Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Your whole post is full of common sense mate, and the bit I've quoted is true as well, but needs putting in context.

Those with money ( like Rees-Mogg ), know how to make money out of pretty much any situation, so, yes, they'll make almost certainly make money out of Brexit, but, if the referendum vote had gone the other way, then they'd have made money out of that too.

It’s easier to make money during periods of chaos and recession if you have capital to invest when those circumstances arise. Mogg and his ilk could thrive off disaster capitalism.

Moggs old man wrote a book that gives a massive clue as to what guides Jacob - The Sovereign Individual.

 

[Barnfred 55]

loving the idea that political discourse is just an outlet for racism, bigotry and even fascism towards retired white folk in developed countries. I think history definitely backs this up.

is ben shapiro posting here or something

I think you are taking @Jonte use of the word "just" out of context. I'm pretty certain he didn't mean to imply that political discourse is only ever used as an outlet for inverted bigotry etc. Of course it isn't. There are lot's of examples of healthy discussions within these pages that would say otherwise.

But that doesn't change the fact that there is also a lot of bigotry on here towards people purely due to the demographic group that they belong to. A lot of the things said are intended to offend, and then you get all affronted when we actually take offence.

You make think it's funny and you no doubt believe it's totally justified, despite the fact that you may have friends colleagues and family that belong to the same demographic group. I just think it's hypocritical given that if I ever showed anything like the same behaviour to any minority group you'd be all over it like a rash.

 

[Barnfred 55]

All a bit grim isn't it? I wouldn't mind if their own grammar wasn't so shoddy. @Barnfred 55 I know we've had this discussion a few times before, but this sort of thing is precisely why discriminating against someone on account of their nationality is part of the legal definition of racism.

It's disgusting mate. Totally offensive whichever way you look at it.

This is pure racism no doubt about it. I saw this on the BBC last night and I felt both angry and sad that racists are out there using Brexit as a reason/excuse for this sort of behaviour.

But I would still argue that your broad interpretation of racism dilutes the meaning of the word itself. In your world, every single country in the world is inherently racist because none of them operate totally free borders, and the overwhelming majority of the people would be racist too.

 

[Jonte]

So you don’t want to disclose your own political beliefs but have chosen to come onto a political thread asking the mods to close it?

Yeah sound, go away.

Because if I did, Mr. Rude, I’d just be contradicting the reason(s) I made my original post.

You’ve unwittingly borne out what the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Thank you.

 

[Jonte]

Exactly this!

Be bold and brave enough, Charlie, to construct your own retorts. Don’t stand behind somebody braver and shout from the back.

You’d make a darned good Trades Unionist.

 

[Jonte]

I do, I just don't take your hyperbolic assertion seriously enough for it to matter. Of course if you think a sarcastic post like this is racist, bigoted and akin to fascism, then you will.

Despite your inclusion of GCSE rhetoric (for effect?), Walken, I really don’t think you do.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

It's disgusting mate. Totally offensive whichever way you look at it.

This is pure racism no doubt about it. I saw this on the BBC last night and I felt both angry and sad that racists are out there using Brexit as a reason/excuse for this sort of behaviour.

But I would still argue that your broad interpretation of racism dilutes the meaning of the word itself. In your world, every single country in the world is inherently racist because none of them operate totally free borders, and the overwhelming majority of the people would be racist too.

As I've said, it's included in the official legislation, both from the 1960s when it was first introduced, and subsequent iterations of it. It's perhaps important to remember that immigration controls are a relatively recent phenomenon. It took the United States 100 years to have any form of immigration controls, and the UK had no real immigration controls until 1905, and even then, someone was only barred entry into the country if they lacked the means to support themselves, was patently a lunatic or was a criminal of some kind. That act had strong anti-semitic routes, as many of the 'aliens' were Jews fleeing from Russia and Poland.

As it is, my wife has less rights in this country than I have. Were she disposed with less rights on account of gender or race, we would have no problems calling that out for what it is, so I don't see how calling out her diminished rights on account of her nationality is any different.

*edit imagine, if you will, the famous Nazi signs about no jews, or the signs we've seen in this country about 'blacks or Irish', we would undoubtedly find such things abhorrent, and yet the hostile environment the Tories have created is not really any different, except the sign is related to the entire country.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Because if I did, Mr. Rude, I’d just be contradicting the reason(s) I made my original post.

You’ve unwittingly borne out what the point I was trying to make in the first place.

Thank you.

Only you already have made your views and political leanings known mate, but you’ve either forgotten or you’re just a hypocrite.

Down with the pesky search function.

 

[Catfish Blues]

It’s easier to make money during periods of chaos and recession if you have capital to invest when those circumstances arise. Mogg and his ilk could thrive off disaster capitalism.

Moggs old man wrote a book that gives a massive clue as to what guides Jacob - The Sovereign Individual.

Yea, I havn't read his book, and don't intend to, but know all about it mate, it's basically how to deal with Black Swan events. Markets pretty much always overreact to events, that's just a fact of life, and you either accept that or spend a lot of time getting wound up by it.

Plainly they can also be pushed ( manipulated ) to exagerrate those events, or, in the case of Brexit, make it more likely to happen, but that doesn't alter the fact that if it looked like the referendum had been a shoe in for a remain vote, that the "3%" would have changed their strategy accordingly and still made plenty. Chances are, people like Rees-Mogg genuinely believe the country will be better outside the EU, but they care more about making money than whether we're In or Out.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Yea, I havn't read his book, and don't intend to, but know all about it mate, it's basically how to deal with Black Swan events. Markets pretty much always overreact to events, that's just a fact of life, and you either accept that or spend a lot of time getting wound up by it.

Plainly they can also be pushed ( manipulated ) to exagerrate those events, or, in the case of Brexit, make it more likely to happen, but that doesn't alter the fact that if it looked like the referendum had been a shoe in for a remain vote, that the "3%" would have changed their strategy accordingly and still made plenty. Chances are, people like Rees-Mogg genuinely believe the country will be better outside the EU, but they care more about making money than whether we're In or Out.

They did. As the large hedge funds paid Survation a 7 figure sum for access to the referendum exit poll before its post 10 pm release. Then spookily Farage appeared on National TV conceding defeat at 10.01 pm, despite him having seen the poll himself - the poll that called the result exactly as it was - 52/48 to leave. The result was a hike in the value of the pound and increased the margin for the likes of Crispin Odey who shorted the hell out of it.

Odey made £220m that night. The same Odey who is a close friend of Mogg, in fact Mogg opened his first fund under the wing of Odey Asset Management.

My view is that Moggs prime driver was the EU’s continued quest to clamp down on tax havens. His company is based in the Cayman Islands. The Sovereign Individual is basically about how high value individuals and their enterprises can become above the grasp and control of Sovereign states, go figure.

 

[Barnfred 55]

As it is, my wife has less rights in this country than I have. Were she disposed with less rights on account of gender or race, we would have no problems calling that out for what it is, so I don't see how calling out her diminished rights on account of her nationality is any different.

If you went to live in any other country in the world, apart from Ireland, then exactly the same would apply to you. If anybody from outside of the EU went to live in an EU country, they would also be faced with the same issues. The question is do you consider that racist. I know that you do, and in the pure definition of the word you have an argument. But for me, you need to be able to distinguish between that sort of discrimination, and the sort of behaviour that led to the production of that notice.

 

[The binman chronicles]

I appreciate in areas like immigration, their idea of better is not ours, but in other areas, it should be fairly black and white. Is trade easier or harder than it is now? Are our rights greater or less than they are now? Do regulations help or hinder society more or less than they do now?

That's the issue, they'll say they want easier trade but then say no to immigration as a red line that can't be crossed.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Your whole post is full of common sense mate, and the bit I've quoted is true as well, but needs putting in context.

Those with money ( like Rees-Mogg ), know how to make money out of pretty much any situation, so, yes, they'll make almost certainly make money out of Brexit, but, if the referendum vote had gone the other way, then they'd have made money out of that too.

Of course the more money you have gives chance to exploit most situations, however it is easier to make more money in certain scenarios and they have used Brexit to do precisely just that.

The same people might in 10/15 years do a 180 if it means they can get a head start on the futures market by the UK rejoining (should the EU still be functioning and generally doing better than us).

 

[Old Blue 2]

I’m always a bit skeptical of the authenticity of this kind of thing to be honest. Regardless, the assertions from the likes of @Old Blue 2 that brexit hasn’t emboldened racist elements in our society is both laughable and worrying.

Still having a tilt at me eh, Jimmy.

Some things never change...

 

[Jebus_lives]

It's disgusting mate. Totally offensive whichever way you look at it.

This is pure racism no doubt about it. I saw this on the BBC last night and I felt both angry and sad that racists are out there using Brexit as a reason/excuse for this sort of behaviour.

But I would still argue that your broad interpretation of racism dilutes the meaning of the word itself. In your world, every single country in the world is inherently racist because none of them operate totally free borders, and the overwhelming majority of the people would be racist too.

While I'm fairly sure it's @Bruce Wayne interpretation, but it is also the interpretation under the Equalities Act.

As has already been explained to you here:

Yes but the Equality Act makes allowance for discrimination in certain circumstances, immigration being one of them.

Schedule 3 of the Equality Act 2010 includes provisions allowing discrimination in the area of
immigration.

There are three types of discrimination, which Schedule 3 permits in certain circumstances –disability, race and religious belief. So a Government Minister, carrying out an immigration function, can treat someone differently and less favourably by reason of their nationality, ethnicity or national origins. It also allows Government authorisation of the UK Border Agency to act in the same way.

The important bit in that exchange is this bit:

Government Immigration Bill 2014, was completely at odds with the Equality Act 2010 in so much as it forced Landlords, who aren't exempt from S3, unlike Government ministers and Border Officers, to check the right to rent of tenants, to apply a test which is illegal, by virtue of being racist, under the Equality Act.

R (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 452 (Admin), Spencer J, 01 March 2019

Judgement is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2019/452.pdf

Just because a government is legally allowed to be racist, doesn't mean it's actions are not racist...as evidenced by that JCWI case.

I suppose I'm just making it up as I go along though hey...