Kinsella
Copy & Paste Merchant
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2012
- Messages
- 3,245
A United Ireland draws ever closer.
The vote happened because David Cameron wanted to control the pro and anti EU split in the Tory party.I think you have to go back and examine why the vote happened.
It seems to me that the two major factors were immigration and a deep sense of discontent with the political class/system, and the European Union became a proxy for both. There's nothing wrong with having a second referendum, but to do so before the result of the first is enacted risks turning that discontent into something much more dangerous in my view.
true... i could see Boris invading because nothing can be allowed to stop Brexit!A United Ireland draws ever closer.
The vote happened because David Cameron wanted to control the pro and anti EU split in the Tory party.
Nearly a decade of austerity and cuts to public services left the UK a worse place to be for residents. The media and Tory party deflected blame on this decline away from their terrible policies over these years. They found a useful scapegoat, immigrants and the EU.
Hence, a very marginal win for leave. Such a tiny percentage it can hardly be called "the will of the people".
I dunno - hard brexit looks more likely than ever... and she seems to find that preferable to Mays dealArlene Foster has played this badly.
Well, she's in bed with a bunch of people who will sacrifice NI without a second thought.I dunno - hard brexit looks more likely than ever... and she seems to find that preferable to Mays deal
Until Boris crosses their palms with silver.Well, she's in bed with a bunch of people who will sacrifice NI without a second thought.
It's hardly surprising therefore that the Leave vote corresponded with those areas which experienced the highest rates of population change.
That didn’t happen.
It did, although I should've said 'tended to correspond'.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/07/14/explaining-the-brexit-vote
"Although immigration featured heavily in the Brexit campaign, areas with the most migrants—notably London—were among those most likely to vote Remain (see chart 1). Mint-tea-sipping metropolitans may find it absurd that people in areas with comparatively few foreigners should be so keen to curb migration. But consider the change in numbers, rather than the total headcount, and the opposite pattern emerges (chart 2). Where foreign-born populations increased by more than 200% between 2001 and 2014, a Leave vote followed in 94% of cases. The proportion of migrants may be relatively low in Leave strongholds such as Boston, Lincolnshire, but it has soared in a short period of time. High numbers of migrants don’t bother Britons; high rates of change do."
Am I reading this right... A 500% increase over 14 years equals 10% of the population, taking the town they use as an example?
Boston has a population of about 35k so that means using those figures an average of 200 immigrants moved there per year over a period of 14 years. How do these people cope with such a shock to the system.
High numbers of migrants don’t bother Britons; high rates of change do. Haha.
It did, although I should've said 'tended to correspond'.
https://www.economist.com/britain/2016/07/14/explaining-the-brexit-vote
"Although immigration featured heavily in the Brexit campaign, areas with the most migrants—notably London—were among those most likely to vote Remain (see chart 1). Mint-tea-sipping metropolitans may find it absurd that people in areas with comparatively few foreigners should be so keen to curb migration. But consider the change in numbers, rather than the total headcount, and the opposite pattern emerges (chart 2). Where foreign-born populations increased by more than 200% between 2001 and 2014, a Leave vote followed in 94% of cases. The proportion of migrants may be relatively low in Leave strongholds such as Boston, Lincolnshire, but it has soared in a short period of time. High numbers of migrants don’t bother Britons; high rates of change do."
This is what I was thinking. Very misleading to insinuate anything else from those graphs.
Farming... Loads of jobs the locals wouldn't do that the Polish did.A few months ago, I was looking at Boston's demographics and it's an interesting case, I meant to look at the local policies and the type of jobs that were created in order to create that particular increase. Because clearly someone did something special, a very particular population has been funneled in that locality and it's not a coincidence because we are not talking about an historical immigration destination.
Ha ha. It is ridiculous, isn't it? Textbook case of lying with statistics.This is what I was thinking. Very misleading to insinuate anything else from those graphs.
Farming... Loads of jobs the locals wouldn't do that the Polish did.
Hmmm... Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe the locals just think the jobs are beneath them.Temp work for shite money that’s hard to live on when you’re a permanent UK resident
Temp work for shite money that’s hard to live on when you’re a permanent UK resident
I’d say it’s a bit of both. You can live a relatively comfortable life on benefits in the UK these days but that’s probably a debate for another thread
Question is who's going to do the work when the immigrants have been driven out.
Give over. What do you class as comfortable?
I bet you’re one of those “they have teeeveees in prisons” kinda guy aren’t you.
Brits should if they pay a fair wage but cheap labour is easy to take advantage off.
There are laws for that (at the moment) but in reality those that pay under the minimum will either make prices shoot up or companies will go out of business.
Farming... Loads of jobs the locals wouldn't do that the Polish did.
Remarkable that he and his team thought anyone would believe this.
There’s so much to unpack, what 10 year old knows to capitalise the P in Party when referring to a political entity. Or the use of ellipses, and not an speck of smeared ink or crossed out mistakes?
Plus what 10 year old is called Jim?
Remarkable that he and his team thought anyone would believe this.
There’s so much to unpack, what 10 year old knows to capitalise the P in Party when referring to a political entity. Or the use of ellipses, and not an speck of smeared ink or crossed out mistakes?
Plus what 10 year old is called Jim?
What fecking 10 year old gives a shit about Brexit .
The (fellow leaver) bit had me in stitches.
What fecking 10 year old gives a shit about Brexit .
The (fellow leaver) bit had me in stitches.
To be honest, it could be genuine. I went to primary school with a lad like that. 10 years old and a major interest in politics. He did a project in his spare time on the falklands war as it happened.
Little sheet needs a slap though.
PM me when you find a single 10 year old that says "my gratitude to you".