In reply to Post #659
There's some nasty people in this world and democracy is the best way any population can choose it's destiny.
Best you leave those that understand it too it
There's some nasty people in this world and democracy is the best way any population can choose it's destiny.
Best you leave those that understand it too it
In reply to Post #661
Which type of democracy? Since you understand it so well and all that...
Which type of democracy? Since you understand it so well and all that...
In reply to Post #661
Like I said. If it's the best way why haven't we invaded China? Or North Korea? Or multiple African countries?
I'm not sure you understand democracy in its entirety tbh. Picking and choosing where to “fight for democracy” isn't actually fighting for democracy. Especially when investigations carried out by your own government find that the decisions to “fight for democracy” were based on lies and wrong information
Educate yourself on some facts and come back to me. Maybe read the report in to British actions in Libya.
Just saying I “don't understand democracy” when you're being asked I text questions shows you can't answer them and have no actual factual reasoning for your opinion that Britain invading countries to spread democracy is actually a good thing.
Like I said. If it's the best way why haven't we invaded China? Or North Korea? Or multiple African countries?
I'm not sure you understand democracy in its entirety tbh. Picking and choosing where to “fight for democracy” isn't actually fighting for democracy. Especially when investigations carried out by your own government find that the decisions to “fight for democracy” were based on lies and wrong information
Educate yourself on some facts and come back to me. Maybe read the report in to British actions in Libya. Just saying I “don't understand democracy” when you're being asked I text questions shows you can't answer them and have no actual factual reasoning for your opinion that Britain invading countries to spread democracy is actually a good thing.
In reply to Post #662
Probably the British kind... you know where they illegally suspend parliament and then totally IGNORE parliament to push through laws which even the ruling MPs publicly condemn on national TV. The kind where you vote for things based on party manifestos only for none of it to actually be realised or the opposite happens. The kind of democracy where big businesses buy MPs and decisions that are favourable for them.
Probably that kind is what he means.
Probably the British kind... you know where they illegally suspend parliament and then totally IGNORE parliament to push through laws which even the ruling MPs publicly condemn on national TV. The kind where you vote for things based on party manifestos only for none of it to actually be realised or the opposite happens. The kind of democracy where big businesses buy MPs and decisions that are favourable for them.
Probably that kind is what he means.
In reply to Post #660
Those seeking asylum are illegal all the way across Europe the apply for asylum here,
Yes I get that but it's the free movement that allows them to go where they want once they enter the EU illegally.
Even when we're totally out of the EU the problem will still be there so I understand leaving the EU wont cure the problem. The problem is the illegals gaining entry into the EU and going where they want.
True asylum seekers would be so desperate that they'd settle in any country that was safe.
Too late now but when we was in the EU each country should've taken a fair share of genuine asylum seekers.
Those seeking asylum are illegal all the way across Europe the apply for asylum here,
Yes I get that but it's the free movement that allows them to go where they want once they enter the EU illegally.
Even when we're totally out of the EU the problem will still be there so I understand leaving the EU wont cure the problem. The problem is the illegals gaining entry into the EU and going where they want.
True asylum seekers would be so desperate that they'd settle in any country that was safe.
Too late now but when we was in the EU each country should've taken a fair share of genuine asylum seekers.
In reply to Post #664
The kind where you vote for things based on party manifestos only for none of it to actually be realised or the opposite happens
We voted to leave the EU but parliament stifled it so to try and get things moving and try and give the people what they voted for they tried to suspend parliament. Maybe not lawful but the people of this country weren't bothered they were so sick and tired of it many lent their votes to the Conservatives to try and break the stalemate.
The kind where you vote for things based on party manifestos only for none of it to actually be realised or the opposite happens
We voted to leave the EU but parliament stifled it so to try and get things moving and try and give the people what they voted for they tried to suspend parliament. Maybe not lawful but the people of this country weren't bothered they were so sick and tired of it many lent their votes to the Conservatives to try and break the stalemate.
In reply to Post #666
It was more general than brexit. Lib Dem student fees promises, etc. But yes the suspension of parliament was still unlawful, if the government acts illegally it's not a democracy is it.
It was more general than brexit. Lib Dem student fees promises, etc. But yes the suspension of parliament was still unlawful, if the government acts illegally it's not a democracy is it.
In reply to Post #665
I've always believed that the countries which do the damage should take the refugees. Out of the EU there is no obligation to house them. EU countries have taken plenty of refugees, especially Syrians. Germany, France, etc. They should be shipped to America as it's them doing the most damage yet they take none... great set up that is. We bomb them and you take the people that survive.
I've always believed that the countries which do the damage should take the refugees. Out of the EU there is no obligation to house them. EU countries have taken plenty of refugees, especially Syrians. Germany, France, etc. They should be shipped to America as it's them doing the most damage yet they take none... great set up that is. We bomb them and you take the people that survive.
In reply to Post #665
That's not 'freedom of movement', it's 'lack of border checks between some EU states'. Two very different things.
That's not 'freedom of movement', it's 'lack of border checks between some EU states'. Two very different things.
In reply to Post #667
I see what you mean now.
Problem with all our political parties is that they'd rather try to score points off each other rather than actually do what's best. Much of the public already sees this and many of the rest are beginning to see it as well. A good election strategy could be to rise above the point scoring and personal attacks. Politics is just as much to do with personalities nowadays, come across as the good guy who doesn't bitch and you may be onto a winner?
PS
Maybe that's more hopeful thinking than reality
I see what you mean now.
Problem with all our political parties is that they'd rather try to score points off each other rather than actually do what's best. Much of the public already sees this and many of the rest are beginning to see it as well. A good election strategy could be to rise above the point scoring and personal attacks. Politics is just as much to do with personalities nowadays, come across as the good guy who doesn't bitch and you may be onto a winner?
PS
Maybe that's more hopeful thinking than reality
In reply to Post #669
Freedom of movement means no border checks?
Anyway the point I was trying to make is I'm all for a share of genuine asylum seekers if it's fair.
I think I see what Gregskii is trying to get at this time. Some countries try to make changes and make mistakes and some countries do **** all. There's a saying do **** all and you'll never do anything wrong. TBH I'd prefer ii if we were one of the countries but we are not. So under international law we are not neighbours of troubled countries so not obliged to take asylum seekers but as I say I'm happy for us to take a fair share.
The world is not fair. I'm sure most of us want it to be but our differing views mean we may not be able to agree what is fair.
Freedom of movement means no border checks?
Anyway the point I was trying to make is I'm all for a share of genuine asylum seekers if it's fair.
I think I see what Gregskii is trying to get at this time. Some countries try to make changes and make mistakes and some countries do **** all. There's a saying do **** all and you'll never do anything wrong. TBH I'd prefer ii if we were one of the countries but we are not. So under international law we are not neighbours of troubled countries so not obliged to take asylum seekers but as I say I'm happy for us to take a fair share.
The world is not fair. I'm sure most of us want it to be but our differing views mean we may not be able to agree what is fair.
In reply to Post #671
So under international law we are not neighbours of troubled countries so not obliged to take asylum seekers
There is no requirement under the UN Refugee Convention (the applicable law) for those seeking refuge to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter.
So under international law we are not neighbours of troubled countries so not obliged to take asylum seekers
There is no requirement under the UN Refugee Convention (the applicable law) for those seeking refuge to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter.
Well....
There are lots of similar things being said and some interesting points tonight.
Some things to ponder maybe....
Our repeated bombing and support of civil wars within other countries adds to the numbers of those seeking asylum which then becomes a 'problem' for some. Closing our borders to those who need asylum as a result of our direct / indirect action, or our turning a blind eye / inaction is just plain ****ty.
Our interventions cited as fighting for democracy are - it would seem - carefully chosen depending on oil reserves, business contracts for infrastructure rebuilds and the supported appointment of sympathetic new regimes.
We have saved some people from dictatorship
But not always picked up our mess after ourselves
Democracy is easily exploited by those in power.
2000 words on the topic of your choice. No copy and paste. On my desk first thing Friday please.
There are lots of similar things being said and some interesting points tonight.
Some things to ponder maybe....
Our repeated bombing and support of civil wars within other countries adds to the numbers of those seeking asylum which then becomes a 'problem' for some. Closing our borders to those who need asylum as a result of our direct / indirect action, or our turning a blind eye / inaction is just plain ****ty.
Our interventions cited as fighting for democracy are - it would seem - carefully chosen depending on oil reserves, business contracts for infrastructure rebuilds and the supported appointment of sympathetic new regimes.
We have saved some people from dictatorship
But not always picked up our mess after ourselves
Democracy is easily exploited by those in power.
2000 words on the topic of your choice. No copy and paste. On my desk first thing Friday please.
In reply to Post #672
Yes but risking life and limb to make the crossing to here can't be right when they've travelled through umpteen safe countries is the view of many.
In Reoly to #673
No copy and paste.
Well that's ****ed it for a few on here hasn't it
Yes but risking life and limb to make the crossing to here can't be right when they've travelled through umpteen safe countries is the view of many.
In Reoly to #673
No copy and paste.
Well that's ****ed it for a few on here hasn't it
In reply to Post #674
Got to remember that 1. They see Britain as part of the reason they are seeking asylum so they'll come here to get back that which was destroyed by us 2. Half the countries they passed through end up in Britain looking for a better quality of life and earning potential, 3. They see what refugees get here compared to other countries and 4. British people make the rod for their own back claiming “we are the greatest country in the world”... well if you don't have anything anymore, where are you going go start a new life... the “greatest country in the world” seems a logical option.
Got to remember that 1. They see Britain as part of the reason they are seeking asylum so they'll come here to get back that which was destroyed by us 2. Half the countries they passed through end up in Britain looking for a better quality of life and earning potential, 3. They see what refugees get here compared to other countries and 4. British people make the rod for their own back claiming “we are the greatest country in the world”... well if you don't have anything anymore, where are you going go start a new life... the “greatest country in the world” seems a logical option.