Jump to content
Stannis Eats No Peaches

UK Politics: The End of May

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Werthead said:

 

The answer of course is that many Brexiters believed and still believe that Brexit will mean an massive reduction in all immigration to the UK, which of course is nonsense, and post-Brexit we will see an interesting pivot from the Brexit Party and UKIP towards reducing immigration to the UK from these other, decidedly browner countries, but it won't be about racism of course.

I wonder if a poll was conducted asking Pro-Brexiters if they’d still support leaving even if it doesn’t lead to a reduction of immigrants  from these countries how many would say no. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I wonder if a poll was conducted asking Pro-Brexiters if they’d still support leaving even if it doesn’t lead to a reduction of immigrants  from these countries how many would say no. 

change that to a poll of  Increased immigration from these countries.  ;)    might be more accurate as to what will really happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another consequence of Brexit that was oddly not painted on the side of a bus: the USA will want access to the NHS as part of a free trade deal because, y'know, the US is so fantastic at healthcare provision.

It'll be interesting to see when Brexiters realise that they've not only been sold down the river, but they're going to be charged to use the river in the first place.

Edited by Werthead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 6:24 AM, Heartofice said:

I'm not sure you want to start using examples from history to back up your argument. Saxons coming over and wiping out the native born population, or the romans and normans subjugating the natives isn't something you want to be using as a positive example of immigration.

The Anglo-Saxons did NOT "wipe out" the native born population. Genetic research disproved that idea several years ago. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Ormond said:

The Anglo-Saxons did NOT "wipe out" the native born population. Genetic research disproved that idea several years ago. 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530134-300-ancient-invaders-transformed-britain-but-not-its-dna/

 

I can honestly say that this thread is the first time I've even heard of that myth - of course it's complete bullshit.
We've never been "invaded" by a "genocidal" force. The neolithic farmers may have impacted native population numbers, but way more likely the knowledge was ipmorted, rather than all that many people; and even if it was people, it would have been outcompeting rather than killing - same goes for the arrival of metalworkers. After that the Saxons and vikings largely lived alongside the natives, the Romans and Normans simply took over the aristocracy, largely leaving the peasants alone. Local areas will have suffered genocidal bouts, but nothing national.

We are, by far and away, exporters of genocides; not sufferers.

Edited by Which Tyler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jacob Rees-Mogg repeatedly saying that Trump is, "the democratically elected President of the United States," embarrassingly. Trump is, of course, the legally elected President of the US, but very much undemocratically-elected, given the unusual quirks of the US system. You'd expect him to have known that, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JRM was just trying to grease his way into Trump's notice, alongside his mates Boris and Nigel.

He wants to rub shoulders, boost his profile and profits, and ease his escape route for when Brexit goes tits up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

No, you still are, you are just paying attwntion to your blind spots and uncunsious . Saying that you have never had a racist thought is being ignorant of the racist socialisation that you are subjected to.

If you are aware of that, you can deconstruct how you where tought and fight your unconscious bias

If you are aware of any biases you may have (had) then it is no longer subconscious. Subconscious racism is the type where you have prejudices that you simply consider to be "realistic", whereas people who call that sort of thing racist are simply denying reality for the sake of being "politically correct". Sound familiar?*

And I agree with @James Arryn that accusing everyone of being subconsciously racist is an easy way out for actual (subconscious and otherwise) racists by implying that they are simply saying out loud what everyone else is thinking. The notion that only a small minority of the population thinks/feels like they do would be a very uncomfortable thing for them.

 

*I'm not saying that's your view, I'm simply saying that we've all heard that kind of talk before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Which Tyler said:

Normans simply took over the aristocracy, largely leaving the peasants alone. Local areas will have suffered genocidal bouts, but nothing national.

 

Er no. 

https://www.historytoday.com/history-matters/harrying-north

Its a bit hard to paint half of England as all a bit local. The Welsh border area as well suffered tremendously with wholesale relocation/looting/killing of the local populace in violent spasms throughout the Norman period and as the Welsh were just as capable at raids, killing and sacking, the Normans got it straight back at them especially in 1136. Peasants, clergy, nobility; all got it in the neck.

Many were forced into slavery often to work on the Norman building projects of castles and cathedrals thoughout. They were definitely not left alone. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched the Trump/May press conference and he said protests were fake news and there were cheering crowds wherever he went.

He also said that after Brexit when trade talks begin not just the NHS will be on the table, everything will be on the table. Think about that one, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I just watched the Trump/May press conference and he said protests were fake news and there were cheering crowds wherever he went.

He also said that after Brexit when trade talks begin not just the NHS will be on the table, everything will be on the table. Think about that one, folks.

The president promised us great healthcare on the cheap. What better solution than to make the Eurocommies pay for it, just like Mexico will be paying for the wall and Canada will be giving us all the free water we want!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

there were cheering crowds wherever he went.

Like for Queen Victorian in Ireland in the 1849.

Item: the cheers and flags were stage managed, i.e. 'fake.'

Edited by Zorral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I must admit, as a big fan of symmetries and stuff. I am really humoured by colonial Britain going full circle on Brexit.

While the British establishment moaned the loss of the colonies after, what the Americans so ungratefully call, the war for independence centuries ago. That the current political establishment is so dead set on bringing the colonies home is really nothing short but laudible. Ok, it's more like redcoats will now be the colony on the other side of the world. From colonizer to colony. But as I said, I like symmetries.

Edited by A Horse Named Stranger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zorral said:

Like for Queen Victorian in Ireland in the 1849.

Item: the cheers and flags were stage managed, i.e. 'fake.'

Why did you quote me with the BIRD!’s comment? This is like the third time you’ve done this. Literally quit putting words in my mouth!  

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Why did you quote me with the BIRD!’s comment? This is like the third time you’ve done this. Literally quit putting words in my mouth!  

:P

Because this place's quoting function is screwy.  :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonna share two articles.

Well, one article, and one interview.

Article what PM Johnson could mean for Brexit.

Interview with Prof. Dorling (Oxford). Colonial Roots of Brexit.

I think the interview was particularly interesting given the last few pages of discussion about underlying racism of Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Gonna share two articles.

Well, one article, and one interview.

Article what PM Johnson could mean for Brexit.

Interview with Prof. Dorling (Oxford). Colonial Roots of Brexit.

I think the interview was particularly interesting given the last few pages of discussion about underlying racism of Brexit.

I think they missed an obvious point on British views on history: history is not a mandatory subject in British secondary schools, so most young people (and most people full stop, it's been this way since the late 1980s) get their view of history from primary school lessons which tend to focus on WWII, Elizabeth I, Henry VIII and a distinct, "Hoo rar, the British are awesome" view of things. Secondary schools teach History (as an option subject) to a higher standard and start looking at things like the incompetence of WWI and the evils of colonialism, but you have to wait until college to delve deeply into things like Anglo-Irish relations and Suez. It doesn't help that the study of History seems to have been discouraged in recent decades in favour of "more practical" courses.

So you have a huge number of people in this country whose knowledge of their national history is pretty much Normans - Henry VIII sticking it to the Pope - Empire - the UK cock-punching Hitler with only minimal help from the US and Russia - Falklands. That creates a pretty warped view of the country's history. A lot of people are also bizarrely ignorant of recent history: a pro-Brexiter in an office job I did last year angrily asked why Britain should accept Syrian refugees and I pointed out that the UK and US had to take some responsibility for the rise of ISIS from how they handled the Iraq War and its aftermath, and they were completely confounded at the idea there was any kind of casual link between the two events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×