Forum Topic

Mr IxerMy last visit was about three years ago and had a very pleasant stay in what is a very interesting and entertaining City.Football a bit predictable.Even money on Rangers or Celtic to win the Scottish Premiership - every year !And the football is very sectarian - religious not racial.However Glasgow does have a reputation as being the worst city in Europe for drug abuse.'Scotland remains the drugs death capital of Europe for the seventh year in a row despite a 13% fall in fatalities, official figures suggest.'Figures for last year show 185 people in the city died as a result of drug misuse, down from 246 in 2023'.BBC NewsThen I would think this was predictable if certain ethnic types who run this trade were encouraged to migrate and settle.And yes I think it true that some 'progressives' thought Scotland joining the EU would be 'a good thing'.Others thought that being partly run by the German dominated EU Commission and having to obey all of its rules was not so attractive.And of course it would mean a 'hard border' with England - passports, border checks etc - which would constrain businesses and trade.There were fears that many businesses would relocate just over the border into England where most of their trade was carried out.Usual problem: high flown desires for the 'benefits' of internationalism needing to be balanced with the realities of national day to day life.So while the Scots might tell opinion polls they want to join the EU they don't actually vote for it !I am guessing what position you would take !

John Hawkes ● 2d

Mr Ixer'Interestingly, we now have nationalist parties with a majority in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is this a reaction to the growth of Reform being seen as a rise in "English" nationalism rather than British nationalism? And, potentially, the ZUK's break-up?'Another non sequitur.Support for Reform and so called 'English nationalism' are a result of observation of how Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have benefited from the largesse of the the UK public purse mainly funded by England and they wonder why that should be.Scotland in the policies of the SNP and now the Welsh through Plaid Cymru are even more vociferously calling for independence: supposedly to stop the encroachment of 'the right wing' in the shape of Reform.They don't appreciate that many Scots and Welsh actually warm to Reform's social policies especially regarding immigration. And these Parties never acknowledges how much they benefited from the Barnett formula of funding transfer; a mechanism used by the Treasury in the United Kingdom to automatically adjust the amounts of public expenditure allocated to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to reflect changes in spending levels allocated to public services in England, Scotland and Wales, as appropriate. The formula applies to a large proportion, but not the whole, of the devolved governments' budgets − in 2013–14 it applied to about 85% of the Scottish Parliament's total budget. The formula has been adjusted in recent times to take account of increased tax and welfare powers being devolved, particularly in Scotland, to take account of greater control over revenue raised from devolved taxes being allocated to public spending. By July 2025, around 50% of Scottish Government spending is generated through devolved taxation in Scotland in contrast to the main source of revenue for public spending in Scotland in 2013–2014 coming from Barnett formula allocation.That's why the Scots have always been too canny to vote for Independence.It would stop money flowing into their sporrans !And also why, with such an unbalanced economy, so many Scots leave to work in England.Especially as the Labour Government's energy policy formulated by 'lil Ed Miliband from Islington constrains it from exploiting the massive natural resources it has in gas and oil.To counter this diaspora non-British immigrants were urged to settle in Scotland.With consequential results being the state of the streets in parts of Glasgow.

John Hawkes ● 2d

Perhaps it's sovereignty rather than nationalism that's being discussed? I'd consider nationalism more to do with the cultural identity of a country, and within that there can be sub cultures (as we know in the UK). (Cricket, warm beer. fish & chips, ...!) I'd consider sovereignty more to do with the legal abd governance aspects of a country. Certain aspects of sovereignty may be delegated by treaty to an international body (the WTO, ECHR, EU, bilateral agreements, etc). That doesn’t affect a countries national culture (or nationalism). So one can support Ukraine's national identity (nationakism) against Russian aggression but agree that it may wish to join the EU and NATO, where it cedes sovereignty for the economic and defence benefits. That doesn’t mean overall sovereignty is given up: Greece is no longer implementing the EES for UK tourists, US tariffs break some WTO agreements. Of course, breaking international agreements can have consequence - retaliatory, withholding of loans, other sanctions, ostracisation ...The UK is essentially multi-cultural. We have the four main traditional English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish nations - and a growing Cornish movement. Then across that there are now established immigrant cultures permeating those four man areas - integrated to varying extents.Interestingly, we now have nationalist parties with a majority in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is this a reaction to the growth of Reform being seen as a rise in "English" nationalism rather than British nationalism? And, potentially, the ZUK's break-up?Well, I might be wrong (as I'm sure Messrs. Rose and Hawkes will say on principle), but something to consider and discuss?

Michael Ixer ● 2d

There may be arguments for the view that Britain was better off within the EU, Jonathan, but the ability to remove illegal migrants is not one of them. While repatriation was theoretically possible under the Dublin Accords, in practice very few migrants were returned to France. France simply refused to take them back. The reason is that once the migrants had left French shores, they were no longer France's problem but became Britain's problem. The same is still true today. The French authorities could do far more to prevent migrants crossing in small boats but they have no motive to stop them and every motive to let them leave.The idea that Ukraine's resistance to the Russian invasion has nothing whatever to do with a wish to preserve their independence and sovereignty as a nation but is simply motivated by a desire to join the EU is putting the cart before the horse. The Ukrainians may wish to join the EU but that is predicated upon the freedom to make their own political and economic decisions, a freedom which is threatened by Russia. I think Robert is right when he implies that your view is essentially metropolitan (whether or not you have actually lived in North London, the epicentre of progressive politics). One of the characteristics of the metropolitan viewpoint is a disdain for nationalism when applied to Britain, where it is described as 'intangible' (i.e. imaginary) and virtually equated to xenophobia, but when it is applied to other nations, notably the Ukrainians and the Palestinians, nationalist sentiment is regarded as natural and positive.

Steven Rose ● 2d

Re costs of Brexit let me help you: https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/the-telegraph-brexit-disaster-support-400796/Jeremy Warner, always pro-Brexit in the very pro-Brexit Telegraph, wrote an opinion piece last November bemoaning the economic outcome of Brexit. The London Economic describes his piece in The Telegraph as "inspired by a nine-year study conducted by the National Bureau for Economic Research (NBER). Their data assessed the overall economic impact of Brexit, from the day of the referendum and into this calendar year. The figures were gruesome.As per the NBER, the UK’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) had fallen by as much as 8% from where it should be since 2016, with the impact ‘accumulating gradually’ as the years have gone by. Investment into the country is also estimated to have dropped sharply, by roughly 12-18%." (the full report is behind a paywall so we only have Warner's piece to go on)Of course, all these are estimates of what might have been.  Other estimates are available but there seem to be fewer and fewer people who believe we have gained economically from Brexit.  Big business has suffered.  Small and medium-sized exporters have suffered even more, especially those in the foodstuffs sector.  The full list is very long indeed.On the effect on immigration this is worth a read: https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-impact-of-brexit-on-immigration-to-the-uk/On stopping illegal immigration, the end of the Dublin Agreement has made it impossible to automatically return illegal immigrants crossing from the EU.  See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9031/I think comparing independence, freedom to make our own laws and sovereignty as we see them here to how Ukraine sees it is quite wrong.  They actually want to join the EU to preserve their freedoms which their illegal invaders are trying to destroy.I don't see the problem of allowing freedom of movement to, say, the under-30s. What dangers will that entail?  The referendum itself was a simple yes/no question, it never asked what sort of exit we wanted and of course many Brexiteers wanted different things.  Even Farage talked up a Norway solution and saw no reason why we couldn't leave the EU but remain in the single market.  The hard Brexit we got courtesy Johnson was never an option put to the people in that referendum, so allowing some limited return of freedom of movement is hardly going to cause a constitutional crisis at this stage.

