Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Grow up.
    You grow up. You destroyed our economy to force Britain into becoming a leftist multicultural fantasy land. Now our kids can't even afford places to live. Their fates are tied into the fate of the economy like never before, oh and we're having to import more and more food as well. Landlords are raking in more and more of our young's earnings and those of immigrants as well as you've massively widened the gap between haves and have not's. Kids now are just wage slaves and if they lose their jobs, no housing security, that's it they are out on the street. What you have done to our nation in the name of supporting political ideology is absolutely atrocious and criminal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-adviser.html

    We've had enough, we fought back and we won. Now suck it up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I am not sure the fault here is with the EU rather than the UK government.

    There is a saying that lawyers should be on tap but not on top and I agree with that.

    But increasingly, and not just over this, either the government legal service is not being consulted or it is just being a mirror of politicians' desires.

    If someone had consulted me over this, I would have asked whether Cameron could control the text of the communiqué. If the answer was "yes" then I would have said that a UK lawyer should review the draft communiqué. If the answer was "no", then an oral communication was too risky. Immediately before the Council the UK should deliver a diplomatic note explaining that "the British people had voted in a referendum to leave the EU but under the UK's constitutional order, it was for the government of the day to decide to withdraw from the EU. Owing to the resignation of the Prime Minister, that task would fall to the government led by the new Prime Minister who would decide how to implement the will of the British people. An article 50 notification was not presently being given and any article 50 notification would be given by diplomatic note only." The benefit of a diplomatic note was that the UK had complete control over the text. Moreover it could be made clear that no future oral statement was intended to invoke article 50.
    Both have screwed up.

    The EU could likely solve the situation by offering a last ditch set of reforms. They would not offer more or less but rather shift things around. On that front it's basically having reasonable control over immigration, as in when it's actually a problem or linked to a problem such as the housing crisis and the madness of Labour's ridiculous forced multiculturalism and diversity. They would expect us to deal with the logistics of that within reason (some things are naturally not on our side but a key responsibility is on our side). They have some time but it's not happening. Instead they have withdrawn all previous offers meaning that staying in the EU would workout worse. They have also refused to negotiate on and new set of arrangements. The concerns of the leave voters cannot be addressed under these conditions without leaving (then we would have something like 112,3 of the EEA agreement which if we were a member of the EEA now, we would be justified in enforcing). The response of the EU has been a vindictive knee jerk. They are not doing themselves any favours and the satellite states of the EU will realise this.

    Cameron made things difficult by making a very simple ballot with either a yes or no option and a very simple interpretation. On the other hand his delaying gives the EU a chance. The ballot is not legally binding and parliament can block it. All Cameron has done is to get the legal democratic pre-requisite to invoke article 50 with the EU. Referendums have been ignored by the EU before. However in this case, they would not however be able to simply ignore the people. If they opted no to invoke article 50, something would be needed in its place. They would have to commit to end New Labour's ideological experiment and fix the housing crisis. Hard to do that without the EU on board.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    At this moment the procedure is as follows: The vote is sent to Parliament where both elected and unelected officials vote on it. It will have to be in the best interests of the country to be passed. These people take a long time doing such matters, (as does the eu for that matter, in their decision, so they understand this). They of course will have to know the package the country is getting before they can vote on anything, and will likely have to vote on about 80,000 matters, and all Brits and Europeans at that level go away for the summer.
    If they approve it in Parliamemt, the queen has to give her assent,,which only takes a few days, and she does not dissent. However she does have the final say since that is how it goes in a continuational monarchy, At this point, article 50 can be invoked if the current gov decides to do so. Even in the quickest route, this will take a long time.
    Until the thenuk is a full member of the eu, No one can force article 50 or rush it. No amount of squabbling or resignation or newpaper or BBC announcements take the place of article 50, and nothing is clear till that is invoked, (and even after that , can be halted with the assent of all 27 member states). Then a two year period begins. If there are no agreed extensions, after two years is up that is it. Any unfinished business will remain that way, so it could end up with some matters very favourable to the eu, and not img for the U.K. Because they are waiting to be negotiated.
    If an exit is the best option, and the eu will not offer a good package, then the uk can just tear up their original agreement and walk away. Norway and Switzerland have already said their deals are too expensive and have guillotine clauses detrimental to them, and sources have said any 'quotas on migrants, the main concern to the public, will be hard to implement.

    When the bill was drafted (to a referendum), the clause that gsve it parliamentary approval was purposely omitted, unlike the referendum before it, The country has had only a few referendums, but his is the first where legislation has not yet been enacted.


    However there are many other possibilities to challenge the referendum, which is advisory and not binding, like a questionnaire really, There is the general election route, there is misrepresentation, etc. The very referendum was called at that time, to satisfy unrest within the party, not the public, This may be challenged also.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrControversial)
    You grow up. You destroyed our economy to force Britain into becoming a leftist multicultural fantasy land. Now our kids can't even afford places to live. Their fates are tied into the fate of the economy like never before, oh and we're having to import more and more food as well. Landlords are raking in more and more of our young's earnings and those of immigrants as well as you've massively widened the gap between haves and have not's. Kids now are just wage slaves and if they lose their jobs, no housing security, that's it they are out on the street. What you have done to our nation in the name of supporting political ideology is absolutely atrocious and criminal.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...r-adviser.html

    We've had enough, we fought back and we won. Now suck it up.
    Right, rising house prices are because of the immigrants that make a net contribution of 30%, and not because the world population is 8x what it was when we joined the EU and we're hardly building any houses.................

    It has nothing to do with "political ideology". In your ramblings about our economy you seem to have missed the fact that, up until this year, we were the fastest growing economy in Europe and were set to overtake Germany for GDP. That's no longer the case, and won't be for a very long time if we actually leave the EU.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrControversial)
    Both have screwed up.

    The EU could likely solve the situation by offering a last ditch set of reforms. They would not offer more or less but rather shift things around. On that front it's basically having reasonable control over immigration, as in when it's actually a problem or linked to a problem such as the housing crisis and the madness of Labour's ridiculous forced multiculturalism and diversity. They would expect us to deal with the logistics of that within reason (some things are naturally not on our side but a key responsibility is on our side). They have some time but it's not happening. Instead they have withdrawn all previous offers meaning that staying in the EU would workout worse. They have also refused to negotiate on and new set of arrangements. The concerns of the leave voters cannot be addressed under these conditions without leaving (then we would have something like 112,3 of the EEA agreement which if we were a member of the EEA now, we would be justified in enforcing). The response of the EU has been a vindictive knee jerk. They are not doing themselves any favours and the satellite states of the EU will realise this.

    Cameron made things difficult by making a very simple ballot with either a yes or no option and a very simple interpretation. On the other hand his delaying gives the EU a chance. The ballot is not legally binding and parliament can block it. All Cameron has done is to get the legal democratic pre-requisite to invoke article 50 with the EU. Referendums have been ignored by the EU before. However in this case, they would not however be able to simply ignore the people. If they opted no to invoke article 50, something would be needed in its place. They would have to commit to end New Labour's ideological experiment and fix the housing crisis. Hard to do that without the EU on board.
    This referendum did NOT have the clause that pre approved it. Thst clause was purposely omitted,
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Theplace)
    This referendum did NOT have the clause that pre approved it. Thst clause was purposely omitted,
    As it was from the 1975 European referendum, the1973 and 1998 Northern Ireland referendums, the Scottish independence referendum and the North East devolution referendum
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Grow up.
    No you, I'm not the one whining like some sort of baby who has chucked their toy out of the pram.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Right, rising house prices are because of the immigrants that make a net contribution of 30%, and not because the world population is 8x what it was when we joined the EU and we're hardly building any houses.................

    It has nothing to do with "political ideology". In your ramblings about our economy you seem to have missed the fact that, up until this year, we were the fastest growing economy in Europe and were set to overtake Germany for GDP. That's no longer the case, and won't be for a very long time if we actually leave the EU.
    You've made several mistakes here.

    1. Net contribution is pretty damned difficult to measure and reducing it to a single figure is not particularly useful especially if for example we attract more of the 1%.
    2. Including all immigration isn't valid since I don't think anyone would literally end all immigration. The issue has been unlimited immigration.
    3. It has everything to do with political ideology. Study a bit of history. A big shift on this came in the mid nineties from the EU. The notion of the EU was to have intermixing to foster some kind of sense of fellowship. Many people today are saying we must have mass immigration with no limits because otherwise it would be racist. That's a pretty crude political motivation. Are you saying the freedom of movement across Europe for all Europeans with absolutely no limitations even if a country is actually reaching it's current capacity isn't political? I can't see a practical reason for that, trade or otherwise.
    4. Fastest growing by what measure? Because I am as a matter of a fact a few hundred thousand poorer as a result of mass immigration. So are some ten or twenty so million British citizens (which is a growing proportion) and ironically, a few million immigrants. The economists have been aware of this, politicians have been strangely silent. I suspect this is also political because of fear of the response from people against immigrants if they realise how much mass immigration has ruined their lives.
    5. Simply building houses is not that easy. You can't just will it. Governments are not all powerful. Not unless you want very bad things to happen. I can think of a load of complications off the top of my head. I do agree that more could have been done on this front historically when New Labour unilaterally decided there would be mass immigration to the UK. As in they should have actually tried to provision for it. However the UK is actually a very crowded county. Most people are going to England and the land contention in England is one of the largest in the world. Only 4 or 5 countries in the world with a population over 10 million have higher population density than the England (and by the way no one is demanding that they become diverse, multicultural or remove border controls).
    6. Reducing the argument to one of net economy according to some extreme aggregates and nothing else is ignoring many other aspects such as crowding.
    7. The world population might be 8 times what it was, doesn't means ours has to be. Our growth spurts happened earlier. We're actually not like the USA for example which has 10 times more land per person than we do. The USA by comparison could take the entire population of America (both continents) + China and still be less densely populated than England.
    8. It wouldn't surprise me if we've also had one of the fastest growing populations in Europe. This is cheating and not sustainable. It's population wars.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrControversial)
    You've made several mistakes here.

