Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8962 total)
130 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 128 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,209 Year: 2,957/23,288 Month: 1,148/1,809 Week: 267/313 Day: 8/71 Hour: 1/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Brexit - Should they stay or should they go?
Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 276 of 837 (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:


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.


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.


— 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.


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.




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.


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


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.”


Back to Caffeine.

Caffeine writes:


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

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 277 of 837 (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.


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.


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)


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.


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

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 278 of 837 (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


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.”


Now the swing in the USA.

September 25


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.


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


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)


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

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 289 of 837 (842134)
10-27-2018 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by caffeine
10-25-2018 2:24 PM

Re: Boris to the rescue?
The last Pre-Brexit general election saw a vote for a conservative outright majority, and the campaign message from Cameron was that a conservative majority would be the strongest force to keep the U.K.in the E.U.

Vote conservative for a united front against the UKIP.

Back then, both major parties were anti-Brexit.

Then the 52-48 vote for Brexit came in June of 2016.

Then look at the ugly post-Brexit general election choice.

2 pro-Brexit choices.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by caffeine, posted 10-25-2018 2:24 PM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2018 3:53 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 633 of 837 (853375)
05-26-2019 11:21 PM

Did the nationalists really "win" this E.U. election?
The nationalists only won about a half dozen seats (out of 18) in Austria.

In the U.K., the hard anti-Brexit parties out polled the powerful Pro-Brexit parties.

The anti-Brexit side did so good that (worthless) Jeremy Corbyn is finally being called out for his support for not only (what is essentially) anti-immigration policy but also his support for Brexit itself.


European election results 2019 in FULL: Summary and breakdown for every region

ByDan BloomOnline Political Editor
02:13, 27 MAY 2019UPDATED02:56, 27 MAY 2019

The Tories tonight suffered their worst election result for almost 200 years as resigning Theresa May was annihilated in the EU elections.

With every British region declared except Scotland, Brexit civil war finally obliterated the party of government as it won less than 9% of the vote - landing in fifth place behind the Greens - and lost 15 of 18 seats.

But Labour were also knocked into third place by the Lib Dems, losing 8 of their 18 seats as Jeremy Corbyn's party descended into infighting over its "fence-sitting" Brexit stance.

The story of the night was the polarising of British politics - with votes flooding away from both main parties to groups that are either pro- or anti-Brexit.

Nigel Farage's Brexit Party were the runaway winners, topping the poll in every single area except London, wiping out the Tories completely in some and picking up 28 seats.


But there was also a huge surge for anti-Brexit parties - with the Lib Dems, Greens and Change UK winning more than the Brexit Party and UKIP combined.

The Lib Dems had the best night in history in many areas, recovering from their low point in 2014 with an incredible 14-point surge to 21% and rocketing their seat tally from 1 to 15.

The 'bollocks to Brexit' party even topped the bill in London - including in Jeremy Corbyn's back yard of Islington - while anti-Brexit nationalists Plaid Cymru beat Labour in the party's heartland of Wales.

That prompted a furious attack on Labour's policy from his constituency neighbour and shadow cabinet minister Emily Thornberry.

She demanded Labour fully back a second referendum, fuming: "We were not clear on the one single thing that people wanted to hear."

Facing MPs' anger Jeremy Corbyn later issued a statement, but it did not commit to a second referendum - only to either that, or a general election. But he did promise “conversations across the party divide” to find a way forward.


Despite the Brexit Party's thumping victory, anti-Brexit parties won MORE votes than pro-hard-Brexit parties in the election.

With all British regions counted except Scotland, the Lib Dems had won 20.9%, the Greens won 12.5% and Change UK won 3.6%.

That meant the three big anti-Brexit parties won 37% of the vote - compared to 35.7% for UKIP and the Brexit Party put together. UKIP won 3.5% of the vote while Nigel Farage's outfit won 33.2%.

The question is what kind of voters (regarding their Brexit views) backed the Conservatives and Labor.

There needs to be a major effort to shoot down Corbyn if he promotes the type of crap that has the U.K. remain in the E.U. but stops the free movement constitutional right. It is pure anti-immigration stuff.

Non U.K. results:

Italy and Hungary saw big right wing wins.

Poland saw right win parties get around 48% verses pro E.U. parties getting 45% (but the population is still pro E.U.).

Otherwise, the pro E.U. side dominated results.

(So it does not look too bad for now)

Replies to this message:
 Message 634 by caffeine, posted 05-27-2019 5:20 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 641 of 837 (853478)
05-27-2019 9:01 PM
Reply to: Message 638 by Diomedes
05-27-2019 11:39 AM

Re: Did the nationalists really "win" this E.U. election?

Perhaps, but I would caution against any complacency. While La Pen did get a lower percentage on the whole, that is partially due to the larger turnout in the recent election. They also received half a million more votes than they did last time.

Ultimately, the main concern from my perspective is the fact that National Rally is the clear opposition as it stands. And depending on how the votes are distributed, the issue is that left leaning individuals will divide their votes across several parties while right leaning individuals could coalesce around La Pen. And that could put her party in the clear majority.

The National Front would need to win by a wide margin to take enough seats to be a major player in forming a majority government in the parliament. Winning a 25% to 24% race against Macron's party won't do anything for the right when pretty much 70% of the vote was for a pro EU party.

And France has a Presidential election where there are only two candidates. So 50% plus of the vote is needed.

(Macron beat Le Pen 66% to 34% a few years ago, though Le Pen actually took 45% of the youth vote)


Italy actually saw two anti-immigration parties get a combined majority. One (Five Star Movement) is actually socialistic.

When it came to the E.U. elections, the Five Star Movement had a dangerous infiltrator type of scheme where it kept trying to join the larger (pro immigration) left-wing and then left-leaning (pro-immigration) blocs to literally destroy the pro immigration side from within.

(Kind of like Jeremy Corbyn's technique)


Viktor Orban's anti-immigration party won 52% against the Liberal Democrat's 16%.

He has attempted to destroy the the (pro immigration) center-right bloc's defense of "free movement" by joining the bloc.


The Polish situation is complicated by the strong social conservative strain in Poland. The Polish seem to be solidly pro E.U. but have problems with policies on social issues. Poland might not be in the same danger of nationalism like the U.K., Hungary, and Italy are (the last two seem fully lost, and they don't want a European Union to remain friendly to immigration and free movement).

Back to the U.K.

The major pro European Union parties still have a slight vote edge over the nationalists.

Pro European Union (and immigration) parties vote percentage:

Liberal Democrats 18.5%

Green 11.1%

Scottish Nationalist Party 3.3%

Change U.K. 2.9%

Anti Immigration & European Union parties:

Brexit 31.7%

UKIP 3.6%

This means the anti-nationalists (yes the SNP is that, despite the name) are at 35.8% while the nationalists are at 35.3%.

But the big questions:

Who knows what the voters for the two main parties think?

The conservatives have been pro E.U. and fairly pro immigration, but have been divided on both issues. The conservatives oppose "ever greater union" whatever that means.

Labour has been all over the board on the E.U. for as long as the E.U. existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 638 by Diomedes, posted 05-27-2019 11:39 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 645 of 837 (853639)
05-29-2019 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 643 by Diomedes
05-28-2019 9:01 AM

Re: Did the nationalists really "win" this E.U. election?

That is ultimately the point I am getting across. With a fractured left, that ends up diluting the vote. As a result, it decreases the likelihood of a left majority and increases the likelihood of a right majority. Perhaps I am being melodramatic. But being that France is typically pretty far left, I find the results a cause for concern.

In France itself, the left had a government just before Macron won (who is something of a pro-environmental, low business regulation center-left type who also attempts to be something of a pro-immigration "populist"). Holland talked about a 70% tax rate on the wealthy (but "right-wing socialists" in his party demonstrated the economic ruin that would have brought to an already hurting country). Holland and the socialists were simply duds. I can't imagine any rational person would want them anywhere near government.

Macron's big wins were a breath of hope for maintaining the fight against anti-immigration populism.

(The French economy remains essentially in - what it feels like to people - stagnation, and Macron's numbers have plunged)

In the E.U. Parliament, the situation has always had center-left parties (the "socialists" are part of the center, ironically) form a coalition with the center-right. Now those two (or a combined "One") fell to 43%.

To get back to 65%, they need the pro-business ALDN (Liberal Democrats) and the pro-environmental Greens.

A move toward the left is probable.

The problem with the E.U. move to the left is that the more mandates it requires on member states, the more powerful the populists become. And "open borders" and "free movement" (immigrants!) get almost all of the blame and take the brunt of the anti-European Union forces when the forces outline their "fightback".

David Cameron might have had it roughly right (if I understand his position) when he supported "free movement" while also opposing ever greater union. It seems far superior to the Jeremy Corbyn anti-immigration stance. It was a strategy designed to keep relatively "open borders" (between member states) possible.

Outside of the U.K., the right-wingers are essentially pro E.U. but want to attack the big issue of "free movement" and E.U. wide immigration requirements from Brussels.

(Unlike the United States, the populists, in Europe, are fairly pro-free trade, so immigration is the sole big issue)


I would probably say the conservatives have been a bit more bipolar with the whole Brexit situation. But Labour has not exactly been forthright in their stance either. From my perspective, it appears they turned the whole Brexit quagmire into a political opportunity and it backfired. Jeremy Corbyn also doesn't appear to be considered a very effective leader. I am wondering if there might be some machinations behind the scenes to look for his replacement.

Corbyn always seemed to me like a nationalist in sheep's clothing.

I was relieved that he did not win the last election. It would have been ruinous for the pro-immigration side.

Considering the favorable circumstances since Brexit (after it happened, not WHEN it happened on June 23, 2016):

I actually think Corbyn's strategy has been good for the pro immigration side IF HE SUDDENLY BECOMES PRO IMMIGRATION (or at least starts to slowly manage a move completely to the pro-immigration side), but it might have more to do with circumstances, and not where his heart has been.

These last 3 years (starting June 24, 2016, NOT BREXIT ITSELF) have been about the best circumstances possible for the pro-immigration side. I totally hated how Corbyn took an anti "free movement" position, and frankly I feel it was what he always would have wanted (pre June 23, 2016 and back as far as you go), but perhaps he can be convinced that his position in incompatible with those he wants his support to come from.

What he has done so far hasn't been so bad. There were no divorce deals, anyway.

Hopefully the 52% to 48% decision can be overturned in a way that enables "free movement" to not get chopped up to save the E.U. membership status of the U.K.

Germany, in the years (months, day, minutes, too) leading up to Brexit, said that it would be better for the U.K. to leave the E.U. than to see it remain with "free movement" axed. Otherwise, Brexit is far better. That is true. Scotland will remain, and perhaps North Ireland will try, somehow, to find a way to remain.

The U.K. got all kinds of concessions (tough "welfare reform" for immigrants) that the E.U. rejected initially. But immigration was the ultimate issue.

(The U.K. is similar to the United States in that younger people are pro-immigration with older people anti-immigration. The situation is actually reversed in many other western European countries, like France and Italy. That means the U.K. might be fundamentally pro-immigration in the future. Italy is just crazy anti-immigration.)

Macron (who seems to identify with the ALDN in the E.U. Parliament) and Italy's Lega might be the two sides that ALL others will have to choose to orient around. Lega is right wing, but there are "left wing" nationalists that might attempt to form a possible future populist E.U. coalition. The AP recently said the Lega strategy is one of international nationalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 643 by Diomedes, posted 05-28-2019 9:01 AM Diomedes has not yet responded

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 717 of 837 (860794)
08-12-2019 12:15 AM

Third parties have a problem in efficiently spreading votes.
Look at this problem


The Unite to Remain alliance will have a mountain to climb to prevent a Conservative victory at the next general election
Peter Donaghy (Salmon of Data) on August 11, 2019, 12:57 pm
115 Comments | Readers 3794

After several months where the Brexit Party, the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Conservatives have been locked in essentially a four-way tie in the opinion polls for the next British general election, the election of Boris Johnson as Conservative party leader and prime minister has led to the Tories having a consistent lead over their rivals.

The Tories have a lead of around 10 percentage points over Labour and the Liberal Democrats, who remain essentially tied on around 21%. The Tories’ gains appear to have been made at the expense of the Brexit Party, who have fallen to 14% from previous highs of 26%.

By historical standards, 31% would be a very low Conservative vote share, only barely scraping ahead of their worst ever previous election results in 1997 (30.7%) and 1832 (29.2%). However, the unprecedented fragmentation of party support and the quirks of the first-past-the-post system mean that this result could lead to a substantial majority in the House of Commons.

Despite the inherent issues with trying to forecast how opinion polls might map to results in individual constituencies, to get a sense of how a general election might turn out given current polling, I adjusted the 2017 election results using the latest YouGov poll to capture the movement of voters between parties. Assuming no pact of any sort between the pro-remain parties. The projected totals were:

Conservatives 31% (398 seats)
Labour 22% (142)
SNP 4% (57)
Liberal Democrats 19% (28)
Plaid Cymru 1% (4)
Green 8% (1)

The article goes on to look at the coming alliance between the Liberal Dems, Plaid Cymru, and Green parties.

There does not see to be an efficient distribution.

Even with the electoral pact.

The math looks bad, unless the alliance exceeds expectations.

Should the alliance somehow be able to beat expectations, agree unity candidates in every constituency in Great Britain, and are perfectly able to combine the votes of the three parties, they will still find it difficult to deny the Tories a majority as the bulk of their gains will be at Labour’s expense.

If the Unite to Remain alliance are to deny the Tories a majority, then they will need to win seats such as South East Cambridgeshire, which is the Unite to Remain target 249 and Conservative target 310 – probably enough to put Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson in 10 Downing Street with support from the SNP and the remains of the parliamentary Labour Party.

Winning in constituencies such as this shouldn’t be impossible – the Lib Dems came within less than 6,000 votes of victory in 2010 and the Greens kept their deposit by winning 5% of the vote in 2015. But it does show how difficult denying the Conservatives a majority will be through a Lib Dem/Green pact rather than the traditional route of Labour winning in Labour/Tory battleground constituencies.

The article offers a scenario that is more unlikely than not.

Here is another long article from site. It references, and quotes, the recent long Gordon Brown article.


Replies to this message:
 Message 718 by Diomedes, posted 08-19-2019 3:40 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Posts: 1624
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.7

Message 785 of 837 (864804)
10-17-2019 12:46 AM

Albania & Serbia agreed to move toward open borders between the people.
The U.K. joined in bombing Serbia over the ethnic based-conflict 20 years ago.

Now that these two nation's have leaders that are trying to open borders, we see that the U.K. is going for a "deal" that includes closed borders and no freedom of movement for dozens of (E.U.) country's people that previously COULD move to the U.K.

How many steps forward?

How many backward?

I can't add all the worldwide positives and negatives up (so I can't say if things are getting better or worse at the net level), but the recent (after the June 23, 2016 incident ) U.K. policy changes are just plain gross.

If the world is opening borders overall, then Sub-Saharan Africa gets the lion's share of credit, or I SHOULD SAY the continent collectively should.

A big boo for the United Kingdom.

Replies to this message:
 Message 787 by Phat, posted 10-17-2019 10:14 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020