So Boris is telling EU guys that he supports freedom of movement, and Dave Davis reckons that some of the untold riches that people voted Leave to achieve will be spent on access to something we previously took for granted.
As John Sebastopol Lydon once put it: "ever get the feeling you've been cheated?"
@wackawoo stop trying to take the moral high ground about people insulting you, you are not averse to insulting others yourself :
(24-11-2016 05:03 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with a good few people on here they think they are more intelligent than that actually are
Besides, I didn't insult you, I asked a genuine question
As for this idea of paying for access to the single market, I don't see it as a starter. Other countries have already stated categorically, no access without freedom of movement. The only way it would happen would be with a deal similar to the likes of Norway, you pays your money, abide by every rule the EU imposes, but have absolutely no say in the formulation of those rules. we'd basically be bending over and allowing the EU to shaft us.
EDIT : Oh, and by the way, it's the EUROVISION song contest, not the EUROPEAN song contest, and I repeat, that it is a TV/media invented thing, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU or EU membership or defining which countries belong to which continent.
(02-12-2016 06:46 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]@wackawoo stop trying to take the moral high ground about people insulting you, you are not averse to insulting others yourself :
(24-11-2016 05:03 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with a good few people on here they think they are more intelligent than that actually are
Besides, I didn't insult you, I asked a genuine question
As for this idea of paying for access to the single market, I don't see it as a starter. Other countries have already stated categorically, no access without freedom of movement. The only way it would happen would be with a deal similar to the likes of Norway, you pays your money, abide by every rule the EU imposes, but have absolutely no say in the formulation of those rules. we'd basically be bending over and allowing the EU to shaft us.
EDIT : Oh, and by the way, it's the EUROVISION song contest, not the EUROPEAN song contest, and I repeat, that it is a TV/media invented thing, and has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the EU or EU membership or defining which countries belong to which continent.
No matter what Brexit deal is struck - once we invoke Article 50 - we will still get shafted anyhow as a nation bet it would cost us more to broadcast the Eurovision song contest too when we leave
(02-12-2016 10:07 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]bet it would cost us more to broadcast the Eurovision song contest too when we leave
As munch already explained, Eurovision has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU or EU membership. Is that hard to understand?
(02-12-2016 10:07 )babelover48 Wrote: [ -> ]No matter what Brexit deal is struck - once we invoke Article 50 - we will still get shafted anyhow as a nation
Bit late for a Leaver to be worrying about that now...
(02-12-2016 06:46 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]@wackawoo stop trying to take the moral high ground about people insulting you, you are not averse to insulting others yourself :
I claim nothing about moral high ground but I notice that people seem to think that it's perfectly fine to personally insult me.
I don't think you quite understand that pretty much every comment I make on here (unless being forced tp reply to things like this) are completely and 100% to do with the issuses raised about the EU/ brexit. Now I do not agree with a lot that is said on here, I think a lot is speculative doom mongering with absolutely no evidence to back it up whatsoever and grasping at the most tenuous of straws as if it is proof of anything; my responces however, are not cluttered with words like fool, stupid, troll, baffoon etc. So no I'm not taking any high ground, but in this case I actually could, I keep my patience even with people who are being insulting and what they write, incluing yours, is every but meant as an insult.
Quote:munch1917
Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?
Hannahspet responce
Quote:Who you calling Stupid me or wackawoo Wink[quote]
Your responce
[quote]I'll give you a clue, it's not you
By your own admition it was every bit intended as an insult.
Others other the past few pages:
mysterion
Quote:What a complete fool you are wackawoo. It's amazing how you manage to misunderstand everything.
Scots Nepolian
Quote:You really are a complete buffoon aren't you. I really wonder whether you can be considered a person of sound mind.
As an ex moderator on 3 previous sites, I do know what passes as an insult and I do know what is ment has an insult. You can dress it up and be as manipulative as you like, they are insults and there has been many many of those.
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.php?tid=6647
Quote:From this point onwards, personally insulting or offensive remarks will not be permitted and are subject to deletion without notice. This is in response to a current trend towards posting hurtful and offensive remarks about non-members of the site, working under the assumption that if it isn't a flame against a site member, then it's O.K. to post it. The forum team have been just as culpable as the members in allowing this attitude to become entrenched, often taking the attitude of "Not on this site? Not our problem!"
(02-12-2016 06:46 )munch1917 Wrote: [ -> ]As for this idea of paying for access to the single market, I don't see it as a starter. Other countries have already stated categorically, no access without freedom of movement. The only way it would happen would be with a deal similar to the likes of Norway, you pays your money, abide by every rule the EU imposes, but have absolutely no say in the formulation of those rules. we'd basically be bending over and allowing the EU to shaft us.
This is why I stated freedom of movement would be a no no.
But the payment for access could be looked upon as some form of compensation for loss of freedom of movement.
What anybody wants to argue, freedom of movement is not essential, plenty of Canadians, Americans, Australians and people from all over the world live and work in Britian with the appropriate papers. If there is a crisis in a work place, ie NHS, then people should be recruited from commonwealth countries as they were when I was younger, the UK as more of a moral debt to those countries than it does mainland Europe.
Does America have freedom of movement with mexico does anybody know?
(02-12-2016 21:05 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ] (02-12-2016 17:32 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]Does America have freedom of movement with mexico does anybody know?
Why is this so amusing? Did I ever claim to have even a passing knowledge of the trade arrangements between America and Mexico?
Give me a good reason why you couldn't have just said, yes there is or no there isn't?
Because if there is, what is all this border control talk with mexicans?
But if there isn't, isn't there a trade agreement between America, Canada and Mexico ie NAFTA?
You seem to expert on all things finantial both here and in America, why not impart some of that expertise?
Wait one moment -
Quote:According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (i.e., October 2005 through September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the TN status).
Seems there isn't a freedom of movment in NAFTA in quite the same way as in the EU, that says professionals and temporary to me.
Not such a silly question after all.
(02-12-2016 22:50 )wackawoo Wrote: [ -> ]You seem to expert on all things finantial both here and in America, why not impart some of that expertise?
Because, time and time again, it's proven to be wasted on you.