Brexit Referendum Superthread

Peregrinus

Is there not a tension between this:

BoatMad wrote: »

The maintenance ( or the offer of maintenance ) of the CTA from the uk perspective is an easy offer to make , as the problems all lie with the Irish side. In the end it's ultimately Ireland that will be forced to end the CTA not the British.

. . . and this:

BoatMad wrote: »

The issue for the uk will be , given that Ireland has a land border with the U.K. , and Ireland will be unable to limit EU nationals access to Ireland , how does the uk prevent Ireland from being used as a back door. For eu migration

Therefore , unlike today , the U.K. will have to implement an immigration check on all travellers entring the UK ( and from the ROI to NI ) . . .

If the UK has to police movements across the border with Ireland in order to achieve its objective of immigration control, how is that Ireland being forced to end the CTA? That would be the UK choosing to end it, in order to achieve another objective to which they accord a greater priority.

kaymin

ArthurDayne wrote: »

If any quote from this debacle will live with me for the rest of my days, it was the utterly reckless and contemptible outburst from Michael Gove that "the people of this country are sick of experts".  Everytime I hear that awful quote, my heart sinks at the thought that the long course of human development and progress has culminated in an academically distinguished graduate of Oxford telling the working men and women of Britain that intellectuals and experts were effectively the enemy -- purely by virtue of the fact that these experts fail to predict absolutely everything and fail to legislate against every possible negative churn of the waves of fate and fortune. It was, in my view, one of the most nauseatingly insincere, ambition-driven statements I have ever heard from a mainstream politician.  

You miss and mis-represent his point - which is that the populace shouldn't just accept the views of experts simply because they are experts i.e. experts should not be above challenge. Experts across the spectrum have been proven wrong over the two biggest financial episodes over the past 10 years - the 2008 financial crisis and the immediate impact of the Brexit vote. Bank of England officials have admitted themselves that they need to up their game otherwise they and the economics profession will lose all credibility.

What's annoying is the continuous rant from Remainers such as yourself that the Brexit vote is irrational - there are many rational reasons to vote for Brexit and there are many rational reasons to remain.

Peregrinus

BoatMad wrote: »

I'm afraid you are entirely wrong here. Mays plan is abundantly clear , she doesn't actually really want or need anything from the EU. The U.K. Is going it alone.

Negotiations will be short , the U.K. Is in reality asking for nothing, other then no additional tariffs. Once the single market idea has been rejected the UK has in effect removed itself from the discussions with the EU.

But "no additional tariffs" means a free trade deal. And negotiations for that will not be short. David Davies has been furiously signalling that an EU/UK trade deal will not be in place for, at best, two years after Brexit actually happens, i.e. four years from now.

Meanwhile May is saying that she is not willing to contemplate a long transition period, or substantial contributions to the EU budget. Which is political-speak for "I am willing to contemplate a transition period, involving contributions to the EU budget".

So here is what is shaping up: in two years' time the UK will leave the EU. They'll want to put in place a free-trade deal, but it won't be ready to go by then. So they'll aim for a transitional period (two years, there or thereabouts, all going well) during which they will either (a) continue as temporary members of the single market, or (b) negotiate temporary special access for most goods/services to the single market, in return for accepting single market regulation and paying single market contributions. In either case, this state of affairs to continue until the free trade deal kicks off. [Yes, option (b) is just temporary single market membership by another name, but precisely because of that other name it may be politically easier to sell in the UK.]

Effectively, this strategy is going for a hard-ish Brexit, and kicking to the boundary all the difficult questions that arise around that. I say "kicking to the boundary" because, in effect, they'll be tackled in the negotiations for the free trade agreement, which will continue beyound 2019.

ArthurDayne

kaymin wrote: »

You miss and mis-represent his point - which is that the populace shouldn't just accept the views of experts simply because they are experts i.e. experts should not be above challenge. Experts across the spectrum have been proven wrong over the two biggest financial episodes over the past 10 years - the 2008 financial crisis and the immediate impact of the Brexit vote. Bank of England officials have admitted themselves that they need to up their game otherwise they and the economics profession will lose all credibility.

What's annoying is the continuous rant from Remainers such as yourself that the Brexit vote is irrational - there are many rational reasons to vote for Brexit and there are many rational reasons to remain.

Gove's point, unfortunately, was not as neutral or as responsible as you would appear to be crediting it. There is a great difference between saying that experts should not be above challenge simply because they are experts (which is obviously a fair statement) and saying that a broad consensus of experts saying that something is a bad idea, not least due to the fact that the bad idea has virtually no blueprint for implementation, should simply be ignored. Gove was not encouraging people to weigh up the opinions of a wide range of sources and come to their own opinion, he was encouraging people to ignore the wide range of sources in favour of a Brexit plan which even now has no apparent structure or credible plan. You cannot take Gove's point in vacuity either -- he was concurrently arguing that the NHS would receive a manifestly unrealistic amount of extra money, while also putting a forward a simplistic argument to voters regarding the concept of the UK's national sovereignty and Parliamentary supremacy, among other jingoistic ploys.

And while you may content yourself with the belief that my previous post amounted to a 'rant', I feel more than comfortable in saying that, notwithstanding that there are rational arguments in favour of Brexit, the reasons which spurred people to vote in favour were irrational. One does not rationally vote for seismic constitutional change without having ever seen any sort of credible solid plan for implementing said seismic change.

Finally, your point that the experts were wrong over the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote is unfair -- the reason being that despite all the media attention, nothing has really happened on the Brexit front. The vote took place and the world waited to see how Brexit would take shape. Seven months down the line and all we know is that 'Brexit means Brexit' apparently ---- whatever that means. All the huge uncertainty (which was forecast) has led to a greatly weakened Pound and, despite the fact that a weak currency can yield attractive looking graphs on the FTSE in the short term, this is only mainly to the benefit of wealthy individual or institutional investors i.e. one version of the 'elites' to whom the British public were encouraged to show antipathy. For the everyday working British man and woman, it just made their hard-earned holiday that bit more expensive.

I respect your opinion on all of this. I'm sure you have compelling arguments against the UK's place in the EU, or the EU as a concept itself. I do as well. But on the Brexit vote, the British people were sold a concoction of misplaced nostalgia, flimsy ideas on sovereignty, outright lies and a fair dose of bigotry. With no plan in place to actually make good on what they were promised, they voted for it anyway. That is irrational.

Zubeneschamali

kaymin wrote: »

there are many rational reasons to vote for Brexit

I have seen that stated many times here, but I have yet to see any. Can you give us 3?

I do agree that Brexit will bring English nationalists an emotional boost from the feeling of independence and control.

But rationally, the UK is leaving the biggest free trade zone in the world. There will be a concrete, immediate and ongoing hit to the economy and budget, which, with the Tories in power will mean swinging cuts to public services. The UK government has estimated this as 3-6% of GDP, and there is no plan for how that can ever be made up.

Sterling devaluation to parity with the Euro (around perhaps $1.05-10) over the next 2 years will lead to lead to a period of inflation and erosion of living standards.

Rationally, is that cost worth paying for the feeling of independence and control? What, rationally speaking, is the UK going to do with that control?

Keep out the Poles? The UK economy needs them. If you exclude unskilled workers from the EU, who will pick fruit, make Lattés, stack shelves? May thinks Brits should work these jobs, but they are poorly paid. Will wages have to rise to tempt Brits? This will hit the economy again. Will unskilled labour be allowed in from the EU or the former colonies? This will make the whole thing redundant.

Restrictions on immigration will also empower and validate xenophobes and racists. We have seen an uptick in this behaviour just from talking about it - this will get worse. If the UK becomes less pleasant for immigrants, you won't just lose the unskilled ones. The skilled immigrants who power research and development, tech companies and the NHS will be less keen, too. Another hit to the economy and services.

Change EU laws and eliminate bureaucracy and red-tape for efficiency? Which EU laws? Be specific.

Get out from under the European courts? This is a big deal with May, because she would like to violate the human rights which those courts protect today. Do you really want to let her?

Sam Russell

Why is it that the people who pen-push in the EU are unelected fat cat bureaucrats but the ones who pen-push in London are dedicated hard working loyal civil servants?

Why is it that a government elected by a popular vote of 37% can consider themselves democratic enough to adversely effect the poorest in society by swingeing cuts to the NHS and social support services, and take the UK on a disastrous route to penury?

Why is it that the EU, which has a directly elected parliament, a Council of Ministers who are Government Ministers from democratically elected governments, and the EU Commission, which is appointed by those same governments is considered less democratic than those Governments from which it derives its powers?

I will never understand politics.

Nody

Btw here's a nice article of the negotiators view on May's wish list with the headlines: "We’re not out to punish Britain, but you need to shed your illusions"

But it is an illusion to suggest that the UK will be permitted to leave the EU but then be free to opt back into the best parts of the European project, for instance by asking for zero tariffs from the single market without accepting the obligations that come with it. I hope that British people will see from the perspective of an EU taxpayer how unreasonable this would be.

The former Belgian prime minister said he and his colleagues had been "simply bemused" by the UK government’s threat to quit talks and deregulate its economy into a "tax haven" model, if the UK’s goals are not delivered.

And a promise to focus on NI:

One of the greatest challenges in the forthcoming negotiations will be the acute need to find a solution for Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, so that a new hard border dividing them is avoided. I am committed to doing my upmost to ensure, from the European Union side, that the specific needs of Ireland and Northern Ireland are prioritised in the negotiations to come.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why is it that the people who pen-push in the EU are unelected fat cat bureaucrats but the ones who pen-push in London are dedicated hard working loyal civil servants?

Why is it that a government elected by a popular vote of 37% can consider themselves democratic enough to adversely effect the poorest in society by swingeing cuts to the NHS and social support services, and take the UK on a disastrous route to penury?

Why is it that the EU, which has a directly elected parliament, a Council of Ministers who are Government Ministers from democratically elected governments, and the EU Commission, which is appointed by those same governments is considered less democratic than those Governments from which it derives its powers?

I will never understand politics.

Yeah, it's nonsensical isn't it? Perspective is everything. They are fat cats because it suits the Tory press to call them that. For the same reason, it suits some political parties across the EU the spin the 'undemocratic EU' line.

Regarding politics, personally I believe that the thirst for power is the primary motivation for all politicians and all politics flows from that. Helps me understand May, Trump and their respective cronies.

djpbarry

BoatMad wrote: »

I fully expect that existing residents in the uk and EU will be " grandfathered in" but I suspect that Ireland will not be treated any differently after uk exit to any other EU nationals and we will be subject to the same immigration rules. ( ie to new immigrants )

That seems very unlikely at this point, for the simple reason that nobody wants it to happen.

BoatMad wrote: »

The fact remains , if a hard exit , which now looks increasing likely occurs. It's Ireland that will suffer out of all proportion

Relative to who? The rest of the EU? Probably, but steps can be taken to mitigate the damage. Relative to the UK? I don’t think so - the UK has far more to lose in this than Ireland does.

BoatMad wrote: »

The only interesting aspect is whether the SNP has the cohones to push for another independence within the two year time frame. My personal guess is not.

My guess is yes. Nicola Sturgeon has already demonstrated that she is by far the most capable leader in the UK and she has made absolutely no secret of her desire to hold another referendum. I would not bet against Scottish independence at this point - Sturgeon herself will be a big selling point for it.

BoatMad wrote: »

The maintenance ( or the offer of maintenance ) of the CTA from the uk perspective is an easy offer to make , as the problems all lie with the Irish side. In the end it's ultimately Ireland that will be forced to end the CTA not the British.

Neither side has expressed a desire to get rid of the CTA, so I don’t understand why you keep saying Ireland will be forced to get rid of it?

BoatMad wrote: »

Negotiations will be short , the U.K. Is in reality asking for nothing, other then no additional tariffs.

Oh is that all?!?

The UK is asking for a lot - they want to leave the single market and the customs union, but retain all the benefits, which is obviously never going to happen. EU taxpayers are paying for the maintenance and upkeep of the single market - why the hell should the UK get “free” access?

BoatMad wrote: »

The sad fact is , all the pain , and it will be horrendous , will fall on Ireland , it's actually we who will be pleading with the EU for special treatment to mitigate the effects. What then our tax rates eh ? It's a perfect storm for Ireland , a hard border on the island , hugely increased bureaucracy higher costs , difficult market in the uk to access etc etc ,

It’s been estimated by the ESRI that Brexit will cost Ireland about 1% GDP per annum in the immediate aftermath, with lesser losses in the following years, culminating in GDP being about 4% lower in total by 2029, ten years after the UK has left. That’s obviously not good, but it’s hardly the end of the world.

However, this is based on the assumption that the government makes no policy changes in response, which seems highly unlikely. So in other words, Ireland being 4% worse off in GDP terms by 2029 is the worst case scenario.

BoatMad wrote: »

At that point the CTA is dead from the point of view of any objective analysis.

Why are you conflating a hard border with the CTA? They’re absolutely not the same thing? At the present time, I have to show my passport at immigration control when I arrive at Dublin Airport - does that mean the CTA does not exist?

murphaph

BoatMad wrote: »

The maintenance ( or the offer of maintenance ) of the CTA from the uk perspective is an easy offer to make , as the problems all lie with the Irish side. In the end it's ultimately Ireland that will be forced to end the CTA not the British.

I don't see it this way. I see it as a problem for the UK more than Ireland.

Ireland will be (rightly) compelled to continue allowing EU citizens to land in Ireland without hindrance, certainly with no more difficulty than an Irish citizen.

These (say) Polish builders with family already running building firms in Britain will in many cases want to make their way to Britain work illegally in the family firm (as Irish did in the US and indeed still do) and they can easily do that by flying to Dublin and a flight on to GB, assuming things remain exactly as they are.

If the UK starts to check ID on flights and ferries ex RoI (as they could as we check flights already, against the spirit of the CTA but whatever) then our Polish builder can take a coach to Belfast and board a ferry to Britain. Passport checks between NI and GB will not happen. Unionists would explode over such an issue and never support the Tory government that would impose it and the Tories are often reliant on NI unionism for support in parliament.

So, we're left with passport controls along the border itself and unfortunately these would be a terrorist target.

So how can the UK solve the problem? My guess is they'll fudge it and accept a certain amount of illegal immigration of EU nationals through Ireland, rather than inflame unionists or risk terrorist attacks on border installations (escalating to who knows what).

All for bloody nothing. There will be few winners in all this. The UK should have controlled non-EU migration before all this nonsense was allowed to boil over.

djpbarry

kaymin wrote: »

You miss and mis-represent his point - which is that the populace shouldn't just accept the views of experts simply because they are experts i.e. experts should not be above challenge.

That was absolutely not his point. We saw exactly the same kind of rhetoric from Mike Spence in the run up to the US presidential election, with statements along the lines of “you can produce all the facts you want, but Joe in Indiana knows different.” That’s not challenging evidence from experts, that’s dismissing it out of hand.

kaymin wrote: »

Experts across the spectrum have been proven wrong over the two biggest financial episodes over the past 10 years - the 2008 financial crisis and the immediate impact of the Brexit vote.

Neither of those statements are entirely true. In the case of the financial crisis, numerous people were warning of a potential crash long before it happened (in Ireland in particular), but nobody wanted to listen. It was another example of experts being dismissed.

In the case of the impact of Brexit, to say that experts were proven wrong is a bit of a stretch, considering Article 50 hasn’t even been triggered yet. It’s true that the British economy has held up better than expected, but it’s still very early days. But one prediction was pretty much spot on - the pound absolutely tanked.

Regardless, nobody is claiming that experts are never wrong, but they're right far more often than they're wrong. What's more, when you have a broad consensus among experts in a particular field that something is probably going to be bad, it's probably a good idea to at least consider their advice.

kaymin wrote: »

...there are many rational reasons to vote for Brexit...

Off you go and list them then.

djpbarry

murphaph wrote: »

The UK should have controlled non-EU migration before all this nonsense was allowed to boil over.

No, Cameron should have had the balls to stand up to the right-wing dinosaurs in his party and told them that the UK needs immigrants and if they don't like it, they can **** off and join UKIP.

Sam Russell

Not everyone in Ireland can avail of the CTA. People from countries that do not have rights to a visa-free entry to Britain cannot enter Britain without one. Even though they have a visa for Ireland, and are legally here, they cannot just jump on a plane or ferry and arrive in Britain if they do not have a visa to enter Britain. They may be successful as there are no checks, but they will be illegally in Britain and will suffer if caught.

The CTA applies to Irish and British citizens only. EU citizens travel on the EU basis of EU free access. Non-EU citizens travel on the visa-free status (if it applies to them) or not at all. (Well, they can chance it).

This will not change following Brexit, since it is likely that EU citizens will be visa-free for entry and exit, but not for work. The likelihood is that regulations will come into play in the UK to control employment and banking, and possibly residence, for aliens. [The Irish are not aliens in the UK].

The easiest way for the UK to achieve this is to introduce ID cards for all legal residents. However, that would be most unpopular with Brexiteers, and Unionists.

demfad

Best dissection of Theresa May's speech Ive read to date....

http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.ie/2017/01/brexit-prime-minister-sets-wrong-course.html

First Up

Sam Russell wrote: »

Not everyone in Ireland can avail of the CTA.  People from countries that do not have rights to a visa-free entry to Britain cannot enter Britain without one.  Even though they have a visa for Ireland, and are legally here, they cannot just jump on a plane or ferry and arrive in Britain if they do not have a visa to enter Britain.  They may be successful as there are no checks, but they will be illegally in Britain and will suffer if caught.

The CTA applies to Irish and British citizens only.  EU citizens travel on the EU basis of EU free access.  Non-EU citizens travel on the visa-free status (if it applies to them) or not at all.  (Well, they can chance it).

This will not change following Brexit, since it is likely that EU citizens will be visa-free for entry and exit, but not for work.  The likelihood is that regulations will come into play in the UK to control employment and banking, and possibly residence, for aliens.   [The Irish are not aliens in the UK].

The easiest way for the UK to achieve this is to introduce ID cards for all legal residents.  However, that would be most unpopular with Brexiteers, and Unionists.

This is correct.  I have had visitors in Dublin on ROI visas who wanted to go to Belfast.  The did, but I did warn them that  they would be there illegally.  
May is going about immigration "control". That means that they want to be able to decide who can come and go, who can work etc.  It is quite possible that they will decide to allow Irish, German or Dutch (for example) citizens the right to live and work in the UK, but not extend the right to work to citizens of some other (EU) countries - e.g. Poland.  The UK could even impose a visit visa or limited stay requirement on citizens of some countries
It remains to be seen if the EU will tolerate citizens of some member countries being treated differently to others. The UK would be within its rights to do so but it is  to add a negative element to the wider negotiations.
In terms of policing it, I think ID cards are inevitable.  What a nice place the Brexiteers have brought on themselves.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

May is going about immigration "control". That means that they want to be able to decide who can come and go, who can work etc.

They could decide to allow visits (tourism etc.) from the EU, and restrict work and benefits only. Then the border could remain open and enforcement would be on employers and benefit/service deliverers like welfare office/schools, hospitals to demand ID or check Visa status.

This would lead to a black economy of illegal immigrant workers, but might satisfy the anti-immigrant camp with lots of high profile arresting and deporting going on.

KingBrian2

First Up wrote: »

This is correct.  I have had visitors in Dublin on ROI visas who wanted to go to Belfast.  The did, but I did warn them that  they would be there illegally.  
May is going about immigration "control". That means that they want to be able to decide who can come and go, who can work etc.  It is quite possible that they will decide to allow Irish, German or Dutch (for example) citizens the right to live and work in the UK, but not extend the right to work to citizens of some other (EU) countries - e.g. Poland.  The UK could even impose a visit visa or limited stay requirement on citizens of some countries
It remains to be seen if the EU will tolerate citizens of some member countries being treated differently to others. The UK would be within its rights to do so but it is  to add a negative element to the wider negotiations.
In terms of policing it, I think ID cards are inevitable.  What a nice place the Brexiteers have brought on themselves.

The Poles won't stand for that and they are good friends with the Brits. Theresa would not be cold to the Poles. They share a lot in common more than with Germany & France. I expect she will target the Bulgarians, Hungarians & Romanians. The Brits don't like them.

Nody

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The Poles won't stand for that and they are good friends with the Brits. Theresa would not be cold to the Poles. They share a lot in common more than with Germany & France. I expect she will target the Bulgarians, Hungarians & Romanians. The Brits don't like them.

The Brits don't like any foreigners; there's been plenty of reported cases of Swedes, French, Spanish, Polish etc. people targeted after the Brexit vote and I'd not even go near people who's skin color happens to be non pig pink...

KingBrian2

Nody wrote: »

The Brits don't like any foreigners; there's been plenty of reported cases of Swedes, French, Spanish, Polish etc. people targeted after the Brexit vote and I'd not even go near people who's skin color happens to be non pig pink...

I would not personally believe the reports. They can be terrible misleading. British gvt policy which is what the gvt can get away with without receiving an earful from the voters is to look out for and it seems to me that the Brits only wanted controlled immigration. During the referendum UKIP got away with brandishing the south and central east Europeans as the bad migrants coming into Britain as opposed to the good immigrants who majority were the money class.

Nody

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I would not personally believe the reports. They can be terrible misleading. British gvt policy which is what the gvt can get away with without receiving an earful from the voters is to look out for and it seems to me that the Brits only wanted controlled immigration. During the referendum UKIP got away with brandishing the south and central east Europeans as the bad migrants coming into Britain as opposed to the good immigrants who majority were the money class.

Swedes

Swedish citizens at the Scandinavian Kitchen cafe in central London told her of the anxieties about their future and xenophobic abuse they had experienced since the referendum.

One woman working in the City told how her chief executive had to send an email to all employees to tell them xenophobic behaviour was not acceptable after she was told by a colleague that the country had voted to get people like her to “get out”. Another told her how she felt that she and other Swedes would end up being “collateral damage” in negotiations.

Spanish

The first video, from May, shows a British man hitting 27-year-old Tomás Gil, from Valencia, in the face with a wooden plank after shouting at him to “speak English”.

He told El País that Way “came at us from the other side, screaming 'you f***ing Spanish, speak English', and I faced up to him a bit.

Polish

Speaking at a press conference at the Polish embassy in London on Monday night, Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski said: "Over dozens of years that big Polish community in the United Kingdom has not suffered any problems.

"Then a couple of months ago after the very heated campaign preceding the referendum on the staying or leaving of Great Britain some incidents started to happen against the Polish community."

Want me to continue? The simple fact is people feel after Brexit they have the right to be racist a-holes and act it out anyone they feel is not British enough which is also shown in the 41% increase of reported hate crimes after Brexit.

Or heck let's do it with pictures:



Here's another article with lovely picture of Polish father and son beaten unconscious by "proper" English men.

The father, who did not want to be named, told how his wife has been called “raghead” in the streets near their home in Llanedeyrn, Cardiff and their 11-year-old son was pushed from his bike.

But suuuure; it's all mistaken headlines and in no way increased racism, nope nothing to see here...

Zubeneschamali

Nody wrote: »

it's all mistaken headlines and in no way increased racism

It is a real increase in racist actions and speech.

A disturbing thought is that this is not an increase in racist thought or belief, these disgusting people were out there all along, but social pressure kept them quiet.

Now they feel society is with them, not against them, and they are crawling out of the woodwork.

KingBrian2

Isolated cases in a country of over 60 million. Britain also donates a substantial portion of its wealth to countries around the world. Hardly a predominately xenophobic Nation although the referendum campaign was extremely divisive and vile.

Zubeneschamali

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Britain also donates a substantial portion of its wealth to countries around the world.

Eh, numbers?

KingBrian2

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Eh, numbers?

You'll have to ask the British treasury about that.:)

Nody

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Isolated cases in a country of over 60 million. Britain also donates a substantial portion of its wealth to countries around the world. Hardly a predominately xenophobic Nation although the referendum campaign was extremely divisive and vile.

And yet every nation sending government representatives to UK mentions it; foreigners living in UK for decades report it and companies and universities report foreigners refusing to come to positions they accepted due to it. The simple fact is UK is seen as a xenophobic country after Brexit and the actions of the relatively few will still stain the wider audience who accepts it silently.

This is exactly the thought crime people keep claiming about Muslims about not speaking out against terrorism except the UK government and the people on the ground are not only not speaking out but silently encouraging it.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

You'll have to ask the British treasury about that.

You can ask me.

DFID (Dept for International Development) spends around £11b a year. Thats close to the UN's aspiration of 0.7% of GDP - better than most.

KingBrian2

First Up wrote: »

You can ask me.

DFID (Dept for International Development) spends around £11b a year. Thats close to the UN's aspiration of 0.7% of GDP - better than most.

Funding is not the only use to foreign countries. Peacekeeping is also important and some nations like France, Germany, India & Russia can provide military assistance to countries in need.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

Funding is not the only use to foreign countries. Peacekeeping is also important and some nations like France, Germany, India & Russia can provide military assistance to countries in need.

As do others (including us) through the UN.
Don't know what that has to do with your remark that UK donates a "substantial" part of its wealth to other countries.

KingBrian2

First Up wrote: »

As do others (including us) through the UN.
Don't know what that has to do with your remark that UK donates a "substantial" part of its wealth to other countries.

The UK cannot be described as a xenophobic country when we see isolated incidents of crime against foreigners. Their is of course a vocal hostile crowd within the UK that causes all the trouble and currently they are being allowed run riot.

Lemming

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I would not personally believe the reports. They can be terrible misleading. British gvt policy which is what the gvt can get away with without receiving an earful from the voters is to look out for and it seems to me that the Brits only wanted controlled immigration.

No, I've been on the receiving end of racist sh1te by someone I've known for years; told to "go home", "fvck off to Germany", called Neville Chamberlain, regards Brexit etc.

Over the years of living in the UK I have also heard (from other sources, not the bell-end mentioned above) casual comments that weren't directed at myself that belie a sense of looking unfavourably upon foreigners if not anything more sinister. I have even had the good fortune to effectively be barricaded into my home on several occasions by the police as the EDL/BNP/NF decided to hold "marches" past where I lived for several years. On that account I saw more than enough unsavoury behaviour directed at anyone who wasn't perceived as "English" and oh-so-very-white. I wont proclaim all of the above represents people the length & breadth of the UK, but there's certainly a sizeable minority who hold unpleasant - if not downright ugly - views. They have been emboldened by UKIP & a Westminister parliament that seems to be lurching to the far right of the aisles.

None of the underbelly of British attitudes towards Johnny Foreigner is helped by an entrenched gutter-press that lives off pedalling lazy stereotypes as if it's all fact. Add to that that most people I have ever had a conversation with in the UK about Europe in general was met with a staggering level of ignorance. Far more so than back home.