Brexit matters

[DynamicSpirit]

Unless one company wanted to create a niche clientele of xenophobes.

Does not being bothered about roaming charges (for example, perhaps because you don't travel to Europe often enough to be significantly affected by them - which is probably true of the majority of the UK population) automatically make you a xenophobe?

The same kind of argument as "should everyone make a contribution to the costs of the railway or just rail users?" or "should everyone make a contribution towards the costs of universities or just students?" I guess.

I'm definitely an "everyone should pay" person. Spread the cost over more people and it becomes less noticeable.

The difference is that there are social benefits involved with people using the railway (if it means they don't drive) or with people getting an education (better educated /informed population) which is why there are good arguments for everyone contributing to those.

On the other hand there is almost no social good involved in someone making a phone call or sending a text message from an EU country - that's much more like, a private transaction that impacts only that person with no wider benefit to society. And it also seems reasonable to assume that if you can afford to take a holiday or business trip in Europe, then you can probably afford to pay the actual cost of using your phone while you're there. So I think you'd struggle to make any kind of moral case for people who don't require that service subsidising the people who do (which is what the 'everyone should pay' approach really means).

 

[nw1]

Does not being bothered about roaming charges (for example, perhaps because you don't travel to Europe often enough to be significantly affected by them - which is probably true of the majority of the UK population) automatically make you a xenophobe?



The difference is that there are social benefits involved with people using the railway (if it means they don't drive) or with people getting an education (better educated /informed population) which is why there are good arguments for everyone contributing to those.

On the other hand there is almost no social good involved in someone making a phone call or sending a text message from an EU country - that's much more like, a private transaction that impacts only that person with no wider benefit to society. And it also seems reasonable to assume that if you can afford to take a holiday or business trip in Europe, then you can probably afford to pay the actual cost of using your phone while you're there. So I think you'd struggle to make any kind of moral case for people who don't require that service subsidising the people who do (which is what the 'everyone should pay' approach really means).

I see where you're getting at, but (as I've said on a number of occasions before) one thing I personally dislike is regressive steps, making life more difficult than it was before. I won't repeat my views on FoM again (a good example, to me, of a regressive policy), but another example, non-Brexit-related but railway-related, is the increasing creep of peak restrictions into off-peak times, such as Saturday mornings. There is just something in my psychology that really dislikes backwards, regressive policies which make life more difficult/more expensive/less free than it was before. I realise not everyone shares these views but I suspect quite a lot do.

I'd actually say quite a significant percentage of us do visit continental Europe regularly, and while there, are likely to need to make phone calls. So I suspect keeping roaming charges low would benefit really quite a lot of us, while increasing general phone costs very slightly for all is likely to be such a small increase that no-one would notice.

But at the end of the day it's just another bad effect of Brexit. Not as bad as trade bureaucracy, lowered international reputation, or restrictions on FoM, but still bad.

 

[DC1989]

It's still unbeliveable to me that immigration has just increased from outside the EU to make up the shortfall from Europe. Not only made up the shortfall, but increased substantially.

Swapping Italian nurses for Nigerians wasn't on the bus

NIGERIA has the highest number of migrants to the United Kingdom (UK) in the year ending June 2022 and has become the third largest nationality group in the country, a new report published by the UK Home Office has shown.

Nigerian nationals saw the largest relative increase compared with 2019, increasing by 57,545, which represents a 686% increase, to a record high of 65,929 migrants.

 

[edwin_m]

As I understand it, operators do charge each other for their users roaming, Brexit hasn't materially affected that. The difference being that the EU regulations prevented those costs being passed on to the end user.
I think it's arguable whether those costs going on everyone's bills or just those who make trips abroad is the fairer system. I'm not a fundamentalist Brexiteer.

I'm sure we all remember stories of people using their phones abroad to the same extent as they did at home, and ending up with extortionate bills due to the call, text and data roaming rates lurking in the small print of their tariffs (including fees for incoming calls that they could do little about). Travellers buying a local SIM instead would be uncontactable unless they told all their contacts the temporary number, which isn't particularly satisfactory if there's anfamily emergency at home.

These roaming fees between companies are payable in both directions so may well balance out to a large extent. So companies made their money out of the extortionate rates, not out of the actual fees. Roaming fees charged on business-orientated tariffs, intended to be used by companies who would look at the full set of rates across their usage profile, were much lower and possibly zero even before the EU regulation.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's still unbeliveable to me that immigration has just increased from outside the EU to make up the shortfall from Europe. Not only made up the shortfall, but increased substantially.

Except it hasn't increased to make up the shortfall: It's increased for reasons that are almost entirely unrelated to Brexit and in all probability would have happened anyway. The correct way to look at it is to ask yourself what it would have been like if we'd had the vast increase in immigration from Asia/Ukraine/etc. of the last year without those numbers having been mitigated by the reduction in EU migration that happened because of Brexit.

 

[nw1]

Except it hasn't increased to make up the shortfall: It's increased for reasons that are almost entirely unrelated to Brexit and in all probability would have happened anyway.

Except (and I will exclude Ukraine here for reasons that hardly need explaining; any civil country would allow FoM from Ukraine right now) if the Tories are serious about being the anti-immigration party, would they not try to restrict immigration full stop?

(I welcome immigration from most parts of the world, incidentally, and would not support such a hardline anti-immigration position, aside from countries that represent a security risk - Russia for instance - but I'm just pointing out the apparent hypocrisy from the Government and what seems, to me, a disproportionate aversion to immigration from EU countries).

 

[AM9]

Does not being bothered about roaming charges (for example, perhaps because you don't travel to Europe often enough to be significantly affected by them - which is probably true of the majority of the UK population) automatically make you a xenophobe?

It looks like you failed to see the emoticon on my post!
And no, nor did I say what you are suggesting, - however (off topic) I am sure that there is a subsection of the UK 'indigenous'? population that would assume all subscribers to a mobile network that did offer free EU roaming were subsidising the few who did, thereby triggering their ire.
As far as travel to EU countries goes, I was there as recent as Tuesday this week, and I used the roaming facility for a week as it was one of the many benefits that only exist because the EU forced the providers to stop their mutually profitable charging swindle by passing on virtually zero costs onto users.

It would take a really fundamentalist Brexiter to welcome roaming charges!

Not if they don't think that they'll ever visit an EU country. 'It's the principle', would be their argument.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Except (and I will exclude Ukraine here for reasons that hardly need explaining; any civil country would allow FoM from Ukraine right now) if the Tories are serious about being the anti-immigration party, would they not try to restrict immigration full stop?

Because the Tories are not, on the whole, an anti-immigration party. The idea that they are against immigration per se is frankly just left-wing propaganda. The reality is that the Tories, on the whole, welcome immigration while at the same time recognising that for all sorts of reasons the rate of immigration needs to be kept at a reasonable level, and believing that it should be up to each country to decide who and how many people they want to accept [*]. The reason for the strong opposition to FOM isn't opposition to immigration per se: It was concern about how FOM rules meant that the UK was unable to control who or how many people arrived, and that the long term numbers were becoming massively greater than many felt the UK could reasonable cope with.

[*] I'm talking in generalities here. Clearly there will be a variety of individual opinions and I'm sure you can find individual people who are against all immigration, but that's not a mainstream view, either in society or in the Tory party.

(I welcome immigration from most parts of the world, incidentally, and would not support such a hardline anti-immigration position, aside from countries that represent a security risk - Russia for instance - but I'm just pointing out the apparent hypocrisy from the Government and what seems, to me, a disproportionate aversion to immigration from EU countries).

I would say that's a misunderstanding. There's no hypocrisy in what you are describing and certainly no disproportionate aversion to EU immigration. The aversion you perceive is an aversion to how FOM rules meant that the UK couldn't determine immigration policy, not an aversion to Europeans (which would obviously be wrong and arguably racist). (And some of us also felt that EU rules were wrong because of the way the way that, in practical terms, they caused discrimination against non-EU people).

 

[edwin_m]

The reason for the strong opposition to FOM isn't opposition to immigration per se: It was concern about how FOM rules meant that the UK was unable to control who or how many people arrived, and that the long term numbers were becoming massively greater than many felt the UK could reasonable cope with.

But isn't FOM all about market forces - something Tories ought to be in favour of? If there weren't any jobs to do, then immigrants wouldn't arrive to do them!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But isn't FOM all about market forces - something Tories ought to be in favour of? If there weren't any jobs to do, then immigrants wouldn't arrive to do them!

That's a good question. Yes you're right to the extent that, if you were looking ONLY at market forces, then you'd probably have a worldwide regime that looked a bit like FOM.

I think the answer - both in terms of my own beliefs and in terms of where the Tory party tends to lie - is that market forces are just one part of Tory philosophy. Two other very important aspects are belief in strong but independent nation states as the units within which society/the market operates, and belief in stable communities that evolve slowly, rather than having sudden changes uprooting everyone's lives. Belief in the nation state would be what leads to wanting to have immigration controls in the first place, and belief in stable communities would lead to wanting to keep immigration rates to reasonable levels. If you believe in all those things, then immigration policy is inevitably going to be compromise between them. It is noticeable that politicians like David Cameron and George Osborne - whose Toryism was most rooted in a belief in free markets - tended to be the ones most supportive of the EU and FOM. Today, Tory Government thinking seems to be more rooted in ideas about the nation state and stable communities, with free market thinking taking more of a back seat (which I think is regrettable in some ways, but that's another story, nothing to do with Brexit).

 

[edwin_m]

I think the answer - both in terms of my own beliefs and in terms of where the Tory party tends to lie - is that market forces are just one part of Tory philosophy. Two other very important aspects are belief in strong but independent nation states as the units within which society/the market operates, and belief in stable communities that evolve slowly, rather than having sudden changes uprooting everyone's lives. Belief in the nation state would be what leads to wanting to have immigration controls in the first place, and belief in stable communities would lead to wanting to keep immigration rates to reasonable levels. If you believe in all those things, then immigration policy is inevitably going to be compromise between them. It is noticeable that politicians like David Cameron and George Osborne - whose Toryism was most rooted in a belief in free markets - tended to be the ones most supportive of the EU and FOM. Today, Tory Government thinking seems to be more rooted in ideas about the nation state and stable communities, with free market thinking taking more of a back seat (which I think is regrettable in some ways, but that's another story, nothing to do with Brexit).

Some truth in that, although I have to say I wouldn't describe the government's behaviour since 2016 as conducive to stability.

 

[najaB]

No it doesn't. The historical instances of racism from 30-40 years ago that you quote demonstrate that there was a problem with racism at the time that those instances occurred, but something having happened 30 years ago by itself tells you almost nothing about the situation today.

There *are* still issues with structural racism in the UK today. As a person of colour it's my lived reality.

Is it as bad as it was for my parents in the 1960s? No, of course not. But the issues haven't gone away completely.

 

[Gloster]

There *are* still issues with structural racism in the UK today. As a person of colour it's my lived reality.

Is it as bad as it was for my parents in the 1960s? No, of course not. But the issues haven't gone away completely.

A personal opinion of someone who, as a middle-aged, middle-class, comfortably off white male, is not directly affected by racism. The situation is not nearly as bad as it was when racism reached its peak, which I would put as having been in the early to mid 1970s, but it never went away and in the last five to ten years it has been creeping back.

And, as said, the structural problems are still there, even if they have changed. One element, in my opinion and put simply, that has changed is that many have changed from ‘there is no racism’ to ‘there used to be racism, but it has gone away’.

And, here I will probably upset a few people, Brexit has played its part. I am of the opinion that Brexit voters are more likely to be racists. (NOTE: I am not saying that all Brexit voters are racist, merely that there was probably a higher proportion of people who would be regarded as racists amongst the Brexit supporters than in the general population.) For years the racists have been shunned, criticised, ignored and even prosecuted: now they suddenly find that, in their eyes, the country thinks the same as they do over one matter (Brexit) and they have transferred this questionable belief over one matter into another. Now they believe that they are part of the majority and in the right they feel that it is quite reasonable to act in a racist manner, even if Brexit was not (largely) about that.

 

[duncanp]

And, here I will probably upset a few people, Brexit has played its part. I am of the opinion that Brexit voters are more likely to be racists. (NOTE: I am not saying that all Brexit voters are racist, merely that there was probably a higher proportion of people who would be regarded as racists amongst the Brexit supporters than in the general population.) For years the racists have been shunned, criticised, ignored and even prosecuted: now they suddenly find that, in their eyes, the country thinks the same as they do over one matter (Brexit) and they have transferred this questionable belief over one matter into another. Now they believe that they are part of the majority and in the right they feel that it is quite reasonable to act in a racist manner, even if Brexit was not (largely) about that.

Nonsense

Have you got any objective evidence whatsoever to back this up.

If not, then it is just your opinion, and nothing else.

Having concerns about immigration is not in itself racist, nor is it racist to be concerned about issues of sovereignty between the UK and the European Union.

 

[nw1]

Nonsense

Have you got any objective evidence whatsoever to back this up.

If not, then it is just your opinion, and nothing else.

Having concerns about immigration is not in itself racist, nor is it racist to be concerned about issues of sovereignty between the UK and the European Union.

Note that @Gloster did NOT say that all, or a majority of, Brexit supporters are racist, or even xenophobic.

He was merely putting forward the theory that it is likely that there are somewhat more racists in the pro-Brexit population than the anti-Brexit population. This could mean, for example, that 30% of Brexit supporters are racist and 29% of Brexit opponents are racist.

While I don't have any evidence, I am with @Gloster on this one. But like he says, this is not to say that all, or even a majority of, Brexit supporters are xenophobic and/or racist. But looking at it objectively: if you are xenophobic towards, let's say, eastern Europeans, or any other nationality or nationality group within the EU, then you are almost certain to be a Brexit supporter, because it involves putting immigration restrictions on the targets of your xenophobia. So there are grounds to support the theory that more Brexit supporters are xenophobic than are Brexit opponents.

And on social media I've seen plenty of xenophobic rants from declared Brexit supporters, and just about none from declared remainers.

And xenophobia and racism both involve fear of, and subsequent prejudice towards, the "other", so I think there is also highly likely to be a link between xenophobia and racism.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There *are* still issues with structural racism in the UK today. As a person of colour it's my lived reality.

I wouldn't dispute that there are issues with racism today. I've also both experienced and observed a number of incidents of racism in recent years, although generally I would regard those incidents as isolated rather than structural. The point of my post was to point out that the particular things being cited by @adrock1976 as evidence for racism actually aren't by themselves evidence of racism in the UK today, because they generally relate to times past or to another country: I wasn't trying to deny that there are other different examples/evidence of racism.

Is it as bad as it was for my parents in the 1960s? No, of course not. But the issues haven't gone away completely.

I think that's a reasonable assessment: That racism exists but not to anything like the same extent as it once did.

 

[duncanp]

Note that @Gloster did NOT say that all, or a majority of, Brexit supporters are racist, or even xenophobic.

He was merely putting forward the theory that it is likely that there are somewhat more racists in the pro-Brexit population than the anti-Brexit population. This could mean, for example, that 30% of Brexit supporters are racist and 29% of Brexit opponents are racist.

While I don't have any evidence, I am with @Gloster on this one. But like he says, this is not to say that all, or even a majority of, Brexit supporters are xenophobic and/or racist. But looking at it objectively: if you are xenophobic towards, let's say, eastern Europeans, or any other nationality or nationality group within the EU, then you are almost certain to be a Brexit supporter, because it involves putting immigration restrictions on the targets of your xenophobia. So there are grounds to support the theory that more Brexit supporters are xenophobic than are Brexit opponents.

And on social media I've seen plenty of xenophobic rants from declared Brexit supporters, and just about none from declared remainers.

And xenophobia and racism both involve fear of, and subsequent prejudice towards, the "other", so I think there is also highly likely to be a link between xenophobia and racism.

I note that you haven't any evidence to support your assertion that Brexit supporters are more likely to be racist.

This admission speaks volumes.

 

[REVUpminster]

The race card is always an easy to play. Is the Labour party racist because all the leaders have been white? Were the Scottish leaders regarded as representative of an ethnic minority even though white (thinking of Blair and Brown)?

 

[Annetts key]

I note that you haven't any evidence to support your assertion that Brexit supporters are more likely to be racist.

First off, @Gloster did clearly say that it was his opinion. I happen to agree with him.

I base my opinion on the higher number (compared to the average of the previous few years) of what appeared to be racist incidents that occurred over the weeks and months following the result. Here’s one link (not quoted as it’s a bit long and has graphs).

Incidentally, do you have any evidence to support your position, which I assume is that brexit supporters have the same or lower amounts of xenophobia and/or racism than the general population?

Edited to change the auto correct/auto suggest gentle to the correct general in the last sentence above…

 

[nw1]

I note that you haven't any evidence to support your assertion that Brexit supporters are more likely to be racist.

This admission speaks volumes.

I did, however, apply logic, and personally I think that logic holds. I have definitely observed anti-Eastern European xenophobia - it's a fact that that does exist, or did exist around the time of the referendum. Such xenophobes are, by simple logic, more likely to vote Brexit than Remain or abstain. And as I said, IMV xenophobia and racism are strongly related prejudices.

If you can show me a similar type of xenophobia or racism which has a logical link with anti-Brexit tendencies, then I'm quite happy to retract my statement.

And I will reiterate, once again, that neither myself nor @Gloster claimed that a majority, or even a large minority, of Brexit supporters are racist or xenophobic. In other words, I am saying that a majority of Brexit supporters are neither racist nor xenophobic.

First off, @Gloster did clearly say that it was his opinion. I happen to agree with him.

I base my opinion on the higher number (compared to the average of the previous few years) of what appeared to be racist incidents that occurred over the weeks and months following the result. Here’s one link (not quoted as it’s a bit long and has graphs).

Incidentally, do you have any evidence to support your position, which I assume is that brexit supporters have the same or lower amounts of xenophobia and/or racism than the gentle population?

+1. A measured, reasonable and non-emotive post. As I thought @Gloster's was.

The race card is always an easy to play. Is the Labour party racist because all the leaders have been white?

No, of course not, because they haven't specifically selected their leaders on racial grounds, and there is no logical link between the Labour Party and "pro-white" racism.

Sounds similar to the claim that Labour are more sexist than the Tories because they have not yet picked a female leader; again, what is the logical link between Labour and sexism which might lead to that conclusion? Or, for balance, but equally nonsense: the Republicans are more sexist than the Democrats because they have not yet picked a female presidential candidate.

 

[REVUpminster]

I did, however, apply logic, and personally I think that logic holds. I have definitely observed anti-Eastern European xenophobia - it's a fact that that does exist, or did exist around the time of the referendum. Such xenophobes are, by simple logic, more likely to vote Brexit than Remain or abstain. And as I said, IMV xenophobia and racism are strongly related prejudices.

If you can show me a similar type of xenophobia or racism which has a logical link with anti-Brexit tendencies, then I'm quite happy to retract my statement.

And I will reiterate, once again, that neither myself nor @Gloster claimed that a majority, or even a large minority, of Brexit supporters are racist or xenophobic. In other words, I am saying that a majority of Brexit supporters are neither racist nor xenophobic.




+1. A measured, reasonable and non-emotive post. As I thought @Gloster's was.


No, of course not, because they haven't specifically selected their leaders on racial grounds, and there is no logical link between the Labour Party and "pro-white" racism.

Sounds similar to the claim that Labour are more sexist than the Tories because they have not yet picked a female leader; again, what is the logical link between Labour and sexism which might lead to that conclusion? Or, for balance, but equally nonsense: the Republicans are more sexist than the Democrats because they have not yet picked a female presidential candidate.

Then why haven't Labour had a woman leader and why shouldn't sexism not be considered if racism is considered a factor in Brexit voters. It's all in the bias of the commentator and nobody is neutral. Everybody has a bias. He who casts the first stone.....etc. That's sure to bring a religious bias.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I note that you haven't any evidence to support your assertion that Brexit supporters are more likely to be racist.

This admission speaks volumes.

I think there are reasons to believe that native British people who are racist towards ethnic minorities would be more inclined to support Brexit: Most obviously, the BNP has itself long supported Brexit. And that arguably reflects that that kind of racism would often be correlated with a strong sense of British (or English) identity and therefore a desire to remove EU control of British laws. And as @nw1 says, anyone who's prejudiced against foreigners in general, or Eastern Europeans in particular would have an obvious motivation to oppose FOM and therefore support Brexit. There's also the issue that, at the time of the 2016 referendum, the Leave campaign did produce some material that appeared to pander to xenophobic sentiment. So based on that kind of indirect evidence plus the plausibility test, I'm quite willing to believe that a higher proportion of Brexit supporters than remain supporters are racist - although I'd stress we're likely talking about quite small percentages, so it would be very wrong to try to tar the majority of Brexit supporters with racism.

I can though see a counter-argument, though this is based on my own ad hoc life experiences: I would say that in recent years, the vast majority of instances of racist attitudes that I've directly observed have been perpetrated by people who are themselves immigrants or members of ethnic minorities, and who appear to be prejudiced against other ethnic minorities. So based on my own experience, I believe racism in the UK is probably much more extensive amongst ethnic minorities [*]: And it's not clear to me that those people would be Brexit supporters. To take one example - a Lithuanian gentleman of my acquaintance who on one occasion decided to tell me at length about how he distrusted black people. To my mind that is utterly appalling racism, and possibly one of the worst cases I've encountered. But since the person concerned was only able to live here because of Freedom of Movement, I would be very surprised if he was a Brexit supporter! (Although I never asked him).

[*] Again with the proviso that we're probably still talking small percentages: So again, it would be wrong to tar the majority of people from ethnic minorities with this.

 

[AM9]

Note that @Gloster did NOT say that all, or a majority of, Brexit supporters are racist, or even xenophobic.

He was merely putting forward the theory that it is likely that there are somewhat more racists in the pro-Brexit population than the anti-Brexit population. This could mean, for example, that 30% of Brexit supporters are racist and 29% of Brexit opponents are racist.

While I don't have any evidence, I am with @Gloster on this one. But like he says, this is not to say that all, or even a majority of, Brexit supporters are xenophobic and/or racist. But looking at it objectively: if you are xenophobic towards, let's say, eastern Europeans, or any other nationality or nationality group within the EU, then you are almost certain to be a Brexit supporter, because it involves putting immigration restrictions on the targets of your xenophobia. So there are grounds to support the theory that more Brexit supporters are xenophobic than are Brexit opponents.

And on social media I've seen plenty of xenophobic rants from declared Brexit supporters, and just about none from declared remainers.

And xenophobia and racism both involve fear of, and subsequent prejudice towards, the "other", so I think there is also highly likely to be a link between xenophobia and racism.

This was the basis of the discussion between Will Self and Mark Francois on BBC Politics live in March 2019. The words Self used were:
"Your problem really, Mark, is not that you have to be a racist or an anti-Semite to vote for Brexit, it’s just that every racist and anti-Semite in the country did."
Francois's response was typical of most who declared that they were supporters of brexit: “Are you saying that 17.4 million people are… are racists and bigots because they voted to leave the European Union?”
to which Self replied: “No, that’s not what I said,” clearly illustrating the brexiteers' need to demonstrate (false) indignation by misquoting the statement. Although the claim by Self was absolute in terms of numbers, given that the result (leave vs remain) was virtually equal, the fact that the racists were almost entirely in the brexit camp would certainly mean that the small leave majority was effected by a considerable level of racist support.*
Here is a link to the article.

* unless the total number of racists, xenophobes and anti-semites in the UK is less than 1,269,501.

 

[E27007]

I think we need to look to the dictionary for the meaning of a couple of words, 1) "racist" and 2) "racialist".

Racism is founded upon and describes bigotry and hate
Racialism is not bigotry, an immigration policy based on nationality is in essence "racialist".
The EU policy of freedom of movement is constrained to members states of the EU, a citizen of a non-member state of the Eu does not enjoy Fom to or within the Eu, Fom in the Eu is describable as a "racialist" policy because it excludes citizens of non-member states, but not a racist policy as the policy of Fom is not based on bigotry and hate to non-member states.

 

[AM9]

I think we need to look to the dictionary for the meaning of a couple of words, 1) "racist" and 2) "racialist".

Racism is founded upon and describes bigotry and hate
Racialism is not bigotry, an immigration policy based on nationality is in essence "racialist".
The EU policy of freedom of movement is constrained to members states of the EU, a citizen of a non-member state of the Eu does not enjoy Fom to or within the Eu, Fom in the Eu is describable as a "racialist" policy because it excludes citizens of non-member states, but not a racist policy as the policy of Fom is not based on bigotry and hate to non-member states.

What is a "a non-member state of the Eu"?

 

[class ep-09]

What is a "a non-member state of the Eu"?

Can’t see any but …

May be Unicorn Kingdom ?

At the end of the day it wants all benefits of being member but still be 3rd (world) country outside of EU ..

 

[nw1]

Can’t see any but …

May be Unicorn Kingdom ?

At the end of the day it wants all benefits of being member but still be 3rd (world) country outside of EU ..

I'm not sure the Government does actually want these, it seems to have spent the last 3.5 years actively trying to distance itself from the EU.

 

[DC1989]

Because the Tories are not, on the whole, an anti-immigration party. The idea that they are against immigration per se is frankly just left-wing propaganda. The reality is that the Tories, on the whole, welcome immigration while at the same time recognising that for all sorts of reasons the rate of immigration needs to be kept at a reasonable level, and believing that it should be up to each country to decide who and how many people they want to accept [*].

I agree with this ..it's just that the Tories have promised in every manifesto to get net immigration down below 100k , and last year it was 500k

The Times report today that the figures for this year are set to be even higher - 700k at a minimum and potentially a million if emigration falls to 2010 historic levels.

If labour were letting in a million people a year  from mostly the third world it would be front page news every day

 

[317 forever]

Yes, but I think that a good number of those who advocated leaving the EU were totally aware of this, as were a lot of the people who agreed with them and voted to leave.
It's not a mistake, it's an inevitable outcome from the way things were done, from the way that the "hard Brexit" was the choice of the government and this was supported by many people.
Equally, many of us who voted to remain in the EU knew that this was going to be the likely outcome, and it was only one of the reasons we voted the way we did.
It just happens that a good number of people who voted to leave the EU didn't think about what they were doing properly and now appear to be "surprised" by the outcome. It's not surprising in the least.

There is 1 group of people whose behaviour I find even worse than people who voted Leave out of a sincere preferance to be outside the EU.

It is people who voted Leave just to "send a message to the government" or to "ensure Remain wins by a smaller margin". They are the people who at best misguidedly and at work recklessly dragged us out of the EU.

 

[jfollows]

There is 1 group of people whose behaviour I find even worse than people who voted Leave out of a sincere preferance to be outside the EU.

It is people who voted Leave just to "send a message to the government" or to "ensure Remain wins by a smaller margin". They are the people who at best misguidedly and at work recklessly dragged us out of the EU.

A bit like the people in the parliamentary Labour party who nominated Jeremy Corbyn "to make sure there was a contest" or some similar excuse.