Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Warnings over Brexit from the big powers Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Isn't that what they are doing now?

    The public have been promised "Brexit means Brexit". Something called Brexit will (and will have to be) delivered eventually.

    I think we can see the power of the Leave campaign diminish. The specific demand for a points based immigration system was swatted away like a fly and Farage was left as the only Brexiteer demanding a points based system regardless of whether it achieves its object or not and he gained no real support from the usual suspects in the Telegraph, Mail and Express which went to some length (although not altogether accurately) to explain why a points based system won't work.
    It's particularly noteworthy that many businesses and organisations in Australia now deeply oppose their points system, as they do in the US. It really just creates another bureaucracy, complete with idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules, corruptible officials, politicians and others working around the rules for people in the know, etc, etc.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Isn't that what they are doing now?

    The public have been promised "Brexit means Brexit". Something called Brexit will (and will have to be) delivered eventually.
    Events in the EU are moving very quickly (by its standards) now, and it is possible (if by no means probable) that the free movement dogma may be watered down by the determination of the V4 combined with its unpopularity amongst the people of the western EU states.

    If free movement ends and a wholly different EU emerges we could do a good deal. We might not even leave!

    But it the Eureaucracy prevails and the EU sticks to its failing single market, we must leave it. Or Brexit will not mean Brexit.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I think we can see the power of the Leave campaign diminish. The specific demand for a points based immigration system was swatted away like a fly and Farage was left as the only Brexiteer demanding a points based system regardless of whether it achieves its object or not and he gained no real support from the usual suspects in the Telegraph, Mail and Express which went to some length (although not altogether accurately) to explain why a points based system won't work.
    In your dreams, old son.

    Farage is not sticking to the points based system, by the way. He said he would be happy with a well introduced work permit system on the Today programme a couple of days ago.

    That is your problem, why the Brexit imperative is so hard to confront. It is not about specific concrete policy proposals, they can be conceded without a second's thought.

    It is a state of mind. The zeitgeist.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    It's particularly noteworthy that many businesses and organisations in Australia now deeply oppose their points system, as they do in the US. It really just creates another bureaucracy, complete with idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules, corruptible officials, politicians and others working around the rules for people in the know, etc, etc.
    Can we get our cards on the table please, Remainer?

    Are you arguing against the "points based system" (which has been discounted by the Government anyway) as a specific system?

    Or do you oppose any controls on immigration? On the grounds that they are, I don't know, "racist" or something, like climate change seems to be nowadays?

    We never know with those on the defeated (but still in denial) Remain side, so it is best to be clear...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Can we get our cards on the table please, Remainer?

    Are you arguing against the "points based system" (which has been discounted by the Government anyway) as a specific system?

    Or do you oppose any controls on immigration? On the grounds that they are, I don't know, "racist" or something, like climate change seems to be nowadays?

    We never know with those on the defeated (but still in denial) Remain side, so it is best to be clear...
    Personally I don't oppose any controls - I would for example prevent people with non-trivial criminal records coming here from the EU (attainable but only with intensive cross-border cooperation) and I would also personally advocate not accepting jobless incoming migration from less developed member states. The latter is harder to get within the EU, but discussions were heading that way before the Brexit vote. From outside the EU, I would block all jobless non-refugee migration from many countries, as effectively allowing it promotes a brain drain and impacts their economies strongly, which are already struggling. However, I would make exceptions for war refugees and people with partners here already.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Personally I would also personally advocate not accepting jobless incoming migration from less developed member states. The latter is harder to get within the EU, but discussions were heading that way before the Brexit vote. .
    If those discussions had actually got somewhere (rather than "heading" that way) your side would probably have won.

    The EU must be more than a trifle disheartening for you europhiles. You must realise that it treated Cameron and the UK with contempt in the renegotiation and have made no efforts to change UK opinion post the vote. Quite the reverse, they tried to make us invoke Article 50 instantly.

    Yet we were its second biggest contributor, and a hard Brexit will deal a terrible blow to their already failing Euozone economy.

    They did not exactly help the Remain cause did they? Nor do they now. We just had to push and the whole rotten edifice of our membership of the EU fell down.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)

    It is a state of mind. The zeitgeist.
    I agree with you. It is moment of madness that is already passing.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Isn't that what they are doing now?

    The public have been promised "Brexit means Brexit". Something called Brexit will (and will have to be) delivered eventually.

    I think we can see the power of the Leave campaign diminish. The specific demand for a points based immigration system was swatted away like a fly and Farage was left as the only Brexiteer demanding a points based system regardless of whether it achieves its object or not and he gained no real support from the usual suspects in the Telegraph, Mail and Express which went to some length (although not altogether accurately) to explain why a points based system won't work.
    In fairness to the papers, they tend to want to back a winner and whereas the Tories were on shaky ground last term, they look solid winners today.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Liberals got BTFO hard
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I agree with you. It is moment of madness that is already passing.
    This is very uncharitable.

    It is clear that what people mean by "points based system" (wait don't we have one now?) is application of data analysis methods to choose immigrants who are unlikely to commit crimes and likely to be net tax payers. There's nothing impossible about that or even particularly difficult and the establishment, though it seems to oppose it for nebulous reasons, cannot morally justify that opposition.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    This is very uncharitable.

    It is clear that what people mean by "points based system" (wait don't we have one now?) is application of data analysis methods to choose immigrants who are unlikely to commit crimes and likely to be net tax payers. There's nothing impossible about that or even particularly difficult and the establishment, though it seems to oppose it for nebulous reasons, cannot morally justify that opposition.
    That is the establishment all over (Nulli isn't part of it, but definitely aspires to be) agree with all our dogmas and shibboleths or you are mad.

    I supported Brexit, but it is still hard not to see it as yet another milepost along the road of our long, slow, steady decline since WW2. We have been overtaken by other countries economically, and this will continue, Brexit or no Brexit.. Our influence in the world diminishes with each passing year, Brexit or no Brexit.

    Suez is always mentioned as the event that made us realise we no longer had an Empire.

    Brexit will likely be pointed to as the event that made us realise that the EU wasn't going to make up for that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    That is the establishment all over (Nulli isn't part of it, but definitely aspires to be) agree with all our dogmas and shibboleths or you are mad.

    I supported Brexit, but it is still hard not to see it as yet another milepost along the road of our long, slow, steady decline since WW2. We have been overtaken by other countries economically, and this will continue, Brexit or no Brexit.. Our influence in the world diminishes with each passing year, Brexit or no Brexit.

    Suez is always mentioned as the event that made us realise we no longer had an Empire.

    Brexit will likely be pointed to as the event that made us realise that the EU wasn't going to make up for that.
    I don't think this country - by which I mean the population as a whole - ever actually cared much about the empire.

    We never fought a mass mobilisation war for empire, and reading fiction books set in Britain written in the 19th century doesn't give the impression that most people thought much about it at all.

    Why does this country need "a role"? The purpose of Britain is to maximise the quality of life of the British and their descendants, not to serve other countries. We do not need a "white man's burden" to justify our existence.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I don't think this country - by which I mean the population as a whole - ever actually cared much about the empire.

    We never fought a mass mobilisation war for empire, and reading fiction books set in Britain written in the 19th century doesn't give the impression that most people thought much about it at all.
    Which books are you referring to? I am not disputing your point necessarily, just interested in why you make it.

    (Original post by Observatory)

    Why does this country need "a role"? The purpose of Britain is to maximise the quality of life of the British and their descendants, not to serve other countries. We do not need a "white man's burden" to justify our existence.
    It doesn't need a role in Dean Acheson's sense, which is a good thing because it never found one.

    But it is hard to deny that collapsing from the the largest Empire in the history of mankind to a small country of no great import on the edge of Europe within a couple of generations has been a trauma to the national psyche.

    You could argue we have handled it well, far better than the Romans so far, but then we perhaps we haven't yet experienced the full consequence of decline and decay? With the barbarians at the gates of the western Empire yet to come ...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Which books are you referring to? I am not disputing your point necessarily, just interested in why you make it.
    I am not sure how much it would help to cite individual books, as it would not be surprising for the empire to go unmentioned in individual books, and I cannot cite every such book I have read.

    But how much do you recall India being mentioned in Dickens or Bronte?


    It doesn't need a role in Dean Acheson's sense, which is a good thing because it never found one.
    I am not sure it ever really had one. The empire was not built to a conscious plan. Much of it was built by local commanders on local initiative trying to solve some short term problem. The empire never had a coherent purpose, and was never even governed coherently. The name "empire" was given to a generality of exceptions.

    You consider Suez as the end of the empire. Many 19th and early 20th century maps did not mark Egypt as part of the empire. Until 1914 it was nominally recognised by Britain as part of someone else's empire, despite being occupied by British troops. The Suez Crisis happened basically because the shambolic nature of the empire had created real confusion about who possessed sovereignty in Egypt. Even the British cabinet couldn't entirely make up its mind.

    But it is hard to deny that collapsing from the the largest Empire in the history of mankind to a small country of no great import on the edge of Europe within a couple of generations has been a trauma to the national psyche.
    It has been a trauma to those engaged directly in that business, little noticed by others. It is notable that the descendants - figuratively and often literally - of the empire builders made up the pro-Remain elite while the grandchildren of factory workers just wanted their own country. "Little Englander" originally meant someone who was opposed to the South African war. Today it means someone opposed to the EU and to immigration.

    You could argue we have handled it well, far better than the Romans so far, but then we perhaps we haven't yet experienced the full consequence of decline and decay? With the barbarians at the gates of the western Empire yet to come ...
    That is a separate topic. The barbarians are at the gates of Bulgaria and Romania; Bulgaria and Romania were subjects, not principals of empire. If the West falls or changes our of recognition due to immigration it will not be because of the fall of the British and French maritime empires.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    While i suspect that the masses as a whole probably never cared about the empire (why would they, they were uneducated and saw little direct benefit) i certainly think that it was important to the establishment and those sympathetic to the establishment. We brought a degree of order to a chaotic world.

    While i do agree with Observatory that we need no defined global role to maximise utility for our people (Switzerland is a good example of a country which has always been relatively wealthy but is of of little global importance) i think that having a role can be of benefit, something to believe in so to speak.

    Personally i find great despair in the passing of the empire and our decline from such a height. Although the manner in which we ruled was never sustainable it is unfortunate that the empire was never able to evolve before its death, had an Imperial federation formed (even one of limited scope) then it would have granted the UK's continued dominance for centuries to come (i'd also add that not perusing with France after Suez was also probably a mistake for similar reasoning).

    *I acknowledge i probably don't represent the masses on this, many of whom don't care about true control over the world we find ourselves in.

    Brexit does offer some opportunity to redeem ourselves here though, especially in a world where renewables and GM and the like offer scope for us to become a net exporter of key resources on top of goods and services.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I am not sure how much it would help to cite individual books, as it would not be surprising for the empire to go unmentioned in individual books, and I cannot cite every such book I have read.

    But how much do you recall India being mentioned in Dickens or Bronte?
    Well I have read all of Dickens novels, but only one Bronte. Wuthering Heights.

    The latter didn't venture much outside a small area of West Yorkshire as I recall, but Dickens?

    I have to say, you are on the whole correct, I think? There is the American passage in Chuzzlewitt (in the 1840's closer in time to a former colony that we are to the days of Churchill) but apart from that every single novel is resolutely parochial as I recall.

    No, not true, in Barnaby Rudge there are many descriptions of the consequences of the American War of Independence. Not India as such, but the first British Empire, all the same.

    But your point is basically true of Dickens I have to say. His narrative sweep was domestic and very narrow. Absolutely love him, though I do.

    Remember though, with Dickens and the Brontes, you are talking about the first half of the nineteenth century. Until the Mutiny India was controlled by a private Company and was not even a British Colony.

    So why WOULD any of these Georgian and early Victorian authors write about India? You need to delve into Macaulay, and of course Kipling for the locus classicus of the Raj.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generallee)
    Well I have read all of Dickens novels, but only one Bronte. Wuthering Heights.

    The latter didn't venture much outside a small area of West Yorkshire as I recall, but Dickens?

    I have to say, you are on the whole correct, I think? There is the American passage in Chuzzlewitt (in the 1840's closer in time to a former colony that we are to the days of Churchill) but apart from that every single novel is resolutely parochial as I recall.

    No, not true, in Barnaby Rudge there are many descriptions of the consequences of the American War of Independence. Not India as such, but the first British Empire, all the same.

    But your point is basically true of Dickens I have to say. His narrative sweep was domestic and very narrow. Absolutely love him, though I do.

    Remember though, with Dickens and the Brontes, you are talking about the first half of the nineteenth century. Until the Mutiny India was controlled by a private Company and was not even a British Colony.

    So why WOULD any of these Georgian and early Victorian authors write about India? You need to delve into Macaulay, and of course Kipling for the locus classicus of the Raj.
    Yes of course if you read the works of a Viceroy of India and of man who grew up in and began his literary career in India you will hear about India.

    My point is that a book focused on the man on the street felt no need to mention India. The man on the street didn't care about India. If he didn't care about India he didn't care about the West Indies or Hong Kong or Kenya, and he probably didn't care about Canada or Australia either unless he planned to emigrate. A Marxist in 1925 might have said that the man on the street, though ignorant, owed his high standard of living to imperial exploitation, but the empire is now gone and living standards are higher than ever, so that isn't true either.

    The empire was an ephemeral phenomenon to most British people, a source of vicarious pride in the same way that coming second in the Olympics is a source of vicarious pride, and probably not much more important than that.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Y

    The empire was an ephemeral phenomenon to most British people, a source of vicarious pride in the same way that coming second in the Olympics is a source of vicarious pride, and probably not much more important than that.
    That may have been the perception but i'd argue that it was objectively more important than that in terms of allowing us to set the rules of the game so to speak. Just as a world without the 'American Empire' would have been very different to the one we live in now, i suspect that the British Empire ensured that we were never threatened. Indeed, the empire probably contributed to us not being defeated by Spain or France.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)

    The empire was an ephemeral phenomenon to most British people, a source of vicarious pride in the same way that coming second in the Olympics is a source of vicarious pride, and probably not much more important than that.
    I agree and I don't.

    The Empire probably wasn't a big deal to most British people at the time. It wasn't important to them, you are right.

    BUT the difference between being a subject of the British Empire on which the sun never set and a Briton glorying in Team GB is this...

    Now we bring back a few bits of metal painted gold on a BA flight from Rio.

    Then we ruled a quarter of the planet's land mass and a fifth of its population.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Those Brexiters are just like patriots. They always want to be UK citizens. But I prefer to be a global citizen. That means I can move to any country I like. Who wants to be a stupid patriot fighting for the country? Not me. Militarists can't brainwash me.

    Patriotism is measles of mankind. If UK is not a happy place, just move out to other countries. Be like investors, dude. You should know where or how to invest in the world.

    You wanna survive or wanna die just like those forgotten heroes?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    That may have been the perception but i'd argue that it was objectively more important than that in terms of allowing us to set the rules of the game so to speak. Just as a world without the 'American Empire' would have been very different to the one we live in now, i suspect that the British Empire ensured that we were never threatened. Indeed, the empire probably contributed to us not being defeated by Spain or France.
    I think it's the other way around: our victories over Spain and France allowed us to conquer an empire. Victories won primarily for other reasons, not least among them keeping hold of our homeland in Europe.

    In 1815 if you controlled the seas you controlled much of the world outside Europe, perhaps all of it other than the USA and China, perhaps the Ottoman Empire. In 1815 in order to control the Strait of Dover the force you needed was also strong enough to control the seas of the entire world, and therefore much of the land area of the entire world.

    When that ceased to be true the empire vanished very quickly.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.