F#ck off Nigel...
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 elgrande  bedford 07 May 15 1.31pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote lankygit at 07 May 2015 1.19pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.12pm
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 12.57pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 11.15am
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 11.11am
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 8.02am
Quote nickgusset at 06 May 2015 10.23pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 06 May 2015 10.13pm
Grauniad and EU-funded UCL research groups (regurgitated by C4) matter not one iota when you cannot confront the fundamental metric of economic strength: the fractional change in GDP. The figures are there plain as day: pre 1995 : 3% growth, 50,000 net immigration max
As immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, presumably we should encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? They would not come here if there were no jobs or resources to sustain them. Many return home after working here for years and pay a share of their labours into our treasury but leave with the queens English and a close connection with this country. Some stay and settle but would not do so if they had nowhere to live or resources to support them. What is wrong with that? Both do work that indigenous people could do. However, unless we are talking polish deli why do you think employers love to engage Latvians over locals? Is it really just because they are prepared to work for less? And even if it was just that, why don't the local unemployed try to compete? I was unemployed and worked in an office for 6 months taking home only unemployment benefit and lunch and travel money (under an official scheme). I know they are people who put out 100s of applications and must see despair when they walk past a coffee shop with polish people working there. So why don't they ask for a job there too? The problem is they set their sites too high. . Is the problem not those seeking employment who don't realise that if they are doing any job they have more chance of finding another? The problem is to train the unemployed in new skills and finding a job! The solution is not to put a bloody great fence round the country to protect the local population as the lack of healthy competition would be of no benefit to anyone. So, as you think immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, you would encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? No. Nor would I haul up the drawbridge and allow protectionism to ruin this country. Protectionism? You mean like the EU Common Agricultural Policy that eats 40% of the EU budget, the largest slice being used to keep French farmers in 4-wheel-drives with artificially high food prices and the dumping of food that could be sent to famine areas?
Haha
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| derben 07 May 15 1.36pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote lankygit at 07 May 2015 1.19pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.12pm
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 12.57pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 11.15am
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 11.11am
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 8.02am
Quote nickgusset at 06 May 2015 10.23pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 06 May 2015 10.13pm
Grauniad and EU-funded UCL research groups (regurgitated by C4) matter not one iota when you cannot confront the fundamental metric of economic strength: the fractional change in GDP. The figures are there plain as day: pre 1995 : 3% growth, 50,000 net immigration max
As immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, presumably we should encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? They would not come here if there were no jobs or resources to sustain them. Many return home after working here for years and pay a share of their labours into our treasury but leave with the queens English and a close connection with this country. Some stay and settle but would not do so if they had nowhere to live or resources to support them. What is wrong with that? Both do work that indigenous people could do. However, unless we are talking polish deli why do you think employers love to engage Latvians over locals? Is it really just because they are prepared to work for less? And even if it was just that, why don't the local unemployed try to compete? I was unemployed and worked in an office for 6 months taking home only unemployment benefit and lunch and travel money (under an official scheme). I know they are people who put out 100s of applications and must see despair when they walk past a coffee shop with polish people working there. So why don't they ask for a job there too? The problem is they set their sites too high. . Is the problem not those seeking employment who don't realise that if they are doing any job they have more chance of finding another? The problem is to train the unemployed in new skills and finding a job! The solution is not to put a bloody great fence round the country to protect the local population as the lack of healthy competition would be of no benefit to anyone. So, as you think immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, you would encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? No. Nor would I haul up the drawbridge and allow protectionism to ruin this country. Protectionism? You mean like the EU Common Agricultural Policy that eats 40% of the EU budget, the largest slice being used to keep French farmers in 4-wheel-drives with artificially high food prices and the dumping of food that could be sent to famine areas?
Well, most children would be able to see and understand that the Common Agricultural Policy is a protectionist racket par excellence.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| lankygit Lincoln 07 May 15 1.47pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.36pm
Quote lankygit at 07 May 2015 1.19pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.12pm
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 12.57pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 11.15am
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 11.11am
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 8.02am
Quote nickgusset at 06 May 2015 10.23pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 06 May 2015 10.13pm
Grauniad and EU-funded UCL research groups (regurgitated by C4) matter not one iota when you cannot confront the fundamental metric of economic strength: the fractional change in GDP. The figures are there plain as day: pre 1995 : 3% growth, 50,000 net immigration max
As immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, presumably we should encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? They would not come here if there were no jobs or resources to sustain them. Many return home after working here for years and pay a share of their labours into our treasury but leave with the queens English and a close connection with this country. Some stay and settle but would not do so if they had nowhere to live or resources to support them. What is wrong with that? Both do work that indigenous people could do. However, unless we are talking polish deli why do you think employers love to engage Latvians over locals? Is it really just because they are prepared to work for less? And even if it was just that, why don't the local unemployed try to compete? I was unemployed and worked in an office for 6 months taking home only unemployment benefit and lunch and travel money (under an official scheme). I know they are people who put out 100s of applications and must see despair when they walk past a coffee shop with polish people working there. So why don't they ask for a job there too? The problem is they set their sites too high. . Is the problem not those seeking employment who don't realise that if they are doing any job they have more chance of finding another? The problem is to train the unemployed in new skills and finding a job! The solution is not to put a bloody great fence round the country to protect the local population as the lack of healthy competition would be of no benefit to anyone. So, as you think immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, you would encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? No. Nor would I haul up the drawbridge and allow protectionism to ruin this country. Protectionism? You mean like the EU Common Agricultural Policy that eats 40% of the EU budget, the largest slice being used to keep French farmers in 4-wheel-drives with artificially high food prices and the dumping of food that could be sent to famine areas?
Well, most children would be able to see and understand that the Common Agricultural Policy is a protectionist racket par excellence. They`d also infer that the CAP has about as much to do with migration as lap dancing does with toad sexing.
Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| lankygit Lincoln 07 May 15 1.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Superfly at 07 May 2015 1.29pm
Lost me No, not at you mate.
Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
I'm not sure if that's a dig at me or derbrain? | derben 07 May 15 1.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote lankygit at 07 May 2015 1.47pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.36pm
Quote lankygit at 07 May 2015 1.19pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.12pm
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 12.57pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 11.15am
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 11.11am
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 8.02am
Quote nickgusset at 06 May 2015 10.23pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 06 May 2015 10.13pm
Grauniad and EU-funded UCL research groups (regurgitated by C4) matter not one iota when you cannot confront the fundamental metric of economic strength: the fractional change in GDP. The figures are there plain as day: pre 1995 : 3% growth, 50,000 net immigration max
As immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, presumably we should encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? They would not come here if there were no jobs or resources to sustain them. Many return home after working here for years and pay a share of their labours into our treasury but leave with the queens English and a close connection with this country. Some stay and settle but would not do so if they had nowhere to live or resources to support them. What is wrong with that? Both do work that indigenous people could do. However, unless we are talking polish deli why do you think employers love to engage Latvians over locals? Is it really just because they are prepared to work for less? And even if it was just that, why don't the local unemployed try to compete? I was unemployed and worked in an office for 6 months taking home only unemployment benefit and lunch and travel money (under an official scheme). I know they are people who put out 100s of applications and must see despair when they walk past a coffee shop with polish people working there. So why don't they ask for a job there too? The problem is they set their sites too high. . Is the problem not those seeking employment who don't realise that if they are doing any job they have more chance of finding another? The problem is to train the unemployed in new skills and finding a job! The solution is not to put a bloody great fence round the country to protect the local population as the lack of healthy competition would be of no benefit to anyone. So, as you think immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, you would encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? No. Nor would I haul up the drawbridge and allow protectionism to ruin this country. Protectionism? You mean like the EU Common Agricultural Policy that eats 40% of the EU budget, the largest slice being used to keep French farmers in 4-wheel-drives with artificially high food prices and the dumping of food that could be sent to famine areas?
Well, most children would be able to see and understand that the Common Agricultural Policy is a protectionist racket par excellence. They`d also infer that the CAP has about as much to do with migration as lap dancing does with toad sexing. Please note that the thread was discussing EU immigration and that Silvertop introduced the aspect of 'protectionism'. (btw we are still waiting for answer to the question of whether immigration should be totally uncontrolled and encouraged if it is of so much benefit).
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 May 15 1.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The Sash at 07 May 2015 1.09pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 06 May 2015 12.57pm
Quote The Sash at 06 May 2015 12.36pm
Quote npn at 05 May 2015 1.46pm
I'm not voting UKIP. I am amazed, however, that a lot of people I know (particularly left-leaning ones, to be fair) seem totally disgusted by them. I had to step into one of those pointless Facebook battles when someone posted that UKIP and their supporters are a disgrace. It seems everyone is in favour of free speech, provided the person speaking agrees with their views. If you don't like UKIP, don't vote for them. Pretty simple. Shouting them down and referring to them as a disgrace, and even trying to associate them with the BNP because of some spurious, vague, and not even verified, assertion that Griffin will be voting for them (he's a far-right person, natural he's going to vote for the furthest right candidate, surely? Just like Mao would probably vote TUSC because they are the closest aligned to his own ideal, not because those ideals are the same) is surely a very poor effort at debate. Exactamundo Always amazes me that people who shout down those they oppose and accuse them of intolerance (and in this case threaten as result) seem to have a massive 'whoosh' at the disclosure of their own intolerance of people who hold a political view counter to their own. Its not even debate - its simply Wolfie Smith Polytechnic level 'right on-ness' white noise.. Edited by The Sash (06 May 2015 12.38pm) In the end, those shouting loudest, usually prosper, because they're easy to shout louder at. I mean who cares if UKIP's employment policy or economic models are feasible, when you can shout Nazi. Said it when Griffin was on Question Time, that going on about the BNP and race is pointless, they're prepared for that, get them on the economics and practicality of policy, and they'll hang themselves. Nothing wrong with being a Neo-Nazi, that's your right, but the trick is making them look stupid, not yourself. I don't really like UKIP, but I think the media love them (they're unspin, full of gaffs and interesting) compared to the mainstream (similarly the Greens). Realistically, they're being presented really as a deflection from the fact that none of the mainstream parties have much to say other than slagging off the others.
The reason the media take a shine to UKIP and The Greens is they are a mixture of common sense and utter lunacy but are both, under our current electoral system absolutely harmless. The Whigs have as much chance of getting MP's than either of them I predict that UKIP will gain a seat and the Greens will keep theirs, despite the fact they'll account between them for up to 20% of the vote.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 May 15 2.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.53pm
Please note that the thread was discussing EU immigration and that Silvertop introduced the aspect of 'protectionism'. (btw we are still waiting for answer to the question of whether immigration should be totally uncontrolled and encouraged if it is of so much benefit).
I love the way you phrase this as there being two options, unrestrained totally open immigration or somekind of total restriction. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the pragmatic and realistic, and not the hyperbolic and ideological.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| lankygit Lincoln 07 May 15 2.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.53pm
Please note that the thread was discussing EU immigration and that Silvertop introduced the aspect of 'protectionism'. (btw we are still waiting for answer to the question of whether immigration should be totally uncontrolled and encouraged if it is of so much benefit).
Also please note the initial subject matter of this thread was the fact that Farage claimed to support Palace, not international migration.
Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour? [Link] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 07 May 15 2.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.12pm
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 12.57pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 11.15am
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 11.11am
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 8.02am
Quote nickgusset at 06 May 2015 10.23pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 06 May 2015 10.13pm
Grauniad and EU-funded UCL research groups (regurgitated by C4) matter not one iota when you cannot confront the fundamental metric of economic strength: the fractional change in GDP. The figures are there plain as day: pre 1995 : 3% growth, 50,000 net immigration max
As immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, presumably we should encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? They would not come here if there were no jobs or resources to sustain them. Many return home after working here for years and pay a share of their labours into our treasury but leave with the queens English and a close connection with this country. Some stay and settle but would not do so if they had nowhere to live or resources to support them. What is wrong with that? Both do work that indigenous people could do. However, unless we are talking polish deli why do you think employers love to engage Latvians over locals? Is it really just because they are prepared to work for less? And even if it was just that, why don't the local unemployed try to compete? I was unemployed and worked in an office for 6 months taking home only unemployment benefit and lunch and travel money (under an official scheme). I know they are people who put out 100s of applications and must see despair when they walk past a coffee shop with polish people working there. So why don't they ask for a job there too? The problem is they set their sites too high. . Is the problem not those seeking employment who don't realise that if they are doing any job they have more chance of finding another? The problem is to train the unemployed in new skills and finding a job! The solution is not to put a bloody great fence round the country to protect the local population as the lack of healthy competition would be of no benefit to anyone. So, as you think immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, you would encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? No. Nor would I haul up the drawbridge and allow protectionism to ruin this country. Protectionism? You mean like the EU Common Agricultural Policy that eats 40% of the EU budget, the largest slice being used to keep French farmers in 4-wheel-drives with artificially high food prices and the dumping of food that could be sent to famine areas? France also pays the highest rebate (31%). The UK has the 5th largest percentage of EU farm land and receives 8% of the CAP compared to France, the largest (17%). Its not quite as evil and anti-British as Euro skeptics like to point out (we largely break even). Of course without it, UK farming might be doomed to non-existence.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| davenotamonkey 07 May 15 2.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 10.53am
Quote davenotamonkey at 06 May 2015 10.13pm
Grauniad and EU-funded UCL research groups (regurgitated by C4) matter not one iota when you cannot confront the fundamental metric of economic strength: the fractional change in GDP. The figures are there plain as day: pre 1995 : 3% growth, 50,000 net immigration max Hold on, are you actually saying that immigration is the cause of the recession? Jesus, that sounds like the sort of nonsense goebels used to churn out. I once got a leaflet through my door in an election some years ago. It proudly bore a swastika and said only one thing: "inflation is Jewish". That had more logic and honesty than the pseudo scientific garbage you have spouted. Seriously, is there any humane way to just turn you off? Eh? Is reading comprehension not your strong point? Great hyperbole though. So I'm a nazi by association? "pseudo scientific garbage": I suggest you read my previous post. The figures I have quoted are correct, as measured by the ONS et al. Suggesting I state that immigration is the cause of the recession is about as far off the mark as Puncheon's penalty was.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 07 May 15 2.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 May 2015 2.04pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.53pm
Please note that the thread was discussing EU immigration and that Silvertop introduced the aspect of 'protectionism'. (btw we are still waiting for answer to the question of whether immigration should be totally uncontrolled and encouraged if it is of so much benefit).
I love the way you phrase this as there being two options, unrestrained totally open immigration or somekind of total restriction. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the pragmatic and realistic, and not the hyperbolic and ideological. So what sort of pragmatic and realistic restrictions and controls would you suggest? But again, it is so beneficial, why constrain it, why not encourage it?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| derben 07 May 15 2.38pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 May 2015 2.12pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 1.12pm
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 12.57pm
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 11.15am
Quote silvertop at 07 May 2015 11.11am
Quote derben at 07 May 2015 8.02am
Quote nickgusset at 06 May 2015 10.23pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 06 May 2015 10.13pm
Grauniad and EU-funded UCL research groups (regurgitated by C4) matter not one iota when you cannot confront the fundamental metric of economic strength: the fractional change in GDP. The figures are there plain as day: pre 1995 : 3% growth, 50,000 net immigration max
As immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, presumably we should encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? They would not come here if there were no jobs or resources to sustain them. Many return home after working here for years and pay a share of their labours into our treasury but leave with the queens English and a close connection with this country. Some stay and settle but would not do so if they had nowhere to live or resources to support them. What is wrong with that? Both do work that indigenous people could do. However, unless we are talking polish deli why do you think employers love to engage Latvians over locals? Is it really just because they are prepared to work for less? And even if it was just that, why don't the local unemployed try to compete? I was unemployed and worked in an office for 6 months taking home only unemployment benefit and lunch and travel money (under an official scheme). I know they are people who put out 100s of applications and must see despair when they walk past a coffee shop with polish people working there. So why don't they ask for a job there too? The problem is they set their sites too high. . Is the problem not those seeking employment who don't realise that if they are doing any job they have more chance of finding another? The problem is to train the unemployed in new skills and finding a job! The solution is not to put a bloody great fence round the country to protect the local population as the lack of healthy competition would be of no benefit to anyone. So, as you think immigration is an unmitigated benefit that is actually the cause of everything positive happening in the country, you would encourage ever more immigration, no controls whatsoever, actively campaign and encourage the entire population of the EU to come here? No. Nor would I haul up the drawbridge and allow protectionism to ruin this country. Protectionism? You mean like the EU Common Agricultural Policy that eats 40% of the EU budget, the largest slice being used to keep French farmers in 4-wheel-drives with artificially high food prices and the dumping of food that could be sent to famine areas? France also pays the highest rebate (31%). The UK has the 5th largest percentage of EU farm land and receives 8% of the CAP compared to France, the largest (17%). Its not quite as evil and anti-British as Euro skeptics like to point out (we largely break even). Of course without it, UK farming might be doomed to non-existence. What you mean like our erstwhile fishing industry?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.