Goodbye Brussels, hello Burnley.

[T6 CFO]

I think that it is inevitable that countries with larger populations will, over time, catch up and overtake the UK. The UK has punched way over its weight for a great many years. The only way to effectively compete with these rising nations is as part of a much larger block.

Yes they almost certainly will.

I suppose we could hope that they remain third world countries and by sticking together with others we can stay at the top of the pile and thereby be in a position to give them even more aid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amarillo]

Yes they almost certainly will.

I suppose we could hope that they remain third world countries and by sticking together with others we can stay at the top of the pile and thereby be in a position to give them even more aid.

What a ridiculous comment. I think that your van travails have affected your powers of reasoning.

As countries develop and their economies grow, they demand more services from developed countries. Everyone benefits from a larger global economy.

 

[VW Cali]

Almost certainly - as I said, a rapidly fading hope.

However, I think that Tony Blair is correct: if there is a big shift in public opinion against Brexit, it may never happen.



I have had a different experience of Indian IT workers. The few I have spoken to prefer living and working in Britain. With the British class system, they find it culturally closer to their social order than the US. My friend Veejay, with whom I climbed Scarfell Pike and he experienced snow for the very first time, is a Brahmin, so that might make a difference. (A Brahmin IT worker seems to be an oxymoron.)

Russians certainly prefer the UK to the US - it is closer to home.

The Chinese look to Canada, though the elite buy their foreign bolt holes in Portugal. My sister-in-law, who is Chinese and now lives in Sevenoaks, flogs 500,000 euro Portuguese villas to the Chinese elite: anyone who pays more than half a million Euros for a home in Portugal is entitled to Portuguese residency, so the elite snap them up from plan to use as an insurance policy against an anti corruption purge. Their children go to British universities.

Thanks.

V helpful opinions and experiences.

As a global head of blah blah across both revenue producing front office but as well R&D I have comparative experiences across various countries and continents. Also have lived for extended periods on 3 different continents.

My experience remains that US by far, on average, the predominant choice for science and tech ex pats. But Britain was changing.....for the better.

The people you quoted probably had personal reasons for preferring UK due to proximity, family or maybe culture but many others with similar situations still went to the US.

I havemg thought Britaim should open it doors and let the country become a centre for high tech innovation. I think it has the universities, the history, and the needed tradition. However it is impeded by what CP Snow identified as the two cultures back in 1959.

Imagine mini Ramanujans not just on driveless cars but protein folding, quantum computation, cryptography and so on.

Current politicians clueless on the topic and I have spoken to a few. "Ramanujan who?" will be their response.

 

[T6 CFO]

What a ridiculous comment. I think that your van travails have affected your powers of reasoning.

As countries develop and their economies grow, they demand more services from developed countries. Everyone benefits from a larger global economy.

Sorry will leave you to it.

Your first paragraph is incorrect and not relevant to this thread and your second one is obvious.

I shall stick to commenting on Cali's


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Amarillo]

My experience remains that US by far, on average, the predominant choice for science and tech ex pats. But Britain was changing.....for the better.

The only time I have been to India was in the early 90s, when I attended a Parsee wedding in Mumbai. Certainly, at that time Indians had an affection for Britain which they didn't have for the US. I had the privilege to meet a 96 year old Oxford Law graduate who had stood with Gandhi against British rule. There was no resentment, indeed, he spoke in positive terms about the British legacy: railways and independent judiciary in particular. Perhaps he was being polite, but when I flew from Bombay (as it was then called) to Bangalore, I was struck by the statue of Queen Victoria still adorning one of Bangalore's parks. It demonstrates a country with great self-confidence that it can go through an independence revolution yet retain idols of its oppressor-in-chief.

I ramble.

"Ramanujan who?" will be their response.

Better than "Ramawhatsit who?"

 

[VW Cali]

Yes they almost certainly will.

I suppose we could hope that they remain third world countries and by sticking together with others we can stay at the top of the pile and thereby be in a position to give them even more aid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sticking together with whom?

Obviously not EU. The US has clearly indicated that Britain comes after EU, and China and Japan have indicated they are none too pleased about Brexit.

Commonwealth countries divided into a few first world countries and others still emerging. In the former Australia is carving out its own way, and the latter getting Chinese and other investment. It will be tougher than Farage and Co claim. In fairness, since they have never done any analysis they should not be criticised for glib soundbites.

 

[VW Cali]

The only time I have been to India was in the early 90s, when I attended a Parsee wedding in Mumbai. Certainly, at that time Indians had an affection for Britain which they didn't have for the US. I had the privilege to meet a 96 year old Oxford Law graduate who had stood with Gandhi against British rule. There was no resentment, indeed, he spoke in positive terms about the British legacy: railways and independent judiciary in particular. Perhaps he was being polite, but when I flew from Bombay (as it was then called) to Bangalore, I was struck by the statue of Queen Victoria still adorning one of Bangalore's parks. It demonstrates a country with great self-confidence that it can go through an independence revolution yet retain idols of its oppressor-in-chief.

I ramble.



Better than "Ramawhatsit who?"

Most educated people in the subcontinent have a degree of positive feeling towards Britain. But this is also tempered by knowledge about being treated as 2nd class citizens, or say Churchill describing them as lesser races (Gandhi too was not that race blind, at initially). Again, they are aware that those were the times, and history is history.

However, race riots in Britain in the early 1980s, the Tebbit test, BNP etc, are lingering sores. Bear in mind too that most subcontinental immigrants to the US were high skilled professionals while those who came here from the 60s onwards were not so. And its nkt just the subcontinentals. English altitudes towards the Irish were just as poor.

Britain was visibly becoming a more open society in terms of background - to its betterment. I hope it will continue to be so. The real failure has been the Anglo Saxon disparity in incomes of those at the top and those lower down. Societies cannot be founded on such huge disparities, with due respect to free market monetarist Chicago school of Friedman and Co, followed here by Sir Walters and implemented by Maggie.

 

[Amarillo]

Your first paragraph is incorrect

You just seemed to confuse "compete with" and "dominate". Perhaps I was mistaken,

 

[Amarillo]

Bear in mind too that most subcontinental immigrants to the US were high skilled professionals while those who came here from the 60s onwards were not so.

I've always understood there to be a difference between Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants to the UK and Indian immigrants to the UK, the latter generally being better educated than the former. I have never studied the matter in great detail, and my perceptions may be influenced by the few Indian friends I have.

 

[VW Cali]

I've always understood there to be a difference between Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants to the UK and Indian immigrants to the UK, the latter generally being better educated than the former. I have never studied the matter in great detail, and my perceptions may be influenced by the few Indian friends I have.

I think it is not so much the initial differences between different subgroups from the subcontinent but in how further sub subgroups adapted, or more accurately how some subsets of subgroups did not adapt.

But this is largely relative. Arguably one of Britains greatest post war physicist, Abdus Salam of Imperial College, was Pakistani of somewhat humble origins. But not only did he win the 79 Nobel Prize he set up an outstanding theoretical physics group through which most of the world class physicists of the post 1950s have been associated at one point or other. Steven Weinberg, Glashow, Higgs, Kibble, etc.

Other such examples.

Apart from the subcontinentals I had begun to see Americans and Europeans becoming part of the scene in much the same way as Americans come from eclectic backgrounds. There was a rich mix of the type where I could sense GB Plc was building something special.

Already I know highly skilled Europeans looking to leave. A lot of productive Europeans are considering various options.

 

[T6 CFO]

You just seemed to confuse "compete with" and "dominate". Perhaps I was mistaken,

I think CF that your probably right. I'm also sure that in the convivial atmosphere of a pub or over a coffee we would find agreement on most of the issues and that where we disagree it is mostly as a result of misunderstandings due to the nature of the medium we are discussing it on.
My perceptions are that the discussion is largely led by financial and economic concerns and these are not what I believe to be the most important.
Over the coming years we will hopefully discover if Brexit was a good idea but I for one will not be judging it purely on economic statistics. In truth we will probably never know as cause and effect will be very difficult to judge due to the complexities. The only thing I do strongly believe and have repeated frequently is that a two speed Europe with all the distortions that it causes is something that on balance, just, I decided to vote to leave.
I am most definitely now leaving this thread due to the reasons I gave on it being the wrong place, for me, to discuss it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AlanH99]

This is exactly the issue with exclusive focus on immigration and foreigners.

No country I know of has ever benefited from insularity. 70s Britain with brain drawn is on the cards with current attitudes, and the caught in headlights approach of politicians.

When madness rules, there is no logic anymore.

Firstly, controlled immigration is not the same as insularity. There is a misconception put about by Remainers that Leavers want to stop all immigration. It's not true.

Secondly, deciding how many people can come to live in your country is a right that every country has apart from those affiliated to the EU. There is only the EU that says if you want to join their tariff free zone you must also accept free movement of labour. No other trading group insists on this.

 

[LowMan]

I find it absolutely hilarious reading continual accusations that 'tarnishing' the Brexit view as anti-immigration is the fault of those who supported remain.

Completely oblivious to the anti-immigration rhetoric that has poured from their camp and their media for years.

If you want me to change my view, start changing your rhetoric.

 

[VW Cali]

Firstly, controlled immigration is not the same as insularity. There is a misconception put about by Remainers that Leavers want to stop all immigration. It's not true.

Secondly, deciding how many people can come to live in your country is a right that every country has apart from those affiliated to the EU. There is only the EU that says if you want to join their tariff free zone you must also accept free movement of labour. No other trading group insists on this.

1. Controlled immigration <> insularity.

Nevertheless, one can have insularity even while permitting immigration. One does not follow from other. Plus my points above largely all missed. Which is that if is difficult to see on what basis would a UK with attitudes of Farage and Co would be a first or even desirable choice for skilled immigrants from abroad. All UKIP and many Brexiteers for example support Trump. Farage has defended Trump's remarks on women as natural for alpha male silverback. Rees Mogg too, Eton and Oxford educated, only reluctantly withdrew his support for Trump. I presume skilled women, Mexicans, Muslims etc may not be very happy about such attitudes.

You can say all you want about controlled immigration (from where?) but the perception the world over has that Britain suffering from same insularity and elements of xenophobia as have manifested in many European countries. So Brexit has support amongst the far right of any country in Europe ranging from Le Pen in France, Wilders in The Netherlands, Global Dawn in Greece and so on.

Like it or not, it is has elements of an extreme far right movement, with support from other far right movements. David Duke, who supports Trump, is ex KKK and has been a white supremacist.

Like it or not you are known by the company you keep.

Denying insularity, at least in perception from others, which really is the whole point, is strange. Anyone will deny sexism, nepotism, racism etc. It is the perception of those affected that matters.

Skilled workers with options will not come on slave labour ships to be second class citizens.

2. Every country has the right to choose its immigration. But you can't have your cake and eat it. If you don't want to be a member of a club but still want access and privileges you have a problem. It is the problem affecting May and Co.

Let's be clear. Not only are there issues now with how to keep economic ties functioning without much damage with EU, there are reduced opportunities with the US, and other developed countries. May and her lot have their work cut out for them. However in a sense they have no downside. It is British businesses that have a fight on their hands. And the British worker.

 

[VW Cali]

Worth reading in this debate between far right conservative mind sets and those less so.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/

 

[VW Cali]

Here is an extract from the article. I have been struggling to find an explanation for rigid conservative behaviour:

1. Exists in the East.

2. Exists in the West.

With much in common between 1 and 2 even though they all superficially belong to different cultures.

Extract from article:

The Fear Factor
Psychologists have found that conservatives are fundamentally more anxious than liberals, which may be why they typically desire stability, structure and clear answers even to complicated questions. “Conservatism, apparently, helps to protect people against some of the natural difficulties of living,” says social psychologist Paul Nail of the University of Central Arkansas. “The fact is we don't live in a completely safe world. Things can and do go wrong. But if I can impose this order on it by my worldview, I can keep my anxiety to a manageable level.”
Anxiety is an emotion that waxes and wanes in all of us, and as it swings up or down our political views can shift in its wake. When people feel safe and secure, they become more liberal; when they feel threatened, they become more conservative. Research conducted by Nail and his colleague in the weeks after September 11, 2001, showed that people of all political persuasions became more conservative in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Meanwhile, in an upcoming study, a team led by Yale University psychologist Jaime Napier found that asking Republicans to imagine that they possessed superpowers and were impermeable to injury made them more liberal. “There is some range within which people can be moved,” Jost says.

 

[Amarillo]

Firstly, controlled immigration is not the same as insularity. There is a misconception put about by Remainers that Leavers want to stop all immigration. It's not true.

Secondly, deciding how many people can come to live in your country is a right that every country has apart from those affiliated to the EU. There is only the EU that says if you want to join their tariff free zone you must also accept free movement of labour. No other trading group insists on this.

If you believe that, you would have no problem with Wales imposing immigration quotas on Scottish, English and Northern Irish migrants.

Do you think that the UK should abrogate their commitments to the Good Friday agreement allowing the free movement of peoples between the north and south of Ireland?

 

[AlanH99]

If you believe that, you would have no problem with Wales imposing immigration quotas on Scottish, English and Northern Irish migrants.

Do you think that the UK should abrogate their commitments to the Good Friday agreement allowing the free movement of peoples between the north and south of Ireland?

If over 300,000 immigrants a year from the EU started using the border to enter the UK then, yes, we would have to do something to stop it. As we would be able to control immigration to citizens of the Republic of Ireland it shouldn't be difficult to resolve.

 

[VW Cali]

If over 300,000 immigrants a year from the EU started using the border to enter the UK then, yes, we would have to do something to stop it. As we would be able to control immigration to citizens of the Republic of Ireland it shouldn't be difficult to resolve.

Huh?

Sorry, you will have to clarify. I don't know what you mean.

 

[AlanH99]

Huh?

Sorry, you will have to clarify. I don't know what you mean.

The question was:
Do you think that the UK should abrogate their commitments to the Good Friday agreement allowing the free movement of peoples between the north and south of Ireland?

My answer is:
If the border is used to get around any controls the UK puts in place to control immigration from the EU, then, yes, any agreement we have for free movement of peoples between the north and south of Ireland should be reconsidered. Previous immigration from the EU was over 300,000 last year. Only time will tell whether it is going to be necessary.

 

[VW Cali]

With Katie Hopkins, Sarah Palin, Nigel Farage still bending over for Trump,

James O Brein on how Brexiteers keep shifting their logic

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-epic-monologue-on-brexiteers-blame/

 

[VW Cali]

The question was:
Do you think that the UK should abrogate their commitments to the Good Friday agreement allowing the free movement of peoples between the north and south of Ireland?

My answer is:
If the border is used to get around any controls the UK puts in place to control immigration from the EU, then, yes, any agreement we have for free movement of peoples between the north and south of Ireland should be reconsidered. Previous immigration from the EU was over 300,000 last year. Only time will tell whether it is going to be necessary.

Thanks.

That would be consistent as Ireland part of EU.

I was interested though in the question about free movement of peoples within the UK. I mean Scotland is the obvious example. If GB does a hard Brexit what is the probability of Scotland being more European than British is some convoluted agreements in say 5 year's time?

Truth be told, Brexit is not about UK leaving EU, but England and Wales leaving. Not just EU but as well asking Scotland and Northern Ireland to withdraw or saying adieu to both....

(Actually reverse of latter.)

Since it is done now, and the chances of turning back are very small, I hope better sense will prevail in negotiations. But the opposite has been the case. Hard Brexit is not just Bad Brexit but Worst Possible Brexit.

For all those Brexiteers who claim they care about GB foremost, I have some news. Many of the Remainers care too, and possibly much more. I care deeply. And I never could see the point of Brexit at this stage.

 

[VW Cali]

Theresa May and her fools need to wake up. Soon:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/939c7ed0-8e32-11e6-a72e-b428cb934b78

Madness followes by more madness.

 

[Amarillo]

Truth be told, Brexit is not about UK leaving EU, but England and Wales leaving. Not just EU but as well asking Scotland and Northern Ireland to withdraw or saying adieu

This is just one of the hypocrisies of Alan's argument.

He screams and shouts about a country's right to control who comes into their country, yet he is happy to force two countries to close their borders against their will.

The Northern Ireland issue is serious, and I am not sure that anyone fully understands the consequences to peace in the province if the border with the south is closed.

 

[AlanH99]

This is just one of the hypocrisies of Alan's argument.

He screams and shouts about a country's right to control who comes into their country, yet he is happy to force two countries to close their borders against their will.

The Northern Ireland issue is serious, and I am not sure that anyone fully understands the consequences to peace in the province if the border with the south is closed.

Sorry if I'm screaming and shouting, I didn't know.