Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog

Why are British migrants referred to as "expats"?

Does anyone know?

Are they not British immigrants to those countries?

Quin_Dub

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why are British migrants referred to as "expats"?

Does anyone know?

Are they not British immigrants to those countries?

Yes , yes they are.

The "expats" thing is a throwback to the Empire , when people were moving out to the colonies to run some plantation or other.. To rule , not to assimilate of course.

Kermit.de.frog

Ah, I was curious.

So basically "immigrants" or "migrants" is a bit too low brow for them.

Thanks!

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why are British migrants referred to as "expats"?

Does anyone know?

Are they not British immigrants to those countries?

The reason is the British superiority complex.

Others are migrants, ie. poor, dirty, potentially dangerous creatures who are stealing our jobs and gameing the system.

Brits on the other hand are Expats, prosperous, hard working professionals, decent folk who contribute greatly to the socities lucky enough to play host to them.

jimmycrackcorm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Obvious hack: Nationalist ladies identify as Nationalist and get a majority in that camp, but all the lads identify as Unionists for the day and skew the numbers.

Years ago I lived in Enniskillen. My landlord told me about a factory nearby that had to report on religious equality. So half the non Catholic workers were told to put themselves down as Catholics.

DOCARCH

Form Wiki....

In relation to words expat, migrant and immigrant.

The varying use of these terms for different groups of foreigners can thus be seen as implying nuances about wealth, intended length of stay, perceived motives for moving, nationality, and even race. This has caused controversy, with many asserting that the traditional use of the word has had racist connotations.
For example, a British national working in Spain or Portugal is commonly referred to as an 'expatriate', whereas a Spanish or Portuguese national working in Britain is referred to as an 'immigrant', thus indicating Anglocentrism.

A Shropshire Lad

If changes to the Withdrawal Agreement have been ruled out, what exactly does the UK want to change before the 31st October ?

boggerman1

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

If changes to the Withdrawal Agreement have been ruled out, what exactly does the UK want to change before the 31st October ?

How many cherries is has on its cake while eating it

54and56

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why are British migrants referred to as "expats"?

Does anyone know?

Are they not British immigrants to those countries?

Some may assign negative connotations to the term Expat, possibly correctly, but having lived in Asia myself for a few years the context of the term "Expat" always meant someone who was working in the host country for (typically) an international company for a defined period of time on contract. They are not "immigrants" because their intended plan is to return to their home country at the end of their contract which usually lasts 3-5 years.

Immigrants on the other hand have moved to live permanently in their new host country.

Hope that sheds some light.

CelticRambler

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The reason is the British superiority complex.

Others are migrants, ie. poor, dirty, potentially dangerous creatures who are stealing our jobs and gameing the system.

Brits on the other hand are Expats, prosperous, hard working professionals, decent folk who contribute greatly to the socities lucky enough to play host to them.

Ah, it's not just the Brits. I regularly run up against this with my French friends and acquaintances, who resolutely refuse to accept that I am un immigré just as much as any of the guys with the dark brown skin who walk here from countries on the far side of Turkey.

It doesn't matter how much I argue that I do as little work as possible, take the job of a worthy Frenchman when I do, and happily take any benefit the government sees fit to give me; they still insist that I'm not really an immigrant. But they won't let me vote in their elections either.

A Dub in Glasgo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Why are British migrants referred to as "expats"?

Does anyone know?

Are they not British immigrants to those countries?

Same reason the Irish illegal in a country are 'undocumented Irish'

flanna01

Based on the last number of posts debating expats etc...

I assume it's been a slow news day...

jochenstacker

I find a bit of Phil is always a good watch.
I like the idea "if prorogation is indeed illegal, what then?' and that is a good point.
Boris plans to ignore the law that will require him to ask for an extension and he will likely wipe his backside with any court ruling that declares prorogation illegal.
How can you actually force him to do anything? Will the plod show up and cart him off in handcuffs? This is post Trump politics after all. Sh*t on the law and any rules or procedures with a shrug of the shoulders, a grin and a hearty "well, what you're gonna do?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYYj0kvmYZg

woohoo!!!

flanna01 wrote: »

Based on the last number of posts debating expats etc...

I assume it's been a slow news day...

Yep. Even saw a tweet urging ITV to get Mark Francois on their celebrity jungle show after October 31st...

Headshot

Has anyone been keeping up with the court proceedings? Any legal experts saying anything on what side the supreme court with go in favour of?

Personally id be amazed if it goes agains the Government, I suspect the Judges wont want to get involved in politics and just do what the court in London did

Jizique

Headshot wrote: »

Has anyone been keeping up with the court proceedings? Any legal experts saying anything on what side the supreme court with go in favour of?

Personally id be amazed if it goes agains the Government, I suspect the Judges wont want to get involved in politics and just do what the court in London did

Anyone watch newsnight? Boris has put the fear of god into Brussels as they now know the uk is leaving end of oct so that is why they are moving now.
And the DUP have not changed anything at all in their approach.

10000maniacs

Has the EU shifted their stance on the backstop today? Junker was upbeat about still vague mini solutions proposed by Johnson's negotiating team on the British border in Ireland. But how will these solutions solve the inevitable smuggling opportunities that will be presented if the British border has no customs checks?

FrancieBrady

Jizique wrote: »

Anyone watch newsnight? Boris has put the fear of god into Brussels as they now know the uk is leaving end of oct so that is why they are moving now.
And the DUP have not changed anything at all in their approach.

That was the view of a former DUP and now member of the Tory's.

Memnoch

Strazdas wrote: »

For sure, but nobody ever anticipated there would be a Tory / Lib Dem coalition. It was a surprising outcome to everyone. In retrospect, they probably regret having anything to do with Cameron and the Tories.

I think they showed their true colours. And the British public would be careless to trust them again.

Valhallapt

Jizique wrote: »

Anyone watch newsnight? Boris has put the fear of god into Brussels as they now know the uk is leaving end of oct so that is why they are moving now.
And the DUP have not changed anything at all in their approach.

It’s just astounding that BBC are allowed to put this nonsense on tv, totally unchallenged.

The E.U. changing their stance on the WA..... it’s literally written into the WA that the backstop can be replaced at a point in the future.

A Shropshire Lad

Headshot wrote: »

Has anyone been keeping up with the court proceedings? Any legal experts saying anything on what side the supreme court with go in favour of?

Personally id be amazed if it goes agains the Government, I suspect the Judges wont want to get involved in politics and just do what the court in London did

Even if the Supreme Court rule against the government it means very little in practical terms



The Supreme Court have absolutely no powers to order Parliament to act in any way. That would be a matter for Parliament itself, or even the government, who shut it down in the first place.

Capt'n Midnight

CelticRambler wrote: »

Repeat after me:
Project Fear,
Project Fear,
Project Fear ...

New York has extended its lead as the world’s top financial center, with London barely holding on to second place ahead of Hong Kong

From a separate article on the same report:


It's all very well aspiring to make the City of London a "Singapore-upon-Thames" but there's one serious flaw in that plan: London will never be relocated to Asia. Unsurprisingly, London's geographical position as "half way" between the time zones of Asia and the Americas becomes irrelevant when those economic powers trade directly with each other across the Pacific.

And of course, if the City of London is dropping down the world rankings, the much-bragged-about position of Britain's economy as a whole won't be far behind.

London barely holding on to second place ahead of Hong Kong ?

If you can't beat them buy them.

The company that owns Hong Kong's main stock exchange has made a £32bn bid to buy its rival in London.




The fall in Sterling means the opposite of "taking back control"

Defence contractors up for grabs too.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49738885

The government is to intervene in a US private equity firm's takeover of UK defence and aerospace firm Cobham, citing national security concerns.
...
Dorset-based Cobham, which employs 10,000 people, is known for pioneering technology enabling the mid-air refuelling of planes.

Imreoir2

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Even if the Supreme Court rule against the government it means very little in practical terms



The Supreme Court have absolutely no powers to order Parliament to act in any way. That would be a matter for Parliament itself, or even the government, who shut it down in the first place.

If the SC rules that the prorougation was not legal, then the parliament is in effect not prorouged and can sit again the next day it is not a case that the government would have to decide to recall parliament as legally there is nothing to recall it from.

GM228

Headshot wrote: »

Has anyone been keeping up with the court proceedings? Any legal experts saying anything on what side the supreme court with go in favour of?

Personally id be amazed if it goes agains the Government, I suspect the Judges wont want to get involved in politics and just do what the court in London did

Various legal experts are of the opinion the Government will loose, however as Lady Hale (the President of the Supreme Court) stated today, don't make assumptions.

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If the SC rules that the prorougation was not legal, then the parliament is in effect not prorouged and can sit again the next day it is not a case that the government would have to decide to recall parliament as legally there is nothing to recall it from.

Have they said when a verdict will be delivered or do we just have to man the airwaves?

maebee

10000maniacs wrote: »

Has the EU shifted their stance on the backstop today? Junker was upbeat about still vague mini solutions proposed by Johnson's negotiating team on the British border in Ireland. But how will these solutions solve the inevitable smuggling opportunities that will be presented if the British border has no customs checks?

Saw this and was thinking that Juncker was snuggling up to Sophie.

Bit of a loaded sentence here - "And he said he did not have "an erotic relation" to the so-called backstop, which he said he was prepared to remove from a withdrawal agreement, so long as "alternative arrangements [are put in place] allowing us and Britain to achieve the main objectives of the backstop. All of them".

So-called backstop? So-called implies not real/made up. It's still saying "back to alternative arrangements", which have yet to emerge after 3 years.
https://news.sky.com/story/jean-claude-juncker-we-can-have-a-deal-and-brexit-will-happen-11814207

Imreoir2

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have they said when a verdict will be delivered or do we just have to man the airwaves?

Early next week was the indication the chair gave at the end of submissions.

Zubeneschamali

A Shropshire Lad wrote: »

Even if the Supreme Court rule against the government it means very little in practical terms

If the SC rules that prorogation was unlawful, Parliament is open for business. Johnson should certainly resign, but certainly won't.

Podge_irl

10000maniacs wrote: »

Has the EU shifted their stance on the backstop today?

No. The answer to this is no today and it is going to be no every other day going forward as well. I do not understand why people think that the EU, who have been explicit about what they want and more importantly have actually stuck to everything they have said they will do will suddenly completely change tack.

GM228

Imreoir2 wrote: »

If the SC rules that the prorougation was not legal, then the parliament is in effect not prorouged and can sit again the next day it is not a case that the government would have to decide to recall parliament as legally there is nothing to recall it from.

Well this is not actually certain, the judges themselves discussed this today with Lord Pannick and Lord Keen who naturally enough have different opinions on this, even some of the judges themselves were of the opinion that even if the Government loose Parliament would still be prorogued unless there was a proclamation under the Meeting of Parliament Act 1797 which would need to be initiated by Johnson. It really depends on the findings and wording from the Court.