Brexit thread - what happens next

Status
Not open for further replies.
datalol-jack said:
A pretty good way is to install a murderous dictator and crash the economy. You don't even need a draconian points system for that or any other additional measures to take effect.

.
Click to expand...

Best avoid it then... But how do Saudi and the other cabal of kingdom royals deny refugees?
 
RaohNS said:
Syria to UK: 1,500-1,800 miles?
Syria to Saudi and Emirate kingdoms: ~1,000miles

Saudi Arabia: Safe
UAE: Safe
Bahrain: Safe
Qatar: Safe
UAE: Safe

Turkey: Safe enough.

Now apply the same test for Yazidi christians and other minorities. Are they safe in the above countries? I'm gonna answer as you wont: No.

Embassies have the capacity to proves tens of thousands: Yes. Look at India. I can imagine we receive 10-20,000 requests each year from India alone. Googlefu is weak on this.

You are also assuming every one is going to apply to the UK also.
Click to expand...

How about to Greece? And how many Syrians are going into the UK illegally? The migration crisis has hardy affected Britain, rather the biggest affected in the EU is Greece, which is next to Turkey, considered unsafe by most countries in the EU.

You're still missing the point that not every refugee travels from the same location and on the same route and that all muslims are not the same.

There is also a massive difference between applications for visas and asylum applications, which by their very nature mean people aren't going to stand around waiting for months/years to get approval, all the while trying to hide from the security forces of their country, or avoid the bombs being dropped on their city.

Yes, asylum seekers and refugees should apply and or stay in the first safe country, and most are. That doesn't mean that those not doing so should immediately be banned and deported. There are a myriad of reasons why they may not have stayed in the first country, only one being economic.

And on the economic reasons, do you really begrudge people leaving camps in Greece/Turkey to try and find somewhere to make some money to send back to their families, so they can eat, and perhaps don't have to marry off their daughters to some old man, just so she can actually get enough food to eat?
 
RaohNS said:
Best avoid it then... But how do Saudi and the other cabal of kingdom royals deny refugees?
Click to expand...

Arbitrary conditions that skirt the letter of the international treaties you've signed up to, provided you've signed up in the first place. Others choose a less confrontational approach by making the claim process so bureaucratic it becomes inaccessible to most. There's also a big fight over what's considered a safe country atm, and whether foreign aid can substitute for asylum. The Saudis and Japanese are examples, but are far from the worst. It's also bizarre that we attempt to shift the greatest burden on the less developed and stable countries, but if you look at the numbers -- that's exactly the approach for political reasons prevalent in developed countries. Have a look yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population. And we then wonder why problems keep on cascading in the regions most affected.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
Theresa May will trigger Brexit negotiations without Commons vote

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...gger-brexit-negotiations-without-commons-vot/
Click to expand...

Well good luck with that. Doubt Parliament is going to be too impressed, the majority being Remainers. Doubt the Cabinet are either, 70% of them are Remainers.

I guess bypassing Parliament on a matter of extreme constitutional importance is fine if it suits your own particular agenda then? So much for democracy.

Of course, as with the referendum, this is as much about trying to hold together a divided Conservative Party as anything else. Even the 'Three Brexiteers' apparently can't agree on much:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ox-and-david-davis-meet-to-clear-the-air-aft/
 
Skunkworks said:
Suddenly care about majorities?
Click to expand...

I care about representational democracy and Parliamentary supremacy. If you genuinely care about sovereignty you should do too. Any decision being made that bypasses Parliament should ring alarm bells, whether or not on this occasion it is enacting something you want to happen.

If a bill to enact Article 50 is passed by Parliament I'll accept it (albeit reluctantly) just like any other legislation passed by Parliament. Doesn't mean I won't campaign against it in the future, but I would accept it. What I don't accept is the result of an advisory referendum being enacted by the executive without the consent of Parliament.

This has the potential to melt down into a huge constitutional mess.
 
So I read an article earlier (trying to find it again) about WTO. I wonder if someone can clear this up for me. I know as a member state of the EU we automatically hae membership to WTO.

But once we leave the EU... Surely that would mean we loose that and have to reapply. And all members have to agree on the application. Is that correct?

If that's true what's stopping places like Argentina and Spain saying no until they get the Falklands and Gibraltar back?
 
lol why are you bothering to respond to a Skunkworks post? It's just an endless loop of "You hate Britain" "Remain hate democracy" "Salt" "Triggered" and I am sort of impressed that they aren't bored yet.
 
Cern said:
I care about representational democracy and Parliamentary supremacy. If you genuinely care about sovereignty you should do too. Any decision being made that bypasses Parliament should ring alarm bells, whether or not on this occasion it is enacting something you want to happen.

If a bill to enact Article 50 is passed by Parliament I'll accept it (albeit reluctantly) just like any other legislation passed by Parliament. Doesn't mean I won't campaign against it in the future, but I would accept it. What I don't accept is the result of an advisory referendum being enacted by the executive without the consent of Parliament.

This has the potential to melt down into a huge constitutional mess.
Click to expand...

Can you link me to the post where you expressed this when DC said he would invoke Article 50 the day after the referendum?
 
Skunkworks said:
This thread is an endless loop of “advisory”, “non-binding”, “2nd ref”, “ignore the result”.
Click to expand...

If you see "this is a potential constitutional issue" and read it as "I hate democracy" then who knows what you see this thread as.

sityeuropa said:
No, definitely not. I'll be out on the streets for one. So if I'm willing to step out and travel being the placid person that I am then 17 million I'm guessing will be pretty ****** off too.
Click to expand...

Out on the streets doing what? Marching on Parliament and using your democratic right to protest their decision? A thing that crowds of people were criticised for doing two months ago?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom