politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Corbyn’s “I’ll be PM by Xmas next year” boast fails impress pu

The_Apocalypse said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

The_Apocalypse said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

That’s a good point. I’d never thought about it that way - thanks for providing a different perspective to think about.

This is the argument I made for a long time. But I always have to qualify that by saying that my solution is a very minority and unpopular one in that I would not introduce barriers for EU migrants, I would remove them for everyone. Anyone should be able to come here as long as they can support themselves either through work or independent means and they are not a risk to the country through terrorist or criminal activities.

As I say it is not a popular view so I am not holding my breath on it ever becoming policy for any of the main parties.

I’ve very sympathetic to your POV on this - but I’d also agree with you as well that it’s likely to be unpopular, and I don’t see any of the main parties taking it on as a policy. The LDs or the Greens might take it on as a policy though in the future.

I think it's a great policy.

If people come here to work and contribute I don't have a problem with it - although I accept my point of view may be rather different to a Brexiteering working class tradesman who has seen his wages stagnate or slip over the last decade or so.

I don't want to see Britain closed off - I just want to see us able to have control of our own borders. That should mean having the flexibility to allow more or less immigration at any time, depending on the country's economic requirements and infrastructure capacity while keeping an eye on social cohesion. The trouble is the EU doesn't allow for that kind of flexibility. It is all or nothing. So nothing it is.

In past times this was called common sense, now, it's called xenophobia.

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May is putting Gove in the corner.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/943067072065568768

I remember BA saying they were improving their customers’ in-flight service experience by getting rid of free food and drink, and charging for it instead.

And in October they charged me for the first time on a flight to Rome only that I refused their service which was chaotic as they tried to give a receipt and would not accept cash.

How far BA have fallen over the last few years

Though they make a healthy profit, the luxuries they leave for first class and business class not economy

Not much luxury in BA Business these days. I am trying Virgin Upper Class for my trip to HK in March. They also came in £700 cheaper than BA.

You should have gone for Cathay Pacific, at least then you'd get TPs, plus club class to HK on Cathay is really good.

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

CarlottaVance said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

williamglenn said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

RobD said:

Anazina said:

FPT The complete obsession with ending 'free movement' is likely to be the undoing of a good deal for the UK. Reading HYUFD bang out the stock Central Office policy line hour after hour, day after day might have a hypnotic effect on the weaker of mind, but it hardly moves the process forward.

In some part, the UK will have to fudge on free movement to get a decent deal. Ultimately even the witless Theresa May won't drive the economy to the wall on the back of xenophobic calls to lock out foreigners.

Regional visas would be one idea – free movement within London/Greater Manchester and other successful outward-looking cities where international colleagues are welcome. Canada uses a similar system, province by province.

Freedom of movement within certain areas of the UK? The Home Office can barely manage as it is!

Good.

What's good about that?

Why do people who in most contexts think central planning is lunacy, think that the Home Office ought to be capable of planning the movement of people in a perfect and optimal way?

I think it’s a barmy idea!

But having the Home Office dole out work permits for Europeans based on deciding how many people each sector of the economy needs isn't?

Seems to work in many other countries....USA, Australia...New Zealand....Canada....

It doesn't work in the US, that's for sure.

Work permits with no red tape?

Language. Cultural. Colleagues. Global outlook.

In a jobs.

That's exactly what freedom of movement should be - and what it was pre Maastricht. It was the introduction of the concept of "European citizen" that caused the problems

Yep - if we have open-ended permits on demand above a certain salary level and in certain, specified industries that would be taking back control and should satisfy most while allowing us to make use of a large pool of talent on our doorstep. What would be disastrous is if permits were only granted from the applicant's home country. The UK's problem here, though, would be reciprocity given that most of our EU emigrants are retired. Getting a system that allows us to continue to attract younger people while exporting our more elderly citizens will require some imaginative thought.

On free movement, the answer is much simpler than work permits. Allow people to come if they have a firm job offer in hand and the job has earnings over £35k per year. Meet both criteria and they get three years. Meet the first they get 6 months.

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic here's how Corbyn becomes Prime Minister by next Christmas.

1) In early 2018 The House of Lords is the site of attritional warfare over the Brexit bill

2) Mrs May decides to call a snap election to sock it to their Lordships and reform the House of Lords. Call it the 'Who Governs?' Election....

I think May is old enough to remember Ted Heath ?

But she’s not very bright and badly advised.

But she is PM and your hero edits a local free-sheet.....

Dave's my hero and he earns inter alia 650,000 per year for one day a week.

I have a lot of time for Cameron 2010-2015 - a difficult job, well and bravely done.

The less said about 2015-2016, the better. But Osborne landed him in that - if they hadn't nuked the Lib Dems......

Osborne made a number of political brainfarts post GE2015. I can only assume because he hubristically assumed the crown was his for the taking.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

On free movement, the answer is much simpler than work permits. Allow people to come if they have a firm job offer in hand and the job has earnings over £35k per year. Meet both criteria and they get three years. Meet the first they get 6 months.

Not sure that works for, say, tech start-ups. Remember that article on here from just before the referendum:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/13/guest-slot-the-impact-of-leaving-the-eu-on-londons-technology-start-up-scene/

We are way out in front of the rest of Europe currently and need to ensure that continues. We also need more computer people generally. At my place, we are desperate for programmers and developers, but struggle to find them because the demand is just so huge.

As long as they have the first condition met (a job in hand) they will get a renewable 6 month work permit. In that industry it won't take long before they qualify for the long term work permit.

No need to overcomplicate things.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May is putting Gove in the corner.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/943067072065568768

I remember BA saying they were improving their customers’ in-flight service experience by getting rid of free food and drink, and charging for it instead.

And in October they charged me for the first time on a flight to Rome only that I refused their service which was chaotic as they tried to give a receipt and would not accept cash.

How far BA have fallen over the last few years

Though they make a healthy profit, the luxuries they leave for first class and business class not economy

Not much luxury in BA Business these days. I am trying Virgin Upper Class for my trip to HK in March. They also came in £700 cheaper than BA.

You should have gone for Cathay Pacific, at least then you'd get TPs, plus club class to HK on Cathay is really good.

I tried - not available on the days I needed, Which I guess makes your point for you.

Ah, that's a shame. Well hopefully Virgin don't shit the bed, last time I flew upper class with them it wasn't great.

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

On free movement, the answer is much simpler than work permits. Allow people to come if they have a firm job offer in hand and the job has earnings over £35k per year. Meet both criteria and they get three years. Meet the first they get 6 months.

Not sure that works for, say, tech start-ups. Remember that article on here from just before the referendum:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/13/guest-slot-the-impact-of-leaving-the-eu-on-londons-technology-start-up-scene/

We are way out in front of the rest of Europe currently and need to ensure that continues. We also need more computer people generally. At my place, we are desperate for programmers and developers, but struggle to find them because the demand is just so huge.

As long as they have the first condition met (a job in hand) they will get a renewable 6 month work permit. In that industry it won't take long before they qualify for the long term work permit.

No need to overcomplicate things.

If it's quick, understandable and easy, it will be fine. The key thing is that we are competing for these people. Why come to London and worry about a UK work permit if you can go to Amsterdam, Stockholm or Berlin with no hassle at all? The lower end will take care of itself, but qualified talent can essentially go where it wants. We need it to want to come to the UK.

Casino_Royale said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

CarlottaVance said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Nigelb said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

On topic here's how Corbyn becomes Prime Minister by next Christmas.

1) In early 2018 The House of Lords is the site of attritional warfare over the Brexit bill

2) Mrs May decides to call a snap election to sock it to their Lordships and reform the House of Lords. Call it the 'Who Governs?' Election....

I think May is old enough to remember Ted Heath ?

But she’s not very bright and badly advised.

But she is PM and your hero edits a local free-sheet.....

Dave's my hero and he earns inter alia 650,000 per year for one day a week.

I have a lot of time for Cameron 2010-2015 - a difficult job, well and bravely done.

The less said about 2015-2016, the better. But Osborne landed him in that - if they hadn't nuked the Lib Dems......

Osborne made a number of political brainfarts post GE2015. I can only assume because he hubristically assumed the crown was his for the taking.

You gotta feel sorry for those MPs who told their Constituency selection committees they were Leavers, then changed to Remain when they got one of Osborne's job offers in their wallet.

Although that sorrow lasts about 7 nanoseconds.

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

On free movement, the answer is much simpler than work permits. Allow people to come if they have a firm job offer in hand and the job has earnings over £35k per year. Meet both criteria and they get three years. Meet the first they get 6 months.

Not sure that works for, say, tech start-ups. Remember that article on here from just before the referendum:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/13/guest-slot-the-impact-of-leaving-the-eu-on-londons-technology-start-up-scene/

We are way out in front of the rest of Europe currently and need to ensure that continues. We also need more computer people generally. At my place, we are desperate for programmers and developers, but struggle to find them because the demand is just so huge.

As long as they have the first condition met (a job in hand) they will get a renewable 6 month work permit. In that industry it won't take long before they qualify for the long term work permit.

No need to overcomplicate things.

If it's quick, understandable and easy, it will be fine. The key thing is that we are competing for these people. Why come to London and worry about a UK work permit if you can go to Amsterdam, Stockholm or Berlin with no hassle at all? The lower end will take care of itself, but qualified talent can essentially go where it wants. We need it to want to come to the UK.

It would be, there are two conditions:

1. Do you have a job offer?

Y/N

2. Does that job pay over £35k?

Y/N

If Y/Y then you get a three year work permit. If Y/N then a six month work permit. No need for sponsorship, just work evidence (payslips, I guess) filed online at the end of the visa so it can be renewed. N/N means no visa at all.

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May is putting Gove in the corner.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/943067072065568768

I remember BA saying they were improving their customers’ in-flight service experience by getting rid of free food and drink, and charging for it instead.

TBF the food is better, so the experience is better (the old food was a negative experience). You just have to pay for it

The drink is exactly the same. But now you have to pay for it!

I rarely drink on planes. The coffee is much better

You have to pay for that now.

Used to be quite a regular supporter of BA short haul.

But my experience since they've switched to a paid in flight model is that the stewards are too slow in dispensing/charging.

EasyJet is the winner now.

Flying Swissair to Zurich for NY. No idea that that's like...

Swiss is good, but go from City airport rather than Heathrow.

Yep we are. City is a fantastic airport. Haven't used it much since I left Town, mind. Is the shoeshine still there??

Mortimer said:

MaxPB said:

Mortimer said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May is putting Gove in the corner.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/943067072065568768

I remember BA saying they were improving their customers’ in-flight service experience by getting rid of free food and drink, and charging for it instead.

TBF the food is better, so the experience is better (the old food was a negative experience). You just have to pay for it

The drink is exactly the same. But now you have to pay for it!

I rarely drink on planes. The coffee is much better

You have to pay for that now.

Used to be quite a regular supporter of BA short haul.

But my experience since they've switched to a paid in flight model is that the stewards are too slow in dispensing/charging.

EasyJet is the winner now.

Flying Swissair to Zurich for NY. No idea that that's like...

Swiss is good, but go from City airport rather than Heathrow.

Yep we are. City is a fantastic airport. Haven't used it much since I left Town, mind. Is the shoeshine still there??

Yeah he was last time I was there.

Jonathan said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

On free movement, the answer is much simpler than work permits. Allow people to come if they have a firm job offer in hand and the job has earnings over £35k per year. Meet both criteria and they get three years. Meet the first they get 6 months.

Not sure that works for, say, tech start-ups. Remember that article on here from just before the referendum:

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/13/guest-slot-the-impact-of-leaving-the-eu-on-londons-technology-start-up-scene/

We are way out in front of the rest of Europe currently and need to ensure that continues. We also need more computer people generally. At my place, we are desperate for programmers and developers, but struggle to find them because the demand is just so huge.

As long as they have the first condition met (a job in hand) they will get a renewable 6 month work permit. In that industry it won't take long before they qualify for the long term work permit.

No need to overcomplicate things.

If it's quick, understandable and easy, it will be fine. The key thing is that we are competing for these people. Why come to London and worry about a UK work permit if you can go to Amsterdam, Stockholm or Berlin with no hassle at all? The lower end will take care of itself, but qualified talent can essentially go where it wants. We need it to want to come to the UK.

It would be, there are two conditions:

1. Do you have a job offer?

Y/N

2. Does that job pay over £35k?

Y/N

If Y/Y then you get a three year work permit. If Y/N then a six month work permit. No need for sponsorship, just work evidence (payslips, I guess) filed online at the end of the visa so it can be renewed. N/N means no visa at all.

So no nurses or other shortage professions.

They would get a Y/N and just keep renewing the six month visa by uploading payslips to show they are still employed.

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

The EU does not prevent us from allowing Jamaicans to freely settle here.

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

Except for the Asians suckered into voting for Brexit with precisely that pitch?

Suckered into voting for Brexit, implying they were somehow tricked into it?

You really think immigration from outside the EU is about to be relaxed??

The point was, and is, not that it should necessarily be relaxed but that there should be a level playing field. That immigration should be based on your skill set and work not on where you are from.

As I say I would rather the bar was set extremely low or none existent but at least Max and those wanting to control immigration have a sensible policy rather than the random idiocy of basing it purely on where someone comes from.

EU policy currently dictates that it is far harder for a highly qualified, highly educated Indian or Arab with a valuable skill set to get into the country than a French sewage worker with no qualifications, no education and no skill other than shovelling shit.

Making it as difficult for Europeans as it is already for those from India and Pakistan being such a vote winner for Asian voters...

"The “backlash” against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained
Why the latest film in the galaxy-spanning franchise has proved so unexpectedly polarizing"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy

rottenborough said:

I strongly suspect that all this guff about Corbyn being in No.10 by xmas and there'll be an election next year etc etc is actually just being said to keep the Labour Party on a feeling of war footing and keep young Momentum types spirits up. If there's a feeling that there might be an election then less likely that moderate MPs will be rocking boats.

Obviously it is nonsense as Mike points out.

Like Avenina I think it's just to get voters used to the idea. As the Tories fumble into mid-term people will think "Surely there's an alternative to this lot?" and it's important that it sounds as though he wants it and is ready to do it. To get the idea, imagine he said, "No, I don't think I'll be PM next year. Maybe later." Not a good idea.

William_H said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

IanB2 said:

RobD said:

IanB2 said:

Except for the Asians suckered into voting for Brexit with precisely that pitch?

Suckered into voting for Brexit, implying they were somehow tricked into it?

You really think immigration from outside the EU is about to be relaxed??

The point was, and is, not that it should necessarily be relaxed but that there should be a level playing field. That immigration should be based on your skill set and work not on where you are from.

As I say I would rather the bar was set extremely low or none existent but at least Max and those wanting to control immigration have a sensible policy rather than the random idiocy of basing it purely on where someone comes from.

EU policy currently dictates that it is far harder for a highly qualified, highly educated Indian or Arab with a valuable skill set to get into the country than a French sewage worker with no qualifications, no education and no skill other than shovelling shit.

EU policy doesn't dictate that. EU policy grants freedom to EU citizens, British policy denies it to others.

Reducing the size of the favoured in group from EU Citizens to British Citizens doesn't reduce the amount of discrimination.

A nation is surely allowed to favour its own citizens?

MaxPB said:

Charles said:

SouthamObserver said:

MaxPB said:

SouthamObserver said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

SouthamObserver said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Mrs May is putting Gove in the corner.

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/943067072065568768

I remember BA saying they were improving their customers’ in-flight service experience by getting rid of free food and drink, and charging for it instead.

And in October they charged me for the first time on a flight to Rome only that I refused their service which was chaotic as they tried to give a receipt and would not accept cash.

How far BA have fallen over the last few years

Though they make a healthy profit, the luxuries they leave for first class and business class not economy

Not much luxury in BA Business these days. I am trying Virgin Upper Class for my trip to HK in March. They also came in £700 cheaper than BA.

You should have gone for Cathay Pacific, at least then you'd get TPs, plus club class to HK on Cathay is really good.

I tried - not available on the days I needed, Which I guess makes your point for you.

First world problems

Of course, if you were GGL...

I fly a lot and I'm still not close to GGL on my lifetime TPs. I feel like I might start doing TP runs at some point to get it one year, just to see if it's as good as they make out. Does that invite only tier still exist?

Yes but you need to control a $5m travel budget

AndyJS said:

"The “backlash” against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained
Why the latest film in the galaxy-spanning franchise has proved so unexpectedly polarizing"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy

I was quite surprised to see a list of '8 things angry star wars fans' were complaining about, and that 6 of them were things I thought made the movie better, 1 didn't even seem like a criticism, and only 1 was something I could really get on board with, so it's interesting to see some analysis of the divisiveness.

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Directly as a consequence of that inability to control the scale immigration from E Europe, government policy has focused of trying to ameliorate that by undue tightening of migration from parts of the rest of the world where control can still be exercised. So we've seen significant tightening of the rules on immigration of BAME people from Commonwealth countries which we do indeed owe some historic debt to, with families long resident here being often split from close relatives as a consequence. That is a big bone of concern amongst BAME communities here. And of course we are still prepared to accept only pitifully small numbers of generally refugees from countries whose populations have been ravaged by civil wars and disintigration that followed our own recent involvement. The approach of Canada is the reverse, precisely because they have genuine control over their borders and can thus prioritise on rational and humanitarian grounds.

DavidL said:

JCWNBPM

Probably not. But it keeps everyone on his side fired up if they believe he could be winning at any moment, so if the unlikely circumstances of an election were to occur this year, he will be in prime position to take advantage.

William_H said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

The EU does not prevent us from allowing Jamaicans to freely settle here.

Indeed. Anyway, the whole argument is stupid. German and Spanish workers are free to work here because UK workers are free to work in Germany and Spain. It's a reciprocal agreement. We have no such reciprocal agreement with Jamaica and India. Accusations of racism in this context are, frankly, bizarre.

RobD said:

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

JCWNBPM

Probably not. But it keeps everyone on his side fired up if they believe he could be winning at any moment, so if the unlikely circumstances of an election were to occur this year, he will be in prime position to take advantage.

This year? Neutral and a time traveller

I am a free spirit, and will not be bound by society telling me January 1st is the start of a new year!

(that would have worked better were it December 22nd, and I could claim I start a year after the days start getting longer again or something)

DavidL said:

kle4 said:

DavidL said:

JCWNBPM

Probably not. But it keeps everyone on his side fired up if they believe he could be winning at any moment, so if the unlikely circumstances of an election were to occur this year, he will be in prime position to take advantage.

In 2017 he was a free hit because everyone knew he couldn’t win and no one had to take anything he said even remotely seriously. If he fights another election (big “if” given his age) far fewer will make that mistake again. This government is sub optimal, unimaginative and more than a bit incompetent but, bloody hell, given a choice like that a comfortable majority will vote for May or whoever the Tories put up, even with a clothes peg well in place.

Possibly, but I don't see why that will be the case. Some people did take what he said seriously, plenty more are angry enough that its not about him being taken seriously but punishing the government, and many of the factors which led to people either voting Labour or stay at home could well apply again, and I don't see that it is so certain people will wake up to his flaws or forgive the Tories theirs next time. Why would they? In this hypothetical early election the Tories would surely be even more divided, else the government would not have fallen, anyone who voted Labour as the soft brexit option will still do so even if that is not reasonable, and young people and minorities don't seem like they will be running away from Corbyn next time. On the contrary, some of his former critics now sing his name, so some who didn't want to vote for a probable loser might turnout for him next time.

William_H said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

The EU does not prevent us from allowing Jamaicans to freely settle here.

And if you look at the history of the coastline of the UK, the Coastguard, and Customs and Excise attempts to maintain the inviolablity of the UK, then you will realise the entire futility of trying to keep our borders strong and inpenetrable... (4 coastguard cutters - 1 on patrol round the UK, 1 in the Gulf/Mediterranean and 1 in the Caribbean, and one being serviced), while the RN has only a frigate or two, and the RAF has to rely on information from deep sea fishing boats reporting Russian fleet incursions into Scottish waters. Yep! Tory defense is brilliant.....

ExiledInScotland said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Directly as a consequence of that inability to control the scale immigration from E Europe, government policy has focused of trying to ameliorate that by undue tightening of migration from parts of the rest of the world where control can still be exercised. So we've seen significant tightening of the rules on immigration of BAME people from Commonwealth countries which we do indeed owe some historic debt to, with families long resident here being often split from close relatives as a consequence. That is a big bone of concern amongst BAME communities here. And of course we are still prepared to accept only pitifully small numbers of generally refugees from countries whose populations have been ravaged by civil wars and disintigration that followed our own recent involvement. The approach of Canada is the reverse, precisely because they have genuine control over their borders and can thus prioritise on rational and humanitarian grounds.

