Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Paul the Wolf said:
But we are talking about individual country's decisions , I'm so far away with agreeing with the Italian leader but how many refugees have Italy taken and how many have the UK taken, in fact tell me which European country has taken less than the UK. If you, an anti-Tory, can't see how much the UK PM obviously dislikes foreigners there's something wrong.
Click to expand...
Well no-one has to take any cos eu only give recommendations and cant enforce shit, then you have the kind greeks and italians forced by proxy to take everyone, i dont get your sharing of burden at this point.

And thats why the germans are allowed to run a massive budget surplus, against eu recommendations. You get the picture right? If you dont then you are blind. I get why budget surplus should not be so high, do you get the idea behind it?

You live in a country run by a big eu fan and its failing in many ways. Apart from trade, what is it about the eu you find so fascinating?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/26/fact-check-how-many-refugees-has-each-eu-country-taken-in

It was vaguely related to article similar to this that this discussion started and started the row with EU and Poland/Hungary.
The UK and Denmark were not part of the scheme and didn't take any.
How accurate these figures are/were is open to question.
Click to expand...
I remember the Hungarian PM was pretty strident in rejecting refugees. The Swiss too.
Defo no easy answers to solving this tbf.
 
Stanley Road said:
Well no-one has to take any cos eu only give recommendations and cant enforce shit, then you have the kind greeks and italians forced by proxy to take everyone, i dont get your sharing of burden at this point.

And thats why the germans are allowed to run a massive budget surplus, against eu recommendations. You get the picture right? If you dont then you are blind. I get why budget surplus should not be so high, do you get the idea behind it?

You live in a country run by a big eu fan and its failing in many ways. Apart from trade, what is it about the eu you find so fascinating?
Click to expand...

It's not me that said we live in a United States of Europe, think that was the Brexiters if I recall, it's a union of individual countries. Rhetoric moves around to suit. As the UK is supposedly governed by the EU how come they don't have to take any.

Let's imagine that the EU doesn't exist. What now happens to the refugees in Italy and Greece?

You're talking about the surplus of Germany, terrible to be successful . Which country has taken the most refugees, ah that'd be Germany.
France's failing in so many ways in what sense. They're not allowed to issue zero hours contracts to reduce unemployment figures.

I think Britain will find out next year what was so fascinating about the EU.
 
Jippy said:
I remember the Hungarian PM was pretty strident in rejecting refugees. The Swiss too.
Defo no easy answers to solving this tbf.
Click to expand...

Most of the countries are reluctant to take them tbf, how do you solve it, no idea.
Simplistic solution, stop the cause, more delusional than a Brexiteer in a real world.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But we are talking about individual country's decisions , I'm so far away with agreeing with the Italian leader but how many refugees have Italy taken and how many have the UK taken, in fact tell me which European country has taken less than the UK. If you, an anti-Tory, can't see how much the UK PM obviously dislikes foreigners there's something wrong.
Click to expand...
Paul the Wolf said:
It's not me that said we live in a United States of Europe, think that was the Brexiters if I recall, it's a union of individual countries. Rhetoric moves around to suit. As the UK is supposedly governed by the EU how come they don't have to take any.

Let's imagine that the EU doesn't exist. What now happens to the refugees in Italy and Greece?

You're talking about the surplus of Germany, terrible to be successful . Which country has taken the most refugees, ah that'd be Germany.
France's failing in so many ways in what sense. They're not allowed to issue zero hours contracts to reduce unemployment figures.

I think Britain will find out next year what was so fascinating about the EU.
Click to expand...

As far as I know, EU agreed on a quota for each country and many don't comply. If I remember right UK HAS to take refugees, as the eastern european that they refuse (and other countries). Or at least is what I understood 2 years ago. I don't know if it changed.
 
4bars said:
As far as I know, EU agreed on a quota for each country and many don't comply. If I remember right UK HAS to take refugees, as the eastern european that they refuse (and other countries). Or at least is what I understood 2 years ago. I don't know if it changed.
Click to expand...
Is not working, Portugal for example had the socialist government saying they could take 10000 refugees but end up with about 2500 and after they moved to Portugal churches and non governmental social organizations are tge ones helping them not the government .... over 40% of the refugees end up trying to reach Germany.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You're talking about the surplus of Germany, terrible to be successful . Which country has taken the most refugees, ah that'd be Germany.
Click to expand...

Merkel's irresponsible rhetoric encouraged vast number of migrants to try to get to Europe. By the EU's own figures, the vast majority of the migrants were not refugees but opportunistic economic migrants buoyed by the promise of a new life in Europe from the German leader.

To compound matters an EU delegation led by Germany reneged on their humanitarian stance and decided to pay Turkey billions to take millions of refugees when the situation became politically impossible, knowing that the treatment the refugees will get in Turkey is highly likely to be poor.

Turkey have taken 3.5 million refugees so far.

The policy has been a major failure on every level. It made genuine refugees prospect of getting the help they need very difficult and cost Merkel in a big way on a political level in Germany.

I said at the time I thought Cameron was right in trying to discourage refugees from making the crossing and improve refugee camp conditions in safe zones in the Middle East.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
It's not me that said we live in a United States of Europe, think that was the Brexiters if I recall, it's a union of individual countries. Rhetoric moves around to suit. As the UK is supposedly governed by the EU how come they don't have to take any.

Let's imagine that the EU doesn't exist. What now happens to the refugees in Italy and Greece?

You're talking about the surplus of Germany, terrible to be successful . Which country has taken the most refugees, ah that'd be Germany.
France's failing in so many ways in what sense. They're not allowed to issue zero hours contracts to reduce unemployment figures.

I think Britain will find out next year what was so fascinating about the EU.
Click to expand...
You miss the point yet again mate. Germanys surplus defies eu rules. Yes, they cant do anything right. So apart from trade and not following eu rules, what is it about the eu that you like?
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Merkel's irresponsible rhetoric encouraged vast number of migrants to try to get to Europe. By the EU's own figures, the vast majority of the migrants were not refugees but opportunistic economic migrants buoyed by the promise of a new life in Europe from the German leader.

To compound matters an EU delegation led by Germany reneged on their humanitarian stance and decided to pay Turkey billions to take millions of refugees when the situation became politically impossible, knowing that the treatment the refugees will get in Turkey is highly likely to be poor.

Turkey have taken 3.5 million refugees so far.

The policy has been a major failure on every level. It made genuine refugees prospect of getting the help they need very difficult and cost Merkel in a big way on a political level in Germany.

I said at the time I thought Cameron was right in trying to discourage refugees from making the crossing and improve refugee camp conditions in safe zones in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
Cameron called it right for me too, which isn't a thing I often say.
 
4bars said:
As far as I know, EU agreed on a quota for each country and many don't comply. If I remember right UK HAS to take refugees, as the eastern european that they refuse (and other countries). Or at least is what I understood 2 years ago. I don't know if it changed.
Click to expand...

If you look at the link regarding this subject I posted just before your post it lists the numbers each country were asked to take and how many they took in 2017. As stated the UK and Denmark were not in the scheme and did not take any.
 
Stanley Road said:
You miss the point yet again mate. Germanys surplus defies eu rules. Yes, they cant do anything right. So apart from trade and not following eu rules, what is it about the eu that you like?
Click to expand...


As a percentage NL breaks the rules much more than Germany, it's just that Germany is a much bigger country it is noticed more. Also they are talking of defining how the surplus is calculated.
Countries make surplus and some have defecits. Maybe everyone should be the same and everyone not have surplusses or defecits and everyone can be the same and everyone becomes equal but some become more equal than others , that sounds like the USSR.

Sorry but I haven't got the time to list all the benefits of the EU, would be too many pages, but have probably covered a lot of them over the past couple of years or so.

Maybe a shorter list would be yours as to the benefits of the UK leaving the EU. One line would probably cover it;) .


https://www.google.nl/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/angela-merkel-germany-breaks-more-eu-rules-worst-bottom-class-a8198271.html?amp
Click to expand...

Not exactly very detailed is it.
 
Last edited:
Classical Mechanic said:
Merkel's irresponsible rhetoric encouraged vast number of migrants to try to get to Europe. By the EU's own figures, the vast majority of the migrants were not refugees but opportunistic economic migrants buoyed by the promise of a new life in Europe from the German leader.

To compound matters an EU delegation led by Germany reneged on their humanitarian stance and decided to pay Turkey billions to take millions of refugees when the situation became politically impossible, knowing that the treatment the refugees will get in Turkey is highly likely to be poor.

Turkey have taken 3.5 million refugees so far.

The policy has been a major failure on every level. It made genuine refugees prospect of getting the help they need very difficult and cost Merkel in a big way on a political level in Germany.

I said at the time I thought Cameron was right in trying to discourage refugees from making the crossing and improve refugee camp conditions in safe zones in the Middle East.
Click to expand...

You are talking about the Syrian and other ME refugees who are in Iran, Lebanon, Turkey etc who have fled their country due to the conflicts caused by...
Lebanon for example is about the size of Wales, has a population (6m) of double that of Wales (3m) but have taken in 1m refugees. Sounds like NIMBY. Safe and a long way away. Where would that be.

The latest discussion was about those crossing over from Libya which the EU have suggested to Libya to process the refugees/immigrants/asylum seekers in Libya which Libya refused.

I am not saying who is right and wrong or what the solution is. There are more than 25million refugees worldwide. What happens to them and where do they go?
 
Stanley Road said:
Less than half that of Germany but that's not the point is it, It's like one of the govt's failed IT projects.
Click to expand...

Double actually - 12% (NL) against 6% but who said I agree with every one of the EU rules, as I've said it's not perfect but much better than the alternative.
Good luck to NL and Germany. You said you didn't like stagnation.

Trump is complaining that the USA have such a big deficit with the EU and especially Germany, one reason why he's annoyed but fails to take into account services which balances it up.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
http://www.euronews.com/2017/09/26/fact-check-how-many-refugees-has-each-eu-country-taken-in

It was vaguely related to article similar to this that this discussion started and started the row with EU and Poland/Hungary.
The UK and Denmark were not part of the scheme and didn't take any.
How accurate these figures are/were is open to question.
Click to expand...

Britain might not have been part of the scheme but they have taken refugees at numbers higher than those quoted for all those countries with 10000 from Syria alone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43826163

On your other point. I would argue that its best to keep refugees as close to their homeland as possible and strive to give them the best conditions possible in their temporary homes until they can return home.

The streets being paved with gold in Europe invariably proves to be a myth for them for a variety of reasons.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Britain might not have been part of the scheme but they have taken refugees at numbers higher than those quoted for all those countries with 10000 from Syria alone.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43826163

On your other point. I would argue that its best to keep refugees as close to their homeland as possible and strive to give them the best conditions possible in their temporary homes until they can return home.

The streets being paved with gold in Europe invariably proves to be a myth for them for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...

But that was just that relocation scheme, other countries particularly western European countries have taken far more as a percentage of the population than the UK (not just the numbers in that list).

Regarding the Syrian/Iraq refugees they are/were very close to home as Turkey, Lebanon and Iran are the bordering countries, there's nowhere closer, but how are these countries supposed to cope with such a large volume of refugees.
As you say the UK took in 10000 Syrian refugees , how would they cope with millions?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
But that was just that relocation scheme, other countries particularly western European countries have taken far more as a percentage of the population than the UK (not just the numbers in that list).

Regarding the Syrian/Iraq refugees they are/were very close to home as Turkey, Lebanon and Iran are the bordering countries, there's nowhere closer, but how are these countries supposed to cope with such a large volume of refugees.
As you say the UK took in 10000 Syrian refugees , how would they cope with millions?
Click to expand...

Britain could cope with millions economically, just not politically. The close proximity countries would be given mass scale financial aid from European countries, the approach that Cameron advocated from the start and the approach that was taken by the EU eventually after mass chaos was caused by the supposed humanitarian approach from Merkal.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Britain could cope with millions economically, just not politically. The close proximity countries would be given mass scale financial aid from European countries, the approach that Cameron advocated from the start and the approach that was taken by the EU eventually after mass chaos was caused by the supposed humanitarian approach from Merkal.
Click to expand...

Neither Merkel nor Germany moved away from that "supposed humanitarian approach". The mass chaos wasn't created by the destination of the refugees, it was created by their countries of origin and those countries involved there for decades/centuries.

Britain could cope perfectly. It just doesn't want to.
 
Abizzz said:
Neither Merkel nor Germany moved away from that "supposed humanitarian approach". The mass chaos wasn't created by the destination of the refugees, it was created by their countries of origin and those countries involved there for decades/centuries.

Britain could cope perfectly. It just doesn't want to.
Click to expand...

Most of the migrants were of the economic opportunists encouraged by Merkel's rhetoric at being accepted in Germany. In reality, the promised land for them, or just a safe haven for refugees has proven to be a myth.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/06/europe/angela-merkel-migration-germany-intl/index.html

Their policy has changed

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/world/europe/angela-merkel-migration-coalition.html

I said that Britain could cope economically but not politically. Even Germany couldn't cope politically.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Britain could cope with millions economically, just not politically. The close proximity countries would be given mass scale financial aid from European countries, the approach that Cameron advocated from the start and the approach that was taken by the EU eventually after mass chaos was caused by the supposed humanitarian approach from Merkal.
Click to expand...

You said in your earlier post that Turkey's would lead to poor treatment of refugees but this is where the supposed safe haven is. The Uk are trying to cut back on international aid.

How do you know that the 6 million Syrian refugees or what percentage of them were supposedly economic opportunists?
Who says the streets of Europe are paved with gold.
Merkel was criticised for taking them in and for not taking them in.

Immigrants from outside Europe have been trying to get from Calais to the UK for years, why, because they believe the UK will give them money, a house to live in etc, where does this myth originate from.

Politically for sure the Uk and most countries could not cope.

As we're in the Brexit thread, a major cause for Brexit was the supposed flood of immigrants into the UK from Europe, these are the people working and contributing to society and they have been rejected by not only the Brexiters but by the Tory and Labour Parties in their Brexit stance and because the UK supposedly are being hit economically by them. Although this is false how could the UK cope economically with refugees who have no jobs, money or housing on top of the legal immigrants.

Everyone is sympathetic to refugees as long as they don't affect them personally. I'm not just talking of the UK either.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
You said in your earlier post that Turkey's would lead to poor treatment of refugees but this is where the supposed safe haven is. The Uk are trying to cut back on international aid.

How do you know that the 6 million Syrian refugees or what percentage of them were supposedly economic opportunists?
Who says the streets of Europe are paved with gold.
Merkel was criticised for taking them in and for not taking them in.

Immigrants from outside Europe have been trying to get from Calais to the UK for years, why, because they believe the UK will give them money, a house to live in etc, where does this myth originate from.

Politically for sure the Uk and most countries could not cope.

As we're in the Brexit thread, a major cause for Brexit was the supposed flood of immigrants into the UK from Europe, these are the people working and contributing to society and they have been rejected by not only the Brexiters but by the Tory and Labour Parties in their Brexit stance and because the UK supposedly are being hit economically by them. Although this is false how could the UK cope economically with refugees who have no jobs, money or housing on top of the legal immigrants.

Everyone is sympathetic to refugees as long as they don't affect them personally. I'm not just talking of the UK either.
Click to expand...

Because Turkey is still underfunded in that regard.

The UK offered the most financial aid to the refugee camps than any other country in the initial phase. I'm not sure what you mean about cutting back on international aid because the UK is one of the few European countries to hit the UN recommended level and May says that won't change last I heard.

The figures came from the EUs Frontex agency.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-not-refugees-eu-vice-president-a6836306.html

I agree with your general point regarding NIMBY though.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Because Turkey is still underfunded in that regard.

The UK offered the most financial aid to the refugee camps than any other country in the initial phase. I'm not sure what you mean about cutting back on international aid because the UK is one of the few European countries to hit the UN recommended level and May says that won't change last I heard.

The figures came from the EUs Frontex agency.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-not-refugees-eu-vice-president-a6836306.html

I agree with your general point regarding NIMBY though.
Click to expand...


I saw this recent Frontex report which is quite long but can't see where it shows those refugees that come for economic reasons.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2018...e-forum-on-fundamental-rights-report-2017.pdf

It suggests that the more recent waves of immigrants, ie from Libya are from more diversified countries which could suggest more for economic reasoning.

Yes you're right re aid, Uk is third behind USA and Germany but remember at the beginning of the year she was under pressure to reduce aid especially to countries like India.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Most of the migrants were of the economic opportunists encouraged by Merkel's rhetoric at being accepted in Germany. In reality, the promised land for them, or just a safe haven for refugees has proven to be a myth.
Click to expand...
You've really fallen for Farage, haven't you? The first three countries of origin for 2017 where, 1)Syria, 2) Afghanisstan 2) Irak.

https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anla...n-zahlen-2017-asyl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

Do tell me how peaceful those countries are, and how your often mentioned visionary Cameron contributed to said peace.
Classical Mechanic said:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/06/europe/angela-merkel-migration-germany-intl/index.html

Their policy has changed
Click to expand...
Some policies changed, some will change, but the actual policy of taking in refugees who arrive at our border hasn't.
Classical Mechanic said:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/world/europe/angela-merkel-migration-coalition.html

I said that Britain could cope economically but not politically. Even Germany couldn't cope politically.
Click to expand...
What are you on about? Germany even voted in the exact same coalition again just last year. Saying one can't cope politically is just a euphemism for one doesn't care enough.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Most of the migrants were of the economic opportunists encouraged by Merkel's rhetoric at being accepted in Germany. In reality, the promised land for them, or just a safe haven for refugees has proven to be a myth.

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/07/06/europe/angela-merkel-migration-germany-intl/index.html

Their policy has changed

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/02/world/europe/angela-merkel-migration-coalition.html

I said that Britain could cope economically but not politically. Even Germany couldn't cope politically.
Click to expand...

Britain tries to conquer the world then gets angry when the conquered follows it home.
 
Ramshock said:
Are we still pretending that this clusterfeck isnt the disaster it clearly is?

Bless!
Click to expand...

Are we still pretending people being bombed and slaughtered choose to cross an ocean on tiny boats because a German chancellor says Germany will stick to the laws it's had for 50+ years?

Edit: Suddenly a lot less certain you meant me.
 
Abizzz said:
Saying one can't cope politically is just a euphemism for one doesn't care enough.
Click to expand...

Ramshock said:
Britain tries to conquer the world then gets angry when the conquered follows it home.
Click to expand...

That’s the way it is. Neither major UK party could remain in power with a similar approach to Germany by accepting as many refugees as they did in a similar space of time.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
Merkel's irresponsible rhetoric encouraged vast number of migrants to try to get to Europe. By the EU's own figures, the vast majority of the migrants were not refugees but opportunistic economic migrants buoyed by the promise of a new life in Europe from the German leader.
Click to expand...

Myth. They refugee crisis was already on going when she offered to take them into Germany. Whether she'd said anything or not the refugees were coming
 
This thread is hilarious. The amount of time people spent banging on about unelected officials, and now the past couple of pages it has suddenly become all Merkel's fault.

Meanwhile, Barclays has become Ireland's biggest bank, and other big investment houses like Bank of America and JP Morgan are moving loads of people, senior people, to Dublin. That's happening right now. And that's not to mention other industries, and not to mention what is moving to Paris, Luxembourg, Frankfurt and elsewhere.

But at least those refugees aren't let in, right?
 
Paul the Wolf said:
Government are just starting publishing the No Deal notices, should be fun reading.

Raab's speech: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/secretary-of-state-dominic-raabs-speech-on-no-deal-planning
Click to expand...
Why we’re planning for no deal
And at the same time, naturally we have to got to consider the alternative possibility, that the EU does not match our ambition and pragmatism, and we do not reach a deal.
Click to expand...
:lol: The feckers are so transparent, it's unbelievable.
 
Rajma said:
:lol: The feckers are so transparent, it's unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Davis was a lazy idiot but Raab comes across as totally out of his depth and hasn't a clue what he's doing. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic for the UK.

Smores said:
What amuses me the most is not so long ago they were saying they can't make any promises or statements because it would weaken their bargaining position. Now there's a long list of positions that we're going to take to maintain alignment with the EU :lol:
Click to expand...

Never understood that, either they comply to EU regulations regarding the freedoms which means getting a deal or they don't and don't get a deal, their only bargaining position is the money which if they don't pay will cause them even more problems or people's lives they gamble with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.