I think it was UDS making reference to the “Whites Preferred” UK immigration laws - although for what it’s worth I do agree completely with his observation.
I’ve heard it said that the changes to the UK laws which stop people from places like Australia and New Zealand from moving to the UK are really targeted at people from less developed places like India or West Africa, but for obvious reasons you can’t put a “You Must Be At Least This White To Move To England” sign at the border.
The irony is, the way things are going in England a lot of the people from the Anglosphere Commonwealth are probably less keen on moving there now than even five years ago. Certainly for myself (someone whose Anglophilia is a matter of public record here), I’d rather move to Canada than the UK nowadays - assuming I emigrated from Australia at all.
Never mind the politics for the moment, what on earth would the UK’s citizens (as individuals) gain from leaving the EU? They have the right to live and work in any member country, and those member countries are in close enough geographic proximity to make a move at will feasible. Just as we Americans have a right of residence in any one of the 50 states, and in some of the US territories (such as Puerto Rico), a person from the UK has the right to move around throughout the EU.
This makes as much sense as suggesting that Maine secede from the US and form a union with Australia. Sure, it would be cool if I could move freely between my home state and Australia, but not worth the cost of giving up my right to drive across the Piscataqua River whenever I felt like it.
The UK is on friendly terms with Australia and New Zealand, but there is nothing in place like the commitments, obligations etc that the UK has with its EU partners on trade, economic and political matters, or like the military commitments that the UK has with its NATO partners.
And this works the other way too. Australia and New Zealand are in a formal military alliance with the US, but not with the UK.
There’s some cultural co-operation between the UK on the one hand and Australia and New Zealand on the otehr, and some very limited political co-operation, through the Commonwealth. And there’s plenty of general goodwill. But that’s about it.
The relationship is not very close, and in some respects that is a deliberate choice on their part to move out from under the shadow of Auntie England (and dates from December 10th, 1941 and the loss of Repulse and Prince of Wales after which Britain’s guarantees on what it could do to defend Australasia were seen to be overly optimistic ).
Britain set its face towards the Common Market in the 1970s, something which caused great dismay in the Dominions about their preferential trading arrangements, and a reassessment of the value of remaining linked to Britain.
I’m a bit confused about what issues a Brexit is trying to solve. I did find this wiki article:
I’m not sure I really understand most of these complaints. For example, take “control over national borders.” AFAICT (I could be wrong), the UK has an opt-out to Shengen, so it can already control its borders.
As for EU laws, if we’re talking about trade-related regulations, the WTO has a bunch of those too. So, leaving the EU may not actually make that much of a difference if the UK is planning on staying in the WTO. But, perhaps there are other legal issues other than trade issues that people don’t like?
The resignation of IDS seems like a very calculated bit of gamesmanship. IDS is seen, by his own words and actions, as one of the chief architects of the reduction of out-of-work benefits, however he has made out his resignation as the minister who oversees such benefits to be a principled stand against the slashing of disability benefits in the recent budget (an unpopular move, that will even be unpopular with those on the left of the Tory party). His resignation seems to be a very thinly-veiled and highly-calculated attack against Chancellor George Osborne, who is sen as David Cameron’s anointed successor and by far the most pro-EU minister at the top of the party.
More to the point he’s setting himself up for a senior position under Boris after Cameron loses the Brexit vote. A risky strategy as the result is uncertain.
Well, he should. If Seren359’s feeling is shared by other British poeple - and I think it is - then there’s a risk that any intervention by Obama will be counterproductive. Which is obviously something Obama needs to be aware of before he intervenes.
Well, that’s the thing. What makes anyone think he will “intervene”? His BBC interview was about as much intervention as any US president would contemplate in UK politics.
The Anglosphere countries already collaborate very closely with each other (as in the intelligence-sharing 5 I’s above). Our shared language, legal tradition and history make cooperation very natural. That’s all we need.
I think that president Obama, through his words and deeds as much as he is able to as president, has shown contempt and dislike for the UK. No doubt his feelings have been clouded by the experiences of his father’s family.
Another Brit here, and I want to give the counter view here WRT Obama: he has always seemed very popular to me among people I know but also in Britain generally, and I have no issue with him giving the US view that Britain should stay in the EU.
I do accept though, that some proportion of people will vote against people they dislike, rather than entirely on the issues, as irrational as that is. So if it were the case that he is unpopular in the UK, it would be better that he keeps his distance from the campaign.
That link doesn’t work for me, but I found a reprint of at least one of their lists here.
I say “at least one of their lists” because it seems they print a list of Top 10 Obama insults against the UK every year.
And looking at this particular list (the one I could open), they are really reaching…I count maybe one that would widely be considered an insult (his comments on the Falklands).
This is not a newspaper dispassionately reporting the news; this is wanting to promote a particular view on Obama and trying desperately to find and then(mis)interpret events in a way that supports that view.