Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?


  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
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.
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".
 
The vote happened because David Cameron wanted to control the pro and anti EU split in the Tory party.

I was referring to the reasons behind the Leave vote, not the decision to hold the actual referendum.

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.

Austerity probably paid a part but I think it goes much deeper than that. Given the deindustrialisation of much of the midlands and North of England under the Thatcher government in the 1980s and the deep long lasting effect of such policies on whole towns and communities, it's hardly surprising a Leave vote was delivered in said regions. Regions which you'd call Labour's traditional heartlands.

I don't live in Britain, so I can only talk about immigration in a general sense. Facts have to be the starting point for discussion however, and it is a fact that the level of immigration into Britain since the late '90s has been unprecedented in modern British history. It's hardly surprising therefore that the Leave vote corresponded with those areas which experienced the highest rates of population change. Of course the cruel irony is that the level of immigration from countries outside the EU far outweighed that from inside.

I think it's important to remember in all of this that Britain, and England specifically, has always had a strong 'eurosceptic' tradition. It forms such a significant part of its history and identity. And when particular issues are allowed fester (for want of a better word), then certain feelings may manifest.

The fault for the mess Britain finds itself in doesn't lie with the likes of Nigel Farage, UKIP and so on; it lies with successive British governments. If government doesn't heed the concerns and sentiments of the citizens of the state, then a price will be paid somewhere down the line. Britain is currently paying the price.

Hence, a very marginal win for leave. Such a tiny percentage it can hardly be called "the will of the people".

True. I think it would be much better though if those campaigning for a second referendum, focus their attention on having it after the result of the first has been enacted, as opposed to before.
 
Last edited:
I dunno - hard brexit looks more likely than ever... and she seems to find that preferable to Mays deal
Well, she's in bed with a bunch of people who will sacrifice NI without a second thought.
 
Is there 'chink of light' appearing from the EU to break the dead-lock, or just mischief-making?

At lunchtime today the Dutch PM, in a TV interview with the BBC's Senior European Correspondent, declared that the idea of a United States of Europe has now been removed from the EU's future? Whether this was just a reaction to the likelihood of a Boris UK PM, or whether its is a genuine shift in long term EU aims remains to be seen. Perhaps its a calculation that around 20% of the hard Brexit Tories are more concerned with this aspect of Brexit than anything else and could be turned if this statement was confirmed by the full Commission?
 
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."



20160716_brc890_0.png
 
Last edited:
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."



20160716_brc890_0.png

Am I reading this right... A 500% increase over 14 years equals 10% of the population, taking the town they use as an example?
 
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.
 
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.

This is what I was thinking. Very misleading to insinuate anything else from those graphs.
 
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."



20160716_brc890_0.png

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.
 
This is what I was thinking. Very misleading to insinuate anything else from those graphs.

Also not mentioned is the fact that the population in the area is diminishing so it's nothing to do with overpopulation.

Internal migration figures in Table 3 show the movement of people into and out of Lincolnshire's local authority districts from mid-2016 to mid-2017. All of the districts show a positive net balance during the year ending 2017 apart from Boston.

Table 3 - Internal Migration Flows, Year ending June 2017 Source: Office for National Statistics

Local Authority District Inflow Outflow Balance Inflow Outflow Balance
2016 2017
Boston 2100 3,000 -900 2,800 3,100 -300
 
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/...fter-the-euro-summit-meeting-on-21-june-2019/

Extract:
At the end of our meeting, the EU27 briefly came back to the issue of Brexit. We have agreed on the following, united approach of the EU27:

- we look forward to working together with the next UK Prime Minister;

- we want to avoid a disorderly Brexit and establish a future relationship that is as close as possible with the UK;

- we are open for talks when it comes to the Declaration on the future UK-EU relations if the position of the United Kingdom were to evolve, but the Withdrawal Agreement is not open for renegotiation; and

- we have been informed on the state of play of planning for a no-deal scenario.
 
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.
Farming... Loads of jobs the locals wouldn't do that the Polish did.
 
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

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.
 
Question is who's going to do the work when the immigrants have been driven out.

Brits should if they pay a fair wage but cheap labour is easy to take advantage off.


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.

I’ve been to prison and you get TVs and all kinds of exciting drugs. It’s more comfortable than getting £5 cash in hand an hour on a farm
 


:lol:
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? :lol:
 
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.

It happens all the time and isn’t policed at all. How can it be? You can pay shit money to foreign lads on farms and building sites who are more happy to take it for a variety of reasons. The whole culture and structure of the country is a mess
 
Farming... Loads of jobs the locals wouldn't do that the Polish did.

Yeah, I looked into it and it's basically the increase of production in farming and the food processing industry and the industry clearly taking advantage of foreigners. I found that article from 2007 and there are plenty of older ones.
 


:lol:
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? :lol:



 


:lol:
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? :lol:


What fecking 10 year old gives a shit about Brexit :lol:.

The (fellow leaver) bit had me in stitches.
 
What fecking 10 year old gives a shit about Brexit :lol:.

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.
 
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.

Seriously? I can't say I've ever met a 10 year old with those kind of interests. Weird.

Aside from that the handwriting etc all looks far too polished for a child of that age. That entire letter screams middle aged man, not a kid.
 
PM me when you find a single 10 year old that says "my gratitude to you".

'At my school they try and brainwash us to be pro-EU'

Ah yes. Top of the curriculum at that age, alongside finger painting and 'how to make a pencil holder' we have political brainwashing.