whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And that won't change given that **** all of them can get to Britain.

They do get in. They use lorries buses coaches whatever they can and some
do make it to the UK.

**** all do.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...ts-in-hampton/

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...-10324670.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-miles-7116936


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-station.html


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594...e-Robin-Onions

And that is only news because **** all do.

whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote
Nightjar cpb wrote

They need us far more than we need them.

A fallacy.

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpo...needs-britain/

And a link from that page to...
"A multi-disciplinary, evidence-based blog informing the debate on UK's
EU referendum"

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/

"Evidence-based"...? That'll go down like a cup of
cold sick around the kipper corners of this group...

The thing is why should we trust Europe,

Essentially because of the benefits being part of the EU or something close
brings.

when you remmebr how fantastic and good it would be if we had
a unified currency, hand't work as well as we were told it would,

Nothing ever does, stupid.

If eurpoe was that good we wouldn't need to travel to France for
cheap food and other products. I'm not sure whether getting out
is the right move but we're certainly getting conned by staying in.

Must be why no one else has chosen to leave.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 13:43:42 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how
fantastic and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't
work as well as we were told it would,

And you can only speculate what would have happened if the UK had been
in the Euro.

We don't have to specualte what happens if the rest of europe adopted
the Euro do we.

Depends what point in time you look at it. And you have no idea how things
may turn out a few years on from now.



At least some of the problems with the Euro were caused by allowing
countries to join before they'd put their economy in order.

And who or which countries were pushing that I wonder.

So who does decide who joins and who doesn't.

All other members.

And the UK is
equally as responsible as other EU countries for allowing this.

Shows you just how flawed the EU system is then doesn;t it.

Right. So you don't believe in democracy?

--
*Money isn‘t everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists"
logic here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united very
much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world,

Its an insoluble problem, stupid.

I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before I'd
decide.

More fool you.

whisky-dave wrote
wrote
Tim Streater wrote
Nightjar cpb" "insert my surname here.me.uk" wrote

If we choose to annoy the EU by leaving, expect
much more stringent application of new rules.

How can they apply rules to us if we're not a member?

By imposing rules on how the EU banking system etc works with
that being a major part of what Britain still does competitively.

They can negotiate with us just as they do with any other country.

They can refuse to make a deal with us unless we agree to their rules.
We are not so important a customer to the EU that they have to make a
deal with us regardless.

Yeah the french might refuse to have our sheep and burn them all.

The financial services industry is a lot more important
than the sheep you are so obsessed about.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ce-Europe.html

Only a ****wit journo would claim that 4.9% is anything even remotely like
soar.

with china and india being the biggest markets in the future do we really
need to worry.

Britain does if it turns out that it doesn't have much of interest to either
of those.

We know which countries have the highest population growth
and we know which countires will require products and services

But what matters is what products and services Britain produces
and whether they are of any interest to those countrys.

and NONE of them are in europe.

Must be why all those countrys want to be part of the EU.

And the last time I checked there were NO plans on making
china, india, pakistan, Africa, and many other countries that are
emergering from being a 3rd world country to be joing the EU.

Because the EU has enough parasites in it already.

On Friday, 22 January 2016 14:20:00 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And that won't change given that **** all of them can get to Britain.

They do get in. They use lorries buses coaches whatever they can and some
do make it to the UK.

**** all do.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...ts-in-hampton/

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...-10324670.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-miles-7116936


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-station.html


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594...e-Robin-Onions

And that is only news because **** all do.

What about the ones they dont know about and refuse to 'recognise'
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-...-in-the-uk.htm

?

On 21/01/2016 18:36, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes.

No dichtomy- they are migrants until they prove otherwise.

On 22/01/2016 14:25, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists"
logic here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united
very much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world,

Its an insoluble problem, stupid.

I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before I'd
decide.

More fool you.

You're pathetic.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And that won't change given that **** all of them can get to Britain.

They do get in. They use lorries buses coaches
whatever they can and some do make it to the UK.

**** all do.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...ts-in-hampton/

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...-10324670.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-miles-7116936

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-station.html

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594...e-Robin-Onions

And that is only news because **** all do.

What about the ones they dont know about and refuse to 'recognise'
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-...-in-the-uk.htm

**** all of those have come via Calais.

On Friday, 22 January 2016 14:23:50 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:


The thing is why should we trust Europe,

Essentially because of the benefits being part of the EU or something close
brings.

What benifits ?
The UK hasn't moved much since the last ice age, we used to be joined to france and most of Europe.


when you remmebr how fantastic and good it would be if we had
a unified currency, hand't work as well as we were told it would,

Nothing ever does, stupid.

It would if it had been better thought through.


If eurpoe was that good we wouldn't need to travel to France for
cheap food and other products. I'm not sure whether getting out
is the right move but we're certainly getting conned by staying in.

Must be why no one else has chosen to leave.

Apart from Gernamy and France who are profiting from the EU, the others are getting handouts, I wonder why Greece haven;t left the EU.

"Bill" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/01/2016 14:25, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists"
logic here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united
very much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world,

Its an insoluble problem, stupid.

I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before I'd
decide.

More fool you.

You're pathetic.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The thing is why should we trust Europe,

Essentially because of the benefits being part of the EU or something
close brings.

What benifits ?

Oh, just a few trivial little completely irrelevant fripperys
like it being where the absolute vast bulk of British trade
is done with, the complete freedom to come and go
within the EU anywhere and any time you like, which
quite a few to take advantage of for some reason that
escapes me right now.

The UK hasn't moved much since the last ice age,

Is that right ? No industrial revolution, no empire ? No wars ?

we used to be joined to france and most of Europe.

Just a few things have changed since then, stupid.

when you remmebr how fantastic and good it would be if we had
a unified currency, hand't work as well as we were told it would,

Nothing ever does, stupid.

It would if it had been better thought through.

Irrelevant to whether anything ever works out how some claim it will.

If eurpoe was that good we wouldn't need to travel to France for
cheap food and other products. I'm not sure whether getting out
is the right move but we're certainly getting conned by staying in.

Must be why no one else has chosen to leave.

Apart from Gernamy and France who are profiting from the EU,

So is Britain.

the others are getting handouts,

Corse Britain has never got any of those, eh ?

I wonder why Greece haven;t left the EU.

More fool you.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:46:38 +0000, Bill wrote:

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through continental
Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU including
UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they
can be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality
can be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes.

No dichtomy- they are migrants until they prove otherwise.

Umm, they will always be migrants unless and until they go back to live
in their country of birth. That's kinda the definition of "migrant".

On Friday, 22 January 2016 14:25:59 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 13:43:42 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how
fantastic and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't
work as well as we were told it would,

And you can only speculate what would have happened if the UK had been
in the Euro.

We don't have to specualte what happens if the rest of europe adopted
the Euro do we.

Depends what point in time you look at it. And you have no idea how things
may turn out a few years on from now.

No one does do they ? so how can anyone claim we'll be better off as one large
block of individuals.
How can you vote when you have no idea how things will turn out. ?


At least some of the problems with the Euro were caused by allowing
countries to join before they'd put their economy in order.

And who or which countries were pushing that I wonder.

So who does decide who joins and who doesn't.

All other members.

So it's a democray that caused the problems the EU is having.


And the UK is
equally as responsible as other EU countries for allowing this.

Shows you just how flawed the EU system is then doesn;t it.

Right. So you don't believe in democracy?

Which sort ?
You see I was too young to vote when we voted to go into the EEC
I don't know anyone that voted for the EU do you ?, democracy was it.

In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better life.
It would, of course, be impossible for the neighbouring (safe) countries
to grant asylum to every single genuine refugee.
You fail to mention the large category of economic migrants. In addition
I do not think it feasible to expect Europe to accept refugees en masse
from every war zone in the world. Amongst other things it might
encourage unsavoury rulers to deliberately target their ethnic
minorities with a view to cleansing their country.
Don't forget we fought a very bitter civil war on the way to our
democracy albeit 400 years ago. Regrettably freedom doesn't come cheap.
--
bert

In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 09:39:42 UTC, Adrian wrote:


So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united very much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world, I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before
I'd decide.


The UN does very little in terms of resolution of problems and disputes.
It does do a lot in terms of disaster relief and education.
--
bert

In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 21/01/2016 15:52, bert wrote:
...
Not according to the article in the DT which quotes the EU president.

The media quoting a politician.

A very powerful politician.
--
bert

On 22/01/2016 14:51, Rod Speed wrote:


"Bill" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/01/2016 14:25, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists"
logic here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united
very much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world,

Its an insoluble problem, stupid.

I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before I'd
decide.

More fool you.

You're pathetic.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

You're arguments are rational? Calling people who disagree with you
"stupid" etc and the liberal use of expletives is hardly rational.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 January 2016 14:25:59 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 22 January 2016 13:43:42 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how
fantastic and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't
work as well as we were told it would,

And you can only speculate what would have happened if the UK had
been
in the Euro.

We don't have to specualte what happens if the rest of europe adopted
the Euro do we.

Depends what point in time you look at it. And you have no idea how
things
may turn out a few years on from now.

No one does do they ? so how can anyone claim
we'll be better off as one large block of individuals.

You can get real radical and see how that approach works out.

How can you vote when you have no idea how things will turn out. ?

By observing how that approach has worked out, stupid.

At least some of the problems with the Euro were caused by allowing
countries to join before they'd put their economy in order.

And who or which countries were pushing that I wonder.

So who does decide who joins and who doesn't.

All other members.

So it's a democray that caused the problems the EU is having.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

And the UK is
equally as responsible as other EU countries for allowing this.

Shows you just how flawed the EU system is then doesn;t it.

Right. So you don't believe in democracy?

Which sort ?
You see I was too young to vote when we voted to go into the EEC
I don't know anyone that voted for the EU do you ?, democracy was it.

You'll get a chance to vote on leaving.

I bet the majority decide not to leave.

On 22/01/2016 14:49, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And that won't change given that **** all of them can get to Britain.

They do get in. They use lorries buses coaches
whatever they can and some do make it to the UK.

**** all do.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...ts-in-hampton/


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...-10324670.html


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-miles-7116936


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-station.html


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594...e-Robin-Onions


And that is only news because **** all do.

What about the ones they dont know about and refuse to 'recognise'
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-...-in-the-uk.htm


**** all of those have come via Calais.

This a rational reply/argument. As I said - you're pathetic.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how fantastic
and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't work as well
as we were told it would,

And you can only speculate what would have happened if the UK had been in
the Euro.

We would have been drawn more heavily into the bale outs of the
southern European states esp. Greece. We would not have set our own
interest rates over the last 7 years and we would not have controlled
our own QE policy both of which have helped us recover from the mess
left by the last Labour Government. Cue leftie banker bashing rhetoric.
At least some of the problems with the Euro were caused by allowing
countries to join before they'd put their economy in order. And the UK is
equally as responsible as other EU countries for allowing this.

The UK had no say in who joined the euro.
--
bert

On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 15:42:19 +0000, bert wrote:

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better
life.

You fail to mention the large category of economic migrants.

I didn't - but the bit I've left in above is the only way in which
economic migration is relevant to this discussion.

On Friday, 22 January 2016 14:58:15 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The thing is why should we trust Europe,

Essentially because of the benefits being part of the EU or something
close brings.

What benifits ?

Oh, just a few trivial little completely irrelevant fripperys
like it being where the absolute vast bulk of British trade
is done with,

No it isn't.
might have been in the 1960s but now.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/you...-british-trade




the complete freedom to come and go
within the EU anywhere and any time you like,

This is what is causing the immigration problem.

which
quite a few to take advantage of for some reason that
escapes me right now.

No suprise's there.



The UK hasn't moved much since the last ice age,

Is that right ? No industrial revolution, no empire ? No wars ?

I was talking physically idiot.


we used to be joined to france and most of Europe.

Just a few things have changed since then, stupid.

yes and we've been trading over seas for at least 2000 years.

From aroung the 16th centrury to the 18th we were trading with europe and most of the world and making a profit.
20th century BC not AD we were 'shipping' Gold to ireland and france, we managed to get across the english channel without the eurostar.





when you remmebr how fantastic and good it would be if we had
a unified currency, hand't work as well as we were told it would,

Nothing ever does, stupid.

It would if it had been better thought through.

Irrelevant to whether anything ever works out how some claim it will.

Some never get it right, due to lack of sense or because they have little idea how to think or see beyond their nose.



If eurpoe was that good we wouldn't need to travel to France for
cheap food and other products. I'm not sure whether getting out
is the right move but we're certainly getting conned by staying in.

Must be why no one else has chosen to leave.

Apart from Gernamy and France who are profiting from the EU,

So is Britain.

How ?
Oh I know it's those companies using the UK for tax purposes and those CEOs don't want that taken away do they.
As implied most of out money comes from financail services and where are they located NOT in Poland or in Geece but in London.
Which the EU wanted to move to brussels and controlled by Germany.



the others are getting handouts,

Corse Britain has never got any of those, eh ?

and prostitues get free sex so what.


I wonder why Greece haven;t left the EU.

More fool you.

On Friday, 22 January 2016 15:52:21 UTC, bert wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 09:39:42 UTC, Adrian wrote:


So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united very much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world, I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before
I'd decide.


The UN does very little in terms of resolution of problems and disputes.

So what's the point then.


It does do a lot in terms of disaster relief and education.

So did band aid, comic relief, red nose day etc...

The UN was set up to resolve differncies and to stop wars.

http://www.un.org/en/about-un/index.html

Ideally it would help to reolve the differncies with isreal and palinstine.
rather than be in charge of shipping T-shirts to 3rd world countries as I can do that.

"kipg" wrote in message ...



"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 21/01/16 09:39, Adrian wrote:
So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

Well we have as much of a vote there as Tonga,

Not with the security council.

so probably, yes.

**** off Rod

On 22/01/2016 12:56, whisky-dave wrote:
....
with china and india being the biggest markets in the future do we really need to worry....

Yes, because the UK has a particularly bad record at expanding into
emerging markets. The EU takes 45% of our exports and we aren't going to
replace that with sales into emerging markets anytime in the foreseeable
future.


--
Colin Bignell

On 22/01/2016 15:45, bert wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 21/01/2016 15:52, bert wrote:
...
Not according to the article in the DT which quotes the EU president.

The media quoting a politician.

A very powerful politician.

That somehow makes him more likely to tell the truth?

--
Colin Bignell

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better life.
It would, of course, be impossible for the neighbouring (safe) countries
to grant asylum to every single genuine refugee.

You fail to mention the large category of economic migrants.

In addition I do not think it feasible to expect Europe to accept refugees
en masse from every war zone in the world.

Yes, but it does make sense for them to accept refugees from
the places they have ****ed over very comprehensively indeed
like Iraq and Afghanistan etc recently.

Corse you can also claim that the european powers chose to
carve up Africa between themselves and it's a bit rich now to
just wash their hands of the utter mess they left behind there.

Same with India for that matter in the case of Britain.

Amongst other things it might encourage unsavoury rulers to deliberately
target their ethnic minorities with a view to cleansing their country.

Just like Hitler did in the runup to WW2 eh ?

Don't forget we fought a very bitter civil war on the way to our democracy
albeit 400 years ago.

And quite a few ended up as refugees
in western europe at that time too.

Regrettably freedom doesn't come cheap.

Recovering from the ****ing up your country
got by the colonial powers in spades.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article ,
whisky-dave writes
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 09:39:42 UTC, Adrian wrote:


So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united very
much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world, I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before I'd
decide.


The UN does very little in terms of resolution of problems and disputes.

That's bit rich with the UN peace keepers. Korea was in fact a UN operation.

It does do a lot in terms of disaster relief and education.

And quite a bit of peace keeping too. Much harder to do that tho.

TomSawer wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Bill wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Adrian wrote

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists"
logic here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

One would need to know what the UN do it seems they aren't as united
very much.

What have the UN done to help with the refugee crisis in Europe or the
world,

Its an insoluble problem, stupid.

I'd like to know how they have solved or will solve this before I'd
decide.

More fool you.

You're pathetic.

What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.

You're arguments are rational?

That point that some problems are insoluble was.

Calling people who disagree with you "stupid" etc

That was a statement of fact.

and the liberal use of expletives is hardly rational.

So is the liberal use of adjectives. That’s
a style thing, nothing to do with rational.

"TomSawer" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 22/01/2016 14:49, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

And that won't change given that **** all of them can get to Britain.

They do get in. They use lorries buses coaches
whatever they can and some do make it to the UK.

**** all do.

http://www.itv.com/news/london/2015-...ts-in-hampton/


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime...-10324670.html


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-miles-7116936


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...e-station.html


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594...e-Robin-Onions


And that is only news because **** all do.

