Now that Brexit Succeeded...

[Equestrian]

The UK's cultural identity is facing a catastrophic tipping point given the current immigration rates. This will surely occur when Britain's indigenous population becomes a minority in it's own country, if not sooner. Nigel Farage suggested that the net immigration rate should be dramatically cut down to 30,000 annually to restore normality.

Are Eurosceptic politicians addressing the immigration crises post-Brexit? as of yet, I don't see any indication that this is taking place.

[manfred]

So far, from what I read, it LOOKS as if the new prime minister is in no mood to trade "free movement of people" for "access to single market". If that turns out to be true, then the negotiations will be fairly short and unfriendly. There will only be access to the EU using word trade organisation rules, implying tariffs or import duties. While it is is in everybody's interest to keep those low, these may be used as a sort of punishment or deterrent to stop other countries from leaving.

So to me the most likely scenario is that "negotiations" in Brussels will fail, and there will be little in the way of an agreement. Hopefully at least there can be an agreement on what to do about UK citizens living in the EU or EU citizens already resident in the UK, and tit for tat deportation waves do not happen. We shall see.

Here is the crazy part: in London many sectors totally rely on immigrants: we would have to close half the schools in London without foreign teachers, for example. So I hope some common sense prevails and at least that part gets sorted out to everybody's satisfaction.

My best guess is that we will have many new trade deals with other countries around the world quite quickly, and probably no deal with the EU, which does not mean no trade, it means WTO rules apply. Immigration will be controlled, possibly with a point system, but existing residents will not have their rights revoked.

[Hombre]

Lets face it, immigrations throughout history has been beneficial to mankind, and Britten has its share with that too. Just look those countries which were created by English who immigrated there. Australia, NZL, Canada, and yes US too.

I don't think one can compare - say a polish, Romanian, Germen or French with good profession who immigrates to UK for better job, to an uneducated fundamentalist Muslim from Pakistan, or East India. The first group is much more prone to integrate him/herself in English societies, and adapt its cultural, political system, and overall philosophy of life then the 2nd group.

The problem of immigration become acute when someone comes to your home, enjoys the hospitality, then in opportune time turns against your values - moreover, use of violence to accomplish his objective.

That is the problem with Muslims. They are indoctrinated that, Wherever they go, they are obligated to force their Islamic values on local population. If I read the Brits correctly, the real problem is with fundamentalist Islam and its insidious effect on British way of life and as pointed out, by equestrian, its cultural & way of life.

[manfred]

Yes hombre, but as so often it is easier to target the soft target, so that is what many politicians go for. If the Germans, French or Polish get kicked out, they will go. If you try to kick out the Pakistanis, the chances are they blow things up first. So what will a politician do who wants to be "tough on immigration"? S/he will find groups that will cause the least amount of trouble and be "tough" with them. Kick out a German and the worst you can expect is being called a "Schweinehund" or something, when he is getting on the plane. Kick out a Pakistani and you are not only automatically a racist, but you get a whole community in arms, and several Gaza strips throughout the UK.

However, it is highly unusual in the UK to retro-actively change the law, taking away rights previously given. So, I would expect that those who already have "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK will not suddenly find they are getting asked to pack their bags. Instead, new arrivals will not have such an easy time.

The only thing that would put that in question would be if the EU insisted all the Brits have to leave.

[Hombre]

dear manfred,
I don't know why, I have that sneaky feeling that, with PM May, GBR will NOT exit the EU, after all. She voted against Brexit. Now she is in charge. Voter-schvoter referendum notwithstanding, she & EU leaders will drag the negotiations to a point which will leave no equity for the British (i.e. no compromise of "movement of people", increased tariff on goods from GBR to EU, foreign companies pull their operations from UK into EU, etc.).

It could get to the point where, in a year or two, she will go on parliament and declare, "leaving EU is too costly to GBR's economy - we need a new referendum to make sure indeed, we want out or not".

[manfred]

This is not hugely likely, for one simple reason: they have already committed to formally giving notice to leave the EU by the end of this year. After that there is no going back, even if wanted. So if the negotiations are not going her way, she must leave without any deal at all. She cannot change her mind, as far as I know, once notice has been given.

If notice has NOT been given by the new year, then, however, I would agree with you that she is planning to fudge the whole issue.

[Fernando]

Yes hombre, but as so often it is easier to target the soft target, so that is what many politicians go for. If the Germans, French or Polish get kicked out, they will go. If you try to kick out the Pakistanis, the chances are they blow things up first. So what will a politician do who wants to be "tough on immigration"? S/he will find groups that will cause the least amount of trouble and be "tough" with them. Kick out a German and the worst you can expect is being called a "Schweinehund" or something, when he is getting on the plane. Kick out a Pakistani and you are not only automatically a racist, but you get a whole community in arms, and several Gaza strips throughout the UK.

However, it is highly unusual in the UK to retro-actively change the law, taking away rights previously given. So, I would expect that those who already have "indefinite leave to remain" in the UK will not suddenly find they are getting asked to pack their bags. Instead, new arrivals will not have such an easy time.

The only thing that would put that in question would be if the EU insisted all the Brits have to leave.

I don't think they'll kick anyone out. However, I can see them cutting down sharply on EU immigrants while soaking them up from elsewhere. After all, Cameron had 6 years to cut down on non-EU immagration and he doesn't appear to have tried - certainly he didn't have much of an effect. So we might get a severe points system for the EU, with open doors to the rest instead of the opposite which Cameron could have instituted if he'd wanted to.

As for May, time will tell but I don't imagine her dramatic changes to the Cabinet were dreamed up in the last couple of days. I fancy she must have been festering all the time she worked for Cameron.

[Ibn Rushd]

Having watched Brexit the Movie, I know that EU has deals up the ying-yang, and up their eyeballs, and that has dragged their economy in the sh!t. Europe has the weakest economy right now, and is not developing. Additionally, EU acts like USSR in that all outside goods are not to be bought, only those inside can be bought and sold. This led to the infamous "commie cars" that had Aluminium brakes, price fixing and quotas for baked goods (which meant the shelves were empty). There is a book called Cars for Comrades.

[Hombre]

This is not hugely likely, for one simple reason: they have already committed to formally giving notice to leave the EU by the end of this year. After that there is no going back, even if wanted. So if the negotiations are not going her way, she must leave without any deal at all. She cannot change her mind, as far as I know, once notice has been given.

If notice has NOT been given by the new year, then, however, I would agree with you that she is planning to fudge the whole issue.

Exactly. Brexit could be somehow hollowed out before formal notice is given. Who knows.

Another development can occur, where GBR & EU will collude between them to cleanse EU from undesirable immigrants.

GBR plays the bad guy, the anti-immigrant stand (which is true) - the very reason for leaving Eu. EU plays the good guy. "we want to help these refugees to find a better life, BUT cost of splitting us with Brexit is too high, where we face to choose between lose one of the pillars of our union, or appease refugees". We must chose the first option for sake of our collective future.

[Fernando]

Another development can occur, where GBR & EU will collude between them to cleanse EU from undesirable immigrants.

GBR plays the bad guy, the anti-immigrant stand (which is true) - the very reason for leaving Eu. EU plays the good guy. "we want to help these refugees to find a better life, BUT cost of splitting us with Brexit is too high, where we face to choose between lose one of the pillars of our union, or appease refugees". We must chose the first option for sake of our collective future.

It would need a shake-up of the EU establishment at least as big as May's shakeup of the UK government - and there's no knowing whether the latter has been enough.

[manfred]

I can see them cutting down sharply on EU immigrants while soaking them up from elsewhere.

This is what worries me. Replacing Polish plumbers with Moroccan bombers is not such a good plan...

[Ibn Rushd]

Here is a link to that book: Cars for Comrades.

[Ariel]

Downing Street cat-fight between Larry (No10) and Palmerston (Foreign Office) Oh'dear...

[Nosuperstition]

Nigel Farage suggested that the net immigration rate should be dramatically cut down to 30,000 annually to restore normality.

It seems that this politician was instrumental in Brexit by installing migrantphobia in the British people along with promising huge investments in the NHS with amount left of that the U.K parts of when it was a member of E.U.However immediately after Brexit,he reneged on his promise of ploughing huge funds in NHS it seems.A very clever politician indeed.

Much similar to the Chief Minister of my state in India who just before elections promised the impractical debt waiver and then implemented it only to a partial extent all the while getting a chance in having the final say on what should be the future capital of A.P by destroying the granary of the South.He who should not have been elected to office in the very first place now gets the chance of destroying food security of the whole of South India.

Very similar to politicians of independence movement of India who promised land reforms for the downtrodden after independence to rope them into the freedom movement,but saw to it that the feudal system was not shaken much and land reforms are not implemented to a large extent.Everyone achieves their results on the backs of broken promises.

[Fernando]

Nigel Farage suggested that the net immigration rate should be dramatically cut down to 30,000 annually to restore normality.

It seems that this politician was instrumental in Brexit by installing migrantphobia in the British people along with promising huge investments in the NHS with amount left of that the U.K parts of when it was a member of E.U.

The general public of the UK has never been happy with the rate of immigration since Tony Blair deliberately opened the floodgates to impoverished Eastern Europeans (when even the EU generally imposed a 7 year wait in the vain hope that their improving economies would stem the flow). Farage merely responded to the public's feelings. Feeling which we now see were correct, when you look at the immense stress on public services we're now facing. Note, by the way, that the Blair government deliberately encouraged mass immigration to "rub people's noses" in "multiculturalism" - i.e. for left-wing political purposes, never mind what the plebs wanted.

[Nosuperstition]

Farage merely responded to the public's feelings. Feeling which we now see were correct, when you look at the immense stress on public services we're now facing

I just pointed out how Farage just like all dirty politicians used dirty tactic of impractical promise of putting in non-existent huge E.U leftover funds into NHS.Had that not been the case might be the margin of difference in the referendum would have been much less if not outright reverse.Nothing more.

[manfred]

He did not actually make a great deal of promises. He did say it would be difficult at first. In particular, if you listen what he said is that any money saved from leaving the EU COULD be used for the NHS, which does not say there necessarily will be a lot of money to distribute, certainly not at the start when we need to pay for negotiations and other things like that.

Eventually there will be a saving, but how much is not yet clear. How it is spent is up to our government.

Compare to the situation before Brexit:

We pay a large sum of money to Brussels every month. A fraction of that gets re-invested in the UK on project our government cannot decide on.

After Brexit:

Our government spends our tax money and if we are unhappy with the way they do that, we can elect another government.

[Nosuperstition]

Before Brexit

We pay a large sum of money to Brussels every month. A fraction of that gets re-invested in the UK on project our government cannot decide on.

After Brexit:

Our government spends our tax money and if we are unhappy with the way they do that, we can elect another government.

I have read in the newspapers that much less money will invested back in the NHS than was promised by Nigel Farage.

[SAM]

British Prime Minister Theresa May says she would be ready to allow a nuclear strike that can result in the deaths of 100,000 people.

http://video.metro.co.uk/video/met/2016 ... 959533.mp4

Scottish National Party (SNP) MP George Kerevan intervened in her opening speech, asking, “Is she personally prepared to authorize a nuclear strike that can kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?”

She responded with a firm “Yes”

White people have killed far more than any other race. Europeans love murdered each other and glorifies it.

[Nosuperstition]

White people have killed far more than any other race. Europeans love murdered each other and glorifies it

And then say that Jews are behind these white massacring white episodes and behind all wars.Even if Jews supposedly egged you to war with one another,what happened to your own hearts and minds?