Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to MyNameIsUrl,GSVsowhat,johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8, for Donating to support the site

Brexit all over?

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235342

Postby ursaminortaur » July 9th, 2019, 8:54 pm

Wizard wrote:
Wizard wrote:
BobbyD wrote:
- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 92966.html

Leavers talk about British ingenuity, Remainers demonstrate it...

Amendment not selected, so that idea is dead.

Appears the report I heard at lunchtime was wrong, the amendment was selected and apparently passed by one vote.


Yes it passed along with amendments supporting same sex marriage and abortions in Northern ireland according to the guardian but it is somewhat confusing as other papers did report that it was blocked by the speaker (or the deputy speaker) earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/09/mps-vote-to-extend-same-sex-marriage-to-northern-ireland



MPs have voted resoundingly to extend same-sex marriage and access to abortion to Northern Ireland, bringing the region into line with the rest of the UK on the two significant social issues.
.
.
.
In the first amendment, tabled by the Labour MP Conor McGinn, a longstanding campaigner for equal marriage in Northern Ireland, the Commons voted 383 to 73 to extend it to the region.

In a vote soon afterwards, MPs approved an amendment by another Labour MP, Stella Creasy, to extend abortion rights to Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK where it remains illegal. The vote was passed by 332 to 99.
.
.
.
The amendment, by the remain-minded Tory MP Dominic Grieve, would require a minister to report to the Commons every two weeks until December on the progress of talks on restoring the Northern Ireland assembly. It passed by a single vote: 294 to 293.

The idea is that the legal requirement for these regular reports would stop a new prime minister suspending parliament to prevent MPs blocking no deal, something Boris Johnson has refused to rule out.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235346

Postby ursaminortaur » July 9th, 2019, 9:15 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:
Wizard wrote:
Wizard wrote:Amendment not selected, so that idea is dead.

Appears the report I heard at lunchtime was wrong, the amendment was selected and apparently passed by one vote.


Yes it passed along with amendments supporting same sex marriage and abortions in Northern ireland according to the guardian but it is somewhat confusing as other papers did report that it was blocked by the speaker (or the deputy speaker) earlier.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jul/09/mps-vote-to-extend-same-sex-marriage-to-northern-ireland



MPs have voted resoundingly to extend same-sex marriage and access to abortion to Northern Ireland, bringing the region into line with the rest of the UK on the two significant social issues.
.
.
.
In the first amendment, tabled by the Labour MP Conor McGinn, a longstanding campaigner for equal marriage in Northern Ireland, the Commons voted 383 to 73 to extend it to the region.

In a vote soon afterwards, MPs approved an amendment by another Labour MP, Stella Creasy, to extend abortion rights to Northern Ireland, the only part of the UK where it remains illegal. The vote was passed by 332 to 99.
.
.
.
The amendment, by the remain-minded Tory MP Dominic Grieve, would require a minister to report to the Commons every two weeks until December on the progress of talks on restoring the Northern Ireland assembly. It passed by a single vote: 294 to 293.

The idea is that the legal requirement for these regular reports would stop a new prime minister suspending parliament to prevent MPs blocking no deal, something Boris Johnson has refused to rule out.


The Express seems to indicate that Grieve had two amendments - amendments 14 and 15. Amendment 14 was rejected by the deputy speaker but amendment 15 was selected and voted through.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1150935/brexit-latest-news-no-deal-brexit-conservative-leadership-labour-tory-rebels-corbyn-eu

Mr Grieve's new clause 14 had sought to keep government in the province running in the absence of the devolved institutions, requiring Parliament to come back to the issue in October. The move was designed to try to ensure the next prime minister cannot push through a no-deal on October 31, the current EU deadline for agreeing on a deal, simply by suspending, or "proroguing", Parliament.
.
.
.
8.06pm update: Grieve's amendment voted throgh by a single vote

MPs backed a move that could make autumn prorogation harder by single vote tonight.

MPs voted for Dominic Grieve's amendment by 294 votes to 293.

