For clarity, are you attempting to equate previous movements of people around the globe with those that commenced in 2015? This is an important point and I trust you realise why. Thank you. I will watch it. Um. I mentioned this to finderman just now and repeat it here. The first 1:25 was sarcasm/satire. If you disagree, please outline who it is you believe Southern was attempting to fool, and how it is you know that Southern was hoping to fool them.
It's called reading between the lines. They daren't say the contingency plans are being put in place in case we don't actually leave on that day but I suspect that's the idea. If you think remoaners are bad losers, just wait and see what happens when white van man doesn't get the full English brexit he ordered on time.
May signed up to joining a European military intervention force. May - despite being an idiot- has not signed up to the intergration of the UK Armed Forces at all. https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-to-form-part-of-joint-eu-european-defense-force-pesco/ The UN Migration Pact which is a non binding agreement appears to have little in common with Colditz? Haven't the vast majority of of UN Nations signed up with of course the exception of the USA? https://news.sky.com/story/united-n...manage-migration-despite-withdrawals-11576999 I watched the girl pretending to speak to an audience at the EU. Why was she making fake laughs at her own jokes and looking around the room at a supposed audience if not to deliberately mislead viewers? There was also the title Post Event Press Briefing. There was no event. Were the six people in the hall actual press? Or were they actors too? Amanda Robb/ Rollingstone has been interviewing rightwing fruitcake speakers as a part of research into a 13 part exposee in the magazine to expose them. Possibly she was there for that purpose? Do you know who the other woman on the podium was? Could it have been Janice Atkinson? In March 2015, she was expelled from UKIP for "bringing the party into disrepute" after her chief of staff was recorded trying to fraudulently inflate her expenses. Obviously someone without an axe to grind and reliable... Who to believe? The people who are always lying or the person that they say is lying?
Jebus G Goat. Really? Fucking kill me. Now. OK, do you a deal. The UK introduces a 70% top rate for whatever earnings allow the government to spend what is needed, and once the current population is all lifted above the bread-line, we open the doors to the rest of the World's poor. How does that sound?
No I don’t understand why. Please explain more. Every movement or migration is clearly different from every other (numbers, duration, reasons, origins, destinations, impacts etc.) ... but they are the same in that they are all movements.
i didn't say "hoping to fool" she doesn't provide anything that could be disproved. more to reinforce basic fears and the background noise from those that are attempting to shift blame.
So she has integrated the UKs Armed Forces with the intention of placing it under EU military leadership. Thanks for confirming. Huh? Re-read what I said or get someone else to. A number of nations have refused to sign up for the Pact. The USA and a handful of European (EU!) nations has refused. Non-binding? Are you sure? Under the Pact, it will no longer be legal for citizens in Pact countries to use the phrase "illegal immigration" nor criticise immigration. It's binding. Signatory nations must provide all information required to enable any migrant to move to any country of his choice. Hmm, I wonder whether Vatican City has signed up? Discussed elsewhere - the choice of venue. See my comments to finderman and Dave on that score. If you believe it was an attempt to mislead, then well, you do you and I'll be me. Wait. What? Did you just mention Rolling Stone? Indeed, Janice is a card. Imagine fraudulently inflating your expenses, talk about crooked! I am glad that practice isn't prevalent in politics.[/quote][/QUOTE]
Once you realise there is no large and important audience it becomes clear that she was being sarcastic. The fact the video didn’t show the full context immediately to make the sarcasm transparent makes me feel it is dishonest and makes me distrust her motives. The upshot is that I don’t believe her when she says she is driven by compassion. I understand what they did as a filmmaking device - I just think it was I’ll-advised. Full transparency throughout is always best.
Do you really think we are going to Leave with a Deal or No Deal; or not Leave at all? Why would they say civil unrest in the event of Leaving with No Deal? That is bizarre. Do they really think Remainers would kick off when most of them worry about snow? Because that is why I asked if anyone else could see what I thought I could see - ie; an underlying 'message'. Nah.....there is something else we are missing, and for the life of me I can't see what it actually is.
Loz have you been awake all night? You are usually more coherent and accurate in your responses. The May has not signed the UK Armed Forces over to EU control at all. If you can't read the article or the google responses to this subject, ask someone else to do it for you? https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-to-form-part-of-joint-eu-european-defense-force-pesco/ UN Migration Pact s not legally binding and allows countries to remain in charge of their own immigration policy but commits signatories to improving co-operation on international migration. The pact was agreed by all 193 members, except the United States, in July '18. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-46607015 EDIT United States, Hungary, Israel, Czech Republic and Poland voted against it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Compact_for_Migration
You are trolling me, right? I will ignore migrations that are in effect, colonisations, conquests or acts of war. Agreed? Migrations that allow for a relative trickle of immigrants into a country, or which allow in very similar cultural elements, create very little impact on a nation as a whole. The newcomers assimilate and within a generation or two, they are members of an homogeneous society, citizens with minor cultural differences. We have seen this throughout history, and the USA, in the 19th and 20th Centuries, is probably the most obvious and easily understood example of this. There were prejudices in some parts of the country, particularly against the Irish but the differences and prejudices soon became minimal. There have been humanitarian migrations, where perhaps tens of thousands of individuals have been welcomed into various countries and again, the effects were minimal and soon absorbed. In 2015, Merkle allowed a million economic migrants into Germany. Other EU countries have also opened themselves to mass immigration. The immigrants in question do not identify with their new country, they do not adopt the mores or customs of their new country. They continue to strongly identify with the culture of the country that, for some reason, they wished to leave. Have you seen (in any form of media or personally) any effects from this very very large migration of people into the EU from cultures that, whilst equal to Western cultures, are very, very different from Western cultures? Positive effects? Negative effects? No effect? Merkle changed what the term immigration actually means.
No. This is a wicked problem which requires a much more nuanced response. Extreme radical black or white positions are both flawed. It is about the direction we take. At the moment the direction is towards more extreme inequality and nationalism. In the face of inescapable global trends it needs to be towards less inequality and more globalism. By the way. You posted the above so quickly that you clearly haven’t had time to view the whole video. I don’t suppose it will change your view but are you going to watch it all?
Read my lips. The plans are being put in place because we may not actually leave on 29th March. There could well be a delay for a variety of reasons and the fear is that some leavers could react badly. Saying they are worried about remoaners is a smokescreen.
Politico has shown itself to be, ah, unreliable so I didn't bother with the link. Are they suddenly reliable? I have seen deep dives into the paperwork of the EU Defense Force project, including comments from former senior officers (Stars). The UK forces co-opted to this will be under the leadership of the EU - this kind of thing has never happened before. The BBC has shown itself to be, ah, unreliable so I didn't bother with the link. Are they suddenly reliable? The discussions I have seen raised in social media and then followed up indicate that the Pact is binding. Also, not all nations apart from the USA has signed it - Poland, Hungary, Japan, half-a-dozen others have not signed it. I cannot believe the BBC somehow missed that fact ; o )
Are you thick or what? I think you should read what I already said in three posts, instead of telling me to read your lips like a typical Remainer. You are beginning to sound like Chuka Um-remainar. Not listening, not reading, not thinking; just Remaining.
I listened to as much as I could stomach of the video, a tad under ten minutes. It was painful, particularly after "TaxBoy" finished his first sequence. It was a bunch of people agreeing with each other at an event held for people who agree with each other. Inequality is not a problem. Poverty and deprivation are, however, problems. Trying to make people "equal" though is an even bigger problem. I agree that the issue isn't black and white and that the solution is not, either. But the simplistic notion that we can somehow top-and-tail the wealth, make the wealthy poorer and the poor less poor, seems a bit pie in the sky. Even if you could get UK politicians on board with that (you cannot), you would not persuade the rest of the world, which is where the UK's wealthy will be headed if you try and take their money. In any event, we saw a calculation here in the Forums on an earlier thread that indicated that levying very high rates of tax on the top 1% of earnings would yield very little in terms of equalising the wealth in the UK. You would have to drop the limit of earnings to folks we don;t currently consider to be "greatly wealthy" in order to do that. Besides, when you set yourself up in direction opposition with human nature - the desire to "be comfortable, be rich, be powerful" - you are going to run into insurmountable difficulties, economically and societally. People who want globalism telling me that globalism is an unbuckable trend are - unconvincing.
I gave you what I see as the explanation. You ignored that explanation as though you hadn't bothered to read it. Maybe I am thick but maybe, just maybe, you are too.
On other threads you refuse to accept the content because there is no link, yet you provide none to support your ideas. Here you claim the links are not valid. Now you say the BBC is not reliable, yet you also claim the woman making a faking a speech to the EU (IN an empty room) who takes questions from her associates is worthwhile watching... We all have opinions. Personally I am glad that there are a huge variation of opinions on subjects for obvious reasons. I have no problem with anyone who disagees with my opinion or who has a different one. Still that is not the same as making things up, and saying with the evidence before you that its not true. Thats being unreliable as well as disingenious..
