[Politics] Brexit

[ManOfSussex]

Good point although they would still have lost more seats than Labour. Not a tactical reassessment then more an enforced change of plan due to not having a majority. Thought you would be pleased as Labour would support abandoning any change.

I didn't say I wasn't pleased. Seem to be lots of enforced change of plans due to not having a majority though. It's quicker and more accurate just to type 'u-turn' though, because that's what they are.

 

[pastafarian]

Snowflake?

Hardly. No doubt you didnt see it.
The poor bloke was hounded and stalked across multiple threads (unrelated to brexit) for a sustained period,mostly by one individual with the occasional leecher on jumping on the monkeys back for lols, it was relentless. The poor bloke was at his wits end. And yes he did report it to a mod.

 

[Baldseagull]

What are you on about.I was making a comparison between the Commonwealth(and having to look outwards),and the EU (an ever more inward looking organisation).How you can possibly say that was tangential to the usual rubbish trotted out by remain about inward looking little england xenophobes.Bit of a glib statement to make,wasn't it?

But JC's You Gov poll shows that Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants are less welcome than Polish immigrants?

 

[Baldseagull]

Hardly. No doubt you didnt see it.
The poor bloke was hounded and stalked across multiple threads (unrelated to brexit) for a sustained period,mostly by one individual with the occasional leecher on jumping on the monkeys back for lols, it was relentless. The poor bloke was at his wits end. And yes he did report it to a mod.

To be honest, I would not have suggested it had it not been Two Professors making the claim of harrassment. One of his preferred terms for anyone who takes offence.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I didn't say I wasn't pleased. Seem to be lots of enforced change of plans due to not having a majority though. It's quicker and more accurate just to type 'u-turn' though, because that's what they are.

Well obviously there would be considering the GE result and it's what many people voted for/wanted to happen,to weaken the government. I usually think of political U turns as voluntary not enforced. eg Labours Brexit U turn, Lib Dems Tuition Fees , Tory Pasty tax etc

 

[WATFORD zero]

All struggling to survive whilst being a member of the wonderful EU.
There are people struggling to survive who voted and said fruck that, something different please and there are people struggling to survive who voted for more of the same. And you call the first group naïve(or stupid)…….hmmm

As I pointed out in the post you quoted, makes very little difference to me one way or the other

If you think Nige and Boris represent you then good luck. I'm sure you are uppermost in their thoughts

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I see several European countries are having migrant quotas forced upon them despite voting against it. (EU democracy yay) Germany encouraged them to come and others are forced to deal with the consequences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638

 

[Baldseagull]

as much as there are concerns about the potential application of the Repeal Bill, are you aware that it seeks the same powers through statutory instruments that ministers have used for decades to implement EU directives? or did you think they all got passed through parliament and primary legislation?

The difference is, the laws that come in from the EU are debated and approved by a parliament at which you do have representatives. What May wants is to change things as she sees fit, with no arguments.

 

[pastafarian]

But JC's You Gov poll shows that Nigerian and Pakistani immigrants are less welcome than Polish immigrants?

So what? Polish immigrants are less welcome than Canadian, German,Japanese, Chinese and Indian immigrants but more welcome than Romanians and Turks according to the poll.........whats your point?

 

[pastafarian]

As I pointed out in the post you quoted, makes very little difference to me one way or the other

If you think Nige and Boris represent you then good luck. I'm sure you are uppermost in their thoughts

They represent my ideals on Brexit yes much more than say Vince Cable, no luck is needed just common sense applied in accordance with the vote

 

[Baldseagull]

So what? Polish immigrants are less welcome than Canadian, German,Japanese, Chinese and Indian immigrants but more welcome than Romanians and Turks according to the poll.........whats your point?

My point is that if we formed an immigration policy based on the will of the people, as it seems we are about to do, it better give priority to immigrants from predominantly white, wealthy countries, including those in the EU.
Being from the commonwealth makes little difference unless it is predominantly white.

My further point is that bowing to the will of the people, based on answers to a simple question, is not the way to design anything of any complexity, including an immigration policy fit for purpose and that excludes racism.

