Slashdot Mirror
Free Movement of EU Citizens To Britain Will End in 2019 (standard.co.uk)
Free movement of EU citizens to Britain will end when the country leaves the EU in March 2019, Theresa May's spokesman said Monday, moving to contain a Cabinet row over immigration after Brexit. From a report: Downing Street (headquarters of the government of the United Kingdom) said on Monday it was "wrong" to suggest free movement would "continue as it is now" once Britain leaves the EU. It comes following days of confusion and rumours of infighting between Cabinet colleagues over the crucial issue of immigration after Brexit.
This prediction has been made in my home city, Birmingham, since I was born and it has never come to fruition, perhaps get your news from places other than the EDL, National Front or UKIP.
Next week they will say something different. The only thing that this current UK government has been consistent about is pissing into the wind.
The British joined the EU with special conditions because their economy was in really bad shape. And now they want to leave to improve their economic position? This is really tragic. They seem to have decided that fucking themselves with a wire-brush is a really good idea. And now their moron-in-chief also wants a "hard" exit in addition? Well, we will miss you in the 1st world, that's for sure. And I am well aware that about half of you are _not_ terminally stupid. Makes it even more tragic.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Either scenario, or a combination of the two, would require unbelievably high birth rates and levels of emigration that only happen in countries with civil wars or mass famines.
In other words, no, Britain is not going to be majority Muslim in 10 years. To believe so requires such an intense degree of stupidity that it's difficult to imagine how one would have the cognitive function sufficient to operate a keyboard... or a flush toilet.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The entire point of the Common Market, and ultimately the EU was more than simply to have a trading bloc. It is to create extremely tight economic integration. There's a rather good reason for this, seeing as Europe had just gone through two cataclysmic general wars, and if you cast the net back a bit further, you have also have the Napoleonic Wars and major conflicts like the Franco-Prussian War. In other words, this is a region that was blown to bits multiple times over the last few centuries.
Tight economic integration inevitably means some degree of political union. Now we can debate how much is too much, but in general, even in those countries where EU resentment is highest, countries like Poland, Hungary and Greece, people still in general view the EU positively. The Greeks made clear through multiple elections over the last five or six years that even with intense austerity, they not only want to remain in the EU, but the Eurozone.
These claims that somehow Britain is the canary in the coalmine, that somehow there is going to be this exodus of nations from the EU, really are little more than a shallow attempt by Leavers to try to justify what just about everyone now knows to have been a stunningly idiotic referendum result.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Here in the US, I'm wondering what the big deal is for requiring an passport to move between sovereign countries over there?
I thought that was pretty much the norm for most of the world....?
As another poster has already said, you should be thinking in terms of states.
One of the reasons for the US's global dominance in the 20th century was the size of the country, and the amount of economic activity that could be carried out within its borders. Free movement of workers between states allowed the workforce to move very rapidly, and any "goldrush" (Detroit becoming "motor city", the birth of Hollywood) saw mass migrations from all over. Now imagine what would have happened in Hollywood if anyone who wasn't Californian wasn't allowed in without a lengthy immigration process that couldn't be started until they had a job -- it would have been very different.
Think about all the noise over H1B, and imagine if Microsoft had to apply for an H1B to hire anyone not born in Washington State.
Imagine Google applying for H1Bs for all their staff not born in California.
And imagine all the people in the Grain Belt who would have highly restricted choice of profession, because they're not allowed to move to where the work is.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Demographic change can happen much quicker than one expects.
Look at Hamtramck, Michigan and Dearborn, Michigan for examples of this happening recently.
Even as late as the 1970s, the residents of Hamtramck were nearly all (90%) from Poland, or of Polish descent. But by 2000, Poles made up only about 10% of the population. By 2015 it had the first majority Muslim city council in the US.
Dearborn is similar. Once mainly populated by people of European origin or descent, as of 2010 over 40% of its population was of Arab ancestry, with many of them practicing Islam.
A city like Birmingham is moderately large, so it may take longer to see it happen. But when you factor in birth rate differentials, immigration rates, emigration rates, and death rates, a non-Muslim city could easily become a Muslim-majority city within two or three generations.
Depending on how long you live, there's a good chance you'll experience it later in your life, even if you don't see it today. Your children (or hypothetical ones, if you're impotent) will experience it.
Most Muslims in the UK come from the Commonwealth.
With very little paper work they receive an UK resident permit, even citizenship and also a passport if they want.
The EU has absolutely nothing to do with the UK's perceived "Muslim problem".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The wars were not the only reason for tight integration. If you want to have really free and fair trade between nations then they all need to be playing by the same rules. The same standards, the same rules everywhere so that products and services can flow freely and no-one gains an unfair advantage.
There is also the collective bargaining power that comes from being the second largest economy in the world. Outside of the EU, countries are already lining up to bully the UK into accepting their terms. Trump wants a quick deal because he knows we are weak and desperate, open to accepting US chlorinated chicken and hormone infused beef to lessen the pain of Brexit.
Brexit is making the EU stronger. Merkel and Macron are reforming it, renewing it. Cameron could have been with them, getting the changes he wanted, if he had participated and built support instead of presenting a list of demands backed up by a threat.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In the case of both Greenland and Iceland, both have done very well after leaving the EU.
Greenland is a frozen rock of fifty thousand souls that relies on Danish subsidies and selling fishing rights that it could never defend anyway.
Iceland never joined the EU, and is still negotiating to do so. It has, however, been a member of the European Free Trade Area since 1994. Whatever you think about it's economy, EU , or even EEC membership has not been a factor. It isn't even showing particular objections to it's current trade status as far as I know.
You can say they are nothing alike, but that is obviously false. The economies are different, obviously, but the reasons for their departure is the same.
One never departed, the other is a technicality of no great importance.
The EU has gone well beyond it's original trade capacity and went into full on social policy. Which is why other members of the EU have been pushing back very hard against policies the EU is imposing. Poland is probably the most vocal example, but not the only example.
Your factual deficiencies aside, I am not aware of either Iceland or Greenland raising any particular objections to any EU Social Policies.
My posts are not really to debate the metrics of each member, former member, but to argue against GP who gave a faulty piece of ad hominem against the UK for their decision to leave.
Then why include such untrue statements in them? You would be well advised to apologize for your mistaken assertions instead.
That leave vote as in the works for a very long time with a whole lot of the populace getting out.
Actually, it was under 75% turnout, and a bare majority. Without a negotiated plan. Disdain for that process is justified.
Further, the doom and gloom irrationality of GP is discounted completely by other members who _did_ leave and have not crashed and burned because of it.
But s.petry, there really are none. Greenland? Still sucking at Copenhagen's teat, Algeria? Yeah, an Islamic oil satrapy. Iceland? Never an EU member, still a member of the free trade zone.
You can have your own opinions. But not your own facts.
Around 4.4% of the population said they were Muslim at the last census (2011). Keep in mind that the census tends to inflate the numbers because the people filling it in put their kids down as being religious when they aren't really and stop participating when they grow up.
Anyway, that's up 1.7% since 2001, so in a decade. At that rate, by 2050 a massive 10% of the population will be Muslim. I don't think we have too much to worry about.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Maybe to you, but me as an EU citizen I prefer having a European border agency controlled by the EU parliament instead of all kinds of small (Like Albanian, Montenegrin and Macedonian) local governments setting their individual policies.
A bit like the Mexican-US border, what would work better, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California each policing by themselves or the Federal border force?
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Not sure whether to laugh out cry at this.
The EU has given us more power, more control and more sovereignty. Look at how strong consumer rights and employment rights are under it. Look at how the EU is able to tell the US to go fuck itself when it suits us.
Outside the EU, we have countries lining up to screw us. How is being forced to accept US farming standards, far inferior to our own, "taking back control" or increasing our sovereignty?
The EU is getting stronger. The far right and the populists have been exposed and rejected. Support for the EU is up, it's reforming itself and pushing ahead with the project now that the UK can't hold it back.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
The worst part is how when immigrants or the children of immigrants want to integrate, want to be British, and these idiots tell them that they can't be. Incompatible culture, wrong accent, funny name, as if those things make people British.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC