When I was growing up "ex-pat" meant a western manager working with a western firm/institution on a western contract & expenses in a developing country or the Middle East.
Nobody ever used the word to describe poor British pensioners trying to get by on a state pension in Spain.
One doesnt have to call oneself an immigrant.
UK citizen will do.
But ex-pat is about the legacy of empire.
Its about wanting to claim a higher status of someone who has power in someone elses country.
Not an immigrant or foreign, but a privleged member of the British abroad.
3/
But its actually worse than this.
Essentially the unexpressed logic behind this is that even the poorest Brit abroad is granted the status of "ex-pat"...
...while even the most skilled, qualified foreigner in Britain is an "immigrant" (excepting of course Americans).
4/
A lot of this is subconscious.
We can accept Brits emmigrating to NZ + Australia as that is for many: "us" (our realm).
The painful truth for many Brits is to accept Brits as immigrants in Europe - equal to european immigrants in UK.
Its the equality thats unacceptable.
5/
As such its a pefect mirror of Brexit.
For many Leavers, despite all the protest, they can barely name an EU law they want replacing.
Its the equality of being 1-in-28 they hated.
The EU was to be punnished for not giving Britain the respect it felt Leavers deserved.
6/
To be an immigrant in the EU, implies EU countries could be as good, if not better, than the UK.
To be 1-in-28 in EU implies equality - not superiority.
The ex-pat/Brexit issue is the same thing.
A disatisfaction with current status.
Its about our psychology - not Europe.
7/
Given all this the solution to our Brexit mess, as ive always argued, lies not in trade, politics & law, but in the psychology of Britain.
That is of course why so many flags are now needed.
Unless the English wake from this soon it will be the🏴that flies...and not the 🇬🇧.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I back PR & rejoin before my allegiance to any party.
Not just in word but in deed.
I’m a member of at least one political group.
I’ll vote for a party - Labour - in my constituency that has the best chance of removing the Tories.
Guys it’s not difficult.
We need to play smart.
2/
There’s things you can say in public and things ones has to be a bit more “circumspect” about on public platforms.
It should be clear to all where I’ve been going on this and what the strategy has to be.
Are you going to mess around or are you going to make a difference?
3/
So it can never be about “just” tactical voting.
Exert a direct influence on parties even where, personally, that particular party wasn’t traditionally your 1st choice.
The Northern Independence Party is a spoiler party led by Corbynite activists.
Its stated goals are virtually impossible for it to achieve..tho its main (largely unstated) achievable aim is to peel of Labour votes in traditional Labour areas to derail any potential Labour govt.
2/
Large % of members London based as expected for a Corbynite spoiler party as are many leading figures.
Northern independence isn’t going to happen however the real aim - the destruction of a viable centre-left govt in an age of Johnson & Trump II is their holy grail.
3/
People think it’s a fun even jokey outfit or failing that a genuine grassroots party.
It’s not.
It’s a well run PR outfit.
The point is to ensure Labour lose seats and to destroy possibility of a centre left for a generation.
At the risk of boring people
We didn’t get Brexit “thanks to northerners”
Northerners were in fact less enthusiastic about referendum in terms of turnout than many areas and in % terms than the midlands.
The redwall obsession is a continuation of a London media myth.
3/
In England “people voted Brexit not areas”.
Young (<40), Students & graduates moved to cities & south and voted remain which tipped often brexity areas into remain seats.
Many who haven’t really understood 2016...now of course cannot understand 2024.
The report by the govt on the other hand seems designed to give the impression to the uniformed observer in the 1st paragraphs that it’s all a new thing so that UK can become a “science superpower”...
While the hundreds & thousands of pounds UK govt paid in cash or in kind to Jennifer Arcuri due to her relationship with Boris Johnson has created the biggest storm...
..the real story is the amount of of undisclosed money funnelled to Arcuri..& this could run to over a million.
2/
Question we should really be asking is how a bankrupt waitress being sued for $100 000 in unpaid student fees..
...ended up with $1 million plopping into her failing company which had no assets nor income save govt grants Boris arranged for her...
1. Where this $1 million came from? 2. Did Boris know the source or even help arrange it? 3. Is the source British? 4. What did the provider of this money receive in return?
I started this thread 18 months ago when I heard Jennifer Arcuri - a bankrupt student-waitress whose only real income was via fraudulent grants arranged by Boris Johnson..
..loaned her own failing firm £700 000.
It’s surely in UK’s interest that we know who supplied this money?
There’s a lot about this story that simply demands a thorough investigation - particularly on national security grounds.
1. Who supplied the £700 000? 2. Was the source known to Boris Johnson? 3. Was the ultimate source British? 4. What did they get/expect to get in return?
3/
A failing company with no real assets or income run by a bankrupt student heavily involved with Boris Johnson in what looks like fraudulent schemes suddenly gets a cash injection of almost £750 000.