In or out of EU ? Poll

boredwivdrivin:

Carryfast:
While I certainly don’t agree with his agenda which seems to be based on replacing East Euro free movement with Asian etc

not so at all . i dont want free movement with anywhere .

i dont believe there is a requirement for any immigration for low skilled work .

where there is a need for highly skilled workers (medicine , software , engineering etc ) then commonwealth countries should be preferred .

ive pointed out that (for example) india produces 9 million graduates a year , it makes sense to cherry pick these . afterall we are second choice destination after US and indians understand our culture , language and identity . unlike our flipflop friends .

even enoch powell realised this and launched an immigration process to recruit nurses from west indies .

at present commonwealth is discriminated against in vain attempt to control immigration figures , as obviously the numbers cant be controlled from EU .

i find this highly offensive .

Where do you get the idea that the indigenous population here doesn’t produce more than enough ‘graduates’ of our own to suit our own needs.IE we don’t need to import labour at whatever end of the skills scale or in between because our own ethnic group is as good as it gets in regard to scientific and industrial know how.In addition to which those places need to keep their own skilled worker base to look after their own people.Not lose them to economic migration.

As for ‘Commonwealth’ immigration that’s exactly what/who Powell was referring to bearing in mind that EU immigration wasn’t a factor at that point in time.With his anti immigration stance being based on the later realisation that the import of cheap ‘Commonwealth’ labour had been a mistake.Which as we’ve seen and as he rightly said just resulted in over supply of the labour market and over demand for housing and social services and alienated ethnic Asian and African enclaves.Which in many cases,as expected are hostile,to the indigenous culture and even each other in some cases.With the ‘issues’ concerning the fight for independence of India and the partition of India and what happened in Uganda and Rhodesia and South Africa and the death of PC Blakelock.Among other issues like the current Jihadist agenda,all being part of the inevitable cluster zb and zb storm that results when trying to integrate the ethnic North European culture with the ethnic Asian and African ones.On that note that’s why nature put all those different ethnic groups cultures on widely spaced different parts of the planet for a reason.With the only reason why those different cultures would want to be here with us in general,being for economic reasons and/or possible demographic takeover,of a part of the world which they view as being beneficial in regard to climate,farm land and food availability. :bulb:

BillyHunt:

Carryfast:
No I obviously meant the bit referring to none which you’ve selectively missed.While yes maybe ‘3 types of VETO’ but which at the end of the day only cover 20% of the decision making process which realistically is as bad as none.Everything else decided by majority vote among foreign elected MP’s.

There’s no “maybe” about it, it clearly states it in black & white, and at least one of those is a full 100% veto, making your statement wrong, as you well know it does. It’s just another case of you not liking something & trying t make it out to be worse than it is.

How can it possibly be a 100% VETO when 80% of the EU decision making process is subject to majority vote with no right of VETO or more importantly opt out. :unamused:

boredwivdrivin:

BillyHunt:
There’s no “maybe” about it, it clearly states it in black & white, and at least one of those is a full 100% veto, making your statement wrong, as you well know it does. It’s just another case of you not liking something & trying t make it out to be worse than it is.

oh no the veto man !!!

have you even read and understood your own link ■■?

how many times have we deployed this fantastic veto ■■?

what is the result of using roses covered veto ■■?

in what circumstances may it be used ■■?

and what makes you think politicians would ever use it ■■?

we have had veto since year dot . please provide evidence that it will secure our future ■■

also please provide details of when our EU ‘partners’ have used AGAINST us ■■

and what was the result ■■

veto veto bloody veto . what a ■■■■ .

The answer to your questions are in the link, if your too dumb to understand it then I cannot help you. Maybe your mate googlefast can help, but I doubt it as he’s struggling to see it himself.

Carryfast:

BillyHunt:

Carryfast:
No I obviously meant the bit referring to none which you’ve selectively missed.While yes maybe ‘3 types of VETO’ but which at the end of the day only cover 20% of the decision making process which realistically is as bad as none.Everything else decided by majority vote among foreign elected MP’s.

There’s no “maybe” about it, it clearly states it in black & white, and at least one of those is a full 100% veto, making your statement wrong, as you well know it does. It’s just another case of you not liking something & trying t make it out to be worse than it is.

How can it possibly be a 100% VETO when 80% of the EU decision making process is subject to majority vote with no right of VETO or more importantly opt out. :unamused:

When it states that changes to the constitution, amongst other things, must be agreed by all 12 full members, that is the power of the veto. If we, or any other of the 12, decide against it then it’s not going to happen, that is called a veto.

BillyHunt:

Carryfast:
How can it possibly be a 100% VETO when 80% of the EU decision making process is subject to majority vote with no right of VETO or more importantly opt out. :unamused:

When it states that changes to the constitution, amongst other things, must be agreed by all 12 full members, that is the power of the veto. If we, or any other of the 12, decide against it then it’s not going to happen, that is called a veto.

We aren’t discussing ‘changes to the constitution’ we’re discussing the existing constitution since we joined it and in which at this point 80% of the decision making process isn’t subject to the right of VETO or preferably opt out.While it’s no surprise that the ideologically Federalist Conservative Party has been at the forefront of handing over ever increasing levels of national sovereignty to an ever increasingly Federal governed Europe.In that environment even the small VETO we have over EU Federal rule is effectively worthless.

BillyHunt:
The answer to your questions are in the link, if your too dumb to understand it then I cannot help you. Maybe your mate googlefast can help, but I doubt it as he’s struggling to see it himself.

the answers are NOT in you link !!

either you havent read it , or you need a grown up to hold your hand and talk you through it !!

for example : it doesnt mention the ONLY time uk has used the veto .

and it doesnt talk about the result of casting veto !!

it also doesnt mention tory promises of vetoing new eu members before the election :
telegraph.co.uk/news/politic … meron.html

and it doesnt mention them quietly changing their mind after :
breitbart.com/london/2015/03 … mmigraton/

it doesnt mention that only cyprus veto has saved us from having Turkey as a member :
reuters.com/article/2015/10/ … TH20151019

and it doesnt mention pretty well everything else regarding the veto

that link is an over simplistic bit of lazy journalism and if you are hoping the veto will save us you are mistaken . the germans and others are hell bent on abolishing it .

so you vote to stay in EU enjoying your safety blanket of a veto , but 5 years down the line it will be gone …

but we will be stuck in EU .

forever .

BillyHunt:
When it states that changes to the constitution, amongst other things, must be agreed by all 12 full members, that is the power of the veto. If we, or any other of the 12, decide against it then it’s not going to happen, that is called a veto.

true , it does mention this .

but sillybilly , what the hell are they talking about 12 members huh ■■


Well I hope this starts the ball rolling to the end of the corrupt EU

Carryfast:

BillyHunt:

Carryfast:
How can it possibly be a 100% VETO when 80% of the EU decision making process is subject to majority vote with no right of VETO or more importantly opt out. :unamused:

When it states that changes to the constitution, amongst other things, must be agreed by all 12 full members, that is the power of the veto. If we, or any other of the 12, decide against it then it’s not going to happen, that is called a veto.

We aren’t discussing ‘changes to the constitution’ we’re discussing the existing constitution since we joined it and in which at this point 80% of the decision making process isn’t subject to the right of VETO or preferably opt out.While it’s no surprise that the ideologically Federalist Conservative Party has been at the forefront of handing over ever increasing levels of national sovereignty to an ever increasingly Federal governed Europe.In that environment even the small VETO we have over EU Federal rule is effectively worthless.

I wasn’t discussing anything with you, just pointing out that your statement saying we don’t have a veto is wrong, a fact you have known all along. The fact that you don’t like or agree with it means you prefer to think it doesn’t exist.

boredwivdrivin:

BillyHunt:
The answer to your questions are in the link, if your too dumb to understand it then I cannot help you. Maybe your mate googlefast can help, but I doubt it as he’s struggling to see it himself.

the answers are NOT in you link !!

either you havent read it , or you need a grown up to hold your hand and talk you through it !!

for example : it doesnt mention the ONLY time uk has used the veto .

and it doesnt talk about the result of casting veto !!

it also doesnt mention tory promises of vetoing new eu members before the election :
telegraph.co.uk/news/politic … meron.html

and it doesnt mention them quietly changing their mind after :
breitbart.com/london/2015/03 … mmigraton/

it doesnt mention that only cyprus veto has saved us from having Turkey as a member :
reuters.com/article/2015/10/ … TH20151019

and it doesnt mention pretty well everything else regarding the veto

that link is an over simplistic bit of lazy journalism and if you are hoping the veto will save us you are mistaken . the germans and others are hell bent on abolishing it .

so you vote to stay in EU enjoying your safety blanket of a veto , but 5 years down the line it will be gone …

but we will be stuck in EU .

forever .

BillyHunt:
When it states that changes to the constitution, amongst other things, must be agreed by all 12 full members, that is the power of the veto. If we, or any other of the 12, decide against it then it’s not going to happen, that is called a veto.

true , it does mention this .

but sillybilly , what the hell are they talking about 12 members huh ■■

Quality, you think I need someone to hold my hand while reading the link I’ve posted, then you post links to refute it adding “serious” questions. You must have missed the bit where I said it was a few years old, 2011 in fact, it’s actually written on the piece itself, but hey, I can’t expect you to keep up with the adults now can I.
Answer me this simple one, how, if we, or any other member presumably, has no veto, how one of your links explains how cyprus, an eu member I believe, used its veto to keep turkey out of the eu! Seems a little odd to me.

boredwivdrivin:

You are a strange man, anti Scottish(anti UK) and anti Eastern European but pro English and pro Indian. Are you an English from Indian descent, just curious?

