Today is the first day that I've felt I'm missing out by not watching/reading Game of Thrones. I've not understood scores of references in tonight's comments!
It just dawned on me, this leadership race is going to be dominated by one question
'When will you trigger article 50'
"I do not intend to trigger article 50 before we have the outline of a deal with the EU. The Article was written by the EU to favour the EU. However, if the EU will not negotiate with us prior to Article 50, I shall seek to conclude contingent free trade deals with friendly nations such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand before invoking Article 50."
Surely the EU will just say "fuck em" anyday now and just deem that the referendum vote, the UK Government's acceptance of it, and whatever Cameron tells the Council tomorrow, all collectively constitute notice, start the Art 50 clock running, and then get us to take it to the ECJ if we don't like it - and we know what the ECJ will find!
Is that a dig by Her Majesty at the IRA's attempts to kill her family?
Epic trolling your Majesty
I don't know who should be more disgusted by the sight of McGuinness shaking the Queen's hand and making smalltalk - HMQ, McGuinness himself, or those of us having to watch it?!
Is that a dig by Her Majesty at the IRA's attempts to kill her family?
Epic trolling your Majesty
I don't know who should be more disgusted by the sight of McGuinness shaking the Queen's hand and making smalltalk - HMQ, McGuinness himself, or those of us having to watch it?!
It's progress. To end things, sacrifices must be made. Including principles and dignity if needs be.
Today is the first day that I've felt I'm missing out by not watching/reading Game of Thrones. I've not understood scores of references in tonight's comments!
Arya will be your favourite character. You should just read the scenes that include her. It'll save you heaps of reading too!
Question 2 is a relief. He's accepting the referendum result.
My suspicion is anyone who genuinely thinks there is a chance the result might get overturned - at a GE, second ref for some reason, whatever - is probably keeping mum about the possibility or saying the opposite so they cannot be said to have intended to row back fro. The result , but lo and behold thus new offer from the eu was just so darn good they had to Ask the people again. Improbable, but more chance of success than appearing to want to ignore the result now,
The third cop tried in the Freddie Gray incident in Baltimore was found not guilty last week. There were no riots or demonstrations as a result of the verdict.
MSNBC ran video of last year's riots over the news item with the caption "Happening Now".
Also they have routinely described those who voted Leave in last week's Brexit vote as xenophobic.
The third cop tried in the Freddie Gray incident in Baltimore was found not guilty last week. There were no riots or demonstrations as a result of the verdict.
MSNBC ran video of last year's riots over the news item with the caption "Happening Now".
Also they have routinely described those who voted Leave in last week's Brexit vote as xenophobic.
Today is the first day that I've felt I'm missing out by not watching/reading Game of Thrones. I've not understood scores of references in tonight's comments!
I started watching the latest season on dvd the other day and realized I had no clue who was who or what was going on. Luckily the dwarf is still in it. Think I'll start from the beginning.
The third cop tried in the Freddie Gray incident in Baltimore was found not guilty last week. There were no riots or demonstrations as a result of the verdict.
MSNBC ran video of last year's riots over the news item with the caption "Happening Now".
Also they have routinely described those who voted Leave in last week's Brexit vote as xenophobic.
Always cheers me up to be told I am a xenophobe :-)
Out of curiosity, how would you have voted? I'm pretty sure I'd have you down as "Leave", or at least less-than-enamoured with the nature of the EU and less-than-optimistic about it ever being reformed.
Trouble is - one of my mum's carers is setting up married life in a room in a shared house - where the dining and sitting rooms have been converted to bedrooms - don't sound off about the problems of billionaires.
It just dawned on me, this leadership race is going to be dominated by one question
'When will you trigger article 50'
"I do not intend to trigger article 50 before we have the outline of a deal with the EU. The Article was written by the EU to favour the EU. However, if the EU will not negotiate with us prior to Article 50, I shall seek to conclude contingent free trade deals with friendly nations such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand before invoking Article 50."
Surely the EU will just say "fuck em" anyday now and just deem that the referendum vote, the UK Government's acceptance of it, and whatever Cameron tells the Council tomorrow, all collectively constitute notice, start the Art 50 clock running, and then get us to take it to the ECJ if we don't like it - and we know what the ECJ will find!
Jack of Kent has an excellent article on how invocation of Article 50 happens
The third cop tried in the Freddie Gray incident in Baltimore was found not guilty last week. There were no riots or demonstrations as a result of the verdict.
MSNBC ran video of last year's riots over the news item with the caption "Happening Now".
Also they have routinely described those who voted Leave in last week's Brexit vote as xenophobic.
Always cheers me up to be told I am a xenophobe :-)
Out of curiosity, how would you have voted? I'm pretty sure I'd have you down as "Leave", or at least less-than-enamoured with the nature of the EU and less-than-optimistic about it ever being reformed.
Actually I've thought about it quite a bit over the weekend. In 1975 I voted to keep Britain in Europe. If I had that vote again today - joining a common market - I would probably vote Yes again. But the EU today, with its bureaucracy, 6 presidents, parliament, flag, anthem, unlimited immigration from member states, huge amounts of regulation and over-riding national laws - what does this add to the bottom line, reduce overhead or increase freedom? Faced with that choice I'd vote Leave in a heartbeat.
Shit - what a giveaway. I'm obviously xenophobic.
As for reform - there is no chance they'll reform unless forced to do so.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
History Channel is now broadcasting the new (US) series of Top Gear against the new (UK) series of Top gear at 9pm on Mondays. I think the US series is actually better at this point. BBC America is getting risible ratings for the new show.
I have come to the view that Chris Evans is like the referee in a WWE wrestling match: you accept he's going to be there, but he does nothing significant and brings nothing to the proceedings.
An interesting passage from Theresa May's Brexit speech:
"I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more. I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland."
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
The third cop tried in the Freddie Gray incident in Baltimore was found not guilty last week. There were no riots or demonstrations as a result of the verdict.
MSNBC ran video of last year's riots over the news item with the caption "Happening Now".
Also they have routinely described those who voted Leave in last week's Brexit vote as xenophobic.
Always cheers me up to be told I am a xenophobe :-)
Out of curiosity, how would you have voted? I'm pretty sure I'd have you down as "Leave", or at least less-than-enamoured with the nature of the EU and less-than-optimistic about it ever being reformed.
Actually I've thought about it quite a bit over the weekend. In 1975 I voted to keep Britain in Europe. If I had that vote again today - joining a common market - I would probably vote Yes again. But the EU today, with its bureaucracy, 6 presidents, parliament, flag, anthem, unlimited immigration from member states, huge amounts of regulation and over-riding national laws - what does this add to the bottom line, reduce overhead or increase freedom? Faced with that choice I'd vote Leave in a heartbeat.
Shit - what a giveaway. I'm obviously xenophobic.
As for reform - there is no chance they'll reform unless forced to do so.
Racist thicko
If idiots like you hadn't voted so selfishly in 1975, we wouldn't have had foisted on us an inherently discriminatory immigration policy that allows in unlimited numbers of Europeans while putting tight restrictions on folk of equal human worth and dignity from Asia and Africa. Now 40 years later we are trying to clean up your mess
More seriously, ta muchly (as ever) for the considered response.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
An interesting passage from Theresa May's Brexit speech:
"I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more. I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland."
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans. Not sure when this change in language happened.
An interesting passage from Theresa May's Brexit speech:
"I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more. I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland."
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
That has to be the government's stance to help us get the deal they want. We're now going to see a rerun of the Cameron renegotiation but this time from a position of real leverage.
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans.
Anyone here who is for limiting immigration from Mexico is routinely labelled a racist.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans. Not sure when this change in language happened.
Scientifically speaking there are no discrete races.
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans. Not sure when this change in language happened.
Scientifically speaking there are no discrete races.
That's right and I would prefer to get rid of the idea altogether.
The third cop tried in the Freddie Gray incident in Baltimore was found not guilty last week. There were no riots or demonstrations as a result of the verdict.
MSNBC ran video of last year's riots over the news item with the caption "Happening Now".
Also they have routinely described those who voted Leave in last week's Brexit vote as xenophobic.
Always cheers me up to be told I am a xenophobe :-)
Out of curiosity, how would you have voted? I'm pretty sure I'd have you down as "Leave", or at least less-than-enamoured with the nature of the EU and less-than-optimistic about it ever being reformed.
Actually I've thought about it quite a bit over the weekend. In 1975 I voted to keep Britain in Europe. If I had that vote again today - joining a common market - I would probably vote Yes again. But the EU today, with its bureaucracy, 6 presidents, parliament, flag, anthem, unlimited immigration from member states, huge amounts of regulation and over-riding national laws - what does this add to the bottom line, reduce overhead or increase freedom? Faced with that choice I'd vote Leave in a heartbeat.
Shit - what a giveaway. I'm obviously xenophobic.
As for reform - there is no chance they'll reform unless forced to do so.
Racist thicko
If idiots like you hadn't voted so selfishly in 1975, we wouldn't have had foisted on us an inherently discriminatory immigration policy that allows in unlimited numbers of Europeans while putting tight restrictions on folk of equal human worth and dignity from Asia and Africa. Now 40 years later we are trying to clean up your mess
More seriously, ta muchly (as ever) for the considered response.
We can let in who ever we want from outside the EU. Which is why last year non EU migration was higher than EU migration.
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans. Not sure when this change in language happened.
Scientifically speaking there are no discrete races.
That's right and I would prefer to get rid of the idea altogether.
I suspect the simplicity and resonance of racist will always make it win out over xenophobia. Tthe meaning has broadened, i can't remember the proper linguistical term for it
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans. Not sure when this change in language happened.
Scientifically speaking there are no discrete races.
There's nothing discrete about calling folks racist either, as in "Iceland is a great footballing race, even if coached by a part time dentist."
...If idiots like you hadn't voted so selfishly in 1975, we wouldn't have had foisted on us an inherently discriminatory immigration policy that allows in unlimited numbers of Europeans while putting tight restrictions on folk of equal human worth and dignity from Asia and Africa. Now 40 years later we are trying to clean up your mess ...
We can let in who ever we want from outside the EU. Which is why last year non EU migration was higher than EU migration.
We can indeed, and I was being facetious to a certain extent - but the point stands. If you think about it in terms of the proportions of people who would like the chance to come here, Europeans would constitute a tiny slice of that, far smaller than their current fraction of the migration figures. Does anyone call for completely open borders, though, so that any person, anywhere in the world, should have the same right to come to Britain and work as EU citizens do? Corbyn and the Greens might want it in principle, but it'd be one hell of a eyebrow-raiser on an election manifesto.
Without open borders, there's no getting around the fact our policy is discriminatory on nationality grounds, nor that is unmanaged, unstrategic and untargeted. However you weigh up the costs and benefits of particular individuals migrating, such a policy is necessarily sub-optimal, even if you don't find discrimination by nationality - effectively by continent, and by proxy, by race and religion - inherently distasteful. (I do.)
150 MPs planning to vote down Corbyn according to D Telegraph.
Perfect time for Tories to call early GE in September, get workable majority to leave.
They'd be wise not to. Pushing on with Leave will destroy the Tory party for decades.
One problem is that turnout may be very low if the public aren't in the mood for a general election. We've had loads of elections of various types over the last 18 months.
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans. Not sure when this change in language happened.
Scientifically speaking there are no discrete races.
That's right and I would prefer to get rid of the idea altogether.
I suspect the simplicity and resonance of racist will always make it win out over xenophobia. Tthe meaning has broadened, i can't remember the proper linguistical term for it
Interesting how "racist" now seems to be used as a synonym for "xenophobic". If an English person attacks a Scottish person it can seemingly be described as "racist" even though most English and Scottish people are the same race, white Europeans. Not sure when this change in language happened.
Scientifically speaking there are no discrete races.
That's a dog whistle, n'est-ce pas?
