UK Politics - From Russia with Love

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

But I haven't said anything negative about Eastern Europeans, have I?

Mine are Polish Jews. So argue the argument if you can, but drop the racism shit.

WTF? You said you would restrict the movement of Eastern Europeans, but would allow the unrestricted movement of affluent Western Europeans.

Or have I completely misunderstood your position?

 

[mankytoes]

45 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

WTF? You said you would restrict the movement of Eastern Europeans, but would allow the unrestricted movement of affluent Western Europeans.

Or have I completely misunderstood your position?

 

The criteria would be economic (you can use GDP as a rough guide, but obviously it would be more sophisticated). Estonia might well be prosporous enough, it certainly wouldn't be based on geography.

In any case, I'm not sure how you can consider that racist but be ok with a system that allows free movement to Europeans but puts heavy restrictions on all Africans and Asians? 

[Spockydog]

52 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

In any case, I'm not sure how you can consider that racist but be ok with a system that allows free movement to Europeans but puts heavy restrictions on all Africans and Asians? 

Where did I say I was okay with that? I am against racism and discrimination, in all its forms.

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Spockydog said:

Where did I say I was okay with that? I am against racism and discrimination, in all its forms.

So you consider the set up of EU immigration inherently racist? Did you vote to remain in a racist organisation? 

Surely it's better for us to make an independent immigration system that judges each case on merit, with no discrimination based on nationality at all? 

[Spockydog]

6 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

So you consider the set up of EU immigration inherently racist? Did you vote to remain in a racist organisation? 

No, because, AFAIK, EU immigration regulations make no distinction between white Americans and black Africans.

 

[mankytoes]

14 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

No, because, AFAIK, EU immigration regulations make no distinction between white Americans and black Africans.

 

Neither was what I was saying. Your position is hypocritical.

[Spockydog]

4 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

Neither was what I was saying. Your position is hypocritical.

Righto. 

[Werthead]

East Coast Mainline is back in public hands. Again. Interesting to see if the government's going to acknowledge now that the franchise system isn't working and they're going to need to come up with a viable alternative.

[mormont]

3 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Surely it's better for us to make an independent immigration system that judges each case on merit, with no discrimination based on nationality at all? 

It would also be better if it was sunny every day, wine ran from the fountains like water and everyone loved each other.

I'd love an open, non-discriminatory, independent immigration system that is genuinely run on merit but when the likes of Gove or Johnson promise one, the only sane response is a scornful laugh. They are not in the tiniest bit interested in such a thing, nor are 90% of the voters they represent.

[mankytoes]

44 minutes ago, mormont said:

It would also be better if it was sunny every day, wine ran from the fountains like water and everyone loved each other.

I'd love an open, non-discriminatory, independent immigration system that is genuinely run on merit but when the likes of Gove or Johnson promise one, the only sane response is a scornful laugh. They are not in the tiniest bit interested in such a thing, nor are 90% of the voters they represent.

Fair enough, but I'm not supporting Gove or Johnson. I'm asking what system you support. And lets not pretend the Tories really do cut immigration drastically- they appeal to jingoism, sure, but the actual stats will show we recently had our highest ever net immigration under Tory leadership- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42178038 Why? Because their supporters like immigration. Immigrants work for them and make them money. 

Firstly, I think most of us accept there have to be some immigration restriction. We don't have the infrastructure/space to just open our borders to the whole world. If we are going to have restrictions, it seems like EU membership is always going to make that process very unfair. And while I don't think it has racist intentions, you can't deny that the practical result massively favours white immigrants and penalises non-white ones. 

And just to emphasise a point made earlier- we can vote the Tories out. This is massively important. We only ever got one chance to vote the EU out. 

[mormont]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Fair enough, but I'm not supporting Gove or Johnson. I'm asking what system you support. And lets not pretend the Tories really do cut immigration drastically- they appeal to jingoism, sure, but the actual stats will show we recently had our highest ever net immigration under Tory leadership- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42178038 Why? Because their supporters like immigration. Immigrants work for them and make them money.

What on earth are you talking about?

Most Tory supporters don't employ immigrants who 'make them money' because most Tory supporters, like most other voters, are employees themselves, not owners of the sort of businesses that employ immigrant labour. And most Tory supporters do want to restrict immigration. Why else would successive Tory leaders tie themselves so grimly to the mast of these stupid numerical commitments?

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

 Firstly, I think most of us accept there have to be some immigration restriction. We don't have the infrastructure/space to just open our borders to the whole world. If we are going to have restrictions, it seems like EU membership is always going to make that process very unfair.

I will bet you a shiny penny that our post-Brexit immigration system is on any reasonable measure markedly more unfair than the present one, or than the immigration policies of EU member countries.

This is a weird shibboleth, your notion that somehow Brexit, a movement driven by xenophobia, will free us from the terrible racism of the EU. Your fellow Brexit voters are not dying for a chance to vote out the Tories, to set up a new socialist utopia free from the tyranny of Sweden and Denmark. If that's what you think Brexit is going to lead to, you have a very rude awakening to come.

[mankytoes]

20 minutes ago, mormont said:

What on earth are you talking about?

Most Tory supporters don't employ immigrants who 'make them money' because most Tory supporters, like most other voters, are employees themselves, not owners of the sort of businesses that employ immigrant labour. And most Tory supporters do want to restrict immigration. Why else would successive Tory leaders tie themselves so grimly to the mast of these stupid numerical commitments?

I will bet you a shiny penny that our post-Brexit immigration system is on any reasonable measure markedly more unfair than the present one, or than the immigration policies of EU member countries.

This is a weird shibboleth, your notion that somehow Brexit, a movement driven by xenophobia, will free us from the terrible racism of the EU. Your fellow Brexit voters are not dying for a chance to vote out the Tories, to set up a new socialist utopia free from the tyranny of Sweden and Denmark. If that's what you think Brexit is going to lead to, you have a very rude awakening to come.

Sorry, that was unclear. When I said supporters, I mean the ones they really care about- the financial  supporters. 

Well, post Brexit an Indian and Polish person will have a more similar experience trying to emigrate to the UK than France. By that measure, it seems inevitable our system will be more unfair. I'd take that bet if you could give any objective basis for "unfair". 

Well my fellow voters (Tory or otherwise) are hardly backing them to the hilt, are they? Note the minuscule majority. 

I'm sure you know that it's a complete strawman to imply I'm suggesting the country will be a "utopia" after Brexit, so behave. In fact, this is something I emphasised when the campaigns were running- ignore the fear mongerers on both sides, either way this isn't going to have some incredible effect on the country. In the long term, we'll probably be a bit better off, all things considered. Maybe I'm wrong and we'll be a bit worse off. Either way, lets all quit the dramatics. 

[mormont]

 

10 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Well, post Brexit an Indian and Polish person will have a more similar experience trying to emigrate to the UK than France.

Again, bet you a shiny penny this does not turn out to be true. 

10 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Well my fellow voters (Tory or otherwise) are hardly backing them to the hilt, are they? Note the minuscule majority. 

The key word there being 'majority'. This government is the single worst government I have ever seen in my life. But they're still in office. 

[SeanF]

23 hours ago, mormont said:

So, that would imply the majority (53%) voted Remain?

 

I think that's correct.

[Spockydog]

 

PM set to nominate 10 Tory peers after string of Brexit defeats

This is not only outrageous, but probably unconstitutional. There is supposed to be parity between parties in the Lords. The Tories already have a majority of almost 60. What a bunch of bastards.

[mormont]

Well, that's the problem with the Lords. The answer is easy- abolish it. 

[Spockydog]

Just now, mormont said:

Well, that's the problem with the Lords. The answer is easy- abolish it. 

For most of my life, I've agreed with you. But seeing as they are currently the only thing holding this rogue government to account, I'm grateful to have them.

[Hereward]

41 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

 

PM set to nominate 10 Tory peers after string of Brexit defeats

This is not only outrageous, but probably unconstitutional.

There is supposed to be parity between parties in the Lords. The Tories already have a majority of almost 60. What a bunch of bastards.

Can you point me towards the part of the constitution this would breach? And can you also point me towards where it says there is supposed to be party parity?

[Werthead]

6 hours ago, Hereward said:

Can you point me towards the part of the constitution this would breach? And can you also point me towards where it says there is supposed to be party parity?

The useful thing about an unwritten Constitution is that it's very hard to say what actually is unconstitutional or not. Party parity in the Lords is a Parliamentary convention, which is one of the four cornerstones of the British Constitution, but it also doesn't specify that such parity has to be on the micro level. New Labour had more Labour peers than Tory ones (Labour peers outnumbered Tory ones by 21 as late as 2012) when they were in office, so it's not unusual for the ruling party to stack the decks a little in their favour.

Whether the Tories having 60 more peers than Labour is pushing it a bit is debatable. I don't think you could take it to the Supreme Court on the grounds of it being unconstitutional though.

[Hereward]

No, party parity is not a convention. Parity with the last election result is a (relatively new) convention. Packing the Lords, or threatening to pack the Lords, has constitutional precedent, in fact it’s the reason the Great Reform Act even got through. Any potential legal challenge would have to prove that the appointments are not in keeping with the wil of the people, and as the Lords is utterly overwhelmingly anti-Brexit, that is not going to fly.