Why some people voted for Brexit - when free movement affects people's lives

What's Hot
I had to go to Hatfield last month for a meeting at Barclay's Bank in connection with a business awards programme. Not been to the town centre for over 35 years. What a shock. Opposite the bank there were a couple of eastern European stores selling cheap beer and in the centre of the pedestrian walkway opposite the bank were 50+ pissed eastern Europeans. Some were passed out on the benches.

According to staff at the bank its been like this for years - they are a nuisance (begging and swearing) but are not violent so the police don't bother them. The town centre is dead. The bank is trying to move.

These people have no jobs, sleep rough and need help. Why not deport them back to their homelands?

Nice idea but one that has been blocked by courts in the UK.

From the BBC:

Campaigners brought the case on behalf of three men facing removal.

The government said it was disappointed by the ruling - which applies to people from the EU and European economic area - but would not be appealing.

The Public Interest Law Unit (PILU) at Lambeth Law Centre, which took out the judicial review, said the decision would affect hundreds of people.

It said the Home Office had been carrying out "regular raids" on locations where officials believed they would find European nationals who could be deported.

In her judgement the judge, Mrs Justice Lang, also said the Home Office was wrong to have used the raids as a chance to verify whether the rough sleepers were abusing their right to reside in another European nation.

PILU said the High Court had shown itself willing to protect the rights of a vulnerable group of workers, adding: "Homelessness cannot humanely be dealt with by detaining or forcibly removing homeless people."

Read the full article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42354864 ;


I think coming here to work is fine. Coming here to claim benefits, beg thieve, sleep rough and get pissed in the street is not on ..


My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 6499
    Plenty of people from provincial towns around England move to London and do exactly that, are you going to forcibly repatriate them? 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 8reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Fretwired said:


    I think coming here to work is fine. Coming here to claim benefits, beg thieve, sleep rough and get pissed in the street is not on ..


    Agreed. if you've been offered a job and have formally accepted and have a start date, you can come. Otherwise PISS OFF.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs.
    Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 13045
    edited December 2017
    p90fool said:
    Plenty of people from provincial towns around England move to London and do exactly that, are you going to forcibly repatriate them? 
    No. They are British. They should be helped with housing, healthcare etc.

    Part of my reasoning is that migrants will get better help in their own country - I'd be happy to help fund it. This is as much about trying to help people as it is improving people's lives. Letting people sleep rough and die in the cold weather strikes me as heartless. There's also the crime element. In London many of these people are beggars and pickpockets.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • rlwrlw Frets: 1374
    p90fool said:
    Plenty of people from provincial towns around England move to London and do exactly that, are you going to forcibly repatriate them? 
    Can we?  Please.....
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Back to the OP.

    My main reason for voting to leave wasnt "free movement", although it was a contributing factor. My main reason was simply, as I've stated before, Who Runs The Country? Our own home-grown fools, or foreign beaurocratic largely unelected fools? - and I'd rather have the former. Other people may have their own reasons for preferring the latter, and I'm probably never going to agree with them. Trade? yes, I'm all for it, but you can take your "political and economic integration", and shove it where the sun don't shine as far as you can till it makes you squeal.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs.
    Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 6499
    Everyone might have voted to be ruled by home grown fools, but they seem desperate to stop parliament having a say. 

    It certainly doesn't look like the objective is wrest control back from Johnny Foreigner, it looks from the outside like the usual group of multi millionaires want total control over their own tax liabilities and UK employment law. 

    I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone trusts these bastards more than some independently appointed outside overseers. 

    The fact that they're "our" bastards is of little comfort to me quite frankly. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 14reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 13045
    Back to the OP.

    My main reason for voting to leave wasnt "free movement", although it was a contributing factor. My main reason was simply, as I've stated before, Who Runs The Country? Our own home-grown fools, or foreign beaurocratic largely unelected fools? - and I'd rather have the former. Other people may have their own reasons for preferring the latter, and I'm probably never going to agree with them. Trade? yes, I'm all for it, but you can take your "political and economic integration", and shove it where the sun don't shine as far as you can till it makes you squeal.
    I voted Brexit and it was nothing to do with free movement either. Where I live we will need a steady flow of migrants. However, as the BBC article points out its now impossible to deport rough sleepers and petty criminals.

    My reason for wanting Brexit is simple. The UK and EU are not compatible. Every EU member bar Denmark and the UK has the Euro or has committed to adopting it. The Eurozone is where the power is and when economic policy is discussed the UK has to leave the room. Does anyone want to dump the pound and take the Euro? It would be madness. The EU wants more integration and the creation of a European superstate. Utter madness when there's a massive economic disparity between the likes of Germany, France and the Netherlands and Greece, Spain and Italy plus the Eastern European Group.

    I'm also not keen on an EU foreign secretary replacing our own and an EU armed forces.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 6499
    Fretwired said:

    I'm also not keen on an EU foreign secretary replacing our own 
    I'm keen on anything short of a dog turd with a face drawn on it replacing our own, I don't know why everyone thinks "Brits" are so fucking marvellous. 

    Watching our lot interacting with Brussels is like watching Wayne Rooney talking to Thierry Henri, the gulf in intellect and cultural awareness is THAT wide. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 9reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • FretwiredFretwired Frets: 13045
    p90fool said:
    Fretwired said:

    I'm also not keen on an EU foreign secretary replacing our own 
    I'm keen on anything short of a dog turd with a face drawn on it replacing our own, I don't know why everyone thinks "Brits" are so fucking marvellous. 

    Watching our lot interacting with Brussels is like watching Wayne Rooney talking to Thierry Henri, the gulf in intellect and cultural awareness is THAT wide. 
    But our lot will be gone in 2020. Junker is a dishonest drunk.
    My pump-action drivel gun is smoking hot today!
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Junker is also an arsehole of the first order.
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs.
    Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1334
    edited December 2017
    If we have a bunch if arseholes running the UK it's nobodies fault but our own and we can vote them out. Try doing that with the EU bureaucrats.  

    The tory rebels are trying to reverse the referendum result or at the very least ensure a very soft brexit where we are effectively still in, bound by exactly the same rules and still paying the same fees but with zero clout (not that we had any before mind). Someone needs to tell them that in this instance parliamentary democracy was trumped by the will of the people. May should threaten them with removing the whip if they carry on, let's see how their constituents react if faced with the prospect of a Corbyn government. 

    And let's be clear the Labour party have even less of a clue how to go about the job of exiting the EU. 
    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • One reason to vote Brexit then: it'll clean up Hatfield town centre by eradicating the workshy migrants via migration control. That's a valid reason. 

    'course, if the Brexit financial miracle doesn't happen and our economy tanks, then Hatfield town centre is going to be lacking in both migrants and shops. 


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelg said:


    The tory rebels are trying to reverse the referendum result or at the very least ensure a very soft brexit where we are effectively still in, bound by exactly the same rules and still paying the same fees but with zero clout (not that we had any before mind). Someone needs to tell them that in this instance parliamentary democracy was trumped by the will of the people. May should threaten them with removing the whip if they carry on, let's see how their constituents react if faced with the prospect of a Corbyn government. 

    Being totally cool with the notion of parliamentary democracy being shat upon by a spurious referendum whilst railing against the undemocratic nature of the EU = win. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • I spent most of last week with a Scarf wrapped round my face so you could see my eyes only
    shouting ban the burka.. I hate any racism or divisive politics.If you run a business and want
    to expand but have no workforce available locally to suggest you want to turn the tap of
    immigrant Labour off because you don't like the Ethnicity of certain Immigrants means it's a
    backwards step for future growth.
    Mark Blyth gives an interesting talk on why it happened here ..
    Titled" Why people vote against their best interests"..


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1334
    edited December 2017
    To those who think parliament is supreme this is the hierarchy of democracy in this country.

    1. The will of the people expressed in both referenda and general/bi-elections. 
    2. Elected representatives are supposed to represent the views of all their constituents in parliament. Too often these representatives go rogue and follow their "conscience" or the party line where it differs from the will of their constituents. 
    3. Governments follow the manifesto that the elected representatives were voted in on and create/modify laws and regulations n order to manage the country. Only they often go "off piste" and wing it with new plans and ideas. The current situation allows for governments to be voted down and general elections forced. And of course they are forced to reapply for a mandate periodically. 
    That's the way we the people get to control what happens in our name. 