WP - the best post on this subject I have read for ages.

I would add that freedom of movement is a proxy alternative to meaningful economic transfers within the EU. In countries like the UK or the USA, governments use state spending to transfer funding from richer areas to poorer areas: I read somewhere that this was 5-8% of GDP per annum, but have lost the reference. By contrast, the EU only transfers around 0.5% of GDP from richer countries to poorer ones. Rather than requiring taxpayers in richer countries (Germany, Benelux, Nordic and the UK) to make much larger contributions, FOM offers a safety valve for the entrepreneurial and gutsy to move from mediterranean and eastern european EU countries to get jobs and earn more. If the 5-8% of GDP figure is right, we would have to increase our weekly contribution (nett) from £150m to £900m+ to remove the need for FOM. Who thinks the richer EU countries could sell that to their voters? Is the plan to build a United States of Europe and then increase funding transfers to that level?

To the latter question, yes. That is the plan, to have a single treasury in Brussels and enable large fiscal transfers from rich EU "nations" to poorer ones. It is why it has been a non starter for a long time. German people have been up in arms about loaning Greece fake money from the ECB, now imagine if they were asked to give real money from their taxes.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Directly as a consequence of that inability to control the scale immigration from E Europe, government policy has focused of trying to ameliorate that by undue tightening of migration from parts of the rest of the world where control can still be exercised. So we've seen significant tightening of the rules on immigration of BAME people from Commonwealth countries which we do indeed owe some historic debt to, with families long resident here being often split from close relatives as a consequence. That is a big bone of concern amongst BAME communities here. And of course we are still prepared to accept only pitifully small numbers of generally refugees from countries whose populations have been ravaged by civil wars and disintigration that followed our own recent involvement. The approach of Canada is the reverse, precisely because they have genuine control over their borders and can thus prioritise on rational and humanitarian grounds.

Spot on.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Directly as a consequence of that inability to control the scale immigration from E Europe, government policy has focused of trying to ameliorate that by undue tightening of migration from parts of the rest of the world where control can still be exercised. So we've seen significant tightening of the rules on immigration of BAME people from Commonwealth countries which we do indeed owe some historic debt to, with families long resident here being often split from close relatives as a consequence. That is a big bone of concern amongst BAME communities here. And of course we are still prepared to accept only pitifully small numbers of generally refugees from countries whose populations have been ravaged by civil wars and disintigration that followed our own recent involvement. The approach of Canada is the reverse, precisely because they have genuine control over their borders and can thus prioritise on rational and humanitarian grounds.

I think, broadly speaking, the electorate want to have confidence the Government has a grip on the numbers, and is planning and providing infrastructure and services accordingly.

It will then be willing to be generous.

stodge said:

DavidL said:

In 2017 he was a free hit because everyone knew he couldn’t win and no one had to take anything he said even remotely seriously. If he fights another election (big “if” given his age) far fewer will make that mistake again. This government is sub optimal, unimaginative and more than a bit incompetent but, bloody hell, given a choice like that a comfortable majority will vote for May or whoever the Tories put up, even with a clothes peg well in place.

2022 could be 1992 redux - it's conceivable but given the likely turbulence of the coming years, it won't be easy for the Conservatives to convince people to "give 'em another go".

Well put. It won't be an easy sell. Even if Labour don't prepare particularly well, it is rare for a party to get more than 12 years in power in this country (albeit in coalition or minority), and they could get more of a pass than they deserve. Or they could pitch it right by then.

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

"The “backlash” against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained
Why the latest film in the galaxy-spanning franchise has proved so unexpectedly polarizing"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy

Saw it last night and thought it was the best since the originals

Haven't seen it yet, hopefully it'll still be on after Christmas. I remember falling asleep in the first of the "new" films in 1999.

stodge said:

DavidL said:

In 2017 he was a free hit because everyone knew he couldn’t win and no one had to take anything he said even remotely seriously. If he fights another election (big “if” given his age) far fewer will make that mistake again. This government is sub optimal, unimaginative and more than a bit incompetent but, bloody hell, given a choice like that a comfortable majority will vote for May or whoever the Tories put up, even with a clothes peg well in place.

Why ? In all seriousness, why ?

After a dozen years of, by your own submission, sub optimal Conservative Government, why won't people vote for a change ?

They voted for Wilson and Blair after long periods of Conservative rule and I'm sure you would agree no party has a divine right to be in Government. Plenty of people expressed doubts about Wilson and Blair - plenty questioned their character, associates and lack of experience - but the electorate were in a mood for change and were simply tired of the Conservatives.

As for Labour, they will have until 2022 to come up with policies, refresh the front bench and generally look ready for Government in a way they don't have to now. That's their challenge - the Conservatives have to defend their record in Government.

2022 could be 1992 redux - it's conceivable but given the likely turbulence of the coming years, it won't be easy for the Conservatives to convince people to "give 'em another go".

Ironically it may be in the Tories' best interests for Corbyn to narrowly win next time (or even better become PM after the Tories won most seats).

Winning narrowly in 1992 saw the Tories fail to win another overall majority for 23 years, had Kinnock narrowly won the 1992 general election a Heseltine or Portillo led Tory Party would have had a real shot of being back in power after 5 years

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

"The “backlash” against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained
Why the latest film in the galaxy-spanning franchise has proved so unexpectedly polarizing"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy

Saw it last night and thought it was the best since the originals

Having seen it twice I now rate the series (in part with nostalgia factor): 6, 8, R1, 5, 7, 3, 4, 2, 1 (Yes I know 4 started it all and is objectively superior to 3, which certainly has more flaws, but IDK, the expanded scope and concluding nature of it make it more fun).

But enough Star wars, good night folks.

AndyJS said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

"The “backlash” against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained
Why the latest film in the galaxy-spanning franchise has proved so unexpectedly polarizing"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy

Saw it last night and thought it was the best since the originals

Haven't seen it yet, hopefully it'll still be on after Christmas. I remember falling asleep in the first of the "new" films in 1999.

Be assured it is in a different league of film completely from the Phantom Menace, in fact I would say it ties with Dunkirk as the best film I saw this year

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Those Prussian soldiers who won the battle of Waterloo with us. Where did they come from?

You could argue that the the Prussians and British were fighting against the resurgance of a brutal regime that had sought to weld european nations together under an unwanted hegemony. British foreign policy used to be ensuring a balance of power existed on the continent of europe. We forget that at our peril.

Didn't the vote change all that?

Most voters in Europe want to stick together. To threaten to dictate policy to Europeans under British arms, like Michael Howard, is untenable in the 21st century. A more unkind observation would be that it reflects the basic unwillingness of anti-Europeans to think any thoughts about Europe less stale than 1945.

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

"The “backlash” against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained
Why the latest film in the galaxy-spanning franchise has proved so unexpectedly polarizing"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy

Saw it last night and thought it was the best since the originals

Having seen it twice I now rate the series (in part with nostalgia factor): 6, 8, R1, 5, 7, 3, 4, 2, 1 (Yes I know 4 started it all and is objectively superior to 3, which certainly has more flaws, but IDK, the expanded scope and concluding nature of it make it more fun).

But enough Star wars, good night folks.

Would not disagree too much with that

EPG said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Directly as a consequence of that inability to control the scale immigration from E Europe, government policy has focused of trying to ameliorate that by undue tightening of migration from parts of the rest of the world where control can still be exercised. So we've seen significant tightening of the rules on immigration of BAME people from Commonwealth countries which we do indeed owe some historic debt to, with families long resident here being often split from close relatives as a consequence. That is a big bone of concern amongst BAME communities here. And of course we are still prepared to accept only pitifully small numbers of generally refugees from countries whose populations have been ravaged by civil wars and disintigration that followed our own recent involvement. The approach of Canada is the reverse, precisely because they have genuine control over their borders and can thus prioritise on rational and humanitarian grounds.

The idea that British people have absolutely nothing in common with Poles is, at best, gross historical illiteracy. At worst, unforgivable rehearsing of anti-Catholic sectarianism.

And, no, people didn't vote Leave to let in more Syrians.

Quite right. I would say that Poland is one of the most culturally similar countries to Britain in Europe. I personally know a number of Britons who've married Poles in recent years - hardly likely if they're strange and alien. As for the suggestion that the Leavers' prime purpose was to clear the way for more Arab refugees and Asians - laughable cant.

EPG said:

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Those Prussian soldiers who won the battle of Waterloo with us. Where did they come from?

You could argue that the the Prussians and British were fighting against the resurgance of a brutal regime that had sought to weld european nations together under an unwanted hegemony. British foreign policy used to be ensuring a balance of power existed on the continent of europe. We forget that at our peril.

Didn't the vote change all that?

Most voters in Europe want to stick together. To threaten to dictate policy to Europeans under British arms, like Michael Howard, is untenable in the 21st century. A more unkind observation would be that it reflects the basic unwillingness of anti-Europeans to think any thoughts about Europe less stale than 1945.

Spain and Portugal and parts of Germany and Italy were occupied by Napoleon, France, the Benelux nations and Denmark and Greece and Austria by the Nazis, Finland by the Soviets, most of Eastern Europe by the Nazis and Soviets. We were never occupied by any of them, neither was Switzerland so it is understandable neither ourselves nor the Swiss feel the need to be in the EU

EPG said:

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Those Prussian soldiers who won the battle of Waterloo with us. Where did they come from?

You could argue that the the Prussians and British were fighting against the resurgance of a brutal regime that had sought to weld european nations together under an unwanted hegemony. British foreign policy used to be ensuring a balance of power existed on the continent of europe. We forget that at our peril.

Didn't the vote change all that?

Most voters in Europe want to stick together. To threaten to dictate policy to Europeans under British arms, like Michael Howard, is untenable in the 21st century. A more unkind observation would be that it reflects the basic unwillingness of anti-Europeans to think any thoughts about Europe less stale than 1945.

I may be wrong, but I believe that the Brexit vote has changed the EU fundamentally because it removes a brake on EU integration. The balance of power in the EU is now weakened because the mechanisms of the Euro strongly support German economic hegemony. If Germany act as good europeans and support economic transfers to support poorer regions then it will be a force for good. If they use the poorer regions to artificially weaken the Euro and support Germany's export economy at the price of (say) Greek unemployment, then we have similar economic mismatches that existed in the former Yugoslavia. If the EU is to succeed it must ether be a federation of separate states working together or a single country with a unified politics and economy. The problem is that unification on that scale has not been achieved without war which is not acceptable. I don't think that the technocrats in the European Commission are clever enough to achieve this within a democratic framework.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

The anger over the Conservative rebels abuse is justified but this abuse is not confined to some anti EU bodes but it is widespread across the parties. It was interesting to hear Amber Rudd name check John McDonnell at the dispatch box over his unacceptable abuse of Esther McVey.

I do hope that abuse is called out from all sides and prosecutions follow and it will not only be the far right who will be caught out but elements of the far left.

Standards in public life and respect for MP's is at the core of our democracy and it will be interesting in time to see how the moderate labour MP's fare over the attacks they will come in for from the Corbynista's

I raised this in another context this morning (see my post at 11:12 am on the previous thread) in response to @Rochdale Pioneers.

("Labour is the party which is led by a leader happy to visit President Assad with a Palestinian group which denies that the Holocaust happened.

It is led by a leader who says not a word when at its most recent conference some of its members were considering having a debate on whether the Holocaust happened, the sort of “debate” previously confined to the dark recesses where neo-Nazi groups congregate.

It is led by a leader who refused to act when personally asked by one of his Jewish female MPs to speak out against hateful abuse and threats aimed at her by supporters claiming to speak in his name.

That this should happen to the Labour party (and the tone on these matters comes from the top) is – or ought to be – a matter of shame and disgust for decent people. And yet it isn’t. How have we come to this?

Labour supporters on here don’t defend these outrages. Sometimes they don’t respond. We get some platitudes about a principle which their party’s actions always seem diametrically opposed to in practice, and a lot of shrugging of shoulders.

Yes. Let’s talk about morality.")

No-one responded. Listen to the first few minutes of the attached - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09fj3xk - for evidence of the second item above.

"There comes a time when silence is betrayal" Martin Luther King.

It is quite wrong when pro-Remain MPs get attacked in the most virulent and repulsive terms. But I find the Left's holier-than-thou approach to this nauseating given how willing they are to dish it out to those they dislike. And how silent they are when the beams in their own eyes is pointed out.

ExiledInScotland said:

The balance of power in the EU is now weakened because the mechanisms of the Euro strongly support German economic hegemony. If Germany act as good europeans and support economic transfers to support poorer regions then it will be a force for good. If they use the poorer regions to artificially weaken the Euro and support Germany's export economy at the price of (say) Greek unemployment, then we have similar economic mismatches that existed in the former Yugoslavia.

Do you think the league table of growth in the EU supports your argument?

Stark_Dawning said:

Quite right. I would say that Poland is one of the most culturally similar countries to Britain in Europe. I personally know a number of Britons who've married Poles in recent years - hardly likely if they're strange and alien. As for the suggestion that the Leavers' prime purpose was to clear the way for more Arab refugees and Asians - laughable cant.

With Poles we're talking about a bunch of people many of whom like to drink beer and eat stodgy starchy foods and are suspicious-yet-also-envious of the Germans. From the UK perspective, these are not exactly Martians or moonmen.

williamglenn said:

ExiledInScotland said:

The balance of power in the EU is now weakened because the mechanisms of the Euro strongly support German economic hegemony. If Germany act as good europeans and support economic transfers to support poorer regions then it will be a force for good. If they use the poorer regions to artificially weaken the Euro and support Germany's export economy at the price of (say) Greek unemployment, then we have similar economic mismatches that existed in the former Yugoslavia.

Do you think the league table of growth in the EU supports your argument?

I did say that I may be wrong :-)

Lets see what happens when Global Banking Crisis 2 hits (The CDO Strikes Back).

EPG said:

Stark_Dawning said:

Quite right. I would say that Poland is one of the most culturally similar countries to Britain in Europe. I personally know a number of Britons who've married Poles in recent years - hardly likely if they're strange and alien. As for the suggestion that the Leavers' prime purpose was to clear the way for more Arab refugees and Asians - laughable cant.

With Poles we're talking about a bunch of people many of whom like to drink beer and eat stodgy starchy foods and are suspicious-yet-also-envious of the Germans. From the UK perspective, these are not exactly Martians or moonmen.

Beer, crap food, heroics in the Battle of Britain - apart from a few z's in the surnames what's the difference?

Anazina said:

MaxPB said:

kle4 said:

HYUFD said:

AndyJS said:

"The “backlash” against Star Wars: The Last Jedi, explained
Why the latest film in the galaxy-spanning franchise has proved so unexpectedly polarizing"

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/18/16791844/star-wars-last-jedi-backlash-controversy

Saw it last night and thought it was the best since the originals

Having seen it twice I now rate the series (in part with nostalgia factor): 6, 8, R1, 5, 7, 3, 4, 2, 1 (Yes I know 4 started it all and is objectively superior to 3, which certainly has more flaws, but IDK, the expanded scope and concluding nature of it make it more fun).

But enough Star wars, good night folks.

That ranking is blasphemous. 6 as the best?! 3 above(!) 4. What the hell?!?

Rogue One shouldn't be included as it's not officially an episode.

The Force Awakens (7) is a well made film but incurs several penalty points for being an almost direct remake of A New Hope.

From best to worst:

4
5
3
8
6
7
2
1

I don't get why people rate 3 so highly. It's an ok movie but a poor SW one. For me it's:

5
4
7
6
8
3
2
1

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Those Prussian soldiers who won the battle of Waterloo with us. Where did they come from?

You could argue that the the Prussians and British were fighting against the resurgance of a brutal regime that had sought to weld european nations together under an unwanted hegemony. British foreign policy used to be ensuring a balance of power existed on the continent of europe. We forget that at our peril.

Didn't the vote change all that?

Most voters in Europe want to stick together. To threaten to dictate policy to Europeans under British arms, like Michael Howard, is untenable in the 21st century. A more unkind observation would be that it reflects the basic unwillingness of anti-Europeans to think any thoughts about Europe less stale than 1945.

Spain and Portugal and parts of Germany and Italy were occupied by Napoleon, France, the Benelux nations and Denmark and Greece and Austria by the Nazis, Finland by the Soviets, most of Eastern Europe by the Nazis and Soviets. We were never occupied by any of them, neither was Switzerland so it is understandable neither ourselves nor the Swiss feel the need to be in the EU

Time to bone up on Finnish history?

4,5,6,7,3,1,2,8

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

ExiledInScotland said:

The balance of power in the EU is now weakened because the mechanisms of the Euro strongly support German economic hegemony. If Germany act as good europeans and support economic transfers to support poorer regions then it will be a force for good. If they use the poorer regions to artificially weaken the Euro and support Germany's export economy at the price of (say) Greek unemployment, then we have similar economic mismatches that existed in the former Yugoslavia.

Do you think the league table of growth in the EU supports your argument?

I did say that I may be wrong :-)

Lets see what happens when Global Banking Crisis 2 hits (The CDO Strikes Back).

Putting my economist hat on for a second, the Eurozone doesn't have a private sector debt problem. (See: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/FS.AST.PRVT.GD.ZS?year_high_desc=true). Italians, Germans, Greeks and French don't owe very much money. The Spanish and the Irish did owe lots, but in both cases, private sector debt has come down very sharply in the last decade.

The problem the Eurozone has is with low confidence leading to excessive savings rates, and therefore sluggish economic growth. Indeed, we and the Eurozone have mirror image problems: their savings rate is too high, resulting in big current account surpluses, while ours is too low resulting in a current account deficit as we such up all their production.

We need to raise our savings rate, they need to lower theirs.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Those Prussian soldiers who won the battle of Waterloo with us. Where did they come from?

You could argue that the the Prussians and British were fighting against the resurgance of a brutal regime that had sought to weld european nations together under an unwanted hegemony. British foreign policy used to be ensuring a balance of power existed on the continent of europe. We forget that at our peril.

Didn't the vote change all that?

Most voters in Europe want to stick together. To threaten to dictate policy to Europeans under British arms, like Michael Howard, is untenable in the 21st century. A more unkind observation would be that it reflects the basic unwillingness of anti-Europeans to think any thoughts about Europe less stale than 1945.

Spain and Portugal and parts of Germany and Italy were occupied by Napoleon, France, the Benelux nations and Denmark and Greece and Austria by the Nazis, Finland by the Soviets, most of Eastern Europe by the Nazis and Soviets. We were never occupied by any of them, neither was Switzerland so it is understandable neither ourselves nor the Swiss feel the need to be in the EU

Time to bone up on Finnish history?

During the Winter War from 1939-1940 the USSR invaded Finland and Finland ceded 11% of its land area to the Soviets as a result.

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

EPG said:

ExiledInScotland said:

williamglenn said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

SandyRentool said:

Regarding the misleadingly titled Freedom of Movement, as a Labour Leaver I am against because it is iniquitous. Why should a citizen of the rest of the EU have priority over a citizen of any other country in the world when it comes to living and working in the UK?

Why should a Jamaican nurse be at a disadvantage versus a Spanish nurse? An Indian doctor versus a German doctor?

We have a system at present that prioritises white Europeans over BAME people from the rest of the world. And for some reason 'liberals' are defending the status quo.

EDIT

I would accept that we have historic links with the likes of France, and indeed open borders were not an issue when EU membership was restricted to our close European neighbours with not dissimilar levels of economic development. The problem arises from prioritising immigration of white Europeans from Eastern European countries with which we have absolutely nothing in common either historically or culturally, and from which our own economy diverges massively.

Those Prussian soldiers who won the battle of Waterloo with us. Where did they come from?

You could argue that the the Prussians and British were fighting against the resurgance of a brutal regime that had sought to weld european nations together under an unwanted hegemony. British foreign policy used to be ensuring a balance of power existed on the continent of europe. We forget that at our peril.

Didn't the vote change all that?

Most voters in Europe want to stick together. To threaten to dictate policy to Europeans under British arms, like Michael Howard, is untenable in the 21st century. A more unkind observation would be that it reflects the basic unwillingness of anti-Europeans to think any thoughts about Europe less stale than 1945.

Spain and Portugal and parts of Germany and Italy were occupied by Napoleon, France, the Benelux nations and Denmark and Greece and Austria by the Nazis, Finland by the Soviets, most of Eastern Europe by the Nazis and Soviets. We were never occupied by any of them, neither was Switzerland so it is understandable neither ourselves nor the Swiss feel the need to be in the EU

Time to bone up on Finnish history?

He means the Russian Empire between 1809-1918. Though some eastern parts of Finland's 1918 territory was annexed by Soviet Union in 1940 and 1945.