UK Politics (7 Viewers)

JuveJay

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
#801
Mar 6, 2007
72,471
#801
Ocelot said:
Breaking up the EU would be the single most moronic political decision of the past decades easily. I know that some of the policies pursued by Brussels (mostly led by Germany) the past few years have been everything else but smart, but there really is no solving the problems of the present and coming decades without a politically at least somewhat unified Europe.

The UK has been one of the biggest hinderances in that respect ever since Thatcher anyways.
Click to expand...
We've never really belonged in the EU and never will, not to the same level of continental countries. It's a begrudging acceptance. I think a German paper (Der Spiegel?) said it best recently that British people have a very independent national identity, either as one or the collection. That is an imperial mentality that has shifted from something more sinister to an historic pride. You would find arguments from Welsh or Scottish nationalists but ultimately it boils down to much the same. The economic benefit of the EU is clear, but at this point that is being questioned.

I can understand the frustration towards the UK if you are from one of the numerous smaller EU countries who get to make important calls, but for the big 3 (or 5) there are differing levels of complexities. I can't speak for the population of Britain, but I get the impression that people are fine being given advice from the Germans or French on economic matters, but not from countries who are either being propped up by the system or having a more important influence than their contribution.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com
Ocelot

Ocelot

Midnight Marauder
#803
Jul 13, 2013
18,943
#803
Nenz said:
God I wish Brexiteers and other anti-EU figures would stop citing Australia's immigration policy as an example for Europe. Australia's immigration policy involves propping up makeshift camps and detention centers on neighboring pacific islands with few more provisions than food, water and very basic shelter. When the migrants protested they've been beaten by armed guards and locals, some to death. Women have been raped and impregnated by security staff and locals (the Australian government refused the impregnated victims C sections in Australian hospitals), children as young as 8 are attempting suicide and men are now self-immolating. Last year the government issued a full media ban on Christmas Island and Nauru. So they're fully aware of what they're doing here.

Detainees have two choices, accept resettlement in a third world country (the Aus government has spent $55M to resettle only ONE migrant in Cambodia with terminal health complications, untreatable in Cambodian hospitals) with no prospects of work or a normal life OR go back to the country from which you were fleeing persecution - many in the camps are Iranian political dissidents/ethnic minorities or they are ethnic Rohingya's who are systematically starved and slaughtered in Burma.

The atrocities happening on Nauru and Christmas Island detention centers now happen with such monotonous regularity that no one seems to care anymore. Both sides of Parliament spin it off as the evil necessary to solve a 'problem' which was never harming our society in the first place. This cruel policy actually costs more than processing and resettling migrants in Australia. Yes, standing up for basic human rights at less of a cost to a budget which is in deficit is actually now considered to be political suicide by both sides of politics.

Genuine asylum seekers who arrive in Australian waters by the only means available to them (unauthorized passage by boat) are never ever ever processed even if they're more than eligible for settlement (genuine claim for asylum, no criminal history, skilled worker). Instead, they're kicked from the queue forever, indefinitely detained and tortured until they return to the place they are fleeing. No review of their eligibility ever takes place to separate the wheat from the chaff as so many Brexiteers seem to believe. There is no pragmatism, just systematic cruelty.

I know the problem is different in Europe, but Australia's immigration policy since the turn of the millennium has been nothing but an election ploy designed to appeal to fear and bigotry. It's the biggest blight on the national conscience since the Stolen Generation. Even Anders Breivik paid homage to Australia's immigration policies in his manifesto. Britain have a terribly under regulated system of immigration, but Australia is not a good example for decent human beings to follow and I sincerely hope that the pendulum in Europe doesn't swing so far from the EU paradigm that it reverts to being the nationalistic clusterfuck it was 80 years ago.
Click to expand...
Sadly our foreign minister won't read this post :tup:

http://www.euractiv.com/section/jus...s-to-replicate-australian-model-for-migrants/
 
Pirlo's Beard

Pirlo's Beard

Junkie Joe Joyce
#804
Oct 2, 2013
11,220
#804
Nenz said:
Yes the problems both countries face vis-a-vis immigration are completely different. So is the political context of either nation. I'm not trying to make direct comparisons and I'm not attacking you for your suggestion. Sorry if it looks like I flew off the handle lol. I just wanted to give anyone voting in this referendum a reality check on what your politicians are promoting inadvertently or otherwise.

The point is that unlike Australia, EU members have real immigration issues. An exit from the EU gives policy makers a mandate to address those problems but what really shocks me is when I see British politicians campaigning for Brexit continually citing Australia's immigration policy as an example to follow. It's very plausible that a sovereign nation wishes to regulate the massive influx of migrants coming into their country. But in the wrong political and social context, that idea can mutate into something very unpleasant as it has in Australia in the last 20 years (the social and political conditions here seemed fairly innocuous to begin with). Even authorized skilled migrants are terribly exploited here due to a frankly racist culture - a nasty bi-product of years of rhetoric and dog whistling on the matter.

Lord knows there is a real anti-immigration and nationalistic feeling slowly brewing in pockets of Europe at the moment. Politicians are depraved enough to tap into that given the right opportunity. So leaders speaking highly of Australia's immigration policy seems like a bad omen. It's a little bit eerie. Like I said, the idea you're referring to is perfectly plausible but Australia hasn't been a beacon for neither rational nor humane immigration policy for over a decade (that includes unauthorized asylum seekers and economic migrants) and you would think that the proponents of it in the UK would be aware of that.

One last thing... one of the murkiest and ugliest facets of the whole debate is deciphering a genuine asylum seeker from an economic migrant and then deciding how many asylum seekers/economic migrants can come to the UK if any. The UK has a myriad of excuses to shut their doors completely to whoever. Nevertheless, the push factors which drive migrants (both genuine refugees and economic migrants alike) will remain and they will continue to arrive. That is what presents the moral dilemma of what to do with these people. And if the UK governments were to take a leaf out of Australia's book, they would be implementing a cruel policy of deterrence.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, Australia is a weird place like that. It has a friendly and accepting reputation as a multicultural country I think. But the national conversation has turned very nasty on immigration after the tenure of some very conservative, conservative governments. There's a humanitarian crisis going on in indigenous communities in our own back yard and atrocities being committed against innocent asylum seekers abroad. Two months into a federal election campaign and barely a peep on either issue from any major parties. It seems there's bipartisan agreement on only one thing in Aussie politics and that's being complete dogs.
Click to expand...
Nah it's cool I get you, I just wanted people to understand that when I and most (Admittedly probably not all) people in this debate point to an Australian 'style' system we're talking about the way we deal with migrants looking to simply move to a better country for a better wage and not the asylum seekers.

Because right now so long as you

A) Own an EU passport
B) Don't tell people you're planning to commit fucking crimes in Britain. ('Just' being a convicted criminal doesn't actually DQ you from entry.)

You're in. And that sucks for everybody else. We really really don't need more people to take entry level jobs. And certainly not more benefit leeches and people abusing our NHS. As much as Cameron likes to tell us otherwise, you can come here and claim benefits very quickly. And a lot of these people end up sending that money home, thus taking money out of our country and not reinvesting it, just sending it back home.
 
Elvin

Elvin

Senior Member
#812
Nov 25, 2005
36,854
#812
PhRoZeN said:
Scotland will have to go independent first. Something they failed to do last year.
Click to expand...
I was shocked by that decision tbh. What nation wouldn't want to be independent, right?
But then I realized it's better to be under a well-run country than independent and led by corrupt, incompetent compatriots.
 
Pirlo's Beard

Pirlo's Beard

Junkie Joe Joyce
#813
Oct 2, 2013
11,220
#813
Scotland seem to have a very pro EU stance. If they have another vote, they'll definitely go their own way and join the EU. Would be hilarious if a random EU member vetoed them though.
 
Pirlo's Beard

Pirlo's Beard

Junkie Joe Joyce
#818
Oct 2, 2013
11,220
#818
Well two blows for Remain just occured

Newcastle was expected to be quite heavily in favour of remain, it barely was.


Sunderland ended up being massively in favour of 'Leave' with over 60%
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 4)