EU rebuffs May, says no-plan Brexiteers deserve 'place in hell'

[rixalex]

On 2/16/2019 at 12:06 PM, samran said:

Genuinely curious to know why you think I have a problem with it. 

What?

 

I said you don't have a problem with it.

[rixalex]

On 2/16/2019 at 11:48 AM, samran said:

As for finding my comparisons ‘silly’, funny isn’t it that things that probably benefit you, you have no issue with!

What's funny is the assumptions you make. None of your examples benefit me.

 

What, i wonder, will your next silly comparison be, in trying to justify arbitrary discrimination based on nationality?

 

How about, "able-bodied people are discriminated against in not being able to use toilets for the disabled"?

[Loiner]

13 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Do you believe all the sources in that post are suspect? Including Michael Gove?

 

The 'something about Facebook ads' comes from a reputable source; ITN via Channel 4 news. Those ads from Vote.Leave were real, did exist. But like their anti immigration videos on YouTube they have since been deleted by Vote.Leave themselves. At least Farage has the courage of his convictions and kept his Leave.EU anti immigration propaganda open to public view post referendum!

 

The Centre for Social Investigation (CSI) is an interdisciplinary research group based at Nuffield College, Oxford University. You have heard of Oxford University, I take it?

 

I try to provide sources to my facts; even if you are so desperate to disparage them that you are now claiming you don't know who ITN and Oxford University are and therefore 'The veracity of either of these is suspect'

 

You, on the other hand, have on at least one occasion provided a link to your source; a source which didn't mention your list of 'facts' at all! When challenged on this your reply was along

the lines of 'can't be bothered!'

 

As already explained; when people post xenophobic and racists remarks, then xenophobe and racist is what I will call them.

 

When the 'facts' upon which people (you) have based their 'your' arguments are obviously completely made up, I will say so.

 

Dismiss my arguments all you like; but you can't dismiss the facts (facts not opinions) upon which they are based.

 

You do realise, don't you, that my remark was meant as an insult. Ask a friend to explain. But as you are now calling me 'darling' it seems you have a crush on me! Sorry, but I'm taken; look elsewhere.

Yes, I believe everything you post is suspect. That you link to your agenda friendly websites means nothing to me. There is nothing about them that are 'facts', merely the inflated guesswork of various self help groups. I don't allude to posting 'facts', just my opinions, which are as relevant as yours. You asked for accreditation or whatever, so I gave you a link to one of the sites I had read. Sorry, I didn't understand that I had to provide other peoples' opinions verbatim. That kinda kills the whole forum idea doesn't it - or is that only at your request?

 

Where are the videos from Vote.Leave that you say were deleted? You should have kept those and watched them. Bring them out again - I'll enjoy them. Maybe you would learn something too. You probably wouldn't throw those insults around either. Haven't you realised yet that calling names will not hurt me, although others could be deeply offended? It must infringe one of the TVF rules somewhere, can you check which for me please?

 

Michael Gove - well he didn't say he was lying, only you claimed he as good as admitted such. What he said was that the leave campaign was wrong to fuel Turkey fears and he would have preferred campaign to have had ‘slightly different feel’. No lie or admission there then. I think there are still all those Turks out there waiting to advance, don't you?

 

Oxford? Ah yes heard of it, Oxbridge, diploma mills for rich kids. The twin towers of student elitism and preferred hangout of budding politicians, plus a disturbingly high record of producing traitors. It's a nest of vipers, where their own student body wants to remove one of their own alumni, benefactor and scholarship provider’s statue. The University is determined to maintain European links that fund half the budget of several departments, says Cherwell the Oxford student newspaper. Oxford University has won £14 million in new European Research Council (ERC) funding and Oxford University is to pay the fees of all EU employees and their families wanting to stay in the UK after Brexit. Blatantly sucking on the EU teat. So whether your 'facts' come from the Russell Group or Russell Grant, they mean sweet FA.

 

Channel 4 is Britain’s “minority interest”, channel, priding itself on being “alternative”, and “edgy”, which means it adopts the same establishment metropolitan London-centric progressive attitudes of everyone else in the televisual media, just more so. Channel 4 doesn’t do ‘news’ in any meaningful sense of the word – it’s pure propaganda for Remainers. All MSM is guilty of media bias because pretty much all of journalism now leans left and mostly to Remain. You aren't winning yourself any points there either. So all your 'facts' are not factual at all - just somebody else's opinions of what might happen. Consider them all dismissed - You may go.

 

So what is it with you and Remain and Immigration? Are you sucking on the EU teat too, or do you rely on immigration, or both? There must be money in it somewhere.

 

Agreed, you have been taken - hope it was away in the green van by the men in white coats. Sorry Petal, too busy to visit you.

[7by7]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 6:54 PM, nontabury said:

Why do you keep accusing others of being xenophobia and racist?

My original response to this was deleted as it contained a profanity; so I wont repeat the profanity in your post.

 

I only accuse people of xenophobia and racism if they make xenophobic and racist remarks. Remarks such as

On ‎2‎/‎13‎/‎2019 at 11:03 PM, Laughing Gravy said:

I am not whinging like many immigrants in the UK going on about their religion not being respected

 

Then in feeble attempts to justify their views they make accusations such as

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 12:25 AM, Laughing Gravy said:

You seem to be a snowflake apologist. I still remember you defending a certain religion

Yes, I defended ordinary British Muslims who are not terrorists and have nothing to do with terrorism whilst at the same time condemning the Islamic terrorists. Do you agree that this means I am a 'snowflake apologist!'

 

I am sure that there are more of the same from this particular poster; but the index of his past posts only runs back to last Wednesday and I haven't read all his posts since then, only those in  this topic.

 

 

[7by7]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 10:25 PM, Laughing Gravy said:

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 4:20 PM, 7by7 said:

There is no need for myself nor anyone else to provide evidence of your xenophobia and racism; you have provided ample evidence of it yourself.

Because you can't. Simple as that.

 See my post above.

[7by7]

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 2:40 AM, nauseus said:

If what I say is so inconsequential, then don't bother reading it. 

Except I didn't say that; you're misquoting again.

 

If you, or anyone else, posts something I think is worthy of a comment or rebuttal, then I will do just that; even if the poster concerned is yourself.

 

Of course, there is no reason why you have to reply to me.

[7by7]

On 2/18/2019 at 1:37 PM, Loiner said:

Yes, I believe everything you post is suspect. That you link to your agenda friendly websites means nothing to me. There is nothing about them that are 'facts', merely the inflated guesswork of various self help groups

 Wrong, again.

 

The conclusions on those two sites are based upon solid reaerech of the propaganda put ot about immigration by the leave campaign and the reasons people gave for voting leave. that you disparage two reputable organisations such as ITN and the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, Oxford University merely shows your desperation.

 

BTW, ITN stands for Independent Television News; not a 'self help group' but a reputable, widely respected news organisation. Any Brit, expat or resident, even if they consider ITN to be biased knows that; why don't you?

 

On 2/18/2019 at 1:37 PM, Loiner said:

You asked for accreditation or whatever, so I gave you a link to one of the sites I had read.

I didn't ask you for 'accreditation or whatever' alone. What I did do is point out that the website you had provided a link to as a source, unprompted by me or anyone, for a list of facts you claimed came from them did not contain those facts nor anything remotely like them. I then asked where you had got them from; and you refused to answer. 

 

On 2/18/2019 at 1:37 PM, Loiner said:

Michael Gove - well he didn't say he was lying, only you claimed he as good as admitted such. What he said was that the leave campaign was wrong to fuel Turkey fears and he would have preferred campaign to have had ‘slightly different feel’. No lie or admission there then. I think there are still all those Turks out there waiting to advance, don't you?

So saying that the leave campaign was wrong to fuel unfounded fears about 70 million Turks waiting to rush to the UK at the earliest opportunity is not admitting a lie? What word is it in your vocabulary when someone admits that they when they said something was a fact they knew it was untrue?

 

On 2/18/2019 at 1:37 PM, Loiner said:

Where are the videos from Vote.Leave that you say were deleted? You should have kept those and watched them. Bring them out again - I'll enjoy them

As I said, they were deleted from all social media and other public view immediately after the referendum by Vote.Leave; who obviously found them immensely embarrassing. I can't show you something that's been removed from public accessibility; but maybe Dominic Cummings kept some copies; so ask him.

 

On 2/18/2019 at 1:37 PM, Loiner said:

So what is it with you and Remain and Immigration? Are you sucking on the EU teat too, or do you rely on immigration, or both? There must be money in it somewhere.

My wife is an immigrant, but not from the EEA, so the UK's membership of the EU and therefore the FoM had zero effect on her moving to the UK from Thailand.

 

That you believe someone can only hold, or at least espouse, a belief to gain some sort of monetary advantage speaks volumes about you; who is paying you, I wonder.

 

My concern about Brexit and immigration is the way it was used by Vote.Leave and Leave.EU to stir up racial hatred in this country.

 

If your partner had been told to her face that she was a filthy Paki and now we had voted to leave the EU she should **** off back to Pakistan merely because she has brown skin then maybe you would have similar feelings about the more contemptible elements of the leave campaign designed to appeal to the EDL and their ilk.

 

On 2/18/2019 at 1:37 PM, Loiner said:

Sorry Petal, too busy to visit you.

'Pal,' 'darling' now 'petal.' Your crush on me is only embarrassing you. 

[SheungWan]

On 2/18/2019 at 1:37 PM, Loiner said:

Oxford? Ah yes heard of it, Oxbridge, diploma mills for rich kids. The twin towers of student elitism and preferred hangout of budding politicians, plus a disturbingly high record of producing traitors. It's a nest of vipers, where their own student body wants to remove one of their own alumni, benefactor and scholarship provider’s statue. The University is determined to maintain European links that fund half the budget of several departments, says Cherwell the Oxford student newspaper. Oxford University has won £14 million in new European Research Council (ERC) funding and Oxford University is to pay the fees of all EU employees and their families wanting to stay in the UK after Brexit. Blatantly sucking on the EU teat. So whether your 'facts' come from the Russell Group or Russell Grant, they mean sweet FA.

Standard Hard Brexiteer Chip On Shoulder. Mind you the tune usually changes for those with kids who of course would like them to go to HE. Unless the kids mess up as well and then its full speed ahead with the headbutts!

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Except I didn't say that; you're misquoting again.

 

If you, or anyone else, posts something I think is worthy of a comment or rebuttal, then I will do just that; even if the poster concerned is yourself.

 

Of course, there is no reason why you have to reply to me.

No you didn't say it, I did.

 

So I am not misquoting you...Einstein.

[samran]

On 2/18/2019 at 1:01 AM, CG1 Blue said:

I thought the raisin d'etre of economic blocs was for trade.  I don't think any other economic blocs have FOM do they? 

 

P.S. this was meant for Samran not rixalex! 

Unrestricted trade of all factors of production (Labour capital) as well of the sale of goods and services within that bloc for its members. 

 

Specifically freedom of movement, my first examples are more along the lines of the EU freedom of movement but as you do down the list there tends to be a bit more paperwork. 

 

Australia-NZ have freedom of movement within our free trade area. 

 

The Scandinavians has it before he EU but it still exists formally. 

 

The UK and Irealand have the CTA which predates the EU, and following brexit the Irish will still be allowed to enter, live and work in the UK without immigration control as the CTA was never superseded by the EU. 

 

Carribean have a version of it. So to Mercasor in South America.

 

The gulf states allow their nationals to move, live and work freely.

 

The former Soviet states (I believe) still have residency rights in Russia. 

 

Nafta have special visas for each other’s members. A Canadian can turn up at the US border with a job offer and so long as it is a professional category they get a work permit there and then. 

 

Under the US Australia FTA, Australian’s can get renewable 2 year work permits upon showing a job offer. 

 

 

[7by7]

13 hours ago, nauseus said:

No you didn't say it, I did.

 

So I am not misquoting you...Einstein.

Actually I said that part of a particular post was 

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 7:22 PM, 7by7 said:

your usual inconsequential waffle

 

But you now seem to be saying that by saying

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 2:40 AM, nauseus said:

If what I say is so inconsequential, then don't bother reading it. 

what you were actually doing was admitting that your all your posts are inconsequential!

 

In other words admitting that your posts are trivial, unimportant, negligible, worthless and  insignificant and therefore not worthy of anyone paying even the slightest attention to.

 

[nauseus]

30 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Actually I said that part of a particular post was 

 

But you now seem to be saying that by saying

what you were actually doing was admitting that your all your posts are inconsequential!

 

In other words admitting that your posts are trivial, unimportant, negligible, worthless and  insignificant and therefore not worthy of anyone paying even the slightest attention to.

 

First you didn't say it, then you did, then you didn't. Sounds like the potato/tomato song with a twist. 

 

You interpret what you think I am "admitting" in your own nebulous mind. I don't really care about, or for, your insults but If you see my posts as unworthy, just ignore them. The Brexit people and the more open-minded remainers can enjoy them if they want to!

 

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

10 hours ago, samran said:

Unrestricted trade of all factors of production (Labour capital) as well of the sale of goods and services within that bloc for its members. 

 

Specifically freedom of movement, my first examples are more along the lines of the EU freedom of movement but as you do down the list there tends to be a bit more paperwork. 

 

Australia-NZ have freedom of movement within our free trade area. 

 

The Scandinavians has it before he EU but it still exists formally. 

 

The UK and Irealand have the CTA which predates the EU, and following brexit the Irish will still be allowed to enter, live and work in the UK without immigration control as the CTA was never superseded by the EU. 

 

Carribean have a version of it. So to Mercasor in South America.

 

The gulf states allow their nationals to move, live and work freely.

 

The former Soviet states (I believe) still have residency rights in Russia. 

 

Nafta have special visas for each other’s members. A Canadian can turn up at the US border with a job offer and so long as it is a professional category they get a work permit there and then. 

 

Under the US Australia FTA, Australian’s can get renewable 2 year work permits upon showing a job offer. 

 

 

 

I think you should say Nordics rather than Scandinavians,

hence, including Finland Iceland and the Faroe Islands

 

[samran]

On 2/18/2019 at 11:47 AM, rixalex said:

What?

 

I said you don't have a problem with it.

Typo on my behalf, sorry.

 

I don’t have a problem with it. Obviously countries discriminate in favour of their own nationals, giving certain privileges (residence, work rights etc etc...). 

 

If a country was to give citizens of another country the same benefits, and if is done so on a reciprocal basis then I really don’t have any isssue with it. 

 

There are a whole lot of bilateral agreements in the world. That is how the world works. 

 

As an Australian, I’m eligible to use the UK and many EU health services when visiting on the same basis as a local cause Australia allows nationals of those countries to do the same when in Australia. 

 

NZ allows me automatic work and residency rights and we give them the same back. 

 

 

On 2/18/2019 at 12:00 PM, rixalex said:

What's funny is the assumptions you make. None of your examples benefit me.

 

What, i wonder, will your next silly comparison be, in trying to justify arbitrary discrimination based on nationality?

 

How about, "able-bodied people are discriminated against in not being able to use toilets for the disabled"?

Now you are just being hysterical. 

[7by7]

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

First you didn't say it, then you did, then you didn't. Sounds like the potato/tomato song with a twist. 

I repeat, I said PART of your post was inconsequential. 

 

Something which is clear to all who read my comment; no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

You interpret what you think I am "admitting" in your own nebulous mind. I don't really care about, or for, your insults

If you don't care, why do you always respond to and try to debunk them? If you consider my comments on your posts to be insults then ignoring them would suit you and your purpose better. 

 

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

but If you see my posts as unworthy, just ignore them. The Brexit people and the more open-minded remainers can enjoy them if they want to!

It has obviously escaped your notice, but I do not respond to the vast majority of your posts, for a variety of reasons. But, of course, unless I read them first I do not know if they are worth commenting on and/or debunking.

 

 

 

[nauseus]

38 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I repeat, I said PART of your post was inconsequential. 

 

Something which is clear to all who read my comment; no matter how much you try to spin it otherwise.

If you don't care, why do you always respond to and try to debunk them? If you consider my comments on your posts to be insults then ignoring them would suit you and your purpose better. 

 

It has obviously escaped your notice, but I do not respond to the vast majority of your posts, for a variety of reasons. But, of course, unless I read them first I do not know if they are worth commenting on and/or debunking.

 

 

 

I'm just so bored with your never-ending cackle.

[Loiner]

On 2/20/2019 at 1:47 AM, 7by7 said:

 Wrong, again.

 

The conclusions on those two sites are based upon solid reaerech of the propaganda put ot about immigration by the leave campaign and the reasons people gave for voting leave. that you disparage two reputable organisations such as ITN and the Centre for Social Investigation at Nuffield College, Oxford University merely shows your desperation.

 

BTW, ITN stands for Independent Television News; not a 'self help group' but a reputable, widely respected news organisation. Any Brit, expat or resident, even if they consider ITN to be biased knows that; why don't you?

 

I didn't ask you for 'accreditation or whatever' alone. What I did do is point out that the website you had provided a link to as a source, unprompted by me or anyone, for a list of facts you claimed came from them did not contain those facts nor anything remotely like them. I then asked where you had got them from; and you refused to answer. 

 

So saying that the leave campaign was wrong to fuel unfounded fears about 70 million Turks waiting to rush to the UK at the earliest opportunity is not admitting a lie? What word is it in your vocabulary when someone admits that they when they said something was a fact they knew it was untrue?

 

As I said, they were deleted from all social media and other public view immediately after the referendum by Vote.Leave; who obviously found them immensely embarrassing. I can't show you something that's been removed from public accessibility; but maybe Dominic Cummings kept some copies; so ask him.

 

My wife is an immigrant, but not from the EEA, so the UK's membership of the EU and therefore the FoM had zero effect on her moving to the UK from Thailand.

 

That you believe someone can only hold, or at least espouse, a belief to gain some sort of monetary advantage speaks volumes about you; who is paying you, I wonder.

 

My concern about Brexit and immigration is the way it was used by Vote.Leave and Leave.EU to stir up racial hatred in this country.

 

If your partner had been told to her face that she was a filthy Paki and now we had voted to leave the EU she should **** off back to Pakistan merely because she has brown skin then maybe you would have similar feelings about the more contemptible elements of the leave campaign designed to appeal to the EDL and their ilk.

 

'Pal,' 'darling' now 'petal.' Your crush on me is only embarrassing you. 

Not wrong. Your quotes are only to support your own views, therefore worth nowt to me. Yes I can just see them now, sitting in a circle of like minded academics: "My name is Seven and I'm a.....Remainer and.....a Europhile." "There, there, it's all right, you are among friends here. Why not find some research that suits you and publish it as gospel because we are all better than those others. We find that positive reinforcement and propaganda always helps."

Do you really believe the 'I' in ITN really makes them independent? Maybe slightly more than the overtly Remain Brussels Bias Collective, but the Leave campaign still had to complain to OFCOM about ITV. You earlier said the report was prepared for ITV by Channel 4 - another bastion of Remain. Nearly all 'journalists', especially those in TV and MSM are lefty inclined and Remainers, so also to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Its not my fault if you could not read and understand the link, or find where ever you think my list of Lisbon Treaty dangers came from. I'm sure some one like you would have searched, but there's just nothing. That's a bit like the immigration videos you didn't like and aren't there now. Are you sure you didn't imagine them? Who is Dominic Cummings? I've never heard of him, but if he's a mate of yours could you ask him?

Fears about the Turks are still there. No it wasn't lies at all - at best, a slight exaggeration about how many millions.

That you have a foreign wife is your reason for championing all and sundry to enter the UK, whether from the EU or not? It just does not compute for me. All those male 'children' deciding to leave home and walk to the EU or preferably UK, and claim asylum or simply become an illegal. Nah. You are far too vociferous in your support and indiscriminate allegations of Racist & Xenophobe, the far left fascist insult of choice when attempting to shut down opposing views. I still think there's some skin in there for you somewhere. Who pays me - could it be that I'm a Russian bot? It's maybe better not to write 'filthy Paki' in these forums - it could be too much for some of the delicates here.

Are you spurning my advances again? Ooh, you are awful. But I like you. XXX

 

 

[rixalex]

14 hours ago, samran said:

Typo on my behalf, sorry.

 

I don’t have a problem with it. Obviously countries discriminate in favour of their own nationals, giving certain privileges (residence, work rights etc etc...). 

 

If a country was to give citizens of another country the same benefits, and if is done so on a reciprocal basis then I really don’t have any isssue with it. 

 

There are a whole lot of bilateral agreements in the world. That is how the world works. 

 

As an Australian, I’m eligible to use the UK and many EU health services when visiting on the same basis as a local cause Australia allows nationals of those countries to do the same when in Australia. 

 

NZ allows me automatic work and residency rights and we give them the same back. 

 

 

Now you are just being hysterical. 

I think you need to ask yourself why it is that you abhor discrimination based on race or religion, but happily accept discrimination based on nationality. Saying, "this is how the world works" i think only undermines your argument, because it is tantamount to saying, "this is the way things are because that's how things have always been".

 

It's ironic how, with there being such a strong push within countries like Britain for equality and fairness, for everyone to have an equal chance, and how severely the law and society judges those who do discriminate, whether it be on race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, or anything else, that the country itself so blatantly discriminates immigrants coming through "the door". Justifying it by saying that the country gets something back in return is pretty lame. Try using that sort of excuse as an employer in Britain; discriminating applicants for a job but on the justification that your business will get something back in return.

 

On your comment about being hysterical, you were the one asking the ridiculous question of, if you don't accept discrimination of people based on nationality, why do you accept discrimination of people based on age, where the old get benefits over the young with things like free bus passes... and then you followed that up with an equally ridiculous assumption about my age.

[samran]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

I think you need to ask yourself why it is that you abhor discrimination based on race or religion, but happily accept discrimination based on nationality. Saying, "this is how the world works" i think only undermines your argument, because it is tantamount to saying, "this is the way things are because that's how things have always been".

 

It's ironic how, with there being such a strong push within countries like Britain for equality and fairness, for everyone to have an equal chance, and how severely the law and society judges those who do discriminate, whether it be on race, gender, sexuality, religion, nationality, or anything else, that the country itself so blatantly discriminates immigrants coming through "the door". Justifying it by saying that the country gets something back in return is pretty lame. Try using that sort of excuse as an employer in Britain; discriminating applicants for a job but on the justification that your business will get something back in return.

 

On your comment about being hysterical, you were the one asking the ridiculous question of, if you don't accept discrimination of people based on nationality, why do you accept discrimination of people based on age, where the old get benefits over the young with things like free bus passes... and then you followed that up with an equally ridiculous assumption about my age.

So are you arguing for open borders? That would be the result of not discriminating based on nationality. You’d be undermining he whole concept of national sovereignty.

 

As for things like OAP, bus passes and the like, it boils down to basic economic equity considerations that any responsible government looks. Policy making 101. 

 

Just as as long as these things are applied without regard to race, religion or gender then I have no issue with that.

 

Is it contradictory? Probably. But then again, I was never good at philosophy. 

 

Hooray for you, you have caught me out on an technically. Here is 20p. Go call someone who cares...

 

 

 

 

[rixalex]

2 hours ago, samran said:

So are you arguing for open borders? That would be the result of not discriminating based on nationality. You’d be undermining he whole concept of national sovereignty.

 

As for things like OAP, bus passes and the like, it boils down to basic economic equity considerations that any responsible government looks. Policy making 101. 

 

Just as as long as these things are applied without regard to race, religion or gender then I have no issue with that.

 

Is it contradictory? Probably. But then again, I was never good at philosophy. 

 

Hooray for you, you have caught me out on an technically. Here is 20p. Go call someone who cares...

 

 

 

 

No, i'm not arguing for open borders. I'm arguing for ALL immigrants, regardless of race, religion and nationality, to be treated equally, making it fair for the immigrants and making it workable and sustainable for the country they are entering into, as that country can ensure those who do come in, can adapt, integrate and can be gainfully employed in sectors where there is a shortfall.

 

Regarding your other comments, next time i hear someone expressing or extolling something discriminatory, I'll remember that it's not that they are bigots, it's that they aren't good philosophers.

[samran]

3 hours ago, rixalex said:

No, i'm not arguing for open borders. I'm arguing for ALL immigrants, regardless of race, religion and nationality, to be treated equally, making it fair for the immigrants and making it workable and sustainable for the country they are entering into, as that country can ensure those who do come in, can adapt, integrate and can be gainfully employed in sectors where there is a shortfall.

 

Regarding your other comments, next time i hear someone expressing or extolling something discriminatory, I'll remember that it's not that they are bigots, it's that they aren't good philosophers.

Strange and very long bow you are drawing there.

 

If Australia and the UK decide that each other’s nationals should be allowed to live and work in each other’s country, and that people can come and go regardless of their colour, religion etc etc, then how you can equate that with bigotry is beyond me. 

 

If you think free trade is a worthy goal, why shouldn’t governments try and access as many markets as possible so their citizens can ply their own personal trade as far and as wide as possible as part of any trade deal?

 

Nothing stopping you running a points system along side that - plenty do. 

 

Further to the point, why do you need governments to micro manage labour markets? Sounds like you want them to undertake social engineering too. 

 

I thought the whole reason for brexit was to get out of the clutches of unlelected bureaucrats? 

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, samran said:

I thought the whole reason for brexit was to get out of the clutches of unlelected bureaucrats? 

Naïve but cute. I like it.

 

The whole reason for Brexit was to get rid of Johnny Foreigner, especially the brown ones. Shame that it's not fit for purpose and will only get rid of jobs.

[Anythingleft?]

Naïve but cute. I like it.
 
The whole reason for Brexit was to get rid of Johnny Foreigner, especially the brown ones. Shame that it's not fit for purpose and will only get rid of jobs.

Thats downright ridiculous and baiting.....

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk

[Spidey]

Just now, Anythingleft? said:

Thats downright ridiculous and baiting.....

Sent from my SM-N950F using Tapatalk
 

Whooo, a well hard Brexiteer!

 

No, you're right, you're not really a challenge, like fishing in a well stocked carp pond. 

[samran]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Naïve but cute. I like it.

 

The whole reason for Brexit was to get rid of Johnny Foreigner, especially the brown ones. Shame that it's not fit for purpose and will only get rid of jobs.

I was being polite...

[Spidey]

5 minutes ago, samran said:

I was being polite...

Sorry, that's not in my repertoire. 

[melvinmelvin]

3 hours ago, Spidey said:

Sorry, that's not in my repertoire. 

 

https://www.scribd.com/doc/133079468/30-Days-to-a-More-Powerful-Vocabulary-pdf

 

 

[7by7]

On ‎2‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 5:46 PM, nauseus said:

I'm just so bored with your never-ending cackle.

 Then why can you not resist responding to it in vain (in both meanings of the word) attempts to prove your moral and intellectual superiority over me?

[nauseus]

26 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Then why can you not resist responding to it in vain (in both meanings of the word) attempts to prove your moral and intellectual superiority over me?

Well, just as an observation, of course, at least here you do acknowledge that it is actually cackle. 

[7by7]

17 hours ago, Loiner said:

Not wrong. Your quotes are only to support your own views, therefore worth nowt to me. Yes I can just see them now, sitting in a circle of like minded academics: "My name is Seven and I'm a.....Remainer and.....a Europhile." "There, there, it's all right, you are among friends here. Why not find some research that suits you and publish it as gospel because we are all better than those others. We find that positive reinforcement and propaganda always helps."

Of course the sources and evidence I supply back up my opinion, just as the sources and evidence supplied by the more intelligent Brexiteers backs up theirs!

 

Your comment only proves, yet again, that you consider all research, polls, opinions even facts which counter your belief to be as you describe; whereas you believe all research, polls, opinions and facts which support your views to be rock solid.

 

Your mind is closed, and no one will open it; not even the disaster which will result froim a no deal Brexit.

 

17 hours ago, Loiner said:

Do you really believe the 'I' in ITN really makes them independent? Maybe slightly more than the overtly Remain Brussels Bias Collective, but the Leave campaign still had to complain to OFCOM about ITV. You earlier said the report was prepared for ITV by Channel 4 - another bastion of Remain.

