UK Politics Thread

[Jimbuna]

Theresa May has insisted the UK will leave the customs union and single market while maintaining a "close relationship" with the EU after Brexit.

Updating MPs on negotiations, she urged the EU to consider her blueprint for future relations - due to be published next week - "seriously".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44671507

Looking forward to seeing just what is in the document.

[Catfish]

Biggest problem as expected is the irish border, and it does not look like there's any advance
So appx. 50 percent felt overwhelmed by those bloody foreigners while it does not seem to be really an issue, and this gut feeling is worth all that hazzle.

OT for UK: And I am really tired of this right wing neonazi AfD in Germany, just brazen lies and propaganda. They can take their hate and racism and shove it up their donkey!!! I would re-introduce the burning of witches, and then take Mrs Alice Weidel an Beatrix von Storch, and slowly roast them.

Lmao

[JU_88]

@ Cat fish, So nations protecting their borders against illegal immigration and wanting to sustain the population are 'Nazis'?
If so - can you name one nation on earth that aren't Nazis? How about China are they nazis too? Iran? India? Brazil?

Its not rocket science, If there is an influx of people of one or two demographics into any nation in a very short space of time - the result in the short term is going to be social upheaval and tribalism.
10-20 years down the line the latter can (hopefully) settle down. But if you want to sustain a peaceful multi cultural society /melting pot, it essential that the flow of migration is controlled, and those arriving are as diverse as possible, thus more likely to integrate with the existing population.
Personally I don't care how ethnically diverse or homogeneous a place is, that is irreverent. so long a people are decent to each other and have common ground. but understand that only reason the western nations want migrants at all - is that governments (faced with dwindling birth rates) need more tax payers to cough up for an otherwise unsustainable system. Corporations love it too because it usually means cheaper labour. Thats it, terms like 'cultural enrichment' are just the way its sold to the masses.
Immigration is also a quick band aid fix for any nation with challenging systemic societal problems (e.g low birth rates and lack of skills,) which never need to be confronted, so long as you keep applying those band aids.
What the west has done in the past 50 years is one giant social/economic experiment. Has it worked? Yes and No.- depends where you cherry pick.
While being overwhelmingly anti immigration is unrealistic in the modern world. Being overwhelmingly Pro migration at this stage is little more than being pro - kick the can down the road.
Western societies have in someways become of the most free, advanced, open and accepting societies, but have also become some of the most apathetic, fattest, laziest, spoiled and infantalised.

[Jimbuna]

To encapsulate the two posts above, for me, it is simple.....forget about race, colour or religion. If you are 'illegal' then you should go or be forcibly removed if all else fails.

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

To encapsulate the two posts above, for me, it is simple.....forget about race, colour or religion. If you are 'illegal' then you should go or be forcibly removed if all else fails.

^ Yes this is self-evident, even in the EU.
And England also has those rules, they have never been changed. What changed is you want to put a cap on overall immigration numbers, not distinguishing between those in need, and criminals. Farage and Trump just want to block them all.
Criminal immigrants from other countries can and could always be sent back, or to jail. Where is the change in sovereignty and border control when you just put laws in effect that already exist? IMHO any aggravation and expecially eugenic rhethorics are morally indefensible.

You can say about it what you want, Nigel Farage or Dump's rhethorics are trying to connect adjectives like illegal and criminal to the word immigrant, and they know well that if this is being repeated often enough, people will do it automatically, in their mind.
Of course it is all clad in patriotism, pride, abusing instinctive fear of foreigners. This is why those arsonists are so dangerous. I had just thought 'we' had overcome it.

When Farage had so much success in England and lead to brexit, it was like you ride with a decade-old friend, who suddenly explains he has always been a Nazi and welcomes their views. Wow. Just wow!
Exagerrated of course, and no you are not Nazis, but this is the feeling that most in Europe and obviously around 50 percent of the people in England experienced, after Brexit and Trump. And Victor Orban. And Poland's PiS party. And Turkey. And so on. The bubble bursted. What we had taken for granted never was, and it is all like the 1930ies again.

Whatever comes of it, i doubt the immigrant wave which is already ebbing away will lead to the downfall of the occident. Problems yes, maybe crisis yes (though i still have to see westerners really suffering and starving because of it), but the rest of us will not run away when there's a bit of trouble on the horizon, after decades of prosperity and no wars.
I might add that there is some reason for the migration from e.g. Syriah, or Iraq. I might also add we should just maybe charge those countries who are responsible for that.. and then make up a new bill.

