Sigh. The BBC is unreliable. They don't appear to know who has declined to sign the Global Pact and they certainly have a lot of form on misrepresenting information. Or do you disagree? Have you used alternative news sources or just the BBC? Politico are similarly politically motivated and are activists rather than purveyors of balanced reporting. I asked you for the links so that I could evaluate where the information you were using came from. On the other hand, I gave you the link to Southern's speech. I don't ask you to believe the information. Indeed, I presented it as an "alternative narrative", if you remember. I do not "refuse to accept content". However, I do not give unsupported content much credence, if it contradicts what I have unearthed through available information sources that are demonstrably authentic.
Nissan has confirmed that the new X-Trail originally planned for its Sunderland plant will instead be made in Japan. In a letter to workers, the firm says continued Brexit uncertainty is not helping it to "plan for the future". In 2016 the carmaker said it would build the new car in the UK after "assurances" from the government. Nissan has made cars at Sunderland since 1986 and employs almost 7,000 people. I wonder how much the EU-Japan free trade agreement just put in place has to do with this? You can all bleat and bluster all you like but without a free trade agreement it no longer makes economic sense to make vehicles in the UK to export to the EU or anywhere else that the EU already has a free trade agreement. Its simple maths.
So what are you saying. That we are better off as part of the EU to benefit from the EU/Japan deal....or that we will get a superior deal between the UK and Japan when we leave? Maybe the EU should just stop making deals when we leave for the benefit of the EU, as it would be ...erm, nice for the UK.
Happy to correct the actual vote on the Non Binding UN Migration Pact. United States, Hungary, Israel, Czech Republic and Poland voted against it. 12 countries abstained from the vote. Another 24 countries weren't in attendance. Its ironic that this comes up in a Brexit thread which itself is all based on a vote 52 to 48. This was 95 to 5 approx.
Duke, you normally expel liquid feaces as though you have a direct input into the car industry but have always refused to say how, whilst telling people you talk to people. Can you explain to me, with your vast knowledge of the automotive industry, (1) why is all this happening during the time we are in the eu (2) why is it also happening outside of the eu (3) why it is also happening outside of the U.K. as to your simple maths, I had an email from Diane Abicus, even she said your maths doesn't add up
The EU and Japan trade deal has just been signed, Nissan now decide to build the Xtrail in Japan instead of Sunderland, what has it to do with Brexit, they aren't moving production to the EU because they can now supply cars direct from Japan without tariffs.
You should watch and listen to it. Turning off to arguments that you find "painfull" and demeaning those who present them means that folks with opposing views will never reach an agreement - kind of where we are with Brexit. Wow. I didn't think you were really quite that extremist. Its a pretty radical position to say that inequality in today's world is simply "not a problem". It is not just about poverty and deprivation. Inequality is at the heart of it. It is human nature to try to better ones situation. If there is perceived excessive inequality between ones current position and a possible alternative then people will try to move. The greater the inequality, the greater they will try. It doesn't matter how poor or deprived they are, it is the difference that is important, the perceived potential for improvement. Again you are over-simplifying things. Nowhere here have I or anyone - not even "TaxBoy" (really? c'mon lets not get into playground name-calling) - suggested the answer is to simply make people "equal". Again, rather it is about reversing the current direction of travel, and treating this as wicked problem not one to which there are simple solutions. I missed that. I'll try to find it (if you can help me with a link that's be great). The issue here is global - the UK is just part of it - though even in the UK the differences in power, earnings and opportunities between the white Public School Oxbridge/Cambridge male elite and the unemployed or zero-contract worker from a BAME background comprehensive are grotesque. Globally the statistics are even more stark. Take a look at 2:00 mins into the video for an example. Last year the wealth of billionaires increased by $2.5Bn every day, whilst the wealth of the least wealthy 50% of the globe (3.8 billion people) fell by $500m per day. To see you type that this is simply "not a problem" beggars belief. Two points here. Firstly it is the excessive inequality of opportunity that is in direct opposition to and restricts the majority of the world from being able to pursue their human nature to better themselves. Secondly it is actually the JOB of Law and Government to put limits on the worse excesses of human nature so that we do not pursue our own interests to the excessive detriment of others. I'm not sure if you have conflated two concepts here deliberately, or if you just don't understand the difference. At no time have I sad that Globalism is an "unbuckable trend". It is Globalisation that is the unbuckable trend - technology is seeing to that. See this well known Socialist newspaper (LOL) for an explanation of the difference https://www.ft.com/content/e4593f96-d937-11e8-ab8e-6be0dcf18713
You are basing this on a Wikipedia article. I am not saying that Wikipedia is always unreliable but it can be. For instance, Australia is not mentioned in the headline list you supplied yet it is listed later on the Wiki page as opposing the Compact. Japan is not listed at all yet has been reported as backing out of the deal. There are several others reported elsewhere. I would suggest you dig deeper or search wider. It's worth repeating, Wikipedia is sometimes unreliable (pedantically, this just means it is unreliable)
In any event, this is not a case of "majority" wins. Countries that opt out are not subject to the Compact.
Opposition by people who didn't turn up to vote? I thought I read here that meant they were content to let others decide? Its all just a discussion anyway since its non binding. This Pact is not an International law, so no countries are subject to it.
I'm not the one that thinks the IRA are kicking off because of Brexit; or can't even comprehend what my first post about evacuating the Queen says - All you are doing is repeating what I have already said - just like a politician.
None of the arguments are new to me, I have heard them before but in case there is a section at the end that is new to me, I will try again. I'll be angry though if it is all the same tired old socialist, globalist, climate scamming nonsense : o ) Inequality is not a problem. People have different abilities, different priorities. This leads to inequality of outcomes. On the other hand, equality of opportunity is important and wherever possible, should be afforded. Equality of outcome is a poor goal, doomed to failure. Well, I say failure but equality of outcome has worked almost 100% in Venezuela and some other failed states. My own view is that inequality can lead to unhappiness, for jealous individuals and where opportunities are artificially limited but the efforts to reduce or eliminate inequality are much worse. I apologise, I had just watched the guy and already forgotten his name. Reducing inequality, "reversing the direction", is fraught with peril for an economy and a society. These efforts always incur a reaction and the reaction rarely leads to a desirable outcome. Out of curiosity, can you name the mechanism that has lifted the greatest number of people out of poverty over history? The difference between the top earners and the average, let alone the minimum-wage workers, is staggering. Unbelievable. Unnecessary. And changing that, preventing that from happening, is a solution that eventually becomes worse than the problem. It's the lesser of two evils, to allow that situation to continue. In any event, there are just not enough of these ultra-high earners to make a difference. I wish I could give you a link to where this was explored, but it was years ago and I didn't bookmark it. Um, you changed tack. We appear to agree that inequality of opportunity is undesirable. Do we need to define what "opportunity" is here? Law and Government are meant to protect citizens. It is not Government's job to pander to jealousy. I fail to see how someone who has made a fortune or who commands an enormous salary, through legal endeavour, is responsible for excessive detriment to others. You will not convince that one person's good fortune or hard work is necessarily someone else's victimhood. You are putting forward the politics of envy, which is deeply unattractive. Globalism is the goal. It is the end game. Globalisation is just one weapon in the globalist's armament. The globalist agenda will inevitably come to pass if nation states are not defended from within (and if people don't stop using unreliable MSM "news" sources). Also, I should point out that the FT is sometimes unreliable (aka unreliable).
Signing up to a protocol is not voting. I am referring and have always referred to the signing of the Compact. I could care less who "voted" for it, whatever that means. Where do you get the idea that the Compact is non-binding for countries who sign up to it? They are if they sign the Compact. In any event, there is no such animal as "International Law".
Apologies, I perhaps should have written International Treaty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law UN Migration Pact is not a Treaty. It is not legally binding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Compact_for_Migration Disclaimer: Wiki might be wrong though it is unlikely.
Lets slow down a bit @Loz I'm not sure how Brexit has converted into the politics of socialism but I am not at one with your views here. After our beloved Thatcher reduced income tax ( a direct tax reduction for higher earners) and replaced that tax income with indirect taxation (a direct tax burden suffered mainly by the low income eg VAT) then all of a sudden the distribution of disposable income changed a lot. And now that the rich are getting richer they are increasingly vocal about any attempt to take it from them. So in my view what has happened is that taxing the low income is getting more dodgy (the " just about manging" with lets say petrol tax increases ) the government refuses to tax the high income earners and the result is that Police, NHS, Roads, infrastructure, Armed forces and yes social services are being allowed to fuck right off. All this is of no concern to those who got rich they will just pay for what they want but as far as community goes all capitalism has achieved is remove any good will. So, this isn't about making everyone equal this is about who can best afford community services and it isn't the low earners. Not that this rant will detach you from all your dollar so no need to start lock and loading the AK47s to keep the surfs out just yet. TB PS if anyone refers to the trickle down theory let me say thats the biggest load of bollocks in history.
The sources I have read indicate that the Pact is binding upon signatories - which kind of makes sense - but I cannot very well argue that Wikipedia is definitely wrong if I cannot vouch 100% for my source. Which I cannot. Agree to differ, I guess we might see one day (I doubt it though)
Agree to differ is fine with me, its rational. You don't have a link to any other sources? I deliberately looked for the opposing view but the sites I found were batshit crazy ones.
