The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 12 Jan 20 10.42pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
He again introduced the term "white" when that was not mentioned by me. Any societal differences in the UK have nothing to do with skin colour. They are all either cultural or religious. Many people of colour are now as British in outlook as you and me. It is therefore very misleading to measure anything by those who self identify as "white". As a consequence the 81.9% figure stated is very misleading. Not for the first time I am accused of supporting "mass immigration". I have refuted that before and do so again. I am in favour of "controlled immigration" sufficient to meet our requirements. Alongside that are our international treaty obligations to accept our share of refugees and asylum seekers. The two need to considered together but cannot always be balanced. I also acknowledge we have a major current issue with illegal immigration for which no-one has yet found a solution and which, I fear, will get worse after Brexit. Japan has often been cited as a viable alternative model but it's not really a valid comparison. They face exactly the same problems of an aging population and low birth rate as us, and as a consequence need to increase the 2% of the population who are immigrants. I think they face problems because they don't have the connections with an old Empire that we do and not many other countries teach Japanese. It is taught in some Filipino schools and there are many from the Philippines who go to Japan to work in the factories. Or as entertainers in the bars! English is one of the primary reasons so many illegals try to come here. It's everyone's first or second language. So I think the problem is reversed. Japan needs, and accepts it needs, more people to come there. It's not actively trying to exclude people. We on the other hand are currently getting more than most want. My own fiscals are safe enough. I have given away a large part of all I earned during my working life in an effort to help others but have sufficient to ensure that both myself and my wife can live modestly so long as a huge disaster doesn't strike. What I want to conserve is the sense of fairness and equality of opportunity that we have strived for during my lifetime. It's still a work in progress and I don't want it to be thrown under a bus. I am certainly an internationalist, or if you prefer a globalist. Not only because I believe that is a healthy development but because it is an inevitable one. The world is smaller, people move. We either accept that and be part of the system, or we withdraw behind our walls, hunker down and try to be self sufficient. We would be deluding ourselves if we think we can do both. Who wants to trade with a nation that pulls the shutters down on the needy? Technology has undoubtedly contributed a great deal to our wellbeing. I shudder to think how things might have been if it had not. Whether social liberalism has strengthened or weakened society is a matter of opinion. Mine being that is has greatly improved things in many ways. Nothing is ever achieved without some bumps in the road being felt, and we certainly haven't yet reached the final destination. We have though been heading in the right direction and to turn at 180 deg back towards where we came from would be madness.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Spiderman Horsham 13 Jan 20 8.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
He again introduced the term "white" when that was not mentioned by me. Any societal differences in the UK have nothing to do with skin colour. They are all either cultural or religious. Many people of colour are now as British in outlook as you and me. It is therefore very misleading to measure anything by those who self identify as "white". As a consequence the 81.9% figure stated is very misleading. Not for the first time I am accused of supporting "mass immigration". I have refuted that before and do so again. I am in favour of "controlled immigration" sufficient to meet our requirements. Alongside that are our international treaty obligations to accept our share of refugees and asylum seekers. The two need to considered together but cannot always be balanced. I also acknowledge we have a major current issue with illegal immigration for which no-one has yet found a solution and which, I fear, will get worse after Brexit. Japan has often been cited as a viable alternative model but it's not really a valid comparison. They face exactly the same problems of an aging population and low birth rate as us, and as a consequence need to increase the 2% of the population who are immigrants. I think they face problems because they don't have the connections with an old Empire that we do and not many other countries teach Japanese. It is taught in some Filipino schools and there are many from the Philippines who go to Japan to work in the factories. Or as entertainers in the bars! English is one of the primary reasons so many illegals try to come here. It's everyone's first or second language. So I think the problem is reversed. Japan needs, and accepts it needs, more people to come there. It's not actively trying to exclude people. We on the other hand are currently getting more than most want. My own fiscals are safe enough. I have given away a large part of all I earned during my working life in an effort to help others but have sufficient to ensure that both myself and my wife can live modestly so long as a huge disaster doesn't strike. What I want to conserve is the sense of fairness and equality of opportunity that we have strived for during my lifetime. It's still a work in progress and I don't want it to be thrown under a bus. I am certainly an internationalist, or if you prefer a globalist. Not only because I believe that is a healthy development but because it is an inevitable one. The world is smaller, people move. We either accept that and be part of the system, or we withdraw behind our walls, hunker down and try to be self sufficient. We would be deluding ourselves if we think we can do both. Who wants to trade with a nation that pulls the shutters down on the needy? Technology has undoubtedly contributed a great deal to our wellbeing. I shudder to think how things might have been if it had not. Whether social liberalism has strengthened or weakened society is a matter of opinion. Mine being that is has greatly improved things in many ways. Nothing is ever achieved without some bumps in the road being felt, and we certainly haven't yet reached the final destination. We have though been heading in the right direction and to turn at 180 deg back towards where we came from would be madness. Freedom of movement, which you support, is not controlled.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Jan 20 9.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Freedom of movement, which you support, is not controlled. 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".
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Spiderman Horsham 13 Jan 20 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
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 first point I highlighted would, of course be a reasonable course of action but, unfortunately, at the border Officials cannot question EU nationals, unless there is a marker against them (EU directive) therefore impossible to establish their motives. We could but unfortunately the PC brigade, lawyers who see these cases as easy money (more often than not paid for by legal aid), Human Rights Act and occasionally MPs do their utmost to thwart the removal of illegals. Third point, believe me this is not the case. I have dealt with many hundreds of such cases and the vast majority speak no English. The incentive to come to UK is the benefits and houses on offer, on arrival, and the NHS. With regard to France, they have made no attempt to restrict the flow into their country (freedom of movement, no borders) and it is nigh on impossible to remove people when you have no idea who they are or what country they are from, as none of these are documented. From a present day security point of view this really is more of a serious problem than many realise
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cpfc_chap  koh samui 13 Jan 20 10.11am |
|
|---|---|
|
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". Cameron asked for reform, the EU were having none of it hence why we had the referendum. Maybe if the EU would've listened things could have been different. Normally there is give a take in a relationship but the EU just want to take and command.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Jan 20 10.24am |
 |
|---|---|
|
This guy makes the point that referring to 'white' is somehow a problem. Yet he was the one who introduced race into the Brexit debate with his claim that racists and stupid people voted for Brexit. As for his claims on what amounts to multiculturalism - decades of evidence in this country shows them up for what they are. He talks the same waffle that idealists were talking back in the sixties. He should be forced to live in Savile Town, because his ideology is responsible for its modern reality. He claims he doesn't support mass immigration yet any look at the figures on immigration into the UK has shown that's exactly what has happened. He has never stated any opposition to that. Japan stands out as the evidence against all claims made by internationalist. Those whose policies downgrade and split societies. Let's deal with his inarticulate understanding of Japan. The birth rate issue is something that automating will go someway to solving. Also, as Hungary has recently shown, this can be tackled by tax inducements for larger native families. Hungary's birth rate is increasing. The aging point has been made about Japan for decades. Firstly it isn't adversely affecting their GDP...which is higher than ours and secondly this doesn't require naturalization via immigration to solve and just as large scale immigration wasn't wanted here it isn't wanted there. Japan allows foreign workers and has recently increased their number. However, they can't naturalise as Japanese. It deliberately does this. This is why the Japanese will still be ethnically Japanese in a hundred years time and not some warm worded construct. There is no foreign terrorism in Japan and their population doesn't want what people like WE would give them.....The Philippines is also a country that rejects his ideas on internationalism for its people. His views on internationalism in moot...Japan is internationalist on everything but international naturalization of its lands and it has a higher standard of living than we do. His claims are divorced from the evidence. Social liberalism has made some improvements, however its costs have been ruinous. It's the child with his hand in the cookie jar who instead of having it taken away is given a second jar. That is not the right direction in any way, shape or form and unrestrained it enables the deconstruction and eventual tearing down of anything of value. And the eventual practical manifestation of that will show in the future gating off of 'nice areas' financially filtered off as we see in the US already - the champagne socialist's form of acceptable economic apatheild.....and no doubt the social liberalists will continue to not see the woods for the trees. Edited by Stirlingsays (13 Jan 2020 12.12pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 13 Jan 20 10.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
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". Getting a compromise on selective immigration may have been all Cameron needed to not put the decision to us.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| cryrst The garden of England 13 Jan 20 10.51am |
|
|---|---|
|
Please dont come back with the old elected representatives and decisions about brexit line.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Jan 20 11.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Getting a compromise on selective immigration may have been all Cameron needed to not put the decision to us. Playing the blame game or indeed claiming "victory" and demeaning those you think you have "defeated" actually achieves zilch, other than divide the people even more. What matters is not why it happened but whether it was sensible. If the consensus says it was not then working reverse the decision makes sense. You don't stop just because other people made mistakes.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Matov 13 Jan 20 11.40am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by cryrst
Please dont come back with the old elected representatives and decisions about brexit line. Actually I think he should. Now I never shared his faith in our MP's but given that Parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU withdrawal bill then I would imagine he is full square behind it now. And just because 52% of people voted for parties favouring a second referendum, it matters not a jot because MP's are there to do what they think best for the country. I would imagine Wisbech Eagle will be cheering on this display of Parliamentary democracy come January 31st. Edited by Matov (13 Jan 2020 11.41am)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 13 Jan 20 11.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
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.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 13 Jan 20 12.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Matov
Actually I think he should. Now I never shared his faith in our MP's but given that Parliament has voted overwhelmingly in favour of the EU withdrawal bill then I would imagine he is full square behind it now. And just because 52% of people voted for parties favouring a second referendum, it matters not a jot because MP's are there to do what they think best for the country. I would imagine Wisbech Eagle will be cheering on this display of Parliamentary democracy come January 31st. Edited by Matov (13 Jan 2020 11.41am)
Those who live by the elite....
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| 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.