Kids just love using the r word, throwing it about at any opportunity, often semi-jestingly and they, and undereducated adults, wouldn't really think of using a posh word like xenophobia. I do think racism different in tone as well as meaning from xenophobia. When someone English shows hatred towards a Pole, for example, I think it's reasonable to call them a racist, even if it's illogical. The relationship between language and logic is a murky one. I'd call it xenophobia if an English person feels irrationally uneasy around Poles, is biased against them or believes stereotypes about them.
And, yes, I do believe that most people who voted Brexit are xenophobic, and there is plenty of polling data that implies this, even if it's not stated directly.
Happy Brexiteers? Real people are going to lose their jobs, their savings and their homes over this. Hope you can sleep at nights clutching the little comfort blanket that reads 'Parliament is sovereign' and 'let's have less red tape'.
An interesting passage from Theresa May's Brexit speech:
"I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more. I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland."
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
Suppose MPs / the electorate are not happy to endorse the deal. What then happens?
If Article 50 has been triggered then we have to leave anyway.
If the suggestion is that Article 50 hasn't been triggered then is the proposal that we spend approx 2 years negotiating Brexit without triggering it? ie It wouldn't actually be triggered until approx late 2018?
That seems quite extraordinary - is this really what is being suggested?
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
I think you should re-read what he (the MP for the city of London so not exactly representative) actually wrote. "In essence the details of the arrangements we draw up for our exit will likely be the central issues of the 2020 General Election. At this point each of the political parties will need to make clear whether or not the Brexit deal on the table is acceptable." He is saying we WILL leave, just what deal we get is neogotiable.
You can clutch at straws all you like, but in the end we WILL leave, better to accept that now than to be dissappointed later. I know the defeat was hard for you but acceptance is better than denial in the long run.
now if you would like to take me up on my offer of a bet that we will be out by 19th Jan 2019 I will know ur not just trolling to make ur self feel better.
I also note Field's final paragraph refers to 4 years.
If this is going to go on for 4 years and even then the deal might not actually go through Parliament one has to wonder if it will ever actually happen.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
Happy Brexiteers? Real people are going to lose their jobs, their savings and their homes over this. Hope you can sleep at nights clutching the little comfort blanket that reads 'Parliament is sovereign' and 'let's have less red tape'.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
Suppose MPs / the electorate are not happy to endorse the deal. What then happens?
If Article 50 has been triggered then we have to leave anyway.
If the suggestion is that Article 50 hasn't been triggered then is the proposal that we spend approx 2 years negotiating Brexit without triggering it? ie It wouldn't actually be triggered until approx late 2018?
That seems quite extraordinary - is this really what is being suggested?
All these MP's are just making noise in a power vacuum, everyone needs to calm down and wait until we have a new tory leader and see what s/he says.I suspect the leadership race will expose how eurosceptic the membership are and the last two runners for the top job will make promises in which they will out do eachother to be most eurosceptic. Then all this talk of a second ref BS will be forgotten. Everyone should leave politics untill the leadership race starts.
All these MP's are just making noise in a power vacuum, everyone needs to calm down and wait until we have a new tory leader and see what s/he says.I suspect the leadership race will expose how eurosceptic the membership are and the last two runners for the top job will make promises in which they will out do eachother to be most eurosceptic. Then all this talk of a second ref BS will be forgotten. Everyone should leave politics untill the leadership race starts.
I can think of a certain female Scottish politician who is not leaving politics at all, and isn't waiting around for anyone else! Imagine having a completely clear field, while everyone else is falling apart. What an opportunity. Suspect she is canny enough to make the most of it, too.
Tim Farron's almost complete invisibility for the duration of the campaign doesn't seem to have split his parliamentary party in the same manner that Corbyn's did. Nor does he suffer Clegg's disadvantage of times yore, that trying to lead a contingent of LibDem MPs is like herding cats. The task is far easier, and splits far less likely, when the kitten basket is so bare. So he is perfectly entitled not to give the politics a rest either - get out there, reclaim the 48% for himself, and rescue Britain from its self-destructive desires. The latter would be easier if 8 MPs were enough for a parliamentary majority in a house of 650, and for the former it would help if the students and young graduates who make up the more twitter-vocal component of the 48% didn't seem to have some sort of libdemophobia. Perhaps he should ask Nick where that might have come from.
...If idiots like you hadn't voted so selfishly in 1975, we wouldn't have had foisted on us an inherently discriminatory immigration policy that allows in unlimited numbers of Europeans while putting tight restrictions on folk of equal human worth and dignity from Asia and Africa. Now 40 years later we are trying to clean up your mess ...
We can let in who ever we want from outside the EU. Which is why last year non EU migration was higher than EU migration.
We can indeed, and I was being facetious to a certain extent - but the point stands. If you think about it in terms of the proportions of people who would like the chance to come here, Europeans would constitute a tiny slice of that, far smaller than their current fraction of the migration figures. Does anyone call for completely open borders, though, so that any person, anywhere in the world, should have the same right to come to Britain and work as EU citizens do? Corbyn and the Greens might want it in principle, but it'd be one hell of a eyebrow-raiser on an election manifesto.
Without open borders, there's no getting around the fact our policy is discriminatory on nationality grounds, nor that is unmanaged, unstrategic and untargeted. However you weigh up the costs and benefits of particular individuals migrating, such a policy is necessarily sub-optimal, even if you don't find discrimination by nationality - effectively by continent, and by proxy, by race and religion - inherently distasteful. (I do.)
It's discriminatory in as much as all relationships are. Marrying someone is discriminatory. In the case of the EU the migratory rights are also ( a) reciprocal ( b) part of a wider package.
Happy Brexiteers? Real people are going to lose their jobs, their savings and their homes over this. Hope you can sleep at nights clutching the little comfort blanket that reads 'Parliament is sovereign' and 'let's have less red tape'.
What about the millions of Britons who have lost their jobs because an Eastern European is willing to work at half the wage ?
What about the millions of Britons who can't find work because employers only advertise their jobs in Poland or Romania ?
The small number of people who are going to lose their jobs over Brexit are mostly highly-paid bankers. It will be easy for them to move to another European country or find another highly-paid job.
No one will lose their houses or savings. The stock market & housing market will recover, once the irrational panic is over & lower pound attracts more overseas investors.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
A good spot. Of course he says we'll leave. It's just he sets out a number of irreconcilable conditions that all have to be met first and slips in we won't have left by the next scheduled GE in nearly 4 years time. He end end uses ' leave ' in inverted commas. Let me translate for you. " We can ' leave ' if we get the Financial Services Passport to save the City of London. Unfortunately that's impossible without jetisoning all the racist **** that was sold to the North. So best we leave it to a parliamentary election when we can safely shaft Labour voters in Bootle. "
Kids just love using the r word, throwing it about at any opportunity, often semi-jestingly and they, and undereducated adults, wouldn't really think of using a posh word like xenophobia. I do think racism different in tone as well as meaning from xenophobia. When someone English shows hatred towards a Pole, for example, I think it's reasonable to call them a racist, even if it's illogical. The relationship between language and logic is a murky one. I'd call it xenophobia if an English person feels irrationally uneasy around Poles, is biased against them or believes stereotypes about them.
And, yes, I do believe that most people who voted Brexit are xenophobic, and there is plenty of polling data that implies this, even if it's not stated directly.
A suggested tweak: the British person would only be being racist towards the Pole if they show hatred towards the Pole but wouldn't show it if the other person were British.
This is why I assert that British workers who dislike Poles who work in the same jobs as they do but for lower wages aren't on that basis racists. They would dislike British workers who did the same thing. Many of them would get on fine with fellow workers of Polish or any other nationality if they didn't compete with them. They are not racists and probably aren't especially xenophobic either. There are plenty of black workers in construction who generally speaking don't get on too badly with white workers. Many concerns about immigration are legitimate.
The strategy whereby employers hire workers of different ethnicities from existing workers and pay them lower wages - either per item, inducing speed-up, or per hour, causing a lengthening of the working day - is very old and is advocated by for example F W Taylor.
Some racists, when they meet someone who is black, say, just have contempt for the person on sight, and as far as they are concerned the characteristic of the other person that is most important, to the point of dominating most others, is that they are black. That is racism. In fact it is still racism even if the emotion is just dislike.
I agree with your distinction between racism and xenophobia. If the feeling is just irrational unease, then it's xenophobia.
Leave for many was about xenophobia. For some it wasn't, including some who oppose high rates of immigration.
Happy Brexiteers? Real people are going to lose their jobs, their savings and their homes over this. Hope you can sleep at nights clutching the little comfort blanket that reads 'Parliament is sovereign' and 'let's have less red tape'.
What about the millions of Britons who have lost their jobs because an Eastern European is willing to work at half the wage ?
What about the millions of Britons who can't find work because employers only advertise their jobs in Poland or Romania ?
The small number of people who are going to lose their jobs over Brexit are mostly highly-paid bankers. It will be easy for them to move to another European country or find another highly-paid job.
No one will lose their houses or savings. The stock market & housing market will recover, once the irrational panic is over & lower pound attracts more overseas investors.
Xenophobic and economically illiterate claptrap. We're hovering just above Full Employment. The idea that ' Millions ' of people have lost jobs and millions more can't get them because of immigration is paranoid nonsense.
I see Nigel Farage has emerged to speak to Fox News.
Farage also dismissed the notion that the referendum was causing the past few days of global financial-market turmoil as “rubbish,” attributing it instead to underperforming companies and overinflated projections.
“The idea that Brexit is causing stock market losses is rubbish,” he said. “Every growth expectation in Britain gets marked down [and] our public finances are still way out of control. So, this hysteria about markets, let's end that. It's rubbish.”
...Does anyone call for completely open borders, though, so that any person, anywhere in the world, should have the same right to come to Britain and work as EU citizens do? Corbyn and the Greens might want it in principle, but it'd be one hell of a eyebrow-raiser on an election manifesto.
Without open borders, there's no getting around the fact our policy is discriminatory on nationality grounds, nor that is unmanaged, unstrategic and untargeted. However you weigh up the costs and benefits of particular individuals migrating, such a policy is necessarily sub-optimal, even if you don't find discrimination by nationality - effectively by continent, and by proxy, by race and religion - inherently distasteful. (I do.)
It's discriminatory in as much as all relationships are. Marrying someone is discriminatory. In the case of the EU the migratory rights are also ( a) reciprocal ( b) part of a wider package.
I've said before I can stomach a migration policy that discriminates for (hence implicitly, against) certain nationalities as part of a wider deal, but I still don't like it. And it is a funny kind of reciprocation, because the right for a Brit to live in Lithuania and the right of a Lithuanian to work in Britain are clearly not equivalent. Not just the economic prospects on either side, but the language issue: one can scold Britons for their general failure to acquire foreign languages, but criticising our kids for their poor grasp of Lithuanian grammar would be overdoing things. On the other hand, English is a global second language and that's a pull-factor.
These provisions were not founded on the assumption of the modern scale of migration, nor on such great income inequalities across the zone of free movement, nor on the (distance-reducing) speed and (scope-increasing) cheapness of air travel. For an island nation, why should our free movement zone be founded on geographical proximity?
If we did think "free movement is a great thing, but we can't extend it to 7 billion people, so let's make some treaties granting reciprocal migration rights with ca.400 million for now" and started with a blank piece of paper, we'd probably seek deals with anglophone nations of similar levels of GDP per capita. Perhaps USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ. If we're going to discriminate on nationality, let's at least do so rationally...
(Non-facetiously this plan would have some merits - regardless of what happens with EU migration rights, free movement across the wealthy anglosphere might even be sellable to the British public - but since migration is a sensitive topic, it's hard to see other countries signing up.)
Morning. Interesting poll figures if we trust them. I've always been on May, she has the gravitas and broad support to be elected as PM. She kept her head down during the referendum campaign and is seen as a safer pair of hands than Boris Johnson or Joe Hart.
Also worth noting that Tory voters say by 51-45 that the PM was wrong to resign on Friday. I'm not sure I agree, but if he had campaigned in the referendum with the level of statesmanship he showed in his resignation speech (and humour, as in the Commons yesterday) he wouldn't have had to resign.
Mirror headline says it all, but Corbyn's waited 40 years to kick the evil Blairite Tories out of his party, he's not going anywhere and cares more about purity of thought than winning elections. He also has the support of the (young, metropolitan) membership. Is there any market on SDP2 or mass defections of MPs to the LDs?
Very good last thread header by the way, and some very funny comments as the football unfolded.
If we did think "free movement is a great thing, but we can't extend it to 7 billion people, so let's make some treaties granting reciprocal migration rights with ca.400 million for now" and started with a blank piece of paper, we'd probably seek deals with anglophone nations of similar levels of GDP per capita. Perhaps USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ. If we're going to discriminate on nationality, let's at least do so rationally..
That chances of almost any of those nations granting us a reciprocal right of free movement is almost zero. We bang on about free movement in the EU, but strangely for 120+ countries of the world is a very odd idea in which they have next to no interest.
If we did think "free movement is a great thing, but we can't extend it to 7 billion people, so let's make some treaties granting reciprocal migration rights with ca.400 million for now" and started with a blank piece of paper, we'd probably seek deals with anglophone nations of similar levels of GDP per capita. Perhaps USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ. If we're going to discriminate on nationality, let's at least do so rationally..
That chances of almost any of those nations granting us a reciprocal right of free movement is almost zero. We bang on about free movement in the EU, but strangely for 120+ countries of the world is a very odd idea in which they have next to no interest.
Quite. Most other countries have some variation on a skills-based system, bringing in immigrants to fill labour shortages. The idea of opening borders to unskilled immigrants when there is anything but full employment is seen as silly, as is the idea that foreigners can claim benefits rather than be deported if they lose their job.
And yes, I do live in a country full of immigrants, the locals (yes, we call them that!) are only 12% of the population here, mostly working in the public sector and management jobs. I think the UAE has the highest proportion of immigrants in the world.
"At the same time, some who had voted Brexit are now crying, whining and bitching about their initial decision. They claimed they intended to use Brexit as a “protest vote”. As of time this article is being drafted, a staggering 3,192,438 people have signed a petition demanding a second EU referendum. It appears some British people are trying to prove that the Britain’s democracy is a joke.
What has made these jokers wanted a second shot to make a U-turn was the crashing of the British pound and stock markets. Would they say the same thing if the Britain currency and markets have had skyrocketed instead? Most likely not. Of course the financial markets would crash because this is the first time such thing (Brexit) has ever occurred on planet Earth.
Every financial savvy homo sapiens knows the financial markets would be affected, one way or another. But that’s a temporary effect simply because no country in the world, including the EU and U.S., can afford to see a total meltdown of U.K. financial system. Get real, the British currency and markets were hammered because the same people who had bet against Brexit are crashing it.
One has to remember that U.K. is a developed country, the second richest EU country after the Germany, before they decide to leave. Britain is not a pariah undeveloped nation like Zimbabwe or Malaysia. Unless everyone believes the British is on its way to the Stone Age after Brexit, the country will emerge stronger after the dust is settled.
Therefore, instead of screaming and running around like a headless chicken, one should look at the present temporary financial meltdown as a golden opportunity. How can one profit from the Brexit? Perhaps the easiest way is to re-visit what George Soros had done during the first quarter of the year....
If we did think "free movement is a great thing, but we can't extend it to 7 billion people, so let's make some treaties granting reciprocal migration rights with ca.400 million for now" and started with a blank piece of paper, we'd probably seek deals with anglophone nations of similar levels of GDP per capita. Perhaps USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ. If we're going to discriminate on nationality, let's at least do so rationally..
That chances of almost any of those nations granting us a reciprocal right of free movement is almost zero. We bang on about free movement in the EU, but strangely for 120+ countries of the world is a very odd idea in which they have next to no interest.
Quite. Most other countries have some variation on a skills-based system, bringing in immigrants to fill labour shortages. The idea of opening borders to unskilled immigrants when there is anything but full employment is seen as silly, as is the idea that foreigners can claim benefits rather than be deported if they lose their job.
And yes, I do live in a country full of immigrants, the locals (yes, we call them that!) are only 12% of the population here, mostly working in the public sector and management jobs. I think the UAE has the highest proportion of immigrants in the world.
Doesn't the UAE gives residency rights to GCC nationals?
"At the same time, some who had voted Brexit are now crying, whining and bitching about their initial decision. They claimed they intended to use Brexit as a “protest vote”. As of time this article is being drafted, a staggering 3,192,438 people have signed a petition demanding a second EU referendum. It appears some British people are trying to prove that the Britain’s democracy is a joke.
What has made these jokers wanted a second shot to make a U-turn was the crashing of the British pound and stock markets. Would they say the same thing if the Britain currency and markets have had skyrocketed instead? Most likely not. Of course the financial markets would crash because this is the first time such thing (Brexit) has ever occurred on planet Earth.
Every financial savvy homo sapiens knows the financial markets would be affected, one way or another. But that’s a temporary effect simply because no country in the world, including the EU and U.S., can afford to see a total meltdown of U.K. financial system. Get real, the British currency and markets were hammered because the same people who had bet against Brexit are crashing it.
One has to remember that U.K. is a developed country, the second richest EU country after the Germany, before they decide to leave. Britain is not a pariah undeveloped nation like Zimbabwe or Malaysia. Unless everyone believes the British is on its way to the Stone Age after Brexit, the country will emerge stronger after the dust is settled.
Therefore, instead of screaming and running around like a headless chicken, one should look at the present temporary financial meltdown as a golden opportunity. How can one profit from the Brexit? Perhaps the easiest way is to re-visit what George Soros had done during the first quarter of the year....
“Around Boston, [it has] changed a lot now because people don’t seem friendly no more. The community has changed and we’ve had enough. They take our jobs, they take our shops, our NHS, they take our dentists, they take our doctors, the houses for council, and we’ve had enough.”
If we did think "free movement is a great thing, but we can't extend it to 7 billion people, so let's make some treaties granting reciprocal migration rights with ca.400 million for now" and started with a blank piece of paper, we'd probably seek deals with anglophone nations of similar levels of GDP per capita. Perhaps USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ. If we're going to discriminate on nationality, let's at least do so rationally..
That chances of almost any of those nations granting us a reciprocal right of free movement is almost zero. We bang on about free movement in the EU, but strangely for 120+ countries of the world is a very odd idea in which they have next to no interest.
Quite. Most other countries have some variation on a skills-based system, bringing in immigrants to fill labour shortages. The idea of opening borders to unskilled immigrants when there is anything but full employment is seen as silly, as is the idea that foreigners can claim benefits rather than be deported if they lose their job.
And yes, I do live in a country full of immigrants, the locals (yes, we call them that!) are only 12% of the population here, mostly working in the public sector and management jobs. I think the UAE has the highest proportion of immigrants in the world.
Doesn't the UAE gives residency rights to GCC nationals?
Yes, no visa required for GCC nationals.
No benefits or voting rights though. Seems to work okay in practice, all the GCC countries are similarly wealthy and generous to their own locals so doesn't cause massive movements of people - and most of those that do move are most likely in Dubai, where they fit in well in a city full of immigrants anyway.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
Calm down. He said "Britain must and will leave".
Yeh, right.
How much do u wanna bet we will be gone by 1st Jan 2019?
A good spot. Of course he says we'll leave. It's just he sets out a number of irreconcilable conditions that all have to be met first and slips in we won't have left by the next scheduled GE in nearly 4 years time. He end end uses ' leave ' in inverted commas. Let me translate for you. " We can ' leave ' if we get the Financial Services Passport to save the City of London. Unfortunately that's impossible without jetisoning all the racist **** that was sold to the North. So best we leave it to a parliamentary election when we can safely shaft Labour voters in Bootle. "
Tory Remainer MP, not surprising as he's MP for the City of London, says: "Whilst a rerun of the referendum is not a viable option, therefore, equally I anticipate that the UK electorate will within four years have the opportunity to have a further, final say on the matter of our relationship with the EU."
Important bit is he sees our FINAL say as being at a GE. I don't see how that would work unless the GE is next year.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
He is living in cloud-cuckoo land, unless he wishes the EURef result to be put on ice as "advisory" ad infinitum. The EU will not negotiate until A50 is invoked. It is in the interests of the EU to hold a metaphorical pistol to the head of the PM today, and force him to state in a minuted meeting of heads of state that the UK has decided to leave, which can be taken as having invoked A50.
The EU is notorious for prolonged discussions before agreement is reached; it is therefore likely that no trade deal will have been reached by July 2018, so WTO rules would then apply for trading with the EU. The EU should also foment secession by Scotland (to stay in the EU), Irish reunification and incorporation of Gibraltar into Spain. It has the power and financial muscle to wring the neck of the rUK like a chicken, and should not hesitate to do so "pour encourager les autres".
Meanwhile, back in Blighty, "leaders" of the 2 main political parties are fooling around at this critical time instead of focussing on the task in hand, to Leave the EU and defend the UK's interests while doing so. Only Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are showing statesmanship within the current UK. On the other side, most of the EU leaders such as Herr Juncker and Martin Schulz are behaving impeccably. As for Merkel, don't believe her soothing words - she is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
It's game, set and match to the UK's enemies. And just to cap it all, England's football team were humiliated in the Euros.
@vaughansalway: England result popular in Brussels last night. One table of English city types told by irate local to "get out, go home". Oh the irony.
Therefore, instead of screaming and running around like a headless chicken, one should look at the present temporary financial meltdown as a golden opportunity. How can one profit from the Brexit? Perhaps the easiest way is to re-visit what George Soros had done during the first quarter of the year.... [which was to buy gold and short stocks - my edit]
And here's how that article ends which also has a ring of truth to it.
From today until Cameron packs his things from 10 Downing Street in October, the commodities, currencies and stock markets would be very volatile. There would be huge corrections, sell-off, bargain-hunting and more sell-off. The day when the Article 50 is invoked, the British pound and markets would be hammered again.
Small request from Patrick to the people of the UK: Like, I suspect, most Leave voters, I voted out because of the fundamental issue of sovereignty and democracy. If you can't vote for a change of policy in the EU then it is a prison not a democracy. Some, however, seem to have taken the result to be a green light to become arseholes. Please go out of your way to be kind, friendly, welcoming and respectful towards everyone in this country - especially the immigrants or native Brits of an ethnic minority.
@paulwaugh: I'm told there will be several resignations from the Labour whips' office this morning. Hold onto your hats
LOL! Even the whips are resigning, surely it's close to the time when the sensible wing of MPs need to break away and regroup in order to deliver an effective opposition? Especially at a time like this, the government need to be able to be held to account, not to have a bunch of squabbling children sat opposite them in the Commons.
@vaughansalway: England result popular in Brussels last night. One table of English city types told by irate local to "get out, go home". Oh the irony.
And they will be even happier when Belgium beats Wales on Friday.
The England team were no worse than the leadership of Britain's 2 main political parties.
Although not a Conservative member should the choice come down to Theresa May or Boris Johnson then the former is the overwhelming better option as PM. The nation requires a safe, experienced and calm pair of hands at the helm as the ship of state navigates the choppy waters ahead.
What we most assuredly do not require is the high wire act that Boris represents let alone the total humiliation of the French laughing at the UK from dawn to dusk.
Comments
Now clear 2nd favourite for Lab leader.
MSNBC ran video of last year's riots over the news item with the caption "Happening Now".
Also they have routinely described those who voted Leave in last week's Brexit vote as xenophobic.
Out of curiosity, how would you have voted? I'm pretty sure I'd have you down as "Leave", or at least less-than-enamoured with the nature of the EU and less-than-optimistic about it ever being reformed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/tory-cabinet-minister-calls-for-second-referendum-on-terms-of-eu/
Outstanding!
Shit - what a giveaway. I'm obviously xenophobic.
As for reform - there is no chance they'll reform unless forced to do so.
Mr Hunt says: “We must not invoke Article 50 straight away because that puts a time limit of two years on negotiations after which we could be thrown out with no deal at all. So before setting the clock ticking, we need to negotiate a deal and put it to the British people, either in a referendum or through the Conservative manifesto at a fresh General Election.”
History Channel is now broadcasting the new (US) series of Top Gear against the new (UK) series of Top gear at 9pm on Mondays. I think the US series is actually better at this point. BBC America is getting risible ratings for the new show.
I have come to the view that Chris Evans is like the referee in a WWE wrestling match: you accept he's going to be there, but he does nothing significant and brings nothing to the proceedings.
"I do not want to see the country I love at risk of dismemberment once more. I do not want the people of Scotland to think that English Eurosceptics put their dislike of Brussels ahead of our bond with Edinburgh and Glasgow. I do not want the European Union to cause the destruction of an older and much more precious Union, the Union between England and Scotland."
If idiots like you hadn't voted so selfishly in 1975, we wouldn't have had foisted on us an inherently discriminatory immigration policy that allows in unlimited numbers of Europeans while putting tight restrictions on folk of equal human worth and dignity from Asia and Africa. Now 40 years later we are trying to clean up your mess
More seriously, ta muchly (as ever) for the considered response.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36642664
Without open borders, there's no getting around the fact our policy is discriminatory on nationality grounds, nor that is unmanaged, unstrategic and untargeted. However you weigh up the costs and benefits of particular individuals migrating, such a policy is necessarily sub-optimal, even if you don't find discrimination by nationality - effectively by continent, and by proxy, by race and religion - inherently distasteful. (I do.)
Kids just love using the r word, throwing it about at any opportunity, often semi-jestingly and they, and undereducated adults, wouldn't really think of using a posh word like xenophobia. I do think racism different in tone as well as meaning from xenophobia. When someone English shows hatred towards a Pole, for example, I think it's reasonable to call them a racist, even if it's illogical. The relationship between language and logic is a murky one. I'd call it xenophobia if an English person feels irrationally uneasy around Poles, is biased against them or believes stereotypes about them.
And, yes, I do believe that most people who voted Brexit are xenophobic, and there is plenty of polling data that implies this, even if it's not stated directly.
Happy Brexiteers? Real people are going to lose their jobs, their savings and their homes over this. Hope you can sleep at nights clutching the little comfort blanket that reads 'Parliament is sovereign' and 'let's have less red tape'.
"Bookmakers odds: chance of Brexit plunges to all-time low of 15 per cent"
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/chance-brexit-plunges-time-low-17-per-cent/
Suppose MPs / the electorate are not happy to endorse the deal. What then happens?
If Article 50 has been triggered then we have to leave anyway.
If the suggestion is that Article 50 hasn't been triggered then is the proposal that we spend approx 2 years negotiating Brexit without triggering it? ie It wouldn't actually be triggered until approx late 2018?
That seems quite extraordinary - is this really what is being suggested?
You can clutch at straws all you like, but in the end we WILL leave, better to accept that now than to be dissappointed later. I know the defeat was hard for you but acceptance is better than denial in the long run.
now if you would like to take me up on my offer of a bet that we will be out by 19th Jan 2019 I will know ur not just trolling to make ur self feel better.
If this is going to go on for 4 years and even then the deal might not actually go through Parliament one has to wonder if it will ever actually happen.
Mr Osborne says in the Times that he is "not the person to provide the unity my party needs".
Was that haircut all for naught?
At least Tom Watson's image consultancy bill was worth it: would he have won the deputy election without that makeover?
Everyone should leave politics untill the leadership race starts.
Tim Farron's almost complete invisibility for the duration of the campaign doesn't seem to have split his parliamentary party in the same manner that Corbyn's did. Nor does he suffer Clegg's disadvantage of times yore, that trying to lead a contingent of LibDem MPs is like herding cats. The task is far easier, and splits far less likely, when the kitten basket is so bare. So he is perfectly entitled not to give the politics a rest either - get out there, reclaim the 48% for himself, and rescue Britain from its self-destructive desires. The latter would be easier if 8 MPs were enough for a parliamentary majority in a house of 650, and for the former it would help if the students and young graduates who make up the more twitter-vocal component of the 48% didn't seem to have some sort of libdemophobia. Perhaps he should ask Nick where that might have come from.
What about the millions of Britons who can't find work because employers only advertise their jobs in Poland or Romania ?
The small number of people who are going to lose their jobs over Brexit are mostly highly-paid bankers. It will be easy for them to move to another European country or find another highly-paid job.
No one will lose their houses or savings. The stock market & housing market will recover, once the irrational panic is over & lower pound attracts more overseas investors.
This is why I assert that British workers who dislike Poles who work in the same jobs as they do but for lower wages aren't on that basis racists. They would dislike British workers who did the same thing. Many of them would get on fine with fellow workers of Polish or any other nationality if they didn't compete with them. They are not racists and probably aren't especially xenophobic either. There are plenty of black workers in construction who generally speaking don't get on too badly with white workers. Many concerns about immigration are legitimate.
The strategy whereby employers hire workers of different ethnicities from existing workers and pay them lower wages - either per item, inducing speed-up, or per hour, causing a lengthening of the working day - is very old and is advocated by for example F W Taylor.
Some racists, when they meet someone who is black, say, just have contempt for the person on sight, and as far as they are concerned the characteristic of the other person that is most important, to the point of dominating most others, is that they are black. That is racism. In fact it is still racism even if the emotion is just dislike.
I agree with your distinction between racism and xenophobia. If the feeling is just irrational unease, then it's xenophobia.
Leave for many was about xenophobia. For some it wasn't, including some who oppose high rates of immigration.
Farage also dismissed the notion that the referendum was causing the past few days of global financial-market turmoil as “rubbish,” attributing it instead to underperforming companies and overinflated projections.
“The idea that Brexit is causing stock market losses is rubbish,” he said. “Every growth expectation in Britain gets marked down [and] our public finances are still way out of control. So, this hysteria about markets, let's end that. It's rubbish.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/uks-nigel-farage-obama-behaved-disgracefully-by-campaigning-against-brexit-224863
These provisions were not founded on the assumption of the modern scale of migration, nor on such great income inequalities across the zone of free movement, nor on the (distance-reducing) speed and (scope-increasing) cheapness of air travel. For an island nation, why should our free movement zone be founded on geographical proximity?
If we did think "free movement is a great thing, but we can't extend it to 7 billion people, so let's make some treaties granting reciprocal migration rights with ca.400 million for now" and started with a blank piece of paper, we'd probably seek deals with anglophone nations of similar levels of GDP per capita. Perhaps USA, Canada, Ireland, Australia, NZ. If we're going to discriminate on nationality, let's at least do so rationally...
(Non-facetiously this plan would have some merits - regardless of what happens with EU migration rights, free movement across the wealthy anglosphere might even be sellable to the British public - but since migration is a sensitive topic, it's hard to see other countries signing up.)
Also worth noting that Tory voters say by 51-45 that the PM was wrong to resign on Friday. I'm not sure I agree, but if he had campaigned in the referendum with the level of statesmanship he showed in his resignation speech (and humour, as in the Commons yesterday) he wouldn't have had to resign.
Mirror headline says it all, but Corbyn's waited 40 years to kick the evil Blairite Tories out of his party, he's not going anywhere and cares more about purity of thought than winning elections. He also has the support of the (young, metropolitan) membership. Is there any market on SDP2 or mass defections of MPs to the LDs?
Very good last thread header by the way, and some very funny comments as the football unfolded.
So few of them. And they don't merit media coverage. And even if they did, Labour's splits would drown them out.
http://www.itv.com/news/2016-06-28/chancellor-george-osborne-will-not-enter-tory-leadership-contest/
Spare a thought for those who said GOWNBPM.
And yes, I do live in a country full of immigrants, the locals (yes, we call them that!) are only 12% of the population here, mostly working in the public sector and management jobs. I think the UAE has the highest proportion of immigrants in the world.
"At the same time, some who had voted Brexit are now crying, whining and bitching about their initial decision. They claimed they intended to use Brexit as a “protest vote”. As of time this article is being drafted, a staggering 3,192,438 people have signed a petition demanding a second EU referendum. It appears some British people are trying to prove that the Britain’s democracy is a joke.
What has made these jokers wanted a second shot to make a U-turn was the crashing of the British pound and stock markets. Would they say the same thing if the Britain currency and markets have had skyrocketed instead? Most likely not. Of course the financial markets would crash because this is the first time such thing (Brexit) has ever occurred on planet Earth.
Every financial savvy homo sapiens knows the financial markets would be affected, one way or another. But that’s a temporary effect simply because no country in the world, including the EU and U.S., can afford to see a total meltdown of U.K. financial system. Get real, the British currency and markets were hammered because the same people who had bet against Brexit are crashing it.
One has to remember that U.K. is a developed country, the second richest EU country after the Germany, before they decide to leave. Britain is not a pariah undeveloped nation like Zimbabwe or Malaysia. Unless everyone believes the British is on its way to the Stone Age after Brexit, the country will emerge stronger after the dust is settled.
Therefore, instead of screaming and running around like a headless chicken, one should look at the present temporary financial meltdown as a golden opportunity. How can one profit from the Brexit? Perhaps the easiest way is to re-visit what George Soros had done during the first quarter of the year....
http://www.malaysia-chronicle.com/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=616926:unlike-malaysia--zimbabwe-britain-is-no-pariah-country-how-to-laugh-all-the-way-to-the-bank-after-brexit&Itemid=2#axzz4CqdLwO7B
@AlbertoNardelli: We Visited The Town Where 75.6% Of People Voted To Leave The EU https://t.co/aqKEubM5x6
“Around Boston, [it has] changed a lot now because people don’t seem friendly no more. The community has changed and we’ve had enough. They take our jobs, they take our shops, our NHS, they take our dentists, they take our doctors, the houses for council, and we’ve had enough.”
No benefits or voting rights though. Seems to work okay in practice, all the GCC countries are similarly wealthy and generous to their own locals so doesn't cause massive movements of people - and most of those that do move are most likely in Dubai, where they fit in well in a city full of immigrants anyway.
"Whilst a rerun of the referendum is not a viable option, therefore, equally I anticipate that the UK electorate will within four years have the opportunity to have a further, final say on the matter of our relationship with the EU."
Important bit is he sees our FINAL say as being at a GE.
I don't see how that would work unless the GE is next year.
He is living in cloud-cuckoo land, unless he wishes the EURef result to be put on ice as "advisory" ad infinitum. The EU will not negotiate until A50 is invoked. It is in the interests of the EU to hold a metaphorical pistol to the head of the PM today, and force him to state in a minuted meeting of heads of state that the UK has decided to leave, which can be taken as having invoked A50.
The EU is notorious for prolonged discussions before agreement is reached; it is therefore likely that no trade deal will have been reached by July 2018, so WTO rules would then apply for trading with the EU. The EU should also foment secession by Scotland (to stay in the EU), Irish reunification and incorporation of Gibraltar into Spain. It has the power and financial muscle to wring the neck of the rUK like a chicken, and should not hesitate to do so "pour encourager les autres".
Meanwhile, back in Blighty, "leaders" of the 2 main political parties are fooling around at this critical time instead of focussing on the task in hand, to Leave the EU and defend the UK's interests while doing so. Only Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP are showing statesmanship within the current UK. On the other side, most of the EU leaders such as Herr Juncker and Martin Schulz are behaving impeccably. As for Merkel, don't believe her soothing words - she is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
It's game, set and match to the UK's enemies. And just to cap it all, England's football team were humiliated in the Euros.
From today until Cameron packs his things from 10 Downing Street in October, the commodities, currencies and stock markets would be very volatile. There would be huge corrections, sell-off, bargain-hunting and more sell-off. The day when the Article 50 is invoked, the British pound and markets would be hammered again.
Like, I suspect, most Leave voters, I voted out because of the fundamental issue of sovereignty and democracy. If you can't vote for a change of policy in the EU then it is a prison not a democracy. Some, however, seem to have taken the result to be a green light to become arseholes. Please go out of your way to be kind, friendly, welcoming and respectful towards everyone in this country - especially the immigrants or native Brits of an ethnic minority.
The England team were no worse than the leadership of Britain's 2 main political parties.
What we most assuredly do not require is the high wire act that Boris represents let alone the total humiliation of the French laughing at the UK from dawn to dusk.