I do not like Merkel, but when it comes to that i have to say just of all this stubborn stance makes me a bit proud. Still we have to carry the can for others' interventions only serving their own selfish policies, economical and political.


Merkel will probably be gone soon, and then Germany still has a lot of right wing racists and Nazis just waiting for their chance.

And what will stay when the immigration crisis is long gone, are the right wingers, the abuse of propaganda, racist hate, and the rough awakening that mankind still consists of uneducated, dumb animals falling for whatever demagogue.



As this german rural proverb says, "Jeden Tag wird 'ne andere Sau durchs Dorf getrieben"

[Skybird]

Some key points on migration.


1. A local population has the right to own its place where it lives in. It thus has any right one wants zto proclaim to decide whom it lets in. And it can say No. Of course it can say No. Nothing illegal, nothing Nazi, nothing immoral in that.

2. There is no general human right to move whereever you want, to stettle whereever you want, to get allowed in whereever you want. Such a human right would be in itself a violation of human rights - those of the local residents.

3. Lets face it, in the end, integration means peaceful, voluntary assimilation. Anything else necessarily means to establish a parallel or sub culture. Maybe about no other detail there is so much sentimkental confusaion about in Europe than about this: if you integrate yourself that means you allow getting assimiliated. Thats what integration is about.

4. One must differentiate between the various migrant groups, not just legally, but especially regarding the cultural background of theirs. Some of these groups give massively higher probabilities for troubles and intentional rejection of integration, than others. The problematic groups best are ignored and left out. Who is not willing to integrate, must leave. Even years later, if integration has seen no substantial improvement.

5. You go to another place - you respect the house rules of the people there, in full. Period. You do not negotiate them. You do not set up demands. You do not commit criminal acts. - You ask. You accept the answer, positive or negative. You walk on somebody else's land - you ask for permission before. His land is not yours. His home is not your home.

6. You do not have claim for the fruits of the labour and maintenance local residents and societies have collected inside their realms where they rule and live. If you are foreign to their lands and people, you have no such claim. Because you did not contribute to forming their place and history. You are an alien. Being an invited guest does not make you a shared property holder.

All the above is true for refugees as well. But unfortunately, political agitators of the left and the mainstream - which nowadays more or less is the same - have made it a tactict to talk of ALL migrants as refugees. Combat rhetorics.

7.Activists are right, nobody can be illegal. That would be nonsense, yes. But the status you have in a foreign established society - that status can be illegal indeed: then when you are staying although not beign invited and being told you have to leave. And that is what its about. Activists should and probably do know that, still use this phrasing. More combat rhetorics.

8. Many Muslim leaders and countries use migration as a weapon, use demography as a weapon. It is planned. The goal is to suck the blood of the better places in this world, and to spread their own influence in those places, and acchieving Islamic dominance. He who still denies this, needs his eyes cleaned out with soap and water.

9. The general asylum right there is now, is invalid. It must be, inherently, naturally. It necessarily must be, because in its current undiscriminatory generalising format it necessarily comes at the cost of violating another human right: the right of the local residents for freedom and the right of the local residents for owning private property. That is violating two of the just three human rights there are. The asylum laws there are now, internationally, must be replaced. Also, granting asylum does not mean automatically to give that person unlimited right to stay. It only means to give that person shelter and supply for a certain limited time. The staying time is finite, asylum does not automatically mean the person gets infinite right to stay forever. You enter hospital, or seek protection from a danger in a police HQ: fine. But you definitely do not make your new home in there, you do not stay forever. Nationalising an asylum seeker neither his is right he cna claim, nor an automatism, in fact it should be individually decided on the grounds of whether or not the asylum seeker is asset or liability for the social system. I understand it to be the exception from the rule. People offering qualifications needed in - in my case - Germany and able to maintain themselves, are welcomed more than people who arte unqualified and unlikely to integrate or unlikely to maintain themselves over the long run.

10. Westerners are not responsible for all the evils in the world. The historical conflicts of tribes in africa, are not their conflicts. The claims of people in the Middle east must not be their command. The West is not the world's servant. Others have the right to want to be where we are. But they have no right to demand beign given a free ride. The path from their status to our status - they have to walk by themselves. And if they cannot because their old tradiitons and views and rites and habits are so dera and precious to them, then this is their decision and it is them who have to face the consequences of their choice. Its not the West's moral duty to catapult everybody else into the 21st century. There were times when this would have been called "imperialism".

-----

11. And people coming here, cannot be at the same time "there". Their working force to rebuild their countries, is missing. Most of those being allowe din today, will never return. The Syrians beign here, risk their lives if they would return, and Assad already said he doe snot let them in anymore. The longer the stay, the lesser the remainign chance that the foreigner will ever leave again.

12. Official statistics claim just one in four migrants in Germany work, mostly in the low wage sector, I am sceptical about that humber, however. But of these one-in four, around 90% work in jobs that are not future proof, will not survive once the German boom gives up. Then all these success stories that politicians now tell, will turn into stories of net social wellfare receivers. Hooray.

13. More and more people claiming the same material life style like the excessive consummerism in the West - what does this mean for ecological preservation and resource management? Asking this question is considered to be coldhearted and inhumane. But its a decisively important question. We are too many already now. Recycling bottles in Germany and sorting our garbage means nothign in the great scheme of things. Alternative farming misses the needed efficiency to create the high itensity harvests needed to feed such a huge world population. High intensity farming however poisons the groudn water, lowers groudn water levels, poisons the environment, keeps the extinction of species in high gear. Three quarters of the biomass formed by insects is said to have gone since I think the mid or late 70s. Count the flies on your windshield of your car - therwe wont be many, if any. When I was still at school, it was impossible to drive into summer holiday without cleaning the screen twice or three times during the trip.

This migrant stuff, it always gets evaluated on the gorund os pure sentiment and hyperactive "emotionality". That is the worst it can be. He who thinks he can make good decisions while being in a state of roused emotions or moral absolutes, errs: he gets decided.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Catfish

^ Yes this is self-evident, even in the EU.
And England also has those rules, they have never been changed. What changed is you want to put a cap on overall immigration numbers, not distinguishing between those in need, and criminals. Farage and Trump just want to block them all.

I'm not in the least bit interested in what Farage or Trump spout out, I'm on about taking control of our own borders and who can and cannot enter.

The UK joined the EEC to partake in freedom of trade initially, not what has evolved since, the EU dictating what laws we must adhere to and total freedom of movement (Sky has already adequately explained that).

If someone wants to come to the UK then they should be prepared to meet the criteria of our sovereign government who control our sovereign territory.

The criteria would and should include what skills they have to offer as in 'are they going to be an asset or a liability on an already overstretched welfare system'?

Those at risk in their own country must also be given condideration but every case would be decided on individual merit/circumstances.

I don't take any political side on this matter but the UK will hopefully take back her borders and law making processes soon and it is not before time.

A British rural proverb: "My house, my rules".

[STEED]

All aboard on the buses with JC in yesterday's PMQ's. He had some good points and bad points but once again fell into a hole. I am a bus user and i'm sick of the high fares i have to fork out, unfortunately in my case i fall short of any benefit getting a weekly or monthly pass as i would have to use the buses more than i do now.

[Sailor Steve]

Sky, I agree with most of your points, but I have a problem with the second one.

Originally Posted by Skybird

2. There is no general human right to move whereever you want, to stettle whereever you want, to get allowed in whereever you want. Such a human right would be in itself a violation of human rights - those of the local residents.

The problem I have here is with the concept of the community having rights over the individual. I agree, people as individuals and as a group do have a right to defend themselves, and this is especially true where the newcomers seem to have a tendency toward violence. It's just that I've seen that same argument used against groups who were harmless, on the basis that "they" are trouble by their very nature, or that "they" need to be controlled on moral grounds. The target changes depending on the circumstances, but the argument is used to keep out all sorts of "undesirables" - Italians, Irish, Jews, Blacks, Homosexuals - you name it. The reasons vary, but the argument remains the same: "We as a group have the right to say who can be a part of our community and who can't".

I'm not saying you're wrong, because I don't know that to be the case. I am pointing out what I've observed and continue to observe.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

The UK joined the EEC to partake in freedom of trade initially, ...

Personally, I find it a pity that the UK wants to break out of the EU.

It will be really bad for the simple and thus largest population of Britannia, since they then have to make this decision socially and economically.
One should not forget why UK ever wanted to join the EU (at that time still EEC).

I'm afraid there will be similar problems in the UK as before joining the EEC.

