EPTi read you, then triggered you, then watched you eat it. + Show Spoiler +
learn to sarcasm; i'm no snitch dude but you ate it anyways 'cause you think you're better than us
User was temp banned for this post.
UK Politics Mega-thread - Page 251
| Forum Index > General Forum |
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
i read you, then triggered you, then watched you eat it. + Show Spoiler + User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
Have to laugh with the BBC though for playing the Sex Pistols version. I'm sure the idiot who requested it will be fuming. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On November 07 2016 00:01 MyTHicaL wrote: For starters God Save the Queen is not the anthem of the UK, only England. And to play it over leaving the EU pretty much underlines the entire retarded debate of whether people believe themselves to be English or European; which was never the true question of the referendum but the one that people voted on zzz... Have to laugh with the BBC though for playing the Sex Pistols version. I'm sure the idiot who requested it will be fuming. Actually this is probably the best explanation of the issue out of the ones I got. Thanks. The reason I ask is because it's one of those things that go without saying in the U.K. but that isn't as explicitly obvious as it seems to those outside the U.K. and West Europe at that. And while I could easily guess at the approximate reason, specificity helps to understand the exact issue here. | ||
|
sixfour
England11061 Posts
On November 07 2016 00:01 MyTHicaL wrote: For starters God Save the Queen is not the anthem of the UK, only England. Er, what? | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
He is alluding to disunity in the United Kingdom. | ||
|
Lonyo
United Kingdom3884 Posts
| ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
On November 07 2016 02:57 Deleuze wrote: He is alluding to disunity in the United Kingdom. Something along those lines. Also noone respects or would stand for God Save the Queen in Scotland or NI.. So now farage plans to march on the supreme court; would really like him to just disapear. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On November 07 2016 20:14 MyTHicaL wrote: Something along those lines. Also noone respects or would stand for God Save the Queen in Scotland or NI.. Anyone who wants an accurate understanding of the UK should ignore everything this guy says. You do understand that Unionism is a majority position in NI and that until very recently they were actively fighting/dying for it? Stop projecting your fringe views onto decent people, please. | ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
On November 07 2016 20:14 MyTHicaL wrote: Something along those lines. Also noone respects or would stand for God Save the Queen in Scotland or NI.. So now farage plans to march on the supreme court; would really like him to just disapear. Yeah but respectfully you can't say that it's not the UK anthem. People are required to sing it during the British citizenship ceremony. | ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
On November 07 2016 00:13 LegalLord wrote: Actually this is probably the best explanation of the issue out of the ones I got. Thanks. The reason I ask is because it's one of those things that go without saying in the U.K. but that isn't as explicitly obvious as it seems to those outside the U.K. and West Europe at that. And while I could easily guess at the approximate reason, specificity helps to understand the exact issue here. To answer an earlier post about an 'immigration in the UK' survey. It makes some interesting points but is very 2008, a whole different world economically when interest rates were 5%, sterling $2, and there was no such thing as student debt. The most recent study I could find is from the British tax authority, HMRC, published in August this year. It basically says EEA nationals pay about 6 times more tax than they take in benefits. And the net of what they bring to public finances is enough to pay for 6.5 unique child benefits. Numbers are page 12, table B.1 of the following : www.gov.uk 'Key findings : The figures show that, overall, EEA nationals pay in more Income Tax and National Insurance than they take out in tax credits and Child Benefit.' Euro-Area immigrants a 6 times gain for public finances ( and that's before considering other gains they bring, such as clearly for most of them, being dutifully employed, hence adding to productivity, and growth externalities ). How about that. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
On November 08 2016 00:24 LegalLord wrote: I don't think there's really any contradictions here. You focus mostly on the topic of aggregates, and pretty much everyone has agreed that immigration as a whole has at least a positive effect. But the study I linked says the same but also notes that "good immigrants" and "bad immigrants" are a very real concept. Then the question becomes, what's a good immigrant and what's a bad immigrant? And while I'm sure we all would tend towards agreeing that "European nationals" are generally skewed more towards "good immigrants" there is still plenty of valid contention there and about the issue of driving down the livelihood of the poorer and less skilled locals of the UK. And then, when you factor in the effect of the refugee crisis (also after 2008) you can start to see how losing control on your own immigration policy can be a problem. And that's an issue that does cut deep into why someone would support Brexit, that in fact goes deeper than economics into the issue of sovereignty and being able to act in your own best interest in the face of problematic situations. I can't disagree with you in principle with Schengen possibly bringing unlimited risk, but that's why I'm deliberately putting numbers on everything. I said earlier actual asylum seekers in the UK - not potential - were 0.003% of the total population. Immigration is the main worry of 40% of British citizen, and the number of immigration-related articles in the press doubled last year. Worry is irrational when it leads you to trade demonstrable, actual benefits for low-odds risk. | ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
EDIT : Sorry, double-post. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Deep down, whether or not people outwardly admit what their main issue is, I think the major pro-Brexit issue really is sovereignty. You are right that from a purely economic perspective a Brexit doesn't make sense in the short term and likely not even in the medium term. But here is a core fundamental issue of what many would be explicitly willing to take a substantial economic hit for, and sometimes it goes well beyond issues they can explicitly acknowledge. It's always much harder to explicate your thoughts than it is to understand that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." | ||
|
MyLovelyLurker
France756 Posts
On November 08 2016 00:53 LegalLord wrote: It's very possible - and likely, in fact - that it's not so much immigration that's bothering them as much as it is their inability to properly address the problem of immigration. They say it's immigration, and I'm sure they think it is, but what they're really pissed about is how the government isn't capable of doing anything to address those issues. This was actually going to be my exact answer. You don't shut down a global benefit source because of how equally the tap leaks. By that logic, you should shut down the whole of capitalism as well. But you don't ; you enjoy the value it creates, and then you redistribute through, say, progressive income tax. What ought to have been done is to stay in the Eurozone and to have the UK government redistribute the spoils. EU membership doesn't preclude the UK government from implementing whichever net redistribution policy it likes, and in fact, that was the basis of Cameron's new settlement earlier on this year ( which was too little too late unfortunately ). Because the UK can't implement its own rules on immigration, to address both the concerns of locals who want stability and job security, and the others who support more immigrants, people are rightfully angry and they question whether or not their future can really be tied to an organization that gives them these issues. Deep down, whether or not people outwardly admit what their main issue is, I think the major pro-Brexit issue really is sovereignty. You are right that from a purely economic perspective a Brexit doesn't make sense in the short term and likely not even in the medium term. But here is a core fundamental issue of what many would be explicitly willing to take a substantial economic hit for, and sometimes it goes well beyond issues they can explicitly acknowledge. It's always much harder to explicate your thoughts than it is to understand that "something is rotten in the state of Denmark." I fully agree. Sovereignty is a different and entirely valid concern. I am using this thread to educate myself and verify my intuitions in light of facts, as much as anyone. Ergo the numbers obssession. I haven't seen anything so far that disproves campaign issues have been completely blown out of proportion for ideological reasons ; in fact, Europe has been scapegoated, and used as a cheap pinata, a means to deflect criticism from domestic politicians. Hard facts are easily available through 15 minutes of Googling and a quick spreadsheet, really. Why they weren't summarized and painted on the side of a campaign bus in June is anyone's guess. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9170 Posts
Bill Clinton described Jeremy Corbyn as the "maddest person in the room" in a private speech revealed by Wikileaks. The former US president, who could be returning to the White House as the husband of the next president, reportedly discussed the appointment of the Labour leader in a private speech at a Hillary for America fundraiser in Maryland in October 2015. The speech, marked "for internal use only", was published in full by Wikileaks today. Mr Clinton said: "The British Labour Party disposed of its most (inaudible) leader, David Miliband, because they were mad at him for being part of Tony Blair’s government in the Iraq War. "And they moved to the left and put his brother in as leader because the British labor movement wanted it. When David Cameron thumped him in the election, they reached the interesting conclusion that they lost because they hadn’t moved far left enough, and so they went out and practically got a guy off the street to be the leader of the British Labor Party, who I saw in the press today said that he was really a British citizen and had real British (inaudible). (Laughter.) "But what that is reflective of – the same thing happened in the Greek election – when people feel they’ve been shafted and they don’t expect anything to happen anyway, they just want the maddest person in the room to represent them." [...] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/08/revealed-bill-clinton-says-jeremy-corbyn-is-the-maddest-person-i/ | ||
|
MyTHicaL
France1070 Posts
He probably said the same thing about Bernie. | ||
|
RoomOfMush
1296 Posts
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-president-wins-us-election-2016-brexit-britain-what-it-means-for-uk-a7395146.html Do you think the UK will get a good trade deal with the US now? As far as I know they were saying before Brexit that the UK could get better trade deals outside of the EU, right? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
| ||
