Lies Told To Norway

[four-wheel-drive]

Another thing to think about is as it would seem most of the MPs want to stay in if we vote out will there negotiations with EU make much difference for us I for one do not trust any of them.

Edited June 17, 2016 by four-wheel-drive

[Granett]

the EU and appointed people make and pass laws which can not be changed

They can be changed. In what way are EU laws anymore immutable than UK laws? Perhaps you're referring to the notion that EU are passed onto the UK and we are compelled to put them on the statute book. Which laws like that don't you like? Because most of them we'd have probably needed anyway. But, genuinely, which EU laws don't you like? I'm asking sincerely because I don't know the answer - it's a view that comes up a lot so its clearly passionately held, but I don't know to what it refers (other than a hunch that it's some nebulous anti-British-people-being-happy-and-eating-all-weird-shaped-fruit legislation that deservedly needs tackling as a priority).

 

...these appointed people can not be voted out...

Yes they can - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission#Resignation

 

...and the laws can not be changed....

If this is a different point to your first then I don't understand it.

 

...how is that a democracy

Because of all the ways in which, in reality, the Eu Commission is completely unlike your beliefs about what it is and how it works.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Granett

[Granett]

As an example the people can do nothing regarding immigration while a member of the eu

Immigration is a net benefit to the UK. Free movement of people is not likely to be restricted if we leave because it will likely be a condition of trade agreements post-exit. And immigration is a net benefit to the UK.

[12gauge82]

They can be changed. In what way are EU laws anymore immutable than UK laws? Perhaps you're referring to the notion that EU are passed onto the UK and we are compelled to put them on the statute book. Which laws like that don't you like? Because most of them we'd have probably needed anyway. But, genuinely, which EU laws don't you like? I'm asking sincerely because I don't know the answer - it's a view that comes up a lot so its clearly passionately held, but I don't know to what it refers (other than a hunch that it's some nebulous anti-British-people-being-happy-and-eating-all-weird-shaped-fruit legislation that deservedly needs tackling as a priority).

 

Yes they can - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission#Resignation

 

If this is a different point to your first then I don't understand it.

 

Because of all the ways in which, in reality, the Eu Commission is completely unlike your beliefs about what it is and how it works.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santer_Commission#Resignation

Load of nonsense, the appointed people in the EU can not be voted out by the people of the UK,its not about which laws I don't like, its the fact that once they're made they can not be unmade by the people of the UK, and the people who made them can't be voted out by us either, if you can't understand that then we are polar worlds apart, this is something many people fought and died for, like I said for me and in my opinion should be for others end of story

[Granett]

Load of nonsense, the appointed people in the EU can not be voted out by the people of the UK

 

You're just wrong. You can vote out your MEP and you can vote out your head of state. Can Oxfordshire claim the UK isn't democratic because the county can't vote out members of the cabinet?

 

 

its not about which laws I don't like

Well it is really - it would be pretty telling if you cannot point at a law and say "this has been imposed on me against my will and as a direct result of EU membership".

 

its the fact that once they're made they can not be unmade by the people of the UK

 

But those laws would have been decided on by a parliament in which you are directly represented, and there aren't any you object to.

 

and the people who made them can't be voted out by us either

 

Is this just the same point made earlier?

 

if you can't understand that then we are polar worlds apart

It's not a misunderstanding on my part - your beliefs about the EU commission are just plain wrong. Your premise is based on false assumptions. Your argument is fundamentally flawed.

 

this is something many people fought and died for, like I said for me and in my opinion should be for others end of story

 

What? People fought and died for your misunderstanding of what the EU is and how it works?

 

As Winston Churchill said:

 

"I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible."

 

and then later:-

 

"We must build a kind of United States of Europe.. The structure of the United States of Europe, if well and truly built, will be such as to make the material strength of a single state less important.. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join the Union, we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and those who can."

Edited June 17, 2016 by Granett

[Vince Green]

Want to provide a credible source for that? I won't hold my breath. While you're looking:-

 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

 

"European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services"

That report was completely discredited almost as soon as it came out, I'm surprised it was still up there.

 

You can't seriously believe that the migrants who wash our cars, cut our grass or work cash in hand on building sites are even registered for tax.

 

The ones who work in bars and wait on tables and are on the books don't earn enough to pay tax. A growing number who work for some of the big distribution companies are employed by agencies back in their own countries and don't have a UK tax liability.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Vince Green

[UKPoacher]

Because we are too small a market place. For 35 years I worked to attract foreign business to UK much of it only came because we are in the EU and our relaxed labour laws. These companies, this future investment will go to Europe so less of the product is subject to tariff.

Tax? and spec.

 

Same spec' and if the free trade zone of the EU is to be believed then the tax in the EU should in theory be less than outside the EU.

[Granett]

That report was completely discredited almost as soon as it came out

 

Source?

 

You can't seriously believe that the migrants who wash our cars, cut our grass or work cash in hand on building sites are even registered for tax.

 

The ones who work in bars and wait on tables and are on the books don't earn enough to pay tax. A growing number who work for some of the big distribution companies are employed by agencies back in their own countries and don't have a UK tax liability.

 

What about "net" don't you understand? And on what basis do you believe that the UK economy will receive a bigger benefit from migration after a vote to leave?

[AVB]

A growing number who work for some of the big distribution companies are employed by agencies back in their own countries and don't have a UK tax liability.

 

I don't think that is really true. A person's tax liability is through residency and domicile. If you spend 180 days in the UK are you are resident for tax purposes regardless of who employs you and where they are based. I don't think these people would be non-res, non-doms!

[oowee]

 

Same spec' and if the free trade zone of the EU is to be believed then the tax in the EU should in theory be less than outside the EU.

The tax is levied by governments within the EU nothing to do with free trade. Govts outside set their own taxes and for their own reasons charge less than the UK. A visitor to the UK could buy a car tax free (for export) and I would guess it would be pretty much priced as in Australia (spec for spec).

[rodp]

Want to provide a credible source for that? I won't hold my breath. While you're looking:-

 

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1114/051114-economic-impact-EU-immigration

 

"European immigrants to the UK have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits, helping to relieve the fiscal burden on UK-born workers and contributing to the financing of public services"

Yes, my own eyes. The school my daughter teaches at has just had to employ a translator, at the schools cost. The local hospital where a lot of my family work is swamped with immigrants coming in with existing ailments and complaints that should be dealt with at the doctors or chemists. Both of these are now affecting white English .......... you know ............ the folk who's country this actually is, the one's born and bred here. In one case W/E children are losing some benefits due to the budget being spent and also falling behind due to waiting for the translator to explain to non English speaking. In the case of the hospital waiting times are up and beds are not available.

How more credible than seeing it do you need?

 

Now, if you have private education and health care for your family this obviously will not be of any concern to you, if you don't how do you justify doing this to your family?

[Granett]

White English .......... you know ............ the folk who's country this actually is, the one's born and bred here.

Boom. There it is.

 

(As for the rest of the post... Anecdotal Fallacy. It's first in the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies?wprov=sfla1)

 

Notwithstanding that, why should we consider your "sample" any more valid than the sample used by UCL academics which Vince is going to show was flawed.

[oowee]

Yes, my own eyes. The school my daughter teaches at has just had to employ a translator, at the schools cost. The local hospital where a lot of my family work is swamped with immigrants coming in with existing ailments and complaints that should be dealt with at the doctors or chemists. Both of these are now affecting white English .......... you know ............ the folk who's country this actually is, the one's born and bred here. In one case W/E children are losing some benefits due to the budget being spent and also falling behind due to waiting for the translator to explain to non English speaking. In the case of the hospital waiting times are up and beds are not available.

How more credible than seeing it do you need?

 

Now, if you have private education and health care for your family this obviously will not be of any concern to you, if you don't how do you justify doing this to your family?

Ahh I see that reliable seen it with my own eyes source . In which case (staying with my eyes have seen the truth logic) they cant have been from the EU as almost every European I have met speaks good English. So the ones your family sees must be non European migrants the ones that the UK government makes the rules for.

Edited June 17, 2016 by oowee

[rodp]

Ahh I see that reliable seen it with my own eyes source . In which case (staying with my eyes have seen the truth logic) they cant have been from the EU as almost every European I have met speaks good English. So the ones your family sees must be non European migrants the ones that the UK government makes the rules for.

Would you like to point me in the direction of ANYTHING that is more factual than seeing with my own eyes ? Should be interesting this one.

[Rewulf]

Boom. There it is.

 

 

 

Bet youve been waiting all day for that !

[Granett]

Would you like to point me in the direction of ANYTHING that is more factual than seeing with my own eyes ? Should be interesting this one.

More "factual" than English people having less ownership of their country the darker their skin? Yeah, abso****inglutely. Let me know and I'll start a list.

