Brexit: Now What? Part III

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Don said:
Looks like I was wrong (again :( :o) and Archie Gemmill Goal was right, the Labour Party really has become anti-immigrant.
Click to expand...

Parts of the Labour party...

Both the main parties are complex coalitions; the interesting question is which will fracture first under the strain of Brexit.
 
So according to last Trump's tweets there is preparatory work on post-Brexit relations with the U.K. currently going on in Washington.
 
Degeneve said:
So according to last Trump's tweets there is preparatory work on post-Brexit relations with the U.K. currently going on in Washington.
Click to expand...

The "chlorinated chicken" story (that post Brexit there will be pressure on the UK to accept U.S. chicken which has been washed in a concentrated chlorine solution - this is currently banned in the EU on the grounds that the superficial cleanliness that the chlorine wash provides may hide more fundamental hygiene issues in the abattoir) is an indication that

  • Liam Fox doesn't have a clue how complex negotiations are likely to be
  • The UK is desperate and will accept (almost) any terms in order to get a deal
  • Not only does Fox not know much - he's completely unaware of what he doesn't know
  • The UK public is completely unaware of all the things that the EU has been quietly doing in the background for us for decades and it's going to be a shock when we're going to have to do it ourselves

Certainly, the prospect of rushing to agree a trade deal with a man who has clearly stated that any future deals must be heavily one-sided in favour of the United States has me simply jumping with joy. :rolleyes:
 
The Don said:
The "chlorinated chicken" story (that post Brexit there will be pressure on the UK to accept U.S. chicken which has been washed in a concentrated chlorine solution - this is currently banned in the EU on the grounds that the superficial cleanliness that the chlorine wash provides may hide more fundamental hygiene issues in the abattoir) is an indication that

  • Liam Fox doesn't have a clue how complex negotiations are likely to be
  • The UK is desperate and will accept (almost) any terms in order to get a deal
  • Not only does Fox not know much - he's completely unaware of what he doesn't know
  • The UK public is completely unaware of all the things that the EU has been quietly doing in the background for us for decades and it's going to be a shock when we're going to have to do it ourselves

Certainly, the prospect of rushing to agree a trade deal with a man who has clearly stated that any future deals must be heavily one-sided in favour of the United States has me simply jumping with joy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
As the BBC article I posted yesterday points out the chlorinated chicken may be the least of the food import issues. There's also hormone fed beef and the biggie, unlabelled GMO products.

And of course today you had Trump condemning the EU for being protectionist.:rolleyes:
 
Darat said:
The stance is more that capital has been able to undermine protections for labour by the free movement of labour we see in the EU. In many ways I find that hard to argue against with that when you see the appalling conditions for our generally lowest paid workers who are mainly EU immigrants.
Click to expand...
That's not at all the same thing as xenophobic anti immigrant sentiment, such as we find frequently in the ranks of right wing Brexiteers.
 
Aber said:
Parts of the Labour party...

Both the main parties are complex coalitions; the interesting question is which will fracture first under the strain of Brexit.
Click to expand...

It's not parts of the Labour Party any more than parts of the Labour Party are unionist... it's policy.

Whether they actually believe it's right or are just pandering to the voice of the people or don't want to upset the right wing press might be debatable but it's now ingrained.

Has been since Gordon Brown.
 
Craig B said:
That's not at all the same thing as xenophobic anti immigrant sentiment, such as we find frequently in the ranks of right wing Brexiteers.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same thing in a different hat. And it has exactly the same effect on immigrants and potential immigrants
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
It's exactly the same thing in a different hat. And it has exactly the same effect on immigrants and potential immigrants
Click to expand...
if you think that people are being imported to hold down the level of wages and conditions, then you are motivated to try to ensure that immigrant workers have the same pay and rights as indigenous ones. That means organising them in the same trades unions and political parties along with other workers.

Xenophobes and racists have no motive to behave in this way, and generally do not.
 
Craig B said:
if you think that people are being imported to hold down the level of wages and conditions, then you are motivated to try to ensure that immigrant workers have the same pay and rights as indigenous ones. That means organising them in the same trades unions and political parties along with other workers.

Xenophobes and racists have no motive to behave in this way, and generally do not.
Click to expand...

That would make sense if it reflected the reality of what labour actually stand for but they don't. They stand for reducing immigration. Keeping the foreigners out. Same as the Tories.

Not much point for many immigrants forming into the same political parties when they don't even get a vote. Never hear labour even mention that as an issue.
 
Garrison said:
As the BBC article I posted yesterday points out the chlorinated chicken may be the least of the food import issues. There's also hormone fed beef and the biggie, unlabelled GMO products.
Click to expand...

Chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef are problematic issues, unlabelled GMO products not so much. Europe is indeed making a mistake with this GMO-free BS. Opposition to GMOs is about as scientific, as meaningful and as beneficial to the society as opposition to vaccines is.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Chlorinated chicken and hormone fed beef are problematic issues, unlabelled GMO products not so much. Europe is indeed making a mistake with this GMO-free BS. Opposition to GMOs is about as scientific, as meaningful and as beneficial to the society as opposition to vaccines is.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I agree that the opposition to GMO from most folk are on the level of "that's icky" and invalid. But there is certainly quite a few opposition which are valid, like not wanting to depends on US firm for seeds, not having seeds which want/increase the consumption of herbicide like "round up ready", and wanting to keep a variety of seed and gene. Not sure how much they are based in reality, but they make some sort of sense.
 
Aepervius said:
I agree that the opposition to GMO from most folk are on the level of "that's icky" and invalid. But there is certainly quite a few opposition which are valid, like not wanting to depends on US firm for seeds, not having seeds which want/increase the consumption of herbicide like "round up ready", and wanting to keep a variety of seed and gene. Not sure how much they are based in reality, but they make some sort of sense.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the issue was unlabeled GM products, presumably on store shelves in UK, not GM crops in general. There are issues with GM, but not so much on the consumer side.

McHrozni
 
Apparently someone in the Government has just decided it would be good to actually understand what impact EU migrants have.... The report will be ready by September 2018......

Better late than never I suppose.

The idea we can have started negotiations before we had such basic information simply beggars belief.
 
Darat said:
Apparently someone in the Government has just decided it would be good to actually understand what impact EU migrants have.... The report will be ready by September 2018......

Better late than never I suppose.

The idea we can have started negotiations before we had such basic information simply beggars belief.
Click to expand...

That presumes that the choice to Leave, and the Brexit process which followed, is driven by facts and reason - as opposed to pure emotion and invective. :rolleyes:

I'd be shocked however if the report's conclusions are anything other than the current levels of immigration are damaging to the UK (by assessing all kinds of spurious nonsense) and that the government target of 100k net immigrants is exactly the "right" number for optimum benefit. Either that or the results will be ignored.....
 
Darat said:
Apparently someone in the Government has just decided it would be good to actually understand what impact EU migrants have.... The report will be ready by September 2018......

Better late than never I suppose.

The idea we can have started negotiations before we had such basic information simply beggars belief.
Click to expand...

The idea UK voted for Brexit on the basis of the need to control migration without actually showing the need to control migration in the first place beggars belief. The rest is a farce.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
The idea UK voted for Brexit on the basis of the need to control migration without actually showing the need to control migration in the first place beggars belief. The rest is a farce.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

There was a "need" to control immigration but that need wasn't driven by an objective analysis of the costs and benefits associated with immigration* but instead was the result of the usual recession-driven anti-immigrant sentiment familiar to anyone who lived through, or has studied, the 1930s' and 1970's.

In today's "post factual" age, that's exactly the kind of rationale we embrace :rolleyes:

I've also still yet to hear too many people complaining that there are too many immigrants from the US, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand**, Australia**, (white) South Africa**, Scandinavia and so forth. It tends to be the brown and Eastern European immigrants that are the problem :mad:

* - and completely ignores that 50% of net immigration was already completely under the control of the UK because it was from outside the EU
** - Well, maybe in Earls Court and perhaps people complaining about the make-up of the England cricket and rugby teams
 
The Don said:
There was a "need" to control immigration but that need wasn't driven by an objective analysis of the costs and benefits associated with immigration* but instead was the result of the usual recession-driven anti-immigrant sentiment familiar to anyone who lived through, or has studied, the 1930s' and 1970's.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, any serious study would show that. As I said it beggars belief as to how Brexit propaganda was allowed to proceed without supporters of Brexit on the basis of immigration controls not knowing why immigration controls were needed.

It wasn't to make Britain great again, but to gain votes.

I've also still yet to hear too many people complaining that there are too many immigrants from the US, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand**, Australia**, (white) South Africa**, Scandinavia and so forth. It tends to be the brown and Eastern European immigrants that are the problem :mad:
Click to expand...

This is not unexpected, we don't see all human beings as being equally acceptable and we see some more acceptable than others. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is the case.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
This is not unexpected, we don't see all human beings as being equally acceptable and we see some more acceptable than others. I'm not saying this is right, I'm saying this is the case.
Click to expand...
You write that as if we were struggling with an entrenched instinctive predisposition, but in fact the categories of people we see as acceptable changes over time. The list of acceptables you were commenting on includes
US, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, (white) South Africa, Scandinavia and so forth.​
Ireland?!? Now there's a change. Not very long ago there was widespread hostility to Irish migration into the UK. This has now been relegated to the extremist fringes, where I hope and expect islamophobic anti immigration sentiments will end up in the foreseeable future.
 
Craig B said:
You write that as if we were struggling with an entrenched instinctive predisposition, but in fact the categories of people we see as acceptable changes over time. The list of acceptables you were commenting on includes
US, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, (white) South Africa, Scandinavia and so forth.​
Ireland?!? Now there's a change. Not very long ago there was widespread hostility to Irish migration into the UK. This has now been relegated to the extremist fringes, where I hope and expect islamophobic anti immigration sentiments will end up in the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

Hope away, but that seems to run counter to human nature.

If we go through another long period of prosperity then it's likely that anti-immigrant and anti-immigration sentiment will subside but only because people are happier overall and so have no need for scapegoats. Another economic downturn and IMO those same sentiments will rise to the surface again. :mad:

When things are going badly we seem to want to have a group to blame for it, ideally one which is easily and immediately identifiable. That's why colour is so convenient in such circumstances but at a push we seem to be happy with religion (especially if it has distinctive dress) or accent :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom