So many things going on with exports to the EU, but two that I have noticed are to do with rules of origin, i.e., if goods contain material from different countries, this has to be declared, and if the majority of it is not from UK, customs duties have to be paid. And secondly, sanitary and phytosanitary checks apply for anything of animal or plant origin, e.g., cheese. The tabloids seem to be saying that France is "cracking down", but it's likely that they are treating the UK as a 3rd country, which is what we asked for!
@Telford edited his post - originally he said something to the effect that Sunak and Patel were the sort of people who would be welcome.
Hence my question *Why?*, which is now a bit out of place!
I certainly would not describe Patel and Sunak as Horrid Brown People Not Like Us, though I might abhor their politics, and I certainly do not like @Telford (in effect) accusing me of racism.
If there are to be restrictions on immigration to limit those allowed in then we need to be looking at the essential workers - and the last few months have really shown us who they are. We need cleaners, care workers, farm labourers, refuse collectors, shelf stackers at supermarkets ... people who we know do essential work but are offered poverty wages, long antisocial hours and appalling contractual conditions. A policy where "essential" is judged by salary simply misses the target and brings in a lot of people we don't really need.
Saw an interesting example of rules of origin, if you import dates, and stone them, they are subject to tariffs, if you export them to EU. But if you chop them up, and put them in a cake, no tariffs.
What is weird is companies saying this is excessive red tape. They are EU rules, not unique to the UK. I wonder how much the UK govt knows about this.
@Telford edited his post - originally he said something to the effect that Sunak and Patel were the sort of people who would be welcome.
Hence my question *Why?*, which is now a bit out of place!
I certainly would not describe Patel and Sunak as Horrid Brown People Not Like Us, though I might abhor their politics, and I certainly do not like @Telford (in effect) accusing me of racism.
You are the one who said that brown p[eople are horrid. If you don't mean it. Don't post it.
The phrase *Horrid Brown People Not Like Us* is an ironic way of referring to immigrants, in the sort of terms the xenophobes and racists do.
It has been so used on these boards before, but I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. I did not say that brown people are horrid in the way that you accuse me of. If I have made a racist comment, no doubt others (as well as our Host) will let me know of my fault.
However, you said (before you edited your post - O! the irritations caused by cross-posting! - and I made the error of not quoting you properly) that you would welcome the selective immigration of people such as Sunak and Patel. By what criteria would you have selected these two, for example?
I think this is an important point, as immigration is going to prove a sore point politically for many years to come.
The phrase *Horrid Brown People Not Like Us* is an ironic way of referring to immigrants, in the sort of terms the xenophobes and racists do.
It has been so used on these boards before, but I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. I did not say that brown people are horrid in the way that you accuse me of. If I have made a racist comment, no doubt others (as well as our Host) will let me know of my fault.
I know that you are not a racist but I also know how you would have responded if I had made the same post
However, you said (before you edited your post - O! the irritations caused by cross-posting! - and I made the error of not quoting you properly) that you would welcome the selective immigration of people such as Sunak and Patel. By what criteria would you have selected these two, for example?
I didn't say that. What I said was, "The idea is to be able to have selective immigration" I never said it was my idea.
I think this is an important point, as immigration is going to prove a sore point politically for many years to come.
As I understand it, immigrants are welcome bu the government if they can make a useful contribution to the country.
I think it is widely accepted that Rishi Sunak is one of the most competent people in a cabinet that includes Matt Hancock and Gavin Williamson. He is apparently one of the people who has argued hardest for delaying the lockdowns, which is not a policy that has met with a lot of success.
Priti Patel was sacked by May for running her own private foreign policy, and wasn't sacked by Johnson for not having had it explained to her that bullying your staff is a bad thing.
Yes, but they were both born in England, so can hardly be regarded as immigrants.
Their parents did an excellent job with them.
Possibly, which shows that immigrants' children can turn out to be a blessing (!) to their adopted country.
However, if those parents are turned back at the border, or their boat is sunk by the capricious nature of our Sovereign Waters, the opportunity is lost.
I think it is widely accepted that Rishi Sunak is one of the most competent people in a cabinet that includes Matt Hancock and Gavin Williamson. He is apparently one of the people who has argued hardest for delaying the lockdowns, which is not a policy that has met with a lot of success.
Argued repeatedly for delaying the lockdown, had the scientists behind the "Great Barrington Declaration" in to speak to Johnson in September, and thought up the overly complex 'Eat Out To Help Out' scheme which was responsible for around 20% of infections when it was running.
You did mention Sunak and Patel, asking if they were my horrid brown people.
I merely wondered why you hit on these two, but this may be rather a tangent.
Good examples of people who have made a good contribution, even if you think they are in the wrong party.
Could you outline the good contributions they've made, please?
All evidence suggests they are in entirely the right party.
They have taken on very responsible positions for modest rewards. Are you agreeing that the right party is in government ?
No, merely commenting on the good match between their values and the party they joined. I assure you, no-one is looking across the aisle from the opposition benches at any current cabinet member and thinking "I wish they were on our side".
Also rising to high office in a party which de-selected large numbers of Tory MPs with intelligence, principles or a mind of their own before the last election does rather diminish their achievements.
OK, I have to ask, what exactly is it that you admire about Priti Patel ?
Her ability to rise to the position of Home Secretary.
Man, that's a terrible argument. But then you have previously indicated a level of admiration for Mr Johnson for achieving the position of First Lord of the Treasury...
Even if one could construct a coherent argument that Ms Patel has shown merit in various roles before this post that would make us admire her (go on, I dare you to try!) that would not negate the fact that in the role of Home Secretary she has breached the ministerial code and shown very little competence or achievement.
And ultimately to return to the point, Ms Patel is spearheading an immigration policy which she has conceded would have not allowed her own parents to enter the UK had it been in place at the time.
Such a 'I'm alright Jack and stuff the rest of you' attitude is the antithesis of what being a minister is supposed to mean. Hence, it is mind boggling that anyone could admire her.
OK, I have to ask, what exactly is it that you admire about Priti Patel ?
Her ability to rise to the position of Home Secretary.
Of course, some people don't so much 'rise' to the position they hold, than having attained it they then proceed to drag it down to their level of incompetence.
Even if one could construct a coherent argument that Ms Patel has shown merit in various roles before this post that would make us admire her (go on, I dare you to try!) that would not negate the fact that in the role of Home Secretary she has breached the ministerial code and shown very little competence or achievement.
You can - I suspect - judge something of how the PM feels about a minister by the junior ministers that they are assigned, and in Patel's case the appointments tend to indicate that she lacks any kind of operational competence. She plays well with parts of the Tory base, and isn't in danger of making Johnson look bad, so she stays.
Ah! No Horrid Brown People Not Like Us allowed in - is that what you mean?
People like Rishi Sunak and Pritti Patel are your horrid brown people ?
No they are British. They are not trying to get into the country. As to your point about having selective immigration if you have followed any arguments about the subject on here you will realise we always have had. Even under the EU free movement we could send people back who weren’t contributing properly. Let’s not mention all the Caribbean people sent home.
OK, I have to ask, what exactly is it that you admire about Priti Patel ?
Her ability to rise to the position of Home Secretary.
Rising to high office doesn’t rely on your ability. If it did only those with experience in that sector (education, law or transport for instance) should be ministers. This doesn’t happen much.
Yes, but they were both born in England, so can hardly be regarded as immigrants.
Their parents did an excellent job with them.
Possibly, which shows that immigrants' children can turn out to be a blessing (!) to their adopted country.
However, if those parents are turned back at the border, or their boat is sunk by the capricious nature of our Sovereign Waters, the opportunity is lost.
OK, I have to ask, what exactly is it that you admire about Priti Patel ?
Her ability to rise to the position of Home Secretary.
Why is that admirable in and of itself, surely, it would depend on how she did that ?
FIrst of all she had to join the Conservative party, then she had to be adopted as a candidate, then she had to win her election, then she had to make a favouravble impression.
You did mention Sunak and Patel, asking if they were my horrid brown people.
I merely wondered why you hit on these two, but this may be rather a tangent.
Good examples of people who have made a good contribution, even if you think they are in the wrong party.
Could you outline the good contributions they've made, please?
All evidence suggests they are in entirely the right party.
They have taken on very responsible positions for modest rewards. Are you agreeing that the right party is in government ?
No, merely commenting on the good match between their values and the party they joined. I assure you, no-one is looking across the aisle from the opposition benches at any current cabinet member and thinking "I wish they were on our side".
Correct. Many would think, " I wish I was on their side"
Ah! No Horrid Brown People Not Like Us allowed in - is that what you mean?
People like Rishi Sunak and Pritti Patel are your horrid brown people ?
No they are British. They are not trying to get into the country. As to your point about having selective immigration if you have followed any arguments about the subject on here you will realise we always have had. Even under the EU free movement we could send people back who weren’t contributing properly. Let’s not mention all the Caribbean people sent home.
