Now Nigel (fucking) Farage is calling for a 2nd referendum. You can't make this shit up.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/11/nigel-farag...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jan/11/nigel-farag...
Leave wins. He's a hero.
Leave loses. He gets to keep his "job," and remains a martyr for the cause.
The problem here is referenda and "winning" or "losing" them. Any sane system would have interpreted an outcome like 48-52 with a soft approach (exactly what happened in Norway), not a winner-takes-all mentality. Maybe it's an outcome of FPTP and a two party system.
As long as referenda are treated as football matches, the outcome doesn't really matter. They will sow discord and divide society. "Discord and division" is exactly the sort of environment the likes of Farage thrive in. It doesn't matter to them what the outcome is as long as it creates strife and hardens opinions.
Of course, he meant a 52-48 result the other way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_bailout_referendum,_2015
The public voted "no", again, but obviously that made no difference to the deals on offer and no deal remained disastrous, so Syriza were ultimately forced to accept a worse deal: "On Monday, 13 July, the Syriza-led government of Greece accepted a bailout package that contains larger pension cuts and tax increases than the one rejected by Greek voters in the referendum"
Think that's going to bite Nigel in a arse though.
Disagree. He said before the referendum that 48%-52% would be unfinished business, but didn’t seem to lose credibility amongst his supporters from it. Something may eventually tarnish his Teflon, but he’d probably be able to turn defeat in a second referendum into a rallying cry for a literal attempted revolution. (I place odds of UK civil war in the next 6 years at about 10%).
So I'd imagine that a second vote would end in favour of remain by a more conclusive margin than the first.
As a Remain voter I am obviously biased to see mainly the flaws in Leavers, so please synthesise opposite equivalents for the following: If Leave voters agregate around the identity that “Brexit is expensive but worth it”, I think this decreases the risk of them starting the sort of riots that would lead to a civil war; if they instead are surprised by massive economic damage (or by 10% of the doctors leaving at once), that increases the risk they will decide to blame Remainers for “talking the country down” or whatever.
I have seen comments from YouGov users suggesting that people like me should be executed. I do not yet take such comments as a serious threat (they have also suggested nukes, apparently oblivious to France having any of their own), but such comments are part of why I estimate 10% chance of civil war in this timeframe — the other major component of my belief being an assumption that the basic rate of civil wars is 1/(years since last one) per year.
Hmm. Does that include resumption of armed conflict in NI? That's a possibility but there's no real tradition of this in England. I'm somewhat surprised there haven't been anti-Brexit riots but I can only assume that MI5 is pro-Brexit and actively disrupting their organisation. I can't see how we'd actually get to armed conflict unless the government starts it by mistake.
It's hard to get riot-angry that "living conditions will get gradually worse over the next decade"
no need to deport anyone when they could slowly withdraw the right to work (say when someone swaps jobs)
I could easily see a malfunctioning government unilaterally deporting EU citizens.
given they're barely able to deport a couple of hundred failed asylum seekers, millions of EU citizens (many of whom aren't registered or on any sort of database) is not simply not possible
He is saying a second referendum could show the politicians who have been pushing for a soft brexit recently that this is really what the British public want.
What point are you trying to make?
Also I would favour a disclaimer on the bottom
Tick here if you're aware that X% of doctors and nurses on the NHS are from the EU and reducing their number will result in more delays and/or need to have more doctors/nurses from non-EU countries
Tick here if you're aware leaving the EU (hard Brexit) will result in longer times and possible caveats when entering other countries in the Schengen area
Tick here if you're aware leaving the EU single market will increase prices of several goods, both by the reduced value of the Pound and higher import fees.
(oh and my favourite) Tick here if you're aware leaving the EU will make it harder to move between countries, including southern European countries (like Spain) and that retirees might need a visa to move or remain there
The UK public have consistently asked their politicians to reduce immigration since the 60s and this has been reflected over and over again in poll data. However, politicians have always ignored this request and while the UK is in the EU politicians have very little control over total number anyway.
So basically what you're saying is despite the UK public not agree with the population replacement level of immigration currently occurring in their country, they have no choice because politicians either way are going to continue to replace the population through immigration. The only choice the UK people have to choice between between replaced by EU immigrants or non-EU immigrants... Well how brilliantly immoral. Have we learnt nothing from our past?
They absolutely haven't - policy has been rewritten over the past couple of decades to make immigration extremely difficult.
What I suspect is going on is that some people want the absolute number of non-"ethnically british" people reduced, which is ethically impossible given that many were in fact born here or already achieved ILR.
Nobody is being "replaced".
And are you suggesting the EU's free movement isn't a thing? What exactly makes it so difficult for someone from Eastern Europe to come to the UK?
Every selection is biased in one way or the other, there's no purely fair way of doing that.
Oh? That's interesting. There are people in this comment thread claiming that work visa are really awful and restrictive.
> And unskilled work doesn't usually compete with skilled work.
Well, no, but we are forced to accept a ton of unskilled (and unneeded) immigration from the EU which means we have to restrict the total amount of potentially needed skilled work from non-EU countries.
> Every selection is biased in one way or the other, there's no purely fair way of doing that.
Is an immigration preference people of certain nationalises fair? Can I assume you agree with Trumps immigration bans by any chance?
I'm not sure about their experience and my knowledge is 3rd party, still, YMMV.
> Is an immigration preference people of certain nationalities fair?
