Deleted User wrote: » Were the age group who mostly voted for Brexit really the ones losing their jobs over immigration?
[Deleted User] wrote: » Meanwhile, the physical changes resulting from Brexit continues to rollout into British life.
Bit cynical wrote: » As I said earlier it might well be a net benefit to GDP but that is to miss the point.
20silkcut wrote: » It obviously is a net benefit to the overall mental well being of the average Brit, the prospect of seeing less foreigners in their country. Economic arguments can’t reach on that.
Xertz wrote: » It’s actually already gone. A British friend of mine was written to and turned down for a job they applied for in Spain, citing visa and work permit uncertainty beyond 2020.
Aidric wrote: » Of course people are going to pile on to this woman. Not defending her but she is nothing more than a byproduct of the toxic hysteria that delivered Brexit in the first place. Instead of lynching her it would be a much better investment of time trying to understand why people like her are so easily manipulated.
CelticRambler wrote: » It's all suspiciously reminiscent of the US, where benefits don't exist in any meaningful way, where unemployment is supposedly at an all-time low, yet the lowest income earners have to work two or three jobs simultaneously to make ends meet. I suppose if nothing else good comes from Brexit, at least there's an outside chance that the Leavers might realise just how much those pesky European immigrants contributed to the benefits safety net enjoyed by the natives.
sondagefaux wrote: » If you don't have a younger workforce paying taxes, it gets harder and harder to pay state pensions to retired people. Which can lead to suggestions like this:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862 It's from 2012, but it chimes with Patel's ideas about putting the economically inactive to work.
briany wrote: Anyway, the Tories can't be far away from just saying they need to reopen the workhouses. They might dress it up a little bit, though, call them 'activation centres' or something.
McGiver wrote: » There's has always been a certain Tory fascist/authoritarian undercurrent. Even within the so called "One Nation" Tories. They have it in the blood. So do the Labour (see CCTV police state policy under Blair) to some extent. Their political elite are in majority fascist, exceptionalist, entitled, arrogant imperialists, but many wouldn't say it directly. It's just that now the extreme amongst extreme got into power and this is all so apparent. This is an attempt for Reaganism-Thatcherism on steroids and to complete what Thatcher started and basically deconstruct the welfare state, deregulate and privatise everything.
sondagefaux wrote: » A net increase in economic activity, as represented by a net increase in GDP, isn't harmful to any group in a democratic society, governed for the benefit of all.
Bit cynical wrote: » I'm not sure I agree with that as a general assumption. Not all increases in GDP benefit society equally.
Strazdas wrote: » Some suspicion on social media too that she was planted in the first row by the BBC and they knew what she was going to say (you wouldn't put anything past the QT producers).
briany wrote: » To what end? Before the welfare state, poverty and destitution were rife, and the means of providing for the old, sick, and otherwise needy was crude and harsh. It was only with the introduction of the welfare state that the UK and many other countries could guarantee a certain basic standard of living to all of its people, and although the media loves to focus on a certain minority who game the system, the positives would far outweigh the negatives. I just think the desire to end the welfare state and privatise everything is short-sighted, even for the biggest fat cat around. You grow your underclass exponentially who cannot afford to spend money, thereby stagnating the economy, and if you let large companies run amok, you'll probably find they try to rig the laws in their favour, thereby stifling innovation and new entrepreneurs entering the marketplace. To do these things would be to sow the seeds of a revolution.
CrabRevolution wrote: » The odds on appearing on QT once are slim, never mind getting a speaking part. So the odds on getting to speak 3 separate times must be astronomically low.....unless of course the producers specifically want you there.
Itssoeasy wrote: » https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/1230625055803133953?s=21 I've kept away as much as I can from brexit since the date they withdrew and are now in the transition but still try to figure why they though leaving was a good idea and what mindset underpinned the brexiteers thinking and the tweet reminded me as to why it happened.
Enzokk wrote: » About those passports,https://twitter.com/paullewismoney/status/1231080360827596800?s=20 Made in Poland by a French firm when the UK company who didn't win the contract has now pulled out of the passport printing business and is putting 200 jobs in the UK at risk.
Nody wrote: » It's easy; "Brown people bad; English the bestest"; Brexit in a nutshell and so easy even the local voters get it if their arguments are to be believed. Everything beyond that point is window dressing to try to make an actual coherent non racist argument in some form but the core values here are very simple to understand.
Bit cynical wrote: » But the new points system that people are upset about here on this thread removes the preference given to majority white Europeans. Not sure how that is racist.
Strazdas wrote: » Why reduce immigration at all? It seems a purely racist / xenophobic policy. UK businesses are totally opposed to it and are in despair at what the Tories are doing - there can scarcely be a single company in the UK lobbying for a reduction in immigration numbers. (UK Govt have openly stated they are trying to reduce immigration numbers alongside changing the skills set criteria).
ThePanjandrum wrote: » I see (via Wikipedia) that the Irish population is 2.1% Asian, 1.4% Black, the United Kingdom is 4.2% Asian, 3% Black. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before claiming that other countries are racist.
Bit cynical wrote: » I think they might have overdone it a bit and will probably change some time in the future but most countries world have some form of immigration control. Skills based point systems are not uncommon.
sondagefaux wrote: » From next year that physical change in British life will be reflected in the separate queues for non-EEA/non-Swiss passport holders that British travellers using their British passports will have to join on arrival in Schengen countries. And also in the legal sphere: not only will British passport holders have to apply online for a visa waiver (or visit a Schengen Visa processing centre if they are refused a waiver: about 22% of British people have a criminal record), and pay a fee, before they can travel to a Schengen country, they will lose freedom of movement rights to 26 EU countries (all except Ireland), and to the 3 EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) that have reciprocal freedom of movement arrangements with the EU. This summer will be the last summer that British people who want to work or travel, or both, for some or all of the summer in most of the EU will just be able to hop on a train or ferry or plane, and wander across much of Europe at will. From next year on, they'll have to apply for pre-authorisation before they can even travel to any Schengen country, will be restricted to a maximum of 90 days travel at any one time, may be asked the purpose of their visit on arrival, may be refused entry if they can't prove they have enough money to support themselves for the intended duration of their trip, will need private health or travel insurance, will need special documents, and have to pay fees, if they want to use their own British-registered vehicles, will need special documents, and have to pay fees, if they want to drive with a British driving license, may have to have special documents, and have to pay fees, to be able to bring some personal possessions with them, and will need to get special permission, and have to pay fees, to work, even as seasonal or temporary workers.
sondagefaux wrote: » If you don't have a younger workforce paying taxes, it gets harder and harder to pay state pensions to retired people.
CrabRevolution wrote: » I remember seeing a post on a scottish page about QT Scotland after a debate on independence. During the episode a front row audience member gave a passionate anti-SNP rant. Nothing wrong with this one its own, but a few viewers thought he seemed quite familiar, and after further research it turned out he'd been on QT 4 times in the last few years, and on 3 of those occasions he just happened to be sitting in the front rows and asked to comment by the host. It also transpired he was a UKIP election candidate and avid supporter of loyalist bands and the orange order. The odds on appearing on QT once are slim, never mind getting a speaking part. So the odds on getting to speak 3 separate times must be astronomically low.....unless of course the producers specifically want you there.
Strazdas wrote: » Ireland was a colony of the UK and never had any territories overseas. Most of the UK's (England's) multi ethnic mix is due to the former empire and the Commonwealth. Population of Scotland and NI is very similar in make up to that of the ROI.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bed6f1d088326d5eb21c0139847332c7.svg)