Enoch Powell was a conservative minister, I don't consider that makes him admirable - do you ?
John Enoch Powell MBE was a British politician, classical scholar, author, linguist, soldier, philologist, and poet. He served as a Conservative Member of Parliament (1950–1974), then Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) MP (1974–1987), and was Minister of Health (1960–1963).
He started WWII as a private and finished as a Brigadier General. He was my MP in Wolverhampton in a multi racial area and was admired by all sections of the community. He got my vote in 1970. He did not stand in Wolverhampton in 1974.
Yes, but they were both born in England, so can hardly be regarded as immigrants.
Their parents did an excellent job with them.
Possibly, which shows that immigrants' children can turn out to be a blessing (!) to their adopted country.
However, if those parents are turned back at the border, or their boat is sunk by the capricious nature of our Sovereign Waters, the opportunity is lost.
I doubt that was the way they came to the country
Well, they must have at least crossed the border at some time. Or perhaps they were born in this country, too?
What? It was very widely reported in the Meeja of the time (like newspapers and TV).
Are you seriously suggesting that *most people* (whether in Wolverhampton or elsewhere) hadn't heard of it, even if they hadn't read it in full?
Anyway, you now know about Powell's racism, so perhaps you'd like to answer @KarlLB's question in the light of your current knowledge. Do you approve (even with hindsight) of his racist views, or not?
I think it is widely accepted that Rishi Sunak is one of the most competent people in a cabinet that includes Matt Hancock and Gavin Williamson.
Argued repeatedly for delaying the lockdown, had the scientists behind the "Great Barrington Declaration" in to speak to Johnson in September, and thought up the overly complex 'Eat Out To Help Out' scheme which was responsible for around 20% of infections when it was running.
Just think what Dominic "a lot of our imports and exports go through Dover" Raab would have done.
What? It was very widely reported in the Meeja of the time (like newspapers and TV).
Are you seriously suggesting that *most people* (whether in Wolverhampton or elsewhere) hadn't heard of it, even if they hadn't read it in full?
Anyway, you now know about Powell's racism, so perhaps you'd like to answer @KarlLB's question in the light of your current knowledge. Do you approve (even with hindsight) of his racist views, or not?
Simples!
Like most young people at that time I did not really pay much attention to politics. Looking back I see that Powell got 59.1 % of the vote in 1966 before the speech and 64.3% of the vote in 1970, after the speech. His successor in 1974, another Conservative only won with 45.7%. Most people regreted the speech because it cost him his position in government. They reckoned that he would have been a better PM than Heath.
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents? He felt that he was obliged to do so. There was one description, which I will not repeat, which was racist. The bottom line is that he attacked the amount of immigration.
The noise at Dover has been replaced across the land by the sound of computer keyboards as people fill in endless forms now required to send a parcel to another part of Europe, and the scratching of heads as confused people try to work out exactly what is needed and how to fill in "country of origin" for the package on their desk that says "produce of more than one country". Probably a lot of expletives as they finish filling in p127 out of 128 for the computer system to crash ...
The noise at Dover has been replaced across the land by the sound of computer keyboards as people fill in endless forms now required to send a parcel to another part of Europe, and the scratching of heads as confused people try to work out exactly what is needed and how to fill in "country of origin" for the package on their desk that says "produce of more than one country". Probably a lot of expletives as they finish filling in p127 out of 128 for the computer system to crash ...
The silence at Dover was, I think, partly due to the stack of waiting lorries in various Farage-Garages and along Kent's open-air toilets motorways, but yes, I have no doubt that the extra scratching of heads and quill pens on the part of numerous Clerks was also to blame.
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents?
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
So, do you consider that "In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man" is a legitimate fear? What about "wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places"? What about "The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people", is that a legitimate description of the situation?
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?
Comments
Hence my question *Why?*, which is now a bit out of place!
I certainly would not describe Patel and Sunak as Horrid Brown People Not Like Us, though I might abhor their politics, and I certainly do not like @Telford (in effect) accusing me of racism.
What is weird is companies saying this is excessive red tape. They are EU rules, not unique to the UK. I wonder how much the UK govt knows about this.
You are the one who said that brown p[eople are horrid. If you don't mean it. Don't post it.
It has been so used on these boards before, but I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. I did not say that brown people are horrid in the way that you accuse me of. If I have made a racist comment, no doubt others (as well as our Host) will let me know of my fault.
