Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I would prefer neither of them existed but you can not condemn one and not the other. As I was saying I was playing devils advocate.

 

My position is both of them are incorrect. Obviously different people react in different ways to these things. 

 

The poster used by the Leave Campaign was at the time a fairly accurate representation of the borders in Hungary due to a situation created by Merkel. Personally I thought the poster was distasteful but not racist. 

 

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Personally I think if we had border control across Europe, this wouldn’t have been such an issue and so dramatic. I think that’s what was being highlighted and why it’s not racist. 

It was a true picture of what was happening on Europe’s mainland and should rightly question what the EU are doing to protect its members.

 

I think I could grudgingly accept that it wasn't racist per se, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was an appeal to garner the votes of those who are.

 

Gutter politics.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

I think I could grudgingly accept that it wasn't racist per se, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was an appeal to garner the votes of those who are.

 

Gutter politics.

I think like you’ve said before, if you were racist and willing and able to vote, it was sewn up which side was chosen.

The poster was distasteful and I suspect it did nothing to increase a leave vote. Most likely the opposite.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

I'm sure are some on here who will laugh that off.

 

I don't laugh that letter off. It contains definite truths that need addressing, even though some parts of it are over-stated.

 

The bits about Hard Left anti-Zionist / anti-Israel hatred sometimes spilling into antisemitism absolutely rings true (based on my experience as an active party member in the 80s/90s, but I recognise the same mindset now).

Likewise, the bits about Corbyn's partisan support for Hizbollah/Hamas raise valid questions about his judgment - just as questions can be raised about the West generally allowing Israel to flout international law.

The stuff about "conspiratorial worldviews", Rothschilds running the world and ISIS being a front for Israel describes views you might encounter among a tiny minority of young kneejerk hotheads at grassroots level in the Labour Party, or in any party frankly. But views like that are certainly nowhere near the mainstream - whereas instinctive anti-Israel sentiment spilling into antisemitism (or being perceived to have done so) is a genuine problem that Corbyn needs to address.

 

I don't want to get into a lot of "whataboutery" (new word for the dictionary in 2019?), as this is a valid issue for discussion - even if some of Corbyn's critics have their own axes to grind. But people who (rightly) question Corbyn risk hypocrisy if they don't also question those on their own side who may have "laughed off" much worse crimes than condoning an allegedly antisemitic mural. Uncritical Thatcher fanatics should read:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caravan_of_Death

Before you come back at me with Corbyn's partisan support for Irish Republicanism, I didn't support that at the time and don't support it now.

 

I still don't see the mural as "obviously antisemitic" (though elements of it might be dubious) and remain fascinated as to how anyone could be confident that 5 out of 6 of the men depicted are meant to be Jewish.....if they were, that would make it antisemitic, in my view - big difference between depicting 6 "filthy, exploitative capitalists", 2 of whom are Jewish and showing 5 out of 6 as Jewish....

 

I'm curious now, as to how a cartoon denigrating child abusers should depict such abusers. It is clear that, while child abuse exists in all racial communities, there is a particular problem among people of Pakistani origin. If someone was drawing a mural of six child abusers, therefore, wouldn't it be valid for 1-2 of them look Pakistani? Not all of them, as not all abusers are Pakistani, so that would be racist, of course.

Those of you who condemn this mural, do you feel that it could have depicted ANY Jews - or just white people? And could a mural about child abuse depict ANY Pakistanis or just white people?

[Buce]

33 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think like you’ve said before, if you were racist and willing and able to vote, it was sewn up which side was chosen.

The poster was distasteful and I suspect it did nothing to increase a leave vote. Most likely the opposite.

 

It's effectiveness or otherwise is irrelevant to the discussion, though.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

Interesting that the left want to destroy all statues from our past as they are 'imperialist' yet they are happy to let horrible small minded shit like this go because 'its freedom of an artists expression. Double standards again. 

 

 

Slightly loose usage of "the left" there, don't you think? I'm sure a few idiots on the Left want to destroy all statues, but they're hardly representative. 

 

On a similar basis, I suppose that I could say: "Interesting that the right want to kill immigrants".....some undoubtedly do, most presumably don't. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Slightly loose usage of "the left" there, don't you think? I'm sure a few idiots on the Left want to destroy all statues, but they're hardly representative. 

