This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Boring, boring old topic.
We are an island.
How do you stop boats arriving?
I'd like to see what actual measures are being proposed after all the hysteria on the exit side of the leave campaign.
England is full of Europeans, how will an exit stop arrivals?
Someone please explain, cos I cant see how it actually will.
We are an island.
How do you stop boats arriving?
I'd like to see what actual measures are being proposed after all the hysteria on the exit side of the leave campaign.
England is full of Europeans, how will an exit stop arrivals?
Someone please explain, cos I cant see how it actually will.
7
11
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Very little will change..
My aunty who is unemployed, in her own words is 'playing the system' wants to leave to stop these immigrants coming over taking all the jobs..
We will still have these jobs to fill, making it all visa dependent is too slow and unresponsive which was why we had this open market in the first place.
Very little will change..
My aunty who is unemployed, in her own words is 'playing the system' wants to leave to stop these immigrants coming over taking all the jobs..
We will still have these jobs to fill, making it all visa dependent is too slow and unresponsive which was why we had this open market in the first place.
7
9
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
The exiteers are conflating a number of issues and clumping them all together, implying that all will be solved by exiting. To hear Redwood talk, you'd think he was proposing to supplement the White Cliffs with a Trump-like palisade on top, and gunboats patrolling the English Channel and blasting everything in sight.
The East European expansion may have been miscalculated, or at least the way it was implemented, but the UK and the EU has learnt its lesson; get over it. (The lesson is: if you allow very poor countries to join the EU, then the young, fit and enterprising will migrate to richer countries where they can earn significantly more and enjoy a higher standard of living. Who knew?)
The completely separate refugee crisis is caused simply because of massive inequality of opportunities, living standards and above all, safety, between different regions of the world. There's only one long term solution, which is to reduce those inequalities, and institutions like the EU are ultimately in the best position to contribute to that.
The exiteers are conflating a number of issues and clumping them all together, implying that all will be solved by exiting. To hear Redwood talk, you'd think he was proposing to supplement the White Cliffs with a Trump-like palisade on top, and gunboats patrolling the English Channel and blasting everything in sight.
The East European expansion may have been miscalculated, or at least the way it was implemented, but the UK and the EU has learnt its lesson; get over it. (The lesson is: if you allow very poor countries to join the EU, then the young, fit and enterprising will migrate to richer countries where they can earn significantly more and enjoy a higher standard of living. Who knew?)
The completely separate refugee crisis is caused simply because of massive inequality of opportunities, living standards and above all, safety, between different regions of the world. There's only one long term solution, which is to reduce those inequalities, and institutions like the EU are ultimately in the best position to contribute to that.
39
7
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
In my opinion:
You can't but it won't be as common as has been seen in the Med because the starting point is well policed Western European countries. I am sure you and any reader of this thread knows this but I feel like saying it anyway:
Throughout the history of the human race populations migrate, en masse, as a result of famine, war and disease and sometimes these things coexist making movement more dramatic as we can see in Syria, Libya and Iraq now. from 2006-2011 there was a long lasting and incredibly damaging drought in the western middle east which has caused significant famine and starvation which may well have contributed to several uprisings across the region in protest toward governments failing to act to help the people, notwithstanding unwise Western intervention and lack thereof when needed; as well the rise of ISIS.
The humanitarian problems associated with the current middle eastern emigration is only going to get worse and the wealthy Countries of the European (very much including Russia) and Asian continents are going to have to help or choose to let millions die of thirst and starvation. Of course there are many ways to help and who can say what mix is the best, but it is inconceivable to me that we shouldn't help in a large scale humanitarian way and all make sacrifices we are unused to in our comfortable lives.
WRT how this links to the EU ref; staying 'In' gives us a better and stronger opportunity to work with the more accommodating, progressive and strategic thinking Countries within the EU to find solutions to this and many more global and regional problems that face us now and in the future. I could go on but its starting to sound like a speech!
Again, this is just my opinion and I recognise there will be others.
> How do you stop boats arriving?
> England is full of Europeans, how will an exit stop arrivals?
In my opinion:
You can't but it won't be as common as has been seen in the Med because the starting point is well policed Western European countries. I am sure you and any reader of this thread knows this but I feel like saying it anyway:
Throughout the history of the human race populations migrate, en masse, as a result of famine, war and disease and sometimes these things coexist making movement more dramatic as we can see in Syria, Libya and Iraq now. from 2006-2011 there was a long lasting and incredibly damaging drought in the western middle east which has caused significant famine and starvation which may well have contributed to several uprisings across the region in protest toward governments failing to act to help the people, notwithstanding unwise Western intervention and lack thereof when needed; as well the rise of ISIS.
The humanitarian problems associated with the current middle eastern emigration is only going to get worse and the wealthy Countries of the European (very much including Russia) and Asian continents are going to have to help or choose to let millions die of thirst and starvation. Of course there are many ways to help and who can say what mix is the best, but it is inconceivable to me that we shouldn't help in a large scale humanitarian way and all make sacrifices we are unused to in our comfortable lives.
WRT how this links to the EU ref; staying 'In' gives us a better and stronger opportunity to work with the more accommodating, progressive and strategic thinking Countries within the EU to find solutions to this and many more global and regional problems that face us now and in the future. I could go on but its starting to sound like a speech!
Again, this is just my opinion and I recognise there will be others.
11
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Strange way to introduce a post. Are you interested in a discussion, or not?
Leaving the EU would mean that citizens from the remaining EU did not have the automatic right to live and work here. (The answer is as simple as that. Whether or not that prospect is important to you is another question - but it clearly is to some.)
This says nothing about illegal migration, of course. Was that your point?
> Boring, boring old topic ...
Strange way to introduce a post. Are you interested in a discussion, or not?
> England is full of Europeans, how will an exit stop arrivals?
> Someone please explain, cos I cant see how it actually will.
Leaving the EU would mean that citizens from the remaining EU did not have the automatic right to live and work here. (The answer is as simple as that. Whether or not that prospect is important to you is another question - but it clearly is to some.)
This says nothing about illegal migration, of course. Was that your point?
9
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I think the question you're asking won't find the right answers. Instead of asking "how do we stop people from coming here?" - why not ask "why are people not happy living in their home country?"
I think you'll find that answers to the latter question require a mature attitude that treats other humans as equals rather than ship rats, stowaways or would-be terrorists.
I think the question you're asking won't find the right answers. Instead of asking "how do we stop people from coming here?" - why not ask "why are people not happy living in their home country?"
I think you'll find that answers to the latter question require a mature attitude that treats other humans as equals rather than ship rats, stowaways or would-be terrorists.
Post edited at 12:28
14
4
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
The British coast is ideally suited to smuggling people as well as goods, as countless others have discovered over many centuries. I'm only surprised this kind of thing hasn't happened a lot more.
Even camping at the head of Loch Etive a few years ago we got checked out late one night by some gentlemen who wanted to know what we were doing there.
The British coast is ideally suited to smuggling people as well as goods, as countless others have discovered over many centuries. I'm only surprised this kind of thing hasn't happened a lot more.
Even camping at the head of Loch Etive a few years ago we got checked out late one night by some gentlemen who wanted to know what we were doing there.
1
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I would like to challenge your claim there - or, at least, ask you to flesh it out.
The practical EU response to the current refugee crisis isn't very convincing. And, taking a wider view: what actions has the EU taken to reduce the underlying inequalities which might have created the problem; or, otherwise, to deal with the underlying causes? I see no evidence that the EU as a body is doing any such thing. Is it even *capable* of doing anything like that?
> The completely separate refugee crisis ... There's only one long term solution, which is to reduce those inequalities, and institutions like the EU are ultimately in the best position to contribute to that.
I would like to challenge your claim there - or, at least, ask you to flesh it out.
The practical EU response to the current refugee crisis isn't very convincing. And, taking a wider view: what actions has the EU taken to reduce the underlying inequalities which might have created the problem; or, otherwise, to deal with the underlying causes? I see no evidence that the EU as a body is doing any such thing. Is it even *capable* of doing anything like that?
Post edited at 12:40
7
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Crash the economy.
See above.
jk
> How do you stop boats arriving?
Crash the economy.
> I'd like to see what actual measures are being proposed after all the hysteria on the exit side of the leave campaign.
See above.
jk
19
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Fair question. 1) Much of the refugee crisis is being fuelled by instability and wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa. The EU *could* be playing a much more significant role in bringing those conflicts to an end, e.g. by jointly supporting the Libyan and Iraqi governments, brokering peace talks between Assad and the opposition in Syria etc. 2) The EU has quite a good track record in encouraging and providing aid in all sorts of ways to the under-developed world, from cash injections, and infrastructure building, to scholarships and other educational opportunities. This support could of course be massively improved, but the EU is a reasonable starting point for ensuring that wealthy nations like the UK, France and Germany coordinate their investments (which is what they are) and maximise the bangs for bucks.
Fair question. 1) Much of the refugee crisis is being fuelled by instability and wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa. The EU *could* be playing a much more significant role in bringing those conflicts to an end, e.g. by jointly supporting the Libyan and Iraqi governments, brokering peace talks between Assad and the opposition in Syria etc. 2) The EU has quite a good track record in encouraging and providing aid in all sorts of ways to the under-developed world, from cash injections, and infrastructure building, to scholarships and other educational opportunities. This support could of course be massively improved, but the EU is a reasonable starting point for ensuring that wealthy nations like the UK, France and Germany coordinate their investments (which is what they are) and maximise the bangs for bucks.
3
2
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
How about an extra income tax levied on new uk arrivals to help fund the burden on our school system and infrastructure, it makes the uk a less atractive place and offsets the impact on our crumbling services.
How about an extra income tax levied on new uk arrivals to help fund the burden on our school system and infrastructure, it makes the uk a less atractive place and offsets the impact on our crumbling services.
10
3
In reply to muppetfilter:
Immigrants contribute a net surplus of tax anyway, so they already put in more than they get out on average. Many of them are directly employed by such services (e.g. the NHS) reducing understaffing and a skills deficit.
Our services are "crumbling" becasue of our austerity minded tory government, not due to immigration.
> How about an extra income tax levied on new uk arrivals to help fund the burden on our school system and infrastructure, it makes the uk a less atractive place and offsets the impact on our crumbling services.
Immigrants contribute a net surplus of tax anyway, so they already put in more than they get out on average. Many of them are directly employed by such services (e.g. the NHS) reducing understaffing and a skills deficit.
Our services are "crumbling" becasue of our austerity minded tory government, not due to immigration.
19
14
In reply to muppetfilter:
How do you propose to apply your income tax to people you don't even know have entered the country?
How do you propose to apply your income tax to people you don't even know have entered the country?
7
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
I am more interested in practical actions, rather than aspirations - so your 'could' is significant. Are interventions like the ones you suggest even within the remit of the EU? Why not instead rather appeal to the UN? Nominally, at least, that's a far more internationalist grouping than is the EU.
Since you mention Libya: the disastrous Western miltary intervention of 2011 is a case which showed the inability of EU to agree to act on such matters in a unified way.
Again I would welcome more detail. What can the EU do in this respect, more than its constituent members can (and do)?
> 1) Much of the refugee crisis is being fuelled by instability and wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa. The EU *could* be playing a much more significant role in bringing those conflicts to an end, e.g. by jointly supporting the Libyan and Iraqi governments, brokering peace talks between Assad and the opposition in Syria etc.
I am more interested in practical actions, rather than aspirations - so your 'could' is significant. Are interventions like the ones you suggest even within the remit of the EU? Why not instead rather appeal to the UN? Nominally, at least, that's a far more internationalist grouping than is the EU.
Since you mention Libya: the disastrous Western miltary intervention of 2011 is a case which showed the inability of EU to agree to act on such matters in a unified way.
> 2) The EU has quite a good track record in encouraging and providing aid in all sorts of ways to the under-developed world, from cash injections, and infrastructure building, to scholarships and other educational opportunities.
Again I would welcome more detail. What can the EU do in this respect, more than its constituent members can (and do)?
2
In reply to ianstevens:
If this is true it can only apply to the ones we know about, what about the ones we don't?
No it's a combination of waste, bad management, Tory cuts and a growing and ageing population. To say that the large influx of immigrants is NOT contributing to this sounds naive.
Al
> Immigrants contribute a net surplus of tax anyway, so they already put in more than they get out on average.
If this is true it can only apply to the ones we know about, what about the ones we don't?
> Our services are "crumbling" becasue of our austerity minded tory government, not due to immigration.
No it's a combination of waste, bad management, Tory cuts and a growing and ageing population. To say that the large influx of immigrants is NOT contributing to this sounds naive.
Al
9
4
In reply to GridNorth:
Well, yes. But the "ones we don't know about" are unlikley to be claiming housing benefit, jobseekers or using the NHS, otherwise we would know that they were in the UK. Furthermore, leaving the EU won't make a jot of difference to those here illegally anyway.
I agree with parts of your first sentence, and not the second. Immigrants are far more likely to be young (generally single or have young families) hence contrasting the ageing population. Large population numbers are also not an issue if tax is being contributed - the fact that it isn't spent on services or in the most efficent fashion is the problem. That's not to say immigration has no imapct at all, but its certainly not the primary factor.
> If this is true it can only apply to the ones we know about, what about the ones we don't?
Well, yes. But the "ones we don't know about" are unlikley to be claiming housing benefit, jobseekers or using the NHS, otherwise we would know that they were in the UK. Furthermore, leaving the EU won't make a jot of difference to those here illegally anyway.
> No it's a combination of waste, bad management, Tory cuts and a growing and ageing population. To say that the large influx of immigrants is NOT contributing to this sounds naive.
I agree with parts of your first sentence, and not the second. Immigrants are far more likely to be young (generally single or have young families) hence contrasting the ageing population. Large population numbers are also not an issue if tax is being contributed - the fact that it isn't spent on services or in the most efficent fashion is the problem. That's not to say immigration has no imapct at all, but its certainly not the primary factor.
Post edited at 15:19
2
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
You are arguably asking the wrong question. The right question may be "How do we get more immigrants?" OECD estimates that Western Europe will need 50 million immigrants by 2050 to maintain our current paltry economic growth. For example, we like to talk about the strain on the NHS from immigration, but we forget that 26% of NHS doctors are foreign nationals. Bottom line is that we need immigration, not just of doctors, but across the skills spectrum.
You are arguably asking the wrong question. The right question may be "How do we get more immigrants?" OECD estimates that Western Europe will need 50 million immigrants by 2050 to maintain our current paltry economic growth. For example, we like to talk about the strain on the NHS from immigration, but we forget that 26% of NHS doctors are foreign nationals. Bottom line is that we need immigration, not just of doctors, but across the skills spectrum.
7
3
In reply to HakanT:
Immigration is not really the issue, it's immigration out of control that is a problem.
Al
Immigration is not really the issue, it's immigration out of control that is a problem.
Al
7
1
1
3
In reply to GridNorth:
How is it?
Out of the EU immigration is controlled.
Illegals will still be able to come in and they can't claim anyway.
There is a massive humanitarian crisis in the med, the UK general publics response is disgusting. Any of us could have been born in Suria or such places.. And we are Turing away when numbers still flood across the med desperate for safety, facing life risking conditions to make safety.. Yet for some reason the UK public seem to think they are doing that for the giro...
> Immigration is not really the issue, it's immigration out of control that is a problem.
> Al
How is it?
Out of the EU immigration is controlled.
Illegals will still be able to come in and they can't claim anyway.
There is a massive humanitarian crisis in the med, the UK general publics response is disgusting. Any of us could have been born in Suria or such places.. And we are Turing away when numbers still flood across the med desperate for safety, facing life risking conditions to make safety.. Yet for some reason the UK public seem to think they are doing that for the giro...
7
8
In reply to HakanT:
It is if the Government decide they are not going to spend any more on public infrastructure but tell you repeatedly how great immigration is for the coffers of the state and social enrichment; if your kids school is overnight is filled with non English speaking kids, you cant get an appointment at the local doctor, the local A&E dept is a war zone within a few weeks of mittel Europeans arriving etc, all of which happened here in the mid 2000's and continues to happen with each successive wave of 'we don't know how many' conveniently ignoring the issue.
D
> Is it, though?
It is if the Government decide they are not going to spend any more on public infrastructure but tell you repeatedly how great immigration is for the coffers of the state and social enrichment; if your kids school is overnight is filled with non English speaking kids, you cant get an appointment at the local doctor, the local A&E dept is a war zone within a few weeks of mittel Europeans arriving etc, all of which happened here in the mid 2000's and continues to happen with each successive wave of 'we don't know how many' conveniently ignoring the issue.
D
7
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I think we should stop calling it a migrant crisis and call it what it is - a refugee crisis.
Were the Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany called refugees? At the time no, I suspect they were mostly called migrants... With hindsight of course, we did EVERYTHING we possibly could do to help, and they magically became refugees.
I think we should stop calling it a migrant crisis and call it what it is - a refugee crisis.
Were the Jews trying to escape Nazi Germany called refugees? At the time no, I suspect they were mostly called migrants... With hindsight of course, we did EVERYTHING we possibly could do to help, and they magically became refugees.
4
8
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
If you cannot or will not differentiate between families trying to escape war zones and young single men looking for a better life then it's unlikely any sensible discussion can ever take place.
Al
If you cannot or will not differentiate between families trying to escape war zones and young single men looking for a better life then it's unlikely any sensible discussion can ever take place.
Al
10
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Since when have Albania and Poland been a countries you see refuge from?
Since when have Albania and Poland been a countries you see refuge from?
7
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
I am more interested in practical actions, rather than aspirations - so your 'could' is significant. Are interventions like the ones you suggest even within the remit of the EU? Why not instead rather appeal to the UN? Nominally, at least, that's a far more internationalist grouping than is the EU. - ER yes, but do you know what? The US isn't very interested in our refugee crisis; China isn't very interested; South America isn't very interested; Australia isn't very interested. Maybe geography does have some part to play, maybe countries that are close together do have some common interests after all.
Since you mention Libya: the disastrous Western miltary intervention of 2011 is a case which showed the inability of EU to agree to act on such matters in a unified way. - Rightly or wrongly there wasn't much military intervention in Libya, coordinated or otherwise, for lots of good reasons. What intervention there was, was in my view entirely understandable; it could have worked out better, with a different throw of the dice . (Unlike Iraq, where the outcome was predictable and inevitable.)
Again I would welcome more detail. What can the EU do in this respect, more than its constituent members can (and do)? - I would have thought it self evident that it would be better for 25 countries to sit round a table and at least discuss a coordinated aid budget as part of a coherent strategy than for 25 countries to settle their own targets and objectives completely independent of one another. If the EU isn't a perfect organisation for that at the moment, then at least it has the possibility to evolve; once we've pulled up the drawbridge how much notice do you think our neighbours 20 miles away are going to take?
I am more interested in practical actions, rather than aspirations - so your 'could' is significant. Are interventions like the ones you suggest even within the remit of the EU? Why not instead rather appeal to the UN? Nominally, at least, that's a far more internationalist grouping than is the EU. - ER yes, but do you know what? The US isn't very interested in our refugee crisis; China isn't very interested; South America isn't very interested; Australia isn't very interested. Maybe geography does have some part to play, maybe countries that are close together do have some common interests after all.
Since you mention Libya: the disastrous Western miltary intervention of 2011 is a case which showed the inability of EU to agree to act on such matters in a unified way. - Rightly or wrongly there wasn't much military intervention in Libya, coordinated or otherwise, for lots of good reasons. What intervention there was, was in my view entirely understandable; it could have worked out better, with a different throw of the dice . (Unlike Iraq, where the outcome was predictable and inevitable.)
Again I would welcome more detail. What can the EU do in this respect, more than its constituent members can (and do)? - I would have thought it self evident that it would be better for 25 countries to sit round a table and at least discuss a coordinated aid budget as part of a coherent strategy than for 25 countries to settle their own targets and objectives completely independent of one another. If the EU isn't a perfect organisation for that at the moment, then at least it has the possibility to evolve; once we've pulled up the drawbridge how much notice do you think our neighbours 20 miles away are going to take?
3
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Thanks for your reply. Picking up a couple of points:
There was a decisive military intervention in Libya, lead by the UK and France, and eventually prosecuted under the banner of NATO. Germany wanted none of it. Where that leaves 'EU Foreign Policy' is of course anybody's guess. Where it left Libya is in ongoing chaos. (We don't know how things would have worked out if we'd left it to the Libyans to work/fight it out - but that would be their business. We picked one side, and are therefore jointly responsible for the current mess.)
That's not a very convincing answer! Whether or not something seems 'self-evidently good' doesn't help me; nor does the suggestion that an imperfect organization has the possibility to evolve: the same can be said of anything.
Thanks for your reply. Picking up a couple of points:
> Rightly or wrongly there wasn't much military intervention in Libya, coordinated or otherwise, for lots of good reasons. What intervention there was, was in my view entirely understandable; it could have worked out better, with a different throw of the dice.
There was a decisive military intervention in Libya, lead by the UK and France, and eventually prosecuted under the banner of NATO. Germany wanted none of it. Where that leaves 'EU Foreign Policy' is of course anybody's guess. Where it left Libya is in ongoing chaos. (We don't know how things would have worked out if we'd left it to the Libyans to work/fight it out - but that would be their business. We picked one side, and are therefore jointly responsible for the current mess.)