However, you said (before you edited your post - O! the irritations caused by cross-posting! - and I made the error of not quoting you properly) that you would welcome the selective immigration of people such as Sunak and Patel. By what criteria would you have selected these two, for example?
I think this is an important point, as immigration is going to prove a sore point politically for many years to come.
I merely wondered why you hit on these two, but this may be rather a tangent.
Could you outline the good contributions they've made, please?
All evidence suggests they are in entirely the right party.
Priti Patel was sacked by May for running her own private foreign policy, and wasn't sacked by Johnson for not having had it explained to her that bullying your staff is a bad thing.
Possibly, which shows that immigrants' children can turn out to be a blessing (!) to their adopted country.
However, if those parents are turned back at the border, or their boat is sunk by the capricious nature of our Sovereign Waters, the opportunity is lost.
Why is that admirable in and of itself, surely, it would depend on how she did that ?
Argued repeatedly for delaying the lockdown, had the scientists behind the "Great Barrington Declaration" in to speak to Johnson in September, and thought up the overly complex 'Eat Out To Help Out' scheme which was responsible for around 20% of infections when it was running.
No, merely commenting on the good match between their values and the party they joined. I assure you, no-one is looking across the aisle from the opposition benches at any current cabinet member and thinking "I wish they were on our side".
Man, that's a terrible argument. But then you have previously indicated a level of admiration for Mr Johnson for achieving the position of First Lord of the Treasury...
Even if one could construct a coherent argument that Ms Patel has shown merit in various roles before this post that would make us admire her (go on, I dare you to try!) that would not negate the fact that in the role of Home Secretary she has breached the ministerial code and shown very little competence or achievement.
And ultimately to return to the point, Ms Patel is spearheading an immigration policy which she has conceded would have not allowed her own parents to enter the UK had it been in place at the time.
Such a 'I'm alright Jack and stuff the rest of you' attitude is the antithesis of what being a minister is supposed to mean. Hence, it is mind boggling that anyone could admire her.
AFZ
Of course, some people don't so much 'rise' to the position they hold, than having attained it they then proceed to drag it down to their level of incompetence.
You can - I suspect - judge something of how the PM feels about a minister by the junior ministers that they are assigned, and in Patel's case the appointments tend to indicate that she lacks any kind of operational competence. She plays well with parts of the Tory base, and isn't in danger of making Johnson look bad, so she stays.
No they are British. They are not trying to get into the country. As to your point about having selective immigration if you have followed any arguments about the subject on here you will realise we always have had. Even under the EU free movement we could send people back who weren’t contributing properly. Let’s not mention all the Caribbean people sent home.
Rising to high office doesn’t rely on your ability. If it did only those with experience in that sector (education, law or transport for instance) should be ministers. This doesn’t happen much.
FIrst of all she had to join the Conservative party, then she had to be adopted as a candidate, then she had to win her election, then she had to make a favouravble impression.
Correct. Many would think, " I wish I was on their side"
I agree
He started WWII as a private and finished as a Brigadier General. He was my MP in Wolverhampton in a multi racial area and was admired by all sections of the community. He got my vote in 1970. He did not stand in Wolverhampton in 1974.
This speech was sufficiently racist to get a Tory minister fired in the late 1960s.
Well, they must have at least crossed the border at some time. Or perhaps they were born in this country, too?
So did you approve of his racism or not mind too much? Had to be one or the other.
Like most people, I had not heard the speech.
Are you seriously suggesting that *most people* (whether in Wolverhampton or elsewhere) hadn't heard of it, even if they hadn't read it in full?
Anyway, you now know about Powell's racism, so perhaps you'd like to answer @KarlLB's question in the light of your current knowledge. Do you approve (even with hindsight) of his racist views, or not?
Simples!
Dover was, a few days ago, reported as being *eerily quiet*...
Is it racist to repeat the legitimate fears of your constituents? He felt that he was obliged to do so. There was one description, which I will not repeat, which was racist. The bottom line is that he attacked the amount of immigration.
What "legitimate fears" were these?
You clearly haven't read the speech. Come back when you have
IANAL, but if I were, and were I to be cross-examining you in court, I would be at the stage of hitching my robe more comfortably upon my shoulders...
The silence at Dover was, I think, partly due to the stack of waiting lorries in various Farage-Garages and along Kent's open-air toilets motorways, but yes, I have no doubt that the extra scratching of heads and quill pens on the part of numerous Clerks was also to blame.
The question isn't were people expressing these fears, they clearly were (and, in many cases still do). The question is were/are these fears legitimate and backed by evidence?