For many decadfes, British people have shown little enthusiasm for the EEC or EU, check UK electoral turnout figures as low as 25% for Eu elections , , we were not "dragged out" we declinede the authority of the EU Commission and the Eu "Parliament " by a democratic rewferendum voteThere is 1 group of people whose behaviour I find even worse than people who voted Leave out of a sincere preferance to be outside the EU.
It is people who voted Leave just to "send a message to the government" or to "ensure Remain wins by a smaller margin". They are the people who at best misguidedly and at work recklessly dragged us out of the EU.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Brexit matters
- Thread starter Xenophon PCDGS
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Absolutely correct. They'd prefer to import cheap labour from countries that don't require the same laws and protections, hence wanting the EU out of the equation and to remove/change worker rights so you can then invite more people from developing/third-world countries - just as we did in previous centuries.
Seems we're not, for now, changing things (with regards to ending EU laws) so that will be a spanner in the works, but I'm sure that's down to the current in-fighting and an upcoming election. There's still a faction that wants this to happen, and we need to try and make sure it doesn't (well, unless you're for reducing worker protections and pay).
I won't ever consider voting Tory again until they get rid of these extremists and accept the need to work closer with the EU - and that almost certainly will mean freedom of movement returning within a decade or so. Ultimately, the Tories weren't for the most part anti-EU until they feared the party would be destroyed if they didn't put the issue to bed, and look how that worked out.
REVUpminster
Established Member
European labour was cheaper than home grown workers. Did not have to train them; most could speak English so your argument doesn't hold water.
Are the Brexit lot complaining about that though? I haven’t seen any mumbling about immigration from the Commonwealth. The previous immigration regime was racist by prioritising friction free immigration only from predominantly white European countries, a fact many people can’t admit because it happened to be convenient for big business.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Yup, and had they not done that, we might have had a much better case made across parliament for remaining in the EU.
class ep-09
Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 631
Yet , more people were coming from outside of EU than from the block .
Now immigration policy is racist to everyone so at least that is a “benefit”.
Last edited:
Explain how something can be “racist to everyone”.
class ep-09
Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 631
Simple - EU and rest of the World citizens are equally not welcome .
Before at least EU citizens were welcomed ( sort of).
Did I really need to explain that ?
Well yes. Explain how that’s *racist*. Not that I agree at all that “everyone isn’t welcome”, because that isn’t supported at all by the evidence that immigration has actually increased.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
I'm pretty sure that people from almost any country are reasonably welcome in the UK: They just need to apply for a visa and satisfy the requirements for whatever visa they have applied for.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
To somewhat defend the EU (unusually for me in this debate
): The previous FOM regime was certainly highly discriminatory against people from non-EU countries - which is one of the reasons I objected to it. But I'm not sure I'd describe it as racist. To my mind, it would have been racist if there was a deliberate intent in the FOM rules to discriminate against black people (or any other ethnic group), and I'm pretty sure there was no such intention. It was simply a coincidence that the countries benefitting from FOM were predominantly white.After all, citizens of the Republic of Ireland (also a largely white country) uniquely retain special freedom to live in the UK, but I doubt you'd consider that to be racist: It's simply a consequence of the unique history between the UK and Ireland.
Last edited:
Mainly paying a lot of money. Significantly more these days in real terms than 20 years ago. That’s been a deliberate choice. And pre-dates “Brexit”. Not directly racist and applicable to all.
One of the major stumbling blocks conservatives bump up against is that they believe something can only be racist if you can see into someone’s heart and see the racist intent.To somewhat defend the EU (unusually for me in this debate
There is 1 group of people whose behaviour I find even worse than people who voted Leave out of a sincere preferance to be outside the EU.
It is people who voted Leave just to "send a message to the government" or to "ensure Remain wins by a smaller margin". They are the people who at best misguidedly and at work recklessly dragged us out of the EU.
Yes, the "vote Leave because we don't like David Cameron" crowd.
I mean, I'm not Dave's biggest fan, but the recklessness of the above is immeasurable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It wasn't actually racist, in the sense that a black French person would be welcome but a white Australian or American would not. "Regionalist" perhaps, but I do think there is a case for prioritising FoM between geographically-close countries. People are more likely, I'd imagine, to want to emigrate to a close-by country, hence you arguably want to make it as easy for them as possible. If there's a limit to the number of countries to allow FoM from, one might expect geographically-close countries to be the priority, for that reason.
That said, if it was up to me, I'd have actually extended FoM to a range of "low risk" countries outside the European continent. Perhaps the ones which get you into the shorter queue at UK immigration, for example.
Last edited:
Why didn’t we have FoM with Morocco but we did with Greece?
If someone puts a sign on the door of their pub saying “Sorry, but nobody from Japan is allowed in, and nobody from China, either. All Europeans welcome however”, would you not think they were racist? And even if you thought their intent was pure, would you not agree that such a sign would at least have racist *outcomes*?
Not at all the case! Try using this logic in an argument about boat crossings and “first safe country”, where you’ll correctly be told people emigrate to places which they feel they will be able to succeed and fit in. That’s why Brits don’t all emigrate to France and Belgium, but rather prefer places like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.
In the case of the EU it has nothing to do with geographic proximity but rather much different criteria. Why isn’t Turkey in the EU? It’s very close by after all. Why isn’t Ukraine? There are very stringent criteria about membership.
While we are at it, why would a builder from Poland be prioritised to immigrate over one from Nigeria, India, or Brazil, if they are both equally willing, competent, and qualified?
OK I see what you mean, but I still think the whole EU FoM thing was based on geographical proximity, with a bit of bias towards "western democratic systems" admittedly.
Maybe, but considering Europe as a whole I still think that geographical closeness plays a part. I do admit that common language is another factor though.
Erdogan is a rather questionable individual, to put it mildly; that might play a part. If Turkey can kick him out and replace him with a proper democrat, and run as a modern democracy for a number of years, then I think they should join the EU as it is indeed close to many EU countries and in the same general geographic area.
And Ukraine, well once the war is over, why not?
No reason especially; but I'd argue that FoM from Poland should have been retained due to what I'd call "grandfather rights", i.e. the FoM was there at one point so it's a retrograde step removing it.
I will admit that we can't have completely unrestricted FoM from absolutely everywhere, otherwise we would have problems; my prime problem is with taking away what was there previously which to me is simply regressive and backward. Why wind the clock back to the bad old days? It's the same visceral feeling I would get, for example, if a future radical-right party tried to end our freedom to walk on public footpaths. I wouldn't complain about the lack of access to tracks that always were private and inaccessible, but I would complain about the lost right to walk where I used to be able to walk.
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That's an important point - a country and its citizens can only enjoy the benefits of EU membership if it's democratic (although this principle may need strengthening, as Hungary illustrates). EU membership is beneficial to an emerging economy, not only because of the direct investments but also because workers can go abroad and send money back into that country's economy. And Europe shouldn't be in the business of propping up authoritarian regimes.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Haha! And in turn, I would reply that one of the stumbling blocks liberals bump up against is that they routinely misinterpret stuff as racist when there is no racist intent.
To my mind, if you start throwing words like 'racism' around every time one ethnic group has, in aggregate, a less good outcome than another even when there are perfectly innocent explanations for the difference, then you (a) devalue the word, and (b) contribute to the current paranoia about looking for racism everywhere that today seems to exist in much of Western culture.Do you see the Common Travel Area with Ireland as racist because it allows (mostly white) Irish citizens to live in the UK without a visa, but doesn't confer the same privilege on - say - the (almost entirely non-white) citizens of Vietnam?
And likewise, how about the Free Movement of Persons Protocol that the African Union is pushing for? That would be very similar to EU FOM, but would apply within Africa. If it was fully implemented, would you see it as racist because it would let the (almost entirely black) populations of various African countries live in - say - Nigeria or South Africa, but wouldn't confer the same rights to citizens of any white-majority countries?
And that is of course exactly one of the problems with FOM. I would mention that that the same applies though to - say - the USA, Canada or Australia: It's not just mainly-non-white-Caucasian countries that we didn't have FOM with.
Last edited:
class ep-09
Member
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2013
- Messages
- 631
No it was not .To somewhat defend the EU (unusually for me in this debate
After all, citizens of the Republic of Ireland (also a largely white country) uniquely retain special freedom to live in the UK, but I doubt you'd consider that to be racist: It's simply a consequence of the unique history between the UK and Ireland.
Each EU country could shape its own immigration policy to people from outside of the EU , as they wish .
Just because people from EU had a right to move around more easily , could not stop each individual country to welcome or not people from outside of the EU like US , Australia and others .
FoM did not end for citizens of the EU , they still can move around 27+ countries .
It ended for citizens of UK .
Something does not need to have a racist intent to actually be racist, that’s the problem.
If an immigration policy of a country discriminates in a way which produces racist outcomes in the aggregate, yes, that’s racist. Things don’t have to be intentionally racist to have racist outcomes.
Do you see the Common Travel Area with Ireland as racist because it allows (mostly white) Irish citizens to live in the UK without a visa, but doesn't confer the same privilege on - say - the (almost entirely non-white) citizens of Vietnam?
And likewise, how about the Free Movement of Persons Protocol that the African Union is pushing for? That would be very similar to EU FOM, but would apply within Africa. If it was fully implemented, would you see it as racist because it would let the (almost entirely black) populations of various African countries live in - say - Nigeria or South Africa, but wouldn't confer the same rights to citizens of any white-majority countries?
That the UK for a long time prioritised immigration from overwhelmingly white Western Europe, at the expense of equally capable, qualified and keen people from predominantly black and brown countries was, actually, a racist policy.
Prioritising predominantly white and Christian Ukrainian refugees over black and brown ones fleeing wars elsewhere is also racist, while we are at it.
Indeed, like Ireland for example, who have not barred UK citizens from FoM (for obvious reasons related to NI).
Last edited:
GS250
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,031
Bringing the race issue into the argument is just pathetic.
You can be 'European' and have dark skin. You can be non European and have fair skin.
If there was any bias with the EU FOM then it was 'regionalist' and certainly not racist.
You can be 'European' and have dark skin. You can be non European and have fair skin.
If there was any bias with the EU FOM then it was 'regionalist' and certainly not racist.
There’s no such thing as “regionalism”, you’ve made that up as a way to deflect from addressing the uncomfortably and obviously racist outcomes of a European free movement bloc.
You can’t be overtly racist by doing something like saying to, let’s say, a prospective tenant “tell me your race or send me a passport photo of you before I let you view the property”. But saying “citizens of China, Japan, need not apply” leads to basically the same outcome. The idea that nothing can be racist unless you have a dirty filthy racist heart while doing it is wrong, but it is surprising how many Brits of all political stripes believe this.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
It’s nothing really to do with NI but instead was a way of grandfathering the rights and obligations of citizens and states due to the intertwined history of the islands. Actually not too different from the grandfathering idea you set out earlier in the thread!
Very true, though I'm sure NI makes it even more imperative that UK<->Ireland FoM must be retained.
REVUpminster
Established Member
The protection racket that is the EU swings into action as they allow several members to block Ukraine wheat. One of the reasons Ukraine may never get into the EU. Dutch farmers are not very happy with EU directives buying their farms.
The EU can rightly be criticised, but it seems unnecessarily devisive to describe it as a ‘protection racket’, a definition of which is a “scheme of organised crime that generally guarantees protection outside the sanction of the law to another entity or individual from violence, robbery, ransacking, arson, vandalism and other such threats in exchange for payments at regular intervals”.
Just seems overly dramatic to me. I’d much rather be with that ‘protection racket’ than be under full control of British government.
Nothing about this makes the EU fit any rerasonable definition of "protection racket", that is a completely baseless and undeserved slur that you have made against the EU.
REVUpminster
Established Member
In a protection racket it is those inside such as we were that have to pay a subscription and the others inside that receive money can only use that money to buy services from other members. The EU is the perfect example of that as we found out/already knew when we left.
The Krays got their income by threatening members inside their organisation to pay up more than they ever did to those on the outside just as the EU does to it's members.
The Krays got their income by threatening members inside their organisation to pay up more than they ever did to those on the outside just as the EU does to it's members.
What are you on about? What you quoted was nothing to do with the EU threatening anyone, let alone the threatening its members to extort money from them.
The concept of the EU threatening its members is nonsense anyway given that the EU consists purely of its members, so how can the same entity be threatening itself and extorting money from itself?
You are making another slur on the EU.
Last edited:
Peterthegreat
Established Member
Absolute nonsense isn't it?
Another delusional Brexiteer perhaps?
Last edited: