Brexit

[thermionic]

Ok. I should not have used the term racist. Instead, I'll say immoral.

The term you're looking for is xenophobic. Part and parcel of islander mentality.

Agreed. I was in a hurry to get out and have a fun meeting with an accountant.  Didn't have time to finely choose my words.

One comment I will make is that our continental cousins appear quite sanguine about the Brexit situation. I guess they've had a lot more experience of fascists grabbing power, so are unsurprised at the decision.

 

[micaddict]

JohnRoberts wrote:

PS: No I Am not going to re-litigate offenses going back hundreds of years before I was born... It's hard enough dealing with the present and near future.

No one can be held responsible for what their great grandparents have done.

That said, it's usually the offspring of the aggressor, oppressor, enslaver etc. that come with this "defense"; not so much the descendants of the defeated, oppressed, enslaved etc.

Also, more often than not, the first group still benefits form those old offenses.

I'm Dutch, so I know.
And I'm not proud of it.

 

[thermionic]

No it is not. You are making a generalisation and that is wrong.

Ok. I should not have used the term racist. Instead, I'll say immoral. If you can argue that it's ethical to prevent people from other cultures moving into your town because you just happened to be born there, go ahead, please.

I am trying to understand your way of thinking but "immoral" will also be wrong.

My argument is not about "skull measuring" point of view. Allow me to repeat again. I am an immigrant.

I would love to be able to talk about people from other cultures moving into my town (and messing it up)but this would be very very long and neither I have the time to write nor you have the time to read.

But we are not talking about other cultures moving from one town to another within the same country.  There is nothing immoral about implementing an immigration policy which is fair to both the prospective immigrants and the residents of the country.

You may criticise Boris Johnson in any way you wish but I have not heard him basing his  immigration case on "skull measuring". Yes he mentioned of his concerns  about Turkey gaining free movement within EU but let me tell you something. I would have concerns about this too and I am Turkish. And if it comes to skull measuring part of Boris Johnson's skull is also Turkish. So that argument does not add up.

If it's ok with you, I'll admit to choosing the wrong word. Substitute 'immoral' for 'xenophobic' - that's far more succinct.

What if, when you moved into your town years ago, the local Scots had regarded you as 'people from other cultures moving into my town (and messing it up)'?

but this would be very very long and neither I have the time to write nor you have the time to read.

In that case you will have to acccept that, in your absence, you've lost the argument. I'm not convinced it's an argument you can win.

I live in North London, amongst one of the largest immigrant Turkish populations anywhere (and Polish, Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek, Colombian, Brazilian...with the 5th highest proportion of Remain votes in the Uk...). When the Kurds got their seat in parliament last year, we sat on the street, eating our koftes and watching the locals party. It was a sight that filled our hearts with joy. I wonder what proportion of the 52% would encourage such an event? 

 

[sahib]

If it's ok with you, I'll admit to choosing the wrong word. Substitute 'immoral' for 'xenophobic' - that's far more succinct.

Well. It is still not OK for me because you are now calling me xenophobic because I do not agree with you.

What if, when you moved into your town years ago, the local Scots had regarded you as 'people from other cultures moving into my town (and messing it up)'?

I was going to give Istanbul as an example not Glasgow. There are good lessons to be learned there from the socio economic/cultural point of view.

but this would be very very long and neither I have the time to write nor you have the time to read.

In that case you will have to acccept that, in your absence, you've lost the argument. I'm not convinced it's an argument you can win.

I do not intend in getting into a contest let alone hoping to win an argument. However,  I think I will have to expand a bit more on the subject.

I live in North London, amongst one of the largest immigrant Turkish populations anywhere (and Polish, Bulgarian, Romanian, Greek, Colombian, Brazilian...with the 5th highest proportion of Remain votes in the Uk...). When the Kurds got their seat in parliament last year, we sat on the street, eating our koftes and watching the locals party. It was a sight that filled our hearts with joy. I wonder what proportion of the 52% would encourage such an event?

This is exactly where you are not clear on your position.  52% certainly had people who did not want any immigration into this country. But you seem to give an impression that the majority of this 52% is xenophobic. That is not true. 

The position of the leave campaign on this issue was not against immigration full stop. They argued for controlled immigration as opposed to EU requirements of unlimited.  I am not trying to defend Boris Johnson or Michael Gove here but trying to be objective which you seems to be lacking.  And because of my view you described me as a racist, then immoral and now xenophobic. So, I think it is time to give some of my credentials to clear the air.

My brother is married to a half black. So that makes his children quarter black. One of his sons is married to a half Armenian and they have just had a baby. My mother's sister was married to a Kurd. That makes that side of my cousins half Kurd. My wife is half Italian and half Irish and I have a son. So, if you are looking for "Mr no racist or xenophobic"  that's me.

The issue here is what sort of immigration do we want into this country. Do we want unlimited or limited? 

In my view it should be limited. Take Turkey as an example. The number of skilled people you will be attracting from Turkey who will contribute to the resources  will be greatly smaller than the ones demanding from the resources. We will not be attracting  families  with one child from the West. Instead we will be attracting families from the East with  much greater number of children (average is 5-6).  Go to Istanbul and see how many children on the street trying to sell you chewing gums or cigarettes. I am not against those children gaining a good education for a better future. How can I be? But at the same time how many can we accommodate in say, Glasgow which has a population of just 1M?  Doctor surgeries already find it difficult to cope, the schools are the same. I voted SNP in two elections but I do not agree with Sturgeon on unlimited immigration.

Assume Turkey is in the EU. This will increase the competition within say engineering. This will force Turkish companies to offer better salaries to keep their work force.  Now, in terms of social life Turkey offers much better alternative. Cheaper rent, great food, guaranteed sunshine, great night life, much better music scene and so on. What we have here they have the same . They have the same IPhone they play the same Strat. Why would a young, middle class, engineer guy  throw all this and come to Glasgow for say extra £300 a month? 

In my previous business I brought in two very high skilled workers from Turkey. Their work permits were issued in  less than two weeks. Both of them returned as they found it more attractive to live in Turkey. My sister obtained her PhD  here in Glasgow and her thesis is still one of the major references in her subject in British Library (http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.324170 ). Even though she was offered a job she though nah! and went back. Are we able to attract people like that? Or even if we do how many?

What I am saying is, sitting on the kerb, eating kofte celebrating a minority culture is one thing, but planning to integrate that minority fairly to both indigenous and them is another. When I say indigenous I do not mean only White English, Scott or Welsh.  I mean every UK citizen.

 

[thermionic]

I’m sorry if you thought I was calling you a racist. My point, a simple one, is that discriminating who can live where on the grounds of birthright is difficult to justify ethically – in my humble opinion. 

but planning to integrate that minority fairly to both indigenous and them is another.

But you integrated ok, didn’t you? The argument that immigrants can’t be integrated is the very same one Enoch Powell made, which might tend to back up some people’s assertions that the leave vote has put race relations back 50 years in the UK…(I happen to think that this was a very obvious side-effect, which is why Cameron should never have had the vote).

 

[sahib]

I’m sorry if you thought I was calling you a racist. My point, a simple one, is that discriminating who can live where on the grounds of birthright is difficult to justify ethically – in my humble opinion. 

This implies that we should have no borders and live in harmony as one "world nation". However much I would like that to happen but it is an utopia.

but planning to integrate that minority fairly to both indigenous and them is another.

But you integrated ok, didn’t you? The argument that immigrants can’t be integrated is the very same one Enoch Powell made,

I certainly did.  But what my view has got to do with Enoch Powell? I have never suggested that notion. You are now mixing up things badly.

However, if you are suggesting that unlimited immigration is a good thing then you are being  very naive. Eating kofte and all that is great but let's also talk about the gang culture in London.

which might tend to back up some people’s assertions that the leave vote has put race relations back 50 years in the UK…(I happen to think that this was a very obvious side-effect, which is why Cameron should never have had the vote).

They may have a point. However, I am not sure if you read it but there was an interesting article on yesterday's Guardian about "how bad voting is for democracy". Go figure.  ;D

 

[DaveP]

Best possible news today, Boris Johnson gives up leadership bid. ;D

We needed a safe pair of hands, not someone who was flaky about the details.

I think we have no chance of negotiating a deal with the EU now, we are just plain out.

It will not be in the EU's interest to give the UK anything worthwhile as other countries will just do the same.

They will want free movement of people as the price of access to the market and no Brexiteer will be able to agree to that.

The poison chalice is being prepared, I wonder who has the balls to take that on?

The only positive of this is that the EU will have a serious rethink over its relations with its citizens, pity it will cost the UK so much pain.

DaveP

 

[thermionic]

However, if you are suggesting that unlimited immigration is a good thing then you are being  very naive. Eating kofte and all that is great but let's also talk about the gang culture in London.

Let's get this straight: you voted Leave to protect us in London from gang culture, even though you live in Scotland? How do you connect 'London's gang culture' with uncontrolled immigration?

 

[sahib]

However, if you are suggesting that unlimited immigration is a good thing then you are being  very naive. Eating kofte and all that is great but let's also talk about the gang culture in London.

Let's get this straight: you voted Leave to protect us in London from gang culture, even though you live in Scotland? How do you connect 'London's gang culture' with uncontrolled immigration?

Justin, you do not know if I voted leave or stay.  I'll repeat. I am just trying to be objective to the immigration issue within the context of leave campaign.

In simpler terms  with genuine migrants criminals can also get in and it was exactly what happened. In a bit slightly more complicated terms you allow a number of migrants which are,  in terms of your resources, above your capability of integrating. You already have hugely deprived areas and under privileged people. Which are a source for gang culture. Before reaching out to what you already have you keep piling in more and more. Not every migrant finds a job. We already have migrants hanging around in the streets. Now that creates a gang culture.

We already have migrants who are claiming child benefit and sending it back home. We already have migrants who are claiming housing benefits but spending the summer back home. These things are real and putting the system under increasing pressure.

Otherwise the system in this country has always welcomed  those who want to live and contribute to the economy here. Home Office has always had "Shortage Professions" list. You fit in one and have an offer from an employer?  You  got the ticket. You are in.  But you arrive with your entire family knowing that if you do not get a job you will be looked after from day one, then how fair is that?

But again, if you are sticking to your guns and saying that uncontrolled immigration has no social and economic backlash  then we'll just agree to disagree as  otherwise we'll keep repeating ourselves. Plus of course there is the risk of John (Roberts) giving us a doing for that.

 

[Script]

Best possible news today, Boris Johnson gives up leadership bid. ;D

What? Got cold feet? Prospect of a cushy job in future he doesn't want to blow? This guy -- what a blurb.

 

[abbey road d enfer]

Best possible news today, Boris Johnson gives up leadership bid. ;D

What? Got cold feet? Prospect of a cushy job in future he doesn't want to blow? This guy -- what a blurb.

I guess he doesn't want to be associated with the coming debacle.

 

[JohnRoberts]

But again, if you are sticking to your guns and saying that uncontrolled immigration has no social and economic backlash  then we'll just agree to disagree as  otherwise we'll keep repeating ourselves. Plus of course there is the risk of John (Roberts) giving us a doing for that.

I'm just kind of glad this one event is not somehow my fault... ;D ;D ;D

Most are feeling sorry for the UK, or impact on ourselves, but this is also an opportunity to craft a better outcome.  Right now the UK fears losing business opportunity because of degraded access to the EU market, but what if improved tax policies make the UK a magnet for business to locate headquarters there.

Free movement within the EU has been used by takers to forum shop for best entitlements (I think UK was considered best or one of the most generous).  We are kind of ignoring the elephant in the room, which is the middle east conflict, that is driving the waves of migration out of that region with the EU easier to reach than US, etc.

Maybe a more focussed effort to stabilize the ME might reduce the worst of the immigration pressure.

The ME has been a slow motion train wreck for years, and while the military are making some modest progress on the ground, an increasingly desperate ISIS has little choice but to go more violent in high profile attacks on soft targets.

Everybody seems to be scratching their head about why attack Turkey, but in recent weeks Turkey apologized to Russia no doubt looking for more co-operation with them in Syria, and restored relations with Israel, neither of which will make ISIS very happy.

The bad news for ISIS is that pissing off Turkey will not make their life easier, while the future of the Assad regime still remains an unsettled situation and problem  for them.

No easy answers still but I'd favor a more aggressive effort to pacify the ME so people won't be in such a desperate rush to get out. 

JR

PS: Yes brexit broke it, now nobody wants to take responsibility and do the hard work to fix it... I wouldn't be surprised to see efforts to reverse Brexit. There seems to be some winners remorse among the exit crowd,  but the EU can not afford to give the UK any concessions at all, or there will be more such "exit" negotiations by other members.

 

[DaveP]

PS: Yes brexit broke it, now nobody wants to take responsibility and do the hard work to fix it... I wouldn't be surprised to see efforts to reverse Brexit. There seems to be some winners remorse among the exit crowd,  but the EU can not afford to give the UK any concessions at all, or there will be more such "exit" negotiations by other members.

There is more going on here than meets the eye.

The conservative party has been plagued by about a third of its MP's being "eurosceptic", they have caused problems for prime ministers for decades.  A plus for the government is that the MP in charge of the post Brexit negotiations with the EU will be one of these eurosceptics.  As you rightly say above, they can't afford to give him anything.  If he caves in and agrees to free movement then the whole debacle will have been for nothing.  If he gets nothing then he loses, so either way he will be on a hiding for nothing as we say over here.  The chances of success are theoretical at best.  The reality is that we are out of the EU and we will have to make the best of the opportunities on the outside (if any) whatever they may turn out to be .

Boris did not cop out because he wanted to, he was out-maneuvered at the last minute by someone cleverer than him. (Gove).
To my mind he got what he deserved, because of his disloyalty to his friend Cameron.  Boris is a busted flush.

The upshot of all this is that the eurosceptic cause will have been given its head only to fall flat at the first jump, it will bury them as a political force for ever IMHO.

DaveP

 

[mattiasNYC]

I’m sorry if you thought I was calling you a racist. My point, a simple one, is that discriminating who can live where on the grounds of birthright is difficult to justify ethically – in my humble opinion. 

This implies that we should have no borders and live in harmony as one "world nation". However much I would like that to happen but it is an utopia.

We've gradually increased the areas enclosed by borders which has increased the ability of people to migrate over larger areas. The problems you illustrate don't go away if you close borders, they possibly move. If anything the practical problem is the speed at which borders have been moved rather than the fact that they have.

However, if you are suggesting that unlimited immigration is a good thing then you are being  very naive. Eating kofte and all that is great but let's also talk about the gang culture in London.

The way you phrase it makes it sound like "unlimited immigration" is what happened with the EU and all the gang culture in London was due to that immigrated group of people. This of course would imply that gang culture didn't really exist prior to this level of immigration. So, is that true? And what about other crime? Are we as concerned about not exporting everything from pedo-sex-tourists to Asia to soccer houligans to central Europe?

Does closing the borders prevent the terrorism seen in Northern Ireland?

I know one thing doesn't exclude another, but I think it's deceptively attractive an argument that we solve these issues by closing borders. And they won't be closed of course, just tightened up a bit.

 

[mattiasNYC]

It's right out of the rulz for radicals, to go personal (ad hominum) and try to put people on the defensive with outlandish accusations, like calling everyone who disagrees racist.  (that happens here to anyone who does not agree with our president).

There are real issues, while some arguments have been carried to hyperbolic extremes.

I hope you see what appears to be irony above.

PS: No I Am not going to re-litigate offenses going back hundreds of years before I was born... It's hard enough dealing with the present and near future.

Well, it's easy for some to say that. To those who are descendants of the dispossessed the present looks a bit different for a reason.

Historically, ignoring the past, not "doing right" by those who were wronged in the name of "real politik" and "what is possible" tends to not work out that well. Just look at Israel / Palestine. If you do wrong by a people they have a tendency to not forget that or accepting it because you don't feel like "re-litigating the past".

The perception of justice and freedom is intrinsic and inherently important to human beings and societies.

 

[ruffrecords]

Most are feeling sorry for the UK, or impact on ourselves, but this is also an opportunity to craft a better outcome.  Right now the UK fears losing business opportunity because of degraded access to the EU market, but what if improved tax policies make the UK a magnet for business to locate headquarters there.

No need to feel sorry for us. Think of Brexit as our Boston Tea party. VW and BMW are already putting pressure on Angela Merkel to cut us a good deal as we are the largest consumer of their cars in the EU. They need us as much as we need them . We are not in a weak position we are in a strong one.

Cheers

Ian

 

[sahib]

However, if you are suggesting that unlimited immigration is a good thing then you are being  very naive. Eating kofte and all that is great but let's also talk about the gang culture in London.

The way you phrase it makes it sound like "unlimited immigration" is what happened with the EU and all the gang culture in London was due to that immigrated group of people. This of course would imply that gang culture didn't really exist prior to this level of immigration. So, is that true? And what about other crime? Are we as concerned about not exporting everything from pedo-sex-tourists to Asia to soccer houligans to central Europe?

No. I was not suggesting that but if you interpreted it that way then I accept that I may have a weakness in my phrasing. I was trying to explain the impact the unlimited immigration has on current social issues. 

Does closing the borders prevent the terrorism seen in Northern Ireland?

I do not understand what you mean here. There is no border between Northern Ireland and the UK. Northern Ireland is part of UK.

I know one thing doesn't exclude another, but I think it's deceptively attractive an argument that we solve these issues by closing borders. And they won't be closed of course, just tightened up a bit.

Again my argument was not about closing the borders but  being in control of them.

Agreed on tightening up.

 

[thermionic]

MatthiasNYC wrote:

The way you phrase it makes it sound like "unlimited immigration" is what happened with the EU and all the gang culture in London was due to that immigrated group of people. This of course would imply that gang culture didn't really exist prior to this level of immigration. So, is that true? And what about other crime? Are we as concerned about not exporting everything from pedo-sex-tourists to Asia to soccer houligans to central Europe?

Speaking as someone who works and lives in one of London’s most deprived areas (with a greater immigrant population than indigenous), and considering that my partner and one of my best friends work for charities that try to help young people keep out of gangs; and also considering that I’ve actually spent time with youngsters who’ve been involved with gangs, I can state that every single one I’ve met was born here… Gang culture is very much something born-and-bred in London. 

Sahib wrote:

In simpler terms with genuine migrants criminals can also get in and it was exactly what happened.

Did you read this in the Daily Mail or in a UKIP flyer? Have you personally experienced the hand of these criminals?

We already have migrants who are claiming child benefit and sending it back home. We already have migrants who are claiming housing benefits but spending the summer back home.

Do you have sources for this information?

In summary: you have read / been told (by an honest source, I’m sure) that these ‘new immigrants’ are forming gangs and scrounging benefits, therefore they should be deprived of the same opportunities your nobler generation of immigrants enjoyed when you moved here. 

 

[sahib]

Sahib wrote:

In simpler terms with genuine migrants criminals can also get in and it was exactly what happened.

Did you read this in the Daily Mail or in a UKIP flyer? Have you personally experienced the hand of these criminals?

I am not as dumb as you may think I am.

Besides what is being reported in the news ,  I actually have a very first hand experience of  this by a bunch of people who were placed next door to us by the council.

We already have migrants who are claiming child benefit and sending it back home. We already have migrants who are claiming housing benefits but spending the summer back home.

Do you have sources for this information?

Yes I do but unfortunately I can not disclose them without their consent. It will be highly unlikely that they would like to be disclosed anyway. But let's say that they work as housing officers and social workers. 

In summary: you have read / been told (by an honest source, I’m sure) that these ‘new immigrants’ are forming gangs and scrounging benefits, therefore they should be deprived of the same opportunities your nobler generation of immigrants enjoyed when you moved here.

Justin,

You have insulted me by calling me a first racist, then immoral and then xenophobic and now not only you are being sarcastic but you are also insulting my intelligence. And I would think that a person of your calibre would take a much more intelligent approach to the discussion.  But I suppose we all have our limitations.

You are deliberately avoiding to engage in my question. I  have already told you, if you think uncontrolled immigration has no social and economic impact then  we'll agree to disagree and walk away amicably.

But.

In simple terms the inward immigration has to elevate the indigenous who are at the low end of the social and economic ladder. The immigrant takes the low level work and the indigenous moves up one step. Let's say that the immigrant takes the sweeping duties and the indigenous moves up to be a gaffar.

When that does not happen ( because you have limited resources) you pile more and more people in deprived areas (generally tower blocks) which in return puts pressure on the resources,  and the indigenous starts to resent,  which in return fuels racially motivated occurrences.. Now, if you still maintain that this does not happen then again let's agree to disagree. I can feel that John is about to get impatient. The last slap he gave me on my neck still hurts.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Most are feeling sorry for the UK, or impact on ourselves, but this is also an opportunity to craft a better outcome.  Right now the UK fears losing business opportunity because of degraded access to the EU market, but what if improved tax policies make the UK a magnet for business to locate headquarters there.

No need to feel sorry for us. Think of Brexit as our Boston Tea party. VW and BMW are already putting pressure on Angela Merkel to cut us a good deal as we are the largest consumer of their cars in the EU. They need us as much as we need them . We are not in a weak position we are in a strong one.

Cheers

Ian

Now that sounds a little ironic in light of our history.  8) I saw an editorial yesterday suggesting Pres Reagan's "government is the problem" screed was an inspiration for Brexit...  but I suspect the causes are pretty apparent, and located on that side of the Atlantic.

VW has their own significant problems. I read something like UK sales are 7% and they don't need even more sales declines.

JR