Earl Aelfheah

The most insightful, informed and coherent talk I've heard https://www.facebook.com/UniversityofLiverpool/videos/1293361974024537/

I do think that for such an important change, there should be a requirement for more than 50% of eligible voters to actively vote to leave.

Question Air? really does have the most boring and also overpriced attire I have ever seen.

.

Yeah, it's all pretty poor.

In rush hour, walking to Waterloo takes about the same time as the bus, but it's not a particularly pleasant walk. You can get the train to Blackfriars and walk from there, but still have to catch a bus to Denmark Hill and Thameslink line is pretty unreliable and busy in RH. Alternatively, you can get train from ED to London Bridge and then try to get on the Jubilee line. Probably about 35-40 minutes in total (although again, not the most pleasant journey). All in all, I would say that either the bus, or cycling are the best (of limited) options.

.. and there in lies the problem with the Councils decision to turn a blind eye.

It doesn't directly effect me, but the principle irks me. When the bridge on Camberwell Grove closed, we were told that the width / weight restrictions put in would be temporary. The bridge never fully re-opened. Now a bridge a little further along has also been closed. It seems the infrastructure is just allowed to deteriorate over time. Where's the accountability?

What is going on with the bridges, both on Windsor Walk and Camberwell Grove. Are Network Rail no longer charges with maintaining the rail infrastructure?

All you lefty fascists? I think you may need a nice cup of tea and a sit down.

Remain was ahead most of the way through the campaigns, because Leave just couldn't put up a convincing economic arguement. That's when Leave decided to hit the emergency 'immigration' button and start implying (whilst assiduously not explicitly stating) that a vote to leave would cut down the number of people coming here to work (obviously they didn't put it in those terms, more 'coming here to 'take houses, jobs and to launch terrorist attacks'). Unfortunately it has been very successful and that is why the polls are moving. If we 'Brexit' I suspect it will be in large part down to the idea that leaving will lead to less immigration (which it probably won't) and the ridiculous notion that public services will improve as a result of a weaker economy.

Ruthlessly exploiting a tragedy: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/13/shameful-leaveeu-tweet-uk-face-orlando-style-attack I know there has been some questionable tactics on both side of the debate, but the Leave camp really are wallowing in the gutter.

Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Wales is statistically speaking one of the most > Eurosceptic regions of the UK, and ironically > according to the 2011 census has the smallest > proportion of Other-EU citizens out of all > regions. Scotland is without doubt pro-EU as is > London, but pretty much the rest of the country > (apart from the odd city here and there) is > anti-EU (including Northern Ireland). > > Louisa. that's not what that map says (although I have no idea how accurate it is). What are you basing taht on Lou?

...and Glasgow further north than Moscow (is that right?)

Interesting map. Not such a London / North split. Scots and Welsh looking likely to vote very differently to England if true. That'll put Scottish independence back on the agenda.

.. but it is going to get worse if we leave

As an aside, doesn't anyone think it's pretty weird timing in terms of the referendum, considering the government are backing remain? We have the queen's 90th - with all the nostalgia for Britain's past and general flag wavery + the Football and the proxy European war which that represents (and more flag waving nationalism). You probably couldn't pick a moment more likely to produce an out vote.

There is no reason to think that leaving the EU will bring down immigration in the long term (it may in the short term simply due to the likelihood of a recession / reduction in demand for labour). People are here to work in all but a handful of cases and those jobs will still need doing (unless, as I say, there is a significant down turn, which is quite possible / probable). Immigrants are much more likely to be net contributors to the exchequer (as they're more likely to be of working age), so even if a future government decided that it would limit numbers regardless of demand, there would be even less money available to allocate to public services. The whole immigration debate is a complete red herring in my opinion. It's being used to excuse the effects of an explicit policy to reduce public spending (austerity). Why on earth people can't see a link between reduced spending on services and reduced quality of those services is beyond me.

A significant section of the press have, over many years, run a deliberate campaign of misinformation on Europe and immigration. Politicians have chosen not to take this on (often taking advantage of some of the myths that have been created) and now we may well pay the price: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-a7074311.html [EU referendum: British public wrong about nearly everything, survey shows]

One way to reduce net EU migration would be to stop the English hooligans returning.

Got a Leave leaflet through the post today. Two massively misleading statement both back and front (discredited 350m and Turkey immently joining claims). Also a map of Europe showing the new countries that are supposedly joining (they're not) with Iraq and Syria highlighted. Clearly trying to link remaining and threat of terrorism. Boris and Chums are wilfully misleading the public.

OK who's the one person voted 'other'

Someone can be deported if convicted of rape. The Telegraph article is about a man who had previously served time in his own country for a past crime. He was deemed by a judge "to no longer pose enough of a risk to be deported as he had been a law-abiding and working member of UK society for seven years". The headline is rather misleading.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As in the general debate on immigration, the > liberal left seems utterly incapable of separating > a 'worries about immigration' from 'fear of > immigrants'; whilst the Xenophobes and racists mix > up the two so do the 'liberals'. It is quite > possible to have concerns about immigration > without any fear of immigrants - many second and > 3rd generation immigrants do themselves! That's > the problem with not allowing/shutting down any > debate on this in the past, huge swathes of > Guardian readers just can't intellectually > separate them.... It's nonsense to say the immigration debate has been 'closed down'. But when Farage is talking about EU immigrants putting 'our women' at danger of sexual assault, what response can you give? Just as often it's 'the right' closing down legitimate criticism via constant cries of 'political correctness'. I agree with Louisa though that there is a sensible debate to be had in the middle somewhere. It's fair to talk about the impact of immigration without suggesting that immigrants are dangerous.

@louisa - if I've misinterpreted what you've said I apologise. It's a difficult one re. accusations of xenophobia. On the one hand it's not particularly helpful if you want to engage with people to accuse them of being fearful of incomers. On the other, it's pretty clear that there is a strong strand of xenophobia running through some of the debate and particularly the press coverage. We shouldn't pretend it's not so, for fear of causing offence.