Aspiring Peasants
Member
- Location
- North Pennines
Brexit is destroying Britain
- Thread starter merino
- Start date
its yourself
Member
- Location
- Scotland, Finland and France.
Still not willing to condemn ethnic cleansing fans.You can't help yourself can you
Moderate mainstream ethnic cleansing perhaps?
I've yet to see a single moderate mainstream policy from any brexiter.
Perhaps you could provide a list?
Aspiring Peasants
Member
- Location
- North Pennines
The definition of ethnic cleansing is as follows:-
To accomplish ethnic cleansing, the offending side resorts to various measures or threats of such measures. These include, but are not limited to, murder, rape or sexual assault, torture, severe bodily harm, and destruction or theft of property. Usually, such acts or their threats are directed against selected members of the targeted community with the goal to intimidate the remaining ones and make them flee. Otherwise, members of the targeted community might be detained, forcibly placed in concentration camps, and subsequently deported. To intimidate the targeted group, various atrocities and crimes might be committed in the concentration camps. Depending on the circumstances, ethnic cleansing might be accompanied by other crimes, including war crimes and genocide. Ethnic cleansing might be conducted by official government forces (the military and the police), but also by militias, insurgent groups, or even ordinary civilians who try to intimidate another group to make them leave through riots and pogroms
To liken leaving the EU to that is a disgusting insult to:-
1. Serbs in Croatia and Kosovo,
2. Ethnic Albanians in Kosovo
3. The Bosnian Muslims in Herzegoviana,
4. Chechens who fled Grozny
5. The treatment by Indonesian militants of the people of East Timor, many of whom were killed or forced to abandon their homes
6. European Jews in the 1940's
7. The Tutsi population in Rwanda
......and sadly many many more.
I think you should be thinking about apologising.
its yourself
Member
- Location
- Scotland, Finland and France.
Threats designed to make people leave you say?
Threats like When are you f ing off back to Poland?
You can get yourself into a frenzy if you want but it wasn't Remain who said that to us.
I note that you know the meaning but don't want to condemn it.
I'm against it by the way. Not all brexiters said it. Some did, some still do.
The official campaign promised full rights. They lied. Conditional time limited rights were finally agreed to under EU pressure.
The EU states granted full rights to the UK citizens who's own government shamefully let them down.
Threats like When are you f ing off back to Poland?
You can get yourself into a frenzy if you want but it wasn't Remain who said that to us.
I note that you know the meaning but don't want to condemn it.
I'm against it by the way. Not all brexiters said it. Some did, some still do.
The official campaign promised full rights. They lied. Conditional time limited rights were finally agreed to under EU pressure.
The EU states granted full rights to the UK citizens who's own government shamefully let them down.
essex man
Member
- Location
- colchester
The brain? of a remainer
Aspiring Peasants
Member
- Location
- North Pennines
Ignoring the point about what you actually said totally. Being told to f**ck off to Poland is the same as having your house burnt down, you're women raped and then force marched out of the country?
Nobody should have said that to you, but to consider it ethnic cleansing is an insult to the groups I mentioned and to infer over half the population of the UK want ethnic cleansing of all Europeans is contemptible
its yourself
Member
- Location
- Scotland, Finland and France.
Grand. We agree. I'm against it too.
Not all leavers are though.
Not of course you.
Nobody won, it was a question
Old McDonald
Member
- Location
- Harray, Orkney
@wanton dwarf Re Swimming Pools. You need support, so, despite our disagreements from time to time, I decided to look up the regulations regarding a public pool I knew in Portugal. Not a club or private entity but publicly built and financed. It is not the one where somebody told me a permit was necessary. For the one I checked I found you would need to apply for a Cartão de Utente (User’s Card) before being able to use the pool. So you could not just turn up at the pool and pay an entrance fee. You must have the required permit beforehand.
How you WD, would have got this permit, and provided you had lived in the Municipality, would be to obtain a Residence Permit, just as I had to do to get a Driver’s Licence. The regulations were in force long before Brexit. It was not as difficult as in some other EU countries to become a resident, but not straightforward and I have already posted my wife was denied hers.
It would seem cards were limited and preference given to those resident in the Concelho (Municipality) in which the pool is situated There are a lot of people in the town and it is a small swimming pool, so I reckon your chances of getting a permit if you did not live in the town would be minimal to nil and in that way you would be refused permission to use the pool. You may not have fully understood why you were refused permission – your past posts show you do not really understand regulations, but anyone else from another country would also be unlikely to obtain the permit. I would expect them to favour Portuguese nationals from elsewhere in the region over estrangeiros. From what we have seen on here that is what the English did and do – favour their own over foreigners in all sorts of matters, the English even being downright nasty to foreigners. Just for those who have experienced it, I am not disputing that the English are so inclined. Most countries probably are. Try living in Australia if you are British – especially English.
Re Libraries. The Regulations were put in force in 2011 for the library in the same town. You would have been able to use it as a Reference Library whatever your race, nationality, religion etc. and to use it as a lending library but only after obtaining the necessary permit for Leitores Domiciliários (Home Readers) and provided in both cases you lived, studied or worked in the area. So, you would have had to provide proof of your employment in the town, or of course the usual right to residence.
Despite this incontrovertible evidence of the need for people from other EU countries to obtain residence permission before they could participate in everyday living, we have the experts of all regulations in every little bit of the EU posting on here telling us such restrictions did not occur anywhere in the EU when there was so-called FoM for Brits.
BTW, and for the benefit of others, I own my house on Orkney and have never suggested otherwise.
How you WD, would have got this permit, and provided you had lived in the Municipality, would be to obtain a Residence Permit, just as I had to do to get a Driver’s Licence. The regulations were in force long before Brexit. It was not as difficult as in some other EU countries to become a resident, but not straightforward and I have already posted my wife was denied hers.
It would seem cards were limited and preference given to those resident in the Concelho (Municipality) in which the pool is situated There are a lot of people in the town and it is a small swimming pool, so I reckon your chances of getting a permit if you did not live in the town would be minimal to nil and in that way you would be refused permission to use the pool. You may not have fully understood why you were refused permission – your past posts show you do not really understand regulations, but anyone else from another country would also be unlikely to obtain the permit. I would expect them to favour Portuguese nationals from elsewhere in the region over estrangeiros. From what we have seen on here that is what the English did and do – favour their own over foreigners in all sorts of matters, the English even being downright nasty to foreigners. Just for those who have experienced it, I am not disputing that the English are so inclined. Most countries probably are. Try living in Australia if you are British – especially English.
Re Libraries. The Regulations were put in force in 2011 for the library in the same town. You would have been able to use it as a Reference Library whatever your race, nationality, religion etc. and to use it as a lending library but only after obtaining the necessary permit for Leitores Domiciliários (Home Readers) and provided in both cases you lived, studied or worked in the area. So, you would have had to provide proof of your employment in the town, or of course the usual right to residence.
Despite this incontrovertible evidence of the need for people from other EU countries to obtain residence permission before they could participate in everyday living, we have the experts of all regulations in every little bit of the EU posting on here telling us such restrictions did not occur anywhere in the EU when there was so-called FoM for Brits.
BTW, and for the benefit of others, I own my house on Orkney and have never suggested otherwise.
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
COMMENT | DANIEL FINKELSTEIN
Tuesday January 03 2023, 5.00pm, The Times
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
Save
Ithink Brexit was a serious mistake. But I don’t think it was stupid. I’ve never thought that. I only wish I felt the same way about the government’s plans for revoking all EU legislation during the course of this year.
There seemed to me broadly two arguments for leaving the European Union. The first was economic. The idea that Brexit would make us more prosperous was indeed monumentally foolish. It involved believing the improvement in growth from deregulation and new trade deals would be greater than the advantages of being in the single market.
This was always highly implausible. Withholding the word “stupid” is only a matter of politeness.
Best of Times:
Our flagship newsletter featuring our top stories and analysis, delivered every morning.
One-click sign-up
The other argument for Brexit, the political argument, had more to it — that the EU was (and remains) on the path to becoming a state. Labour’s Hugh Gaitskell was right when he said of membership: “We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.”
The disadvantage of this, the argument proceeded, was loss of national control. And a greater say in European policy didn’t compensate for this because European institutions aren’t democratic. So the political case for leaving the EU was that it would allow us to restore democracy through parliamentary sovereignty.
I do not accept this political case but I do not think it stupid. My opposition to Brexit was more that, whatever force the democratic point might have had, it promised only abstract advantages. The economic loss would be concrete.
The government’s proposals for revoking EU regulation have chosen to advance the weak economic argument for Brexit at the expense of the stronger political one. They are trying to move quickly to “take advantage of our Brexit freedoms” even if that means bypassing parliament and democratic decision- making. This measure, if it passes, will I think reduce growth rather than increase it. And it will make a mockery of the political case for leaving the EU.
In 2018, when legislating to enable our departure, the government appreciated it had a problem. For decades EU law has had primacy over British law and there were thousands of regulations that would fall away at the moment of leaving. In order to avoid confusion and lawlessness, the government proposed that existing EU law be retained until, in each case, parliament had a chance to review it and either replace, reform or simply replicate it.
This was clearly sensible but it required something the modern Conservative Party appears often to lack: a combination of patience and common sense.
Most proposals made by the rash and inglorious Liz Truss government were quickly reversed. The same fate has not yet befallen those of its business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to speed up the replacement of EU laws. It should. But instead his Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill continues its way through parliament, heading towards the House of Lords and trouble.
The central proposal Rees-Mogg’s bill makes is that most, if not all, EU law will simply expire at the end of 2023. In other words, in less than 12 months. If that sounds a remarkably cavalier way of dealing with decades of regulation covering thousands of issues, that is because it is.
There are a couple of ways the government hopes to avoid total chaos and large holes in the statute book. One is to allow the expiry of some EU law to be postponed until 2026. It is already obvious the government will be under intense pressure from some of its MPs to use this flexibility sparingly.
So it will more often make use of a different method — the executive, whether in England or in the devolved governments, will fill in the legal gaps.
In other words laws will not be made in Europe without parliamentary involvement, but in Britain without parliamentary involvement. This makes a farce of the idea that we left the EU to restore democratic control over law. It is almost the definition of irony that only the unelected Lords may now prevent the Commons from giving away its democratic powers in this fashion.
It is not open, really, for the sponsors of this legislation to argue that it covers mainly technical and politically uncontroversial matters in environmental and consumer protection. Not only is that not true (it includes matters such as paternity leave and air quality), it also runs directly against the democratic argument for leaving the EU, the very one advanced by people such as Rees-Mogg. How can it possibly be a democratic outrage for the single market regulations to be determined by EU bodies, but not matter much if they are introduced without parliamentary scrutiny. Either democratic consideration of these issues matters or it does not.
But even if this democratic argument were not to be accepted, allow me to try another. It is absurd — actually let me go further, it is impossible — to carefully review thousands of laws in a few months. It is inevitable the result will be unsatisfactory.
And the people in business who this re-regulation is supposed to help, people such as the Institute of Directors, are as a result deeply concerned. Replacing one set of regulations with another is by itself burdensome for business. So is uncertainty about the meaning and application of new measures. Doing it in a hurry and without time for proper discussion risks making things worse.
This is not an argument for retaining EU regulations for ever. In time we will wish to change some of them, either to reduce burdens or to tailor them to British needs, although the need to sell products abroad, and the commitments we have made in the withdrawal agreement, will naturally limit such changes.
Yet there is no need to do all this in a year. The only possible argument for doing so is that it might thwart an incoming Labour government, or — and this was raised directly by Rees-Mogg — help the Tories to kill Labour scare stories about regulation before an election campaign. These are disreputable reasons for pursuing an irresponsible policy.
And they won’t even work. To the extent that this will be an election issue, the Tories need to show they are proceeding to repatriate regulations in an orderly and sensible way. And their response to the charge that they may prove overzealous should be that they no longer have Rees-Mogg as business secretary.
It should be possible to trust that the government will not do something monumentally impractical just to show off. We learnt last year that it isn’t.
[email protected]
Daniel Finkelstein: Tories’ dash to burn EU rules is disreputable
Scrapping thousands of laws this year, as Jacob Rees-Mogg is trying to do, would be foolish and deeply anti-democratic
Daniel FinkelsteinTuesday January 03 2023, 5.00pm, The Times
Share
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?te...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sha...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...bonfire-of-eu-rules-is-disreputable-5sj60vv8c
Save
Ithink Brexit was a serious mistake. But I don’t think it was stupid. I’ve never thought that. I only wish I felt the same way about the government’s plans for revoking all EU legislation during the course of this year.
There seemed to me broadly two arguments for leaving the European Union. The first was economic. The idea that Brexit would make us more prosperous was indeed monumentally foolish. It involved believing the improvement in growth from deregulation and new trade deals would be greater than the advantages of being in the single market.
This was always highly implausible. Withholding the word “stupid” is only a matter of politeness.
Best of Times:
Our flagship newsletter featuring our top stories and analysis, delivered every morning.
One-click sign-up
The other argument for Brexit, the political argument, had more to it — that the EU was (and remains) on the path to becoming a state. Labour’s Hugh Gaitskell was right when he said of membership: “We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history.”
The disadvantage of this, the argument proceeded, was loss of national control. And a greater say in European policy didn’t compensate for this because European institutions aren’t democratic. So the political case for leaving the EU was that it would allow us to restore democracy through parliamentary sovereignty.
ADVERTISEMENT
I do not accept this political case but I do not think it stupid. My opposition to Brexit was more that, whatever force the democratic point might have had, it promised only abstract advantages. The economic loss would be concrete.
The government’s proposals for revoking EU regulation have chosen to advance the weak economic argument for Brexit at the expense of the stronger political one. They are trying to move quickly to “take advantage of our Brexit freedoms” even if that means bypassing parliament and democratic decision- making. This measure, if it passes, will I think reduce growth rather than increase it. And it will make a mockery of the political case for leaving the EU.
In 2018, when legislating to enable our departure, the government appreciated it had a problem. For decades EU law has had primacy over British law and there were thousands of regulations that would fall away at the moment of leaving. In order to avoid confusion and lawlessness, the government proposed that existing EU law be retained until, in each case, parliament had a chance to review it and either replace, reform or simply replicate it.
This was clearly sensible but it required something the modern Conservative Party appears often to lack: a combination of patience and common sense.
SPONSORED
Most proposals made by the rash and inglorious Liz Truss government were quickly reversed. The same fate has not yet befallen those of its business secretary, Jacob Rees-Mogg, to speed up the replacement of EU laws. It should. But instead his Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill continues its way through parliament, heading towards the House of Lords and trouble.
The central proposal Rees-Mogg’s bill makes is that most, if not all, EU law will simply expire at the end of 2023. In other words, in less than 12 months. If that sounds a remarkably cavalier way of dealing with decades of regulation covering thousands of issues, that is because it is.
There are a couple of ways the government hopes to avoid total chaos and large holes in the statute book. One is to allow the expiry of some EU law to be postponed until 2026. It is already obvious the government will be under intense pressure from some of its MPs to use this flexibility sparingly.
So it will more often make use of a different method — the executive, whether in England or in the devolved governments, will fill in the legal gaps.
ADVERTISEMENT
In other words laws will not be made in Europe without parliamentary involvement, but in Britain without parliamentary involvement. This makes a farce of the idea that we left the EU to restore democratic control over law. It is almost the definition of irony that only the unelected Lords may now prevent the Commons from giving away its democratic powers in this fashion.
It is not open, really, for the sponsors of this legislation to argue that it covers mainly technical and politically uncontroversial matters in environmental and consumer protection. Not only is that not true (it includes matters such as paternity leave and air quality), it also runs directly against the democratic argument for leaving the EU, the very one advanced by people such as Rees-Mogg. How can it possibly be a democratic outrage for the single market regulations to be determined by EU bodies, but not matter much if they are introduced without parliamentary scrutiny. Either democratic consideration of these issues matters or it does not.
But even if this democratic argument were not to be accepted, allow me to try another. It is absurd — actually let me go further, it is impossible — to carefully review thousands of laws in a few months. It is inevitable the result will be unsatisfactory.
And the people in business who this re-regulation is supposed to help, people such as the Institute of Directors, are as a result deeply concerned. Replacing one set of regulations with another is by itself burdensome for business. So is uncertainty about the meaning and application of new measures. Doing it in a hurry and without time for proper discussion risks making things worse.
This is not an argument for retaining EU regulations for ever. In time we will wish to change some of them, either to reduce burdens or to tailor them to British needs, although the need to sell products abroad, and the commitments we have made in the withdrawal agreement, will naturally limit such changes.
Yet there is no need to do all this in a year. The only possible argument for doing so is that it might thwart an incoming Labour government, or — and this was raised directly by Rees-Mogg — help the Tories to kill Labour scare stories about regulation before an election campaign. These are disreputable reasons for pursuing an irresponsible policy.
And they won’t even work. To the extent that this will be an election issue, the Tories need to show they are proceeding to repatriate regulations in an orderly and sensible way. And their response to the charge that they may prove overzealous should be that they no longer have Rees-Mogg as business secretary.
ADVERTISEMENT
It should be possible to trust that the government will not do something monumentally impractical just to show off. We learnt last year that it isn’t.
[email protected]
- Location
- Limousin, France
Well you didn't read what I wrote.
Why should an unregistered tourist get to take out library books or use a specific facility that he's paid no tax toward?
In my Commune you can't use the 2 local Dechetterie unless you have a card from the Mairie. This isn't discrimination , it's available to those who pay taxe foncier in the commune.
If you were legally resident in your little town , then you would be able to use the pool, your taxes would be paying for it.
WD said he was refused access when he worked there. So he was either on a contract with a UK company paying his tax in the uk or in a situation where he was not a resident and not paying tax.
The link I provided shows you have to be a legal resident in Belgium to access services.
Also the 4 freedoms are Goods , Capital, Services and Labour.
- Location
- Northumberland
Whats the weather like up there ? The nearest ive got to the Orkneys is looking over the Pentland Firth from Dunnet Head.
- Location
- Bay of Plenty NZ
Very informative, it just illiterates the EU is not the draconian institute that many paint it to be, Countries and locals are free to make their own rules and regulations.
caveman
Member
- Location
- East Sussex.
What a load of bullocks.
Were all these so called regulations, without which we shall all perish, adopted and brought into law after countless hours of parliamentary scrutiny?
Or were they just imposed upon us from Brussels due to some of us deciding that we should be a member of their club?
essex man
Member
- Location
- colchester
The government are seeking to change regulations...if people don't like what they are doing they can vote them out...he's making a good positive point for brexit here
Hindsight
Member
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I am just an ordinary Joe so how would I know. I gather some folk on TFF who respond may have stood in parliamentary or for other other elected positions - those folk would know as they put themselves forward to engage in our democracy - or no democracy if regulations were imposed.
Anyway - I will proffer a reply. Through my work I know a bit about Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Regulations which implement the EU Nitrates Directive. This has been an ongoing journey since the 1990's. You raised an interesting point and I thought the domestic regulations had been debated in Parliament but thought I would google to check - and below is the Google link.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Han...57j33i160.22650j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Several references to several debates over the years when UK MPs representing their constituents have had the opportunity and ability to mould the domestic legislation to implement a EU Directive which had been agreed and debated within the European Parliament - where again there were UK elected representatives.
The UK by the way has in my view far laxer regulation of Nitrates compared to may other Northern European members of the EU - all derived from the same EU Nitrates Directive.
The point I think Lord Finkelstein is making is that these regulations and laws have been debated in Westminster over a period of 30 years or more - and yet the Conservative Government, heavily influenced by Anti EU ERG group of MPs and the Association membership, is not prepared to allow adequate time for debate - for political purposes.
When will people wake up to the fact that it is not “Brexit that’s destroying Britain“ it’s the pathetic pompous amateurs we keep electing to spend our money, until we elect politicians with ability it’s we that are destroying Britain & can blame no one else for the demise of this once great country!
essex man
Member
- Location
- colchester
Yes, you can see how it worked over the years...on all sorts of issues, blame europe for things we don't like/that are unpopular.
It's easy and partially/wholly justified sometimes but not always.
Doesn't matter, a politician will avoid responsibility whenever possible.
It's one of the reasons the house of commons more remain than the population....
MPs get to avoid responsibility and get a job in EU apparatus if they want to move on/lose their seat.
European interest rates to rise 'significantly' in February and March, warns ECB chief
Interest rates in the eurozone will rise "significantly" in February and March, according to a European Central Bank chief, as the continent battles to bring down inflation.
www.telegraph.co.uk
merino
Member
- Location
- The North East
That's a lot of words for no
Expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive offer for farmers published
Expanded Sustainable Farming Incentive offer from July will give the sector a clear path forward and boost farm business resilience.
From: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and The Rt Hon Sir Mark Spencer MP Published21 May 2024
Full details of the expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) offer available to farmers from July have been published by the...
From: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs and The Rt Hon Sir Mark Spencer MP Published21 May 2024
Full details of the expanded and improved Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) offer available to farmers from July have been published by the...