Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
I’m sorry Bob, this thread is for people’s opinions, not statements of indisputable fact.
Oops sorry.
David Davis has been ridiculed for suggesting the UK could enter a post-Brexit transition period after leaving the EU with no deal.
The Conservative MP, who was Brexit secretary for two years before resigning in July, was branded “deluded” over an opinion piece which appeared to show he did not understand fundamental aspects of the withdrawal negotiations.
Home website, he wrote: “If we need to leave with no deal and negotiate a free trade agreement during the transition period, so be it. Let’s be clear and honest and tell the EU that’s what we are prepared to do.”
“It seems like the man who was in charge of delivering Brexit doesn’t understand the process. You can’t have a transition without a deal and everyone knows that.
Just seen the news. I feel this is truly the end for the conservatives for many years. Hallelluhah
I don’t mind you keeping it short bob. It’s better than some of the long winded boring posts on here..
TBH it’s just a shame that there is no alternative. Labour under Corbyn is a joke and Lib Dem’s under Vince the Cable is well...zzzzzxxx
People would rather stick with a crap Tory government than a Corbyns Labour
Neither. He lies as much as the next politician but is better at it. However he believed what he was saying because he was a deluded twat who genuinely believes that he is always right. However even you must know that someone who repeats something which is factually wrong because he believes it to be true is not a liar. . he is guilty of negligence to varying degrees. Happy to meet you in agreeing that he was grossly negligent bordering on reckless and deserves full condemnation for what he did and his whole loathsome arrogance that he always knew best. However if you want to go on calling him a liar ie someone who knew that the information was fake yet perpetuated it in order to get his way then prove it.
Good reply.
Only thing I would say is I don’t need to prove he is a liar as there is enough proof of that.
Outstanding reply and probably describes every brexiteer and their reasons for voting out,
If people cannot still understand this simple description of why folk voted out then they probably don’t even understand their own reasons for voting remain.
Well said.
Yes, the overwhelming reason for people voting Leave was immigration. But it was a giant red herring. Any problems caused by EU immigration could have been (and could still be) dealt with from within the EU. Here's a piece by two ex-Home Secretaries (Alan Johnson and Charles Clarke) explaining how...…
However, May did get one very important thing right. She appreciated that large numbers of those who voted for Brexit did so because of concerns about free movement. Remain campaigners struggled against the simplistic mantra of “take back control” and the momentum shifted to leave when, a month before the referendum, the Office for National Statistics published the latest net migration figure of 333,000 – a record level.
It is true, but doesn’t matter, that much of the concern about immigration was based on false information and dishonest marketing.
Nor does it matter that Brexit wouldn’t significantly reduce immigration, nor that many leading Brexiters do not care at all about immigration numbers, only “sovereignty”.
It doesn’t even matter that May’s own incompetence as home secretary fuelled many of the popular concerns. She promulgated the duplicitous target of reducing net migration to the UK to fewer than 100,000 (under her stewardship this actually increased, with a majority coming from outside the EU). Her first act as home secretary was to abolish identity cards, a central mechanism to give citizens confidence in the governance and control of migration. And she contributed nothing to reducing migration into the EU by strengthening the external Schengen border.
Whatever the background, the unavoidable fact is that millions of people voted for Brexit because they felt immigration was outside their control. Their votes were decisive and would be again.
As a people’s vote becomes more likely, this central political fact needs to be taken directly into account. Advocates of a new referendum should seek to heal national divisions, not perpetuate and strengthen them. A new vote must not repeat May’s mistake of ignoring strongly held minority opinions.
Therefore, concerns about immigration have to be properly addressed – inside or outside the EU. We suggest the following measures to control immigration more effectively should be implemented.
First, we need tighter control of EU migration into the UK by applying current EU rules, which state that migrants must prove that they are either working, actively seeking work or self-sufficient. Otherwise, they can be removed after three months. Other EU countries operate a worker registration system to implement this. In a similar way, the UK should require EU migrants to register with their local authority. Those without jobs should be required to return to their country of origin.
Sufficient resources for people and technology must be provided to enforce the migration rules properly.
Second, we need stricter labour market controls to address unscrupulous employers using appalling and illegal labour practices to encourage people-trafficking and illegal immigration. We need proper inspection and tougher enforcement against exploitation.
Recruitment agencies should not be permitted to hire directly from abroad and, in high unemployment sectors, new jobs should first be offered to local unemployed people.
Third, we should re-establish a national identity system using new technology to establish secure digital identities for everyone. Among other benefits, this would make it easier to identify illegal migration.
Fourth, we need to contribute to far more effective control of the EU’s external border and better-resourced European policing coordination to strengthen enforcement against human traffickers and smugglers.
Fifth, in the event we remain in the EU, we need to tighten migration controls, for example by reforming the posted workers directive to ensure that companies bringing in workers from abroad pay at the local rate. An “emergency brake” system should be considered for periods of exceptionally high inflows.
Sixth, we should establish a well-resourced and focused migration impact fund to help local communities manage the impact of rapid population change.
This six-point approach to immigration is right on its own terms. Some of the measures previously rejected as too costly, bad for business or threats to civil liberties are nothing like as expensive or problematic as Brexit would be. We could achieve them more effectively inside, rather than outside, the EU.
Those who believe that a people’s vote is the best way out of the imbroglio in which the country now finds itself should make an effective approach to controlling immigration a prominent part of the public argument that needs to be made.
A bit rich, Strolls, given that these two were part of Blair's government. As reported:
"Blair has now admitted he did not realise how many migrants would come to the UK when he opened Britain's borders to millions of European workers. He relaxed immigration controls in 2004 after 10 new nations including Poland, Lithuania and Hungary, were admitted to the EU. Official figures show that the number of EU migrants who came to Britain rose from just 15,000 in 2003 to 87,000 the following year. That figure increased to 104,000 in 2006 and 127,000 in 2007.
Mr Blair also made a factual error by suggesting that he could only have imposed transitional controls, temporarily barring migrants for four years. In fact other EU nations including Germany introduced the measures for up to seven years."
Blair took his own voters for granted, and could see millions of fresh Labour voters coming in from Eastern Europe. New Labour even gloated that they were rubbing the Tories noses in it. And now they face the consequences.
Brexit is about more than just immigration, as your article admits ( "...many leading Brexiters do not care at all about immigration numbers, only “sovereignty”.") But it is an important part and Blair's government ****ed up royally.
I can only speak for myself, but immigration was not the reason I voted leave and I don't believe it was the main motivation for many others either.
A peoples vote is only in your mind Stroller. Have you been watching the news of late? Polls show that the majority of people don't want one. Majority of MP's don't want one. Even Captain Remain Ken Clarke has just said "it would be absolutely ridiculous to have another referendum", and it won't happen.
All very well, but the points Johnson and Clarke make, and the solutions they offer, are still valid. Issues relating to EU immigration were, and are, soluble from within the EU. Would you not agree that immigration was by far the biggest factor in Leave winning the vote, and that, as is suggested in the article, people believed that we were unable to control it? The Johnson/Clarke article points to ways that we could have controlled it, and we still could. Blair failed to do so because he thought, whatever his reasons, that EU immigration was a positive thing. May failed because she was incompetent. The issue was a red herring in the referendum campaign, and the Remain camp failed to expose it as such.
Last edited:
I respect the fact that it wasn't the main motivation for you, Col, but I do strongly believe that it was the biggest consideration for the majority of Leave voters.
Sadly Col this is the 'remoaners' new tactic trying to say we only voted Leave because of immigration. Once again like the "uneducated' remarks describing leavers it comes across as very patronising. It's their last throws.
Also, it is going over old ground... how about they talk EU and how member states want more from us and want to punish us? They never mention that do they? They are so hellbent on trying to keep us in and not respecting a democratic vote that they are blind to the underhanded tactics of the EU member states.
At the end of the day, I am not happy with the May deal but if it gets us out of the EU (other than the 3 points) then I will be happy. Because once we leave we will never go back because new members will have to join Euro which no will do here. Bring on March!
If it was that easy to control immigration, Cameron would have done it. Or the EU would have proposed it when Cameron went to Merkel to get concessions. Free movement is one of the EU cornerstones. You can't opt out of it. Johnson and Clarke's proposals skate around the issue. Yes, I agree the scale of immigration (not the immigrants themselves) was probably the main issue.
The one proposal I do agree with is the identity cards because we have over 1 million illegals in the country, and apart from anything else, it's unfair on immigrants that want to come here legally. May has always been against - the idea of having identify cards checked by stop and search etc is somehow seen as Un-British, but I think it will have to come in because our borders are currently under pressure from non-EU migrants and also student and tourist overstays etc.
Interesting to hear that the fanatically pro-EU Ken Clarke on Sky this morning is against a second referendum because it would be extremely tight and achieve nothing
Snap! I saw the interview too. A second referendum could only ever be contemplated if there is strong evidence from polls that there was a massive move of former Leavers to Remain. There just is not. There is every evidence that people are where they were two years ago.