Brexit

The talks and negotiations.

For discussion of politics, and what's going on in the world today.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Brexit

#10421  Postby jamest » Feb 22, 2020 5:25 am

Wrt my last post, never forget that after France capitulated, Britain was alone in WW2 for quite some time. America wasn't going to help us at that point and it seemed that Russia was going to be an ally of Germany (plans to share Polish land). Having studied the history of that time, I'm convinced that only Winston Churchill's persistence/resiliance prevented Britain from capitulating. It's remarkable, really, thinking about how much one person can affect history.

What I'm trying to say, I think, is that the mentality of being/feeling alone has somehow seeped into the British consciousness even to this day, and that therefore those who voted for Brexit don't give two shits for policies which are not essentially Churchillian. British.

I've had the good fortune to visit his grave. He was a tosser for sure on many levels, but never ever forget that he probably alone saved the world from fascism. :cheers:
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
User avatar
jamest
Suspended User
 
Posts: 18297
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#10422  Postby jamest » Feb 22, 2020 5:54 am

Spearthrower wrote:
jamest wrote:
This ridiculous state of affairs that we have here where there are still people living who still know the horrors of what happened in the 20th century, were never going to be conducive to a situation in which the British people accepted being a slave of Europe. It's just a fucking stupid ideal which came a half-dozen decades too soon, imo. For the British people, anyway.


We weren't a slave of Europe; so you voted on an entirely uninformed basis.

What's wrong with you, are you ill? I ask of course because it's fucking obvious that when many rules of what a country like Britain can do, or not do, or must do, or must pay, etc., means by default that they lose power to make these decisions for themselves, by themselves. If there were a fucking obvious pill, I'd send you one by post.
Il messaggero non e importante.
Ora non e importante.
Il resultato futuro e importante.
Quindi, persisto.
User avatar
jamest
Suspended User
 
Posts: 18297
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10423  Postby Hermit » Feb 22, 2020 6:21 am

jamest wrote:Within my lifetime I've known a person who was actually there at The Somme in the summer of 1916 ( :waah:), and of course I've known many who endured WW2, not least my gran. Her tale of hiding in shop doorways to get to work whilst the city was being bombed, still shivers my soul.

This ridiculous state of affairs that we have here where there are still people living who still know the horrors of what happened in the 20th century, were never going to be conducive to a situation in which the British people accepted being a slave of Europe. It's just a fucking stupid ideal which came a half-dozen decades too soon, imo. For the British people, anyway.


At least the UK finished up on the winning side, while Germany lay in ruins. Look at the situation now and ask yourself "How did this come about?" Stumped? OK, I'll tell you:

The tl;dr version

The automotive industry is a textbook example of what went wrong. Who buys a Jaguar these days, when you can buy a Porsche, BMW, Audi, Mercedes or a Volkswagen? While the UK was swamped with Japanese cars as its own factories shrank or closed down altogether, more than half of German cars are owned by happy customers in countries other than Germany, the emissions scandal Volkswagen brought on itself was overcome inside two years.

Ah. Volkswagen. It could have been a British brand. There's a story. It's factory lay in the British occupation zone. It also lay in ruins. Bombed out. Kaput, as the Germans would say. A British Major, Ivan Hirst, looked at the ruins and saw a potential in them. They could be sufficiently rehabilitated to function as a repair and maintenance workshop for British military vehicles. Then he realised that he could actually manufacture some cars there. The British administration of that part of Germany needed more cars to govern effectively. On August 22 1945 it ordered 20,000 Beetles. Two weeks later it ordered 20,000 more.

Image

Things developed quite nicely. The first Beetle rolled out of the factory on December 27 that year. The 10,000th in October 1946. In 1947 the British government offered Volkswagen to Sir William Rootes and his brother Reginald, who already owned the factories that made Hillmans, Humbers and Sunbeams, as part of Germany's war reparation obligations. They rejected it, saying the car was too ugly and too noisy. On October 8, 1949 Great Britain signed the Volkswagenwerk over to the newly created (23 May 1949) Federal Republic of Germany.

If the post-war British industrialist can be viewed as bumbling and unimaginative as entrepreneurs, they were downright self-sabotaging when it came to industrial relations. There are two aspects to that topic. One is the matter of trade unions. Every industry was hobbled by a multitude of them, with each union having its own gripes and ambitions. Take trains. The Locomotive drivers union could stop the entire network. So could the train conductors union, the cleaners union, the mechanical maintenance union, the electrical maintenance union, the office workers union... You get the picture, right?
The other is the matter of how to handle disputes. The climate for negotiations was toxic. Antagonistic is not strong enough a word for it, nor is adversarial. Owners of the means of production saw the workers as enemies that must be tamed and controlled by any available means. Most of the time they had the government on their side. Attempts to organise round table talks were rare and even when they were made, they were half-hearted. It was almost open class warfare. The workers saw nothing that could encourage them to adopt a cooperative approach.

Now contrast that state of affairs with what happened in Germany. Trade unions as such had only a secondary role in wage negotiations. Most of them were done by workers representatives within each Industrial Community. So, the electricians working in chemical factories would send representatives to meetings with IG Farben. Electricians in car factories would do the same with IG Metal, and so on. Of course the same applies to other unions. Welders sent representatives to the meeting of whatever Industrial community they happen to be working in.

Every year each community would meet to hammer out an agreement and each meeting would consist of representatives from the owners of the businesses, the government and the workforce. Production targets would be discussed, economic forecasts analysed and whatever other topic that seemed pertinent to the negotiations at the time would also be brought up. The workers would understand what they got and why they got it, the owners could be cautiously confident of relative industrial peace for the next 12 months and government had a better picture of what lay ahead of them, which gave them a better chance to come up with an appropriate budget. Strikes still occurred, but nowhere near as frequently, nor as disruptively as in the UK. Because people were not so much preoccupied with fighting each other they could focus on the more useful bits, like designing and producing stuff, or providing a service.

The short version:

Post-WWII British industrialists fucked everything up.





And instead of learning from their mistakes, they not only keep right on making them, but inventing new ways of shooting themselves - and their fellow citizens - in the foot, but that's another story.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 3388
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10424  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 22, 2020 7:20 am

jamest wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
jamest wrote:
This ridiculous state of affairs that we have here where there are still people living who still know the horrors of what happened in the 20th century, were never going to be conducive to a situation in which the British people accepted being a slave of Europe. It's just a fucking stupid ideal which came a half-dozen decades too soon, imo. For the British people, anyway.


We weren't a slave of Europe; so you voted on an entirely uninformed basis.


What's wrong with you, are you ill? I ask of course because it's fucking obvious that when many rules of what a country like Britain can do, or not do, or must do, or must pay, etc., means by default that they lose power to make these decisions for themselves, by themselves. If there were a fucking obvious pill, I'd send you one by post.



What is wrong with your argumentation? Are you aware that it is so impoverished that you feel it necessary to always start by poisoning the well in the hopes of artificially elevating the comparative worth of the dross you're about to crap out?

Slaves don't engage in collective decision making, craft laws democratically for all participants to follow, nor do they have any representation at all. Slaves aren't beneficiaries of multi-million pound grants to develop aspects of their economy. Slaves are property - that's nothing remotely like the relationship any EU state has with the EU.

As usual, you're talking vapid crap that reflects terribly on your capacity to reason, and as usual you're trying to frame it as being 'obvious' when it's just obviously ignorant.

Let me guess: you think it's a red pill.

Your posts are barking nonsense.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27306
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10425  Postby OlivierK » Feb 22, 2020 7:58 am

I, for one, want to hear more about how life is so shit in Britain because thousands are coming to take advantage of how wonderful life is in Britain.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9275
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10426  Postby Hermit » Feb 22, 2020 8:15 am

OlivierK wrote:I, for one, want to hear more about how life is so shit in Britain because thousands are coming to take advantage of how wonderful life is in Britain.

It's all relative, man. Plenty of economic refugees from, say, Pakistan would love to finish up in the UK. Not so many from, say, Switzerland.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 3388
Age: 66
Male

Country: Here
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10427  Postby GrahamH » Feb 22, 2020 8:57 am

jamest wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:Can someone please explain to me why, within a small country wth a relatively large population of nearly 68 million people*, the country itself doesn't have enough people to do low skilled jobs? Excluding kids and pensioners, plus disabled/sick people, there are still many millions of people within the UK capable of working. ** https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47623277


You open your daily fail grade rant with totally broken logic.

It doesn't matter how many people there are. More people = more consumers = greater demand for workers to support them.

That's not true. The population of a country does not dictate the economics of a country, otherwise China would be richer than the USA and India richer than the UK. In other words, the policy of increasing a country's population doesn't fucking work as a policy for making that country richer.


It was your claim and it wasn't about economies. As quoted above:
why, within a small country with a relatively large population of nearly 68 million people*, the country itself doesn't have enough people to do low skilled jobs?


It simply does not follow that "a relatively large population" must have enough low skilled workers.
It doesn't really matter what size the country or what the population size, does it?

If living conditions are reasonable and unemployment is low-ish people will likely prefer to seek jobs that suit them rather than jobs that we need done that are less desirable.

OTOH migrants tend to be risk-taking, fit and hard working. Less likely to rely on the state and less able to hold out for nicer jobs hey get stuck in.

According to you Brits are work-shy benefits cheats so if you were right we would need plenty of migrants.

But you are pedaling bigoted stereotypes again, aren't you?

The population of a country does not dictate the economics of a country, otherwise China would be richer than the USA and India richer than the UK


The size of an economy is due to a mix of factors, but population size is one of them. Which goes some way to explain why China and India are first and third by GDP(PPP) largest economies, ahead of the UK.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... 8rank.html
Or second and fifth according to https://www.investopedia.com/insights/w ... economies/
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20343

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#10428  Postby Fallible » Feb 22, 2020 9:08 am

jamest wrote:
Fallible wrote:
jamest wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

One big problem with this is that it is the justification used routinely by the Tories to then take away benefits from families that truly are in vital need of support. Numerous independent studies have shown that the actual figure of money lost to benefit fraudsters is low - in the 1% range. Don't get me wrong: these people should be caught and imprisoned for fraud, but that's as much because they're abusing a system that is meant to help people who have experienced dire situations in life which we, as a society, don't want to leave them facing alone or on the streets. From personal experience, I know the vital importance of benefit support for families and what it means as a long-term way of resolving potential generational poverty. Had I been born into the same family in Thailand, I'd almost certainly be a gangster, in prison, or dead.

There is not a considerable number of people engaged in benefit fraud - there are relatively few. What's more important is protecting the social security net we have for people who are seriously disabled or seriously unlucky. It's a society wide exercise in moral compassion and it's one of those things that makes a nation truly 'great' to not leave their citizens' well-being solely to chance.

With all due respect, I'm from a working class family from inner-city Manchester and have lived in a council house for all but a decade of my life. I know what I know from experience. People generally have abused the system for decades. Everyone surely knows that, which means that surely those who are aware of it would be glad to hear of measures which might rid us of it?

Don't get me wrong, I was in care work for almost 20 years so I'm not oblivious to the needs of many people. But we'd all be blindly shoving our heads up our arses if we didn't see a need to protect our social ideals from being abused.


You’re just plain wrong on this one, no matter how many ‘surely’s you bung in there for no good reason. Benefit fraud in general is not something whose magnitude you can accurately gauge from your personal experience of living in a council house in Manchester.

Yeah sure, so how else do we gauge it? Government statistics? You mean those statistics which only unveil the factually guilty? Well, I know for certain that none of the dozens of people I knew back in the 80s who were 'signing on' and also working for cash never got caught, which only goes to show how far short government statistics are accurate.


Lol, no you don’t.

This country is a joke and the welfare system is responsible for that.


Nope.

Indeed, if you had your head screwed on you'd understand why so many Europeans were desperate to get here in recent times.


Nope.

Yeah, some of them were sincere about working hard and getting on, but for equally as many it was all about taking advantage of a system that would provide you with free housing; healthcare; money. Even at the expense of the poorest British citizens.


...he pulled directly out of his arse.

I've lived with and talked amongst many hundreds if not thousands of 'council people' over several decades. I know the mood of the people we're talking about here,


One of the funnier things about your fact-free rant is that you appear to think you are the only one with experience of living with and talking to a certain set of people. You are not, and moreover, people are not going to be persuaded by your claims without evidence. Even if you were well respected, your claimed personal experience would not override another’s.

and I'm ashamed to say that it ain't positive. People I've known generally will and have abused the welfare system.


Nope.

That's a fact.


It’s not a fact.

They'll work, but only for cash to top up their welfare.


Nope.

That was big in the 80s for sure, probably the 70s too.


It wasn’t.

Our government is not daft to this fact about the welfare state being abused. Why else, ffs, do you envision that the government now INSISTS that via the new system of universal credits (or whatever it's called), all [healthy] claimants must prove that they've been looking for work for about 37 hours a week?! Seriously, they know what's going on and they're trying to cut it out. I don't blame them at all, given what I know.


Naïveté beyond belief is on display here. They clocked a long tine ago that if they can scapegoat a certain segment of the population, the less...er...discerning among us, many of whom have just enough grey matter to work out that someone is benefitting somewhere, that it isn’t them, but not enough to know who or how, would take that grimy snowball and roll it downhill for them, and they could just sit back and watch it go. And you’re helping them. Eww.

Of course, the full-time work isn't there because many employers now take advantage of the zero hours contract thingy and just pay a minimum wage to any loon willing to work without any privileges or sickness pay. And of course, this only came about because the numbers of desperate people willing to work for a pittance and zero priveleges increased dramatically when countless thousands, nay millions, of Europeans rushed across The English Channel to also take advantage of our welfare state and get whatever work was available.


Nope.

The consequences, for British people? Obviously, even less motivation to work than previously. Indeed, a country now with a much higher population that cannot afford to provide the increased cost of providing that increased population with welfare, schooling, medical needs, improved networking (roads/rail etc.).

It's a fucking joke. The only people who benefitted from the influx of Europeans to our shores over the last couple of decades have been the rich owners of companies willing to employ them (or anyone) for peanuts and devoid of rights/priveleges.

Hindsight informs us that the unions crippled this country prior to Thatcher, as they regularly held the government to ransom. But only those people with brains and balls can currently argue that the EU has crippled this country for at least two decades, for allowing an incredible influx of poor Europeans into this country has benefitted very few of us, for sure. It pisses me off that to have such a view is beheld as racist, when it's only common sense. I don't care about the colour of anyone's skin or their religion or whatever, the fact is that a small house does not become a palace when you cram people in there like sardines. Enough is enough.

I thank Zeus that Brexit has happened. Of course, everything will probably still go pear-shaped, but at the very least we don't have to put up with another 10+ million poor people coming here over the next decade+ taking advantage of our country and its very limited resources.

Our country was only in the EU for less than 50 years, and the first years weren't as severe. Our country has and will survive without the EU.

My greatest wish now is to see the implosion of the EU lest my countrymen drag themselves back to that hole.


I stopped reading when I realised the rest of your post careened off at a xenophobic tangent. I just don’t have time to pay attention to every bit of nonsense you release here.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50474
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10429  Postby UncertainSloth » Feb 22, 2020 9:26 am

jamest wrote:Wrt my last post, never forget that after France capitulated, Britain was alone in WW2 for quite some time. America wasn't going to help us at that point and it seemed that Russia was going to be an ally of Germany (plans to share Polish land). Having studied the history of that time, I'm convinced that only Winston Churchill's persistence/resiliance prevented Britain from capitulating. It's remarkable, really, thinking about how much one person can affect history.


still catching up with the rest of it, but, reading the above...

Image
i guess i could be a quiet hero
no one knows the good i've done

e
User avatar
UncertainSloth
 
Posts: 3195
Age: 46
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10430  Postby ronmcd » Feb 22, 2020 10:36 am

Flag waving insular nationalists everywhere lol.


jamest wrote:Wrt my last post, never forget that after France capitulated, Britain was alone in WW2 for quite some time.

Pish. Often debunked nationalist flag-waving pish.

For Brexiteers, the war represents a shining example. They see it as a time when Britain escaped the dangers of mainland Europe, stood up to the bullies in Berlin and emerged victorious. During the war, they say, Britain stood alone. After Brexit, it can do so again.

The first question to ask is when exactly Britain is supposed to have stood alone?

It was certainly not alone in 1939. When Britain first went to war, it was as the ally of both Poland and France. Australia and New Zealand declared war on the same day as Britain did. They were joined by South Africa three days later, and Canada four days after that. In the following months British troops also fought alongside the Norwegians, the Belgians and the Dutch. In other words Britain was just one part of an international effort.

It is also worth mentioning that, during this time, Britain was very much the junior partner on the battlefield. In May 1940, the British Expeditionary Force fielded a little more than 300,000 men. The French had almost 10 times that number.

If Britain had plenty of allies at the beginning of the war, then the same is true of the end of the conflict. In July 1941, the Soviet Union signed a military pact with Britain. Less than six months later, the United States also joined the alliance, followed by Cuba, Mexico, Brazil and eventually every other state in Latin America. China also joined the Allies.

Once again, Britain was little more than a junior partner in this Grand Alliance. The Soviets did most of the fighting in Europe, while the Americans provided most of the resources. This was reflected at all of the major conferences that took place towards the end of the war, where the two superpowers took the lead on almost everything. At the conference of the so-called ‘Big Three’ in Yalta, in February 1945, British diplomats were already joking that it was actually a conference of the ‘Big Two-and-a-Half’.

So if the British did not stand alone at the beginning of the war, nor at the end, what about during the middle? When most people talk of Britain standing alone, they usually refer to a single year, between June 1940 and June 1941. So let’s examine that year in detail.

The war continued during this time on land, at sea and in the air.

On land, Britain fought several battles in North and East Africa. However, most of the troops were not actually British at all, but Australian, Indian and African. Some of them were even French and Belgian. Despite the capitulation of both countries that summer, many French and Belgian colonial troops were determined to fight on, and put themselves at the disposal of the British.

The only European theatre where the British Army saw action during this time was in Greece – although once again most of the troops who served were actually from Australia and New Zealand. Greece was at war with the Axis powers for most of this year, which in itself makes the claim that Britain stood alone seem dubious. The fact Yugoslavia was drawn into the war in April 1941 makes it doubly so.

Perhaps the war at sea can be considered more of a British affair? After all, Britain still had the most powerful navy in the world at this time. But the Royal Navy did not work alone. Some of the ships that transported all those colonial troops to Egypt and the Mediterranean were Dutch. The Dutch Navy also helped in the evacuation of British soldiers at Dunkirk, as did dozens of French and Belgian fishing vessels. The Free French Navy, the Royal Canadian Navy and the Royal Norwegian Navy all helped to escort convoys of merchant ships across the Atlantic.

The merchant navy that supplied Britain during the war was also a truly international group, with ships and crews from all over the world. In 1940, the world’s biggest shipping company was Norway’s Nortraship, which boasted more than 1,000 ships and 30,000 seamen. Nortraship’s resources were put at Britain’s disposal after Norway fell to the Germans. The US Merchant Marine also played a part in Britain’s war effort, despite being supposedly neutral. Dozens of US ships were damaged or destroyed in 1941 while making the trip across the Atlantic to supply Britain.

If neither the British Army nor the Royal Navy stood alone in 1940 and 1941, then what about the Royal Air Force? When most people think of Britain standing alone, what they really have in mind is the Battle of Britain. Surely here, at least, there is truth in the myth?

But the fighter pilots defending our shores were no more exclusively British than any other group of people. Britain’s most successful squadron during the Battle of Britain was the Polish 303 Squadron, without whom, according to the head of Fighter Command, Sir Hugh Dowding, “I hesitate to say that the outcome of the battle would have been the same.” Some of our most successful fighter aces at this time were from Czechoslovakia (Josef František), Ireland (Paddy Finucane), South Africa (Adolph Malan) and New Zealand (Colin Gray and Brian Carbury). Pilots from 15 other nations fought during that famous summer. Together they constituted 20% of Fighter Command.

There are many other reasons why Britain did not stand alone during the war. Even in 1940, Britain was already home to forces from all over the world, which would have helped to defend the country in the event of any invasion. Nine governments-in-exile were based here and put their resources at British disposal. Resistance organisations all over Europe provided Britain with invaluable intelligence, especially Polish cryptographers, without whom we would never have cracked the German codes. Britain paid for the war with credit from all over its empire and dominions, as well as from the United States; and it relied on its many trading partners to keep the country afloat. The list goes on.

If we are to learn anything from this at all, it is that no nation is ever truly an island, even when its geography suggests otherwise – and even when it is besieged by enemies.

For those who insist on making parallels between Brexit and the Second World War, this should give them heart. Britain never stood alone during the war. And I suspect that the same will be true after Brexit, regardless of which way negotiations go during the coming weeks.


So, pish.


jamest wrote:Having studied the history of that time ...


Studied. Wanked over, you mean?

Image
User avatar
ronmcd
 
Posts: 12614

Country: Scotland
Scotland (ss)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10431  Postby OlivierK » Feb 22, 2020 10:53 am

jamest wrote:Of course, the full-time work isn't there because many employers now take advantage of the zero hours contract thingy and just pay a minimum wage to any loon willing to work without any privileges or sickness pay. And of course, this only came about because the numbers of desperate people willing to work for a pittance and zero priveleges increased dramatically when countless thousands, nay millions, of Europeans rushed across The English Channel to also take advantage of our welfare state and get whatever work was available.
...

It's a fucking joke. The only people who benefitted from the influx of Europeans to our shores over the last couple of decades have been the rich owners of companies willing to employ them (or anyone) for peanuts and devoid of rights/priveleges.

...

I thank Zeus that Brexit has happened. Of course, everything will probably still go pear-shaped, but at the very least we don't have to put up with another 10+ million poor people coming here over the next decade+ taking advantage of our country and its very limited resources.

Our country was only in the EU for less than 50 years, and the first years weren't as severe. Our country has and will survive without the EU.

So..... (ugh)...

I took the data table that shows the breakdown of numbers of foreign-born UK residents in 2001 and 2015 from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign-b ... ed_Kingdom and dumped it in a spreadsheet.

And then marked out the EU countries, and ran some totals.

So, yeah, from 2001 to 2015, there was an increase in population of EU-born residents of about 1.38m over that period, almost half of which was from Poland, and half the remainder from other Eastern European countries.

But over the same period, there was a 2.28m increase in population of non-EU-born residents, headed by large increases from countries like Pakistan, China, Philippines, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Zimbabwe.

So clearly the UK, during the time concerned, pursued a policy of high migrant intakes - even as a million (not millions, not 10+ million) EU migrants arrived, a number greater still of non-EU migrants were admitted. How will leaving the EU affect that? Or indeed now that immigration from Poland will follow the same rules as immigration from, say, China, will the UK not still see strong immigration from Poland, as it has seen strong immigration from China?

[Of course, this is all besides the point that jamest's views on the impact of immigration are as factually wrong as that fuckhead audience member's on QT.]
Last edited by OlivierK on Feb 22, 2020 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 9275
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10432  Postby campermon » Feb 22, 2020 11:45 am

ronmcd wrote:

Studied. Wanked over, you mean?

Image


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Coffee on keyboard!

:thumbup:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17258
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10433  Postby GrahamH » Feb 22, 2020 12:00 pm

jamest wrote:
I thank Zeus that Brexit has happened. Of course, everything will probably still go pear-shaped, but at the very least we don't have to put up with another 10+ million poor people coming here over the next decade+ taking advantage of our country and its very limited resources.


People coming here are a resource, you plonker.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20343

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10434  Postby Fallible » Feb 22, 2020 12:22 pm

:lol: Let’s hope that when James needs treatment at the hospital after all the immigrants are removed, he manages to receive that treatment in the .5 second gap before the whole place collapses.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 50474
Age: 47
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10435  Postby campermon » Feb 22, 2020 12:40 pm

GrahamH wrote:
jamest wrote:
I thank Zeus that Brexit has happened. Of course, everything will probably still go pear-shaped, but at the very least we don't have to put up with another 10+ million poor people coming here over the next decade+ taking advantage of our country and its very limited resources.


People coming here are a resource, you plonker.


Indeed, a valuable resource we are throwing away;

The Fiscal Impact of Immigration on the UK...
The study finds that

The average UK-based migrant from Europe contributed approximately £2,300 more to UK public finances in 2016/17 than the average UK adult. In comparison, each UK born adult contributed £70 less than the average, and each non-European migrant contributed over £800 less than the average.
The average European migrant arriving in the UK in 2016 will contribute £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits over their time spent in the UK (assuming a balanced national budget), and the average non-European migrant will make a positive net contribution of £28,000 while living here. By comparison, the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution in this scenario is zero.
Taken together, this means that the migrants who arrived in 2016 will make a total net positive contribution of £26.9 billion to the UK’s public finances over the entirety of their stay. The value of this to the UK’s public finances is equivalent to putting approximately 5p on income tax rates (across all marginal rate bands) in that year.


https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/recent- ... 250df6dbba
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17258
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Brexit

#10436  Postby Spearthrower » Feb 22, 2020 1:23 pm

Coming over 'ere...

I can only ever read that in the tone of Stewart Lee parodying Paul Nuttall.

Wyrd bið ful aræd! Swa cwæð eardstapa, earfeþa gemyndig, Wraþra wælsleahta, winemæga hryre.

Fucking Anglo-Saxons coming over here... if you're gonna come, at least learn the fucking language!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27306
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10437  Postby GrahamH » Feb 22, 2020 1:40 pm

Very funny man.

Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 20343

Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10438  Postby UncertainSloth » Feb 22, 2020 2:57 pm

Image
i guess i could be a quiet hero
no one knows the good i've done

e
User avatar
UncertainSloth
 
Posts: 3195
Age: 46
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10439  Postby Scot Dutchy » Feb 22, 2020 3:22 pm

:lol:

Join the slow lane.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 43118
Age: 71
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Brexit

#10440  Postby campermon » Feb 22, 2020 3:47 pm

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :cheers:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17258
Age: 49
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics & Current Affairs

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 6 guests