Hard Brexit

[shaun.lawson]

27 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

You seem to have made up the idea that the Daily Mail has ever advocated restrictions on tourist traffic between the UK and the rest of Europe.

 

 

     

 

Oh Franny, what would we do without you? 

[jake]

The unelected kingdom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jake]

https://news.sky.com/story/shock-defeat-rounds-off-trio-of-brexit-reverses-in-house-of-lords-11364159

[jake]

Bishops Dukes ?

 

Kinnock Mandelson Patten.

 

? 

 

No conflict of interests.

? 

Anyone want to bomb anywhere in the name of democracy?

[Francis Albert]

We seem to be heading inexorably towards a so called "Soft Brexit", in other words the rebranding of Remain.

As a mild Remainer I find it grossly undemocratic.

The Commons voted 6 to 1 to have a binding referendum.

But they got the wrong answer so have decided it isn't binding after all.

 

[shaun.lawson]

5 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

We seem to be heading inexorably towards a so called "Soft Brexit", in other words the rebranding of Remain.

As a mild Remainer I find it grossly undemocratic.

The Commons voted 6 to 1 to have a binding referendum.

But they got the wrong answer so have decided it isn't binding after all.

 

 

It's quite remarkable for someone who is usually so forensic to make such a ridiculous statement.

 

The referendum asked whether we wanted to leave the EU. That's it. No mention of customs unions. No mention of the single market. No mention of freedom of movement. No mention of EU citizens' rights. No mention of EFTA or the EEA. No mention of the Irish border. Not even any mention of political institutions (the only thing that leaving means we must definitively leave). Just:

 

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

 

Unfortunately, because British politics is an absolute joke dominated by self-serving cretins, the detail was ignored more or less entirely during a pathetic embarrassment of a campaign. Both the Tories and Labour have spent the subsequent 2 years trying to pretend this detail somehow doesn't exist - and on the evidence of your posts on this, so have you.

 

Unhappily for you, it cannot just be magicked away via absolute nonsense about the "rebranding of Remain". We are leaving the European Union. The rest is for negotiation. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

We seem to be heading inexorably towards a so called "Soft Brexit", in other words the rebranding of Remain.

As a mild Remainer I find it grossly undemocratic.

The Commons voted 6 to 1 to have a binding referendum.

But they got the wrong answer so have decided it isn't binding after all.

 

The Lords' vote is democracy in action. The EU referendum wasn't. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

It's quite remarkable for someone who is usually so forensic to make such a ridiculous statement.

 

The referendum asked whether we wanted to leave the EU. That's it. No mention of customs unions. No mention of the single market. No mention of freedom of movement. No mention of EU citizens' rights. No mention of EFTA or the EEA. No mention of the Irish border. Not even any mention of political institutions (the only thing that leaving means we must definitively leave). Just:

 

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

 

Unfortunately, because British politics is an absolute joke dominated by self-serving cretins, the detail was ignored more or less entirely during a pathetic embarrassment of a campaign. Both the Tories and Labour have spent the subsequent 2 years trying to pretend this detail somehow doesn't exist - and on the evidence of your posts on this, so have you.

 

Unhappily for you, it cannot just be magicked away via absolute nonsense about the "rebranding of Remain". We are leaving the European Union. The rest is for negotiation. 

The wording of the question was necessarily simple but the campaign revealed and proclaimed two very different visions of the UK's future, however "cretinous" the participants in the campaign were. (Why btw do have such complete contempt for this country?) For example the Leave campaign was about taking back control, control of immigration, of trade relations, of laws, sovereignty etc. The Remain campaign combined  assertions about the economic benefits of EU membership and the single market in particular and avoidance of the sort of conflicts that Europe suffered in the past with dire warnings of the economic  self harm that would result from leaving the single market. The so called "soft Brexit" will deliver little of the Leavers aspiration and satisfy most of the Remainers aspirations. Which may be a good outcome or at least the best that Remainers can hope for but it is not by any stretch of the imagination what Leavers voted for.

[jake]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

The Lords' vote is democracy in action. The EU referendum wasn't. 

Whaaaaaaatttttttt????????

[jake]

5 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

It's quite remarkable for someone who is usually so forensic to make such a ridiculous statement.

 

The referendum asked whether we wanted to leave the EU. That's it. No mention of customs unions. No mention of the single market. No mention of freedom of movement. No mention of EU citizens' rights. No mention of EFTA or the EEA. No mention of the Irish border. Not even any mention of political institutions (the only thing that leaving means we must definitively leave). Just:

 

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

 

Unfortunately, because British politics is an absolute joke dominated by self-serving cretins, the detail was ignored more or less entirely during a pathetic embarrassment of a campaign. Both the Tories and Labour have spent the subsequent 2 years trying to pretend this detail somehow doesn't exist - and on the evidence of your posts on this, so have you.

 

Unhappily for you, it cannot just be magicked away via absolute nonsense about the "rebranding of Remain". We are leaving the European Union. The rest is for negotiation. 

And the negotiations have been confined by unelected bishops dukes and those still in the pay of The EU.

[glynnlondon]

2 hours ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

The Lords' vote is democracy in action. The EU referendum wasn't. 

[Adam Murray]

Wolfie Smith types feeling very pleased about The Lords putting a spanner in the works of Brexit, 'Power to the people' eh?

[Boris]

1 hour ago, Adam Murray said:

Wolfie Smith types feeling very pleased about The Lords putting a spanner in the works of Brexit, 'Power to the people' eh?

 

It is a tad ironic!

 

There are many arguments that could be made about the legitimacy of a great many things in this whole debacle.

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

3 hours ago, jake said:

Whaaaaaaatttttttt????????

There was nothing legal about the EU referendum. 

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, Adam Murray said:

Wolfie Smith types feeling very pleased about The Lords putting a spanner in the works of Brexit, 'Power to the people' eh?

 

Sure. But then, that's partly why this was always such a complete nonsense to begin with.

 

"Let's take back control from the evil, tyrannical, democracy-hating EU! And give it to a country with a hereditary monarchy, a first chamber elected by the most unfair, disproportionate voting system in the Western world, an unelected second chamber stuffed with political appointments, an executive which lacks almost any checks or balances, a media which exists mostly to feather the nests of its oligarchical owners, one of the most class-ridden, unequal societies in the West, and offshore tax avoiders". 

[Francis Albert]

49 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

There was nothing legal about the EU referendum. 

Does that also apply to the referendum that kept us in the EU? Or is this one different because of the result?

[Joey J J Jr Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Francis Albert said:

Does that also apply to the referendum that kept us in the EU? Or is this one different because of the result?

As per the previous post, yes, it wasn't legal. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Joey J J Jr Shabadoo

[jake]

1 hour ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

There was nothing legal about the EU referendum. 

Can you explain ?

[Francis Albert]

15 minutes ago, Joey J J Jr Shabadoo said:

As per the previous post, yes, it wasn't legal. 

Strange then that its legality was not tested in the courts before it was held by those who ran to the  courts once the result was known. 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

I suspect Joey's referring to whether the referendum was legally binding. It wasn't; it was advisory. In theory, this makes all the difference in the world; in practice, of course it doesn't.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

The current situation is ludicrous. Tories ploughing on with Brexit. Labour leadership quietly desperate for them to get on with it and make it happen. Millions of people who don’t want Brexit with no major party to speak for them.

[The Comedian]

19 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

We seem to be heading inexorably towards a so called "Soft Brexit", in other words the rebranding of Remain.

As a mild Remainer I find it grossly undemocratic.

The Commons voted 6 to 1 to have a binding referendum.

But they got the wrong answer so have decided it isn't binding after all.

 

 

I can only imagine how binding, well explained and democratic the result would have been plus how forward thinking and great smelling the electorate would've turned out to be, had we voted remain. 

[Francis Albert]

7 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

I suspect Joey's referring to whether the referendum was legally binding. It wasn't; it was advisory. In theory, this makes all the difference in the world; in practice, of course it doesn't.

Agreed. No difference in practice. So though the Commons voted 6 to 1 to have a binding referendum and both Tories and Labour subsequently fought an election on the basis they accepted the result we will end up with something very close to what Remainers wanted. I am at a loss to understand your distinction between theory and practice.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, The Comedian said:

 

I can only imagine how binding, well explained and democratic the result would have been plus how forward thinking and great smelling the electorate would've turned out to be, had we voted remain. 

Of course. It would have  killed any opposition to the great European project as was of course what the referendum was intended to do. Unfortunately the strategy didn't work out but let's just get round that with whatever the courts and the Lords can do. 

[shaun.lawson]

34 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Agreed. No difference in practice. So though the Commons voted 6 to 1 to have a binding referendum and both Tories and Labour subsequently fought an election on the basis they accepted the result we will end up with something very close to what Remainers wanted. I am at a loss to understand your distinction between theory and practice.

 

In theory, because the referendum wasn't legally binding, Parliament could've (indeed, still could) reject the public's advice.

 

In practice, given civil unrest would probably result (Stewart Regan, eat your heart out), there's zero possibility of that. But the Dolchetoss cries of 'betrayal' have already begun regardless - despite those who voted for Brexit almost all doing so for very different reasons, with very different visions of what Brexit would involve.

 

Ulysses laid things out perfectly several pages back:

 

 

The situation today remains as it was when he wrote it. And as it was the day after the referendum too. We are leaving the European Union. The detail of that is for the negotiators to work out. 

[Francis Albert]

10 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Sure. But then, that's partly why this was always such a complete nonsense to begin with.

 

"Let's take back control from the evil, tyrannical, democracy-hating EU! And give it to a country with a hereditary monarchy, a first chamber elected by the most unfair, disproportionate voting system in the Western world, an unelected second chamber stuffed with political appointments, an executive which lacks almost any checks or balances, a media which exists mostly to feather the nests of its oligarchical owners, one of the most class-ridden, unequal societies in the West, and offshore tax avoiders". 

You really don't like the UK do you? Amazing that so many want to live here including those who have made London one of the most populated French cities outside France.

There are of course many members of the EU with a hereditary monarchy, though generally a less obnoxious and idolised one as ours. Though with similar lack of real power.

And whatever the shortcomings of UK democracy and accountability of the UK executive they pale into insignificance compared to the lack of real democratic accountability of the EU Commission and other EU institutions.

Agree with you about our second chamber, front line opponents of the majority who voted democratically Leave. 

 

[Francis Albert]

5 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In theory, because the referendum wasn't legally binding, Parliament could've (indeed, still could) reject the public's advice.

 

In practice, given civil unrest would probably result (Stewart Regan, eat your heart out), there's zero possibility of that. But the Dolchetoss cries of 'betrayal' have already begun regardless - despite those who voted for Brexit almost all doing so for very different reasons, with very different visions of what Brexit would involve.

 

Ulysses laid things out perfectly several pages back:

 

 

The situation today remains as it was when he wrote it. And as it was the day after the referendum too. We are leaving the European Union. The detail of that is for the negotiators to work out. 

If the detail means that we are in effect remaining in the EU without any representation in the EU then you think that is just "detail" of no relevance to the vote to leave the EU?

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

You really don't like the UK do you? Amazing that so many want to live here including those who have made London one of the most populated French cities outside France.

There are of course many members of the EU with a hereditary monarchy, though generally a less obnoxious and idolised one as ours. Though with similar lack of real power.

And whatever the shortcomings of UK democracy and accountability of the UK executive they pale into insignificance compared to the lack of real democratic accountability of the EU Commission and other EU institutions.

Agree with you about our second chamber, front line opponents of the majority who voted democratically Leave. 

 

 

I remain deeply unconvinced by this - the Commission, for example, is chosen by the heads of government of the member states. The power, in other words, lies with those governments: all of whom are elected by the public. 

 

But in terms of the UK, the reason so many people want to live there is twofold:

 

1. Language. English is the lingua franca, taught all over the world and the gateway to business.

 

2. Soft power. Either ourselves or Germany are number 1 in the world for that: in our case, because of language, culture, music, movies, football, other sports we invented too, literature, you name it.

 

The UK has projected itself internationally so effectively that many people I speak to here imagine it must be Utopia. They have no idea of the politics or rampant inequities of the place. But what happens when they come as a result of our soft power? We send them away, and complain about bloody immigrants.

 

Ever noticed how Britons overseas are called "expats", but non-Britons who move to Britain are called "immigrants"? Why is that? In that answer, you'll hopefully find much of the reason for my frequently expressed contempt for the worst aspects of the UK.

[Francis Albert]

24 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I remain deeply unconvinced by this - the Commission, for example, is chosen by the heads of government of the member states. The power, in other words, lies with those governments: all of whom are elected by the public. 

 

But in terms of the UK, the reason so many people want to live there is twofold:

 

1. Language. English is the lingua franca, taught all over the world and the gateway to business.

 

2. Soft power. Either ourselves or Germany are number 1 in the world for that: in our case, because of language, culture, music, movies, football, other sports we invented too, literature, you name it.

 

The UK has projected itself internationally so effectively that many people I speak to here imagine it must be Utopia. They have no idea of the politics or rampant inequities of the place. But what happens when they come as a result of our soft power? We send them away, and complain about bloody immigrants.

 

Ever noticed how Britons overseas are called "expats", but non-Britons who move to Britain are called "immigrants"? Why is that? In that answer, you'll hopefully find much of the reason for my frequently expressed contempt for the worst aspects of the UK.

No I just find another example of your rather obsessive hatred of the UK. Britons overseas are called ex-pats because they are Britons living overseas in the same way French people living overseas are called whatever the equivalent of ex-pats is in French, not as "immigrants".

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

If the detail means that we are in effect remaining in the EU without any representation in the EU then you think that is just "detail" of no relevance to the vote to leave the EU?

 

The detail doesn't mean that in any way. If, for some unfathomable reason, you think it does, then you clearly don't understand the detail.

 

1 hour ago, Francis Albert said:

No I just find another example of your rather obsessive hatred of the UK. Britons overseas are called ex-pats because they are Britons living overseas in the same way French people living overseas are called whatever the equivalent of ex-pats is in French, not as "immigrants".

 

Nope. Britons overseas are called ex-pats because, in almost all cases, they're white. 

[Sydney]

8 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The detail doesn't mean that in any way. If, for some unfathomable reason, you think it does, then you clearly don't understand the detail.

 

 

Nope. Britons overseas are called ex-pats because, in almost all cases, they're white. 

 

Britons overseas are called ex-pats because they are white??????? 

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, Sydney said:

 

Britons overseas are called ex-pats because they are white??????? 

 

 

 

 

Yep. Nice wee way of distinguishing ourselves. We're the good guys you see, unlike those horrible darkies who much of the British public want to send packing. 

 

Language is used in all sorts of nefarious ways by dominant cultures. This is just another one. Within a language - English - which historically, has been more guilty than any other for hiding a multitude of sins behind 'politeness' (read: manipulation) and 'civility' (read: raping and pillaging half the planet).  

[Francis Albert]

The French for French people living abroad is "expatrie". A nice wee way the French to distinguish white people from black people?

The perfidious French language.

 

Edited May 10, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Cade]

Leave.EU handed the maximum £70,000 fine by the electoral commission for breaching referendum spending limits.

Criminal investigation started.

[SE16 3LN]

On 10/05/2018 at 00:00, shaun.lawson said:

 

I remain deeply unconvinced by this - the Commission, for example, is chosen by the heads of government of the member states. The power, in other words, lies with those governments: all of whom are elected by the public. 

 

But in terms of the UK, the reason so many people want to live there is twofold:

 

1. Language. English is the lingua franca, taught all over the world and the gateway to business.

 

2. Soft power. Either ourselves or Germany are number 1 in the world for that: in our case, because of language, culture, music, movies, football, other sports we invented too, literature, you name it.

 

The UK has projected itself internationally so effectively that many people I speak to here imagine it must be Utopia. They have no idea of the politics or rampant inequities of the place. But what happens when they come as a result of our soft power? We send them away, and complain about bloody immigrants.

 

Ever noticed how Britons overseas are called "expats", but non-Britons who move to Britain are called "immigrants"? Why is that? In that answer, you'll hopefully find much of the reason for my frequently expressed contempt for the worst aspects of the UK.

You're living in the 70's Shaun. Most people have moved on from this.

 

In the real world, the  new Italian Govt. is Certainly Euro sceptic and probably represents the racist views of the majority of it's population.

 

It took the Germans (the ones you laud so much) almost six months to form a govt. and 13% of the vote went to an openly racist and anti EU party. Even Merkel has moved massively away from her liberal migration and immigration policies and we see once again just what a welcoming country Germany is for minority groups.

 

10 million French people voted for a fascist in the French presidential election and huge sections of the population is at war with their pro European govt. The rest are at war with muslims following terrorist attacks all over the country.

 

Virtually every eastern European member state is openly Euro sceptic, advocate racist immigration policies and only has any truck with the EU because they get cash.

 

All this going on and the Eurocrats offer more big Europe as a solution.

 

Meanwhile, somewhere in South America, there is a man who had all the opportunities that being a UK citizen has to offer, bleating on about the big bad Uk.

 

It's ****ing sad.

[Governor Tarkin]

1 hour ago, SE16 3LN said:

 

Meanwhile, somewhere in South America, there is a man who had all the opportunities that being a UK citizen has to offer, bleating on about the big bad Uk.

 

It's ****ing sad.

 

 

Upper cut to the floating rib type post IMO. 

[shaun.lawson]

2 hours ago, SE16 3LN said:

You're living in the 70's Shaun. Most people have moved on from this.

 

In the real world, the  new Italian Govt. is Certainly Euro sceptic and probably represents the racist views of the majority of it's population.

 

It took the Germans (the ones you laud so much) almost six months to form a govt. and 13% of the vote went to an openly racist and anti EU party. Even Merkel has moved massively away from her liberal migration and immigration policies and we see once again just what a welcoming country Germany is for minority groups.

 

10 million French people voted for a fascist in the French presidential election and huge sections of the population is at war with their pro European govt. The rest are at war with muslims following terrorist attacks all over the country.

 

Virtually every eastern European member state is openly Euro sceptic, advocate racist immigration policies and only has any truck with the EU because they get cash.

 

All this going on and the Eurocrats offer more big Europe as a solution.

 

Meanwhile, somewhere in South America, there is a man who had all the opportunities that being a UK citizen has to offer, bleating on about the big bad Uk.

 

It's ****ing sad.

 

To clarify:

 

1. I don't like racist governments

 

2. I don't like racist people 

 

You seem to have just normalised both. The above post reads like "we're all racist... who cares?"

 

Who, exactly, is offering "more Europe as a solution"? Is there any actual prospect of "more Europe"? No. Though there's also no prospect of any other EU state leaving. They've taken one look at the farce we've made of it and thought "nah, you're alright thanks". 

 

PS. What's the problem with it taking Germany a while to form a government? It's called democracy. In Britain, when we had a hung Parliament, the right wing press demanded we form a government in about 5 minutes: not because of the people, but because of the interests of said right wing press' owners.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

To clarify:

 

1. I don't like racist governments

 

2. I don't like racist people 

 

You seem to have just normalised both. The above post reads like "we're all racist... who cares?"

 

Who, exactly, is offering "more Europe as a solution"? Is there any actual prospect of "more Europe"? No. Though there's also no prospect of any other EU state leaving. They've taken one look at the farce we've made of it and thought "nah, you're alright thanks". 

 

PS. What's the problem with it taking Germany a while to form a government? It's called democracy. In Britain, when we had a hung Parliament, the right wing press demanded we form a government in about 5 minutes: not because of the people, but because of the interests of said right wing press' owners.

No-one much. Just the insignificant figures of the French President and The German Chancellor, who yesterday agreed on the vision of closer integration in many areas including banking, fiscal policy and foreign relations with the wider world.

If our referendum had gone the other way many of those trying to derail or reverse Brexit would no doubt have seen a Remain vote  as  justification for moving in the same direction.

 

Your interpretation of SE16 3LN's post as saying "we are all racists ... who cares" is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as your portrayal of "Brexit Britain" and the British as uniquely racist and backward, which SE16 rightly debunked. .

Edited May 11, 2018 by Francis Albert

[shaun.lawson]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

No-one much. Just the insignificant figures of the French President and The German Chancellor, who yesterday agreed on the vision of closer integration in many areas including banking, fiscal policy and foreign relations with the wider world.

If our referendum had gone the other way many of those trying to derail or reverse Brexit would no doubt have seen a Remain vote  as  justification for moving in the same direction.

 

Your interpretation of SE16 3LN's post as saying "we are all racists ... who cares" is ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as your portrayal of "Brexit Britain" and the British as uniquely racist and backward, which SE16 rightly debunked. .

 

Pardon?

 

SE16 talked about:

 

1. "The racist views of the majority of the Italian population"

 

2. "We see once again just what a welcoming country Germany is for minority groups"

 

3. "10 million French people voted for a fascist... huge sections of the population are at war with Muslims"

 

4. "Virtually every eastern European state advocate racist immigration policies".

 

In other words: we are all racists. Who cares? I thought his post was mostly very accurate whataboutery. 

 

Merkel and Macron? Yes, and? 2 leaders in a union of 27 members - a union whose origins had more to do with helping France and Germany become dependent on each other than anything else. 

 

We're not in the euro. The single market and EU expansion were our brainchilds: the former preventing socialism in Europe, the latter preventing closer integration and giving us more natural allies too. Now we're walking away from all of that for reasons to do with feelings, not facts.

 

One other thing. Your constant strawman about "had the vote gone the other way". We know Farage wouldn't have accepted the outcome - because he told us. And the idea that a narrow Remain vote would've been treated as public fiat for us to join the euro, give up our sovereignty across the board, and become a member of a superstate is for the birds. Yet its diametric opposite is exactly what you demand of the UK government now, after an outcome which amounted to "er...um... we don't know".

[shaun.lawson]

From Tony Connelly's book. I'm sure Francis will be along in a minute to agree with May though.

 

 

Hubris. Arrogance. Magic thinking. 

[Francis Albert]

14 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

From Tony Connelly's book. I'm sure Francis will be along in a minute to agree with May though.

 

 

Hubris. Arrogance. Magic thinking. 

If I agreed with May or any Tory leader it would be the first time.

The (magical?) words "to the effect that" suggest that the highlighted bit is not direct quotes.

But the first point is clearly wrong - the EU constitution means that one country can. I doubt if many would argue the second is not true (as few would deny say that the USA is bigger and more important than the UK), though not the sort of thing any politician more refined than Trump (and I think I just about give May that) would say.

[shaun.lawson]

Think Uly might enjoy this:

 

 

And this too:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/11/brexit-boris-johnson-jacob-rees-mogg-house-of-lords?CMP=share_btn_tw

[Ulysses]

6 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

Think Uly might enjoy this:

 

 

And this too:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/11/brexit-boris-johnson-jacob-rees-mogg-house-of-lords?CMP=share_btn_tw

 

Enjoy might be the wrong word, however amused I am.

 

The United Kingdom used to be one of the world's great countries, and could have taught most of the world lessons in common sense and pragmatism.  What, in the name of suffering Jaysus, has happened to you that has enabled that complete ****ing arsewit to be one of the highest office holders in the country? 

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, Ulysses said:

 

Enjoy might be the wrong word, however amused I am.

 

The United Kingdom used to be one of the world's great countries, and could have taught most of the world lessons in common sense and pragmatism.  What, in the name of suffering Jaysus, has happened to you that has enabled that complete ****ing arsewit to be one of the highest office holders in the country? 

 

You ask exactly the right question and provide exactly the right historical context. It's part of the reason I got out of the place. Neither I nor my sister want to live somewhere which now prioritises feelings over reason; dogma over pragmatism.

 

Why has it happened? I'd suggest it has much to do with ideology taking over as the driver of UK domestic policy under Thatcher. This benefited a certain proportion of the population: enough to keep her ensconced in power under our ridiculous voting system (another major part of the problem); and enough to then tie future governments to keeping that 40% or so (property owners, mostly) happy. 

 

In other countries, this could not have happened, because the voting system wouldn't have allowed it. In Britain, swing voters - not in the median of the electorate, but on the centre-right of it (because FPTP automatically favours the right when it has fewer parties than the left) - held sway. So they kept benefiting, more and more kept losing... and we ended up with a perfect storm.

 

One group of mostly older beneficiaries who've done really well for themselves: split into those, like Daily Mail readers, who are still miserable regardless, and blame the EU for that misery instead of realising that money doesn't buy happiness; and those who are happy, but have delusions of Britain's true status as a result of having done so well, so think we can recreate some ersatz version of the empire. The appalling complacency towards Ireland is a symptom of that kind of attitude. And another, larger group of mostly working class or poor people, who've done terribly, rightly blamed the appalling status quo, and took it out on the EU.

 

Add in the media, who started parroting and trying to out-do Boris Johnson's lies when he was the Telegraph's correspondent in Brussels, and are shamelessly unregulated and irresponsible; plus Iraq, which broke that essential trust between politicians and public which is critical to the maintenance of a healthy polity, and here we are. The politics not of policy, but of personality. Detail no longer matters; yet under a proportional system, it would have to.

 

2 years on from the referendum campaign, I bet no more than 30% of Britons truly understand any of the detail of what's being discussed. But the clarion, Dolchetoss-style call of "betrayal" is at the ready regardless. It used to be that the right wing media was dangerously anti-political. Now, Britain's political culture is itself anti-political, which has enabled fly-by-night charlatans like Johnson or Rees-Mogg to prosper. 

 

Incidentally, on the feelings over reason thing: the government's own Brexit White Paper acknowledges this. 

 

We've retained our sovereignty throughout - but "it has not always felt like that".  And because of that 'feeling', based almost entirely on nonsense whipped up by the right, we're making a historic decision likely to plunge the UK into constitutional crisis, and which has already left much of the watching world in boggle-eyed disbelief.

Edited May 13, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[shaun.lawson]

BUT EVERYONE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR  

 

 

[Captain Sausage]

My understanding of the difference between an expat and an immigrant is the level of integration. 

 

I’d classify an expat as a skilled worker who had immigrated specifically for work and has no intention of staying in country beyond their work requirement. An immigrant is anyone who immigrated for the purpose of remaining in the new country. 

 

Obviously the term expat comes from expatriate, as in living outside of a ‘home’ country. This is subtly different to emigrate which means to move permanently to a new country. 

 

The implication that calling Brits abroad ‘expats’ because they’re white, and those coming to Britain (only non-whites, naturally) ‘immigrants’ because we are all racists is, to put it bluntly, embarrassing and childish. 

 

Brits are more commonly termed expats because we have a higher percentage of skilled labor leaving the country. An engineer who goes to Abu Dhabi for a job is an expat. A pensioner who moves to Costa del Sol for sunshine is an immigrant. They could both be white, or black, or purple. Skin tone is irrelevant. Much like the poster who made the insinuations in the first place. 

[shaun.lawson]

1 hour ago, houstonjambo said:

My understanding of the difference between an expat and an immigrant is the level of integration. 

 

I’d classify an expat as a skilled worker who had immigrated specifically for work and has no intention of staying in country beyond their work requirement. An immigrant is anyone who immigrated for the purpose of remaining in the new country. 

 

Obviously the term expat comes from expatriate, as in living outside of a ‘home’ country. This is subtly different to emigrate which means to move permanently to a new country. 

 

Your understanding is complete nonsense. The term is used for Britons living outside their native country both temporarily and permanently. I have never heard British pensioners living in Spain referred to as 'immigrants'. Never. 

 

Of course, the kinds of people who leave one developed country for either another, or a less developed one, are usually (but not solely) either skilled workers or pensioners. So 'expatriate' isn't just a loaded term when it comes to race, but also income and wealth. Anglocentrism gets everywhere. Us expatriates are better than those immigrants. Apparently.  

[Francis Albert]

19 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

BUT EVERYONE KNEW WHAT THEY WERE VOTING FOR  

 

But of course no one knew what they were voting for. If they did they knew they would be voting for an immediate recession and an immediate austerity plus budget that would make us all worse off. After all that's what they were told by almost all the political establishment. Sorry I dont do those funny wee emoticon things. (Why the **** does anyone, to go off topic?)

 

Edited May 13, 2018 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

22 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

Enjoy might be the wrong word, however amused I am.

 

The United Kingdom used to be one of the world's great countries, and could have taught most of the world lessons in common sense and pragmatism.  What, in the name of suffering Jaysus, has happened to you that has enabled that complete ****ing arsewit to be one of the highest office holders in the country? 

I think Ireland has had its fair share of complete ****ing arsewits in high office. Even if Ireland doesn't qualify as one of the world's greatest  countries which like Scotland I think it does. Size isn't everything.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Your understanding is complete nonsense. The term is used for Britons living outside their native country both temporarily and permanently. I have never heard British pensioners living in Spain referred to as 'immigrants'. Never. 

 

Of course, the kinds of people who leave one developed country for either another, or a less developed one, are usually (but not solely) either skilled workers or pensioners. So 'expatriate' isn't just a loaded term when it comes to race, but also income and wealth. Anglocentrism gets everywhere. Us expatriates are better than those immigrants. Apparently.  

Whether the Uruguayans view you as an immigrant or expat is up to them.  I think both terms apply. And i wouldn't attribute the use of either to anglocentrism which would be a bit ... well anglocentric.