Not really, but no country does this fairly, and they're not wrong (within a limit). Key word: immigration. Is it fair that Canadians don't need a visa to visit the US but Mexicans do? No, but they're not wrong and Mexico is free to require a visa as well.
> Can I assume you agree with Trumps immigration bans by any chance?
The travel ban, not the immigration ban. And no, I don't agree that people with a valid visa (or even permanent residents, which was what the Supreme Court shot down first) shouldn't be allowed to visit (unless there's a specific issue).
The way the UK treats outside EU migrants is down to the hateful politics of the daily mail et al and has no basis in fact - look at Germany and the Blue Card for a contrasting example.
FWIW, I voted remain (as a Commonwealth citizen, ridiculously, I could vote, but UK citizens in the EU couldn't, despite the referendum affecting them greatly!)
The racists don't believe this, and want to get rid of those workers, and (delusionally) think we can train our own nurses and doctors and allied health professionals. They just want europeans out, and they'd vote brexit.[1]
But government knows that the NHS cannot run without immigrant staff, and all EU NHS staff have already been told that they're guaranteed to be allowed to stay in the UK. (Although this has happened very late, and many staff have already left).
So we've ended up at a situation that is worse for everyone: the racists are unhappy because we've increase non-EU immigration, and because we've guaranteed residence for EU NHS staff; the NHS is unhappy because employing staff is now much harder (and it's already hard enough).
[1] for clairty: I'm not saying everyone who voted Brexit is like this. (All bookaks are blue. Are all blue things bookaks?)
Could you provide a reference for this? I hope it's true but I've missed the announcement.
> All bookaks are blue. Are all blue things bookaks?
Blue passports, dammit! (Which were in reality black)
Here's one example: https://www.gponline.com/hunt-confident-eu-nhs-workers-will-...
Here's his tweet announcing the deal: https://twitter.com/Jeremy_Hunt/status/939052992736751616
> This deal gives our brilliant EU doctors & nurses binding guarantees about their residence rights. NHS staff please spread the word to European colleagues: this is your home, we value your life-saving work, and we want you to stay.
(I strongly dislike Mr Hunt, and I'm struggling to keep a neutral tone here.)
B. "Soft" Brexit
C. No Brexit
Brexitors would be somewhat split between A and B, and all remainers would pick C.
Can I add some disclaimers to?
* Tick here if you are aware there are shortages of doctors and nurses (and other skilled professions) in eastern European countries like Romania because trained professionals tend to come to western Europe to work. This is also true for developing countries.
* Tick here if you understand while in the EU the UK has effectively zero control over it's immigration and trade.
This isn't true though.
Also, are you suggesting the EU doesn't have open borders?
The treaties do contain restriction mechanisms which the UK didn't use: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-bla...
The fact is this type of immigration policy hurts the poorest and lowest skilled in society. It also means even skilled workers have to compete for jobs when there isn't necessarily any need for their skills.
- "its" not "it's"
- the UK retains some control of immigration w.r.t EU citizens (some of which they chose not to enforce and it also allows UK citizens to avail of freedom of movement as well) and full control of the immigration of non-EU citizens, so your assertion is false
- Brain drain is debatable, there was never a position for a lot of them in the 1st place (and they might just go somewhere else)
As you probably know the control the UK does have over EU citizens is extremely extremely limit. They don't call it "open borders" for no reason believe it or not.
> Brain drain is debatable, there was never a position for a lot of them in the 1st place (and they might just go somewhere else)
Yeah, well who cares about developing countries as long as the west benefits right? Perhaps we should be focusing on giving them positions in their own countries rather than requiring them to move from their families, friends and culture just for a better life?
But morals never play a role in this. It's all about the nations gross-GDP isn't it?
+ and even that has exceptions, I was passport-checked going from Italy into France but not France to Italy, I assume because of the state of emergency from the attack a few years ago.
I understand this, but then the assumption is that this is a good immigration system. A nation shouldn't let anyone in who can get a job and support themselves. It's an awful immigration system which we have no control over and the majority of the public disagree with. I simply can't understand why some people fail to understand what a disgrace that is.
I'll also add that it undermines the UK democracy entirely. People who immigrate to the UK from the EU, or have family who did, vote very differently from native Brits. What's happening is people are coming into the UK, against the the public's wishes (and also without them having any political capacity to stop it) then voting against the UK public's wishes in their elections.
> + and even that has exceptions, I was passport-checked going from Italy into France but not France to Italy, I assume because of the state of emergency from the attack a few years ago.
It's almost like open borders isn't good for national security. Who'd of thought.
The UK has the authority, just not the competence to use that authority. This is Westminster’s fault, not the EU’s.
> People who immigrate to the UK from the EU, or have family who did, vote very differently from native Brits
They’re not allowed to vote in general elections (or the Referendum) unless they’re Irish (or have multiple nationalities and the other is British, Irish, or Commonwealth): http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registr...
> It's almost like open borders isn't good for national security. Who'd of thought.
Poor argument. In feudal times, you needed your Lord’s permission to leave your village — if that was still true, virtually every terrorist attack from the time of the IRA (the original) onwards would have been impossible.
What does the word "this" refer to in the sentence above? A yes/no referendum on Brexit will not show the politicians whether the public want a soft or a hard Brexit.
A. "Hard" Brexit
B. "Soft" Brexit
C. No Brexit
Brexitors would be somewhat split between A and B, and all remainers would pick C.
However, based on polling data it would suggest most people in favour of Brexit do want a "hard" Brexit, or a brexit that would give the UK control over its own trade and immigration policy.