[Politics] Brexit

[Gregory2Smith1]

By the way, is this a good time to ask what a 'bootle of red' might be?

emptie

 

[GoldWithFalmer]

So, you think you speak for 100% of those who voted leave. And you also think that the 48% now have no right to a voice.

Bloody Hell...

Well those that voted leave knew the options were,catch a bus,get a lift,maybe a train,but also,if busy the very possibility of a walk in the P****** rain sorry i am being a touch OTT.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm not sure it is a doctrine, or something to strive for in the UK - more of a default position. As a monarchy we do not have a constitution and as a former empire we have a Commonwealth. We have traditionally invited over our Commonwealth citizens when we've needed them. We have provided shelter to Jews during the Nazis' rule in Germany. We have people who are Christian but, due to various wars, civil and ecumenical, are either Protestant or Catholic. You have multiculturalism right there as an unintended consequence. It's just quite diluted since Commonwealth citizens share certain British values and your average white, British Catholic has fairly much exactly the same culture as your average white, British Protestant (but not everywhere, and not all the time, see Northern Ireland).

Contrast this with Republican France which has a constitution and the concept of Laicite or secularism is ingrained in to that constitution. You are supposed to be secular and French if you live there. Now, given the amount of terror attacks there compared to here that's not going so well. Maybe we just have better security services but, to an outsider, it seems that the French have way more angry immigrants than we do.

The issue for me (and immigration IS an issue, even a dyed in the wool Guardian reader like myself recognises this) is that now we have people coming to the UK from all over the world. From cultures that are very different to our own. And also from European countries with similar, but distinct, cultures, in an uncontrolled manner. The unintended consequences of this are Ghettos or, at least, clusterings of types of peoples.

To a degree it was always so. Look at the Afro Caribbean populations in Brixton or St Pauls or Tottenham that caused riots in the 80s or the clusterings of south Asians in Bradford or Leicester or Luton to name but three. Now we are seeing the same sort of thing with Polish shops or groupings of Syrian refugees.

I suppose my two-fold point is around cost-benefit of this. Curry houses, Polski Skelps and Reggae music labels don't just culturally enrich (or not, I like having a wide range of music, food, culture and language to understand but I'm a Guardian reader, it's not for everyone) they contribute positively to GDP. In other words immigrants should be putting money in to government coffers, so that the government can deal with them. But the government then has a choice of what to do with that money. It can provide much stronger British Identity tests and boot our those (non EU currently, EU going forward) people who fail them. It can spend the money on the schools and hospitals and housing to support these people. But it can't afford to do both.

In fact, it has proven difficult to get it to do either. It has chosen to spend money on propping up banks and maintaining Trident instead. It has recently chosen to be austere.

I'm only for multicultralism because the alternatives would be a mass sending back of anyone with a different skin or culture to me (I don't believe that's the right or fair thing to do, again, others will disagree) or to move towards a more republican, secular constitution which I don't think would pass a referendum or general election here. The "third way" is better government policy, properly funded, but it seemed that we all regarded a bitter, divisive, lie-filled (on both sides) referendum as a better way to "deal" with our immigration issues.

Interesting and thoughtful post. We probably have a very similar outlook in many respects, but perhaps differ on what we think we mean by multiculturalism. In my case, I am not sure what it means which, perhaps, illustrates why people can get so heated about it (and all the related issues).

Cheers!

 

[beorhthelm]

Just two segments from the article

He said open borders and free movement for skilled migrants were "absolutely" important to the success of the technology sector in the UK.

Sources at the technology company also said if barriers were thrown up to skilled immigration following the vote to leave the European Union, some of Google's investment could be at risk.

So if a hard Brexit we're off. But I see yet again some leavers are celebrating the headline rather than the content.

why do you believe that "hard brexit" and skilled migration conflicting positions? it seems an obsession for some with no evidence or even any logic to this train of thought. in this case we see its just an excuse to pour doom on a story where non exists.

 

[studio150]

why do you believe that "hard brexit" and skilled migration conflicting positions? it seems an obsession for some with no evidence or even any logic to this train of thought. in this case we see its just an excuse to pour doom on a story where non exists.

Just read the comments from Google which to me are clear, but hey if you want to celebrate that's up to you. I won't be joining in as I can see the 'investment' being watered down considerably.

 

[beorhthelm]

Just read the comments from Google which to me are clear, but hey if you want to celebrate that's up to you.

not about celebrating, theres no reason why a "hard brexit" scenario means no or limited skilled migration.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Apologies if this has been posted already.

It seems that the free movement of people is not as fundamental an issue with the EU as we have been led to believe by just about every remainer.

The Independent: Brexit: Angela Merkel indicates UK could restrict freedom of movement and keep access to Single Market. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw-cWQujA

 

[Guinness Boy]

Interesting and thoughtful post. We probably have a very similar outlook in many respects, but perhaps differ on what we think we mean by multiculturalism. In my case, I am not sure what it means which, perhaps, illustrates why people can get so heated about it (and all the related issues).

Cheers!

I have to say your post, again full of reasonable, thought provoking stuff, inspired mine.

I tend to react to digs, one liners and retorts with digs, one liners and retorts. Your post genuinely made me think

 

[Soulman]

A good article and questions. Especially questions 9 & 10

John Redwood MP has 10 questions for stunned elites who have no idea why people distrust and, in some cases, despise them. Perhaps someone could offer some answers?

1) Why did you let the banks expand credit far too much prior to 2007?

