Post: #2251

Does anyone believe the 'divorce bill' is legit?

It's just straight up attempted theft, right? Wrapped in a nice vague explanation trusted to others to understand?

(Even though there is "NO legal obligation to pay a penny" [House of Lords])

P.S Sorry if this has already been covered. I haven't really been following Brexit 'negotitions' - I just see it as a bullshit psyop/hustle.

Post: #2252

(03-23-2019 06:48 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 07:23 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Freedom? That's a joke. One of the reasons for Brexit is so the government can avoid the European Court of Human Rights. It was a pain in the ass when the UK govt wanted to throw someone in prison without a hearing.

You can't even say "trans women are men" in the UK now without being arrested. The UK is the least free country in Western Europe.

And it will be so great when you have to PAY for all that health care and education that used to be free, and get visas to live and work there.

This is an understandable misunderstanding often made by those unfamiliar with English Common Law. The Common Law system, such as it is, doesn't doesn't use grand legislative charters, such as the HRA, unless they are mandated (the EU). It is not how our system of laws evolves, or affords protection, to the 'man on the London omnibus'. When charters such as these are imposed, they often sit uneasily within our system of law - not because we don't like the rights and freedoms they aspire to, but because those rights and freedom are already protected, or able to be protected, within the vast body of English Case Law that exists, and which forms the corpus of our legal system.

There are no 'rights' conveyed by the Human Rights Act that were not already protected in an uncodified form by the Common Law. The problem with these legislative tracts, as one can observe across the European continent, is that they are invariably ideological, seek to be definitive in a way they cannot be, and demand vast amounts of bureaucracy to make them work. This is acceptable to those with legal systems based on the Code Civil, because it is how they are accustomed to operating. To those of us with a more ancient and less dictatorial legal tradition, such things are unpleasant and alien, and often unworkable.

"Common Law" is infinitely malleable and flexible, can be changed by the courts as new cases arrive.
"Terrorism," or "hate speech" are deemed "new unprecedented threats" that justify "reasonable measures" to take peoples' rights away.

Contrast the US Bill of Rights which has some clear lines to it. You can't ban "hate speech." Written constitutions and statutory law enacted by elected bodies is clearer and more legitimate than judge-made law.

The fact is that Brits don't have the rights to free speech and due process Americans have. It's an authoritarian country. See Roosh being excluded, ASBOs, detention without a hearing for days etc.

(03-23-2019 05:21 PM)Cuchulainn2016 Wrote:  With regards to the 2 points I bolded above:

1. The UK doesn't export to the EU, it imports in from the EU. Any prohibitive trade deal with the EU can be easily stopped by matching any tariffs or regulations the EU place on UK products with matching tariffs or regulations. That would hurt the EU more than the UK, and they are hurting enough already. Just ask President Trump how its done.

2. A lower valued pound is better for the UK economy. This is because it makes it a better environment for UK companies to compete internationally, this leads to more jobs and a stronger economy. Though it might cost you more for a beer on holiday, more people will be able to afford holidays.

Yes, a lower valued currency makes your exports cheaper. The value of a currency is also a market value of confidence in your country's economy.

Plus Carney at the BoE has been printing money furiously to prop up the economy.

As you note, imports from the EU are bigger than exports to the UK. These are more expensive because of Brexit.

And if the lower valued currency is negated by tariffs which make your exports more expensive?

(03-24-2019 12:13 AM)Bienvenuto Wrote:  This is the thing though, this is the thing..

I've lived, worked, claimed benefits, been homeless all over the UK.

Seen immigration and Islam from all kinds of angles and know full well the nightmare that being a signatory to the ECHR entails.

As a former employer I could go into all the ways EU enforcement of worker's or individual's rights doesn't amount to shit.. whilst all their pro-migration/ pro-Asylum seeker garbage makes it impossible for a signatory country to limit migration, especially from the 3rd world.

But whats the fucking point?

Sp5 - you're a lawyer and you were a US army clerk in Iraq. Im happy for you.. doesn't mean you know shit about the Uk or Brexit.

You wade in like you are the last word on issues and I can't for the life of me work out why you are appointing yourself as an expert on these things.

You said about the Uk army instructor facing court-martial for giving a female recruit shit: "Having her get on her knees before him in the river while cursing at her served no training purpose. It was done to elicit a reaction from her so he could record it and laugh with his mates.
Unprofessional and should be punished."

No.. No.. Nope.. We do things differently in the Uk and we do it for a reason.

About the Islamic prejudice against dogs as the spawn of satan's saliva: "I have to laugh at all of this dog stuff. If anything, there are TOO MANY dogs in some Muslim countries." Try being a dog owner in muslim dominated Tower Hamlets. That would change your tune..

Muslims are great guys? Go to Dewsbury, Rotherham, Cheetham Hill, Bradford, Luton, Telford, Shadwell. Great people? Not in many parts of the UK they're not.

You like Alexandra Occasio-Cortez because she "ran on economic issues and being in touch with the average constituent"?

Trump "will have to resign this year"? Trump will be out of a job soon?

Sure.

Thanks for your expertise but you will understand when Britons ignore overseas 'experts' in order take back the ability to determine the future of their country.

And when some Britons disregard your expertise in general.

I'm glad you've read everything I've written here, but I wasn't an army clerk in Iraq. I was an army clerk a long, long time ago. I did other things in Iraq.

The vast majority of Muslims in the UK aren't there because of EU free movement. They're there because the UK conquered India and Pakistan 200 years ago and then let people from those places into the UK en masse after WWII. They came long before the UK joined the EEC. EU has nothing to do with it.

You don't have to be a UK expert to see Scottish independence coming like an express train after Brexit, and Irish unification coming after that. That will be the end of the UK as we know it.

Enjoy your "sovereignty" in the UK of England and Wales.

Post: #2253

(03-24-2019 05:38 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Enjoy your "sovereignty" in the UK of England and Wales.

Thanks! We will.

Post: #2254

If Ireland wants to be unified and independent, why shouldn't they be?

It's not like England needs them for their strategic potato and guiness reserves.

Post: #2255

I thought this was a pretty good video vignette of working class Brits, asking why they supported Brexit. (And it looks like they still do.) It’s very similar to rust belt Americans supporting Trump:

Post: #2256

^ Exactly what I’m talking about…

It takes to 2:58 to switch from documenting how working class the area is to talking about “[the story of] people who are stupid enough to vote for Brexit”.

That fat bitch at 6:22 is simply saying what she has been repeatedly fed is the intelligent line.

Smarmy c*nt. At 9:24 he’s speaking to the Guardian audience to show how much smarter they all are.

10:27...and that’s the effect of two years of doom forecasts…(10:48)

To be fair, that’s not a bad piece though.

[Incidentally, I can’t read that paper. The agenda journalism and editorials are unreal]

Post: #2257

We are on the road for a new Prime Minister and May is walking a very, very tight line because she is threatening MPs with her deal and chaos will ensue if they dont comply! Even a GE would happen.

Her cabinet is revolting from inside sources and two of them including Boris have war chests for the challenge.

Post: #2258

I actually heard government apparatchiks privately deriding places like Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire as the 'rust belt' in the couple of days after the referendum. They actually said that the locals were stupid and longing for their glory days.

They wouldn't last 5 minutes if they actually had to live there.

There's the divide. The same high and mighty types have been privately and not so privately hyping up the reunification of Ireland within an EU framework.

But land is the foundation of the state

its not to be given away.

Not when a reunified Ireland in 1916 would have led to a bloodbath.

Not when the army first had to go over in the troubles to protect the Catholic republicans from the loyalist violence (although that soon developed a life of its own).

The troubles are still simmering away and bomb threats and violence are routinely unreported.

I know an Irish guy from the South of Ireland who routinely jokes about the "RA and gets off on his Irish identity. Its a fucking joke. Its not just the Southern English that were scared of the Northern Irish, the Southern Irish were as well. He should go to Glasgow.. to the proddy pubs and to the Catholic pubs. He would shit himself.

Plenty of Catholic and Protestant Glaswegians were over there all the time during the troubles, on both sides. They still go over and would join in at the drop of a hat.

Sectarianism is still huge in Western Scotland. The SNP did nothing to tackle it. They didn't even mention it. It was a beyond a joke.
They just went on and on with their rainbow flavoured politics and their EU enforced migration plans that seriously fucked off the electorate in Scotland. They are the Jacinda Aherns of Scotland.

Some of my relatives are very 'progressive' and good luck to them but even they can see the balls up that the SNP made of the Devo vote, followed by their non-engagement with Sectarianism and the redundancy of their virtue signalling whilst both the country and their policies were being paid for by the rest of the UK.

I was in "Freedom Square" just a week after Brexit listening to the speeches.
What a joke. they fucked themselves.
They went full SJW retard and wrote off their chances for public-supported independence for a long time.

I know Catholics in Glasgow who are no strangers to firearms and booby traps.
They voted Tory in the last election.
Tory.
Full on Catholic Republicans voting Tory.
Its fucking unheard of..
these people dedicated their lives to fighting Thatcher and now they would rather vote Tory than SNP. Thats how badly the SNP have handled it.
Thats how 'pro-independence' everyone is..

People talk about how could the mosque goers in Christchurch just go possum and let that happen to them? I don't know, I myself may have experienced exactly the same reaction.
But check out the 'funeral murders' during the troubles. Michael Stone went into an unarmed Republican funeral in 1988 shooting people and throwing grenades. The unarmed crowd chased him down, taking shots as they came on, if the RUC hadn't intervened they would have killed him.
You can go into Protestant family pubs on a Sunday even now and they'll be toasting Stone and singing songs about him.

Then along come the foreign 'experts'. Scotland will leave!" "Ireland will Unify!"
Same cocky clueless approach that the EU big wigs have taken to it all.

They don't even know that they don't know..

I know London media high-ups who make smug jokes about things like Irish reunification and 5 minutes into debating them it comes across how clueless they are.
Same qunts read the Guardian like its objective.
Don't know a single soul who died in the troubles.. but they're the experts.

Let them wade in with their expertise and assurance and they would be running away pretty fast.
Even people I know with years of service say there is a big difference between invigilating the handover of body parts and children in places like Kosovo and checking under ones own car in ones own country every morning.

There is a big divide in the UK between those who are exposed to the realities and those, at home and abroad, who are so sure of themselves but only receive their knowledge second hand.

But what can anyone do? Its a global class war and those who find themselves on the wrong side are all stupid and rayyyycist.

Except (unfortunately for the Guardianistas and the CNN brigade) that they can see whats going on with their own eyes.

Post: #2259

(03-24-2019 05:38 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  "Common Law" is infinitely malleable and flexible, can be changed by the courts as new cases arrive.
"Terrorism," or "hate speech" are deemed "new unprecedented threats" that justify "reasonable measures" to take peoples' rights away.

Case law can be interpreted with some flexibility, however the law courts are naturally conservative and judges are usually reluctant to override well-established precedents (unless obliged to do so by some new statute passed by Parliament). Many of these precedents provide protections, and given the massive body of case law that has accumulated over the centuries, these protections are probably more comprehensive than any Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, elected officials, being largely driven by political expediency, are much more enthusiastic about making rapid statutory changes that override common law judgements in response to perceived threats like terrorism or 'hate speech'. The sort of painstaking analyses of the legal, historical and cultural bases for a particular law that can be read in court judgements are notably absent from Hansard.

So, sadly enough, I would say that democratically elected members of Parliament are a greater threat to citizens' rights than any deficiencies to be found in the common law...

[none of this is to say that I disagree with you on the desirability of a constitutional Bill of Rights to rein in parliamentary excesses]

(03-24-2019 05:38 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Written constitutions and statutory law enacted by elected bodies is clearer and more legitimate than judge-made law.

The question of legitimacy really goes to the heart of the U.K.'s troubled relationship with the E.U.

How can the E.U.'s laws, largely crafted by foreign governments with very different legal traditions, political philosophies and economic interests, ever legitimately reflect the interests of the U.K. people?

Post: #2260

(03-23-2019 01:29 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 01:23 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 07:02 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  If I were a young British guy, I'd be pissed.

Losing rights of residence, work, Erasmus, health care in Europe? And what do you get?

I've been on Erasmus and let me tell you, it's nothing special. It's basically a carte blanche to drink, fuck and party for a few months.

Plus it's not like no one had ever studied abroad before European Union came along.

EU-subsidized drinking, fucking, and partying sounds pretty special to me, and worth fighting for.

Unless Daddy and Mommy are rich, Americans have to join the military for anything like that, and it usually includes a trip to some unpleasant places.

Firstly, drinking, fucking and partying existed way before the EU and will continue to exist long after the EU is gone. Secondly, student exchanges and studying abroad also existed way before the EU and will continue to exist long after the EU is gone.

But forget all that - even if those somehow disappeared with leaving the EU, the fact that you view the prospect of selling your independence for a little bit of subsidized drinking, fucking and partying as something positive is just sad.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Post: #2261

(03-24-2019 08:34 AM)Ouroboros Wrote:  

(03-24-2019 05:38 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  "Common Law" is infinitely malleable and flexible, can be changed by the courts as new cases arrive.
"Terrorism," or "hate speech" are deemed "new unprecedented threats" that justify "reasonable measures" to take peoples' rights away.

Case law can be interpreted with some flexibility, however the law courts are naturally conservative and judges are usually reluctant to override well-established precedents (unless obliged to do so by some new statute passed by Parliament). Many of these precedents provide protections, and given the massive body of case law that has accumulated over the centuries, these protections are probably more comprehensive than any Bill of Rights.

On the other hand, elected officials, being largely driven by political expediency, are much more enthusiastic about making rapid statutory changes that override common law judgements in response to perceived threats like terrorism or 'hate speech'. The sort of painstaking analyses of the legal, historical and cultural bases for a particular law that can be read in court judgements are notably absent from Hansard.

So, sadly enough, I would say that democratically elected members of Parliament are a greater threat to citizens' rights than any deficiencies to be found in the common law...

[none of this is to say that I disagree with you on the desirability of a constitutional Bill of Rights to rein in parliamentary excesses]

(03-24-2019 05:38 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  Written constitutions and statutory law enacted by elected bodies is clearer and more legitimate than judge-made law.

