kimbers - Memberits a talent!
If you think that calling people lil englanders that voted for brexit so they could get rid of foreigners is inacurate, please explain it to me, nice & simple
You couldn't stop yourself from using the pejorative phrase in a thread about a child's hat.
I don't think voting records or immigration were part of the discussion.
It's a strange obsession.
THM are you just going for side stepping and whataboutery?
Do you have a point or just running around in circles?
I also included a response to Mike's link to hate crime stats.
Aah - I see - so you were just mixing up two completely different points. No wonder you get into such a muddle.
Yes a very simple one. [b]Racism is unacceptable in the UK.[/b] Nothing has changed on that issue.
To suggest otherwise is akin to claiming that leaving the EU will release £350m a week to be spent on the NHS. Are we in that camp now?
It's called multi-tasking doc,
A good example would be reading facts as well as posting on STW....preferably before of course.
teamhurtmore - Member
Yes a very simple one. Racism is unacceptable in the UK. Nothing has changed on that issue.
That it is (well unless you read the blacking up thread) but it also on the rise, specifically against EU citizens who the UK government is currently playing with for political reasons. Do you also accept that fact.
It's called multi-tasking doc,
If that's your best shot at multi-tasking I recommend you stay clear of chewing gum and toilet bowls.
it is on wth rise Mike, very true, both the numbers and the reporting of it. That does not make it acceptable, as claimed.
Manchester Police also reported a 500% increase after the tragic bombing attack too. So multiple causes explain the rise in hate crime across many countries at the moment. Look at the anti-Indian crime in Aus as another example. To attempt to oversimplify this and to claim that racism is acceptable in the UK is sad and irresponsible.
As for your claim re EU citizens being specifically targeted, it would be interesting to see the stats. You may be correct, but the reporting I have seen suggest that anti-religious (esp Muslim) hate crime may be greater. Neither is acceptable. Neither is condoned.
To attempt to oversimplify this and to claim that racism is acceptable in the UK is sad and irresponsible.
What people are saying is that the way politicians are speaking, the policies that they are putting forward is making people feel that they can be more racist, that their views are "Britain First" when they are really anti foreign. It's happening, it's going on, people like the Mail and Express have been at it for years. It's fairly hard to deny, nobody rational and not racist has said it's acceptable, many have dodged the question or given a clever little answer to avoid what they really mean.
people like the Mail and Express have been at it [b]for years. [/b]
Ah so not Brexshit related then. Agreed.
nobody rational and not racist has said it's acceptable
On the contrary it is claimed ^ that we now have a a climate in the UK where people now believe that racism is acceptable. That is untrue (on both counts). It hasn't and as you and others alluded to, it has always existed in some. It is simply the kind of scaremongering that Brexshiteers were involved in. It should be avoided, it's not helpful.
On the contrary it is claimed ^ that we now have a a climate in the UK where people now believe that racism is acceptable.
Sorry, you're wrong, we have a climate in the UK where [b]SOME[/b] people now believe that racism is acceptable despite the law. Why do they believe this? Because enough people voted for Brexit, because of posters claiming millions of Turks were coming. Because no one has come down like a ton of bricks on the racists.
The are also becoming increasing xenophobic protectionist. Why do you think that is?
Because they see that Britain is intent on economic, fiscal and social dumping and don't want to be dragged into a race to the bottom. France maintains better health care, better working conditions, better access to higher education... and that is maintained by protectionism within the framework of the EU.
Sorry, you're wrong
only, if you change what you said to...
we have a climate in the UK where SOME people now believe that racism is acceptable despite the law.
That's better. Nice edit.
Why do they believe this? .... Because no one has come down like a ton of bricks on the racists.
and you were doing so well 😉
So we have recorded increases in both reporting and dealing with racism and hate crime but no one is coming down like a ton of bricks?? 😯
Not quite true is it? Lets see what the Minister (from the government falsely accused) said recently
[b]All forms of hate crime are completely unacceptable and those who commit these awful crimes should be met with the full force of the law.[/b] Our Hate Crime Action Plan improved the response of law enforcement and criminal justice system to these horrendous attacks, including ensuring more victims have the confidence to come forward and report such incidents. [b]We are clear that a single hate crime attack is one too many and we will do everything we can to wipe out hatred and division in our communities. [/b]We have made an additional £900K available for local projects to tackle hate crime and £2.4M to protect places of worship. Following the Finsbury Park attack we made an additional £1M available to protect faith institutions and associated community centres from hate attacks.
Thanks Ed,
maintained by protectionism within the framework of the EU.
Thats a corker! Chapeau.... 😀
So why was no one prosecuted for that Brexit poster with a long line of "immigrants"?
Edit: It's a corker and you're laughing, THM. That tells me that you are so rich/selfish/uncaring that you don't consider the protection the EU has afforded British citizens, especially the poorer hard working ones, a loss.
we have a climate in the UK where SOME people now believe that racism is acceptable despite the law
Yes, that is clearly what was meant - it makes no sense to suggest that EVERYONE believes that racism is acceptable. It's almost as if tiresomebore was just deliberately misconstruing what was written.
Edit: It's a corker and you're laughing, THM.
Ironically Ed , ironically
That tells me that you are so rich/selfish/uncaring that you don't consider the protection the EU has afforded British citizens, especially the poorer hard working ones, a loss.
Not at all, I was laughing at your acknowledgement of protectionism. To repeat:
maintained by protectionism within the framework of the EU.
But on the subject of Europe's poor, and in contrast to your position, I have been highly critical of the pain caused by the core policy/structure of the EU on the "poorer, hard working" citizend of Europe. Its has been a social catastrophe that you seem willing to ignore. Does that make you - what were the words - so rich/selfish/uncaring? You decide...
it makes no sense to suggest that EVERYONE believes that racism is acceptable
Indeed it doesn't. Well said.
EU protectionist? I'd hope so. What would be the point of an economic members only club that wasn't?
And I think illegal, espoused unacceptablity and actual unacceptablity are getting confused.
Speeding on the M62 is illegal, police and politicians might say unacceptable, but probably not unacceptable to the vast majority of the public. Racism isn't quite the same, but is becoming far more acceptable to a greater number of the public - hence why the government are having to plough money into a rear guard action to tackle it. As noted earlier by THM.
Finally THM, if one of those core policies you refer to is the euro and the financial constraints that go with it, then yes it hasn't helped really. Wish it had, but they really need to move on to a united states of Europe to make it work - and I think the USE trademark is already taken.
Oh dear, that's peak THM 🙄
..unlike racism
THM, if one of those core policies you refer to is the euro and the financial constraints that go with it, then yes it hasn't helped really.
More than that, it exacerbates economic cycles, created unsustainable debt build up across S Europe, devastating unemployment etc
wish it hadn't
Me too. But "wish" is a good choice of word. It was inevitable by design. It was unavoidable. Still it still had its fans bizarrely....
Wish was carefully chosen
Inevitable by design? Probably. And yet other designs were available. Whether they still are is a different question.
PS - did you really mean it to read like we are still approaching peak racism?
They have to be....
Well failure is always an option...
More than that, it exacerbates economic cycles, created unsustainable debt build up across S Europe, devastating unemployment etc
As we have no parallel planet with out the EU/Euro to compare with that really is speculation.
Point by point:
exacerbates economic cycles: or smooths them depending on you point of view.
Unsustainable debt that is being sustained and in the case of two of the PIGS reduced.
devastating unemployment that is lower than in the UK in the Thatcher years (1982) for the eurozone and is no higher than the countries affected managed periodically before they were full members of the EU or part of the eurozone.
I dont remember Spain and Italy to have great economies before joining the EU . in fact as a teenager , I used to pick fruits to earn cash in the summer and most of seasonal workers were from southern europe .
Point by point
exacerbates economic cycles: or smooths them depending on you point of view.
No only depends on whether you want to be correct or not. Even good old Dennis Healey understood that back in the 70s when rejecting the earlier ERM folly.
Unsustainable debt that is being sustained and in the case of two of the PIGS reduced.
No it has been merely "transferred'. The economies have been adversely affected by reduction is supply of (NPL legacy) and demand for (over-leveraging legacy) credit. But the excesses of the Euro-induced bubble have been partially addressed at great cost to the inhabitants - especially the poor, hard-working ones.
devastating unemployment that is lower than in the UK in the Thatcher years (1982) for the eurozone and is no higher than the countries affected managed periodically before they were full members of the EU or part of the eurozone.
but much higher in the case of the economies in question on both counts, especially the former.
No only depends on whether you want to be correct or not.
What's the word I'm looking for…?
Insufferable?
"former"
(as in the correct answer)
I'm nearly lost for words. Dennis Healey has arguably the worst record of any post war chancellor. Perhaps you don't remember the Winter of discontent, I worked through it.
Because they see that Britain is intent on economic, fiscal and social dumpin
Why can't the UK take the same approach to corporate taxation as Ireland and Luxembourg ?
Macron is on a tour of Eastern Europe trying to persuade them to stop sending their workers to France and undercutting the French by using Polish etc contracts and paying Polish wages and taxes, fat chance as they are following EU law.
Edukator everyone is more competitve than France, "enjoy" the CGT organised strikes there are going to be many and violent too. What we saw under Hollande is just a warm up.
As for the Brexit Bill the only slate are our annaul contributions (less rebate) until April 2019, that's the point. The UK has asked the EU to explain it's LEGAL basis for the exit bill and they won't as there isn't one. You quoted a figure and used the word "slate" as though it's written down. That's the EUs problem they only wrote down that obligations / benefits terminate on A50 exit.
Someone hacked Damien Green MP's Twitter and was trolling Barnier over the legal (nor not) basis of the bill. Look the French (and other EU press) have been happy to play the game of fooling their readers that somehow the UK is going to provide a pot of gold so they don't have to pay up. Wrong wrong wrong.
https://order-order.com/2017/08/30/hacker-asks-barnier-reasonable-questions-about-brexit-bill/
@igm the EU's offer to UK citizens is not better, they are generally older amd retired and spending their money in generally poorer areas of Europe like Spain, Italy or rural France. Also those working are generally in higher skilled better paying jobs than equivalent in the UK. The EUs offer also did not allow them to move anywhere within the EU. Also no small matter of 3m people vs 1m. The UK made a very generous offer.
I don't click order-order.
Time will tell who's right about whether the UK pays off its slate. Watch this space. I'll put the odds of the UK not paying anything at 27:1 against.
Fair enough. Someone hacked the MPs account and Tweeted to Barnier to please explain the LEGAL basis of the "Brexit Bill"
I'll put the odds of the UK not paying anything at 27:1 against.
Given that we know the UK will pay something, I would suggest avoiding bookmaking as a career
What do you call a slate that also has the estimated price of future drinks for you and for your mates (tab pro ratered)?
Look out EU, The Donald is coming after you and the Common Agricultural Policy 8)
40% of EU budget is farming subsidies btw !!
This made me laugh in a sort of omg way ..
Earlier this year, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan quipped: “The European Union pays enough subsidies to fly each cow in Europe around the world first class and still have money left over.”
Edukator a big chunk of the "exit bill" is our budget contributions to April 2019 plus the EU want us to pay beyond that for programmes such as EU funded UK Uni research - both of these we already said we would cover. So of course we are going to pay something, we are going to oay what we legally owe. Whether we pay beyond that is a matter of discussion. Personally as we run a trade deficit I would NOT pay anything under any transition arrangement. No need. However I suspect there may be some payments there but fairly limited and will be netted off against things like our EIB capital of £8bn. Public opinion is that any amount which totals £10bn is too much.
Still nothing on the irish border ?
