Can't put a price on sovereignty, right?
Can't put a price on sovereignty, right?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
These economic arguments won't win the day, nor should they. Just like with Brexit it isn't just about the economy.
If you want the union to survive (I don't) then make the argument for why Britain is best together. Not just dry economics.
Otherwise, head apart and manage as best as can be done.
One has to wonder what kind of consultations preceded the British threat of triggering article 16 of the NIP. Are UK media going to be as upset as when the Commission considered its necessity?
Congratulations America
The ones that are happening today and are ongoing. Article 16 hasn't been triggered yet, consultations are still ongoing right now. Gove was in talks with Serkovic (sp?) today and they released a joint statement saying they will continue.
Saying "we have a problem, we need to discuss it and if we don't reach a solution A16 may be triggered" is different to blowing up without discussion and triggering it without discussion or consultation.
This is funny.
Twitter Link
https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/...52229223096321
And the followup:
https://twitter.com/MrMichaelSpicer/...51689932427269
(someone educate me on how to make Embeds out of these)
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
This man is an actual clown, writing for clowns:
Twitter Link
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
As we have already established, unlike you—a functionally illiterate clown—I read the things I link to, before linking to them. Asylum seekers in the UK have a legal right to apply for asylum in the UK even if they have passed through other "safe" countries, and nations are not permitted to discriminate against asylum seekers on the basis of "illegal" entry or "failure" to apply in the first "safe" country. This non-penalization principle is one of the clearest principles in international humanitarian law, and the UK is bound—by treaty, by domestic law, and by basic human decency—to abide by it. You and other racist Trumpist clowns might disagree, but, as we have already established, you disagreeing with something is usually a very strong indicator that it's right—both factually and morally.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Quite clear you've ran halfcocked yet again. Getting people not to flee France in dangerous boats in deadly conditions is a good thing not a bad one.
But the whole point of the article if you'd actually read it is about how much more liberal our immigration is now compared to before. Yet you ran off because of a snippet on Twitter without reading it.
Like I said, one of us—namely you—has a well-established record of not reading, and one of us—namely me—has a well-established record of reading. You and I both know that you didn't read the article carefully before responding, and, consequently, didn't realize I was addressing something in the article; you merely skimmed it—even though it is a very short text!—just long enough to see what you expected to see.
Whether or not you—a functionally illiterate idiot—think the consequences of a policy is good is irrelevant to the question of whether or not that policy is legal. As to your point about your immigration being more liberal, that is, of course, nonsense—your immigration laws remain incredibly restrictive for the vast majority of LMIC migrants, presenting a significant burden to many families, and you have imposed much greater restrictions on the very substantial migration from EU countries. The net result is a more restrictive migration policy—not a more liberal one. I don't expect a compulsive bullshit-peddler such as yourself to acknowledge this, but facts don't lie.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I did read the article which is why I knew the snippet from the Tweet was only a tiny part of the article and not the point of it - yet you ran off screaming like a headless chicken because of the snippet from the Tweet and entirely missing the point.
Unsurprisingly.
Our immigration laws are getting liberalised on a global level considerably compared to what they were pre-referendum and concerns over immigration have evaporated, which was the point that you missed.
Saying Europeans can enter but fuck everyone else is not "more liberal".
As for what is legal, that depends upon what laws our Parliament passes. If Parliament passes a law, it is legal. We've been over this before.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I can't imagine this is a good month for anyone who enthusiastically defended Johnson's dodgy friendship with a Russian oligarch and the crook's extraordinary decision to reward said oligarch with a peerage, against advice from MI6 and assorted civil servants. Kinda looking forward to seeing the papers explore this relationship, over the coming months, given the Johnson govt's puzzling incompetence at sanctioning oligarchs.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."