General Discussion: Politics thread


Show original post
RickRude
RickRude avatar

3258 posts since 13/1/12

21 Jun 2016 12:39
sydneyking wrote: I don't think people realise that the nhs is struggling not because of immigration but because of an ageing population and the rising cost of healthcare. I don't think people realise that a lack of housing or school places is down to years of under investment from previous governments and not down to immigration.

Do you live in London Syd? Just curious because Immigration has definitely had a direct effect on the points above - and by brushing it tho the side and dismissing it is quite worrying. Agreed that past goverments have not invested, but hey our new mayor has gone back on his major point of making more affordable housing available - 5 mins after being in post lol.
Superprecise
Superprecise avatar

2056 posts since 16/7/11

posted 21 Jun 2016 12:42, edited 21 Jun 2016 12:42
As someone who knows, I can tell you that the housing crisis has very little at all to do with immigration. It has more to do with housebuilder oligopoly, foreign investment and under-regulation. Capitalist economics basically.
RickRude
RickRude avatar

3258 posts since 13/1/12

posted 21 Jun 2016 12:44, edited 21 Jun 2016 12:44
Superprecise wrote: As someone who knows
Laughing out loud

so with more people in the UK able to buy houses - and with not enough houses being built - in London which is hugely overcrowded - you are suggesting that immigration plays no role?
andymakesglasses
andymakesglasses avatar

20168 posts since 26/1/06

posted 21 Jun 2016 12:52, edited 21 Jun 2016 12:52
RickRude wrote: The EU actually isolates us from the rest of the world….the EU contiinues to cut us off and put up baracades from the rest of the world

How does the EU isolate us from the rest of the world, and what are these barricades you speak of?

RickRude wrote: The EU and past goverments have desimated the British working man - Britain for me has lost its identity.

What have the EU done to the British working man and what identity have Britain / you lost? Do you think Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Nigel Farage will be champions of the British working man in an "independent" Britain?

RickRude wrote: But my decision has always been about democracy and self-determination, not money, and all the in campaign is based around economy.

The state of the economy is pretty important for allowing a country to do what it would like. What would you use this new-found democracy to do?

RickRude wrote: For me the remain people always seek to seize the moral high-ground and portray the out people as xenophobic or racist. Its like intellectual snobbery.

I agree on this to an extent. It was similar during the Scottish independence referendum. You have to ignore the personalities, name-calling and sneering and just look at the cold hard facts and arguments for and against.

This is an interesting read if you haven't already read it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/brexit-fake-revolt-eu-working-class-culture-hijacked-help-elite

Also AA Gill's piece in The Times the other day was good. I disagree with him on a lot of subjects but he's spot on when it comes to the EU referendum for me, well worth a read.

AA Gill wrote: It was the woman on Question Time that really did it for me. She was so familiar. There is someone like her in every queue, every coffee shop, outside every school in every parish council in the country. Middle-aged, middle-class, middle-brow, over-made-up, with her National Health face and weatherproof English expression of hurt righteousness, she’s Britannia’s mother-in-law. The camera closed in on her and she shouted: “All I want is my country back. Give me my country back.”

It was a heartfelt cry of real distress and the rest of the audience erupted in sympathetic applause, but I thought: “Back from what? Back from where?”

Wanting the country back is the constant mantra of all the outies. Farage slurs it, Gove insinuates it. Of course I know what they mean. We all know what they mean. They mean back from Johnny Foreigner, back from the brink, back from the future, back-to-back, back to bosky hedges and dry stone walls and country lanes and church bells and warm beer and skittles and football rattles and cheery banter and clogs on cobbles. Back to vicars-and-tarts parties and Carry On fart jokes, back to Elgar and fudge and proper weather and herbaceous borders and cars called Morris. Back to victoria sponge and 22 yards to a wicket and 15 hands to a horse and 3ft to a yard and four fingers in a Kit Kat, back to gooseberries not avocados, back to deference and respect, to make do and mend and smiling bravely and biting your lip and suffering in silence and patronising foreigners with pity.

We all know what “getting our country back” means. It’s snorting a line of the most pernicious and debilitating Little English drug, nostalgia. The warm, crumbly, honey-coloured, collective “yesterday” with its fond belief that everything was better back then, that Britain (England, really) is a worse place now than it was at some foggy point in the past where we achieved peak Blighty. It’s the knowledge that the best of us have been and gone, that nothing we can build will be as lovely as a National Trust Georgian country house, no art will be as good as a Turner, no poem as wonderful as If, no writer a touch on Shakespeare or Dickens, nothing will grow as lovely as a cottage garden, no hero greater than Nelson, no politician better than Churchill, no view more throat-catching than the White Cliffs and that we will never manufacture anything as great as a Rolls-Royce or Flying Scotsman again.

The dream of Brexit isn’t that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it’s a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday. In the Brexit fantasy, the best we can hope for is to kick out all the work-all-hours foreigners and become caretakers to our own past in this self-congratulatory island of moaning and pomposity.

And if you think that’s an exaggeration of the Brexit position, then just listen to the language they use: “We are a nation of inventors and entrepreneurs, we want to put the great back in Britain, the great engineers, the great manufacturers.” This is all the expression of a sentimental nostalgia. In the Brexiteer’s mind’s eye is the old Pathé newsreel of Donald Campbell, of John Logie Baird with his television, Barnes Wallis and his bouncing bomb, and Robert Baden-Powell inventing boy scouts in his shed.

All we need, their argument goes, is to be free of the humourless Germans and spoilsport French and all their collective liberalism and reality. There is a concomitant hope that if we manage to back out of Europe, then we’ll get back to the bowler-hatted 1950s and the Commonwealth will hold pageants, fireworks displays and beg to be back in the Queen Empress’s good books again. Then New Zealand will sacrifice a thousand lambs, Ghana will ask if it can go back to being called the Gold Coast and Britain will resume hand-making Land Rovers and top hats and Sheffield plate teapots.

There is a reason that most of the people who want to leave the EU are old while those who want to remain are young: it’s because the young aren’t infected with Bisto nostalgia. They don’t recognise half the stuff I’ve mentioned here. They’ve grown up in the EU and at worst it’s been neutral for them.

The under-thirties want to be part of things, not aloof from them. They’re about being joined-up and counted. I imagine a phrase most outies identify with is “women’s liberation has gone too far”. Everything has gone too far for them, from political correctness — well, that’s gone mad, hasn’t it? — to health and safety and gender-neutral lavatories. Those oldies, they don’t know if they’re coming or going, what with those newfangled mobile phones and kids on Tinder and Grindr. What happened to meeting Miss Joan Hunter Dunn at the tennis club? And don’t get them started on electric hand dryers, or something unrecognised in the bagging area, or Indian call centres , or the impertinent computer asking for a password that has both capitals and little letters and numbers and more than eight digits.

Brexit is the fond belief that Britain is worse now than at some point in the foggy past where we achieved peak Blighty
We listen to the Brexit lot talk about the trade deals they’re going to make with Europe after we leave, and the blithe insouciance that what they’re offering instead of EU membership is a divorce where you can still have sex with your ex. They reckon they can get out of the marriage, keep the house, not pay alimony, take the kids out of school, stop the in-laws going to the doctor, get strict with the visiting rights, but, you know, still get a shag at the weekend and, obviously, see other people on the side.

Really, that’s their best offer? That’s the plan? To swagger into Brussels with Union Jack pants on and say: “ ’Ello luv, you’re looking nice today. Would you like some?”

When the rest of us ask how that’s really going to work, leavers reply, with Terry-Thomas smirks, that “they’re going to still really fancy us, honest, they’re gagging for us. Possibly not Merkel, but the bosses of Mercedes and those French vintners and cheesemakers, they can’t get enough of old John Bull. Of course they’re going to want to go on making the free market with two backs after we’ve got the decree nisi. Makes sense, doesn’t it?”

Have no doubt, this is a divorce. It’s not just business, it’s not going to be all reason and goodwill. Like all divorces, leaving Europe would be ugly and mean and hurtful, and it would lead to a great deal of poisonous xenophobia and racism, all the niggling personal prejudice that dumped, betrayed and thwarted people are prey to. And the racism and prejudice are, of course, weak points for us. The tortuous renegotiation with lawyers and courts will be bitter and vengeful, because divorces always are and, just in passing, this sovereignty thing we’re supposed to want back so badly, like Frodo’s ring, has nothing to do with you or me. We won’t notice it coming back, because we didn’t notice not having it in the first place.

You won’t wake up on June 24 and think: “Oh my word, my arthritis has gone! My teeth are suddenly whiter! Magically, I seem to know how to make a soufflé and I’m buff with the power of sovereignty.” This is something only politicians care about; it makes not a jot of difference to you or me if the Supreme Court is a bunch of strangely out-of-touch old gits in wigs in Westminster or a load of strangely out-of-touch old gits without wigs in Luxembourg. What matters is that we have as many judges as possible on the side of personal freedom.

Personally, I see nothing about our legislators in the UK that makes me feel I can confidently give them more power. The more checks and balances politicians have, the better for the rest of us. You can’t have too many wise heads and different opinions. If you’re really worried about red tape, by the way, it’s not just a European problem. We’re perfectly capable of coming up with our own rules and regulations and we have no shortage of jobsworths. Red tape may be annoying, but it is also there to protect your and my family from being lied to, poisoned and cheated.

The first “X” I ever put on a voting slip was to say yes to the EU. The first referendum was when I was 20 years old. This one will be in the week of my 62nd birthday. For nearly all my adult life, there hasn’t been a day when I haven’t been pleased and proud to be part of this great collective. If you ask me for my nationality, the truth is I feel more European than anything else. I am part of this culture, this European civilisation. I can walk into any gallery on our continent and completely understand the images and the stories on the walls. These people are my people and they have been for thousands of years. I can read books on subjects from Ancient Greece to Dark Ages Scandinavia, from Renaissance Italy to 19th-century France, and I don’t need the context or the landscape explained to me. The music of Europe, from its scales and its instruments to its rhythms and religion, is my music. The Renaissance, the rococo, the Romantics, the impressionists, gothic, baroque, neoclassicism, realism, expressionism, futurism, fauvism, cubism, dada, surrealism, postmodernism and kitsch were all European movements and none of them belongs to a single nation.

There is a reason why the Chinese are making fake Italian handbags and the Italians aren’t making fake Chinese ones. This European culture, without question or argument, is the greatest, most inventive, subtle, profound, beautiful and powerful genius that was ever contrived anywhere by anyone and it belongs to us. Just look at my day job — food. The change in food culture and pleasure has been enormous since we joined the EU, and that’s no coincidence. What we eat, the ingredients, the recipes, may come from around the world, but it is the collective to and fro of European interests, expertise and imagination that has made it all so very appetising and exciting.

The restaurant was a European invention, naturally. The first one in Paris was called The London Bridge.

Culture works and grows through the constant warp and weft of creators, producers, consumers, intellectuals and instinctive lovers. You can’t dictate or legislate for it, you can just make a place that encourages it and you can truncate it. You can make it harder and more grudging, you can put up barriers and you can build walls, but why on earth would you? This collective culture, this golden civilisation grown on this continent over thousands of years, has made everything we have and everything we are, why would you not want to be part of it?

I understand that if we leave we don’t have to hand back our library ticket for European civilisation, but why would we even think about it? In fact, the only ones who would are those old, philistine scared gits. Look at them, too frightened to join in.

tldr etc.
Superprecise
Superprecise avatar

2056 posts since 16/7/11

21 Jun 2016 12:55
I'm saying there are too few affordable houses, yes, but that is because of a deliberate and catastrophic under-supply by developers and a lack of appropriately powerful government legislation to counter it. And while the government could better meet its housing targets by introducing such regulation, it would also see a drastic fall in the ludicrously swollen value of property on which so much depends in this fucked up country, which would be electoral suicide. You can say it's about immigration if you want but the numbers aren't convincingly significant as a part of the overall shortage, or relevant to its causes.
Superprecise
Superprecise avatar

2056 posts since 16/7/11

posted 21 Jun 2016 12:56, edited 21 Jun 2016 12:56
RickRude wrote:
Superprecise wrote: As someone who knows
Laughing out loud

It's not pub banter, this is my field. Frankly, for all your virtuous claims for your country you just sound like a common-or-garden 'fuck Europe' outer, nostalgic for good old days that aren't coming back. Laugh while you can.
Superprecise
Superprecise avatar

2056 posts since 16/7/11

21 Jun 2016 13:03
If we're quoting long rants, this rings true for me…

Terry Ilott wrote: The referendum started out as a tactic to keep one wing of the Conservative Party quiet during an election campaign. It didn’t bother me much. However, it has since become something else. I don't think the arguments for and against membership of the EU are really what's at issue, or not only what's at issue. The EU debate is also a proxy for something else.

On one side are two deeply disaffected groups. The first are mostly working class, they have yet to recover the ground they lost after the economic crash of 2008, they see their wages and opportunities undermined by immigrants and in the EU they have found someone or something to blame. Middle-class though I am, I have quite a significant acquaintanceship with members of this group and we have discussed the EU. The subject is impossible to avoid. They are not racist, they are mostly liberally inclined but they feel, probably rightly, that they are being penalised for other peoples' (bankers, politicians, EU bureaucrats) ambitions.

The second group probably comprises an equal mix of the working class and middle class (this is a guess on my part) and they are moderately-to-deeply reactionary, hate/distrust the modern world, want to return to the "good old days", regard all foreigners with suspicion etc etc. In the EU debate they have at last found a cause about which they can be outspoken and passionate, with leaders at last able to speak up on their behalf (Gove, Farage, Johnson et al). I have many acquaintances in this group as well. My sympathy for them is limited although I think I understand their sense of loss.

These two groups, animated by a mix of grievance and fear, are ranged together on the Brexit side. (I realise there are other kinds of Brexiteers, driven by principle not by grievance, but they appear to be small in number - again, a guess on my part. Every Brixiteer I know swears they are motivated by principle but all, in my experience thus far, fit into groups one or two.)

On the other side is the third group, mostly (but not entirely) middle-class, who have pretty much recovered the ground lost in 2008 and who face the future with measured optimism. They work in industries that depend on global markets and they generally see the EU as an opportunity rather than a threat. They are socially liberal and they approve of the liberalising drift of EU legislation (workers’ rights etc). They have little in common with the first group and certainly do not share its pain or its anxiety. They abhor the second group (some of them might even find their own parents in its ranks).

This third group contains some EU enthusiasts but I suspect not too many. Most realise that the EU is in a mess (the referendum itself is proof of that, but there is also the EU's lamentable response to the refugee crisis, the Greek debacle, youth unemployment and the continued fudge over the legitimacy of the EU institutions). They did not seek the referendum and would rather it was not taking place. They have been drawn into the debate on the Remain side because they are appalled by the prospect of a Brexit victory, not just for what it would mean for our EU membership but, more importantly, for what it would mean for our vision of the UK. I am in this third group.

I did not want the referendum. We have been bounced into making a yes/no decision, as if we were all inevitably either or one side or the other. We are not. But I am drawn in because I really, really do not want the tenor of political discourse in this country to be dictated by xenophobes, Little Englanders, nostalgics and populists like Boris Johnson. I had reason to be in South Africa in the 1970s, at the height of apartheid, and I came to the conclusion that the dominant culture in South Africa was indistinguishable from the cultural and ideological bias of the then Sunday Express: ignorant, entitled, hate-filled, resentful, awash with the false consciousness of victimhood and quick to find scapegoats. I do not want the social progress we have made in my lifetime - the truly astonishing achievement of successive Tory and Labour governments from Attlee to Blair - undone by resentful reactionaries nursing a false sense of grievance. The good old days were not good. I was there. The present day is so much better. Those of you who are black, gay, female, disabled or otherwise socially unprivileged will have special reason to understand what I am saying, but actually everyone has benefited.

Of course, not everyone has benefited equally and there is a long, long way still to go, but Brexit in the UK, just like Trump in the USA, threatens to unravel it all. Really, it does. What do you think will happen after a Brexit victory? Do you think the rightward drift in our domestic politics will come to a halt, appetites sated? Not a bit of it. It will get worse. And worse.

For those minded to vote for Brexit, let me make some further observations. An out vote will likely mean ten years or more of legislation to undo the legislation of the last four decades. The referendum is not a magic wand: vote out and suddenly we are free. Our membership of the EU is embedded in a web of legislation. Voting out and not undoing that legislation is not Brexit. Yet each piece of legislation will be contested, not in Europe but within the UK. I was on the train to Bath last weekend and there were a few Vote Out hoardings in farmers’ fields. Will those farmers who vote out be happy to see their subsidies taken away? (EU subsidies account for 55% of farm incomes in the UK.) Or isn’t it more likely that, having voted out, they will then argue tooth and nail for their subsidies to remain, whether the bill is paid by the EU or the British taxpayer? Leaving the Common Agricultural Policy only makes sense if we then open the door (ie remove the trade barriers) to cheap food from the rest of the world. Does anyone think that the National Farmers' Union would let that happen? Seriously? Won’t every interest group argue likewise for the retention of their protected status? Where will we end up: with half our EU-inspired laws unchanged and the rest constrained either by special interests or by the continuing need to conform to the regulations of the trading bloc we have just decided to leave, the trading bloc upon which we still depend but in which we no longer have a vote? What kind of Brexit is that?

Talking of voting, my Brexit friends are incensed that, in a club of 28 members, the UK doesn't always get its way. The EU has two forums where votes are taken: the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Parliament, which as we all know is constitutionally weak and in which the leading British party is the anti-EU UKIP (with 24 seats, followed by Labour with 20 and the Conservatives with 19), tries to reach decisions by consensus, so that most of the time the UK is accommodated without a vote. But sometimes it does vote. Despite UKIP’s endless obstruction and opposition, the UK is actually on the “winning side” in those Parliamentary votes 71% of the time. The Council of Ministers, in which the EU governments are represented, is far more powerful, but, like the Parliament, it tries to arrive at decisions by consensus. In the period 2004 to 2009, the UK was on the “losing side” in 2.6% of the votes taken and in the period 2009 to 2015 it was on the “losing side” in 12.3% of the votes taken. In other words, the UK was on the “winning side” in 97.4% and 86.7% of the votes taken in those periods. (It is at least arguable that the increase in the UK’s “loss” record in the more recent period reflects the greater intransigence of the UK since the accession of a Conservative-led administration.)

And while we are on the subject of how the EU works, note that there are 55,000 civil servants in Brussels looking after the interests of 508 million people. This compares with 400,000 civil servants in Whitehall and the 150,000 doctors, 380,000 nurses, 156,000 technicians and 38,000 managers in the NHS. The UK’s “share” of the EU’s bureaucratic burden is about 6,500 civil servants. Even if there were no benefits, the cost of EU membership would be negligible (about 0.5% of GDP). But, of course, there are substantial benefits.

As to sovereignty, I would urge Brexiteers to take off their nostalgia-tinted glasses and get real. Our government spends just under half our GDP on public services. That clearly gives the government real executive power. Similarly, our legislature makes the laws that tell us how we can behave. That, too, is real power. But neither the government nor the legislature really determines our direction or speed of travel. That is decided by the economy, over which the legislature and the government have very little power. The economy is determined by decisions made by big corporations and the capital markets. No matter where they are based, the big corporations and the capital markets really have no nationality. Years ago, the English counties had the power to impose their own excise duties (hence all the smugglers’ tales), but the inexorable logic of economic development and the emergence of a fully national economy rendered those powers redundant. So it is today, at a higher level. We really do live in a global economy, as any survey of the objects in your house (food, fridge, computer, television, carpets etc) will confirm. Frankly, our lives are determined as much by decisions made by corporate executives and investment fund managers as they are by politicians or civil servants. Will Brexit make that position better? No. On the contrary, it will make it worse, for it will remove us from the protection, limited though it is, of the largest trading bloc in the world, the EU. Meaningful sovereignty at the national level is simply not on the agenda. It really isn't, not for anyone. Those days are gone.

The story is the same in foreign policy. We are not big enough to stand on our own. If we are not part of the EU we will become the poodle of the USA. This is not what the Brexiteers have in mind, of course, but it will be the outcome if the out vote prevails. If you want the UK to be weaker, by all means vote out. It is not, I think, what you intend.

Finally, what happens if the majority in the UK vote out but the majority in Scotland vote in (as it appears they will)? Or, vice versa: the majority in the UK vote in but the majority in England vote out? Think about it. These are real possibilities. Either outcome spells the end of the UK as we know it. In the first case, the Scots will rightly demand another referendum on independence. In the second, the English will be outraged that their will has been thwarted by the Scots (and possibly the Welsh). The English will not do the obvious thing and create their own Parliament, for that really would bring the curtain down on the UK (an inevitability in my view). No, they will contest the outcome, over and over and over, in the hope that eventually they will get what they want. They won’t.

These are arguments about the merits or otherwise of Brexit, but, as I said at the outset, I don’t think what is really at issue here is the EU. What is at issue is our view of Britain. Having said that I am a reluctant participant in a debate that I would rather wasn’t happening, I have to acknowledge that the questions it has raised really do need answers. The disaffection of the first group I described above needs to be addressed. As yet, I do not see strong leadership in either party offering to take on that responsibility. Cameron is standing down, so the Tories have a shadow for a leader, and anyway everything they have done since 2010 has had the effect of alienating the working class still further. And Corbyn is so half-hearted he might as well be signalling in semaphore. If we do remain, somebody has to get a grip on the vast gulf that has opened up between the politicians and the people, particularly the working class. I expect the Labour Party to fill this vacuum – historically, that’s its job - but it looks to me that it might be ten years before they are ready for the challenge. Those ten years will be fraught with the danger of a further drift to the right, a drift of which we have had plenty of warning in the form of the UKIP vote. Hence, even if Remain wins, it is not the end of the matter: it is the beginning of a long haul back to political legitimacy, in local government, in the British nations and regions, in the UK and in the EU. This is not an easy sell, of course. Much easier to sell the “let's get our country back” simplicities of Brexit.

And I should say a word in favour of the EU. Sure, it has the aspect of a capitalist club currently wedded to a neo-liberal model of economic development. But it is also the most successful experiment ever attempted to forge collaboration between nations (nations that had been at each others' throats for a thousand years) and it has a very powerful social-democratic culture. For all its faults, I support it because I can distinguish between the politics of tomorrow (what I would like for my great-grandchildren) and the politics of today (what we can have in the meantime).

The referendum, which started as a nothing issue for me, has become a fundamental choice about what kind of Britain we want and what kind of agenda we will follow in the years to come. I am adamantly against Brexit. I am for Remain. I hope you are too.
swede
swede avatar

7882 posts since 21/3/09

21 Jun 2016 13:11
RickRude wrote: The EU and past goverments have desimated the British working man - Britain for me has lost its identity.

just admit it mate, you are a racist
andymakesglasses
andymakesglasses avatar

20168 posts since 26/1/06

21 Jun 2016 13:14
Superprecise wrote: If we're quoting long rants, this rings true for me…

Good read that, thanks for posting it.
swede
swede avatar

7882 posts since 21/3/09

21 Jun 2016 13:17
RickRude wrote: But my decision has always been about democracy and self-determination, not money, and all the in campaign is based around economy.

Laughing out loud Laughing out loud Laughing out loud why though?? you sound like you write for the daily mail
RickRude
RickRude avatar

3258 posts since 13/1/12

21 Jun 2016 13:19
swede wrote:
RickRude wrote: The EU and past goverments have desimated the British working man - Britain for me has lost its identity.

just admit it mate, you are a racist

Swede this joke was four years old, carry on in your own direction, dont worry about mine.
Superprecise
Superprecise avatar

2056 posts since 16/7/11

21 Jun 2016 13:21
Not very helpful Swede…
trailofdavid
trailofdavid avatar

6334 posts since 14/8/09

21 Jun 2016 13:23
Though that AA Gill piece hit the nail on the head (and I don't usually like him or his writing).


RickRude wrote:
Superprecise wrote: As someone who knows
Laughing out loud

so with more people in the UK able to buy houses - and with not enough houses being built - in London which is hugely overcrowded - you are suggesting that immigration plays no role?

Its estimated that there are over 20,000 empty residential properties in London, with c.8000 being council homes. Immigration is one of several factors that cause population growth, but is not responsible for a lack of housing. The government's failure to build new housing coupled (especially in London) with the rise of the "buy-to-leave" landlord that successive governments have done nothing about is the problem.

RickRude
RickRude avatar

3258 posts since 13/1/12

posted 21 Jun 2016 13:25, edited 21 Jun 2016 13:25
andymakesglasses wrote:
Superprecise wrote: If we're quoting long rants, this rings true for me…

Good read that, thanks for posting it.


Very good read.

Super, im not digging you out at this is going the way i didnt want which is why i was hesistant to post my political viewpoint. I have been on the fence the whole time, do not look back at nostalgia but rather look forward. Immigration is good, and needed. I just dont have faith in the EU project. People like Swede coming on offering no view of their own and just trying to make a joke of everything is why this thread has not been bumped.
swede
swede avatar

7882 posts since 21/3/09

21 Jun 2016 13:34
RickRude wrote:
swede wrote:
RickRude wrote: The EU and past goverments have desimated the British working man - Britain for me has lost its identity.

just admit it mate, you are a racist

Swede this joke was four years old, carry on in your own direction, dont worry about mine.

no I am genuinely worried how you have come to these views. I thought you were a similar age to me? what has happened?

like smith said, do you not feel that you would like to keep the door open to working elsewhere within the eu? that is the sentiment of most of my peers
adidaskev
adidaskev avatar

1001 posts since 30/11/11

21 Jun 2016 13:35
Those two columns are very good, and ring home even more for me leaning towards REMAIN more and more. thanks for posting them.

As for housing, the gov. are simply not building enough affordable housing - nothing to do with joe blogs from the EU. Contracting any piece of land they can to private companies who in turn create housing for the middle classes or those with large deposits/savings.

That is a problem for the UK, nothing to do with the EU.
swede
swede avatar

7882 posts since 21/3/09

21 Jun 2016 13:37
do you want scotland to leave us? because they will leave us for the eu. i guarantee another Scottish referundum will take place within 2 years of us leaving the eu

brexit voters do not understand that these trade deals will not be easy to come by either

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/10/no-single-market-access-for-uk-after-brexit-wolfgang-schauble-says
Double D
Double D avatar

3552 posts since 8/3/07

21 Jun 2016 13:38
swede wrote:
RickRude wrote: The EU and past goverments have desimated the British working man - Britain for me has lost its identity.
Completely true that the working class has had no identity for the past couple of decades but that's fuck all to do with the EU and everything to do with cuts to social housing & benefits, the systematic dismantling of industry, the criminal justice bill, form 696, spiralling alcohol taxation and god knows how many other acts of government primarily aimed at the young and low income.
Double D
Double D avatar

3552 posts since 8/3/07

21 Jun 2016 13:40
swede wrote: like smith said, do you not feel that you would like to keep the door open to working elsewhere within the eu? that is the sentiment of most of my peers
Love the moronic logic on Facebook as cunts choke on their Iceland lasagne: "who'd want to work in Poland for £2.50 an hour?" as if there's absolutely no AA cities with great job markets in Europe.
burny
burny avatar

5786 posts since 25/5/06

21 Jun 2016 13:44
Immigration is neither here nor there. Immigration was always Farage's point of difference in the election and in order to counter it, the conservatives had no option but to agree to the referendum.

Regardless of in or out, our borders are open. In order for a trade deal to be in place (with europe) if we leave, our borders have to be open. It happened with Switzerland and they had the worst financial crisis in their history for ten years, until finally the population had a referendum and agreed to europes terms. They're stringent, we won't have a trade deal until we agree to keep the borders open. So immigration isn't a point, its a smokescreen.