International BREXIT: Leave/Remain Referendum on June 23 Will Change Europe, No Matter the Outcome.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Valkosen said:
I'm afraid I don't speak Bruxelles, so a standstill we'll call it, but if you think the EU has piss all to do with non-EU emigrants inside Schengenområdet then you have been living under SF's skirt for too long.
Click to expand...

??
Do you even know what the Schengen-agreement is?
But yes, please explain me how the EU has something to do with non-EU immigrants. And don't try to weasel out by some reference to the removal of border controls, that is not an immigration policy.
I'm talking about policies that dictates the path of non-EU citizens way to citizenship/permanent residence in individual member states.

As a side note I just want to mention that the U.K actually chose to opt-out of the Schengen agreement, so not even that does the Brexit campaigners have as a tool.

SF has only recently warmed up to the thought of EU btw. They're part of the left wing that sees it as an ultra-capitalistic institution, that destroys everything they hold dear. You're thinking about Radikale Venstre. Perkele.
 
Last edited:
Thames said:
??
Do you even know what the Schengen-agreement is?
But yes, please explain me how the EU has something to do with non-EU immigrants. And don't try to weasel out by some reference to the removal of border controls, that is not an immigration policy.
I'm talking about policies that dictates the path of non-EU citizens way to citizenship/permanent residence in individual member states.
Click to expand...

So we can argue only on grounds of formal, published policy? Since when do influence and power stop with pen and paper? That is only the beginning, brother. You reckon the Visegrad Four are united by their love for cottonballs?

As a side note I just want to mention that the U.K has actually chose to opt-out of the Schengen agreement, so not even that does the Brexit campaigners have as a tool.
Click to expand...

You are spot on here. Yes, you and U.K. both reserve opt-outs (Ireland and Poland too, if I recall right) and I have noticed that fact going understated in the Leave campaign, for good reason.

SF has only recently warmed up to the thought of EU btw. They're part of the left wing that sees it as an ultra-capitalistic institution, that destroys everything they hold dear. You're thinking about Radikale Venstre. Perkele.
Click to expand...

Ha, cheers. :p
 
Valkosen said:
I'm afraid I don't speak Bruxelles, so a standstill we'll call it, but if you think the EU has piss all to do with non-EU emigrants inside Schengenområdet then you have been living under SF's skirt for too long.
Click to expand...

Britain is not a member of the Schengen zone and has full control over non-EU immigration, something continually lost on many Leave voters.

As for EU immigration rules, unless a non-EU resident fits under certain categories (e.g family member of EU citizen from a different EU country or refugee), then they are not covered under any EU legislation (that I'm aware of) and must comply with national immigration law.
 
lifelessheap said:
How many US citizens are on television in Peru telling you that you fucking suck? How man Americans are on your television telling you how to run your country and trying to take away your freedoms?

I bet it is zero. So kindly fuck off.
Click to expand...

We do happen to have plenty of foreign journalists working for Peruvian news programs and newspapers. When they report on something that is fucked up, nobody starts going on a chauvinistic rant like some inbred imbecile hick just because the reporter happens to be a foreigner.
 
Kirku said:
Britain is not a member of the Schengen zone and has full control over non-EU immigration, something continually lost on many Leave voters.

As for EU immigration rules, unless a non-EU resident fits under certain categories (e.g family member of EU citizen from a different EU country or refugee), then they are not covered under any EU legislation (that I'm aware of) and must comply with national immigration law.
Click to expand...
I was addressing Schengen-participating member states, like us, because dismissing EU's push for non-EU emigrants is grounds enough to define them as a principal threat to nationhood. Britain lies outside Schengen so that point is moot, correct. Anyhow, the fines alone for not accepting the émigré-quotas **for Schengen-participating member states** are gross overreach; sending resources and personnel to Mediterranean, overreach. You think Greece cares in the slightest over plights in the Arctic Region? Nope. Our German brothers are paying for Greeks' early retirement because of millennia of gross nepotism and laziness. Harmless union, indeed.
 
JadeOwl said:
We do happen to have plenty of foreign journalists working for Peruvian news programs and newspapers. When they report on something that is fucked up, nobody starts going on a chauvinistic rant like some inbred imbecile hick just because the reporter happens to be a foreigner.
Click to expand...


Do you have millions of people flooding your country and demanding welfare, free education? Do you have people flooding your country and demanding you speak their language and demanding you change for them, and to give them the right to vote? All while telling you that you are awful people?

And you have nothing like we do in terms of asshole journalists that do nothing but shit on the host country. You have foreign reporters who report. We have assholes who do nothing but come to our country and hate on us.
 
Valkosen said:
So we can argue only on grounds of formal, published policy? Since when do influence and power stop with pen and paper? That is only the beginning, brother. You reckon the Visegrad Four are united by their love for cottonballs?
Click to expand...

In law you always deal with the de juro text and the de facto effect, I considered both for my argument. Feel free to guide me to any EU policy, that either formally or effectively, dictates immigration policies for non-EU citizens in individual member states.

As for your post about refugee quotas, two points are important to make. (1) Refugees are not immigrants. (2) The quotas are not part of EU policy per se, but was an emergency plan enacted by the EU council via qualified majority vote.
And that's a pretty important point to make. Because if you oppose those quotas, then you're not opposing EU policy, you're opposing your own government for signing the quota agreement (except if the name of your country is either Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic or Poland, which were the only 4 member states that didn't sign the quota agreement).
 
Thames said:
In law you always deal with the de juro text and the de facto effect, I considered both for my argument. Feel free to guide me to any EU policy, that either formally or effectively, dictates immigration policies for non-EU citizens in individual member states.

As for your post about refugee quotas, two points are important to make. (1) Refugees are not immigrants. (2) The quotas are not part of EU policy per se, but was an emergency plan enacted by the EU council via qualified majority vote.
And that's a pretty important point to make. Because if you oppose those quotas, then you're not opposing EU policy, you're opposing your own government for signing the quota agreement (except if the name of your country is either Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic or Poland, which were the only 4 member states that didn't sign the quota agreement).
Click to expand...
Not interested in your exercise in semantics, especially at 1 in the morning. You know very well what I was talking about; need I address the etymology of clausal constituents or implicit connotation of that statement to have it understood by you as well...
 
Voting out tomorrow, wife's voting out too. Britain doesn't need the undemocratic EUSSR and can stand on it's own two feet.
 
Valkosen said:
Not interested in your exercise in semantics, especially at 1 in the morning. You know very well what I was talking about; need I address the etymology of clausal constituents or implicit connotation of that statement to have it understood by you as well...
Click to expand...

No semantics here.
You're only job is present how/why you think the EU is dictating immigration policies for non-EU citizens.
 
Dietrich Häling said:
Thanks Ryan
Click to expand...
I've been reading that it's possible, even if out vote wins, that the gov can ignore the results and still choose to stay in or atleast delay it for many years? That possible? And what effect do you think this has on the out voters?
 
The 2016 Brexit voting begins in less than 24 hours.

If British truly realize the economic shockwave from this referendum will travel around the world and reshapes European policies for years to come, it SHOULD set a new record for voter turnouts.
 
Staying in the EU is better for the UK.
Benefits of staying outweigh those of leaving imo.

Voting to remain.
 
Thames said:
No semantics here.
You're only job is present how/why you think the EU is dictating immigration policies for non-EU citizens.
Click to expand...
Already did, and you wanted to play non-EU emigrant versus non-EU refugee. Because we are obviously very worried in Finland over Ph.D's from Kanada or IT-experts from Australia entering our country and weighing down our society. o_O Yes, indeed, the nomenclature on which your argument rests is of chiefmost importance here.
 
Vote no Brits, stop the fascist scum from ruling you. They lost the war but now bribe you to piss away your culture and freedom.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,204
Messages
57,974,367
Members
175,888
Latest member
whatsername

Share this page

Back
Top