> I would have thought it self evident that it would be better for 25 countries to sit round a table and at least discuss a coordinated aid budget as part of a coherent strategy than for 25 countries to settle their own targets and objectives completely independent of one another.
That's not a very convincing answer! Whether or not something seems 'self-evidently good' doesn't help me; nor does the suggestion that an imperfect organization has the possibility to evolve: the same can be said of anything.
Post edited at 20:48
4
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
.
Stop paying benefits to anyone who hasn't paid into the system for at least five years.
.
> How do you stop boats arriving?
Stop paying benefits to anyone who hasn't paid into the system for at least five years.
7
3
In reply to GridNorth:
We can, you seem unable to..
> If you cannot or will not differentiate between families trying to escape war zones and young single men looking for a better life then it's unlikely any sensible discussion can ever take place.
> Al
We can, you seem unable to..
2
8
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Blimey, that's a bit abrupt. What have I said that leads you to that conclusion?
Al
Blimey, that's a bit abrupt. What have I said that leads you to that conclusion?
Al
6
In reply to Big Ger:
Because more poverty and destitution makes everything better. Always.
jk
> Stop paying benefits to anyone who hasn't paid into the system for at least five years.
Because more poverty and destitution makes everything better. Always.
jk
5
6
In reply to jkarran:
No because people need to work, in one way or another, to survive and if more and more people are seen to be getting something for nothing the ones who work will start to think "why should I work when I could get the same for not working" so they stop working. As a consequence there is less money generated and it has to be spread wider.
I read a study that demonstrated this quite well with college grades instead of money and the consequence was that ALL grades dropped because students stopped trying.
Al
> Because more poverty and destitution makes everything better. Always.
No because people need to work, in one way or another, to survive and if more and more people are seen to be getting something for nothing the ones who work will start to think "why should I work when I could get the same for not working" so they stop working. As a consequence there is less money generated and it has to be spread wider.
I read a study that demonstrated this quite well with college grades instead of money and the consequence was that ALL grades dropped because students stopped trying.
Al
3
In reply to GridNorth:
Thats really not true..
For a start people won't travel here just to sit on benefits any more than generally people don't just not work so they can get benefits.
Look at unemployment rates in the UK compared to the US, almost identical with vastly different social welfare environments. Just because we look after the less well off (well used to) doesn't mean we should be embarrassed by it. The Brits had a reputation for compassion, justice, equality.. that seems to be getting thrown to the dogs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
If you look at the list of countries you can't say those with no benefits have a lower employment rate.
and the illegals who come to the UK have no choice but to work as benefits are cut off.
> No because people need to work, in one way or another, to survive and if more and more people are seen to be getting something for nothing the ones who work will start to think "why should I work when I could get the same for not working" so they stop working. As a consequence there is less money generated and it has to be spread wider.
> I read a study that demonstrated this quite well with college grades instead of money and the consequence was that ALL grades dropped because students stopped trying.
> Al
Thats really not true..
For a start people won't travel here just to sit on benefits any more than generally people don't just not work so they can get benefits.
Look at unemployment rates in the UK compared to the US, almost identical with vastly different social welfare environments. Just because we look after the less well off (well used to) doesn't mean we should be embarrassed by it. The Brits had a reputation for compassion, justice, equality.. that seems to be getting thrown to the dogs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_unemployment_rate
If you look at the list of countries you can't say those with no benefits have a lower employment rate.
and the illegals who come to the UK have no choice but to work as benefits are cut off.
1
1
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
The Brits had a reputation for compassion, justice, equality.. that seems to be getting taken advantage of.
Al
I think we will have to agree to disagree.
> The Brits had a reputation for compassion, justice, equality.. that seems to be getting thrown to the dogs.
The Brits had a reputation for compassion, justice, equality.. that seems to be getting taken advantage of.
Al
5
3
In reply to GridNorth:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/31/world/migrant-deaths-rise-mediterranean/i...
These people are not making these dangerous journeys to flip burgers.. They are desperate. These are not economic migrants.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/31/world/migrant-deaths-rise-mediterranean/i...
These people are not making these dangerous journeys to flip burgers.. They are desperate. These are not economic migrants.
2
7
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I agree they may not be but many of those at Calais, for example are, and whenever I see TV footage of this the vast majority appear to be single males. I do of course think that we should do more to help those fleeing war and persecution but just allowing anyone who wants to enter the country to do is a recipe for disaster and social unrest.
Al
I agree they may not be but many of those at Calais, for example are, and whenever I see TV footage of this the vast majority appear to be single males. I do of course think that we should do more to help those fleeing war and persecution but just allowing anyone who wants to enter the country to do is a recipe for disaster and social unrest.
Al
7
1
1
3
In reply to Roadrunner5:
I know but there is a constant cry for us to do something about it and certain groups would just let them all in. It's this trend that I am resisting not the state of affairs as it stands.
Al
I know but there is a constant cry for us to do something about it and certain groups would just let them all in. It's this trend that I am resisting not the state of affairs as it stands.
Al
5
2
2
In reply to jonathan shepherd:
Agreed but I will say it again. To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest.
Al
Agreed but I will say it again. To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest.
Al
11
1
In reply to GridNorth:
What a load of nonsense. You don't get people working by making them destitute. Yes, sure if we as a society want to be able to survive, thrive even then that society has to do work. For an individual at an instant in time that isn't always possible. For them to survive they need food and shelter. Cutting their lifeline because they haven't contributed 5years of NI is madness, it creates another homeless person with the problems that brings for the charity sector (mainly) to deal with at significant expense. State benefits that are a lifeline needn't be attractive and even if a few would prefer to live on meager handouts rather than earn for themselves I'm entirely happy funding them if it means the people who really really need help to remain functional/healthy/productive members of society get it. The scroungers narrative pushed for the last few years has been appallingly corrosive of basic human decency.
Well that sounds like *exactly* the same scenario as paying enough for someone to stay alive under a roof while they find work or get well.
jk
> No because people need to work, in one way or another, to survive and if more and more people are seen to be getting something for nothing the ones who work will start to think "why should I work when I could get the same for not working" so they stop working. As a consequence there is less money generated and it has to be spread wider.
What a load of nonsense. You don't get people working by making them destitute. Yes, sure if we as a society want to be able to survive, thrive even then that society has to do work. For an individual at an instant in time that isn't always possible. For them to survive they need food and shelter. Cutting their lifeline because they haven't contributed 5years of NI is madness, it creates another homeless person with the problems that brings for the charity sector (mainly) to deal with at significant expense. State benefits that are a lifeline needn't be attractive and even if a few would prefer to live on meager handouts rather than earn for themselves I'm entirely happy funding them if it means the people who really really need help to remain functional/healthy/productive members of society get it. The scroungers narrative pushed for the last few years has been appallingly corrosive of basic human decency.
> I read a study that demonstrated this quite well with college grades instead of money and the consequence was that ALL grades dropped because students stopped trying.
Well that sounds like *exactly* the same scenario as paying enough for someone to stay alive under a roof while they find work or get well.
jk
Post edited at 12:36
4
2
In reply to jkarran:
Looks like another case of agreeing to disagree but to say it's nonsense just because my view is different to yours is both dismissive and offensive which is why I should really not get involved in this type of discussion. I must be easily offended
Al
Looks like another case of agreeing to disagree but to say it's nonsense just because my view is different to yours is both dismissive and offensive which is why I should really not get involved in this type of discussion. I must be easily offended
Al
Post edited at 12:53
2
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
That is one of the issues, isn't it? 'Aid' is now 'investment'. We put money in so we can suck profits out?
And financial institutions set up by the west (IMF, World Bank etc) normally apply conditions on help that are designed to maintain the current power structure. 'You want help? Then you will have to adopt our political and economic ideology and accept 'client state' status.'
> the EU is a reasonable starting point for ensuring that wealthy nations like the UK, France and Germany coordinate their investments (which is what they are) and maximise the bangs for bucks.
That is one of the issues, isn't it? 'Aid' is now 'investment'. We put money in so we can suck profits out?
And financial institutions set up by the west (IMF, World Bank etc) normally apply conditions on help that are designed to maintain the current power structure. 'You want help? Then you will have to adopt our political and economic ideology and accept 'client state' status.'
1
In reply to GridNorth:
Interesting article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-36388761
I am sure the quoted electioneering slogan, 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour', will find some resonance with you?
> Agreed but I will say it again. To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest.
> Al
Interesting article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-36388761
I am sure the quoted electioneering slogan, 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour', will find some resonance with you?
1
9
In reply to Andy Say:
That really is going too far. There is no call for that. I think you should apologise.
That really is going too far. There is no call for that. I think you should apologise.
8
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Benefits should be available but paid back like student loans. You can get them for a maximum of 5 years or so and then when you start earning over a certain amount you pay a % of your income above a certain threshold. For those who have worked for x number of years can draw down benefits from the NI contributions they have made...once they go into the negative in that balance they have to pay it back once working.
Sure, not everyone will pay back what they borrow (long term "benefiters"), but those who use the system for a short term and then return to work will just have it deducted through PAYE.
If students have to pay for education, then everyone should pay for JSA, Housing benefit etc.
Benefits should be available but paid back like student loans. You can get them for a maximum of 5 years or so and then when you start earning over a certain amount you pay a % of your income above a certain threshold. For those who have worked for x number of years can draw down benefits from the NI contributions they have made...once they go into the negative in that balance they have to pay it back once working.
Sure, not everyone will pay back what they borrow (long term "benefiters"), but those who use the system for a short term and then return to work will just have it deducted through PAYE.
If students have to pay for education, then everyone should pay for JSA, Housing benefit etc.
3
3
In reply to phja:
Why?
Why should someone who has been to rock bottom be lumbered with debt that potentially hampers their ability to to improve their (and their family's) situation? Why shouldn't that 'burden' of care be socialised, funded through a progressive system of taxation rather than a regressive and punitive charge?
jk
> Benefits should be available but paid back like student loans. You can get them for a maximum of 5 years or so and then when you start earning over a certain amount you pay a % of your income above a certain threshold. For those who have worked for x number of years can draw down benefits from the NI contributions they have made...once they go into the negative in that balance they have to pay it back once working.
Why?
Why should someone who has been to rock bottom be lumbered with debt that potentially hampers their ability to to improve their (and their family's) situation? Why shouldn't that 'burden' of care be socialised, funded through a progressive system of taxation rather than a regressive and punitive charge?
jk
5
1
In reply to GridNorth:
I'm not so sure. All I actually did was quote from a BBC report (that WAS a genuine electioneering slogan) and suggest that, whilst phrased very differently, there was a similar vein of 'they' are a threat to 'us' as in 'To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country.'
And you're not going to get a lot of fag papers between that and Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' assertions are you?
I wonder what the reaction would be if all of the EU and middle eastern countries (and many, many others) decided to stop any Brits working there on the basis that they were taking 'their' jobs and contributing little to their economy........
> That really is going too far. There is no call for that. I think you should apologise.
I'm not so sure. All I actually did was quote from a BBC report (that WAS a genuine electioneering slogan) and suggest that, whilst phrased very differently, there was a similar vein of 'they' are a threat to 'us' as in 'To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country.'
And you're not going to get a lot of fag papers between that and Enoch Powell's 'rivers of blood' assertions are you?
I wonder what the reaction would be if all of the EU and middle eastern countries (and many, many others) decided to stop any Brits working there on the basis that they were taking 'their' jobs and contributing little to their economy........
Post edited at 17:03
5
In reply to Andy Say:
No - I think you went a bit too far.
It will almost certainly be the case that, if the UK leaves the EU, restrictions will apply to UK workers in EU countries. That is not a surprise.
As far as the Middle Eastern countries are concerned ,they employ foreign workers (including those from the UK) because they need the skills and/or labour force - and they can afford to pay for those. Again, hardly a surprise. However, if they did decide to shut up shop, then that would be that: some people would be out of a job.
> I'm not so sure.
No - I think you went a bit too far.
> I wonder what the reaction would be if all of the EU and middle eastern countries (and many, many others) decided to stop any Brits working there on the basis that they were taking 'their' jobs and contributing little to their economy........
It will almost certainly be the case that, if the UK leaves the EU, restrictions will apply to UK workers in EU countries. That is not a surprise.
As far as the Middle Eastern countries are concerned ,they employ foreign workers (including those from the UK) because they need the skills and/or labour force - and they can afford to pay for those. Again, hardly a surprise. However, if they did decide to shut up shop, then that would be that: some people would be out of a job.
Post edited at 17:05
2
In reply to phja: what, like that national insurance contribution you already pay?
given that many long term trends in employment seem to indicate that a lot of 'middle class' Jobs are going to disappear a more healthy approach to money and employment would benefit society
given that many long term trends in employment seem to indicate that a lot of 'middle class' Jobs are going to disappear a more healthy approach to money and employment would benefit society
1
In reply to Andy Say:
The EU isn't perfect.
It annoys me how each country sets their own benefits for EU migrants in that country.. that should be set, or at least simple reciprocal rights..
When I was in Germany and my contract ended I enquired about claiming for being out of work and was pretty clearly told.. 'yeah you can claim, but it takes a long time'.. basically don't claim..
But i can't believe people want to tie unemployment to loans.. we need to somehow stop that for education as it is. Which is woefully underfunded so that needs to get sorted.
I think loan forgiveness programs are the way forwards on the educational loans front.. 10 years service to councils/NHS/teaching etc and get forgiven. That's the US way and makes a lot of sense.
However whilst its not perfect its a good construction on which to improve. Its a huge experiment, the worlds greatest political union, diverse people and economies giving free movement and peace.. there's just so much it has given us, especially people like me and my family who work internationally or in science.
The EU isn't perfect.
It annoys me how each country sets their own benefits for EU migrants in that country.. that should be set, or at least simple reciprocal rights..
When I was in Germany and my contract ended I enquired about claiming for being out of work and was pretty clearly told.. 'yeah you can claim, but it takes a long time'.. basically don't claim..
But i can't believe people want to tie unemployment to loans.. we need to somehow stop that for education as it is. Which is woefully underfunded so that needs to get sorted.
I think loan forgiveness programs are the way forwards on the educational loans front.. 10 years service to councils/NHS/teaching etc and get forgiven. That's the US way and makes a lot of sense.
However whilst its not perfect its a good construction on which to improve. Its a huge experiment, the worlds greatest political union, diverse people and economies giving free movement and peace.. there's just so much it has given us, especially people like me and my family who work internationally or in science.
4
2
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Like Scotland, unless one is English of course!
> ... loans.. we need to somehow stop that for education as it is.
Like Scotland, unless one is English of course!
In reply to Andy Say:
Come off it you as good as called me a racist and after several hours I am still angry and upset.
Come off it you as good as called me a racist and after several hours I am still angry and upset.
3
1
In reply to jkarran:
More working people does.
> Because more poverty and destitution makes everything better. Always.
More working people does.
2
1
In reply to Andy Say:
Exactly the level of debate we expect from some here. Disgusting.
> I am sure the quoted electioneering slogan, 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Liberal or Labour', will find some resonance with you?
Exactly the level of debate we expect from some here. Disgusting.
6
4
In reply to Andy Say:
Maybe the more wealthy ones would have to take in refugees to fill the gaps.
But we cannot expect them to do that now, as it's our job.
Amazing isn't it?
> I wonder what the reaction would be if all of the EU and middle eastern countries (and many, many others) decided to stop any Brits working there on the basis that they were taking 'their' jobs and contributing little to their economy........
Maybe the more wealthy ones would have to take in refugees to fill the gaps.
But we cannot expect them to do that now, as it's our job.
> As Western nations have begun making efforts to relocate some of the 9 million Syrian refugees displaced by the civil war, critics are questioning whether Arab governments have done their part to help resolve the issue. The focus of the criticisms has been on the Arab states of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and the UAE). The international community has questioned the GCC countries’ contribution to resolving the Syrian refugee crisis in countless social media posts and discussions.
> According to a 2014 report entitled “Left Out In The Cold“ by human rights organization Amnesty International, the GCC had not officially resettled a single Syrian refugee since the crisis began in 2011.
Amazing isn't it?
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Some good news!
Before Rom again accuses me, wrongly, of using "hard right news-sources" this is from the left leaning SMH,
Some good news!
> Former London Mayor Boris Johnson and Cabinet Minster Michael Gove, who are leading the Vote Leave campaign, promised the Conservatives would create a "genuine Australian-style points based immigration system," by the next general election due which is due in 2020. The radical change would mean citizens of EU countries like Romania and Bulgaria would no longer be automatically allowed entry to live and work in the UK.
> "Those seeking entry for work or study should be admitted on the basis of their skills without discrimination on the ground of nationality," Vote Leave said. "We could then create fairness between EU citizens and others, including those from Commonwealth countries." The change would favour Australians who are currently being deported from the UK if they earn below £35,000 ($70,000) per year, as part of a Government attempt to curb soaring migrant numbers.
Before Rom again accuses me, wrongly, of using "hard right news-sources" this is from the left leaning SMH,
Post edited at 01:09
2
1
In reply to Andy Say:
...imply the other chap's a racist c*nt. Not really on IMO.
> All I actually did was...
...imply the other chap's a racist c*nt. Not really on IMO.
2
1
In reply to GridNorth:
>If this is true it can only apply to the ones we know about, what about the ones we don't?
The ones we don't know about who are nonetheless managing to scrounge off our crumbling benefit system, you mean?!
jcm
>If this is true it can only apply to the ones we know about, what about the ones we don't?
The ones we don't know about who are nonetheless managing to scrounge off our crumbling benefit system, you mean?!
jcm
2
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
New restrictions on eu citizens are unlikely to be very efficient at preventing eu citizens from coming, unless we make them even more ridiculously tough than they are now for non - eu.
Despite all these tough restrictions non-eu immigration is still bigger and less skilled than eu immigration.
But exit will probably indeed reduce arrivals and increase departure. The surest way to reduce net migration is to wreck our economy and brexit will most likely achieve that.
> Boring, boring old topic.
> We are an island.
> How do you stop boats arriving?
> I'd like to see what actual measures are being proposed after all the hysteria on the exit side of the leave campaign.
> England is full of Europeans, how will an exit stop arrivals?
> Someone please explain, cos I cant see how it actually will.
New restrictions on eu citizens are unlikely to be very efficient at preventing eu citizens from coming, unless we make them even more ridiculously tough than they are now for non - eu.
Despite all these tough restrictions non-eu immigration is still bigger and less skilled than eu immigration.
But exit will probably indeed reduce arrivals and increase departure. The surest way to reduce net migration is to wreck our economy and brexit will most likely achieve that.
2
2
In reply to Big Ger:
They are quoting vote leave.
But it's still nonsense though, there is nothing preventing us from passing a law lifting income requirements for Australians if we wanted to, whether we are part of the EU or not.
> Some good news!
> Before Rom again accuses me, wrongly, of using "hard right news-sources" this is from the left leaning SMH,
They are quoting vote leave.
But it's still nonsense though, there is nothing preventing us from passing a law lifting income requirements for Australians if we wanted to, whether we are part of the EU or not.
Post edited at 07:42
1
2
In reply to Donald82:
It's not a nice post but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that while the language of fear and prejudice has changed quite a bit in the last few decades the sentiment hasn't so much. The target of our fears may now be Romanians or Muslims or Different-young-men but we'll one day look back on these ideas with the same shame with which we now view those once mainstream anti-black slogans.
jk
> ...imply the other chap's a racist c*nt. Not really on IMO.
It's not a nice post but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that while the language of fear and prejudice has changed quite a bit in the last few decades the sentiment hasn't so much. The target of our fears may now be Romanians or Muslims or Different-young-men but we'll one day look back on these ideas with the same shame with which we now view those once mainstream anti-black slogans.
jk
3
4
In reply to jkarran:
There's a few problems with this point of view. First 'muslim' is not a race or nationality it is a religion and associated cultural practices. These days we look at communism and fascism as outdated and unpleasant political philosophies, religious beliefs and cultural practices which impact on basic freedoms need to be treated in the same critical way as political ones not given special protected status.
Second, it ignores the very basic fact that there are billions of poor people in the world who would benefit economically from moving to the UK. There is a natural correlation between providing generous services for your citizens and building barriers to prevent non-citizens from accessing those services. Scotland could not run a policy which is much more generous to University students than England without building a barrier to stop students from England accessing the funding because there are 10x as many potential students from England. The UK and EU cannot run a generous benefits and health system without excluding the billions of poor people elsewhere in the world who would also like to access it.
Over the next 10 to 20 years robotics and artificial intelligence will displace many workers. There are predictions that self driving vehicles will result in the loss of millions of jobs in transport alone. We are not going to need immigrants to fill low pay, low skill jobs because those jobs will disappear along with a fair number of relatively high skill jobs. What we will increasingly need is policies to redistribute wealth so everyone benefits from the new technology, not just landowners or shareholders and restructure society so people can spend time on education, sport and pursuing science or art. Rich countries won't be able to do wealth redistribution without barriers to immigration.
Population growth will need to be managed to what the planet can support and religions and cultures which are designed to grow population for strategic advantage need to be exposed to the consequences of that choice i.e. less resources per person and poverty so they have a reason to change rather than exporting their excess population and expanding into other regions.
> It's not a nice post but I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that while the language of fear and prejudice has changed quite a bit in the last few decades the sentiment hasn't so much. The target of our fears may now be Romanians or Muslims or Different-young-men but we'll one day look back on these ideas with the same shame with which we now view those once mainstream anti-black slogans.
There's a few problems with this point of view. First 'muslim' is not a race or nationality it is a religion and associated cultural practices. These days we look at communism and fascism as outdated and unpleasant political philosophies, religious beliefs and cultural practices which impact on basic freedoms need to be treated in the same critical way as political ones not given special protected status.
Second, it ignores the very basic fact that there are billions of poor people in the world who would benefit economically from moving to the UK. There is a natural correlation between providing generous services for your citizens and building barriers to prevent non-citizens from accessing those services. Scotland could not run a policy which is much more generous to University students than England without building a barrier to stop students from England accessing the funding because there are 10x as many potential students from England. The UK and EU cannot run a generous benefits and health system without excluding the billions of poor people elsewhere in the world who would also like to access it.
Over the next 10 to 20 years robotics and artificial intelligence will displace many workers. There are predictions that self driving vehicles will result in the loss of millions of jobs in transport alone. We are not going to need immigrants to fill low pay, low skill jobs because those jobs will disappear along with a fair number of relatively high skill jobs. What we will increasingly need is policies to redistribute wealth so everyone benefits from the new technology, not just landowners or shareholders and restructure society so people can spend time on education, sport and pursuing science or art. Rich countries won't be able to do wealth redistribution without barriers to immigration.
Population growth will need to be managed to what the planet can support and religions and cultures which are designed to grow population for strategic advantage need to be exposed to the consequences of that choice i.e. less resources per person and poverty so they have a reason to change rather than exporting their excess population and expanding into other regions.
7
1
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Its not the 'europeans' that worry me, its the millions upon millions from the middle east/africa who will all get EU citizenship in a few years and then be free to simply walk into the UK unchallenged.
And please don't tell me we are not in the schengen area, we will be - if we vote to stay we will have no choice, and in any case, a few years down the line Labour will sign up to schengen.
Its not the 'europeans' that worry me, its the millions upon millions from the middle east/africa who will all get EU citizenship in a few years and then be free to simply walk into the UK unchallenged.
And please don't tell me we are not in the schengen area, we will be - if we vote to stay we will have no choice, and in any case, a few years down the line Labour will sign up to schengen.
5
5
In reply to ianstevens:
Most eastern Europeans in UK send the vast majority of their earnings back to their country of origin, they do not spend it here.
Most eastern Europeans in UK send the vast majority of their earnings back to their country of origin, they do not spend it here.
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You're wrong and simplisitic about Islam just being a religion, it's complicated and is as much a culture and is a s socially constructed as a race is. Same with many religions: the Jewish one for a good example. So you can be racist against Muslims whatever you say about it being a religion not a race.
You're wrong and simplisitic about Islam just being a religion, it's complicated and is as much a culture and is a s socially constructed as a race is. Same with many religions: the Jewish one for a good example. So you can be racist against Muslims whatever you say about it being a religion not a race.
1
6
In reply to JayPee630:
What are wittering about? Race isn't "socially constructed" it's physical differences, like having dark skin. And Islam is of course more than a religion, it is a political philosophy, legal system and many other things, all of which should be open to comment, criticism, and objection, like any other philosophy. There is no good reasons to discriminate on the basis of skin colour when it comes to immigration but there are good reason to do so on the basis of political standpoint, particular ones that seek to usurp existing institutions.
> You're wrong and simplisitic about Islam just being a religion, it's complicated and is as much a culture and is a s socially constructed as a race is. Same with many religions: the Jewish one for a good example. So you can be racist against Muslims whatever you say about it being a religion not a race.
What are wittering about? Race isn't "socially constructed" it's physical differences, like having dark skin. And Islam is of course more than a religion, it is a political philosophy, legal system and many other things, all of which should be open to comment, criticism, and objection, like any other philosophy. There is no good reasons to discriminate on the basis of skin colour when it comes to immigration but there are good reason to do so on the basis of political standpoint, particular ones that seek to usurp existing institutions.
6
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Where on earth did you get the impression I thought or had even implied it was. I was talking about people who 'we' lump together under these labels to chastise, mock, fear or revile. You've just proven it's perfectly possible, common even to treat an ethnically, culturally, ideologically diverse group of people as a whole under a headline label 'Muslim'.
You're talking about accepting and entrenching inequality. I don't believe that's to our benefit.
So countries with a bunker mentality and a policy of external inequality enforcement will, at the border flip-flop and switch to wealth redistribution? I don't see it personally but then I've never had a great imagination.
FFS. Poverty and deprivation feed population growth. Unless of course you're advocating enforced ghettoisation and withdrawal of disaster relief aid, simply leaving famine/drought/poverty struck populations to die which is by any other name genocide when enacted as a deliberate policy to reduce population.
Population growth is a serious problem, on a par with and feeding into climate change but one that won't be brought under control by force. Reducing inequality, improving access to healthcare, contraception, education and improving the lot of women in their societies might get just us there with a following wind.
jk
> There's a few problems with this point of view. First 'muslim' is not a race or nationality...
Where on earth did you get the impression I thought or had even implied it was. I was talking about people who 'we' lump together under these labels to chastise, mock, fear or revile. You've just proven it's perfectly possible, common even to treat an ethnically, culturally, ideologically diverse group of people as a whole under a headline label 'Muslim'.
> Second, it ignores the very basic fact that there are billions of poor people in the world who would benefit economically from moving to the UK... The UK and EU cannot run a generous benefits and health system without excluding the billions of poor people elsewhere in the world who would also like to access it.
You're talking about accepting and entrenching inequality. I don't believe that's to our benefit.
> Over the next 10 to 20 years robotics and artificial intelligence will displace many workers... What we will increasingly need is policies to redistribute wealth so everyone benefits from the new technology, not just landowners or shareholders and restructure society so people can spend time on education, sport and pursuing science or art. Rich countries won't be able to do wealth redistribution without barriers to immigration.
So countries with a bunker mentality and a policy of external inequality enforcement will, at the border flip-flop and switch to wealth redistribution? I don't see it personally but then I've never had a great imagination.
> Population growth will need to be managed to what the planet can support and religions and cultures which are designed to grow population for strategic advantage need to be exposed to the consequences of that choice i.e. less resources per person and poverty so they have a reason to change rather than exporting their excess population and expanding into other regions.
FFS. Poverty and deprivation feed population growth. Unless of course you're advocating enforced ghettoisation and withdrawal of disaster relief aid, simply leaving famine/drought/poverty struck populations to die which is by any other name genocide when enacted as a deliberate policy to reduce population.
Population growth is a serious problem, on a par with and feeding into climate change but one that won't be brought under control by force. Reducing inequality, improving access to healthcare, contraception, education and improving the lot of women in their societies might get just us there with a following wind.
jk
Post edited at 11:33
1
3
In reply to GridNorth:
I wouldn't let it get to you, ignore it if you can.
Andy Say recently outed himself as andyathome, the guy who was astonishingly given space to express his fantasies about blowing up Jews in London, so his grip on the actuality of racism is oblique to say the least.
> Come off it you as good as called me a racist and after several hours I am still angry and upset.
I wouldn't let it get to you, ignore it if you can.
Andy Say recently outed himself as andyathome, the guy who was astonishingly given space to express his fantasies about blowing up Jews in London, so his grip on the actuality of racism is oblique to say the least.
3
In reply to jkarran:
Although the largest countries, with the largest problem, India and China seemed to have done us all a favour (400 million fewer Chinese according to their figures) without getting squeamish about using compulsion.
India still performs 37% of the world's sterilisations (male and female) and the thought of a wealthy China with four kids per couple is fairly worrying. As it is, China will also have a huge problem with an elderly population in just a couple of decades, so they need more kids or more immigrants.
Erdoğan's declaration this week that contraception is un-Islamic is manna from the false god for Brexiters.
> Population growth is a serious problem, on a par with and feeding into climate change but one that won't be brought under control by force.
Although the largest countries, with the largest problem, India and China seemed to have done us all a favour (400 million fewer Chinese according to their figures) without getting squeamish about using compulsion.
India still performs 37% of the world's sterilisations (male and female) and the thought of a wealthy China with four kids per couple is fairly worrying. As it is, China will also have a huge problem with an elderly population in just a couple of decades, so they need more kids or more immigrants.
Erdoğan's declaration this week that contraception is un-Islamic is manna from the false god for Brexiters.
1
In reply to winhill:
The problem with people like that is that , by playing the race card, they stifle debate and that is possibly the most damaging thing of all. They tend to think with their hearts and not their brains. There are others who are attempting to put words in my mouth. I have not mentioned benefits and/or scrounging but all of a sudden I seem to have been tarred with that brush. I don't think I'll be getting involved with any further political debates on here, there are too many illiterate arse holes lurking.
Al
The problem with people like that is that , by playing the race card, they stifle debate and that is possibly the most damaging thing of all. They tend to think with their hearts and not their brains. There are others who are attempting to put words in my mouth. I have not mentioned benefits and/or scrounging but all of a sudden I seem to have been tarred with that brush. I don't think I'll be getting involved with any further political debates on here, there are too many illiterate arse holes lurking.
Al
Post edited at 12:54
5
In reply to jkarran:
If you have 250 million 'rich' people in the EU with and a billion poor people with 1/10 the income of the rich people and you remove inequality then the rich people end up with 350/1250 = 0.28 x their previous wealth. Removing inequality by allowing the poor people to access all the services provided by the rich states is absolutely not to our benefit. Things need to converge in the same way as wealth converged between China and the west i.e. by the poor countries reducing population, increasing education and working really hard.
Neither classical socialism or classical capitalism are going to work when the economy becomes based on automation rather than human labour. Increasingly the the value in the economy is in information but information is very hard to make scarce so when price is based on scarcity the people that control scarce resources like land and property end up with the wealth rather than the people creating the value. You can make more money by sitting on a house than just about anything else. There's going to be no option but to change the system so it is a lot harder to make money from property and investment but everyone has an income that provides a reasonable standard of living.
The problem is some religions have specific policies to increase population. Polygamy and treating women as property are intended to grow the number of believers and create advantage through force of numbers.
And how are you going to improve access to contraception and improve the lot of women in societies where the official religion forbids it and the religious leaders want to grow population and increase movement of believers into other parts of the world.
