6 ms·

> that pose money-laundering and terrorism financing threats So, Uk is fine with a country that finances terrorism in the UK itself as long as the elite gets a

by kartan 8y ago

> that pose money-laundering and terrorism financing threats So, Uk is fine with a country that finances terrorism in the UK itself as long as the elite gets a good chunk of money. At the same time, the UK wants to leave the European Union because immigration is "bad". What about letting immigrants in, but keeping state-sponsored terrorism out? All discussions have become so monetary centric that politicians publicly support the vilest of actions if there is money to gain (see Khashoggi torture and murder). The public should bring back some idealism and fight for a better world, not just for money. Otherwise, one day, we will wake up in the Middle Ages.

mprev 8y ago
The people who want to leave the EU and not necessarily the same people pushing for this.
- Ensorceled 8y ago
  Actually they are very unlikely to be the same people.
  - gutnor 8y ago
    They are the same people. The Brexit they sold to the working class and the Brexit the Brexiteer elite is dreaming of are 2 entirely different beasts. Since the vote has been thrown, the local population has largely been ignored. Their need at best a second thought in a grand political and cynical battle for power.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- kartan 8y ago
  > The people who want to leave the EU and not necessarily the same people pushing for this. I think that you are right. But, why is not these kinds of topics part of the political discourse? It is elected officials the ones pushing for helping Saudis without first asking them to change their methods. Why is not the same people that do not want to be in the European Union because they are afraid of immigrants being more critical to this real threat to their country? So, citizens have removed "I am worried about inequality" and "I am worried about terrorism" that will make Saudis intervention part of the concerning trends from their thoughts. And they think just about "I am worried about immigration". Without realizing that ending immigration was never a goal. That racism and xenophobia were packaged for them as an easy solution that problems that nobody talks about. In engineering is important to state the problem to solve before discussing the solutions. Citizens of the UK talk about solutions, that are not real ones, without realizing that they miss the problem.
  - 7952 8y ago
    People see the world through eyes blinded by nationalism. You can justify all kind of contradictory policy. If foreigners are all bad then it makes no difference if you support them not. And there is a natural respect for brutal power like you see in Saudi. And there is support for a brutal foreign policy for the same nationalist reason. If you dont like foreigners then why would you care about foreigners?
- swebs 8y ago
  Exactly. Brexit was decided by a popular vote, not a few political elite.
dingaling 8y ago
> because immigration is "bad". The malicious simplification of argument. Immigration will continue after Brexit, just like it does today for Canadians or Thais or Ukrainians or whomever non-EU moving is to the UK. No-one pretends otherwise except sneering anti-Brexiters. Look, we're going into this together. It's time to stop being dickish and work out what we're going to do in the new reality whether we like it or not. Ridiculing half the population as uneducated xenophobes isn't going to achieve anything.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > It's time to stop being dickish > sneering anti-Brexiters. ...uh-huh
- Ntrails 8y ago
  Half the reason we are in this mess is because politicians are too stupid to properly discuss this without resorting to straw men and personal attacks. Free movement is not without consequence, address it honestly, attempt to solve real issues and maybe people come around.
  - chosenbreed37 8y ago
    Well reasoned argument.
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    I don't think politicians are too stupid to discuss without straw men, it's just that straw men work with the general public, and get them support.
  - NotAnEconomist 8y ago
    > Free movement is not without consequence, address it honestly, attempt to solve real issues and maybe people come around. The problem is that unrestricted movement disrupts culture and lowers a lot of social statistics all at once - in a way that can be really disruptive to the host culture. Similarly, no matter how you explain it, the deal in practice is "We'll take a lot of money from the middle class and give it to the globally impoverished." Understandably, the people who are just being taken from don't seem to like that deal very much; and cultures which are rapidly disrupted by low-class migrants don't seem to do well. Never mind that "free movement" is usually just political cover for people looking to import more workers after their leadership and the society they built is so toxic, it's killing the indigenous population. Naturally, the people being fed into the meat grinder and replaced aren't particularly fond of paying for their replacements to be imported. Talking about "free movement" in that context has about the same tone as "right sizing" your business, while off-shoring.
porpoisely 8y ago
You are unfairly conflating the people who voted for brexit with the anti-brexit elites. I doubt the people who voted for brexit are fine with saudi money.
- n4r9 8y ago
  > I doubt the people who voted for brexit are fine with saudi money. Not the ordinary Leave voter, sure. But there are links between the upper echelons of the Leave campaign and the upper echelons of Saudi royalty, suggesting that those who pushed for Brexit are happy to deal with the Saudis.
gammateam 8y ago
honestly the backlash is on the whole idea of using state resources to whitelist transactions its not about whether a country or participants in a country fulfills the criteria set forth in "are they circumventing capital controls to also fund terrorism" guideline its about the capital controls at all. banks obviously aren't playing ball and the state can only leverage the financial institution's relationship with their central bank to enforce this anyway, parallel non-bank payment systems make it more apparent that all of this a moot point anyway, and the costs to enforce this ideal are extremely high. obviously no senator can say "maybe we shouldn't try attempt to police terrorism financing", but a 28 country bloc that requires unanimous consent can easily bring sanity back into public resource use, and thats what is happening here.
baybal2 8y ago
>> that pose money-laundering and terrorism financing threats > So, Uk is fine with a country that finances terrorism in the UK itself as long as the elite gets a good chunk of money. At the same time, the UK wants to leave the European Union because immigration is "bad". UK is itself no stranger for that. London hosts god knows how much laundered money from badlands of the world. It hosts Altaf Hussain, and god know how many other ex and acting warlords from Africa and Middle East, shielded by UK spy establishments.
p49k 8y ago
Let’s not forget that the UK put Iceland on the state-sponsored terror list in order to freeze assets and strongarm them into agreeing to a bad financial deal. With that act, they completely threw out the notion that it actually had anything to do with terrorism.

by kartan 8y ago

mprev 8y ago

The people who want to leave the EU and not necessarily the same people pushing for this.

Ensorceled 8y ago
Actually they are very unlikely to be the same people.
- gutnor 8y ago
  They are the same people. The Brexit they sold to the working class and the Brexit the Brexiteer elite is dreaming of are 2 entirely different beasts. Since the vote has been thrown, the local population has largely been ignored. Their need at best a second thought in a grand political and cynical battle for power.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
kartan 8y ago
> The people who want to leave the EU and not necessarily the same people pushing for this. I think that you are right. But, why is not these kinds of topics part of the political discourse? It is elected officials the ones pushing for helping Saudis without first asking them to change their methods. Why is not the same people that do not want to be in the European Union because they are afraid of immigrants being more critical to this real threat to their country? So, citizens have removed "I am worried about inequality" and "I am worried about terrorism" that will make Saudis intervention part of the concerning trends from their thoughts. And they think just about "I am worried about immigration". Without realizing that ending immigration was never a goal. That racism and xenophobia were packaged for them as an easy solution that problems that nobody talks about. In engineering is important to state the problem to solve before discussing the solutions. Citizens of the UK talk about solutions, that are not real ones, without realizing that they miss the problem.
- 7952 8y ago
  People see the world through eyes blinded by nationalism. You can justify all kind of contradictory policy. If foreigners are all bad then it makes no difference if you support them not. And there is a natural respect for brutal power like you see in Saudi. And there is support for a brutal foreign policy for the same nationalist reason. If you dont like foreigners then why would you care about foreigners?
swebs 8y ago
Exactly. Brexit was decided by a popular vote, not a few political elite.

dingaling 8y ago

> because immigration is "bad". The malicious simplification of argument. Immigration will continue after Brexit, just like it does today for Canadians or Thais or Ukrainians or whomever non-EU moving is to the UK. No-one pretends otherwise except sneering anti-Brexiters. Look, we're going into this together. It's time to stop being dickish and work out what we're going to do in the new reality whether we like it or not. Ridiculing half the population as uneducated xenophobes isn't going to achieve anything.

SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> It's time to stop being dickish > sneering anti-Brexiters. ...uh-huh
Ntrails 8y ago
Half the reason we are in this mess is because politicians are too stupid to properly discuss this without resorting to straw men and personal attacks. Free movement is not without consequence, address it honestly, attempt to solve real issues and maybe people come around.
- chosenbreed37 8y ago
  Well reasoned argument.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  I don't think politicians are too stupid to discuss without straw men, it's just that straw men work with the general public, and get them support.
- NotAnEconomist 8y ago
  > Free movement is not without consequence, address it honestly, attempt to solve real issues and maybe people come around. The problem is that unrestricted movement disrupts culture and lowers a lot of social statistics all at once - in a way that can be really disruptive to the host culture. Similarly, no matter how you explain it, the deal in practice is "We'll take a lot of money from the middle class and give it to the globally impoverished." Understandably, the people who are just being taken from don't seem to like that deal very much; and cultures which are rapidly disrupted by low-class migrants don't seem to do well. Never mind that "free movement" is usually just political cover for people looking to import more workers after their leadership and the society they built is so toxic, it's killing the indigenous population. Naturally, the people being fed into the meat grinder and replaced aren't particularly fond of paying for their replacements to be imported. Talking about "free movement" in that context has about the same tone as "right sizing" your business, while off-shoring.

porpoisely 8y ago

You are unfairly conflating the people who voted for brexit with the anti-brexit elites. I doubt the people who voted for brexit are fine with saudi money.

n4r9 8y ago
> I doubt the people who voted for brexit are fine with saudi money. Not the ordinary Leave voter, sure. But there are links between the upper echelons of the Leave campaign and the upper echelons of Saudi royalty, suggesting that those who pushed for Brexit are happy to deal with the Saudis.

gammateam 8y ago

honestly the backlash is on the whole idea of using state resources to whitelist transactions its not about whether a country or participants in a country fulfills the criteria set forth in "are they circumventing capital controls to also fund terrorism" guideline its about the capital controls at all. banks obviously aren't playing ball and the state can only leverage the financial institution's relationship with their central bank to enforce this anyway, parallel non-bank payment systems make it more apparent that all of this a moot point anyway, and the costs to enforce this ideal are extremely high. obviously no senator can say "maybe we shouldn't try attempt to police terrorism financing", but a 28 country bloc that requires unanimous consent can easily bring sanity back into public resource use, and thats what is happening here.

baybal2 8y ago

>> that pose money-laundering and terrorism financing threats > So, Uk is fine with a country that finances terrorism in the UK itself as long as the elite gets a good chunk of money. At the same time, the UK wants to leave the European Union because immigration is "bad". UK is itself no stranger for that. London hosts god knows how much laundered money from badlands of the world. It hosts Altaf Hussain, and god know how many other ex and acting warlords from Africa and Middle East, shielded by UK spy establishments.

p49k 8y ago

Let’s not forget that the UK put Iceland on the state-sponsored terror list in order to freeze assets and strongarm them into agreeing to a bad financial deal. With that act, they completely threw out the notion that it actually had anything to do with terrorism.