EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Rich McLean]

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

No, which is why you would still need to vet refugees, to ensure that terrorists were not posing as refugees

 

[Harbornite]

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?

:roll:

Note that I said priority. Not "ban all men from entering the country". After women and children, the elderly should also have some priority. I'm sorry to say this, but fighting ISIS is one way of helping to rebuild Syria and if men of fighting age are able to do so then perhaps they should.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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?

No. Nothing like a bit of stupid hyperbole is there. :roll: By that time, the young men could be useful to our society and would not have to be sent home. I'm just saying that we need to be pragmatic and realistic and letting every Tom, Dick and Harry in isn't the best way.

 

[Muttley]

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

What's the point of collating a list if you're not going to check against it ?
Off you go, let the twisting begin.

 

[northwichcat]

:roll:

Note that I said priority. Not "ban all men from entering the country". After women and children, the elderly should also have some priority. I'm sorry to say this, but fighting ISIS is one way of helping to rebuild Syria and if men of fighting age are able to do so then perhaps they should.

No you misunderstand I was referring to IS forcing people to fight for them against their wishes, not fighting against IS. That's entirely possible, they are terrorists who stop at nothing to get what they want.

It was you who used the old fashioned term women and children not parents with young children, so no need for the sarcastic emjoi. When you say women being priority, do you mean mothers of young children or are you saying that all women? Surely a lot of the women can also be very useful back home in one way or another, even if you decide front line infantry isn't appropriate then there many army support roles which women are well qualified to do, like providing first aid, planning and communications.

 

[Harbornite]

No you misunderstand I was referring to IS forcing people to fight for them against their wishes, not fighting against IS. That's entirely possible, they are terrorists who stop at nothing to get what they want. It was you who used the old fashioned term women and children not parents with young children.

When you say women being priority, do you mean mothers of young children or are you saying that all women? Surely a lot of the women can also be very useful back home in one way or another, even if you decide front line infantry isn't appropriate then there many army support roles which women are well qualified to do, like providing first aid, planning and communications.

My bad, I misread your post. As for the role of women, there are some fighting on the front lines so these things are never as simple as black and white. My point is that for the Syrians/ Iraqis who DO want to flee, then women should get priority, especially those who are elderly or have children. Anyway with your logic, no one should be fleeing!

 

[northwichcat]

My bad, I misread your post. As for the role of women, there are some fighting on the front lines so these things are never as simple as black and white. My point is that for the Syrians/ Iraqis who DO want to flee, then women should get priority, especially those who are elderly or have children. Anyway with your logic, no one should be fleeing!

It was you who brought up they not fleeing by saying

but fighting ISIS is one way of helping to rebuild Syria and if men of fighting age are able to do so then perhaps they should.

I was questioning why you thought only fighting men were useful for that role.

 

[Harbornite]

It was you who brought up they not fleeing by saying



I was questioning why you thought only fighting men were useful for that role.

The majority of combatants over there are men, hence my comments. No one is saying that women can't do the same jobs. :roll:

 

[EM2]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36712040

Bank of England warns Brexit risks beginning to crystallise

The Bank of England has warned there is evidence that risks it identified related to Brexit are emerging.
In a major report it states: "There is evidence that some risks have begun to crystallise. The current outlook for UK financial stability is challenging."
The Bank has eased special capital requirements for banks, potentially freeing up £150bn for lending.
Eight major banks have also agreed with George Osborne to provide more lending to households and businesses.
The chancellor signed a letter with Barclays, HSBC, Santander UK, Virgin Money, Metro Bank, RBS, Nationwide and Lloyds for the banks to make extra capital available in this "challenging time".

The Bank's change to capital buffers could help if uncertainty from the leave vote causes the economy to slow down and banks to be more cautious.
"This is a major change," said Bank of England governor Mark Carney.
"It means that three-quarters of UK banks, accounting for 90% of the stock of UK lending, will immediately - immediately - have greater flexibility to supply credit to UK households and firms," he said.
Mr Carney was speaking at a news conference following the release of the bank's six monthly Financial Stability Report.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What's the point of collating a list if you're not going to check against it ?
Off you go, let the twisting begin.

As usual, you misinterpret me and then insist I'm changing my mind when all I'm doing is explaining that you misinterpreted me.

 

[Muttley]

As usual, you misinterpret me and then insist I'm changing my mind when all I'm doing is explaining that you misinterpreted me.

Go on then, Twisty, should migrants be vetted ?
Imagine it's a referendum, where you get a Yes/No response, no need for four paragraphs of your usual rubbish.

 

[EM2]

Go on then, Twisty, should migrants be vetted ?

No.
Unless you're going to vet tourists, business travellers and students as well.

 

[miami]

No.
Unless you're going to vet tourists, business travellers and students as well.

How about animals?


Sadly the usual suspects have derailed this thread moreso than normal about something almost completely unrelated to the EU (refugees), and in the mean time ignoring the perilous state the economy seems to be in.

I see a third property fund has stopped withdrawals as they didn't have enough liquid assets to cope with the run.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Go on then, Twisty, should migrants be vetted ?
Imagine it's a referendum, where you get a Yes/No response, no need for four paragraphs of your usual rubbish.

In other words, you don't like those difficult complications that spoil your childishly simple world view?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No.
Unless you're going to vet tourists, business travellers and students as well.

Don't be silly. They aren't brown people for the most part.

 

[anme]

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

Words almost fail me!

Did you seriously vote based on that? The EU does not run "our" armed forces, coast guard or border patrol!

Read that sentence again, and think very very hard about what you have done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Fixed that for you.
Let's put the blame where it lies.

The blame lies with the leave voters. If you voted leave, it is your fault.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I watched questiontime last night, I was mildly impressed with Douglas Carswell. He was calling for the government to make a cast iron guarentee that people currently living in the UK would continue to be living here.

No. This is actually very nasty. He says that people can continue living here. He doesn't say living and working. Without access to work, most people will be forced to leave. Check what the Tory candidates said as well.

As I predicted, far more evil will be done by bureaucracy than by force.

 

[lejog]

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.

I assume "A Global Strategy for the European Union’s Foreign And Security Policy" is the document you refer to. This is the paper that was presented to the European Council meeting last week. If not please provide a link to the paper you are talking about.

Having searched the document, the phrases "ever closer union" and "stronger together" do not occur. There is also nothing about a common defence policy, indeed the opposite, the document specifically says (p44):

"Member States remain sovereign in their defence decisions"

There is certainly nothing about bringing state budgets (or even defence budgets) under one roof! You might think that this policy would be mentioned to the 27 national leaders at the European Council!

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.

What the document actually says (p20) is:

"When it comes to collective defence, NATO remains the primary framework for most Member States."

Yes there is some waffle about helping the small number of non NATO members but, nothing I can see as specific as you claim. For instance the word "command" is not found let alone mention of an EU top command.
There is only talk of increased cooperation, joint research, procurement etc.

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.

The Lisbon Treaty makes it clear that all member states have a veto over defence policy. Any new treaty would also have to be approved by all members.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nothing Rich McLean has said is anything that hasn't been in place with NATO since, ooh, 1945. It's all ifs and buts and maybes, with an overriding principle of helping each other. Sounds like NATO to me. Well, a combination of NATO and the Typhoon anyway.

As for refugees, I'm not sure what "vetting" people mean. The awkward truth is that not all refugees are nice people, but that shouldn't change our humanitarian obligation to these people. And EU Membership, or lack of, won't change it either.

 

[Muttley]

In other words, you don't like those difficult complications that spoil your childishly simple world view?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Don't be silly. They aren't brown people for the most part.

I knew you couldn't do it.
Yes/No, that's all it needed, but that was beyond you.
And then you have the cheek to complain that you're misinterpreted. I'll go back to what I told you before, you're a hypocritical liar. You want a simple answer for your questions but you need to prevaricate and waffle for your answers.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I knew you couldn't do it.
Yes/No, that's all it needed, but that was beyond you.
And then you have the cheek to complain that you're misinterpreted. I'll go back to what I told you before, you're a hypocritical liar. You want a simple answer for your questions but you need to prevaricate and waffle for your answers.

Not every debate has a yes/no answer. How is that so hard for you to understand?

How am I hypocritical? I've asked for answers to my questions - I don't think I've ever asked for simple answers. I'm certainly not a liar either: that's just the pathetic response you to go when I don't bow down to your narrow-minded, stupid assumptions. I'm beginning to see why some people call Brexiters anti-intellectual, when anything that requires a reading age above 10 is dismissed as "waffle".

 

[Gutfright]

I'm beginning to see why some people call Brexiters anti-intellectual, when anything that requires a reading age above 10 is dismissed as "waffle".

Yeah! These goddamned Brexiters are all the same.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Yeah! These goddamned Brexiters are all the same.

I don't think you can pretend there isn't a strong anti-intellectual streak in the Brexit camp.

 

[Harbornite]

I don't think you can pretend there isn't a strong anti-intellectual streak in the Brexit camp.

Indeed, they should remember what Gove said about experts...

 

[Gutfright]

Keep tarring more than 17 million people with the same brush. It only adds credibility to your argument.

 

[Harbornite]

Keep tarring more than 17 million people with the same brush. It only adds credibility to your argument.

Like you did when described all leave voters as decent, salt of the earth British people of Britain, which sounded like the wibble you'd find on a Britain first leaflet.

 

[Geezertronic]

Like you did when described all leave voters as decent, salt of the earth British people of Britain, which sounded like the wibble you'd find on a Britain first leaflet.

You should note the massive gulf in difference between the phrases "Britain first" and "Britain First"

 

[TheKnightWho]

Keep tarring more than 17 million people with the same brush. It only adds credibility to your argument.

This is as useful an argument as saying that people are saying all 17 million people are racist, when talking about a 400% rise in hate crimes post referendum. Somewhat ironic when you're trying to argue that the Brexit camp is not anti-intellectual.

 

[Gutfright]

Like you did when described all leave voters as decent, salt of the earth British people of Britain

I said that the decent salt of the etc people of Britain had voted 52-48 to leave, and contrasted that with the 66%+ that remain got in the various polls on this website.

This is as useful an argument as saying that people are saying all 17 million people are racist, when talking about a 400% rise in hate crimes post referendum.

Perhaps you can explain why you think that it's "useful" to blame all 17 million leave voters for the actions of a boneheaded minority?

Somewhat ironic when you're trying to argue that the Brexit camp is not anti-intellectual.

The intellectuals aren't the ones trying to tar every Brexiter with the same brush, you are.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Perhaps you can explain why you think that it's "useful" to blame all 17 million leave voters for the actions of a boneheaded minority?


The intellectuals aren't the ones trying to tar every Brexiter with the same brush, you are.

Why have you ignored my post about there being an anti-intellectual streak? What is it with some Brexiters on this forum disputing claims with "Well not literally everyone is like that!!!!!", despite there being plenty of evidence that a sizeable chunk are.

 

[Gutfright]

Why have you ignored my post about there being an anti-intellectual streak? What is it with some Brexiters on this forum disputing claims with "Well not literally everyone is like that!!!!!", despite there being plenty of evidence that a sizeable chunk are.

Do you have "plenty of evidence" that a "sizeable chunk" of Brexiters are anti-intellectual?

How big is a "sizeable chunk" anyway?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Do you have "plenty of evidence" that a "sizeable chunk" of Brexiters are anti-intellectual?

How big is a "sizeable chunk" anyway?

Semantics now, is it? Should I get you that Michael Gove quote again? Do you think he was wrong?

When every single argument is dismissed as "Project Fear", that is anti-intellectual. That is because it is an unfalsifiable claim, because any argument against it can be dismissed itself as Project Fear, meaning there is no logical way to demonstrate it is wrong to the satisfaction of those making the dismissal. i.e. there is no way to falsify the claim that it's just scaremongering, because any justification that it isn't scaremongering is dismissed as scaremongering.

I have noticed that the Daily Mail has not published a single negative story about Brexit, but was crowing about how the crisis was over when the pound rose a little again to $1.35. Now that it's down at $1.29 (its lowest value in 30 years), there is nothing on its website except that the governor of the Bank of England has sour grapes. That he's simply stating the economic reality of the situation seems to have passed them by.

Still want to argue there isn't a strong anti-intellectual streak in the Brexit camp?

 

[Gutfright]

You said you have plenty of evidence that a sizeable chunk of Brexiters are anti-intellectual. It is entirely reasonable to ask you how many people you define as a sizeable chunk.

For the sake of argument, let's say that a sizeable chunk is 5%, which is about 850,000 people.

Do you have evidence that 850,000 Brexiters are anti-intellectual?