My comment was in response to you calling ITN a 'self help group.' What I said was

On ‎2‎/‎19‎/‎2019 at 6:47 PM, 7by7 said:

BTW, ITN stands for Independent Television News; not a 'self help group' but a reputable, widely respected news organisation. Any Brit, expat or resident, even if they consider ITN to be biased knows that; why don't you?

Notice the bit in bold?

 

The report was not prepared for ITV by channel 4; and I never said it was. It was prepared by ITN for Channel 4.

 

Yes, Vote.Leave did complain to OFCOM about ITV, the complaint was dismissed: EU referendum: Ofcom dismisses Vote Leave complaint of ITV bias

Quote

In announcing its finding, Ofcom said: “The election committee noted there was no single ‘right’ way to measure coverage. The committee did not consider that is should place any significant weight on the data provided. The complainant did not identify and specific instance in which due impartiality had not been preserved or the due weight requirements had not been observed. “Ofcom has found that there is no evidence to suggest ITV has broken broadcasting rules in its coverage of the EU Referendum.”

 

17 hours ago, Loiner said:

Nearly all 'journalists', especially those in TV and MSM are lefty inclined and Remainers, so also to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Back to you old whinge; 'You're saying things I don't want to hear, so you are biased and I'll ignore you.'

 

Of course, if you actually knew anything about the MSM in the UK you would know that it is split virtually 50/50 for and against Brexit. Ever heard of the Daily Mail, for example?

 

Why is it that you have to label all Remainers as lefty when anyone who knows anything knows this is not the case. Some are, and so are some right wingers.

 

17 hours ago, Loiner said:

Its not my fault if you could not read and understand the link, or find where ever you think my list of Lisbon Treaty dangers came from. I'm sure some one like you would have searched, but there's just nothing.

You provided a list and claimed it came from a certain website to which you linked. I couldn't find it there and when I asked where the list came from you refused to say. Why? What were, and are, you hiding? That you made the list up?

 

Yes, I have researched the treaty, both before and again after you faux pas. It pays to know something of what one is talking about (a lesson you'd do well to learn). I could not find your list anywhere. Care to provide a source for it yet?

18 hours ago, Loiner said:

That's a bit like the immigration videos you didn't like and aren't there now. Are you sure you didn't imagine them?

No, I did not imagine them; they existed.

 

18 hours ago, Loiner said:

Who is Dominic Cummings? I've never heard of him, but if he's a mate of yours could you ask him?

What! You claim to be a Brexiteer but don't know who Dominic Cummings, the architect of Vote.Leave's campaign, is!

 

18 hours ago, Loiner said:

Fears about the Turks are still there. No it wasn't lies at all - at best, a slight exaggeration about how many millions.

70 million Turks, the entire population of Turkey in fact, waiting for the chance to flood into the UK a slight exaggeration! Your real name isn't Farage, by chance? No, can't be; he knows far more about the UK than you evidently do.

 

18 hours ago, Loiner said:

That you have a foreign wife is your reason for championing all and sundry to enter the UK, whether from the EU or not?

I never said that, but lying spin is par for your course.

 

18 hours ago, Loiner said:

All those male 'children' deciding to leave home and walk to the EU or preferably UK, and claim asylum or simply become an illegal. 

I repeat something i said earlier, and you have, unsurprisingly, chosen to ignore, I have every sympathy for genuine refugees; none at all for economic migrants pretending to be refugees.

 

18 hours ago, Loiner said:

 Nah. You are far too vociferous in your support and indiscriminate allegations of Racist & Xenophobe, the far left fascist insult of choice when attempting to shut down opposing views. I still think there's some skin in there for you somewhere. Who pays me - could it be that I'm a Russian bot? It's maybe better not to write 'filthy Paki' in these forums - it could be too much for some of the delicates here.

Pathetic; all those who do not subscribe to your views are far left fascists! 

 

Next you'll be accusing me of supporting Islamic terrorism, calling for Sharia law controlled areas in our major cities and demanding whatsername (Begum?) is given her British passport back.

 

Wont ever happen; terrorism is not to be tolerated, I do not subscribe to the view that one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Whether that terrorist be from ISIS, the IRA, the UDF or whatever right wing racist (yes, racist, your own words prove it) group you support. 

 

I'll leave you to polish your jackboots and iron your brown shirt.