The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[Litotes 63]

Just now, apelike said:

When the likes of Barnier, Tusk and the the other main players of the EU are getting paid in the region of € 300,000 PA with lavish expenses for doing their job I doubt if they are socialist by nature. In anycase not everybody is a socialist as we can see from this thread. A fair amount of remainers on here have already stated how they have made money out of this and are quite well insulated from it.

That'll include nice Nigel Farage  - an ex-banker from the city who still pockets a substantial amount from the EU.

 

WHen you look at the amount BoJo, Nice NIge and the victorian Rees-Mogggggggg are due to pocket from leaving, you have to admit that Brexit is filling the pockets of the fat cat leavers? eh?

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Litotes said:

That'll include nice Nigel Farage  - an ex-banker from the city who still pockets a substantial amount from the EU.

And so does that socialist Kinnock and his wife who will still get an EU pension.

 

Quote

 

WHen you look at the amount BoJo, Nice NIge and the victorian Rees-Mogggggggg are due to pocket from leaving, you have to admit that Brexit is filling the pockets of the fat cat leavers? eh?

Swings and roundabouts as both remainers and brexiters are pocketing from this, but despite that how much are the above going to earn from it as I cant find that information.

Edited February 21, 2019 by apelike

[Shunter 0]

12 hours ago, I1L2T3 said:

We haven’t left yet. The removal of rights comes later

Tell us what is sensible about Brexit

 

Try it.

Easy. When the subject of controlled immigration was put forward, the EU stood firm and said the UK must accept "X" amount every year, as per agreement. This agreement with the EU was set in concrete, so to speak.

The Brexit politicians agreed that this was unacceptable and was one of the key reasons for Brexit, as has been said so many times before.

of course the answer is agree a more sustainable level by political means, over the table etc, and most probably not a withdrawal from EU membership, but that's how it's panned out. 

So immigration levels---- Most definable Brexit policy that is very good and useful to us as a country to ease our housing/NHS health tourism burdens.

Now I'm no fan of Brexit per say, but there's one example that both sides do have reputable arguement.

[Cyclone 10]

19 hours ago, neworderishere said:

rubbish, the big companies did all they could to sell this fix and that fix and scared big businesses and organisations into running around like headless chickens to safeguard their software etc and in the end nothing happend not because of the threat but in spite of! a few people made a lot of money. we didnt do anything to our computer systems at the time and guess what everything was ok 1/1/2000! any effect brexit may or may not have will be overcome and we will be better off. new order is here!

You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about.  Which kind of makes sense since you're in favour of brexit.  In fact, par for the course.

20 minutes ago, Shunter said:

Easy. When the subject of controlled immigration was put forward, the EU stood firm and said the UK must accept "X" amount every year, as per agreement. This agreement with the EU was set in concrete, so to speak.

The Brexit politicians agreed that this was unacceptable and was one of the key reasons for Brexit, as has been said so many times before.

of course the answer is agree a more sustainable level by political means, over the table etc, and most probably not a withdrawal from EU membership, but that's how it's panned out. 

So immigration levels---- Most definable Brexit policy that is very good and useful to us as a country to ease our housing/NHS health tourism burdens.

Now I'm no fan of Brexit per say, but there's one example that both sides do have reputable arguement.

X amount of whom?  This sounds like complete nonsense to be honest.

The EU has and had no control over our immigration policy for peoples from outside the EU, and since we are (still) part of the free movement area we didn't have to accept any number of EU migrants, we had to accept all of them, any that wished to come here.  But, we could (and chose not to) return them if they didn't prove to be productive members of society.

 

As a result of brexit though we are likely to have to accept far more immigrants from outside the EU, down to conditions imposed as part of the oh, so easy, trade deals that we will be desperately chasing for the next decade.

 

So, no, that isn't an example of a reputable argument, it's just more FUD.

[Magilla 510]

..........................

Edited February 21, 2019 by Magilla

[Magilla 510]

1 hour ago, Shunter said:

Easy. When the subject of controlled immigration was put forward, the EU stood firm and said the UK must accept "X" amount every year, as per agreement. This agreement with the EU was set in concrete, so to speak.

The Brexit politicians agreed that this was unacceptable and was one of the key reasons for Brexit, as has been said so many times before.

Sounds like another one of those "myths", got any proof?

 

1 hour ago, Shunter said:

of course the answer is agree a more sustainable level by political means, over the table etc, and most probably not a withdrawal from EU membership, but that's how it's panned out. 

So immigration levels---- Most definable Brexit policy that is very good and useful to us as a country to ease our housing/NHS health tourism burdens.

Immigratiion was entirely controllable, the UK couldn't be bothered.

NHS, housing, education fall entirely at the feet of UK governments. Any failure is nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

Health tourism doesn't involve EU citizens *at all*. Health tourism costs the UK less than missed GP appointments.

Most immigrants don't come from the EU.

 

1 hour ago, Shunter said:

Now I'm no fan of Brexit per say, but there's one example that both sides do have reputable arguement.

Only if you have no idea what you're talking about

 

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

So, no, that isn't an example of a reputable argument, it's just more FUD.

Absolutely, someone got played for a fool

[ads36 214]

3 hours ago, Shunter said:

Easy. When the subject of controlled immigration was put forward, the EU stood firm and said the UK ....

... could try using the powers already in place, used effectively by other EU countries, before asking for new controls.

 

that's what they said.

 

 

 

Edited February 21, 2019 by ads36

[Top Cats Hat 10]

3 hours ago, Shunter said:

Easy. When the subject of controlled immigration was put forward, the EU stood firm and said the UK must accept "X" amount every year, as per agreement. This agreement with the EU was set in concrete, so to speak.

This was a lie in 2016 so why are you repeating it in 2019?

 

You claim to be no fan of Brexit yet you are repeating the lies which conned many people into voting for Brexit.

[Shunter 0]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You literally don't have a clue what you're talking about.  Which kind of makes sense since you're in favour of brexit.  In fact, par for the course.

X amount of whom?  This sounds like complete nonsense to be honest.

The EU has and had no control over our immigration policy for peoples from outside the EU, and since we are (still) part of the free movement area we didn't have to accept any number of EU migrants, we had to accept all of them, any that wished to come here.  But, we could (and chose not to) return them if they didn't prove to be productive members of society.

 

As a result of brexit though we are likely to have to accept far more immigrants from outside the EU, down to conditions imposed as part of the oh, so easy, trade deals that we will be desperately chasing for the next decade.

 

So, no, that isn't an example of a reputable argument, it's just more FUD.

So you say, but what you usually say is pretty much made up fake news you've found whilst googling.

Repetitive too.

3 hours ago, Magilla said:

Sounds like another one of those "myths", got any proof?

 

Immigratiion was entirely controllable, the UK couldn't be bothered.

NHS, housing, education fall entirely at the feet of UK governments. Any failure is nothing whatsoever to do with the EU.

Health tourism doesn't involve EU citizens *at all*. Health tourism costs the UK less than missed GP appointments.

Most immigrants don't come from the EU.

 

Only if you have no idea what you're talking about

 

Absolutely, someone got played for a fool

Another bandwagon uneducated poster. Try to make you own decisions, rather than those of lesser consistency. 

Works wonders.

[Magilla 510]

23 minutes ago, Shunter said:

Another bandwagon uneducated poster. Try to make you own decisions, rather than those of lesser consistency. 

Works wonders.

So that would be a "no" then

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ads36 said:

... could try using the powers already in place, used effectively by other EU countries, before asking for new controls.

 

that's what they said.

Indeed they did!

[Shunter 0]

Just now, Magilla said:

So that would be a "no" then

 

 

 

 

Take it however you wish. You nor I can stop the inevitable so now it is time to listen to both sides and get a conclusion from within. 

And that's BOTH sides, not just one saying how ridiculous the other is. 

[Magilla 510]

12 minutes ago, Shunter said:

Take it however you wish. You nor I can stop the inevitable so now it is time to listen to both sides and get a conclusion from within. 

Can you substantiate your claim or not?

 

I say you can't, because it's nonsense and didn't happen.

 

Quote

And that's BOTH sides, not just one saying how ridiculous the other is. 

Only one side is looking ridiculous in light of reality. More so daily!

Edited February 21, 2019 by Magilla