Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Akrasia

brick tamland wrote: »

Yeah but he has the potential to really hit the torys hard, and he knows it. Although probably unlikely to return any seats they have the potential to cost the torys a lot of seats in close run constituencies. Probably only pole 5% in a lot of places but that hould be a huge hit as it'd all be coming from the tory vote.

Very interesting to see how it plays out. Cant see Boris being able to get into arrangementwith them looking at their stupid asks.

The brexit party are the first entity in a long time that has threatened to properly split the Tory vote. as you said, they don't need to take many votes off them, but in FPTP, they only need to shift their support marginally in order to cost them seats and hand them to the opposition

If the brexit party cost them 20 seats and causes Labour to win them instead, that's a 40 seat swing or more than 10% of the votes needed to get a HOC majority.

Labour and the Tories have their 'safe seats'. Elections are won and lost in the swing constituencies.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

I had the following drop onto my facebook earlier.




They're blaming the EU for many things that the EU simply don't really have any control over, many of these issues have come about due to the way corporate manipulation has changed society to maintain infinite growth, dual incomes to support a household for example, even importing people to ensure that growth continues when the locals don't breed fast enough.

The only thing they can really blame the EU for is the fact that it enabled employers to import cheaper labour in from central & eastern Europe.

A lot of downright lies in the text. The UK was no idyllic paradise in the period before joining the EEC and was virtually bankrupt by the mid 1970s.

Even the issue of cheap labour from Eastern Europe wasn't seen as that much of a 'problem' until it became a cause celebre for the right wing rags from about 2013 onward (having previously been railing against benefit scroungers).

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

I had the following drop onto my facebook earlier.




They're blaming the EU for many things that the EU simply don't really have any control over, many of these issues have come about due to the way corporate manipulation has changed society to maintain infinite growth, dual incomes to support a household for example, even importing people to ensure that growth continues when the locals don't breed fast enough.

The only thing they can really blame the EU for is the fact that it enabled employers to import cheaper labour in from central & eastern Europe.

they all sound like English problems

looksee

I have just read the piece of blurb above, and I have to agree that while slightly exaggerated, there is a lot of truth in it. Yes you could walk into a job and get trained up (I am talking about 50 to 60 years ago) - to a point, but in general terms, true. You could marry and live on one income, just, and so on.

That is where it ends though. The EU in no way caused the current situation. It has much more to do with changes in society, changes in expectations, development of technology and a vast, complex range of other things. Foreigners are way, way down the list.

Strazdas

looksee wrote: »

I have just read the piece of blurb above, and I have to agree that while slightly exaggerated, there is a lot of truth in it. Yes you could walk into a job and get trained up (I am talking about 50 to 60 years ago) - to a point, but in general terms, true. You could marry and live on one income, just, and so on.

That is where it ends though. The EU in no way caused the current situation. It has much more to do with changes in society, changes in expectations, development of technology and a vast, complex range of other things. Foreigners are way, way down the list.

But editing out nearly all the bad stuff. Strikes and industrial disputes commonplace, millions of people living in abject poverty, smog in cities, life expectancy being far lower, racism and sexism rampant, frequent power cuts, dangerous working conditions etc

listermint

Strazdas wrote: »

But editing out nearly all the bad stuff. Strikes and industrial disputes commonplace, millions of people living in abject poverty, smog in cities, life expectancy being far lower, racism and sexism rampant, frequent power cuts, dangerous working conditions etc

No no forget all that stuff . It was all like heartbeat . Quaint cottages and locals all digging out. Everyone had a job and a car...

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

But editing out nearly all the bad stuff. Strikes and industrial disputes commonplace, millions of people living in abject poverty, smog in cities, life expectancy being far lower, racism and sexism rampant, frequent power cuts, dangerous working conditions etc

Industrial relations in the 1970s were at an all time low, so strikes were commonplace, much can be attributed to the next level of mechanisation being rolled out (replacing dumb machines with ones that some process automation) this resulted in significant job cuts across the board, unions resisted these changes and the disputes often ended up with strikes.
Racism and sexism were just products of the time and was considered normal (at the time). Poverty was reducing year on year, but was rapidly being eradicated by the provision of decent council housing available to all, so like every other country on the planet, people look back with rose tinted glasses.
As for health & safety, I went to school in England and one day they decided to demolish the outside toilets (just had new inside ones built)
A piece of string across the playground, anyway during playtime, the demolition crew got to ripping the slates off the roof and chucking the slates onto the playground, I spent the afternoon picking bits of slate out of my scalp!

Mr.Nice Guy

I wish people would give this 'frontstop' stuff a rest. The backstop did not have a time limit, nor an exit mechanism, which this new proposal does. It was an all-weather insurance policy, while this new one requires the ongoing consent of a ghost parliament that has been out of service for over 1000 days because the politicians - who we require to be pragmatic - can't agree on a language act.

looksee

Strazdas wrote: »

But editing out nearly all the bad stuff. Strikes and industrial disputes commonplace, millions of people living in abject poverty, smog in cities, life expectancy being far lower, racism and sexism rampant, frequent power cuts, dangerous working conditions etc

Again that is true. Though the time that text is talking about was around the sixties in the UK. The miners strike for example was 1969 and other major strikes were more into the 70s. I am not saying there were no strikes, but the significant ones were later.

Most of the other things you mention, while true, do not tend to be as noticeable while they are happening as they appear in hindsight. You do not notice lower life expectancy for example until you can anticipate longer life expectancy, the same with health care, especially when, within most people's living memory, life expectancy had been extremely poor as a result of the war(s) and pre the National Health service. So looking back it is very easy to cherry pick.

It is all to do with perception and expectations. Then there was minimal technology to buy, and even household white goods were minimal and lasted indefinitely. A family possibly had a car, but it was not something that everyone expected to have. Holidays were minimal and simple, and mostly something that happened once in the year at best. Children having a room full of plastic tat at great cost was unknown, children's clothes were passed on, and so on. Few houses had central heating or double glazing, and a great deal of work - both employment and at home was still physical and hard. On the whole the rigid social mores of the past still hung on, though they were starting to relax, but the sense of accepting your lot and being grateful for what you had still was much more prevalent than pursuit of rights of the individual.

And yet, and remember this is the UK we are discussing, compared with the austerity that most people remembered in the very recent past, things were swinging, life was exciting and good. As I remember them, even without drugs and not a lot of drink, the 60s were a hell of a good time, and it is very easy to look back and see them as rosy. It does seem to me that I remember the 50s in black and white, but the 60s in colour.

Where the whole argument falls down is blaming the subsequent slide on the EU and foreigners, it was nothing to do with either.

Imreoir2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I wish people would give this 'frontstop' stuff a rest. The backstop did not have a time limit, nor an exit mechanism, which this new proposal does. It was an all-weather insurance policy, while this new one requires the ongoing consent of a ghost parliament that has been out of service for over 1000 days because the politicians - who we require to be pragmatic - can't agree on a language act.

Parties that oppose the backstop do not even come close to a majorty in the assembly and never have. Unless the DUP can somehow do something it has never even come close to doing and has no hopes of ever doing, by getting an outright majority in the assembly, then there is nothing to worry about.

Perhaps you should try some pragmatism yourself and accept that the NI assembly will not be voting for a hard border.

I think it's funny that people say that affording a house at 2.5x the annual income is some sort of strivable goal.

If it was enforced now, how many people would be in negative equity?

FrancieBrady

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Parties that oppose the backstop do not even come close to a majorty in the assembly and never have. Unless the DUP can somehow do something it has never even come close to doing and has no hopes of ever doing, by getting an outright majority in the assembly, then there is nothing to worry about.

Perhaps you should try some pragmatism yourself and accept that the NI assembly will not be voting for a hard border.

And they have to be the ones to propose it and campaign for it. If it succeeds they have to take direct responsibility for it.

Snookered with no chance of getting out of it. Better than any backstop as the future is in the hands of the people of Ireland. Not to mention the 'frontstop' aspect of it.

Mr.Nice Guy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Parties that oppose the backstop do not even come close to a majorty in the assembly and never have. Unless the DUP can somehow do something it has never even come close to doing and has no hopes of ever doing, by getting an outright majority in the assembly, then there is nothing to worry about.

Perhaps you should try some pragmatism yourself and accept that the NI assembly will not be voting for a hard border.

The DUP don't need to have an outright majority, the unionists do. We have seen in the last few days that the UUP will follow the DUP line when push comes to shove. Look up the results of the 2016 Assembly election rather than 2017 and say it's nothing to worry about. People thought the Petition of Concern was nothing to worry about and look what happened there.

Perhaps you should try not telling porkies in pretending that this proposal contains the elements of the backstop when plainly that is not the case.

We have effectively ceded our control of customs to the parties north of the border. More accurate to call it a Sinn Fein-stop rather than a 'frontstop'.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The DUP don't need to have an outright majority, the unionists do. We have seen in the last few days that the UUP will follow the DUP line when push comes to shove. Look up the results of the 2016 Assembly election rather than 2017 and say it's nothing to worry about. People thought the Petition of Concern was nothing to worry about and look what happened there.

Perhaps you should try not telling porkies in pretending that this proposal contains the elements of the backstop when plainly that is not the case.

We have effectively ceded our control of customs to the parties north of the border. More accurate to call it a Sinn Fein-stop rather than a 'frontstop'.

It's the NI economy, not ours. If they want to vote to end the co-operation and market access that makes (at least) their agri-food business viable, they can of course do that. Chances of it happening? NIL.

FrancieBrady

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The DUP don't need to have an outright majority, the unionists do. We have seen in the last few days that the UUP will follow the DUP line when push comes to shove. Look up the results of the 2016 Assembly election rather than 2017 and say it's nothing to worry about. People thought the Petition of Concern was nothing to worry about and look what happened there.

Perhaps you should try not telling porkies in pretending that this proposal contains the elements of the backstop when plainly that is not the case.

We have effectively ceded our control of customs to the parties north of the border. More accurate to call it a Sinn Fein-stop rather than a 'frontstop'.

The backstop was only as good as the word of the British.
The frontstop is better because it forces those who want a border to take responsibility for that.
And Unionism will never come together to do that, because the vast majority of unionism knows, that is the signing of the end of their union, and also their agriculture and business infrastructure.
You are not getting the nuances of unionism...it is not all belligerent DUPism

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The backstop was only as good as the word of the British.
The frontstop is better because it forces those who want a border to take responsibility for that.
And Unionism will never come together to do that, because the vast majority of unionism knows, that is the signing of the end of their union, and also their agriculture and business infrastructure.
You are not getting the nuances of unionism...it is not all belligerent DUPism

Indeed. As I've often said to unionist friends and acquaintances: "Ye are only orange as far as your wallets". They don't deny it.

Mr.Nice Guy

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's the NI economy, not ours. If they want to vote to end the co-operation and market access that makes (at least) their agri-food business viable, they can of course do that. Chances of it happening? NIL.

Oh dear. Tell that to the businesses that operate on a cross border basis, with supply chains going back and forth.

Chances of it happening are much higher than nil. If unionism deems it a constitutional imperative to be aligned to GB, and vows to do all it can to bring that about, then what's needed is around a handful of seats to conceivably get a majority in the assembly.

And those who say unionists won't do it on economic grounds as it would be self-defeating, consider a scenario years down the line where there is a border poll called which unionists believe to be the worst thing of all to their economic wellbeing. Not hard to see in that context unionists doing everything they can to reach out to GB, rather than the rest of the island.

