Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So.... an equivalent of Calais in UK airports.

I'm going to go with "No, it's your stupid idea, you deal with it, America"

I did that in Ireland. Had my fingerprints taken, and passed all the US border checks there so that I could land in the US as a domestic flight (instead of having to do it at the other end).

Bit of a storm in a teacup, really. It doesn't matter if you do it at one end or the other, the result is the same. All the that happens is that a bunch of US border personnel sit in a room in whatever other country and do their checks early.

 Ketara wrote:
I did that in Ireland. Had my fingerprints taken, and passed all the US border checks there so that I could land in the US as a domestic flight (instead of having to do it at the other end).

Bit of a storm in a teacup, really. It doesn't matter if you do it at one end or the other, the result is the same. All the that happens is that a bunch of US border personnel sit in a room in whatever other country and do their checks early.

Republic of Ireland as you know, is an independent sovereign nation. What deals they strike with the USA is their business.

As always, the proof is in the pudding. Let's see what happens if Britain asks for British border checks at US airports. Washington would tell us to go hang.

I don't want any foreign police/border officials on British soil, because it's a slippery slope.

They'll be demanding immunity from prosecution when things go wrong, and it's always a when with these people.

I've had dealings with US officials before at the airport and they are utter scum. Rude, arrogant, and obnoxious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Graphite wrote:
So.... an equivalent of Calais in UK airports.

I'm going to go with "No, it's your stupid idea, you deal with it, America"

Well said

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As always, the proof is in the pudding. Let's see what happens if Britain asks for British border checks at US airports. Washington would tell us to go hang.

They already do. To take from.gov about travelling to the UK from the US

Before you board

Your ‘carrier’ (eg airline or transport provider) will check your passport and other travel documents. They’ll send this information electronically to Border Force.

We prefer a more efficient arrangement than having a bloke physically sit there in the US and manually shuffle the papers, but that's about it. You land in the UK, a bloke pulls up the information sent from the US, doublechecks one or two points and then rubberstamps you through.

It's really not something worth raising the roof over.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

As always, the proof is in the pudding. Let's see what happens if Britain asks for British border checks at US airports. Washington would tell us to go hang.

They already do. To take from.gov about travelling to the UK from the US

Before you board

Your ‘carrier’ (eg airline or transport provider) will check your passport and other travel documents. They’ll send this information electronically to Border Force.

We prefer a more efficient arrangement than having a bloke physically sit there in the US and manually shuffle the papers, but that's about it. You land in the UK, a bloke pulls up the information sent from the US, doublechecks one or two points and then rubberstamps you through.

It's really not something worth raising the roof over.

Fair enough, I was wrong on the first point, but I'm still dead against the principal. It's a slippery slope for me. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Firstly, to the going issue about which side of the border whose immigration people are on, I don't have much of an issue as long as they are professional and get the job done. The reason for this way of processing is to stop the applicant before they entering the country they are heading to. I can't disagree with that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Judicial independence: love it! Love it! Always loved it!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/fresh-brexit-legal-challenge-blocked-high-court-article-127

I've always maintained from the start that these legal challenges never gave two hoots for Parliamentary sovereignty, and should be seen for what they are: an attempt to reverse the referendum.

These people, emboldened by a Parliament that voted 70% remain on June 23rd, thought they could reverse the result through the commons.

You'll remember that people were banging on about non-binding referendums for weeks. That has fallen silent now.

Now they have shifted to legal challenges. To be fair to them, they might have won had they acted earlier, but alas, the snail like pace of the court system was their undoing. That and two other factors:

1) They underestimated how much of a shambles the Labour party is.

2) The vote the other day has well and truly pulled the rug from underneath them...

The same people will not give up prolonging the Brexit process. They cannot reverse the decision, but hide behind superficial statements of 'this is for democracy or the publics right'. In any case they are prolonging the inevitable. Of course, as has been previously stated certain individuals will loose out post Brexit and those with the money and the addiction to be in the media centre will continue to prod and harass the legal system to complicate the Brexit deal. In many ways these 'Inners' are self defeating because they can alter nothing, the only thing they can do is stir up trouble and cause instability. Jitters cause the pound to drop slightly and they can rejoice in a 'told you so fashion'. It is an unfortunate self-harming procedure to justify their lost cause.

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Firstly, to the going issue about which side of the border whose immigration people are on, I don't have much of an issue as long as they are professional and get the job done. The reason for this way of processing is to stop the applicant before they entering the country they are heading to. I can't disagree with that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Judicial independence: love it! Love it! Always loved it!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/fresh-brexit-legal-challenge-blocked-high-court-article-127

I've always maintained from the start that these legal challenges never gave two hoots for Parliamentary sovereignty, and should be seen for what they are: an attempt to reverse the referendum.

These people, emboldened by a Parliament that voted 70% remain on June 23rd, thought they could reverse the result through the commons.

You'll remember that people were banging on about non-binding referendums for weeks. That has fallen silent now.

Now they have shifted to legal challenges. To be fair to them, they might have won had they acted earlier, but alas, the snail like pace of the court system was their undoing. That and two other factors:

1) They underestimated how much of a shambles the Labour party is.

2) The vote the other day has well and truly pulled the rug from underneath them...

The same people will not give up prolonging the Brexit process. They cannot reverse the decision, but hide behind superficial statements of 'this is for democracy or the publics right'. In any case they are prolonging the inevitable. Of course, as has been previously stated certain individuals will loose out post Brexit and those with the money and the addiction to be in the media centre will continue to prod and harass the legal system to complicate the Brexit deal. In many ways these 'Inners' are self defeating because they can alter nothing, the only thing they can do is stir up trouble and cause instability. Jitters cause the pound to drop slightly and they can rejoice in a 'told you so fashion'. It is an unfortunate self-harming procedure to justify their lost cause.

Have you not noticed the narrative going on here?

First it was non-binding referendums. Then it was the single market, now it's EEA, EFTA, FBI, or whatever the hell is next!

They are determined, I'll give them their due.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Firstly, to the going issue about which side of the border whose immigration people are on, I don't have much of an issue as long as they are professional and get the job done. The reason for this way of processing is to stop the applicant before they entering the country they are heading to. I can't disagree with that.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Judicial independence: love it! Love it! Always loved it!

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/03/fresh-brexit-legal-challenge-blocked-high-court-article-127

I've always maintained from the start that these legal challenges never gave two hoots for Parliamentary sovereignty, and should be seen for what they are: an attempt to reverse the referendum.

These people, emboldened by a Parliament that voted 70% remain on June 23rd, thought they could reverse the result through the commons.

You'll remember that people were banging on about non-binding referendums for weeks. That has fallen silent now.

Now they have shifted to legal challenges. To be fair to them, they might have won had they acted earlier, but alas, the snail like pace of the court system was their undoing. That and two other factors:

1) They underestimated how much of a shambles the Labour party is.

2) The vote the other day has well and truly pulled the rug from underneath them...

The same people will not give up prolonging the Brexit process. They cannot reverse the decision, but hide behind superficial statements of 'this is for democracy or the publics right'. In any case they are prolonging the inevitable. Of course, as has been previously stated certain individuals will loose out post Brexit and those with the money and the addiction to be in the media centre will continue to prod and harass the legal system to complicate the Brexit deal. In many ways these 'Inners' are self defeating because they can alter nothing, the only thing they can do is stir up trouble and cause instability. Jitters cause the pound to drop slightly and they can rejoice in a 'told you so fashion'. It is an unfortunate self-harming procedure to justify their lost cause.

Have you not noticed the narrative going on here?

First it was non-binding referendums. Then it was the single market, now it's EEA, EFTA, FBI, or whatever the hell is next!

They are determined, I'll give them their due.

I know! Its almost as if one Inner says to another 'So what can we pull out of our INSERT WORD HERE today?' They are very tenacious and determined, if only they devoted such energy to help Britain post Brexit rather than create deeper divisions

 Ketara wrote:


We weren't talking historical or future. We were talking contemporary, ala right now. Talking about where the country may or may not be in two, ten, or fifty years means nothing whatsoever when we're dealing with the concept of the 'relevancy' or respective power of a country at this precise minute. Which is why I pointed out that your worries and ideology around Brexit are shading your view of the matter, because it really has nothing to do with anything with regards to the original concept I took issue with (namely the theory of British declinism).

I'm not sure I talked about the UK disappearing under the waves in 10-50 years time though? If we only are talking about contemporary things then we can only talk about the actual A50 vote rather than any implications from it then as I pointed out it would be a very boring historical conversation! I was more pointing out that the UK's position now is massively over rated and our significance now outside the UK is minimal and that even without the UK, global growth would hardly bat an eyelid. There maybe local impacts but overall it's insignificant and if anything humans are quite adaptable quickly forgetting things that are no longer relevant. The UK is massively overrated as an economic nation, but for a lot of people I think we are still lost in the days of the empire.

It may be simplistic but it is a useful basic metric simply from it shows how much economic clout any individual country has (for example no one argues that the US is not the largest economic nation and that is also simplistic).
It really, really isn't. It's simplistic, misleading, and I regard that metric as completely invalid and insubstantive when it comes to the point you were trying to make; which was in itself, generalistic, overreaching, and stuffed full of more hyperbole than a christmas dinner with jealous in-laws.

But at least it has some physical data to it. Given that you started the discussion by a noddy comparison to where we are placed on a league table I find the idea that the accusation that using actual figures is "overreaching, and stuffed full of more hyperbole" quite bemusing when at the same time using a league table isn't considered the same (and in reality much worse). But then this is probably just "alternative facts" that I need to get used to...

Chin up old bean. I know Brexit is pretty big and scary right now, but it doesn't have to factor into every discussion!

Not big and scary, more moronic, driven by bigoted individuals that seem to have more sway in government than they really deserve to have! Leaving the EU won't last, 10 years, enough old farts are dead, another vote and we are back in.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Not big and scary, more moronic, driven by bigoted individuals that seem to have more sway in government than they really deserve to have! Leaving the EU won't last, 10 years, enough old farts are dead, another vote and we are back in.

Who are these individuals that are blatantly bigots? You may think certain individuals have more sway, but that is only because certain elements of the opposition are so weak! Would anyone really want Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abott and the Labour Party running the Brexit show? Absolutely not because they struggle to stand up for their own parties interests, let alone a whole Kingdom of Nations! I am highly sceptical of your estimate that we will be back in within 10 years. I and certain other individuals on this discussion would hate to see so much effort be wasted down the line. Things would have to be very bad, we would have to be desperate and the terms quick and easy. However the UK is going to strong and will continue to do so. I highly doubt the EU would want the UK back anytime soon, and would be extra harsh for a re-join. I don't think the public would consider accepting the Euro for a start. Hopefully with a little progress from old A50 we can focus on the positives for a change when such news arrives.

 Sentinel1 wrote:


A healthy does of irrelevance I see, David Cameron put himself in the position in which he had to resign, under legal law the Conservatives still had right to lead government for set amount of time, so an interim P.M was inevitable. In some ways of feel sorry for Mrs. May, she has to clear up Cameron's mess and lead a country. She will never be popular as a 'technical-usurper' but someone had to take the job and there were a lot of bad choices that thankfully didn't get the top seat. Generalising Donuld Trump and his Administration is naively wrong, you may not agree with him or his right wing policies but he is still upholding democracy. By your admission would you class all left wings as Communists? No, so we can't assume the extreme on anyone. Many of the 2015 manifesto policies will be no longer feasible post Brexit, and a new Prime Minister has every right to amend their parties policies and change the way of things from previous people. I do not think Cameron's agenda was in their top priorities once he had left and I would like to see the poll that indicate people prefer access to the common market over immigration - a deciding factor in the Referendum result. I do not disagree it was in the public interest to have a debate in parliament over whether we should trigger Article 50, but with hindsight it was a wasted effort with a result we could all Predict (Well apart from Diane Abbot pulling a sickie).

I would greatly appreciate a well thought out response.

I don't think you were following the conversation very well. The argument was that we never got a say in joining the EU, but we did. It was in the political manifestos and we voted on this basis. We still aren't a direct democracy and the MPs are meant to vote in parliament based on what they think is best for the Country. We vote for them based on what we think is the best MP for our constituency based on their manifesto. Hence we are considerably less democratic in some ways now than we have ever been. None of us have been given a vote as to what post Brexit should look like. We now have policies that none of us have been asked to vote on and so on. By the time we do get to vote these decisions will have been made and the UK populace will have been removed from the equation and led on by a bigoted ultra-right wing Tory party. If you were an advocate for democracy then there should be a General Election because the last manifestos are no longer relevant and hence we as the public should have a say on what direction the country should now take. The Tories are afraid to do this, every by-election and local election has shown a huge swing in favour of LDs; the voting populace is dividing down Liberal/protectionism agendas and the Tories know they are more vulnerable to LDs/UKIP snatching back seats especially in areas like London and the East. We're not getting a GE because of fear in the Tory party, but as such they are using it as a method to ram home their own political agenda and damn the public.

As for polls showing a favouritism to staying the EEA, we have this one (50% want Brexit light, 40% Brexit hard, 10% don't know) https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/16/public-split-what-kind-brexit-they-think-governmen/ and even an Express one http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/655827/Poll-Euro-free-trade-deal-EU-Brexit

As for Trump there is no need to generalise him. His actions show he is an evil, petty man that has managed to delude enough Americans into thinking he supports them when in reality the only thing he is actually interested in is himself.

As for Diane Abbot, I believe she had a migraine. I presume you have never met someone that has there because in severe cases the person has symptoms similar to a stroke that can last a day or so. It is entirely unpleasant for the person involved (given I have a friend that gets these I am ever grateful I am not affected by them), but before you criticise people for having them then maybe you should try and least understand what they have to go through before making judgements?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentinel1 wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

Not big and scary, more moronic, driven by bigoted individuals that seem to have more sway in government than they really deserve to have! Leaving the EU won't last, 10 years, enough old farts are dead, another vote and we are back in.

Who are these individuals that are blatantly bigots? You may think certain individuals have more sway, but that is only because certain elements of the opposition are so weak! Would anyone really want Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abott and the Labour Party running the Brexit show? Absolutely not because they struggle to stand up for their own parties interests, let alone a whole Kingdom of Nations! I am highly sceptical of your estimate that we will be back in within 10 years. I and certain other individuals on this discussion would hate to see so much effort be wasted down the line. Things would have to be very bad, we would have to be desperate and the terms quick and easy. However the UK is going to strong and will continue to do so. I highly doubt the EU would want the UK back anytime soon, and would be extra harsh for a re-join. I don't think the public would consider accepting the Euro for a start. Hopefully with a little progress from old A50 we can focus on the positives for a change when such news arrives.

For example, Mays own statement blaming immigrants on the countries woes:-

"In the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of net migration in Britain, and that sheer volume has put pressure on public services, like schools, stretched our infrastructure, especially housing, and put a downward pressure on wages for working class people"

. All of which are highly questionable statements given the Tories massive cut backs in these areas. Amanda Rudd wanting businesses to release records on the number of non-british people employed by businesses. Jeremy Hunt wanting to get rid of all foreign doctors whilst enforcing endentured service on UK doctors. Never mind papers like the Daily Fascism and so on. And lets not talk about Nigel Farage. I'm still uncertain whether May herself is massively bigoted or whether she is just pandering to the crowd so she can get what she wants (which is massive uncontrolled surveillance of the public).

As for who should be running the show I think the best option we currently have is a balance between LDs and the SNP as they are the only two parties acting rationally and not with a ultra-right agenda. Labour are indeed a mess, but to be honest I'd prefer a mess than the clusterfeth the Tory party are about to dole out on the country.

The UK is getting weaker relatively and is likely to continue to do so with an aging population and a decreasing proportionally economic and social influence. I can definitely see a period where we might look back at the noughties and wonder how badly wrong we got everything.

As for another referendum. Why would it be unfair, what about those people (like my niece and nephew) that were never given a chance and had the opportunities of being in the EU ripped away from them by old, undereducated old farts? Surely it would be fair to give them there chance, their say? What is harsh about this?

 Whirlwind wrote:


I don't think you were following the conversation very well. The argument was that we never got a say in joining the EU, but we did. It was in the political manifestos and we voted on this basis. We still aren't a direct democracy and the MPs are meant to vote in parliament based on what they think is best for the Country. We vote for them based on what we think is the best MP for our constituency based on their manifesto. Hence we are considerably less democratic in some ways now than we have ever been. None of us have been given a vote as to what post Brexit should look like. We now have policies that none of us have been asked to vote on and so on. By the time we do get to vote these decisions will have been made and the UK populace will have been removed from the equation and led on by a bigoted ultra-right wing Tory party. If you were an advocate for democracy then there should be a General Election because the last manifestos are no longer relevant and hence we as the public should have a say on what direction the country should now take. The Tories are afraid to do this, every by-election and local election has shown a huge swing in favour of LDs; the voting populace is dividing down Liberal/protectionism agendas and the Tories know they are more vulnerable to LDs/UKIP snatching back seats especially in areas like London and the East. We're not getting a GE because of fear in the Tory party, but as such they are using it as a method to ram home their own political agenda and damn the public.

As for polls showing a favouritism to staying the EEA, we have this one (50% want Brexit light, 40% Brexit hard, 10% don't know) https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/01/16/public-split-what-kind-brexit-they-think-governmen/ and even an Express one http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/655827/Poll-Euro-free-trade-deal-EU-Brexit

The polls provided must be taken with a pinch of salt. Polls have been repeatedly wrong and misleading in recent times. Such polls cannot be taken at face value, I was not surveyed and I doubt the proper percentage of people were. This is more than likely an alternate fact until proven wrong.

As for Trump there is no need to generalise him. His actions show he is an evil, petty man that has managed to delude enough Americans into thinking he supports them when in reality the only thing he is actually interested in is himself.

As for Diane Abbot, I believe she had a migraine. I presume you have never met someone that has there because in severe cases the person has symptoms similar to a stroke that can last a day or so. It is entirely unpleasant for the person involved (given I have a friend that gets these I am ever grateful I am not affected by them), but before you criticise people for having them then maybe you should try and least understand what they have to go through before making judgements?

Where to begin, personally I believe the original reason the UK joined the then EEC was for what it stood for Free Economic Trade. Over time it became more about Central European Politics and changing laws to make every country the same. The UK people never got a choice but to accept these 'reforms' and could just listen to the news when said government signed away to be more EU inclusive.

I believe Manifesto's are a good thing, they are a set of rules, simple and laid out which make it fairly clear to choose which party to vote for. Even if you took the whole Manifesto thing away, it would still be based on the history of said parties views + candidates ideas, which amounts to the same.

As for the polls, they must be taken with a pinch of salt. Polls have been misleading and completely wrong in recent times. It does not tell you how many people were surveyed and I doubt it was it was a convincing vetted percentage. These statistics cannot be viewed as fact or taken at face value. These are at best alternate facts until proven wrong.

You cannot base your statement 'Donald Trump is Evil' on 2 weeks of being President. There is nothing Evil in trying to reduce illegal immigration and tightening border controls on countries with extremist elements. 'Only interested in himself' if that was the case he would either being doing very little or be looking to achieve popular ideas, currently he has quite a high amount of people who don't like him and I don't think he doesn't care about what they think.

As for Diane Abbot, its not proven she suffered a migraine and could just be likely used it as an excuse to abstain from the vote on a topic she does not agree with but knows she will loose. As for migraines I have not suffered one, nor do I know anyone who has, I likewise do not wish any suffering on anyone, nor do I make a jest at anyone who does suffer migraines.

I must admit I do enjoy your in-depth analysis of this topic, but you counter balance this with quick judgments that aren't always proven and don't marry up. I suppose this is impart to the fact we don't have much advancing politics to talk about at the minute and our opinions are taking over facts.

Donald Trump is an idiot. But "evil" is over-reaching.

 Whirlwind wrote:


For example, Mays own statement blaming immigrants on the countries woes:-
"In the last decade or so, we have seen record levels of net migration in Britain, and that sheer volume has put pressure on public services, like schools, stretched our infrastructure, especially housing, and put a downward pressure on wages for working class people". All of which are highly questionable statements given the Tories massive cut backs in these areas. Amanda Rudd wanting businesses to release records on the number of non-british people employed by businesses. Jeremy Hunt wanting to get rid of all foreign doctors whilst enforcing endentured service on UK doctors. Never mind papers like the Daily Fascism and so on. And lets not talk about Nigel Farage. I'm still uncertain whether May herself is massively bigoted or whether she is just pandering to the crowd so she can get what she wants (which is massive uncontrolled surveillance of the public).

May's statement is technically true, for all the benefits to the local economies immigrants achieve they are taking up publics service spaces in the NHS and schools etc. Now whether it is proven that they are detrimental overall i.e tax payer pays in more the immigrants pay out, I don't think has been proven one way or the other. Can anyone prove this with a statistical study? I admit their have been politicians who have made questionable comments semi-bigotry but you can't generalise all centre-right politicians or people who believe in controlling immigration as bigots. Likewise the Daily Mail is a bias paper that likes to provoke people to read their stories. But labelling it as fascist, and therefore presuming all readers are fascists is extremely offensive and again wrong.

 Whirlwind wrote:

As for who should be running the show I think the best option we currently have is a balance between LDs and the SNP as they are the only two parties acting rationally and not with a ultra-right agenda. Labour are indeed a mess, but to be honest I'd prefer a mess than the clusterf**k the Tory party are about to dole out on the country.

Personally the Liberal Democrats are a bit of a ghost party, full of moral fibre but without any physical political prescience. I doubt they will be in the big leagues again for sometime, unless Labour have a massive party split. The S.N.P would be catastrophic for Brexit because if they controlled the U.K it would be all about Scotland and no one else, a lot of damage would be done, their Brexit deal would be so pro EU and watered down all the effort of a Referendum to leave would be wasted.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Why would it be unfair, what about those people (like my niece and nephew) that were never given a chance and had the opportunities of being in the EU ripped away from them by old, undereducated old farts? Surely it would be fair to give them there chance, their say? What is harsh about this?

That is why we must make Brexit a good thing for the UK so that future generations will be better off. Yes its tough luck being born at the wrong time but that's life! Yes some EU opportunities will be lost, but they will be open to globalisation and more opportunity internationally rather than the dim view 'Europe is as far as we need go'.

'Old uneducated farts' another generalisation of the Leave Voter. That description does not match me or many millions of other people who voted Leave.

I'm 25 year old. I wasn't aware that I'm an old fart. I guess I should get some old slippers and a dressing gown so I can look the part.

A 27 year old fart here.

Look out! look out! The Eurocrat witchhunter's been about!

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Donald Trump is an idiot. But "evil" is over-reaching.

Hrm, welching suppliers out of payment on contracts, running tennant housing like a slumlord, arguing for the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, talking about how he gets away with committing what many would consider to be sexual assault, threatening to imprison political rivals, etc goes beyond just "idiot".

 Sentinel1 wrote:
Where to begin, personally I believe the original reason the UK joined the then EEC was for what it stood for Free Economic Trade. Over time it became more about Central European Politics and changing laws to make every country the same. The UK people never got a choice but to accept these 'reforms' and could just listen to the news when said government signed away to be more EU inclusive.

We've always had a choice, you've always had a choice in who you voted for. That's how a parliamentary democracy works. You don't get a vote on every single issue because we are not a direct democracy and if that was the case we should have a direct vote on everything, whether that be the nuclear deterrent, being in the EU, and what any exit is like. If you have a system where political parties can choose where the direct democracy applies then we are setting ourselves up to be exploited by populist and distasteful movements because it is the political parties that can pick and choose the questions they ask. That manipulates the population. As I've said before the UK populace is not getting any democratic say on what Brexit should look like; there is no manifesto, no General Election, no referendum. A few people are pushing forward reforms that only benefit themselves and their party. People wanted more democracy by leaving the EU and ironically has resulted in a massive swing against it. No one has even asked the UK populace whether we should continue to be part of the EEA, we are just getting grunts from May to say that everyone voted to control immigration (which they did not).

As for the polls, they must be taken with a pinch of salt. Polls have been misleading and completely wrong in recent times. It does not tell you how many people were surveyed and I doubt it was it was a convincing vetted percentage. These statistics cannot be viewed as fact or taken at face value. These are at best alternate facts until proven wrong.

Unfortunately this shows just how much people don't understand statistics. Polls are correct, what rarely gets shown are the errors, which is the big issue, because these tell us just what sort of error there is. Most polls 'go wrong' when the result looks like it is going to be close and the errors are larger than the swing need to change the result. All polls show that the majority are in favour of remaining in the EEA by some margin which gives some confidence that this is the real feeling amongst the public. If you don't believe the polls then surely you should be advocating a another referendum to make this determination? Otherwise it is just "I don't want to believe because it doesn't comply with my view" and that lacks empathy or consideration for anyone else.

You cannot base your statement 'Donald Trump is Evil' on 2 weeks of being President. There is nothing Evil in trying to reduce illegal immigration and tightening border controls on countries with extremist elements. 'Only interested in himself' if that was the case he would either being doing very little or be looking to achieve popular ideas, currently he has quite a high amount of people who don't like him and I don't think he doesn't care about what they think.

Banning asylum seekers and anyone from a select group of countries (of which people from those countries have never killed an American) whilst allowing people from countries where you have business dealings (with people who have killed americans) is nothing to do with preventing illegal immigration. It's about protectionism and fascism. To leave people to the whims of countries that persecute their own populace or that are trying to escape the hell that are warzones is straight out evil in my book.

As for Diane Abbot, its not proven she suffered a migraine and could just be likely used it as an excuse to abstain from the vote on a topic she does not agree with but knows she will loose. As for migraines I have not suffered one, nor do I know anyone who has, I likewise do not wish any suffering on anyone, nor do I make a jest at anyone who does suffer migraines.

Maybe you should look up what causes migraines then, because stress can be a factor. You are just casting aspersions on the integrity of someone as whether they become unwell is their own personal issue, just as it is not my business whether you are sick or not. That you believe she deliberately avoided the vote probably indicates more about your state of mind when it comes to difficult issues than anyone else. I've got to question the morals of anyone that thinks that we should now prod and probe other people just so we can prove they really were sick (because it is just the same as wanting to undertake medical tests on migrants just to see what their age it, which to point out was a Tory idea).

 Whirlwind wrote:
Unfortunately this shows just how much people don't understand statistics. Polls are correct, what rarely gets shown are the errors, which is the big issue, because these tell us just what sort of error there is. Most polls 'go wrong' when the result looks like it is going to be close and the errors are larger than the swing need to change the result. All polls show that the majority are in favour of remaining in the EEA by some margin which gives some confidence that this is the real feeling amongst the public. If you don't believe the polls then surely you should be advocating a another referendum to make this determination? Otherwise it is just "I don't want to believe because it doesn't comply with my view" and that lacks empathy or consideration for anyone else.

I was pointing out that polls can never be taken as fact, no matter how accurate they seem, until prove after said referring event/result.

 Whirlwind wrote:
Banning asylum seekers and anyone from a select group of countries (of which people from those countries have never killed an American) whilst allowing people from countries where you have business dealings (with people who have killed americans) is nothing to do with preventing illegal immigration. It's about protectionism and fascism. To leave people to the whims of countries that persecute their own populace or that are trying to escape the hell that are warzones is straight out evil in my book.

That is a little exaggerated and still does not define Trump as 'pure evil'. If it did then you would have to cast the same assumption on many people past and present who acted similarly. Also it is wrong to brand leaders and their countries populace as 'Facists' because its leaders and administration want to reduce immigration, refugees and to a latter extent terrorism.

 Whirlwind wrote:
You are just casting aspersions on the integrity of someone as whether they become unwell is their own personal issue, just as it is not my business whether you are sick or not. That you believe she deliberately avoided the vote probably indicates more about your state of mind when it comes to difficult issues than anyone else. I've got to question the morals of anyone that thinks that we should now prod and probe other people just so we can prove they really were sick (because it is just the same as wanting to undertake medical tests on migrants just to see what their age it, which to point out was a Tory idea).

I was not saying my opinion was fact on the issue at all, I was hinting there could have been more too it, I do not deny I could be completely wrong. You are quick to brand leaders as evil and populations as fascist's yet question my morals as out of order? Hmmm.

I think we should move this discussion on to solid ground, rather than opinions of opinions that we are now falling into.

 Sentinel1 wrote:

May's statement is technically true, for all the benefits to the local economies immigrants achieve they are taking up publics service spaces in the NHS and schools etc. Now whether it is proven that they are detrimental overall i.e tax payer pays in more the immigrants pay out, I don't think has been proven one way or the other. Can anyone prove this with a statistical study? I admit their have been politicians who have made questionable comments semi-bigotry but you can't generalise all centre-right politicians or people who believe in controlling immigration as bigots. Likewise the Daily Mail is a bias paper that likes to provoke people to read their stories. But labelling it as fascist, and therefore presuming all readers are fascists is extremely offensive and again wrong.

Except the statements are false. The NHS is struggling because of increased pressure from the UK aging population. Migrants are come here to work and in general are young and healthy. The demand they place on the NHS is insignificant. It is ironic that it is immigrants that are effectively supporting the NHS to allow it to continue to provide some support for the old who are not paying or contributing to the system in any meaningful way. On top of this you have people that are leaving for sunnier climes with better working conditions. The number of people applying for nurses is massively down (23%) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38827189 . The funding towards the NHS is dropping relatively. This is nothing to do with immigration, in fact without it our NHS service would be in even more of a mess, because there would be less young people fuding the services that in the majority are used by the old.

Schools are under strain because teachers are overworked and underpaid and are leaving the UK system in droves. The funding for education has dropped dramatically in the last seven years http://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education which is why your education is struggling. When a graduate can get a job in a supermarket for more than a starting teacher will earn then that it going to drop the number of new recruits. Again we rely on immigrants to fill these gaps, the number of extra children in the system now are less than what there were in the 1970's! https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/433680/SFR16_2015_Main_Text.pdf

Housing is limited because builders, build enough houses to ensure they maintain and grow their profits year on year. If we use noddy numbers:- Bob the Builder makes a profit of a £100 per year for his share holders. They know that they need to maintain demand to keep profits growing. So if there is a demand for 110 houses in a region per annum they will build 100 to ensure there is always a demand that will drive house prices (£1 profit per house). Now suppose the demand drops to 70 houses per annum. They won't keep building 100 houses (that lowers prices and profits). They will instead build 60 homes and increase the profit margin to £1.75 per house to maintain the same level of overall profit. That means higher house prices not lower ones...

I'm sorry any paper that calls judges "Enemies of the People" is fascist. It doesn't make the people reading them the same, just open to unfortunate influence.

Personally the Liberal Democrats are a bit of a ghost party, full of moral fibre but without any physical political prescience. I doubt they will be in the big leagues again for sometime, unless Labour have a massive party split. The S.N.P would be catastrophic for Brexit because if they controlled the U.K it would be all about Scotland and no one else, a lot of damage would be done, their Brexit deal would be so pro EU and watered down all the effort of a Referendum to leave would be wasted.

I think there is a greater ground swelling for LDs than some people care to admit, which has been seen in recent election results. They still have a sizeable voting proportion (despite not having many seats) which is more an issue with our outdated FPTP system. As for SNP I think they care more about the UK than the Tories do (who are only interested in the size of their wallets).

That is why we must make Brexit a good thing for the UK so that future generations will be better off. Yes its tough luck being born at the wrong time but that's life! Yes some EU opportunities will be lost, but they will be open to globalisation and more opportunity internationally rather than the dim view 'Europe is as far as we need go'.

Except it will only be a bad thing for children. I find it ironic that many people railed against globalisation with the EU, that protected socially, environmentally and economically those countries in it and now want to have free trade with the rest of the world which provides no social, economic or environmental protection. Those businesses that were protected from Asian power houses flooding the markets with cheap products will disappear because the government is actively courting free trade with them. That means that metal screw manufacturer will now have to compete with an Asian company that can make 5 times the number at much cheaper rates which with a free trade system will mean they simply can't compete. What is likely to happen given current intentions is this and it will screw over your children and my niece and nephew:-

The UK government will decide where there is a lack of skills and actively court such people. Businesses will be the ones that decide what skills are needed. By not providing apprenticeships and training they can actively cause the skills shortage. They then go to the UK government who will implement schemes to encourage people to come to the shores with these skills. This further reduces the incentive to train anyone in the UK. This means that young people are not given the opportunity to develop and become skilled. This results in vast numbers of people in the UK with only rudimentary skills. This results in large number of UK people fighting for the unskilled jobs. This deflates wages massively. You end up in a situation where the UK populace becomes part of the machine and a few (relatively) rich global workforce making massive profits out of the UK workforce (which to note is favoured by the Tory party). By leaving the EU and having for the most part rules that apply equally to everyone you partially limit this effect (you can never truly get away from globalisation given current circumstances). The people that will fair the worse from this situation is the poorest (ironic given they wanted the change for the better when it is almost certainly going to be worst for them).

'Old uneducated farts' another generalisation of the Leave Voter. That description does not match me or many millions of other people who voted Leave.

It's not. All evidence shows that a significant proportion of the Leave voters were both old and less educated. The majority of those that voted Remain were young and better educated. The older generation generally vote in greater numbers. If you look at the statistics given average death and birth rates and assuming that we maintain current levels of education then in 10 years enough poorly educated old farts will have pegged it and enough young people will become voters (and after considering % of voters per age group) that the country will have become pro-EU. That's doesn't mean every leave voter was an old uneducated fart, just that there were so many of them that they can swing the vote in this way. That's why a lot of young people are angry about the whole issue - people that won't see the consequences of their actions (they will be deader than a Tomb Kings grandfather) have forced through something that younger generation will see and in general don't want.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sentinel1 wrote:


I was pointing out that polls can never be taken as fact, no matter how accurate they seem, until prove after said referring event/result.

So you are agreeing that there should be a second referendum?

 Whirlwind wrote:

That is a little exaggerated and still does not define Trump as 'pure evil'. If it did then you would have to cast the same assumption on many people past and present who acted similarly. Also it is wrong to brand leaders and their countries populace as 'Facists' because its leaders and administration want to reduce immigration, refugees and to a latter extent terrorism.

Sorry he is, you only have to look at all his actions together to see he is. If you don't want to believe that then that is your choice, but you're the one that will have to explain to your children why you supported such a travesty. As for the definition of fascism you should look up the definition and then compare it to Trumps actions. I did this several pages back and will leave you to find out why he should be considered in this way.

I was not saying my opinion was fact on the issue at all, I was hinting there could have been more too it, I do not deny I could be completely wrong. You are quick to brand leaders as evil and populations as fascist's yet question my morals as out of order? Hmmm.

With no evidence for what you are saying. You are intimating there may be other reasons why she didn't vote without evidence. The definition of fascism on the other hand is quite clear and they meet the criteria based on their actions (from their own mouths and signatures). The difference is I do not need to suggest and infer why actions might be being taken by such groups because I don't have to, they are stating it quite openly and clearly (and are proud of it).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Donald Trump is an idiot. But "evil" is over-reaching.

Hrm, welching suppliers out of payment on contracts, running tennant housing like a slumlord, arguing for the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, talking about how he gets away with committing what many would consider to be sexual assault, threatening to imprison political rivals, etc goes beyond just "idiot".

Ungentlemanly? Not what we call cricket? Standard practice for effective businessmen?

 Whirlwind wrote:
Facists! Facists Everywhere!

Debating this any further is a lost cause. Let's agree to disagree okay?

 Whirlwind wrote:

So you are agreeing that there should be a second referendum?

Certainly not, the Referendum result was perfectly clear, so to were the rules on the winner. If the Inner vote won, I would certainly not be trying to ram another vote argument down everyone's throat. I respect the results of all public votes.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Except it will only be a bad thing for children. I find it ironic that many people railed against globalisation with the EU, that protected socially, environmentally and economically those countries in it and now want to have free trade with the rest of the world which provides no social, economic or environmental protection. Those businesses that were protected from Asian power houses flooding the markets with cheap products will disappear because the government is actively courting free trade with them. That means that metal screw manufacturer will now have to compete with an Asian company that can make 5 times the number at much cheaper rates which with a free trade system will mean they simply can't compete. What is likely to happen given current intentions is this and it will screw over your children and my niece and nephew

If we keep down trodding ourselves and expect Brexit to fail, it will fail. I believe free trade is good for everyone. It’s a case of evolve or die and has been for centuries of British trading. As a nation of shop keepers we will evolve to meet new demands. As is always the case some industries die, but new ones are born and develop new opportunities for the future population.

 Whirlwind wrote:

It's not. All evidence shows that a significant proportion of the Leave voters were both old and less educated. The majority of those that voted Remain were young and better educated. The older generation generally vote in greater numbers. If you look at the statistics given average death and birth rates and assuming that we maintain current levels of education then in 10 years enough poorly educated old farts will have pegged it and enough young people will become voters (and after considering % of voters per age group) that the country will have become pro-EU. That's doesn't mean every leave voter was an old uneducated fart, just that there were so many of them that they can swing the vote in this way. That's why a lot of young people are angry about the whole issue - people that won't see the consequences of their actions (they will be deader than a Tomb Kings grandfather) have forced through something that younger generation will see and in general don't want.

Traditionalist values tell me we should respect our elders as they build upon the foundations of those that came before them, making it easier for us and the generations to come. The elderly population have earned their right to vote and have far more wisdom and experience than younger generations. They are to be respected as pillars of the community rather than another burden on society they have built.

@ Whirlwind

If remain won the vote on the same margin would you be calling for a second referendum?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
@ Whirlwind

If remain won the vote on the same margin would you be calling for a second referendum?

Of course not. He'd be bleating about democracy and respecting the will of the people instead.

Thought this would be interesting, just read last few pages and it makes me feel sick. This isn't UK politics, its the British Right Wing Thread! Anyone with a sensible left wing view is automatically wrong and told what to think by these Right Wing guys. The EU is a good thing, just shows what happens when Right wing takes over!

Whirlwind - you talk sense stand up to these Brit Republicans!

 Mr Heretek wrote:
Thought this would be interesting, just read last few pages and it makes me feel sick. This isn't UK politics, its the British Right Wing Thread! Anyone with a sensible left wing view is automatically wrong and told what to think by these Right Wing guys. The EU is a good thing, just shows what happens when Right wing takes over!

Whirlwind - you talk sense stand up to these Brit Republicans!

Hardly. There are just as many left wingers in this thread as right wing. Being outnumbered on a certain day by an opposing viewpoint doesn't mean you're being oppressed. Sometimes its the other way round.

And the EU is not a left - Right issue. I'm not particularly right wing (centre libertarian if you put any stock in thoses online political compass tests), and Im pretty sure DINLT is not right wing either. And famously, Jeremy Corbyn is anti-EU, and he's about as left wing as you can get.


If you think this thread is sickening because you can't handle opposing viewpoints, go read the US Politics thread where people are advocating and cheering on violence. That gak is truly sickening.

I appreciate and respect the fact that there are people on this thread who vote for and support the Conservative Party and/or UKIP.

There's nothing wrong with that in our democracy, so these comments are not intended to offend those people,

But personally, I despise the Tory party, and every Conservative government I've ever had the misfortune to live under,

so this talk of there being a pro-right wing bias in this thread is nonsense.

Being a democrat, all you can do is knuckle under and accept that's the way it goes sometimes when a party you dislike gets into government.

As for being against the EU, my background is a socialist background, a left-wing background in a vein similar to people like Tony Benn and ironically, Jeremy Corbyn.

Being anti-EU is not the property of the Right.

I've always seen the EU as a corporate racket, originally supported by the Conservative party, and the free movement of money, goods, and peoples, has not benefited the working classes IMO.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I've always seen the EU as a corporate racket, originally supported by the Conservative party, and the free movement of money, goods, and peoples, has not benefited the working classes IMO.

Which is due to the fact that people vote right-wing, conservative parties into the EU, not because the EU inherently feths with people.

I've always seen the EU as a corporate racket, originally supported by the Conservative party, and the free movement of money, goods, and peoples, has not benefited the working classes IMO.

UK has never been really part of Europe. They have always had a special role.
The situation is different for some of the richer main land EU countries, like Germany, Netherlands, and whatnot.
That UK will leave the EU is not a surprise.