What's in the news?

[Foxxed]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/15/mps-warn-brexit-deadlock-sucking-life-out-of-government

 

This is increasingly true.

 

"While the six have very different views on Brexit they agree that the government is letting people down with its near-total preoccupation with the issue at a time of crisis in the NHS and social care, rising knife crime, failing public transport, chronic homelessness and environmental challenges”

[Foxxed]

On 14/12/2018 at 14:19, MattP said:

Of course it was Britain's decision to leave, but it does amaze me how some remainers are prepared to apportion no blame at all to the European Union for anything it does.

 

They have cocked up almost every single problem that it has had to deal with over the last few years, the debt problems in Italy, the troikas bullying of Greece, the migration crisis, the recalcitrance of the Eastern bloc to it's refugee policy, it's attitude towards NATO and the situation in Ukraine. 

 

On top of that the whole thing is led by a drunk who stumbles around in public and can't even turn up to a press conference with the same coloured shoes on, I can't imagine the reaction to this if it was Donald Trump - https://www.thesun.ie/video/news/jean-claude-juncker-appears-to-be-wearing-different-coloured-shoes-at-press-conference/

A temporary break on migration would probably have been enough to win the referendum and they couldn't even offer that to it's second biggest net contributor. If any country lose a part of it the leaders would resign (certainly if we lost Scotland) and this Union loses a member and if anything the leaders become even more emboldened, it's extremely strange,

The EU was set up in response to the second world war. And war where divisions between countries ended up in bloodshed and the attempted annilation of a race. The open movement of people was one of the EU's founding principles in response to this. The stupidity of the UK government was to assume the EU would "pause" one of its founding principles. And its own stupidity for not properly enforcing the EU rule that anyone who couldn't fund themselves, and would rely on the social system, could be deported under EU law. Every other EU country enforced this rule. We did not. The idea the EU would allow us to prevent EU nationals coming here when they had jobs and could support themselves was madness.

[Jon the Hat]

Tony Blair really can **** right the **** off!

[davieG]

21 hours ago, Foxxed said:

The EU was set up in response to the second world war. And war where divisions between countries ended up in bloodshed and the attempted annilation of a race. The open movement of people was one of the EU's founding principles in response to this. The stupidity of the UK government was to assume the EU would "pause" one of its founding principles. And its own stupidity for not properly enforcing the EU rule that anyone who couldn't fund themselves, and would rely on the social system, could be deported under EU law. Every other EU country enforced this rule. We did not. The idea the EU would allow us to prevent EU nationals coming here when they had jobs and could support themselves was madness.

Well if it was why was it just a trading union as in the Common Market, there was nothing remotely political about it well at least not upfront to the public but then we all know political parties and politicians have hidden agendas.

[FilbertFrog]

Local story 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6501779/German-hate-preacher-living-UK-five-years.html

[Foxxed]

58 minutes ago, davieG said:

Well if it was why was it just a trading union as in the Common Market, there was nothing remotely political about it well at least not upfront to the public but then we all know political parties and politicians have hidden agendas.

The first thing wasn't the common market. It was the European Coal and Steel system.

 

This was put in place so, at the time, no country could get the raw materials for a new war without the others realising.

 

It then moved on from there to the common market to various health and safety regulations required for the common market to things like EU wide health insurance to football TV rights, to free movement of people, etc, some which were foundational to the project some that were not.

 

You can read the build up and why Churchill wanted it here: http://theconversation.com/what-churchill-really-thought-about-britains-place-in-europe-36613

 

You can make the argument that we should be in some parts and we shouldn't be in others. It was Blair that took us into the Justice and Home Affairs part, something we weren't in before. But I was replying to the part about free movement of people, a fundamental aspect of the EU. 

 

The reason we didn't get concessions was because we were asking for the EU to allow us to close our borders to EU citizens who had jobs here or could support themselves with their own cash. (unemployed people who couldn't support themselves could already be ejected in EU law). EU is hardly perfect. But our approach in the pre brexit negotiations about immigration were naive at best.

[Foxxed]

UK business moving jobs to Germany because of tariffs in suspected no deal. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/16/brexit-is-a-business-bankrupter-small-firms-brace-for-no-deal

[yorkie1999]

45 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

UK business moving jobs to Germany because of tariffs in suspected no deal. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/16/brexit-is-a-business-bankrupter-small-firms-brace-for-no-deal

Well I ain’t buying anything from freestyle extreme again. Fvckin rats deserting a sinking ship.

[Salisbury Fox]

23 hours ago, Foxxed said:

The open movement of people was one of the EU's founding principles in response to this. The stupidity of the UK government was to assume the EU would "pause" one of its founding principles. And its own stupidity for not properly enforcing the EU rule that anyone who couldn't fund themselves, and would rely on the social system, could be deported under EU law. Every other EU country enforced this rule. We did not.

I can only imagine that the costs involved in removing so many people would prove prohibitive. Whilst it is easy to say that the Government should have done more (and they should have), the numbers involved coupled with the inherent distrust of any Identity scheme would make it very difficult.

 

Personally I have no problem with the free movement of labour, but the free movement of people is fundamentally flawed as the systems are not in place to enforce it.

[Charl91]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Well I ain’t buying anything from freestyle extreme again. Fvckin rats deserting a sinking ship.

How is it a sinking ship? I thought Brexit was going to be a great opportunity where we make loads of money? 

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

UK business moving jobs to Germany because of tariffs in suspected no deal. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/16/brexit-is-a-business-bankrupter-small-firms-brace-for-no-deal

So this guy has been able to manage the risks of Brexit perfectly well? Although likely tariffs are less than the boost from the drop in the pound since 2016, I’m not sure he is being entirely truthful about his reasons.

[Guest MattP]

Can anyone explain to me what Jeremy Corbyn is actually doing?

 

A timeline of yesterday.

 

14.50 Labour announces plan to table confidence vote

 

15.31 PM announces Brexit vote date

 

15.45 Labour abandons plans

 

17.54 Corbyn says vote is ON

 

20.08 Govt sources say vote is ON

 

20.57 Govt says vote is OFF

 

How is he passing this off as being in the national interest? 

[Alf Bentley]

Some stunning facts re. which parts of the UK asylum seekers are sent to (Newsnight last night):

- Many more asylum seekers are sent to Stoke, and even to Oldham, than are sent to the whole of SE England outside London

- Precisely zero asylum seekers have been sent to Theresa May's constituency

 

So, Oldham, an economically struggling town with difficult race relations and fewer than 100k people, takes more asylum seekers than the wealthiest part of the UK - a region with 9 million people.

The same applies to the SW and East Anglia. The vast majority of asylum seekers are sent to struggling towns/cities in the North/Midlands, many of which have race relations problems.

 

Tbf, it seems the problem isn't Tory councils in the shires refusing to take asylum seekers - many have agreed to do so.

 

The problem is that the national govt outsourced the contract for placing asylum seekers - and awarded it to a firm that offered bargain basement costs, based on sending all the asylum seekers to the places where housing was cheapest - often housing provided by known slum landlords with whom the local councils refuse to work.... I wonder how much profit the main contractor and the slum landlords are making out of damaging lives and causing social & racial disharmony?

[Foxxed]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/dec/17/uk-aerospace-firms-apply-for-eu-regulation-ahead-of-no-deal-brexit

 

UK aerospace is actually applying to fall under EU regulation. Otherwise a no deal will damage their exports.

 

It's a mini post-brexit UK. Confirm to EU regulations but have no say in them.

[Foxxed]

May is spending £2 billion on no-deal plans.

 

Are British business going to get any of that to offset no-deal problems? Or is it only government departments?

[yorkie1999]

We're going to be better of out it soon. Already the seeds of civil unrest are emerging throughout European countries. 

[Facecloth]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46597364

 

Well that's novel way of sentencing someone.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

We're going to be better of out it soon. Already the seeds of civil unrest are emerging throughout European countries. 

If that's true (and it might be), the fallout will affect everyone, the UK included, whether we're in there or not tbh.

[MC Prussian]

On 15/12/2018 at 23:32, Foxxed said:

The EU was set up in response to the second world war. And war where divisions between countries ended up in bloodshed and the attempted annilation of a race. The open movement of people was one of the EU's founding principles in response to this. The stupidity of the UK government was to assume the EU would "pause" one of its founding principles. And its own stupidity for not properly enforcing the EU rule that anyone who couldn't fund themselves, and would rely on the social system, could be deported under EU law. Every other EU country enforced this rule. We did not. The idea the EU would allow us to prevent EU nationals coming here when they had jobs and could support themselves was madness.

In the beginning, the idea of a European Union was a response to World War II. Correct. At its core was establishing a trade union (coal) and a peaceful future between France and Germany (plus the Benelux countries) more than anything, and never a monetary union (a promise broken with the introduction of the Euro).

I'm not a big fan of the EU as it is right now. I think it's led to a behemoth of an apparatus, Central Committee-like in its demands and behaviour to the outside.

It's a construct everyone, not just EU citizens, should be aware of and observe with a healthy dose of scepticism.

 

One should ask oneself the question: How much European Union does one really need?

 

When you say "every other EU country enforced this rule", do you do this under the assumption that each and every country has done so voluntarily?

 

A trade union is something everyone can agree upon. The initial idea of a European Union was based on the horrors of WWII and the intention to secure the future for the generations to come, so that history won't repeat itself. These are honorable intentions. As for the monetary and political aspect, well... They're a product of the 80ies and 90ies (capitalism at its finest) and that's where division and the debate starts to kick in (and I think, rightly so).

 

What I don't understand, but that's something for the UK parliament and government connaisseurs, is this bashing of your own country's leaders, as if they were too stupid or idiotic in the grand scheme of things and everything that Brussels does or Juncker says gospel that does need no further examination or deserves no criticism whatsoever.

Edited 18 December 2018 by MC Prussian

[SouthStandUpperTier]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Some stunning facts re. which parts of the UK asylum seekers are sent to (Newsnight last night):

- Many more asylum seekers are sent to Stoke, and even to Oldham, than are sent to the whole of SE England outside London

- Precisely zero asylum seekers have been sent to Theresa May's constituency

 

So, Oldham, an economically struggling town with difficult race relations and fewer than 100k people, takes more asylum seekers than the wealthiest part of the UK - a region with 9 million people.

The same applies to the SW and East Anglia. The vast majority of asylum seekers are sent to struggling towns/cities in the North/Midlands, many of which have race relations problems.

 

Tbf, it seems the problem isn't Tory councils in the shires refusing to take asylum seekers - many have agreed to do so.

 

The problem is that the national govt outsourced the contract for placing asylum seekers - and awarded it to a firm that offered bargain basement costs, based on sending all the asylum seekers to the places where housing was cheapest - often housing provided by known slum landlords with whom the local councils refuse to work.... I wonder how much profit the main contractor and the slum landlords are making out of damaging lives and causing social & racial disharmony?

Maybe the theory is to place them where there is already an established community with the same (or similar) cultural and religious affiliation.

 

Maybe we're doing them a disservice. Perhaps they'd settle in better if they were to spend their time nattering away with Mavis and Doreen down at the local Bridge club.

Edited 18 December 2018 by SouthStandUpperTier

[Countryfox]

 

Article in the paper saying that schools should teach children that boys can have periods as well ....

 

Do they tie the sanitary towel round the end of their kn0b ?? ....    or even worse !!!!!!!      

[Facecloth]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Some stunning facts re. which parts of the UK asylum seekers are sent to (Newsnight last night):

- Many more asylum seekers are sent to Stoke, and even to Oldham, than are sent to the whole of SE England outside London

- Precisely zero asylum seekers have been sent to Theresa May's constituency

 

So, Oldham, an economically struggling town with difficult race relations and fewer than 100k people, takes more asylum seekers than the wealthiest part of the UK - a region with 9 million people.

The same applies to the SW and East Anglia. The vast majority of asylum seekers are sent to struggling towns/cities in the North/Midlands, many of which have race relations problems.

 

Tbf, it seems the problem isn't Tory councils in the shires refusing to take asylum seekers - many have agreed to do so.

 

The problem is that the national govt outsourced the contract for placing asylum seekers - and awarded it to a firm that offered bargain basement costs, based on sending all the asylum seekers to the places where housing was cheapest - often housing provided by known slum landlords with whom the local councils refuse to work.... I wonder how much profit the main contractor and the slum landlords are making out of damaging lives and causing social & racial disharmony?

Maybe by we're sending them to towns like Oldham to try and convince them that Syria isn't really that bad 

[ealingfox]

Is Soubry alright? Demanding changes of policy from a party she opposes, that cant enact her demands, and that she wouldn't support either way?

 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Just now, ealingfox said:

Is Soubry alright? Demanding changes of policy from a party she opposes, that cant enact her demands, and that she wouldn't support either way?

There are about ten people around Westminster who seem to have literally gone insane because of the EU vote, AC Grayling and Lord Adonis still lead the way but Anna Soubry is one of them just in behind.

Either that or she's ready to defect to the Lib Dems and just trying to cause problems until she goes.

[Alf Bentley]

28 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Maybe the theory is to place them were there is already an established community with the same (or similar) cultural and religious affiliation.

 

Maybe we're doing them a disservice. Perhaps they'd settle in better if they were to spend their time nattering away with Mavis and Doreen down at the local Bridge club.

 

Nice theory - and placement in areas that are already successfully multicultural would be a decent idea in some cases. But it was clear that was NOT what was happening.

 

The factors driving placements were clearly cost and profit: minimising cost for govt regardless of the social cost to troubled communities and maximising profit for the contractor.

There are reasonably prosperous multicultural towns in the SE (Milton Keynes, Bedford, Slough). Presumably asylum seekers aren't sent there due to housing costs. Instead, they're sent to places with cheap housing, even if they have a recent history of racial tension, poverty and Far Right politics.

 

Going too far down that road of "placing people with their own kind" makes me uneasy, anyway. Avoiding provoking social conflict through mass influxes is one thing, but we don't need to operate racial segregation either. Why shouldn't Mavis and Doreen get on OK with foreigners? The suggestion in the programme was that this wasn't Nimbyism by Mavis and Doreen, just short-sighted penny-pinching by govt & contractor, neither of whom gave a shit about the local communities concerned - or the asylum seekers.