The question of legitimacy really goes to the heart of the U.K.'s troubled relationship with the E.U.

How can the E.U.'s laws, largely crafted by foreign governments with very different legal traditions, political philosophies and economic interests, ever legitimately reflect the interests of the U.K. people?

Saying the "protections are probably more comprehensive than any Bill of Rights" is contradicted by reality. When the UK prosecutes and fines a guy for a video of a pug doing a Nazi salute, and a journalist is now under investigation by the police for "misgendering" a male-born person, it's safe to say (at least outside the UK) you've lost your rights. I'm not even getting into counterterrorist detention without hearings or guns.

But I just bring up these oppressions of UK law to ask the question: What are these fukin "rights" the UK lost to Brussels?
Can you name one EU regulation that infringes on a fundamental right more than your own British government does?
99% of those EU regs are commerce harmonization. Product standards. Which anyone who exports to the EU will have to comply with anyways.

UK is #9 in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business rankings. Denmark (EU) is #3. Norway (EFTA) #7, USA #8. #1 is New Zealand, then you have Singapore and HK in there at 2 and 4. So it's not a matter of EU's oppressive regulatory environment.

I've been watching this shit develop for years. When I was in the UK in the 80s and 90s on business, I'd read The Sun. There would always be some bullshit story about "English greengrocer forced to label his product in kilos, OMG!" or "Brussels boffins will abolish the pint - half-liter will be ordered!"
Manufactured outrage for the morons, bashing Jerries and Frogs and pumping World War II glory. It was all a bunch of shit but it prepared the ground for Brexit.

Post: #2262

(03-24-2019 01:41 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Saying the "protections are probably more comprehensive than any Bill of Rights" is contradicted by reality. When the UK prosecutes and fines a guy for a video of a pug doing a Nazi salute, and a journalist is now under investigation by the police for "misgendering" a male-born person, it's safe to say (at least outside the UK) you've lost your rights. I'm not even getting into counterterrorist detention without hearings or guns.

The problem is not that the common law lacks protections, it's that these protections can be overridden so easily by Parliament. In order for the system to function properly, the people must actively pressure Parliament to act in their interests through voting, protesting, lobbying or violently rebelling, if necessary. The cases you mentioned would indicate that the British people have been too complacent in safeguarding their rights.

(03-24-2019 01:41 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  But I just bring up these oppressions of UK law to ask the question: What are these fukin "rights" the UK lost to Brussels?
Can you name one EU regulation that infringes on a fundamental right more than your own British government does?
99% of those EU regs are commerce harmonization. Product standards. Which anyone who exports to the EU will have to comply with anyways.

I'm not knowledgeable enough about the E.U.'s laws and regulations to give a complete answer to that question. It also depends on what you define as a 'fundamental right'. It's likely that many of those who voted in favour of Brexit considered the U.K.'s tax payer-funded net contributions to the EU budget (for various purposes that may or may not have reflected the interests of the British tax payer) to be a violation of their rights. The E.U.'s Freedom of Movement policy could be viewed as a violation of the people's right to determine their own demographic (and therefore cultural and political) future.

It's probably true that the British government infringes upon the rights of its people to a greater extent than the E.U. does at this point in time. But it is also much easier for the British people to change the direction of their own government than it is for them to influence the policies of the E.U. If the E.U. became more authoritarian it would be much harder for any one nation or people to reverse this. And even if the E.U. does not go down that path, why would you expect a supranational body dominated by countries with very different interests and values from those of the U.K. (and which have historically been either its rivals or enemies) to act in the British people's best interests into the future?

Post: #2263

(03-24-2019 05:38 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

(03-23-2019 06:48 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(03-22-2019 07:23 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  Freedom? That's a joke. One of the reasons for Brexit is so the government can avoid the European Court of Human Rights. It was a pain in the ass when the UK govt wanted to throw someone in prison without a hearing.

You can't even say "trans women are men" in the UK now without being arrested. The UK is the least free country in Western Europe.

And it will be so great when you have to PAY for all that health care and education that used to be free, and get visas to live and work there.

This is an understandable misunderstanding often made by those unfamiliar with English Common Law. The Common Law system, such as it is, doesn't doesn't use grand legislative charters, such as the HRA, unless they are mandated (the EU). It is not how our system of laws evolves, or affords protection, to the 'man on the London omnibus'. When charters such as these are imposed, they often sit uneasily within our system of law - not because we don't like the rights and freedoms they aspire to, but because those rights and freedom are already protected, or able to be protected, within the vast body of English Case Law that exists, and which forms the corpus of our legal system.

There are no 'rights' conveyed by the Human Rights Act that were not already protected in an uncodified form by the Common Law. The problem with these legislative tracts, as one can observe across the European continent, is that they are invariably ideological, seek to be definitive in a way they cannot be, and demand vast amounts of bureaucracy to make them work. This is acceptable to those with legal systems based on the Code Civil, because it is how they are accustomed to operating. To those of us with a more ancient and less dictatorial legal tradition, such things are unpleasant and alien, and often unworkable.

"Common Law" is infinitely malleable and flexible, can be changed by the courts as new cases arrive.
"Terrorism," or "hate speech" are deemed "new unprecedented threats" that justify "reasonable measures" to take peoples' rights away.

Contrast the US Bill of Rights which has some clear lines to it. You can't ban "hate speech." Written constitutions and statutory law enacted by elected bodies is clearer and more legitimate than judge-made law.

The fact is that Brits don't have the rights to free speech and due process Americans have. It's an authoritarian country. See Roosh being excluded, ASBOs, detention without a hearing for days etc.

(03-23-2019 05:21 PM)Cuchulainn2016 Wrote:  With regards to the 2 points I bolded above:

1. The UK doesn't export to the EU, it imports in from the EU. Any prohibitive trade deal with the EU can be easily stopped by matching any tariffs or regulations the EU place on UK products with matching tariffs or regulations. That would hurt the EU more than the UK, and they are hurting enough already. Just ask President Trump how its done.

2. A lower valued pound is better for the UK economy. This is because it makes it a better environment for UK companies to compete internationally, this leads to more jobs and a stronger economy. Though it might cost you more for a beer on holiday, more people will be able to afford holidays.

Yes, a lower valued currency makes your exports cheaper. The value of a currency is also a market value of confidence in your country's economy.

Plus Carney at the BoE has been printing money furiously to prop up the economy.

As you note, imports from the EU are bigger than exports to the UK. These are more expensive because of Brexit.

And if the lower valued currency is negated by tariffs which make your exports more expensive?

(03-24-2019 12:13 AM)Bienvenuto Wrote:  This is the thing though, this is the thing..

I've lived, worked, claimed benefits, been homeless all over the UK.

Seen immigration and Islam from all kinds of angles and know full well the nightmare that being a signatory to the ECHR entails.

As a former employer I could go into all the ways EU enforcement of worker's or individual's rights doesn't amount to shit.. whilst all their pro-migration/ pro-Asylum seeker garbage makes it impossible for a signatory country to limit migration, especially from the 3rd world.

But whats the fucking point?

Sp5 - you're a lawyer and you were a US army clerk in Iraq. Im happy for you.. doesn't mean you know shit about the Uk or Brexit.

You wade in like you are the last word on issues and I can't for the life of me work out why you are appointing yourself as an expert on these things.

You said about the Uk army instructor facing court-martial for giving a female recruit shit: "Having her get on her knees before him in the river while cursing at her served no training purpose. It was done to elicit a reaction from her so he could record it and laugh with his mates.
Unprofessional and should be punished."

No.. No.. Nope.. We do things differently in the Uk and we do it for a reason.

About the Islamic prejudice against dogs as the spawn of satan's saliva: "I have to laugh at all of this dog stuff. If anything, there are TOO MANY dogs in some Muslim countries." Try being a dog owner in muslim dominated Tower Hamlets. That would change your tune..

Muslims are great guys? Go to Dewsbury, Rotherham, Cheetham Hill, Bradford, Luton, Telford, Shadwell. Great people? Not in many parts of the UK they're not.

You like Alexandra Occasio-Cortez because she "ran on economic issues and being in touch with the average constituent"?

Trump "will have to resign this year"? Trump will be out of a job soon?

Sure.

Thanks for your expertise but you will understand when Britons ignore overseas 'experts' in order take back the ability to determine the future of their country.

And when some Britons disregard your expertise in general.

I'm glad you've read everything I've written here, but I wasn't an army clerk in Iraq. I was an army clerk a long, long time ago. I did other things in Iraq.

The vast majority of Muslims in the UK aren't there because of EU free movement. They're there because the UK conquered India and Pakistan 200 years ago and then let people from those places into the UK en masse after WWII. They came long before the UK joined the EEC. EU has nothing to do with it.

You don't have to be a UK expert to see Scottish independence coming like an express train after Brexit, and Irish unification coming after that. That will be the end of the UK as we know it.

Enjoy your "sovereignty" in the UK of England and Wales.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to reply at length. This is an extraordinarily addled post that does not reflect reality, or accurately capture the very real problems we face in terms of legislative abuses.

To answer your question on abusive EU legislation, one need look no further than the European Arrest Warrant, which mandates citizens be extradited to other member states to face criminal prosecution even if the alleged crime is not a crime in their home country, and even if (as has happened) the citizen then spends years in detention in a foreign country awaiting trial. This is an EU mandated piece of legislation that is totally alien to our common law system. It is simply not correct correct to say most EU legislation is harmonization for products.

None of that changes the fact that Code Civil type legislation sits very poorly even at an administrative and practical level with a common law system - something we have, have had for a thousand years, and intend to keep.

Beyond this, you don't appear to see the very serious contradiction in your text, which praises the superior legitimacy of state legislation, whilst railing against the legal abuses acted upon UK citizens by its state legislature. It is a staggering and irreconcilable hypocrisy. If, as I would agree, something state mandated such as a hate speech law is alien and intolerable, then clearly there is a strong argument to limit the state's ability to make these kinds of edict. The common law has, for centuries, been a safeguard against these exact abuses.

Finally, as a historical point, the influx of Indians and Pakistanis did not, as you posit, come after WWII. As Subjects of the British Empire all the King/Queen's subjects had the right to travel freely within the empire - it being implicit that as part of the empire they had the right to move around within the empire. In fact WWII as the final death knoll of the British Empire marks the point at which free movement for the citizens of the empire/commonwealth was brought to an end and visa requirements were introduced.

The large scale influx of immigrants into Britain came after 1997, when rates went up from c.50k net immigration to over 300k year on year. This was a result of deliberate policies by the then Labour government. The only real influx of immigrants following WWII, and even then it was well after, was in the 60s, from the Caribbean- the so-called windrush generation who were invited in to help fill a lack of supply for low skilled jobs. A group of people who would have some legitimate grievances at the way they have been treated at times, but who have broadly speaking - as much as any large group of any denomination could be expected to - integrated happily and fully into our society and way of life.

Post: #2264

Mogg now backs May's deal if DUP will agree.

DUP won't. DUP's number one goal is alignment with the UK. Anything that has the potential to drive even an inch-wide gap between NI and the rest of the UK will not be accepted.

Post: #2265

(03-25-2019 04:49 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  Unfortunately I'm not in a position to reply at length. This is an extraordinarily addled post that does not reflect reality, or accurately capture the very real problems we face in terms of legislative abuses.

To answer your question on abusive EU legislation, one need look no further than the European Arrest Warrant, which mandates citizens be extradited to other member states to face criminal prosecution even if the alleged crime is not a crime in their home country, and even if (as has happened) the citizen then spends years in detention in a foreign country awaiting trial. This is an EU mandated piece of legislation that is totally alien to our common law system. It is simply not correct correct to say most EU legislation is harmonization for products.

None of that changes the fact that Code Civil type legislation sits very poorly even at an administrative and practical level with a common law system - something we have, have had for a thousand years, and intend to keep.

Beyond this, you don't appear to see the very serious contradiction in your text, which praises the superior legitimacy of state legislation, whilst railing against the legal abuses acted upon UK citizens by its state legislature. It is a staggering and irreconcilable hypocrisy. If, as I would agree, something state mandated such as a hate speech law is alien and intolerable, then clearly there is a strong argument to limit the state's ability to make these kinds of edict. The common law has, for centuries, been a safeguard against these exact abuses.

Finally, as a historical point, the influx of Indians and Pakistanis did not, as you posit, come after WWII. As Subjects of the British Empire all the King/Queen's subjects had the right to travel freely within the empire - it being implicit that as part of the empire they had the right to move around within the empire. In fact WWII as the final death knoll of the British Empire marks the point at which free movement for the citizens of the empire/commonwealth was brought to an end and visa requirements were introduced.

The large scale influx of immigrants into Britain came after 1997, when rates went up from c.50k net immigration to over 300k year on year. This was a result of deliberate policies by the then Labour government. The only real influx of immigrants following WWII, and even then it was well after, was in the 60s, from the Caribbean- the so-called windrush generation who were invited in to help fill a lack of supply for low skilled jobs. A group of people who would have some legitimate grievances at the way they have been treated at times, but who have broadly speaking - as much as any large group of any denomination could be expected to - integrated happily and fully into our society and way of life.

1. You don't cite any actual abuses of UK citizens of the European Arrest Warrant. I can easily cite abuses in the British system - prosecuting joke videos of pugs, police arrests of journalists and others who say trans women are men, prosecution of jokes, criticism of religions, Roosh getting banned. It's true that some countries have laws which the UK doesn't have - the Spanish law against insulting the king, for example. But are there any examples of Brits getting extradited to Spain for insulting the king?

I looked up a report critical European Arrest Warrant. It was actually weak, showing that extraditions from the UK are overwhelmingly of Eastern Europeans back to their countries for normal crimes like theft, assaults etc.
The report is here (pdf):
http://dueprocess.org.uk/wp-content/uplo...states.pdf

Anyways, the government is trying to stay in the European Arrest Warrant system or adopt something similar, so it can't be seen as a "benefit" of Brexit. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-44532500

2. When I say acts passed by a legislature have superior legitimacy to judge-made law, I'm not just stating an opinion, I'm stating a fact. It's the way it is. Strange you say that's hypocritical.

If Parliament passes a law, judges have to follow it. The reverse is not true. Same thing in the USA, usually. The difference is that in the USA there's a written codified Constitution the text of which can't be changed by either Congress or judges which limits Congress, state legislatures, and judges. In the UK, that's not true. Parliament can do pretty much what it wants, and UK judges can't throw out the law under one of the many Constitutional doctrines which allow US judges to void acts of Congress. A law like the Public Order Act which allows prosecution for speech causing "distress" would be thrown out by judges in the USA in 52 seconds. No judge in the UK has voided it.

3. We can define "after WWII" differently. I'll concede your point about Indo-Pak immigration. My point was that this has nothing to do with the EU.

Post: #2266

This is tangential to the ongoing Brexit shite, and pretty hilarious really. It also shows how much we forget how words and phrases that we on rvf and the manosphere (can't think of a better word atm) take for granted, just aren't in common use outside our tribe.

The newly formed 'Independent Group' (initially formed I believe to oppose 'No-deal' Brexit (otherwise known simply as 'Brexit')) has formally applied to become a legitimate political party. In doing so, it has decided to change it's name to .......

.... wait for it.....

'Change UK'!

That's right .... they have decided to name themselves officially as CUK!!! Fucking CUK!? I mean, wtf!? Did nobody have the social awareness of savvy to warn them off? You couldn't make the fucker up, you really couldn't.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47745166

Quote:The Independent Group (TIG) of MPs has applied to become a political party to take part in European elections in May if they go ahead.

The group intends to call itself Change UK, and has named Heidi Allen as its interim leader.

Post: #2267

May’s deal just lost a vote for a third time, turning up the volume on the Brexit sh*tshow...

Will they go for a multi-year extension?

They will probably be able to cancel Brexit this way, as people become entirely fed up, and allowing time for remainers to organize a second referendum.

Typical EU mode of operating: Keep voting until you get the right result.

Post: #2268

(03-29-2019 10:15 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  May’s deal just lost a vote for a third time, turning up the volume on the Brexit sh*tshow...

Will they go for a multi-year extension?

They will probably be able to cancel Brexit this way, as people become entirely fed up, and allowing time for remainers to organize a second referendum.

Typical EU mode of operating: Keep voting until you get the right result.

I know. I told everyone at work the morning after the vote that this would happen; that they'd confuse, complicate, obfuscate and prevaricate until 'the moment' passed and everyone would forget what the hell they were arguing about anyway.

After-all, this is exactly how you'd do things if you held all the cards; media, government and culture. Slow-walk people into dead-ends and wrong-turns while time marches on.

We've all seen it happen before, or read about it and know how the globalists operate. They play a long game.

I made a further prediction; that the demonisation of Brexiters will slowly be dialled up. It's almost there already and soon the die-hards leftover from the original 52% will find themselves being villified and eventually have the law set upon them 'for the good of democracy and stability' or whatever. You watch, they'll slowly conflate talking about Brexit with 'Hate Crime' and that sort of thing.

We're totally fucked till this ride ends. At least until we've all lost everything they can take. Only then will the English find their balls again. This doesn't change anything in my view; people should still fight, campaign and shitlord all the more and not make things easy for them. 'Optimism is Cowardice' as Spengler said, let's stay at our posts till the bitter end, defiant as fuck. Just to be stubborn bastards.

Post: #2269

Hahahaha I'm enjoying this shitshow so much!


Blame your own parliament, for failing to even agree on EIGHT types of deals.

Contrary to what you seem to imply, the fault is totally with the Tory Party, which cannot unite under a deal. Your optimism for hoping the EU would be divided has been squashed. Too bad!!!

Post: #2270

Mikado, I'm with you regarding the Tory party. And Parliament as well for that matter. Brexit has done wonders the last few years at revealing just how far things have fallen. The EU does what the EU does, you can't hate them for it. But traitors? People who should be fighting for your best interests? That's different.

As I live in the North of the UK, the difference between being ruled by Parliament in London and the EU in Brussels is often thought of as moot; we don't like either of them. But to me, Parliament may be a set of bastards, but at least they are our set of bastards.

Post: #2271

(03-29-2019 11:00 AM)mikado Wrote:  Hahahaha I'm enjoying this shitshow so much!


Blame your own parliament, for failing to even agree on EIGHT types of deals.

Contrary to what you seem to imply, the fault is totally with the Tory Party, which cannot unite under a deal. Your optimism for hoping the EU would be divided has been squashed. Too bad!!!

Are you under the delusion that we have a good number of MPs who aren't bought and paid for political shills for a greater power then the UK Parliament?

This spreads across the whole divide and parties are merely colours you attach yourself to but they are all now the same pushing the same policies and thought.

The EU being divided is like hoping the Senate and Congress is going to do whats best for Americans and not some Jewish Ethno-state with a race superiority complex not matched since the Nazis.

We're all fucked and none of this should be celebrated. This is a time for looking who truly has your interests at heart and those who are traitors.

As the old saying goes; rather use my last bullet for the traitor behind me than the enemy in front of me.

Post: #2272

(03-25-2019 04:49 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  To answer your question on abusive EU legislation, one need look no further than the European Arrest Warrant, which mandates citizens be extradited to other member states to face criminal prosecution even if the alleged crime is not a crime in their home country, and even if (as has happened) the citizen then spends years in detention in a foreign country awaiting trial.

UK can refuse a European Arrest Warrant extradition request on such grounds (its called 'double criminality') unless it is a grave offence such as rape, weapons trafficking etc.

Can you name a case where an EU nation has abused in your opinion its extradition agreements with the UK ? Not trying to be sarcastic, i honestly want to understand rationale of people who support brexit. Personally I don't understand how an agreement to harmonise extradition of criminals between European countries can be an issue for people?

Post: #2273

(04-02-2019 09:15 AM)the.king Wrote:  

(03-25-2019 04:49 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  To answer your question on abusive EU legislation, one need look no further than the European Arrest Warrant, which mandates citizens be extradited to other member states to face criminal prosecution even if the alleged crime is not a crime in their home country, and even if (as has happened) the citizen then spends years in detention in a foreign country awaiting trial.

UK can refuse a European Arrest Warrant extradition request on such grounds (its called 'double criminality') unless it is a grave offence such as rape, weapons trafficking etc.

Can you name a case where an EU nation has abused in your opinion its extradition agreements with the UK ? Not trying to be sarcastic, i honestly want to understand rationale of people who support brexit. Personally I don't understand how an agreement to harmonise extradition of criminals between European countries can be an issue for people?

Well, your post in a sense shows why Europeans have such trouble understanding Britain.

'Harmonisation' of laws between member states, particularly between continental Europe and Britain has two problems. One is practical, the other more abstract.

As a practical matter, you cannot harmonise a common law system and a system based on the Code Civil. The two are fundamentally distinct and incompatible in their very natures. One is an organic, judge made system of laws that arises primarily based on the actual disputes and criminal proceedings that comes before it. The other is a codified system of laws that attempts to be complete from point of creation. The latter being, by its very essence, far more bureaucratic to enforce and less adaptable to particular injustice or criminal/legislative novelty. Trying to force one on the other leads to a very unhappy state of legal affairs, such as we currently have in the UK. It also encourages our government to legislate. Prior to our joining the European Union, the amount of actual legislation governments here passed was relatively limited, and it was enacted infrequently. Again, that has all changed, and it leads to legal incompatibility and injustice - something we are seeing a great deal these days here. As some have rightly pointed out, we do now have many more unjust and insane legislation that requires ever more enforcement. This is largely due to our membership of the EU.

As a more abstract point of opposition, the clear end point of 'harmonisation' is a pan-European legal framework, binding on all member states - and the corollary, which is the eradication of national laws in favour of a centralised code. It is the federalisation of Europe, and legal harmonisation is the most potent step to achieving that utopian goal. The legal system of the UK, gifted to many of our former colonies, underpins the greatest period of progress and innovation in the history of mankind, and it is no coincidence in my view that none of the countries that have adopted it have fallen prey to murderous ideology or demagoguery.

There is a third reason, and that is that as a British citizen I have absolutely no intention to be bound by the crooked, corrupt, and extremely inferior laws of other European countries, particularly the Central and Eastern European ones, but I would extend that description to almost all of Western continental Europe too. The idea of being bound by the decisions of Romanian or Polish judges now, or heaven forbid Moldovan or Albanian ones in the future, is simply disgusting to me. Not unfortunate, not modestly or acceptably inferior - unequivocally revolting and unacceptable. I meet and deal with these people regularly, and they are all politically connected and quite prepared to solicit bribes to make sure decisions go the right way. One of the vile implications of the European Arrest Warrant is that as a British Citizen, it is possible that my country will defer (for example) to Romanian standards of justice.

Post: #2274

As if things couldn’t be more of a clusterfuck, “Treason” May has shown her true (red) colours and would rather team up with comrade Corbyn than deliver an actual Brexit:

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/04...ble-again/

Post: #2275

(07-02-2016 05:05 AM)rotekz Wrote:  

(07-01-2016 12:08 PM)AManLikePutin Wrote:  Is Theresa May actually a legitimate candidate for Tory leadership?

She would be a disaster: pro-remain, pro-Sharia, instigator of the 'Snooper's Charter' plus everything below:

The Telegraph published a scathing article about Theresa May but she had it pulled somehow. Guido has republished it.

I called it three years ago in the above post. Few can deny now that she has been an unmitigated disaster. A treasonous puppet of the Cabal. Theresa The Appeaser - the worst prime minister ever.