So, it's a case of well they are already paying, so tough?Spijed wrote:But we already know how it works for them. They have been operating in that business environment for years.
Their costs and pricing reflect the current rules and regulations.
To be fair, I think we can safely assume the ex-Labour members are more likely to be pro-remain, considering I can only think a limited few Labour supporters who want the Brexit voted for.martin_p wrote:So by my reckoning that’s five pro-EU and five not (I assume they’re not as they’ve not been marked pro-EU). Seems pretty balanced to me.
if you really believe its purely down to mass migration, you'd have to ask why the government haven't controlled it. there was nothing stopping them before brexit so why try to do it now?CrosspoolClarets wrote:If you really believe it is a risk for ordinary people you need to look more closely at stagnating GDP per capita (or real terms wages / disposable income after housing costs) over the last 10 years since mass migration started. Looking at it more closely broken down by sector is even more revealing. Then look at equivalent figures for other major world nations during this (supposed) boom.
I am not sure you realise how much of an impact the EU has had on the poorest in our societies and the reasons they voted Brexit?. At this point they haven't got a lot to lose. These are the people on the front line who feel it the hardest. It;'s easy for these middle-class virtue signalling types in their more affluent areas, with their private healthcare and education not to realise just how much it has changed things.quoonbeatz wrote:i'm not misrepresenting anything. two posts above mine was someone who supports brexit saying they aren't risking anything. its a pretty typical attitude you tend to find with brexiteers. you only need to look at the people in government who support it. lots of 'normal' people are risking things. people's livelihoods and businesses are at stake. especially in places like burnley which will be hit hardest, whatever type of brexit we end up with.
The people of Burnley had 40 odd years of EU membership to decide whether or not they thought it was a good thing or a bad thing.quoonbeatz wrote:i'm not misrepresenting anything. two posts above mine was someone who supports brexit saying they aren't risking anything. its a pretty typical attitude you tend to find with brexiteers. you only need to look at the people in government who support it. lots of 'normal' people are risking things. people's livelihoods and businesses are at stake. especially in places like burnley which will be hit hardest, whatever type of brexit we end up with.
It's unlikely this lot were ever going to listen was itquoonbeatz wrote:to be fair, anyone who listens to anything priti patel says is ****** in the head.
This a myth portrayed by remainers. We cannot control the numbers or the quality of people coming here from the EU. Yes, we can supposedly remove them after 3 months if they have no means to support themselves, but the government tried that with some rough sleepers and EU law overturned their decision.quoonbeatz wrote:if you really believe its purely down to mass migration, you'd have to ask why the government haven't controlled it. there was nothing stopping them before brexit so why try to do it now?
So you accuse brexiteers of wishing themselves economic suicide cos of all the really really bad things that'll come cos of leaving the EU. Yet simultaneously accuse them of the I'm alright Jack attitudequoonbeatz wrote:ah the good old 'i'm alright, jack' attitude of the brexiteer.
Lancasterclaret wrote:So just to check, all of you who voted Brexit are happy that the campaigns that backed your views broke the law?
-Quick edit as I think its unfair to claim that it made enough of a difference to the referendum result.
nope.RingoMcCartney wrote:So you accuse brexiteers of wishing themselves economic suicide cos of all the really really bad things that'll come cos of leaving the EU. Yet simultaneously accuse them of the I'm alright Jack attitude
it isn't a myth. i'll leave you lads to it though, we've been round the houses on brexit all discussed it all before.burnleymik wrote:This a myth portrayed by remainers. We cannot control the numbers or the quality of people coming here from the EU. Yes, we can supposedly remove them after 3 months if they have no means to support themselves, but the government tried that with some rough sleepers and EU law overturned their decision.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... d-unlawful" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
As long as someone says they are coming here to work, then anyone can come from the EU and we cannot stop them.
I think most Brexiteers would rather have quality over quantity any day of the week. I would rather have a skilled person that a UK business specifically needs and cannot recruit in the UK, from anywhere in the world, rather than anyone at all, just because they live in the EU.
I can't keep count of how many of my points you have failed to answer....Lancasterclaret wrote:Great
But I imagine my shock that it wasn't the answer to the question I asked.
So again, So just to check, all of you who voted Brexit are happy that the campaigns that backed your views broke the law?
I'd be happier if -Lancasterclaret wrote:Great
But I imagine my shock that it wasn't the answer to the question I asked.
So again, So just to check, all of you who voted Brexit are happy that the campaigns that backed your views broke the law?
I won't! As long as you stop regurgitating your tedious copy and paste attempts at trying to look intelligent.quoonbeatz wrote:nope.
not all brexiteers are the same, just as not all remainers are the same.
i appreciate something not being black and white will be hard for you to process though so please do keep regurgitating your tedious copy and paste attempts at insults.
claretandy wrote:
claretandy wrote:
Crysssys - I absolutely agree and I know many leading Brexiteers would keep pushing on if they lost, but that is how democracy works, on majorities. The problem is that what the majority voted for really doesn't look like happening and that is anti-democratic.Cryssys wrote:It is interesting to note that a number of people on here think that democracy is just about who won and who lost. In a democratic society you have a right to continue to voice your objections and oppose any policy that you disagree with. That is the essence of a free and democratic society. Just because one side lost it does not mean, as some suggest, that they should shut up and go away or that they are being undemocratic in continuing to oppose a policy that they do not agree with. If that were the case should we disband the opposition parties after a general election as they were losers and allow the winning party to implement its policies unopposed?
The Brexit vote, near as damn it, split the country in half. 48% of those voting wanted to remain. To call remainers undemocratic for continuing to campaign for what they believe in demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what democracy is all about. If the boot was on the other foot, would Ringo et al have walked uncomplaining into the sunset muttering we lost, we’re over it?
Again, that isn't something that stacks up - we leave the EU on march 29th 2019.The problem is that what the majority voted for really doesn't look like happening and that is anti-democratic.
It's 10 years since the biggest economic crisis since the 1920's, and 8 years since the UK embarked on a pretty disastrous 'austerity' mission, first under a coalition government, and then under a Conservative government.CrosspoolClarets wrote:If you really believe it is a risk for ordinary people you need to look more closely at stagnating GDP per capita (or real terms wages / disposable income after housing costs) over the last 10 years since mass migration started. Looking at it more closely broken down by sector is even more revealing. Then look at equivalent figures for other major world nations during this (supposed) boom.
hahaha Brilliant.Quickenthetempo wrote:Check out @MoodNature’s Tweet: https://twitter.com/MoodNature/status/1 ... 18880?s=09" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Usually Ringo fighting them off
Apology excepted and likewise for some pretty low replies from me. It's a very emotive discussion and easy to see why people get highly charged over it. No hard feelings my end mate.Lancasterclaret wrote:And I do owe you an apology Burnleymik
I shouldn't have fixated on the date of your registration on here and I fully understand how important a topic this can be.
Apologies again.
good grief, this is so weak.RingoMcCartney wrote:I won't! As long as you stop regurgitating your tedious copy and paste attempts at trying to look intelligent.
It's also the speed in which the migration has occurred and how quickly the EU has developed from a supposed trading bloc, into this huge political behemoth. The EU is about big business and protectionism and is surely more beneficial for the top 1%, as it's far easier and less costly to control the single entity of the EU, than individual nation states?JohnMcGreal wrote:It's 10 years since the biggest economic crisis since the 1920's, and 8 years since the UK embarked on a pretty disastrous 'austerity' mission, first under a coalition government, and then under a Conservative government.
The results are there for all to see. During that time, the wealth of the top 1% increased quicker than at any point since Victorian times. Living standards for everyone else were reduced thanks to stagnating wages and relatively high inflation. As an economic policy (devised and implemented by the UK government) it failed.
This is simply another case of blaming a self-made, domestic problem on immigrants and/or the EU.
It's a very similar process to how the London Mayoral elections are run and people don't seem to find that too complicated (although it did elect Ken Livingstone and Boris Johnson!).If it be your will wrote:A superior version of voting though it clearly is, I'm no longer certain the electorate is ready for AV voting. I can see how it lost in the 2011 AV referendum now, whereas at the time I just couldn't understand it.
They're pretty keen on it http://www.businessinsider.com/britain- ... ?r=UK&IR=T" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;Colburn_Claret wrote:Who feeds you this crap.
You don't need an empire to create trade deals. Countries a lot, lot smaller than us trade with the rest of the world successfully, and they have none of our infrastructure or experience.
As for India demanding free movement................
That's how things get decided ultimately, by a majority. With any decisions that remain fixed they has to be a end game. Everybody yes EVERYBODY who decided to vote did so for a reason assuming whatever the outcome would be fixed. Democracy isn't based on a sliding scale we are not choosing whether to buy Warburtons bread or hovis, this is at an entirely different level. Had remain won it would have been a closed book for me.Cryssys wrote:It is interesting to note that a number of people on here think that democracy is just about who won and who lost. In a democratic society you have a right to continue to voice your objections and oppose any policy that you disagree with. That is the essence of a free and democratic society. Just because one side lost it does not mean, as some suggest, that they should shut up and go away or that they are being undemocratic in continuing to oppose a policy that they do not agree with. If that were the case should we disband the opposition parties after a general election as they were losers and allow the winning party to implement its policies unopposed?
The Brexit vote, near as damn it, split the country in half. 48% of those voting wanted to remain. To call remainers undemocratic for continuing to campaign for what they believe in demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of what democracy is all about. If the boot was on the other foot, would Ringo et al have walked uncomplaining into the sunset muttering we lost, we’re over it?
No I don't believe it has been that. That would only be the case if they believed as you presumably do, that 100s of thousands of people are about to lose their jobs. They don't believe it, I don't believe it.Spijed wrote:So what happens to those who do lose out, especially those who rely on the EU for trade?
How can they be helped going forward, or is it just a case of "Sod them"?
That seems to be the utterly selfish attitude of those who just want to be out of the EU.
The attitude of JRM, Boris, Liam Fox has been exactly that!
Absolutely agree. The rumour is the Whip has done this deliberately to try and stop a challenge to Theresa May's leadership.aggi wrote:It's a good job there's nothing going on at the moment that needs attending to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44853464" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Yep. Nothing to do with the Global Financial Crisis, or years of Tory austerity. It’s all the fault of those damn immigrants.CrosspoolClarets wrote:If you really believe it is a risk for ordinary people you need to look more closely at stagnating GDP per capita (or real terms wages / disposable income after housing costs) over the last 10 years since mass migration started.
Greenmile wrote:Yep. Nothing to do with the Global Financial Crisis, or years of Tory austerity. It’s all the fault of those damn immigrants.
Why punch up when it’s so much easier to punch down, eh Crosspool?
Edit to add - I’m fairly sure there was mass migration prior to 2008. I vaguely remember the Daily Mail editorial “what have the Huguenots ever done for us?”
Jakubclaret wrote:That's how things get decided ultimately, by a majority. With any decisions that remain fixed they has to be a end game. Everybody yes EVERYBODY who decided to vote did so for a reason assuming whatever the outcome would be fixed. Democracy isn't based on a sliding scale we are not choosing whether to buy Warburtons bread or hovis, this is at an entirely different level. Had remain won it would have been a closed book for me.
Have another look at the picture Martin, there are 6 pro-EU and 4 not. Not pretty balanced then.martin_p wrote:So by my reckoning that’s five pro-EU and five not (I assume they’re not as they’ve not been marked pro-EU). Seems pretty balanced to me.
