OK, in or out?

[cee-dee]

How about an RT poll?

No reasons, no argument, no debate just a straightforward IN or OUT.

Me? OUT.

[cee-dee]

The answer is.... when an illegal is found, tell them they're going to be detained until such time as their country of origin is found (or they tell us), not let them go and have to go through the whole process of locating them and just letting them go, again and again.

[fallen-archie]

And we should be perfectly capable of doing just that!

[cee-dee]

Should being the operative word?

[evoman3957]

And that's why, whether we remain in or out ( and I'm still for OUT ) the threat is not from the perceived enemy without........It's from the Enemy WITHIN !!..........those that would capitulate, give up.......the mamby pamby, wishy washy, brigade.......who would turn this country into a branch of the " Salvation Army ". I hope we never end up in another War, with those gutless specimens in our midst........because my family would be safer in a Lions Den.

[artful_dodgings]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

You've just the joined the likes of Cameron and Boris - all words and no substance.

---

 Still on the fence Creeky, or have you slipped off into the 'IN' camp ?

@upthecreekyyetagain wrote:

in reply to cee-dee

on ‎20-02-2016 04:30 PM

________________________

Fence

________________________

Ya gotta larf, incha ?

[artful_dodgings]

________________________

Fence

________________________

Ya gotta larf, incha ?

[0125arwen]

Britain cannot deport asylum seekers who have 'no place to go', says minister Admission comes as official European Union body says asylum claimants across Europe doubled to 1.2 million last year, no passport no place to go.

[artful_dodgings]

---

@fallen-archie wrote:

In reply to the troublesome twins up there ^^^

---

Oh come on FA, that's a bit harsh. I prefer to see them as the famous McWhirter twins, Norris and Ross. Well either those two, or the Chuckle Bros.

*chuckles*

[baybizz]

http://www.azquotes.com/author/36946-Jean_Monnet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

~

[baybizz]

>> #260: If an immigrant turns up without any paperwork as seems to be the latest ploy, would we not be better off detaining them outside the mainland until such time as they prove who they are, where they are from and their reason for seeking to live in the UK. There is no need to treat them inhumanely but we need some kind of plan to contain the problem and to deter economic immigrants coming here...

That is the policy adopted by Australia:

www.telegraph.co.uk/11554161/australia-migrant-policy

More discussion on migrants and immigration here:

www.community.ebay.com.au/refugees-asylum-seekers-1847290

www.community.ebay.com/24458295/refugee-crisis

[upthecreekyetagain]

On the face of it a good idea however look at the reality - a detention centre is set up on an island - very soon it's full of thousands of men women and children - how long do you imprison people for?  months, years, decades.

Forget the humanity of the situation - just how cost effective would that be let alone what it would do for the UK in international terms?

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@artful_dodgings wrote:

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

You've just the joined the likes of Cameron and Boris - all words and no substance.

---

 Still on the fence Creeky, or have you slipped off into the 'IN' camp ?

@upthecreekyyetagain wrote:

in reply to cee-dee

on ‎20-02-2016 04:30 PM

________________________

Fence

________________________

Ya gotta larf, incha ?

---

No - still on the fence - totally frustrated over the impossibility of trying to get any facts or even conjectures backed up with information from either side - which is why I named those two prominent individuals on each side of the argument.

CD's position is just typical - statement that it is EU rules that cause a particular problem - no direct evidence but a demand that I prove they're not.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I didn't make the statement, I don't care if it's true or not - I'll just disregard it when making up my mind unless or until someone demonstrates that there is any substance in the claim and hopefully anyone else with an iota of intelligence will disregard such claims as well, whoever makes them.

[upthecreekyetagain]

________________________

Fence

________________________

Ya gotta larf, incha ?

[cee-dee]

We can see where we're at here, a vote being decided by those without the intelligence to find out the facts for themselves which is exactly what the EU is all about, they want the population to accept whatever they say without question and the people then agree to be spoonfed information without using their brains to look in to the matter.

An old saying was that when the brains were being given out, they were round the corner playing marbles. Now, they've lost their marbles too!

[fallen-archie]

I wasn't,t aware that you had any authority to arbitrate on what constitutes an acceptable level of intelligence, furthermore it is the right of all decent human beings within a democratic society to make and take their own decisions. A study in 2010 included the following conclusions:

More intelligent people are significantly more likely to exhibit social values and religious and political preferences that are novel to the human species in evolutionary history. Specifically, liberalism and atheism, and for men (but not women), preference for sexual exclusivity correlate with higher intelligence, a new study finds.

The study, published in the March 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed scientific journal Social Psychology Quarterly, advances a new theory to explain why people form particular preferences and values. The theory suggests that more intelligent people are more likely than less intelligent people to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values, but intelligence does not correlate with preferences and values that are old enough to have been shaped by evolution over millions of years." 

Similarly, religion is a byproduct of humans' tendency to perceive agency and intention as causes of events, to see "the hands of God" at work behind otherwise natural phenomena. "Humans are evolutionarily designed to be paranoid, and they believe in God because they are paranoid," says Kanazawa. This innate bias toward paranoia served humans well when self-preservation and protection of their families and clans depended on extreme vigilance to all potential dangers. "So, more intelligent children are more likely to grow up to go against their natural evolutionary tendency to believe in God, and they become atheists."

Now the reason I have included the above is to help those of us who have never met to form a decision on who among us would be an acceptable candidate to stand for parliament and govern using the simple intelligence criteria suggested by the poster. I suppose it could be simplified by using the minimum IQ score needed to become a member of Mensa, however looking again at the study how many of those would exhibit the kind of characteristics purported to be found amongst the most intelligent?

[evoman3957]

People really should pay attention to baybizz post at #268........The quote was by one of the founding fathers of the European Union " Jean Monnet " and says it all. If you want to be one of the stupid, gullible, Fish, he talks about........floundering through life with a hook through your lip, then go ahead..........once a Sheep, always a Sheep...........I have a little more self respect, myself and a little more distaste at being so blatantly manipulated.

[baybizz]

>> Half the major new regulations are from the European Union... the Foreign Secretary is today publishing new guidelines for the implementation of EU law into the UK... 

>> I have today written to the European Commission proposing that the tax free limit on goods brought into the UK from outside the European Union should rise...

(Gordon Brown, Budget speech, 2005)

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/mar/16/economy.uk

[cee-dee]

No authority? Heck, you must be aware that I'm a wonderful, fantastic, superb example of the human race and have the utmost authority to speak as I find. I also had an invitation to join MENSA but I decided not to.....

As to levels of intelligence, it seems to be sadly lacking when considering EU proposals/directives.

I think Jean Monnet gave the game away when he said what he did and I see someone has edited the page about him on Wiki. They must have thought some of the things previously there were a bit too near the truth?

[fallen-archie]

In response to all above, I absolutely accept your comments on Monnet, what we need to take account of is the period and circumstances that gave rise to his comments and those of Schuman which was a direct reflection of Monnet. 

His views were initially influenced by WW1 where he sought and obtained an alliance with the UK, this proved successful. By the outbreak of WW2 France was overrun so quickly he became an important aid to De Gaulle based in London. Throughout the period Monnet developed his theories based largely on preventing a recurrence of conflict in Western Europe. His true colours emerged at the end of WW2 when France sought and obtained access to German coal and had all it's WW1 debts written off and also got some soft loans. 

The French are undoubtedly a proud bunch who see a federal Europe only through their own eyes and with them as the leaders, Bit like Napoleon I guess. 

My interpretation of this agrees largely with others on here however I remain mindful of the original basis for an alliance which was to prevent conflict in Western Europe. I also agree with economic integration, Airbus, mini,etc being two examples. Free movement yes but with restrictions based around sustainability, infrastructure etc. 

The words of a man who died almost 40 years ago are important as reference and reminder of how some think, what it doesn't, mean is that we cannot change the structure and accountability of the EU. And I say this because it is not just those in the UK who think this way.  Perhaps rejection may result in the changes we seek and were that the case I would gladly vote to leave. What I won't do is let the Gauls mess up what is essentially a sound and workable idea.

[cee-dee]

Ah, but like many sound ideas, they're not workable when put in to practice because the old conflicts re-surface and are never forgotten. The French have never forgiven or forgotten Trafalgar and Waterloo.

This was admirably demonstrated by the actions of De Gaulle after WW 2. He never forgave us for eventually "saving" France......... Look how he behaved over those from the allies who worked under cover with the French resistance?

Also, time moves on, what may have been good intentions of sixty years ago can easily turn in to a nightmare when influenced by later events. Remember that most of the evil in the World is done by people with good intentions and also that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@evoman3957 wrote:

People really should pay attention to baybizz post at #268........The quote was by one of the founding fathers of the European Union " Jean Monnet " and says it all. If you want to be one of the stupid, gullible, Fish, he talks about........floundering through life with a hook through your lip, then go ahead..........once a Sheep, always a Sheep...........I have a little more self respect, myself and a little more distaste at being so blatantly manipulated.

---

I 100% agree and my posts have been trying to say that none of us should be conned into deciding which way to vote without understanding exactly what it is they're voting for.

It is far too easy to be misled by statements made without substantive evidence to support them.

Both sides are attempting to mislead the electorate and the number of times I hear some of these statements repeated as though they are gospel truths suggest that many are being misled in exactly the way that Monnet suggests could be done to achieve a federal Europe.

As for those posts that seem to suggest I have been casting aspersions regarding the intelligence of some then maybe they ought to read again what I posted

I'll paraphrase it to maybe make clearer what I was saying - Hopefully any intelligent person will disregard a statement that either cannot be supported or which the person making the statement is unwilling to substantiate.  That applies to politics, business and personal interaction.  People like Monnet couldn't hope to fool people if we weren't so often willing to accept statements at face value.

[cee-dee]

Usually when people are arguing their "case" in a debate, they make some sort of statement and those in opposition refute that by stating their own case and producing their "evidence" to support their side of the argument.

Once they've done that, the original orator refutes their "evidence" with "evidence" of their own.

At times, so much "evidence" is produced that the observer is non the wiser so ignores the whole thing altogether.