Brexit Expert says it's a 'fantasy' that immigration changes will help businesses

[Kalis]

There fixed that for you.

The British voted out, we didn't vote as individual Home Nations.

Many English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish voted Remain and many voted Leave. Had all the English voted the same way, then the result would have been a far greater win for Leave than it was, considering the English make up over 80% of the population in the UK.

That says more about the broken state of British politics than the popularity of Theresa May.

That is a subjective view.

One of the biggest problems with current British politics, the absence of any viable opposition, is not something that can be blamed on Theresa May or the Tories.

- - - Updated - - -

I am really disappointed to hear this. I understand Corybn had a rough time but who knows. He may still turn it around.

Not sure that Britain is ready for a terrorist sympathiser as Prime Minister.

For the sake of the U.K. we must hope that someone other than may is in office.

Is that the Royal 'we'? She is a decent PM, at least she doesn't openly eulogise murderous dictators on behalf of our country. Canada has far more pressing concerns over that front than we do.

She wasn't even really elected Prime Minister.

We don't elect Prime Ministers.

[AeneasBK]

Not sure that Britain is ready for a terrorist sympathiser as Prime Minister.

Blairs tactics did us a bunch of favours

[Kalis]

Blairs tactics did us a bunch of favours

Not sure how he is relevant to me mentioning terrorist sympathisers.

[AeneasBK]

Not sure how he is relevant to me mentioning terrorist sympathisers.

I'm sure you could work it out you're a smart man.

I was comparing Corbyn's "terrorism sympathy" (which unless there has been more to it was essentially based on the line referring to our "friends in Hezbollah" in a comment about getting around a table to solve that particular facet of the middle east situation) to Blairs "War on Terror".

I was pointing out that the other end of the horseshoe is just as shitty for us.

[Kalis]

I'm sure you could work it out you're a smart man.

I was comparing Corbyn's "terrorism sympathy" (which unless there has been more to it was essentially based on the line referring to our "friends in Hezbollah" in a comment about getting around a table to solve that particular facet of the middle east situation) to Blairs "War on Terror".

I was pointing out that the other end of the horseshoe is just as shitty for us.

I didn't support Labour under Blair, so I am not sure why you think I would care.

At least he was electable for Labour, Corbyn isn't and won't be. The Tories haven't even taken the gloves off against Corbyn, his poor standing is mainly from internal Labour squabbles, if he makes it to a General Election he will get annihilated.

[AeneasBK]

I didn't support Labour under Blair, so I am not sure why you think I would care.

At least he was electable for Labour, Corbyn isn't and won't be. The Tories haven't even taken the gloves off against Corbyn, his poor standing is mainly from internal Labour squabbles, if he makes it to a General Election he will get annihilated.

Fair enough I didn't realise that the conversation was in the context of electability. Personally I'd rather be represented by a terrorist sympathiser than a warmongering nutcase who believed he was doing gods work and had his tongue wedged firmly up Bush jnr's asshole. But I can agree that I'm in a minority

I didn't mean to imply that you were a Blair supporter, I just get slightly annoyed when people just refer to Corbyn as a "terrorist sympathiser" based on a mollifying comment. Mostly as it came alongside all the other really petty shit a lot of major media publications were spouting off 24 hours a day - didn't wear a tie to X didn't sing the national anthem at Y, wasn't dressed smartly enough for PMQs etc. etc.

That said if you want to provide more concrete evidence of this terrorist sympathy, I'm ready to be corrected.

[Kalis]

Fair enough I didn't realise that the conversation was in the context of electability. Personally I'd rather be represented by a terrorist sympathiser than a warmongering nutcase who believed he was doing gods work and had his tongue wedged firmly up Bush jnr's asshole. But I can agree that I'm in a minority

Blair's warmongering tendencies didn't come out until after he became PM, what we know of Corbyn means the electorate won't trust him enough to give him the top job in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Because the English have never been comfortable with minorities?

Unlike the Scottish?

[Deleted]

Fair enough I didn't realise that the conversation was in the context of electability. Personally I'd rather be represented by a terrorist sympathiser than a warmongering nutcase who believed he was doing gods work and had his tongue wedged firmly up Bush jnr's asshole. But I can agree that I'm in a minority

I didn't mean to imply that you were a Blair supporter, I just get slightly annoyed when people just refer to Corbyn as a "terrorist sympathiser" based on a mollifying comment. Mostly as it came alongside all the other really petty shit a lot of major media publications were spouting off 24 hours a day - didn't wear a tie to X didn't sing the national anthem at Y, wasn't dressed smartly enough for PMQs etc. etc.

That said if you want to provide more concrete evidence of this terrorist sympathy, I'm ready to be corrected.

Eh?

Most Labour supporters ARE against Blair due to Iraq... He became PM before this came out thus you can't suddenly say 'the people were happy' infact it was his warmongering that forced him to retire

[AeneasBK]

Eh?

Most Labour supporters ARE against Blair due to Iraq... He became PM before this came out thus you can't suddenly say 'the people were happy' infact it was his warmongering that forced him to retire

That wasn't the point I was making but I appreciate it was probably me being unclear. I was basically agreeing with Kalis assesment of his unelectability; but stating I felt differently.

But if the point being made is that Corbyns pacifism is the main reason he's unelectable (I thought it was more his predicted economic policies rather than foreign policy that put people off) I would say that I feel it shouldn't be a negative; as afterall, we've tried the opposite end of the approach (The War on Terror) - whether it was what people thought they were voting for or not - and it has had pretty shitty results, if not directly to every individual in the UK *cough* Mittal *cough*. It could be argued that maybe 7/7/7 wouldn't have happened if not for our direct involvement etc. etc.

So yeah this whole "terrorist sympathiser" being used as some kind of cudgel with which to beat his reputation, doesn't make any sense to me.

[Kalis]

Yeh, the vast majority of brexiteers are English, brexit is an English issue that all of us have to suffer.

The vast majority of Remain supporters were English as well.

True enough, but both the Tories and Labour do carry much of the blame for the current state of politics and for brexit.
Our broken electoral system has left many disenfranchised from politics across the board. Until we replace FPPT and adopt a more representative system many will remain remote from a system that doesn't represent them, hear them or give a fuck about them.

A more representative system would give UKIP a major voice and kill off the SNP as a force in British politics. Be careful what you wish for.

[AeneasBK]

True enough, but both the Tories and Labour do carry much of the blame for the current state of politics and for brexit.
Our broken electoral system has left many disenfranchised from politics across the board. Until we replace FPPT and adopt a more representative system many will remain remote from a system that doesn't represent them, hear them or give a fuck about them.

I would agree but it was pointed out that the british public rejected a change to a more representative governement only less than 7 years ago (right?) and as such i can't think of a good argument for changing it. We've voiced our opinion and our opinion is "We don't really care"

[Kalis]

That wasn't the point I was making but I appreciate it was probably me being unclear. I was basically agreeing with Kalis assesment of his unelectability; but stating I felt differently.

But if the point being made is that Corbyns pacifism is the main reason he's unelectable (I thought it was more his predicted economic policies rather than foreign policy that put people off) I would say that I feel it shouldn't be a negative; as afterall, we've tried the opposite end of the approach (The War on Terror) - whether it was what people thought they were voting for or not - and it has had pretty shitty results, if not directly to every individual in the UK *cough* Mittal *cough*. It could be argued that maybe 7/7/7 wouldn't have happened if not for our direct involvement etc. etc.

So yeah this whole "terrorist sympathiser" being used as some kind of cudgel with which to beat his reputation, doesn't make any sense to me.

There is nothing about him that makes him electable, I merely brought up one issue he has in the public eye.

[AeneasBK]

There is nothing about him that makes him electable, I merely brought up one issue he has in the public eye.

If that is true why does he have such support among labour party members. Didn't he win an even greater majority of the vote the most recent time some rando Labour pup tried a leadership competition.

I guess you could say "Nothing about any Labour politician makes them electable at the moment"; and I wouldnt' necessarily disagree :P

Also, I kinda feel you deflected the point I was making in my post. Do you personally think the terrorist symapthiser label is apt and a black mark against his reputation (I'm not talking about what the majority of the public think, I'm asking you)? If so are you too busy to explain why (I only say that because I'm aware of the many times in previous discussions we've run up against my ignorance of how 'things work' so I wouldn't blame you for simply thinking "its probably not worth the effort"

[Kalis]

I wish for a more representative government regardless of which fringe parties sit in the House of Commons. The fact that the SNP has fifty plus seats is a joke, and I voted for them in the last general election. The SNP are scotlands protest vote.

I prefer a system that doesn't give extremists legitimacy. Swings and roundabouts.

I am not convinced that the SNP are a protest vote. If they dropped the Scottish/independence gubbins and ran nationwide, then they could be in with a shout of wiping the floor with Labour and giving the Tories a scare in a couple of General Elections. At least they come across as a centre left party, which is potentially electable in the UK, unlike Corbyn-led Labour.

If that is true why does he have such support among labour party members. Didn't he win an even greater majority of the vote the most recent time some rando Labour pup tried a leadership competition.

I guess you could say "Nothing about any Labour politician makes them electable at the moment"; and I wouldnt' necessarily disagree :P

He has a core of support, but Labour Party members won't win a General Election, non-party affiliated voters make up about 99% of the population and that is where he is failing miserably.

Also, I kinda feel you deflected the point I was making in my post. Do you personally think the terrorist symapthiser label is apt and a black mark against his reputation (I'm not talking about what the majority of the public think, I'm asking you)? If so are you too busy to explain why (I only say that because I'm aware of the many times in previous discussions we've run up against my ignorance of how 'things work' so I wouldn't blame you for simply thinking "its probably not worth the effort"

Like many on the farther left extremes of the Labour Party, he had IRA leanings, this was a consequence of them both being of a Marxist bent. Whilst the Irish question was religious in origin, the IRA heirarchy were politically very left wing.

[dribbles]

Because the English have never been comfortable with minorities?

The English have always been comfortable and very welcoming with minorities until they pretend they represent the majority. Quite interesting to see here ordinary Scots telling each other how it is.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/755...ond-referendum

Incidentally another benefit of Scottish Independence for the English would be that never again would you be able to inflict that fruitcake Blair and his sidekick one eyed monster that came after him. You could keep them all to yourselves, Scotland would be even more wonderful!

[Vilendor]

That only applies to the Hungarian immigrants in the uk.

Exactly. Thanks for taking our scum and have fun paying their needs for the rest of your life

- - - Updated - - -

UKIP voter detected - all EU immigrants are illiterate welfare leeches while all immigrants from outside the EU are highly qualified doctors and engineers and lawyers, but they can't get into the UK since the illiterate leeching EU migrants are coming in first and stealing their jobs confirmed

shame EU immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in welfare, but who cares about actual facts anymore lolol

I'm not allowed to vote for UKIP since im not a UK citizen... but i would, if i could. Actually on the contrary, i live in one of those countries where the EU immigrants came from, as you can see under my name

[dribbles]

Teflon Theresa increases immigration to 650,000 in 2015 and then the tories crown her Brexit PM. An odd choice of PM indeed....

Whether you or I like Theresa May or not is irrelevant, a yougov poll out today shows the Conservatives with a 17% lead over Labour, the people must approve of her coronation.

Blaming her for uncontrolled UK immigration is just silly, membership of the EU enforces that. It is the reason the country went for Brexit and explains the 17% lead today. As the visionary Trump recently said if it wasn't President Merkels come one come all invite to the middle east it is quite likely Brexit would never have happened.

See? All the EUs fault for the train wreck they, not Britain, are in.

[Deleted]

Entirely anecdotal here, and in no way representative of anything beyond how Brexit has impacted upon my life. I was ambivalent as I wasn't sure what would be best for people on average, for the business I worked for I very much believed what we were told how it would be very negative. So going into this, personally it was an "eh I can't decide" and with my work head on it was a "Remain is probably the best outcome".

However, exports to countries like France & Spain since Brexit have more than doubled. Exports to countries like the US have increased four or five-fold. Our UK sales have increased as well, order counts per week are more than double the same time a year ago and still improving week to week. I don't know about other staff here, but I've gotten a 20% pay-rise.

We're using this period of time incredibly build as strong a position as possible for the eventual outcome of Brexit. A 20% increase in prices to accommodate tariffs could be carried off quite easily (what the situation is with VAT could negate this anyhow) one of our products to France is around €115, our nearest competitor in price is €145. We aren't price gouging, we aren't making penny profits, its a product that is actually at our desired profit margin. Either our French competitors on this line are being rather greedy, or are not negotiating as well with manufacturers as we do.

It's never as simple as either side are making out, and the impact Brexit has had on the business I work is practically impossible to distinguish. The exchange rate is kind of irrelevant, since we've always used our own rate that was set to our own criteria. The perception that buying from British businesses being a bargain is a potential factor, even if the reality hadn't changed.

The need for the mindless point scoring needs to stop, yes you can argue that we might get hit hard by agricultural imports say from France (I imagine France is the producer of most European grain we import) but that just means many "possibilities" open up, either British farming becomes far more viable again, the EU subsidises French farming further to keep it competitive, or even that with the change in dynamics the EU has to scale back some subsidies, a non-EU exporter becomes more competitive. They're all potential risks and benefits to different groups with different interests.

The only sad part is both sides seem to be going into it with an almost negative mindset that you have to lose some of the benefits because of too much greed on both sides. Free movement doesn't need to be preserved, but it will undoubtedly help the average worker in French agriculture, the average German working for a car manufacturer and even the average British man like myself, if we can all send our goods to each other still with as few problems as possible. Yes one may lose less than the other but there will still be losses if its done carelessly that need not happen. Too many peoples eyes are lighting up at the prospect of cherry picking things that have previously been in the domain of other countries within the EU though.

What could actually be something that is brilliant for both parties, will probably be ruined by greed.

[Mormolyce]

I rather worry about the now than the theoretical future

Thus far every BREXIT concern is "this might happen" not "this will happen"

Whereas that £350m every week is money in the bank.

- - - Updated - - -

You still can't say only the English wanted out

You can't even say that the British wanted out, only 27% of the British population (37% of the voter base) voted Leave.

[Allatar]

Whereas that £350m every week is money in the bank.

No, silly, it's going to go to the NHS, remember ?