You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I agree that the folks that normally go and see opera are affluent, but the people that perform it often aren’t, and that’s what the subsidy is for
Not sure that works as an argument. Shouldnt those people watching it cover the costs rather than have it subsidised?
Now having it set up to appeal to a wider population which, in fairness, some of the companies have tried to do has a stronger case for it.
Bleedin’ell, even another right-wing bigoted MP now feels that Braverman has gone too far with her bigotry!
Christ on a bendybus! Its coming to something when that knuckle-dragging Neanderthal thinks you've probably gone a bit far. She'll be losing 30p Lee next 😳
Jonathan Gulĺis?... That Jonathan Gullis?..well f*** me sideways (on a bendy bus for good measure)
I wonder if he's been given 'permission'. Is Suella about to have her very own 'Night of the Long Knives's' moment? (apologies for the 1930's Germany reference).
Gullis seems to have deleted his twitter account, which is a great shame because I did quite enjoy tagging Whipsnade in the replies with comments like "One of your apes has escaped again, please bring bananas and tranquiliser darts".
That's about the nicest thing that I can say about him.
With the Arts funding thing, more outdoor stuff (like they do in Italy) would help with opera's elitist tag but you know,, the weather...
If it lost its funding however then we'd probably lose opera, which wouldn't be a good thing.
If the contempory arts were to lose funding then it might not be such a bad thing. Remember Grayson Perry getting into a bit of bother when he suggested similar? (hastily retracted as the mob came after him). He was right first time you know.
I say this as someone who works in the contemporary arts. There's too much funding and not enough competition. Remove the funding and 90% of visual artists would drop out, leaving the 10% of people for whom art is a real passion to have a go rather than those who are good at filling out forms or instrumentalising art for political agendas, (where artistic ability is not necessarily a requirement).
My studio complex is having an exhibition this month (funded of course). The theme is 'sustainabillity', where a group of artist make a lot of artworks preaching to us about sustainability, seemingly oblivious to the fact that what they are making will end up as land fill next month. Either that or it will hang around for a few months or years, occupying space (taking up resources) until it finally goes to the tip (in a petrol guzzling van no doubt).
Being an artist is a most indulgent and unsustainable activity and thats fine but too much of it is meaningless and inconsequential propaganda and it's funded. Contrary to taking it to the government, it's doing exactly what the government wants, acting like a self entitled snowflake that can singled out for ridicule. Talk about putting a target on your own back.
Its coming to something when that knuckle-dragging Neanderthal thinks you’ve probably gone a bit far.
I seriously wonder whether she appears to be getting away with it because of her ethnicity.
Would a white, multi-generational British MP, get away with claiming that foreigners don't share 'British values'?
Not that there is such a thing as uniquely British values.
Ironically as an alledged Buddhist Braverman is supposed to live her life under the guidance of values which are central to a far-eastern philosophy.
It would actually be more appropriate for Braverman to claim that many foreigners don't share Buddhist values.
I seriously wonder whether she appears to be getting away with it because of her ethnicity.
Would a white, multi-generational British MP, get away with claiming that foreigners don’t share ‘British values’?
‘Honest Bob’ Jenrick fits that description and he’s been echoing her word-for-word.
I don’t think it really matters about your skin colour, background, culture or religion in the present Tory party, just proudly display a cold-hearted, calculating inhumanity and a complete absence of compassion and empathy and you’re on the fast track to a cabinet post
There’s some perverse equality about a party that embraces, then elevates, both Kemi Badenoch and Lee Anderson, but then they have a more in common than separates them. Both equally vile human beings
That actually happened. (Allegedly).
😆
Scotland has remained in more or less the same place as can be seen by the way this right wing and racist rhetoric gains no traction.
Racist talking points don't really resonate in a place where the population is 96% white and there are practically no asylum seekers (11,000 in a region of 5.5 million - which by the way is one third of "racist" Manchester and NW England). If you want to shit stir and aggravate racial tension, you need to make people feel threatened by "outsider" groups that they can see every day. That's part of the reason the far right have been so successful in Luton and not in Scotland.
https://populationdata.org.uk/population-of-scotland/
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/where-do-migrants-live-in-the-uk/
Why not send all these boat chaps straight through to Scotland. Everyone's happy.
Would a white, multi-generational British MP, get away with claiming that foreigners don’t share ‘British values’?
What do you mean by “get away with”?
Stay in government?
Keep their seat?
Win a referendum?
I mean an avalanche of criticism.
I feel that the level of criticism which she has faced is less than I would have expected. I get the impression that a white, multi-generational British MP, would have been criticized even more harshly.
That's my opinion anyway, you might have a different one, you usually do.
alledged Buddhist
This guy was a Buddhist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_von_Ungern-Sternberg
Apparently it's not all stopping traffic to carry grasshoppers to safety on the verge.
Why not send all these boat chaps straight through to Scotland. Everyone’s happy.
They don't want to go there. People generally want to move where there are other people like them, because that's where the jobs, social support, friends, family, food, religious groups etc are. Chain migration.
But what you suggest will certainly be the solution the Tories will pursue if and when Scotland goes independent...free nonstop buses from Dover to Gretna Green. It's what Texas, France and all the central european EU states were doing. Illegal entry is apparently a lot less worrying when the entrants are en route to being someone else's problem!
Utterly crazy, I got a ban/warning for saying cruella should be dealt with in a certain way.
The massive irony is that these people are not not just evil, that would be giving them too much credit, they are simply stupid.
And they know it.
And they don't care.
And pepole vote for them...
So I guess we go back to the old trope of 'you get the government you deserve'.
Utterly crazy, I got a ban/warning for saying cruella should be dealt with in a certain way.
Well you don't seem to have been gone long, how long was your ban?
And did that "certain way" involve homicide, which is generally frowned upon?
I don't think the fact that Suella Braverman is an obnoxious arsehole gives a free pass to others.
Utterly crazy, I got a ban/warning for saying cruella should be dealt with in a certain way
It looks like you and Mrs Braverman are both concerned that snowflakes are stifling robust debate. But to be fair you did call for her to be murdered.
Well if cruella wants to send desperate migrants away, maybe she should have a taste of her own pie.
What's good for the Goose is good for the gander.
Anyway, she's decided she needs further restrictions on our right to protest. Presumably to help all those people fleeing persecution feel more at home and in touch with British values.
Go get your slow walks in while you still can!
BBC News - New police powers to tackle slow-walking protests
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65410634
Actually given Rwanda seems to be having a little strife and UK gov does send refugees there (let's not forget the £120,000,000 puts a max of 500 there) what happens if local Rwandans oppose incomers with violence?
Nobody will ever be deported to Rwanda. They know it will never happen and always have. They’re just saying it because the Brexity gammons love all this shit
All this is all just state-funded electioneering for the nasty party and setting up Labour as being ‘soft on immigrants’. I mean… how much is this charade costing? We must be well into billions by now? And there’s mountains of (expensive taxpayer funded) legal challenges ahead…
Multiple government defeats are likely when the illegal immigration bill heads to the Lords
Meanwhile, the reality is that if they plan to deem everyone as illegal immigrants once they enter the country then they’re going to have to build enough detention centres to house tens of thousands of people on an indefinite basis
The whole thing is utterly ludicrous and will never happen, but post-you-know-what it’s safe to assume that a majority of the electorate in this country are so credulous and gullible, they’ll buy into any old anti-immigrant bollocks
In other news, the latest namby pamby, bleeding-heart, liberal snowflake to express reservations about Cruella having gone too far this time is…
Priti Patel
How many looking glasses are we through now? 😳
I don’t think it really matters about your skin colour, background, culture or religion in the present Tory party
Not within the party itself - other than if it makes you feel the need to over-compensate.
The target demographic however...
In other news, the latest namby pamby, bleeding-heart, liberal snowflake to express reservations about Cruella having gone too far this time is…
Priti Patel
How many looking glasses are we through now?
Putting some distance between the two of them, knowing that to your average Tory party member "they" all look alike.
Have you got a link to Pritti's comments. I fancy a laugh.
@MoreCashThanDash - its in that article above I linked to.
And despite calls to remove all separated children from the provisions of the bill by the children’s commissioner and senior Tories such as the former justice secretary, Robert Buckland, the government adamantly insists they need to be included to ensure what it believes will be a sufficient deterrent effect.
It’s worth remembering that when she was home secretary, Priti Patel chose to exempt children from new legal provisions she introduced that mean any asylum claim by a person who has travelled through a so-called safe third country is inadmissible. The word in Westminster is that she is very uncomfortable with imposing an asylum ban on unaccompanied children, which speaks volumes about the extremity of the government’s approach.
Thanks, was going to come back later to check the link.
There seems to be a sense that even "last year's" nutters are wanting to get off the roller coaster they unleashed.
It does seem like some gentler, kinder, much more innocent by-gone era where we all thought Theresa Mays 'Hostile Environment' seemed harsh
Those 'nasty' vans feel quaint and almost strangely welcoming in todays Brexit Britain...
What would they say nowadays?
In the UK illegally? Go home or face being catapulted into a big fiery pit
they’re going to have to build enough detention centres to house tens of thousands of people on an indefinite basis
Agreed.
The whole thing is utterly ludicrous and will never happen
Not agreed. Australia spent a huuuuuuuge amount on processing centres in Papua New Guinea, Nauru and Christmas Islands (and it reduced irregular boat arrivals to almost zero). The US has just said it will build processing centres in Guatemala (I think?)
What would they say nowadays?
In the UK illegally? Go home or face being catapulted into a big fiery pit
Actually - deleted.
I can't be arsed going down the rabbit hole of supposed equivalence etc.
I know that in the minds of the gammons, egged on by the Daily Heil, they have a dream of huge open air concentration camps, but the whole Rwanda scheme is presently to house a maximum of 250 people.
Thats now just a busy summer day on the Kent coastline, so offers no solution whatsoever. So where are they going to put all these thousands of people who are now automatically deemed 'illegal' immigrants
One thing I'm pretty sure of is that Rishi's wife will have recently invested in lots of shares in ' Detention Centre Construction UK Ltd.' (based in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes) and that Serco and Capita have recently set up 'Detention Centre Logistics' wings of their present operations
And to think we had a reciprocal returns agreement in place before we had a tantrum and quit the EU...
They’re just saying it because the Brexity gammons love all this shit
......it’s safe to assume that a majority of the electorate in this country are so credulous and gullible, they’ll buy into any old anti-immigrant bollocks
Your hatred of the "majority" of people in Britain is impressive binners!
But why the reference to "Brexity gammons"? All this "anti-immigrant bollocks" was around long before the EU Referendum was even a twinkle in David Cameron's eye.
Twenty years ago exactly a Labour government was enthusiastically engaging in anti-immigrant bollocks.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/feb/11/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices
He disclosed that a draft Home Office leaflet recommended that asylum seekers reduced to living in telephone boxes or car parks should register with their nearest post office to receive official letters about their case.
Choose a car park to live in near a post office so that you can receive official letters about your case?? Suella Braverman wasn't even an MP at that time!!
Tony Blair met Ruud Lubbers, the UN high commissioner for refugees, to discuss creating "safe havens" for asylum seekers near their home countries which would deny most of them access to Britain.
"Safe havens" for asylum seekers near their home countries which would deny most of them access to Britain?? Priti Patel wasn't even an MP at that time!!
The test case under article three of the European convention on human rights covers six asylum seekers fleeing regimes around the world including Iraq, Angola, Rwanda, Ethiopia and Iran. None has had a claim for asylum determined; one had spent the night in a telephone box and a tunnel and others had been forced to sleep rough. The court earlier granted injunctions providing them with emergency shelter and food during the hearing.
During the time of a Labour government a court had to grant an injunction to desperate people fleeing persecution so that they could have emergency shelter and food during a hearing?? And Rishi Sunak wasn't even an MP at that time!!
So what did all that have to do with Brexit?
Btw did you notice the name of the barrister who took the Labour government/Home Secretary to court twenty years ago? Obviously an anti-Labour lefty revolutionary!
Ernie, what's your point? That this shit was going on well before this bunch of turbo-charged thunder-****s?
We know.
I was only in my teens and I remember Blair talking about a referendum regarding our status in the EU.
I remember all the shite about asylum seekers getting so many benefits and being housed in mansions.
The only thing that's different is the rhetoric has been ramped right up. So again, what's your point?
Oh, Starmer? Well, we all know how he's stuck to his principles so far don't we? Or have we just found out it was always in the name of self service?
As binners says, billions spent (probably) to send a days worth of arrivals from Calais to Rwanda.
This has nothing to do with solving a problem and the government actually admit this, it's all about it being a 'deterrent'
A deterrent based on playing up to people's prejudices about Rwanda, a place most people only know about in relation to genocide. It's the equivalent of saying 'send them to hell.'
Alternatively, Pritti Patel could either have been reading 'Heart of Darkness' and had a lightbulb moment, or remembered the 1930's Nazi plan to make the jews of europe stateless and deport them to Africa.
It's 100% optics.
Ernie, what’s your point?
Really? You are asking what point I am making?? I didn't think I could have been any clearer!
But why the reference to “Brexity gammons”? All this “anti-immigrant bollocks” was around long before the EU Referendum was even a twinkle in David Cameron’s eye.
Binners keeps tediously banging on about all this being the result of brexit. All this bollocks was going on long before brexit. It's not even uniquely Tory bollocks!
But try telling that to binners. It doesn't fit comfortably within his narrative. So I kept reminding him. Or do you think that his false premise should go unchallenged?
Brexit weaponised, then turbo-charged all this shit, and theres no way on earth we'd have ended up with this shower in government without it. It is literally a malignant cancer at the heart of this countries politics, that infects and destroys everything it touches. Just look at the state of this place since 2016. Its not like you weren't warned this would all happen!
You carry on with your denial and delusion if you like, but fair to say that the rest of us see it for what it is.
You voted for this. At least have the decency to own it, or at least the self-awareness to stop defending and justifying this utter cluster-****! Rwanda, and all the actions of this tawdry right-wing, racist government is on you. Enjoy! The rest of us aren't!
You carry on with your denial
😂 Lmao! No one is more in denial than you binners!!
All this shit was happening years before brexit.
Did you read the quotes from your beloved Guardian newspaper? I even put them in bold so that it would be easier for you to read them. I know that you suffer blinkered eyesight.
Choose to live in a carpark close to a post office so that the Home Office can write to you? Get a court to force the government to provide you with emergency food and shelter? "Safe havens” for asylum seekers near their home countries which would deny most of them access to Britain?
How the **** is that massively different to what is happening now? And all many years before brexit and under a non-Tory government.
But you carry on with your denial and delusion if you like, I will carry on challenging it. It's not difficult.
Is that you pretending that it wasn't possible to deny refugees their rights when the UK was in the EU?!
What the Tories are doing now isn't much different to what a Labour government was doing 20 years ago. They would still be doing it if Britian would was still in the EU. Plenty of EU member states are treating asylum seekers just as badly as the UK, some even worse.
But you keep your head in the sand and pretend that it's all to do with brexit. The truth is clearly unpalatable to you.
Well you have been reduced to getting your crayons out binners, I guess you find comfort in that. It's better than trying to formulate a coherent counter argument, something which you always struggle with.
Don't forget...... you're not supposed to eat the bloody crayons!
It can be frustrating when someone's missing of the point isn't accidental, though...
Oh jeez, I love you both guys, but can you just bugger off and fight on one of the previous threads you're already spatting on?
Oh, no, it really really is. Orders of magnitude worse.
So now we have moved from only post-brexit Tories do this sort of thing, to "order to magnitude" when compared to pre-brexit Labour.
Well you might think that forcing asylum seekers to choose to live in a carpark close to a post office so that the Home Office can contact them, getting a court to force the government to provide you with emergency food and shelter to desperate asylum seekers, and talking about “safe havens” for asylum seekers near their home countries which would deny most of them access to Britain, among other things, isn't the same magnitude as what is occurring now, I don't know, I guess it depends on your method of measurement.
But I couldn't give a toss about magnitudes, injustices are injustices, it's not a game or competition. This shit was happening when Britian was in the EU. The EU didn't stop the mistreatment of desperate asylum seekers. And it isn't stopping the mistreatment of asylum seekers in the EU member states now.
Anyway back on topic I see that Braverman has managed to piss off the Jewish Board of Deputies, that's quite an achievement for a Home Secretary who has made a big issue about being married to a Jew
https://www.jewishnews.co.uk/suella-braverman-demeaned-herself-by-criticising-the-board-says-ellman/
Balloons. Illegals could be stored in balloons 🎈
Failing that. How about a new referendum? - Boat fellas: yes/no? Then we could just move on. Job jobbed. Like brexit.
There are caves all over this country. Just sayin'
It's Brexit, Brexit Brexit.
Go back to the original Brexit thread and you'll see that for a few days everyone was discussing the pro's and con's of being a member of the European Union.
By the end of the week the penny had dropped and we all (well nearly all) realised the pro's and con's had nothing to do with it and that we were being frog marched into some fascistic nightmare by a bunch of goose stepping goons.
Yeah its all about brexit, it was completely different before the brexit referendum. Except of course for this stuff:
The Government was accused yesterday of starting "an international trade in displaced people" after Tony Blair confirmed plans to process people seeking asylum in Britain near their country of origin.
And in those days the LibDems had a left-wing leader with a conscience:
In the Commons, Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, challenged Mr Blair over the Tanzanian scheme. He said: "This could be the beginning of an international trade in displaced people and that would be a very bad precedent to set."
Later Mr Kennedy said the prospect had disturbing implications. "It is a matter of people who actually come to our country, who seek asylum status, are denied it, and are then being sent potentially to a third country with a cheque attached to take the matter off our hands."
And this is what the Tories had to say before their goosestepping post-brexit days:
The Prime Minister was barracked by Tory MPs, who accused him of adopting the Tory policy of deporting asylum-seekers arriving in Britain to a "far offshore" island to have their claims processed. David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "This smacks of sheer hypocrisy. The Government has continually mocked Conservative plans to deal with asylum-seekers offshore, and now it has decided to adopt them on the quiet."
And like the unworkable Rwanda scheme Tony Blair's unworkable Tanzania scheme had serious legal implications:
Oxfam warned that making aid to Tanzania conditional on co-operation with asylum applications would be illegal because it would contravene the International Development Act and the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Apart from all that things were very different pre-brexit.
So now we have moved from only post-brexit Tories do this sort of thing, to “order to magnitude” when compared to pre-brexit Labour.
Whilst I definitely said the latter I'm absolutely certain I never said the former. Get your facts right.
Well you might think that forcing asylum seekers to choose to live in a carpark close to a post office so that the Home Office can contact them, getting a court to force the government to provide you with emergency food and shelter to desperate asylum seekers, and talking about “safe havens” for asylum seekers near their home countries which would deny most of them access to Britain, among other things, isn’t the same magnitude as what is occurring now, I don’t know, I guess it depends on your method of measurement.
Well despite being objectively bad by anyones standards we didn't have them trying to make the crossing on inflatable dinghys whilst being pursued by the RN and the RNLI being castigated for resuing those in need, in fact they could actually get here at that point which was at least something (I don't remember reports of mass suffocations in lorries at that point but I could well be wrong). Furthermore, I don't remember them being "housed" in detention, sorry, reception centres unless you count the Sighthill flats as such.
[s]As for safe havens close to their homes, I'm sure there were probably a good number of asylum seekers happy with that arrangement for any number of reasons. I mean, why else would Lebanon be hosting more Syrians than anywhere else? If they are given proper support then where's the problem?[/s]
EDIT: read your last post RE: Tanzania, yes that's the same shit with a different smile.
we didn’t have them trying to make the crossing on inflatable dinghys
No, the preferred method of crossing 20 years ago was in the back of a lorry, mostly without the driver's consent. Greater vigilance has made that a less attractive means of crossing these days. I have no idea why this is relevant.
And yes, they will get rescued by the RN and the RNLI should the need arise.
Shockingly at least one EU member state won't allow rescue ships into its territorial waters, and the EU Commission cannot do anything about it.
https://euobserver.com/migration/156377
I don’t remember them being “housed” in detention, sorry, reception centres unless you count the Sighthill flats as such.
I have never heard of the Sighthill flats, where are they?
But I have heard of Yarl's Wood Detention Centre, built by a Labour government and riddled with scandals from soon after it opened, including protests, hunger strikes, deaths, sexual abuse, and the unlawful detention of children - much of it before the EU Referendum, if that is important to anyone, I think it is completely irrelevant.
If you have never heard of the Yarl's Wood Detention Centre here's a Wikipedia link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarl%27s_Wood_Immigration_Removal_Centre
Processing asylum seekers in another country is not the same as refusing point blank that they can apply for asylum at all. The later is a whole new level of shithousery, and is happening because of who Brexit elevated to run the country, and because they are looking to regain the electoral support that Brexit gave their party by reenergising “foreigners are the problem”, “we can’t make your lives better, but we can make theirs worse” voting sentiment. They are explicitly saying that they want to turn away people they know would have, in past times, after a long and painful delay, been granted asylum here. Will it ever happen…? Maybe not, but that’s the message to voters. “Genuine asylum seekers will be turned away, they can go and apply in Rwanda (or where ever) instead… or just disappear… not your problem, not our problem, somebody else’s problem… Rule Britannia!”
There was a tory on Question Time last night who blamed the econonic situation on 'Labour's' economic crash of 2008 (not the global economic crash birthed in the US).The audience laughed at her.
That's you that is ernie.
is happening because of who Brexit elevated to run the country
The Tories were running the country before the EU referendum as well as after it. Brexit didn't elevate them to power, although Labour calling for a second referendum undoubtedly helped them.
Everything the Tories are doing now with regards to asylum seekers they would have been able to do if Britian was still in the EU, it's nonsense to suggest otherwise.
Denmark's policy towards asylum seekers and refugees has become notably more hostile in recent years.
https://www.thelocal.se/20220831/sweden-democrats-launch-plan-to-bring-asylum-migration-close-to-zero
"This should mean close to zero asylum immigration," the party's leader Jimmie Åkesson said, after announcing that a study carried out by the party had found that Swedish law was currently above the most restrictive levels allowed by the EU in several areas.
Neither Denmark nor Sweden have left the EU.
That’s you that is ernie.
Yeah that's hilarious
Ernie
Your analysis is usually very good but you have this huge blindspot to the racism that was one of the main motivations for Brexit and tbe wave of racism its unleashed. I assume this is because you are a bexiteer and do not want to admit the racist element of your fellow travellers
Open your eyes man. Your denials sre are laughable
Racist Racist Racist
You can stamp your feet and shout racist forever. Fact of the matter is that in general, people in western countries don’t want uncontrolled illegal mass immigration. For a myriad of reasons, from loss of values and national identity, to competition over increasingly scarce resources like affordable housing.
That is why the government are doing this. It’s not “for the benefit of a few gammony racists”, what would be the point of that? Elections aren’t won by appealing to the few. It’s what the majority of the public want. It’s a vote winner. Would you be happy to have a referendum on the issue? Ignoring these issues is one reason why there is a general turn to the right in the west. And yes, part of the reason Brexit happened. But it’s nothing to do with racism. Unless the meaning of the word has changed and it’s now racist to want to have control of your borders. In which case I suspect that with the exception of a few virtue signalling big hitters on STW, the majority of voters are now racist.
Agreed, the methods are ludicrous and I honestly can’t understand why they can’t get a grip on this issue without resorting to ridiculous ideas like Rwanda. Australia seem to have managed it.
Edit: actually, tin-foil hat on, I suspect they could easily get a grip on this if they wanted too. But prefer to keep it as the ace in the pack to stop the other guys getting in.
TJ
Whether racism was one of the main motivation for brexit or not is quite irrelevant. I am not discussing brexit, I am not giving any reasons why it happened. I have a long standing position of not discussing the pros and cons of EU membership on stw because I consider it completely pointless.
A rational debate on here is neither possible nor necessary - the referendum was years ago and the UK is no longer an EU member state. I know a lot of people on here have a lot of problem with that but all I can suggest is that you discuss it on the brexit thread.
The reason for the attacks on asylum seekers is because of institutionalised racism in the UK's immigration and nationality laws which go back decades, long before the UK was even a member of the EU.
And even though Tory governments have probably a record of being the most racist, and exploiting racism, it also occured under Labour governments. I know that you personally are appalled by the expulsion of the Chagossians.
I can't make you understand that the Yarl's Wood Detention Centre, for example, was built and operated when the UK was a full EU member state but that is a fact. As is the fact that everything that is currently occurring could still be occurring if the UK was still in the EU. And even worse things are currently happening in Europe - unlike Italy the UK has not banned rescue ships from its territorial waters, and unlike in Scandinavia no one is talking about "zero" asylum seekers.
What the Tories are currently doing and attempting to do can and should be reversed, EU membership is neither necessary nor would it be useful - with regards to asylum seekers.
FFS stop dragging brexit into every ****ing issue and get on with dealing with the situation, instead of pretending that it's all the fault of brexit. Even Keir Starmer has accepted that. If you can't, throw your weight behind the Rejoin party, it seems to be the only thing that concerns them.
FFS stop dragging brexit into every **** issue and get on with dealing with the situation, instead of pretending that it’s all the fault of brexit.
You know what's funny? It's literally only you that has said that. Let's just review Binners' original comment shall we?
They’re just saying it because the Brexity gammons love all this shit
I can't see anything about blaming Brexit there, more a comment on the kind of voter these policies would appeal to.
He then went on to say:
Brexit weaponised, then turbo-charged all this shit, and theres no way on earth we’d have ended up with this shower in government without it.
Which seems fair as well. Yes it went on back in the Blair days but it wasn't front and centre of party policy, much the opposite actually, - a dirty little "secret" that the right people were supposed to know about whilst the rest of us wandered about thinking everything was rosy. Brexit gave the racists a green light that it's okay to be that way, you only have to look at how people acted in the days after and the complete lack of condemnation to see that. The rhetoric has ramped up considerably since then. As for who is in charge, all the "good guys" left or were pushed out to make way for the people we have in charge now.
So stop making this into something it isn't, take your own advice and bugger off to the Brexit thread if you want to go off on a complete tangent.
Finally, you're really not making a case for Step 1 as per the SKS thread are you? If it's all exactly the same then why bother?
Sorry an' all (I tend not to open these threads) but it's hard not to want to discuss Brexit when:
...the fact that everything that is currently occurring could still be occurring if the UK was still in the EU. And even worse things are currently happening in Europe – unlike Italy the UK has not banned rescue ships from its territorial waters, and unlike in Scandinavia no one is talking about “zero” asylum seekers
A person as stupid as me might ask what was the ****ing point of it. Still, I guess we've got those massive trade deal benefits to fall back on
I honestly can’t understand why they can’t get a grip on this issue without resorting to ridiculous ideas like Rwanda. Australia seem to have managed it.
Australia "managed it" by doing exactly what the Tories are proposing - having offshore processing at massive expense in developing countries - Papua New Guinea and Nauru. And the Papua New Guinea camp was illegal...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/oct/06/australia-to-end-offshore-processing-in-papua-new-guinea
.
FFS stop dragging brexit into every **** issue and get on with dealing with the situation, instead of pretending that it’s all the fault of brexit.
You know what’s funny? It’s literally only you that has said that.
Wtf are you talking about? My comment was in response to TJ's:
Ernie
Your analysis is usually very good but you have this huge blindspot to the racism that was one of the main motivations for Brexit......
We were discussing Suella Braverman's racist attitude towards people seeking asylum and yet again brexit was given as the cause, the suggestion clearly being that without brexit this would not be happening, which is obviously bollocks, it was happening before brexit and is currently happening in some EU countries.
I'm sitting in the sunshine during a bike ride coffee stop, it's lovely. Go on a bike ride and try to forget brexit 💡
For a myriad of reasons, from loss of values and national identity, to competition over increasingly scarce resources like affordable housing.
Let's take a look at this.
Loss of values, what are those? Nothing is immutable and it's the sign of a progressive society that values evolve as we learn more. Those wanting to stand still will ossify and die.
National identity. That's gone since the referendum, Britain used to be know as a place of tolerance and freedom. We no longer can claim that.
Scarce resources. These are scarce by choice of those in power. We are supposedly the sixth richest economy, we can afford whatever we want if we put our minds to it.
I did not say Brexit was the cause! Brexit is the symptom
What I said was your willful blindness to the racism in brexit and in the racist outpourings it has unleashed leads you to erroneous conclusions on this sort of area. Because your fervour for brexit and your anti racist beliefs clash so badly you refuse to see the truth of this and can only deny this racism inherent in brexit exists. Thus in your eyes the motivations for the "red wall" voting cannot be racist in any way etc etc
its obvious to anyone reading this and its a huge blind spot in what is usually good analysis
Let’s take a look at this.
1: Absolutely. As long as we’re progressing rather than regressing right?
2: Bolleaux. More ‘everything bad is because of brexit’ irrelevant temper tantrums.
3: Absolutely. Totally agree. But until that happens should we be making things worse?
2: Bolleaux. More ‘everything bad is because of brexit’ irrelevant temper tantrums.
Its not a temper tantrum and its not irrelevant. Its about putting the blame where it lies
Sorry Tj. You seem to be a lovely bloke but I simply cannot take you seriously on these matters. I imagine you raging against racists and brexiteers when you get a flat on the bike.
As TJ said, he never said what you think he did.
You actually made a very good point regarding historical actions by Labour but have gone off in some daft tangent of arguing against something nobody said then getting so annoyed with everyone else about it you just start making stuff up to get even more annoyed about!
You did the exact same with me yesterday:
So now we have moved from only post-brexit Tories do this sort of thing, to “order to magnitude” when compared to pre-brexit Labour.
Whilst I definitely said the latter I’m absolutely certain I never said the former. Get your facts right.
So that's Binners, me and TJ and that's just the last 2 pages.
2: Bolleaux. More ‘everything bad is because of brexit’ irrelevant temper tantrums.
From travelling, we have lost our reputation. From inside there's a lot of hysterical culture war nonsense going on within the country.
We were known for our Sang Froid and understatement, I don't believe that can be claimed anymore.
Backs out slowly.
Calls BREXIT from the door and then scarpers...
I did not say Brexit was the cause! Brexit is the symptom
So brexit isn't the cause of Suella Braverman's inhumane rules with regards to refugees and asylum seekers, brexit is the symptom? Well that might make sense in your head but it certainly doesn't in mine.
Anyway since we have now established that brexit isn't the cause how about not bringing it up at every opportunity?
The priority is that the next Labour government doesn't use the same deeply offensive rhetoric and punitive measures against refugees that the current Home Secretary is employing, and which even some right-wing Tories are uncomfortable with.
Rejoining the EU will neither be necessary to achieve that nor would it a guarantee of success - there are quite a few EU countries which are even more hostile towards refugees than Britain.
In the meantime if you want to rant about how UK voters have become neo-Nazis and developed a racist hatred of people from white European countries why don't you do it on the brexit thread, isn't that what it's there for?
I imagine you raging against racists and brexiteers when you get a flat on the bike.
I can't agree with a lot of what you post Jambo but on that point you probably aren't far off the mark! 😉
Isn't the case that after we left the EU the French weren't obliged to take back those who travelled here illegally in order to process their asylum applications under the Dublin Regulations?
Once again
You brought brexit into the converstion
You refuse to acknowledge the racism in brexit and in the brexit voters because you are wedded to brexit and an anti racist
this leads you to make completely erroneous analysis politically because you are unable to accept the racism thats both the root of brexit and the roots of freedom racists feel to express themselves post brexit
this is not a difficult analysis and many of us see it but you are blind to it
You brought brexit into the converstion
Of course I didn't, why would I want to bring up brexit?! 😂 🤣
I couldn't have made it clearer that I believe brexit is irrelevant. In fact that's precisely what I've been getting stick for, apparently I am in "denial".
Without naming names someone mentioned "Brexit Britian" and Brexity gammons” yesterday, that's how it all kicked off - I said this would be happening even without brexit, and I gave a multitude of examples.
You think I brought brexit into the conservation by saying, out of the blue, "brexit is irrelevant"? You're having a laugh! 😂
Loss of values, what are those? Nothing is immutable and it’s the sign of a progressive society that values evolve as we learn more. Those wanting to stand still will ossify and die.
National identity. That’s gone since the referendum, Britain used to be know as a place of tolerance and freedom. We no longer can claim that.
1) don't think the UK was quite as famous for being tolerant and free as you think. Don't think it's much less tolerant or unfree after as you think.
2) tolerance is a value...
Ernie, it's been explained enough, either read what people actually write or bugger off and let people have a discussion without you screaming in the middle of another bloody topic.
Ernie, it’s been explained enough, either read what people actually write or bugger off and let people
have a discussionblow smoke up each others arses for sharing the same righteous postion without you screaming in the middle of anotherbloody topiccircle-jerk.