Lets get the hell OUT of the EU before this happens

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, and he seems to have a fair bit of support.

Mind you, he's not actually going to do it if he becomes President is he? Ben and co are just over-reacting.

Of course he's not, and I've addressed that in other threads. And I don't say Brits are racist, I say most of the ones here are.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes, and he seems to have a fair bit of support.

Mind you, he's not actually going to do it if he becomes President is he? Ben and co are just over-reacting.

Of course he's not, and I've addressed that in other threads. And I don't say Brits are racist, I say most of the ones here are.

Most of the Brits on here are not racist - you don't have a clue really.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Most of the Brits on here are not racist - you don't have a clue really.

I have many clues.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Most of the Brits on here are not racist - you don't have a clue really.

I have many clues.

No you haven't. You're judging Brits on here by your own cultural views, and that's just wrong on so many levels.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:London: 1,572 km2

Dallas Fort Worth: 24,100km2

Even taking away the area covered by water, it's still bigger.

Stop comparing it. It's pointless.

Yeah, but they wouldn't all be moving into London, but the entire UK (according to the OP).

Anyway, it's bullshit. See my comparison to Polish immigration to the UK. The notion of 12 million in one year is patently ridiculous, and I can't see how this isn't more widely recognized as ludicrously unrealistic fearmongering.

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

eddie wrote:London: 1,572 km2

Dallas Fort Worth: 24,100km2

Even taking away the area covered by water, it's still bigger.

Stop comparing it. It's pointless.

Yeah, but they wouldn't all be moving into London, but the entire UK (according to the OP).

Anyway, it's bullshit. See my comparison to Polish immigration to the UK. The notion of 12 million in one year is patently ridiculous, and I can't see how this isn't more widely recognized as ludicrously unrealistic fearmongering.

Of course the majority will move to London!
There's no work anywhere else

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No you haven't. You're judging Brits on here by your own cultural views, and that's just wrong on so many levels.

Every culture does that to every other culture, that's part of the debate. Or need I bring up ... MUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ?

The pros and cons of leaving the EU

The greatest uncertainty associated with leaving the EU is that no country has ever done it before, so no one can predict the exact result. Nevertheless, many have tried.
Membership fee
Leaving the EU would result in an immediate cost saving, as the country would no longer contribute to the EU budget. Last year, Britain paid in £13bn, but it also received £4.5bn worth of spending, says Full Fact "so the UK's net contribution was £8.5bn". That's about 7 per cent of what the Government spends on the NHS each year.
What's harder to determine is whether the financial advantages of EU membership, such as free trade and inward investment (see below) outweigh the upfront costs.
Trade
The EU is a single market in which no tariffs are imposed on imports and exports between member states. "More than 50 per cent of our exports go to EU countries," says Sky News, "and our membership allows us to have a say over how trading rules are drawn up."
Britain also benefits from trade deals between the EU and other world powers. "The EU is currently negotiating with the US to create the world's biggest free trade area," says the BBC, "something that will be highly beneficial to British business."
Britain risks losing some of that negotiating power by leaving the EU, but it would be free to establish its own trade agreements.
Ukip leader Nigel Farage believes Britain could follow the lead of Norway, which has access to the single market but is not bound by EU laws on areas such as agriculture, justice and home affairs. But others argue that an "amicable divorce" would not be possible. 
"If Britain were to join the Norwegian club," says The Economist, "it would remain bound by virtually all EU regulations, including the working-time directive and almost everything dreamed up in Brussels in future." And it would no longer have any influence on what those regulations said.
Leading Brexit campaigner Boris Johnson, meanwhile, has proposed adopting a Canada-style trade arrangement. "I think we can strike a deal as the Canadians have done based on trade and getting rid of tariffs" and have a "very, very bright future", he said. The idea was quickly dismissed by the PM, who said it would mean "years of painful negotiations and a poorer deal than we have today".
Eurosceptics argue that the vast majority of small and medium sized firms do not trade with the EU but are restricted by a huge regulatory burden imposed from abroad.
A study by the think-tank Open Europe, which wants to see the EU radically reformed, found that the worst-case "Brexit" scenario is that the UK economy loses 2.2 per cent of its total GDP by 2030 (by comparison, the recession of 2008-09 knocked about 6 per cent off UK GDP). However, it says that GDP could rise by 1.6 per cent if the UK was able to negotiate a free trade deal with Europe – ie to maintain the current trade set-up – and pursued "very ambitious deregulation".
Whether other EU countries would offer such generous terms is one of the big unknowns of the debate. Pro-exit campaigners argue that it would be in the interests of other European countries to re-establish free trade, but their opponents suggest that the EU will want to make life hard for Britain in order to discourage further breakaways.
France has said recently that there would be "consequences" for Britain if it left the EU.
Investment
Inward investment is likely to slow in the run-up to the vote, due to the uncertainty of the outcome and its consequences: that's what happened in before the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.
In the longer term, there are diverging views: pro-Europeans think the UK's status as one of the world's biggest financial centres will be diminished if it is no longer seen as a gateway to the EU for the likes of US banks, while Brexit campaigners suggest that, free from EU rules a regulations, Britain could reinvent itself as a Singapore-style supercharged economy.
Fears that car-makers could scale back or even end production in the UK vehicles could no longer be exported tax-free to Europe were underlined by BMW's decision to remind its UK employees at Rolls-Royce and Mini of the "significant benefit" EU membership confers. Likewise, Business for New Europe says tax revenues would drop if companies that do large amounts of business with Europe – particularly banks – moved their headquarters back into the EU.
Barclays, however, has put forward a worst-case scenario that might benefit the Outers. It says the departure of one of the EU's most powerful economies would hit its finances and boost populist anti-EU movements in other countries. This would open a "Pandora's box", says the Daily Telegraph, which could lead to the "collapse of the European project".
The UK would then be seen as a safe haven from those risks, attracting investors, boosting the pound and reducing the risk that Scotland would "leave the relative safety of the UK for an increasingly uncertain EU".
Immigration
Under EU law, Britain cannot prevent anyone from another member state coming to live in the country – while Britons benefit from an equivalent right to live and work anywhere else in the UK. The result has been a huge increase in immigration into Britain, particularly from eastern and southern Europe.
According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 942,000 eastern Europeans, Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK, along with 791,000 western Europeans – and 2.93m workers from outside the EU. China and India are the biggest source of foreign workers in the UK.
Inners say that, while the recent pace of immigration has led to some difficulties with housing and service provision, the net effect has been overwhelmingly positive. By contrast, Farage says immigration should be cut dramatically, and the leaving the EU is the only way to "regain control of our borders". Other pro-Brexit campaigners would not necessarily reduce immigration, but say that it should be up to the British Government to set the rules.
David Cameron says that concessions he won during the renegotiation of Britain's EU membership will reduce immigration as new arrivals will receive a lower rate of child benefit. 
Jobs
The effect of leaving the EU on British jobs depends on a complex interplay of the factors above: trade, investment and immigration.
Pro-EU campaigners have suggested that three million jobs could be lost if Britain goes it alone. However, while "figures from the early 2000s suggest around three million jobs are linked to trade with the European Union," says Full Fact, "they don't say they are dependent on the UK being an EU member."
If trade and investment fell post-Brexit, then some of these jobs would be lost – but if they rose, then new jobs would be created.
A drop in immigration would, all else being equal, mean more jobs for the people who remained, but labour shortages could also hold back the economy, reducing its potential for growth.
Stuart Rose, former Marks & Spencer chief executive and a prominent pro-EU campaigner, conceded recently that wages may rise if Britain leaves – which would be good for workers, but less so for their employers.
Writing for the London School of Economics, Professor Adrian Favell says limiting freedom of movement would deter the "brightest and the best" of the continent from coming to Britain and reduce the pool of candidates employers can choose from.
Free movement of people across the EU also opens up job opportunities for British workers seeking to work elsewhere in Europe.
Britain's place in the world
For Outers, leaving the EU will allow Britain to re-establish itself as a truly independent nation with connections to the rest of the world. To Inners, Brexit would result in the country giving up its influence in Europe, turning back the clock and retreating from the global power networks of the 21st century.
Brexit would bring some clear-cut advantages, says The Economist. The UK "would regain control over fishing rights around its coast", for example. But it concludes that the most likely outcome is that Britain would find itself "a scratchy outsider with somewhat limited access to the single market, almost no influence and few friends".
Britain would remain a member of Nato and the UN, but it may be regarded as a less useful partner by its key ally, the US. The American government fears that the "EU referendum is a dangerous gamble that could unravel with disastrous consequences for the entire continent", says The Guardian.
Security
Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who has come out in favour of Brexit, says we are leaving the "door open" to terrorist attacks by remaining in the EU. "This open border does not allow us to check and control people," he says.
However, a dozen senior military figures, including former chiefs of defence staff Lord Bramall and Jock Stirrup, say the opposite. In a letter released by No 10, they argue that the EU is an "increasingly important pillar of our security", especially at a time of instability in the Middle East and in the face of "resurgent Russian nationalism and aggression".
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has also said the UK benefits from being part Europe, as well as Nato and the United Nations. "It is through the EU that you exchange criminal records and passenger records and work together on counter-terrorism," he said. "We need the collective weight of the EU when you are dealing with Russian aggression or terrorism."
In contrast, Colonel Richard Kemp, writing in The Times, says these "critical bilateral relationships" would persist regardless of membership, and that it is "absurd" to suggest that the EU would put its own citizens, or the UK's, at greater risk by reducing cooperation in the event of Brexit.
"By leaving, we will again be able to determine who does and does not enter the UK," says Kemp, a former head of the international terrorism team at the Cabinet Office. "Failure to do so significantly increases the terrorist threat here, endangers our people and is a betrayal of this country."
When will the EU referendum be held?
The date has been set for 23 June 2016.
What will the referendum ask?
The Conservatives recommended that the question should be: "Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union?" However, the government bowed to pressure from the Electoral Commission after concerns that the phrasing of the question might be seen as biased towards those campaigning to remain a part of the union. The wording has since been changed to:

• Should the UK remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?
  

Who can vote in the EU referendum?
Eligibility will be based on the criteria for voting in a general election, which means citizens of most EU countries (who can vote in local and European elections in Britain) will not be allowed to take part. Anyone over the age of 18 who falls into one of the following groups can cast a vote: 

• British citizens resident in the UK
  
• British citizens resident overseas for less than 15 years
  
• Citizens of Ireland, Malta and Cyprus resident in the UK
  
• Commonwealth citizens resident in the UK
  
• Commonwealth citizens resident in Gibraltar
  

However, citizens of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, which are not in the EU, will not take part. Members of the House of Lords will be allowed to vote, despite being ineligible to cast a ballot at general elections.
The High Court recently quashed a legal challenge to the rule that prohibits Britons who have lived abroad for more than 15 years from voting. It means that more than 700,000 ex-pats will not have a say in the referendum. They have vowed to appeal, arguing that the referendum result will have a "very real effect" on their lives.
What would happen if the vote was held tomorrow?
The latest poll of polls have shown that exactly 50 per cent of voters support Brexit and 50 per cent would like to remain in the bloc. Carried out by NatCen Social Research, the comprehensive survey takes into account the average of the six most recent surveys. Individually, however, each poll shows contradictory results, with narrow leads for Remain and Leave depending on the survey.
Can we trust the polls?
After last year's general election campaign – in which the opinion polls were very consistent and, as it turned out, very wrong – many onlookers are approaching EU referendum polls with some skepticism. Doubts about their accuracy have been amplified by sharp differences in the outcomes they have predicted: from a 26-point lead for Remain last December to a nine-point lead for Leave two months later.
The problem, according to polling analyst Matt Singh, is the difficulty in finding a representative sample of voters – and the difference in techniques used by online and telephone pollsters explains much of the variation. "This sampling error is increasing the lead for Leave by about 3 percentage points for online polls and increasing it for Remain in the phone polls by about 5 percentage points," says the BBC.
But YouGov's Stephan Shakespeare says in The Times that his company's online polls have corrected for this problem, and that they now represent a true snapshot of public opinion. Even so, he says, they may not predict the result in June. Describing an Out vote as a "massive irreversible change", he says "the deep human drive to avoid risk is likely to become increasingly powerful as we get closer to a real decision which cannot easily be changed once it is made." The result, he says, is that "whatever the state of the polls today, it is impossible right now to predict the level of change yet to come".
http://www.theweek.co.uk/eu-referendum

'he knew all there was to know about that ACA issue and 'I' was lying and wrong!'

Raggamuffin wrote:The yanks seem to be taking a lot of interest in our business.

4EVER2 wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The yanks seem to be taking a lot of interest in our business.

It's a TOPIC of discussion, Raggs   
Good Grief ...or did you forget that this 'IS' what NewsFix is here for?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No you haven't. You're judging Brits on here by your own cultural views, and that's just wrong on so many levels.

Every culture does that to every other culture, that's part of the debate. Or need I bring up ... MUZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZIZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ?

I think you'll find it's your President-in-waiting who's obsessed with Muslims.

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

It's a TOPIC of discussion, Raggs   
Good Grief ...or did you forget that this 'IS' what NewsFix is here for?

I think that describing your posts as a "discussion" is pushing it a bit.

Carry on.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you'll find it's your President-in-waiting who's obsessed with Muslims.

Trump is Farage. He's not going to win.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you'll find it's your President-in-waiting who's obsessed with Muslims.

Trump is Farage. He's not going to win.

Mr Farage has never set out to win, and he's nothing like Trump. He has a lovely voice for a start.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think you'll find it's your President-in-waiting who's obsessed with Muslims.

Trump is Farage. He's not going to win.

Raggamuffin wrote:The yanks seem to be taking a lot of interest in our business.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The yanks seem to be taking a lot of interest in our business.

Rags that was really uncalled for.
I am taking an interest (and learning a little too) in American politics and the upcoming presidency.
The Americans on here have not said that to me when I've commented or started threads about it.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The yanks seem to be taking a lot of interest in our business.

Rags that was really uncalled for.
I am taking an interest (and learning a little too) in American politics and the upcoming presidency.
The Americans on here have not said that to me when I've commented or started threads about it.

4EVER2 wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Trump is Farage. He's not going to win.

And yet 'SOME' members here believe the 'TRUMPED' up hysteria provided by the 'knuckle draggers' writing our hot topic bilge water from across the pond ---and yet they are allowed to VOTE  
The 'we can discuss your issues, but you are NOT ALLOWED to discuss Britain's issues'; just a pompous as their superior attitude in general.

4EVER2 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
I find it amazing that you nation keeps such records.

There is no official record of where you bloodline came from after from the 2nd generation on down here, and even then it is just that parents nation of birth are on your birth certificate.

You might have missed this marvelous little 'nugget' from earlier to day;

 by Tommy Monk Today at 2:15 pm

We already have loads of Turkish people here in uk...
They have managed to come here over decades and without being in eu with open door/free movement... shit loads more would turn up if they get the chance through eu open door to them...
One of my uncles is from Turkey and has been here for over 50 years!!!

So while he's lamenting and trying to bar the gates and keeps saying such really horrible things about immigrants - his own family tree has international flavor swing from his very own branches as well. 
And since we aren't hearing what a neardowells that Uncle is - we could surmise that the man has been able to build a life there in jolly ole' England and is a productive member of society!

Raggamuffin wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
And yet 'SOME' members here believe the 'TRUMPED' up hysteria provided by the 'knuckle draggers' writing our hot topic bilge water from across the pond ---and yet they are allowed to VOTE  
The 'we can discuss your issues, but you are NOT ALLOWED to discuss Britain's issues'; just a pompous as their superior attitude in general.

Drop the arrogant attitude, and maybe we can discuss it. We don't need you to point out the pros and cons for us. It's our referendum and we will decide what we want to do. As I said, it's a leap of faith for those who want out, but it's our decision to make, and we'll live with the outcome.

Tommy Monk wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
You might have missed this marvelous little 'nugget' from earlier to day;

So while he's lamenting and trying to bar the gates and keeps saying such really horrible things about immigrants - his own family tree has international flavor swing from his very own branches as well. 
And since we aren't hearing what a neardowells that Uncle is - we could surmise that the man has been able to build a life there in jolly ole' England and is a productive member of society!

These are Turkish immigrants... not 2nd or 3rd generation...
And it's not a 'nugget'... or a new revelation... I have said numerous times before that I have friends and family of various ethnic/country origins!!!
And you know what...?
THEY ALL SAY THAT IMMIGRATION IS TOO MUCH TOO!!! INDEED, and we're supposed to take YOUR word for that opinion; not likely Tommykins
HOW 'RACIST' OF THEM!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm not anti immigrant... I'm anti mass immigration and I'm anti open door immigration to 500 million people from 27 EU countries!!!

I'm in favour of controlled immigration on a points based system... same as Australia have...!

And isn't that what usa and Canada have too...!?

