UK Politics - Weeny, Weedy, Weaky

Status
Not open for further replies.
No? As I said, the rules are very clear that if someone doesn't have a job or can't otherwise support themselves, the hosting state is free to make them leave.

They have to find them though.
 
If they're fugitives from justice, they're hardly going to be a drain on the welfare state, are they?
 
If they're fugitives from justice, they're hardly going to be a drain on the welfare state, are they?

The NHS throws them in the gutter to die if they are taken there for care?

And whether or not they are a drain on the welfare state, they certainly crate prejudice against those foreigners. Cheetah's reference to gypsies in Norway is one example of how that can happen. My point here is that prejudice, racism or what you may call it has real causes. If those are not taken care of it will always arise.
 
The only solution to that is to tear down the walls compartmentalizing different communities along race. When they are systematically see to be like us racism evaporates. In this example, his prejudice was not an impediment to that process occurring. What is necessary, in terms of state intervention, is to counter the formation of ghettos, of separate communities, along race. Or indeed along many other artificial distinctions. It doesn't even require any kind of anti-racist policy, (with all the political controversy and division it causes), merely a policy of providing, enforcing, a standard of living that allows for the presently separate communities (including those naturally formed among large groups of immigrants) to mix in. Accessible basics of living (health care, education, habitation) equally for al the population goes a long way towards that.
Very, very often the formation of ghettos is due to the economic segregation of newcomers. Opening the doors to immigrants only to have them take on the role of lower strata of society is social poison: bereft of options they band together for support instead of spreading and intermingling, and being poor and apparently homogeneous group they are looked down upon by the rest of the population and associated with the traditionally dangerous traits of the poorer strata: they get described as opportunists (desperate...), thieves, amoral, uneducated, whatever...
You'll notice that the wealthy immigrants do not get lumped into the same category. Not even the russian oligarchs... it's (not solely but) to a large degree a class problem, especially in the cities where you can have immigrants prejudiced against other immigrants further down the ladder.
Ultimately there is always a limit to the number of immigrants that can enter without causing the creation of a poorly integrated and supported underclass.

And, risking the wrath of the woke left, I'm also saying the state should enforce whatever happens to be considered the most important social norms against newcomers who refuse to accept them. It is bad policy to, say, pass special laws legalizing polygamy among a small portion of the population just because you have an immigrant community from societies where it is practiced and who demand it. If some "new sum-community" makes special demands, are they really acceptable to the majority? Substitute polygamy for any number of other "cultural things". The so-called "multi-culturalism" was always very dangerous ground: it can create racism and other -isms where there was none. This is the other major part of the problem.

The two together are what really problems, and the two can be tackled only when acknowledged and discusses without taboos. Just demanding "cease your racism!" from random people will not do it.

I still wonder at how often the racism thing is raised in UK politics. Considering the number of foreigners the UK is already absorbing the problems it has were to be expected, imo it's actually not mishandling them as badly as some other european countries.
Edit: I guess that the issues come up in the UK precisely because it hosts so many immigrants inevitably pushed into the lower rungs of the economic scale. Having also some extremely wealthy ones buying prime property does nothing to endear "foreigners" in general to the citizens who in consequence feel priced out of the best spots. And those take it out on the foreigners they can reach and attack.

Agreed generally.
I remember a German judge deciding it was ok for someone to have beaten their wife because it was part of their culture. That sort of attitude is ridiculous.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/23/germany.islam

Looks like ED Davey hasn't learnt anything from the election result.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...lode-says-ed-davey/ar-AAK7RZl?ocid=spartanntp
 
I think that immigrants receiving state benefit is a problem only if the amount is relatively close to what a (low-end wage) working person would get - cause in that case many non-immigrants would use it too, instead of facing survival problems. For example, I am all in favor of a few hundred euros/month for such cases, but if you just hand out >500 euro/month just cause one is an immigrant, it will create issues.
Though I don't mind if the hand-out is larger, but ends being the same amount due to less people getting it. I am not against people just cause they get pay from the state due to immigrant programs. If I had a different personality, and was starving, I would be though.
 
They have to find them though.
Yes? That's really not much of a problem. People have addresses, a workplace, family or friends with addresses, mobile phones, subscriptions, etc. Police can easily come and pick them up at any time, and put them on a flight and expel them within a day or two.

If one doesn't have a job, and live on the street in a foreign country with no support but basic healthcare and charity, one necessarily supports themselves through crime. That's not much of a life, and very few EEA citisens choose to do that.
 
Maybe? Nationalist Labour can just be a resurrection of Nationalist Liberals 160 odd years ago. Xenophobic Democracies or whatever nicer PR term to come up with may very well be the way to win on the left. There's no clause from a god that Leftism has to be open-armed globalist, or open-border-everything, now is there?
I'm far from a open-all-the-borders person, I know I've had some disagreements with Lexicus over this topic. However, capitulating to the right on the issue of immigration and endorsing the 'send them all back home, no new ones' policy is quite morally abhorrent.

EDIT: Missed @innonimatu post and want to avoid a doublepost

innonimatu said:
But I do not believe that a hard brexit would be a disaster. A "hard brexit" must be on the cards while negotiating with the EU. May was incompetent, allowing held to be led instead of leading in the negotiations with the EU. Boris at least claimed he would go for a hard brexit if a deal could not be made. And the strategies of the other parties didn't even deserve to be called "strategies".
I think you overstate the leverage the potential of a 'hard Brexit' gives the UK. Leaving hard Brexit open as a viable option is equivalent of holding a loaded gun to your head and saying "Give me what I want or I'll pull the trigger". The other party has two options: one, they assume gunman is rational and will not blow off his head - thus removing the leverage; or two, the other party knows that the gunman is clearly irrational and thus negotiations aren't really viable as gunman has no rational interest.

Contrary to most comments I've been seeing from the people on the losing side of this election, I do not expect the tories to implode quickly, not to cause any acute economic or political crisis in the UK soon. [snip] And I'm willing to bet that brexit itself will not be any kind of economic catastrophe. The further harm they'll do will be feltt slowly, not suddenly: more commodification of daily life and pushing of people into a kind of debt bondage.
I agree that the Tories won't see any implosion, not for at least a year or two. Politicians like winners and Johnson definitely won this election. Similar for economic crisis. Short of a general world recession, nothing will fundamentally change in the UK economic relation with the EU and the rest of the world for at least a year. Johnson has made it clear he wants - and I'm 99% sure the EU has agreed to it- a year long transition period where the UK is part of Europe in economic terms while a trading and financial agreement is finalized. Given it took Canada several years to negotiate a trade agreement - and arguably it was a simpler one as the UK's financial sector is far larger than Canada's- I doubt the UK will get an agreement before the transition is up. An extension or two will be had from the EU, but eventually it will sink into voters that Johnson and the Tories are waffling on Brexit.

(Snipped segment) Talk of secession is imo much exaggerated.
Scotland has consistently been won on local and general elections by an explicitly pro-independence party, and Johnson quite simply doesn't seem capable of understanding Scottish concerns. I'd place good money on a serious showdown over independence between Scotland and Westminster in the next five years or so.
Even Northern Ireland, even before seeing how badly Johnson's internal border fouls things up between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, has shown definite signs that commitment to Unionism is falling.
 
Last edited:
I'm far from a open-all-the-borders person, I know I've had some disagreements with Lexicus over this topic. However, capitulating to the right on the issue of immigration and endorsing the 'send them all back home, no new ones' policy is quite morally abhorrent.

You don't need to do that just limit visas, work out how many immigrants you need to keep the population up and prioritize skill based visa grants.

Combine that with cracking down on companies that violate the laws over employing undocumented labour up to and including jail time and seizing the company.

Yes you need some immigration but you don't need 50% population growth in a few decades when a lot if nation's have a sub replacement birthrate.
 
Well that may be your interpretation, but when the UK's Home Office tried to follow
through with deportations on much that same basis, it was overruled by the courts.
Huh. That's strange...

Hang on!

the article said:
The Home Office launched Operations Adoze and Gopik to remove rough sleepers from the UK even if they were working or had permanent right of residence.

[...]

A Nelma spokesman said: “In reality, many homeless people targeted by the Home Office have fallen on hard times and are working but unable to afford accommodation.
How can people be working (which rightly gives them permission to stay, according to the rules), but not afford accommodations??
 
Oh my gosh what happened in the election guys? That was so disappointing. Anyone think Scotland's going to mount a series attempt at a second referendum?
 
Oh my gosh what happened in the election guys? That was so disappointing. Anyone think Scotland's going to mount a series attempt at a second referendum?

I can't see them going all Catalan, but at the moment they certainly have the moral high ground. The main argument for staying in the British union was the Britains EU membership. The millisecond Britain gets a non-tory government(which is almost certainly have to be supported by the SNP) there will be a referendum.

And thinking about it, that will benefit the Tories since Scotland often votes to the left.
 
Oh my gosh what happened in the election guys? That was so disappointing. Anyone think Scotland's going to mount a series attempt at a second referendum?

Hereby imo a cold shower for that:

* Scotland cannot force a referendum for independence on its own: it needs Westminster to approve.
* if we should have learned anything from that 52%-48% Brexit vote is that for such colossal decisions you need a bigger qualified majority than 50% to have the confidence that it is really a lasting, a sustainable choice.
* the negative economical GDP per Capita implications of Scotland going independent are much smaller when both England+ and Scotland would still be member of the EU for frictionless trade at similar standards. Scotland missed the boat in 2014 while in the EU.
* the Scotland share of the Westminster national debt will have to be established. That will be ugly for Scotland unless England+ has benefits from Scotland separating. Scotland has I think not a culture to take a lighthearted approach on money and risks.

The only thing I think Scottish separatists can do is keep on nurturing the dream and prepare-transform the Scottish economy for it.

When the SNP stays strong, there will be elections the coming years-decades where both the Tories as Labour are forced to be a minority government, despite the FPTP system.
Those are the moments where the SNP can choose between leveraging that position for more devolution (when not prepped enough) or for a referendum (whenready to launch).
And the Tories-Labour can ofc counter by holding new elections.
 
The only thing I think Scottish separatists can do is keep on nurturing the dream and prepare-transform the Scottish economy for it.

I think a Boris Johnson government was exactly what Nicola Sturgeon secretly hoped for all along. With Johnson in command, she can prepare for a referendum the next five years. The latest independence polls are still only 50/50. Better to wait a few years and up the number to 55/45 and more.
 
I think a Boris Johnson government was exactly what Nicola Sturgeon secretly hoped for all along. With Johnson in command, she can prepare for a referendum the next five years. The latest independence polls are still only 50/50. Better to wait a few years and up the number to 55/45 and more.

Yes
an opportunity indeed.
Scottish independence was for sure the only priority of Sturgeon in this whole Brexit affair.
But I would really go for a 60% majority in a referendum. Separating Scotland from England+ will have imo (as % of GDP) a bigger economical damage the first 5-10 years than Brexit for the UK. You will need a solid support of the Scottish people.

What I think will help Sturgeon the coming years is when the Bojo-ERG-Britannia Unchained changes to the degree of inequality in the UK are going to bite.

The tricky thing with more devolution is that Westminster is using it since many years to pump down cost cutting to lower government level, the city councils.
 
* if we should have learned anything from that 52%-48% Brexit vote is that for such colossal decisions you need a bigger qualified majority than 50% to have the confidence that it is really a lasting, a sustainable choice.
I recognise all the points you're making in general, but just as a nitpick I really feel it's important to the that Brexit is still happening anyway. It being a close vote hasn't stopped it. Effective arguments against it, poor negotiating, and a complete inability to make a good plan out of it (spoilers for the Leave crowd: because there isn't one) have made it go on for as long as it has.

Even if another Scottish referendum is close, it's a far less controversial thing for people in Scotland to get behind. And more than that, with Brexit, nobody can logically oppose it from Westminster having just spent the better part of half a decade campaigning on the 52 / 48 split.
 
I recognise all the points you're making in general, but just as a nitpick I really feel it's important to the that Brexit is still happening anyway. It being a close vote hasn't stopped it. Effective arguments against it, poor negotiating, and a complete inability to make a good plan out of it (spoilers for the Leave crowd: because there isn't one) have made it go on for as long as it has.

When you talk about a massive change of the status quo, when there is no urgency to take a decision, it is in general bad practice to take a decision when it is a close call. In such cases you postpone.
That's elementary common sense.

It still happened as you say.
And the feeble majority has caused a lot of avoidable damage already the past 3.5 years. In money and trust.
And more uncertainty and damage to come:

Even now it is unclear what kind of Brexit it will become. And all kind of factions will battle civil wars on it, meaning no clear future scenario for people and companies what to do, keeping even longer all option open. With Trump as unguided missile interfering for his own November election interests only.

There are 3-4 more deadlines to come:
* the easy one on Jan 31 after the Parliament agreeing to the divorce deal.
* the other easy one (at launching it) in March: the financial budget for the year April 2019-2020
* then in June the first real deadline on Brexit: will the UK decide to extend the transition period (of still being in the EU rules on trade) beyond January 2020 or not.
) If not: the EU will aim for a bare bone WTO with perhaps some minimal FTA elements such as fisheries and airline space. And this negotiation could still end up in a no-deal Brexit in Jan 2020.
) if yes: the UK will have to commit in June already to basic general commitments to get that extension of the transition period until 2022. The EU is otherwise not going to give an extension anymore.
* if June decides for an extension, and the UK stays even longer in the trade rules of the EU, 6.5 years in total after the referendum, it could still end up in a no-deal hard Brexit.


Even if another Scottish referendum is close, it's a far less controversial thing for people in Scotland to get behind.
Yes
I guess the same
But the damage being relatively much bigger in Scotland (trade to England+ much higher as % of Scottish GDP), there is also more need for a lower risk profile.

And more than that, with Brexit, nobody can logically oppose it from Westminster
Power is brutally simple.
Has its own logic.
 
Well that may be your interpretation, but when the UK's Home Office tried to follow
through with deportations on much that same basis, it was overruled by the courts.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...olicy-deport-eu-rough-sleepers-ruled-unlawful

But perhaps Norway has more patriotic judges!
Perhaps you did not read the article:

The Home Office launched Operations Adoze and Gopik to remove rough sleepers from the UK even if they were working or had permanent right of residence.

A Nelma spokesman said: “In reality, many homeless people targeted by the Home Office have fallen on hard times and are working but unable to afford accommodation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom