Brexit Referendum Superthread

LiamoSail

Rightwing wrote: »

You'd see nothing wrong with say 3m Turks, Africans, Afghanis, Arabs, etc coming into Ireland?

We're a nation of emigrants. The UK, US and Australia have been good to Irish men and women for years, particularly during times when we were probably as attractive to the natives as the Turks, Africans, Afghanis, Arabs are to you.

An influx of immigrants wouldn't be good for Ireland, but I wouldn't object given how historically, it's often being Irish men and women in their positions.

Rightwing

Rightwing wrote: »

So we have established that a line exists. Unfortunately, this is where Merkel erred very badly.

The reason those folks are singled out is they are the very ones on the move. And they have little to nothing to offer. It may sound harsh, but it is the reality of it.

No, it doesn't sound harsh. I'm not shocked. It just sounds factually incorrect.

Germany needs a younger labour force, and not necessarily a skilled labour force, either, especially when consumption and economic growth return to previous levels.

Rightwing

LiamoSail wrote: »

We're a nation of emigrants. The UK, US and Australia have been good to Irish men and women for years, particularly during times when we were probably as attractive to the natives as the Turks, Africans, Afghanis, Arabs are to you.

An influx of immigrants wouldn't be good for Ireland, but I wouldn't object given how historically, it's often being Irish men and women in their positions.

I don't object either, if done in an intelligent way, but Europe can't solve all the problems. That penny has to drop with Europe's elite.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, it doesn't sound harsh. I'm not shocked. It just sounds factually incorrect.

Germany needs a younger labour force, and not necessarily a skilled labour force, either, especially when consumption and economic growth return to previous levels.

Good for Germany, but don't preach to other countries who may not need them.

CMOTDibbler

Rightwing wrote: »

The reason those folks are singled out is they are the very ones on the move. And they have little to nothing to offer. It may sound harsh, but it is the reality of it.

Nothing to offer? Really? You don't think that Turks or 'Arabs' or Lord help us even 'Africans' aren't educated or capable of being educated to a stadard required to do a job?

Many of the displaced people from Syria/Afganistan etc. are extremely highly educated and many had productive, even comfortable lives before war struck. The horrible irony is that some of those had fled to Syria from Iraq after that whole mess started.

I often wonder what befell 'Riverbend' after she fled to Syria with her family. That poor girl must have thought things could only get better.

Edit: Actually she got out. https://riverbendblog.blogspot.ie/

mansize

https://twitter.com/shadihamid/status/750391662912888832

Patser

Tell me how wrote: »

Could you please translate?

Sorry, late reply but Lemming below had it right anyway.

Lemming wrote: »

Gove doesn't have to fix what he broke, otherwise known as facing the consequences for your actions (or lies in his case).

Just a theory I have that Gove's back stabbing of Boris was more an attempt by those 2 lead Brexiteers to get away with the responsibility of enacting the actual exit, while not appearing too cowardly. It allowed Boris to present himself as a victim of treachery from his closest colleague, while Gove could say 'Look! I want the responsibility, I'm committed to the cause', while instantly making himself the new pantomime villain, far to unpopular to actually win the PM race.

So after today's vote, it looks like the result I'm theorising is coming true. Boris is back writing Telegraph articles brimming with positive alternatives* he'll never have to deliver upon, while Gove is well down the pecking order.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36700468

Pro Hoc Vice

Patser wrote: »

Sorry, late reply but Lemming below had it right anyway.



Just a theory I have that Gove's back stabbing of Boris was more an attempt by those 2 lead Brexiteers to get away with the responsibility of enacting the actual exit, while not appearing too cowardly. It allowed Boris to present himself as a victim of treachery from his closest colleague, while Gove could say 'Look! I want the responsibility, I'm committed to the cause', while instantly making himself the new pantomime villain, far to unpopular to actually win the PM race.

So after today's vote, it looks like the result I'm theorising is coming true. Boris is back writing Telegraph articles brimming with positive alternatives* he'll never have to deliver upon, while Gove is well down the pecking order.

* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36700468

I have thought exactly the same as yourself, to be a fly on the wall at their meeting last week lol.

CMOTDibbler

Speaking of Riverbend, she said this in her last blog post in 2013:

We are learning that ignorance is the death of civilized societies and that everyone thinks their particular form of fanaticism is acceptable.


We are learning how easy it is to manipulate populations with their own prejudices and that politics and religion never mix, even if a super-power says they should mix.

For those who don't know, Riverbend was a female blogger from Baghdad who blogged right through the war and its aftermath.

Thomas_..

LiamoSail wrote: »

I'd imagine the British system is a hell of a lot better at coping with these people than their countries of origin, that the British bombed to oblivion.

Actions have consequences, and this is a consequence of British military action. The British have a moral obligation to face up to this, irrespective of what percentage of the population are blatantly xenophobic

I wonder why the Americans and recently the Russians too are left out by that. Since Blair acted the poodle running behind G.W.B., the UK has a problem to pull out of this. Not to forget about the French who are also involved in the ME. Eventhough, one reads less about their commitment in recent times.

Thomas_..

Rightwing wrote: »

Short term phenomenon.

Wait until the Italian banks go bust and contagion spreads. This ain't over.

Wait until the Scottish people finally vote for their Independence in a majority and thus putting an end to the UK. The SNP won´t rest until they get what they are after and with the Brexit they have the tide turned to their advantage.

Seems that the support for the English who dominated this UK for centuries is falling apart.

Thomas_..

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I would. I have no problem saying that migration must be controlled in an orderly, civilised, democratic society.

What bothers me, and what alienates people from your argument, is the flash of racism that is often implicit in the argument.

Why are you singling out Africa, Turkey, Afganistan and the Arab world, for example? Ireland couldn't cope with three million extra Brits, Brazilian students, or yanks, either.

We couldn't even cope with three million more Irish babies.

It's not a race issue.

Hear, hear! Straight to the point. I´m in total Agreement with you as this is a European matter as well. But the rightwingers are too eager to use that problem to stirr up their racist sh1te.

Thomas_..

Rightwing wrote: »

I'm afraid you must have got on to the wrong thread.

I don´t think so because with the problems that are to come with the Brexit aftermath, the UK (as Long as it will exist until Scotland breaks away from the Union) will have to face more financial problems that will affect her Military budget.

Thanking postcards are to send to Farage and Johnson, the couple who knows it all and had no plan for what to do after the Brexit, just to make the People voting themselves out of the EU and that´s for Farage "mission accomplished" and now he´s gone, this farcical face of a low level politician. Johnson didn´t take that Long to resign, he´s just another selfimportant clown who has no sense of responsibility for what he´s done. Maybe he really didn´t reckoned with a majority in favour of the Brexit to come true.

stefanovich

Thomas_.. wrote: »

Hear, hear! Straight to the point. I´m in total Agreement with you as this is a European matter as well. But the rightwingers are too eager to use that problem to stirr up their racist sh1te.

Most of the people in the EU are the same race as us. How is wanting to limit immigration from the EU racist?

Thomas_..

stefanovich wrote: »

Most of the people in the EU are the same race as us. How is wanting to limit immigration from the EU racist?

How? What term would you use instead if not racist when it comes to have an anti-immigration stance that is not just based on a limitation of numbers of newcomers from other EU countries but against foreigners in general?

I´m really sick of them far-right feckers who call themselves "right-wing" in order to cover their real chauvinistic opinions which are in fact racistical motivated. Their mask is always slipping very quick once they deem the situation fit enough to come out openly with their hatred. The events in the wake of the Brexit towards Polish and other nationals living in the UK is enough evidence for that. The felt perfectly entitled to go on an abuse rage and did so in the usual cowardly way. This is also the work of Farage and Johnson, whether they like it or not, but they have stirred this up by their main agrumentation on immigration, especially from other EU countries.

Bob24

Same paper which before the vote was regularly displaying pessimistic views about the sustainability of the CTA in case of a Brexit is now quoting an "expert" saying it should be alright: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/brexit-may-not-impact-common-travel-area-expert-claims-1.2711557

stefanovich

Thomas_.. wrote: »

How? What term would you use instead if not racist when it comes to have an anti-immigration stance that is not just based on a limitation of numbers of newcomers from other EU countries but against foreigners in general?

I´m really sick of them far-right feckers who call themselves "right-wing" in order to cover their real chauvinistic opinions which are in fact racistical motivated. Their mask is always slipping very quick once they deem the situation fit enough to come out openly with their hatred. The events in the wake of the Brexit towards Polish and other nationals living in the UK is enough evidence for that. The felt perfectly entitled to go on an abuse rage and did so in the usual cowardly way. This is also the work of Farage and Johnson, whether they like it or not, but they have stirred this up by their main agrumentation on immigration, especially from other EU countries.

You are aware of the definition of racism?

It seems to me that you are projecting some image on people who are undeserving. Ironically demonstrating the same prejudicial behaviour which you so fervently denounce.

For me the real issue is sovereignty. Border control comes in under that. There is no question of race although religion and more specifically Islam is an issue for me.

mansize

Why is Islam an issue for you? The religion itself?

molloyjh

stefanovich wrote: »

There is no question of race although religion and more specifically Islam is an issue for me.

Wow....

Thomas_..

stefanovich wrote: »

You are aware of the definition of racism?

It seems to me that you are projecting some image on people who are undeserving. Ironically demonstrating the same prejudicial behaviour which you so fervently denounce.

For me the real issue is sovereignty. Border control comes in under that. There is no question of race although religion and more specifically Islam is an issue for me.

Fair enough. Let´s see how that provides a living for those who voted for the Brexit and never mind what is going on these days in the UK.

As the UK was never a member of the Schengen area, it always had her own border control.

Maybe it is you who can´t see through the tactics of the far-right who repeat the same over and over again as you do. They pretend that it is no racism, until they feel secure to unleash their deep down rooted racist hatred as was apparent in the aftermath of the Brexit.

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

As the UK was never a member of the Schengen area, it always had her own border control.

True. But I think a misunderstanding here comes from the fact that in Brexit related discussions the term "border control" is most of the time misused and really refers to immigration control (currently the UK does indeed have control over its borders, but its border control police has no authority to refuse entry to certain non-nationals except in very exceptional circumstances, and its immigration administration has no authority to decide whether these people can or cannot work and settle in the UK).

Neither politicians nor the media are helping as many of them tend to misuse the word as well.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

True. But I think a misunderstanding here comes from the fact that in Brexit related discussions the term "border control" is most of the time misused and really refers to immigration control (currently the UK does indeed have control over its borders, but its border control police has no authority to refuse entry to certain non-nationals except in very exceptional circumstances, and its immigration administration has no authority to decide whether these people can or cannot work and settle in the UK).

Neither politicians nor the media are helping as many of them tend to misuse the word as well.

I would really assume that the UK by her law has the means to refuse entry to non-nationals outside the EU. Otherwise, the Jungle Camp in Calais had not been set up and the UK had not spent Money for building a fence along the road to the Ferry Harbour / Channel Tunnel to prevent the refugees of the Jungle Camp to enter lorries to get illegally to the UK as a blind passenger crossing the Channel. The UK govt made a deal with the French and now, as Brexit kicks in, the locals and the Prefecture of that area are about to put more pressure on the French govt to suspend the Agreement in order to get rid of the refugees settled in the Jungle Camp and let them go to the UK as well as suspend the Agreement on which grounds British Border Police is checking on French soil before persons can board a ship or any other Transport facility to cross the Channel and enter the UK.

Farage and chums trusted in their naivity that the French will go along with it after a Brexit too, but Farage was wrong because the Situation in Calais is unbearable for the locals there and they want to have Action being taken against them, which means remove the People and the camp afterwards. Those People in the camp have none interest in settling in France, they always wanted to get to the UK. Maybe it won´t take Long until the French let them go crossing the channel and not taking back any of them if caught by the British Police on British soil. The fact that not less of them are destroying their documents might make it a bit difficult for the British authorities to even deport them illegals back to France when France refuses to take them back on the grounds of identity clearance.

The issue was all about the EU citizens from Eastern EU member states in the first place, less about the refugees from Muslim countries cos the UK wasn´t that affected by the refugee crisis of last year like other Continental EU and also non-EU countries.

As for the Immigration issue in the UK which was always a Topic of the far-right, well, let´s face it, the English and later the British sent out themselves to conquer the new world and made them a huge Empire. Now, since this Empire has gone, they are about to deal with the legacy of that and their legislation from the late 1940s that allowed British subjects from the then still British colonies to come to the UK and settle there. This legislation is still valid and it was also still valid after these former colonies were released into their Independence and became members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

The Irish in the UK, for another example, enjoy special status as foreign nationals in the UK which legislations dates back to 1922, the year when the Irish Free State came into legal being and it is still valid to this day. Irish citizens living in the UK were eligible to vote in the Referendum. On another Irish board some Irish expats living in London expressed their pro Brexit stance openly and said that they were happy to vote for the Brexit. That means, whatever the result, they felt safe because to the UK authorities, they count as Irish citizens first and not as EU citizens in the first place. That comes second and doesn´t matter.

Bob24

Thomas_.. wrote: »

I would really assume that the UK by her law has the means to refuse entry to non-nationals outside the EU.

Yes, I was referring EU citizens and their family members.

Thomas_..

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes, I was referring EU citizens and their family members.

There you´re right, there was no such instrument to refuse any EU citizen from other EU member states entry and settlement, such as it was with UK citizens settling in other EU member states too. That´s the freedom of movement within the EU and as you see, the Brexiteers don´t give a fiddlers about their fellow citizens living and working abroad.

Those British expats living around the Med from Portugal to Greece may have a different opinion on that issue and they are quite worried about what will happen to them when the UK has finally ceased to be an EU member state. Same goes for those British expats in other EU member states.

stefanovich

mansize wrote:

Why is Islam an issue for you? The religion itself?

Yes. Some sort of moderate version would be tolerable although Islam by its very nature tends not to be moderate.
I think religion is stupid and dangerous.
I think Islam in particular preachs ideas which are incompatible with the west.

molloyjh wrote:

Wow....

Suspend your faux outrage for a second while I remind you that Islam is a religion not a race and it is a religion which preaches ideas which should be very distasteful to the progressive left.

oscarBravo

stefanovich wrote: »

...it is a religion which preaches ideas which should be very distasteful to the progressive left.

Discriminating against people on the basis of their religion is about as far as you can get from the progressive left.

oscarBravo

oscarBravo wrote: »

Discriminating against people on the basis of their religion is about as far as you can get from the progressive left.

He didn't say anything about discriminating against people on the basis of their religion though. He said Islam was an issue for him.

If Ireland had staunch Catholicism (still) that would also be very distasteful to the progressive left.

Most religions are tbh!

stefanovich

oscarBravo wrote:

Discriminating against people on the basis of their religion is about as far as you can get from the progressive left.

Who's discriminating against them? They can believe what they want, disagreeing with them is not discrimination. You need to define what is acceptable behaviour in your country. For instance many would want sharia law I say that's unacceptable. Many would want death for gays, i say that is unacceptable.

If anything there is so called positive discrimination in their favour which results in situations such as Rotherham.

Bob24

oscarBravo wrote: »

stefanovich wrote: »

...it is a religion which preaches ideas which should be very distasteful to the progressive left.

Discriminating against people on the basis of their religion is about as far as you can get from the progressive left.

But he's the twist: you can be against women wearing the Burka because you don't think it is an appropriate garement for women in society (a number of European countries have done so). If you think that and want to enforce it by law you will have a problem with Islam (or at least some Muslim people), but are you discriminating against people based on their religion if you want to enforce such a rule?

I think you might need to consider the defference between "having a problem with" and "discriminating against".

oscarBravo

Deleted User wrote: »

He didn't say anything about discriminating against people on the basis of their religion though. He said Islam was an issue for him.

...in the context of a conversation about immigration control. If it was just an off-topic, random throwaway remark, fair enough, but I could have sworn it was intended to be relevant to the discussion on who should be allowed to enter a country.

stefanovich wrote: »

You need to define what is acceptable behaviour in your country. For instance many would want sharia law I say that's unacceptable. Many would want death for gays, i say that is unacceptable.

Hey, here's a crazy fact that you may have been unaware of: death for gays is illegal in all 28 EU member states, none of which have Sharia law.

What do either of those things have to do with Brexit?

oscarBravo

Bob24 wrote: »

I think you might need to consider the defference between "having a problem with" and "discriminating against".

I have a problem with all religions. I'm still at a loss as to what it has to do with Brexit.