Support NeoGAF

[Auctopus]

the OAPs would write thousands of letters to the Daily Mail in anger. You are referring to the EDL/UKIP/Britain First , I assume?

I doubt it's a very significant portion, at the same time, you don't need that many for there to be violent riots.

I'd say there's a fair amount on each side.

All it needs is the right spark.

Yes to all. Violent letters and hundreds of thousands of angry letters.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

No, I am saying that the UK won't quit on these terms, it will quit on different terms. If you ask what the UK will do if the EU says "EEA and no free movement or get out", that's just their opening sentence. As I said, the interest is mutual. (To be perfectly clear, if you now ask "but what if they insist and will keep saying EEA and no free movement or get out", then my answer is that this won't happen. Because the interest is mutual.)

What is this "or get out"? The UK is getting out, that was their decision.

It feels like you are being dense, unjustifiably optimistic, or deliberately misleading to try and set up a narrative of a "vindictive and unfair EU".

 

[Walshicus]

The above is not the case. The interest is going to be mutual for the foreseeable future, because there is trade, there are social connections, common interests, etc.

It's *far* more in the EU's interest to maintain the cohesion of the Union by not eroding it through concessions to the "U"K.

We need to get it in our heads that there are a handful of models that our relationship will be built on:

• WTO rules
• Customs Union
• EFTA
• EEA
• EU

With optional tweaks for things like a Reverse Greenland for Scotland/Ireland/London.

 

[Harmen]

The EU will sit at the table, that some in the EU said they will not is their starting position, I believe the UK will find a way to get them to listen.



The above is not the case. The interest is going to be mutual for the foreseeable future, because there is trade, there are social connections, common interests, etc.

There really isn't any reason to believe this will happen at this point in time. How will they "find a way"? And how do you think the common business interests stack up against the interest of the EU in terms of maintaining a strong union and protecting themselves against the far right wing?

No offense, but your agruments read like as if you think the UK could easily just pick the option they want the most, which is not true. The EU is on the other side of the (rather unequal) negotiation table and I have seen very few compelling arguments as for why they would comply to all of the UK's needs. Hell, with the potential of other cities becoming a financial hub of the EU, some EU countries are actually bound to see a long term benefit in the UK leaving. And since the UK has no vote in EU matters anymore as soon as they leave, they will have to fare with what the EU decides on these trade matters.

 

[Funky Papa]

A certain image that is going viral

And this is why all this talk about kicking the filthy foreigners out should have never ever become a thing.

 

[SomTervo]

I may be super ignorant in this, but if Labour get in at the next general election

Sorry, but I was too busy being in stitches at this idea to read the rest of your post

 

[accel]

Allowing the UK to retain passporting and restricting movement of people are both things that the EU has to offer. Neither is something the UK has to offer as a concession. The UK has very little to bargain with. If after two years of wrangling a deal hasn't been reached, the latter will happen and they'll lose the former.

Similarly this bizarre notion that in leaving, you offer the concession of... leaving, and no longer having any influence on EU policy, is not a concession.

I didn't mean "give us EEA without freedom and we will leave and we promise not to block anything".

I meant "here, we have been partners for a long time, there are many things we've benefited from and here are things that you benefited from (we buy your products, etc), now our country voted to leave the EU, let's work something that makes sense for everybody? for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations and basically demote to EEA, adopting your regulations as they come, but since we are buying so much of your products, etc, are a big destination for workers from all over the EU, we'd like to not only be able to participate in the single market but also put some limits onto the amount of people who come into the country".

I don't think this is all that unreasonable. Yes, other countries in EEA don't have this, but the UK is bigger than them.

What is this "or get out"? The UK is getting out, that was their decision.

By "or get out" in the phrase you quoted, I meant "and we refuse to agree on anything else". That it won't happen (and EU isn't really "vindictive") is my point (or belief).

 

[SomTervo]

A certain image that is going viral

And this is why all this talk about kicking the filthy foreigners out should have never ever become a thing.

For those who are wondering, this is a group of surgical staff at a hospital in Hackney, London.

 

[Maledict]

I didn't mean "give us EEA without freedom and we will leave and we promise not to block anything".

I meant "here, we have been partners for a long time, there are many things we've benefited from and here are things that you benefited from (we buy your products, etc), now our country voted to leave the EU, let's work something that makes sense for everybody? for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations and basically demote to EEA, adopting your regulations as they come, but since we are buying so much of your products, etc, are a big destination for workers from all over the EU, we'd like to not only be able to participate in the single market but also put some limits onto the amount of people who come into the country".

I don't think this is all that unreasonable. Yes, other countries in EEA don't have this, but the UK is bigger than them.

That is wildly and totally unreasonable. Every single EU official has said the same thing. It goes against every tenet of the EU. Furthermore, it's also self-evidently unbelievably suicidal for the EU to do this - it would empower right wing nationalists across the continent.

You are hugely overstating the UKs power in these negotiations, massively emphasising the EUs desire to keep the UK in the single market, and ignoring the wider strategic incentives to do the opposite of what you are saying. Your proposition goes against everything anyone on the EU side has said, either before or after this referendum, and also against the fact that we were unable to get this agreement when we were in the EU - why would we get it now? ? ?

 

[ClosingADoor]

I didn't mean "give us EEA without freedom and we will leave and we promise not to block anything".

I meant "here, we have been partners for a long time, there are many things we've benefited from and here are things that you benefited from (we buy your products, etc), now our country voted to leave the EU, let's work something that makes sense for everybody? for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations and basically demote to EEA, adopting your regulations as they come, but since we are buying so much of your products, etc, are a big destination for workers from all over the EU, we'd like to not only be able to participate in the single market but also put some limits onto the amount of people who come into the country".

I don't think this is all that unreasonable. Yes, other countries in EEA don't have this, but the UK is bigger than them.

The bolded here is the problem. The rest doesn't matter. The UK wants to leave. From that point onward, both parties will do what is in their best interest - as they should. And for now, the EU has no reason to give up free movement and such.

 

[kmag]

I didn't mean "give us EEA without freedom and we will leave and we promise not to block anything".

I meant "here, we have been partners for a long time, there are many things we've benefited from and here are things that you benefited from (we buy your products, etc), now our country voted to leave the EU, let's work something that makes sense for everybody? for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations and basically demote to EEA, adopting your regulations as they come, but since we are buying so much of your products, etc, are a big destination for workers from all over the EU, we'd like to not only be able to participate in the single market but also put some limits onto the amount of people who come into the country".

I don't think this is all that unreasonable. Yes, other countries in EEA don't have this, but the UK is bigger than them.

The other countries in the EEA have a veto on EEA accession. So the UK's comparative size doesn't really matter. If you're giving the UK a better deal you're going to have to give it Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway to push it through, and if they're getting a better deal then Holland, Denmark, Sweden etc will want a better deal internally (and they have a veto) etc. Then the whole thing falls apart. What you're asking for is open season on the fundamentals of the EU because the UK is super special.

 

[Joni]

Realistic deal:
- Scotland becomes independent
- Northern Ireland goes to Ireland
- Gibraltar becomes Spain to appease them for Scotland.
- Banking passport is revoked
- UK pays EEA-like money into EU, which is the same per capita as their EU deal.
- Deal is a bit less than EEA but close
- No freedom of movement but everyone that is there can stay. Or freedom of movement, but no benefits until there X years.
That is a passable deal for the EU.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

I didn't mean "give us EEA without freedom and we will leave and we promise not to block anything".

I meant "here, we have been partners for a long time, there are many things we've benefited from and here are things that you benefited from (we buy your products, etc), now our country voted to leave the EU, let's work something that makes sense for everybody? for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations and basically demote to EEA, adopting your regulations as they come, but since we are buying so much of your products, etc, are a big destination for workers from all over the EU, we'd like to not only be able to participate in the single market but also put some limits onto the amount of people who come into the country".

I don't think this is all that unreasonable. Yes, other countries in EEA don't have this, but the UK is bigger than them.

This will already be clear at this point...it is not a point of negotiation.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Realistic deal:
- Scotland becomes independent
- Northern Ireland goes to Ireland
- Gibraltar becomes Spain
- Banking passport is revoked
- UK pays EEA-like money into EU, which is about 350 million pounds per week.
- Deal is a bit less than EEA but close
- No freedom of movement.
That is a passable deal for the EU.

I don't think it is in either the UKs or Irelands interest to give Northern Ireland to Ireland.

Freedom of movement is too big to give up also for the EU. It doesn't make sense.

 

[Audioboxer]

A certain image that is going viral

And this is why all this talk about kicking the filthy foreigners out should have never ever become a thing.

Yeah it's been going around for a while. Powerful message though.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

By "or get out" in the phrase you quoted, I meant "and we refuse to agree on anything else". That it won't happen (and EU isn't really "vindictive") is my point (or belief).

And what makes you think that? In all the deals with external countries the EU has been clear, no EEA without free movement of labour. It is also what the EU has explicitly stated. You have no grounds for believing this is flexible.

 

[Doc_Drop]

I didn't mean "give us EEA without freedom and we will leave and we promise not to block anything".

I meant "here, we have been partners for a long time, there are many things we've benefited from and here are things that you benefited from (we buy your products, etc), now our country voted to leave the EU, let's work something that makes sense for everybody? for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations and basically demote to EEA, adopting your regulations as they come, but since we are buying so much of your products, etc, are a big destination for workers from all over the EU, we'd like to not only be able to participate in the single market but also put some limits onto the amount of people who come into the country".

I don't think this is all that unreasonable. Yes, other countries in EEA don't have this, but the UK is bigger than them.

Unhinged fantasy tbh. I don't understand how you can believe that there is any real position we as the UK have in order to dictate the levels of independence and inclusion you are framing

 

[twobear]

A certain image that is going viral

And this is why all this talk about kicking the filthy foreigners out should have never ever become a thing.

well, the leave campaign can at least protest that they weren't strictly lying about the number of immigrants involved in the nhs

 

[SomTervo]

The UK can not strike deals but they can prepare them. There will be talks and negotiations before article 50 (as well as after, obviously).

You seem to have a magical, utopian ideal of what 'negotiations' are.

Unlike in many spheres, 'negotiations' in politics are not happy compromises. It's about the side with more weight getting what it wants, and the other side getting some potential cast-off benefits.

In this case, what does the EU really want? It wants to keep the EU together. Giving the UK any slack in these negotiations will say 'Hey, look, leaving the EU is fine, you'll be OK!'

By reversal, what the EU want to say with these negotiations is: 'Hey, look, leaving the EU is a fucking bad idea! It will fuck you up! You won't be OK!' Because pushing that message is the only way to ensure other states don't leave. And to push that message the UK will get a shitty (or at least mediocre) deal.

 

[Joni]

I don't think it is in either the UKs or Irelands interest to give Northern Ireland to Ireland.

Freedom of movement is too big to give up also for the EU. It doesn't make sense.

Subsidies saved from Wales can be used to subsidize Northern Ireland.
Freedom of Movement is too big to give up in an EEA deal, but not if the UK gets less than that. But with limited tariffs, less than the standard but not 0% either0.

 

[The Hobo]

Realistic deal:
- Scotland becomes independent
- Northern Ireland goes to Ireland
- Gibraltar becomes Spain to appease them for Scotland.
- Banking passport is revoked
- UK pays EEA-like money into EU, which is the same per capita as their EU deal.
- Deal is a bit less than EEA but close
- No freedom of movement but everyone that is there can stay. Or freedom of movement, but no benefits until there X years.
That is a passable deal for the EU.

Ireland can't afford to take Northern Ireland.

 

[Palculator]

A certain image that is going viral

And this is why all this talk about kicking the filthy foreigners out should have never ever become a thing.

7 jobs stolen from the pure English!!

Spoiler

Joking, obviously. Heart-warming image since the day it first popped up.

 

[Patryn]

I didn't mean "give us EEA without freedom and we will leave and we promise not to block anything".

I meant "here, we have been partners for a long time, there are many things we've benefited from and here are things that you benefited from (we buy your products, etc), now our country voted to leave the EU, let's work something that makes sense for everybody? for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations and basically demote to EEA, adopting your regulations as they come, but since we are buying so much of your products, etc, are a big destination for workers from all over the EU, we'd like to not only be able to participate in the single market but also put some limits onto the amount of people who come into the country".

I don't think this is all that unreasonable. Yes, other countries in EEA don't have this, but the UK is bigger than them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the UK already just giving that up by leaving the EU? So that isn't really a concession, merely a statement of fact.

 

[iz.podpolja]

I propose that, given how undemocratic, bureaucratic and monstrous EU is, any future deal between EU & UK should be decided by the people in referenda [or is it referendums?] in all EU27, EEA & EFTA member countries.
After all the voice of the people should be heard, shouldn't it?

 

[KingSnake]

for example, we agree to give up being able to participate in forming out various regulations

Clearly you don't understand what you voted for. UK leaves the EU and thus has no word to say in any EU regulations anymore. That's what you voted for. And it's happening once you invoke article 50. There's nothing to negotiate about it.

 

[shinra-bansho]

Giving up your influence in the EU isn't a bargaining chip or confession to negotiations upon notifying you're leaving the EU. I don't know how many people have to repeat this how many times.

It's akin to handing in your two weeks notice. Then saying keep paying me and let me keep using the office. Or I won't leave. And I'll piss on the photocopier.

The only plausible thing the UK has to offer is larger than normal contribution to the EU budget as part of an EEA deal. And that's just to retain passporting. There will be no EEA type market access without free movement of people.

 

[kadotsu]

After all is said and done there won't be much change except for:

-The UK paying more per capita to have access to the market
-The UK having any influence in EU policy

They will get Norway but will have to pay more.

 

[Joni]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the UK already just giving that up by leaving the EU? So that isn't really a concession, merely a statement of fact.

Indeed. There are 28 countries that have a say in EU policy, the EU member states. Norway, Switzerland, ... don't.

 

[Theonik]

Ireland can't afford to take Northern Ireland.

Well. That depends. The EU can front much of the cost of taking NI.

 

[Phantast2k]

A certain image that is going viral

And this is why all this talk about kicking the filthy foreigners out should have never ever become a thing.

It's already a thing though:

 

[Bleepey]

Families of Jewish refugees who fled the Nazis want to leave UK for Germany after Brexit

Surprising considering a majority of Jewish people voted for Brexit if i recall.

 

[accel]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the UK already just giving that up by leaving the EU? So that isn't really a concession, merely a statement of fact.

Leaving can be done in different ways. For an extreme example, if someone in the UK just presses the button and does nothing for the next two years, all the things that the UK imports will suddenly get more expensive for the UK buyers, that hurts EU businesses that export to the UK. Yes, the same will go the other way around too, the point is that it goes both ways (although unequally) and since it goes both ways, not only the UK is interested in exiting the EU in a way that doesn't harm it too much, but the EU as well are interested in the UK exiting in a way that doesn't harm the EU too much. One way to exit would be to exit gradually, through the EEA or something crafted specifically for the occasion that would be similar to the EEA. This way seems to me to be the best option for everyone, that's all.

Giving up your influence in the EU isn't a bargaining chip or confession to negotiations upon notifying you're leaving the EU. I don't know how many people have to repeat this how many times.

That's a wrong way to look at it. See above (this post).

 

[*Splinter]

How does Ireland feel about being unified? I thought hat was a "somewhat" contentious subject...

 

[mrklaw]

Realistic deal:
- Scotland becomes independent
- Northern Ireland goes to Ireland
- Gibraltar becomes Spain to appease them for Scotland.
- Banking passport is revoked
- UK pays EEA-like money into EU, which is the same per capita as their EU deal.
- Deal is a bit less than EEA but close
- No freedom of movement but everyone that is there can stay. Or freedom of movement, but no benefits until there X years.
That is a passable deal for the EU.

not sure if you're being serious or not - but you can't just give NI to Ireland. There would be massive civil uprising, huge amounts of rioting and violence, and a good chance of a return of terrorism. That agreement is held together by tissue paper and string as it is.

 

[Funky Papa]

Yeah it's been going around for a while. Powerful message though.

Oh, it's the first time I saw it. It just popped over the local press.

That is wildly and totally unreasonable. Every single EU official has said the same thing. It goes against every tenet of the EU. Furthermore, it's also self-evidently unbelievably suicidal for the EU to do this - it would empower right wing nationalists across the continent.

You are hugely overstating the UKs power in these negotiations, massively emphasising the EUs desire to keep the UK in the single market, and ignoring the wider strategic incentives to do the opposite of what you are saying. Your proposition goes against everything anyone on the EU side has said, either before or after this referendum, and also against the fact that we were unable to get this agreement when we were in the EU - why would we get it now? ? ?

Then there's also worth noting that the UK's special status (and keeping it) is one of the things that turned the EU into the "bureocratic mess" that Leavers despised to much. Liberation had a good opinion piece about this:

Even if you were already well and truly ‘outside’ (budget, euro, Schengen, security and immigration policies, banking union, etc.), the mere fact that you were there was always enough to block all attempts at further integration - not only in fear of displeasing you - but because each time we had to create extra unnecessarily complex procedures to enable you to keep your ‘special status’. The result of this is that the reforms have always ended up, thanks to you, in making this very Union more and more unreadable in the eyes of its citizens and thereby distancing them from it.

The UK didn't leave in good terms, so to speak, so Eurocrats have yet another reason not to pamper the UK out of the kindness of their hearts as blackcrane would have it. I expect professionalism, but no favours. If anything, Brexit ensures that the EU won't compromise its tenets.

 

[Joni]

Leaving can be done in different ways. For an extreme example, if someone in the UK just presses the button and does nothing for the next two years, all the things that the UK imports will suddenly get more expensive for the UK buyers, that hurts EU businesses that export to the UK. Yes, the same will go the other way around too, the point is that it goes both ways (although unequally) and since it goes both ways, not only the UK is interested in exiting the EU in a way that doesn't harm it too much, but the EU as well are interested in the UK exiting in a way that doesn't harm the EU too much. One way to exit would be to exit gradually, through the EEA or something crafted specifically for the occasion that would be similar to the EEA. This way seems to me to be the best option for everyone, that's all.

The process to actually divorce the European Union is not easy. These two years are necessary for them to negotiate this exit. These two years don't actually involve the trade deal.

not sure if you're being serious or not - but you can't just give NI to Ireland. There would be massive civil uprising, huge amounts of rioting and violence, and a good chance of a return of terrorism. That agreement is held together by tissue paper and string as it is.

A physical border popping up between them won't help either. As most of the terrorism was in favor of Ireland and against Britain.

 

[StayDead]

It's already a thing though:

Disgusting. How do these people live with themselves. People try to paint humans better than animals, but these kinds of people prove that isn't true.

 

[*Splinter]

Imports will cost more, but it's not like people are going to stop buying BMWs... the cost of importing is simply passed to the end customer.

 

[Theonik]

How does Ireland feel about being unified? I thought hat was a "somewhat" contentious subject...

That is the actual question here yes.
Honestly I don't know. It seems that conditions are favourable, if it ever was going to happen...

e:

Imports will cost more, but it's not like people are going to stop buying BMWs... the cost of importing is simply passed to the end customer.

Luxury German cars like BMW and Mercedes are price insensitive such that the cost can be passed onto the end consumer and there shouldn't be a drop in sales, though the general economic climate might affect sales anyway.
Some other brands like VW might not be so fortunate. At the end of the day however, this will not sway negotiations either way.

 

[BGBW]

A certain image that is going viral

And this is why all this talk about kicking the filthy foreigners out should have never ever become a thing.

Was this taken before or after the BBC London report yesterday that did something similar with Imperial College scientists?

 

[iz.podpolja]

Surprising considering a majority of Jewish people voted for Brexit if i recall.

The last paragraph of the article:

The UK’s Jewish population had voted overwhelmingly, by two to one, to reject Brexit, according to polls. A survey carried out in the aftermath, on behalf of The Jewish Chronicle newspaper, showed that 59 per cent of those questioned were unhappy with the referendum result, compared to 28.3 per cent who were satisfied.

Was this taken before or after the BBC London report yesterday that did something similar with Imperial College scientists?

It's been circulating a while - I think I saw it before the referendum.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Leaving can be done in different ways. For an extreme example, if someone in the UK just presses the button and does nothing for the next two years, all the things that the UK imports will suddenly get more expensive for the UK buyers, that hurts EU businesses that export to the UK. Yes, the same will go the other way around too, the point is that it goes both ways (although unequally) and since it goes both ways, not only the UK is interested in exiting the EU in a way that doesn't harm it too much, but the EU as well are interested in the UK exiting in a way that doesn't harm the EU too much. One way to exit would be to exit gradually, through the EEA or something crafted specifically for the occasion that would be similar to the EEA. This way seems to me to be the best option for everyone, that's all.

It is not in the best interest of the EU to make it as painless as possible for the UK. That is not the best option for everyone.

Was this taken before or after the BBC London report yesterday that did something similar with Imperial College scientists?

I have seen this picture around for a bit already. Think it was made the day after the vote or something.

 

[Dougald]

It's already a thing though:

This is absolutely disgusting. I have been seriously questioning whether I want to remain in this country

 

[accel]

The UK didn't leave in good terms, so to speak, so Eurocrats have yet another reason not to pamper the UK out of the kindness of their hearts as blackcrane would have it. I expect professionalism, but no favours. If anything, Brexit ensures that the EU won't compromise its tenets.

Not out of kindness, out of big mutual interests. Just professionalism, no favours, yes, totally, I ask for nothing else.

 

[Patryn]

Leaving can be done in different ways. For an extreme example, if someone in the UK just presses the button and does nothing for the next two years, all the things that the UK imports will suddenly get more expensive for the UK buyers, that hurts EU businesses that export to the UK. Yes, the same will go the other way around too, the point is that it goes both ways (although unequally) and since it goes both ways, not only the UK is interested in exiting the EU in a way that doesn't harm it too much, but the EU as well are interested in the UK exiting in a way that doesn't harm the EU too much. One way to exit would be to exit gradually, through the EEA or something crafted specifically for the occasion that would be similar to the EEA. This way seems to me to be the best option for everyone, that's all.

I'm sorry to pick on you, as I admire how you're standing your ground and staying in the thread, but you didn't address my point at all.

Giving up a say in regulations isn't a card the UK can play in the negotiations, because they gave up that card when they said they wanted to leave the EU.

In fact (and this is far from an original thought) I'd argue that certain elements of the EU would probably want to punish the UK and make an example out of them in order to dissuade other countries from attempting a similar thing. There may be value in causing some pain to the EU right now in order to prevent more pain for the EU in the future.

In that case, the UK gets screwed very, very hard. You say that the UK and the EU have mutual interests, but the EU also has an interest in preserving its existence, and its entirely possible that they may weigh that interest well above their interest in the UK market.

Basically, the EU nailing the UK to the wall hard doesn't hurt the EU nearly as much as it would hurt the UK, and there's an argument to be made that it would actually be in the EU's best long-term interests to do so.

 

[Funky Papa]

Not out of kindness, out of big mutual interests. Just professionalism, no favours, yes, totally, I ask for nothing else.

Your much vaunted big mutual interests are massively asymmetrical. Expecting the EU to comprimise its tenets while it has the upper hand is asking for favours, bordering on mendicancy.

 

[The Hobo]

How does Ireland feel about being unified? I thought hat was a "somewhat" contentious subject...

It's very contentious. Any attempt to bring NI into Ireland would be met with a lot of pushback, both in terms of politics and in terms of violence.

 

[BGBW]

It's been circulating a while - I think I saw it before the referendum.

I have seen this picture around for a bit already. Think it was made the day after the vote or something.

Thanks.

Interesting that the BBC copied the idea. Of course, since it was London news, it felt a little pointless; basically preaching at the choir. Would have been more impactful as a national news piece.

 

[accel]

That is wildly and totally unreasonable. Every single EU official has said the same thing. It goes against every tenet of the EU. Furthermore, it's also self-evidently unbelievably suicidal for the EU to do this - it would empower right wing nationalists across the continent.

It (EEA without freedom of movement) may go against the ideal world in the eyes of the EU, but they allowed it in several different cases (Liechteinstein, Greenland). This illustrates plentifully that this is subject to negotiation.

Your much vaunted big mutual interests are massively asymmetrical. Expecting the EU to comprimise its tenets while it has the upper hand is asking for favours, bordering on mendicancy.

It's a question on how big is the compromise. I don't think it's all that big, a reasonable quota on the number of people who enter per year - why not.

 

[Izuna]

UK is so passive aggressive with its racism, I never noticed before this Referendum cycle started.

Now we are post-Trump. Thanks Nigel Farage you fucking bastard.