Brexit Penny Dropping?

[The Voice of Reason]

9 hours ago, P.K. said:

Those who voted Leave didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for. Unfortunately they just believed a load of lies  (……………) 

 

Why are Remainers  so rude, telling those who disagree with them that they are racists, uneducated and haven’t a clue.?

Whereas those people of the Leave persuasion are in the main just happy to set out why they feel the way they do without resorting to insults.

[P.K.]

6 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Why are Remainers  so rude, telling those who disagree with them that they are racists, uneducated and haven’t a clue.?

There's nothing rude in telling it like it is.

There's a clear, proven correlation between education and the Brexit vote.

Just prior to the vote an IPSOS survey. Interestingly the split in the vote projection was within a few percent:

Immigration has now surpassed the economy becoming the most important issue for voters. One in three (33%) mention immigration as one of their most important issues (up from 28% in May) compared with 28% saying the economy (down from 33%). There are striking differences on these two issues when looking at them by voting preference. More than half (52%) of those likely to vote to leave in the referendum mention immigration as an issue compared with 14% of those likely to vote to remain.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/immigration-now-top-issue-voters-eu-referendum

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, P.K. said:

There's nothing rude in telling it like it is.

There's a clear, proven correlation between education and the Brexit vote.

Just prior to the vote an IPSOS survey. Interestingly the split in the vote projection was within a few percent:

Immigration has now surpassed the economy becoming the most important issue for voters. One in three (33%) mention immigration as one of their most important issues (up from 28% in May) compared with 28% saying the economy (down from 33%). There are striking differences on these two issues when looking at them by voting preference. More than half (52%) of those likely to vote to leave in the referendum mention immigration as an issue compared with 14% of those likely to vote to remain.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/immigration-now-top-issue-voters-eu-referendum

So what is this correlation between education and the Brexit vote. Should you only be allowed a vote in a referendum if you have reached a certain level of academic  achievement?

And I think you are confusing those who may have genuine questions about the effects of immigration  with racists. Not uncommon amongst Remain people unfortunately 

 

 

[woolley]

The argument is over. As with all things, history will judge.

[P.K.]

3 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

So what is this correlation between education and the Brexit vote. Should you only be allowed a vote in a referendum if you have reached a certain level of academic  achievement?

And I think you are confusing those who may have genuine questions about the effects of immigration  with racists. Not uncommon amongst Remain people unfortunately 

Not at all. The correlation simply proves that those with lower educational attainment were more likely to vote Leave.

I'm not confusing genuine questions about immigration at all.

I'm talking about racism thinly disguised as immigration....

[quilp]

18 minutes ago, woolley said:

The argument is over. As with all things, history will judge.

It's the same, all too familiar and repetitious argument being wrung out yet again.

Serves no purpose, imo. 

[woolley]

3 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Not at all. The correlation simply proves that those with lower educational attainment were more likely to vote Leave.

I'm not confusing genuine questions about immigration at all.

I'm talking about racism thinly disguised as immigration....

More likely, perhaps. This does not mean that everyone who voted remain had a towering intellect and all who voted leave were simple. I would suspect that the most informed and mentally agile voted leave and possibly more of the less educated did too, though for very different reasons. Remain probably had a lot more of the unremarkable middle ground dyed in the wool Europhiles as a result of half a century of conditioning, as well as the "status quo" anything for a quiet life brigade.

[P.K.]

Just like old times.

Happy days....

[woolley]

6 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Just like old times.

Happy days....

No. 😀

[Freggyragh]

No. It's seven years since the referendum, so now that Project Fear is Project Here, it's about time we started to asses the impact. I am half wishing for another seven years of pain, so that when we rejoin we do so unanimously. Then again, maybe there are still leavers around who still believe in it?

[Mr. Sausages]

Anti eu people campaigned for decades to leave after the uk joined. They now expect pro eu people to just shut up. Hypocritical dickheads.

[manxman1980]

I assume that you have seen the announcements today from the PM?  The introduction of "emergency legislation" that will set aside domestic legislation as well as international treaties such as the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention so that he can push through the Rwanda plan.  The Brexit rhetoric of being controlled by "foreign courts" has rose to the surface again for justifying this (despite the fact that it was a UK court which ruled the plan as illegal).

Add in that 30p Lee and a few others have basically called for the UK Government to ignore the Court ruling and proceed with the flights anyway - effectively breaking the law.  This is from the self-styled party of "law and order".

What isn't being reported in the most of the UK media or being promoted by the Government is clause 16 of the MoU which says;  “Resettlement of vulnerable Refugees: 16.1. The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.” 

No details have been shared on what a "small number" means.  I wonder why the Government isn't promoting this part of the agreement?

The number of people who would also be sent to Rwanda is relatively small and won't really have an impact on the number of "illegal" immigrants in the UK.  The whole hope of this plan, and the use of barges, is to act as a deterrent rather than to actually deal with the problem which is a lack of funding and resources to clear the backlog of asylum seekers. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by manxman1980
Correcting MoA to MoU

[manxman1980]

The other bit I forgot to add yesterday..

If the UK decides to leave the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention then they will be aligning themselves with Russia and Belarus.  Did people vote Brexit to align the UK with those two countries? 

[John Wright]

12 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

I assume that you have seen the announcements today from the PM?  The introduction of "emergency legislation" that will set aside domestic legislation as well as international treaties such as the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention so that he can push through the Rwanda plan.  The Brexit rhetoric of being controlled by "foreign courts" has rose to the surface again for justifying this (despite the fact that it was a UK court which ruled the plan as illegal).

Add in that 30p Lee and a few others have basically called for the UK Government to ignore the Court ruling and proceed with the flights anyway - effectively breaking the law.  This is from the self-styled party of "law and order".

What isn't being reported in the most of the UK media or being promoted by the Government is clause 16 of the MoU which says;  “Resettlement of vulnerable Refugees: 16.1. The Participants will make arrangements for the United Kingdom to resettle a portion of Rwanda’s most vulnerable refugees in the United Kingdom, recognising both Participants’ commitment towards providing better international protection for refugees.” 

No details have been shared on what a "small number" means.  I wonder why the Government isn't promoting this part of the agreement?

The number of people who would also be sent to Rwanda is relatively small and won't really have an impact on the number of "illegal" immigrants in the UK.  The whole hope of this plan, and the use of barges, is to act as a deterrent rather than to actually deal with the problem which is a lack of funding and resources to clear the backlog of asylum seekers. 

 

3 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

The other bit I forgot to add yesterday..

If the UK decides to leave the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention then they will be aligning themselves with Russia and Belarus.  Did people vote Brexit to align the UK with those two countries? 

There really is a simple way of doing this.

Negotiate a treaty with France, or the EU, or even Rwanda, that allows UK asylum claims to be made and processed there by UK Home Office Staff stationed there, with Immigration and Immigration Appeal Tribunals sitting there. 

Anyone arriving by non regular means is returned and goes to back of the queue.

Rwanda is a distraction. 200-500 out of 27,000 makes no difference. It’s just political rhetoric.

UK isn’t the refugee/asylum destination of choice. It’s a long journey from the shores of Southern Europe. Most stay in ( EU ) countries en route.

[manxman1980]

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

There really is a simple way of doing this.

Negotiate a treaty with France, or the EU, or even Rwanda, that allows UK asylum claims to be made and processed there by UK Home Office Staff stationed there, with Immigration and Immigration Appeal Tribunals sitting there. 

Anyone arriving by non regular means is returned and goes to back of the queue.

I agree with you that the solution is easily solved by working closely and more effectively with the EU.  You are right that an agreement to process the applications overseas would certainly help with tackling the small boats.  It won't happen though, at least under the current Government, as it is a sensible approach but would require them to increase spending on employing people to actually process the applications.

It is the delay in processing applications that are leading to thousands of people sat in limbo in hotels unable to work or contribute to UK society.

The processing in Rwanda is nonsense because even if they are successful in claiming asylum under the proposed scheme they won't be returned to the UK.  They will remain in Rwanda.

1 minute ago, John Wright said:

Rwanda is a distraction. 200-500 out of 27,000 makes no difference. It’s just political rhetoric.

UK isn’t the refugee/asylum destination of choice. It’s a long journey from the shores of Southern Europe. Most stay in ( EU ) countries en route.

I agree that Rwanda is a distraction and what I can see happening is the UK sending 200-500 people to Rwanda and getting 200 - 500 Rwanda refugees in return as per Clause 16 but the UK Government does not want that to be highlighted.