 

On a similar basis, I suppose that I could say: "Interesting that the right want to kill immigrants".....some undoubtedly do, most presumably don't. 

Perhaps I should have used 'Far left extremists' apologies. Obviously the more moderate left are not into this kind of nonsense. 

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It's effectiveness or otherwise is irrelevant to the discussion, though.

Well I don’t think that’s true, but thanks.

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well I don’t think that’s true, but thanks.

 

Sorry, that perhaps came out wrong - I intended no offence, mate.

 

What I meant was that its irrelevance doesn't detract from what I said, which was that it was a cynical appeal to the racist vote, regardless as to whether it was in itself racist (which one could easily argue it was, certainly if we apply the rules that are saying that other poster is anti-semitic).

[Buce]

24 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Perhaps I should have used 'Far left extremists' apologies. Obviously the more moderate left are not into this kind of nonsense. 

 

I think you're still wide of the mark - I am further left than moderate (as are others that I know) but I have no desire to tear down statues, neither do those I know. Tbh, I think the extreme left are about as numerous as the extreme right (and just as irrelevant).

[Guest]

State of play re the Irish border 

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-to-present-new-brexit-backstop-plan-on-ireland/

 

[Alf Bentley]

58 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Personally I think if we had border control across Europe, this wouldn’t have been such an issue and so dramatic. I think that’s what was being highlighted and why it’s not racist. 

It was a true picture of what was happening on Europe’s mainland and should rightly question what the EU are doing to protect its members.

 

That's an argument against the Schengen Area, so would be valid for a political campaign on the continent....though various nation states (e.g. Hungary) temporarily suspended Schengen freedoms.

But the UK isn't in the Schengen Area, so we had full control of our borders vis-à-vis non-EU citizens.

Farage was campaigning to leave the EU, partly to stop the free movement of EU citizens.....and depicted people who didn't enjoy access to the UK (hence the Calais camp). Why not depict the "real threat" (Poles, Romanians, French etc.)?

 

It was a true picture of what was happening on the mainland, but something that we could continue to prevent here. It was certainly dramatic and raised fears, which Farage sought to exploit for political gain, deliberately confusing EU & more scary non-EU migration. 

 

53 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Are they not given EU citizenship by  the first country they arrive in? or at least they should be. The problem here is they can come into Hungary/Greece get processed and travel freely within the EU wherever they like.

 

Giving the idea that all you need to do is turn up at one of our frontiers and we will let you in is in my view incorrect, and encouraged a bigger stream of migrants than was necessary. 

 

Once processed should they choose they could have come to Britain, even after arriving in Germany. Quite why so many people want to come here when apparently it is a shit Tory scum hole I will never know. 

 

I can't be arsed to check, but am pretty sure you're wrong about EU citizenship being automatically granted to migrants. The "right to remain" in the first country as refugees pending clarification of status, but not citizenship.

In fact, my recollection is that Germany is particularly tough on granting citizenship to migrants - it has a whole "guest worker" status, whereby millions of Turks have lived in Germany for years without gaining citizenship.

 

You're certainly wrong that they can travel freely within the EU - they could travel freely within the Schengen Area, hence how they could get to Germany until certain national govts suspended Schengen rules.

But the UK and Ireland aren't in the Schengen Area, so they couldn't travel freely to the UK or Ireland.

 

"All you need to do is turn up at one of our frontiers and we will let you in"...."they could have come to Britain"? So why were all these people choosing to live in the Calais camps, rather than come on in?! 

 

There are various reasons why people come here from abroad, I expect: many have English as a second language, others have family here, better job opportunities for young people (until now, maybe not in future), more flexible employment regulations. Also, because it has long been a country with a lot to offer socially, culturally and all the rest..... Though I am concerned that it is increasingly becoming a shit Tory scum hole and that this will get a lot worse due to Brexit. Maybe that's partly why immigration is now falling? I wonder who will be blamed for the "shit hole" if it does get worse and the immigrants are no longer flowing in? Maybe people will turn on the Tories, but my guess is they'll just turn on immigrants who're already here, "benefits scroungers" and the rest. Never mind! I've got my Irish/EU passport, so if that happens I'll be off like a rat off a sinking ship, leaving the wreck to the people who caused it. 

 

 

Right! I'm banning myself from Foxes Talk for another fortnight. I'm obviously incapable of moderating my time in this thread.

Life has more to offer than continual conversations with blokes grumbling about immigration or engaging in hypocritical, partisan point-scoring (not referring to you there, Strokes). 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I think you're still wide of the mark - I am further left than moderate (as are others that I know) but I have no desire to tear down statues, neither do those I know. Tbh, I think the extreme left are about as numerous as the extreme right (and just as irrelevant).

Possibly, I am not sure exactly where these people sit or what they represent. Obviously there is a huge common sense aspect here and most decent people whatever there political logic will not engage in such nonsense. There are some, it seemed initially to be an American problem.

 

https://arcdigital.media/why-is-the-left-obsessed-with-tearing-down-statues-4ea208027274

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4801044/You-change-history-learn-it.html

 

Then to the UK:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20170428/281788513953810

 

Bizarre!

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

That's an argument against the Schengen Area, so would be valid for a political campaign on the continent....though various nation states (e.g. Hungary) temporarily suspended Schengen freedoms.

But the UK isn't in the Schengen Area, so we had full control of our borders vis-à-vis non-EU citizens.

Farage was campaigning to leave the EU, partly to stop the free movement of EU citizens.....and depicted people who didn't enjoy access to the UK (hence the Calais camp). Why not depict the "real threat" (Poles, Romanians, French etc.)?

 

It was a true picture of what was happening on the mainland, but something that we could continue to prevent here. It was certainly dramatic and raised fears, which Farage sought to exploit for political gain, deliberately confusing EU & more scary non-EU migration. 

 

 

I can't be arsed to check, but am pretty sure you're wrong about EU citizenship being automatically granted to migrants. The "right to remain" in the first country as refugees pending clarification of status, but not citizenship.

In fact, my recollection is that Germany is particularly tough on granting citizenship to migrants - it has a whole "guest worker" status, whereby millions of Turks have lived in Germany for years without gaining citizenship.

 

You're certainly wrong that they can travel freely within the EU - they could travel freely within the Schengen Area, hence how they could get to Germany until certain national govts suspended Schengen rules.

But the UK and Ireland aren't in the Schengen Area, so they couldn't travel freely to the UK or Ireland.

 

"All you need to do is turn up at one of our frontiers and we will let you in"...."they could have come to Britain"? So why were all these people choosing to live in the Calais camps, rather than come on in?! 

 

There are various reasons why people come here from abroad, I expect: many have English as a second language, others have family here, better job opportunities for young people (until now, maybe not in future), more flexible employment regulations. Also, because it has long been a country with a lot to offer socially, culturally and all the rest..... Though I am concerned that it is increasingly becoming a shit Tory scum hole and that this will get a lot worse due to Brexit. Maybe that's partly why immigration is now falling? I wonder who will be blamed for the "shit hole" if it does get worse and the immigrants are no longer flowing in? Maybe people will turn on the Tories, but my guess is they'll just turn on immigrants who're already here, "benefits scroungers" and the rest. Never mind! I've got my Irish/EU passport, so if that happens I'll be off like a rat off a sinking ship, leaving the wreck to the people who caused it. 

 

 

Right! I'm banning myself from Foxes Talk for another fortnight. I'm obviously incapable of moderating my time in this thread.

Life has more to offer than continual conversations with blokes grumbling about immigration or engaging in hypocritical, partisan point-scoring (not referring to you there, Strokes). 

It is entirely possible I could be wrong on those aspects of citizenship/status etc., that was as I understood it. I also thought that if someone was processed in Greece that they could chose to move on to another European country including the UK, again I do not know enough about this so will shut up here! 

 

With regards to freedom of movement across Europe, what I was referring to was the Schengen area which does allow unrestricted movement across a large area, with varying living standards. In my view this is not a great idea.

 

I cant agree that the solution to Brexit and the supposed Tory Scum hole is a idealist Labour government that most likely will make us even poorer than Brexit will! This is why I am highly against both! 

[Innovindil]

Remember reading this before about the refugees in Germany. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36169684

 

Yes, in theory, refugees granted asylum in Germany could end up with German citizenship and the freedom to move around the eu. BUT, there is not only the original hurdle of being granted asylum, there is the 6-8 years wait before being able to apply for a German passport and then plenty of other conditions to be met before being granted. 

 

Possible in theory, but a fairly large red herring. 

[Captain...]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

It is entirely possible I could be wrong on those aspects of citizenship/status etc., that was as I understood it. I also thought that if someone was processed in Greece that they could chose to move on to another European country including the UK, again I do not know enough about this so will shut up here! 

That is the exact issue with that poster, and some of other tactics of the leave campaign, it wasn't interested in accuracy or informing the public it just wanted to stoke the fears and worries of people who are probably not that well informed on the nuances of freedom of travel around Europe. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Just now, Captain... said:

That is the exact issue with that poster, and some of other tactics of the leave campaign, it wasn't interested in accuracy or informing the public it just wanted to stoke the fears and worries of people who are probably not that well informed on the nuances of freedom of travel around Europe. 

Maybe some. I took no notice of it as I feel the benefits of other areas outweigh the negatives.

 

There are issues surrounding freedom of movement. Obviously the issues surrounding refuges is a different matter. Unfortunately at the time it was very big news, mainly due to the very poor handling of the situation from the EU and Merkel in particular. 

 

Perhaps Remain should have better concentrated on making sure people were informed of the true facts of situations instead of running the doom and gloom negative campaign they did! They should have promoted what the EU does, they should have promoted in each area what the EU funds there, what would be lost. Both campaigns where a complete sham to be completely fair. 

 

Either way. The poster is not racist. It is misrepresentative and distasteful in terms of Britain and Brexit but on the eastern frontiers there were situations like that depicted. I do not know if anyone actually knows where that photo was taken but it was an actual of a situation occurring. 

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

II still don't see the mural as "obviously antisemitic" (though elements of it might be dubious) and remain fascinated as to how anyone could be confident that 5 out of 6 of the men depicted are meant to be Jewish.....if they were, that would make it antisemitic, in my view - big difference between depicting 6 "filthy, exploitative capitalists", 2 of whom are Jewish and showing 5 out of 6 as Jewish....

 

You make some interesting points, which are hard to disagree with.

 

However, I don't think there is a debate of whether the mural is or is not "obviously antisemitic".   The mural is clearly alluding to a judeo-masonic conspiracy theory, forming a one world order, which has its basis in the elders of the protocols of zion, the fake document created and published by antisemites in Russia.  

 

From wiki:

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic canard, originally published in Russian in 1903, alleging a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to achieve world domination. The text purports to be the minutes of the secret meetings of a cabal of Jewish masterminds, which has co-opted Freemasonry and is plotting to rule the world on behalf of all Jews"

 

So I can see why at first glance, some might question whether it is antisemitic as not all the people around the table are Jewish, but I think that is probably as they do not understand the significance of the imagery.

 

I think the opinion piece below is quite interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/25/jeremy-corbyn-regret-antisemitic-incidents-jews

 

 

Edited 26 March 2018 by breadandcheese

[Guest MattP]

https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/shadow-cabinet-minister-corbyn-steeped-anti-semitism-anti-semitic-party/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

They don't even know the meaning of it do they? How do you to a position of shadow minister with this lack of knowledge?

 

[Jeremy Corbyn]’s been steeped in anti-Semitism… we must make sure we continue to show people we are an anti-Semitic party”

 

 

Edited 26 March 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

 

"Is your leader an anti-semite"

 

"I don't know, I don't think he is"

 

How has it come to this?

 

 

Edited 26 March 2018 by MattP

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

You make some interesting points, which are hard to disagree with.

 

However, I don't think there is a debate of whether the mural is or is not "obviously antisemitic".   The mural is clearly alluding to a judeo-masonic conspiracy theory, forming a one world order, which has its basis in the elders of the protocols of zion, the fake document created and published by antisemites in Russia.  

 

From wiki:

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an antisemitic canard, originally published in Russian in 1903, alleging a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy to achieve world domination. The text purports to be the minutes of the secret meetings of a cabal of Jewish masterminds, which has co-opted Freemasonry and is plotting to rule the world on behalf of all Jews"

 

So I can see why at first glance, some might question whether it is antisemitic as not all the people around the table are Jewish, but I think that is probably as they do not understand the significance of the imagery.

 

I think the opinion piece below is quite interesting.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/25/jeremy-corbyn-regret-antisemitic-incidents-jews

 

 

 

I'm on a self-imposed ban due to my inability to avoid wasting my time in this thread (my fault), but am lurking.....and had to make a brief return as you've raised an interesting new point.

 

I hadn't considered the possibility of imagery around Judeo-Masonic conspiracies, though I'd heard someone claim that the pyramid/eye represented freemasonry. So, my instinct when I read your comment was to think maybe it was a lot more offensive than I'd realised. I would certainly think that if the pyramid/eye image does represent freemasonry, in tandem with at least a couple of the men looking clearly Jewish.

 

But then I looked for neutral info on the image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_Providence

That Wiki entry has a section about current associations of the image with freemasonry. But it also highlights the fact that the image is used on the Great Seal of the USA (with words about a "New Order", as per mural) - and on the US Dollar Bill!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Seal_of_the_United_States

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_one-dollar_bill

 

So, does that image definitely represent freemasonry - or does it represent the USA and/or US money?

 

I'm not sure that I'd believe the artist (whom I imagine to be a kneejerk anti-US, anti-Israel, anti-capitalism Hard Left type) if he explained, but it's not clear, is it?

Am I being naive? Are there other elements that are clearly antisemitic? In your article, D'Ancona claims that the mural uses "grotesquely antisemitic imagery", but he doesn't say what that imagery is.....poor journalism.

 

I see six big business types, at least a couple identifiably Jewish but possibly only a couple, playing monopoly on the backs of the workers (literally), with a symbol that might represent freemasonry but might represent the USA or US money and other images depicting oppressed people, a protester, industrial machinery and factories. This might have been intended as "blame the Jews and Masons" extremist propaganda....but it might also have been intended as an anti-capitalist image.

 

I don't have any great sympathy for the artist, regardless, but I hate "groupthink" and a lack of critical thinking. I also hate censorship, unless absolutely necessary.

 

For me, too many people are just hearing that this mural is "obviously antisemitic", "depicts Jews", "is like Nazi propaganda" or even shows a "Judeo-Masonic conspiracy" - and accepting it unquestioningly.

Where does that lead? Prohibition of negative depiction of any Jew for any reason? Or of any Islamic figure? Or any Pakistani figure? Of any criticism of any interest group?

 

For anyone who thinks I'm just bending over backwards to protect lefties....not true!

20+ years ago, as a student, I opposed attempts by Labour Students to have a book by Holocaust denier David Irving banned from the university library. Not because I doubt the historical fact of the Holocaust, but because, except in clear cases of incitement to hatred/violence etc, freedom of expression should prevail, even if we don't like what a person is saying. Argue against offensive views, don't ban them!

Edited 26 March 2018 by Alf Bentley

[breadandcheese]

Alf, I think you are overthinking it.  The author could have explained it as you have, but chose not to, as it's not what he meant.  He's using the symbol as it' more contemporary and accepted way i.e. to represent the new world order. Let's be honest, if he wanted to represent America, there are many different symbols you could use, from the the American flag to the statue of liberty.  You wouldn't use an obscure symbol.

 

The problem is the author is so hard left that he doesn't recognise his anti-semitism.  He could have done an anti-capitalist mural using images of bankers from 2007 and the financial crash.  He could have used many other different images.  Instead, he used an image from a judeo-masonic conspiracy theory and didn't bat an eyelid when doing it, unable to see the significance of using it.  This is the problem as I see it, with the hard left, so wedded to the idea of capitalism and conspiracy theories, that they cannot see how wedded some of the ideas are to anti-semitism, just as the alt-right can't see the racism and anti-semitism lurking within their conspiracy theories.

 

So they think nothing of using imagery of the elders of the protocols of zion.  Bearing in mind, this is a forged document that has helped to foster violence and has led to countless murders of Jewish people, I think Jewish people have every right to be upset.  Now I'm not saying Jewish people are going to be murdered in Britain, that would be hyperbole, but the Jewish community can at the very least expect all political leaders not just to condemn the mural but attack the ideas that foster this, especially in Corbyn's case as it's his support base.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

 

"Is your leader an anti-semite"

 

"I don't know, I don't think he is"

 

How has it come to this?

 

 

Mann is a **** tbf

[Guest]

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

Alf, I think you are overthinking it.  The author could have explained it as you have, but chose not to, as it's not what he meant.  He's using the symbol as it' more contemporary and accepted way i.e. to represent the new world order. Let's be honest, if he wanted to represent America, there are many different symbols you could use, from the the American flag to the statue of liberty.  You wouldn't use an obscure symbol.

 

The problem is the author is so hard left that he doesn't recognise his anti-semitism.  He could have done an anti-capitalist mural using images of bankers from 2007 and the financial crash.  He could have used many other different images.  Instead, he used an image from a judeo-masonic conspiracy theory and didn't bat an eyelid when doing it, unable to see the significance of using it.  This is the problem as I see it, with the hard left, so wedded to the idea of capitalism and conspiracy theories, that they cannot see how wedded some of the ideas are to anti-semitism, just as the alt-right can't see the racism and anti-semitism lurking within their conspiracy theories.

 

So they think nothing of using imagery of the elders of the protocols of zion.  Bearing in mind, this is a forged document that has helped to foster violence and has led to countless murders of Jewish people, I think Jewish people have every right to be upset.  Now I'm not saying Jewish people are going to be murdered in Britain, that would be hyperbole, but the Jewish community can at the very least expect all political leaders not just to condemn the mural but attack the ideas that foster this, especially in Corbyn's case as it's his support base.

 

 

Maybe I am overthinking it (I'm sometimes guilty of that) or maybe you're underthinking it? People can make their own minds up - and my departure from this topic is long overdue. 

 

I found the artist's Twitter page and a Facebook video and post he did about this mural.....

https://twitter.com/mearone/status/977301388186214400

 

He does confirm that the symbol is meant to relate to Freemasons and it does all sound a bit "conspiracy theorist", though in the global capitalist conspiracy / military-industrial complex sense, not so much Judeo-Masonry. He's clearly well to the Left in his views, but does insist it's about capitalism/class, doesn't even mention Jews (apart from denying antisemitic intent) - and names J.P. Morgan among the demons alongside Rothschild & co. Can an assault on capitalists really be antisemitic if it names Jews and non-Jews?

 

I don't get a sense of him as an overt antisemite in any way. Hard to deny some of your comments, though: e.g. "the hard left, so wedded to the idea of capitalism and conspiracy theories that they cannot see how wedded some of the ideas are to antisemitism". I'm more of a cock-up theorist myself. He comes across to me as naive and idealistic, not hate-filled, so if he is flirting with antisemitism and conspiracy theories, it seems accidental and rooted in ultra-leftist ideas rather than racism. He also seems to genuinely - if naively - want to stimulate and engage in public debate about these issues. A major shame if his actions have unwittingly done harm - and maybe undermined the very debate he wanted to stimulate.

 

What would be good would be to see him given a proper grilling about his ideas: get him on with Andrew Neil or Andrew Marr! 

 

Enough already....I'm outta here (for now at least).

Edited 26 March 2018 by Alf Bentley

[fuchsntf]

5 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Remember reading this before about the refugees in Germany. 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36169684

 

Yes, in theory, refugees granted asylum in Germany could end up with German citizenship and the freedom to move around the eu. BUT, there is not only the original hurdle of being granted asylum, there is the 6-8 years wait before being able to apply for a German passport and then plenty of other conditions to be met before being granted. 

 

Possible in theory, but a fairly large red herring. 

Just for Info...

ITS Not a 6-8yr wait for a Passport. If/when then ITS German citizenship.

There are many criterias,before a request for citizenship can be submitted.usually minimum

8years of Integration ,with Work or proof of Financial means.Either as an Individual,

or Family.No criminal activity,are just the basics.For non-europeans.

 

For Europeans,with German Partners and Proof of employment one can Apply after 5-6yrs,

If it hasnt changed. I have been Here for 20+yrs ,my wife our children are German,and I am over 60.

So I didnt need to Go through or Take any Tests/exams...

 

I Just Received my citizenship,and Personal-id-card( which I can use has my travel Dokument in Europe)

I have dual-citizenship,so I can have,a British and German Passport.