What do you think of BREXIT?

[Campbell Ritchie]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . it is the poor that most need to send money back home. . . .

That is an unjustified over-generalisation. That is one scenario where somebody might need to send money “home”. I can see all sorts of other scenarios where the “poor” might want to keep money here, or spend it all here. Also where the “rich” might want to send the money away.

. . . loyalty to this country . . .

If you are not going to show loyalty to a country, or insist on calling another country “home”, then you are a temporary visitor who should not look for any entitlement to long‑term loyalty from that country. There are all sorts of good reasons for being such a short‑term visitor, including tourism, short journeys for trade, short journeys for training or meetings. But none of those would count as immigration.

[Winston Gutkowski]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:But I am not interested in a policy that discriminates against the poor.

Then change the world; but don't expect immigration policy to be anything less than what it is: A policy of discrimination, and specifically against the poor (although I'm quite sure it's guilty on many other counts as well).

What I am interested in is limiting the number of migrants that enter the UK each year, because I believe that if too many migrants come, it ends up causing problems. So, I want a quota allocated, and to stop Eastern Europeans taking up the whole of this quota there should be a further quota on them. Should we find that not enough people came from other countries, I'd be more than happy to allocate those places to Eastern Europeans.

I hate to say, but you seem to have more problems with Eastern Europeans than you do with your "hypothetical friend from India" - perhaps because, by dint of being in the EU, they don't have the same immigration barriers. And if that's the only thing that this referendum is about to you, then you should absolutely vote for BREXIT.

What you are calling for will effectively create a two-tier system, where the poor will be discriminated against, because it is the poor that most need to send money back home.

Why should it? I'm not suggesting making it retroactive. And the simple fact is that, in most countries, immigration policy already IS two- or even multi-tiered - it's the nature of discrimination. Membership of the EU alone creates a two-tiered system, since migrants from EU countries are treated differently to those from outside.

He wants to come to the UK, because there is a lot of competition in India for jobs, and the salary he will earn there will never be enough to take his family out of poverty...

So is that why we should allow people in: to alleviate poverty on a global scale? That sounds like socio-political re-engineering to me....

India already has a billion people, and is on a fast track to becoming the world's most powerful economy (the forecasts I've seen on Wikipedia is that it's due to overtake China in around 2050, but I'm sure there are others); and based on its population history, the percentage that have actually come to the UK is tiny and probably disproportionate - both in terms of income and origin.

Now I know migrants sending back money might not be great for our economy, but we do not live in an ideal world, and if I have to pay a bit more in tax and have to wait a bit longer at the doctor's surgery because of this, so be it, at least some poor person from some poor country would be better off.

Laudable sentiments, but no way to run a country - particularly one in which those very services you're waiting for were designed (and planned and budgeted and taxed) for YOU.

What exactly do you mean by loyalty to this country? I don't consider myself having loyalty to my country by any definition I can think of, I live my life by my principles, and I care a lot about social justice and helping others, but I don't have any special loyalty to the UK.

You haven't actually stated what "your country" is. I have (possibly) a similar problem to you: born in Canada, grew up (and educated) in England, went back to the US (2 years) and then Canada (≈20 years), before coming back to the UK, followed by 11 years in Belgium. Loyalty? I dunno, probably some loyalty to ALL those countries, all of which I thank for providing me with income and culture. And if BREXIT succeeds, I may well become a resident of another one - Scotland - by default.

Belgium, however, is the only one that will be in my will, because it's the only one that I feel I wasn't a "net contributor" to - and as a Northern Protestant that bothers me.

Winston

[Stevens Miller]

Polls had been showing "leave" ahead until recently. Now, "stay" is ahead by an almost meaningless margin. Such a potentially momentous decision, yet how often do we see this phenomenon, where an entire nation is virtually split down the middle? I wonder why that is. You'd think one or another argument would have the bulk of the people saying something like, "Oh, well, in that case..." But, no, it's 50/50, as it so often is.

IMF says "leave" will cost between 1.5% to 4.5% of the UK's GDP, while its contribution to the EU is about 1%. They say "stay."

Stephen Hawking and 150 of his scientist friends are fearful of the loss of access to research assets that they rely on. They also say "stay."

In my travels, I have learned that a reliable indicator of a thing I would support is the political identity of its opponents. On that, I'd say "stay" too, if I had a vote.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . it is the poor that most need to send money back home. . . .

That is an unjustified over-generalisation.

You are absolutely correct, of course it goes without saying that you cannot make such generalisations for anything. What I meant to say was it is the poor that are most likely to need to send money back home.

Campbell Ritchie wrote:
If you are not going to show loyalty to a country, or insist on calling another country “home”, then you are a temporary visitor who should not look for any entitlement to long‑term loyalty from that country. There are all sorts of good reasons for being such a short‑term visitor, including tourism, short journeys for trade, short journeys for training or meetings. But none of those would count as immigration.

How about an immigrant who is here in the UK to work for 10 years only for the purpose of sending money back home - are you saying he shouldn't get the same rights as British people? I believe that other than getting the rights that come with holding a British passport (such as voting in elections), and other than being given priority on social housing just because he has a larger family, immigrants should get all other rights.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Winston Gutkowski wrote:
I hate to say, but you seem to have more problems with Eastern Europeans than you do with your "hypothetical friend from India" - perhaps because, by dint of being in the EU, they don't have the same immigration barriers. And if that's the only thing that this referendum is about to you, then you should absolutely vote for BREXIT.

Not at all. This topic is about Brexit, and therefore I will naturally focus on immigration from Eastern Europe. I have written before how we have had too much immigration from places like India and Pakistan too, which has resulted in areas of Britain that were >90% white British in the 60s now being 5%<

Winston Gutkowski wrote:
You haven't actually stated what "your country" is. I have (possibly) a similar problem to you: born in Canada, grew up (and educated) in England, went back to the US (2 years) and then Canada (≈20 years), before coming back to the UK, followed by 11 years in Belgium. Loyalty? I dunno, probably some loyalty to ALL those countries, all of which I thank for providing me with income and culture. And if BREXIT succeeds, I may well become a resident of another one - Scotland - by default.

I was born and raised in London to parents who were immigrants. I have no loyalty to the UK or any other country for that matter, I only have loyalty to my principles. If there was an economic policy that would benefit British citizens at the expense of the poor in some other country, I would not support it. I believe The Falklands should have joint ownership, that probably makes me a traitor to this nation to many people, but I'm not bothered.

Lots of people will tell me I am ungrateful. They will tell me that the UK let my family come here, gave me free education, access to healthcare, and it is true, the UK did give me all that, and I am very grateful for that. They will however ignore that the UK didn't let my parents in because they were feeling charitable, they let my parents in because the country needed cheap labour from abroad. They will conveniently choose to ignore the contributions my family made to the UK.

And unfortunately this kind of behaviour isn't just limited to the right - I have been told by (so-called) 'liberals' that the reason I am not loyal to the UK is because Muslims are different to other people and they don't integrate. I even had a colleague at my previous employer say that blacks, Jews, Indians, Irish, Poles - each of these groups have tried to integrate but Muslims are the only ones who like to live in their own communities - it was a bit awkward when I pointed out to him that 20% of British Jews are Haredi and are much less likely to integrate than most Muslims (not that I think there is anything wrong with Haredi Jews having their own communities).

[Winston Gutkowski]

Stevens Miller wrote:Polls had been showing "leave" ahead until recently. Now, "stay" is ahead by an almost meaningless margin.

You must have heard more recent ones than me, because I've been preparing for my next campaign...

Such a potentially momentous decision, yet how often do we see this phenomenon, where an entire nation is virtually split down the middle?

Unfortunately, my analysis is that the only reason we had this referendum in the first place is that the Consevative party (our ruling party based on 38% of the vote, due to our wonderful electoral system) is split down the middle on it - a split that won't be mended by a 52-48 vote in either direction.

About the only things that seem clear so far:
1. Scotland will vote substantially to "stay" (latest polls I've seen are 55-30 with 15% don't know).
2. Northern Ireland may well vote "stay" even more substantially than Scotland.
3. Wales seems pretty evenly divided.
but if the vote south of the border is even 52-48 against it could swamp any majorities up here; so it'll be "can't-make-our-mind-up" England that probably decides the fate of all four nations of the UK, two of whom have made their minds up. And my suspicion is that if "leave" win, and Scotland votes as expected, a second vote on Scottish independence won't be too far behind. The SNP already have the support of the Greens in the Scottish legislature, which gives them a working majority if there's any major vote on the subject up here; and I sincerely hope that my party (the Liberals) follow suit.

IMO, being in Europe is far more important to Scotland than being in the UK - and without Scotland, the UK will de facto cease to exist.

And what about a narrow victory for the "stay"s - especially one carried on the back of large majorities outside England? Think the 'Farageistes' will stand for that? Not likely. While the rest of us are heaving a collective sigh of relief, expect 50 of 'em in the next (probably "hung") parliament.

Winston

[Stevens Miller]

Winston Gutkowski wrote:

Stevens Miller wrote:Polls had been showing "leave" ahead until recently. Now, "stay" is ahead by an almost meaningless margin.

You must have heard more recent ones than me, because I've been preparing for my next campaign...

Here:

USA Today wrote:LONDON — Two new polls suggest that support has swung back toward remaining in the European Union, as campaigning resumed Sunday after last week's slaying of British lawmaker Jo Cox.

A poll conducted Friday and Saturday by market research firm Survation for the Mail on Sunday said 45% of the respondents wanted to stay in the 28-member EU, and 42% wanted to leave.

A survey by YouGov for the Sunday Times conducted Thursday and Friday said 44% wanted to remain, and 43% wanted to leave.

Don't give up just yet.

[Paul Anilprem]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:
What exactly do you mean by loyalty to this country? I don't consider myself having loyalty to my country by any definition I can think of, I live my life by my principles, and I care a lot about social justice and helping others, but I don't have any special loyalty to the UK.

There could be a simple test for loyalty. In case of conflict of interest between your country and some other country, which country will you support.
Not sure where conscientious objectors lie

[Ahmed Bin S]

Paul Anilprem wrote:
There could be a simple test for loyalty. In case of conflict of interest between your country and some other country, which country will you support.
Not sure where conscientious objectors lie

It will depend on which country I think is wrong. If my country is acting immorally, then I will support the other country. Real life isn't like a game of football where you always support your country!

[Ahmed Bin S]

Winston Gutkowski wrote:And my suspicion is that if "leave" win, and Scotland votes as expected, a second vote on Scottish independence won't be too far behind. The SNP already have the support of the Greens in the Scottish legislature, which gives them a working majority if there's any major vote on the subject up here; and I sincerely hope that my party (the Liberals) follow suit.

I was speaking to a friend who is an economist a few weeks back, and he was saying there is simply no way Scotland could survive independently now that that price of oil has plummeted and doesn't look like getting back to what it was for many years, if ever.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Ahmed Bin S wrote: . . . Lots of people will tell me . . . that the UK let my family come here, gave me free education, access to healthcare, . . .

And those people are mistaken. As you said yourself, your family came here because they expected to work; any education healthcare etc. that you received was paid for by taxes, which I presume you pay yourself, so they are not free at all.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . If my country is acting immorally . . .

Loyalty to “my” country may entail opposing evil policies; ignoring them may actually be more disloyal.

[Winston Gutkowski]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:I was speaking to a friend who is an economist a few weeks back, and he was saying there is simply no way Scotland could survive independently now that that price of oil has plummeted and doesn't look like getting back to what it was for many years, if ever.

And where did all that money go, pray tell? Down the /dev/null of the UK Treasury - certainly not to Scotland. Ayrshire (where I live) produced 17% of the UK's coal at one time; now the interior is like a wasteland.

It's also the only part of the UK with the potential to be self-sustaining in renewable energy (wind and wave) and already has some of the country's largest wind farms. It also has more water than it knows what to do with - no hosepipe bans up here.

Scotland punches far above its weight in politics, science, soldiers and inventors, and I see no reason why it shouldn't become another Ireland - indeed, I think a 'Gaelic Alliance' could be a distinct possibility in the event of independence - but it's only going to come about with sustained, targeted investment from Europe, controlled by a regional legislature with real teeth; not handouts from Westminster based on how much they can afford that year.

There's no doubt that "life after independence" will be tough for a few years, but I bet negotiations are already underway to secure Scotland's "fast track" re-entry into the EU in the event of a "leave" win and subsequent independence vote.

Winston

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Early results are close. Wonder if the answer will be known before I got to sleep.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Early results are close. Wonder if the answer will be known before I got to sleep.

Sigh. It isn't looking good. Margins in North East are much larger than expected for Leave, Swansea also went to Leave, some huge victories for Remain in London but it won't be enough. I hope I am wrong, I really do, but it seems very unlikely

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Yeah. And it is quickly becoming clear that this isn't going to be known until morning (US Time - I'm aware that you are quickly approaching morning in Europe.)

I'm hoping for remain too for what it is worth.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Jeanne Boyarsky wrote:Yeah. And it is quickly becoming clear that this isn't going to be known until morning (US Time - I'm aware that you are quickly approaching morning in Europe.)

I'm hoping for remain too for what it is worth.

Yes, don't know why I stayed up!

Time to get out those erasers! #usepens

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Stayed up. It's only a bit after midnight here. Sad to see the result.

[Campbell Ritchie]

In view of the polls in yesterday's newspapers, I am quite surprised by the result.

[Jelle Klap]

Hats off to the Brits!
Couldn't be more pleased with the result

[Joe Bishara]

Wow! Leave won by over a million votes. Many claim that they would have won by more if not for the scare tactics.

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:Wow! Leave won by over a million votes. Many claim that they would have won by more if not for the scare tactics.

Who exactly are these 'many'? UKIP supporters?

[Campbell Ritchie]

Joe Bishara wrote:. . . if not for the scare tactics.

Surely “despite” the scare tactics.

Mostly on the part of UKIP

[Stevens Miller]

I have lived long enough to see a civilized, educated, advanced nation use its democratic freedom to vote in favor of slitting its own throat. And it was England. I can't believe that it was England.

Pound is down about eight percent overnight. Euro down less than three. Who just won here?

[Joe Bishara]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:Mostly on the part of UKIP

I don't think that over half the population of the UK are UKIP supporters. Many within the conservative party have been calling for BREXIT for many years now.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

How long before Scotland re-votes for independence?

I recall last time hearing it would be hard for Scotland to get the votes to join the EU if it voted to leave the UK. I imagine that would no longer be the case.

[Tim Moores]

I'm sure Scotland will want a new referendum for independence, and rightly so.

It also makes the question of Northern Ireland (which voted to remain) more pressing. They surely want no external EU border between them and Ireland.

[Ahmed Bin S]

London should declare independence. We bring in so much money yet all everyone does is complain about us. Let's see how the rest of England copes without our money!

Maybe we could create a new nation with Scotland. They could do with our money and we could do with their agriculture industry and some countryside to retreat to. Yeah, I like that!

[Campbell Ritchie]

Joe Bishara wrote:. . . I don't think that over half the population of the UK are UKIP supporters. . . .

I meant that most of the scare tactics were from UKIP; that is of course a gross oversimplification and exaggeration.

People used to go on about, “What are the facts?” and I had to reply, “There aren't any facts; nobody knows what would happen.”
Well, whatever it is, it is going to happen now.

[Stevens Miller]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:Well, whatever it is, it is going to happen now.

Indeed it is. US markets gained about 1.5% yesterday, expecting "Remain" to win. They opened with over 3% losses this morning, and are slowly trending downward over the day.

[Stevens Miller]

Tim Moores wrote:I'm sure Scotland will want a new referendum for independence, and rightly so.

It also makes the question of Northern Ireland (which voted to remain) more pressing. They surely want no external EU border between them and Ireland.

CNN is already quoting First Minister Sturgeon to that effect.

They also have a rather striking map showing the Remain/Leave sentiments geographically.

[Joe Bishara]

Campbell Ritchie wrote:I meant that most of the scare tactics were from UKIP...

Both sides used scare tactics; from the IMF warning of grave consequences to Bill Gates saying that the UK will be a less attractive place to invest his money to Obama saying that the UK will be at the back of the queue. People went with their gut instinct. People got tired of the fact that important decisions that affect Brits are made in Brussels. A big change like this is bound to destabilize the markets and it will take a while to negotiate new trade agreements but hopefully, things will eventually settle down and Britain can look beyond the EU single market and truly go global.

[Ahmed Bin S]

I know there's a lot of sensationalism going on, especially on social media and the American press, but just to be clear:

1) The UK will not leave the EU within the next few years, I mean, it took Greenland THREE years to complete their exit
2) Even then there is a reasonable chance that the UK manages to negotiate a deal to stay within the single market
3) Scotland will not be going for a referendum soon
4) NI will not be going for a referendum soon
5) There will be no domino effect in the rest of the EU
6) The markets will not crash

There, we can all now enjoy our weekend!

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:

Campbell Ritchie wrote:I meant that most of the scare tactics were from UKIP...

Both sides used scare tactics; from the IMF warning of grave consequences to Bill Gates saying that the UK will be a less attractive place to invest his money to Obama saying that the UK will be at the back of the queue. People went with their gut instinct. People got tired of the fact that important decisions that affect Brits are made in Brussels. A big change like this is bound to destabilize the markets and it will take a while to negotiate new trade agreements but hopefully, things will eventually settle down and Britain can look beyond the EU single market and truly go global.

People voted for many different reasons, but Brexit won because the white working class have constantly been told over the past 20 years that they are poor because of immigrants. For most of these people it was nothing to do with some person in Brussels making decisions.

[Joe Bishara]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:...it was nothing to do with some person in Brussels making decisions.

The "Free Movement Directive" comes from Brussels.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . Brexit won because the white working class have constantly been told over the past 20 years that they are poor because of immigrants. . . .

Even though that is a lie; I am quite sure that immigration did not cause any such poverty.

I also expect immigration will continue with only slight changes.

[Campbell Ritchie]

Ahmed Bin S wrote:. . . Scotland will not be going for a referendum soon

But Salmond and Sturgeon were so disappointed about not getting a majority in the last referendeum that they have been promising another in the event of Brexit ever since.

NI will not be going for a referendum soon . . .

The majority of the Northern Irish population want to stay in the UK, and have done so since the 1920s, which is why the six counties are part of UK not the Irish state.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

3) Scotland will not be going for a referendum soon

How do you define soon? The article Stevens linked to suggests it might happen within two years. Which would make sense. The circumstances under which they voted last time changed.

[Jeanne Boyarsky]

Per the New York Times:

Google reported a spike in searches for “What happens if we leave the E.U.?” And the question “What is the E.U.?” was the second most popular question in Britain.

Really? People didn't want to know this *before* voting? Or is the the 30% who didn't vote who now have an interest in the topic?

[Ahmed Bin S]

Joe Bishara wrote:

Ahmed Bin S wrote:...it was nothing to do with some person in Brussels making decisions.

The "Free Movement Directive" comes from Brussels.

Freedom of Movement was NOT imposed on the UK.

Freedom of Movement is one of the founding principles of the EEC.

The British public voted to remain part of the EEC in 1975.

Therefore you cannot say Brussels imposed Freedom of Movement on the UK, when the UK signed up for the EEC.