 

You argue like a creationist.

[rodp]

Boom. There it is.

 

(As for the rest of the post... Anecdotal Fallacy. It's first in the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies?wprov=sfla1)

 

Notwithstanding that, why should we consider your "sample" any more valid than the sample used by UCL academics which Vince is going to show was flawed.

And you have a problem with white English living in their own country?

[rodp]

More "factual" than English people having less ownership of their country the darker their skin? Yeah, abso*******lutely. Let me know and I'll start a list.

 

You argue like a creationist.

No, I didn't ask that, you must have poor eyesight, or you're just dumb. More factual than seeing with your own eyes. There you go, is that better?

[Granett]

Bet youve been waiting all day for that !

Look. Look at that post! I'm not trying to score cheap points, I'm trying to show you how broken is the rhetoric. There you bloody well have it. Strip away the logical fallacies, push hard enough, and you get to what it all about.

 

I know a lot of people have sincere and honourable reasons for voting to leave. But you're going to be voting next to a guy that just wants rid of the browns, or who is too dumb to understand how politics works (let alone come up with a better system).

[Granett]

No, I didn't ask that, you must have poor eyesight, or you're just dumb. More factual than seeing with your own eyes. There you go, is that better?

The point I clearly failed to make is that seeing not only includes your eyes but also your brain. Your "truth" is a result of the work of both. And I'm not questioning your eyesight.

[rodp]

The point I clearly failed to make is that seeing not only includes your eyes but also your brain. Your "truth" is a result of the work of both. And I'm not questioning your eyesight.

And I'm not questioning yours, you're obviously the latter of my assumptions. When you have no answer you try to bluff your way out by going off at a tangent and distracting from the original question. Why bring up More "factual" than English people having less ownership of their country the darker their skin. Only you have mentioned that, no-one else. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex about that or something?

 

So, back to the original question, what's more factual than seeing with your own eyes?

[Granett]

And I'm not questioning yours, you're obviously the latter of my assumptions. When you have no answer you try to bluff your way out by going off at a tangent and distracting from the original question. Why bring up More "factual" than English people having less ownership of their country the darker their skin. Only you have mentioned that, no-one else. Do you have some sort of inferiority complex about that or something?

 

So, back to the original question, what's more factual than seeing with your own eyes?

I've answered your question. What you - and I mean you, not one, you - see, are images processed by your (again, your, not one's) brain.

 

Your brain includes thoughts (stated by you earlier in the thread) that differentiate in the "Englishness" of someone purely based on the colour of their skin. On that basis I'm saying to you that your views, seen with your eyes are less "factual" than others.

 

You may not understand why that is, but I should not be expected to accept that is or should be made to be anyone else's problem other than yours.

 

You may or may not have noticed that those who were arguing alongside you have gone quiet. Why do you think that is?

Edited June 17, 2016 by Granett

[rodp]

Right, I get it now. My

 

I've answered your question. What you - and I mean you, not one, you - see, are images processed by your (again, your, not one's) brain.

Your brain includes thoughts (stated by you earlier in the thread) that differentiate in the "Englishness" of someone purely based on the colour of their skin. On that basis I'm saying to you that your views, seen with your eyes are less "factual" than others.

You may not understand why that is, but I should not be expected to accept that is or should be made to be anyone else's problem other than yours.

You may or may not have noticed that those who were arguing alongside you have gone quiet. Why do you think that is?

So,eyes see something quite clearly, we'll say for instance a translator sat by a child with dark skin who cannot speak English, but in reality the child is white, fluent in English and the translator doesn't exist. It's just my brain telling me this?

Well, I must say you learn something new every day.

 

 

Yep, my assumption was correct, but not only are you dumb you try to put words in other folk's mouths. And why the inferiority complex about "white English"?

[rodp]

I've answered your question. What you - and I mean you, not one, you - see, are images processed by your (again, your, not one's) brain.

 

Your brain includes thoughts (stated by you earlier in the thread) that differentiate in the "Englishness" of someone purely based on the colour of their skin. On that basis I'm saying to you that your views, seen with your eyes are less "factual" than others.

 

You may not understand why that is, but I should not be expected to accept that is or should be made to be anyone else's problem other than yours.

 

You may or may not have noticed that those who were arguing alongside you have gone quiet. Why do you think that is?

They're bored sick of you?

[Granett]

They're bored sick of you?

You think? Why should they decide that at the same time you mention the colour of peoples' skin?

Edited June 17, 2016 by Granett