And not going so well in Japan, is it ?
Srictly/factually speaking ([i]excuse me Kelvin and NW[/i])
So of course we are going to pay something, we are going to oay [b]what we legally owe[/b]. Whether we pay beyond that is a matter of discussion
The HoL concluded that on balance there is no legal obligation, hence the whole bill is subject to discussion and therefore should be an integral part of the complete discussions - unless you have swallowed the EU narrative hook, line and sinker. But that would be very silly, given we are all aware of the precedent.
Still nothing on the irish border ?
Given that neither the EU not the UK have a solution, its a bit unfair to expect Jambas have an answer. Plus the EU positioning paper rules out unilateral arrangements, so all looks a bit challenging. Good job no one is proposing an answer here before getting into the trade negotiations
From nos amis
Any attempts at bespoke deals between the UK and Irish governments may meet opposition within the EU from those wanting sanctions against the UK, feeling that the (cherry-picked) benefits to the UK are not accompanied by any fulfilment of obligations. The Interlaken Principles41 make clear that the EU will a) prioritise internal integration over relations with non-member states and b) the EU will always safeguard its own decision- making autonomy. The Principles declare that any relationship with the EU must be based on a balance of benefits and obligations. Non-member states will not be able to choose what aspects of EU integration they particularly favour. As such, prospects for a bespoke, tariff- free Northern Ireland-EU cross-border trade arrangement appear slim, whilst a continuing Common Travel Area is in jeopardy, with all the possible ramifications outlined above
and guess where they place it in the agenda??
40% of EU budget is farming subsidies btw !!
What did it used to be before CAP reform? "40%" sounds great as a snapshot figure but what is the trend? Where are the butter mountains, the wine lakes etc of the past?
Of course the EU protects agriculture and its products - around half of EU land is farmed.
Now unless, Brexiteers are happy to throw UK farmers into the shit, it will have to spend money to protect them too. So what's your solution?*
Tell you what, why not have 27 (or the way it's looking, 28, not including Turkey who are joining next year I suppose) competing individual protectionist agricultural policies working against one another. See how much that costs us all.
*No need to answer. "Someone else" will solve that difficult question for you. Because it's always someone else that will come up with a solution to the problems Brexit is causing. Brexiteers have hardly owned a single solution to the problems they've caused.
[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/david-jones-pro-brexit-ukip-twitter-account-russia-fake-bot-troll-trump-disinformation-followers-a7920181.html ]hands up if you are a russian stooge [/url]
Given that neither the EU not the UK have a solution,
Not the EUs problem is it, the UK wants out, so it is for the UK to come up with a red white and blue border. That happens to meet international standards.
You caused this s*** time for the Brexiteers to come up with some answers.
The CAP....
I live among the type of community that has benefited from this remarkable level of " protectionism". Agricultural land trades at £10k per acre and any Accountant who deals with Farms (as mine does) will tell you this has no medium term ROI, what it has done is raise the capital value of most Farms 8 fold in twenty years (most land was purchased at around £1200 an acre back in the day) - so this allows them to borrow 8 times the "value" of land at £10k an acre and you think Banks are highly leveraged? Bear in mind that many Farms income is 50% CAP? You start to realise how big that particular house of cards is? Add in Donald chicken/Beef/Corn and NZ/Aus tariff/quote free Lamb you start to realise why the NFU is twitchy - yet most Farmers voted for Brexit? You really can't make this stuff up
It's very much a problem for the EU, that's why they have it in the first priority list. Unless of cause, that decision was merely tactical. Surely not?
Be careful how you use the term "you" please.
Public opinion is that any amount which totals £10bn is too much.
Jamba - £10bn was the maximum people turn out to be willing to pay per annum for continued access to the single market. Which probably questions their intelligence as I'm sure you will agree.
That said it is a lot less than £350m per week.
On the hacked MPs thing, Conor Burns is claiming he was hacked and someone is trolling Barnier too. Except it sounds like Conor may be fibbing.