This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
|
Has anyone in favour of remaining considered how many more asylum seekers we'd be able to take if we didn't have an open boarder to the whole of Europe?
|
|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
Officially wrong. See my earlier post about UN refugee status. Well done - a 60+ year definition that pre-dates the current day "benefit shopping" culture of not looking for immediate protection from war or oppression, but rather shopping for the best passport and best package for their new life. Is France so terrible that they must camp out for the chance to move to the UK? Are they being bombed in Calais? No. Yet they are killing themselves trying to walk through the tunnel to get to the UK because of the huge pull-factor arising from naive idiots here offering them the moon while our ex-servicemen are sleeping on the street.
|
|
|
B Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Well done - a 60+ year definition that pre-dates the current day "benefit shopping" culture of not looking for immediate protection from war or oppression, but rather shopping for the best passport and best package for their new life. Is France so terrible that they must camp out for the chance to move to the UK? Are they being bombed in Calais? No. Yet they are killing themselves trying to walk through the tunnel to get to the UK because of the huge pull-factor arising from naive idiots here offering them the moon while our ex-servicemen are sleeping on the street. Why the UK? "I can walk in the streets of London and no-one spits at me or shouts abuse" Words I read from a relieved refugee a while back. Something we should be proud of. Not naive idiots allowing them to feel safe but more so decent human beings. As for ex-servicemen the blame there lies surely with the MoD and lack of mental health and social security care. Successive governments ignoring them once they had done their bit . So why try to blame others when they have zero to do with it? Emotive claptrap, I suspect.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| exitstageright |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
B Why the UK? "I can walk in the streets of London and no-one spits at me or shouts abuse" Words I read from a relieved refugee a while back. Something we should be proud of. Not naive idiots allowing them to feel safe but more so decent human beings. As for ex-servicemen the blame there lies surely with the MoD and lack of mental health and social security care. Successive governments ignoring them once they had done their bit . So why try to blame others when they have zero to do with it? Emotive claptrap, I suspect. Wow, I didn't realise it was so easy to stem the tide of people coming here, just a bit of spitting and verbal abuse. Perhaps we should give them free tickets to Palace away games.
|
|
| nickgusset |
|
|---|---|
|
That was my point.
|
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rubin
Has anyone in favour of remaining considered how many more asylum seekers we'd be able to take if we didn't have an open boarder to the whole of Europe? This is definitely agree with. We shouldn't be using Europe as a means of supply cheap labour to corporate interests over national ones. The EU should exist to prevent exploitation of EU citizens. Immigration and Asylum are very different issues. In the later, I feel we have an obligation to decency and humanity to act. In acting on Asylum we're moving towards improving lives and preventing exploitation, where as with economic migration we're encouraging the exploitation of poorer nations.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
Being in the EU and being involved in Middle East wars are not necessarily in our national interests. Can you explain why, given that it was the elected governments that represent that national interest to get involved in both. What defines national interest? Problem is, I think the national interest is likely more national corporate interests, rather than what you or I may believe is in the nations best interests.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Hoof Hearted 09 Mar 16 10.00am | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by davenotamonkey
Moreover, why the hell has he mixed UK national emigration with refugee intake? "A Sony TV costs on average £450 in the UK, so you should sell this Turnip for 63p in the US". That's about how meaningless connecting those two numbers are. LOL.... I am still trying to understand his further response to my query.
|
|
| exitstageright |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by paperhat
one thing that will be interesting to see is that in the days approaching the vote, watch for the likes of the Daily Mail et al printing stories blaming anything and everything on the next boat of refugees to cross the med, not that they'd be manipulating anything of course No, we should all limit ourselves to watching and listening to the totally unbiased BBC instead.
|
|
| exitstageright |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Can you explain why, given that it was the elected governments that represent that national interest to get involved in both. What defines national interest? Problem is, I think the national interest is likely more national corporate interests, rather than what you or I may believe is in the nations best interests. I agree with you, elected governments do not necessarily always act in the national interest.
|
|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
This is definitely agree with. We shouldn't be using Europe as a means of supply cheap labour to corporate interests over national ones. The EU should exist to prevent exploitation of EU citizens. Immigration and Asylum are very different issues. In the later, I feel we have an obligation to decency and humanity to act. In acting on Asylum we're moving towards improving lives and preventing exploitation, where as with economic migration we're encouraging the exploitation of poorer nations. Quite right. And I voted UKIP to make my objection. I'd like to see Britain take more refugees but more and more on top of the more and more EU migrants is too much. Local councils have said they are full to capacity. End result is people get placed in expensive B&B's and hotels. Eastern Europeans are willing to go West to work but their governments who are appalled at our real EU reforms put up barbed wire to hold back refugees. Funny old world. (our real EU reforms which Cameron really wanted but has conveniently forgotten)
COYP |
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
I agree with you, elected governments do not necessarily always act in the national interest. So what is the national interest, how is it defined?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
So what is the national interest, how is it defined? Defence of the realm, manage the budget and balance the books, manage interests overseas.
|
|
| exitstageright |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
So what is the national interest, how is it defined? In terms of policies, whatever is the opposite of what the current establishment champion.
|
|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
That was my point. A bad one. Anyone from any country with a coastline could do so.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by chris123
Defence of the realm, manage the budget and balance the books, manage interests overseas. And how aren't they being met. UK interests overseas are probably better managed by remaining in the EU given its the second biggest trading block internationally. I don't think the UK leaving the EU will have much effect in terms of UK Interests, but I don't see how it would increase them either (it'd make its capacity to influence world politics less I suspect, not more due to its inability to influence the EU). Defence of the realm - No real existential threats exist to the UK, and haven't since 1945, except maybe the cold war. Similarly, membership of the EU has significant interest in terms of UK Foreign Intelligence operations, as well as in terms of shared intelligence (which needs to improve). Manage the budget, governments have set successive budgets, and both New Labour and the Conservatives have managed to oversee economic growth. However the markets are independent of the state, and the influence of government over them, is minimal. Also, in terms of Ecconomics and Balancing the Books, one of the few good arguments for EU migration, is that it raises taxation revenue from people who won't be drawing on the state. EU migration is largely temporary young workers, driven by their home exchange rate. As such they're likely to pay more into the system of taxation and NI than they take out, given that they won't be here in the older age (pension costs, health costs associated with aging etc). I don't think leaving the EU is really easily established as being in the National Interest as you define it. Not significantly, when you start to think in terms of the impact of an out, compared to the stability of remaining in.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| jamiemartin721 |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Kermit8
If Western Europe fragments and we lose our common economic interest - the stuff that stop countries entering into violent conflict - then, as history has already shouted loudly many, many times over the last 1,000 years or so we will soon be having a barney. And this relatively short era of peace will go down in future history books as an aberration. Give it 30 or 40 years and there will be shots fired again over fishing rights, incursions, politician being cvnts, power-plays, etc. It's what Western Europe does best and always has done: War. That won't happen, barring some kind of economic crisis that would destroy the EU. The UK if it leaves, will join the ETA, like Norway. Even outside of an EU, the economic interdependence of EU member states like Germany, Holland and France, will be sufficient to prevent escalation into conflict. The issues that resulted in the first world war rose from imperial tensions, and the restriction of German ambitions as an empire, by the established Imperial Powers. The second world war grew out of the economic destruction of Germany from the demands of the victors, coupled with the disaster of the 1929 economic crises which created a fertile breeding ground for extremist totalitarianism (Fascism, Communism and National Socialism). Without the threat of communism, the likes of Hitler would never be able to have gained power. Whilst not impossible, its very unlikely we'd see a full scale European conflict.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.