FrancieBrady wrote:

The backstop was only as good as the word of the British.
The frontstop is better because it forces those who want a border to take responsibility for that.
And Unionism will never come together to do that, because the vast majority of unionism knows, that is the signing of the end of their union, and also their agriculture and business infrastructure.
You are not getting the nuances of unionism...it is not all belligerent DUPism

Other way around. The backstop was all-weather because it was to require written guarantees rather than words. This affrontstop that you refer to is utterly dependent on the word of the British. For instance, it's still not totally clear how the British will measure consent in the event that Stormont remains a ghost parliament when the time comes to check for support.

Have a look at unionism this week to see how it will go. When it comes to the constitutional question, everything else falls away and that becomes the main priority. For all the UUP barbs towards the DUP about RHI, the two borders in the sea, regulatory alignment etc. when it's all said and done they will work with them to 'do what's best for the union'.

And in the scenario I touched on above, if a border poll is on the horizon and the unionists deem that the biggest threat to their lifestyle of all, they will put the issue of the constitution above everything. Some don't want to admit it but expecting the parties north of the border to put pragmatism before patriotism was a massive gamble that could very well backfire.

FrancieBrady

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Oh dear. Tell that to the businesses that operate on a cross border basis, with supply chains going back and forth.

Chances of it happening are much higher than nil. If unionism deems it a constitutional imperative to be aligned to GB, and vows to do all it can to bring that about, then what's needed is around a handful of seats to conceivably get a majority in the assembly.

And those who say unionists won't do it on economic grounds as it would be self-defeating, consider a scenario years down the line where there is a border poll called which unionists believe to be the worst thing of all to their economic wellbeing. Not hard to see in that context unionists doing everything they can to reach out to GB, rather than the rest of the island.



Other way around. The backstop was all-weather because it was to require written guarantees rather than words. This affrontstop that you refer to is utterly dependent on the word of the British. For instance, it's still not totally clear how the British will measure consent in the event that Stormont remains a ghost parliament when the time comes to check for support.

Have a look at unionism this week to see how it will go. When it comes to the constitutional question, everything else falls away and that becomes the main priority. For all the UUP barbs towards the DUP about RHI, the two borders in the sea, regulatory alignment etc. when it's all said and done they will work with them to 'do what's best for the union'.

And in the scenario I touched on above, if a border poll is on the horizon and the unionists deem that the biggest threat to their lifestyle of all, they will put the issue of the constitution above everything. Some don't want to admit it but expecting the parties north of the border to put pragmatism before patriotism was a massive gamble that could very well backfire.

...and then what?

They propose a hard border and get it. What happens then?

Not a hope the UUP will back that and doubtful the DUP will. They will do the same as they did with the AIA and the GFA...plenty of bluster and then get on with it.

Mr.Nice Guy

FrancieBrady wrote: »

...and then what?

They propose a hard border and get it. What happens then?

Not a hope the UUP will back that and doubtful the DUP will. They will do the same as they did with the AIA and the GFA...plenty of bluster and then get on with it.

Then they likely ask for any border poll talk in the works to be postponed so they can engage in a transition period negotiation to keep NI aligned with the rest of UK. They get to style themselves as defenders of the union to their electorate. 'We put border poll talk on ice and have reaffirmed the integrity of NI's place within the UK.'

The process is already under way. The UUP in a few weeks are going to enable the DUP to win in North Belfast despite criticizing them every day for the last few years. They will always put the position of the union above anything.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Oh dear. Tell that to the businesses that operate on a cross border basis, with supply chains going back and forth.

Chances of it happening are much higher than nil. If unionism deems it a constitutional imperative to be aligned to GB, and vows to do all it can to bring that about, then what's needed is around a handful of seats to conceivably get a majority in the assembly.

And those who say unionists won't do it on economic grounds as it would be self-defeating, consider a scenario years down the line where there is a border poll called which unionists believe to be the worst thing of all to their economic wellbeing. Not hard to see in that context unionists doing everything they can to reach out to GB, rather than the rest of the island.

Oh dear indeed. That's the exact point. They have an inextricably linked economy with us. It's beyond even brexit level madness on the 'mainland' for NI to close the border. Baileys crosses the border seven times in its production cycle. Milk gets processed here. We keep their lights on. But in the general scheme of things, for us, the NI economy barely adds up to our beef exports to GB.

FrancieBrady

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Then they likely ask for any border poll talk in the works to be postponed so they can engage in a transition period negotiation to keep NI aligned with the rest of UK.

And everything remains calm, static and stable while they indulge themselves?

Seriously, think about the scenario for a second. The Irish government with the rest of the EU have fought to not have a hard border for many reasons for 3 years.
You think a unionist alliance will propose one and everything will just stay the same as they negotiate with Westminster on the future of this island?

Mr.Nice Guy

prawnsambo wrote: »

Oh dear indeed. That's the exact point. They have an inextricably linked economy with us. It's beyond even brexit level madness on the 'mainland' for NI to close the border. Baileys crosses the border seven times in its production cycle. Milk gets processed here. We keep their lights on. But in the general scheme of things, for us, the NI economy barely adds up to our beef exports to GB.

Yes and their belief is that while the cross-border connection is important, their connection to the 'mainland' is much more significant, which is why they have reacted to the Johnson proposal with the alarm they have.

How do you square your contention that they will see the merit in this deal years from now with the fact that up to now they have not?

FrancieBrady wrote:

And everything remains calm, static and stable while they indulge themselves?

Seriously, think about the scenario for a second. The Irish government with the rest of the EU have fought to not have a hard border for many reasons for 3 years.
You think a unionist alliance will propose one and everything will just stay the same as they negotiate with Westminster on the future of this island?

I don't think it will be calm or stable. But we will be well past that point. It's clear that the next Westminster parliament will be dominated by constitutional questions. Sturgeon has indicated she wants a referendum in 2021 on Scottish independence. Johnson will be trying to get his Brexit deal over the line. SF already want a border poll and will continue demands for one. Add into this divisive atmosphere the centenary of the creation of NI and the Irish Free State and it's obvious identity is going to be a massive issue in the coming years.

Ask yourself in these conditions, where unionism feels under pressure and the walls closing in on them, what's more likely? Cooperation among the unionist parties or deviation? It seems obvious to me they will become increasingly on the same page as the siege mentality grows. There is already a demand within loyalism and sections of unionism for 'unionist unity'.

I have no confidence that in this febrile atmosphere the unionist parties are going to prioritise farmers and cross-border businesses over their fear that they may be the generation that sees the union go under. They will put the constitutional question above everything else and where that leaves us down south is anyone's guess. I certainly would not say by any means it is a given that we can count on cooler heads prevailing.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Yes and their belief is that while the cross-border connection is important, their connection to the 'mainland' is much more significant, which is why they have reacted to the Johnson proposal with the alarm they have.

How do you square your contention that they will see the merit in this deal years from now with the fact that up to now they have not?

You seem to be equating the DUP with the unionist community. They don't. They overlap. And they get their votes on the basis that they aren't 'then 'uns'. But there's been increasing dismay at the way things were going and the way the DUP handled it. It's not a black and white unionist v nationalist issue. They could well get punished in the next election and the polling suggests that they will lose at least one seat. The only problems that NI businesses have with the Johnson 'deal' is that it's got that built-in review mechanism which might negatively affect FDI and that there's going to be paperwork. Neither of which smacks particularly of their "significant connection to the mainland".

FrancieBrady

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Yes and their belief is that while the cross-border connection is important, their connection to the 'mainland' is much more significant, which is why they have reacted to the Johnson proposal with the alarm they have.

How do you square your contention that they will see the merit in this deal years from now with the fact that up to now they have not?



I don't think it will be calm or stable. But we will be well past that point. It's clear that the next Westminster parliament will be dominated by constitutional questions. Sturgeon has indicated she wants a referendum in 2021 on Scottish independence. Johnson will be trying to get his Brexit deal over the line. SF already want a border poll and will continue demands for one. Add into this divisive atmosphere the centenary of the creation of NI and the Irish Free State and it's obvious identity is going to be a massive issue in the coming years.

Ask yourself in these conditions, where unionism feels under pressure and the walls closing in on them, what's more likely? Cooperation among the unionist parties or deviation? It seems obvious to me they will become increasingly on the same page as the siege mentality grows. There is already a demand within loyalism and sections of unionism for 'unionist unity'.

I have no confidence that in this febrile atmosphere the unionist parties are going to prioritise farmers and cross-border businesses over their fear that they may be the generation that sees the union go under. They will put the constitutional question above everything else and where that leaves us down south is anyone's guess. I certainly would not say by any means it is a given that we can count on cooler heads prevailing.

Loyalism is meeting in rooms above pubs. Unionism cannot and hasn't been ableto muster anything like the cohesive support it had back in the 80's.

Why? Because everything that has happened has ultimately made the north a better place to live in.
You are talking as if unionism has still got a veto and still has power. It really hasn't.
Moderate unionism will always trump the belligerent brand eventually, and quicker these days than before.
The constitutional question will stay on the backburner a while longer as long as there is no hard border.
Nigel, Arlene and the rest know this better than anybody, believe me. They will huff and puff and pull the never never shapes and that will be it.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

I had the following drop onto my facebook earlier.

That's exactly the same history as in the USA.

And the USA has had full control without any EU the whole bleedin' time.




AFAIK the largest possible fine for facebook is only half a million, which is petty cash for a company that makes £1.3bn in the UK and has paid a $5Bn fine in the US

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49827375

Facebook says it will treat all posts by politicians as "newsworthy content" that should "be seen and heard".

The company said politicians would be exempt from its fact-checking scheme which is designed to reduce the spread of fake news and misinformation.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it's funny that people say that affording a house at 2.5x the annual income is some sort of strivable goal.

If it was enforced now, how many people would be in negative equity?

Roll the clock back and everyone would be in negative equity, a house wouldn't pay for much care for OAPs.

Houses used to be nearly half that at 1.3 times average annual wage.

THE last time a December election was held was in 1923
...
A man’s average weekly wage was about £5
...
The average house cost just £350 — the equivalent of £20,000 today.

reslfj

VinLieger wrote: »

Objectively the EU is far more democratic then the UK, the UK has .... an unelected 2nd house whose seats are mostly inherited or else appointed for doing good deeds for whichever party is currently in power.
...

Of about 800 members in the HoL only 92 are hereditary, some are bishops. This is very far from most.

The large majority is life peers appointed by the PM and the other party leaders. The HoL shouldn't be blamed for possible corruption by a party or a party leader.

Looking at the HoL work with Brexit, it seems to me, the HoL has been at least as political middle of the road, as efficient and as truthful as has the HoC.

"As of January 2018 there are 4 dukes, 1 marquess, 26 earls, 17 viscounts and 44 barons among the 92 hereditary peers entitled to sit in the House of Lords."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

Lars

PS!
The hereditary peers in the HoL are elected by the peers, and can as all peers be removed e.g. for inactivity, serious crimes.

CelticRambler

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Yes and their belief is that while the cross-border connection is important, their connection to the 'mainland' is much more significant, which is why they have reacted to the Johnson proposal with the alarm they have.

I doubt you'll find any Gibraltarian who feels less British or less passionate about their connection to 'the mainland' than anyone in the DUP; yet they have to live with a far wider sea border, in a different time-zone and with foreigners all around them speaking funny languages. Have you considered how their service-based economy is going fare in the case of Johnson's "oven-ready" deal? Do you think it'll create as much mayhem on the Rock as you're forecasting for NI?

The long and the short of it is that a vaguely-defined Brexit was a bloody stupid idea to put to the vote; deciding to implement the vaguely defined Will of The People based on the result was a bloody stupid idea; and then triggering a General Election in the hope of achieving a 'majority' of less than 40% of the electorate so as to be able to ram through the only possible agreement based on not vague enough red lines is a bloody stupid idea. The eventual outcome will inevitably be bloody for someone, and as relative outsiders, all we can do is take steps to limit our own casualties.

20silkcut

looksee wrote: »

Again that is true. Though the time that text is talking about was around the sixties in the UK. The miners strike for example was 1969 and other major strikes were more into the 70s. I am not saying there were no strikes, but the significant ones were later.

Most of the other things you mention, while true, do not tend to be as noticeable while they are happening as they appear in hindsight. You do not notice lower life expectancy for example until you can anticipate longer life expectancy, the same with health care, especially when, within most people's living memory, life expectancy had been extremely poor as a result of the war(s) and pre the National Health service. So looking back it is very easy to cherry pick.

It is all to do with perception and expectations. Then there was minimal technology to buy, and even household white goods were minimal and lasted indefinitely. A family possibly had a car, but it was not something that everyone expected to have. Holidays were minimal and simple, and mostly something that happened once in the year at best. Children having a room full of plastic tat at great cost was unknown, children's clothes were passed on, and so on. Few houses had central heating or double glazing, and a great deal of work - both employment and at home was still physical and hard. On the whole the rigid social mores of the past still hung on, though they were starting to relax, but the sense of accepting your lot and being grateful for what you had still was much more prevalent than pursuit of rights of the individual.

And yet, and remember this is the UK we are discussing, compared with the austerity that most people remembered in the very recent past, things were swinging, life was exciting and good. As I remember them, even without drugs and not a lot of drink, the 60s were a hell of a good time, and it is very easy to look back and see them as rosy. It does seem to me that I remember the 50s in black and white, but the 60s in colour.

Where the whole argument falls down is blaming the subsequent slide on the EU and foreigners, it was nothing to do with either.

If you ever look at old videos of English towns and cities from the 50’s 60’s or 70’s just scroll down and look at the comments underneath and it will tell you everything you need to know about the English psyche and attitudes to the past and immigration etc and the brexit mindset.
These are not Russian bots commenting.

Back about 20 years ago I worked for a company that were closing a factory in the North of England and transferring it to Ireland. That involved me spending a few months in the north of England and transferring the factory and some of the employees to Ireland.
They described Ireland as a paradise. Like what England was in the 50’s. Basically pre immigration. Growing up in the Ireland of the 1980’s we always thought Ireland was bleak but it was nothing compared to the North of England of the late 90’s.
The antipathy they had towards what their own country had become was staggering . This was of course only a few years post thatcher which no doubt darkened the mood a bit too but I was not one bit surprised that the north of England voted so strongly for brexit. And I’m sure most of the people I worked with at the time were brexit voters.
Changing those attitudes is a Herculean task.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I had the following drop onto my facebook earlier.

That's a piece of pre-referendum propoganda that first appeared in 2016! It's one of the early examples of Brexiteers invoking Schrödinger's Immigrant - the one undercutting honest English labourers to work for less than £30 a week while simultaneously bidding up house prices to drive the same Englishman out of the property market.

Out of curiosity, I did a bit of googling on the topic of immigration during the period referred to by the supposed author (coz it was well before my time :P ) Interesting, and not hard to find (e.g. wikipedia and the National Archives): thanks to Churchill's decision to send so many young British men to their death fighting the Krauts in Europe, the UK needed immigrants to get their country back on its feet after WW2. This wave (mainly Irish and Eastern Europeans :pac: ) was immediately followed by another one from the ex-Empire colonies of India, Pakistan and the West Indies.

Plus ça change, innit? :cool: