Ignorance is strength.
And so is whataboutery as George Orwell didn't say.
To recap. You literally live in a unitary political State of four countries with no internal borders. We, as a country, live next door to a free trade area of thirty countries with distinctive cultures and languages and no internal borders.
Again, I ask nicely, with sprinkles on top, what the fuck are you talking about?
Ethnicity and culture are linked, but they are not the same thing.And that it is important that our ethnicity is celebrated and protected. Thousands of years of culture, history and tradition is not something trivial to be tossed away and lost forever.
And yet if I were to fly a Union Jack outside my house, I'd likely be branded as a racist white supremacist.
Parts of the UK now more closely resemble Pakistan. I am not racist. I have nothing against Pakistani people. I like Pakistani people. But I do not want to live in Pakistan. I don't want our high streets to look like Pakistan.
Bad day for the 'Labour stopped the NHS strikes' lads ...
Not really a surprise that they’re back for more when our gormless Chancellor described the 28.9% pay rise she signed off on as ‘a drop in the ocean’.Bad day for the 'Labour stopped the NHS strikes' lads ...
Why are you using the EU as the poster child of your pro-no borders though? The EU has external borders.
They are merely a land mass where people can (sort of) move freely. Same as UK. They control the number of people who can be added to that land mass through immigration, same as UK.
Surely you advocate having no borders anywhere? Thus I’m somewhat confused by them being your poster child on this topic.
Bad day for the 'Labour stopped the NHS strikes' lads ...
Fair commenthave the strikes happened ?
Will Labour totally ignore any talks and allow months and years of strikes like the Tories did? let's see.
And that it is important that our ethnicity is celebrated and protected. Thousands of years of culture, history and tradition is not something trivial to be tossed away and lost forever.
And yet if I were to fly a Union Jack outside my house, I'd likely be branded as a racist white supremacist.
Parts of the UK now more closely resemble Pakistan. I am not racist. I have nothing against Pakistani people. I like Pakistani people. But I do not want to live in Pakistan. I don't want our high streets to look like Pakistan.
The margin of error will be 14% on a sample size of 50 (14.14214% to be exact - 1/sqrt(sample size)), thus the conclusion is in the range 7727 to 10272 will leave, not that wild. The key metric to the research being pointless is the qualitative element rather than quantitive element.
Why? Because it exists. You can see it in action. It isn’t a theoretical argument. I can point to thirty countries on a map that brought no internal borders into reality. That’s thirty distinctive cultures and languages sharing a political construct that is a benefit to trade and to people.
I am not arguing for all borders to be eliminated. That isn’t going to happen. That’s a pipe dream. But then the removal of European internal borders was a pipe dream in the 1950’s.
I will argue, and continue to argue, that we too should have no internal borders between ourselves and our neighbours and be part of this shared political construct. We are next door to it. It makes sense. You’re a conservative and you are against free trade and free movement - literally freedom from Governments telling people where to live and work?
Arguing that a custom borders and trade barriers between the UK and Europe makes sense is like arguing a custom border and trade barrier between England and Scotland makes sense. Spoiler. It doesn’t.
The idea of removal of borders depends upon how you view the nation state and not just simple economics or similar. There is a good argument that nation states are a completely stupid idea, basically a human construct to enact protectionism, nationalism, tribalism and lot's more ism's.Why? Because it exists. You can see it in action. It isn’t a theoretical argument. I can point to thirty countries on a map that brought no internal borders into reality. That’s thirty distinctive cultures and languages sharing a political construct that is a benefit to trade and to people.
I am not arguing for all borders to be eliminated. That isn’t going to happen. That’s a pipe dream. But then the removal of European internal borders was a pipe dream in the 1950’s.
I will argue, and continue to argue, that we too should have no internal borders between ourselves and our neighbours and be part of this shared political construct. We are next door to it. It makes sense. You’re a conservative and you are against free trade and free movement - literally freedom from Governments telling people where to live and work?
Arguing that a custom borders and trade barriers between the UK and Europe makes sense is like arguing a custom border and trade barrier between England and Scotland makes sense. Spoiler. It doesn’t.
I agree on the qualitative side - they're not doing anything at all it seems to make their sample representative in any way, and in the interview he said it was hugely skewed.
I understand the calculation in your post too, but most pollsters wouldn't go near those kind of tiny percentages. Even if the sample was perfectly representative, they'd have been laughed out of town if they'd said 0.6% of our survey have left the country in the last five months. But, in reality, most people running surveys know there's a certain amount of noise in even pretty good data, and I wouldn't rely on the maths with those kind of sample sizes (and yes I do agree that it's qualitative, but it's something that's amplified in smaller sized samples, beyond the simple margin or error calculation).
Still, as you say it's pointless. It's nonsense multiplied by rubbish, and yet still generated 100s of articles, which is rather depressing.
I don’t disagree that the quality is the main concern - I’ve not seen who they asked but it will be hard to assess with enough confidence to extrapolate out.
It’s more complicated than just being taxed (and seen to be poorer as a result). If the government mishandles the economy the value of GBP drops making you less wealthy relatively. I’m sure there is a sweet spot of what they could tax to shore up the public finances however it’s always a challenging topic to say I’m going to tax you on something you’ve purchased with money I’ve already taxed you on.
It would be far better to stick 1% on everyone’s tax, perhaps 2% at the higher end. They’ll be fucked as it’ll break their election pledge and be seen to be making up economic policy in a knee jerk way so they won’t but it’s by far the fairest way to deal with state of the public finances.
It’s unclear what you are fundamentally arguing for here.
Are you saying the UK, and the UK alone, should have open borders with mainland Europe (reciprocated) but not with any other country? Or only open borders with the EU?
Or are you saying that all countries should have no borders with their neighbours?
There are other free movement blocs, such as the Russian Federation or the US.
The idea of removal of borders depends upon how you view the nation state and not just simple economics or similar. There is a good argument that nation states are a completely stupid idea, basically a human construct to enact protectionism, nationalism, tribalism and lot's more ism's.
We are however a protective species so a common border generally is not wired into our biology. That kind of thing is getting worse and not better. Most people worry about immigration for example and yet they don't even know their neighbours. The older generation will even vote to the detriment of the wellbeing of their own grandchildren.
It's unfortunately wired into us and regardless of whether it's beneficial or not quite clearly we'll fight over it if necessary. Brexit was a good example of it because in the end nobody cared whether it was a good idea or not.
I agree on the 1% tax increase. I think they could get round it politically by stating that it will go towards the "defence of the realm". There's no doubt since Trump got back in the requirement to spend more on defence has intensified and could just about be used as the reason for an increase.I don’t disagree that the quality is the main concern - I’ve not seen who they asked but it will be hard to assess with enough confidence to extrapolate out.
It’s more complicated than just being taxed (and seen to be poorer as a result). If the government mishandles the economy the value of GBP drops making you less wealthy relatively. I’m sure there is a sweet spot of what they could tax to shore up the public finances however it’s always a challenging topic to say I’m going to tax you on something you’ve purchased with money I’ve already taxed you on.
It would be far better to stick 1% on everyone’s tax, perhaps 2% at the higher end. They’ll be fucked as it’ll break their election pledge and be seen to be making up economic policy in a knee jerk way so they won’t but it’s by far the fairest way to deal with state of the public finances.