Support NeoGAF

[Royal_Phalanx]

Why are you assuming that people who have a problem with the UK's policy with immigration are xenophobes, either? I ask for the same reasons as above - that by many metrics, the UK is as welcoming a country as you'll find. There are reasons beyond xenophobia as to why you might be against the existing immigration policy.

In my experience a ton of vocal Brexit supporters on the internet can be considered as such. Go on a reddit thread for example and you can find them. I've read plenty of drivel from people who can be considered to be white supremacists from their previous comments on the matter. They call immigration 'demographic replacement/an invasion' for example.

Pretty much. There are some sectors with a few problems, like international trucking. But the other side is that we in the West refuse farmer jobs that are now filled by people from Romania. In most countries it is on the government itself for not funding necessary services and maintaining rural areas.

Read an article saying Welsh farmers fear for their future (their union campaigned vigorously for Remain, I suspect many didn't listen). Also read an article in the FT about robots on wheels that make fruit picking even easier than before. This is the pretty cool robot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR34__vWCtc

So not like Brits will suddenly experience a growth of higher paying farm jobs that pay significantly above minimum wage like they're hoping. The farm bots are coming. If anything Romanian workers were delaying automation, keeping more of those jobs around. I think we in the UK will miss having free movement one day. Hell, I miss it already since I was hoping to go use it in a couple years. When automation gets more commonplace, oh, we will regret doing that.

Less choices and freedoms in a more automated world is a bad thing. I predict Brits will beg the government to get free movement back in 10-15 years.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Theresa May Grimaces her way through photo op.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ugh-photo-opportunity-in-school-a7582231.html

her mouth tho, literally in every pic:

da fuq

 

[RefigeKru]

Years of austerity and now this shit.

 

[scamander]

Lol no shit. I wonder how many of those are people who are afraid that they fucked up and are now lying to themselves.

She was talking about May specifically (without saying her name) as a reaction to how the prime ministers meeting with Juncker went.

 

[Rourkey]

Well I reckon this is about both sides not being arsed to spend years of their lives negotiating this rubbish, EU state a ludicrous figure that they know the UK will not pay, UK refuses crashes out both sides blame the other side for the misery and job losses, job done.

One think for sure Junker won't be going for dinner at Downing Street anytime soon.

 

[scamander]

Well I reckon this is about both sides not being arsed to spend years of their lives negotiating this rubbish, EU state a ludicrous figure that they know the UK will not pay, UK refuses crashes out both sides blame the other side for the misery and job losses, job done.

eh... no. There is no figure yet and as soon as there is, it won't be a random, ludicrous number "that they know the UK will not pay", but instead be exactly calculated. The UK made commitments and still has to pay the contractual determined amount of money in each of those cases. It's not really a hard to grasp concept. Why should the remaining 27 members step in?

 

[Stinkles]

Is it really that difficult to Google Tony Blair immigration policies?

That's not how evidence or even anecdotes work. You made an assertion, I have no responsibility to back it up with facts. You do.

 

[Famassu]

Evidently. But if you're trying to work out if a country's attitudes and responses to immigration are preferable to other country's attitudes and responses, it doesn't help to compare it to some mystical paradise that doesn't exist. The relative nature is important because there is no control. Or, to put it another way, when you have one country which has a historically very large proportion of immigrants, has large communities from all over the world living peacefully with "natives", has many cosmopolitan cities AND voted to leave the EU, then you have other countries where none of these things are the case and yet where support for remaining in the EU is very high (note my contrast), it demonstrates who there are significant question marks over the simple, black and white "voted to leave = racist" assumption that's so frequently made. Even dumb things like the treatment of black football players see's the UK (which used to have a big problem with it) be by far the most welcoming big league in Europe.

Edit: We are also a country that has never had a significant far right political presence do well in elections. Not all other countries have, but many have.

Just because you have large presence of people from different cultures doesn't really mean much in larger scheme of things. There might be more people who are totally ok with it, but there can still be a big portion of the population who are still racist or at least are easily affected by racist sentiments. US is even more of a melting pot than UK with lots of thriving communities from different cultures and still a significant portion of the country are more or less racist (not all of them are KKK/Neo-nazi level scum, but still racist) who voted for Trump largely for his "Mexican wall, get the immigrants the fuck out of US" campaign promises. It's a fact that "immigration" was the number one deciding factor for people voting leave in UK and you cannot honestly say that you don't think that was majorly driven by racism/xenophobia. If people were so widely ok with immigrants and there was no racist thought in their heads, they wouldn't feel SO strongly about it that they'd make such a dramatic decision as to wanting to leave EU.

I mean, I do personally think there are ways we should improve immigration control, but I don't hate immigrants so much that I want my country to leave EU and leave the country at the hands of the current rightwing dickwads.

 

[RenditMan]

Just because you have large presence of people from different cultures doesn't really mean much in larger scheme of things. There might be more people who are totally ok with it, but there can still be a big portion of the population who are still racist or at least are easily affected by racist sentiments. US is even more of a melting pot than UK with lots of thriving communities from different cultures and still a significant portion of the country are more or less racist (not all of them are KKK/Neo-nazi level scum, but still racist) who voted for Trump largely for his "Mexican wall, get the immigrants the fuck out of US" campaign promises. It's a fact that "immigration" was the number one deciding factor for people voting leave in UK and you cannot honestly say that you don't think that was majorly driven by racism/xenophobia. If people were so widely ok with immigrants and there was no racist thought in their heads, they wouldn't feel SO strongly about it that they'd make such a dramatic decision as to wanting to leave EU.

I mean, I do personally think there are ways we should improve immigration control, but I don't hate immigrants so much that I want my country to leave EU and leave the country at the hands of the current rightwing dickwads.

You are struggling to make a distinction. People can be concerned that there's too many foreigners arriving for reasons other than the fact they are foreign. Indeed it was being reported that immigrants already here were voting leave for the same reasons.

The UK has had a large immigrant population for decades and it wasn't a huge problem until the explosion of immigration during the Blair years were people started to feel it was too much too fast.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

Intellectually & morally dishonest tacitly racist passive agressive baby boomer cunt stains. That's why we are here at this point in time.

Go fuck yourself with "they're taking our jobs" bullshit. I can't wait to hear the non existent tears when next gen automation systems take 1/3 of basic jobs which is far more damage than a whole horde of economic migrants.

Oh and over crowding, despite all urban centres being mostly pro remain?

Yeah I'm sure in the shire towns they're fucking drowning in immigrants. My God were an 86% white country.

With the next biggest demographic hailing from... fucking India.

It's total bullshit. Fuck thatcherite douche nozzles.

 

[Bobnob]

You are struggling to make a distinction. People can be concerned that there's too many foreigners arriving for reasons other than the fact they are foreign. Indeed it was being reported that immigrants already here were voting leave for the same reasons.

The UK has had a large immigrant population for decades and it wasn't a huge problem until the explosion of immigration during the Blair years were people started to feel it was too much too fast.

And at the current rate GB will become the most overcrowded place in EU by 2050. Sky (i know) was reporting the 100bn figure was a starting point and it could be a third of that. I know thats still crazy. 9bn for pensions 27.4 bn mostly for EU farmers.Commitments the uk made.

https://www.ft.com/content/29fc1abc-2fe0-11e7-9555-23ef563ecf9a

 

[ittoryu]

And at the current rate GB will become the most overcrowded place in EU by 2050.]

No, not overcrowded, simply the biggest population in terms of number.

 

[Famassu]

You are struggling to make a distinction. People can be concerned that there's too many foreigners arriving for reasons other than the fact they are foreign. Indeed it was being reported that immigrants already here were voting leave for the same reasons.

The UK has had a large immigrant population for decades and it wasn't a huge problem until the explosion of immigration during the Blair years were people started to feel it was too much too fast.

And you're ignoring how many of those reasons are drowned in misconceptions/exaggerations about the scale/severity of issues foreigners ACTUALLY cause to the average person that are largely rooted in very much racist notions like "they be comin' to take our jobs".

 

[CyclopsRock]

I mean, I do personally think there are ways we should improve immigration control, but I don't hate immigrants so much that I want my country to leave EU and leave the country at the hands of the current rightwing dickwads.

Whilst that's very brave of you to admit, my entire point was that there doesn't seem to be a correlation between *happily integrated* (and that was the key, not just that there's loads of ethnic diversity) cultures and a desire to leave the EU. As such, it throws into doubt that implicit claim you're making here - that wanting greater controls on immigration must come from a place of disliking the people who come here (whether they're racist, xenophobic, whatever).

 

[RenditMan]

And you're ignoring how many of those reasons are drowned in misconceptions/exaggerations about the scale/severity of issues foreigners ACTUALLY cause to the average person that are largely rooted in very much racist notions like "they be comin' to take our jobs".

I don't think you'll find many politicians left or right minded today that with the benefit of hindsight would see Blairs immigration policies as anything other than a mistake.

Particularly now that the voters are punishing the establishment for it.

The Germans implemented strict controls on Eastern European migration, are they racist?

At the end of the day if immigration only provided benefits we wouldn't be where we are today. It doesn't though, it started causing problems, the problems have got to the point where they have caused problems at the voters polls.

 

[Jezbollah]

Years of austerity and now this shit.

The irony being those who suffered most during those years of austerity are the ones who tended to vote for Brexit..

 

[KZObsessed]

A massive €100bn Brexit bill is "legally impossible" to enforce, the European Commission's own lawyers have admitted.

The Telegraph has seen minutes of internal deliberations circulated by Brussels's own Brexit negotiating team, which had warned against pursuing the UK for extra payments.

But member states appear to have ignored the Commission's own advice by demanding €100bn (£85bn) from the Government, a sharp hike in the original demand of €60bn.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

What a shock. Both EU and Britain and going to be fucked if this continues.

 

[PJV3]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

What a shock. Both EU and Britain and going to be fucked if this continues.

Has anyone actually demanded 100 billion, I thought it was one of several suggested figures.

 

[nOoblet16]

51.89% vs 48.11%, in terms of count that's 1,269,501 votes in a nation with a total population of 65.1 million people.

That little little difference there is the reason for all this and will be the reason behind all the shit that's about to come for years and years. And all this started because Cameron promised a referendum to win an election, then bailed and the people following him didn't do shit to mitigate things.

 

[DBT85]

Has anyone actually demanded 100 billion, I thought it was one of several suggested figures.

Of course they haven't. It's just tossing numbers around for what the eventual bill to get out of the countless contracts will be.

The papers reports "EU demand 100M" when in reality its "UK signed deals and needs to pay up as contractually obliged"

 

[Uzzy]

Has anyone actually demanded 100 billion, I thought it was one of several suggested figures.

It's think tanks working out the figures based on what's being said. Besides, it's an opening figure for negotiation. Here's the chart from the FT.

And of course it's not legally enforceable. That's irrelevant though, as paying up or not will have a political cost.

 

[PJV3]

Of course they haven't. It's just tossing numbers around for what the eventual bill to get out of the countless contracts will be.

The papers reports "EU demand 100M" when in reality its "UK signed deals and needs to pay up as contractually obliged"

If I'm remembering correctly the divorce part of Brexit can go through on a qualified majority, so even if a country was being a dick about money it doesn't matter anyway.

We will pay roughly what we have committed to and that will be it.

 

[nOoblet16]

Is it really that difficult to Google Tony Blair immigration policies?

I know others are ignoring you but I'm gonna take some time to write this so that you can read this and maybe think about it a bit.

1) He didn't ask you what the immigration policies were, he asked you if there there is any evidence that those immigration policies are what led to what you are claiming. He is asking you for a link between the two, not whether the immigration was lax or not.

2) Immigration policies would have specifically affected non-EU immigrants because no matter what government was in power they would not have been able to enforce EU migration because of freedom of movement. EU immigration and non-EU immigration
two different things.

When someone asks you "Who fired the gun?" you don't reply saying "The gun can shoot bullets".

 

[EmiPrime]

51.89% vs 48.11%, in terms of count that's 1,269,501 votes in a nation with a total population of 65.1 million people.

That little little difference there is the reason for all this and will be the reason behind all the shit that's about to come for years and years. And all this started because Cameron promised a referendum to win an election, then bailed and the people following him didn't do shit to mitigate things.

And it would never have happened had EU citizens and 16 and 17 year olds been able to vote.

Thanks baby boomers.

 

[Dryk]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

What a shock. Both EU and Britain and going to be fucked if this continues.

Legally impossible to enforce yes, the true cost is gaining a reputation for being that country that doesn't pay its debts.

 

[Mivey]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

What a shock. Both EU and Britain and going to be fucked if this continues.

And here I thought the EU would send Junker and a few other EU commissionaires to break into the Bank of England at night, and get the money that way. They call themselves, Junker's 27.

 

[Uzzy]

And here I thought the EU would send Junker and a few other EU commissionaires to break into the Bank of England at night, and get the money that way. They call themselves, Junker's 27.

Looking cool, Juncker!

 

[oti]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

What a shock. Both EU and Britain and going to be fucked if this continues.

Why? The EU and especially Germany will have to pay more after the UK leaves, that's not a secret.

But you don't want to be the nation that didn't pay its bills. Why would anyone trust you from that point on? You think the markets will just go "oh they didn't pay their bills, who cares, let me invest a ton of money into that country"?

 

[dragonelite]

Legally impossible to enforce yes, the true cost is gaining a reputation for being that country that doesn't pay its debts.

It's all about trust who would invest or loan money to someone that can't be trusted.

 

[DBT85]

And it would never have happened had EU citizens and 16 and 17 year olds been able to vote.

Thanks baby boomers.

Being able to vote doesn't do shit if the turnout is shit. Just more of the people already allowed to vote might have turned the tide.

 

[The Hamburglar]

I know others are ignoring you but I'm gonna take some time to write this so that you can read this and maybe think about it a bit.

1) He didn't ask you what the immigration policies were, he asked you if there there is any evidence that those immigration policies are what led to what you are claiming. He is asking you for a link between the two, not whether the immigration was lax or not.

2) Immigration policies would have specifically affected non-EU immigrants because no matter what government was in power they would not have been able to enforce EU migration because of freedom of movement. EU immigration and non-EU immigration
two different things.

When someone asks you "Who fired the gun?" you don't reply saying "The gun can shoot bullets".

Didn't the labour government at the time (early 2000s) lie to the electorate saying only tens of thousands would come. Instead we're currently at around 300k a year.

Pretty sure during the 2015 campaign labour were repeating quite a lot they got immigration wrong because they knew it was biting them in the arse at the election. Brown fucked up at the 2010 election for not addressing the issue and even calling that woman bigoted. He gave us a good laugh though.

There will always be a section of ex labour voters who won't bother with labour any more because of this. Whenever they be voting Tory, abstaining or even ukip.

 

[daviyoung]

But you don't want to be the nation that didn't pay its bills. Why would anyone trust you from that point on? You think the markets will just go "oh they didn't pay their bills, who cares, let me invest a ton of money into that country"?

it's definitely something I can see a lot of companies overlooking

 

[KonradLaw]

it's definitely something I can see a lot of companies overlooking

When investing? Sure. But borrowing money will suddenly become a lot more expensive for UK, to make up for the fact it might not get paid back.

 

[theaface]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ally-impossible-enforce-european-commissions/

What a shock. Both EU and Britain and going to be fucked if this continues.

I don't recall anyone saying it would be legally enforceable. Either way, it's irrelevant. Not paying up for things already agreed and committed to is the fastest possible way to kill any chance of a trade deal with the EU as damage similar conversations with the rest of the world. The EU holds all the cards and it's their red lines that matter.

 

[CyclopsRock]

51.89% vs 48.11%, in terms of count that's 1,269,501 votes in a nation with a total population of 65.1 million people.

That little little difference there is the reason for all this and will be the reason behind all the shit that's about to come for years and years. And all this started because Cameron promised a referendum to win an election, then bailed and the people following him didn't do shit to mitigate things.

Would you be making the same argument if the result was the other way around? I mean yeah, it's frustrating being pulled out of the EU because a mere 17.4 million people voted to leave but, well, they'd been in a union they didn't want to be in for the last ~30 years. I imagine how we feel now is something like how they've felt for that time, no?

 

[Link]

Years of austerity and now this shit.

That's exactly the intention. Right-wing parties cutting services and letting the rich keep all the money at the top, then blaming immigrants, minorities, and the poor for the middle class's struggles.

And it works like a charm too.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

Would you be making the same argument if the result was the other way around? I mean yeah, it's frustrating being pulled out of the EU because a mere 17.4 million people voted to leave but, well, they'd been in a union they didn't want to be in for the last ~30 years. I imagine how we feel now is something like how they've felt for that time, no?

There are tangible things that the pro-EU side is losing. What tangible things have anti-EU people lost? It's pretty understandable to be angry that you're being pulled out of the EU against your will, more so than any anti-EU person.

Pro-EU will lose:
-Freedom of movement-we'll be essentially put onto American/Canadian tier in Europe with no rights of residence/work on our own continent
-To study in the EU at low prices
-Guarantees of workers' rights
-Guaranteed Human Rights legislation (we all know the Tories want rid of them)
-Scientific and research cooperation
-Very close economic links, closer than with anywhere else in the world
-EU funding for poor regions

 

[CyclopsRock]

There are tangible things that the pro-EU side is losing. What tangible things have anti-EU people lost? It's pretty understandable to be angry that you're being pulled out of the EU against your will, more so than any anti-EU person.

Pro-EU will lose:
-Freedom of movement-we'll be essentially put onto American/Canadian tier in Europe with no rights of residence/work on our own continent
-To study in the EU at low prices
-Guarantees of workers' rights
-Guaranteed Human Rights legislation (we all know the Tories want rid of them)
-Scientific and research cooperation
-Very close economic links, closer than with anywhere else in the world
-EU funding for poor regions

Yeah I know, that's why I voted remain. But the guy I was quoting seemed to think that 17.4m wasn't bigger than 16.1m by a sufficient margin and therefore the 16.1m should get what they want, not the 17.4m. Which is clearly nonsense.

 

[Westbahnhof]

Yeah I know, that's why I voted remain. But the guy I was quoting seemed to think that 17.4m wasn't bigger than 16.1m by a sufficient margin and therefore the 16.1m should get what they want, not the 17.4m. Which is clearly nonsense.

I feel that the important difference is that in one case, a lot fewer changes happen.
Staying in the EU is not some huge step, therefore some might argue it requires less support.

Personally was baffled when I heard Brexit would actually happen based on a referendum that didst have requirements like a minimum voter turnout or a certain leave-threshold a bunch higher than 50%.

 

[plagiarize]

Didn't the labour government at the time (early 2000s) lie to the electorate saying only tens of thousands would come. Instead we're currently at around 300k a year.

Pretty sure during the 2015 campaign labour were repeating quite a lot they got immigration wrong because they knew it was biting them in the arse at the election. Brown fucked up at the 2010 election for not addressing the issue and even calling that woman bigoted. He gave us a good laugh though.

There will always be a section of ex labour voters who won't bother with labour any more because of this. Whenever they be voting Tory, abstaining or even ukip.

It wasn't a lie. It was a prediction based on all the main countries in Europe not opting out, and many did.

That's how these things go sometimes. Like this bill. If it turns out to be substantially more or less than 100 billion, that doesn't make that number a lie. Just an estimate made before key factors changed.

 

[SporeCrawler]

I feel that the important difference is that in one case, a lot fewer changes happen.
Staying in the EU is not some huge step, therefore some might argue it requires less support.

Personally was baffled when I heard Brexit would actually happen based on a referendum that didst have requirements like a minimum voter turnout or a certain leave-threshold a bunch higher than 50%.

Also millions of non resident UK citizens were not allowed to vote despite the fact that they are directly affected

 

[w1ck3dn1nj4]

But you don't want to be the nation that didn't pay its bills. Why would anyone trust you from that point on? You think the markets will just go "oh they didn't pay their bills, who cares, let me invest a ton of money into that country"?

Of course all legal obligations should be paid, but I don’t see how one can claim the high ground if you can’t even dispute that your demands are illegal in the first place. It then just becomes a question of POV, my interpretation vs yours. If a company sends you a bill which you find ridiculous and you bring them to court and it later transpires they have no legal grounds to such demands, you’re the dishonest guy? Nah

 

[plagiarize]

Also millions of non resident UK citizens were not allowed to vote despite the fact that they are directly affected

And by the time it goes into effect, how many of the people that voted to leave will still be in the work force, (or still breathing). That's the part that really crushes me. The work force wanted to remain by a large margin.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I feel that the important difference is that in one case, a lot fewer changes happen.
Staying in the EU is not some huge step, therefore some might argue it requires less support.

Personally was baffled when I heard Brexit would actually happen based on a referendum that didst have requirements like a minimum voter turnout or a certain leave-threshold a bunch higher than 50%.

It's an inherently conservative argument to suggest that - sort of like in the US - constitutional changes require not just a majority of people to think a certain way but rather more than that. The idea that a minority of people can get their way despite an expressed will by the majority merely because what the minority want is the status quo is one designed to make change difficult. Where you fall on this will often depend on your view of the status quo, naturally. It's worth remembering, perhaps, that the referendum to remain in the EC in 1975 had no such stipulations.

 

[CyclopsRock]

And by the time it goes into effect, how many of the people that voted to leave will still be in the work force, (or still breathing). That's the part that really crushes me. The work force wanted to remain by a large margin.

Surely those that die will be replaced by new retirees, no? It's not like the old die and everyone else stays the same age. The old people dying now are the ones who voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EC in the first place, after all, so I don't think hating European integration is just inherent to that group of people.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

It's an inherently conservative argument to suggest that - sort of like in the US - constitutional changes require not just a majority of people to think a certain way but rather more than that. The idea that a minority of people can get their way despite an expressed will by the majority merely because what the minority want is the status quo is one designed to make change difficult. Where you fall on this will often depend on your view of the status quo, naturally. It's worth remembering, perhaps, that the referendum to remain in the EC in 1975 had no such stipulations.

Constitutional change shouldn't be 'easy', especially ones of this magnitude. The US system ensures that there's broad consensus on such changes. In fact I think referendums should be banned, like a number of European countries do. Want change, vote it in via the ballot box. Although, having proportional representation makes change easier to get.

The old people of today's argument for voting out of today's EU is that it changed since they voted for the EEC because 'back then it was about trade and a single market only'. It's not unreasonable to expect that today's young people growing up under the EU of today and get a taste of experiencing many different countries and cultures via Erasmus, etc. would look more favourably on the EU of now.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Constitutional change shouldn't be 'easy', especially ones of this magnitude. The US system ensures that there's broad consensus on such changes.

It also often means that there aren't any changes which is why they're still arguing about what a "well regulated militia" is 230 years later. There's benefits to both options, but making change difficult is an inherently conservative position to take.

 

[Xando]

Of course all legal obligations should be paid, but I don’t see how one can claim the high ground if you can’t even dispute that your demands are illegal in the first place. It then just becomes a question of POV, my interpretation vs yours. If a company sends you a bill which you find ridiculous and you bring them to court and it later transpires they have no legal grounds to such demands, you’re the dishonest guy? Nah

Who claimed the UK was legally obliged to pay though?
The EU laid out it's terms for agreeing to negotiate a FTA and said it wants the UK to pay x amount.
If the EU feels it is legally able to demand something from the UK and the UK declines it can sue.
If not and the EU still wants payments from the UK for a FTA the UK can decline to pay and have no FTA.

Legally or not the EU can set the terms for which it will negotiate a FTA.

Your example also doesn't make sense. It would be more like you need something from company xy that is vital to your economic future, company xy says you have to pay z to get it. If you don't you won't get the item you need because the company can simply rely on its other customers.

 

[GeordieMark]

When investing? Sure. But borrowing money will suddenly become a lot more expensive for UK, to make up for the fact it might not get paid back.

This isn't about borrowing money. It's misrepresenting the situation to say that. We aren't talking about defaulting on a loan here. It's a bit more complicated, hence the negotiation. It's a far more complex situation more akin to an arguement about liabilities after divorce.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

It also often means that there aren't any changes which is why they're still arguing about what a "well regulated militia" is 230 years later. There's benefits to both options, but making change difficult is an inherently conservative position to take.

It's also down to the US culture of individualism as well. Ironically there have been American voices who call the Tory party 'filthy leftists' because the mainstream wing of the party is strongly for gun control. Europe tends to be more accepting of strict gun laws (except Switzerland, Austria and the Czech Republic, and even then they're stricter than the US) because there's more of a 'collective' culture.