7.19pm update: MPs vote on Dominic Grieve's amendment 15

MPs are now voting on Dominic Grieve’s amendment 15 in the Commons.

This would stop a new Prime Minister being able to prorogue parliament in the autumn if it is passed.

The amendement said: "Clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) The secretary of state shall make a further report under subsection 1 on or before 9 October 2019 at least every fourteen calendar days thereafter until either an Executive is formed or until 18 December 2019, whichever is the sooner.”

Mr Grieve explained: "This amendment would require fortnightly reports to be made after the conference recess until an executive was formed, or until the December recess."

Spet0789
Lemon Slice
Posts: 869
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 12:02 am
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235348

Postby Spet0789 » July 9th, 2019, 9:22 pm

OwenSwansea wrote:Spet0789,
Protecting the interests of your Country and it’s indigenous population is not racism.

Owen.


Who will protect the British apostrophe? Your love of your country doesn’t extent to our grammar, I see.

Protecting the indigenous population as you call it certainly does cross into racism when you start to discriminate between White British people and other British people.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4648
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235349

Postby BobbyD » July 9th, 2019, 9:23 pm

For clarity since many news outlets, including the one whose report that the NI amendment had been carried are still carrying reports thatit wasn't selected

UK House of Commons

Verified account

@HouseofCommons

MPs approve Amendment 15 to th #NIExecutiveFormationBill, 294 to 293.

This amendment requires fortnightly reports to be made after the conference recess until a Northern Irish Executive is formed, or until the December recess.


- https://twitter.com/HouseofCommons/stat ... 7818983425

Spet0789
Lemon Slice
Posts: 869
Joined: June 21st, 2017, 12:02 am
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235350

Postby Spet0789 » July 9th, 2019, 9:24 pm

Spet0789 wrote:I’m afraid this thread is crossing a line for me, with talk of “White British” and [Deleted reference - Chris].

For the record, I fully accept that racism and Brexit don’t need to go hand in hand, but for some individuals they clearly do.


Just a thought - moderate the racists, not those who are calling them out.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4055
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235352

Postby XFool » July 9th, 2019, 9:33 pm

Spet0789 wrote:
Spet0789 wrote:I’m afraid this thread is crossing a line for me, with talk of “White British” and [Deleted reference - Chris].

For the record, I fully accept that racism and Brexit don’t need to go hand in hand, but for some individuals they clearly do.

Just a thought - moderate the racists, not those who are calling them out.

Oh no! Not shades of TMF?

PinkDalek
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4151
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235354

Postby PinkDalek » July 9th, 2019, 9:41 pm

XFool wrote:Oh no! Not shades of TMF?


Best to look back a page or so. All recent references to the word in question have been deleted.

PD (avoiding the M word)

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4055
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235362

Postby XFool » July 9th, 2019, 10:01 pm

PinkDalek wrote:
XFool wrote:Oh no! Not shades of TMF?

Best to look back a page or so. All recent references to the word in question have been deleted.

PD (avoiding the M word)

It's not the word, its the approach. (As reported)

Just a thought - moderate the racists, not those who are calling them out.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4055
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235377

Postby XFool » July 9th, 2019, 10:48 pm

5pFredo wrote:At the end of the day, over a few thousand years, the White British Indigenous built the UK , as the White German Indigenous built Germany, etc...

What about the Celts? What about the Saxons? What about the Vikings? What about the Romans? What about the Angles? What about the Normans? Come to that, what about the Picts?

And as for "built the UK", what about the Irish? ;)

5pFredo wrote:I read a post only last week from somebody called Haras Rafiq from Rochdale, who found that 222 of 264(84%) of people convicted of child grooming-gang crimes in the UK since 2005 were Asian, What an over representation...

