The Brexit Thread

[Pitbull]

The UK very seldom implements retrospective legislation, a person who is legally settled here can't suddenly become not authorised, try and remember the UK isn't a banana republic.

What you on about now? Settled has already been covered. You’re being caught up in your own biases here...

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

What you on about now? Settled has already been covered. You’re being caught up in your own biases here...

Indeed.

 

[Dave]

What you on about now? Settled has already been covered. You’re being caught up in your own biases here...

I was answering one of your fanciful statements. Don't you remember what you write?

It's simple: Exit EU, give 6 months notice of deportation if not documented to stay (VISA) or whatever requirement might be needed. After 6 months, they out. Again, you making it harder than it should be. There is ZERO need for an exception to EU passport holders or UK passport holders.

Your own words, anyone without a visa gets deported after 6 months, so you are wanting to deport all EU nationals, as EU nationals do not require a visa and can simply reside in the UK at present without any paperwork, you are therefore advocating some form of retrospective legislation to allow deporting all EU nationals.

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

So, on the same grounds, the UK should leave the UN or the ICC because UN and ICC adhesions were forced to and have overreach (foreign court and foreign sanctions). Basically, the UK should leave absolutely everything that is compulsory when adhering to the EU even if it was a member before being in the EU.

That means withdrawing of pretty much every single international commitment of the UK except the Commonwealth and NATO.

Simple market was a typo.

No it doesn't.

Is the ICC demanding that prisoners in the UK should get a vote ? NO
Did the ICC involve itself in the Abu Hamza case? NO.

Is the WTO, ICC and UN (actually the ICJ - needed to Google that) heavily involving itself in the domestic affairs of the UK ? No.

I have no problem with international courts involving itself in international affairs...

 

[Dave]

Indeed.

Poor little Chris, trying to find a reason to be in the thread by buddying up to pitbull...

Can't you find any Australian politics to post about? Don't they have a problem with Muslim refugees arriving by boat?

 

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

Poor little Chris, trying to find a reason to be in the thread by buddying up to pitbull...

Can't you find any Australian politics to post about? Don't they have a problem with Muslim refugees arriving by boat?

Don't follow Australian politics (sounds boring, and the names are confusing: Liberal Party is actually the conservative party) and they stopped the boats by having offshore refugee centres.

Now if only the great and mighty EU could do something like that...

 

[f2wohf]

No it doesn't.

Is the ICC demanding that prisoners in the UK should get a vote ? NO
Did the ICC involve itself in the Abu Hamza case? NO.

Is the WTO, ICC and UN (actually the ICJ - needed to Google that) heavily involving itself in the domestic affairs of the UK ? No.

I have no problem with international courts involving itself in international affairs...

On the grounds of two case, the ECHRt is nefarious. Chris decided and it shall not change.

I’m speaking of the ICC who has interfering powers by for example putting May in jail if she decided to kill polish instead of expelling them.

I’m also speaking of the UN Security Council who could impose sanctions on the UK (not the ICJ) if they were involved in human right violations for example.

Of the WTO who puts public funding restrictions and trade rules on UK (for example Airbus who has British shareholders).

It’s all fine when they ask South Africa or Airbus to comply but would be a scandal for UK to be sanctioned (because it’s “not” your country and they’re always right I guess?).

 

[Pitbull]

I was answering one of your fanciful statements. Don't you remember what you write?



Your own words, anyone without a visa gets deported after 6 months, so you are wanting to deport all EU nationals, as EU nationals do not require a visa and can simply reside in the UK at present without any paperwork, you are therefore advocating some form of retrospective legislation to allow deporting all EU nationals.

Maybe keep up with the discussion. That was covered no more than 3 pages ago. Do i have to repost all the parts with every post just because you can’t keep ip with the topic? You mad mate :crylaugh:

 

[Dave]

Maybe keep up with the discussion. That was covered no more than 3 pages ago. Do i have to repost all the parts with every post just because you can’t keep ip with the topic? You mad mate :crylaugh:

So your posts expire do they? What you said 3 pages ago is now BS?

Gotcha...

 

[OrbitalDawn]

I'm confused - has Hammond forgotten that the referendum was about 18 months ago? Why are Remain still in project fear mode? No-one believes them anymore. They've been in full on campaign mode for 18 months. Such sore losers! They tried it before the referendum - it didn't work.

Hammond is the Conservative government's chancellor of the exchequer, not a Remain campaigner.

Put the identity politics to rest for a bit.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Some of the reasoning here is fascinating. By a similar standard, no one should say a word about land expropriation because the ANC won.

 

[f2wohf]

Some of the reasoning here is fascinating. By a similar standard, no one should say a word about land expropriation because the ANC won.

Or Al Beshir’s visit and the ICC because it’s interference, you know.

Exactly where I wanted to go to, and show the double standards they apply.

 

[Pitbull]

So your posts expire do they? What you said 3 pages ago is now BS?

Gotcha...

Yea, that must be it. You are completely lost not just in this thread but on this topic as a whole. But sure, if that will make you sleep a bit better :crylaugh:

 

[Pitbull]

Some of the reasoning here is fascinating. By a similar standard, no one should say a word about land expropriation because the ANC won.

Really? Reality is, they can and will do as they please. No amount of whining will stop them.

 

[Xarog]

Some of the reasoning here is fascinating. By a similar standard, no one should say a word about land expropriation because the ANC won.

I didn't know that the elections counted as a referendum on land reform.

 

[Xarog]

Or Al Beshir’s visit and the ICC because it’s interference, you know.

Exactly where I wanted to go to, and show the double standards they apply.

:crylaugh:

Another joker, it seems. Your example is bogus, but you know what? The counter-example isn't.

What you Remoaners want is for the government to ignore the will of the people regarding one particular decision as decided by popular vote, which would be equivalent to the Nats ignoring the referendum results on Apartheid and keeping Apartheid going come hell or high water.

 

[Pitbull]

:crylaugh:

Another joker, it seems. Your example is bogus, but you know what? The counter-example isn't.

What you Remoaners want is for the government to ignore the will of the people regarding one particular decision as decided by popular vote, which would be equivalent to the Nats ignoring the referendum results on Apartheid and keeping Apartheid going come hell or high water.

The crying and whining will continue for a long time still. And yet they only have themselves to blame.

 

[f2wohf]

:crylaugh:

Another joker, it seems. Your example is bogus, but you know what? The counter-example isn't.

What you Remoaners want is for the government to ignore the will of the people regarding one particular decision as decided by popular vote, which would be equivalent to the Nats ignoring the referendum results on Apartheid and keeping Apartheid going come hell or high water.

100th time, I’m not a remoaner, I’m very happy to see the UK leaving and blocking the European integration. They’ve only been a pain since 1973 nitpicking and making their tailor made EU adhesion.

But please, tell me why my example is bogus?

Chris said that NO foreign body interference is acceptable, this would entail the ICC.

And no, my dream is to have British out of there ASAP without a trade agreement, eating marmite and peas because they can’t even get tomatoes for years and being the laughing stock of the international community.

In the meanwhile, I’m having fun at their incapability to prepare themselves and draft a strategy.

 

[Xarog]

100th time, I’m not a remoaner, I’m very happy to see the UK leaving and blocking the European integration. They’ve only been a pain since 1973 nitpicking and making their tailor made EU adhesion.

But please, tell me why my example is bogus?

Chris said that NO foreign body interference is acceptable, this would entail the ICC.

You were following on from OD's example regarding accepting the ANC's decision on expropriation without compensation without a complaint. Maybe you aren't a remoaner, but OD's sympathies definitely lie with them.

You said "they apply", not "he applies". It's unreasonable to think you were referring specifically to Chris when you said that.

 

[f2wohf]

Two occurrences justifying the use of they:

1. Where a vote is a vote even if it did not mention the single market or immigration as Pitbull and Chris said,

2. The ICC, ECHR, UN... for Chris.

Hence they.

I don’t know, the SA referendum is pretty clear (unlike the UK one where again it states EU membership and does not exclude a single market model that many Brexiters pushed for):

Do you support continuation of the reform process which the State President began on 2 February 1990 and which is aimed at a new Constitution through negotiation?