Brexit Thread

[Montmorency]

we are by far the least enthusiastic Dominion. White Commonwealth Citizen have a vested personal interest in Brexit because it means better access to the UK for them

I think you have this the other way around. Likely the Commonwealth will not be so taken by this wishful thinking.

[Pannonian]

Guys, could we try to maintain a level of decorum here?

Also, why am I asking for this and not a mod?

Play the ball not the man.

Greyblades, to his credit, has at least dug up some statistics, and whilst house-price is not the be-all and end-all it IS an indicator of both the desirability of an area and it's average disposable income.

It should also be noted that a Commonwealth Citizen within the UK is functionally the same as a British Citizen. that relationship has become strained in the opposite direction, which is another reason why people voted leave.

Fun fact - about 58% of Britons polled are in favour of the lifting of tariffs and Freedom of Movement restrictions with the other "White Dominions", which are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and we are by far the least enthusiastic Dominion. White Commonwealth Citizen have a vested personal interest in Brexit because it means better access to the UK for them - Britain will inevitably enter into a Freedom of Labour and Movement Pact with the other three. In fact, if you ask the average Briton who isn't politically knowledgeable they'll assume we already have one.

You see, the EU isn't our natural club. It's sort of like we joined with our wife, then got divorced and now we've finally decided we'd much rather go back to spending Sunday afternoon at the pub.

And house price around London is most directly determined by proximity to London city centre, proximity to convenient rail travel, plus various factors deemed to be desirable for quality living, such as good schools in the post code. Being somewhat better acquainted with Havering than Greyblades evidently is, it makes me laugh that he includes it as an example of a poor borough. No it's not. It's a borough that's at the end of the Tube network, such as you may wake up in if you fall asleep on the District line.

Anyone who knows a bit about London's history knows that the least desirable area to choose to live in is the east end, or what remained of it after the Germans had done with it. The former native population have to a large extent scattered to the suburbs, such as Havering (which was urbanised post-war from previously rural Essex land). That's why there is such a large non-white population in Cockney land.

[Legs]

Greyblades, to his credit, has at least dug up some statistics, and whilst house-price is not the be-all and end-all it IS an indicator of both the desirability of an area and it's average disposable income.

Average house prices are an indication of neither. If you added a whole raft of other statistics they could form a very small part, but otherwise they are meaningless.

It should also be noted that a Commonwealth Citizen within the UK is functionally the same as a British Citizen. that relationship has become strained in the opposite direction, which is another reason why people voted leave.

That is simply not true.

Fun fact - about 58% of Britons polled are in favour of the lifting of tariffs and Freedom of Movement restrictions with the other "White Dominions", which are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and we are by far the least enthusiastic Dominion.

And what do each of those countries and their citizens think about abolition of tarriffs and introduction of uncontrolled immigration.
Australians already complain about swarms of kiwis stealing their jobs and sheep under the Tasman scheme.
Also what about the "not quite white" populations of those countries, or in the case of Canada the Quebecois, how would they feel about uncontrolled immigration from the "mother country" that isn't theirs?
As for tarrifs how would the US deal with the abolition of tarriffs in Canada and how would it affect UK-US trade?
Also concerning the US how would the presence of US immigration at Canadian points of entry work out?

White Commonwealth Citizen have a vested personal interest in Brexit because it means better access to the UK for them - Britain will inevitably enter into a Freedom of Labour and Movement Pact with the other three. In fact, if you ask the average Briton who isn't politically knowledgeable they'll assume we already have one.

That makes no sense.

All I see in your post is the typical pie in the sky thinking like throughout the Brexit process and no thought on actual plans or consequences.

[Fragony]

There aren't going to be consequences, financially at least. After a sudden nosedive of the pound (yay For me thanks) everything is pretty stable again. The trust in the UK's economy is as good as it has always been, weary, but not bad. I wish I had a way of looking how this actually develops, only doomists predicted hell, some said everything would stay the same, some say the burden cast off would be the best thing ever. Economists are always wrong they are only usefull for explaining why they were. From what I can look at things look moderatily good for the UK, and pretty damn bad for others *cough* Italy. Everything is unholdable it's a total faillure. Even a nation-state like Italy is unholdable, the very developed north doesn't want the south to suck on it's tit, if you ask them they will reply. Such is the same for the whole faillure on a greater scale, being the EU. It isn't even in the interest of countries poorer to be part of it, all the 'free' money they get flows back to northern banks who made silly investments. The Greek bailout isn't a bailout, it's a bailout of banks who made stupid desicions, Greece must pay it back with interest. Why are they corrupt there I would be. The UK is totally right in short, out of this, go away, get something that hurts long and a lot and die.

I hope but don't expect that the Netherlands will follow, we don't need Brussels. What the UK basicly aims for is a return to the EEG, tradedeals fuck straight cuccumbers and fixing Merkel's messias-complex and Swedish stephard wives who mistake equal rights with being a flaggalant Yes please, enough idiocy

[Gilrandir]

There aren't going to be consequences, financially at least. After a sudden nosedive of the pound (yay For me thanks) everything is pretty stable again. The trust in the UK's economy is as good as it has always been, weary, but not bad. I wish I had a way of looking how this actually develops, only doomists predicted hell, some said everything would stay the same, some say the burden cast off would be the best thing ever. Economists are always wrong they are only usefull for explaining why they were. From what I can look at things look moderatily good for the UK, and pretty damn bad for others *cough* Italy. Everything is unholdable it's a total faillure. Even a nation-state like Italy is unholdable, the very developed north doesn't want the south to suck on it's tit, if you ask them they will reply. Such is the same for the whole faillure on a greater scale, being the EU. It isn't even in the interest of countries poorer to be part of it, all the 'free' money they get flows back to northern banks who made silly investments. The Greek bailout isn't a bailout, it's a bailout of banks who made stupid desicions, Greece must pay it back with interest. Why are they corrupt there I would be. The UK is totally right in short, out of this, go away, get something that hurts long and a lot and die.

Let's see how it will pan out (for the UK) after some practical steps for Brexit have been taken.

[Husar]

There aren't going to be consequences, financially at least. After a sudden nosedive of the pound (yay For me thanks) everything is pretty stable again. The trust in the UK's economy is as good as it has always been, weary, but not bad. I wish I had a way of looking how this actually develops, only doomists predicted hell, some said everything would stay the same, some say the burden cast off would be the best thing ever. Economists are always wrong they are only usefull for explaining why they were. From what I can look at things look moderatily good for the UK, and pretty damn bad for others *cough* Italy. Everything is unholdable it's a total faillure. Even a nation-state like Italy is unholdable, the very developed north doesn't want the south to suck on it's tit, if you ask them they will reply. Such is the same for the whole faillure on a greater scale, being the EU. It isn't even in the interest of countries poorer to be part of it, all the 'free' money they get flows back to northern banks who made silly investments. The Greek bailout isn't a bailout, it's a bailout of banks who made stupid desicions, Greece must pay it back with interest. Why are they corrupt there I would be. The UK is totally right in short, out of this, go away, get something that hurts long and a lot and die.

I hope but don't expect that the Netherlands will follow, we don't need Brussels. What the UK basicly aims for is a return to the EEG, tradedeals fuck straight cuccumbers and fixing Merkel's messias-complex and Swedish stephard wives who mistake equal rights with being a flaggalant Yes please, enough idiocy

This from the expert who thinks the German national library is a bank.
You may want to change the "things you can look at" or wherever you get your info from.

[Fragony]

Do I have be an expert, I thought it was DNB yes, Deutsche Nationale Bank my bad, never looked at German libraries, why would I the books were burned

[Montmorency]

they wrote new ones

[Fragony]

Yeah apoligies Husar that was kinda cheap of me

[Husar]

Do I have be an expert, I thought it was DNB yes, Deutsche Nationale Bank my bad, never looked at German libraries, why would I the books were burned

Yeah, well, I also can't find anything about the actual national bank being in trouble, so why believe the report from someone who doesn't even know what it is called? If someone had some insider info that the mainstream media are hiding from us, surely he'd at least know the name of the bank?

[Montmorency]

Husar

[Husar]

Husar

Wonderful.
It was either nothing or a trap and you just fell into it.
Our national bank is the "Deutsche Bundesbank", "Deutsche Bank" is a private bank like HSBC or BNP Paribas.
And quite frankly, they should just let them fail.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you have this the other way around. Likely the Commonwealth will not be so taken by this wishful thinking.

"In March 2016, research conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society indicated that 58% of the British public supported free movement between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, compared to 75% of Canadians, 70% of Australians and 90% of New Zealanders.[10] In an interview with Global News Canada, Skinner indicated that allowing free movement between these four countries would provide Canadians with similar economic benefits as seen with the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand:


"We are not only exposing Canada to a greater pool of labour resources to expand the economy, but giving Canadians the choice of relocating to select Commonwealth countries (if they choose) to find employment opportunities not available for them in Canada."[11]


However, in response to the CFMO's online petition and proposals, critics have voiced concerns over the logistics of introducing free movement legislation across international borders. Emily Gilbert, an associate professor of Canadian Studies and Geography at the University of Toronto stated: "I think it’s an intriguing proposal, but I think chances are it will be some years in the making if it’s ever to be realized", while Jeffrey Reitz from the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs stated: "it's unclear why Canada would pursue a proposal with New Zealand, Australia and U.K. instead of the U.S. and Mexico, countries that are already part of a free trade agreement"[12]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common...t_Organisation


For the UK it may be more about a desire to return to a pre-EU statw where we looked across oceans for opportunities instead of across the Channel, but it seems faily clear there's broad support amongst the general public.

That is simply not true.

Commonwealth Citizen resident in the UK have all the political and social rights as British Citizens, including the right to vote and stand for election. The difference is their limited right to abide here to begin with, but my original statement was referring to those already abiding here.

And what do each of those countries and their citizens think about abolition of tarriffs and introduction of uncontrolled immigration.
Australians already complain about swarms of kiwis stealing their jobs and sheep under the Tasman scheme.
Also what about the "not quite white" populations of those countries, or in the case of Canada the Quebecois, how would they feel about uncontrolled immigration from the "mother country" that isn't theirs?
As for tarrifs how would the US deal with the abolition of tarriffs in Canada and how would it affect UK-US trade?
Also concerning the US how would the presence of US immigration at Canadian points of entry work out?

I just said it was generally more popular than Freedom of Movement with the EU - I was referring to public sentiment, not practicalities. To be sure, there are a number of practical issues that needs to be worked out but even allowing for that the four countries in question share the same language (including spelling), the same legal and political system and a very similar culture. Re-integrating Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK is a much less daunting task than trying to -reintegrate the Roman Empire (which is what the EU is attempting).

Oh, you forgot to point out the problems with the metric/Imperial System. Mustn't forget us backward Brits and our adherence to the Imperial Mile and the Fluid Ounce, that'll be tricky. I imagine we'll so what we did a hundred years ago though and grudgingly agree with the other three, like when we originally went metric by accepting the Canadian metric-derived Yard.

That makes no sense.

Well, I should say Commonwealth Citizens generally have a vested interest in Freedom of Movement with the UK, white or otherwise, but the citizens of the countries traditionally known as the "White Dominions" have even more incentive. Aside from the obvious economic benefit to an Austrlain of being able to seek work in the UK there are the strong familial links. Many people in Australia, Canada and New Zealand are first or second-generation British immigrants. Many have grandparents here who they can't bring to their home country, or easily visit without a lot of paperwork. On the other hand, absent being part of the EU Britain will want to form stronger political and economic links with the Commonwealth so as to be "part of a club" as well as for sentimental reasons. Up to now the EU has prohibited this sort of integration.

All I see in your post is the typical pie in the sky thinking like throughout the Brexit process and no thought on actual plans or consequences.

Yeah, well, based on the other thread you probably think I'm a Creationist too, so I'd say your opinions are off the mark.

I'm not addressing practicalities, I'm addressing sentiments. It's going to be very hard to address practical concerns until we actually leave the EU and can begin negotiating with other countries.

[Fragony]

Yeah, well, I also can't find anything about the actual national bank being in trouble, so why believe the report from someone who doesn't even know what it is called? If someone had some insider info that the mainstream media are hiding from us, surely he'd at least know the name of the bank?

I misread it happens, Germany just isn't all that special to keep attention to anymore, my misreading I can blame on that. My attention is on the Visegrad-countries and the UK, both very reluctant to listen to the neo-aristocracy and who can blame them. The visograd countries don't want to take the burden of Merkel's birdcall and the UK just wants to trade without a constantly drunk hugger trying to lick their face off. Juncker's behaviour gets really painfull, he cannot even walk he's too drunk for that, and licking faces is just ditastefull, our unelected overlord has a hugproblem. Besides the facelicker there are many more unelected freaks that belong in an asylum because they are inssane. Verhofstad an Timmermans come to mind, Verhostad is a pschopath,look at his eyes, Timmermans would shame narcissus in being narcistic That wouldn't be a problem if we could provide a proper room with padded walls, but the EU building doesn't have them, instead they have seats. And there are many more useless people there, they check out before a debate even starts and grab the hours anyway. The EU is a total faillure. Europe isn't, despite eurocrats who are having a party there Europe is doing fine, but absolutily not because. There also isn't any peace because, quite the contrary, if the tensions with Russia escalate I am not going to blame Russia for it, who likes being surrounded. In an ideological way the EU also fails, even in a country as small as the Netherlands the differences between the north and south, the east and the west are huge, completily differend attitude. Good luck with a continent. Especially now that we have some newcommers fron the Islamic world who are generally aren't exactly an enrichment although most are really nice, it's still a problem. To who? Europhiles

[Legs]

For the UK it may be more about a desire to return to a pre-EU statw where we looked across oceans for opportunities instead of across the Channel, but it seems faily clear there's broad support amongst the general public.

It seemed fairly clear there was a broad consensus for a remain vote until the count was in.
But hey, dreams of empire eh

Commonwealth Citizen resident in the UK have all the political and social rights as British Citizens, including the right to vote and stand for election. The difference is their limited right to abide here to begin with, but my original statement was referring to those already abiding here.

Rubbish. Take healthcare as an example. Do Australians get the same free access to the NHS as British citizens do.

I just said it was generally more popular than Freedom of Movement with the EU - I was referring to public sentiment, not practicalities.

Practicalities is what matters

To be sure, there are a number of practical issues that needs to be worked out but even allowing for that the four countries in question share the same language (including spelling), the same legal and political system and a very similar culture.

No they don't. Britain doesn't have napoleonic law, Btritain doesn't have an elected upper house, neither is its upper house based on regional issues. And New Zealand doesn't even have one.

Re-integrating Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK is a much less daunting task than trying to -reintegrate the Roman Empire (which is what the EU is attempting).

Pie in the sky with a side order of conspiracy theory?

Well, I should say Commonwealth Citizens generally have a vested interest in Freedom of Movement with the UK, white or otherwise, but the citizens of the countries traditionally known as the "White Dominions" have even more incentive.

But since it would be a matter of governments what are these governments interests.
All of them are very tight on immigration aren't they.

Aside from the obvious economic benefit to an Austrlain of being able to seek work in the UK there are the strong familial links. Many people in Australia, Canada and New Zealand are first or second-generation British immigrants. Many have grandparents here who they can't bring to their home country, or easily visit without a lot of paperwork.

How does that work with relation to other commonwealth countries? Are you going to make two seperate commonwealths?
Besides which, given these nations concerns over importing burdens onto their health service how is that going to work?

On the other hand, absent being part of the EU Britain will want to form stronger political and economic links with the Commonwealth so as to be "part of a club" as well as for sentimental reasons. Up to now the EU has prohibited this sort of integration.

Rubbish, immigration or emigration from outside the EU has always been under the remit of Westminster.

Yeah, well, based on the other thread you probably think I'm a Creationist too, so I'd say your opinions are off the mark.

Any luck finding your imaginary scripture which you need to support your claim in that topic?

I'm not addressing practicalities, I'm addressing sentiments. It's going to be very hard to address practical concerns until we actually leave the EU and can begin negotiating with other countries

Pie in the sky it is then. fanciful notions based on ilusory sentiments not reality.
Well done you manage to do a textbook confirmation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seemed fairly clear there was a broad consensus for a remain vote until the count was in.
But hey, dreams of empire eh

Dreams of Empire? No, just a more expansive worldview. That's not the only reason people voted out, but it's one.

Rubbish. Take healthcare as an example. Do Australians get the same free access to the NHS as British citizens do.

If you are a resident in the UK you receive access to the NHS.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/he...e-from-abroad/

Conversely, you do not receive the right to vote, even as a permanent resident. My father is denied the right to vote, for example. On the other hand, Commonwealth citizens in the UK even on students visas are entitled to vote in all elections AND referendums.

Practicalities is what matters

While this may be true in terms of making agreements work the reality is that, in democracies, sentiment decides policies at least as much as practicalities.

I assume you agree there are more short-term benefits to remaining in the EU and more long-term uncertainty? A lot of people who voted OUT agree with that.

No they don't. Britain doesn't have napoleonic law, Btritain doesn't have an elected upper house, neither is its upper house based on regional issues. And New Zealand doesn't even have one.

Which of these countries uses Napoleonic Law? You are referring to the Province of Quebec? You are suggesting that Scotland and Wales don't operate the Westminster System because they are unicameral? It's patently obvious Britain has more politically in common with Austrlaia, New Zealand and Canada (probably in that order) than with most EU countries - such as France, or Italy, or Greece.

Pie in the sky with a side order of conspiracy theory?

No - it's generally accepted that the EU is a project all about rebuilding the Pax Romana - it was a big thing when Greece joined because it was the first time the EU expanded out of Charlemagne's realm into the "East". It's also why Turkey's joining is a long term goal. I'm not talking about Legions, Eagles and an Emperor, I'm talking about peace, prosperity, one currency, one government, one military.

All of that's written into EU treaties or being actively discussed right now (especially the military aspect). Above all the EU is a dream of the restoration of the Pax Romana.

It's a noble dream, to be sure.

But since it would be a matter of governments what are these governments interests.
All of them are very tight on immigration aren't they.

After the Brexit resul the Australian Prime Minister pretty much straight away said Australia wanted a trade deal with the UK - you can bet that includes freedom of movement. The Canadian Trade Minister was straight out with "do you want to know about out Trade Deal with the EU, see if you want it as a model?".

Such a pact would be an easy sell in the UK and, as noted above, is popular in the other three countries. Democratically elected governments are concerned with the practicalities of getting elected.

How does that work with relation to other commonwealth countries? Are you going to make two seperate commonwealths?
Besides which, given these nations concerns over importing burdens onto their health service how is that going to work?

There are already multiple levels to the Commonwealth and interest groups. a Trade/Movement deal between four of the biggest economies isn't going to change that.

Rubbish, immigration or emigration from outside the EU has always been under the remit of Westminster.

Trade is not, Freedom of Movement (the elimination of a Visa System) is part of trade, it cannot be negotiated in isolation, that would be very impractical.

Any luck finding your imaginary scripture which you need to support your claim in that topic?

Nice dodge. If you wanted to know you would have cited the passages to support your argument so I could pull them apart.

Pie in the sky it is then. fanciful notions based on ilusory sentiments not reality.
Well done you manage to do a textbook confirmation.

Maybe you need to be, you know, nicer to people?

I posted statistics showing that the idea of freedom of movement within the Commonwealth is becoming increasingly popular, and is much more popular that the EU is in the UK. Nothing you have written refutes that. My Thesis is that, given the popularity of this idea it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. Probably in less than 20 years, possibly in less than five.

One thing the Referendum proved is that, no matter how loudly they like to demonstrate young people don't actually vote. That means their opinions aren't important in a democracy, because they'rte opting out of the decision-making process. I rather hope that, now, they will understand that "democracy" means YOU go out and vote and not assume that other people agree with you.

[Fragony]

ffs make it snappy, have a little bit consideration for my short attention span. Anything that can't be said in a single sentence shouldn't exist. Unless it takes several of course, but the aim should be there. Peeling apart posts doesn't make it very comfortable to read even if it's worth reading regardless. Nails need hammers.

[Legs]

Dreams of Empire? No, just a more expansive worldview. That's not the only reason people voted out, but it's one.

You are missing a word. a rather important one as it costs them £200.

Dreams of Empire? No, just a more expansive worldview. That's not the only reason people voted out, but it's one.

So how do the little englanders have a more expansive worldview?

While this may be true in terms of making agreements work the reality is that, in democracies, sentiment decides policies at least as much as practicalities.

Not really as a sentimetal policy cannot be enacted if it has too many practical issues.

Which of these countries uses Napoleonic Law? You are referring to the Province of Quebec? You are suggesting that Scotland and Wales don't operate the Westminster System because they are unicameral? It's patently obvious Britain has more politically in common with Austrlaia, New Zealand and Canada (probably in that order) than with most EU countries - such as France, or Italy, or Greece.

Are they the same? that was your claim.

No - it's generally accepted that the EU is a project all about rebuilding the Pax Romana - it was a big thing when Greece joined because it was the first time the EU expanded out of Charlemagne's realm into the "East". It's also why Turkey's joining is a long term goal. I'm not talking about Legions, Eagles and an Emperor, I'm talking about peace, prosperity, one currency, one government, one military.

Make your mind up, pax romana included greece charlamagnes didn't . neither of them included other western EU countries.

After the Brexit resul the Australian Prime Minister pretty much straight away said Australia wanted a trade deal with the UK

Yes because Brexit instantly screws up the trade deal he is already negotiating, I am sure he is happy you screwed up his deal.

- you can bet that includes freedom of movement.

Wow. is blind optimism a habit of yours?

The Canadian Trade Minister was straight out with "do you want to know about out Trade Deal with the EU, see if you want it as a model?".

Really rubbed your nose in it didn't he.
So the model 4 years of setting up then 5 years of talking, now they wait 2 years already for implimentation.
So 11 years or is it 12 now.
Do you want it as a model?

There are already multiple levels to the Commonwealth and interest groups. a Trade/Movement deal between four of the biggest economies isn't going to change that.

Yeah right.

Such a pact would be an easy sell in the UK and, as noted above, is popular in the other three countries. Democratically elected governments are concerned with the practicalities of getting elected.

Blind optimism.
Go to Australia House tommorrow and see how welcoming they are to the notion of uncontrolled immigration

Freedom of Movement (the elimination of a Visa System) is part of trade, it cannot be negotiated in isolation, that would be very impractical.

Now you are just being silly.
How many trade deals have nothing to do with immigration and how many immigration/visa schemes have nothing to do with trade deals

Nice dodge. If you wanted to know you would have cited the passages to support your argument so I could pull them apart.

All the required passages are in the Westminster theology paper already posted, so either you havn't readthem or you have read them and are just trying to avoid it.
But you still have to find the imaginary passages to support your two bowls "theory", if you can find the imaginary scripture that supports your claim feel free to post them as i am fascinated by this imaginary bit of scripture you need.

I posted statistics showing that the idea of freedom of movement within the Commonwealth is becoming increasingly popular, and is much more popular that the EU is in the UK. Nothing you have written refutes that.

You posted a poll by a group pushing a specific agenda.

My Thesis is that, given the popularity of this idea it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. Probably in less than 20 years, possibly in less than five.

Yes dear.

[Legs]

ffs make it snappy, have a little bit consideration for my short attention span. Anything that can't be said in a single sentence shouldn't exist. Unless it takes several of course, but the aim should be there. Peeling apart posts doesn't make it very comfortable to read even if it's worth reading regardless. Nails need hammers.

OK , lets make it simple and snappy for you, something you can grasp mentally ...
Blame it on the Muslims, its always them.

[Fragony]

Solong and thanks for the predictabilities, if you don't mind I'm going to curl up somewhere and silently cry, beating such cleverness is beyond my reach

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Legs, I'm giving up because you hurt my feelings.

Not because I think you're right, or because I couldn't marshal any more arguments, because you hurt my feelings.

Just so everyone else is clear on that.

[Brenus]

"Blame it on the Muslims, its always them" Or Putin

[Legs]

Legs, I'm giving up because you hurt my feelings.

Not because I think you're right, or because I couldn't marshal any more arguments, because you hurt my feelings.

Just so everyone else is clear on that.

Hurt feelings?
Sorry 'bout that,
However given your posts about sentimental over practical isn't it rather telling.
Not of course saying that sentimental notions cannot bring policies, just that reality and practicality are the deciding factors.
To take a MRLparty policy as an example
Ban the hunting of polar bears in the Lake district.
Polar bears are "white" and look nice , the Lake Disrict is British and looks nice, shooting nice bears for sport in pleasant British scenery is not nice and is un-British.
From a sentimental viewpoint the policy is good and should be passed without parliamentary objections and to resounding public support.
From a practical viewpoint it is complete nonsense.

[Legs]

"Blame it on the Muslims, its always them" Or Putin

Or the media, or the global elite, or maybe even the reptilians.

[Legs]

Solong and thanks for the predictabilities, if you don't mind I'm going to curl up somewhere and silently cry, beating such cleverness is beyond my reach

Hey its predictable because you believe actually the EU is a secret conspiracy to make europe a muslim state

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hurt feelings?
Sorry 'bout that,
However given your posts about sentimental over practical isn't it rather telling.
Not of course saying that sentimental notions cannot bring policies, just that reality and practicality are the deciding factors.
To take a MRLparty policy as an example
Ban the hunting of polar bears in the Lake district.
Polar bears are "white" and look nice , the Lake Disrict is British and looks nice, shooting nice bears for sport in pleasant British scenery is not nice and is un-British.
From a sentimental viewpoint the policy is good and should be passed without parliamentary objections and to resounding public support.
From a practical viewpoint it is complete nonsense.

Based on the tone and content of your posts I don't believe you're sorry - I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.

[Legs]

Based on the tone and content of your posts I don't believe you're sorry - I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.

Hold on, you stepped in to support some dodgy statistics which someone used to represent something they didn't represent. You then went off on a flight of fancy with sentimental notions about a "white" commonwealth and imaginary trade/immigration deals.
So who exactly is going with preconceptions and making no effort to try to understand?
Because as far as I can see that fits your approach entirely.

[Montmorency]

He's not wrong there, Legs.

PVC, even assuming a general popularity for the thought of lower restrictions on intra-Commonwealth movement, there seems to be no actual political impetus for such a thing, and indeed while the benefit would be largely sentimental, the actual political process would bring differences to the fore very quickly. To address popularity in other terms, expressing agreement with a given proposition is the furthest thing from commitment and advocacy. It's a very rare politician who grabs an under-the-radar topic from polling and tries to spin it into a platform. That's why I called the notion "the other way around" - while freely extending such privileges to Commonwealth citizens in the UK without reciprocal obligations would go great abroad, it won't do to think of it as much more than a subsidized museum membership.

[Fragony]

Hey its predictable because you believe actually the EU is a secret conspiracy to make europe a muslim state

and and and youknow and and and

[Legs]

He's not wrong there, Legs.

But he is, look....
Have you ever been to those boroughs do you know many people living there?
Come to think of it, have you ever been to London???????

Application of knowledge to claims that were being made and understanding that they do not make sense, no preconceptions.

Average house prices are an indication of neither. If you added a whole raft of other statistics they could form a very small part, but otherwise they are meaningless.

Viewing the data provided and understanding that they cannot be used in the manner in which someone is using them and as such are meaningless. No preconceprtions.

Same with....If you are a resident in the UK you receive access to the NHS.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/he...e-from-abroad/

Turn to the page covering foriegn residents and find the £200 yearly fee for residents who are not extra word residents. No preconceptions.