody paying attention to the brexit negotiations would realise the impact on passporting regulations when it comes to the financial services. May has already stated she doesn't want to continue passporting rights which allows UK financial services to trade within the EU. To have passporting rights companies would have to abide by EU rules which seems logical to me but is counted as a red line by the UK government.

May stated March 2nd 2018:


> We're not looking for passporting because we understand that it is intrinsic to the single market, which we would no longer be a member of. It would also require us to be subject to a single rulebook over which we would have no say


The trouble at the moment is like a lot of things regarding brexit.. nothing is clear and reassurance from the government means, in practical terms, nothing.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No I didn’t miss it. A bunch of unnamed financial companies might go bust because of Brexit and the Eu won’t allow Brits living in Europe to have their private pensions anyway (elsewhere it says it may mean private pensions being frozen temporarily, no increases, not gone altogether) so we should have voted to stay in. The article uses as its example, a Brit who lived in Spain since in his 30s and now retired there. The U.K. has arrangements with a number of countries, both inside and outside of the Eu, so are quite capable of organising it once we leave ofc. Seems to me journalists must be at the negotiating table.

Gibraltar wanted us to stay in because they’re afraid of the Spanish government, expats want to us to stay in because of their pensions. Not sure why an independent Scotland wanted to stay in. Did anyone want to stay in because the Eu and it’s politicians and bureaucrats are doing an amazing job? Seems to me people want to stay in the Eu, because they’re afraid of what it (and our government) will do if we leave. 

I’m not about to get any kind of pension. State or otherwise. Government policies over the years have made certain of that. Nothing to do with the Eu. Probably. The future isn’t certain for anyone and some believe it will get worse inside the Eu than it would outside of it. Their guess is as good as yours.


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

Elles said:


> The future isn't certain for anyone and some believe it will get worse inside the Eu than it would outside of it. Their guess is as good as yours.


Yet you can take what is known and extrapolate. There's a reason the majority of experts in multiple fields, including animal rights are in favour of staying in the EU. You fairly recently had 40 scientists write a letter supporting brexit which was hailed in the tabloids as proof that brexit was good. They didn't mention the 1400 letters from scientists which explained why it was bad. It's not simply a case of "their guess is as good as yours". You can look at the facts and how things work in reality rather than in a fantasy land.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Elles said:


> some believe it will get worse inside the Eu than it would outside of it.


That's interesting, 'cos I haven't seen any predictions of that; if you're talking in terms of UK economic prosperity, that is. Do you have a source you could point me at?


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Elles said:


> No I didn't miss it. A bunch of unnamed financial companies might go bust because of Brexit and the Eu won't allow Brits living in Europe to have their private pensions anyway (elsewhere it says it may mean private pensions being frozen temporarily, no increases, not gone altogether) so we should have voted to stay in. The article uses as its example, a Brit who lived in Spain since in his 30s and now retired there. The U.K. has arrangements with a number of countries, both inside and outside of the Eu, so are quite capable of organising it once we leave ofc. Seems to me journalists must be at the negotiating table.
> 
> Gibraltar wanted us to stay in because they're afraid of the Spanish government, expats want to us to stay in because of their pensions. Not sure why an independent Scotland wanted to stay in. Did anyone want to stay in because the Eu and it's politicians and bureaucrats are doing an amazing job? Seems to me people want to stay in the Eu, because they're afraid of what it (and our government) will do if we leave.
> 
> I'm not about to get any kind of pension. State or otherwise. Government policies over the years have made certain of that. Nothing to do with the Eu. Probably. The future isn't certain for anyone and some believe it will get worse inside the Eu than it would outside of it. Their guess is as good as yours.


If he lived in Spain since his 30's how would he have a UK private pension?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> If he lived in Spain since his 30's how would he have a UK private pension?


You CAN pay into a private pension before you are 30, you know - I have been since my early 20s


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Jesthar said:


> You CAN pay into a private pension before you are 30, you know - I have been since my early 20s


 Yes I know but doubt it would be worth much, unless he was in a very well paid job I suppose


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

DoodlesRule said:


> Yes I know but doubt it would be worth much, unless he was in a very well paid job I suppose


Or he may have been paying on to it for much longer if he originally moved overseas with the company he was working for at the time.

The amount doesn't really matter, though. If you have planned to support yourself through retirement based on having an expected level on income available per month, then losing even what may seem like a relatively small amount to many could make life difficult for some people. And I'm sure there are plenty of others whose private pension covers a significant part of their montly outgoings who are equally as worried.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Arnie83 said:


> That's interesting, 'cos I haven't seen any predictions of that; if you're talking in terms of UK economic prosperity, that is. Do you have a source you could point me at?


The local pub?


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Elles said:


> The local pub?


:Hilarious
Thank you for the laugh , I really need it today.

Launderette?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Attempting to use your Sussex analogy as the same world-wide open borders is bonkers!


I think 'bonkers' is perhaps a little harsh.

The counties of England are administrative areas with their own local laws, taxes and so on; in other words a degree of autonomy, while centralised rules and regulations come from central government. The same applies to all counties, even Cornwall, some of the inhabitants of which consider themselves a nation apart, yet still comply.

Clearly, when the decision was made to declare that England was a country, and that decision was accepted, administrative divisions within it were made necessary in order to manage the whole. Over time they morphed into our current counties.

It takes but a small stretch of the imagination - in fact I'm doing it right now - to see that system being applied to the planet as a whole. The administration would have to be on a much grander scale, of course, and it is quite possible that the first layer of localised management would be at the regional level, and the second, maybe, at the level of what we now call 'countries'. But the concept is not only feasible, but proven, since we do it now.

As I said, such an arrangement is, I fear, hundreds of years away, and may never happen, but it's perfectly possible and depends, as do current countries, only on our imagination.

Years ago, trying to cross a border from one English region to another - they were called kingdoms in the era I'm thinking of - might well have been fraught with danger to life and limb, but the other day I managed it with no qualms whatsoever. Things change. I dare say back then there were Wessexians who would have considered an open border with Mercia as 'bonkers', but people change too, albeit slowly.


----------



## Vanessa131 (Nov 16, 2014)

Jesthar said:


> I think the original point being raised was that those who have birth or lifetime conditions that may need regular medical intervention and are therefoe excluded from insurance could at least rely on EHIC if they needed to go into hospital in an EU country, and therefore they could afford to holiday in Europe when they otherwise could not have. I very much doubt that people in that category (and yes, I do know a few) would be looking at going anywhere too outside the box even if they _could _get insurance for, say, trekking in Mozambique (which, of course, they can't) - and if EHIC goes, they'll have even less options unless they can afford the extra thousands needed to cover any medical bills.


I have never had any problems getting travel insurance to cover pre-existing conditions. Not Mozambique, but I certainly had no problems getting insurance to trek in Borneo.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> I think 'bonkers' is perhaps a little harsh.
> 
> The counties of England are administrative areas with their own local laws, taxes and so on; in other words a degree of autonomy, while centralised rules and regulations come from central government. The same applies to all counties, even Cornwall, some of the inhabitants of which consider themselves a nation apart, yet still comply.
> 
> ...


In my opinion, anyone arguing that there should be no borders is clearly not the full shilling.

The idea of open borders is a very dangerous idea. Why does a house have a front door, back door and windows? Security. The whole point in borders is to prevent any danger occurring to that particular country. Look at the way the world is today, can you imagine how bad it would be if people were freely allowed to move anywhere? There are so many problems with the concept of open borders that no matter how much rationale someone attempts to use to justify the idea, it is literally madness. It is in fact possible to use the analogy of a football ground, years ago hooligans were allowed to fight inside of the ground, that does not happen anymore once grounds adopted the policy of segregating the crowds. These days, football hooligans fight away from the ground and watching football is more safe. The whole point in borders is to lower the possibility of any threats, why would you want to risk the chance of threats increasing drastically?

Better countries would attract the poorest people of the world and would lead to all sorts of issues.

One of the biggest concerns is the change in the demographics of a country inevitably leads to a change in its values. If you don't give a monkeys about multiculturalism and the concept of a cultural identity then obviously this wouldn't bother you but most people do care which is why immigration alone is a big issue for people. This issue isn't even solely to do with open borders but immigration as a whole, there are certain countries in the world that practice things that are regarded by those people as a cultural thing but to many people in the West are viewed as barbaric.

Open borders may also lead to wars if certain people are allowed to freely move into a territory that is regarded as dangerous for those people.

Who would pay for people that don't want to work but want to live in richer countries?

The social and political consequences of open borders would honestly be catastrophic.

You have not even really given a rational argument for open borders, I could list dozens upon dozens of problems with the concept.

Humans are separated from each other by much more than just borders, simply talking about the wrong football team in a pub could lead you to be isolated from everyone else there.

Tribalism is a biological aspect of evolution and will never go away as it is a reality. No matter how much you or any other person wants to wish otherwise. My advice to you is please wake up and get back into the real world.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

You set out quite reasonably several reasons why open borders would be unworkable at the moment, which is why I am not advocating the concept for immediate implementation. As I have said, repeatedly, I am looking hundreds of years into the future, during which time I expect things to change.

I make that prediction based largely on the all the hundreds of years in the past, when change has been a constant, and it is that which causes me to disagree with you ...



David Jason Jones said:


> In my opinion, anyone arguing that there should be no borders is clearly not the full shilling.


... as opposed to feeble mindedness, with which derogatory suggestion you, somewhat typically, begin your post.



David Jason Jones said:


> The idea of open borders is a very dangerous idea. Why does a house have a front door, back door and windows? Security. The whole point in borders is to prevent any danger occurring to that particular country. Look at the way the world is today, can you imagine how bad it would be if people were freely allowed to move anywhere? There are so many problems with the concept of open borders that no matter how much rationale someone attempts to use to justify the idea, it is literally madness. It is in fact possible to use the analogy of a football ground, years ago hooligans were allowed to fight inside of the ground, that does not happen anymore once grounds adopted the policy of segregating the crowds. These days, football hooligans fight away from the ground and watching football is more safe. The whole point in borders is to lower the possibility of any threats, why would you want to risk the chance of threats increasing drastically?


A house has doors and windows largely to protect the residents from the weather, while allowing access, egress and providing light, but those doors and windows do have locks for security purposes. What that tells me is that criminal elements already exist within all countries. National borders have no bearing on that fact.

We have higher crime rates in some parts of the UK than in others. We don't respond by closing the borders between counties, or introducing them within cities.

In the future I don't expect people to become wholly altruistic, so crime will still exist, but so will laws and those who enforce them. And they will have considerably more capability than today's police services. There is no reason why that should require country borders unless one is of the opinion that people from a particular part of the world are more prone to criminality than others. That is not a view I ascribe to even today, unlike some, and certainly not in a changed future.

"The whole point in borders" is most definitely _not_ to lower the possibility of threats. They were not created to keep out those who would cause harm, they were created to mark territorial claims and keep out the 'other'. The imagined 'threat' is not to the safety of the tribe, but to its purity. Some people do not like hearing foreign voices on the train or seeing exotic food aisles in Tesco's not because there is a physical danger, but because 'they are not like us'.

It is precisely that attitude that I hope will change in the future.



David Jason Jones said:


> Better countries would attract the poorest people of the world and would lead to all sorts of issues.


Wealth inequality is most definitely the biggest current argument against border blurring. And while I do not see it changing any time soon, or at anything other than a snail's pace, I do think that it needs addressing. A glib accusation of Marxism is neither accurate nor particularly convincing as a counterargument when 1% of the world's population own more than 50% of the world's wealth.

Yes there will always be inequality, and it is not, per se, a bad thing. But over the next few hundred years I would hope that the monetary attractions of a foreign destination are lessened by an increase in the attractions of the origin. It will need international action, that, with the likes of Trump, Rees-Mogg, etc. seems further away than ever, but things change.



David Jason Jones said:


> One of the biggest concerns is the change in the demographics of a country inevitably leads to a change in its values. If you don't give a monkeys about multiculturalism and the concept of a cultural identity then obviously this wouldn't bother you but most people do care which is why immigration alone is a big issue for people. This issue isn't even solely to do with open borders but immigration as a whole, there are certain countries in the world that practice things that are regarded by those people as a cultural thing but to many people in the West are viewed as barbaric.


I've never quite got the hang of cultural identity, especially when it's used to attack EU membership, because when I've travelled around Europe all the people seem very similar to me. I'm sure they have different customs and social behaviour, and eat food I wouldn't like, but so do lots of people in different regions of the UK.

There are universal cultural norms - people are generally welcoming, kind, honest, law-abiding etc - but I'm not sure what, if anything, defines a unique English culture, let alone a British one. *Perhaps you can come up with some examples? What, exactly, are the detailed behaviours that all we Brits uniquely exhibit, and that borders are supposed to preserve?*

One thing I am sure of is that social behaviour changes over time. We no longer bait bears, or go to Bedlam for a good time watching the inmates. We don't have signs saying 'No Blacks or Irish!'. We don't condone the slave trade. Not everyone eats a full English breakfast with black pudding, afternoon tea with scones and clotted cream, or deep fried Mars bars. I haven't mentioned the early Britons in this post yet, but, to remedy that, not one of them was a farmer.

Cultures change, and are displayed on a largely individual rather than a national basis. Personally I have never Morris danced, and though some people do, I don't see it as part of English culture except in as much as a few people currently living here do it. God knows why.



David Jason Jones said:


> You have not even really given a rational argument for open borders, I could list dozens upon dozens of problems with the concept.


I have not given an argument for open borders with which you agree. That doesn't quite square with your contention.

My reasons remain as they were. All conflicts are between self-defined groups, and all require differences between the groups to be identified, cited as the basis for the conflict, and used as banners behind which the tribes can rally. Where perceived differences are lessened - not eradicated, but lessened - the possibility of conflict is greatly reduced.

Most wars are between countries, though surely there are some ghastly conflicts between smaller tribes within those countries and larger tribes that encompass them.
Countries are defined by their borders, and many of those within those borders like to think that they are different. They are really not, for the most part, but the perceived differences, enabled in part by the national boundaries, provide a hook on which a tribal grievance can be hung.

To use the county analogy that you dismissed so easily, if there is a feeling of belonging to a larger group, then, in time, conflicts between the smaller ones become almost unthinkable. The Wars of the Roses simply cannot happen again now that the concept of 'England' is irreversibly established. In the same way, it is logical to suppose that wars between, say, France and Germany could not happen once the concept of a European Union is similarly irreversibly established. Extend that to the whole world, and it is harder to find reasons for wars. Police the whole place under a single administration and it becomes very difficult indeed to wage one.

Now that won't happen, I will repeat, for hundreds of years - maybe thousands - but the tide of history, that sees people arranging themselves in ever larger groupings, make it not only possible, but, ultimately, likely.

I dare say that when two tribes joined, there were dissenters. When the Seven Kingdoms became England there would have been those who hated the idea and yearned for the good old days. We have now reached an embryonic continental group in the EU. Some seek to tear it apart, and may succeed in doing so. But history suggests it will be a temporary setback.

Personally I hope so.



David Jason Jones said:


> Tribalism is a biological aspect of evolution and will never go away as it is a reality. No matter how much you or any other person wants to wish otherwise. My advice to you is please wake up and get back into the real world.


Tribalism is indeed deep-seated, and it gives rise to many of the problems in the world today. It is not something that will ever completely disappear as it is at the core of a human being.

But it can be recognised and its effect on individual behaviour can be controlled. I don't view Europeans as the 'other'. I see the world inhabited by people very much like me.

Countries are products of our imagination, and while they have contributed to great advances and to easy lives for the fortunate, they do not define different peoples except as part of that imagination.

So thank you for the advice, but I assure you I do live in the real world. That doesn't mean I don't want it to change. I want the future to be better than the past.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie,

What makes you think that in "hundreds of years into the future" anything will be different? Tribalism is a biological aspect of human life and is going nowhere, it is as permanent as life.

I don't think you're going to find many people agreeing with you that those against the concept of open borders are feeble-minded.

You don't need to start telling me the other reasons for doors and anything else, I was simply pointing out the safety aspect.

Laws are made up concepts and certain crimes in the UK are considered acceptable in other parts of the world and vice a versa. National borders certainly do have a bearing on the level of crime since the values of different countries are different and there are countries that have higher crime rates than other crime rates.

I suggest you look at the demographics of the parts of the UK that are more prone to crime.

You posted: "There is no reason why that should require country borders unless one is of the opinion that people from a particular part of the world are more prone to criminality than others. That is not a view I ascribe to even today, unlike some, and certainly not in a changed future."

Have you bothered to look at the evidence that contradicts this claim? Your post suggest that you have not. If you're going to just simply let the evidence fall on deaf ears then this quite clearly shows you don't want evidence to get in the way of your ideological belief and you are not being honest.

Borders were certainly created to keep the enemies away and for ultimately safety. The purity aspect you speak of is simply the notion that each people should stick to their own kind, most people either consciously or subconsciously believe in this since again it is a natural instinct (birds of feather flock together).

You posted: "Some people do not like hearing foreign voices on the train or seeing exotic food aisles in Tesco's not because there is a physical danger, but because 'they are not like us'.

It is precisely that attitude that I hope will change in the future."

Why do you have a problem with people wanting to simply be with their own kind of people? There is nothing hateful of this belief. Most people are against multiculturalism. If I want to view Indian culture, Indian people and anything else to do with India then I shall go to India, why do I need it on my doorstep? The idea has nothing necessarily to do with physical danger but rather instinctively wanting to be around your own kind of people, it is a normal thing.

The origins of arguing for open borders economically is pretty much of Marxist origin. The idea of all the workers of the world uniting as one is a Marxist doctrine and is one of the key points of Marxism.

You posted: "A glib accusation of Marxism is neither accurate nor particularly convincing as a counterargument when 1% of the world's population own more than 50% of the world's wealth.

Yes there will always be inequality, and it is not, per se, a bad thing. But over the next few hundred years I would hope that the monetary attractions of a foreign destination are lessened by an increase in the attractions of the origin. It will need international action, that, with the likes of Trump, Rees-Mogg, etc. seems further away than ever, but things change."

The 1% help create jobs and provide wealth. Why is it a problem if the 1% own a certain percentage of wealth? Do you not want success to be rewarded?

People can trade internationally without wanting millions of immigrants living in different countries.



> I've never quite got the hang of cultural identity, especially when it's used to attack EU membership, because when I've travelled around Europe all the people seem very similar to me. I'm sure they have different customs and social behaviour, and eat food I wouldn't like, but so do lots of people in different regions of the UK.


Most Europeans (Caucasian, white, or whatever term you want to use) are indeed very similar to each other but if you lived in a foreign European country for a longer period of time you would notice fundamental differences. The reason you have found not much difference is because Europeans are of the same race, if you were to go to various parts of the world outside of Europe you would recognise undeniable differences between the various races. Nevertheless, culturally there are considerable differences between e.g Eastern Europeans and Western Europeans.



> There are universal cultural norms - people are generally welcoming, kind, honest, law-abiding etc - but I'm not sure what, if anything, defines a unique English culture, let alone a British one. *Perhaps you can come up with some examples? What, exactly, are the detailed behaviours that all we Brits uniquely exhibit, and that borders are supposed to preserve?*


As with any culture, there are English arts, architectures, food, folklore, literature, music, celebrations, etc.

Are you deliberately trying to create a straw man? I don't believe I have ever said that the British people have anything 'unique'.

I have already told you, borders are there to protect the country's people from anything that is considered a threat.



> One thing I am sure of is that social behaviour changes over time. We no longer bait bears, or go to Bedlam for a good time watching the inmates. We don't have signs saying 'No Blacks or Irish!'. We don't condone the slave trade. Not everyone eats a full English breakfast with black pudding, afternoon tea with scones and clotted cream, or deep fried Mars bars. I haven't mentioned the early Britons in this post yet, but, to remedy that, not one of them was a farmer.
> 
> Cultures change, and are displayed on a largely individual rather than a national basis. Personally I have never Morris danced, and though some people do, I don't see it as part of English culture except in as much as a few people currently living here do it. God knows why.


How is this of any relevance to the argument of open borders? I have not seen any social behaviour change advocating in huge numbers the notion of open borders.



> My reasons remain as they were. All conflicts are between self-defined groups, and all require differences between the groups to be identified, cited as the basis for the conflict, and used as banners behind which the tribes can rally. Where perceived differences are lessened - not eradicated, but lessened - the possibility of conflict is greatly reduced


Except if you bothered to speak to people on a wider basis about this subject you would find that most people don't even want segregation simply from other peoples but actually even regional areas, accents, class, political beliefs, etc.

Even some ethnic nationalists don't want other ethnic groups of the same race living in the same country, including those that belong to the exact same sub-race and would not look like a foreigner walking down the street.



> Most wars are between countries, though surely there are some ghastly conflicts between smaller tribes within those countries and larger tribes that encompass them.
> Countries are defined by their borders, and many of those within those borders like to think that they are different. They are really not, for the most part, but the perceived differences, enabled in part by the national boundaries, provide a hook on which a tribal grievance can be hung.


In the same country there will be different classes, religions, political beliefs, sub-races, ages, etc. Lots of people want nothing to do with X that are part of the same country.



> To use the county analogy that you dismissed so easily, if there is a feeling of belonging to a larger group, then, in time, conflicts between the smaller ones become almost unthinkable. The Wars of the Roses simply cannot happen again now that the concept of 'England' is irreversibly established. In the same way, it is logical to suppose that wars between, say, France and Germany could not happen once the concept of a European Union is similarly irreversibly established. Extend that to the whole world, and it is harder to find reasons for wars. Police the whole place under a single administration and it becomes very difficult indeed to wage one.


Again, how can you be so naive? Money, religion and other things also cause wars.

What makes you think that someone from a native African tribe would want to identify with a larger group?

If you think that if we just got rid of all borders there would be no reason for any war then you are fooling yourself. Even trying to process such a notion would result a war. Have you been keeping up to date with Israel and Palestine?



> Now that won't happen, I will repeat, for hundreds of years - maybe thousands - but the tide of history, that sees people arranging themselves in ever larger groupings, make it not only possible, but, ultimately, likely.


Why has it never happened before and what makes the next thousands of years any different?

You're seriously deluding yourself by conforming to this ridiculous notion due to your clearly obvious political bias. This hope you so badly want will never ever happen as long as humans are alive.



> I dare say that when two tribes joined, there were dissenters. When the Seven Kingdoms became England there would have been those who hated the idea and yearned for the good old days. We have now reached an embryonic continental group in the EU. Some seek to tear it apart, and may succeed in doing so. But history suggests it will be a temporary setback.
> 
> Personally I hope so."


The various tribes that formed the UK were all of the same stock and had no conflicts apart from the religious aspect. This analogy can not be used for the idea of 'joining' the British people with Indians, Chinese, Jamaicans, etc.

History suggests that breaking away and tearing apart the UK will be a step forward. I hope it happens with the similar feeling of when the Iron Curtain collapsed and countries managed to gain their independence back from tyranny and undemocratic rule.

"Tribalism is indeed deep-seated, and it gives rise to many of the problems in the world today. It is not something that will ever completely disappear as *it is at the core of a human being*."

Probably the most sensible thing you have ever posted.

Why would you want to try and change a fundamental principle of being a human?

"But it can be recognised and its effect on individual behaviour can be controlled. I don't view Europeans as the 'other'. I see the world inhabited by people very much like me."

Oh yeah, I forgot, we are all the same and we should all live happily ever after. What is it like living in la-la land?



> Countries are products of our imagination, and while they have contributed to great advances and to easy lives for the fortunate, they do not define different peoples except as part of that imagination.


I think you've been memorising Orwell's famous quote, "Ignorance is strength" too many times. Of course the different peoples that populate the different worlds define people. The only imagination is your bizarre belief that countries are meaningless.

"So thank you for the advice, but I assure you I do live in the real world."

Your statements make me question that.

"That doesn't mean I don't want it to change. I want the future to be better than the past."

What makes you so sure that your opinions of things are necessarily going to make the world "better"?

Do you advocate open borders because people have nothing to lose but their chains?

I'm also very interested in what books you have read about this subject.

I think this a disagreement about the actual outcome of a world without borders. I am genuinely curious how you have convinced yourself to actually advocate open borders at some point in the future when you have admitted that tribalism is at its core part of being a human being and is as much realistic as is life itself. Why would you want to change that? You can't reverse evolution.

If anything, don't you want the preservation of the different races, ethnic groups, cultures, etc? Diversity is not about having all different kinds of people living together, true diversity is respecting and acknowledging the different peoples of the world. If everyone were the same then the world would certainly be a boring place.

Also, even if a world had no borders, similar people would form together anyway because of the tribal instinct. If you go to areas in which there are largely immigrant or immigrant-descended people then you will see that those people generally stick together.

Your utopia has about as much credibility as a little child believing in Santa Claus.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Gosh. I don't want to live in your museum, frozen in time and space, and having to stay forever in my box. 
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,than are dreamt of in your philosophy".


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

We can still have groups and families and friends and people we like to be with, open borders or not. That doesn’t mean there should forever be artificial borders, made and maintained by government bodies. Based on what? With the way technology is progressing, there’ll be no need for it. I think it will be a lot less than a few hundred or thousand years.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> What makes you think that in "hundreds of years into the future" anything will be different?


Because things change, and always have.



David Jason Jones said:


> Why do you have a problem with people wanting to simply be with their own kind of people? There is nothing hateful of this belief. Most people are against multiculturalism. If I want to view Indian culture, Indian people and anything else to do with India then I shall go to India, why do I need it on my doorstep? The idea has nothing necessarily to do with physical danger but rather instinctively wanting to be around your own kind of people, it is a normal thing


Everyone prefers the comfort of their own habits being reflected in those around them. But cultures and habits change, as I described. Multiculturalism is as much intra-country - e.g. Northern habits, foods etc v. Southern - as it is inter-country. Which shows the irrelevance of 'country' in the argument except for those who think that being foreign disqualifies someone from being one's "kind of people".



David Jason Jones said:


> The idea of all the workers of the world uniting as one is a Marxist doctrine and is one of the key points of Marxism.


I expect it is, and have indeed heard it quoted. By all means post a quote where I have said it or anything like it.



David Jason Jones said:


> As with any culture, there are English arts, architectures, food, folklore, literature, music, celebrations, etc.


And as I said, they vary from region to region, making England very multicultural already.



David Jason Jones said:


> If you think that if we just got rid of all borders there would be no reason for any war then you are fooling yourself. Even trying to process such a notion would result a war. Have you been keeping up to date with Israel and Palestine?


I often find in these sort of discussions that people quote something I didn't say and then rubbish it. "No reason for any war" is an example. I said that the reasons for war would be lessened, and that waging a war would be harder. Do you envisage Lancashire declaring war on Yorkshire any time soon? Florida invading Georgia? France bombing Germany so long as they are both members of the EU?



David Jason Jones said:


> Why has it never happened before and what makes the next thousands of years any different?


Because change takes time. Are you suggesting that over the past few thousand years nothing has changed? That because something hasn't happened yet it can never happen?

In the past humanity has progressed from small tribes to larger tribes, to cities, to countries. As I said, the direction of travel is clear. Over the next few hundred / thousands of years, who knows?



David Jason Jones said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot, we are all the same and we should all live happily ever after. What is it like living in la-la land?


I guess it depends on one's definition of la-la land. If - as seems to be the case - you define it as a place inhabited by people who hold different views to yours, then I like it a lot.

You seem to laud the cultural differences within the UK but decry those outside it, unless you have the same disdain for Scottish culture on your doorstep as you do for Indian.

You seem to want 'our' culture to remain immune to changes from migrants while overlooking the fact that it is constantly changing and has been doing so since Cheddar Man lived somewhere that didn't even have a name because the culture didn't require one. And the biggest changes - e.g. farming - were initiated by migrants.

The cognitive dissonance is clear, as is the reason. Tribalism.

Judging from your question about books, and whether I've "bothered" to do any research, you might want to try 'Sapiens' by Yuval Noah Harari. But you won't like it.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Btw criminals and terrorists can get false documents and go wherever they like. Borders have never been a problem to them. It’s the rest of us that are inconvenienced if we aren’t millionaire plus status.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Elles said:


> We can still have groups and families and friends and people we like to be with, open borders or not. That doesn't mean there should forever be artificial borders, made and maintained by government bodies. Based on what? With the way technology is progressing, there'll be no need for it. I think it will be a lot less than a few hundred or thousand years.


Borders are there for more than that and each country owes their own culture, ways of life, etc, to their borders.

There are cultural (including linguistic) divides between the various countries of the world that have been thoroughly established for thousands of years. Even from a linguistic point of view, open borders would cause communication problems.

No two countries are the same, why would rich countries want to allow free immigration from peoples of poorer countries? The results would be catastrophic. Of course if someone has nothing to lose then he or she doesn't really care but at least think about the more wealthier nations.

Many people take their national identity very seriously, what about those people? Why should people be forced to live with other people?

The idea that at some point in the future humans will all live together as one in a world with no borders is barking mad and makes absolutely zero sense.

A world with no borders is a fantasy.



Arnie83 said:


> Because things change, and always have.


Tribalism has existed since the start of humans and has never gone away. The idea that somehow in the future humans are going to agree to a world with no borders is claptrap.



> Everyone prefers the comfort of their own habits being reflected in those around them. But cultures and habits change, as I described. Multiculturalism is as much intra-country - e.g. Northern habits, foods etc v. Southern - as it is inter-country. Which shows the irrelevance of 'country' in the argument except for those who think that being foreign disqualifies someone from being one's "kind of people".


Distinctions between the north and south of a specific country is not multiculturalism. Why are you being so dishonest?

The word foreign means exactly that, are you going to claim the definition of the word is wrong now?



> I expect it is, and have indeed heard it quoted. By all means post a quote where I have said it or anything like it.


You have not explicitly stated you are a Marxist but your arguments are essentially Marxist beliefs.

What do you politically identify yourself as exactly? I am going to be very shocked if you say anything other than left-wing.



> And as I said, they vary from region to region, making England very multicultural already.


Stop lying. Different regions of a country do not have different cultures.



> I often find in these sort of discussions that people quote something I didn't say and then rubbish it. "No reason for any war" is an example. I said that the reasons for war would be lessened, and that waging a war would be harder. Do you envisage Lancashire declaring war on Yorkshire any time soon? Florida invading Georgia? France bombing Germany so long as they are both members of the EU?


You're making the claim that a world without borders would reduce the chances of war which is utter nonsense. There will always be differences between peoples that will cause wars. In fact, as long as religion exists, there will also be a 'reason' for a war.



> Because change takes time. Are you suggesting that over the past few thousand years nothing has changed? That because something hasn't happened yet it can never happen?


You're confusing social change with biological change. Tribalism is deeply embedded into a human and will never be erased as it is part of evolution and has existed since the start of humans.



> In the past humanity has progressed from small tribes to larger tribes, to cities, to countries. As I said, the direction of travel is clear. Over the next few hundred / thousands of years, who knows?


The continents of today are thousands of years old and are going nowhere anytime soon. The exact specific borders of a country have changed over time e.g certain parts of Germany were once part of Poland vice a versa but recent times clearly show that people want clearly defined borders. I don't see any mass movement calling for open borders.



> I guess it depends on one's definition of la-la land. If - as seems to be the case - you define it as a place inhabited by people who hold different views to yours, then I like it a lot.


A utopia that will never ever happen.

I don't have a problem with people holding different views but at least use rationale and not argue from a confirmation bias, especially political.



> You seem to laud the cultural differences within the UK but decry those outside it, unless you have the same disdain for Scottish culture on your doorstep as you do for Indian.


Scotland is part of the UK and is part of British culture.

Yes, I do not want Indian culture on my doorstep, thank you.



> You seem to want 'our' culture to remain immune to changes from migrants while overlooking the fact that it is constantly changing and has been doing so since Cheddar Man lived somewhere that didn't even have a name because the culture didn't require one. And the biggest changes - e.g. farming - were initiated by migrants.


I'm pretty sure that we've already been through this before. The descendants of the indigenous British people have been here for thousands of years and formed what is known as British culture.



> The cognitive dissonance is clear, as is the reason. Tribalism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Enoch Powell speaking about the EU in 1976:

"A man who wishes the United Kingdom to remain a part of the European Economic Community, and who thereby commits himself to this nation becoming one province of a European state, can be as honourable as the next. I have never denied that, provided that he openly acknowledges and professes the consequences of his opinion. He can be filled with benevolence towards his fellows and genuinely convinced that as individuals the peoples inhabiting this territory would enjoy important advantages as European provincials which they cannot have as British nationals. But one thing he cannot be. He cannot be a patriot; for the basis of his action and intention is the conviction that this country is no longer, or ought no longer to be a nation state whose people acknowledge no external human authority and owe no higher secular allegiance."


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> claptrap.





David Jason Jones said:


> Why are you being so dishonest





David Jason Jones said:


> Stop lying.


You certainly have a very interesting approach to intellectual discussion. I will perhaps respond - though not, of course, in kind - or I may not bother.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

I don’t have any problem playing mmos with people from all over the world. What linguistic problem? In the future everyone will be able to speak the same language, probably English. My dog can understand what I’m saying to her, I’m sure humans can learn to communicate with each other. They already do.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

Elles said:


> I don't have any problem playing mmos with people from all over the world. What linguistic problem? In the future everyone will be able to speak the same language, probably English. My dog can understand what I'm saying to her, *I'm sure humans can learn to communicate with each other. They already do*.


To be fair, I appear to be having trouble doing so with one member of the species!


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

David Jason Jones said:


> Stop lying. Different regions of a country do not have different cultures.


Speaking as a Cornish person I think you are hugely mistaken...


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> Stop lying. Different regions of a country do not have different cultures.


Yowm coddin, ayya?


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Tribalism has existed since the start of humans and has never gone away. The idea that somehow in the future humans are going to agree to a world with no borders is claptrap.


'Claptrap' is, I suppose, valid as an opinion.

But I am not so certain about what might happen in the far future, especially as we have historical precedent for borders being all but removed: English counties, US States, Schengen ...



David Jason Jones said:


> Distinctions between the north and south of a specific country is not multiculturalism. Why are you being so dishonest?


The UK contains many different cultures and always has done. You yourself said that Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans, Vikings and Germanic tribes all contributed to the British people. There's multiculturalism to start with unless you think that they all morphed into one homogeneous group.

We are a mongrel nation, and always have been.



David Jason Jones said:


> The word foreign means exactly that, are you going to claim the definition of the word is wrong now?


The word 'foreign' means someone who comes from a different country or something that is strange and unfamiliar. It doesn't have to mean both.

Finding something strange and unfamiliar is a personal reaction, and is not a given upon meeting someone from a different place.

I find some attitudes very foreign, but often they are held by English people.



David Jason Jones said:


> You have not explicitly stated you are a Marxist but your arguments are essentially Marxist beliefs.
> 
> What do you politically identify yourself as exactly? I am going to be very shocked if you say anything other than left-wing.


Marxist beliefs concern the intellectual reduction of evolutionary tribalism? Well that's something I've learned!

I don't much like politics, because it seems to me to be the art of fooling as many of the electorate as you can in pursuit of ideological and personal objectives which would be out of reach were the truth to be told.

I would describe myself as pretty much a centrist. I have voted for Thatcher, Major, Blair & Clegg among others. I would never vote for Foot or Corbyn. Farage I despise.

I'll let you put whatever label you fancy on that collection. But before you do, consider, once again, that in all this I have been considering gradual change over very many years. No revolution involved.



David Jason Jones said:


> Stop lying. Different regions of a country do not have different cultures.


I'll let the other responses, plus the logic from above, answer that one.

Since definitions have arisen, 'lying' means saying something that one knows to be untrue. It doesn't mean saying something with which some might disagree.



David Jason Jones said:


> You're making the claim that a world without borders would reduce the chances of war which is utter nonsense. There will always be differences between peoples that will cause wars. In fact, as long as religion exists, there will also be a 'reason' for a war.


I believe that a world without autonomous countries would reduce the opportunities for war.

As I said before, the majority of wars are between countries. If the countries were reduced in status to administrative areas - like the English counties - and there was an overarching police force which had a monopoly of the world's weapons, how would the countries fight?

Again - yet again - this is hundreds of years ahead. It may never happen. But it may. If human imagination can create countries - which it did, and continues to do - then why can it not change their form? All that is required is the will of a sufficient majority. It isn't there now, of course, but we cannot predict the future. We can, however, seek to steer it.



David Jason Jones said:


> You're confusing social change with biological change. Tribalism is deeply embedded into a human and will never be erased as it is part of evolution and has existed since the start of humans.


I'm really not. I am well aware that tribalism will not be bred out of the human animal. But it can be controlled by intellect. I do it, and I'm not even the smartest person around.

Should we look at, for example, the gangs whose members are killing each other in London at the moment and say "Oh well, that's tribalism for you. Nothing we can do!" Or, through education perhaps, might we address that tribalism so that the (mostly) young men involved realise that they are behaving like adolescent chimpanzees, and seek in that way to stop them?

Tribalism predates h. sapiens, and **** anything else for that matter. It was present in the common ancestor we shared with chimps. Isn't it time that we tried to be better than that?

Or should we go on an on about largely imagined differences between nations, and how keeping out the foreigners is the only way to keep ourselves safe? Perhaps we should crouch on the White Cliffs of Dover, thumping our fists on the ground and screaming across the Channel? It's really not very different.



David Jason Jones said:


> I do not want Indian culture on my doorstep, thank you.


No, I'm sure you don't. They're not your 'kind' are they.

Should an Indian family arrive nearby, though, try just carrying on as before. I don't think such a happenstance would force you to change your personal culture. Even if another curry house opens in your town, attendance there is unlikely to be compulsory, though the 'culture change' engendered by them over the last few decades doesn't seem to me to have been catastrophic, or even unwelcome.

And who knows, you might look great in a sari.

As for the stuff about Harari's book, it seems to me that something which is designed to be thought-provoking is unlikely to achieve its aim if everyone agrees with it.

Readers will always have varying opinions of books. They certainly have in the case of mine.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> You certainly have a very interesting approach to intellectual discussion. I will perhaps respond - though not, of course, in kind - or I may not bother.


When someone is constantly just posting wishful stuff then there is nothing else but to respond in the way I have. Can you actually produce anything of substance and not just wishful thinking and la-la land utopias?



Elles said:


> I don't have any problem playing mmos with people from all over the world. What linguistic problem? In the future everyone will be able to speak the same language, probably English. My dog can understand what I'm saying to her, I'm sure humans can learn to communicate with each other. They already do.


Why should everyone speak the same language? Are you openly advocating the eradication of the different languages of the world?

Dogs do not understand English, dogs understand by the tone of voice.



Arnie83 said:


> To be fair, I appear to be having trouble doing so with one member of the species!


Would this be the one that is questioning your fantasy land? I can understand why you having such a difficult time.

I find it highly entertaining to read posts from people like you that advocate changing human behaviour to suit their own agendas.

Tribalism is going nowhere and is part of being a human, if you want to live the rest of your life thinking that one day your lovely utopia is going to one day become a reality then so be it but I do think you are wasting your time and could be more realistic.



StormyThai said:


> Speaking as a Cornish person I think you are hugely mistaken...


The various "differences" are all part of the culture of the UK.



Jesthar said:


> Yowm coddin, ayya?


A search into Google of "Yowm coddin" produced no results. Try a little bit harder.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

David Jason Jones said:


> Dogs do not understand English, dogs understand by the tone of voice.


Well tell Dillon that............. he not only understands nearly word everything we say, he can spell as well, now that's nothing to do the the sound of our voice.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> A search into Google of "Yowm coddin" produced no results. Try a little bit harder.


I respectfully suggest no extra effort is required on my part; anyone from where I was born and raised would know exactly what that means


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Arnie83 said:


> 'Claptrap' is, I suppose, valid as an opinion.
> 
> But I am not so certain about what might happen in the far future, especially as we have historical precedent for borders being all but removed: English counties, US States, Schengen ...


Since the start of humans until the present-day there has been no real support for a world without borders since tribalism is embedded into us all and is going nowhere.



> The UK contains many different cultures and always has done. You yourself said that Anglo-Saxons, Celts, Normans, Vikings and Germanic tribes all contributed to the British people. There's multiculturalism to start with unless you think that they all morphed into one homogeneous group.


Not quite. The British people and the British culture has been part of the UK for a long time. The recent "experiment" of multiculturalism has had disastrous effects and has failed. Most people are concerned about the multiculturalism existing in the UK.

Yes they did form into a homogeneous group, known as the British people.



> We are a mongrel nation, and always have been.


No we have not, that is a lie parroted by those on the left that clearly do not understand how an ethnic group is formed. British people can trace their ancestry back for centuries.



> The word 'foreign' means someone who comes from a different country or something that is strange and unfamiliar. It doesn't have to mean both.


Both definitions can be used to describe an immigrant.



> Finding something strange and unfamiliar is a personal reaction, and is not a given upon meeting someone from a different place.


A person from a different place is by definition both strange and unfamiliar, a person will either consciously or subconsciously react to the situation.



> I find some attitudes very foreign, but often they are held by English people.


Such as?



> Marxist beliefs concern the intellectual reduction of evolutionary tribalism? Well that's something I've learned!


You don't fool me, it is quite clear that you are arguing from a Marxist point of view.



> I don't much like politics, because it seems to me to be the art of fooling as many of the electorate as you can in pursuit of ideological and personal objectives which would be out of reach were the truth to be told.


What do you advocate instead of politics?



> I would describe myself as pretty much a centrist. I have voted for Thatcher, Major, Blair & Clegg among others. I would never vote for Foot or Corbyn. Farage I despise.


Very interesting! I find your political voting past to be intriguing.

At least it's nice to know you would never vote for Corbyn! 

May I ask, why do you "despise" Farage?



> I'll let you put whatever label you fancy on that collection. But before you do, consider, once again, that in all this I have been considering gradual change over very many years. No revolution involved.


I do find it rather bemusing that a person has a political voting past of voting both Thatcher and Clegg!



> I'll let the other responses, plus the logic from above, answer that one.





> Since definitions have arisen, 'lying' means saying something that one knows to be untrue. It doesn't mean saying something with which some might disagree.


Arguing that England has always been multicultural is utter BS.



> I believe that a world without autonomous countries would reduce the opportunities for war.


Do you have any sources to support your opinion?



> As I said before, the majority of wars are between countries. If the countries were reduced in status to administrative areas - like the English counties - and there was an overarching police force which had a monopoly of the world's weapons, how would the countries fight?


I think you'll find that it's mostly ideological differences that cause wars.

Why would anyone want to reduce a country to administrative areas? There is a clear difference between a country and a county.

I thought you would have already known the answer, wars would still happen regardless because of various disputes such as religion, ideological differences, defence, threats, etc.

A strong police force wouldn't reduce the chance of war that much as long as different beliefs exist.



> Again - yet again - this is hundreds of years ahead. It may never happen. But it may. If human imagination can create countries - which it did, and continues to do - then why can it not change their form? All that is required is the will of a sufficient majority. It isn't there now, of course, but we cannot predict the future. We can, however, seek to steer it.


The reason it will never happen is because a sufficient majority will never advocate such an idea.

Your hypothesis has no foundation, sane humans do not try and argue against biology and nature.

There is no reason to steer towards such a belief, it is a delusional fantasy land belief which the overwhelming majority of people do not support.

What about those people that do not wish for such a thing? All over the world, millions of people take their national identity with extreme seriousness and pride. What would you do with those people?



> I'm really not. I am well aware that tribalism will not be bred out of the human animal. But it can be controlled by intellect. I do it, and I'm not even the smartest person around.


Are you openly advocating trying to forcefully control a biological aspect of a human for the sake of a belief?

I don't think the advocacy of open borders and the word "intellect" should be used in the same sentence.

You are right, you are not the sharpest tool in the shed.



> Should we look at, for example, the gangs whose members are killing each other in London at the moment and say "Oh well, that's tribalism for you. Nothing we can do!" Or, through education perhaps, might we address that tribalism so that the (mostly) young men involved realise that they are behaving like adolescent chimpanzees, and seek in that way to stop them?


The government and people can only do so much to help people. A person first needs to take care of himself or herself.



> Tribalism predates h. sapiens, and **** anything else for that matter. It was present in the common ancestor we shared with chimps. Isn't it time that we tried to be better than that?


No, there is nothing wrong with tribalism.

Attempting to eradicate an aspect of human life that has created all of the differences among humans is ridiculous.

Trying to alter a biological component of human life because you don't agree with it really is madness.



> Or should we go on an on about largely imagined differences between nations, and how keeping out the foreigners is the only way to keep ourselves safe? Perhaps we should crouch on the White Cliffs of Dover, thumping our fists on the ground and screaming across the Channel? It's really not very different.


Firstly, perhaps you can actually produce some sufficient evidence that the differences between nations is "largely imagine". Such a statement is clearly an indication that you have not really read much about the subject.

Your hyperbole statement clearly sums up how you're just going to the extreme and quite frankly using petulant analogies.



> No, I'm sure you don't. They're not your 'kind' are they.


That's correct. If I want to see Indian culture and Indians, I shall go to India. What is the problem?



> Should an Indian family arrive nearby, though, try just carrying on as before. I don't think such a happenstance would force you to change your personal culture. Even if another curry house opens in your town, attendance there is unlikely to be compulsory, though the 'culture change' engendered by them over the last few decades doesn't seem to me to have been catastrophic, or even unwelcome.


Over time, it does change the overall culture of the country. You see, I actually live in the real world and understand that there are differences between peoples.

Indians that live in the UK tend to live in areas that are largely occupied by other Indians. Millions of people born in the UK that are of Indian origin, identify as Indian and still endorse Indian culture. Why do you think that is exactly?

The recent mass immigration into the UK country has turned the UK from once a great country to a shithole in many areas.



> And who knows, you might look great in a sari.






> As for the stuff about Harari's book, it seems to me that something which is designed to be thought-provoking is unlikely to achieve its aim if everyone agrees with it.


Perhaps you shohuld read Douglas Murray's _The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam_.

Or do you not bother to read any books that will question your beliefs?



> Readers will always have varying opinions of books. They certainly have in the case of mine.


Which other books have you read on the subject?

Since you are clearly arguing from a confirmation bias with the notion that open borders would be great, do you see any cons of open borders?

I've already given several reasons why open borders would be a bad thing and you have not refuted a single argument. On the contrary, you repeatedly revert to wishful thinking as an argument for open borders.

Do you actually have any logical beliefs or just beliefs based on fairytales, fantasy lands, utopias and other wishful things?


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Happy Paws said:


> Well tell Dillon that............. he not only understands nearly word everything we say, he can spell as well, now that's nothing to do the the sound of our voice.


There is no evidence that dogs understand English or any language for that matter. Dogs respond by the tone of the voice and sound.



Jesthar said:


> I respectfully suggest no extra effort is required on my part; anyone from where I was born and raised would know exactly what that means


I wonder why Google produced no search results when I searched those words, why is that?


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> I wonder why Google produced no search results when I searched those words, why is that?


Given that Google produces correct results for me, I have no idea.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Jesthar said:


> Given that Google produces correct results for me, I have no idea.


"No results found for *"Yowm coddin, ayya?"*.
Results for *Yowm coddin, ayya?* (without quotes)"

Post the link that shows the results for you.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> "No results found for *"Yowm coddin, ayya?"*.
> Results for *Yowm coddin, ayya?* (without quotes)"
> 
> Post the link that shows the results for you.


Why? _You_ never do...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Why would everyone being able to speak the same language eradicate all others? Many people speak more than one you know.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

If dogs go on tone of voice they would understand ‘sit’ in any language so long as we said the word using the same tone. We’re supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, so why can’t we understand by tone of voice too? Dogs can also learn sign language. Clever aren’t they.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

David Jason Jones said:


> Close minded nonsense.


Look, it's been diverting to put forward opinions and conclusions that have been much-researched and reached during the past 40 years of my life, and to try to get you to open your mind just a tad, but I'm afraid I have grown tired of the abuse, attempted belittlement, and ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual intellectual discussion. Even the bullying tone has now ceased to be amusing.

And I'm done overlooking the blatant racism.

So I'll leave you to the eventual and inevitable actions of the excellent moderators.

By all means post in response another self-affirmation of your own infallibility and the stupidity of others before you go.


----------



## David Jason Jones (Apr 24, 2018)

Elles said:


> If dogs go on tone of voice they would understand 'sit' in any language so long as we said the word using the same tone. We're supposed to be more intelligent than dogs, so why can't we understand by tone of voice too? Dogs can also learn sign language. Clever aren't they.


In case you have forgotten, dogs and humans are not the same. Humans have learnt a thing called linguistics, dogs have not. Sign language is not the same as spoken language.



Arnie83 said:


> Look, it's been diverting to put forward opinions and conclusions that have been much-researched and reached during the past 40 years of my life, and to try to get you to open your mind just a tad, but I'm afraid I have grown tired of the abuse, attempted belittlement, and ad hominem attacks in lieu of actual intellectual discussion. Even the bullying tone has now ceased to be amusing.


In other words, you cannot actually present any rational evidence for your ludicrous wishful thinking. I enjoyed reading your cop out, I knew it would happen sooner or later. I have asked you several times to present evidence and not just your wishful thinking BS. Your post clearly shows that you are on the defensive because you can't actually hold a debate.

I have "opened my mind", you know absolutely nothing about me. I, however, happen to hold different views to you. I think it's reasonable to assume that I am far more educated than you and have read much more on the subject than you. You can't even rationally defend your "beliefs". You claim to want to get people to open their mind but you are one of the most narrow-minded people I have come across in a long while, you basically think your opinion is 'right' and anything to the contrary is wrong.

As if you have spent four decades believing in such nonsense!  I wonder how many people in 40 years you have mentioned to convince to believe in the absolute rubbish you clearly do, hahahahahaha! I don't even believe in the 40 years you have read that much about the subject, if at all anything apart from things that confirm what you want to believe.

I genuinely think people like you need to book an appointment at the doctors. The lights are on but nobody is home.



> And I'm done overlooking the blatant racism.


Well it's ironic that you accuse me of using _ad hominems _yet you're accusing me of racism! I hope you do realise that accusing someone of racism without any evidence is a form of slander.

You should choose your words more wisely. If you knew anything about me, you would know that I am not racist in the slightest and have never discussed anything remotely associated with white supremacy or races in general. I despise the far-right (the genuine far-right and not anyone to the right of Corbyn and his inkling) as much as I despise the far-left.

However, I am a patriot and the fact that you think anyone that criticises and is against multiculturalism is "racist" tells me that you're a moron that has absolutely no counterargument so has to resort to personal attacks. Try harder.

I do challenge you to quote me where I have posted anything that is "blatant racism".

People that describe people as "racist" or anything similar simply have no argument, it is a typical response from those that argue from left-wing politics.

The quote, "Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed" seems to be applicable here. You hate the fact that I have questioned your "beliefs" and have ostensibly stumped you when it comes to applying logic and reason to your warped and delusional "beliefs".



> So I'll leave you to the eventual and inevitable actions of the excellent moderators.


That is fine, I have posted nothing that is against the rules.



> By all means post in response another self-affirmation of your own infallibility and the stupidity of others before you go.




Your posts already notify people that you are stupid, I don't need to post anything.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

David Jason Jones said:


> That is fine, I have posted nothing that is against the rules.


On the contrary....calling someone stupid is indeed against the rules.
I have asked for the personal insults to stop already, so any more and I'll be closing the thread.


----------



## Jesthar (May 16, 2011)

David Jason Jones said:


> the fact that you think anyone that criticises and is against multiculturalism is "racist" tells me that* you're a moron that has absolutely no counterargument so has to resort to personal attacks*. Try harder.


Oh, the irony...


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No dogs and humans are not the same, that was my point. Humans are supposedly more intelligent, though I wonder sometimes.


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> On the contrary....calling someone stupid is indeed against the rules.
> I have asked for the personal insults to stop already, so any more and I'll be closing the thread.


Not just stupid, but an actual moron! I'll have to get a badge or something. 

Seriously, though, I should have known better than to extend the engagement, and I'm sorry if it's caused you any hassle. I'll not respond to the person any more, so hopefully the thread will simply die without causing any more trouble.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Arnie83 said:


> I'm sorry if it's caused you any hassle. I'll not respond to the person any more, so hopefully the thread will simply die without causing any more trouble


It's OK, the person can't respond so the thread can continue if you wish.
I think it will die off naturally now considering they were the only ones keeping it going


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> I think it will die off naturally now


I've seen many threads closed for less . . . amazed it's kept going for so long.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

Calvine said:


> I've seen many threads closed for less . . . amazed it's kept going for so long.


Damned if we do, damned if we don't


----------



## Arnie83 (Dec 6, 2014)

StormyThai said:


> Damned if we do, damned if we don't


But appreciated, nevertheless!


----------

