Current Politics in the United Kingdom

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

According to migration watch, the foreign-born population of the UK divided in 2015 into about 5.4M non-EU born citizens and 3.2M EU-born.

This includes, one would assume , people who've been living here for years - from the sub Continent or the West Indies.

How about current annual arrivals? Are they mostly from the EU or the non EU?

I've got no idea but observation of my local area tells me it's the former.

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by Charlie Black

, in fact the majority of migrants come from outside the EU anyway.

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

How about current annual arrivals? Are they mostly from the EU or the non EU?

Seeing ambiguity here. EU-Born and From-EU not same thing. From America, I have thought the big point was EU deprives you of control since you must take in anyone from any EU country -- whether EU born or not. Is this about ethnicity/ culture, or, it doesn't matter because of sheer numbers? What does it matter if you have been allowing same on your own?

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by otokonomidori

This includes, one would assume , people who've been living here for years - from the sub Continent or the West Indies.

How about current annual arrivals? Are they mostly from the EU or the non EU?

I've got no idea but observation of my local area tells me it's the former.

Well, there are strong regional variations. The overall figures for EU/non-EU for a one-year period for the whole of the UK are nearly identical, slightly more non-EU but very little difference.

[beutelwolf]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

Seeing ambiguity here. EU-Born and From-EU not same thing. From America, I have thought the big point was EU deprives you of control since you must take in anyone from any EU country -- whether EU born or not.

EU-born or not is there not the issue, it's just that that's the way Migration Watch distinguishes foreigners, and that probably goes back to British population censi.

Regarding free movement within EU, the EU-born thing does not actually matter, what matters is your passport. If you are an Algerian-born French citizen you can move freely, if you are a French-born Algerian citizen you cannot.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by beutelwolf

EU-born or not is there not the issue, it's just that that's the way Migration Watch distinguishes foreigners, and that probably goes back to British population censi.

Regarding free movement within EU, the EU-born thing does not actually matter, what matters is your passport. If you are an Algerian-born French citizen you can move freely, if you are a French-born Algerian citizen you cannot.

There are a variety of complications in this. For example, if you are from a non-EU country but enter Britain legally from an EU country, you have an automatic right to be in Britain for three months, regardless of your country of origin/citizenship. It is true that refugees do not have the legal right to freedom of movement in the EU and that they must wait until they are officially long term residents or even citizens in order to have this legal right. But in practical terms there is nothing to prevent them circulating, albeit that they would struggle to settle or live anywhere except in the country which grants them asylum. It is difficult to say some people have freedom of movement but others do not and in reality many people who should not have the freedom of movement are exercising this freedom routinely. That is a security issue.

Also, if it is true that approximately 13% of Britain's population is not originally from Britain, then the need for the British state to control immigration is absolutely clear. The EU does not recognise that there is amy such legitimate need. Two months after Britain voted to leave the EU, Mr Junckers was expressing this remarkable analysis:

Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.

At the time of the EU vote, Britain was being sued in the European Court of Justice by the European Commission for refusing to pay social security benefits and provide social housing to citizens of other EU countries who have no ties here and who had only just alighted from the coach at Victoria Coach Station. One of the key conditions stated by Mrs May in her recent speech is that Britain must no longer submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. In a Europe headed by a man who thinks borders are a bad thing and who is very litigious, this step is going to be necessary.

There comes a point when too many new people arrive too quickly and can refuse to adapt to and assimilate with the culture and identity of the British people. I assess that we have already exceeded that point and that the damage already done will take half a century at least to repair. But eventually it will be repaired and eventually the new people and the existing people will come together and we will be one people of many races and many roots, as in fact we have always been. But that wont happen if we cannot control our immigration rules and cannot maintain sustainable levels of population movement. It has become crystal clear that the EU is inimical to any such notion of nationhood. I predict that other countries in the EU will make the same discovery and that Britain will not be the last country to depart.

It is all rather sad. I liked a lot about the EU and about being an EU citizen. I wish I could spend more time in Europe and explore it on my motorcycle, but my personal circumstances do not allow me this joy and will not for a long time yet. My problem is with how the EU is being run, not with Europe. I cannot agree with the vision of people who think borders are a bad thing or that it is acceptable for everyone in the EU who wants to come to Britain to just up-sticks and come here unannounced. Sorry.

[Blue126]

At the end of the day statistics are just bull shit, they can be bent any way you want...but ask the right women or man.

People live in the real world, are we going to get the same pension of our elected MP's ?

Why not, we have put in more service than these jumped up arse....holes and we have served our country too.

Media and the rich are trying to dictate to us, but we are living in the real world, they do not.

NHS, we work, the people that is 12 hr days, doctors retire at 50...fs

[otokonomidori]

Originally Posted by Blue126

NHS, we work, the people that is 12 hr days, doctors retire at 50...fs

Doctors don't retire at 50 - not in the UK anyway.

[rosestone]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I wish to be governed by people whom I can hire and fire at the ballot box

As a remainer/remoaner, this is the point on which I hope we can all get behind. This is far more important than any of the ideological bumfluffery. The democratic ability of a people to remove those who legislate on their behalf is what the 'good men' on any side should never become complacent about.

I am interested in the discussion about 'echo chambers' too, I read a mathematician/philosopher recently, and he made an interesting point that was slightly obscure to me but I got the gist, he argued that the pursuit of truth in something like politics or economics might not really seem like a pursuit of truth at all if you analyse it, so much as it might appear to be someone seeking to fit facts around conclusions they have already formed. I know I do this, but I'm an idiot, so not really a surprise.

[Devius]

A powerful cross-party group of MPs is plotting to thwart Theresa May’s attempts to drive through a hard Brexit amid rising fears that UK businesses could soon have to pay huge export tariffs on goods they sell to the EU.

The Labour, Lib Dem, Green and some pro-EU Tory MPs say May has no mandate for the “extreme Brexit” options speech she made last Tuesday – including the adoption of World Trade Organisation (WTO) tariffs if the UK cannot strike a free-trade deal with the EU within two years. They are now co-operating to try to prevent this.

Details:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...extreme-brexit

Text of letter sent by Labour MPs to Theresa May

Dear Prime Minister,

On Tuesday, you announced your intention to pull Britain out of the single market and to seek a free-trade agreement with the European Union instead. Other nations like Norway and Iceland are not in the EU yet opted to be part of the single market because of the huge benefits it brings. But before negotiations have even begun, you have discarded our membership of the largest and most sophisticated trading zone in the world. You start a negotiation by aiming for the best deal you can possibly get; not by throwing in the towel and waving the white flag as you have done.

Even more worrying, you said Britain could leave the EU without any form of future trading arrangement being agreed. This is a threat that places Britain’s prosperity below matters of internal Tory party management. Managing expectations ahead of the start of talks may be smart internal party politics, but it could sail the UK economy on to the rocks.

Leaving without a deal would immediately impose tariffs on exports from the UK to the EU, as we would move on to World Trade Organisation tariff schedules. These would include 10% on cars, 12% on many items of clothing, and 40% on lamb.

British manufacturers and farmers would face being priced out of their most important market, which buys 44% of all our exports. Businesses large and small in our constituencies would suffer, jobs would be lost and prices in the shops would rise.

You say that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain” as if you will bear no responsibility for such an outcome. You may try to scapegoat the EU or the civil service, but you are the prime minister. Those of your ministers who campaigned to leave promised that Britain would achieve a free-trade agreement post-Brexit, and you have signed up to their agenda. If the negotiation goes wrong and all we can get is a “bad deal” with the European Union, you and your cabinet will be responsible.

Your threat to our European partners – to leave “the mainstream of European economic and social thinking” in order to “regain competitiveness” – is both diplomatic nonsense and a real danger to the living standards of working people.

It is a nonsense because the United Kingdom would have much more to lose from a trade war than the European Union. They buy 44% of our exports, while we buy just 7% of theirs. In a negotiation, the smaller partner gets what it wants through subtlety and goodwill – not bluster and hollow threats.

It is a danger to working people because we all know what Tory politicians mean by “regaining competitiveness”: tax cuts for the rich, paid for by slashing public services, and a bonfire of employment rights and environmental protections. Your words about a Britain that “protects and enhances” workers’ rights are just that – words. You have yet to guarantee all the employment rights delivered by our EU membership will be maintained.

Members of your cabinet have already made clear your party’s desired direction of travel: Liam Fox has called the laws that protect our rights at work “intellectually unsustainable”, and Priti Patel said employment regulations should be halved.

So, the approach to Brexit outlined in your speech is clear: it is one of self-harm, not statesmanship. Devastating our trade by leaving without a deal, and then making Britain the sweatshop of Europe, would be a disaster for our country. Working people, including millions who voted to leave the EU, would pay the price. Your government has a mandate to take us out of the EU, but you have no mandate to do this.

Yours sincerely,

Chuka Umunna, chair of Vote Leave Watch; Heidi Alexander; Rushanara Ali; Adrian Bailey; Luciana Berger; Ben Bradshaw; Neil Coyle; Stella Creasy; Geraint Davies; Julie Elliott; Lilian Greenwood; Harriet Harman; Liz Kendall; Peter Kyle; Chris Leslie; Seema Malhotra; Chris Matheson; Kerry McCarthy; Pat McFadden; Alison McGovern; Jess Phillips; Naz Shah; Gavin Shuker; Daniel Zeichner

[scoundrel]

At a glance I can see that most of these signatories are Labour MPs representing London constituencies. One of them is my MP. But about 70% of the Labour MPs sit for constituencies which voted Leave; for that matter, the proportion of Tory MPs representing Leave constituencies is over 75%. Even in Batley and Spen, where the sitting MP was very well liked and was murdered in the most shameful way, 55% of the voters voted Leave - and that was after the shock of this miserable crime.

My point is that if there is a vote to prevent the adoption of an exit strategy which these MPs choose to reject, that will trigger a general election. In such a case as this, at least 120 Labour MPs will be facing an electorate whose will they have openly defied. The days are gone when people in the North had no alternative but to vote Labour. I predict that this would be a variation of Khakhi election and that the weight of the vote would fall against those MPs who had blocked the "hard Brexit". I wonder whether this letter will gather open support from MPs whose constituencies voted to leave, or whether these MPs will avoid the challenge and try to keep their seats by conforming with the clearly expressed majority views of the people whom they were elected to serve. No political system is perfect but this is an example of where First Past The Post and local constituencies work in favour of proper representative government.

If I were Mrs May, I would completely ignore this letter, not even offer the courtesy of a verbal comment; but I would indicate that when the agreement is voted on, the outcome will also be referred to the people in a general election, regardless of who prevails in the parliamentary vote.