Britain is leaning towards a softer Brexit after ministers admitted that they were considering plans to allow low-skilled migration and could pay to access the single market after leaving the European Union. The government does not want to end up with damaging labour shortages, David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said last night amid growing signs that ministers were moderating their stance.

Mr Davis told a CBI dinner in Wales that the government would be “ending free movement as it has operated before”, adding: “We won’t do so in a way that it is contrary to the national and economic interest . . . Britain must win the global battle for talent. No one wants to see labour shortages in key sectors.”

Earlier in the day Mr Davis, a longstanding Leave supporter, told the Commons that Britain could keep paying into the Brussels budget in exchange for access to the single market. The government was not ruling out the move to “get the best possible access for goods and services to the European market”, he said.

He became the first government minister to admit openly that such a trade-off was on the table. His remarks were seized on by Philip Hammond, the chancellor, who supported the Remain campaign. Speaking during a visit to Edinburgh he said: “I think David Davis is absolutely right not to rule out the possibility that we might want to contribute in some way to some form of mechanism.”

"soft brexit"

what does that even mean

you're either part of the EU or you're not, i take it

Some voted because they can't stand foreigners or because "british jobs for british workers", while others realized how important cheap migrant workers are for British businesses.

Quote from: Azendac on December 04, 2016, 09:24:09 PM

Brexit was fundamentally about whether or not Britain would remain a white country, or if it would become a paki/arab/polish mess, anyone saying they voted leave for any other reason is just being PC to avoid harassment and cries of racism.

I think that is a very flawed understanding of both the outcome of the referendum and the immigration situation in the UK and EU. But as I said, I don't have much time or interest in discussing that now. My post was meant not to address the UK actually leaving the Union or the consequences thereof, but just how a yes/no question to such a broad and complex issue was bound to make a whole lot of people very unhappy. Remain voted for a very clear and single outcome. Leave was a bit of a basket case of people wanting out for very different reasons, ranging from sovereignty to membership fees and from anti-establishmentarianism (isn't that one of the longest words in the English language, by the way?) to immigration. No matter what kind of Brexit we're going to see, it won't be the outcome that many Leave voters had in mind. That's just my point, really.

Quote from: Azendac on December 04, 2016, 09:24:09 PM

Quote from: Flee on December 03, 2016, 12:43:01 PM

Some voted because they can't stand foreigners or because "british jobs for british workers", while others realized how important cheap migrant workers are for British businesses.

Trying to defend endless immigration with "it's good for the economy" is a moot point, you've got your priorities backwards. The economy exists to serve the people not the other way around. Brexit was fundamentally about whether or not Britain would remain a white country, or if it would become a paki/arab/polish mess, anyone saying they voted leave for any other reason is just being PC to avoid harassment and cries of racism.

Now I never expected Brexit to be allowed to happen by Brussels, or even the Tories. What I expected and continue to expect is it to give justification to a Frexit, Italexit, Grexit, etc. etc. When half the Union is voting to leave, and at the same time Russia ends the war in Syria but the "refugees" don't go back (why else is it called the migrant crisis? migrant implies they're going to stay in Europe, refugee implies they'll eventually go back), you'll have a situation that can only be solved with a dissolution of the EU.

Yes, the economy will tank, and we'll all feel it for a few years, that's a small price to pay when the alternative is Eurabia (especially considering the economy will bounce back anyway)

Couple of things
1. There is nothing wrong with the polish, they integrate well and work hard, what more can you want from immigrants?
2. The pakistani/indian population here far preceeds the EU and again, short of a few issues with some of the more recent ones (i.e Rotherham) they aren't really a problem for the UK. Sikhs and Hindus at least, Islam being Islam is where a lot of the integration issues come from in that region.
3. The EU has very little to do with the recent migrant hordes (in terms of the UK, what they are doing to their own countries is appalling) because britain doesn't have to take any of them in even if we were still in the EU.

Net migration is ridiculously high here regardless of where it comes from though, it would have been better to clamp down on it 10 years ago instead of flipflopping until it's reached this stage.

Quote from: Azendac on December 05, 2016, 04:49:19 PM

Quote from: Mr. Psychologist on December 05, 2016, 09:39:22 AM

Quote from: Azendac on December 04, 2016, 09:24:09 PM

Quote from: Flee on December 03, 2016, 12:43:01 PM

Some voted because they can't stand foreigners or because "british jobs for british workers", while others realized how important cheap migrant workers are for British businesses.

Trying to defend endless immigration with "it's good for the economy" is a moot point, you've got your priorities backwards. The economy exists to serve the people not the other way around. Brexit was fundamentally about whether or not Britain would remain a white country, or if it would become a paki/arab/polish mess, anyone saying they voted leave for any other reason is just being PC to avoid harassment and cries of racism.

Now I never expected Brexit to be allowed to happen by Brussels, or even the Tories. What I expected and continue to expect is it to give justification to a Frexit, Italexit, Grexit, etc. etc. When half the Union is voting to leave, and at the same time Russia ends the war in Syria but the "refugees" don't go back (why else is it called the migrant crisis? migrant implies they're going to stay in Europe, refugee implies they'll eventually go back), you'll have a situation that can only be solved with a dissolution of the EU.

Yes, the economy will tank, and we'll all feel it for a few years, that's a small price to pay when the alternative is Eurabia (especially considering the economy will bounce back anyway)

Couple of things
1. There is nothing wrong with the polish, they integrate well and work hard, what more can you want from immigrants?
2. The pakistani/indian population here far preceeds the EU and again, short of a few issues with some of the more recent ones (i.e Rotherham) they aren't really a problem for the UK. Sikhs and Hindus at least, Islam being Islam is where a lot of the integration issues come from in that region.
3. The EU has very little to do with the recent migrant hordes (in terms of the UK, what they are doing to their own countries is appalling) because britain doesn't have to take any of them in even if we were still in the EU.

Net migration is ridiculously high here regardless of where it comes from though, it would have been better to clamp down on it 10 years ago instead of flipflopping until it's reached this stage.

1. Consider the effect it has on Poland itself, this is one of my more reasonable gripes with "skilled immigration" you take the best people out of a country that needs them far more than you do, and then if they settle down and have kids, their children will regress to the mean and be like the normal people of the country they came from, not the "cream of the crop" like their parents. Siphoning polish talent to Britain and siphoning pound sterlings back to Poland, is only going to make them dependent on continued immigration to the UK. Similar to how Mexico earns more money from it's immigrants sending money back home, then they do from their entire oil industry. The poles have to go back, they're killing Poland if they stay.

2. I'm well aware that this goes back several decades, Camp of the Saints was written in 1973 after all. The point i'm making is that politics has a certain amount of momentum/inertia to it. Once one idea gets popular traction, related ideas become much more easily accepted, this is the basis of the overton window. You give people a taste of telling the government to fuck off, and you see everyone around you doing the same thing, and then all of a sudden you can succesfully campaign on changing things that have stayed the same for decades. And also, it really doesn't matter which country they're coming from, here in New Zealand the problem is Chinese (both immigrants, and speculators and foreign investors) and Indians. My opinion is still the same, they're killing us and they have to go back, even if they came here legally.

3. It should be clear by now that I want the EU gone, though I'm still quite partial to some kind of official co-operation between EU states. The whole world benefits when Europeans aren't killing eachother so anything that keeps it that way is a good thing, but that requires Europe to stay European.

I'll also say that I tend to think on a larger time scale than you might be assuming, do you all remember the reports a few years back of "all of europe, america, and oceania, will have white minorities by the 2040's" ? that's sort of the scale i'm thinking here. So even if you say "well there's actually not many immigrants now, and they don't commit that much crime anyway" it doesn't change the fact that assimilation means they'll be sticking around and having kids and grandkids, and nobody has yet made a compelling argument for ethnic cleansing to me.

It's a fair point and one I agree with, hence why I'd like to see limited immigration rather than unchecked or none.

If we're going to go a little tangential then the issues regarding white minority aren't really where I'd be looking. Quality and quantity basically. To put it simply, the smart in society aren't breeding half as much as the drones are. You are ending up with less children from bright parents and more from dolescum.

Until this balance is corrected, i.e we stop the peasantry from breeding like rabbits, and maybe use the 'E' word a little bit to promote some healthier genetic choices I don't see the decline reversing.

We almost have the tools to do it, so when we do we ought to be prepared to use them.

But god forbid anyone so much as suggest that intelligence has a genetic factor to it. Like, you know, almost every other characteristic about human life.