2) Why did you bring several banks down by refusing liquidity and not backing schemes for bank recovery, leaving others badly wounded in 2007-8?

3) Why have you gone for Quantitative easing and ultra low rates, which damages small savers and helps the super rich at the expense of everyone else?

4) Why didn’t you get on with the task of encouraging and enforcing recapitalisation of the banks so we can have a normal credit creating system again capable of financing recovery?

5) Why did you bring down a dictator in Libya without having a plan to rebuild a better government and society?

6) Why did you go to war in Iraq?

7) Whose side are you on in the Syrian civil war, and how is western military action helping?

8) Can you bomb people into accepting democracy?

9) Why did you back the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the Euro, the Remain campaign and the Clinton campaign, and what do you think of how they have done?

10) Why should people trust the economic and political judgments of the World Bank, the EU, the IMF, the Bank of England and the rest when they have got so many forecasts wrong?

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/6437/ten_questions_for_stunned_trans_atlantic_elites

 

[studio150]

not about celebrating, theres no reason why a "hard brexit" scenario means no or limited skilled migration.

So unlimited migration for skilled workers (undefined)

 

[studio150]

Apologies if this has been posted already.

It seems that the free movement of people is not as fundamental an issue with the EU as we have been led to believe by just about every remainer.

The Independent: Brexit: Angela Merkel indicates UK could restrict freedom of movement and keep access to Single Market. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw-cWQujA

The German Chancellor said the EU could not divide its four freedoms — movement of goods, capital, people and services — to allow Britain to restrict immigration while retaining tariff-free access to the market of close to 500 million people.


"Were we to make an exception for the free movement of people with Britain, this would mean we would endanger principles of the whole internal market in the European Union, because everyone else will then want these exceptions,"


Again headlines rather than content

 

[beorhthelm]

Again headlines rather than content

did you stop reading the rest of the content?

Discussing the finer detail of defining free movement of people, she added: "And so I personally am of the view that we will have to discuss further with the [European] Commission when this freedom of movement applies from."

that seemlingly innocuous view is the sound of a door creaking ajar.

 

[Baldseagull]

Apologies if this has been posted already.

It seems that the free movement of people is not as fundamental an issue with the EU as we have been led to believe by just about every remainer.

The Independent: Brexit: Angela Merkel indicates UK could restrict freedom of movement and keep access to Single Market. http://google.com/newsstand/s/CBIw-cWQujA

That is not what I read from it, it seemed to me that she is talking about clarifying what the parameters are of free movement in the EU.
In fact she clearly excludes any special deal for the UK, however it looks like she is pressing for some clearly defined restrictions on benefits for migrants, for all members.

 

[Soulman]

Just two segments from the article

He said open borders and free movement for skilled migrants were "absolutely" important to the success of the technology sector in the UK.

Sources at the technology company also said if barriers were thrown up to skilled immigration following the vote to leave the European Union, some of Google's investment could be at risk.

So if a hard Brexit we're off. But I see yet again some leavers are celebrating the headline rather than the content.

It also said.
Mr Pichai made it clear the strength of the UK economy went far beyond the Brexit vote.

"The innovation we see here, the talent we have available here and how on the cutting edge of technology we are able to be here makes it an incredible place for us to invest," he said.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

That is not what I read from it, it seemed to me that she is talking about clarifying what the parameters are of free movement in the EU.
In fact she clearly excludes any special deal for the UK, however it looks like she is pressing for some clearly defined restrictions on benefits for migrants, for all members.

Yes, I would agree with your analysis on the surface. I think Merkel is manoeuvring a little in readiness for the German elections. She is losing ground to afd and is trying to play a little to their supporters. I would not be surprised to see the goalposts move a little further to try to help with Brexit. It may be 'impossible' but then, so was Brexit and Donald Trump.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I have to say your post, again full of reasonable, thought provoking stuff, inspired mine.

I tend to react to digs, one liners and retorts with digs, one liners and retorts. Your post genuinely made me think

Cheers. NSC, the home of reasonable consideration.

 

[studio150]

did you stop reading the rest of the content?


that seemlingly innocuous view is the sound of a door creaking ajar.

No more than the concessions that Cameron had agreed in principle about access to benefits. No movement whatsoever on free movement linked to free market

 

[JC Footy Genius]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tte-attack-touting-for-business-a7418741.html

The received wisdom recently has been that the Government lacks a Brexit plan. It's pretty shocking that this myth is being fed by this large multinational. Are any Remainers unnerved by big business attempting to interfere in the democratic process in this way ? If not, you should be.

Overwhelmed with responses I see. Shocking standard of journalism by The Times bigging this memo up but they were pro remain and their coverage since the referendum has been rather partial to my eyes. Might well cancel my subscription .....

 

[melias shoes]

1). It's clearly a majority. I'm not stupid.
2) I said mandate. 52/48 is not a clear and legitimate mandate in my view. If you think it is then fine. But, you must understand my reason why so let's just agree to disagree and end it here as this has been done to death.

Agreed

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

No more than the concessions that Cameron had agreed in principle about access to benefits. No movement whatsoever on free movement linked to free market

You are making quite an assumption. On the radio this morning they have been discussing that this could mean a re-interpretation of free movement. Apparently the original EU article talks about freedom of movement of workers which is different to the way it is currently being implemented. Merkel may want to discuss limiting free movement to those with jobs which would involve a work permit system.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. There is too much absolutism from both sides of this debate when what is needed is sensible compromise.