[Skybird]

Steve,

do you let every stranger from the street walking straight through your living room? Do you allow any stranger knocking on your door to camp in your garden?

Whats more, do you let any army, even a friendly one, simply navigate on your soil, any police in pursue cross the border and conduct operation inside your nation's territory? It is beign done a bit like this in parts of Europe, Dutch and German police for exampel can pursue some kilometers into the neighbouring state. For more, they have to ask first. Its a special regulation, however, this border-crossing policing.

The farmer having fields and meadows, has he any obligation to allow people camping on his ground, in his forest? Anyone who has declared a private street that leads through his property, must he nevertheless allow everybody using it?

This is the iindividual property right. I think social communities like cities or provinces or states have something similiar. They were formed up over history because of shared characteristics and company and cooperation of the people living there: it starts with race an skin colour indeed (whether political correctness fans like it or not, these factors count heavy for many people), goes over religion and habits and rites and values, and results in past and present economic cooperation that resulted in building manifestations of this civilization's realm: cities, law codices, a grown sense of cultural identity, an own culture, language, monuments... Those who formed and lived and worked for in these contexts, are the rulers and owners of the place, this land. And that gives them property rights that override wishes of foreigners arriving and wanting to pass through or settle there. That is the sovereignity of states defending their borders.

When I was there, in Libya in the 90s, I learned that until today sometimes conflicts form up or are maintained since generations, because a man of some Tuareg tribe once drank without asking or having permission - or was explicitly forbidden - to drink from a well in the desert that was laid claim for by another tribe.

Human communities claim territory on which they live and that they have declared as theirs by using this ground and tranforming it into their living place as they saw fit. These property rights are most fundamental and in my view almost natural. It can be a hierarchy of such claims for land property rights - the individual owning a flat, the clan owning a house with surrounding farming ground, a small village or regional community, a town, a city, a province, a state. And I do not see how a foreign person from outside this context could just walk in and claim to have any rights inside the contexts. He can ask to be allowed passing, and he can ask to be allowed to stay. But he has to accept the reply he gets. Jim said it: my house, my rules.

What do you think Neal would say if I travel over to Houston and tell him I now build my little house on his land, and that he has to live with that since I declare that to be my right? I assume he would be pissed and my action probably would end our mutually polite behaviour very quickly. LOL Texan chainsaw against German Katana comes next.

[Jimbuna]

Cabinet ministers have gathered at Chequers in a bid to thrash out an agreement on the shape of the UK's future relationship with the EU.

Theresa May has said they have "a duty" to reach agreement on Friday, amid splits over how closely the UK should stick to EU rules after Brexit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44728807

Hopefully after this they can all start singing from the same hymn book.

[Jimbuna]

Theresa May is seeking Conservative MPs' backing for the cabinet's proposal for UK-EU relations after Brexit.

The plan was agreed by the prime minister's senior ministers at a 12-hour cabinet awayday on Friday.

Mrs May said the plan "will be good for the UK and good for the EU".

But there has been unhappiness among Tory Brexiteers, with Jacob Rees-Mogg telling the BBC that when the detail emerged, it could yet be worse than leaving the EU without a deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44750250

They may yet be reading from different hymn sheets.

[Catfish]

One of the problems is (apart from leaving at all) that the "UK government" (which predominantly cares about England, not Scotland, Ireland or Wales) seems to have so many opinions that the EU is being confronted with another brexit "plan" every week, if there is one at all. If England wants to run without a deal (and apart from May it meanwhile seems so) it does not mean that the UK's other countries will just shrug it off. Wales, of course. Ireland will be a problem, but it has never been taken seriously as a partner anyway, by english politicians. Scotland..? Nor will the EU simply accept, if signed treaties are being cancelled one-sidedly.
Young people may also have to say something, about the angyry old men who created this mess, but will not have to pay for it.

[August]

So it looks like the Lord High Mayor of London Sadiq Khan is going to get a bit of comeuppance:

Baby Khan Balloon fund blows baby Trump balloon out of the water!



In the first 24 hours of the campaign for the baby Trump balloon, they ‘smashed it’ raising £1,500. Yesterday, the campaign for a baby Khan balloon, to also be flown over Parliament during President Donald J. Trump’s visit to the UK next week, has blown the Trump fund out of the water, blowing past the £10K goal in less than 24 hours.

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/07/ba...LffHCM.twitter