Support NeoGAF

[Burai]

I think Theresa May is making a big mistake cosying up to Trump, even if I understand why she's doing so. It seems all but the most hardcore Farage-types fucking hate Trump, yes even a lot of pro-brexit people. If she's not careful, this might be the thing that finally turns public opinion against her.

Actually, having spoken to my pro-Brexit relatives, a bigger killer in their mood was May's meeting with Erdogan last week. They are confused as to why we're cosying up to Turkey when the possibility of Turkey joining the EU was one of the major arguments for leaving it.

"We just threw away our biggest trade deal. Who else did you think we'd be trading with.?"

Cue a lot of muttering about how we should be favouring the Commonwealth. It's amazing when ideology doesn't match reality. Still, if Australia ever declare martial law, I'm sure they'll be first in the queue for a sweet arms deal.

 

[StayDead]

Then Britain would initiate the same ban on Muslum in return for Trump's shit.

Yup, honestly I don't think Trump would even need to ask our current government, they'd do it anyway.

Why else do they want to leave the EU. The public would lap that up.

 

[Burai]

Yup, honestly I don't think Trump would even need to ask our current government, they'd do it anyway.

Why else do they want to leave the EU. The public would lap that up.

There's way too much diversity in our Parliament for that to ever happen.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Probably a lot of the "ISIS" fighters who come to the UK are people who return here and were born here so can't be blocked at the border. And then you have an Iraqi coming here and he is someone who was a translator for the British Army. Some sort of blanket ban for people from risky countries would be pure nonsense and all of the right wing press has to know it and know they can't bullshit the truth away.

 

[Bojanglez]

Actually, having spoken to my pro-Brexit relatives, a bigger killer in their mood was May's meeting with Erdogan last week. They are confused as to why we're cosying up to Turkey when the possibility of Turkey joining the EU was one of the major arguments for leaving it.

So we can sell them fighter jets.

"We just threw away our biggest trade deal. Who else did you think we'd be trading with.?"

Outside the EU (single market and customs union) we can have trade deals with both the EU and any other nation we want (and wants one back with us obviously).

Cue a lot of muttering about how we should be favouring the Commonwealth. It's amazing when ideology doesn't match reality. Still, if Australia ever declare martial law, I'm sure they'll be first in the queue for a sweet arms deal.

Yeah. I've always thought that was a slightly stupid argument, we should deal with anyone that wants to do a trade deal that is mutually beneficial to both countries, I'm sure some of these places will be in the Commonwealth but that will not be the reason they wish to do a deal.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

There were some nasty ones here in 2012 when she hosted a jubilee dinner for all foreign monarchs.

Off the top of my head she's hosted Mugabe and Amin for state visits too.

Just curious, those foreign monarchs, did they have access to several navy vessels AND a nuclear arsenal big enough to destroy the entire planet? (I get your point of course, but I suppose you got mine, too).

 

[NekoFever]

Just curious, those foreign monarchs, did they have access to several navy vessels AND a nuclear arsenal big enough to destroy the entire planet? (I get your point of course, but I suppose you got mine, too).

No, but I can dig out pictures of her with various Chinese heads of state if you'd like to see her cosying up with leaders of nuclear-armed authoritarian governments.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

No, but I can dig out pictures of her with various Chinese heads of state if you'd like to see her cosying up with leaders of nuclear-armed authoritarian governments.

The Queen met with Putin. He though that she was a shapeshifting reptilian and she thought that he was Andrew Marr. A triumph of international diplomacy.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

True - I shouldn't overestimate, I'm just a bit worried we're not as far along as maybe I thought before.

But on the drowned child - the mood changed for what, a week? Then back to where we started.

I get worried too.

Yeah, it was forgotten as a specific example quite quickly but it definitely tempered the writing on refugees somewhat. Beforehand we had literal phrasings such as 'swarms' but the use of that seemed to die down somewhat from my own personal reading. That's why there was quite a lot of uproar when Farage used that infamous refugee poster.

Thing is, the right wing kind of fosters their own weird tangents on this in the UK. Overall, refugees should be helped and almost all Brits can agree on this however with double-speak it moves to 'deserving' refugees. Like, we have people fleeing a warzone with people who we consistently frame as the most evil organisation in the world and people are using phrases such as 'economic refugee' as though it makes any logical sense and then we turn to 'there's a lot of fit young men!' as though these people should take up arms and fight back against... who, exactly? I wouldn't expect someone who says this to know what a myriad shitstorm this is, I'm sure it's likely just 'government vs ISIS' to these people as though you'd fight for either? If not, who?

So, it's really just a lazy argumentation to pontificate over 'who deserves it' when it's largely a moot point. Especially as there's some fucking puzzlement over 'fit young men' when its over 2,200km to Romania and 3,800km to Tunisia just to get in a rickety boat and pray you reach Italy.

 

[blazinglord]

I get worried too.

Yeah, it was forgotten as a specific example quite quickly but it definitely tempered the writing on refugees somewhat. Beforehand we had literal phrasings such as 'swarms' but the use of that seemed to die down somewhat from my own personal reading. That's why there was quite a lot of uproar when Farage used that infamous refugee poster.

Thing is, the right wing kind of fosters their own weird tangents on this in the UK. Overall, refugees should be helped and almost all Brits can agree on this however with double-speak it moves to 'deserving' refugees. Like, we have people fleeing a warzone with people who we consistently frame as the most evil organisation in the world and people are using phrases such as 'economic refugee' as though it makes any logical sense and then we turn to 'there's a lot of fit young men!' as though these people should take up arms and fight back against... who, exactly? I wouldn't expect someone who says this to know what a myriad shitstorm this is, I'm sure it's likely just 'government vs ISIS' to these people as though you'd fight for either? If not, who?

So, it's really just a lazy argumentation to pontificate over 'who deserves it' when it's largely a moot point. Especially as there's some fucking puzzlement over 'fit young men' when its over 2,200km to Romania and 3,800km to Tunisia just to get in a rickety boat and pray you reach Italy.

Well we can't take them all in, so surely it is sensible to prioritise women and children over 'fit young men'?

Seems a pretty sensible policy to me, so I'm not really sure what this faux outrage you are manufacturing is about now.

 

[KooopaKid]

The United Kingdom is by instinct and history a great, global nation that recognises its responsibilities to the world

Good god. Is this the 19th century or what?

 

[Ashes]

Good god. Is this the 19th century or what?

Try the US in the 18th. Brexit was our independence day don't you know?

 

[Jackpot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-38814346

They're actually going ahead with the debate.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Well we can't take them all in, so surely it is sensible to prioritise women and children over 'fit young men'?

Seems a pretty sensible policy to me, so I'm not really sure what this faux outrage you are manufacturing is about now.

'Manufacturing a faux outrage'? What a hilarious, lazy and condescending response.

Perhaps I could trouble you to maybe re-read my post and note the following:
1) I didn't say anything about priorities or about policy for taking immigrants.
2) I was talking about how people had to face the realities of the crisis but then decided they could still chat utter shit if they used the 'economic refugees' and 'fit young men' arguments so that they could still have moral objection to it.
3) I offered several reasons as to why the argument is kind of redundant by my estimation.

Its ironic that someone who is complaining about me trying to create a false outrage seems to have got incredibly, dare I say it, 'outraged' at an argument I didn't even make.

 

[blazinglord]

'Manufacturing a faux outrage'? What a hilarious, lazy and condescending response.

Perhaps I could trouble you to maybe re-read my post and note the following:
1) I didn't say anything about priorities or about policy for taking immigrants.
2) I was talking about how people had to face the realities of the crisis but then decided they could still chat utter shit if they used the 'economic refugees' and 'fit young men' arguments so that they could still have moral objection to it.
3) I offered several reasons as to why the argument is kind of redundant by my estimation.

Its ironic that someone who is complaining about me trying to create a false outrage seems to have got incredibly, dare I say it, 'outraged' at an argument I didn't even make.

The point I got from your post was that you feel it is moot to discuss which refugees should be prioritised, which is what I was disagreeing with you on.

Following on from what I said, that we can't take them all in (and I am assuming that we are in agreement on this point), then it is a legitimate argument to debate the merit of prioritising women and young children over 'fit young men'.

I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick, but I felt your implication was that by being selective in the discussing the groups of refugees that should be taken in is is some kind of 'double-speak' used by the 'right wing'.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

The point I got from your post was that you feel it is moot to discuss which refugees should be prioritised, which is what I was disagreeing with you on.

Following on from what I said, that we can't take them all in (and I am assuming that we are in agreement on this point), then it is a legitimate argument to debate the merit of prioritising women and young children over 'fit young men'.

I apologise if I got the wrong end of the stick, but I felt your implication was that by being selective in the discussing the groups of refugees that should be taken in is is some kind of 'double-speak' used by the 'right wing'.

The issue is that the framing of discussion wasn't about 'priority' but the illegitimacy of certain refugees. As I said, the spin on refugees as a whole dissipated once people realise they were all humans so the right wing news (The Mail, more accurately) had to spin it some other way and thus the whole 'why would they leave? They should stay and fight!' and 'economic refugees' angle emerged.

Once more, my issue never was about priority but about questioning the legitimacy of refugees.