    1. Net contribution is pretty damned difficult to measure and reducing it to a single figure is not particularly useful especially if for example we attract more of the 1%.
    2. Including all immigration isn't valid since I don't think anyone would literally end all immigration. The issue has been unlimited immigration.
    3. It has everything to do with political ideology. Study a bit of history. A big shift on this came in the mid nineties from the EU. The notion of the EU was to have intermixing to foster some kind of sense of fellowship. Many people today are saying we must have mass immigration with no limits because otherwise it would be racist. That's a pretty crude political motivation. Are you saying the freedom of movement across Europe for all Europeans with absolutely no limitations even if a country is actually reaching it's current capacity isn't political? I can't see a practical reason for that, trade or otherwise.
    4. Fastest growing by what measure? Because I am as a matter of a fact a few hundred thousand poorer as a result of mass immigration. So are some ten or twenty so million British citizens (which is a growing proportion) and ironically, a few million immigrants. The economists have been aware of this, politicians have been strangely silent. I suspect this is also political because of fear of the response from people against immigrants if they realise how much mass immigration has ruined their lives.
    5. Simply building houses is not that easy. You can't just will it. Governments are not all powerful. Not unless you want very bad things to happen. I can think of a load of complications off the top of my head. I do agree that more could have been done on this front historically when New Labour unilaterally decided there would be mass immigration to the UK. As in they should have actually tried to provision for it. However the UK is actually a very crowded county. Most people are going to England and the land contention in England is one of the largest in the world. Only 4 or 5 countries in the world with a population over 10 million have higher population density than the England (and by the way no one is demanding that they become diverse, multicultural or remove border controls).
    6. Reducing the argument to one of net economy according to some extreme aggregates and nothing else is ignoring many other aspects such as crowding.
    7. The world population might be 8 times what it was, doesn't means ours has to be. Our growth spurts happened earlier. We're actually not like the USA for example which has 10 times more land per person than we do. The USA by comparison could take the entire population of America (both continents) + China and still be less densely populated than England.
    8. It wouldn't surprise me if we've also had one of the fastest growing populations in Europe. This is cheating and not sustainable. It's population wars.
    Enlightening. Hope,you are doing politics or economics at uni.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rock Fan)
    Anyone with half a brain cell would realised Farage was lying when he said the NHS would get £350million, think the Guardian is really clutching at straws with the article.
    WHERE did he say the NHS would get £350m? WHERE did he SPECIFICALLY say that? PLEASE, give me a source because I can't find one. He wasnt even a part of the official leave campaign so how could he make judgements like that?! Link please.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    WHERE did he say the NHS would get £350m? WHERE did he SPECIFICALLY say that? PLEASE, give me a source because I can't find one. He wasnt even a part of the official leave campaign so how could he make judgements like that?! Link please.
    It doesn't matter. It became emblematic of the campaign and he did nothing to correct it until the weekend after the decision.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    WHERE did he say the NHS would get £350m? WHERE did he SPECIFICALLY say that? PLEASE, give me a source because I can't find one. He wasnt even a part of the official leave campaign so how could he make judgements like that?! Link please.
    The figure is more like 150 million. But once you distribute that amongst UK's large public sector - nhs, education, defence and police, we realise that each hospital and each school wont really be better off

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    It doesn't matter. It became emblematic of the campaign and he did nothing to correct it until the weekend after the decision.
    That's a totally fair comment, but as I said, he wasn't a part of the official leave campaign, they wanted nothing to do with him, which I can understand to an extent (since I don't agree with everything he says), but nowhere does Nigel Farage say we should give £350m a week to the NHS. I know the leave campaign did, yes, they were a joke, but where did Nigel Farage say it?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gladiatorsword)
    The figure is more like 150 million. But once you distribute that amongst UK's large public sector - nhs, education, defence and police, we realise that each hospital and each school wont really be better off
    To answer your question, it was definitely stated by the leave campaign but no explicitly by farage although gove DID. I think people are making the connection between farage and leave. Its like corbyn- twist his words to make him look like the bad guy
    Posted from TSR Mobile


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    That's a totally fair comment, but as I said, he wasn't a part of the official leave campaign, they wanted nothing to do with him, which I can understand to an extent (since I don't agree with everything he says), but nowhere does Nigel Farage say we should give £350m a week to the NHS. I know the leave campaign did, yes, they were a joke, but where did Nigel Farage say it?
    Ok so you are clearly more concerned about who said or represented things than the fact they were said or presented. So in that case are you happy about this:

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Ok so you are clearly more concerned about who said or represented things than the fact they were said or presented. So in that case are you happy about this:
    How typical of you to try and avoid the question I gave you... here's the quote I gave, and let me highlight the part I request you to answer to make life even easier for you...

    (Original post by tripleseven)
    That's a totally fair comment, but as I said, he wasn't a part of the official leave campaign, they wanted nothing to do with him, which I can understand to an extent (since I don't agree with everything he says), but nowhere does Nigel Farage say we should give £350m a week to the NHS. I know the leave campaign did, yes, they were a joke, but where did Nigel Farage say it?
    And no, I don't agree with that poster personally, I'm direct enough to not avoid questions and answer them directly - I don't agree with the poster and I completely disagree with him using it, but he did and that's him. If you're going to talk about the nature in which the campaign was brought across then yes, I agree it could have been put much better, but still - where did he specifically state £350m WOULD go to the NHS then?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    How typical of you to try and twist the question I gave you... here's the quote I gave, and let me highlight the part I request you to answer to make life even easier for you...



    And no, I don't agree with that poster personally, I'm honest enough to not twist questions and answer them directly - I don't agree with the poster and I completely disagree with him using it, but he did and that's him - so where did he specifically state £350m WOULD go to the NHS then?
    I didn't say Farage said the £350m would go to the NHS - that was another user.

    But Farage did say £3 billion would go the NHS. And as Nulli mentioned, Farage didn't correct the public about the £350m until after the fact. Somewhat disingenuous...

    And what about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz2tvnVM6oA when he says the £350 million is "wrong, it's higher than that" ... "I would like to spend that £10 billion on schools, hospitals and GPs."
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I didn't say Farage said the £350m would go to the NHS - that was another user.

    But Farage did say £3 billion would go the NHS. And as Nulli mentioned, Farage didn't correct the public about the £350m until after the fact. Somewhat disingenuous...

    Apologies then, that should've been directed at the respective user. I have never liked the leave campaign using that £350m figure - it's very non-inclusive and again, the joke that was the leave campaign (saying that as a leave voter aswell) failed to put out the more appropriate figure that was £10bn a year net. But before people say leave voters were ill informed/didn't know this before the vote - I knew full well that £350m a week was wrong, but that didn't stop me voting the way it did. It's very difficult for people to specifically say that voters voted the way they did just because of that figure, even though it was a headline campaign from the leave group, because people voted out for many more reasons other than just that. This is what the majority wanted, a vote to leave and it was promised by DC in the GE last year that he would put out a referendum and act on the will of the people. Democracy is in action here, let it be please.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tripleseven)
    Apologies then, that should've been directed at the respective user. I have never liked the leave campaign using that £350m figure - it's very non-inclusive and again, the joke that was the leave campaign (saying that as a leave voter aswell) failed to put out the more appropriate figure that was £10bn a year net. But before people say leave voters were ill informed/didn't know this before the vote - I knew full well that £350m a week was wrong, but that didn't stop me voting the way it did. It's very difficult for people to specifically say that voters voted the way they did just because of that figure, even though it was a headline campaign from the leave group, because people voted out for many more reasons other than just that. This is what the majority wanted, a vote to leave and it was promised by DC in the GE last year that he would put out a referendum and act on the will of the people. Democracy is in action here, let it be please.
    The problem I have with it is the Leave camp is now saying (and I have it in writing from Chris Grayling my local MP) is people were fully aware of the warnings from the Remain side, and yet those warnings were portrayed by Leave as Project Fear.

    Now of course many people will have been able to make up their own minds about it. And that's fine. But I suspect many others were significantly swayed by the Project Fear portrayal, and it played into a certain anti-establishment, anti-"expert" and general protest vote narrative.

    Also, the 1979 Scottish Devo Referendum failed because it didnt achieve a 40% total electorate mandate. And neither did EUref... unfortunately this referendum didn't have that clause. Oh well...


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JordanL_)
    Right, rising house prices are because of the immigrants that make a net contribution of 30%, and not because the world population is 8x what it was when we joined the EU and we're hardly building any houses.................

    It has nothing to do with "political ideology". In your ramblings about our economy you seem to have missed the fact that, up until this year, we were the fastest growing economy in Europe and were set to overtake Germany for GDP. That's no longer the case, and won't be for a very long time if we actually leave the EU.
    I'd rather have a smaller GDP, big houses ans mostly green spaces over a population of 80million, box flats and concrete jungles.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.