Jonathan Callaway ● 2d

I lack the expertise to question the OBR’s estimate of the economic cost of Brexit, or that of other economists, but I think it is fair to point out that all these estimates are not factual but counterfactual, based on supposition of what might have happened if the UK had not left the EU.I agree that it is easier to trade with Europe than with the rest of the world where supply lines are obviously longer, but the assertion that trade with the fast growing economies of in Asia and the Pacific is unlikely to bring the same benefits as trade with the declining economies of Europe requires proof.There is no evidence that Brexit has made it significantly harder to curb illegal immigration. For example, between 1 January 2019 and 1 October 2020, when Britain was still part of the EU, only 237  migrants who had crossed the Channel in small boats were returned to France. As to legal migration,  it is true that under Johnson’s premiership large numbers of people from the Asian sub-continent were admitted, but this was because of his relaxed attitude to immigration. It was a deliberate choice. Under freedom of movement the UK had no choice but to admit any EU citizen. Independence , freedom to make our own laws and sovereignty may be intangible, Jonathan, but that does not imply that they are imaginary. Aren’t those the very values which motivate the Ukrainians, a cause which you have notably supported.I think that sensible person would wish to improve trade with the EU. The question is what price the EU will demand in return for access to their markets. It seems that they are demanding freedom of movement, at least for young people, which is a red line even for Keir Starmer, though it may not be for whoever succeeds him. Such a move would precipitate a constitutional crisis given the result of the Referendum.

Steven Rose ● 3d

As we are talking about Brexit again maybe I can offer a few thoughts. The much-quoted estimate by the OBR that Brexit has cost us 4% of our GDP is now considered an underestimate. More recent estimates suggest an 8% hit or even higher. Just google the question “what has Brexit cost the UK economy?”  Then try googling “what are the benefits of Brexit to the UK?” and all you get are intangibles about independence, freedom to make our own laws, and of course sovereignty. No hint that there has been any economic upside even with those new trade deals. The arguments for getting closer to the EU are essentially economic, meaning improvements to our terms of trade. And top of the agenda in the recent elections? Cost of living, jobs, growth or the lack of it. Some of that could come with a better EU trade deal. The other tragedy of Brexit is geopolitical. The Brexiteers saw a trade deal with the US as the answer to losing access to the EU single market and they saw a still closer relationship with the USA (“the guarantor of our security”) as the way forward. That’s not turning out well is it?To me, there is no sensible alternative to ensuring we have the best possible relationship with our European neighbours. Not just because the US, with or without Trump, is increasingly isolationist, and no longer a close and reliable security partner, but also because the much-vaunted deals with faster growing economies in the Asia-Pacific are unlikely to deliver anything like the economic benefits that might offset the economic hit of leaving the single market. Another crucial point about those Far East markets - long, fragile and vulnerable supply chains. The Iran crisis makes this clear. And I’m not sure making us more dependent on the Suez Canal and Red Sea routes makes any sense either. There is also huge concern about illegal immigration. I agree it’s a serious problem which Brexit has only made harder to address (ask Google, again!).  Legal immigration soared while Johnson was PM. Why? We need them to do the jobs Brits don’t want to do, but of course now they’re coming from Commonwealth countries rather than the EU. The people are even more unhappy!I’m not convinced we need to rejoin the EU but I do believe a much closer alignment is a geopolitical and economic necessity.

Jonathan Callaway ● 3d

Mr IxerWhat a hotchpotch of issues regarding which you have given us your opinion !Why comment on football where you have specifically said I recall that the sport at a professional level was imbued with racism.You then admitted that you had never attended a match !So I suppose you induced the fact ?'Farage was wrong about Brexit- feel free to list the benefits - but there seems to be a general consensus it's f***ed the UK's economy and polls indicate there's a view we shouldn't have left the EU ... so why would anyone trust him?'If you think leaving the EU is the reason for the UK's economic decline then your expertise on this topic is as generalist and unsubstantiated as are most of the positions you take up. And if views 'we shouldn't have left the EU' and 'Brexit is a disaster' are predominant in the country, why did Labour not campaign openly on re-joining at the last election ?Instead Starmer conducts secret negotiations begging favours from the unelected Empress of Europe, (sorry President (unelected) of the European Commission) German Ursula von der Leyen ?Did you vote for her ?No ?Well she has an enormous influence on you daily life. Finally regarding the ECHR it probably has done us all a favour in getting to the bottom of what really happened at Hillsborough'You obviously are an expert on the issue.Who was playing in that match ?The police were at fault of course.And I am sure that if used properly it can take appropriate positions over many political issues.Trouble is it can also be misused and prevent the removal from this country of criminal immigrants.Then you just ramble on over the minutia of the Greenpeace constitution when the real issue is that it is lead by an antisemite and some of its members are charged with racial offences.At that point I just fell back in my chair exhausted !

John Hawkes ● 3d

Mr Hawkes. Perhaps check your facts; I don't and never have lived in West Putney. Have I ever claimed to be an expert on racism in football; a sport I haven't followed for several decades? No expert as I say but I did stop following it because because of all the news reports about racism. I assume campaigns such as the Premier League's "No Room For Racism," the "Kick It Out" organization, "Show Racism the Red Card," and FIFA's "Global Stand Against Racism" arose because there was no racism? I do consider moves to remove the UK from the ECHR undemocratic. I see Oxford University has a report examines ten reasons to stay in the ECHR as UK public backs membership:https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-12-10-oxford-report-examines-ten-reasons-stay-echr-uk-public-backs-membershipSurely, as a football fan, don't you consider justice for the Liverpool fans at Hillsborough is reason enough to show the value of keeping the ECHR - unless one wants an authoritarian government like Russia or Belarus ...https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/issue/22-years-on-six-stories-that-show-why-we-need-the-human-rights-act/A better move would be an update and improvement on convention?Antisemitism is to be condemned whether it's Green, Reform or any other party members. I'm sure many scientists and campaigners at Greenpeace are concerned about the distraction from climate issues, as they must be by what seems to be Reform's support of fossil fuels. (Incidentally, another fact check- Greenpeace UK isn’t a charity because some of its campaigns do strays into political area - although there is a charitable trust for funding some research, investigations, surveys, etc which are obviously non political. ) Farage was wrong about Brexit- feel free to list the benefits - but there seems to be a general consensus it's f***ed the UK's economy and polls indicate there's a view we shouldn't have left the EU ... so why would anyone trust him?

Michael Ixer ● 3d

Mr Ixer'So much for their vetting, or do they really not care provided they disrupt democracy?'For political comment you are about as knowledgeable and balanced  as you are regarding racism at football matches.Or is this yet another of your attempts at making us realise how we lack your deep perception on most matters ?Why are Reform 'disrupting democracy ?Please explain.Is it because as a Party they have the temerity of expressing views that differ from yours ? As Mr Rose has pointed out Green candidates have been arrested over alleged antisemitic online posts.But that I suppose means nothing as they were only making comments about Jews.And let's face it don't Jews deserve it for the holocaust they are committing in Gaza ?All Parties contain their own big-mouthed no-nothings and Labour is no exception.Just read the polarised comments of Nadia Whittome  on matters with a racial background.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nadia_Whittome and those of Clive Lewis - "The Labour Party has received an official complaint over a social media post by one of its MPs which campaigners argue blames Jews for the outbreak of riots across the UK.Campaign group Labour Against Antisemitism (LAAS) has accused Clive Lewis, the Labour for Norwich South, of breaching the official definition of antisemitism with a post he wrote on X following Israel's attack on a school-turned-shelter in Gaza City that killed 80 people, according to Palestinian health officials.In the post, Mr Lewis linked to an article in The Guardian which reported the number of dead and wrote: "The link between the daily inhumanity being meted out to Palestinians and rising Islamophobia in the UK, are not unconnected".Are you really saying that Reform would govern the country in a manner any worse than that of Labour ? Or are you just displaying your West Putney bourgeoise and  patronising attitude to those working class voters who see Reform speaking for them and not just for immigrants as often seems the case with Labour ? 

John Hawkes ● 3d