"Haras Rafiq"? He sounds foreign to me. I wouldn't trust him, if I were you.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2728
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 440 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235379

Postby Wizard » July 9th, 2019, 11:01 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:The Express seems to indicate that Grieve had two amendments - amendments 14 and 15. Amendment 14 was rejected by the deputy speaker but amendment 15 was selected and voted through.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1150935/brexit-latest-news-no-deal-brexit-conservative-leadership-labour-tory-rebels-corbyn-eu

Mr Grieve's new clause 14 had sought to keep government in the province running in the absence of the devolved institutions, requiring Parliament to come back to the issue in October. The move was designed to try to ensure the next prime minister cannot push through a no-deal on October 31, the current EU deadline for agreeing on a deal, simply by suspending, or "proroguing", Parliament.
.
.
.
8.06pm update: Grieve's amendment voted throgh by a single vote

MPs backed a move that could make autumn prorogation harder by single vote tonight.

MPs voted for Dominic Grieve's amendment by 294 votes to 293.

7.19pm update: MPs vote on Dominic Grieve's amendment 15

MPs are now voting on Dominic Grieve’s amendment 15 in the Commons.

This would stop a new Prime Minister being able to prorogue parliament in the autumn if it is passed.

The amendement said: "Clause 3, page 2, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) The secretary of state shall make a further report under subsection 1 on or before 9 October 2019 at least every fourteen calendar days thereafter until either an Executive is formed or until 18 December 2019, whichever is the sooner.”

Mr Grieve explained: "This amendment would require fortnightly reports to be made after the conference recess until an executive was formed, or until the December recess."

Yes, just got a clear understanding on newsnight, appears the rejected one was the stronger defence against proroguing parliament..

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4055
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 241 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235384

Postby XFool » July 9th, 2019, 11:21 pm

5pFredo wrote:
XFool wrote:
5pFredo wrote:At the end of the day, over a few thousand years, the White British Indigenous built the UK , as the White German Indigenous built Germany, etc...

What about the Celts? What about the Saxons? What about the Vikings? What about the Romans? What about the Angles? What about the Normans? Come to that, what about the Picts?

And as for "built the UK", what about the Irish? ;)

What about them? They are the indigenous we have been referring to... Lol, idiot, you tried to be smart and it backfired...

So who exactly ARE these "indigenous" British, and who are they NOT? How do you tell? Is there a cut-off date? That was my point.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235394

Postby ursaminortaur » July 10th, 2019, 12:20 am

5pFredo wrote:Why was my post answering XFools question just deleted?

Going to write to the adminn about that one, as there was nothing outside the rules.

Im assuming it was deleted by Zico becaues it hit home too hard?

That is, 2000 years of occupation of Britain by a collective of Celts, Romans, Picts, etc favours those as bearing the title of the true indigenous, than the bunch that came from the third world only 50 years ago...

Zico, put my post back mate, there was nothing rule breaking in it, cry baby.


So are the Sinti (Roma) who came in the 16th Century indigenous ?
The Hugenot's in the 17th century ?
The Indian Lascars who came over at the behest of the East India Company starting in the 17th century ?
The Germans who came over in the 19th century ? (though of course the Hanoverian King George I had come over in 1714 - which raises the question as to whether the Royal family is indigenous especially as that was far from the first time we had imported the monarch)
The Jews were expelled in 1290 and then came back at various times after that but particularly Russian Jews in the 19th and early 20th centuries - so are they indigenous ?
There have been black african's in bristol and other places in the UK for at leaat 400 years - are they and their descendents indigenous ?
And of course there were many other smaller groups and individuals who came over from the continent or from the burgeoning empire - are their descendents indigenous ?

The british are a mongrel race and the latest waves of immigration are a continuation of that.
Last edited by ursaminortaur on July 10th, 2019, 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1880
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 305 times
Been thanked: 560 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235398

Postby vrdiver » July 10th, 2019, 12:54 am

5pFredo wrote:You are rubbish at this pal, give up.

Two points.

#1 Play the ball, not the man

#2 Let others be the judge of who's rubbish at this. Your view, as a participant, might reasonably be considered biased.

And the third of my two points - would be nice if posts could have at least a nodding aquaintance with the thread subject, "Brexit all over?"

VRD

PinkDalek
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4151
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 1:12 pm
Has thanked: 958 times
Been thanked: 1086 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235399

Postby PinkDalek » July 10th, 2019, 12:56 am

... and

Forum rules

no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4648
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 67 times
Been thanked: 218 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235400

Postby BobbyD » July 10th, 2019, 1:00 am

XFool wrote:
5pFredo wrote:
XFool wrote:What about the Celts? What about the Saxons? What about the Vikings? What about the Romans? What about the Angles? What about the Normans? Come to that, what about the Picts?

And as for "built the UK", what about the Irish? ;)

What about them? They are the indigenous we have been referring to... Lol, idiot, you tried to be smart and it backfired...

So who exactly ARE these "indigenous" British, and who are they NOT? How do you tell? Is there a cut-off date? That was my point.


You're getting ahead of yourself with your whens. The first question here is surely 'where?'.

Are we taking Britain to be the big lump of rock on which most of England, Scotland and Wales reside? Perhaps we are counting the big island and some but not all of the smaller islands? Presumably not Ireland island? Perhaps we do mean the British Isles? Are we talking about the territory of the political union formed in 1707? Makes being indigenous British 2000 years ago a bit difficult though... Maybe we're using it as a synonym for the UK?

The answer to this question is going to have some fairly interesting effects on who might and might not be considered 'indigenous British'...

The dictionary definition is quite interesting

British

1. Relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language.

2. Of the British Commonwealth or (formerly) the British Empire.


- https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/british (OED obvs...)

Perhaps we are using that...? The indigenous population of the British Commonwealth (est 1931)?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235401

Postby ursaminortaur » July 10th, 2019, 1:00 am

5pFredo wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
5pFredo wrote:Why was my post answering XFools question just deleted?

Going to write to the adminn about that one, as there was nothing outside the rules.

Im assuming it was deleted by Zico becaues it hit home too hard?

That is, 2000 years of occupation of Britain by a collective of Celts, Romans, Picts, etc favours those as bearing the title of the true indigenous, than the bunch that came from the third world only 50 years ago...

Zico, put my post back mate, there was nothing rule breaking in it, cry baby.


So are the Sinti (Roma) who came in the 16th Century indigenous ?
The Hugenot's in the 17th century ?
The Indian Lascars who came over at the behest of the East India Company starting in the 17th century ?
The Germans who came over in the 19th century ? (though of course the Hanoverian King George I had come over in 1714 - which raises the question as to whether the Royal family is indigenous especially as that was far from the first time we had imported the monarch)
The Jews were expelled in 1290 and then came back at various times after that but particularly Russian Jews in the 19th and early 20th centuries - so are they indigenous ?


Of course not, the Jews were even kicked out as you said, and whilst you bring them up, go and look at the % of them per population, laughably tiny... and then expelled, which says it all really.

As for the Indian Lascars, if you want to claim they are indigenous, then that must also mean that the british empire can claim they were the indigenous of Africa and India? hahahah, but OF COURSE you would have something to say about that... lol

And BTW, many of the groups you mention actively and openly claim they are not indigenous.

As for the germans who came over in the 19th century... you must be ignorant to alot of history mate, else you wouldnt have picked such weak recent event ;)

Nice try, but you're fooling nobody pal...


Their descendents today have as much right to call themselves indigenous as the descendents of the Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman etc invaders.
The British are a mongrel race and there is little evidence of exactly who the first modern human inhabitants of the british isles were.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235404

Postby ursaminortaur » July 10th, 2019, 1:08 am

5pFredo wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:There have been black african's in bristol and other places in the UK for at leaat 400 years - are they and their descendents indigenous ?
And of course there were many other smaller groups and individuals who came over from the continent or from the burgeoning empire - are their descendents indigenous ?

The british are a mongrel race and the latest waves of immigration are a continuation of that.


You appear to be updating your post as you go along, just noticed the above was added, no doubt you have wikipedia open in the background and are trying your hardest to dig up something to point score. lol

Anyway mate sorry to burst your bubble, but when you reference "Black Aficans in Bristol" you are actually implying they are Africans and not the British indigenous you want to portay them as. LOL, kind of shooting yourself in the foot there. :lol:

If you were to ask that group of "Africans"(your word not mine ;) ) residing in Bristol for some 400 years which land they are from, most would say Africa with pride, of which there isnt anything wrong with.

If a rabbit is born in a Kennel, it doesnt make it a dog... And if they continue to be born in Kennels for 400 years, it still doesnt make them dogs.

A Chinese man born in Nigeria doesnt make him a Nigerian... Only by passport, which is nothing more than a piece of paper.

As for you claiming "The british are a mongrel race", well, if you want to go that far back, pretty much every group will be, so its a pointless argument.


You are rubbish at this pal, give up. :D :D


You are misunderstanding the point I'm making. I'm saying that none of them are indigenous and that none of the descendents of the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings , Normans etc are indigenous either.
As to all groups not being indigenous - that isn't true. Isolated groups such as the Aborigines in Australia or the Native Americans in America can put forward a fairly solid claim to be indigenous (though I believe there have been some recent disputes over whether the native american's were actually the first people in america).

vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1880
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 305 times
Been thanked: 560 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235405

Postby vrdiver » July 10th, 2019, 1:13 am

5pFredo wrote:
vrdiver wrote:
5pFredo wrote:You are rubbish at this pal, give up.


#2 Let others be the judge of who's rubbish at this. Your view, as a participant, might reasonably be considered biased


Thats true, but didnt you see how laughably weak and self-inflicting ursaminortaur's aguments were. LOL, I think ive had tougher debates on the top of a double decker bus.

I refer you to my point #1.

5pFredo
Posts: 25
Joined: July 3rd, 2019, 5:58 pm
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235406

Postby 5pFredo » July 10th, 2019, 1:17 am

ursaminortaur wrote:You are misunderstanding the point I'm making. I'm saying that none of them are indigenous and that none of the descendents of the Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings , Normans etc are indigenous either.
As to all groups not being indigenous - that isn't true. Isolated groups such as the Aborigines in Australia or the Native Americans in America can put forward a fairly solid claim to be indigenous (though I believe there have been some recent disputes over whether the native american's were actually the first people in america).


No pal I didnt misunderstand, as I replied in my post stating that going back so far renders the whole argument pointless, as also you partially agree with as per your response about the natives not being the first... its almost impossible and ends up too encompassing.

Anyway, lets use your recent idea and alter the argument slightly - If this issue were about some Islamic group arriving in Australia for 50 years and then claiming to be the indigenous - your example country to showcase indigenous purity - you will only then move the goal posts and bring up something else to justify the claim to the land?

You wouldnt respond with " o well, they are clearly the tue indigenous, we had all better go home to where we came from"

Which proves my point here, and as I said in my VERY first post in this thread, what happens will happen, regardless of our posts.

The True White British who have looooong family trees in this county know they are more indigenous than any bengali/pakistani/african, and if s**t ever kicked off, its 90% vs 10%. and once the queen gets the army involved, its game over for these false indigenous bunch... you'll soon see whos who,and wont need to ask stupid long winded questions on a bulletin board.

Get your daft semantics around that.
Last edited by 5pFredo on July 10th, 2019, 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3695
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: Brexit all over?

#235407

Postby ursaminortaur » July 10th, 2019, 1:22 am

5pFredo wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:
Their descendents today have as much right to call themselves indigenous as the descendents of the Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman etc invaders.


Pretty daft view point to take... a group of people present on land for say 1800 years, clearly has more claim than a group of people who came to the land only 50 years ago...

To use your rules just this once, when the british empire went to India, that would make them Indigenous... as it would to Africa too...

So were the British Empire the Indigenous of India/Africa?

Your view is laughably incoherent dude... :lol: :lol:



The legally recognised indigenous people of India are the Adivasi who make up about 8.6% of India's population.

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

In the UK there is no similar grouping which is legally recognised as indigenous. British citizens who settled in India did not become indigenous to India anymore than the Normans became indigenous to Britain.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest