Brexit from the European Union.

[Zeitgeist]

9 hours ago, egghead said:

You may be right, nothings changed. However, you completely misread it.  People voted Brexit is becasue of the border control.

Let’s be honest.  A sizeable number of Brits don’t like hearing too many non-English speakers and people who look very different from them around, especially if their cultural values are substantially different (the latter problem being a legitimate concern).  Such people and values were entering Britain before the EU.  What changed was 9/11 and recent waves of migration.  Britain’s membership in the EU might have been impacted a bit more by the waves of migration than it would have outside the EU, but not necessarily.  Look how many refugees Canada accepted.  Also, is it worth throwing out EU membership because of the impacts of those waves of migration?  Have borders really been a problem for the island nation of Great Britain?  A post-Brexit Britain would need a border in Ireland.  Is that an improvement?  Remember the “troubles” in Ireland?  I would say that an outward looking Britain that engages more with Europe and sees more roast beef Brits traveling Europe and learning other languages looks better on the country than a retreat to an older British identity that’s a bit drab by comparison.  

[egghead]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Let’s be honest.  A sizeable number of Brits don’t like hearing too many non-English speakers and people who look very different from them around, especially if their cultural values are substantially different (the latter problem being a legitimate concern).  Such people and values were entering Britain before the EU.  What changed was 9/11 and recent waves of migration.  Britain’s membership in the EU might have been impacted a bit more by the waves of migration than it would have outside the EU, but not necessarily.  Look how many refugees Canada accepted.  Also, is it worth throwing out EU membership because of the impacts of those waves of migration?  Have borders really been a problem for the island nation of Great Britain?  A post-Brexit Britain would need a border in Ireland.  Is that an improvement?  Remember the “troubles” in Ireland?  I would say that an outward looking Britain that engages more with Europe and sees more roast beef Brits traveling Europe and learning other languages looks better on the country than a retreat to an older British identity that’s a bit drab by comparison.  

You still don't understand Brexit. It has little to do with immigration, cultural values ....... It is British people giving Merkel's open EU's door "refugees" policy the finger. C'mon, you cannot be serious, Canada's refugees policy vs EU's refugees policy.

[Argus]

On 7/27/2019 at 8:32 PM, Zeitgeist said:

As a Brit-Canadian dual citizen, I care a great deal about my children and grandchildren having the ability to live and work anywhere in the EU, as do many Brits, including some of those who voted for Brexit as a protest vote thinking it would never come to pass.  The French are preventing illegal migrants from entering the UK.  There are reasonable filters.   I don’t see how leaving the EU vastly improves immigration.

All the migrants who are going to the EU will get citizenship before long. Then nobody can stop them from moving where they want to move, and for a lot of them, that's the UK. The same goes for the flood of millions which will follow. Your children and grandchildren are unlikely to  work anywhere else in Europe unless they learn the local language. There are exceptions for some highly skilled people, but for most Brits they're never going to work anywhere else. For more Europeans can get by in English than Brits can in German, Italian or Polish so job migrants are likely to be mostly one way. About one million brits live in the EU, but a big chunk are retirees in Spain and Portugal. The biggest country for brits or working is Ireland, with a quarter million. Meanwhile three million EU people live and work in the UK, the biggest group from Poland.

[Argus]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

  I would say that an outward looking Britain that engages more with Europe and sees more roast beef Brits traveling Europe and learning other languages looks better on the country than a retreat to an older British identity that’s a bit drab by comparison.  

It might seem more drab to you but it would seem more reassuringly like home to an awful lot of people vs what they now see in London and other big cities.

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

It might seem more drab to you but it would seem more reassuringly like home to an awful lot of people vs what they now see in London and other big cities.

I agree with you in terms of Jihadi extremism, which is a concern everywhere in Europe.  I also agree that the EU has to have a means by which to prevent one EU member’s immigration policies from interfering with another member’s.  That’s why I think a new form of graduated citizenship will be necessary in the EU, in Canada, and all developed countries, because massive sudden influxes create security, economic, and cultural conflict challenges.  Once citizenship is achieved, the same rights and privileges should adhere to all citizens of a country.  

Creating a graduated form of citizenship would give governments more control over immigration numbers and the destination of immigrants, as well as provide a test of time for applicants instead of a simple interview screening and education/skills resume as the all or nothing criteria for citizenship.  Otherwise I agree that any major migration surges resulting from crises will lead to more Brexit-like scenarios for countries in the EU and nationalist uprisings within federations everywhere.  

Perhaps all Brexiters really want is a hard border, which they have as an island country except in Ireland.  For example, while I would support the idea of complete freedom of residence and employment anywhere between Canada and the US for the citizens of both countries, I wouldn’t want to remove our hard border, because it’s an added layer of security that allows us to maintain our own gun control and screening of entrants for anything we deem important.   

[taxme]

On 7/28/2019 at 2:51 PM, Zeitgeist said:

Well some of that is interpretation.  Don’t forget that Trudeau is from Quebec and has made quite Québécois nationalist statements in the past.  Quebec tends to align itself with France more than Britain, though the French sold out Quebec for sugar in Guadeloupe and fishing rights off minuscule Ste Pierre and Michelon. The historic record is clear, however, that Quebec stuck by the Brits even when the Americans stood in Montreal offering an out during the War of 1812.  Lord Nelson towers over Old Montreal much as he does in Trafalgar Square.  Anyway, Trudeau is too left wing and into identity politics for my liking.  His image and brand aren’t bad for Canada until you see how he’s made Canadians feel like they need to apologize more than they were already doing.  

With regard to Brexit and immigration, since that seems to be what Brexit is mostly about, immigrants have to apply for citizenship and passports.  Britain has to allow them to become British.  While it’s true that citizens of other EU countries can live and work in the UK, it’s yet another step for immigrants to those countries to take to move to the UK.  They tend to be Eastern Europeans, mostly Poles, who are fairly low profile and hard working.  People in northern England were complaining about immigration long before EU membership.  Most of that immigration was from non-white Commonwealth counties.  It’s no secret that Indian food has become an English staple, like Italian food in North America.  

Globalist Trudeau along with his good buddy globalist Soros are both all for open borders and who both are involved in the flooding of Canada and the flooding of all other Western countries of the world with millions of non-Western immigrants. Our immigration policy shows us all that. There is a conspiracy going on by globalists like Soros to eliminate all Western national borders and nationalism itself and turn all those Western borders into open borders and let the whole world just walk right on in without we the people's permission to do so. I call that treason.  

I wonder how long that statue of Britians Lord Nelson will be there before it is taking down? I am surprised that it is still there this long and has not been looked and treated as an insult to the french of Quebec. Amazing. 

The new Prime Minister of Britain has said that Brexit will happen in October with or without a deal. I do hope that it does happen in October. Brexit will be a good start at trying to end the EU and their globalist ambitions. The people who voted for Brexit over a year ago are still waiting for their day to come. They have been patient long enough. Give it to them now. 

[taxme]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Let’s be honest.  A sizeable number of Brits don’t like hearing too many non-English speakers and people who look very different from them around, especially if their cultural values are substantially different (the latter problem being a legitimate concern).  Such people and values were entering Britain before the EU.  What changed was 9/11 and recent waves of migration.  Britain’s membership in the EU might have been impacted a bit more by the waves of migration than it would have outside the EU, but not necessarily.  Look how many refugees Canada accepted.  Also, is it worth throwing out EU membership because of the impacts of those waves of migration?  Have borders really been a problem for the island nation of Great Britain?  A post-Brexit Britain would need a border in Ireland.  Is that an improvement?  Remember the “troubles” in Ireland?  I would say that an outward looking Britain that engages more with Europe and sees more roast beef Brits traveling Europe and learning other languages looks better on the country than a retreat to an older British identity that’s a bit drab by comparison.  

The joys of multiculturalism and diversity. 

[taxme]

8 hours ago, egghead said:

You still don't understand Brexit. It has little to do with immigration, cultural values ....... It is British people giving Merkel's open EU's door "refugees" policy the finger. C'mon, you cannot be serious, Canada's refugees policy vs EU's refugees policy.

We have seen already many demonstrations in Britain/Europe against this massive non-Western immigration going on into their countries and of their citizen's who are getting fed up with the many cultures and religions and languages that they have to listen to every day around them and being forced on those Western people in their countries by new non-assimilating immigrants like Muslims who have declared that Britain will be a Muslim country one day. Brexit must happen if Britain is to survive as an English speaking Western country. 

[-TSS-]

TBH, if people voted for Brexit because of concerns about immigration they are going to be disappointed. After all, the vast majority of immigrants to Britain come from countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, a load of African countries but yet members of the Commonwealth.

Britain should do a Brexit from the Commonwealth if they wanted to stop undesired immigration. Imagine the Commonwealth without Britain. 

[OftenWrong]

On 7/30/2019 at 12:04 PM, -TSS- said:

TBH, if people voted for Brexit because of concerns about immigration they are going to be disappointed. After all, the vast majority of immigrants to Britain come from countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, a load of African countries but yet members of the Commonwealth.

Britain should do a Brexit from the Commonwealth if they wanted to stop undesired immigration. Imagine the Commonwealth without Britain. 

It's one thing to have your own immigration policies, ones that the people have a say in, by vote. It's something else to have these policies imposed by a third party, one that people cannot vote for.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

 It's something else to have these policies imposed by a third party, one that people cannot vote for.

? The UK votes for the European Parliament, is that what you mean ?

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

? The UK votes for the European Parliament, is that what you mean ?

No, the EU council is the main irritation.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

No, the EU council is the main irritation.

Europeans do elect the governments that make up the EU council.  It's not the hands-off third-party dictatorship that you TSS and other anti-EU voices make it out to be.

[taxme]

On 7/30/2019 at 9:04 AM, -TSS- said:

TBH, if people voted for Brexit because of concerns about immigration they are going to be disappointed. After all, the vast majority of immigrants to Britain come from countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, a load of African countries but yet members of the Commonwealth.

Britain should do a Brexit from the Commonwealth if they wanted to stop undesired immigration. Imagine the Commonwealth without Britain. 

Britain would probably do a hell of a lot better getting out of the Commonwealth altogether,  period. Being a part of something sometimes is not always that great. Just saying. 

[taxme]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Europeans do elect the governments that make up the EU council.  It's not the hands-off third-party dictatorship that you TSS and other anti-EU voices make it out to be.

Okay, but what about the people? Why did they not get a say as to who gets to be elected to the EU council? The people were never consulted in the first place as to whether they even wanted to be a part of the EU. It was forced on them by their crappy useless bunch of European traitor politicians who saw no doubt something in it for them. Most people who get into politics are their to try and gain influence and power over others and to try to push and promote their programs and agendas forced on the people whether they want it or not. The people have no say anymore. They are just told to shut up and sit down by their boss politicians. The majority of politicians are always a bunch of politically correct buffoons who are in politics for themselves only and screw the people. When did we ever see any politicians that really gave a crap about their people as of yet? Personally, all I ever see of Canadian politicians are people who only seem to want to have more government, more taxes and less freedom. Just saying. 

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Europeans do elect the governments that make up the EU council.  It's not the hands-off third-party dictatorship that you TSS and other anti-EU voices make it out to be.

Not just me. There is so much bureaucracy in the EU it's hard to track. The EU Commission is the non-democratic organization that Europeans take issue with. They are appointed by the EU council.

Quote

Unlike in the Council of the European Union, where members are directly and indirectly elected, and the European Parliament, where members are directly elected, the Commissioners are proposed by the Council of the European Union, on the basis of suggestions made by the national governments, and then appointed by the European Council after the approval of the European Parliament.

Link

[eyeball]

Lots of layers to the onion alright but no matter how you peel it each one has to answer to somebody at some point.

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

Okay, but what about the people? Why did they not get a say as to who gets to be elected to the EU council? The people were never consulted in the first place as to whether they even wanted to be a part of the EU. It was forced on them by their crappy useless bunch of European traitor politicians who saw no doubt something in it for them. Most people who get into politics are their to try and gain influence and power over others and to try to push and promote their programs and agendas forced on the people whether they want it or not. The people have no say anymore. They are just told to shut up and sit down by their boss politicians. The majority of politicians are always a bunch of politically correct buffoons who are in politics for themselves only and screw the people. When did we ever see any politicians that really gave a crap about their people as of yet? Personally, all I ever see of Canadian politicians are people who only seem to want to have more government, more taxes and less freedom. Just saying. 

Yeah well I've had occasion to want a lot more say in how I'm governed and I didn't see too many of the sort of people pleading pity the poor hard done by voter in this thread speaking up when I was being marginalized.  Suck it up.and get in line.

[taxme]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah well I've had occasion to want a lot more say in how I'm governed and I didn't see too many of the sort of people pleading pity the poor hard done by voter in this thread speaking up when I was being marginalized.  Suck it up.and get in line.

I am getting tired and fed up with having to suck it up and being told to sit down and shut up. That is why I will be voting for Maxine Bernier of the non politically correct party called the People's Party of Canada. A real and true conservative party. Something conservative Canadians have not had for ???????. Bernier is probably the last time Canadians will have a chance and a leader that will not suck up to special interest minority groups and liberal/socialist politically correct political party's. The PPC is Canada's last hope to try and get back and make Canada great once again. Brexit for Britain. Works for me. 

[-TSS-]

22 hours ago, taxme said:

Britain would probably do a hell of a lot better getting out of the Commonwealth altogether,  period. Being a part of something sometimes is not always that great. Just saying. 

BTW, is there any use for you Canadians to belong to the Commonwealth? You have the queen of England as your head of state. 

But are there any benefits such as favorable trade-deals attached in belonging to the Commonwealth or is it just a nostalgia-club. 

For countries such as Pakistan or Bangladesh to name just two belonging to the Commonwealth is something they would never give up. 

[taxme]

12 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

BTW, is there any use for you Canadians to belong to the Commonwealth? You have the queen of England as your head of state. 

But are there any benefits such as favorable trade-deals attached in belonging to the Commonwealth or is it just a nostalgia-club. 

For countries such as Pakistan or Bangladesh to name just two belonging to the Commonwealth is something they would never give up. 

Quebec sees no use for the Queen. The Queen is never invited to Quebec. She would probably be pelted with eggs if she went to Quebec. Personally, I am up in the air as to whether Canada should belong to the commonwealth or not. I know that Canada belongs to the Francophony commonwealth and the french in Quebec love it. So, maybe Canada should stay in the English speaking Commonwealth. Maybe Canada one day will do a Canexit from the Commonwealth. 

Probably the nostalgia club. 

All those third world countries are not going to want to leave the British Commonwealth. Where would they be able to run too when things get bad in their countries? They know when they have it made. It is the British people that are the losers being in the Commonwealth as does Canada also. A Brexit from the EU would do wonders and it would be great for the British people. They would have their freedom back from the Brussels communistic control and power over Britain and the Brits would get their freedoms back. No country should really belong to anything like a world union like the EU. Why should another entity control how others can live and do things in their own country. Go, Brexit, go. Works for me. 

[-TSS-]

So, Johnson asked the queen to prorogue Parliament for a time being and the queen always does what she is told by politicians. All the remoaners have gone apeshit about today's events.

Actually, this is a very telling example how in a system where there is no written constitution you can actually invent rules as things develop.

[OftenWrong]

5 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

So, Johnson asked the queen to prorogue Parliament for a time being and the queen always does what she is told by politicians. All the remoaners have gone apeshit about today's events.

Actually, this is a very telling example how in a system where there is no written constitution you can actually invent rules as things develop.

Well Johnson's first move is to shut down parliament. Ironically, it's the most democratic thing to do at this juncture. Hence reaction from the left.

Edited August 28, 2019 by OftenWrong

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

So, Johnson asked the queen to prorogue Parliament for a time being and the queen always does what she is told by politicians. All the remoaners have gone apeshit about today's events.

Actually, this is a very telling example how in a system where there is no written constitution you can actually invent rules as things develop.

The American Congress has prorogation, it's called "adjourn sine die" 

Canada has a written constitution, prorogation is entirely constitutional within the BNA Act and Canada 1982

"Remoaners"  that's good, I like that. lol.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:

Well Johnson's first move is to shut down parliament. Ironically, it's the most democratic thing to do at this juncture. Hence reaction from the left.

Exactly, Parliamentary Supremacy is democratic representation but it's not a Democracy.

The UK is paralyzed because May was weak kneed, time to put a bit of stick about, the Queen's Executive's job is to execute not dither.