The only route to a truly fair immigration system is by leaving the EU, unless a person favours open borders for all. And as most of us have recognised this is an event with far-reaching consequences, well beyond what May chooses to enact as PM. Maybe we'll have a Lab-Lib coalition come 2025, but they wont' have the chance to alter anything so long as we are bound by the existing rules on FoM.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
The only route to a truly fair immigration system is by leaving the EU, unless a person favours open borders for all. And as most of us have recognised this is an event with far-reaching consequences, well beyond what May chooses to enact as PM. Maybe we'll have a Lab-Lib coalition come 2025, but they wont' have the chance to alter anything so long as we are bound by the existing rules on FoM.
50% of your trade is with the EU, if you wish to carry on with the same trade, you have to accept the FoM - if you're under the illusion that you can carry on the same without it you are even more delusional than I thought.
If the UK go for a hard Brexit - you're on your own, just because you're British doesn't mean you're going to get any more favourable deals
2025, so in the mean time we must suffer a system designed to appease the Brexiters, yeah great.
Xenaphobia and Racism has dictated how we treat non EU migrants, not FOM
Isn't this the problem though? You have to project Leavers as a homogenous group who agree on everything (and in this case youre just as guilty in your second paragraph of projecting your thoughts on Brexit onto Leavers as a whole as those youre calling out) because the margin was so slim that as soon as you start subdividing the group the 'mandate' of the referendum disappears.
So will 'Brexiters' be happy if we operate a 'global immigration policy'? Surely the answer is 'it depends'. And for a huge amount of people, that you may or may not be a part of, the only policy they'll be happy with is one that significantly reduces migration regardless of where it comes from.
Besides, how is it right to dictate to the electorate that 100,000 is unrealistic and the electorate should suck it up, but it's not right to say that what the electorate thinks they can get from Brexit is unrealistic? Surely you're being completely hypocritical there.
Given that you both seem more comfortable talking to yourselves, or some avatar of Leaver which suits your preconceptions, i'm not sure that there is a great deal of point in continuing this.
Some days ago a poster asked how the referendum was reflected among constituencies, well this tweet from Change Britain breaks down the numbers:
Some days ago a poster asked how the referendum was reflected among constituencies, well this tweet from Change Britain breaks down the numbers:
You surely can't really believe what you have written here? Unless by "global" you mean Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US.
Because one policy is designed to honour their vote, and permit a reduction in immigration, whilst the other is mostly seeking to achieve the opposite. The Government can reduce immigration and by a noticeable amount, but it can't undo fifteen years change over night. It would be my contention that the electorate will have greater respect for attainable declines, than the pure rhetoric being spouted by Cameron on the matter. Either way, the 50% of EU immigration aided by FoM constrains our ability to reform.
As i recall, even UKIP were struggling to meet the 100,000 pledge during the 2015 GE.
Ah yes, The Three Brexiteers, about to embark on their swashbuckling adventure to get away from that pesky EU.
And...nothing. I simply recalled a poster asking the question and saw that on Twitter. The earlier remarks in that reply were not directed at yourself by the way.
I know, i know, we're all supposed to be xenophobic scum.
Why did you list those countries in particular? Pleas don't say something racially motivated, it would shatter all of my illusions about Remainers.
But then we come back to the question of what constitutes an acceptable Brexit don't we?
For example if, hypothetically, the government decides the best deal they can get out of the EU is an EEA deal with a brake on migration should the electorate be told to suck up and take that because it was in the spirit of the vote?
And...nothing. I simply recalled a poster asking the question and saw that on Twitter. The earlier remarks in that reply were not directed at yourself by the way.
I know, i know, we're all supposed to be xenophobic scum.
Why did you list those countries in particular? Pleas don't say something racially motivated, it would shatter all of my illusions about Remainers.
I just think it's a bit disingenuous to feed the data of a referendum into what (do we agree on this for once? I think we might) is an archaic system and argue for a stronger mandate than actually exists. Besides if recent polling on 'Bregret' is to be believed then that graph would flip.
What annoys me is their repeated use of "The country's will" implying that they didn't win by a ridiculously tight margin.
And a new poll shows a majority of actual voters would vote Remain if the referendum was re-held now. What's your point?
Or go slightly longer without entirely contradicting yourself.
There's an interesting constitutional question here.
It seems like both sides ( Gina Miller and the Government) agree that Brexit means the stripping of people's rights. Does Westminster actually have the legal right to strip Scots of their rights under the devolution agreements? And if they don't then Brexit becomes an even bigger cluster feck.
Just as well the UK was fair regarding immigration in the 50s and 60s - former colonies being more privileged than others when the UK needed to rebuild after the war or was that a guilt complex
So what is your point then, by the way I'm still waiting for those laws, think it is 8 or 9 months now
Actually the Maltese have the least chip on their shoulder then everybody. We preferred colonisation and starvation rather then integration with Italy during WW2 (it was more the case that we want things in our terms and not according to what some tinpot dictator state but anyway), an act that earned the entire country the George Cross. The Maltese still speak in English which is valued as much as our own language, the George Cross is still on our flag and British expats are pretty much valued in the country.Having said that, the British had never committed any massacres on our turf and although blatant discrimination were made, our situation was relatively better (although still way below the poverty line) then other colonies. Things would have been probably different if we were treated the same way as the Indians were.
My point is that if you think that the hurt of colonisation had gone away then you're deeply mistaken and that will have an impact on any trade deals made between the UK and the commonwealth. You have how that influences talks. I personally know Maltese people who are hired on behalf of American/British companies to discuss deals with Middle Eastern companies for the simple reason that no American/British would be able to get a deal of them just because they are Americans/British. They wont trust American/British citizens but they do trust us because we've got a good relationship with them.
Last edited:
“My organisation supported Brexit for several reasons but the main reason was to bring people from abroad to help our industry to survive.”
Is this for real?
Curry one of the Uk's favourite dishes.
It is for real. They were hoping that Brexit would mean they would bridge the talent gap regarding curry chefs by loosening the rules for non EU migrants from India etc. It will probably happen eventually.
It's another case of the gullibles believing a word of any Brexit campaigner.
Presume they will loosen the rules for Chinese chefs , Kebab chefs and even French chefs if FoM is stopped.
Vital services for the UK.
So much for the liberal light leading the EU.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/germany-unveils-integration-law-for-refugees-migrants
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eparate-refugees-from-residents-a7403136.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/14/germany-unveils-integration-law-for-refugees-migrants
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eparate-refugees-from-residents-a7403136.html
They belived the bull that @Nick_0208_Ldn is spouting, that an end to FOM from Europe would bring about an easier time for those outside the EU. It was just another leave lie
I grew up in the area and my mum is still living there in walking distance. Apparently a lot of camera teams visited the area during the last days, because someone made a short internet clip about the construction of this wall. All I care about is, that the astro-turf is finished when I visit her the next time.
£ recovering nicely
Oh No's
They should get on well, both two-faced
Maybe he works alphabetically.
Doesn't mean anything, I'm sure.
you're probably right.
I will start to panic when it is revealed that he hit Kim Jong Un up before us.
Well he did call Mexico which for Trump is pretty close
I notice that Ireland and the UK are the first of the European leaders.
True, but there again that's not quite surprising isn't it? No one likes him in mainland Europe
Goldman Sachs considers Frankfurt move over Brexit
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-goldmansachs-exclusive-idUKKBN13435B
http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-goldmansachs-exclusive-idUKKBN13435B
Make the most of it.