English , been here since stone age .

You seriously can trace you ancestry back to the Stone Age?

boredwivdrivin:
rediscover our english identity …

What exactly is an English Identity?

It’s now Racist to have “An English Identity”. Didn’t you know? :frowning:

“UKIP cannot hope to win in an area where it is now the case that local ethnic Labour support outnumbers white, home-grown British workers by 2-1 in number”
Spokesperson, Oldham, Yesterday.

In other words, it is now Racist to even be “White British” - let alone vote for a party that supports white British like UKIP.

In fact, UKIP gets some support from those further-seeing ethnics who consider themselves fully intergrated in British Society.

Being “British” is about signing up to our way of life - not what colour one’s skin is or what religion one subscribes to in any case. :bulb:

As for this UKIP voter - I have never been racist - but I am solidly against Criminals that threaten our way of life with a passion.

Does that make me “Criminalist” for wanting “All Bad People To Go To Jail”. :confused:

Winseer:
It’s now Racist to have “An English Identity”. Didn’t you know? :frowning:

“UKIP cannot hope to win in an area where it is now the case that local ethnic Labour support outnumbers white, home-grown British workers by 2-1 in number”
Spokesperson, Oldham, Yesterday.

In other words, it is now Racist to even be “White British” - let alone vote for a party that supports white British like UKIP.

In fact, UKIP gets some support from those further-seeing ethnics who consider themselves fully intergrated in British Society.

Being “British” is about signing up to our way of life - not what colour one’s skin is or what religion one subscribes to in any case. :bulb:

As for this UKIP voter - I have never been racist - but I am solidly against Criminals that threaten our way of life with a passion.

Does that make me “Criminalist” for wanting “All Bad People To Go To Jail”. :confused:

I consider my self English (members of our family have done the family tree tracing and it all seems to be English, but we’ve only got back as far as the early 19th Century,) and last time I looked in mirror I looked like a middle aged white male.

But nobody’s ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to what is an English Identity, The Scots seem to manage as do the Irish and Welsh,

Even you in your explanation have moved from talking about English to British, which are different things.

muckles:
What exactly is an English Identity?

Recognition of the nation state of England and rejection of the UK federation.

Ethnic Anglo Saxon.

I’m English and very proud of it
My sister has traced our family roots right back to the early 1700s
I dislike it when I can’t put on many official forms my nationality as English
So in the column marked other I simply write White English

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1449230648.211211.jpg

Carryfast:

muckles:
What exactly is an English Identity?

Recognition of the nation state of England and rejection of the UK federation.

Ethnic Anglo Saxon.

So does that mean boredwivdrivin can’t really consider himself English as he’s reckon his family have been here since the Stone Age and I believe the research shows that the Anglo Saxons arrived after the Romans left, around 500AD. Or maybe he believes you’re also a foreigner who’s ancestors invaded the Country and changed it from the Country his ancestors knew.

boredwivdrivin:
English , been here since stone age .

muckles:
But nobody’s ever given me a satisfactory explanation as to what is an English Identity, The Scots seem to manage as do the Irish and Welsh,

Even you in your explanation have moved from talking about English to British, which are different things.

The fact is that,unlike the Scots and the Irish,the English were only too keen to take on board,instead of resisting,the Federalist ideology of the invading Franco/Norman occupation of the country to the point of helping successive French occupying regimes to create the Federal ‘UK’ by force.Which is what we are left with today.With the exception of the mostly successful war of secession by Ireland and the continuing Nationalist sentiment in Scotland.No surprise that has now reached the point where the ‘UK’ government has handed over most ( 80% ) of even the so called 'UK’s sovereignty to the even larger more controlling Federal control of the EU.

While ironically even Scots and Irish nationalism have allowed themselves to be hijacked by the contradictory Federalist and Socialist agendas. :open_mouth: :unamused:

Carryfast:

muckles:
What exactly is an English Identity?

Ethnic Anglo Saxon.

And I assume you can be sure you are ethnic Anglo Saxon?

I thought the place of birth divined your nationality unless you chose to denounce your citizenship in moving to another country and pledging an alliance to your new country?

muckles:

Carryfast:

muckles:
What exactly is an English Identity?

Recognition of the nation state of England and rejection of the UK federation.

Ethnic Anglo Saxon.

So does that mean boredwivdrivin can’t really consider himself English as he’s reckon his family have been here since the Stone Age and I believe the research shows that the Anglo Saxons arrived after the Romans left, around 500AD. Or maybe he believes you’re also a foreigner who’s ancestors invaded the Country and changed it from the Country his ancestors knew.

boredwivdrivin:
English , been here since stone age .

:laughing: :laughing: Nice reply Muckles.

P.S. Hey Saxe-Coburg and Gotha ruled in Britain and Bulgaria, we are one big family :smiling_imp: