they dont admit that this has happened as 85% of the people voted for this in the last GE?
PJM1974 - MemberFirstly, Kobayashi Maru beautifully sums up the situation. It's a term that should be used more often and deserves a place in the lexicon.
Sounds a bit [i]foreign[/i].
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40339331 ]Hammond doesn't sound massively convinced either[/url]
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40339044 ]Carney and Hammond join forces on Brexit risk[/url]
they dont admit that this has happened as 85% of the people voted for this in the last GE?
That doesn't mean 85% of people support Brexit now does it?
That doesn't mean 85% of people support Brexit now does it?
No, it means 150% of people support it.
of course it does not jambers claimed [a few times] that support was at 85% as the electorate voted for pro brexit parties
Is Jam actually a sort of market research professional, testing out political arguments to see what reception they get?
the benefits of exiting the EU are so numerous and profound, no-one (at any level) needs to articulate what they are or how to go about achieving them.
I agree with his view of the so called negotiations. Both sides will be damaged in this game of keeping face, with the EU dictating onerous preconditions at every stage of the hostage style negotiation 😐
This article in a Swiss newspaper today.
If it weren't so serious, the situation in Great Britain would almost be comical. The country is being governed by a talking robot, nicknamed the Maybot, that somehow managed to visit the burned-out tower block in the west of London without speaking to a single survivor or voluntary helper. Negotiations for the country’s exit from the EU are due to begin on Monday, but no one has even a hint of a plan. The government is dependent on a small party that provides a cozy home for climate change deniers and creationists. Boris Johnson is Foreign Secretary. What in the world has happened to this country?
Two years ago David Cameron emerged from the parliamentary election as the shining victor. He had secured an absolute majority, and as a result it looked as if the career of this cheerful lightweight was headed for surprisingly dizzy heights. The economy was growing faster than in any other industrialised country in the world. Scottish independence and, with it, the break-up of the United Kingdom had been averted. For the first time since 1992, there was a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Great Britain saw itself as a universally respected actor on the international stage. This was the starting point.
In order to get from this comfortable position to the chaos of the present in the shortest possible time, two things were necessary: first, the Conservative right wingers’ obsessive hatred of the EU, and second, Cameron’s irresponsibility in putting the whole future of the country on the line with his referendum, just to satisfy a few fanatics in his party. It is becoming ever clearer just how extraordinarily bad a decision that was. The fact that Great Britain has become the laughing stock of Europe is directly linked to its vote for Brexit.
The ones who will suffer most will be the British people, who were lied to by the Brexit campaign during the referendum and betrayed and treated like idiots by elements of their press. The shamelessness still knows no bounds: the Daily Express has asked in all seriousness whether the inferno in the tower block was due to the cladding having been designed to meet EU standards. It is a simple matter to discover that the answer to this question is No, but by failing to check it, the newspaper has planted the suspicion that the EU might be to blame for this too. As an aside: a country in which parts of the press are so demonstrably uninterested in truth and exploit a disaster like the fire in Grenfell Tower for their own tasteless ends has a very serious problem.
Already prices are rising in the shops, already inflation is on the up. Investors are holding back. Economic growth has slowed. And that’s before the Brexit negotiations have even begun. With her unnecessary general election, Prime Minister Theresa May has already squandered an eighth of the time available for them. How on earth an undertaking as complex as Brexit is supposed to be agreed in the time remaining is a mystery.
Great Britain will end up leaving its most important trading partner and will be left weaker in every respect. It would make economic sense to stay in the single market and the customs union, but that would mean being subject to regulations over which Britain no longer had any say. It would be better to have stayed in the EU in the first place. So the government now needs to develop a plan that is both politically acceptable and brings the fewest possible economic disadvantages. It’s a question of damage limitation, nothing more; yet even now there are still politicians strutting around Westminster smugly trumpeting that it will be the EU that comes off worst if it doesn’t toe the line.
The EU is going to be dealing with a government that has no idea what kind of Brexit it wants, led by an unrealistic politician whose days are numbered; and a party in which old trenches are being opened up again: moderate Tories are currently hoping to be able to bring about a softer exit after all, but the hardliners in the party – among them more than a few pigheadedly obstinate ideologues – are already threatening rebellion. An epic battle lies ahead, and it will paralyse the government.
EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier has said that he now expects the Brits to finally set out their position clearly, since he cannot negotiate with himself. The irony of this statement is that it would actually be in Britain’s best interests if he did just that. At least that way they’d have one representative on their side who grasps the scale of the task and is actually capable of securing a deal that will be fair to both sides. The Brits do not have a single negotiator of this stature in their ranks. And quite apart from the Brexit terms, both the debate and the referendum have proven to be toxic in ways that are now making themselves felt.
British society is now more divided than at any time since the English civil war in the 17th century, a fact that was demonstrated anew in the general election, in which a good 80% of the votes were cast for the two largest parties. Neither of these parties was offering a centrist programme: the election was a choice between the hard right and the hard left. The political centre has been abandoned, and that is never a good sign. In a country like Great Britain, that for so long had a reputation for pragmatism and rationality, it is grounds for real concern. The situation is getting decidedly out of hand.
After the loss of its empire, the United Kingdom sought a new place in the world. It finally found it, as a strong, awkward and influential part of a larger union: the EU. Now it has given up this place quite needlessly. The consequence, as is now becoming clear, is a veritable identity crisis from which it will take the country a very long time to recover.
Boris putting on a fine show on PM this afternoon.... 😯
There's nothing like being on top of your game is there?
I had to turn it off, it was too painful. Eddie Mair seemed to be having fun though.
Might be an interesting reflection.
BBC2, 9PM Tonight: Brexit means Brexit - the unofficial story.
Ignore
So after May is forced to endure the humiliation of her brexit 'plans' as dictated by her new mandate 🙄
The rEU decide who gets the European Medicines Agency & European Banking Authority
(pre-empting jambs- just because the employees get tax breaks doesnt mean other companies arent queing up to nab them)
Sad day for medicine & research in this country (probably banking too)
A significant step towards the Little Britain dream of Brexiters
This is a fun story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40362594
Nice to see Tusk is keen on leaving the door open (or perhaps Tusk is just trolling :))
At least the man has a sense of humour....
More than can be said for mrs May
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-migrant-workers-fruit-farm-harry-hall-hunter-partnership-bbc-radio-4-today-a7802381.html ]Now iI'm not saying brexiteers are stupid[/url] but voting leave when you employ 2500 EU workers feels like an oversight.
😆mrhoppy - Member
Now iI'm not saying brexiteers are stupid but voting leave when you employ 2500 EU workers feels like an oversight.
Pillock.
Pillock.
Yeah, twice.
Well that sounds a bit mean of Theresa.
(EU citizens continuing rights)
Schadenfreude.
[url] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/22/farms-hit-by-labour-shortage-as-migrant-workers-shun-racist-uk [/url]
going well, and why should it only be those in seasonal jobs who think twice? You can create all the visas you like but if a country is perceived at racist and unwelcoming then people will think twice.
Listening to the immigration figures today reinforced my view point regarding 'Brexit'. Yes, we need immigration, but we need quality and not quantity.
As to the post regarding seasonal workers for farm work. Just reintroduce seasonal visas.
Why does having controlled immigration give the perception you are racist. Are Aus and NZ racist because they control immigration?but if a country is perceived at racist and unwelcoming then people will think twice.
[img] 
[/img]
http://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2014/01/16/daily-mail-trick-or-truth-you-decide/
very tolerant,
and remember that the pound has devalued massively which means wage cuts.
@mrmo - The immigration stats [url= https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2017 ]https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/may2017[/url]
tell the story. Do you think our small island can keep pace if year on year we have more people coming to the UK than leaving. I for one think it's too densely populated as it is. Still, I don't want to be deemed a 'little englander' or a 'daily mail subscriber'. Or could it be that those of us who are advocates of controlled immigration are just applying some common sense?
but voting leave when you employ 2500 EU workers feels like an oversight.
It was the advantage of the out campaign or rather campaigns being able to promise all things to all people.
Some people could just hear the bit about getting rid of those tedious regulations which get in the way of profit. Others could believe in sovereignty whatever that means to them and yet others could dream of getting rid of those immigrants.
All the while believing the bits they want to keep will be retained.
but we need quality and not quantity.
That's the thing though, it's almost like the powers that be have been engineering the current situation..
Are Aus and NZ racist because they control immigration?
Well, Australia has a very racist immigration system as it happens. Not the best example.
We could control our immigration far more stringently than we do now, without leaving the EU.
And no, wanting immigration controls doesn't make you racist. All depends on your motivation, not reasoning, for wanting to do so. For example, I've heard people reason that we are full up, and then suggesting that "people like us" need to have more children.
That's the thing though, it's almost like the powers that be have been engineering the current situation..
Sorry for quoting myself, but we've always had sovereignty, and we've always had control of the boarders, it's the UK government that has failed to control and failed to do what the tax payer pays for.
I wonder why that is. (I don't wonder, I know).
This is a total cluster fek that's been bought, and it would never have happened if at least half of the population had a scoooby.
But the media played it and now we are all ****ed.
flanagaj
Still, I don't want to be deemed a 'little englander' or a 'daily mail subscriber'.
Indeed. One can understand that. Best keep an eye on the views you espouse then. 😉
I for one think it's too densely populated as it is
Lots of reasons why one person's opinion is not a wise methodology for writing critical government policy:
1. By what criteria is the UK 'too densely populated'?
2. Where do you live and how much have you travelled around the UK? Population density varies hugely from Central London to the Highlands of Scotland so your perception may be totally unrepresentative
3. What economic sectors are dependent on immigration? What's the impact on those sectors and the wider economy of falling immigration? (Data-driven/empirical answer please, not sentiment)
4. What geographical areas are dependent on immigration. What's the impact here on those areas and the wider economy of falling immigration? I'll give you a clue, London is 40% immigration and produces 22% of UK GDP despite accounting for only 12.5% of the UK population. Depopulating London of immigrants would crash the housing market, crash the economy, lower the tax take needed for essential public services.
5. What social impacts would reducing immigration have? Many Brits I know have foreign born spouses - what would be the impact for them and their kids?
6. What would happen to all the cheap food we like to eat if cheap foreign labour were no longer available?
7. What would be the impact on all the foreign direct investment of a policy of reducing immigrants? Would it make investors less willing if they felt unwelcome?
8. What would be the impact on the NHS and the care sector? Both very very necessary right now as we deal with the impact of an ageing population and a population that appears to be addicted to eating itself to an early grave (c65% of adults overweight or obese)
etc etc etc.
You're entitled to your opinion but are you sure you've fully thought through the implications of imposing it on a country that's deeply embedded in international trade and on the skills and labour that immigration provides?
Sure we can 'send them home' or 'stop them coming' but are you sure you want to lose your job, see your house price plummet, not be able to get the care you want in hospital, see your weekly shop shoot up in price?
Sentiment does not good policy make...
An interesting side show - the "great repeal bill" needs consent from the devolved parliaments under the Sewell convention and thats going to be very difficult to obtain. theoretically Westminster could over ride this but IIRC Davies has conceded the point. this could really put the cat amongst the pigeons
Sentiment does not good policy make...
THIS x 100 !
[quote=flanagaj ]Are Aus and NZ racist because they control immigration?
Yes. I gave a lot of thought about going over to Australia but decided to give it a miss due to their politics. Have an under graduate and two post graduate qualifications so probably on the the more "want you in" side of things.
[quote=brooess ]
6. What would happen to all the cheap food we like to eat if cheap foreign labour were no longer available?
ARE YOU SAYING NO MORE KEBOBS?
Incorrect. Agreed that migration from outside the EU is totally the responsibility of the government who happens to be in power, but EU migration as we all know cannot be controlled.We could control our immigration far more stringently than we do now, without leaving the EU.
@brooess- Nothing to do with sentiment. Most of the points you mention can be dealt with by having a proper visa system not an open door policy for EU citizens.
Regarding population density [url= https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/356 ]https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/356[/url]
England is ranked the 2nd most densely populated.
I don't want to be deemed a 'little englander' or a 'daily mail subscriber'.
Aside but anyone watch QT last night and the DM Journalist on the panel.
That was a Harry Enfield character really wasn't it?
Migration watch is a piece of nonsense. Many countries are more densly populated that England - netherlands, belgium for two
Incorrect. Agreed that migration from outside the EU is totally the responsibility of the government who happens to be in power, but EU migration as we all know cannot be controlled.
Incorrect, as someone posted recently (a Twitter feed, IIRC). There are many ways for a country with a functioning public administration to control EU immigration. Unfortunately the Mayshambles of a Home Office doesn't qualify.
England is ranked the 2nd most densely populated.
I assume we cherry pick immigrants like you cherry pick facts from your own link? the one that said its not even compared
The Netherlands (497 persons per square kilometer) and Belgium (367) hold first and second place in respect of population density, with the United Kingdom coming third (Figure 2). Smaller countries such as Malta (far and away the most densely populated country) are excluded from this comparison. If England (not of course a ‘country’) were included in this comparison it would rank second (410).
Immigration has always been an 'issue' based on racism.
There is enough data out there to know that immigration is good for the country but the government don't spend the extra tax money of the things required to deal with the additional people.
Putting an arbitrary number on immigration is just to appease the ignorant. So what if immigration went from 200,000 to 100,000. Who would actually notice if you didn't get told it had reduced.
A great test would be to secretly stop all immigration for a year and then poll people to see if they thought the country was better than the year before.
