Org Mobile Site
Thread: EXIT NEGOTIATIONS
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
We don't need a name for such contracts in the US because we have "independent contractors" - of whom, a quick search shows, there are proportionally more of than zero-hour workers in the UK.
UK, please let Labor do something about this very blatant slippery slope.
I think there is a difference between independent contractors in US vs zero-hour contracts in UK. The latter you are still considered an employee, I.C.'s in the US lose a lot of legal benefits that employees otherwise enjoy. Also, if we were really going into the weeds, I think in the U.S. you can be an I.C. operating through a one person LLC under your name, and LLC's have a bunch of benefits of their own. I know of a few people who did this, but never asked them about it in depth on how it worked and if it was better than being a direct employee.We don't need a name for such contracts in the US because we have "independent contractors" - of whom, a quick search shows, there are proportionally more of than zero-hour workers in the UK.
UK, please let Labor do something about this very blatant slippery slope.
Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?
From everything that's happened so far, the EU has been ever ready to accommodate any move towards arrangements that already exist for others. All the friction has come from the UK side, together with lack of trust from their willingness to ignore previously made promises. The problem is all the promises made on the UK side to the UK electorate, along with all the anti-European rhetoric. The UK government has made it politically impossible, on the UK side, to reach any accommodation with the EU. All it can do is toodle along and blame everything on the EU.Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?
See the fishing industry for example. Leave has made all kinds of promises which cannot be fulfilled. So they've switched from the fishing industry will benefit to it's the EU's fault the fishing industry will die. Oh, and buy British fish.
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
From everything that's happened so far, the EU has been ever ready to accommodate any move towards arrangements that already exist for others. All the friction has come from the UK side, together with lack of trust from their willingness to ignore previously made promises. The problem is all the promises made on the UK side to the UK electorate, along with all the anti-European rhetoric. The UK government has made it politically impossible, on the UK side, to reach any accommodation with the EU. All it can do is toodle along and blame everything on the EU.
See the fishing industry for example. Leave has made all kinds of promises which cannot be fulfilled. So they've switched from the fishing industry will benefit to it's the EU's fault the fishing industry will die. Oh, and buy British fish.
Always good to read some free EU propaganda.From everything that's happened so far, the EU has been ever ready to accommodate any move towards arrangements that already exist for others. All the friction has come from the UK side, together with lack of trust from their willingness to ignore previously made promises. The problem is all the promises made on the UK side to the UK electorate, along with all the anti-European rhetoric. The UK government has made it politically impossible, on the UK side, to reach any accommodation with the EU. All it can do is toodle along and blame everything on the EU.
See the fishing industry for example. Leave has made all kinds of promises which cannot be fulfilled. So they've switched from the fishing industry will benefit to it's the EU's fault the fishing industry will die. Oh, and buy British fish.
I run a scheme that if people give me 5% of their wealth annually they get into a special club. Currently no one has joined the scheme, but I remain willing for anyone to join with these preset terms with open arms. All the friction has come from others and frankly lack of trust and willingness...
Previously made promises... such as triggering Article 16? No? Ah yes that was the EU... Oh, just other unnamed, ones.
The rhetoric was, if anything, anti-EU, not anti-European. I know you find it difficult to delineate the two. Are you not going to rehash the xenophobia trope? Or is the UK giving the path to citizenship to those from Hong Kong whilst countries in the EU are openly xenophobic it's best to have a "1984" moment with that one?
For example, the fishing industry. The EU demanded increased access to UK territorial waters for a period of years else they would not agree to any facet of the deal. The UK did try to prevent this, but the EU would not shift since that would have restricted their fishing industry; the EU has also suddenly decided that catches of seafood now can not be moved to EU countries for processing as has been the case for several years and have to be processed locally in facilities that do not currently exist, meaning that the seafood can not now be imported - could they have signalled this would be the case 4 years ago thus helping prevent problems? Who is to say. Have standards in the UK suddenly changed? Well, no and in fact their are agreements that the UK can't easily unilaterally do so if they wanted to... Almost like they are trying to benefit their own fishermen...
All together now! "Four feet good! Two feet bad! Four feet good! Two feet better!"
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?
The UK is rapidly tieing itself in a web of international agreements that will make it politically non-trivial to try and rejoin:Separately, if the UK ever did decide to backtrack on Brexit how feasible would it be to move to a Norway type relationship from the current agreements?
"What, you want us to leave CTTP!?!?"
The more the merrier...
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
The UK is rapidly tieing itself in a web of international agreements that will make it politically non-trivial to try and rejoin:
"What, you want us to leave CTTP!?!?"
The more the merrier...
Is Norway model considered rejoining?The UK is rapidly tieing itself in a web of international agreements that will make it politically non-trivial to try and rejoin:
"What, you want us to leave CTTP!?!?"
The more the merrier...
Anyway, I was hoping to get another question in and not have it get absolutely derailed. I'll try one more time:
Jake Tapper seems to have triggered quite a conversation on twitter about the UK usage of 'government' vs 'Parliament' with a tweet about OFCOM investigating Piers Morgan comments on Harry and Markle.
See relevant thread here: https://twitter.com/JamesSurowiecki/...46963977011207
I want to make sure I am speaking the same language as British people about UK politics. What exactly does it mean for an institution to be part of the 'government' and if an organization is established by 'Parliament' why does that not necessarily make it a 'government' organization, this specific case is regarding OFCOM.
"Is Norway model considered rejoining?"
Speaking personally - in principle, no.
In practice, it would leave several strategic service industries at the mercy of eu regulation, which given they are nascent tech-related industries would be a disaster given the EU's penchant for the 'precautionary principle' model.
Financial Services, Biotech, AI, Data, GMO, etc.
This was the heart of the Chequers plan, to separate goods from services.
The former being full alignment - which would be fine - with the latter regulated in the UK.
"Cake'ism!" you might say...?
But the easy reply would be to point out that in the most of the above the UK is the enormously dominant partner, and it would be frankly inappropriate to let a minor third party with a reflexive distrust for the 'demonstrable harm' model to be our regulator in these fields.
And that is before you factor in that some of them are strategic industries with which the UK wields power and influence.
But, alas, it was "tres unacceptable", and so here we are. While this attitude remains Norway is off the table.
I can't speak to the constitutional niceties of your second question.
Speaking personally - in principle, no.
In practice, it would leave several strategic service industries at the mercy of eu regulation, which given they are nascent tech-related industries would be a disaster given the EU's penchant for the 'precautionary principle' model.
Financial Services, Biotech, AI, Data, GMO, etc.
This was the heart of the Chequers plan, to separate goods from services.
The former being full alignment - which would be fine - with the latter regulated in the UK.
"Cake'ism!" you might say...?
But the easy reply would be to point out that in the most of the above the UK is the enormously dominant partner, and it would be frankly inappropriate to let a minor third party with a reflexive distrust for the 'demonstrable harm' model to be our regulator in these fields.
And that is before you factor in that some of them are strategic industries with which the UK wields power and influence.
But, alas, it was "tres unacceptable", and so here we are. While this attitude remains Norway is off the table.
I can't speak to the constitutional niceties of your second question.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
In practice, it would leave several strategic service industries at the mercy of eu regulation, which given they are nascent tech-related industries would be a disaster given the EU's penchant for the 'precautionary principle' model.
Financial Services, Biotech, AI, Data, GMO, etc.
This was the heart of the Chequers plan, to separate goods from services.
The former being full alignment - which would be fine - with the latter regulated in the UK.
"Cake'ism!" you might say...?
But the easy reply would be to point out that in the most of the above the UK is the enormously dominant partner, and it would be frankly inappropriate to let a minor third party with a reflexive distrust for the 'demonstrable harm' model to be our regulator in these fields.
And that is before you factor in that some of them are strategic industries with which the UK wields power and influence.
But, alas, it was "tres unacceptable", and so here we are. While this attitude remains Norway is off the table.
Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?In practice, it would leave several strategic service industries at the mercy of eu regulation, which given they are nascent tech-related industries would be a disaster given the EU's penchant for the 'precautionary principle' model.
Financial Services, Biotech, AI, Data, GMO, etc.
This was the heart of the Chequers plan, to separate goods from services.
The former being full alignment - which would be fine - with the latter regulated in the UK.
"Cake'ism!" you might say...?
But the easy reply would be to point out that in the most of the above the UK is the enormously dominant partner, and it would be frankly inappropriate to let a minor third party with a reflexive distrust for the 'demonstrable harm' model to be our regulator in these fields.
And that is before you factor in that some of them are strategic industries with which the UK wields power and influence.
But, alas, it was "tres unacceptable", and so here we are. While this attitude remains Norway is off the table.
To be honest that seems like a reasonable strategy, it's been so long why exactly did the Chequers plan fail? My impression is that May could not get the hard-core Brexiteers in the party on board for such a plan. I don't remember what Labours position on Chequers was. Other sources I see say that the EU rejected it because it did not want to give on its 'four freedoms'. I can start to see why so many blame the EU for the negotiating failure, although on the other hand I don't see why the EU had any obligation to minimize the pain if it wishes to prevent other states from separating.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?
To be honest that seems like a reasonable strategy, it's been so long why exactly did the Chequers plan fail? My impression is that May could not get the hard-core Brexiteers in the party on board for such a plan. I don't remember what Labours position on Chequers was. Other sources I see say that the EU rejected it because it did not want to give on its 'four freedoms'. I can start to see why so many blame the EU for the negotiating failure, although on the other hand I don't see why the EU had any obligation to minimize the pain if it wishes to prevent other states from separating.
The counter to that is that the UK government has asked industry figures which regulations they would look to cut, and their answer is none, because there's a reason why the regulations are there, and it's not due to EU bossiness. Yeah, the theory Furunculus talks about has been put in practice, and those who know most about the practicals don't want divergence from EU regulations, even without the legal necessity to follow these regulations.Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?
To be honest that seems like a reasonable strategy, it's been so long why exactly did the Chequers plan fail? My impression is that May could not get the hard-core Brexiteers in the party on board for such a plan. I don't remember what Labours position on Chequers was. Other sources I see say that the EU rejected it because it did not want to give on its 'four freedoms'. I can start to see why so many blame the EU for the negotiating failure, although on the other hand I don't see why the EU had any obligation to minimize the pain if it wishes to prevent other states from separating.
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name:
Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?
To be fair, it is more of a philosophical bent than a political ideology:Appreciate the answer, is this in essence the Tory case on how Brexit can/will re-invigorate the British economy? Because like you said, if the UK tacks towards demonstrable harm while the EU continues to regulate on precautionary principle, the idea is that those types of services would prefer to migrate to the UK?
Precautionary Principle is about harm reduction - and appeals to the progressive-left as a social view that is more centered on the collective is willing to accept curtailment of free-action in order to achieve good.
Demonstrable Harm is more about minimising infringements on private activity - and appeals to the conservative right as a social view that is more centered on the individual is unwilling to accept unnecessary curtailment.
The argument here, is that the EU tends to fear new technologies, and it hampers its ability to thrive in the growth industries that will generate wealth when building diesel cars has gone the way of detroit?
How many Unicorns does the EU have?
How much investment in AI happens in the EU?
How much biotech?
Is MIFID2 deemed a travesty of beurocratic intervention in financial services?
Is the nascent Data industry (that feeds all the above) damaged by GDPR?
What happens to industries like fracking and GMO?
Where is the university base to lead in these new industries?
The counter to Pannonian's intervention is that it is not the state of the regulatory base of today that is of particular concern, but where it will go tomorrow.
As mentioned previously, the UK has spent the last third of a century walling itself off from the new competences of eu governance and so, naturally, we were have less and less influence on how they should be regulated.
UK may never get equivalence deal say Fin-Serv sector - and they seem ok with that:
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/br...other-20210315
I do not detect fear from our young thrusters of the sq mile.
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/br...other-20210315
I do not detect fear from our young thrusters of the sq mile.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ac_story.html
Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?
Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ac_story.html
Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?
Paywalled. Got a free source?https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ac_story.html
Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?
Originally Posted by Pannonian:
Paywalled. Got a free source?
Odd, we can access it here over in Europe. But I guess if you read too many it gets paywalled?Paywalled. Got a free source?
Originally Posted by :
BERLIN — The European Commission introduced new limits on coronavirus vaccine exports Wednesday in a move that could widen the rift between the European Union and its former member state Britain.
Although the revised rules do not constitute an outright ban, they will make reciprocity, a country’s epidemiological situation and its vaccination rate key criteria for export approval.
Expected to be in place for at least six weeks, the curbs could have a particularly strong effect on Britain, which has received more than 10 million doses from plants inside the E.U. — more than any other non-E.U. destination — but has exported no vaccine back to the bloc. Britain now has one of Europe's lowest daily case numbers per capita, and it has at least partially vaccinated more than 40 percent of its population, compared with just 9 percent in Germany and France.
E.U. denies vaccine nationalism charge, accuses U.S. and U.K. of not sharing
As it lags behind Britain and the United States in its vaccination campaign, the E.U. has experienced growing anger from its citizens and a resurgence of the virus that has forced new shutdowns. Officials lay much of the blame with British-Swedish vaccine manufacturer AstraZeneca for failing to meet its production targets.
AD
The path out of the pandemic is also being viewed as a critical post-Brexit test, pitting the 27-nation bloc’s communal approach against its former member’s go-it-alone model.
Britain's departure meant it could negotiate is own vaccine deals without having to worry about unity or equity. It did not spend as long as the E.U. did negotiating prices or sorting through liability questions.
E.U. officials have defended their approach, saying it ensured that member countries were not competing with one another and that poorer countries in the bloc were not left behind.
Officials have also cited the bloc's commitment to supplying other countries with doses produced within its territory, while Britain and the United States have not made such a pledge. Whereas more than 64 million doses had been distributed across E.U. member states and associated countries by the middle of this month, at least 41 million were exported outside the E.U.
BERLIN — The European Commission introduced new limits on coronavirus vaccine exports Wednesday in a move that could widen the rift between the European Union and its former member state Britain.
Although the revised rules do not constitute an outright ban, they will make reciprocity, a country’s epidemiological situation and its vaccination rate key criteria for export approval.
Expected to be in place for at least six weeks, the curbs could have a particularly strong effect on Britain, which has received more than 10 million doses from plants inside the E.U. — more than any other non-E.U. destination — but has exported no vaccine back to the bloc. Britain now has one of Europe's lowest daily case numbers per capita, and it has at least partially vaccinated more than 40 percent of its population, compared with just 9 percent in Germany and France.
E.U. denies vaccine nationalism charge, accuses U.S. and U.K. of not sharing
As it lags behind Britain and the United States in its vaccination campaign, the E.U. has experienced growing anger from its citizens and a resurgence of the virus that has forced new shutdowns. Officials lay much of the blame with British-Swedish vaccine manufacturer AstraZeneca for failing to meet its production targets.
AD
The path out of the pandemic is also being viewed as a critical post-Brexit test, pitting the 27-nation bloc’s communal approach against its former member’s go-it-alone model.
Britain's departure meant it could negotiate is own vaccine deals without having to worry about unity or equity. It did not spend as long as the E.U. did negotiating prices or sorting through liability questions.
E.U. officials have defended their approach, saying it ensured that member countries were not competing with one another and that poorer countries in the bloc were not left behind.
Officials have also cited the bloc's commitment to supplying other countries with doses produced within its territory, while Britain and the United States have not made such a pledge. Whereas more than 64 million doses had been distributed across E.U. member states and associated countries by the middle of this month, at least 41 million were exported outside the E.U.
Pan' is part of Europe. Sort of. A little exited but yet not.
i am genuinely entertained that my niche obsession with precautionary-principle vs demonstrable-harm has now become mainstream.
**sobs to himself - "I'm not a wierdo any longer!"**
**sobs to himself - "I'm not a wierdo any longer!"**
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ac_story.html
Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?
Like Italy and the EU Commission blocking 250,000 vaccines going to Australia...https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...9ac_story.html
Getting nicer and nicer by the day, the relationship between UK and the EU. Squabbling over vaccines is only going to benefit everyone, right?
You might have noticed the EU has dropped their pretence of breaking a contract and moving to a playground "our fair share" approach.
Controlling the borders of countries unilaterally? That is another precident towards acting like a state.
Controlling the borders of countries unilaterally? That is another precident towards acting like a state.
latest news is that a crack italian carabinieri unit has smashed into a GSK facility holding meningitis jabs for the US, looking for stashed covid jabs being mendaciously profiteered away from honest european citizens.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
i am genuinely entertained that my niche obsession with precautionary-principle vs demonstrable-harm has now become mainstream.
**sobs to himself - "I'm not a wierdo any longer!"**
Ironically, your presentation of Brexit was as an issue of especially vigorous application of the precautionary principle. i am genuinely entertained that my niche obsession with precautionary-principle vs demonstrable-harm has now become mainstream.
**sobs to himself - "I'm not a wierdo any longer!"**
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
latest news is that the crack italian carabinieri unit has smashed into a GSK facility holding meningitis jabs for the US, looking for stashed covid jabs being mendaciously profiteered away from honest european citizens.
I thought you were joking. So private property is being searched because government believes that anything produced or in transit through their country is theirs.latest news is that the crack italian carabinieri unit has smashed into a GSK facility holding meningitis jabs for the US, looking for stashed covid jabs being mendaciously profiteered away from honest european citizens.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
I thought you were joking. So private property is being searched because government believes that anything produced or in transit through their country is theirs.
Eminent domain and/or expropriation says the government can do so if it is deemed to be in the public interest. How advisable such an approach may be is another thing entirely.I thought you were joking. So private property is being searched because government believes that anything produced or in transit through their country is theirs.
Originally Posted by Montmorency:
Ironically, your presentation of Brexit was as an issue of especially vigorous application of the precautionary principle.
do elaborate?Ironically, your presentation of Brexit was as an issue of especially vigorous application of the precautionary principle.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
do elaborate?
I shouldn't have to. do elaborate?
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
We've all been pointing this out for years.
The exemption from ever-closer-union failed in finding a tactical compromise that had no bearing on the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.
http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf
To give an example of what this problem looks like in practice:
In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.
Though for my part on the philosophies themselves: We've all been pointing this out for years.
The exemption from ever-closer-union failed in finding a tactical compromise that had no bearing on the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.
http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Con...safeguards.pdf
To give an example of what this problem looks like in practice:
In short, we face a serious (future) problem whereby a integrated economic union of eurozone states begin to caucus decisions against the policy consensus of the EBU, the consequence of which would be that Britain ceased to be a sovereign nation. Once we cease to be a sovereign nation we instead become a sanjak, such as Greece was under the ottomans and is again today under the troika.
1. Recourse to "demonstrable harm" standards has routinely generated demonstrable harm.
2. People don't actually invoke or apply abstract principles of "demonstrable harm" as against "precautionary principle" - it's just not a thing. The only question is what harms any given actor or stakeholder weighs as tolerable or not, and what they are prepared to do or capable of having done about the matter.
I believe you are over-thinking this.
The head of Wetherspoons is the latest Brexit supporter to call for easier access to EU labour.
i wonder if he, like many, voted to leave because he viewed the EU as a v. poor form of governance.
i mean, it shouldn't really come as a surprise in these hallowed intellectual halls, as I at least have spent years pointing out that I am pro-immigration in principle, not fussed about FoM in practice, and rejected EU membership for completely separate and meticulously detailed reasons.
and yet... somehow, the debate always drifts back to nasty racist leavers.
i mean, it shouldn't really come as a surprise in these hallowed intellectual halls, as I at least have spent years pointing out that I am pro-immigration in principle, not fussed about FoM in practice, and rejected EU membership for completely separate and meticulously detailed reasons.
and yet... somehow, the debate always drifts back to nasty racist leavers.
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
i wonder if he, like many, voted to leave because he viewed the EU as a v. poor form of governance.
i mean, it shouldn't really come as a surprise in these hallowed intellectual halls, as I at least have spent years pointing out that I am pro-immigration in principle, not fussed about FoM in practice, and rejected EU membership for completely separate and meticulously detailed reasons.
and yet... somehow, the debate always drifts back to nasty racist leavers.
That is because, however many conservatives like myself and you may oppose a policy or treaty or regulation for logical reasons stemming from our ideology and values, there is another wedge of nativist xenophobes who oppose those policies because they hate/fear/need to feel superior to persons of color. Sadly, that wedge of persons is too numerous by far.i wonder if he, like many, voted to leave because he viewed the EU as a v. poor form of governance.
i mean, it shouldn't really come as a surprise in these hallowed intellectual halls, as I at least have spent years pointing out that I am pro-immigration in principle, not fussed about FoM in practice, and rejected EU membership for completely separate and meticulously detailed reasons.
and yet... somehow, the debate always drifts back to nasty racist leavers.
That has been one of my personal "learning moments" over the past 5 or so years. The reactionary fringe is not, as I had supposed, a tiny strident minority. While still a minority, there are far more such than is healthy in my polity, and I suspect that the same obtains for you lot.
There are definitely racists or Xenophobes in the UK. As there definitely are in the rest of Europe. I am sure many Remainers are also equally racist and / or Xenophobic - after all the whole EU project has mainly drawn a line with White / Good allowed in and Anything Else / Bad being the order of the day. As long as the vast majority is white then it is a non issue and the EU can continue to pay money to keep people overseas.
Or indeed the other overlooked facet of non-whites who are often Xenophobes, as yes, being a nasty bigoted person is something that is a quality that can be held by all mankind.
Stories such as an employer wanting the Government to increase the number of work visas cling to something untrue and smugly view it as an "aha!" moment as opposed to they might have missed the point in the first place.
Nothing seems to have been made of people from Hong Kong offered passports, or Afghan interpreters who will also be offered the right to remain. But it is oh so much easier to just repeat "Brexiteers are racists" than acknowledge there might be other causes.
Or indeed the other overlooked facet of non-whites who are often Xenophobes, as yes, being a nasty bigoted person is something that is a quality that can be held by all mankind.
Stories such as an employer wanting the Government to increase the number of work visas cling to something untrue and smugly view it as an "aha!" moment as opposed to they might have missed the point in the first place.
Nothing seems to have been made of people from Hong Kong offered passports, or Afghan interpreters who will also be offered the right to remain. But it is oh so much easier to just repeat "Brexiteers are racists" than acknowledge there might be other causes.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
There are definitely racists or Xenophobes in the UK. As there definitely are in the rest of Europe. I am sure many Remainers are also equally racist and / or Xenophobic - after all the whole EU project has mainly drawn a line with White / Good allowed in and Anything Else / Bad being the order of the day. As long as the vast majority is white then it is a non issue and the EU can continue to pay money to keep people overseas.
Or indeed the other overlooked facet of non-whites who are often Xenophobes, as yes, being a nasty bigoted person is something that is a quality that can be held by all mankind.
Stories such as an employer wanting the Government to increase the number of work visas cling to something untrue and smugly view it as an "aha!" moment as opposed to they might have missed the point in the first place.
Nothing seems to have been made of people from Hong Kong offered passports, or Afghan interpreters who will also be offered the right to remain. But it is oh so much easier to just repeat "Brexiteers are racists" than acknowledge there might be other causes.
The question I was implying was, if the guy wants the conditions within the EU that much, why did he campaign to get us out of it? It was Furunculus who raised racism as the issue, when the issue I was highlighting was the stupidity of shooting himself in the foot, then wondering why it was bleeding.There are definitely racists or Xenophobes in the UK. As there definitely are in the rest of Europe. I am sure many Remainers are also equally racist and / or Xenophobic - after all the whole EU project has mainly drawn a line with White / Good allowed in and Anything Else / Bad being the order of the day. As long as the vast majority is white then it is a non issue and the EU can continue to pay money to keep people overseas.
Or indeed the other overlooked facet of non-whites who are often Xenophobes, as yes, being a nasty bigoted person is something that is a quality that can be held by all mankind.
Stories such as an employer wanting the Government to increase the number of work visas cling to something untrue and smugly view it as an "aha!" moment as opposed to they might have missed the point in the first place.
Nothing seems to have been made of people from Hong Kong offered passports, or Afghan interpreters who will also be offered the right to remain. But it is oh so much easier to just repeat "Brexiteers are racists" than acknowledge there might be other causes.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO