|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 6, 2024 22:06:16 GMT
Your surrender was unconditional, you are in no position to make demands. Treat me gently. My wife said our cat needed to be chipped. I only had a nine iron but I still managed to get him over the shed. Hahaaaaaaaaaaaa superb.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 6, 2024 22:10:40 GMT
My comments on those hating immigrants are based on the comment they make on here. (Things like not being bothered if they die being pushed across the channel away from us) Anyway that's a sticky subject, lets address your question. Here you hit a whole new issue. My reasons for wanting to stay in the EU were not an all and everything. I felt there were real problems with FoM especially with English being the second language of so many countries and our benefits and NHS system so easily abused. On the other hand I thought the risk of becoming a small country again in a world of ever coalescing super powers (China America APEC CPTPP etc was catastrophic. As we no longer have any edge in technology, wealth, mineral resources to barter with. So it was a tough decision for me, especially as it became so tribal. Sorry for the over long answer. My hope was in a letter addressed to Mr Cameron from the EU in which they offered a 4 year moratorium on FoM to allow us time to put measures in place to limit and control movement (Such schemes exist in most other EU countries) The fact Mr Camron kept stum about the letter leads me to believe the Tories wanted open doors and cheap labour and thought they would not lose the referendum vote. That's it in a nutshell. Well, those crossing the channel in dingies aren't immigrants, they're people abusing asylum and breaking into the country. Plus, this was post-brexit whilst the founding EU country was allowing it. Surrending to the EU out of fear of China and America obviously didn't outweigh the problems the country was facing because of the EU. It would appear that the politics of fear failed to convince the people, but it's helpful to know what the EU's ambitions are, considering we were told it had no such ambitions. The EU's word is meaningless as shown by the boat people that were weaponised. They had a chance and thought they could bully the UK, and have done so ever since. I answered your question as to why I voted remain despite my concerns about immigration. I'm not interested in re hashing the Brexit debate as we know we disagree on most points.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2024 22:35:36 GMT
Well, those crossing the channel in dingies aren't immigrants, they're people abusing asylum and breaking into the country. Plus, this was post-brexit whilst the founding EU country was allowing it. Surrending to the EU out of fear of China and America obviously didn't outweigh the problems the country was facing because of the EU. It would appear that the politics of fear failed to convince the people, but it's helpful to know what the EU's ambitions are, considering we were told it had no such ambitions. The EU's word is meaningless as shown by the boat people that were weaponised. They had a chance and thought they could bully the UK, and have done so ever since. I answered your question as to why I voted remain despite my concerns about immigration. I'm not interested in re hashing the Brexit debate as we know we disagree on most points. Yes, if the decision was based on fear then I can see room for a lot of disagreement. It just seems odd that EU advocates are now ecowarriors, almost like it's just another method of controlling the people by trying to scare them into submission. Perhaps these things overlap? The lack of appreciation toward power often results in the abuse of power. The demands for sacrifice in the name of fear can become overwhelming.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2024 9:59:08 GMT
Indeed there are however if climate change is so important that we have pull in our belts and almost self immolate to protect the planet then, as a reason, it should assume in the minds of warmists critical importance. The fact it rarely does and that those who advocate strict reduction of CO2 emissions for some reason also tend to be advocates of no borders or lots of immigration lends the lie to their keenness to do both. Removing humans from one country into another does very little to lower emissions. But you're just interested in getting our emissions down. Not global ones. In fact you're not even interested in that. Your just interested in kicking out the fuzzywuzzies. Removing humans from one country to another will always increase emissions if we are removing them from a low emitting country to a high emitting country and according to you we are a high emitting country. We are supposed to be setting the example that others can follow and our target, that is our personal national target, is net zero. That can be achieved far more easily by eschewing any form of large scale immigration, preferably none at all. After all it is demanded we all make sacrifices to reach that target. I am very interested in kicking out people who should not be here, since most of those, in your vernacular, may be fuzzywuzzies that may help community cohesion as well. It is noted you seem incapable of addressing the points made.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2024 10:18:22 GMT
Removing humans from one country into another does very little to lower emissions. But you're just interested in getting our emissions down. Not global ones. In fact you're not even interested in that. Your just interested in kicking out the fuzzywuzzies. Removing humans from one country to another will always increase emissions if we are removing them from a low emitting country to a high emitting country and according to you we are a high emitting country. We are supposed to be setting the example that others can follow and our target, that is our personal national target, is net zero. That can be achieved far more easily by eschewing any form of large scale immigration, preferably none at all. After all it is demanded we all make sacrifices to reach that target. I am very interested in kicking out people who should not be here, since most of those, in your vernacular, may be fuzzywuzzies that may help community cohesion as well. It is noted you seem incapable of addressing the points made. So the secret is to tackle the high emission countries. Which is what we are doing. Immigration to the UK has very little effect on global warming. An annual increase in population by 0.7% times a possible increase from country A to the UK of even 25% would increase UK contribution to global Co2 by 0.0018%. There are good reasons for stopping UK immigration but global warming is not one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 7, 2024 11:25:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 7, 2024 14:17:19 GMT
Reform UK is SURGING and the Tories only have themselves to blame, says Howard Cox.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2024 14:54:49 GMT
Removing humans from one country to another will always increase emissions if we are removing them from a low emitting country to a high emitting country and according to you we are a high emitting country. We are supposed to be setting the example that others can follow and our target, that is our personal national target, is net zero. That can be achieved far more easily by eschewing any form of large scale immigration, preferably none at all. After all it is demanded we all make sacrifices to reach that target. I am very interested in kicking out people who should not be here, since most of those, in your vernacular, may be fuzzywuzzies that may help community cohesion as well. It is noted you seem incapable of addressing the points made. So the secret is to tackle the high emission countries. Which is what we are doing. Immigration to the UK has very little effect on global warming. An annual increase in population by 0.7% times a possible increase from country A to the UK of even 25% would increase UK contribution to global Co2 by 0.0018%. There are good reasons for stopping UK immigration but global warming is not one of them. And since our contribution is about 1% the contribution to our emissions would be 0.18%. Not insignificant if one is pushing every avenue to get us to net zero and that is annually. By 2035 it would be 2% extra we have to decrease just to allow for the influx. As a policy to help reduce our emissions it is not.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2024 15:57:39 GMT
So the secret is to tackle the high emission countries. Which is what we are doing. Immigration to the UK has very little effect on global warming. An annual increase in population by 0.7% times a possible increase from country A to the UK of even 25% would increase UK contribution to global Co2 by 0.0018%. There are good reasons for stopping UK immigration but global warming is not one of them. And since our contribution is about 1% the contribution to our emissions would be 0.18%. Not insignificant if one is pushing every avenue to get us to net zero and that is annually. By 2035 it would be 2% extra we have to decrease just to allow for the influx. As a policy to help reduce our emissions it is not. Please explain your maths. They make no sense.
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 7, 2024 20:18:43 GMT
And since our contribution is about 1% the contribution to our emissions would be 0.18%. Not insignificant if one is pushing every avenue to get us to net zero and that is annually. By 2035 it would be 2% extra we have to decrease just to allow for the influx. As a policy to help reduce our emissions it is not. Please explain your maths. They make no sense. Aha there is a possible error, it depends what you mean by 0.0018%. I took it as meaning increasing global CO2 but I see you did say the UK contribution. My apologies and I will look again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2024 20:36:54 GMT
A 12% vote for the Gammon Party will be good news. No seats won for them, and a guaranteed Tory wipeout/Labour landslide. Happy days. It is indeed a wonder to behold how many right wingers seem too stupid to realise this blindingly obvious reality. Still, we can enjoy the occasional snigger at their expense. All the more so come the election, lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2024 20:38:45 GMT
And labour will be next to be wiped out if Reform wins the day. I don’t follow your logic, please can you explain? Are you thinking that Reform will win the election? He probably doesnt either.
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 7, 2024 21:04:58 GMT
Please explain your maths. They make no sense. Aha there is a possible error, it depends what you mean by 0.0018%. I took it as meaning increasing global CO2 but I see you did say the UK contribution. My apologies and I will look again. No probs.
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 7, 2024 21:32:59 GMT
Reform UK is SURGING and the Tories only have themselves to blame, says Howard Cox.
As the Righties appear to be favouring the second in command of Nigel Farage's lying Outers political party. Political lies are bad enough but Political lies by Righties are IMO a danger to any sort of normality.
|
|
|
Post by Einhorn on Jan 7, 2024 21:35:28 GMT
Reform UK is SURGING and the Tories only have themselves to blame, says Howard Cox.
Vote Reform UK
|
|