EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[TheKnightWho]

Luckily the EU didn't allow that isn't it.

Although I expect you'll be somewhat less impressed when France make us take our juxtaposed border controls out in Calais.

It's interesting to see how the stated reasons for leaving really do stretch the truth in many cases. Almost like the Leave campaign wasn't entirely honest.

 

[Railops]

Or, more accurately, to deal with the Syrian refugee crisis.

But don't worry - they have smartphones so they must be rich, right? :roll:

All these economic migrants are Syrian are they ? where do you get such accurate information ? even the EU would never make such an utterly ridiculous statement.

Can you show me an official statement that says all these economic migrants that will be placed all over Europe will all be Syrian ?

 

[timbo58]

There are no plans to scrap the calais jungle at present (although plenty of calls for it from within France) however France has a GE coming up and at that point ion the government changes the current frontrunner is in favour of scrapping the UK border in France in favour of it returning to our coastline.
At that point we can tighten up chunnel and docks as much as we like but a 14 mile stretch of water isn't going to stop someone who is determined enough to cross the whole continent to get here.
It'll be children bodies washed up on Britain's shores then.

 

[DarloRich]

No but feeling proud that we will not be letting the EU run our armed forces, coast guard and boarder control.

but that wasnt going to happen though was it? This kind of stuff really needed to be challenged but wasnt. Too many people voted on sentiments like this

 

[DarloRich]

At that point we can tighten up chunnel and docks as much as we like but a 14 mile stretch of water isn't going to stop someone who is determined enough to cross the whole continent to get here.
It'll be children bodies washed up on Britain's shores then.

Who will the Tories and the Kippers blame then?

 

[GatwickDepress]

but that wasnt going to happen though was it? This kind of stuff really needed to be challenged but wasnt. Too many people voted on sentiments like this

It reminds me a lot of the American militia loonies who think FEMA and the UN are conspiring to instigate some bizarre New World Order. Nothing but unjustifiable paranoia.

 

[TheKnightWho]

All these economic migrants are Syrian are they ? where do you get such accurate information ? even the EU would never make such an utterly ridiculous statement.

Can you show me an official statement that says all these economic migrants that will be placed all over Europe will all be Syrian ?

So you support the EU designating Syrian refugees then?

 

[Railops]

So you support the EU designating Syrian refugees then?

So you can't provide proof every economic migrant that will be sent to various EU countries will be Syrian ?

If you're going to make a statement get it right.

 

[Mvann]

So you presumably haven't read stated policy of EU, or what's in there next budget then.

Ground work for a European army, Brussels border and coast guard and new assylum agency.

 

[DarloRich]

So you presumably haven't read stated policy of EU, or what's in there next budget then.

Show me a quote

 

[lejog]

So you presumably haven't read stated policy of EU, or what's in there next budget then.

Ground work for a European army, Brussels border and coast guard and new assylum agency.

Which is very different from you said previously.

No but feeling proud that we will not be letting the EU run our armed forces, coast guard and boarder control.

You have no reasons to feel proud whatsoever.

 

[Harbornite]

Which is very different from you said previously.

I like the sound of this Assylum agency!

 

[Mvann]

Which is very different from you said previously.



You have no reasons to feel proud whatsoever.

In what way? That which I put up is the start of the project. Why start the groundwork for a European army if it isn't gonna happen, except now Britain has voted leave, it now may not happen.

 

[lejog]

The Lisbon Treaty (Article 42) says:

The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.

THe UK agreed to the groundwork being carried out for a common defence policy, but all member states had a veto over it being implemented. Nowhere is a "European Army" specified.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So you can't provide proof every economic migrant that will be sent to various EU countries will be Syrian ?

If you're going to make a statement get it right.

You're not answering my question. Do you support settling Syrian refugees?

You're the one who made this about economic migrants, not me, because you don't want to answer the question.

For one, I don't see the problem with economic migrants anyway. They contribute to the countries they go to, and this idea that they take jobs or strain services is economic illiteracy, because the additional revenue they bring should be used (in part) to bolster those services. Blame the Tories for failing to do that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So you presumably haven't read stated policy of EU, or what's in there next budget then.

Ground work for a European army, Brussels border and coast guard and new assylum agency.

Can you point me to the specific policy where the EU have said they want a "Brussels border" (would that be like a Berlin Wall?) or a "European army".

You've surely read it so the link must be right at your fingertips.

At that point we can tighten up chunnel and docks as much as we like but a 14 mile stretch of water isn't going to stop someone who is determined enough to cross the whole continent to get here.

People can claim asylum in the port of the country where they arrive. The reason why we have our border in Calais is so that they can't get to our port to claim asylum on arrival. If they try and claim it in Calais they're still in France so we can just sling them back over the fence. We can't do that if they're in Folkestone: if we don't have the border in Calais then, if they get on a boat, they get to claim asylum. The existing system of fines to ferry operators will solve some of the problems, as they'd still need UK papers to get permission to board, but not all of them- ferry companies won't notice duff passports.

Now we're leaving the EU, the French no longer have the same incentive to co-operate.

 

[Mvann]

I have tried to get the bits off of EU site. Unfortunately I can't get the site to work from my IPhone. I'll have to get them for you later in the week when I'm at the computer. Or you can read the article in the express from the other day.

 

[Rich McLean]

The Lisbon Treaty (Article 42) says:



THe UK agreed to the groundwork being carried out for a common defence policy, but all member states had a veto over it being implemented. Nowhere is a "European Army" specified.

There was a document released on the 24th June 2016 on the EU Website. It talks about the common European defence policy, security, and setting nation states budgets from Brussels. The main key words are "ever closer union" and "stronger together". The goal is to bring Defence Policy and Nation state budgets all under one roof, so that the ECB becomes accountable and no future bailouts are required.

The Defence side of it is not getting rid of nation states armed forces, but more creating an EU top command level above Nation state command level, which ensures that if any EU nation state or more than one Nation state comes under threat, the EU can then authorise military action from all Nation states so that everyone is on the same hymn sheet and gives maximum fire power and use of resources.

Effectively, it will overrule Nation states Governments. However that does not effect Nation state governments from standing up their own armed forces for other Operations or exercises (i.e. NATO) outside of the European scope. So not quite an EU Army. It will be similar to NATO, only difference being it only concerns the 27 (at the time) EU Nation states armed forces and has additional powers like overriding Nation state defence policy.


However this is not going by the current act's of the Lisbon treaty, but a step towards a new Treaty, which is likely to take a few more years to ratify.

 

[Railops]

You're not answering my question. Do you support settling Syrian refugees?

You're the one who made this about economic migrants, not me, because you don't want to answer the question.

The only thing I agree with is taking a number of refugees from their own country as long as they have been strictly vetted, but only to countries that agree to have them.
I don't agree with encouraging any migrants to cross the sea as Merkel has done. Her plan has undoubtedly caused many hundreds if not thousands of deaths.

As you have not provided evidence that all migrants are Syrian it's you who won't answer the question.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The only thing I agree with is taking a number of refugees from their own country as long as they have been strictly vetted, but only to countries that agree to have them.
I don't agree with encouraging any migrants to cross the sea as Merkel has done. Her plan has undoubtedly caused many hundreds if not thousands of deaths.

As you have not provided evidence that all migrants are Syrian it's you who won't answer the question.

Why must they be strictly vetted? Why should we allow some countries to be selfish when they're refugees?

And no - you are the one who interpreted what I was saying as that there are no economic migrants at all. That was a ridiculous and, frankly, stupid misinterpretation. It's very obvious you try and interpret your opponents in bad faith so as to try and catch them out - it's a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't work on most people past the age of 15. Grow up.

 

[Railops]

Why must they be strictly vetted? Why should we allow some countries to be selfish when they're refugees?

And no - you are the one who interpreted what I was saying as that there are no economic migrants at all. That was a ridiculous and, frankly, stupid misinterpretation. It's very obvious you try and interpret your opponents in bad faith so as to try and catch them out - it's a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't work on most people past the age of 15. Grow up.

I really can't be bothered with your immature tantrums you do it with everybody who dares to disagree with you.

You've twisted and turned to attempt to prove you said something completely different to what you did, I shouldn't have ever bothered even trying to talk to you as you're plainly only interested in arguing.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I really can't be bothered with your immature tantrums you do it with everybody who dares to disagree with you.

You've twisted and turned to attempt to prove you said something completely different to what you did, I shouldn't have ever bothered even trying to talk to you as you're plainly only interested in arguing.

No, the only person who is refusing to engage properly is you. You repeatedly try and frame things in your own terms and refuse to acknowledge that you might be wrong about anything. Now that I've called out your favourite tactic on this forum you quit, but not before trying to show everyone how much better you are as a person. I disagree with plenty of people on this forum, but I only get annoyed with the people who refuse to debate like adults, and instead try to catch out their opponents and hurl insults - I could count you all on one hand.

Now, why don't you try answering the question and debating like an ordinary person? Why should we allow some countries to be selfish with regards to refugees? Where did I say that literally all migrants are economic migrants?

 

[Johnuk123]

Why must they be strictly vetted? Why should we allow some countries to be selfish when they're refugees?

Brilliant idea, anybody who calls themselves a refugee should simply be waved through, no vetting, cracking idea, can't see any problems with that at all.

 

[Rich McLean]

Not vetting refugees opens the door for IS & Co to just walk in undetected, and by the time they are detected it will be too late. See the Istanbul attacks and other Terrorist attacks across Europe in recent months.

If you were accountable for National Security, how would you stop or prevent this from happening without vetting them?
How would you feel if a family member or close friend was killed in a terror attack, due to these terrorists slipping through the net as a consequence of them not being vetted?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Brilliant idea, anybody who calls themselves a refugee should simply be waved through, no vetting, cracking idea, can't see any problems with that at all.

It's certainly preferable to them staying in Syria.

Notice I only applied that statement to Syrian refugees.

 

[Harbornite]

We need to be realistic about these things. Priority should go to women and children refugees from Syria and Iraq. I'm sorry but we can't let in loads of economic migrants from the likes of Pakistan, Eritrea and elsewhere. Some of these are travelling alongside the refugees which does complicate things, I just think that they should choose another time to try to reach Europe.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Not vetting refugees opens the door for IS & Co to just walk in undetected, and by the time they are detected it will be too late. See the Istanbul attacks and other Terrorist attacks across Europe in recent months.

If you were accountable for National Security, how would you stop or prevent this from happening without vetting them?
How would you feel if a family member or close friend was killed in a terror attack, due to these terrorists slipping through the net as a consequence of them not being vetted?

I don't think anyone was advocating doing away with terrorist watch lists, were they?

 

[jon0844]

Brilliant idea, anybody who calls themselves a refugee should simply be waved through, no vetting, cracking idea, can't see any problems with that at all.

Far too many people claiming to be from Syria when they're not. As well as far too many people claiming to be children when they're in their 30s!

Of course we need to check everyone that comes. We want genuine asylum seekers fleeing from a warzone, not people who can disappear or want to wish harm upon us.

Germany and Sweden got a rude awakening by being far too nice last year. We do not want a repeat of that, especially as the problems only helped secure a leave vote from those who equated it to us allowing the free movement of people (when it is of course entirely separate).

 

[GatwickDepress]

The woman and children only thing is difficult. I volunteer with refugees and there's too many families vulnerable without their father and husband

 

[northwichcat]

Priority should go to women and children refugees from Syria and Iraq.

So do you think we should allow a Syrian mother and her children to come here and leave the dad behind even if it means the children's left behind dad gets forced to fight for IS against their wishes?

And also what do you do if it's a 15 year old boy and the war goes on for 7 years? Do you kick out the boy when he comes an adult because he's no longer a priority and there's other higher priority refugees?