UKC

That is all!

hmm, lets hope that does not push the cabinet further down the rabbit hole.

Gove for Home Office?

I wouldn't celebrate too quickly. Rudd was a voice of reason on Brexit. Her departure threatens to pull the cabinet further right, although May will try to find another remainer to fill the slot via a shuffle.

Another scalp for the Mail and Telegraph.

One less (maybe the last?) rational member in the cabinet.

The asylum is being run by lunatics.

Gove for PM

Totally neutral statement. Totally awful Home Secretary, but we know what proceeded her and I don’t expect anything better to follow.

Do you think he runs the risk of being the John Reid of the Tories? I'd be interested to see how he gets on at DEFRA if given enough time.

  It still leaves the question of why, even over the weekend, she was apparently finding things out that if she didn't know at the time she certainly should have known by the time she appeared before the Commons committee. This is not a defence of Rudd, let alone of May, who seem to have presided over a dysfunctional policy. But it does rather suggest that, as a previous incumbent remarked, the Home Office itself is "not fit for purpose".

  The Windrush scandal is the visible tip if of a very large iceberg which is the UK's incompetent administration of immigration and has been a problem in the making for decades.

Possibly. He seems to a person who gets things done; not always the things that other people want done, but done nevertheless.

Damn. Who else is there who is named after a fish?

T.

As part of the err Defra  dysfunctional family he does seem to be genuinely radical so far. 'So far' being qualified by not having the post-Brexit Treasury reality to temper any idealogy. 

My money is on Sajid Javid. He's already prepared the ground the Sunday Torygraph, talking about how the Windrush deportees 'could have been him or his family'.

Just remember the departmental rebrand, Dont Ever Feel Rubbished Again.

Nicola Sturgeon?

Great news, let's get a proper Brexiter in her place.

Boris for PM!!

The incompetence is one thing. But in the case of windrush the home office did simply what we asked them to do: i.e kick out or push out as many people as possible. It is not a problem of incompetence it is a problem of policy.

This sudden faux outrage over windrush is such an obvious ploy.

The policies that led to Windrush were widely approved and supported by the public, and despite the fact that this has been public knowledge for at least 5 years, nobody lifted a finger.

The fact that she was a powerful remainer influence in the cabinet is probably the only real reason Windrush suddenly became a thing. A situation even more absurd given that most of the policies that created this mess are Teresa May’s doing.

I also observe that none of the hostile policies of the two immigration acts are being rescinded, on the contrary, the government keeps pushing an immigration exception in the data protection bill, which promises to be Windrush on steroids.

I agree. A major factor in this will be to try and minimise damage in the imminent elections.

And: The Department of Epidemics Famine and the Rural Apocalypse 

Agreed, but this may free her up to be more outspoken.

Damian Green?

Then when we look back we can say Green, Amber Rudd

You know what it might be exactly the purgative the country needs . Let's have our own trump clown figure who'll reduce the whole government and country to a big pile on the floor. After that we can assess the damage and just maybe clean ourselves up and restore some order  

Not sure it's faux, a lot of people haven't heard about what's been going on.

There's a big out cry about potholes where I live, it's not that there hasn't been potholes for sometime, it's simply that people have decided enough is enough!

Grayling.

Boris and Gove for PM, give them both zero hours contracts at the minimum wage, work to be allocated according to who has their tongue the furthest up Rupert Murdoch's arse.

Gove is a bit on the small side for Theresa to hide behind

She'd prefer somebody large and dense to take the bullets, shame for her that Eric Pickles has gone.

Who are the 'we' in your statement?

Who wants people pushed out?

Deporting shed loads of people doesn't equate to controlling the number of people entering the country.

I suspect that most people want controlled immigration and not mass deportations in order to hit some mis defined and possibly unachievable target.

I'm quite surprised, it was all getting very messy but she was stood between the mess and May. I guess this means they think they're coming out the other side of it now, that there are no more big revelations left to fell May. Or maybe Rudd just screwed up too bad in misleading parliament, May's neck is still on the block?

Shame really, she seemed a relatively sane voice in a totally dysfunctional government.

Another May puppet for the home office or a change of course on immigration. Seems unlikely, they'd be swimming against a tide of hate this government has really set free if perhaps not in motion (to mix metaphors slightly).

jk

When you can't restrict incoming numbers further without damaging the economy your anti-immigrant voters depend upon it does. Time and again you moan about foreigners changing Britain then you vote for people who promise to change that. What do you seriously expect them to do?

And what if immigration is already controlled at the level required to keep our economy and services ticking over yet people keep on bleating about it on the doorstep and voting for UKIP en masse? What is the logical next step for a government running scared of that electorate, there are two flows making up the nett figure and it's numbers that make headlines.

We created this mess, they're just doing what we asked, loud, clear and repeatedly. Ifi t isn't what we actually want when we stop to think about the consequences for individuals or ourselves is irrelevant, it's far too late for that.

jk

"We" is everyone who voted conservative despite knowing their dear leaders penchant for illegal, racist policies.

Or do you believe her line that some underling came up with the "Go Home" vans when she was on holiday?

I thought it was all because of the EU?

Hope you put a bet on!

No, "we" is everyone who contributed to the anti immigration clamour, whoever they voted for.

The point is that people voted for large reduction in net migration, which are not achievable without pushing or kicking out vast numbers of people that most people would otherwise qualify as more than welcome to stay.

this whole scandal illustrates the fundamental perception issues in the whole immigration debate. Most people want net migration down but are unable to actually tell us which group of “undesirable” people that would actually make a difference to the overall numbers they want rid of.

Well polls show that the majority of people are in favour of better control over immigration, some reduction in numbers, and clamping down on illegal migrants.

  That is not the same at all as supporting a carelessly targetted and inefficiently and unjustly executed policy to meet probably randomly created and unachievable targets.

Ten points to Gryffindor!

One thing she found out over the weekend was that she'd sent a memo to May with a deportation target in it. Poor form to have leaked it (possibly) but she can hardly claim the wool was pulled over her eyes. 

Totally agree with this. The government, going back to Tony Blair, has been chaotic on immigration. In their own way, and coming from different perspectives, Blair, Brown, Cameron and May have failed to understand what the british public really wants from an immigration policy. Blair and Brown both thought  immigration was great and anyone who disagreed was an ignorant oik; May thought Britain just needed to stop people - any people - coming in and kick as many out as we could. Its hard to know what Cameron thought except that he - oddly - never seemed to take on his own Home Sec over the issue. Interesting that no-one thought to conduct an in-depth study of the issue until Amber Rudd commissioned a white paper... after the Brexit vote, stable door banging in the wind. 

I think a lot of people would be satisfied if they felt that the government had some lovel of control over the issue, even if numbers didn't reduce. Clinging to the daft 10s of thousands figure just exacerbated the problem. 

Might be worth considering that if you're going to have any sort of controlled immigration system you need to both remove those who overstay their visas and remove those who were never entitled to enter the country in the first place.  That means deportations, and given the numbers that we're talking about it means deportations in the thousands at least, yearly.

It doesn't mean, as others have said, thousands being removed to compensate for those who "we" want to come in.  To achieve that we need to simply let fewer people in.  Deportations are just part of any properly functioning immigration system.

so why do you trust the Brexit railroad to deliver us something even nearly as good as EU membership?   Strong and stable has proved not to be right, how much else?

I doubt most middle ground Conservative voters thought they were voting for that 

Yes, and how do you let less people in ? You restrict work visas even more, spousal visas even more ? Prevent students from coming ? We already have draconian restrictions.

The only solution left if you want to reduce net migration is to get people to leave.

The fundamental problem I think is that people want an immigration system that lets the people they deem valuable in whilst at the same time keep the numbers low.

im afraid this is a basic contradiction / impossibility and no politician has the courage to tell them.

For what?

The question, "what happens next?" is now very interesting. 

Amber Rudd, although not entirely without blemish, has clearly taken the hit for her boss's hostile environment policy. Whether that - and the appointment of the son of a Pakistani bus driver - is enough to brush the scandal under the carpet, i think is still an open question. If Labour scents blood they could keep chipping away at May. Having said, Corbyn hasn't demonstrated much of a killer instinct so far. 
 

On Brexit, an arch remainer has been replaced by a Brexiteer, tipping the balance of the cabinet. Rudd is probably too loyal to May to cause much trouble from the back benches. 

It looks to be quite advantageous for May. As well as the weakening of the Remainers in the Cabinet you mention, Rudd didn't resign over Windrush specifically, but her misleading of the Select Committee. That takes the focus away from May's direct involvement in the Windrush issue. It also focuses the discussion on the targets issue, which again moves things away from Windrush (unpopular with the public) to an area that is more popular. Also, Rudd is now unlikely to ever be a leadership candidate - one down...

The cabinet is now Rudderless!

Why did I immediately think of Corbyn, when you posted this?

Because you're a Tory? 

" That is not the same at all as supporting a carelessly targetted and inefficiently and unjustly executed policy to meet probably randomly created and unachievable targets."

I suspect there are many Conservative voters who didn't want this.  Its in response to the dialogue that was going along the lines of "this is what the Conservative voters wanted, and  Conservative voters are the only voters wanting these tough (aka Draconian) immigration policies".

How dare you?   Typically I vote for whomever is at the centre, which means all three main parties have hard my vote this century. At the moment I'm waiting for the mythical new centrist party to form. Come on Milliband D, Damian Green et al. Get on with it. And give that nice Anna Soubry a job.

Theresa May's statement earlier:

Ah yes, nothing to do with the actual policies her office was overseeing.

We were just doing what you wanted.

They were caught up. Emphasis on the passive.

Heaven forbid anyone think we were treating them as though they were anything less than good, white British citizens!

We're dealing with the problem which absolutely nobody caused. Also, illegal immigration, illegal immigration, illegal immigration...

  You have forgotten, the Corbynite meaning of Tory is "anyone not as far left as me".

That's what I hoped you meant: which kind of raises the question of how the hell May came up with a policy that has ended up as it has in response to the reasonable wish for more control over immigration.

   Leaving aside the predictable moronic  cries of "because she's a horrid racist" I wonder whether actually she simply found her self between a rock and hard place ie. making any significant impact on net immigration numbers is actually impossible in a country with a large number of existing immigrants (leading to high numbers of family reunion applicants etc) and huge educational and commercial demand for immigrants (which in the short term are not reversible) , and porous borders. In her blinkered "I'm getting on with the job" mode she decided to plough on regardless of the injustices  being caused and of the likelihood of political fall out.

I'd be a bit more nuanced.

It's entirely sensible that if you are going to "do something" about high levels of immigration, you need to address the issue of illegals already living here.  Not only to send a message that, unlike before, simply getting here, by hook or by crook, is no longer enough and that you will be actively pursued and removed if you are illegal.  But also to assuage public mumbling about illegal residents playing the system.  

The idea that immigration figures will be meaningfully lowered by direct deportations, and that large numbers of deportations will even occur, as a result of the policy so far seems unlikely and overly emotive to me.  I'm willing to give the government credit that their goal here was entirely understandable and necessary if any sort of tightening of immigration policy is to occur. Details of execution, accuracy, and the setting of targets is another issue.

Of course you may want to be very tough on illegal immigration, but that’s is not what is going to get the numbers down in any significant way.

It is not what I’ve said. You are confusing illegal immigrants being physically deported with legal immigrants who lose the right to live in the U.K for whatever reason and end up having to leave,

It’s not another issue. Immigration is all about the details of execution and accuracy.

the reality is that to get the numbers down there is no other alternative but to make life very difficult for people most people would consider valuable.

I note that there is no plan that make changes to the laws that created this situation and in fact there are plans to make the law considerably worse, but I see very little outrage in the press about that.

As usual in Britannia people seem more captivated with the opportunistic political lynching of a few people than fixing the actual issues or having any kind of sensible debate on immigration.

be carful what you wish for

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/04/watch-diane-abbott-dodges-illegal-imm...

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Too many current politicians just blindly follow perceived public opinion instead of standing up for their own convictions and leading that public opinion. 

Martin

Do we need immigration at 250,000+ each year to maintain our economy?

Because that's what we've got.

Even taking out students, etc it's a load of people.

Do you have a problem with illegal immigrants being told to go home?

Net migration isn't the issue for most people although the government using migration and immigration as the same thing (when they obviously aren't) doesn't help.

Large scale immigration is the concern and isn't affected no matter how many people leave the country 

Fine but you need to tell us which groups of people large enough to make any sort of meaningful difference you are going to ban from coming to the country.

Its too easy to say you want to reduce the numbers significant without actually telling how you do it and who will be impacted.

the reality is that there is no way to reduce it significantly without targeting otherwise “desirable” people, ie, student, spouses, qualified workers, since they represent the vast majority of the immigration.

Focus groups rule?

The argument that "it's what you all voted for" doesn't really wash. Election voting ought to be on the basis of the entire manifesto, not a single issue. So voters ought to vote on the balance of policies.

Whether voters do actually read the manifestos, and do the balancing act is a different matter... They may just vote for 'their party' regardless, or they may be swayed by a single issue.

I don't want to reduce the immigration numbers just for the sake of it.

If, as another poster has stated, we need the current level of immigration to support the economy then so be it.

I can't find any data to support the need for present levels of immigration and can't see how the country can keep absorbing such numbers without major changes to parts of our society taking place.

There might/should be a policy of if you can't fill an employment role then you and your immediate family can't come in.

Students, etc being the exception.

She appears to have resigned for misleading parliament, rather than wrecking decent people’s lives. Says it all really. 

Ok given that family visas run at about 35,000 issue a year at best, and the employement rate is very high, you’re excluding at best a few thousand people, it would make pretty much no difference whatsoever.

Ho, and there is already a policy that you must earn at least 18k per year to bring a spouse, higher if there are kids. 

Try again.

As soon as you drill down in the numbers you’ll find that there isn’t many things you can do to reduce immigration without seriously screwing large numbers of people we like to think we would like to allow.

Why do we need to allow anyone (and their immediate family) who isn't going to contribute something that the UK population can't do themselves?

How many immigrants do we actually need?

Usual whataboutery. You are unable to answer a very basic question, if we are to significantly reduce immigration which groups of migrants that are in number large enough to make a difference are you going to ban from coming.

Besides you seem to be completely ignorant of how the system currently works anyway.

Good luck getting an answer to that.

Both sides tend to talk past each other.  Those who resist tightening (specifically Tory tightening) on immigration point to how anything we do is ultimately unworkable.  Those who want tightening point to the need for change regardless, warts and all.

I think we need to acknowledge that the demographic shift from immigration is very recent.  Its impact is only just being felt and no one can claim with certainty where it will lead. 

It might all go swimmingly and we become an economically and culturally even richer melting pot.  It might cause unforeseen upheavals, differential birth-rates coupled with hard social viewpoints causing a tipping point where nothing we do to limit migration has any impact on preserving aspects of our culture we hold dear (secularism, liberalism, etc).

Seems to me we are playing a risky game.  Buying in to a ponzi scheme that champions ever more immigration is a solution to the economic crunch of falling birth rates.  A system that puts its faith in some future hopeful projections (of reductions) to dispense with the thorny problem of where ever larger population densities and numbers takes us.  And a viewpoint that our own pleasant experience of migrants and cultural change is wide spread.

Seems easy enough.

Have Brexit and make all EU migrants apply for work via a skilled visa system.  

Seriously limit the future right to bring dependents/spouses in to the country.

Crack down on all illegal immigrants, accepting that we will have a few more Windrush scandals in the process.

Enforce ID cards across the propulation and establish exit checks at the border.

Establish a complicated system of points-based system in general for immigration.

The problem is that the whole question of reducing immigration is a complete moot point if you can’t actually say which group of migrant you are going to target for restriction, and which restrictions you are ready to accept.

If you want less immigration you need to tell those students they can’t come in, you need to tell uk nationals that if they have the bad luck of wanting to marry a foreign national they need to leave the country, you need to tell businesses they have to shut down or lose business to foreign competition because they can’t recruit.... etc etc...

I have nothing against those who want to massively reduce immigration however they need to own the consequences, instead of always blaming the “incompetence” of the home office.

Unlike some people on this forum I can't claim to know everything about everything.

There's no whataboutery on my part.

Just a desire for an answer to a question.

Your the expert - how many immigrants do we need?

Final step: watch as young educated workers leave in droves

What a cheerful vision for the future of this country!

lol.

Not going to make much difference. Most of the immigrants are non-EU and students. 

Net migration from the EU, was at the latest, about 90,000. Half of them students. You end up with only 45,000 you can target. Of those 45,000 at least half are very skilled and could easily get a work visa.

All you’ve done, is at the very best, reduced net immigration by 20,000, not even a dent in the numbers.

try again.

We already do. About 47% of the population in the U.K. is banned from living with foreign spouse, because of the income requirements of the british spouse.

not going to make any difference to the numbers.

ok, still does nothing to the overall numbers.

We already have a system that is way more restrictive than a point system. We have a numerical cap.

Now instead of saying it’s easy come up with a realistic policy to reduce the numbers. I’m waiting.

No, but if you say you want to reduce immigration but can’t even point out which groups you want  to restrict entry to, then you are an hypocrite.

And it’s typical of this Windrush saga, the public has been asking for reduction in the numbers, but as soon as it has consequences they blame the government and the home office for incompetence.

No you don't.  Students are only included in immigration figures by a quirk of bad design.  They can, rightfully, be excluded entirely as they really don't count as migrants.  They are here for the fixed duration of their studies, can be included/excluded from the right to work if deemed necessary, and can have the opportunities for subsequent employment in the UK removed or added if felt necessary.  They are in essence self-funding and represent an undeniable hard cash injection in to the UK economy in the same way that tourism does.

All those adjustments may have an impact on our attractiveness to students, but to say we need to exclude students is simply wrong.  And I certainly don't believe anyone other than a tiny fraction of those with anti-immgrant views feel students should be a target of restrictions.

You can.  I'd hate that - I've never had, nor wanted, an English girlfriend, let alone wife.  But you can make it a policy.  Though more realistically, you can set the policy for 10 years in to the future and simply make the policy a difficult one - a plethora of minimum requirements, incremental increases in access to free services over a 5-10 year period, etc. etc.  Its not a binary possible V impossible decision.

Or you can tell them they can recruit the very best, but they need to demonstrate (or be willing to do so under audit) that the chosen applicant was not clearly inferior to a UK born applicant.  Welcome applications from overseas but give preference to non-overseas applicants (as we already do).  There are hues of different possibilities.

I think many people are willing to accept those consequences.  Or at least they don't view them with the same apocalyptic, sky falling, "we've become just like the Nazis" response that those who seem to oppose more managed migration do.  That's why I said we are talking past each other.  There is a huge amount of highly emotive language, pointing to extreme but rare cases of real hardship to effectively say doing anything is borderline racism.

Just to be clear, I am a migrant, and much/all of the above could or would have inconvenienced me to varying degrees. But the system that existed when I naturalised here was a joke.  I essentially sent away a pretty basic form, paid a fee, and presto - I became English.  it was piss-easy. 

The US has a tough immigration policy.  Seems to have no issues holding on to its educated workers.

Part of its coping mechanism is a user-pays system whereby the average citizen probably feels they are less likely to be taken advantage of by someone coming for the equivalent of benefits tourism.  You basically have to pay your way.

Sadly, when you operate a social-democratic system that provides high rates of social welfare there seems to be a necessary requirement for very careful immigration.  Otherwise you are essentially extending an insurance coverage to people with no policy cover.  Understandable that folks are touchy about it.

Majority of conservative party and the big money are anti-brexit - the blinding left hook followed by the disabling liver shot is more likely to come from within the Tories than from Labour.

D

  This is the elephant in the room that the liberal left is closing its eyes to. Their enthusiasm for large scale immigration is putting the survival of the welfare state at risk.

You need to learn the meaning of the word hypocrite.

We've already established that my understanding of the immigration system is limited.

That's probably because I was born in the UK. and have had little contact with the immigration system.

I could google the subject and then pretend to be an expert.

But it's not the immigration system I'm questioning right now  - it's the number of immigrants we need to sustain our country - how many is it?

"I'm sorry; I got found out"

Gove looks like a fish..... A haddock, I'd say

we all know what it means.

ho I see, now being born in the U.K. is an excuse for being ignorant. That’s new.

No, nobody ask you to be an expert, but at least if you engage in a debate you could at least make the effort of having the minimum knowledge required to actually have an informed opinion. That would involve having at the very least a basic understanding of the socio demographic make up of immigration today as well as a basic understanding of the immigration system.

Odd, if you say we don’t include student because they are here on a limited duration, then I guess we also exclude those on a work visa since it’s also a limited duration and self funded.

Yes, but then don’t claim you want to reduce immigration substantially, because that is not possible without going after students. You can take them out of the numbers of it makes you feel better, but doesn’t change the nature of the problem.

If you think it is the role of the state to say who people can and can’t live with fine. But don’t pretend this won’t have very negative implications for those impacted. Broken families, Skype families, etc etc.

may I point out that we already heavily restrict family reunion, more so than almost any western country.

We already do.

Rare case of real hardship ? Now you are just tying to minimise and deny the problem, which is unhelpful.

Yes, abd this had completely changed within the past ten years. We went from a lax immigration system to one of the harshest and most authoritarian in the world - to the point that we are in breach with several human rights conventions.

Maybe we should just remove you your passport, after all, we need to reduce the numbers right ? 

Sorry but this is utter bollocks. Surely you would have noted that immigrants are far less likely to claim welfare than natives, and more likely to be employed, which means that in fact more immigration, is, paradoxically, better for the welfare system.

I’m not advocating for more immigration, just knocking down this nonsensical argument.

Not even as remotely tough as the U.K.

Unfortunately this argument goes against all the evidence, which shows migrants put in more than they take out.

ironically, less immigration will make the welfare system worse.

  In which case I suggest that you find out what the argument is and then address it.

i would argue not so, not if you have a growing thriving economy and need labour to supply it, and staff to work in a welfare state.  The U.K. Problem is that it expects expensive, top end care , but large parts of the country are economically moribund and don't pay their way.

to Baron - how many migrants does the UK need - I don't know, how high is unemployment?  If you pull migrants what labour do you lose?  I suppose agriculture is what I'm most familiar with, and there, removing labour will be a problem.  People won't come here to the UK on an expensive short term visa as it just isn't worth it.  Perhaps people from other parts of the U.K. Will need to work these jobs,  - they can move, or just work weeks  in east Anglia then go home for weekends?

I just did. You claimed that  large scale immigration is putting the survival of the welfare state at risk. There is simply zero evidence of that, in fact there is evidence of the contrary.

It’s a pretty simple, clear, point in direct rebuttal  to your post. 

The pre-brexit position was: UK exports a large number of crumblies to the south, where they are a drain on the local health / welfare systems and the UK imports young, fit,  well educated, hard working people who pay taxes in the UK. Not sure what the problem was

And in the last quarter, according to estimations by linkedin, for the first time more U.K. workers are leaving to the EU than EU workers are coming to the UK.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we see near zero or negative net migration with the EU within one year.

This is an old article but is probably the best known succinct exposition of the argument.

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/too-diverse-david-goodhart-mult...

"“The basis on which you can extract large sums of money in tax and pay it out in benefits is that most people think the recipients are people like themselves, facing difficulties which they themselves could face. If values become more diverse, if lifestyles become more differentiated, then it becomes more difficult to sustain the legitimacy of a universal risk-pooling welfare state. People ask, ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn’t do?’ This is America versus Sweden. You can have a Swedish welfare state provided that you are a homogeneous society with intensely shared values. In the US you have a very diverse, individualistic society where people feel fewer obligations to fellow citizens. Progressives want diversity but they thereby undermine part of the moral consensus on which a large welfare state rests.” (Willets)

  Of course Goodhart, a leftie liberal, was immediately condemned by other leftie liberals as a racist for articulating this position despite the fact that there is plenty of academic research to support him (although it is subject to much debate).

  The case is obviously not cut and dried, and anyway, since we now live in a diverse society the issue is really how we deal with since it can't be reversed. But it does make a case for slowing the rate of immigration so that the impact can be managed.

Of all the criticisms of immigration, I don't think I've ever heard anything like ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn’t do?’" as a reason.  There are (overblown) claims about "benefit tourism", and locally acute problems on schools etc when there are large influxes but that's as close as it gets.   Places like Singapore that are far more diverse than the UK seem to manage effective health and welfare so I don't think the claim stands up at all.  Moreoever, large chunks of the NHS and other services are hugely reliant on immigrant workers so if anything the situation is the reverse.

It's not to be taken literally. It is a succinct summary of the thought process.

Yes I know.  I've still not heard it about immigrants.  It is quite common in other areas though - e.g. money to Scotland from England,  money to benefit "scroungers", money to London rather than elsewhere, money to pensioners not the young.  At best the argument is a red-herring.

No elephant here then. Move on by.......

http://sciencenordic.com/trust-creates-welfare-state-%E2%80%93-not-vice-ver...

Well no.  That article talks about trust, not immigration.  Interesting that you immediately make the link but aren't, of course, in anyway xenophobic.

Oh Jesus wept. Read the f*cking article and do some research (I've pointed you to some books). One of the key points of the argument is that trust works better within cohesive cultural groups and immigrants tend not to be part of the cohesive cultural group. (read the Goodhart article)

  The Scandanavian article addresses your claim that " I don't think I've ever heard anything like ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn’t do?’" Essentially, whether people trust other people is based on whether they believe those people will observe and respect societal behaviours and obligations. It's a well attested argument in academic and other work, and frankly common sense, that this trust is likely to be weaker towards people outside a cohesive cultural group.

  If you are really not capable of addressing the arguments (which are not mine, I am just summarising them) and prefer to resort to your knee jerk cries of "racist, xenophobe " then I won't waste my time. I make the connection because it's a standard element of the argument being articulated.

It simply doesn't.  The word "immigrant" isn't used once in that article.  You are making the link.

We're about to find out aren't we. Likely at the moment the answer is a yes but with caveats. The solution to enforced labour shortages will be automation and offshoring (since inflation can't fix a problem caused by immigration policy and without productivity increases would be unsustainable/harmful anyway) which will displace native and foreign born workers alike. Not what most working class anti-immigrant voters want I'd imagine.

Yes and no. It's currently quite high in historical terms but still only growing the population at 0.4%. Sure that would compound up fairly quickly over time but it is also to be considered against declining birth rates and the fact there is plenty of space, we're not a tiny space constrained island or a walled city state.

jk

I think this Windrush story has really captured the attention of the press where countless successive cruel home office failings have failed to because it has in part been about ousting Rudd the remainer.

jk

  The Scandinavian article addresses the issue of "trust" which addresses, as it was meant to, your claim that  "I don't think I've ever heard anything like ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn’t do?’" That is why I linked to that article.

   I'm not "making the link" with immigration. It's a standard link made in numerous articles and books on the topic which you can't be bothered to get off your arse and read instead of shouting "xenophobe and racist" at every opportunity.

You are making no sense at all. You start by claiming the "elephant in the room" is the impossibility of having a welfare state with immigration, you support this by pointing to articles saying trust is needed for a welfare state, and then you try and deny that you believe immigration results in lower trust!

You still haven't answered my simple question - how many immigrants do we need to sustain our country?

Gordon Bennett. Read more carefully.I haven't "den(ied) that (I) believe immigration results in lower trust!" I have pointed out that I didn't invent the argument ("link" as I put it) .

I'll go through this by numbers so you can understand:

1) Trust is needed for a welfare State (this is part of Willett''s point and a standard part of the discourse )

2) You say "I don't think I've ever heard anything like ‘Why should I pay for them when they are doing things I wouldn’t do?’" by which you effectively saying that trust is not needed for a welfare state.

3) I therefore link to the Scandinavian article which argues that trust is required for a welfare State.

  The other element (which Goodhart and Willets) are also making (but not the Scandi article-I didn't claim that it was) is that trust works better in socially cohesive societies and that therefore welfare states work better in socially cohesive societies. They also argue that diverse societies with large immigrant populations are likely to be less cohesive and therefore trust will be weaker and therefore the welfare state will be weaker.

Yes, obviously a degree of trust is needed for any sort of state to function.  However, you can't have it both ways with immigrants.  Either you think they are at least as trustworthy as anyone else on average, in which case your "elephant" doesn't exist.  Or you think they are less trustworthy on average, which is pretty much a definition of xenophobia.

postmanpat - I see your point on a cohesive society, but that's been declining since the 70's anyway.  Beware the situation that the southeast doesn't want to carry the ego so- tribalism isn't good.  The issue is also one of perception reality - which groups , communities aren't pulling their weight?  The bogeymen seem to be EU immigrants, but as a drain on resources how do they compare to , for example , Darlington,or Cornwall?

"I'm" not having it either way. I'm articulating the argument (no doubt made by "racists" like Collier and Goodhart).

The argument is NOT that immigrants are less trustworthy. It is that in a diverse society people trust each less. Can you understand the difference?

If you value secularism and liberalism and those ideas are good then make the case for them, win the argument, don't just exclude people who's ideas differ because their great great great grandchildren in a future we can't begin to imagine anyway might outnumber 'ours'.

We are but what other option do we have? Shock changes are no good to anyone, our economy is built on stable or positive growth rates and we've done nothing to change that, if you force a rapid change there will be suffering and it'll be the young who lose out on the benefits the old have enjoyed. That economy can and must change but it's going to have to be a gradual change unless it's forced, usually by war.

Poe's law strike again.

jk

Your opening gambit was " This is the elephant in the room that the liberal left is closing its eyes to. Their enthusiasm for large scale immigration is putting the survival of the welfare state at risk."  That's not just articulating an argument, that's clearly buying in to that argument. Pretending you were just throwing something out for discussion is being slippery, at best.

I can but don't accept that its being drawn honestly, nor that it's true.  If it were, the arguments for preventing Scots moving to London, or Londoners to Yorkshire would be being made.

  Oh, I think they probably have a point and absolutely think it's worthy of discussion. My attribution was made to clarify that, contrary to your assertion and attempted slur, it was not me that initiated the link between trust, diversity and immigration. It's actually pretty standard. The failure to engage with it and attempt to close the discussion down through abuse is charactrtic of the supposedly "liberal" left and deeply counterproductive leading, as it does, to things like Trump and brexit.

  So far your sole contribution has been to accuse me of xenophobia. Is it your view that Professor Collier, and David Goodhart and everybody making these arguments are also xenophobic? Do you have anything beyond ludicrous personal attacks to contribute?

  Rolls eyes. It is  simply not comparable for numerous obvious reasons.

  For your delectation, this is an excerpt from a DT review of Collier's book "Exodus"

It is on host countries that the impact of mass immigration is most negative, especially on European countries, whose cultures do not provide the readier absorption of societies more recently built through immigration, like the United States and Canada.

Except in the welcome instance of the highly skilled, he shows that the economic impact is essentially neutral.

The most significant costs are social. While low levels of immigration add some variety to life, large, unassimilated, and culturally distant blocs of immigrants reduce what the author calls “mutual regard” and trust within a society – vital for the cooperation and redistributive taxation upon which rests the welfare state, thereby putting “these achievements of modern societies at risk”. At the same time, large numbers of incomers exert pressure on public goods like schools and social housing.

“The salient feature of ethnicity is not genetic but cultural… defined not by birth but by behaviour,” Collier writes. This means that, with the cultural separatism encouraged and celebrated by the doctrine of multiculturalism, a “functional social model… built as a result of centuries of social progress”, can be weakened “by diasporas attached to dysfunctional social models”.

Manifestations of these models – among them, Collier suggests, honour violence, Islamic extremism, abuses of women and homosexuals – undermine conventions such as unarmed police, and impose a multitude of socio-economic costs.

The book’s conclusions, however humanely and dispassionately presented, are alarming and in a euphemistic way echo what David Coleman, professor of demographics at Oxford University, wrote after the results of the 2011 census (which showed that London’s “white British” population had dropped to 45 per cent of the total): “History is not sanguine about the capacity of ethnic groups or religions to overcome their differences.” One does not need to go beyond the recent history of the Balkans, Rwanda, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland or even the segregated cities of America to see this.

I'll go with yes:

"He is also an advisor to Migration Watch UK which he helped to found, and is a member of the Galton Institute, formerly known as the Eugenics Society.[2]"

Incidentally, rather than having a tantrum over   every use of the word "xenophobic", a more mature response might be to accept that we are all xenophobic to a greater or lesser degree, it's natural human condition.  So, rather than advocating framing policy around pandering to it and it's destructing nature,  perhaps look for ways of managing the effects?

RUDDY liar .........good riddance.

Interesting comparison with the tax haven Singapore! It doesn't appear to have the range of diversity of the UK, insurance based healthcare? only citizens (40% of the population) are able to vote/hold public office, accepts no refugees/asylum seekers, wealthy incomers only, and came into existence in part due to Malay hostility to the Chinese population?

It's far more diverse - look at religion and languages for starters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Singapore#Languages

Yes, supported by the government.  It has some of the best health outcomes in the world.

Yes.

Plaice sir, I find that skatement ,codfusing.

  He's spent his whole career trying to analyse and advise developing countries? Where are you seeing his connection to the Galton institute?

  Yours is a circular argument of course: Believing migration should be slowed down is racist/xenophobia. Therefore Migration watch must be a xenophobic organasation, Therefore an advisor (if he is an official advisor) to it must be xenophobic.

  The sensible hing would be to accept that there are are reasonable arguments for thinking migration should be limited and that advising a high profile  organisation on them is reasonable.

  Very slippery. You employ it as a term of crude abuse along with "racist" and "Little Englander" probably in attempt to crush debate and I react appropriately.

  However, it seems that the penny is beginning to drop. Large and rapid increases in diversity will create problems (the elephant in the room) so rather than just screaming xenophobe/racist we have to slow it down in order to make dealing with the effects easier. Anyway, it's generally not "xenophobia". The human condition is to feel more trusting and relaxed with the familiar.

  Another book that you should read (I haven't) is "Bowling alone".

Of course there are but thinking it threatens the welfare state isn't one of them.  When did this become such a concern of yours anyway?

   I've always thought that the welfare state plays an important role. That migration was a threat to it probably became apparent to me when I came across Goodhart maybe ten years ago. I'm not sure.

  You still haven't really engaged with any of their points.

I'm still intrigued by your suggestion that Collier is xenophobic. Can you cite your link?

Sorry that was a mistake - it was David Coleman at Oxford I found.

I’m not answering because it is a moot point you are making to avoid having to answer the criticism of your argument.

A strategy otherwise known as whataboutery.

Yep, too bad this is a myth easily demolished by widely available statistics. Or even just basic knowledge of the restriction of the welfare system to immigrants.

So now we have to add not knowing the meaning of whataboutery to your ever growing list of 'don't know the meaning of or correct use of' words.

I asked you a question that other posters have been happy to answer (thank you to those concerned) and you refuse to answer it.

That's your choice but please don't then try to accuse me of refusing to answer the criticism of my argument.

'"I'm" not having it either way. I'm articulating the argument'

So what do you actually think? Do immigrants threaten the welfare state?

I suspect we'll muddle through, but as I said, I think those who argue that have a point. So yes, I think it will probably undermine and is undermining (as in Sweden) support for the welfare state. It's a big challenge to ameliorate the lack of trust and the social inequalities that go with mass immigration.

That only tells half the story.  Most migrants have limited access to services when they first arrive.  And like students, temporary migrants at this stage are therefore unlikely to be anything but a net benefit.  They have no choice but to work.

The issue comes if either they then settle here permanently and represent a real net increase in population, or if they come in such (unpredictable) numbers as to make planning for resources and housing exceptionally difficult.

This raises the question though.  How do you feel about migrants having fewer rights than permanent residents?  Are you ok with this, or should everyone have the same recourse to state funds as soon as they step foot in the country?  Does it fit with your overall political stance that just because someone is a migrant they are forced to work or leave, while a resident can sign-on and get housing allowance?

I ask as that is where I believe the nub of the immigration debate really sits.  There are however undeniable issues with continued population growth and the competition low-paid migrants bring to areas of the economy where local labour struggles to compete or where jobs are severely limited.   Likewise, my views are London centric.  The population growth, housing shortages and strain on services, even in this most dynamic and economically active area of the UK is palpable.

Yes, of course.  The point here is primarily population growth or volatility in population change outstripping the ability to plan services and manage competition for housing or jobs.

No, my problem with the student-question is that you conflate it with the impossibility of managing immigration - "You want controlled immigration?  Say goodbye to international students then".  No, the two are entirely separate.  You can still have identical numbers of international students as we do now and seriously shake up the numbers of people coming to live in this country.  They are entirely independent issues as are many in the immigration debate....just like bigotry and racism can be entirely independent of having a view on immigration.

It will.  But then if you know what the score is you plan accordingly.  Don't migrate here.  Consider the implications when you choose a partner.  Go to live in their country instead.  That will have an impact on immigration.

I'm not saying it is desirable.  But to shoot down any tightening of policy as "unworkable" just because it is unpleasant is simply wrong.  The earnings limits set are already pretty low.  In fact they strike me as quite sensible for anyone hoping to start a family.

By all means, go ahead.  Can remove yours while we're at it.  Bit of a ridiculous point to make, but if we were in the business of removing passports I'd see it as completely justifiable that mine was taken before your own. 

But at no point have I said anything about shifting goal posts for those already working through processes.  I've been clear that the right thing to do is institute each type of change for those yet to initiate any sort of migratory move. 

Went I went through the process I was well aware I could be removed at the slightest indiscretion, that I had to play by the rules of the game.  If my "t's" and "i's" weren't crossed and dotted I could be excluded from the country.  I don't think that requirement is in any way unreasonable and having no right to state resources (dole, schooling, etc) was an entirely fair, though harsh, requirement for me to prove my willingness to become British and live here beyond a 4-year time limit. 

Few things cheese me off more than reading about people intentionally breaking those rules from before they even step foot here and then seeing those who profess idealism supporting them in doing so.  That is why the migration issue is so divisive and those opposing the government are often not taken seriously.  You only have to look at the support given for migrants jumping on lorries from France to see why those opposing change are viewed with justifiable suspicion.

I have to say, I think social attitudes will change just as they have, for instance, towards homosexuals. Within my lifetime we have gone from gay sex being illegal to gay weddings being celebrated in church.

Whataboutery:

“ the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.”

this is precisely what you did by refusing to answer the fundamental question as to who you wil target to reduce immigration and instead raised a different issue.

because that’s not the point. I have asked you a question and you replied with a “what about”.

I do accuse you. You still haven’t answered the main point : if you are going to reduce immigration, who are you going to target ?

if you are unable to say who you will target then talks of reducing immigration are moot.

Possibly, but it's not really a good comparison. In the modern world of global travel and media it is quite possible for people to live in a country physically but not mentally or culturally. There is really no imperative for people to  embrace the culture of their host country and when schools are sometimes not integrated and partners can be imported from the "old" country it may never happen. We are just setting up a recipe for a lack of integration and therefore a lack of trust (this is why Trevor Phillips turned his back on multiculturalism and Gordon Brown etc tried to promote "British values")

  Homosexuals, conversely, although their private lives might be different, are integrated into the mainstream of society.

Another myth I am afraid, many studies have been made that included that cost of migrants to the social system, not only across their entire lifespan, but also including the cost of their future, british, children.

And still, there is a net benefit.

I think that the rules should be the same for everybody regardless of nationality. IE benefits should be given on conditions of residence and contribution and not on nationality, which is discriminatory.

This is not incompatible with restricting benefits to migrants, simply the same rule have to apply to everybody.

Yes, but that’s a completely moot point if you are unable to say how you will realistically reduce net immigration. 

Besides the main driver of population growth in London is not immigration from outside the U.K. but it is immigration from within the U.K.

Yet I don’t see you arguing for closing the door to London to british people from other parts of the U.K. odd isn’t it ? 

Actually I’m afraid you can’t separate it. Students represents more than a third of all net migration. Hoping to make any sort of dent in the net migration (which is what is causing population to grow, which is a problem according to you) without touching it means making even more draconian restriction elsewhere, ie, work visas and spousal visas, already severely restricted.

This exactly the authoritarian, freedom killing approach I am completely against. No government should tell me what partners I should choose or tell me I have to leave my own country.

they exclude about 47% of the population from bringing a spouse.

May I point out that there is a very simple way to reduce net migration without ruining the life of millions of people, which is simply to open more doors for our people to move more easily elsewhere, instead of closing our doors to others.

That is just a very narrow minded view not supported by any sort of evidence. There is nothing preventing multiculturalism from being indeed an integral part of what we have in common, and by and large this is already the case. Just look around.

In fact the privacy of British life, as Orwell coined it, makes it actually very easy for this country to follow this model. 

If you want nation-states to survive at all then you pretty much have to embrace the idea of civic nationalism where trust is built around shared liberal values and a open democracy, instead of common cultural background, language, or faith.

Your laughable battle for the survival of ethnic nationalism is hopeless and self-defeating for rather pretty damn obvious reasons.

.

  Which is why I have not made an argument for ethnic nationalism.(well, also, because I don't beleive it would be a good thing) This is in your head. The argument is that that shared liberal values and  open democracy are what are at risk from a failure to promote a shared culture, and the possible impossibilty of doing so in the context of mass immigration.

  Really Rom, as you know I find your mode of debate irritating and disingenuous, not least because you don't read what is written, which is why I don't bother you with my views. Is there no chance that you could return the favour?

Green, amber, red ... STOP!!!

ps ... before we have a total train crash or drive over the cliff edge.

How am I supposed to tell you which people I think should not be allowed to migrate to the UK when we have already established that I don't know how many immigrants  the country needs, that I can't find the information online and you, the forum's expert, won't even give me a ballpark figure despite other posters being more helpful?

Maybe I should just name some groups of people off the top of my head but then I'm fairly sure that you'd explain how vital said groups are to the UK's wellbeing and how ridiculous my choices were.

I'm not avoiding the issue or changing the subject, I haven't answered because, without the relevant data, which you apparently have, I can't.

If that's whataboutery then so be it.

Understandable... in that history has taught us what happens when "touchy" "folks" get over-represented. Touchy volks are the manna of manipulative extremists. 

You are the one making the argument that we should reduce immigration.
I am therefore simply asking you, who do you ban from entering the country.

If you feel that you do not have sufficient knowledge to answer this question, it amounts to the admission that your opinion is based on ignorance.

I probably will because this is, in fact, the reality of immigration in the UK. Very few people who come here are actually undesirable.

This is exactly why every government failed to reduce immigration substantially despite increasingly authoritarian and abusive tactics. Why are you not grasping that is beyond me.

If you don't have the relevant data and you are so unable to formulate an answer, why do you even have an opinion? Wouldn't it be more honest to just shut up or just say you don't know enough to have an informed opinion?

Why not debate honestly and try to augment our knowledge instead of behaving like a child?

And once again you resort to insults.

This is the internet.

More importantly it's UKC.

If only the well informed were allowed to post there'd be about three new threads and fewer replies per week.

Such dishonesty beggars beliefs.

This is not what you said, PP, you specifically pointed out the failure of people to "embrace the culture of their host country" as the problem. This idea that a common shared culture is a necessary condition for the nation to exist is a basic tenet of ethnic nationalism. That is in direct opposition to the idea of liberal nationalism, in which immigrant need not assimilate into the host culture, all they need to do is to accept the principles of the country's constitution.

I've read what is written very carefully. You should do the same and read yourself carefully. The general problem with you is that you seem to have a severe case of cognitive dissonance. You keep thinking of yourself as a classic liberal, whilst holding diametrically opposite values. Which are, BTW, perfectly respectable, but just own it instead of being all flustered every time someone points it out, ffs !

That's a plain lie but never mind.

I disagree, most posters on UKC are well informed, intelligent people, from whom I have learned many things, which is the main reason I enjoy UKC.
By your own admission, this is not your case, but I guess we will never know for sure since you'd rather whatabout your way out of any argument.

Where do you get this idea from anyway ? Is there any evidence of this ? Is it true nowadays ?

Anecdotal, but the most illiberal countries in Europe at the moment, Poland and Hungary, are also some of the most culturally homogeneous countries there is, with virtually zero immigration.

I suspect the threat to liberalism has more to do with certain populists using the anti-immigration narrative to justify illiberalism, than the actual reality of immigration. 

  I see nothing has changed.READ more carefully.

  You need to do something very straightforward. Look up the difference between "cultural nationalism" and "ethnic nationalism".

Of course the accusation of "dishonesty" is ridiculous because i used the term "embrace the culture of their host country" and then openly and transparently used almost the same words "that shared liberal values and open democracy are what is at risk from a failure to promote a shared culture" (the shared culture in this case being the culture of the host country) to clarify the point to someone who doesn't understand the definition of "ethnic nationalism" why the label is not relevant in this case. "

I'll help you "The central theme of ethnic nationalists is that "nations are defined by a shared heritage, which usually includes a common language, a common faith, and a common ethnic ancestry".  I don't believe and have never remotely suggested that a "common ethnic ancestry or common faith" are prerequisites to sustain social cohesion . I think that a common language probably is and important contributor.

READ more carefully.

  That would explain why your initial dismissal of the point didn't even address the point. You hadn't read it! I've given two high profile sources (Collier and Goodhart) above for you and even kindly provided a link and some quotes.

READ FFS!

Now can you also read and answer my final point: " as you know I find your mode of debate irritating and disingenuous, not least because you don't read what is written, which is why I don't bother you with my views. Is there no chance that you could return the favour?"

You now seem to be expanding your view of the risks of immigration from threatening welfare systems to threatening entire states!  As Rom points out, there is no correlation between states with struggling democracies and those with diverse populations or high levels of immigration.  If anything the reverse is true - India and the US (despite Trump) are hugely diverse and work,  broadly, while Hungary and Poland are homogeneous and looking very wobbly.

If, rather than this apparently unhinged view of things, you simply made the case that immigrants (and others) should be encouraged and, at the limits required, to accept aspects of how the state they move to are run, I don't think anyone would disagree.  It's clearly possible, as demonstrated by two centuries of success in the US, for example.

No, PP... 

I’ve read it and duly noted your mention of Collier and Goodhart, how could I not, you mention Collier at every turn every time you talk about immigration, it’s a recurring pet obsession of yours. You have read (selectively) an outdated charlatanic political essay of zero scientific value.

This may be what leads you to make these  claims that are easily demolished by the most obvious counter examples.

  If you noted the sources why ask what the sources are? I linked to Goodhart's essay, but he also wrote a book (The British Dream) . I make no apology to referring to Collier, an academic  who has spent many years studying the issues and the academic work on the issues and wrote an excellent book detailing his conclusions.

Clearly you've read neither so you can be in no position to know either what the evidence is or whether it can be demolished.

USA working? Very debtateable as one of the reasons Trump elected was to tackle that and immigration targets have been slashed to 45,000 approx.

It's clearly got serious problems but democracy there isn't under  threat from society being diverse.  Also remember democracy is much more than the presidency - multiple lower levels of government, the press, free speech, protest, civil society etc. etc.

PP, I have not asked you for your sources, the world if full of pseudo-academic writing books where they pretend to know stuff they have no clue about.

What I have asked you is for evidence of your claims that mass immigration threatens the welfare state and liberal democracies. (Maybe you should read better).

What I have done is simply to point out clear counter example that fly in the face of the pet theories you’ve read in some book.

Instead of addressing those rationally and just admit that we probably just know very little of the effects of mass immigration on the welfare state and democracies, and that these effects seem to be unique to each time and place, you just lash out and moan.

  Here we go again. Read the thread again .The US  welfare state is very limited, partly because its diversity makes a European style welfare State unpopular. It has managed over three centuries to "limit" that diversity by very consciously, from the outset, promoting its national values (highlighted by its reverence for the flag, anthem etc).

  My "unhinged view" would be considered mainstream in almost any part of the world except Western Europe and the "Anglo Saxon countries" (nb. before someone starts, this is not a racist term. It is a widely used term to describe countries with British backgrounds eg.US,Australia etc).

  Indeed, it probably is a pretty mainstream view in the UK (certainly it was until recent decades)  but is drowned out by the metropolitan liberal class who dominate the media, academia (and UKC) and shriek "xenophobe/racist/swivel eyed" to anyone who dares challenge their self satisfied consensus.

Can you be clear: is it the just welfare system or the wider democratic system you think is under threat from immigration?

It's got nothing to do with diversity. It's bound up with the whole individual pursuit of happiness thing and wishes of the founders (immigrants!!) to get away from what they saw as an overbearing state.

  "Where do you get this idea from anyway ? " So if this is not asking for sources what the F is it?

  So, having not read the books, one by a distinguished Oxford Professor and other a leading mainstream journalist you are in a position imply they are "pseudo-academic charlatanic books " how exactly?  Because you disagree with them?

  If you were really interested you'd have read the books but instead you dismiss them without even knowing their content They are full of evidence. But if you prefer to be spoon fed here are a few articles to read:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228310465_Even_in_Sweden_The_Effec...

https://www.cablemagazine.scot/how-the-swedish-welfare-state-became-an-anti...

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/western-europe/2014-05-19/stockholm...

As I've said many times and explained the reasons, I'm not interested in debating with you .

And here it is, the usual moan about the metropolitan liberal class....

It would be easier if you left your political and cultural prejudices asides and actually tried to meaningfully engage with the facts.

I'd suggest conflating refugees (many in Sweden) and "normal" immigrants is deliberately confusing the issue.

Given he is clearly about as metropolitan and middle class as can be, PMP's patrician concern for the "lower orders" as he calls them when it suits his politics is rather amusing. 

Ultimately both although, as I said, I hope that we will muddle through.

In terms of democracy we are already seeing, for example,  stringent restrictions on speech, special laws to define a "hate crime" as something different, different applications of laws to different ethnic groups and moving toward top down control of outcomes as opposed to opportunities. All these things are logical reactions to ameliorating the inequalities and frictions resulting from immigration but nevertheless they radically change the concept of the law and the power of the State to control out lives.

Singapore, which i think you were discussing elsewhere, is actually a good example of a diverse society which maintains "harmony" by strict authoritarian controls and the absence of real democracy. Perfectly pleasant place to live, but not a liberal democracy.

  The "lower orders" is clearly how you think of them which was how I introduced the term. Trying to slip out of it doesn't work. It is telling that you believe that self interest is the only rationale for holding a view.

  But of course there is self interest in my view in that I prefer to live in a harmonious liberal democratic society  so it is in my self interest to promote that.

But much less fun

That's just mud slinging, and rather childish.  Sure, there are plenty of people I hold in low regard, but income, background, education and jobs aren't factors.

I have read Exodus, fascinating book, but unfortunately, you don't seem to understand that this is an opinion piece exploring some ideas, and is not meant to be an accurate description of the world.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. You are not going to make us believe that you don't realize that this is only weak evidence of the effect of a certain type of mass immigration, at a certain point in time, in Sweden.

 

You accused me of behaving like a child.

At my age I consider that an insult.

But never mind, in order to avoid any more accusations of avoiding the issue I think that those who wish to migrate to the UK but don't have a definite job should be prevented from doing so.

I'm working on some other groups as well so watch this space.

  You clearly believe that those who disagree with you (specifically on brexit) are uneducated xenophobes. Given that the data that you yourself linked to demonstrated that a disproportionate number of those in the lower social class  categories voted brexit, you need to face the implications of your own views: that you believe people in the lower social class categories are uneducated xenophobes.

I don't, incidentally, think you are being dishonest with me about this. You are being dishonest with yourself. Cognitive dissonance is the term isn't it?

a) you  need to insert "some" at several locations in that, as you well know.

b) yes, there will be an overlap between those voting because they are ignorant xenophobes and being of lower social class.   I hold them in low regard because of their views, not their social position.

  So you are now saying that it isn't pseudo-academic charlatanic book". That'll be the other book (which presumably you haven't read)?

    And you don't seem to understand that these things are not binary (I think this is because of your background in data processing). Economic and social science are not hard sciences so by definition their conclusions are opinions buttressed by evidence. Why is it wrong to articulate those opinions in public on UKC?

Anyway, since you've read Exodus and apparently disagree with it can you tell us which of his evidence you would like to highlight as wrong?

  If you're going to be abusive at least choose the right abuse. What the hell is "dishonest" about providing the links to articles to support a point? If you don't think they do that well, so be it. Just say why.

The Swedish example is probably the best known example of a highly developed welfare state being undermined by large scale immigration. I am perfectly happy to acknowledge it has specific characteristics but that doesn't mean there are no lessons to be drawn from it.

LOL. I seem to remember you preferred to use the term "all" some time ago. I can't be bothered to find the thread. Do you now agree that this is inaccurate?

You need to accept that the overlap is too big for you to dismiss it so easily, unless of course the "uneducated xenophobes" are less prevalent than you assert.

What different applications of laws to different ethnic groups are you talking about? This kind of thing?

"The disadvantage experienced by ethnic minorities is reflected in their treatment within the criminal justice system." 

From - https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/judicial-coll...

Slight digression from your point, but... the second part is true, but I'm not so sure about the first - 

“We have elderly scavenging cardboard to sell for 10 cents a kilogram to make their next meal. The woes faced by the common folks are endless. There are just too many examples. Life is a horror if one does not belong to the rich.”

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jan/05/the-price-of-life-in-singapo...

  Well, actually that is a good point. The simple fact of having a diverse population means that the original "norms' of society and the law come under pressure. Either the law is unequally applied to different (immigrant populations) or it is perceived to be (probably both). So from the off a friction has been creates a lack of trust on both sides, and the measures taken to redress it will probably do the same.

But take the examples of grooming, female cirumcision, forced marriages, and even knife crime. It's clear that the authorities have taken a different approach to any of these things amongst immigrant communities than they would amongst the host community.

Well we will know in a couple of years time if Trump is reelected.

I think I said all brexit voters were motivated by one or more of zealotry, ignorance or xenophobia. I do in fact accept there is a fourth group who have been directly affected by EU immigration (for example some trades being undercut) who have more rational reasons to vote to leave.  This isn't really relevant to your claims about immigration undermining the welfare system, however.

  So the people in the lower socio-economic categories who make up a disproportionate element  of the brexiteer vote  are presumably predominantly ignorant or xenophobic,? Or are they all "zealots"? Or tradesPEOPLE who have been undercut, maybe?

Try

All PC too now, I see.

But this has always been the case. Britain has had a diverse population since the Romans. Minority groups have presented issues for the law for as long as law has recognisably existed in this country, going back to the treatment of Jews and Flemings in the mediaeval period.

I'm not sure how you can claim the approach has been different for female circumcision when it hasn't really existed amongst the host community. And I'm not sure what your point is re knife crime - are you saying the authorities are more or less tolerant of knife crime in immigrant communities? Or that there's some other difference? (I'd be interested to see your sources here btw.0.

The very reason why i no longer engage with Rom. His utter dishonesty and duplicitous nature always left me wanting a shower after debating with him. 

I'm helping you out......as usual.....

I'd say the majority I met (likely mostly from a range of middling socioeconomic positions) were probably from your first two classes, 'ignorant or xenophobic', ignorant being by far the most common. There were some zealots/dreamers (dreamers bordering on deluded not uncommon) and a handful, very few really who had any kind of direct experience of negative outcomes from membership they would offer in conversation about their motives. Partly I'm sure that was a function of place, York's relatively expensive to live, migrants tend to be highly educated/skilled.

Most people (myself included to a degree) simply don't know how their world really works, they're ignorant of it, that's easy to forget when you've made some effort yourself to understand and have lived and worked with other people much like yourself. It's not sneering to acknowledge that, it's just the way the world is, people have their own all consuming interests and priorities.

jk

  Minority groups have been absolutely tiny until the past few decades and therefore barely visible to the majority and so had little impact on public trust.

If it had appeared  in the host community how do you think it would have been treated? Essentially on many of these issue there has been a tacit acceptance of cultural exceptionalism.

Knife crime is a bugger's muddle. The police appear to have pendulumed from being overzealous to underzealous and one part of the black community is now complaining that the police are underzealous , and another part is complaining that they are overzealous. It must be very hard for the authorities to take what one might call an "objective" approach. They are subject to a lack of trust on ll sides.

Another interesting one is the Grenfell case in which there was heavy pressure not to have an elderly white male preside over the inquiry because he would be incapable of understanding (or empathising?) with the issues of the tenants. The pressure was resisted but the logical outcome, if it were bowed to, is to set a precedent that  people can only be judged by their own ethnic and cultural (and class?) demographic, thus undermining some of the basic principles of British law.

Maybe, but as it hasn't been an issue it's not very good grounds for your point that it's "...clear that the authorities have taken a different approach to any of these things amongst immigrant communities than they would amongst the host community." 

No arguments there... but there is more to it than just immigration. 

My understanding was that pressure to remove him was because he'd limited the scope of the inquiry to matters immediately around Grenfell Tower. 

In fact, this is what I'd seen... https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-grenfell-tower-inquir...

Nothing about ethnicity/culture/class, although there may have been such talk in some quarters.

/

From the New Statesman:

"I raise this because Sir Martin has, since his appointment as chair of the inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire on 29 June, found himself an unlikely figure of controversy. David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham, immediately declared that the retired judge is a “white, upper-middle class man who I suspect has never, ever visited a tower block”. Emma Dent-Coad, Labour MP for Kensington, has never met Sir Martin but felt well-placed to inform Radio 4 that he did not “understand human beings” and called for him to stand down. "

""It is a shame we couldn't find a woman to lead this inquiry or indeed an ethnic minority to lead the inquiry in 2017."

(Lammy)

From the Huff post.

Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the judge leading the inquiry, has faced scathing criticism from residents over claims that he and his team “don’t represent the community”.

His presence on the panel was slammed as an “affront to the community” because of his past rulings on social housing cases.

Describing Moore-Bick as an “old, white, male judge”, Herbert said: “He simply does not have the confidence of the community to address these issues, nor the expertise to address issues of diversity and why the community were not listened to by TMO and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.”

Herbert is co-founder of BMELawyers4Grenfell (which kind of tells a story in itself)

  I agree, which is why I don't accept that it is something exclusively or even more true of brexiteers, as some people seem to think.

It was abundantly obvious in UKC debates immediately following the referendum that no one on the remainer side had the slightest idea that membership of the EU prohibited member states from pursuing their independent trade ambitions. That this was not better articulated by the Leave campaign is the fault of the politicians, not the voters. And I've no doubt that the same could be said of most leave voters, who at best were attached to some notion of sovereignty. But it proves that leavers don't have an exclusive claim to ignorance.

I'm sure it isn't. Equally it is a totally ridiculous basis for massive and dangerous constitutional upheaval.

I have no idea what you believed your goals were in voting brexit but hand on heart do you still believe you'll be achieving any of them at an acceptable cost? Do you think the same is true of a factory worker in the midlands?

jk

That's a risible re-writing of history, far beneath you. The threads are archived, it was extensively discussed in here before and after, indeed you were involved in many of those discussions as I recall. I recall similar discussions I had with in person with Stronger-In campaigners and members of the public on both sides of the debate.

jk

Thanks. Criticisms like that would have been better addressed to the panel membership - no-one from the Grenfell community. The Secret Barrister pretty much demolishes these kinds of argument in the article you quote.

(Here for anyone interested https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/07/grenfell-inquiry-critics-m... )

Sorry but that is an utterly risible comment. Speaking for myself I knew very well what the customs union and the single market implied well before any referendum, and the same is most likely true for most of UKC. And surely you must have known this yourself, so really I don't know how you can even make that claim without being completely dishonest. And for those who didn't know, the whole argument as to whether having an independent trade policy as a small country is better or worse than having a common trade ambition with the EU has been done to death before, during, and after the referendum.

Not only this was pretty well articulated by the leave campaign, but one could reasonably argue it's been one of their success.

It doesn't prove anything, because it's just false.

You are right these are not binary issues, hence why you should refrain from making binary claims. It is not wrong to articulate your opinions anywhere, please knock yourself out.
What is wrong though, is that when someone points out evidence that contradicts your opinion, instead of tweaking your position to add caveats, or challenging the counter-evidence, bot reasonable course of action, you just dismiss both the message and the messenger as the product of the dreaded metropolitan liberal class.

That, PP, is not reasonable.

I don't think it's wrong. I think it is, like many of these political essays written by bored acamedics of the soft "sciences", mostly speculations to be taken with a large pinch of salt, some of which may turn out to be true, some of it may turn out to be false. 

You are not stupid and knew very well what you were doing.

You inadvertently claimed that the cherries are green, and when asked to tell us why you think that is, you pointed to the few green cherries on the tree, whilst ignoring all the other red cherries on the trees. I can't think of better word than "dishonest" to describe this argumentative strategy.

Absolutely, there may well be a lesson to be drawn from it. This does not mean, as you claimed, that large-scale immigration is putting the survival of the welfare state at risk. It is rather obvious that it entirely depends on various factors, starting with the type of immigration, and the type of welfare system. This seems so trivial and common sense, one wonders why admitting such a caveat on your original claim is so hard.

You have rubbished everything PP and others have said as "myths" written by "pseudo academics" who study soft sciences with worthless results. 

I would be interested in your evidence to the contrary, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just lets see your cards and see how they hold up, don't want any "soft scientists" writing any of these "studies" you have chosen to believe because that might be a bit embarrassing

1) I am not dealing with your (very) occasional contrary pieces of evidence because I know it will just lead to your usual ducking and diving and endless attempts to pin you down . I'll repeat, I don't want to debate with you. Therefore I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it.

2) All I have basically done is articulate the positions of Collier and Goodhart.  If you don't disagree with them, why do you waste so much breath disagreeing with me? My claims are no more binary than theirs. Indeed, I have said that I believe that we shall probably "muddle through'.

3) I described the articles as a "few articles to read" which support the case . If you regard this as a claim that they would be cast iron proof then that's your comprehension problem (as usual). I didn't "inadvertently argue that cherries are green". I made the argument that they are "green" and you said "show me some evidence). So I did. You simply beleive that these are particular green cherries that have no relevance to any other.So be it.

   To be honest, given that I don't want to debate it with you I simply rustled them up in the forlorn hope you'd  b*gger off.

4) Basically all you have done , like MG, is dismiss the case as "xenophobia" (you have preferred to use the term it as "ethic nationalism") which is classic

metro-liberal reaction, hence my use of the term. You dismissed the background sources, at least one of which you've never read, and asserted that there "is no evidence" without having read the books . You have made no counter case.

Nor have you even addressed most of my points. Indeed, initially you claimed that the "data" proved it to be nonsense when obviously it's not a data based argument!

  I am happy to debate with a reasonable interlocutor (even MG, sort of) but that is not you.

I don’t think it’s entirely worthless. It’s useful to explore possibilities and theories as long it is made clear that this is only hypothetical and the caveats well defined.

The problem are the readers who want to read only the opinion pieces that they want to read, and forget about the caveats.

I tend to quote quantitative studies, which are less subjective, and usually, not to make a broad claim myself, but usually in order to rebuke another.

Proving something to be true, especially in politics, is very hard, hence why I tend (try anyway) to focus on proving claims to be false, which is generally easier.

That's not all I (or Rom) have done.  I pointed to numerous countries that contradict your thesis.  I pointed to the fact that many immigrants in Sweden are refugees, a rather different group to others those who come for work. I pointed to the fact that at least one of your sources is clearly deeply partisan politically and a member of a highly questionable eugenics organisation.  Etc.  Your ignore all this and just get upset when the obvious conclusion that your claim is a superficial cover for xenophobia is made.

However May clearly agrees with you that preventing immigrant doctors from working in the NHS will, err, save it.

https://news.sky.com/story/fresh-immigration-questions-for-theresa-may-over...

seems the Irish army liked to explore possibilities and theories:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/operation-armageddon-would-have-been-doo...

You don’t want to debate with me and engage reasonably, and yet you are happy writing long winded posts moaning about how much of an evil metro elite I am.

That, PP, is the attitude of an child.

I’ve used that term because it seems to fit your theoretical framework. This doesn’t mean the same thing as xenophobia, you can be in favour of ethnic nationalism without being a xenophobe. As usual your lack of intellectual rigour is causing you to be confused about things.

Because I am not seeking to make any counter claim to yours, I am simply pointing out a trivial, obvious, caveat in yours, and instead of addressing it reasonably and honestly, which would have spared us this pointless fight, you decided to lash out.

If the financials are clearly showing that large scale immigration in the UK is indeed not putting the welfare state at risk, or if there are countries with large scale immigration with no welfare system issues, that is a pretty effective counter example dismissing your claim.

Now you could choose to challenge this intelligently, and point out the caveats in my caveats, and maybe we would actually learn something, but you seem more interested in lashing out at the metro elite and other pet obsessions of yours.

The usual “metro elite snowflake accusing me of xenophobia” is PP’s favourite “get out of jail” card to any criticism, not matter how minute or trivial.

He used it so much it’s starting to be boring.

  Coleman is not one of my  "sources". The only time I've heard of him is when I linked to that review yesterday which was not primarily anything to do with him. I could have cut that para from the quote but since it was a pithy summary of the dangers of sectarianism I left it. He's an irrelevance.

  You haven't explained why you believe that the proportion of refugees amongst Swedish immigrants means the example has no validity. Denmark , the Netherlands and no doubt many others are wrestling with similar issues.

  You haven't addressed any of the arguments (originally by Putnam) on trust and diversity-which are essentially that (in the US) the greater an area's diversity the lower the civic trust.

  Regarding the nature of the US welfare state you could read ""Fighting poverty in the US in Europe" by Glaeser and Alesino(Harvard economists) that argues that half of the Americans antipathy to the Euro model can be attibuted to ethnic diversity.

  The obvious conclusion isn't that the claim, well evidence in lots of studies, is a cover for "xenophobia" by me or anyone else. That is a feeble self satisfied cop out by people unable or unwilling to sit down and go though the arguments and provide counter evidence and arguments. You really need to study the arguments first hand before lazily dismissing them out of hand. It's not exactly an incentive to have a sensible debate when your default position is to cry "xenophobia".

For balance I should have written "few" instead of "no one". Nevertheless, if either of you think I was referring to you with that observation then you are more sensitive than I thought. Of course there are/were well-informed parties and you are outstanding examples amongst them. But that doesn't alter the fact that, post referendum, thread after thread involved circular conversations in which one poorly informed (and pissed off) remainer after another would join threads to pointedly ask why, if the UK hasn't yet managed to strike a bilateral trade deal with China, we think it will be easier to get one in the future.

Instead of accusing me of re-writing history, let alone bandying contemptuous adjectives, I invite you both to ponder for a moment that being very firmly on one side of an argument might introduce filters in your perception. 

  I occasionally make the mistake of biting when you are particularly provocative but you're right, that is childish,

   Your latest post continues along the same lines of ducking and diving, missing the point and making false claims so I'll leave you to it.

   I'll just repeat my question: since i try not to bother you why do feel the need to bother me?

What else could we think ? You specifically said “that no one on the remainer side had the slightest idea [....]” phrased this way it clearly referred to you, me, and every other “remainer” (I hate this word).

Hence our strong reaction.

Now it seems you didn’t mean what you wrote, which is fine, problem solved.

To say that your claim was risible and dishonnest was completely logical given what it was the way it was worded.

As it turns out, it was simply a case of bad wording. I readily believe you, of course, and happily retract the adjectives I have used and unreservedly apologise for any offense caused.

I’m always open to a good discussion with the other side. I read a lot of “leaver” media such as the spectator or the torygraph. Daily in fact. I’m just rarely convinced. I’d be open to the idea of leaving the EU if there was a realistic plan I could buy into, which there clearly isn’t, and if it didn’t cause so much distress to people around me, which it did.

thread after thread involved circular conversations in which one poorly informed (and gloating) brexiter after another would join threads to pointedly say how easy it was going to be to negotiate trade agreements with every other country under the sun, and that the EU would come crawling to our door begging us to agree to a trade deal.

I'm am not trying to bother you, I simply pointed out a (rather obvious) caveat in one of the claims you made.

if something so trivial bothers you, instead of exciting your curiosity, I'm afraid, this is a problem you have to solve yourself.

Apology accepted.

In your final sentence, you're diving back into the EU debate. You're extremely well informed in that regard and we don't need to go there. The perception filters I was referring to were simply those with regard to level of comprehension of the mechanisms of trade deals from the majority on the remain side of the conversation. These were seriously inadequate. I'm tempted to say "risible" (only kidding)  

Your opening gambit was "Yep, too bad this is a myth easily demolished by widely available statistics. Or even just basic knowledge of the restriction of the welfare system to immigrants."

Your second was "That is just a very narrow minded view not supported by any sort of evidence." and a misplaced accusation of "ethnic nationalism" .

 Neither are "rather obvious caveats". They are provocative personalised (and in the first one irrelevant-so I ignored it) false claims.

 So I repeat my request. i don't bother you so please don't bother me.

Of course. But what's the relevance to today's conversation? It's the assertion that the remain supporters of UKC were uniformly well-informed on the matter that I'm questioning. Quite evidently many were not aware of the fundamental (trade) argument for going alone.

Yes that is my assessment of your view. It is narrow-minded in that it excludes other possibilities, and indeed is not supported by evidence.

It was personalized, of course. Provocative? In retrospect, it may have come across this way. It wasn't intentional though. BTW there is nothing particularly pejorative in my view about ethnic nationalism, in fact, many countries with great culture I really admire such as Japan, which I like to visit often, have historically very strong ethnic nationalism, although, by need, they are moving away from it.

I just don't happen to subscribe to it for myself and I think it's a doomed pursuit in this globalised age.

Irrelevant? how convenient It seems particularly relevant to me, that if you are going to claim large-scale immigration puts the welfare state at risk, to point out, that obviously, this isn't true where immigrants are not using the welfare system in significant numbers, or are excluded, or have a limited access to it.

It's pretty darn obvious if you ask me.

I am sorry if you feel bothered by people simply engaging with your posts. If it bothers you so much I am not too sure what the point of posting on here.

 Because it's only you Rom.

Again, I can't help you, really, it's a weird obsession you have to sort out yourself.

That may be true, but I suspect that most people, on both sides, at the very least understood that as part of the EU we trade as one bloc. At least I hope !

And obviously this was framed as an advantage by the remainers (more weight to actually matter and negotiate what we want), and as a disadvantage by the leavers (need for compromise in setting trade policy reducing sovereignty).
 

No I don't.I just have to ignore you, or you have stop being irritating.

Feel free.

Apologies. But in terms of a steaming pile Bojo is probably my first choice and there's a few more in the queue ahead of Jeremy, I think you'll agree.

I think we may well see a resurgence of the LibDems if Corbyn lets the country down in the commons. Alternatively if the Tory left gains the day Rees Mogg and his pals will be the ones to form a new fascistic party. 

It appears essentially no one was very well informed on trade deals, for the obvious reason they didn’t have to be - the EU meant there was no need to obsess over the precise customs arrangements in NI, or whether EFTA was better than EEA. What people did know was that trading and travelling in the EU was easy.  Brexiters repeatedly claimed this wasn’t under threat, remainers said it was. I think remainers have been proven right.

  Even now you choose to misunderstand. I am not asking you not to post on these forums. I don't post to you (except very occasionally when you post something provocative to me) ,so I am repeating, once again, my request that you return the favour by not posting to me.

What do you mean posting "to you" ? This is a public forum, answers go to everybody, not you specifically.

That a whole spectrum of ill-informed bollocks was spouted by both sides?

You said no remainers knew that the EU negotiated trade deals as a bloc. That's bollocks. I don't think anyone has said all remainers knew, so you've put up a strawman.

  Look!!

  It says this post is "in reply to RomTheBear". This is the clue as to whom it is posted.

  Got it now?

You could just not reply to Rom...

Or do you have to have the last word?

That's the point. I don't normally. I'm asking him to agree to ignore each but he purports not to understand the request.

I don't why he can't just say "OK".

Yes, but it is a public forum I am afraid. Replies go to everybody and are not necessarily solely intended for the originator.
If you post on a public forum, you should reasonably expect a public response, including those who you find irritating. Tough.

You are very welcome to ignore me. Asking me to shut up to shield you from legitimate and polite criticism is an unreasonable request, however.

Maybe if the Remain campaign had actually highlighted all the negatives of leaving the EU, then we wouldn't be where we are today.
By highlighting, I mean actually informing people in an organised manner about all those negatives.  With leaflets, newspaper and TV ads detailing exactly what would happen if we left the EU.
What did we have?  Essentially nothing from anyone regardless of their political persuasion. 
I voted Remain because I was happy with the status quo of being in the EU and therefore didn't see the point in taking a risk in leaving.  Most people I know said the same and I don't think anyone really knew the full repercussions of actually leaving.
Maybe if more had known about those negatives, then they too would have erred on the side of caution and voted Remain.  As it is, a few too many decided that the UK could leave the EU, keeping the good stuff and get rid of the bad stuff.  After all, that is what the people who shouted the loudest said... 

There is maybe a bit of that. It feels as if the official remain campaign had the arrogance and naivety to believe that the hoi polloi would just follow the most educated commentators.

  What don't you understand? I'm not asking you to shut up. I'm asking you not to address your views to me. It's a totally reasonable request. If you are so needy or feel that it is so important to address me that you cannot act politely then I shall abandon any restraint myself.

He's got a point; posting here invites comment from anyone. He's entitled to comment on your posts. If you don't like his comments, that's tough. Either you ignore him or you'll have to respond to his comments, whether it annoys you or not.

You have strong views. Rom has strong views, which seem diametrically opposed to yours. You are going to disagree. If you want an echo chamber, stop posting on a public forum.

Of course he's entitled to but why does he feel the need to? I think he consistently talks ill mannered crap to all sorts of people but I don't feel the need to intervene. I am simply asking him to be polite and return the favour.

His inability to do so is just childish, so I shall enjoy being childish back

As in my edit: he strongly disagrees with you. Of course he's going to express that disagreement.

You are saying I am not open to debate? Really?

Rom's views are not diametrically opposed to mine. He is just either dishonest or devious so it's unpleasant discussing things with him.

I don't know. Depends what you mean by debate. You're as obstinate as Rom is; many threads end up as the 'PMP and Rom show'. Neither of you seems to want to exchange views; you just want to prove yourselves right. It's pretty tedious from both sides. You can be pretty unpleasant yourself.

  No any more.I've barely  engaged with him for months, maybe a year or more. Yup, if people have a go I'll bite back.

No, they aren’t.

Only because you made it so. You can’t help but descending into madness at the slightest criticism.

if you had just addressed my point, or ignored it, instead of repeating you don’t want to debate with me and saying how awful, devious and ugly I am in dozens of different ways, it would be easier and more productive.

As far as I am concerned you don’t bother me and I am happy debating with you. If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine to.

A bit?
I agree with you that there was a certain assumption that the referendum would be a resoundingly Remain result - I certainly thought it was a foregone conclusion!
However, the Leave campaign had it easy.  Not only were they given free rein by a feckless Remain campaign, but they were doing it with the advantage of being essentially a protest movement which always seems to attract people more likely to vote - you rarely get people fervently demanding things don't change, but you get plenty that demand things do... 

No, PP, it isn’t reasonable to ask me or anybody else on a public forum to refrain from addressing politely and respectfully what you are publicly posting.

 I remember reading in the remainer press how the sensible and pragmatic British electorate would take the “right” decision. I also remember having this gut feeling that it was complacent exceptionalism of the highest order. 

It's not really a favour from my point of view, I am more than happy for you to intervene if you think I'm talking crap.

Maybe if the Tories bought Rom a helicopter he'd like them too:

youtube.com/watch?v=_k7hgCvXbE0&

The fundamental argument for going alone is we can do deals with whoever we want without the dead weight of the EU holding us back, the Swashbuckling Britain argument looking rather dented now by its collision with reality. The counter is we get much better deals negotiated from strength as a bloc, more cheaply and potentially just as fast in the long run since scale facilitates parallel negotiations. We also already have through membership and will by leaving be giving up wide ranging trade agreements, we go back to an (at best) uncertain starting point with much work to repeat but from a weaker position. Both arguments were widely promoted and discussed by respective campaigns. Did everyone understand the finer details? No, I certainly still don't and I'm far from convinced nearly two years in that our government ministers do either but most people had been by referendum day thoroughly exposed to both sides of the argument, some will have struggled to understand, some will have struggled to believe and some will have struggled to avoid challenging their preconceptions with new ideas but everyone had the opportunity to. Complete ignorance of the restrictions imposed by membership was in my experience almost non-existent among the remain voters I met and know, far from widespread and certainly not universal.

jk

The negative arguments were widely made, they were easily dismissed as 'project fear' and 'establishment scaremongering'. There wasn't a trusted conduit for those arguments into the leave voting groups and there were plenty with loud voices willing to blithely dismiss them knowing they'd never be properly held to account.

jk

"...to refrain from addressing politely and respectfully what you are publicly posting."

I would say that some of your responses have a certain dismissive, supersillious  (gallic?) arrogance to them which is possibly intentional and can verge on troll like cat nip to people who disagree with you. Probably why certain posters avoid engaging with you because they know your MO. 

Interestingly, the same complaint has been directed at the Better Together side before and throughout the BREXIT process.

Just an observation....and i'm sure some feel the same way about PP or me or many others on this site.

Maybe if you read the right newspapers, listened to boring radio programmes and got beyond the soundbites that seemed prevalent on TV, then yes, you might have been aware of the full implications of leaving the EU.  The vast majority seemed to take a rather more simplistic viewpoint and voted with gut instinct (not too dissimilar to General Elections) as opposed to any meaningful thought process.  I voted Remain, but I'm guilty of not really looking any further than ''If it's not broke, don't fix it" and I think that most people I know did pretty much the same.   
A common theme I've heard from Remainers and Brexiteers alike, are comments similar to: "I never knew it would be so complicated", "Why does leaving the EU mean that UK/UK Nationals can no longer do 1, 2, 3...X, Y, Z, etc.).  Hardly the language of a nation well briefed on the implications of leaving the EU...

 I'll stand by my main point.
The Remain campaign was useless and the people that shouted the loudest got what they wanted.
 

Linking back to the OP, I believe Amber Rudd all to timely fall over the treatment of immigrants most people in this country didn’t give a single f*ck about for years is part of a larger ploy. I am not one for conspiracy theories, but this one is a bit too darn obvious.

Shit will go down in the coming weeks that’s for sure. The current UK negotiating position is in a real mess and this isn’t sustainable. This is acknowledged by influent people on both sides.

Developments in the Government / Parliament position is now inevitable with likely huge levels of accompanying drama. I don’t know which way it will go, but it’s likely to be very unpleasant for at least half of the country. 

Also worth noting that we were told there would be certainty for businesses and citizens last year by March. This clearly hasn’t happened. Meanwhile the economy has virtually stalled. Hold on to your seats because it’s crunch time.