You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic
April 19 2024 1.00am

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 2426 of 2586 < 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 >

Topic Locked

View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 13 Jan 20 12.22pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

The accusation of racism is mostly used as a slur against white people who profess any sort of identity at all. That's how it's found its way into the Brexit debate, because remainers have wanted to characterise 'racism' as a factor.

Yet everyone else is allowed an identity......As Stromzy says, 'I'm not anti white, I'm just pro black'.

I agree with him, I don't have any particular issue with his stance.....However, I wasn't seeing the left attack him...perhaps it's because he isn't white and they are hypocrites.

Anyway the use of the 'racism' word is similar to the 'hate' word....in most examples it's pure hyperbole.

It's a way to attack people for perfectly normal behaviour. It's 'control' of language so you can lie about people to then affect their behaviour and intimidate them.....make them feel guilty when there's nothing to feel guilty about.

We are not living in an age of reason because the left have been driving the culture for decades.......however, under Cameron and then May this has become neo and social liberal right wing policy too.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jan 2020 12.31pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View martinelliff's Profile martinelliff Flag Staffordshire 13 Jan 20 12.33pm Send a Private Message to martinelliff Add martinelliff as a friend

We have and have had the power to deport EU nationals if they cannot pay for themselves after 3 months, either by getting a job or personal wealth. The problem has always been that we never registered anyone who entered the country or used any of our services. If we had enforced that any scroungers from EU countries could have been ejected. Likely not done due to cost, but like Windrush comes back to bite you on the butt.
The immigration issue has always been conflated with Brexit. Immigration that many have issues with is non-EU immigration (legal and illegal) which we have absolute power to deal with.
There are racists in the UK as there are in every country. Not all Brexiteers are racists. Some might be, most are not. I expect some Remainers are racists. All EU countries are 'white' christian nations, the black faces and Muslims some people ant to get rid of primarily from countries we colonized, the commonwealth. The proportion of non-EU migrants compared to EU migrants will go up as the EU nationals will be under the same immigrant rules as everyone else. If there are any racists out there (colour and religion based) it is going to get worse for you not better after Brexit because we need immigration to survive as a nation. If we did the extreme and we ejected the 6 million non-UK born people in this country (I know this wont happen but some I have spoken to make this flippant comment) and forced/trained the 1.5 million unemployed into their jobs (that they probably would not want) we would have a couple of million job vacancies.
Some of that 6 million will be GPs. And blaming immigration on lack of local services is daft. We have a historically low unemployment rate. The problem is we don't build or fund local services. Housing estates get built and the local services don't grow with them. In short we need to pay more to fund the NHS and local services if we want to keep them. Boris is safe for four years so he could do some radical things. Get this Brexit thing out the way and hopefully he will surprise people. Probably wont but we can only hope. Ramble over.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Teddy Eagle's Profile Teddy Eagle Flag 13 Jan 20 1.00pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Placing some limitations on freedom of movement, so that demand and supply is kept in balance, by ensuring that those that come must either have a job offer prior to departure, or get work within a defined period has always made sense to me. Finding a way to persuade the EU to compromise on this would have been in my bucket list of things I would encourage them to reform. In any case this is, to a degree, self limiting. If people cannot find work then it's unlikely they would want to stay here, unless we offer over generous benefits to do so.

How does anyone really know the extent of illegal immigration? It can only ever be an estimate.

We could do more to find and remove the overstayers, if there was the political will to devote the necessary resources. Whether the cost is worth the benefit is a judgement I don't know.

If people are fleeing desperate situations in their own country, or even simply as economic migrants, it would have to get a whole lot worse here before that modified their behaviour. I suspect many target the UK simply because they speak English and not either French or German and because they see us as a stepping stone to their ultimate dream destination in the USA. It might be unrealistic but I suspect that's what is in their mind. Look at the unfortunate young people from Vietnam who all died in that refrigerated truck. Sent by families, at significant cost, so they could gain a foothold in the west to remit their earnings back home.

When we leave the EU I can see France losing any interest in assisting us in restricting the flow. Indeed I can see them oiling the wheels to get them shunted off their hands asap. I anticipate their attitude will be "you made the bed, now lie in it".

The problem with a job offer being used as a criterion is that we would have tens of thousands more claiming to be mini-cab drivers.
Here’s a hypothetical question: Between 1947 and 1972 over a million people left Britain as part of the assisted passage programme to Australia and New Zealand (£10 Poms).
Had they not gone would we have needed immigration at such a level?


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View martinelliff's Profile martinelliff Flag Staffordshire 13 Jan 20 1.45pm Send a Private Message to martinelliff Add martinelliff as a friend

One of the reasons the assisted program happened was that the UK was broke and there were lots of jobs in Australia. We joined the EU as the poor man of Europe in the 70s. Being a member was partly responsible for our prosperity in the 80s (that and north sea oil), we became the springbord for the US into the EU and were the financial centre of Europe and the World (almost).
The world is a very small place since the invention of the plane, internet and mass media. People will move from country to country. Economies will boom and bust. We are the 7th largest economy (India and France have overtaken us in the last year). It is inevitable that movement will become easier over time (it may be long time mind you). Not because of the EU, but because of trade, science and education (educated people are less prejudiced and less likely to be tribal). There are 1 million UK citizens living outside the UK. Immigration/migration is inevitable.
One day there will be no nation-based passports. All countries will be like the states within the US. Sadly I will be long dead when that eventually happens. Perhaps due to WWIII? And I wont ever get my hover-board.


Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The problem with a job offer being used as a criterion is that we would have tens of thousands more claiming to be mini-cab drivers.
Here’s a hypothetical question: Between 1947 and 1972 over a million people left Britain as part of the assisted passage programme to Australia and New Zealand (£10 Poms).
Had they not gone would we have needed immigration at such a level?


 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Jimenez's Profile Jimenez Flag SELHURSTPARKCHESTER,DA BRONX 13 Jan 20 1.49pm Send a Private Message to Jimenez Add Jimenez as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Mentioning racists would not be necessary unless they existed. Skin colour has nothing to do with racist attitudes, which can exist in people from every origin.

Mass immigration is an emotional term thrown about as scaremongering propaganda. We have always had immigration. And migration. The levels have varied over the years. Integration has always happened, sometimes more quickly than at other times. It also results in some places being over loaded and changing character. Picking out individual examples does not prove anything other than that they are untypical examples. Patience, determination and fortitude is what is needed. Not defeatism.

I have a friend who is a fellow Palace supporter, and member of HOL, who is an English professor working a University in Japan. he has lived there for many years. It's been a while since we were in touch but I will attempt to contact him and get his views on the situation there and which way it is going. The last time we spoke about this indicated they were having to review and revise their past approach.

Kamikaze Eagle.....

 


Pro USA & Israel

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
W12 13 Jan 20 3.17pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Mentioning racists would not be necessary unless they existed. Skin colour has nothing to do with racist attitudes, which can exist in people from every origin.

Mass immigration is an emotional term thrown about as scaremongering propaganda. We have always had immigration. And migration. The levels have varied over the years. Integration has always happened, sometimes more quickly than at other times. It also results in some places being over loaded and changing character. Picking out individual examples does not prove anything other than that they are untypical examples. Patience, determination and fortitude is what is needed. Not defeatism.

That is clearly not true. We were almost entirely (99%+) white in the early fifties. Go and look at any street scene or footage back in those days and it will clearly show this.

The white indigenous population (and especially the working class) have been displaced in the cities by this and anyone that has remained has to deal with high crime, the constant threat of terrorism and constant social tension. Indigenous communities have been totally eviscerated against their will. People live in fear of some of these communities and the fear of having their life ruined simply by raising concerns about what's happening.

There has been no benefit to the general UK population for mass immigration either financially or socially - quite the opposite. Integration has simply not happened as governments have discouraged it. With the numbers now there is no hope of this happening. We have huge numbers of people in this country that do not identify as British and significant numbers actively working against our interests (e.g. some 23,000 known Jihadis)

"Patience, determination and fortitude is what is needed. Not defeatism" - what does that mean?

What we are seeing now is the instability this has created in the entire western world as differing self interest groups compete for resources and power and it will only get worse.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
View martinelliff's Profile martinelliff Flag Staffordshire 13 Jan 20 3.21pm Send a Private Message to martinelliff Add martinelliff as a friend

We may well have been "99%" white but due to our colonialism and asset stripping of foreign countries those crimes came home to roast when accepting migrants from those commonwealth nations. The "white" population has always been a minority in the World, unless we put up a wall like North Korea the world population will migrate economically and socially. No going back.

Originally posted by W12

That is clearly not true. We were almost entirely (99%+) white in the early fifties. Go and look at any street scene or footage back in those days and it will clearly show this.

The white indigenous population (and especially the working class) have been displaced in the cities by this and anyone that has remained has to deal with high crime, the constant threat of terrorism and constant social tension. Indigenous communities have been totally eviscerated against their will. People live in fear of some of these communities and the fear of having their life ruined simply by raising concerns about what's happening.

There has been no benefit to the general UK population for mass immigration either financially or socially - quite the opposite. Integration has simply not happened as governments have discouraged it. With the numbers now there is no hope of this happening. We have huge numbers of people in this country that do not identify as British and significant numbers actively working against our interests (e.g. some 23,000 known Jihadis)

"Patience, determination and fortitude is what is needed. Not defeatism" - what does that mean?

What we are seeing now is the instability this has created in the entire western world as differing self interest groups compete for resources and power and it will only get worse.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 13 Jan 20 3.29pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by martinelliff

One of the reasons the assisted program happened was that the UK was broke and there were lots of jobs in Australia. We joined the EU as the poor man of Europe in the 70s. Being a member was partly responsible for our prosperity in the 80s (that and north sea oil), we became the springbord for the US into the EU and were the financial centre of Europe and the World (almost).
The world is a very small place since the invention of the plane, internet and mass media. People will move from country to country. Economies will boom and bust. We are the 7th largest economy (India and France have overtaken us in the last year). It is inevitable that movement will become easier over time (it may be long time mind you). Not because of the EU, but because of trade, science and education (educated people are less prejudiced and less likely to be tribal). There are 1 million UK citizens living outside the UK. Immigration/migration is inevitable.
One day there will be no nation-based passports. All countries will be like the states within the US. Sadly I will be long dead when that eventually happens. Perhaps due to WWIII? And I wont ever get my hover-board.


Once again, this internationalist concept that immigration is 'inevitable' and can't be resisted isn't consistent with how many other countries have successfully approached it. As stated elsewhere, Japan has a larger GDP than us and doesn't follow the 'ponzi scheme' immigration policy.

The demise of nations....into what would ultimately be a what...corporatocracy? That might indeed be your wish but I suggest it's one that will ultimately leave a blood soaked legacy in Europe.

The EU of the seventies offered an expansion of markets without a pooling of sovereignty. It has been the compulsion and with Thatcher the admitted mistakes of signing further treaties that increased public disquiet and concern.

Also the success of the eighties can't be reduced down into 'North sea oil' and the EU....You'd have to add several other policy and directional changes. And as Labour's Shore pointed out in the seventies joining the EU completely screwed the trade balance and it's beneficial affect certainly wasn't felt by the working class.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jan 2020 3.39pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Midlands Eagle's Profile Midlands Eagle Flag 13 Jan 20 3.30pm Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle Add Midlands Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle


I have a friend

Surely you don't expect us to believe that

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 13 Jan 20 3.36pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by martinelliff

We may well have been "99%" white but due to our colonialism and asset stripping of foreign countries those crimes came home to roast when accepting migrants from those commonwealth nations. The "white" population has always been a minority in the World, unless we put up a wall like North Korea the world population will migrate economically and socially. No going back.

Errrr....sorry, firstly I don't accept your narrative about 'white' history and secondly what has your perception of past 'crimes' got to do with 'whites' now? Are you suggesting because I'm white I have to account for the decisions made by elites from what....hundreds of years ago?

That's historical and racial guilt you're pushing there. The idea that something someone's great grandfather did falls to me to pay for.

Sorry mate, I was not 'born guilty'......You wear a hairshirt if you want to but keep it away from me.

There's no going back for you perhaps but the consequences you have supported will and have already led nowhere good.

Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jan 2020 3.47pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post
W12 13 Jan 20 3.39pm

Originally posted by martinelliff

We may well have been "99%" white but due to our colonialism and asset stripping of foreign countries those crimes came home to roast when accepting migrants from those commonwealth nations. The "white" population has always been a minority in the World, unless we put up a wall like North Korea the world population will migrate economically and socially. No going back.

OK so we are agreed that the fact we are a nation of immigrants is a nonsense. That's a start.

If you are swiftly moving to the evil empire argument, if we were such a terrible empire how come we have such a good relationship with most of our former colonies? Also, how come England almost single highhandedly erased slavery in the Western world (at great expense - we have only just finished paying the debt). What about all the countries that benefited from our protection and thrived under the British Empire in terms of reducing poverty? - also the white working class that also suffered under it.

The empire also changed large parts of the world from conflict to commerce.

Saying the British Empire was evil is another great lie.


Edited by W12 (13 Jan 2020 3.41pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post
W12 13 Jan 20 3.41pm

Originally posted by W12

.....and what Stirling said

I actually don't give a toss what happened 100's of years ago.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 2426 of 2586 < 2422 2423 2424 2425 2426 2427 2428 2429 2430 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Topic