 

[BigGully]

I hate to do this but

As the result of a lot of hard work and taking opportunities when they arose
I am currently sat in a restaurant in a harbour overlooking the Mediterranean. I retired at 50 and have sufficient investments that although I'm paying 20% more for my meal tonight, it doesn't really make much difference.

That's the extent of my grizzling.

Meanwhile, there are people struggling to survive on their current income who were so naive (or stupid, I like to think naive) that they really thought Nigel and Boris would represent their interests and get them a better deal.

Wonder which group you're in?

Before I give you the most arrogant post of the the day award, on a quite serious note what exactly was your 'genre' of hard work that rewarded you with 'sufficient funds' to retire at 50 and how did the EU uniquely offer you the environment in which to achieve this whilst at the same time delivering a struggling lifestyle to those oiks that supposedly were inexplicably unable to rejoice in your own success by voting Brexit.

 

[beorhthelm]

The difference is, the laws that come in from the EU are debated and approved by a parliament at which you do have representatives. What May wants is to change things as she sees fit, with no arguments.

they might be debated, thats not a certainy, and they dont need to be approved to go through to memberstates. the difference as you say is that EU say do it, it is to be done, and thats sort of what the leavers are not in favor. underlying point really is that such powers for ministers exist anyway under most legislation passed by parliament too, but we never hear anything of it. its a fascinating twist to the Brexit tale that the proposition to the problem "how do we unwind decades of EU law in 2 years" is to encompass it en block, not ditch it or rewrite it, and this is considered a bad thing by the leave camp. it should be the remain camp complaining that we are left with law from Brussels submarined into UK law, against the intention of leaving.

 

[pastafarian]

My point is that if we formed an immigration policy based on the will of the people, as it seems we are about to do, it better give priority to immigrants from predominantly white, wealthy countries, including those in the EU.
Being from the commonwealth makes little difference unless it is predominantly white.

My further point is that bowing to the will of the people, based on answers to a simple question, is not the way to design anything of any complexity, including an immigration policy fit for purpose and that excludes racism.

An overwhelming majority of the public want immigration reduced but it is the government that will develop an immigration policy and then be held to account by the people. The will of the people is not forming the immigration policy you are mistaken.it is simply instructing the gov to formulate one.

And why on earth have you introduced a level of colour? There are countries on that list who are not predominantly white above countries that are predominantly white.
The youguv survey concludes

“The hostility to certain countries reflects both cultural and economic concerns. Of the countries listed, Britons are most happy with migration from advanced economies, particularly those with English-speaking populations. And when looking at what factors should determine whether or not a migrant is allowed to enter the UK, the results show a public that is keen to ensure their jobs and safety are not disrupted. Criminality is the top of the public’s list of concerns"

No mention of “white” preference at all, so why introduce it into the mix? You seem to be confusing race with the ability to speak English. Is that deliberate?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/one-five-say-uk-should-not-admit-single-migrant-tu/

 

[The Rivet]

My point is that if we formed an immigration policy based on the will of the people, as it seems we are about to do, it better give priority to immigrants from predominantly white, wealthy countries, including those in the EU.
Being from the commonwealth makes little difference unless it is predominantly white.

My further point is that bowing to the will of the people, based on answers to a simple question, is not the way to design anything of any complexity, including an immigration policy fit for purpose and that excludes racism.

I think you miss the point entirely or else you are at least trying to misrepresent it. You ascribe racism to a policy or 'party suggestion' that never mentions it. The whole point is if you are needed, whether black, brown, yellow or other then you can come. If you are a parasite. F Off! It is not racist and you are a complete **** for suggesting it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I see several European countries are having migrant quotas forced upon them despite voting against it. (EU democracy yay) Germany encouraged them to come and others are forced to deal with the consequences.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41172638

So what. You've left (as you keep telling us) and you have taken control over your borders so why are you still pissing your pants over what Germany does?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Before I give you the most arrogant post of the the day award, on a quite serious note what exactly was your 'genre' of hard work that rewarded you with 'sufficient funds' to retire at 50 and how did the EU uniquely offer you the environment in which to achieve this whilst at the same time delivering a struggling lifestyle to those oiks that supposedly were inexplicably unable to rejoice in your own success by voting Brexit.

