Well said, the vote as been taken, but life as to go on. There is never a time when there should be hatred and abuse and now is a time when we all need to come together for the betterment of us all. There will always be some who feel hate for others, but these are in the minority and unfortunately they attract the media and so the impression is that this minority is bigger than it is.
Who was it that decided that hatred and bitterness and back-stabbing and nastiness were ever OK?
Well, as far as I am concerned, they aren’t and I’ve had enough.
Since Friday last week both Social and mainstream media has been full of nothing but hatred and doom and gloom and narrow-mindedness and I can’t stand it any longer. I know that there are people who are really happy about the Referendum result, I know that there are people who are really unhappy about it but all this gloating and loathing and racism and bigotry is all wrong and very unhelpful. Just today I have seen videos of a racist rant from a young person being made towards an older black guy on a tram in Manchester and reports of a firebombing attack on an Asian wholesalers which destroyed a family’s livelihood in Walsall. Thankfully, in neither incident was anyone killed…
Originally posted on Amy Holloway-Smith: ____________________ This week has brought me much unexpected excitement despite having a partially dislocated hip and having to phone in sick due to having a short but incapacitating bout of the flu! ____________________ So.. the topics surrounding the EU referendum are a much discussed topic, which have a tendency to become…
The first issue is the contentious subject of immigration. I think the mainstream media such as the BBC who flagrantly support and endorse the EU has overplayed this factor to get the masses to believe that all Brexiters are racist and ignorant. As a result, the mainstream media are reluctant to fairly explore the different concerns relating to this subject. So here is a (kind of) brief explanation as to why I think immigration is a reason to leave the EU.
Firstly, I would like to make it clear that immigration is not a bad thing, but I believe that controlled immigration is better which being part of the European Union (yes, the political union known as the EU not the continent Europe) does not appear to facilitate. Controlled immigration allows our country to take in genuine refugees as well as accept individuals who want to contribute to our society…
Eric Simpson, the owner of a furniture recycling firm in northern England, once believed in the European Union. Now he’s unsure how to vote in a referendum on Britain’s future in the bloc, reflecting growing doubts among the business community.
David Cameron has opened discussions at the European Council about the changes he wants to see in the European Union ahead of a UK referendum on membership.
This is an unprecedented step. It is the first time an EU leader has set out political conditions for a country to stay in the EU.
Cameron held individual meeting and calls with each of the leaders ahead of the Brussels summit on June 25, so his negotiation points will not have come as news to them. But he is still keeping the detail light, and crucially, is cagey on his motivations.
This matters because co-operation from his fellow leaders may well hinge on what those motivations are.
The key issues on the table include handing greater powers to national parliaments, cutting red tape, allowing the UK to opt out of the principle of “ever closer union”, and restricting welfare entitlements for EU migrants.
What he means by giving more power to national parliaments is very vague at the moment. Does he want to repatriate powers from the EU? And if so, which ones? Or does it mean more oversight over EU legislation? If so, Cameron’s request may be more of a rhetorical tool than a substantive demand. The British government has not exactly shown enormous interest in scrutinising EU legislation over the past few years.
The issue of red tape is not particularly controversial, and it seems that Junker’s Commission has made this one of its top priorities. And freeing the UK’s commitment to the “ever closer union” may not necessarily require a full EU Treaty change. The EU’s legal machinery may find a way to include this in an additional UK-specific annex.
The big ask
At this point probably the most sticky issue relates to EU migration. Cameron has previously stated that he wants to limit immigration through quotas for EU workers. This is problematic as it infringes upon a fundamental EU freedom. The European Council’s President Donald Tusk has reportedly stated that the fundamental values of the EU “are not for sale and so are non-negotiable“.
Cameron appears to have already toned down his rhetoric on this issue, and is now focusing his argument on benefits for EU migrants. He wants, for a start, to repatriate EU migrants after six months if they are unemployed. This is controversial as it goes against the fundamental EU principle of free movement. It is also potentially hard to implement, as it will require very rigid immigration controls. It is unclear how the government will track these EU migrants in the first place.
He also wants longer transition periods for EU migrants before they can claim tax credits and have access to social housing. The question here is whether this could be legally implemented through UK legislation without EU Treaty change.
Cameron’s argument will be that since the UK system is non contributory – unlike other EU member states – this change does not necessarily contravene EU legislation. Perhaps less controversially, he wants to stop migrants claiming benefits for children living outside the UK. These proposals have already been criticised by the adviser to the Polish PM who argued that this might be tantamount to discrimination.
And here lies the problem. Cameron’s success may depend on what his goal actually is. Is the objective to stop EU migrants from abusing the UK welfare state or to stop them moving to the UK altogether? If it’s the former, some EU leaders may concede to some of his demands. But if it’s the latter, Cameron is unlikely to be a winner in the EU.
Cameron will now present his full reform plan at the next European Council in December. The PM has already conceded that Treaty change may not be possible, so it looks like he will have to be very pragmatic regarding what he asks of EU partners. And he’ll not only need to be convincing about the changes he wants – but why he wants them. ………….’
Here’s something you will never hear any of the crop of Republican presidential candidates say on same-sex marriage: “With today’s vote, we have disclosed who we are: a generous, compassionate, bold and joyful people.” Those soothing words came from Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny after 62.1 percent of his nation voted in favor of marriage equality on Saturday.
It was a stunning development in one of Europe’s most conservative countries. A nation where the Catholic Church once held great sway. Emphasis on “once.” The resounding victory of same-sex marriage proponents is as clear a sign of independence from the church as you’ll ever see.
Now, the civil rights of a minority should never be put up for popular vote. Tyranny of the majority and all that. Also, sometimes the populace needs a force greater than its collective will to make it do the right thing. But in the case of the Emerald Isle, the people did right all on their own. A marvelous thing.
Pity the GOP field is incapable of seeing same-sex marriage with Irish eyes. Rather than express the humanity advised in the GOP autopsy after the 2012 presidential loss or heeding the voice of young Republicans, the candidatescontort themselves on the question of whether they would even attend a gay wedding. Come on, people!
Maybe they are all hoping the Supreme Court will take them off the hook and rule that there is a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex couples. “The court has spoken,” “rule of law,” blah, blah, blah. A lame tactic, but I’ll take it. This isn’t Ireland. And this certainly isn’t Britain, where conservative Prime Minister David Cameron was a vocal champion of marriage equality and won reelection with overwhelming support. This is America, where once again, the courts will push the nation to live up to its ideal of equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court did it for African Americans in the 20th century and so it must for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans in the 21st.
When we had the original referendum to join the Common Market, it was purely for trade purposes only. Since then the Common Market became the European Union and took more of a political bias. Previous UK governments, especially Labour, have seeded power to the EU, without a mandate in the form of a referendum from the UK electorate.
When we went in, it should have been enshrined in the legislation that no powers could be seeded without this being agreed by a referendum.
I was in favour of us joining the Common Market and always thought I would feel this way.
I feel the EU want us out and are doing all they can to bring this about.
Come the referendum, I will now most likely vote for a full withdrawal. YES the rest of Europe will have won.