Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DazzlaJ

EU Referendum

EU Referendum  

327 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Shifted? Labour has been there for beards.

 

Lab MPs have been coming out with the sort of thing Thornberry said this week for as far back as I can remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time I’ve heard it.

 

Usual from Lexit w*****s like Paul Embury though.

 

He never provides a coherent justification either.

 

If you think the arguments me, Vic and others have made relate in any way to anything Embery argues about migration then I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

Also, given that instead of rebutting an argument all you've done is imply that the legal and practical basis for the creation of a policy decades ago should have anything to do with criticism of the effects the policy is having today, I'd pipe down about the coherence or validity of anyone else's argument.

Getting rid of FoM is clearly regressive. Trying to justify by arguing that FoM is actually racist is requires some pretty tortured reasoning at the best of times, and is nonsensical in the current scenario and how that right is probably about about to be taken away. 

 

On this policy, Corbyn has shifted Labour very far to the right of where it should be as a pro-immigrant, internationalist party. It's a great shame. 

 

Out of the people here who have argued that FoM in its current has racist outcomes, who do you believe is in favour - or is even arguing in favour - of getting rid of it?

Shifted? Labour has been there for beards.

 

Lab MPs have been coming out with the sort of thing Thornberry said this week for as far back as I can remember.

 

Remember this c***?

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1407547/Blunkett-tells-asylum-seekers-to-go-home.html

 

That and other entries in a long, shameful history in this fine thread

 

https://twitter.com/AndrewBartletta/status/1113709314198376448

Edited by Gilps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think the arguments me, Vic and others have made relate in any way to anything Embery argues about migration then I'm afraid I can't help you.

 

Also, given that instead of rebutting an argument all you've done is imply that the legal and practical basis for the creation of a policy decades ago should have anything to do with criticism of the effects the policy is having today, I'd pipe down about the coherence or validity of anyone else's argument.

 

Racist outcomes? Compared to say conventional reciprocal travel and visa agreements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Racist outcomes? Compared to say conventional reciprocal travel and visa agreements?

 

It allows people from majority white European countries to come here for any reason while stringent visa restrictions prevent those from outside that area from even visiting. For example the family I met this week at the Pakistani Community Centre in my town to help with various issues. I had to pass on to other specialists the problem that despite being British citizens, their Pakistani father has twice been turned down visitors visa to come and see his sick family here in Britain. An application he wouldn't have to have made if his family were, say, French. So explain to me so I can let them know how FoM for Europeans that isn't extended beyond Europe doesn't lead to racist outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It allows people from majority white European countries to come here for any reason while stringent visa restrictions prevent those from outside that area from even visiting. For example the family I met this week at the Pakistani Community Centre in my town to help with various issues. I had to pass on to other specialists the problem that despite being British citizens, their Pakistani father has twice been turned down visitors visa to come and see his sick family here in Britain. An application he wouldn't have to have made if his family were, say, French. So explain to me so I can let them know how FoM for Europeans that isn't extended beyond Europe doesn't lead to racist outcomes.

I hope they think you are a lovely white bellend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It allows people from majority white European countries to come here for any reason while stringent visa restrictions prevent those from outside that area from even visiting. For example the family I met this week at the Pakistani Community Centre in my town to help with various issues. I had to pass on to other specialists the problem that despite being British citizens, their Pakistani father has twice been turned down visitors visa to come and see his sick family here in Britain. An application he wouldn't have to have made if his family were, say, French. So explain to me so I can let them know how FoM for Europeans that isn't extended beyond Europe doesn't lead to racist outcomes.

What were the reasons given out of interest? I know the rejection rate is very high and a lot of documentation is required typically around proof of income / ability to finance the visit and return on-time etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the first time I’ve heard it.

 

Usual from Lexit w*****s like Paul Embury though.

 

He never provides a coherent justification either.

 

I did

What do you think is more likely - that the nations under FoM were closer by virtue of culture, law and history and therefore the lengthy integration process was easier compared to say, Turkey - or that its racist by design?

 

You may want to think about this, why is the UK closer in culture law and history to EU nations as opposed to say the commonwealth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A deal? (Starmer/Liddington)

 

It would involve a Government committing to staying in the Customs Union, "dynamic" alignment with EU rules covering workers’ rights and the environment and giving the Commons a vote on whether the whole package would be subject to confirmation in a referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StevieC The starting point is what matters imo, if you start from a position that all borders are racist and that any policy that directly or indirectly disadvantages people of colour to a greater extent than white people is racist it becomes clear how some of us consider the discriminatory nature of FoM within the EU an essentially racist project. But as I discussed with you before the point is to level up not down.

 

Steve do you agree with opening all borders, if you do why do you think borders should be open? If not why do you think that FoM within Europe worth defending but not outside of the EU or affiliated nations?

 

fwiw Paul Embery is not an advocate for open borders

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the reasons given out of interest? I know the rejection rate is very high and a lot of documentation is required typically around proof of income / ability to finance the visit and return on-time etc.

Largely financial, but have to be honest I wasn’t there to deal with that issue and passed it on to someone who could help as it’s not my field. It just came up while we were discussing access to services and education that I was there to see them about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may want to think about this, why is the UK closer in culture law and history to EU nations as opposed to say the commonwealth?

It’s not - hence the rationale of CANZAC advocates which I do think would be inherently racist - especially as they deliberately rule out the likes of Kenya who have similar legal structures.

 

It also perhaps highlights the difficulties the UK has always had in integrating its structures to enable FoM - but IMO that highlights the achievement of the EU in evolving those institutions and processes. Open borders is a great vision - but it’s difficult enough across two similar and proximate nations, let alone globally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@StevieC The starting point is what matters imo, if you start from a position that all borders are racist and that any policy that directly or indirectly disadvantages people of colour to a greater extent than white people is racist it becomes clear how some of us consider the discriminatory nature of FoM within the EU an essentially racist project. But as I discussed with you before the point is to level up not down.

 

Steve do you agree with opening all borders, if you do why do you think borders should be open? If not why do you think that FoM within Europe worth defending but not outside of the EU or affiliated nations?

 

fwiw Paul Embery is not an advocate for open borders

I’m all for opening borders - per previous post my objection to describing FoM or even borders as racist is it undermines the legal infrastructure required for it to function. A ‘racist policy’ infers one that sets out to have racist outcomes - which one would hope isn’t the case wrt FoM and in my view demeans the term.

 

I know Embury isn’t for open borders. But he’s used the FoM is racist line before. Funnily enough so did that champion of the downtrodden Paul Nuttal of the UKIPs if memory serves.

It allows people from majority white European countries to come here for any reason while stringent visa restrictions prevent those from outside that area from even visiting. For example the family I met this week at the Pakistani Community Centre in my town to help with various issues. I had to pass on to other specialists the problem that despite being British citizens, their Pakistani father has twice been turned down visitors visa to come and see his sick family here in Britain. An application he wouldn't have to have made if his family were, say, French. So explain to me so I can let them know how FoM for Europeans that isn't extended beyond Europe doesn't lead to racist outcomes.

That’s a competence of the UK Govt.

 

You’re throwing your racist stick at the wrong scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Newport West by-election result. Turnout down 30% on 2017. Labour win but down 12% on vote share. Tories down 8%. Small gains for Plaid, Lib Dem’s and Greens. 6% increase for UKIP.

 

Not the clearest picture ever delivered by a result, but conclusions - perhaps unsurprisingly- is that neither Labour or the Tories are pleasing a lot of people, leading to relatively small (yet still significant) leakage to both pro and anti Brexit parties, but a much larger number of voters just giving up on voting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m all for opening borders - per previous post my objection to describing FoM or even borders as racist is it undermines the legal infrastructure required for it to function. A ‘racist policy’ infers one that sets out to have racist outcomes - which one would hope isn’t the case wrt FoM and in my view demeans the term.

 

I know Embury isn’t for open borders. But he’s used the FoM is racist line before. Funnily enough so did that champion of the downtrodden Paul Nuttal of the UKIPs if memory serves.

 

I want to be clear here but a racist policy does not imply anything about the intent of racist outcomes it is merely whether or not those outcomes disproportionately disadvantage people of colour. Rather than demeaning the term it expands it in order that we can actually consider those outcomes irrrespective of intent and is standard within the social sciences that outcomes rather than intent is paramount. That said if you look at the history of immigration controls in the UK and globally they fail on both counts in that the intention was specifically racist, the first immigration controls in the UK for instance were specifically directed at Jewish people. My point is not that FoM within the EU is intentionally racist but when you consider it in the wider context of border enforcement and imperialist and colonial histories barring people from non EU countries is.

 

I'm not going to speak for Embery he's a prick and a supporter of racist immigration controls. I'm perfectly happy to defend my position but I'm not going to attempt to defend his.

 

Thanks for the clarification on law history and culture I misread you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s a competence of the UK Govt.

You’re throwing your racist stick at the wrong scheme.

Of course, but UK Government policies on European, Commonwealth and rest of the world immigration aren’t designed in isolation. They feed into each other as the government looks for its overall policy and what levers it can pull that go towards achieving that. Harsh limits on those outside the EU imposed by governments wanting to restrict overall migration are in large part down to those governments not having the ability to apply any restrictions on EU migration.

 

This is the primary reason why there was such a high leave vote among British Asian communities. They were effectively targeted by Leave campaigners regarding the unfairness of the differences between immigration policies effecting their families and those policies effecting EU migrants. I’m sure you and me can agree on how likely a near future UK government would be to implement a fairer system, but I’d hope you could see why the argument resonated.

By-elections generally have a much lower turnout though don’t they?

Mad how Neil Hamilton csn double UKIP’s vote anyway.

They are. 30% drop is still high in that context though.

 

UKIP increase shouldn’t surprise anyone. Delays to the Brexit process, never mind a softening of Brexit, will inevitably lead to a huge surge of support for them and for any new Farage vehicle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to be clear here but a racist policy does not imply anything about the intent of racist outcomes it is merely whether or not those outcomes disproportionately disadvantage people of colour. Rather than demeaning the term it expands it in order that we can actually consider those outcomes irrrespective of intent and is standard within the social sciences that outcomes rather than intent is paramount. That said if you look at the history of immigration controls in the UK and globally they fail on both counts in that the intention was specifically racist, the first immigration controls in the UK for instance were specifically directed at Jewish people. My point is not that FoM within the EU is intentionally racist but when you consider it in the wider context of border enforcement and imperialist and colonial histories barring people from non EU countries is.

 

I'm not going to speak for Embery he's a prick and a supporter of racist immigration controls. I'm perfectly happy to defend my position but I'm not going to attempt to defend his.

 

Thanks for the clarification on law history and culture I misread you.

I think there’s merit in the definition as described - ultimately its outcomes that matter. Whether it’s helpful to describe a scheme which at heart is envisioned to provide and protect greater freedoms and rights as racist is debatable - especially when the same line of argument is jumped on by said pricks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the primary reason why there was such a high leave vote among British Asian communities. They were effectively targeted by Leave campaigners regarding the unfairness of the differences between immigration policies effecting their families and those policies effecting EU migrants.

You honestly think that was done in good faith by the leave campaign? I very much doubt it personally. Emotional votes was their stragety, by any means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there’s merit in the definition as described - ultimately its outcomes that matter. Whether it’s helpful to describe a scheme which at heart is envisioned to provide and protect greater freedoms and rights as racist is debatable - especially when the same line of argument is jumped on by said pricks.

 

I get this but as Gilps points out when Labour advertised the immigration control mugs UKIP pointed out that under FoM you can't, (not entirely true but still) what is needed imo is in the first instance a defence of FoM in the EU and affiliates even post brexit but from a perspective that allows for an expansion of those freedoms and rights, this can only be done by demonstrating the harms imposed by borders in total, otherwise you have the situation where non EU migrants bear the brunt of the hostile environment due to the absence of those wider protections afforded members of non EU communities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there’s merit in the definition as described - ultimately its outcomes that matter. Whether it’s helpful to describe a scheme which at heart is envisioned to provide and protect greater freedoms and rights as racist is debatable - especially when the same line of argument is jumped on by said pricks.

To provide and protect greater freedoms and rights for *some* people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly think that was done in good faith by the leave campaign? I very much doubt it personally. Emotional votes was their stragety, by any means.

 

Not at all but in order to win the debate you still need to counter it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You honestly think that was done in good faith by the leave campaign? I very much doubt it personally. Emotional votes was their stragety, by any means.

No, of course it wasn’t. My point was about why the argument resonated. As ever, Leave campaigners had put more effort into working out where they needed to win, unlike the stupid, complacent t***s behind the Remain campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, but UK Government policies on European, Commonwealth and rest of the world immigration aren’t designed in isolation. They feed into each other as the government looks for its overall policy and what levers it can pull that go towards achieving that. Harsh limits on those outside the EU imposed by governments wanting to restrict overall migration are in large part down to those governments not having the ability to apply any restrictions on EU migration.

 

This is the primary reason why there was such a high leave vote among British Asian communities. They were effectively targeted by Leave campaigners regarding the unfairness of the differences between immigration policies effecting their families and those policies effecting EU migrants. I’m sure you and me can agree on how likely a near future UK government would be to implement a fairer system, but I’d hope you could see why the argument resonated.

.

I can see why they fell for Patel’s BS. It is effectively a multi-tier system but criticising the more progressive scheme based on complete reciprocation doesn’t make much sense to me. If anything, learn from it and extend it.

To provide and protect greater freedoms and rights for *some* people.

It’s not a closed scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...