Are we racists for wanting to get back the same controls on our borders as you have over yours...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle...

I don't understand what you are trying to say on any of your points a, b or c..

Tommy Monk wrote:

I'm not anti immigrant... I'm anti mass immigration and I'm anti open door immigration to 500 million people from 27 EU countries!!!


I'm in favour of controlled immigration on a points based system... same as Australia have...!


And isn't that what usa and Canada have too...!?



Are we racists for wanting to get back the same controls on our borders as you have over yours...!?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I'm not anti immigrant... I'm anti mass immigration and I'm anti open door immigration to 500 million people from 27 EU countries!!!


I'm in favour of controlled immigration on a points based system... same as Australia have...!


And isn't that what usa and Canada have too...!?



Are we racists for wanting to get back the same controls on our borders as you have over yours...!?

Our points-based system in the U.S. sucks -- we have people who have every right to be here (I.E. the rest of their family lives here legally) who still wait years and pay thousands of dollars to join them.

And when you don't want people from other countries coming to yours, it does sound a bit racist on principle. I.E., the first question is, "What's so bad about them that you don't want them as a potential neighbor?"

And very often when you get an answer to that question, you find out racism is at the root of it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:

I'm not anti immigrant... I'm anti mass immigration and I'm anti open door immigration to 500 million people from 27 EU countries!!!


I'm in favour of controlled immigration on a points based system... same as Australia have...!


And isn't that what usa and Canada have too...!?



Are we racists for wanting to get back the same controls on our borders as you have over yours...!?

Our points-based system in the U.S. sucks -- we have people who have every right to be here (I.E. the rest of their family lives here legally) who still wait years and pay thousands of dollars to join them.

And when you don't want people from other countries coming to yours, it does sound a bit racist on principle. I.E., the first question is, "What's so bad about them that you don't want them as a potential neighbor?"

And very often when you get an answer to that question, you find out racism is at the root of it.

Tommy Monk wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:
I find it amazing that you nation keeps such records.

There is no official record of where you bloodline came from after from the 2nd generation on down here, and even then it is just that parents nation of birth are on your birth certificate.

You might have missed this marvelous little 'nugget' from earlier to day;

 by Tommy Monk Today at 2:15 pm

We already have loads of Turkish people here in uk...
They have managed to come here over decades and without being in eu with open door/free movement... shit loads more would turn up if they get the chance through eu open door to them...
One of my uncles is from Turkey and has been here for over 50 years!!!

So while he's lamenting and trying to bar the gates and keeps saying such really horrible things about immigrants - his own family tree has international flavor swing from his very own branches as well. 
And since we aren't hearing what a neardowells that Uncle is - we could surmise that the man has been able to build a life there in jolly ole' England and is a productive member of society!

These are Turkish immigrants... not 2nd or 3rd generation... WRONG


And it's not a 'nugget'... or a new revelation... I have said numerous times before that I have friends and family of various ethnic/country origins!!!


And you know what...?


THEY ALL SAY THAT IMMIGRATION IS TOO MUCH TOO!!!


HOW 'RACIST' OF THEM!!!

The vast majority of Turkish-born people recorded in the 2001 British census lived in England, with only 471 recorded in Wales and 1,042 in Scotland. A total of 39,132 Turkish-born people were recorded in London

eddie wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Our points-based system in the U.S. sucks -- we have people who have every right to be here (I.E. the rest of their family lives here legally) who still wait years and pay thousands of dollars to join them.

And when you don't want people from other countries coming to yours, it does sound a bit racist on principle. I.E., the first question is, "What's so bad about them that you don't want them as a potential neighbor?"

And very often when you get an answer to that question, you find out racism is at the root of it.

No. You're totally wrong. Racism is rarely at the bottom of it unless the person looking wants to find it.

Racists don't hide their racism. They wear it like a badge and if not, you rarely have to dig too far to find it.

Tommy isn't racist. I asked him once, and he said no, I'm not, and he explained why.

That was good enough for me. I believed him and I still do. What is his purpose in hiding it? Why do racists hide the fact they're racist? They think they're right don't they?
So why would a racist  join a debate forum and deny their racism?

Doesn't make sense.

You can be full up, and sick of eating apple pie but it doesn't mean you hate apples.

Lord Foul wrote:do you deny that there is the potential for such an occurence?

Irn Bru wrote:The statement 'EXCLUSIVE POLL: 12 MILLION Turks say they’ll come to the UK once EU deal is signed' is completely wrong becuase that's not what the poll say. It says that they may consider coming to the UK and I'd hazard a guess that if you ask the same 400 or so that gave that answer that if you asked them if they would consider coming to Germany, France. Holland or Belgium that the would say they would consider going there as well. If the 400 or so said that they would only consider the UK and another 400 or so said they would only consider Germany or France or Holland, Belgium etc and they actualloy did that there would be hardly any Turks left in Turkey

And I've tried to find the actuall poll on the polling company's publications on their website and their's no sign of it so I couldn't check out if the questions published in the Express are all the questions asked.

12 million is pure scaremongering by the Express...

4EVER2 wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:The statement 'EXCLUSIVE POLL: 12 MILLION Turks say they’ll come to the UK once EU deal is signed' is completely wrong becuase that's not what the poll say. It says that they may consider coming to the UK and I'd hazard a guess that if you ask the same 400 or so that gave that answer that if you asked them if they would consider coming to Germany, France. Holland or Belgium that the would say they would consider going there as well. If the 400 or so said that they would only consider the UK and another 400 or so said they would only consider Germany or France or Holland, Belgium etc and they actualloy did that there would be hardly any Turks left in Turkey

And I've tried to find the actuall poll on the polling company's publications on their website and their's no sign of it so I couldn't check out if the questions published in the Express are all the questions asked.

12 million is pure scaremongering by the Express...

Well, hello - my alter ego; did you hear the one about Didgy-dooer sleuthing it out that I'm really you but operating from the heartland of KS --- LMAO 

Anyway - TY for this rational thought posted here; I've brought two different printed opinions into this debacle and garnered nothing but dear Tommy's attention!

There were a couple of others just managed to get their ire up about my impertinence  for even having an opinion!  

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


These are Turkish immigrants... not 2nd or 3rd generation...  WRONG


And it's not a 'nugget'... or a new revelation... I have said numerous times before that I have friends and family of various ethnic/country origins!!!


And you know what...?


THEY ALL SAY THAT IMMIGRATION IS TOO MUCH TOO!!!


HOW 'RACIST' OF THEM!!!

Umm NO that is OF Turkish Origin going back Generations INCLUDING YOUR UNCLE!!! he is one of that number!!!

The vast majority of Turkish-born people recorded in the 2001 British census lived in England, with only 471 recorded in Wales and 1,042 in Scotland. A total of 39,132 Turkish-born people were recorded in London

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

Irn Bru wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Well, hello - my alter ego; did you hear the one about Didgy-dooer sleuthing it out that I'm really you but operating from the heartland of KS --- LMAO 

Anyway - TY for this rational thought posted here; I've brought two different printed opinions into this debacle and garnered nothing but dear Tommy's attention!

There were a couple of others just managed to get their ire up about my impertinence  for even having an opinion!  

Didge said I'm actually you/ Well if he did he had better back that up.

Anyway. Run like fcuk coz the Mooslims are coming and we're doooooomed.

Paul Ettinger wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

4EVER2 wrote:
Well, hello - my alter ego; did you hear the one about Didgy-dooer sleuthing it out that I'm really you but operating from the heartland of KS --- LMAO 

Anyway - TY for this rational thought posted here; I've brought two different printed opinions into this debacle and garnered nothing but dear Tommy's attention!

There were a couple of others just managed to get their ire up about my impertinence  for even having an opinion!  

Didge said I'm actually you/ Well if he did he had better back that up.

Anyway. Run like fcuk coz the Mooslims are coming and we're doooooomed.

Going senile now Irn?

Never claimed you were 4everclueless, but that only two other idiots spend hours serching through my posts also trying to deligitimize me and end up with egg on their faces, is funny how he does the same lol

Biggest coincidence ever or just collusion

Irn Bru wrote:

Paul Ettinger wrote:



Going senile now Irn?

Never claimed you were 4everclueless, but that only two other idiots spend hours serching through my posts also trying to deligitimize me and end up with egg on their faces, is funny how he does the same lol

Biggest coincidence ever or just collusion

I never said you did I said if you did. So if you are claiming that 4ever is actually someone else then you really should say who you think it is because it just throws suspition on others.

So now it's colusion is it? Well you had better back that up as well