*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

Tories' bill allows them to unilaterally change the NI protocol to reduce the number of customs checks. Some goods will just be waved through between NI and GB. In a nutshell, this means the UK will not live up to the Brexit withdrawal agreement. EU says they will retaliate with sanctions. US also officially discouraging the UK from breaking intn'l law.

This last bit, "breaking international law", this seems tenuous. I don't anticipate there being any specific international law that refers to the relationship between the UK and the EU. Breaking agreements between the UK and the EU isn't necessarily breaking international law. But I'm no expert on international law.

With that said, I fail to see what this has to do with USA, other than an economic interest.

The NI situation has always been difficult. I'm of the opinion that it would be better for all parties if NI was part of the Republic of Ireland, not part of the UK. It's a colony, and not a colony like the Falklands where people settled on uninhabited islands. It's a colony where we took industrially productive land off another country. NI unifying with RoI would solve the EU problem. It would, of course, create problems with unionists who don't want to be part of the RoI, but so long as they have the choice to come to the mainland UK, then I'm ok with it.

[Poopadoop]

This last bit, "breaking international law", this seems tenuous. I don't anticipate there being any specific international law that refers to the relationship between the UK and the EU. Breaking agreements between the UK and the EU isn't necessarily breaking international law. But I'm no expert on international law.

Just to clarify, a treaty between two international polities ("international") is a legally binding agreement ("law"), so yes breaking the Brexit treaty would be breaking international law.

With that said, I fail to see what this has to do with USA, other than an economic interest.

It's destabilising for one thing. It suggests an advanced, presumably civilized country can just break an international treaty whenever it suits it to.

For another, the UK is one of their strongest allies. Of course they don't want us to look like cunts on the international stage.

I'm of the opinion that it would be better for all parties if NI was part of the Republic of Ireland, not part of the UK.

It would make life easier for us. Not sure there's a strong sentiment in favour of that in NI itself.

[OngBonga]

Basically, ong, racism is a much more involved and complicated beast than simply the words and actions of individuals in day-to-day life. Racism is a centuries-old, insidious policy-driving force in the world.

We view racism differently because we come from different countries with very different attitudes towards this matter. Racism here is a daily issue for some people, but it's not driving policy here.

It's the systematic under-treatment of non-whites in hospitals and emergency rooms.

For example, this just isn't happening in most places in the world, certainly not the UK. If it's happening in USA then you've got serious problems akin to the problems of Apartheid South Africa.

It's the industrializing of colored neighborhoods...

Again, if this is active policy, things are much worse in USA than I could have imagined.

Its the news and media portrayal of a white terrorist as "misguided" and "tragic" where a non-white terrorist is called a terrorist. It's the news and media's portrayal of black people using the worst gang-bangin' looking picture they can find, while using a white person's yearbook photo.

Again, not happening here. The news we get about America uses phrases like "domestic terrorism" when white people go shooting up schools or whatever. Maybe you're watching the wrong channels, idk.

However, I also think that taking a stand on that level is just showing the ignorance you have about the greater picture of what modern racism actually is and what it does to people - what it steals from all of us.

You're probably right here. If what you describe is accurate, if these things are happening in USA today in 2022, then idk what the fuck is going on.

I'm fortunate enough to live in a country where racism is pretty much a lingering cultural problem with a minority of people, and not a systematic problem in law and policy.

Love you as a brother. You care a lot about racism, what it is, and how people are dumb in addressing it.

I wish I lived in a world where skin colour doesn't matter. I know there are lots of bad people in the world who do care about skin colour, but what gets me is all the good people who care about skin colour. That's your poops, coccos and maybe even your mojos who think black people deserve special treatment. But for me, when you identify someone based on the colour of their skin, when you designate someone as "oppressed" because they are black, it's not helping.

It's really hard to put into words my position on racism. All I can say is I don't think society is dealing with it well. We don't treat everyone as equal. Skin colour remains an important part of identity, both within ethnic groups and in wider society. That's what needs to change for me.

And, you know, legal systems that allow racism to continue in law and policy.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The more you understand the realities of racism in the world today, the more that saying someone is oppressed simply due to the color of their skin is a no-brainer. It's institutional to depths that are unthinkable.

FFS, the final slaves in the US weren't freed until 1941. My grandparents were alive then.

It's still not technically illegal to own slaves in the US under federal law.
It's just that the gov't will step in and free your slaves.

[CoccoBill]

The tone of your post was highly sarcastic, at least it came across that way to me.

Well yes, indeed it was meant to be sarcastic, but that doesn't automatically mean I don't mean anything I say or that you can write a whole paragraph full of words in my mouth. Like I said, yes, technically what you said about the term "gammon" being racist I agree with, it is. But on the grand scheme of things, that's likely the least worrisome racist thing that has ever happened on this planet. I know you just view this from your own point of view, because you feel like you haven't had any preferential treatment in your life due to your skin tone, you don't want to accept that anyone else anywhere does or has either, or that systemic racism against other colors could exist.

Looking at the past couple millennia, whites have held ALL the power on the planet, with some regional exceptions. We've crusaded, conquested, colonialized, enslaved, raped and pillaged our way across the planet, and remnants of that in policies and attitudes is still visible everywhere, if you just care to look.

That's your poops, coccos and maybe even your mojos who think black people deserve special treatment.

You misspelled "equal". Like for example, I'm technically not in favor of reparations for blacks in the US. They shouldn't be compensated for something that happened to their ancestors. What they should be compensated for, however, is any unequal policies and treatment they've personally been affected by in their lifetimes.

[OngBonga]

Everything I've said is happening in regards to race is happening in the US today.

All those people who made anti-Trump noise need to keep making noise. Why aren't they? Because they're not anti-racists. They're anti-capitalists.

Getting rid of Trump didn't solve anything, did it? Even Obama couldn't fix these problems. So the problem isn't political. It's cultural.

Racism is quite literally illegal in the UK. That's what it takes. Black people are lower priority in USA hospitals? So doctors are actively discriminating against black people? Throw them in jail, that's what would happen here if a court proved that a doctor was giving preferential treatment to white folk.

It's still not technically illegal to own slaves in the US under federal law.

This is just insane.

[OngBonga]

I tell you a series of fact about asylum seekers and refugees and you deny they're facts, even though it's very easy to find out they are facts.

You appear to be arguing that all a person has to do is declare themself an asylum seeker and they are no longer subject to UK border control laws.

What's the point of border control if people can just get on boats, legally, and evade ports and official entry points? Each country has their own border control laws. Countries do not share a common international border control law.

Ok, asylum seekers get special treatment, which is fine. But we absolutely definitely should not in any way encourage people to get on a dinghy in France and head for the UK. That's irresponsible. And if people are self declaring themselves asylum seekers and that means they are not technically breaking UK law, then quite literally anyone can enter the UK in this way. Meaning border control is non-existent.

Do you think borders shouldn't exist? Do you think global freedom of movement is the way to go? Because that's what you seem to be saying, by arguing that anyone turning up in a dingy is an asylum seeker doing nothing illegal.

[Poopadoop]

...

You know so little about asylum it gets tiring explaining it to you.

According to the UN, an asylum seeker can enter a country through regular means or irregular means. There is no law that says they have to pass through border control. What they do have to do is make an asylum claim once they enter. So, if someone comes here on a dinghy and doesn't get themselves to an immigration office within a reasonable amount of time to file an asylum claim, then and only then are they deemed to have entered the country illegally.

The reason asylum seekers are coming by dinghy is because the regular means of entering the UK are closed to them. An Afghan or Iranian refugee can't just get on a ferry with no visa and say "I'm going to Dover to claim asylum." They won't be allowed on the ferry. They won't be let on a plane either. And there is currently no way for them to apply for a visa. So if they want to come here their choice is between flapping their arms really hard and hoping they can fly over themselves, or taking a dinghy. Get it?

You say we shouldn't encourage people to take a dinghy, but that's exactly what our policy does encourage. If we had a humanitarian way of getting them over here they wouldn't need the dinghy. We could ferry them here, or set up an asylum processing centre in Calais, or allow them to apply for a refugee visa the way we are doing with Ukranians. The fact is the gov't would rather let brown people die in the channel than help them get here.

You say if someone declares themselves an asylum seeker they are no longer subject to UK border control laws. But they are. The UK is part of the UN agreement on refugees. The agreement applies to every asylum seeker entering every country that is in the UN. What happens is they have to apply for asylum when they arrive, then have their application processed. If asylum is granted, they can stay. If not, they are sent back. You might not like it, but that's the rules we signed up to.

You accuse me of saying borders shouldn't exist. Reductio ad bananum. I'm not saying any person should be able to come to the UK, claim asylum, and automatically be given a house and car. I'm saying that since we signed up to the UN agreement on refugees, we should uphold its terms across the board, and not play favourites depending on whether the refugee comes from a white or brown country.

If you want to stop dinghies coming over, give them a safe route to get here. Have you noticed no Ukranians are on those dinghies? That's because they can apply for a visa which gets them here by safe means (plane or ferry), at which point they can make an asylum claim. We should be doing the same thing for brown people. The most parsimonious reason for why we aren't is systematic racism at the government level.

[OngBonga]

...but you should feel a shared responsibility to at the bare minimum educate yourself to not be a part of the problem.

We're all part of the problem because we can't agree on how to eradicate racism. I would like to completely disregard skin colour, but you won't let me. You instead insist I educate myself. I want to live in a world where white people and black people are just people. You want to live in a world where white people feel bad for black people. You are continuing to identify people based on their skin colour.

I don't give a fuck what colour your skin is. That's all there is to it. That's how I believe an individual does his bit to eradicate racism. Not by learning about what happened in 1800's America and treating black people differently to how you would if you hadn't learned that history.

I don't want to identify someone as black and adjust my behaviour. That would be me using skin colour as identity. I don't want to do that, because I want to treat people equally. Not differently based on the colour of their skin.

So this is your angle? That because we think prople who are systemically oppressed fue to the color of their skin, demanding they shouldn't be is "special treatment"?

I'm pointing out that you are identifying people based on their skin colour. I'm trying very hard not to.

You can't treat people equally AND offer "special treatment". And no, demanding people are not oppressed is not "special treatment", unless of course you only make those demands for a certain demographic. What is "special treatment" is assigning victimhood to people of a certain skin colour, like every black person that ever lived is oppressed.

[OngBonga]

You know so little about asylum it gets tiring explaining it to you.

Don't bother then. I'm not bothering to read your posts. I already told you that I wasn't all that interested in law, I was concerned about motivation, yet you're writing essays on asylum law in an effort to avoid the elephant in the room, which is people risking their lives to flee France.

[OngBonga]

You say we shouldn't encourage people to take a dinghy, but that's exactly what our policy does encourage.

Sure, our policy of being a much, much more welcoming place for asylum seekers than France, coupled with being an island, encourages people to risk their lives by getting on flimsy boats.

You seem to think that literally anyone in the world who lives in a shitty country and decides they want to live in the UK should be given plane tickets and hotels.

[OngBonga]

If you want to stop dinghies coming over, give them a safe route to get here.

Or put pressure on France to not treat migrants like shit. I love how the onus is on the UK and not France.

If we open up more ways to get here, more migrants attempt to come here. Eventually we reach a point where we say "no more" and the boats start arriving again.

You're not actually offering a solution to the problem, you're just kicking the can down the road.

[OngBonga]

btw, Ukrainians don't come here by flimsy boat because they are actually asylum seekers, not economic migrants. Therefore they are not motivated to risk their lives to move from France to the UK since they are safe in France. Economic migrants who will enjoy a better quality of life in the UK than in France, they are motivated to take the risk.

[OngBonga]

The law doesn't say you have to stop in the first safe country.

You're completely missing the point poop. I'm not discussing what the law says. I'm discussing the motivation of someone who risks their life, and often that of their wife and children, to flee France. It's absolutely insane.

If he chose the UK it's probably because he has family here.

If that's the case, then they have grounds for proper asylum instead of hoping to sneak in.

There's no such thing as entering a country illegally as an asylum seeker.

So if I want to go somewhere, I don't need a passport and/or a visa, I just declare myself an asylum seeker and I'm legally entitled to go where the fuck I like?

There is definitely such a thing as entering a country illegally. Any sovereign state has the sovereign right to determine their own laws, and if they say it's illegal to enter their territory while wearing a hat, then don't wear a hat.

The law doesn't require the asylum seeker to follow anyone else's standards of what is reasonable.

I mean you're bogging me down in law talk here.

Motivation. That's what I want to discuss. Why risk your life? There are less dangerous ways for people to apply for asylum, especially those who already have links to the UK.

He didn't break the law by paying someone to bring him over on a dinghy.

Yes he did. He broke French law (presumably) and British law. If I turn up in any country without proper documentation, I'm liable to arrest. If I pay criminals to act illegal on my behalf, I am breaking the law. Declaring myself an asylum seeker doesn't make me immune from law.

And that raises another question: why is the only way an asylum seeker can get from FRA to the UK to pay an extortionate amount to come over on a leaky dinghy? Have you ever wondered?

It's not the only way. People come through the tunnel, on planes and ferries, they come with tourist visas and outstay them, then come in the back of trucks, there's lots of ways to get here without getting on a dinghy.

[Poopadoop]

...

I tell you a series of fact about asylum seekers and refugees and you deny they're facts, even though it's very easy to find out they are facts.

https://www.scotsman.com/news/why-do...rwanda-3471762

If you choose to be ignorant that's up to you. I'm not going to keep explaining things to you if you're only response is going to be "no that's wrong," or "they must be crazy."