What about the ones they dont know about and refuse to 'recognise'
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2012-...-in-the-uk.htm


**** all of those have come via Calais.

This a rational reply/argument.

It’s a statement of fact.

As I said - you're pathetic.

What a rational argument you have there.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
The thing is why should we trust Europe , when you remmebr how fantastic
and good it would be if we had a unified currency, hand't work as well
as we were told it would,

And you can only speculate what would have happened if the UK had been in
the Euro.

We would have been drawn more heavily into the bale outs of the southern
European states esp. Greece.

Not necessarily, particularly if Britain had not been stupid
enough to pour billions of euros into Greece with no prospect
of it ever being paid back in the first place like Germany did.

We would not have set our own interest rates over the last 7 years

The eurozone doesn't set the interest rates for all countries within it.

and we would not have controlled our own QE policy

BULL****.

both of which have helped us recover from the mess left by the last Labour
Government.

Yes.

Cue leftie banker bashing rhetoric.


At least some of the problems with the Euro were caused by allowing
countries to join before they'd put their economy in order. And the UK is
equally as responsible as other EU countries for allowing this.

The UK had no say in who joined the euro.

But had just as much say as anyone else on who joined the EU later than
them.
At a time when those new joiners had no choice on being part of the
eurozone,
if they wanted to be in the EU, they had to be part of the eurozone too.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 January 2016 14:58:15 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote

The thing is why should we trust Europe,

Essentially because of the benefits being part of the EU or something
close brings.

What benifits ?

Oh, just a few trivial little completely irrelevant fripperys
like it being where the absolute vast bulk of British trade
is done with,

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

might have been in the 1960s

Less so in the 1960s in fact.

but now.
http://www.theweek.co.uk/uk-news/you...-british-trade

Doesn't say anything like what you claim.




the complete freedom to come and go
within the EU anywhere and any time you like,

This is what is causing the immigration problem.

Not with you lot that head off to EU countrys.

which
quite a few to take advantage of for some reason that
escapes me right now.

The UK hasn't moved much since the last ice age,

Is that right ? No industrial revolution, no empire ? No wars ?

I was talking physically idiot.

Physically is completely irrelevant, ****wit.

we used to be joined to france and most of Europe.

Just a few things have changed since then, stupid.

yes and we've been trading over seas for at least 2000 years.

Irrelevant to the value the EU has to Britain now.

From aroung the 16th centrury to the 18th we were trading
with europe and most of the world and making a profit.

And haven't done that for a hell of a long time now.

20th century BC not AD we were 'shipping' Gold to ireland and france,
we managed to get across the english channel without the euro star.

And the world has moved on just a tad since then trade wise.

when you remmebr how fantastic and good it would be if we had
a unified currency, hand't work as well as we were told it would,

Nothing ever does, stupid.

It would if it had been better thought through.

Irrelevant to whether anything ever works out how some claim it will.

Some never get it right, due to lack of sense or because
they have little idea how to think or see beyond their nose.

Yep, true of you rabid bigots in spades.

If eurpoe was that good we wouldn't need to travel to France for
cheap food and other products. I'm not sure whether getting out
is the right move but we're certainly getting conned by staying in.

Must be why no one else has chosen to leave.

Apart from Gernamy and France who are profiting from the EU,

So is Britain.

How ?

Britons are free to go anywhere they like
in the EU and hordes of them do just that.

Britain is a financial industry major player
currently and wouldn't be to anything like
the same extent outside the EU.

Oh I know it's those companies using the UK for tax purposes
and those CEOs don't want that taken away do they.

As implied most of out money comes from financail services

And quite a bit of that would go away with Britain outside the EU.

and where are they located NOT in Poland or in Geece but in London.

Only while Britain is in the EU.

Which the EU wanted to move to
brussels and controlled by Germany.

And that will happen if Britain leaves the EU.

the others are getting handouts,

Corse Britain has never got any of those, eh ?

I wonder why Greece haven;t left the EU.

More fool you.

On Thursday, 21 January 2016 18:36:20 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better life.
It would, of course, be impossible for the neighbouring (safe) countries
to grant asylum to every single genuine refugee.

They are cowards that have fled, leaving their women and children to their fate.

(Or maybe not, there is in fact nothing to flee from so the women and children are perfectly safe?)

On Friday, 22 January 2016 15:21:15 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:46:38 +0000, Bill wrote:

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through continental
Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU including
UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they
can be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality
can be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes.

No dichtomy- they are migrants until they prove otherwise.

Umm, they will always be migrants unless and until they go back to live
in their country of birth. That's kinda the definition of "migrant".

We don't want or need them.
Especially criminals of the lowest sort who have no skills or education and don't speak English.
Or ones with chronic health problems and infectious diseases.

On Friday, 22 January 2016 15:52:21 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists" logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better life.
It would, of course, be impossible for the neighbouring (safe) countries
to grant asylum to every single genuine refugee.
You fail to mention the large category of economic migrants. In addition
I do not think it feasible to expect Europe to accept refugees en masse
from every war zone in the world. Amongst other things it might
encourage unsavoury rulers to deliberately target their ethnic
minorities with a view to cleansing their country.
Don't forget we fought a very bitter civil war on the way to our
democracy albeit 400 years ago. Regrettably freedom doesn't come cheap.
--
bert

Socialists always ignore problems/facts which don't fit into their theoretical Lala Land.
(Where the Magic Money Tree grows.)

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 21 January 2016 18:36:20 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists"
logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means
EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better life.
It would, of course, be impossible for the neighbouring (safe) countries
to grant asylum to every single genuine refugee.

They are cowards that have fled, leaving their women and children to their
fate.

BULL****. Doesn't explain all the women and kids you
see on the news footage and those found drowned either.

(Or maybe not, there is in fact nothing to flee from
so the women and children are perfectly safe?)

You're lying thru your ****ing teeth on the women and children.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 January 2016 15:21:15 UTC, Adrian wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016 14:46:38 +0000, Bill wrote:

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental
Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means EU
including
UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they
can be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality
can be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes.

No dichtomy- they are migrants until they prove otherwise.

Umm, they will always be migrants unless and until they go back to live
in their country of birth. That's kinda the definition of "migrant".

We don't want or need them.

We don't want or need rabid bigots like you and your ilk.

Especially criminals of the lowest sort who have
no skills or education and don't speak English.

You have no idea what skills or education they
have, or whether they speak english or not.

Or ones with chronic health problems and infectious diseases.

Ditto.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 22 January 2016 15:52:21 UTC, bert wrote:
In article , Adrian
writes
On Thu, 21 Jan 2016 15:55:03 +0000, bert wrote:

So... a question for those promulgating the "refugees are rapists"
logic
here. Should the UK leave the UN, too?

The UN rules dictate that a refugee should apply in the first safe
country.

As do the EU's.

The vast majority of refugees entering the UK come through
continental Europe. Suspending the Dublin Agreement effectively means
EU
including UK is treated as one country.

Not really.

If somebody gets to the UK via a non-EU country, or can't be proven to
have come via the EU, then it's exactly the same situation as if they
can
be proven to have come from a non-Dublin EU.

They can only be deported to their home country, if their nationality
can
be proven, and if it's safe for them to be deported there.

The dichotomy is, of course, that these people genuinely are refugees
from their homes. At some point, though, they ceased running for their
lives, and started to try to cherry-pick a destination for a better
life.
It would, of course, be impossible for the neighbouring (safe) countries
to grant asylum to every single genuine refugee.
You fail to mention the large category of economic migrants. In addition
I do not think it feasible to expect Europe to accept refugees en masse
from every war zone in the world. Amongst other things it might
encourage unsavoury rulers to deliberately target their ethnic
minorities with a view to cleansing their country.
Don't forget we fought a very bitter civil war on the way to our
democracy albeit 400 years ago. Regrettably freedom doesn't come cheap.

Socialists always ignore problems/facts which don't fit into their
theoretical Lala Land.

Corse you rabid bigots never do anything like that, eh ?

(Where the Magic Money Tree grows.)

The one you keep sucking on, and which you 'worked' for for decades.

On 22/01/2016 23:33, bert wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 22/01/2016 15:45, bert wrote:
In article , "Nightjar
cpb" "insert my surname writes
On 21/01/2016 15:52, bert wrote:
...
Not according to the article in the DT which quotes the EU president.

The media quoting a politician.

A very powerful politician.

That somehow makes him more likely to tell the truth?

It means that what he says has more impact.

Even if it is contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Lisbon?

--
Colin Bignell