Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8870 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-15-2018 9:04 PM
271 online now:
Tanypteryx (1 member, 270 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 840,319 Year: 15,142/29,783 Month: 1,086/1,502 Week: 84/492 Day: 47/37 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415161718
19
Author Topic:   Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1504
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 271 of 279 (840214)
09-25-2018 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by LamarkNewAge
09-22-2018 12:54 AM


Re: On Scotland and the confusing over "nationalism".
It is a contradiction if one understands that the Scottish Nationalist Party is actually anti-nationalist, but not a contradiction to many SNP supporters.

I'm almost afraid to ask, but in what sense is the SNP anti-nationalist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-22-2018 12:54 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-25-2018 8:03 PM caffeine has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 272 of 279 (840226)
09-25-2018 8:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by caffeine
09-25-2018 10:39 AM


Re: On Scotland and the confusing over "nationalism".
The SNP is strongly in favor of remaining in the E.U., and with the border-free immigration between member states.

The "nationalist" part of the SNP is just about economics and oil revenue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by caffeine, posted 09-25-2018 10:39 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by caffeine, posted 09-27-2018 4:20 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2783
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 273 of 279 (840305)
09-26-2018 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by ringo
09-21-2018 1:58 PM


A Canadian friend of mine told me the reason the Quebec referendum didn't pass is because they let the wrong Canadians vote.
He's from Alberta btw.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by ringo, posted 09-21-2018 1:58 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by ringo, posted 09-26-2018 3:35 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15398
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 274 of 279 (840308)
09-26-2018 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by 1.61803
09-26-2018 3:28 PM


~1.6 writes:

A Canadian friend of mine told me the reason the Quebec referendum didn't pass is because they let the wrong Canadians vote.
He's from Alberta btw.


During the first referendum campaign in 1980, a businessman from Alberta paid for billboards all across Canada that said, "My Canada includes Quebec."

My response was - and still is - that my Canada barely includes Ontario.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by 1.61803, posted 09-26-2018 3:28 PM 1.61803 has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1504
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 275 of 279 (840358)
09-27-2018 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 272 by LamarkNewAge
09-25-2018 8:03 PM


Re: On Scotland and the confusing over "nationalism".
The SNP is strongly in favor of remaining in the E.U., and with the border-free immigration between member states.

If all you meant was that the SNP is pro-EU, then word it that way. That's not the same thing as anti-nationalist. All it means is that they're nationalists who believe their nation is better off in a large free-trade bloc than in some kind of hermit kingdom.

A lot of nationalist parties are in favour of EU membership - particularly 'regionalist' parties; that is, nationalists whose nation is not an independent country. The existence of the EU has actually buoyed such parties; since many people felt that their tiny nation was not a viable economic entity by itself; but if it can gain independence while remaining part of an integrated market with open borders then all is good. Being a tiny majority against a huge Spanish (for example) majority seems very different than being a tiny minority in a bloc which has no majority nation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 272 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-25-2018 8:03 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-27-2018 7:55 PM caffeine has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 276 of 279 (840366)
09-27-2018 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by caffeine
09-27-2018 4:20 PM


Look at SNP MP Pete Wishart for one.
Caffein writes:

quote:

If all you meant was that the SNP is pro-EU, then word it that way. That's not the same thing as anti-nationalist. All it means is that they're nationalists who believe their nation is better off in a large free-trade bloc than in some kind of hermit kingdom.

The main beef typical nationalists have is with immigration (not so much trade).

Here is the thing I was mostly focused on.

There was a recent immigration report, from the Scottish parliament, with a quote by Wishart.

quote:

The crop is now beginning to rot in the field because there's not the availability of Labour to harvest it. This is a key recommendation in our immigration report.

https://t.co/rpZKmHOsY5

— Pete Wishart (@PeteWishart)


Here is a link discussing it.

I don't know the pre-Brexit immigration view of the Scottish public (though it seemed to be pro free movement as per the EU Constitution), but there has been a raging debate as to whether a post-Brexit United Kingdom would give greater "devolutionary" (more Scottish control independent of U.K. immigration policy set in London) powers to the more pro-immigration minded Scottland, which would create complications similar to the Irish Border issues.

quote:

Scottish MPs Report on Benefits to Scotland of Continued Migration
....

The views of many in the regional government of Edinburgh seem to contradict the majority of opinion in Scotland which favors ending freedom of movement with Europe.

....

Members of the Scottish Parliament have insisted the country should have a separate immigration policy from the rest of the United Kingdom after it leaves the European Union, arguing that ending freedom of movement would negatively impact the country's population growth.

....

The leader of the Scottish Affairs Committee that authored the report criticizing Westminster's current aim of reducing overall immigration to the UK to the tens of thousands per year, Scottish National Party MP Pete Wishart has called for immigration policy to be further devolved among the UK's regional governments.

The report claims that much of Scotland's current and projected population growth is currently made up by immigration rather than by natural growth.

....

​London is currently engaged in fraught negotiations with its regional parliaments over how many executive powers currently exercised by the EU should be given to the constituent nations of the UK and how many should return to Westminster. Currently the majority of such powers under debate relate to agricultural and environmental laws.

Despite the majority of Scots voting to remain in the EU in 2016 as well as the SNP's more pro-immigration policy stance, polling conducted over the past two years since the referendum has registered a majority in Scotland that believe immigration to the country should not be more liberal than with the rest of the United Kingdom.

https://sputniknews.com/...and-immigration-devolution-brexit


Then.

quote:

Glasgow, Scotland - A fresh shot across the bows of British unionism came in the form of the May publication of a Scottish National Party (SNP) report outlining new prospects for Scottish independence.

The 354-page report was commissioned by the pro-independence SNP Scottish government in Edinburgh and endorsed by First Minister Nicola Sturgeon. It outlines 50 recommendations on a range of economic areas, including banking, immigration and currency.

In 2014, Scots voted 55-45 percent to remain in the United Kingdom in its highly charged independence referendum. Four years on, the constitution remains front-and-centre of Scottish political discourse.

Today, support for Scottish independence remains at the mid-to-high 40 percent mark.

As Britain continues its Brexit negotiations against the wishes of Scotland's electorate - who voted by 62-38 percent to remain in the European Union (EU) in the UK-wide referendum of June 2016 - the publication of the dossier reignited simmering constitutional tensions.

....

British constitutional uncertainty over the impact of Brexit has also focussed minds at SNP headquarters, where an independent Scotland remaining in the EU is a cornerstone of SNP policy.

https://www.aljazeera.com/...dependence-180530171656642.html


Now Pete Wishart and the SNP have been battling May for a good while now over immigration.

quote:

WISHART COMMENTS: ‘GO HOME VANS’ SCRAPPED
Posted on the 23rd, October 2013

Home Secretary Theresa May has said vans telling illegal immigrants to “go home” or face arrest will be scrapped after telling MPs she accepted they had “not been a good idea.”

Commenting, SNP MP Pete Wishart, who campaigned against the controversial use of the vans and held a Westminster debate on the issue, said:

“This is good news. The campaign launched by the UK government was xenophobic and reminiscent of racist slogans from the 1970s. It has been roundly condemned by practically every group and organisation involved in promoting good community relations.

“These posters, of course, have very little to do with the UK’s appalling record of dealing with illegal immigration, but everything to do with the rise of UKIP in the polls in England. The appalling race to the bottom with UKIP on immigration rhetoric is now being played out in the offices of the UKBA, and in front of the members of the public seeking help and informed advice.

“I wrote to Home Secretary Theresa May this summer asking her not to bring the campaign to Scotland, and cited the impact it might have on our excellent community relations and the anxiety it might cause to some of our minority communities. This pilot has now been scrapped, and I very much hope we never see another campaign like it on our streets again.”

http://www.petewishartmp.com/...mments-go-home-vans-scrapped


Back to Caffeine.

Caffeine writes:

quote:

A lot of nationalist parties are in favour of EU membership - particularly 'regionalist' parties; that is, nationalists whose nation is not an independent country. The existence of the EU has actually buoyed such parties; since many people felt that their tiny nation was not a viable economic entity by itself; but if it can gain independence while remaining part of an integrated market with open borders then all is good. Being a tiny majority against a huge Spanish (for example) majority seems very different than being a tiny minority in a bloc which has no majority nation.


There is a massive distinction between a nation's people wanting to reap free trade rewards on the one hand, and wanting to allow unlimited immigration (from E.U. member states) on the other.

The former is desirable (despite seductive protectionist arguments also holding a powerful counter sentiment), the latter is highly controversial.

You need to specify what you mean by "open borders".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by caffeine, posted 09-27-2018 4:20 PM caffeine has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 277 of 279 (840367)
09-27-2018 8:05 PM


SNP fights anti-immigration sentiment.
I found a pre Brexit poll showing that the Scotts were fairly anti-immigrant.

But, after this Guardian article showed economic data that painted immigrants as productive, we see that the SNP was fighting WITH the Scottish government to educate the public.

quote:

Humza Yousaf, the Scottish government’s minister for Europe and international development, said the figures quashed the myth that migrants were an economic burden – a view held by a majority of Scots, according to a recent poll.

He said the figures underlined the case for overseas students to be given back the right to apply for post-study work visas, abolished by the UK government, to help Scotland’s economy and skills base to grow.

“Immigration policy is currently too heavily influenced by the priorities of the south-east of England, based on the values of the current UK government and driven by a desire to reduce the numbers of incoming migrants which does not recognise Scotland’s needs and does not serve our economic or societal interests,” Yousaf said.

A BBC Scotland/YouGov poll this month found that 49% of Scots wanted less immigration – the same figure as in the UK as a whole – and 15% said it should be stopped altogether. It found 38% felt immigration was bad for the country.

While 27% of Scots said immigration was good for the country, compared with 22% of all Britons, only 5% of Scots said it should be increased and 26% saying it should remain at the current level.

The Scottish National party is pushing a pro-immigration strategy, in large part to boost the economy.

https://www.theguardian.com/...sas-foreign-students-scotland


Also see a more recent article showing the SNP fighting hard to make Scottland out to be pro-immigration (blurring the line between the people's less supportive view and the political class' very pro immigration view)

quote:

Saturday, June 9, 2018, 13:48 by Reuters

Sturgeon aims to boost immigration to Scotland

Aim goes contrary to UK government's strategy

Nicola Sturgeon's pro-independence Scottish National Party is leading a push to boost immigration to the sparsely populated northern tip of Britain, an opposite tack to the UK government which aims to limit the number of new arrivals after Brexit.

Sturgeon, who is also first minister, will close the SNP's conference on Saturday with a plea to give Scotland more control over what her party argues is the key challenge facing the economy.

Scotland's population, much of which is rural and dispersed unlike the rest of the UK, is ageing more rapidly than other parts of the country. Boosting immigration is essential to keep providing the workforce needed to drive economic growth, as well as to shore up public services such as in health.

Immigration, however, is the thorniest political issue in the Brexit negotiations, and limiting the number of foreigners who enter the UK was a key element on which Britain’s overall 2016 vote to leave the European Union rested.

"Scotland is a welcoming country - our prosperity and our public services depend on it," Sturgeon will tell delegates.

It's time for powers over migration to come to Scotland

"If Westminster cannot or will not act in our best interests, it is time that our own parliament was able to do so …It's time for powers over migration to come to Scotland," Sturgeon will say.

The British government has said it will not devolve powers over immigration to Scotland, but pressure to abandon unrealistic targets to limit immigration has been coming from many sides, including British businesses and from the ruling Conservative party's own ranks.

Ruth Davidson, leader of the Conservative party in Scotland, has criticised the government's targets as impractical.

Scotland voted to stay in the EU but will be taken out as part of the UK, which overall voted to leave. Brexit has not been a catalyst for Scottish independence but it has not dampened separatist fervour either, polls find, meaning that Sturgeon has to continue to balance her political act carefully despite being the biggest single vote winner in Scottish politics.

Forecasts from the Scottish government show that over the next 25 years the working population of Scotland will grow by only one percent, compared with an increase of 25 percent in the pension age population.

Despite that, research by respected pollster John Curtice earlier this year found Scots overall do not support the idea of a different immigration policy from the rest of the UK, and most Scots want the same policy nationwide.

https://www.timesofmalta.com/...migration-to-scotland.681296


Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-28-2018 12:01 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1247
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 278 of 279 (840373)
09-28-2018 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by LamarkNewAge
09-27-2018 8:05 PM


Re: SNP fights anti-immigration sentiment.
It looks like Brexit is bringing us the same educational benefits as the Trump election.

Look at this swing in Scotland!

September 18, 2018

quote:

SNP calls for devolved immigration powers following new poll

Immigration powers must be devolved to limit the reach of the Tories’ “hostile” and “xenophobic” policies, the SNP said yesterday.

Following a new poll showing overwhelming support among both Scots and people across Britain for devolution of immigration powers, SNP immigration spokesperson Stuart McDonald said giving Holyrood control would allow Scotland to “build a system that meets Scotland's needs and values”.

Research by ICM reveals that 64 per cent of Scots want to see immigration powers devolved, which is also backed by a clear majority across the UK (55 per cent).

Mr McDonald said Westminster had “proven itself to be utterly incapable of acting in Scotland's interests,” adding that the British government's “hostile immigration policies are threatening the Scottish economy and public services.”

He added: “The Tories seem oblivious to the self-inflicted harm they have caused with their arbitrary net migration targets, the appalling treatment of EU nationals, and the senseless scrapping of important policies like the post-study work visa and seasonal agricultural workers scheme.”

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/...powers-following-new-poll


Now the swing in the USA.

September 25

quote:

President Trump gave a speech today at the United Nations in which he flatly declared that we “reject the ideology of globalism.” To bolster the point, he touted his policies in two areas in which he has sought to strike his greatest blows against that “ideology”– trade and immigration.

Which gives us an opening to point out a feature of the Trump era that deserves more discussion: The degree to which the broad American mainstream is flatly rejecting the most important features of Trump’s xenophobic nationalism.

An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this week found that an astonishing 61 percent of voters believe immigration helps the United States as opposed to hurting, while only 28 percent say it hurts as opposed to helps. The NBC poll’s trendlines are key: In September of 2016 — that is, just before the presidential election — those numbers were 54-35, which means we’ve seen a 14 point swing on this question since Trump took office.

Ariel Edwards-Levy of the Huffington Post put together this nifty chart, based on the NBC data:

....

Similarly, Gallup found in the spring that the percentage of Americans saying immigration is a good thing for the country, as opposed to a bad thing, has hit a record high of 75 percent. Much of Trump’s immigration agenda — from the stepped up deportations of long time residents, to the thinly-veiled Muslim ban, to the child separations meant to dissuade border crossers, to the new plan to slash refugee flows to the lowest level in decades — is shaped around the core idea that immigration has a malevolent and destructive impact on the country. Indeed, in some cases those policies are grounded in bad faith — they have required the ignoring of real internal information and analysis that reveals this core idea to be bogus.

The politics of immigration are complicated. The xenophobic, bigoted attack ads that multiple GOP candidates are running across the country could help juice GOP base turnout. That’s why Trump adviser Stephen Miller badly wants to keep immigration in the headlines as much as possible, which is one reason they keep rolling out policies that compete to outdo each other in folly and cruelty. But it seems clear those efforts are provoking a backlash, in that a growing majority appears to be warming to the idea of immigration as a positive for the country.

Something similar is happening on trade. An NBC poll in August found that voters say by 50-23 that free trade has helped, as opposed to hurt, the U.S. — a massive shift since 2016. A Pew poll taken over the summer, just as Trump’s trade wars started to take hold, found that a plurality of Americans, 49-40, thought tariffs against our trading partners would be bad for the country. A recent Post/ABC poll found Americans oppose Trump’s tariffs by 50-41 (though in fairness the polling has been somewhat mixed on them).

What’s particularly interesting is that some polls have shown Trump’s tariffs are unpopular in Midwestern states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, where Trump’s success in cracking the “blue wall” has often been ascribed to trade. Indeed, that could be one reason why Democrats are poised to rebound in Rust Belt Trump country.

As a New Democrat Network memo recently put it: “The idea that there is broad support in the U.S. for protectionist policies, and tariffs in particular, just can’t be supported given this data. Trump has failed to persuade the American people to get behind his trade wars.”

If this continues — and particularly if voters repudiate Trump in the coming midterms — it might be time to revisit some core assumptions about his 2016 win. It has been commonplace for pundits to assert that his victory represented a fundamental turning away from “globalism,” or what is sometimes called the “elite consensus” on the value of immigration and global supply chains to the U.S.

While the politics of these issues are geographically complicated and hardly monolithic, and while many Americans certainly have legitimate grievances about the global trading order in particular, Trump’s presidency has illustrated that xenophobic nationalism as a basis for major policy choices is producing terrible outcomes. And it looks like the American people are figuring this out.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/...ideas-are-deeply-unpopular


Here is the chart showing American attitudes toward immigration back to 2006.

https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1044654707896197120

Look at how Feinstein has changed since 1994, when she won re-election against Michael Huffington (former husband of founder of the popular liberal site)

http://www.latimes.com/...in-immigration-20180919-story.html

All of this successful (at the ballot box) anti-immigration crap is causing a media-storm of coverage from one end of the western world to the other.

And it is educational.

Scotland had a paltry 27% seeing immigration as a good thing for the country in 2015 (with only 5% saying immigration should be increased).

Those dark days better be over.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by LamarkNewAge, posted 09-27-2018 8:05 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 725
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 279 of 279 (840391)
09-28-2018 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Diomedes
09-21-2018 2:57 PM


Boris to the rescue?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45673214

quote:
Boris Johnson has set out his own plan for Brexit, arguing that the UK should "chuck Chequers" and negotiate a "Super Canada" free trade deal instead.

The ex-foreign secretary, who quit over Theresa May's Chequers Brexit plan, called her strategy "a moral and intellectual humiliation".

He said his vision would not lead to a hard Irish border, with any checks carried out away from the crossing.


Don't know the details of his proposal. But my suspicion is this is a calculated political ploy to marshal the conservatives to his side as a preamble to him starting a bid for Prime Minister.

Looking at the timing, Boris originally withdrew himself from consideration for PM and May ended up taking the helm. I am wondering if he wanted someone else to take the brunt of the negotiating negativity and then he could swoop in as savior of the UK.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Diomedes, posted 09-21-2018 2:57 PM Diomedes has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1415161718
19
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018