nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

This is the twelfth incarnation of our Brexit discussion thread.

I appreciate that the end of Brexit is or may be in sight (insofar as one can be certain) but please bear the following in mind before posting:

Insults directed at popular figures are not acceptable in this forum
Please do not post memes, videos or comedy links here
Please do not be uncivil to other posters
Please use the report function to alert the mods when necessary
Discussion of Sinn Féin's longstanding policy of abstention from Westminster is not suitable for this thread. Posts on this subject may be deleted

Previous thread is here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058016732

United Ireland thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058014553

Scottish Independence thread:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058023269

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Imreoir2

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yet people claim that the British Empire was actually the Irish or Scottish empire because of the number of people active in the colonies from these countries.

Since when? I have never seen this claim? That is not at all a common perception.

Bit cynical

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).

Reducing immigration overall isn't inherently racist and neither is a points system unless being a particular race gives you extra points.

Preferential treatment to predominantly white countries as under the EU rules seems however problematic.

Your point about businesses does not appear relevant to whether or not the policy is racist. Could you elaborate?

rogue-entity

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.

There's nothing inherently racist (xenophobic at best) about having a policy that discourages or restricts immigration; absent Freedom of Movement or special circumstances, there is no right or entitlement for a non-citizen to immigrate to another country.

Even countries with restrictive immigration policies discriminate on assessment of a person's (potential) economic worth (read: net worth, ability to secure a high-paying job etc) or the net-worth of family ties (just because they're married to a citizen doesn't always mean they'll be granted residence).

I'm privileged with the right to live and work elsewhere in Europe, and that's nice if I wanted to relocate to Norway at some point but it's next to impossible for me to relocate to the United States for example, relocating to Australia would be less difficult but isn't guaranteed.

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.

The most cynical aspect of the system they propose, was lowering the wage threshold from £25,000 to £24,600 allegedly because tech companies lobbied for it, citing, the inability to hire foreign workers for entry level positions. The simple answer to that, if they were consistent, would have been to suggest that said companies pay at least £25,000 which is less than €30k for such positions which are presumably 'high skilled' jobs, or hire local.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Brendan O'Neill posts one of the few sensible articles about "that woman on Question Time"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/21/why-they-hate-that-question-time-woman/

That article reads like tabloid trash with the most purile and patronising language to attack folks who don't agree with the woman's stated views. Most of the criticism I've read, were not about her or her views but rather the shear lack of balance by not offering an opposing opinion or viewpoint - her views went unchallenged.

Had a 'hard remain' supporter been given the same soapbox to make an anti-brexit point, you can bet your arse the pro-Brexit camp would be all over it, citing bias faster than you could say 'fake news'.

Enzokk

Bit cynical wrote: »

However even this link does not suggest that mass immigration is universally beneficial:
If the skills of migrants and existing workers are substitutes, immigration can be expected to increase competition in the labour market and drive down wages in the short run. The closer the substitute, the greater the adverse wage effects will be.

Whether and to what extent declining wages increase unemployment or inactivity among existing workers depends on their willingness to accept the new lower wages.

If, on the other hand, the skills of migrants are complementary to those of existing workers, all workers experience increased productivity which can be expected to lead to a rise in the wages of existing workers.

In other words, immigration policy should based on complementing skills of existing workers rather than indiscriminate importing of people.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Unless I am mistaken our discussion about immigration follows on from the views of the woman on Question Time. Neither my link nor yours supports her view at all. She made sweeping statements about how immigration is bad and they need to shut the borders. If she had said that in a few small areas immigration might have an effect on wages in the area of 0.3% then she would have been factually correct, but that doesn't carry as much weight nor is it effective as a slogan.

So why you are going all out to show that in a few small areas immigration has a small negative effect on wages leaves me a bit baffled, unless you agree with her point of view?

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The procurement had to take place under EU tendering rules. We aren't French so we don't subvert the rules with claims of national security.

Rubbish. You aren't Spanish, German, Dutch, Irish or Italian either. Seems a lot of countries think it is a good idea to have your passports printed in your own country, except the UK. Don't try to blame the French or any other EU nation for a rule that is accepted in the EU.

This is the same crap as the UK not being able to assert some sort of control over EU immigration. Don't look to blame others for your own stupidity, I am tired of the UK playing victim when they are deciding on their own to not enforce EU rules.

Anger as EU countries print OWN passports for security issues - except for UK

But around Europe there is evidence of governments also using their right to seek exemption on national security grounds from having to let sensitive contracts go overseas.

In France, identity documents have always been made at the National Printing Works, which has been a limited company since 1994 but with the state as sole shareholder.

Italian passports are made in Rome by the State Mint and Polygraphic Institute, which has been a public limited company since 2002 but with the ministry of economy as sole shareholder.

Spanish documents are made by that country's Royal Mint of Spain, a public corporation run by its treasury department.

Germany's Berlin Federal Print Company, a state-turned-private company, has the contract with its government - and also makes passports for China and the United Arab Emirates.

The Netherlands, which will benefit from Gemalto's success, is believed to be among other EU members who keep their passport manufacture strictly in-country.

In Ireland, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said its contract for travel papers went to Irish company the DLRS Group after a competitive tendering process.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

I'm not sure I agree with that as a general assumption. Not all increases in GDP benefit society equally.

Note my caveat: in a democratic society run for all. And I didn't say it would benefit society equally.

sondagefaux

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yet people claim that the British Empire was actually the Irish or Scottish empire because of the number of people active in the colonies from these countries.

Do those people ever ask what the people they claim were Irish or Scottish described themselves as?

As far as I'm concerned, if a person born and brought up in the island of Ireland considers themselves to be British, for example, we owe them the courtesy of agreeing with them, rather than thinking of them as Irish.

I wonder how many of the 'Irish' and 'Scottish' counted by historians regarded themselves as British and would have rejected any notion they were any less British than the English?

Is it fair for some historians to posthumously ascribe Irishness or Scottishness to people who would have told you they were Britons when they lived?

Even today there are plenty of people who try to deny the unionists of Northern Ireland their British identity, and plenty of people who have no respect for the Irish identity of nationalists in Northern Ireland.

I really don't see why we can't accept that we have national minorities on the island of Ireland.

It's not exactly uncommon across the world to have national minorities from neighbouring states living on the 'wrong' side of a border.

Think of Slovaks in Hungary or, before WWII, Germans in Czechoslovakia.

Thankfully, EU membership with its associated rights for citizens of EU member states, including non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality in employment and access to public services for EU citizens, freedom of movement and reciprocal voting rights in local and European elections, means that national minorities living on the 'wrong' side of national borders have far more legal protections against discrimination than in the past.

It's a pity that Brexit has disrupted that to some extent on the island of Ireland, although the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement, the Protocol in the Withdrawal Agreement, and continued EU funding for cross-border and cross-community projects should largely mitigate its effects.

ThePanjandrum

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Since when? I have never seen this claim? That is not at all a common perception.

Google is your friend. When in doubt just look it up.

sondagefaux

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.

You think that Ireland has used racist policies to exclude Asian and Black people?

There are obvious historical reasons why Asian and Black people make up a greater share of the British population than they do of the Irish population, just as there are obvious reasons why people from Moroccan and Algerian backgrounds make up a larger share of the French population than they do of the Bulgarian population.

sondagefaux

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Google is your friend. When in doubt just look it up.

Google is your friend if you want ahistorical pabulum fed to you.

ThePanjandrum

So you say that there would be a security issue if, say, Germany printed Irish passports. I don't agree (and according to the article you quote, neither does the Irish Government) so if there is no security issue then these EU countries are subverting the EU agreed process.
"Rules based" indeed.

listermint

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Google is your friend. When in doubt just look it up.

You are just making things up now.which leads me to believe as I suspected your are neither from the UK or Ireland. And come out with this stuff just to cause interference.

It's all quite clear now I see.

ThePanjandrum

sondagefaux wrote: »

You think that Ireland has used racist policies to exclude Asian and Black people?

There are obvious historical reasons why Asian and Black people make up a greater share of the British population than they do of the Irish population, just as there are obvious reasons why people from Moroccan and Algerian backgrounds make up a larger share of the French population than they do of the Bulgarian population.

I think that it was stupid for an Irish person to claim that Britain hates "Brown" people when his own country only has half the percentage of Blacks and Asians in its population.

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

Reducing immigration overall isn't inherently racist and neither is a points system unless being a particular race gives you extra points.

Preferential treatment to predominantly white countries as under the EU rules seems however problematic.

Your point about businesses does not appear relevant to whether or not the policy is racist. Could you elaborate?

Nothing in EU law ever prevented the British from allowing free movement of people from their former empire or any other country in the world.

Instead of supporting rules that make it more difficult for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens of every race and ethnicity to move to the UK, why not support a 'levelling up' of rights for citizens of other states?

listermint

sondagefaux wrote: »

You think that Ireland has used racist policies to exclude Asian and Black people?

There are obvious historical reasons why Asian and Black people make up a greater share of the British population than they do of the Irish population, just as there are obvious reasons why people from Moroccan and Algerian backgrounds make up a larger share of the French population than they do of the Bulgarian population.

He doesn't think anything of the sort.

All information of these islands he's finding on the internet and inferring personal opinion as fact based on whatever new thing he's read.

sondagefaux

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So you say that there would be a security issue if, say, Germany printed Irish passports. I don't agree (and according to the article you quote, neither does the Irish Government) so if there is no security issue then these EU countries are subverting the EU agreed process.
"Rules based" indeed.

Which EU procurement rules have been broken?

sondagefaux

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I think that it was stupid for an Irish person to claim that Britain hates "Brown" people when his own country only has half the percentage of Blacks and Asians in its population.

If having a higher percentage of people of other races in a country's population is an indicator that it's less racist than a country with a smaller share of different races, then apartheid South Africa, with its high share of race minorities, including about 25% white people of mainly European origin, and people of Asian origin, must have been a paradise of racial harmony compared to the UK.

J Mysterio

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Google is your friend. When in doubt just look it up.

That's not how discussion forums work.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

So you say that there would be a security issue if, say, Germany printed Irish passports. I don't agree (and according to the article you quote, neither does the Irish Government) so if there is no security issue then these EU countries are subverting the EU agreed process.
"Rules based" indeed.

I am not saying anything about security issues, but your post seemed to infer that France was breaking some rule. I posted a link that showed France wasn't the only EU country that had their passports printed in their own country. Now it could be that all other countries had a bidding process and went with the lowest contract, which just happened to be in their own country.

Or, the other countries including Ireland went with the bidder in their own country even if the cost was higher than the others and a way to justify going with a higher bid was to use the "national security" as a reason for accepting a higher bid.

The UK could have done this as well, but they decided to go with the bidder from France.

sondagefaux

rogue-entity wrote: »

Some or all of these are subject to reciprocal agreements being reached with the EU, this simply reflects the default 'no-deal' position.

All of those provisions in respect of short-term travel, bringing cars on holidays, using non-EU driving licenses, bringing some types of personal possessions into the EU, and the immigration restrictions on British citizens (except to Ireland), will apply from the end of the transition period except in the event the UK changes its mind and decides to stay part of the Single Market, along the lines of Iceland or Norway, thus accepting free movement of people.

They will happen once the transition period ends without the UK accepting freedom of movement, regardless of whether there's a trade deal or not.

rogue-entity wrote: »

If young folks are trapped on zero-hour contracts, minimum wage and 'gig economy' jobs, they won't have much money to pay any taxes. And young folk who have degrees and qualifications have a much easier time emigrating if there are better-paying jobs abroad than domestically.

Previous posts made the suggestion that Priti would consider plans that would make those who are un/under-educated a captive workforce which by definition removes incentives to raise wages.

I believe she thinks that people who are economically inactive will be able to fill jobs currently often filled by migrants, in the mistaken belief that economically inactive means unemployed. It's easy to believe she thinks this, as she doesn't seem to be the sharpest tool in the box if her recent interview in which she repeatedly confused terrorism and counter-terrorism is any indication.

rogue-entity wrote: »

The BBC was threatened over its alleged bias against Brexit: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/22/stop-bias-against-brexit-face-fine-bbc-warned/ - I wonder if this is a consequence of that.

The UK government has the BBC running scared with its threat to abolish the license fee. Although Question Time is known for its dubious audience selection and participation decisions.

sondagefaux

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.

Ah yes, shiny orange bomber jacket dude...

BBC's Question Time has come in criticism after a man appeared on the show for at least the third time - despite supposedly stringent rules around applications.

Billy Mitchell appeared on the popular politics show last night when it aired from Motherwell, North Lanarkshire, wearing a distinctive orange jacket.

The former UKIP candidate had previously featured on the show in Kilmarnock and Stirling.

...

Mr Mitchell, reportedly member of Livingston True Blues Flute Band, added: “You criticise Theresa May for not listening to Brussels.

“You never listened.”

https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/bbc-question-time-criticised-after-three-time-audience-member-slams-snp-1-4870350

fash

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

The procurement had to take place under EU tendering rules. We aren't French so we don't subvert the rules with claims of national security.

Actually it takes place under WTO tendering rules.
WTO Public Procurement
So when will the campaign to take back control from the evil WTO start?

fash

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Brendan O'Neill posts one of the few sensible articles about "that woman on Question Time"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/21/why-they-hate-that-question-time-woman/

You really must be desperate if you have to pretend to think that a professional troll will write anything "sensible".

Kermit.de.frog

Sunday Times reporting Britain is trying to "get around" having to introduce the Irish sea customs checks. It reads as though they are trying to use it as leverage in the trade talks.

Nody

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.

Aah the classic Trump style response to avoid answering questions; not that I had high hopes from your previous posting history but you've spent the last two pages deflecting and attacking others without making a single counter argument to my claim. The simple fact is the Brexit vote was driven by xenophobia. It does not matter if Germany would currently have Hitler as it's chancellor because the question is not if another country had racists in it but about the UK Brexit vote, and you're smart enough to know that. Hence your incessant attacking of everything else to avoid having to actually come out with an counter argument to the statement that xenophobia was the main driver behind Brexit. The significant post Brexit increase in racist motivated crimes only reinforce that fact; but once again I'm sure you knew that as well. Hence I stand by my summary of what drives Brexit for the great majority of people; you're welcome to disagree but for a change try to provide some actual facts to back up your claims this time.

Itssoeasy

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Sunday Times reporting Britain is trying to "get around" having to introduce the Irish sea customs checks. It reads as though they are trying to use it as leverage in the trade talks.

Or it could be the fact that they are doing exactly what they planned to do which is not live up to the agreement they signed.

sondagefaux

fash wrote: »

You really must be desperate if you have to pretend to think that a professional troll will write anything "sensible".

As it turns out, this woman has been identified. She is a far-right activist and former candidate for the racist National Front.

She was specifically invited on to Question Time by a production staffer, her hotel bill was paid by an as yet unknown third party.

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/02/question-time-ranter-identified.html?m=1

sondagefaux

fash wrote: »

Actually it takes place under WTO tendering rules.
WTO Public Procurement
So when will the campaign to take back control from the evil WTO start?

The UK made strong efforts to join the WTO's General Procurement Agreement.

Its efforts to do so were initially blocked by Moldova because the UK had refused entry to the official Moldovan delegation to a WTO conference being held in London.

Moldova eventually waived its veto after the UK apologised.

As this instance demonstrates, Global Britain will be a force to be reckoned with in international trade diplomacy...

Irish Praetorian

sondagefaux wrote: »

If having a higher percentage of people of other races in a country's population is an indicator that it's less racist than a country with a smaller share of different races, then apartheid South Africa, with its high share of race minorities, including about 25% white people of mainly European origin, and people of Asian origin, must have been a paradise of racial harmony compared to the UK.

I feel like I should offer some succour to this line of argument, though I would as you all well know, be much more pro-EU in my inclinations. Nevertheless, the counter-argument one might want to make is that purported attitudes of racial tolerance don't really carry much weight if they are merely theoretical exercises in a de-facto segregated or a mono-racial society. It's all well and good to say one is not a racist if one is living in a monochrome rural village or on a well-off estate. But I think the real test of racial tolerance might be living in a more racially diverse area, one where maybe crime isn't so rare and the luxuries or wealth aren't so apparent. A more pertinent example might be the case of our own Traveller community; now people are probably well aware of the attitudes that have built up over the year, but one is forced to ask who is the least racist - the shop keeper who eyes traveller customers warily but generally tries to give people a fair shake or a broadcaster living in Donnybrook who would shriek at the mere notion of that shopkeeper giving two customers remotely different treatment, but who would in all likelihood react frantically if even the possibility of a Halting Site being established near their plush neighbourhood. Obviously these are fairly clean cut theoretical examples for illustrative purposes, but I think the point is fairly made.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

Nothing in EU law ever prevented the British from allowing free movement of people from their former empire or any other country in the world.

Instead of supporting rules that make it more difficult for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens of every race and ethnicity to move to the UK, why not support a 'levelling up' of rights for citizens of other states?

However the question then would be why don't all countries around the world open their borders to the rest of the world. The answer is probably that by controlling immigration so that immigrants have skills that complement those of the existing workforce rather than competing with the existing workforce, living standards improve. I think Enzokk posted a link supporting this view earlier.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the question then would be why don't all countries around the world open their borders to the rest of the world. The answer is probably that by controlling immigration so that immigrants have skills that complement those of the existing workforce rather than competing with the existing workforce, living standards improve.

I think you have a very romantic idea of how much the people in government in the majority of the worlds countries (especially outside of Europe) care about the living standards of anyone other than themselves.

Border controls, since time immemorial, and definitely all through the period for which we have been keeping records, has always been about keeping money and power with those who already have it. And migration has always been about those without it trying to improve their own situation. From a socio-political point of view, there is no difference between an Irish peasant farmer emigrating to Louisiana to escape the famine in Connemara in the 1840s and a Somali farmer trying to get to Kent in the 2020s ... other than the couple of hundred years needed to transform the former into some kind of epic legend, worthy of bronze memorial statues, a movie or two and many a proclamation extolling the cultural richness that such emigration brought to the region.