Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What has bombing Syria got to do with Brexit?"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What has bombing Syria got to do with Brexit?" Isn't it obvious? Bombing begins with a "B" and so does Brexit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would really love to know what Corbyn would do in both respects. We are 5-6wks post Skirpal. Corbyn still doesn't believe the evidence points conclusively to Russia, so would he expel diplomats, place sanctions, seize any finances in response to chemical weapons use on UK shores or would he still be in a state of liaison - how long would this go on? The same question of UK policy applies to his foreign policy, where Assad has had years to turn over, destroy and meet with diplomats but still uses chemical weapons. The last event in Syria was 4th April (6wks ago), where people were exposed to a Sarin like substance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947 Corbyn persists in the need for process, guidance and resolutions as Russia veto's UN investigations. He is happy to use his following to point the finger from the sidelines, instead of taking any firm decision. They are a lucrative party of need and appeal. How many times can he and his party change their Brexit position? " I find Corbyn is just a knee-jerk oppositionist. He defied the Labour whip something like 500 times before he became leader, but now sacks anyone who shows anything but devoted loyalty to him. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brexit was supposed to take back control and stop decisions about the UK being made abroad. Well Theresa May just sidelined parliament and showed the world the UK's foreign policy is dictated by a man on the other side of the Atlantic, who spends most of his time rage tweeting." And do you apply that "logic" to President Macron as well? Do you know how alliances work? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would really love to know what Corbyn would do in both respects. We are 5-6wks post Skirpal. Corbyn still doesn't believe the evidence points conclusively to Russia, so would he expel diplomats, place sanctions, seize any finances in response to chemical weapons use on UK shores or would he still be in a state of liaison - how long would this go on? The same question of UK policy applies to his foreign policy, where Assad has had years to turn over, destroy and meet with diplomats but still uses chemical weapons. The last event in Syria was 4th April (6wks ago), where people were exposed to a Sarin like substance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947 Corbyn persists in the need for process, guidance and resolutions as Russia veto's UN investigations. He is happy to use his following to point the finger from the sidelines, instead of taking any firm decision. They are a lucrative party of need and appeal. How many times can he and his party change their Brexit position? I find Corbyn is just a knee-jerk oppositionist. He defied the Labour whip something like 500 times before he became leader, but now sacks anyone who shows anything but devoted loyalty to him. " I watched the party conference a few weeks ago. At the end, to avoid answering press questions, Rebecca Long-Bailey appeared on stage to point to the press, three at a time so questions would be answered at the same time. She knew none of their names, and none of the questions were answered. The most annoying thing as that is partly where the public accountability comes! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would really love to know what Corbyn would do in both respects. We are 5-6wks post Skirpal. Corbyn still doesn't believe the evidence points conclusively to Russia, so would he expel diplomats, place sanctions, seize any finances in response to chemical weapons use on UK shores or would he still be in a state of liaison - how long would this go on? The same question of UK policy applies to his foreign policy, where Assad has had years to turn over, destroy and meet with diplomats but still uses chemical weapons. The last event in Syria was 4th April (6wks ago), where people were exposed to a Sarin like substance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947 Corbyn persists in the need for process, guidance and resolutions as Russia veto's UN investigations. He is happy to use his following to point the finger from the sidelines, instead of taking any firm decision. They are a lucrative party of need and appeal. How many times can he and his party change their Brexit position? " I find this whole JC is a weak Russian stooge who would do nothing position strange as it flies in the face of fact. You have stated your opinion,now here are some facts for you. The Tory party have taken over £800,000 in donations from Russian allies of Putin, including £160,000 from the wife of one of his former ministers for a game of tennis with BoJo and £30,000 to have dinner with a defence minister. Mays tory government blocked and voted down a Labour to introduce UK magnitsky act just this year. The Tories have used the UK's special voting rights to block all EU attempts to force the City of London to enforce EU and international financial sanctions on corrupt Russian money, thus making it an open secret that our financial services industry the most corrupt in the world and a clearing house for Russian money laundering. All enabled by Tories! But apparently in your world JC and Labour are the ones weak on Russia while May and her Tories are the true blues battling hard against the Russian bear. I think you need to reevaluate your beliefs and base them on facts rather than feelings generated by media opinion givers editorials. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would really love to know what Corbyn would do in both respects. We are 5-6wks post Skirpal. Corbyn still doesn't believe the evidence points conclusively to Russia, so would he expel diplomats, place sanctions, seize any finances in response to chemical weapons use on UK shores or would he still be in a state of liaison - how long would this go on? The same question of UK policy applies to his foreign policy, where Assad has had years to turn over, destroy and meet with diplomats but still uses chemical weapons. The last event in Syria was 4th April (6wks ago), where people were exposed to a Sarin like substance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947 Corbyn persists in the need for process, guidance and resolutions as Russia veto's UN investigations. He is happy to use his following to point the finger from the sidelines, instead of taking any firm decision. They are a lucrative party of need and appeal. How many times can he and his party change their Brexit position? I find this whole JC is a weak Russian stooge who would do nothing position strange as it flies in the face of fact. You have stated your opinion,now here are some facts for you. The Tory party have taken over £800,000 in donations from Russian allies of Putin, including £160,000 from the wife of one of his former ministers for a game of tennis with BoJo and £30,000 to have dinner with a defence minister. Mays tory government blocked and voted down a Labour to introduce UK magnitsky act just this year. The Tories have used the UK's special voting rights to block all EU attempts to force the City of London to enforce EU and international financial sanctions on corrupt Russian money, thus making it an open secret that our financial services industry the most corrupt in the world and a clearing house for Russian money laundering. All enabled by Tories! But apparently in your world JC and Labour are the ones weak on Russia while May and her Tories are the true blues battling hard against the Russian bear. I think you need to reevaluate your beliefs and base them on facts rather than feelings generated by media opinion givers editorials." You position that Trump & May are Putin stooges has lost credibility after the launched missile attacks on another one of Putin's stooges. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brexit was supposed to take back control and stop decisions about the UK being made abroad. Well Theresa May just sidelined parliament and showed the world the UK's foreign policy is dictated by a man on the other side of the Atlantic, who spends most of his time rage tweeting. And do you apply that "logic" to President Macron as well? Do you know how alliances work?" Yes!, if you decide to be mstes with a pillock who starts a punch up in pub, you blindly side with him and risk a good thrashing/arrested because of his daft arse reasoning  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would really love to know what Corbyn would do in both respects. We are 5-6wks post Skirpal. Corbyn still doesn't believe the evidence points conclusively to Russia, so would he expel diplomats, place sanctions, seize any finances in response to chemical weapons use on UK shores or would he still be in a state of liaison - how long would this go on? The same question of UK policy applies to his foreign policy, where Assad has had years to turn over, destroy and meet with diplomats but still uses chemical weapons. The last event in Syria was 4th April (6wks ago), where people were exposed to a Sarin like substance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947 Corbyn persists in the need for process, guidance and resolutions as Russia veto's UN investigations. He is happy to use his following to point the finger from the sidelines, instead of taking any firm decision. They are a lucrative party of need and appeal. How many times can he and his party change their Brexit position? I find this whole JC is a weak Russian stooge who would do nothing position strange as it flies in the face of fact. You have stated your opinion,now here are some facts for you. The Tory party have taken over £800,000 in donations from Russian allies of Putin, including £160,000 from the wife of one of his former ministers for a game of tennis with BoJo and £30,000 to have dinner with a defence minister. Mays tory government blocked and voted down a Labour to introduce UK magnitsky act just this year. The Tories have used the UK's special voting rights to block all EU attempts to force the City of London to enforce EU and international financial sanctions on corrupt Russian money, thus making it an open secret that our financial services industry the most corrupt in the world and a clearing house for Russian money laundering. All enabled by Tories! But apparently in your world JC and Labour are the ones weak on Russia while May and her Tories are the true blues battling hard against the Russian bear. I think you need to reevaluate your beliefs and base them on facts rather than feelings generated by media opinion givers editorials." Just a point here: I mentioned nothing about Corbyn being a Russian stooge. I was questioning the decision making process of him and his party - as they seem the party of indecision. Whenever a stance has to be taken, Corbyn always has a conference to attend, has another more important announcement to make, will never accept questions, will never make appearances to have his position put out in public. His leadership style is 'I am the leader follow me' but 'this is a democratic party so I have to go with the majority' so he will always have an out, and will always have a way of buying time, a way of sending different messages and covering all bases through different politicians. It is reasonably clever. We need opposition but we need effective opposition not one that will undermine to score points at all cost. With Skirpal for instance - every single UK political party condemned the Skirpal act save Corbyn, every single one. On Monday what we'll have is a good deflection; that of 'allied' strikes on chemical weapons labs, so Corbyn doesn't get drawn on anti-Semitism or the [cheap] firing of party members for suggesting a vote on the Breixt deal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would really love to know what Corbyn would do in both respects. We are 5-6wks post Skirpal. Corbyn still doesn't believe the evidence points conclusively to Russia, so would he expel diplomats, place sanctions, seize any finances in response to chemical weapons use on UK shores or would he still be in a state of liaison - how long would this go on? The same question of UK policy applies to his foreign policy, where Assad has had years to turn over, destroy and meet with diplomats but still uses chemical weapons. The last event in Syria was 4th April (6wks ago), where people were exposed to a Sarin like substance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947 Corbyn persists in the need for process, guidance and resolutions as Russia veto's UN investigations. He is happy to use his following to point the finger from the sidelines, instead of taking any firm decision. They are a lucrative party of need and appeal. How many times can he and his party change their Brexit position? I find this whole JC is a weak Russian stooge who would do nothing position strange as it flies in the face of fact. You have stated your opinion,now here are some facts for you. The Tory party have taken over £800,000 in donations from Russian allies of Putin, including £160,000 from the wife of one of his former ministers for a game of tennis with BoJo and £30,000 to have dinner with a defence minister. Mays tory government blocked and voted down a Labour to introduce UK magnitsky act just this year. The Tories have used the UK's special voting rights to block all EU attempts to force the City of London to enforce EU and international financial sanctions on corrupt Russian money, thus making it an open secret that our financial services industry the most corrupt in the world and a clearing house for Russian money laundering. All enabled by Tories! But apparently in your world JC and Labour are the ones weak on Russia while May and her Tories are the true blues battling hard against the Russian bear. I think you need to reevaluate your beliefs and base them on facts rather than feelings generated by media opinion givers editorials." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would really love to know what Corbyn would do in both respects. We are 5-6wks post Skirpal. Corbyn still doesn't believe the evidence points conclusively to Russia, so would he expel diplomats, place sanctions, seize any finances in response to chemical weapons use on UK shores or would he still be in a state of liaison - how long would this go on? The same question of UK policy applies to his foreign policy, where Assad has had years to turn over, destroy and meet with diplomats but still uses chemical weapons. The last event in Syria was 4th April (6wks ago), where people were exposed to a Sarin like substance http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-39500947 Corbyn persists in the need for process, guidance and resolutions as Russia veto's UN investigations. He is happy to use his following to point the finger from the sidelines, instead of taking any firm decision. They are a lucrative party of need and appeal. How many times can he and his party change their Brexit position? I find this whole JC is a weak Russian stooge who would do nothing position strange as it flies in the face of fact. You have stated your opinion,now here are some facts for you. The Tory party have taken over £800,000 in donations from Russian allies of Putin, including £160,000 from the wife of one of his former ministers for a game of tennis with BoJo and £30,000 to have dinner with a defence minister. Mays tory government blocked and voted down a Labour to introduce UK magnitsky act just this year. The Tories have used the UK's special voting rights to block all EU attempts to force the City of London to enforce EU and international financial sanctions on corrupt Russian money, thus making it an open secret that our financial services industry the most corrupt in the world and a clearing house for Russian money laundering. All enabled by Tories! But apparently in your world JC and Labour are the ones weak on Russia while May and her Tories are the true blues battling hard against the Russian bear. I think you need to reevaluate your beliefs and base them on facts rather than feelings generated by media opinion givers editorials. Just a point here: I mentioned nothing about Corbyn being a Russian stooge. I was questioning the decision making process of him and his party - as they seem the party of indecision. Whenever a stance has to be taken, Corbyn always has a conference to attend, has another more important announcement to make, will never accept questions, will never make appearances to have his position put out in public. His leadership style is 'I am the leader follow me' but 'this is a democratic party so I have to go with the majority' so he will always have an out, and will always have a way of buying time, a way of sending different messages and covering all bases through different politicians. It is reasonably clever. We need opposition but we need effective opposition not one that will undermine to score points at all cost. With Skirpal for instance - every single UK political party condemned the Skirpal act save Corbyn, every single one. On Monday what we'll have is a good deflection; that of 'allied' strikes on chemical weapons labs, so Corbyn doesn't get drawn on anti-Semitism or the [cheap] firing of party members for suggesting a vote on the Breixt deal. " Will Jeremy Corbyn push this too much though? I see he's now largely abandoned his "legality" stance, and gone for a future change in the law position. The more he pushes, the more the fracture lines in his party will be exposed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was not convinced myself of the value of striking Syria, and worried by what seemed to be a high risk of escalation. That, though, is a separate matter to the question of how decisions should be made as to when to commit British forces to action. I cannot see how it makes sense to require the consent of parliament prior to taking action. Inevitably, much will turn on the intelligence briefings, and on the military advice provided to Cabinet. It is surely right that Cabinet then makes decisions, and is subsequently accountable to Parliament for the consequences . You cannot sensibly delegate to a committee of 650, most of whom will be no better informed than the general public, the responsibility for executive decisions. It is, I think, a misunderstanding of how government works to think that to do so is somehow more authentically “democratic”. I believe, though happy to be corrected, that this is the case in every major democracy: the executive is empowered to make decisions- including the commitment of military force, while the parliament/ senate/ etc. holds the executive to account. I think that here, as in some other cases, the issue was deliberately muddied by Blair when he saw some short term advantage to himself in seeming to “ consult” parliament when he was confident of the outcome anyway, without concern for any longer term damage to the effectiveness of government." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I was not convinced myself of the value of striking Syria, and worried by what seemed to be a high risk of escalation. That, though, is a separate matter to the question of how decisions should be made as to when to commit British forces to action. I cannot see how it makes sense to require the consent of parliament prior to taking action. Inevitably, much will turn on the intelligence briefings, and on the military advice provided to Cabinet. It is surely right that Cabinet then makes decisions, and is subsequently accountable to Parliament for the consequences . You cannot sensibly delegate to a committee of 650, most of whom will be no better informed than the general public, the responsibility for executive decisions. It is, I think, a misunderstanding of how government works to think that to do so is somehow more authentically “democratic”. I believe, though happy to be corrected, that this is the case in every major democracy: the executive is empowered to make decisions- including the commitment of military force, while the parliament/ senate/ etc. holds the executive to account. I think that here, as in some other cases, the issue was deliberately muddied by Blair when he saw some short term advantage to himself in seeming to “ consult” parliament when he was confident of the outcome anyway, without concern for any longer term damage to the effectiveness of government." Good points, with regards to other countries, in America, congress needs to declare war, but declaring war is quite old fashioned these days. The last country America declared war on wasn't Afghanistan or Iraq or Libya or Syria, it was Romania! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What has bombing Syria got to do with Brexit?" If you read her post properly you'd understand the comparison being made  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone notice that the BBC have deleted last weeks Question Time from iplayer. Now why would they do that? Could it be that MP, government minister and brother brother of BoJo went on the record to say that there would be no action taken on Syria before Parliament had an opportunity to examine the issue." It's still there as far as I can see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone notice that the BBC have deleted last weeks Question Time from iplayer. Now why would they do that? Could it be that MP, government minister and brother brother of BoJo went on the record to say that there would be no action taken on Syria before Parliament had an opportunity to examine the issue." I watched QT and he said nothing of the sort. More there was no action tabled. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No-one could argue with the executive acting immediately in a case of self-defence from a direct attack. Syria was not about self-defence, nor was it to thwart any “clear and present danger” to the UK. Syria in US eyes (and British) has always been about regime change, just as it was in Iraq. All that’s different are the tactics. A minority Government that pursues dubious military action against another sovereign state posing no direct threat to the UK is always going to be vulnerable. I hope Parliament embarrasses our leaders for sending British forces into the most appalling foreign conflict, without the consent of Parliament and lead by the most unstable, eratic and dishonest American leader I have ever seen." Where are people getting their information from. The French persuaded the US. The executive has a prerogative power and always has. Action doesn't have to be taken in self defence, it can be taken for humanitarian or international breaches. Though Assad's latest chem attack was some time ago, May looks to have sided on taking action to prevent future - so that would be humanitarian grounds. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Oops. Diane Abbot is at it again! See the mocked up photograph...think she might have a "migraine" when the debate starts at 3.30!" Yeah, she is getting a lot of flak for that. Get it? Flak 
Thanks, I'm here all week, tip your waiters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No-one could argue with the executive acting immediately in a case of self-defence from a direct attack. Syria was not about self-defence, nor was it to thwart any “clear and present danger” to the UK. Syria in US eyes (and British) has always been about regime change, just as it was in Iraq. All that’s different are the tactics. A minority Government that pursues dubious military action against another sovereign state posing no direct threat to the UK is always going to be vulnerable. I hope Parliament embarrasses our leaders for sending British forces into the most appalling foreign conflict, without the consent of Parliament and lead by the most unstable, eratic and dishonest American leader I have ever seen. Where are people getting their information from. The French persuaded the US. The executive has a prerogative power and always has. Action doesn't have to be taken in self defence, it can be taken for humanitarian or international breaches. Though Assad's latest chem attack was some time ago, May looks to have sided on taking action to prevent future - so that would be humanitarian grounds. " One issue is the lsck of consistency in enforcement of international law. Isreal seems to be immune from international law and flout it on a regular basis, yet unconfirmed footage from 'open sources' (cluld be even jihadi made ffs) and all shit breaks loose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good Man Lammy. Respect. " I just watched lammy.He really tore a strip of poor old amber Rudd.Fuck me I thought she was gonna cry...Fair play lammmy it's an absolute disgrace.Im surprised others haven't picked up on this . I suppose it's their far right politics.Standard in here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good Man Lammy. Respect. I just watched lammy.He really tore a strip of poor old amber Rudd.Fuck me I thought she was gonna cry...Fair play lammmy it's an absolute disgrace.Im surprised others haven't picked up on this . I suppose it's their far right politics.Standard in here." What I cannot understand is how they have not been able to access NHS services or denied pensions (I expect houses too). If they are in the system (which they are as business owners, workers etc), how are they not able to get proportionality? I don't like Corbyns politics but this is just broken and unfair. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There was a woman on TV this morning who came here in the 60s asa a and child was recently held in a detention center and being told you must leave after living here 50 fucking years.The colour of your skin is more relevant than ever in the UK. This new far right country we live in sucks.." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd like to think this is all a cock up ! Still thier is form ! Look at the Gurkhas ! Needs sorting now !" The treatment of the Gurkhas still turns my stomach.Now this with the wind rush generation shows us nothing has changed and never will.Sad but true. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Theresa May and her government are a very poor example in how to lead a country - the brexit fiasco speaks volumes about their incompetence. She is desperate for anything that may make her look in control, when her party has the knives out for her but the rivals won't try for her job until they'll be less at risk. The attacks should have gone to parliament for scrutiny, to establish a plan etc. There's a theme with them, they never have an intelligent plan for anything, a rabble of desperate no-hopers, egomaniacs and willingness to do almost anything for their own benefit. Hundreds of thousands dead from Syria, the government has done little, except May's brown nosing Trump and avoidance of embarrassment in parliament by seeking parliamentary review and approval. She's surely paid the DUP enough to continue to support them? "For someone that looks in control, there is a much needed debate on anti-Semitism in Parliament now. What you have just said though does not make sense. There was a vote in 2013 on whether to take action in Syria. The house voted no. The result, as has just been discussed by the house, was a signalling to Assad that the UK would do nothing. That there are international agreements to stand by. This is where Russia has extended it's veto to present day. Where 100,000 were dead in 2013, the toll is nearer 500,000 5 years later partly, through house inaction. Whilst you may not agree with the outcome, having full disclosure prior to engagement cannot be appropriate. Having the ability to act and not doing so due to procedural measures is what voted this (as described), 'vanity bill' down. "a fifth of Labour MPs did not vote with the Labour whip" https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/apr/17/syria-debate-corbyn-may-will-be-very-frightened-by-internet-campaigning-nazi-propaganda-revelations-says-culture-committee-chair-politics-live | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good Man Lammy. Respect. I just watched lammy.He really tore a strip of poor old amber Rudd.Fuck me I thought she was gonna cry...Fair play lammmy it's an absolute disgrace.Im surprised others haven't picked up on this . I suppose it's their far right politics.Standard in here." At the time it was theresa may as home sec., she should've got flak too! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Good Man Lammy. Respect. I just watched lammy.He really tore a strip of poor old amber Rudd.Fuck me I thought she was gonna cry...Fair play lammmy it's an absolute disgrace.Im surprised others haven't picked up on this . I suppose it's their far right politics.Standard in here. What I cannot understand is how they have not been able to access NHS services or denied pensions (I expect houses too). If they are in the system (which they are as business owners, workers etc), how are they not able to get proportionality? I don't like Corbyns politics but this is just broken and unfair. " The Nationality Act of 1948 gave citizens of the Commonwealth countries the right to British citizenship. Britain needed workers to rebuild after the war and many came. The racial tensions of the time lead to the Act being repealed. in the 1960s, I think. The poor paperwork, by today's standards, was not a problem, until the coalition government of 2010-2015 decided to get tough on migration. Remember the vans telling people here illegally to go home? That was part of a culture under Theresa May at the Home Office that made the UK a hostile place for people unable to prove they had a right to be here. New laws required identity checks to access services. Those without paperwork that was fully compliant became targets of that zealous culture. The Windrush citizens were victims of the lurch to the right that occurred from 2010 onwards. It was blatant populsim, appealing to a culture of xenophobia that similarly alarms EU citizens in the UK today who worry about their status without the protections that come with EU citizenship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
