[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

Holy member resurrection.

^^^ 100% agreement.

[quote=teamhurtmore ]True you guys descended below the Brexshiteers with insults and untruths.

[img] [/img]

Yep. That was pretty much unbeatable.

athgray that was worth coming back for.

I have followed the occasional thread, but Brexit really gets my heckles up.

Superb post athgray.

I just nodded my head all the way through reading your post.

Applause.

@ THM regarding populism and /or democracy.

https://institute.global/insight/renewing-centre/european-populism-trends-threats-and-future-prospects

And....?

My FIL voted for Brexit despite having a daughter in law from France.

Same here, but swap France for Portugal. Complete generational divide in the family when it came to the vote… and, unsurprisingly, still the same divide over what the best course for the country now is… no[i] "we narrowly voted in favour of it, so it's now magically the only course ahead possible" [/i]conversions have occurred amongst the "younger" generations (those under 60), and no regrets about the economic damage of the next 10+ years (the prediction of those over 60, not the younger fiolk) being discovered by the "older" generation at all.

Not possible to discuss the effect Leaving might have on movement of people and relationships between people of different nationalities, because, like most Leavers, the belief is firmly that "the wrong" people will be kept out of the British workplace, but "the right" people will be welcome and face no additional obstacles or reduced circumstances. Mention any rEU citizen they personally know, and, of course, they are the "right" kind of rEU worker, so are uneffected, and will continue to be uneffected.

I have followed the occasional thread, but Brexit really gets my heckles up

Thumbs up @Athgray.

And....?

because you seem, in calling remoaners undemocratic, to wilfully fail to differentiate between populism and democracy - or at least liberal democracy and deliberately confuse the former with the latter. I tend to think a liberal democracy that has its fundamental principles guaranteed and enshrined in supranational law as was provided for by EU membership is quite important you on the other hand appear not to and would attack those that do - a proper IG Farben capitalist.

?

Are you claiming that we do not have a liberal democracy etc?

You seem to be confusing lots of big words there.

I am saying it is now no longer guaranteed and will be eroded little by little.

Like say newspapers calling people traitors for applying the law
Did i miss THM's comment on that or did he hide back under his bridge when given the facts ?

What does THM do in the real world?

Anyone using the word 'remoaner' automatically marks themselves out as someone who isn't worth listening to. It's in the same ballpark as 'libtard' and 'cuck'.

When you don't have an argument resort to cheap insults and trolling.

[quote=dannyh ]What does THM do in the real world?
[b]IMPORTANT THINGS BRILLIANTLY WELL[/b]

A useful guide for life is “what would Chris failing grayling do?”
Then do the opposite.

Anyone using the word 'remoaner' automatically marks themselves out as someone who isn't worth listening to. It's in the same ballpark as 'libtard' and 'cuck'.

...and “ballpark”

Is "ballpark" now a derogatory term?

Or are you pretending to miss the point being made in the hope of derailing it? Hmmmm…

So ninfan thinks Britain gets Europe's dregs rather than its best and uses a headline he read about a Lithuanian murderer that came here to murder again as an example.

Don’t be daft, read what I said again, I would prefer us to be able to choose the best, rather than lumbered with the worst

EU regulation on freedom of movement is quite clear on this, EU nation states cannot restrict citizens freedom of movement based on previous criminal convictions. It is absolutely freaking ridiculous that we can refuse entry to the U.K. to (for example) [url= https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/mike-tyson-denied-entry-to-the-uk-because-of-rape-and-assault-convictions-8996138.html ]Mike Tyson[/url] purely because of his rape conviction, but cannot equally refuse entry to a convicted murderer, paedophile or any other criminal on the basis of their EU citizenship

I would prefer us to be able to choose the best, rather than lumbered with the worst

and how many of the worst are we lumbered with, what is the scale of the 'problem' ?

What does THM do in the real world?

If I don't get an answer, I'm going to have to speculate.....

Or maybe he truly is a.......

[img] [/img]

None of your “business” but keep speculating. The obsession is closing in on the chief troll’s and that is quite something

Grum - sounds like you might be in wrong place. Just arrived in Lakes with nice layer of snow. Damp snow though so probably won’t last.

and how many of the worst are we lumbered with, what is the scale of the 'problem' ?

How many do you need?

let’s look at it another way - would allowing Tyson in have threatened the criminal justice system or created an unprecedented risk to the citizens of this country? Or was it ok to refuse him as a matter of principle? Perhaps even as a political gesture or an example to the world that we didn’t approve of the abuse of women?

Why is it OK to treat one person like that, but not another, purely on the basis of their country of origin being outside the EU?

Is it because he’s brown?

As usual you are spot on again:
CHAPTER VI

RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF ENTRY AND THE RIGHT OF RESIDENCE ON GROUNDS OF PUBLIC POLICY, PUBLIC SECURITY OR PUBLIC HEALTH

Article 27

General principles

1. Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, Member States may restrict the freedom of movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality, on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. These grounds shall not be invoked to serve economic ends

ninfan - Member

and how many of the worst are we lumbered with, what is the scale of the 'problem' ?

How many do you need?

let’s look at it another way - would allowing Tyson in have threatened the criminal justice system or created an unprecedented risk to the citizens of this country? Or was it ok to refuse him as a matter of principle? Perhaps even as a political gesture or an example to the world that we didn’t approve of the abuse of women?

Why is it OK to treat one person like that, but not another, purely on the basis of their country of origin being outside the EU?

Is it because he’s brown?

Posted 7 minutes ago # Report-Post

I call 'Fake News Bingo'!

In terms of being an exemplar of the genre that is right up there.

Choose a very, very narrow example. Flip it around to make your point (whatever that may be), expand it out again to be 'everyone', then chuck in an irrelevant non sequitur with an emotive edge.

Bravissimo!

Except to anyone who even thinks about it slightly it is just childish.

Go on Kilo, did you bother to read paragraph 2?

[i]Measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security shall comply with the principle of proportionality and shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. [b]Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.[/b]

The personal conduct of the individual concerned must represent a genuine, [b]present[/b] and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. Justifications that are isolated from the particulars of the case [b]or that rely on considerations of general prevention[/b] shall not be accepted.[/i]

None of your “business” but keep speculating

Nah, not much point really as I know the answer.

Now then, what is a good metaphor for this situation?

[img] [/img]

However, those who “commit serious or persistent crimes” and are seen as a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat” can be refused entry to the UK.

Moreover, the deal David Cameron negotiated in February will further strengthen the legal wording around countries’ powers to prevent entry or deport nationals from other EU countries.

Countries will be able to stop individuals whose behaviour is “likely to” – rather than “does” – “represent a genuine and serious threat to public policy or security”. Countries will also be able to “take into account past conduct” and “the threat may not always need to be imminent”. The deal goes on to say that “even in the absence of a previous criminal conviction” countries can “act on preventative grounds”.

Never mind here's a tune to cheer you up

One thing you don’t know is the answer. But that’s not news is it

Ninfan Your post refutes your own claim. We are allowed to restrict access to people even under FoM. Your point was a Farage red herring and a deliberate lie

The obsession is closing in on the chief troll’s and that is quite something

not much point really as I know the answer.

One thing you don’t know is the answer

QED

Try not to get this bad Danny!! It’s sad

We are allowed to restrict access to people even under FoM

I never claimed we weren’t, I said that:

EU nation states cannot restrict citizens freedom of movement based on previous criminal convictions

Which is entirely correct, because the regulation specifically states

[i]Previous criminal convictions shall not in themselves constitute grounds for taking such measures.[/i]

Perhaps even you’re getting pulled into the remoaners web of lies and obfuscation THM

@kilo:

However, those who “commit serious or persistent crimes” and are seen as a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat” can be refused entry to the UK.

Again, you appear to be arguing the toss against something I never claimed. I have pointed out quite clearly that the test for refusal is completely different for non-EU citizens, like Tyson, from EU citizens.

Go on, defend tha5 to me - why should we continue to allow in convicted criminals (with an EU passport) to visit, live and work here that we would refuse from anywhere else in the world?

Nice try mon ami but you used that as an intro to a totally false point which was picked up on

It is absolutely freaking ridiculous that we can refuse entry to the U.K. to (for example) Mike Tyson purely because of his rape conviction, but cannot equally refuse entry to a convicted murderer, paedophile or any other criminal on the basis of their EU citizenship

We can do

Might want to see how many times you post compared to me and evaluate the facts Mr Purveyor of truth
PFt Facts eh

It’s sad

Q: So if convicted criminals are not automatically excluded, aren’t the leave campaigners right to say that murderers and rapists will be allowed in?

A: No. As Steve Peers, a professor of EU law at Essex University, has pointed out, they could be refused entry and it is hard to imagine any British judge or the European court of justice overturning that decision in cases involving such serious crimes. As the former Conservative immigration and policing minister Damian Green has said, nearly 6,000 European Economic Area nationals have been prevented from entering Britain since 2010.

We can do

We can’t, we can only refuse (EU citizens) on current pattern of behaviour, not past criminal record. Everyone else we can flat refuse if they have been given a prison sentence of (IIRC) more than four years

Ninfan if you get your way and we leave the EU europol etc how will we know who the convicted foreign criminals are to keep them out? Or do you suggest we stay in the data sharing club?

The irony of criminal immigrants coming into the country is that theresa may was asleep on shift in her previous post when it was her job.

BTW Danny - you have 12 [b]CONSECUTIVE[/b] obsessive posts in one thread to beat before you can achieve/match sad, chief troll status - I lost count as 12, so could be even more. But a round dozen is some achievement!! 😯

How many do you need?

How many are there? Surely you need to have an idea of the number to know if it is an actual problem or just something in your head.