    Now compare that to the EU. How do we get rid of Juncker?.  How do our elected MEP's change or influence the bureaucracy that proposes new laws. Answer, they don't. That's the national heads of state and their unelected commissioners. And note, those that pay the bills have no overriding say or veto so the UK is one of 28. 

    That's the democratic deficit we have suffered under.


    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelg said:
    To those who think parliament is supreme this is the hierarchy of democracy in this country.

    1. The will of the people expressed in both referenda and general/bi-elections. 
    2. Elected representatives are supposed to represent the views of all their constituents in parliament. Too often these representatives go rogue and follow their "conscience" or the party line where it differs from the will of their constituents. 
    3. Governments follow the manifesto that the elected representatives were voted in on and create/modify laws and regulations n order to manage the country. Only they often go "off piste" and wing it with new plans and ideas. The current situation allows for governments to be voted down and general elections forced. And of course they are forced to reapply for a mandate periodically. 
    That's the way we the people get to control what happens in our name. 

    Now compare that to the EU. How do we get rid of Juncker?.  How do our elected MEP's change or influence the bureaucracy that proposes new laws. Answer, they don't. That's the national heads of state and their unelected commissioners. And note, those that pay the bills have no overriding say or veto so the UK is one of 28. 

    That's the democratic deficit we have suffered under.




    1. Elections are indeed a form of expression as are referenda. However if you don't make a referendum binding then it is merely an expression of electorate thought and feeling and not a device to force Parliament to act in a certain way. "The will of the people" means nothing in terms of democratic procedure no matter how many times people invoke it and it was a good thing that the courts recognised this last year. 

    2. So how would you view the Conservative rebels this week? I hope that you'd say that Stephen Hammond, a Remainer and pro-EU MP for years in a Remain area, was acting in a good way politically in rebelling against the party line. 

    3. Absolutely. 

    I quite agree over several aspects of the EU political infrastructure. It is in need of wholesale reform. But here's the thing: wanting to pull out of EU because of shit democracy is fine and dandy but we shouldn't then adopt elements of shit democracy in order to do it. 


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1334
    Only Remainers propose that the referendum wasn't binding. Nobody said before the referendum "vote how you like, the government will decide for you". How else would a government act after that result, they risk being annihilated at an election following a refendum that they willfully ignore. 

    No, Remainers including my MP Kenneth Clarke, have said many times that the public should never have been asked the question. That is the political elite stating that "they know best and the public are too stupid to understand the issues". And now that political elite are seeking to get to the situation where we will be asked the question again until we get the answer "right". 
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • p90foolp90fool Frets: 6499
    No, only remainers ADMIT the referendum wasn't binding, but that is the legal position. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • scrumhalfscrumhalf Frets: 4212
    I voted Brexit simply because, as an accountant, I could not knowingly approve of my money being spent by an institution that is not held to the same accounting and reporting standards as and UK limited company.

    Whilst I have no general problem with freedom of movement, I think there needs to be more thought about freedom of settlement and freedom of entitlement.

    We will never reform the EU from within, it's fantasy to suggest it will happen. There are too many competing interests and too many snouts in the trough.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelg said:
    Only Remainers propose that the referendum wasn't binding. Nobody said before the referendum "vote how you like, the government will decide for you". How else would a government act after that result, they risk being annihilated at an election following a refendum that they willfully ignore. 


    Legally it wasn't binding. The promise Cameron made to implement what the people vote for wasn't one he could lawfully keep. Even Nigel Farage accepts it was advisory and said so on the Marr show.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/06111601.pdf#page=7

    Now it is true that a government would find it hard to go against the people but this is not in dispute. It's the whole notion of a government basically bullshitting over the powers of a referendum and then trying to trample.over procedure. That is why the courts handed their arses back to them a year ago.
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 5reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • scrumhalf said:
    I voted Brexit simply because, as an accountant, I could not knowingly approve of my money being spent by an institution that is not held to the same accounting and reporting standards as and UK limited company.

    Whilst I have no general problem with freedom of movement, I think there needs to be more thought about freedom of settlement and freedom of entitlement.

    We will never reform the EU from within, it's fantasy to suggest it will happen. There are too many competing interests and too many snouts in the trough.
    Which is a valid and reasonable position. I'd echo those concerns. This is one of the bloody irritating things about the referendum. It took a large difficult issue and marshmallowed it. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 2reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_SRo_S Frets: 911
    edited December 2017
    hywelg said:
    Only Remainers propose that the referendum wasn't binding.
    p90fool said:
    No, only remainers ADMIT the referendum wasn't binding, but that is the legal position. 
    I have strongly been in favour of leaving the EU for over twenty years, but I've always accepted that the referendum vote was not binding.  I conceded as such in another thread in this sub forum only the other day.

    The Referendum was presented as being a referendum, but it was not.  It was advisory only; it was actually a plebiscite. 

    Politically and morally, the outcome of the referendum may be binding, but legally it is not binding.

    The problem is that the Referendum Act was a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

    The Referendum Act should have included stating the following:
    1.  that the outcome was binding, not advisory; and that in the event of a Leave vote, 
    2. that the Govt(s) must trigger Article 50 within a set timescale, say within 12 months of the referendum vote; and
    3. that the Govt(s) must ensure that UK must cease being a member state of the EU within a set timescale, say by the end of the decade.
    Point #2 above would have ensured that all that crap requiring additional legislation, and related court case, would have been avoided. 

    However, because the Referendum Act was introduced by Cameron's Remainer govt and passed by a Remainer parliament,  the legislation was deliberately drafted in such a way as to hamper Brexit and favour the Remoaner cause.
    over 20 effects pedals FOR SALE, click here to see my classifieds thread.   My trading feedback

    Effects for Me & my Monkey    
    YouTube channel     Facebook         Fretboard's "resident pedal supremo" - mgaw

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_S said:
    hywelg said:
    Only Remainers propose that the referendum wasn't binding.
    p90fool said:
    No, only remainers ADMIT the referendum wasn't binding, but that is the legal position. 
    I have strongly been in favour of leaving the EU for over twenty years, but I've always accepted that the referendum vote was not binding.  I conceded as such in another thread in this sub forum only the other day.

    The Referendum was presented as being a referendum, but it was not.  It was advisory only; it was actually a plebiscite. 

    Politically and morally, the outcome of the referendum may be binding, but legally it is not binding.

    The problem is that the Referendum Act was a poorly drafted piece of legislation.

    The Referendum Act should have included stating the following:
    1.  that the outcome was binding, not advisory; and that in the event of a Leave vote, 
    2. that the Govt(s) must trigger Article 50 within a set timescale, say within 12 months of the referendum vote; and
    3. that the Govt(s) must ensure that UK must cease being a member state of the EU within a set timescale, say by the end of the decade.
    Point #2 above would have ensured that all that crap requiring additional legislation, and related court case, would have been avoided. 

    However, because the Referendum Act was introduced by Cameron's Remainer govt and passed by a Remainer parliament,  the legislation was deliberately drafted in such a way as to hamper Brexit and favour the Remoaner cause.

    If the government doing the promising to carry out the result had no actual legal ability to carry out that promise and that government has since ended, then politically it isn't binding. Morally? When the promise was a lie, then I don't believe it's morally binding either.

    You are absolutely right on the Referendum Act being a pisspoor piece of legislation. I would thoroughly recommend reading this on the AV referendum. Political regulars will recognise at least one of the authors, John Curtice, from General Election duties.

    https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/AV_Referendum_Media_Briefing_Pack.pdf

    I don't believe it was drafted to hamper Brexit. It was made non-binding in order to give both sides as much wriggle room as possible as neither was confident of winning. This differed to AV where the establishment were confident of winning and wanted the topic kicked into the long grass forever (one reason why the Lords amendment over <40% voter turnout meaning it would become a non-binding referendum). 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_SRo_S Frets: 911
    edited December 2017
    Heartfeltdawn said:

    If the government doing the promising to carry out the result had no actual legal ability to carry out that promise and that government has since ended, then politically it isn't binding. 
    The outcome of the EU referendum vote is politically binding, because parliament voted to give people a "referendum" and by implication, they committed to adhere to the outcome.
    Furthermore, both of the main parties' official line has been that they respect the outcome of the referendum and will deliver Brexit.
    If the Tory and/or Labour MPs fail to deliver a proper withdrawal from EU membership, it will have significant political repercussions electorally in future.
    over 20 effects pedals FOR SALE, click here to see my classifieds thread.   My trading feedback

    Effects for Me & my Monkey    
    YouTube channel     Facebook         Fretboard's "resident pedal supremo" - mgaw

    3reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_S said:
    Heartfeltdawn said:

    If the government doing the promising to carry out the result had no actual legal ability to carry out that promise and that government has since ended, then politically it isn't binding. 
    The outcome of the EU referendum vote is politically binding, because parliament voted to give people a "referendum" and by implication, they committed to adhere to the outcome.
    Furthermore, both of the main parties' official line has been that they respect the outcome of the referendum and will deliver Brexit.
    If the Tory and/or Labour MPs fail to deliver a proper withdrawal from EU membership, it will have significant political repercussions electorally in future.


    Parliament voted to give people a consultative exercise. Parliament did not promise to adhere to the outcome: the government at the time did, as printed in that little booklet they sent out. That government ended when Cameron resigned, the new government took up the promise. There was nothing that legally tied them to that.

    "Will deliver Brexit" - sure, they promised it. Brexit in a Labour form would be different from a Conservative form. This is what is so queer about the way you talk of it, as if Brexit was this clearly defined and set out process that everyone agreed upon. It isn't, which is why your 'traitors' thread is so nonsensical. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 28251
    And I will say it again here - the referendum did not include any questions about the nature of 'Brexit', so any form, including the so-called "Brexit in name only", does reflect the referendum result. You can't claim to know what the Leave voters wanted when they voted for it.
    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone."
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 6reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_SRo_S Frets: 911
    Heartfeltdawn said:
    Parliament voted to give people a consultative exercise. Parliament did not promise to adhere to the outcome: the government at the time did, as printed in that little booklet they sent out. That government ended when Cameron resigned, the new government took up the promise. There was nothing that legally tied them to that.
    What you have responded to is when I was talking about the referendum vote outcome it being politically binding, not legally binding.  I've made it perfectly clear that I do not consider the referendum results was not legally binding.

    over 20 effects pedals FOR SALE, click here to see my classifieds thread.   My trading feedback

    Effects for Me & my Monkey    
    YouTube channel     Facebook         Fretboard's "resident pedal supremo" - mgaw

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_SRo_S Frets: 911
    ICBM said:
    And I will say it again here - the referendum did not include any questions about the nature of 'Brexit', so any form, including the so-called "Brexit in name only", does reflect the referendum result. You can't claim to know what the Leave voters wanted when they voted for it.
    'Brexit' means no longer being a member state of the EU.  

    People did not vote to leave the EU so that we would end up in Norway's relationship with the EU, that I am confident of.
    over 20 effects pedals FOR SALE, click here to see my classifieds thread.   My trading feedback

    Effects for Me & my Monkey    
    YouTube channel     Facebook         Fretboard's "resident pedal supremo" - mgaw

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_S said:
    Heartfeltdawn said:
    Parliament voted to give people a consultative exercise. Parliament did not promise to adhere to the outcome: the government at the time did, as printed in that little booklet they sent out. That government ended when Cameron resigned, the new government took up the promise. There was nothing that legally tied them to that.
    What you have responded to is when I was talking about the referendum vote outcome it being politically binding, not legally binding.  I've made it perfectly clear that I do not consider the referendum results was not legally binding.


    You said this:

    "The outcome of the EU referendum vote is politically binding, because parliament voted to give people a "referendum" and by implication, they committed to adhere to the outcome.
    Furthermore, both of the main parties' official line has been that they respect the outcome of the referendum and will deliver Brexit."

    Parliament gave a referendum. Parliament did not commit to adhere to the outcome: the government did. The referendum is therefore not politically binding for Parliament. 

    It is questionable if there are anything politically binding for any government that followed Cameron's. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Ro_S said:
    ICBM said:
    And I will say it again here - the referendum did not include any questions about the nature of 'Brexit', so any form, including the so-called "Brexit in name only", does reflect the referendum result. You can't claim to know what the Leave voters wanted when they voted for it.
    'Brexit' means no longer being a member state of the EU.  

    People did not vote to leave the EU so that we would end up in Norway's relationship with the EU, that I am confident of.
    "Wouldn't it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They're rich. They're happy. They're self-governing" - Nigel Farage
    New fangled trading feedback link right here!
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 3reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.