Apologies for jumping on someone else's debate but I'm not sure the EU has much to do with this to be honest. In Britain life is tougher; trains don't work, healthcare is a constant conundrum which takes away from the business of helping people, you can't decide if state, free or academy is the best type of school, you can't find an NHS dentist for love nor money nor bad teeth, you have to pay ridiculous amounts of money to educate your kids and when they are educated there's **** all work for them beyond finance and the high street. This struggle is due to successive governments doing **** all. Like this other chap I wanted a much much easier life so i upped sticks as well. He's not being arrogant....why wouldn't people want to live where the sun shines and trains run on time? So let's rejoice this gent eating a nice meal by the water....why wouldn't you?

Sadly, when the likes of your good self have raised the drawbridge others won't be able to follow as easily.

 

[Baldseagull]

they might be debated, thats not a certainy, and they dont need to be approved to go through to memberstates. the difference as you say is that EU say do it, it is to be done, and thats sort of what the leavers are not in favor. underlying point really is that such powers for ministers exist anyway under most legislation passed by parliament too, but we never hear anything of it. its a fascinating twist to the Brexit tale that the proposition to the problem "how do we unwind decades of EU law in 2 years" is to encompass it en block, not ditch it or rewrite it, and this is considered a bad thing by the leave camp. it should be the remain camp complaining that we are left with law from Brussels submarined into UK law, against the intention of leaving.

No, bringing it in en block is fine, it is amending it without consulting parliament that is the problem. It seems odd to me that those concerned with the sovereignty of Parliament, have no problem if laws are rewritten without it having a say.

 

[Baldseagull]

I think you miss the point entirely or else you are at least trying to misrepresent it. You ascribe racism to a policy or 'party suggestion' that never mentions it. The whole point is if you are needed, whether black, brown, yellow or other then you can come. If you are a parasite. F Off! It is not racist and you are a complete **** for suggesting it.

Did you look at the poll in the link JCFG posted a link to?

 

[Baldseagull]

An overwhelming majority of the public want immigration reduced but it is the government that will develop an immigration policy and then be held to account by the people. The will of the people is not forming the immigration policy you are mistaken.it is simply instructing the gov to formulate one.

And why on earth have you introduced a level of colour? There are countries on that list who are not predominantly white above countries that are predominantly white.
The youguv survey concludes

“The hostility to certain countries reflects both cultural and economic concerns. Of the countries listed, Britons are most happy with migration from advanced economies, particularly those with English-speaking populations. And when looking at what factors should determine whether or not a migrant is allowed to enter the UK, the results show a public that is keen to ensure their jobs and safety are not disrupted. Criminality is the top of the public’s list of concerns"

No mention of “white” preference at all, so why introduce it into the mix? You seem to be confusing race with the ability to speak English. Is that deliberate?

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/one-five-say-uk-should-not-admit-single-migrant-tu/

Well, this polI did ask people how we should structure a points based system, they were offered a list of countries and whether we should increase or decrease the numbers of people from these countries we accept as migrants.
I was reading the graph rather than the text, and perhaps I was wrong to say white preference, but an immigration policy that weighted applications in favour of those ranked high in this poll, or put a negative against those countries listed as less desireable in this survey would rightly be called out as a racist immigration policy.

Two professors expressed the view that we would open up to the commonwealth, I noted that the poll showed a preference for Canada and Australia placing them at the top, along with Ireland, a former commonwealth country.
Nigeria and Pakistan are close to the bottom. Perhaps it is an anti Islamic thing rather than a white thing.
To call it a preference for similar culture makes no sense, when Japanese and Chinese are more welcome than Polish and Israeli. And Germany and France are more welcome than South Africans.

You would think that a survey where 70% of people felt immigration had been too high over the last ten years would logically find that those people would most want to reduce numbers coming from the countries that has supplied the most migrants in the UK recently. So why does Turkey come bottom of the list? And you have to assume that people have been seeing too much Trump news to think that we need to restrict Mexicans more than Poles.

If we built an immigration policy on public opinion, we would get a racist and dysfunctional one.