|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 1, 2022 22:49:01 GMT
You are ignoring the difference between the two which is a major fault when referring to EU migrants and a host of non-EU migrants. If non-EU migrants are allowed in through some legal procedure, they are still not EU FoM migrants. So stop trying to confuse the issue. A legal economic migrant is a legal economic migrant whether he comes from Rome or Timbuctoo. What method allows him in is immaterial to his designation as all that is required is that he has arrived through a legal procedure directly and not through an illegal means. There is no confusion. What you say is not in dispute but it totally ignores my point. You have slithered down a tangent of your own making. Trying to debate with people who create their own tangents for the sake of argument, is something I try to avoid. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 1, 2022 22:59:17 GMT
A legal economic migrant is a legal economic migrant whether he comes from Rome or Timbuctoo. What method allows him in is immaterial to his designation as all that is required is that he has arrived through a legal procedure directly and not through an illegal means. There is no confusion. What you say is not in dispute but it totally ignores my point. You have slithered down a tangent of your own making. Trying to debate with people who create their own tangents for the sake of argument, is something I try to avoid. You seem to raise a lot but avoid much at the same time. It is not a tangent as there is only legal or illegal migration. FOM provided a means for legal migration. Your point seems to be that FOM was something different from other legal migration which it was not. All it did was allow a large cohort to have a legal route to migration to the UK without hinderance. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 1, 2022 23:12:25 GMT
What you say is not in dispute but it totally ignores my point. You have slithered down a tangent of your own making. Trying to debate with people who create their own tangents for the sake of argument, is something I try to avoid. You seem to raise a lot but avoid much at the same time. It is not a tangent as there is only legal or illegal migration. FOM provided a means for legal migration. Your point seems to be that FOM was something different from other legal migration which it was not. All it did was allow a large cohort to have a legal route to migration to the UK without hinderance. I never said it was, you are now adding an insinuating dishonesty to your tangent to the point of making yourself look like a fool. As you are arguing with yourself I'll leave you to it. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 1, 2022 23:30:30 GMT
BS ^ The Maastricht treaty was provisionally signed before that GE. It was not approved and then ratified until 1993 by the government that stood in that 1992 election on a platform of planning to ratify it. Where did they say they were planning to ratify it? The manifesto said Maastricht was a success, there was no indication that it was incomplete and that the EEC would become the EU and all that entailed and a majority in parliament was required to see it through So? they didn't need to say that. It was the legal position that the treaty had no import until ratification and had one of the parties opposing ratification succeeded in 1992 then it would not have been ratified. The UKIP forerunner the Anti-Federalist League and BNP certainly made that clear but then very few people were prepared to vote for them. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Nov 1, 2022 23:41:53 GMT
So? they didn't need to say that. It was the legal position that the treaty had no import until ratification and had one of the parties opposing ratification succeeded in 1992 then it would not have been ratified. The UKIP forerunner the Anti-Federalist League and BNP certainly made that clear but then very few people were prepared to vote for them. Good stuff, so by the same token no need for another referendum then. If people want to join the EU they can vote for candidates that stand on a platform that pledges that course of action. Maybe it'll happen after the next general election, or the one after that...... |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 1, 2022 23:50:18 GMT
So? they didn't need to say that. It was the legal position that the treaty had no import until ratification and had one of the parties opposing ratification succeeded in 1992 then it would not have been ratified. The UKIP forerunner the Anti-Federalist League and BNP certainly made that clear but then very few people were prepared to vote for them. Good stuff, so by the same token no need for another referendum then. If people want to join the EU they can vote for candidates that stand on a platform that pledges that course of action. Maybe it'll happen after the next general election, or the one after that...... I keep saying that after the Dec 2019 General Election there was a valid electoral mandate for Brexit so from then there was no need for a further referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 2, 2022 3:38:07 GMT
Good stuff, so by the same token no need for another referendum then. If people want to join the EU they can vote for candidates that stand on a platform that pledges that course of action. Maybe it'll happen after the next general election, or the one after that...... I keep saying that after the Dec 2019 General Election there was a valid electoral mandate for Brexit so from then there was no need for a further referendum. There was every need for a referendum. The remainers keep stating that the eu could have been persuaded to change and we could could of led that change that is a total croc. When cameron went to the eu to try and get changes they were not satisfied just to deny camerons request but they took satisfaction in openly humilliating him. I never held a candle for cameron but at least he was a democraticaly elected PM of the UK unlike the knobs who were carrying out the humiliation, All the higher echelon of the eu are nothing more than total failures and are there by their own choosing and not by a democratic process. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Nov 2, 2022 8:05:32 GMT
I keep saying that after the Dec 2019 General Election there was a valid electoral mandate for Brexit so from then there was no need for a further referendum. There was every need for a referendum. The remainers keep stating that the eu could have been persuaded to change and we could could of led that change that is a total croc. When cameron went to the eu to try and get changes they were not satisfied just to deny camerons request but they took satisfaction in openly humilliating him. I never held a candle for cameron but at least he was a democraticaly elected PM of the UK unlike the knobs who were carrying out the humiliation, All the higher echelon of the eu are nothing more than total failures and are there by their own choosing and not by a democratic process. __"The European Council (informally EUCO) is a collegiate body that defines the overall political direction and priorities of the European Union. It is composed of the heads of state or government of the EU member states, the President of the European Council, and the President of the European Commission."__ |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Nov 2, 2022 8:11:26 GMT
There was every need for a referendum. The remainers keep stating that the eu could have been persuaded to change and we could could of led that change that is a total croc. When cameron went to the eu to try and get changes they were not satisfied just to deny camerons request but they took satisfaction in openly humilliating him. I never held a candle for cameron but at least he was a democraticaly elected PM of the UK unlike the knobs who were carrying out the humiliation, All the higher echelon of the eu are nothing more than total failures and are there by their own choosing and not by a democratic process. __"The European Council (informally EUCO) is a collegiate body that defines the overall political direction and priorities of the European Union. It is composed of the heads of state or government of the EU member states, the President of the European Council, and the President of the European Commission."__ Total bollocks. Not one of those who make up 400 odd million had a say on choosing the arseholes of Brussels. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 2, 2022 8:13:25 GMT
Why? - they all have the same negative effects on local communities. It's a case of understanding the issue. The original dispute was FoM 'V' Illegal migrants and the roll it played in the referendum. If you want to debate negative effects of mass immigration, then be my guest. Well the role immigration played (and it didn't matter what form that immigration took) was that the negative effects made people question the level. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 2, 2022 9:15:09 GMT
You seem to raise a lot but avoid much at the same time. It is not a tangent as there is only legal or illegal migration. FOM provided a means for legal migration. Your point seems to be that FOM was something different from other legal migration which it was not. All it did was allow a large cohort to have a legal route to migration to the UK without hinderance. I never said it was, you are now adding an insinuating dishonesty to your tangent to the point of making yourself look like a fool. As you are arguing with yourself I'll leave you to it. Perhaps if you were clear in what your point actually was it would help. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 2, 2022 9:28:03 GMT
Where did they say they were planning to ratify it? The manifesto said Maastricht was a success, there was no indication that it was incomplete and that the EEC would become the EU and all that entailed and a majority in parliament was required to see it through So? they didn't need to say that. It was the legal position that the treaty had no import until ratification and had one of the parties opposing ratification succeeded in 1992 then it would not have been ratified. The UKIP forerunner the Anti-Federalist League and BNP certainly made that clear but then very few people were prepared to vote for them. If the treaty had no import until ratification how could the Tory manifesto say it had been a success? They did not say what Maastricht meant and needed and so the electorate were not voting positively for it they were voting by default. Not quite the same as a mandate. Indeed we all know that a raft of policies need to be considered by the electorate and they have to decide what is important or dangerous or unacceptable or needs their approval. We do know that get Brexit done received massive electoral support in the context of our system where the electorate were presented with a decisive action and voted positively for it. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 2, 2022 10:19:51 GMT
So? they didn't need to say that. It was the legal position that the treaty had no import until ratification and had one of the parties opposing ratification succeeded in 1992 then it would not have been ratified. The UKIP forerunner the Anti-Federalist League and BNP certainly made that clear but then very few people were prepared to vote for them. If the treaty had no import until ratification how could the Tory manifesto say it had been a success? They did not say what Maastricht meant and needed and so the electorate were not voting positively for it they were voting by default. Not quite the same as a mandate. Indeed we all know that a raft of policies need to be considered by the electorate and they have to decide what is important or dangerous or unacceptable or needs their approval. We do know that get Brexit done received massive electoral support in the context of our system where the electorate were presented with a decisive action and voted positively for it. Because it was a success to get the treaty wording to be as the UK wanted. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Nov 2, 2022 10:21:16 GMT
I keep saying that after the Dec 2019 General Election there was a valid electoral mandate for Brexit so from then there was no need for a further referendum. There was every need for a referendum. The remainers keep stating that the eu could have been persuaded to change and we could could of led that change that is a total croc. When cameron went to the eu to try and get changes they were not satisfied just to deny camerons request but they took satisfaction in openly humilliating him. I never held a candle for cameron but at least he was a democraticaly elected PM of the UK unlike the knobs who were carrying out the humiliation, All the higher echelon of the eu are nothing more than total failures and are there by their own choosing and not by a democratic process. You've misread the post chain This isn't about the 2016 referendum but whether there should have been a further referendum and my post say after 2019, no. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 2, 2022 10:49:45 GMT
If the treaty had no import until ratification how could the Tory manifesto say it had been a success? They did not say what Maastricht meant and needed and so the electorate were not voting positively for it they were voting by default. Not quite the same as a mandate. Indeed we all know that a raft of policies need to be considered by the electorate and they have to decide what is important or dangerous or unacceptable or needs their approval. We do know that get Brexit done received massive electoral support in the context of our system where the electorate were presented with a decisive action and voted positively for it. Because it was a success to get the treaty wording to be as the UK wanted. Now I can see that but it is imprecise however there is no indication that ratification was required and that was what the voters were being asked to do. A mandate, I would have thought, would require a degree of clarity as to what was being sought. Nowhere does it mention the bringing into being of the EU. The internet was in its infancy at the time and information for most was obtained from politicians, newspapers, the TV, the libraries and word of mouth. |
|
