Based on merit only = no poor people

Nice criteria

Yeah I missed that implication.

How does bitter suggest fruit picking skills are measured?

I'll admit the bus nudged me to leave, because the debate caused me to look up the real numbers.



https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-versa-civitas

I had previously summarised that incorrectly as if we paid ~9b net to avoid ~5b in tariffs.

On rereading it, we actually pay about ~9b net for the privilege of not collecting net ~8b in tariffs.

So if we leave if under WTO rules, we actually are 17b better off before market adjustments (which will be even more positives, because they will be in favour of local tourism, manufacturing, food production etc), which was the amount the bus is based on!

Only just realised that coincidence while typing this post, and it puts a lot of the nonsense concern about the bus, and the 'lack' of concern about Cameron's leaflet, in perspective.

Agreed we dont know how sticky but it's stunningly unlikely it's anythign like 100%. And removing the cause prevents it being reinforced and it avoids it impacting a new lot of people.

oh yeah very very dangerous. Iincreasing polarisation, name calling and violence are all clearly awesome things that can't posibly go wrong but addessing problems with services like the NHS - that's the really dangerous idea.

Yes we were compalcent and yes it was hard to do anyhing useful so we ridiculed instead.

Some might even say that the blithe assumption that addresing the problems in the media will help to reduce levels of racism is a dangerous one. Not me because that would be really senseless

Well I'm the reverse of terrified. Do you recall just after Blair won his first election. One of the first through his door was Murdoch and it wasn't to read him the riot act. Again - 'we' did this - this was our side.

As the late great Linda Smith quipped - "I had no expectations of Tony Blair, and even I have been disappointed."

Being young and physically able would be a good measure I guess?

A better measure than just happening to live in Europe, I'd imagine.

How would you?

It's dangerous if you're assuming that your fixes to the NHS etc are going to reduce racism, but they don't.


Pot/kettle. Well done.

So you envisage a sort of rudimentary physical inspection akin to an army recruitment centre?

This is incorrectly assuming that exporters to the UK won't adjust prices to cover the tariffs. If they do then the UK consumer is effectively paying for them.

Tariffs don't really raise revenue from abroad, they simply make imported goods more expensive to the consumer, thereby giving domestic goods a competitive advantage. This only works out to your advantage if your domestic market can actually replace the imported goods though. Hint: The EU probably has an easier time replacing UK goods than the other way around.

oh yeah very very dangerous.

Whereas increasing polarisation is clearly a super great idea. You keep on with that and I'll keep on about problems like social inequalty, services like the NHS, housing etc etc - be afraid be very afraid

Ah so you don't think racism is dangerous? What a shocker.

racism is very dangerous.

Polarisation is one of it's biggest friend - you keep on with that

Decent services, social equality, good housing etc are it's enemy (and good in themselves). I'll keep on with that.

Of course all the large scale changes in political history have come about through divided populations having earnest discussions with each other and agreeing on the best way forward.

*** HOT NEW TAKE***
Polarisation causes racism, not vice versa.

chezlaw - tough on racism, tough on the causes of racism * **

Why do you think racism is dangerous though?

it's obviously a self reinforcing phenomena. We're not 12, we can cope with marginally complciated cocnepts.

but you've gone for the bluster and being disingenuous in the last few posts so I'll take it you realise what shaky ground you're on.

<cough>nazies</cough>

We aren't talking about polarisation between different "races", which obviously causes/increases racism.

We are discussing polarisation between Remain and Leave.

Or one of us was. You seem to be more interested in discussing nazies, w/e that is.

Polarisation between people causes racism. Racism causes polarisation between people. If we dont heal the rift with the 52% (or make it even worse like in the usa) then it's a ****ing disasrer - and that very much includes an increase in racism.

You want to call them names and ridicule them. That's polarising and that is supporting racism

I want to address some of the causes of the rift which means addressing social inequality, services such as the NHS, housing etc. That's cutting some of the foundations away from under racism and the far right. That's anti-racism

<cough>nazys</cough>

Nonsense eg polarisation between two groups of white Britons doesn't cause racism.

Obviously agree with addressing causes of unequal opportunities, the huge disparity in pay that's opened up and women turning to prostitution because of the changes to welfare.

I'm afraid you're talking nonsense. The more polarisation between remainers and leavers and the more will turn to parties such as ukip.

Because I'm chez and you seem like a decent chap, I have to believe that you genuinely think that polarisation will somehow help - but I dont get it at all. Not an analogy but it's as ridiculous to me as those in the usa who claim arming the kids is some sort of solution to mass murders in schools.

I am a decent chap and I think you're flat out wrong about that. In fact your line leads to capitulation.

Don't you have a job to go to?

Game 9 starts in 10 minutes.

It IS racism according to the definition ITT.

Explain.

Tragically you're wrong. Although you are still a decent chap I'm sure.

If you get your way then you'll go down the path of increasing hatred, racism, polarisation, dehumanisng and despair, maybe even talk of civil war- oh if only they had listended to you when you were calling them all those names.

Still at least it was amusing.

Ooh imagine how awful civil war would be compared to those nice convivial death camps billowing out the stench of burning human flesh to our desks and into our homes every day.

Much better to turn a blind eye to it and when the next generation ask us why we didn't act to try to prevent it, tell them we were trying to engage the unengageable in debate.

I suggest a 3rd way would be better. Let's remove the problems underpinning racism and the far right such as social inequality etc etc etc

Seems even better than a path to civil war but what do I know.

edit to respond to the bit you added: No blind eye is beign turned and it's all about trying to prevent it. Hence the opposition to polarisation which is part of the cycle that supports racism, amnd the support for policies that are anti-racism.