> You're talking about accepting and entrenching inequality. I don't believe that's to our benefit.
If you have 250 million 'rich' people in the EU with and a billion poor people with 1/10 the income of the rich people and you remove inequality then the rich people end up with 350/1250 = 0.28 x their previous wealth. Removing inequality by allowing the poor people to access all the services provided by the rich states is absolutely not to our benefit. Things need to converge in the same way as wealth converged between China and the west i.e. by the poor countries reducing population, increasing education and working really hard.
> So countries with a bunker mentality and a policy of external inequality enforcement will, at the border flip-flop and switch to wealth redistribution? I don't see it personally but then I've never had a great imagination.
Neither classical socialism or classical capitalism are going to work when the economy becomes based on automation rather than human labour. Increasingly the the value in the economy is in information but information is very hard to make scarce so when price is based on scarcity the people that control scarce resources like land and property end up with the wealth rather than the people creating the value. You can make more money by sitting on a house than just about anything else. There's going to be no option but to change the system so it is a lot harder to make money from property and investment but everyone has an income that provides a reasonable standard of living.
> FFS. Poverty and deprivation feed population growth. Unless of course you're advocating enforced ghettoisation and withdrawal of disaster relief aid, simply leaving famine/drought/poverty struck populations to die which is by any other name genocide when enacted as a deliberate policy to reduce population.
The problem is some religions have specific policies to increase population. Polygamy and treating women as property are intended to grow the number of believers and create advantage through force of numbers.
> Population growth is a serious problem, on a par with and feeding into climate change but one that won't be brought under control by force. Reducing inequality, improving access to healthcare, contraception, education and improving the lot of women in their societies might get just us there with a following wind.
And how are you going to improve access to contraception and improve the lot of women in societies where the official religion forbids it and the religious leaders want to grow population and increase movement of believers into other parts of the world.
In reply to GridNorth:
'Illiterate asshole' appears to be aimed at me. Did I insult you or question your ideas? Ironically given I'm the one accused of illiteracy you appear to have misunderstood my comment but there we go, that's life.
Defend your ideas if you think they're sound rather than flouncing off.
jk
'Illiterate asshole' appears to be aimed at me. Did I insult you or question your ideas? Ironically given I'm the one accused of illiteracy you appear to have misunderstood my comment but there we go, that's life.
Defend your ideas if you think they're sound rather than flouncing off.
jk
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Yes, every one of us (apart from those who classify themselves as Africans, Asians, Americans etc).
Martin
> England is full of Europeans
Yes, every one of us (apart from those who classify themselves as Africans, Asians, Americans etc).
Martin
In reply to jkarran:
No. Unless you were the one who called me a racist, the one who said I could not distinguish between types of migrants or the one who brought benefits etc. into the argument. All of these posts implying that I was some type of right wing heartless bigot. These people seem unable to read what I had posted but I cannot be bothered going back to see who they were. They will know. Although I do not always agree with you I have always considered your arguments to be well thought out and intelligently presented.
You are correct however I am"flouncing off" but that's just a symptom of my anger but I have also realised that a forum is NOT a good place to have discussions like this especially if you are a sensitive soul like me
Al
No. Unless you were the one who called me a racist, the one who said I could not distinguish between types of migrants or the one who brought benefits etc. into the argument. All of these posts implying that I was some type of right wing heartless bigot. These people seem unable to read what I had posted but I cannot be bothered going back to see who they were. They will know. Although I do not always agree with you I have always considered your arguments to be well thought out and intelligently presented.
You are correct however I am"flouncing off" but that's just a symptom of my anger but I have also realised that a forum is NOT a good place to have discussions like this especially if you are a sensitive soul like me
Al
5
In reply to GridNorth:
Thank you for the idea GridNorth!
The possibility for a new discussion thread entitled "Lurking illiterate arseholes on UKC" or "Do illiterate arseholes lurk any more or less than literate ones?" has the potential to become quite a high brow debate
Thank you for the idea GridNorth!
The possibility for a new discussion thread entitled "Lurking illiterate arseholes on UKC" or "Do illiterate arseholes lurk any more or less than literate ones?" has the potential to become quite a high brow debate
In reply to MG:
It's very hard to define races scientifically, the definitions most certainly are socially constructed.
Sorry to go over this ground again, I just I find this view that Islam is one unitary set of ideas - roughly that of ISIS - totally infuriating. If Islam is a political philosophy, then please explain how Saudi Arabia and Indonesia both follow the same political philosophy and legal system.
Yes of course every set of ideas is open to criticism and that is never racism, but you have to define the set of ideas you're criticising sensibly, so that you are aiming at something real. Islamism is a set of political ideas, that should be criticised. Islam on the other hand is a huge religion of 1.6bn people, and as such it isn't a political philosophy that one can single out for criticism. You can't apply the same criticism to the judiciary of Saudi Arabia as the ideas defended by the Muslim Council of Britain - they're too different. The one criticism that can be levelled at the whole of Islam is that if you base your beliefs on the Koran, it's going to be a load of bollocks. But exactly what that load of bollocks ends up looking like will be completely different in different cultural contexts.
Yes, religions are sets of ideas, and things you can choose - as such it isn't racist to criticise them. But if you want to make an effective criticism, then it has to be targeted at a specific set of ideas that are commonly held within the group. When you aim too broadly (as you paint all Muslims as Islamists), you're demonstrating prejudice, i.e. "you're a Muslim so you must believe...". It's not helpful to the cause.
> What are wittering about? Race isn't "socially constructed" it's physical differences, like having dark skin.
It's very hard to define races scientifically, the definitions most certainly are socially constructed.
> And Islam is of course more than a religion, it is a political philosophy, legal system and many other things, all of which should be open to comment, criticism, and objection, like any other philosophy. There is no good reasons to discriminate on the basis of skin colour when it comes to immigration but there are good reason to do so on the basis of political standpoint, particular ones that seek to usurp existing institutions.
Sorry to go over this ground again, I just I find this view that Islam is one unitary set of ideas - roughly that of ISIS - totally infuriating. If Islam is a political philosophy, then please explain how Saudi Arabia and Indonesia both follow the same political philosophy and legal system.
Yes of course every set of ideas is open to criticism and that is never racism, but you have to define the set of ideas you're criticising sensibly, so that you are aiming at something real. Islamism is a set of political ideas, that should be criticised. Islam on the other hand is a huge religion of 1.6bn people, and as such it isn't a political philosophy that one can single out for criticism. You can't apply the same criticism to the judiciary of Saudi Arabia as the ideas defended by the Muslim Council of Britain - they're too different. The one criticism that can be levelled at the whole of Islam is that if you base your beliefs on the Koran, it's going to be a load of bollocks. But exactly what that load of bollocks ends up looking like will be completely different in different cultural contexts.
Yes, religions are sets of ideas, and things you can choose - as such it isn't racist to criticise them. But if you want to make an effective criticism, then it has to be targeted at a specific set of ideas that are commonly held within the group. When you aim too broadly (as you paint all Muslims as Islamists), you're demonstrating prejudice, i.e. "you're a Muslim so you must believe...". It's not helpful to the cause.
6
1
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Should the UK decide to leave, this is the unlikely option. As has been stated repeatedly and by several leading European politicians, the UK had been able to opt out of many aspects of EU integration. However, should they decide to leave, they can expect no such exceptions again when renegotiating.
One of the core principles of the EU is the free movement of labour (the claim that the EU prevents migration into the social systems is a myth, there are many tools available already to prevent that). For the sake of its very existence the EU will not and cannot, compromise on this issue when countries want to share its key benefit, i.e. unhindered access to the common market. Switzerland recently found this out to their cost, and any serious politicians on the Leave site must be fully aware of this as well.
So, any restrictions on EU workers (and reciprocal restrictions on UK workers) would only apply if the UK would decide to go fully independent and forego single market access, which is extremely unlikely to happen as it would spell economic disaster. The realistic Leave scenario would thus be protracted negotiations, at the end of which the UK will get the single market access they need, but will have to accede to the same old intra-EU migration rules, rendering the whole thing a bit pointless.
I hope you guys stay, but don´t expect too much happening if you don´t. Quite possibly, though, this would accelerate integration of a core EU (France, Italy, Benelux, Germany), while some of the newly accepted countries of the East may follow the UK.
CB
> It will almost certainly be the case that, if the UK leaves the EU, restrictions will apply to UK workers in EU countries.
Should the UK decide to leave, this is the unlikely option. As has been stated repeatedly and by several leading European politicians, the UK had been able to opt out of many aspects of EU integration. However, should they decide to leave, they can expect no such exceptions again when renegotiating.
One of the core principles of the EU is the free movement of labour (the claim that the EU prevents migration into the social systems is a myth, there are many tools available already to prevent that). For the sake of its very existence the EU will not and cannot, compromise on this issue when countries want to share its key benefit, i.e. unhindered access to the common market. Switzerland recently found this out to their cost, and any serious politicians on the Leave site must be fully aware of this as well.
So, any restrictions on EU workers (and reciprocal restrictions on UK workers) would only apply if the UK would decide to go fully independent and forego single market access, which is extremely unlikely to happen as it would spell economic disaster. The realistic Leave scenario would thus be protracted negotiations, at the end of which the UK will get the single market access they need, but will have to accede to the same old intra-EU migration rules, rendering the whole thing a bit pointless.
I hope you guys stay, but don´t expect too much happening if you don´t. Quite possibly, though, this would accelerate integration of a core EU (France, Italy, Benelux, Germany), while some of the newly accepted countries of the East may follow the UK.
CB
1
In reply to cb294:
So let me get this right. You are saying that this whole exercise is pointless because after Brexit we would have to accept free movement to avoid economic disaster?
> So, any restrictions on EU workers (and reciprocal restrictions on UK workers) would only apply if the UK would decide to go fully independent and forego single market access, which is extremely unlikely to happen as it would spell economic disaster. The realistic Leave scenario would thus be protracted negotiations, at the end of which the UK will get the single market access they need, but will have to accede to the same old intra-EU migration rules, rendering the whole thing a bit pointless.
So let me get this right. You are saying that this whole exercise is pointless because after Brexit we would have to accept free movement to avoid economic disaster?
1
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
That's not how it works.
> If you have 250 million 'rich' people in the EU with and a billion poor people with 1/10 the income of the rich people and you remove inequality then the rich people end up with 350/1250 = 0.28 x their previous wealth.
That's not how it works.
In reply to jkarran:
sure. it's unreasonable to imply gn is a racist c*nt,
> I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that while the language of fear and prejudice has changed quite a bit in the last few decades the sentiment hasn't so much.
sure. it's unreasonable to imply gn is a racist c*nt,
In reply to Big Ger:
couldn't say exactly, but definitely not like that. the impact of immigration is a matter of much reasonable debate. nobody involved in said reasonable debate thinks immigration means spreading the same amount of wealth accross more people.
couldn't say exactly, but definitely not like that. the impact of immigration is a matter of much reasonable debate. nobody involved in said reasonable debate thinks immigration means spreading the same amount of wealth accross more people.
1
In reply to Pekkie:
Yes, I believe the whole thing is a farce, an attempt by Cameron to counter the UKIP threat and to appease the Eurosceptics within his party. The UK already has so many rebates and exceptions that they are only EU member in name as far as the political integration is concerned, and is pretty much member of the free market only. Of course, access to this market comes at a cost, as most people in other net donor countries are well aware of.
Clearly, the remainder EU won´t allow the UK to have their cake and eat it. If the UK decides to leave, renegotiations will not be conducted in a particularly friendly manner, as the remainder will remember decades of UK cherry picking.
I would specifically predict that the EU will not compromise one bit on one of its key principles, the free movement of workers as well as goods and services. If the Leave campaign really wants to implement a Boris type of immigration system should they win the referendum they are of course free to do so, but will not be admitted to the single market.
I am sure that Boris in particular, but also the other senior politicians on the leave side are fully aware of this, and they also know that the UK cannot afford to stay out of the EEA/single market
So, in effect the whole thing will not change much: Either the UK stays in the EU and retains its special status, or it will be outside, but have to accept essentially exactly the same terms as before.
And by the way, the claim that nothing can be done to limit migration into the social systems is a lie: No state is forced to pay out of work benefits to anyone coming without a job (a few exceptions aside).
As I said before, I would prefer if the UK staid in Europe: Politically weakening the one block that offers an alternative to Putin´s Russia, Trumpistan, or China, does not look like a clever idea, but even if you leave I don´t see much change either economically or for expats going either way.
CB
Yes, I believe the whole thing is a farce, an attempt by Cameron to counter the UKIP threat and to appease the Eurosceptics within his party. The UK already has so many rebates and exceptions that they are only EU member in name as far as the political integration is concerned, and is pretty much member of the free market only. Of course, access to this market comes at a cost, as most people in other net donor countries are well aware of.
Clearly, the remainder EU won´t allow the UK to have their cake and eat it. If the UK decides to leave, renegotiations will not be conducted in a particularly friendly manner, as the remainder will remember decades of UK cherry picking.
I would specifically predict that the EU will not compromise one bit on one of its key principles, the free movement of workers as well as goods and services. If the Leave campaign really wants to implement a Boris type of immigration system should they win the referendum they are of course free to do so, but will not be admitted to the single market.
I am sure that Boris in particular, but also the other senior politicians on the leave side are fully aware of this, and they also know that the UK cannot afford to stay out of the EEA/single market
So, in effect the whole thing will not change much: Either the UK stays in the EU and retains its special status, or it will be outside, but have to accept essentially exactly the same terms as before.
And by the way, the claim that nothing can be done to limit migration into the social systems is a lie: No state is forced to pay out of work benefits to anyone coming without a job (a few exceptions aside).
As I said before, I would prefer if the UK staid in Europe: Politically weakening the one block that offers an alternative to Putin´s Russia, Trumpistan, or China, does not look like a clever idea, but even if you leave I don´t see much change either economically or for expats going either way.
CB
3
In reply to Donald82:
Fair enough.
But "equalising" wealth does necessitate taking from some and giving to others, and obviously the more "others" there are the more thin the slices of wealth distributed get.
Fair enough.
But "equalising" wealth does necessitate taking from some and giving to others, and obviously the more "others" there are the more thin the slices of wealth distributed get.
1
1
1
1
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It does not necessitate to take from some to give to others. You just need to have the wealth of the poorest groups growing faster than the wealth of the richest groups , and eventually things get a bit more equal.
> Fair enough.
> But "equalising" wealth does necessitate taking from some and giving to others, and obviously the more "others" there are the more thin the slices of wealth distributed get.
It does not necessitate to take from some to give to others. You just need to have the wealth of the poorest groups growing faster than the wealth of the richest groups , and eventually things get a bit more equal.
Post edited at 15:40
In reply to RomTheBear:
Which is exactly what the EU's convergence policy is all about. The idea is that financial assistance is give to regions who's GDP per capita is below the EU average (eg in the UK Merseyside, Cornwall, Wales) to help them reach the average. This is something that the Tory government in this country does not do.
> It does not necessitate to take from some to give to others. You just need to have the wealth of the poorest groups growing faster than the wealth of the richest groups , and eventually things get a bit more equal.
Which is exactly what the EU's convergence policy is all about. The idea is that financial assistance is give to regions who's GDP per capita is below the EU average (eg in the UK Merseyside, Cornwall, Wales) to help them reach the average. This is something that the Tory government in this country does not do.
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
That would be a great thing. But I do not know of any party proposing that.
> It does not necessitate to take from some to give to others. You just need to have the wealth of the poorest groups growing faster than the wealth of the richest groups , and eventually things get a bit more equal.
That would be a great thing. But I do not know of any party proposing that.
In reply to Pekkie:
Not true;
Also EU investment in Cornwall through the "Objective one" scheme has long been a joke in the county.
> (eg in the UK Merseyside, Cornwall, Wales) to help them reach the average. This is something that the Tory government in this country does not do.
Not true;
> “The Conservative Government have invested heavily in improving infrastructure to Cornwall with the addition of local cycle ways and the duelling of the A30 carriage way into Cornwall at Temple which will help the county to grow and improve."
Also EU investment in Cornwall through the "Objective one" scheme has long been a joke in the county.
> A film studio vaunted as the Hollywood of the West Country has collapsed, prompting fears that millions of pounds of European Union funds have been squandered on unrealistic projects.
> Opponents say that the South West Film Studios in St Agnes, north Cornwall - which received a grant of more than £2 million - was misconceived and that funding for other projects has also been wasted. The county is getting £340 million in EU grants between 2000 and 2006.
> Other grant-funded businesses have also failed, including a renewable energy centre, which received another £300,000. The centre closed last month after failing to attract sufficient visitors over four years.
> Opponents say that the South West Film Studios in St Agnes, north Cornwall - which received a grant of more than £2 million - was misconceived and that funding for other projects has also been wasted. The county is getting £340 million in EU grants between 2000 and 2006.
> Other grant-funded businesses have also failed, including a renewable energy centre, which received another £300,000. The centre closed last month after failing to attract sufficient visitors over four years.
In reply to Big Ger:
I have no experience of regeneration in Cornwall but could you provide a link to the negative stuff you have posted? Always provide a link otherwise for all I know you might have made it up.
I have no experience of regeneration in Cornwall but could you provide a link to the negative stuff you have posted? Always provide a link otherwise for all I know you might have made it up.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Just read the Wikipedia article.
So to get this straight, a film studio project, approved and backed by a BRITISH regional assembly and development agency, gets funding from the EU under the European regional development fund (which was pretty much requested by BRITAIN as a condition of accessing the EU), fails because of large scale fraud committed the BRITISH manager of the place.
But still you think the problem here is the EU. Just Wow.
Just read the Wikipedia article.
So to get this straight, a film studio project, approved and backed by a BRITISH regional assembly and development agency, gets funding from the EU under the European regional development fund (which was pretty much requested by BRITAIN as a condition of accessing the EU), fails because of large scale fraud committed the BRITISH manager of the place.
But still you think the problem here is the EU. Just Wow.
Post edited at 02:29
1
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
Oh dear, your comprehension problems let you down again Rom.
What I actually said was;
In reply to Pekkie's comment
I used two examples of how "Objective One" money has been squandered in Cornwall. I was addressing the point he was making, not other factors which may be related.
Have I spelled that out clearly enough for you?
Here's more examples of how Objective one money, as I said, has long been a joke in Cornwall. (With a link for Pekkie.)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-33360841
http://www.showmethemoneycornwall.com/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1474957/How-the-EU-millions-went-Wes...
Want more?
> But still you think the problem here is the EU. Just Wow.
Oh dear, your comprehension problems let you down again Rom.
What I actually said was;
> Also EU investment in Cornwall through the "Objective one" scheme has long been a joke in the county.
In reply to Pekkie's comment
> Which is exactly what the EU's convergence policy is all about.
I used two examples of how "Objective One" money has been squandered in Cornwall. I was addressing the point he was making, not other factors which may be related.
Have I spelled that out clearly enough for you?
Here's more examples of how Objective one money, as I said, has long been a joke in Cornwall. (With a link for Pekkie.)
> Kim Conchie, chief executive of the Cornwall Chamber of Commerce, said: "It's pretty damning in many ways, the vast majority of money that's been spent in Cornwall and the Scillies over the past 15 years has not resulted in the number of jobs or the value added that we were expecting. "You've got some absolutely damning statistics, for example in the research and development fund, the cost per job was £160,000 per person."
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cornwall-33360841
> "The other day I worked out that we could have done all this very differently. We could simply have taken all the Objective One money, and we could have given £20,000 a year, for half a decade, to the poorest five per cent of the Cornish population. Would that have been better?"
Andrew George MPhttp://www.showmethemoneycornwall.com/
> The Rt Rev Bill Ind, the Bishop of Truro, criticised the Objective One scheme for being too bureaucratic and complex. "The publicity associated with Objective One has raised false hopes which were quickly dashed," he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1474957/How-the-EU-millions-went-Wes...
Want more?
Post edited at 02:55
4
1
In reply to Pekkie:
Interestingly, Cornwall got £465m (some reports say £1 Billion,) of EU convergence money into the county between 2007 and 2013.
Cornwall has a population of 500,000.
That's not far short of a grand for each man woman and child in Kernow.
Coincidentally, all Australians got a $900 cheque (£450.00) from government to boost spending during the recession.
Australia came through the global financial crisis in solid shape and avoided a recession.
But in 2011, the latest available figures, Cornwall and the Scillies’ measure of wealth was 64% – lower than the 72% it recorded a year earlier.
Interestingly, Cornwall got £465m (some reports say £1 Billion,) of EU convergence money into the county between 2007 and 2013.
Cornwall has a population of 500,000.
That's not far short of a grand for each man woman and child in Kernow.
Coincidentally, all Australians got a $900 cheque (£450.00) from government to boost spending during the recession.
Australia came through the global financial crisis in solid shape and avoided a recession.
But in 2011, the latest available figures, Cornwall and the Scillies’ measure of wealth was 64% – lower than the 72% it recorded a year earlier.
2
In reply to Big Ger:
We pretty much have to always guess what your point is since all you do is copy pasting random stuff.
> Oh dear, your comprehension problems let you down again Rom.
We pretty much have to always guess what your point is since all you do is copy pasting random stuff.
Post edited at 08:39
2
In reply to Big Ger:
Is that true?
And do you not support Torynomics?
> Coincidentally, all Australians got a $900 cheque (£450.00) from government to boost spending during the recession.
Is that true?
And do you not support Torynomics?
1
In reply to Donald82:
I had never heard of this before, but it is evidently true: see e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/recession/5341306/Australians-get-900-ch...
However, the main reason Australia wasn't affected by the recession which hit us is that its banking sector is much more tightly controlled than that of other countries (in particular, the UK and the US.) The resources boom (iron ore etc.) also helped of course: it's only relatively recently that China has slowed down.
> Is that true?
I had never heard of this before, but it is evidently true: see e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/recession/5341306/Australians-get-900-ch...
However, the main reason Australia wasn't affected by the recession which hit us is that its banking sector is much more tightly controlled than that of other countries (in particular, the UK and the US.) The resources boom (iron ore etc.) also helped of course: it's only relatively recently that China has slowed down.
Post edited at 14:02
In reply to Rob Parsons:
Thanks and agree. It's just funny that BG should be pointing to this as a positive given his support for Tory fiscal policy.
Thanks and agree. It's just funny that BG should be pointing to this as a positive given his support for Tory fiscal policy.
In reply to Donald82:
Please quote where I have EVER supported tory economic policy.
> Thanks and agree. It's just funny that BG should be pointing to this as a positive given his support for Tory fiscal policy.
Please quote where I have EVER supported tory economic policy.
In reply to Big Ger:
Thank you for the links. The first described a scheme that failed because the manager committed fraud and the second failed because not enough visitors turned up. You could cherry pick failed regeneration projects anywhere because by their very nature there is often an element of risk involved. In my experience for a major application for EU regional assistance you have to do a comprehensive business plan and cost benefit analysis. Some regeneration projects, wherever they are funded from, will fail. It's the nature of the business. I note that links on the sidebars of your links give lots of examples of EU funded projects in Cornwall that have succeeded - though I must admit that I have no direct experience of regeneration in Cornwall - only in Merseyside.
Thank you for the links. The first described a scheme that failed because the manager committed fraud and the second failed because not enough visitors turned up. You could cherry pick failed regeneration projects anywhere because by their very nature there is often an element of risk involved. In my experience for a major application for EU regional assistance you have to do a comprehensive business plan and cost benefit analysis. Some regeneration projects, wherever they are funded from, will fail. It's the nature of the business. I note that links on the sidebars of your links give lots of examples of EU funded projects in Cornwall that have succeeded - though I must admit that I have no direct experience of regeneration in Cornwall - only in Merseyside.
In reply to Pekkie:
So you agree that the EU money in Cornwall was not spent wisely?
Which doesn't seem to have been done, or didn't work, in the examples I have given
EU funding in Cornwall has been a joke, ask any Cornishman on the street. As I show in later posts, each and every Cornish person could have been given a grand to spend as they see fit for the money that has failed to create jobs in Cornwall.
> Thank you for the links. The first described a scheme that failed because the manager committed fraud and the second failed because not enough visitors turned up.
So you agree that the EU money in Cornwall was not spent wisely?
> You could cherry pick failed regeneration projects anywhere because by their very nature there is often an element of risk involved. In my experience for a major application for EU regional assistance you have to do a comprehensive business plan and cost benefit analysis.
Which doesn't seem to have been done, or didn't work, in the examples I have given
EU funding in Cornwall has been a joke, ask any Cornishman on the street. As I show in later posts, each and every Cornish person could have been given a grand to spend as they see fit for the money that has failed to create jobs in Cornwall.
3
1
In reply to Pekkie:
More for you;
http://www.westbriton.co.uk/465m-EU-fund-project-branded-poor-value/story-2...
More for you;
> Around £465million of EU convergence money was spent in the county between 2007 and 2013 on projects such as the Camborne, Pool, Redruth Link Road and The Wave Hub in Hayle. It was hoped that the money would be the launch pad to an expected 10,000 new jobs, but the report by independent consultants found that just 3,557 jobs were created by the investment.
http://www.westbriton.co.uk/465m-EU-fund-project-branded-poor-value/story-2...
Post edited at 00:59
2
In reply to Pekkie:
Which government brought Nissan to Sunderland? I'll admit the Tories won't just hand dead money out to pet projects, but they do fund industry, that will grow and employ.
> The idea is that financial assistance is give to regions who's GDP per capita is below the EU average (eg in the UK Merseyside, Cornwall, Wales) to help them reach the average. This is something that the Tory government in this country does not do.
Which government brought Nissan to Sunderland? I'll admit the Tories won't just hand dead money out to pet projects, but they do fund industry, that will grow and employ.
In reply to Big Ger:
Sorry, my bad. Must have you confused with someone else.
> Please quote where I have EVER supported tory economic policy.
Sorry, my bad. Must have you confused with someone else.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
I'll agree that £465 million to create 3,557 jobs - compared to 10,000 forecast - looks like Piss Poor Performance. I don't know the Cornwall scenario though I would say that planning tourism projects in a fairly remote area sounds a bit risky. I seem to recall that one of the projects I was involved with in Merseyside created 2,000 jobs and £200 million inward investment from £20 million public investment (roughly half from the EU). All audited and signed off. The figures have been rounded off in my memory. The business plan was about 200 pages long and we had to pay an economist to do the cost benefit analysis. When I drive along the motorway I can see the fruits of this investment and get overtaken on the inside by workers rushing to those jobs. That is just my personal experience, mind.
I'll agree that £465 million to create 3,557 jobs - compared to 10,000 forecast - looks like Piss Poor Performance. I don't know the Cornwall scenario though I would say that planning tourism projects in a fairly remote area sounds a bit risky. I seem to recall that one of the projects I was involved with in Merseyside created 2,000 jobs and £200 million inward investment from £20 million public investment (roughly half from the EU). All audited and signed off. The figures have been rounded off in my memory. The business plan was about 200 pages long and we had to pay an economist to do the cost benefit analysis. When I drive along the motorway I can see the fruits of this investment and get overtaken on the inside by workers rushing to those jobs. That is just my personal experience, mind.
In reply to Big Ger:
Its hardly the EUs fault if the funding wasn`t used effectively. If we left the EU do Cornish residents (I am one) really think that the present govt is going to continue funding regeneration projects down here?
> So you agree that the EU money in Cornwall was not spent wisely?
> Which doesn't seem to have been done, or didn't work, in the examples I have given
> EU funding in Cornwall has been a joke, ask any Cornishman on the street. As I show in later posts, each and every Cornish person could have been given a grand to spend as they see fit for the money that has failed to create jobs in Cornwall.
Its hardly the EUs fault if the funding wasn`t used effectively. If we left the EU do Cornish residents (I am one) really think that the present govt is going to continue funding regeneration projects down here?
In reply to Chris H:
The original question is I believe, how do we deal with arrivals on little boats.
We meet them on the beach, throw them into custody, fill up planes and boats and ship them out to wherever they came from.
Illegal immigration is illegal, the clue is in the name, they are criminals and should be treated as such.
The original question is I believe, how do we deal with arrivals on little boats.
We meet them on the beach, throw them into custody, fill up planes and boats and ship them out to wherever they came from.
Illegal immigration is illegal, the clue is in the name, they are criminals and should be treated as such.
2
4
In reply to winhill:
Hiya, Win. Sorry. Been out climbing.
Not sure about 'outing' myself? I did have two accounts whilst I was employed in a position where stuff I posted could be construed as coming from my employers - that is now over. So I was concerned to see someone else on these forums seemingly blackened with the accusation that he wanted 'to kill Jews in London'. 'Blowing up Jews in London' in your version. And so said that that was probably me.
I think my 'fantasies', as you call them, amounted to wondering what the reaction would be if I took 'pre-emptive' action against the Israeli embassy just as they had taken action against the Palestinans. Given that you take such an interest in me I am sure you will have a record of my actual postings?
I actually think I do have a reasonable grasp of the actualite of racism.
Hiya, Win. Sorry. Been out climbing.
Not sure about 'outing' myself? I did have two accounts whilst I was employed in a position where stuff I posted could be construed as coming from my employers - that is now over. So I was concerned to see someone else on these forums seemingly blackened with the accusation that he wanted 'to kill Jews in London'. 'Blowing up Jews in London' in your version. And so said that that was probably me.
I think my 'fantasies', as you call them, amounted to wondering what the reaction would be if I took 'pre-emptive' action against the Israeli embassy just as they had taken action against the Palestinans. Given that you take such an interest in me I am sure you will have a record of my actual postings?
I actually think I do have a reasonable grasp of the actualite of racism.
2
In reply to cragtaff:
But what if they are, actually, refugees?
> The original question is I believe, how do we deal with arrivals on little boats.
> We meet them on the beach, throw them into custody, fill up planes and boats and ship them out to wherever they came from.
> Illegal immigration is illegal, the clue is in the name, they are criminals and should be treated as such.
But what if they are, actually, refugees?
3
In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Tell you a story.
Pete Livesey couldn't get an entry visa quickly for his prospective Indian bride.
He organised a sponsored cross-channel kayak with his students to raise money for good causes. It was a there-and-back trip.
22 paddlers set off from Dover and 23 paddlers came back.
The marriage was shortly after.
Tell you a story.
Pete Livesey couldn't get an entry visa quickly for his prospective Indian bride.
He organised a sponsored cross-channel kayak with his students to raise money for good causes. It was a there-and-back trip.
22 paddlers set off from Dover and 23 paddlers came back.
The marriage was shortly after.
2
In reply to GridNorth:
Sorry if I upset you. It is very easy to do on internet forums.
BUT 'To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest' is a statement that is racist in its heart.
> Come off it you as good as called me a racist and after several hours I am still angry and upset.
Sorry if I upset you. It is very easy to do on internet forums.
BUT 'To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest' is a statement that is racist in its heart.
1
4
In reply to Andy Say:
Doesn't that depend on what the cultural values and habits are?
> BUT 'To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest' is a statement that is racist in its heart.
Doesn't that depend on what the cultural values and habits are?
3
In reply to Andy Say:
When you are in a hole stop digging. How can I accept your apology when in the same sentence you call me it again. You really are an illiterate w*nker of the worst kind.
When you are in a hole stop digging. How can I accept your apology when in the same sentence you call me it again. You really are an illiterate w*nker of the worst kind.
3
1
In reply to Andy Say:
>[...]
Why is it racist?
Because there is no such influx? Or they don't have different cultural values? Or there won't be social unrest?
Genuine question BTW
>[...]
> BUT 'To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest' is a statement that is racist in its heart.
Why is it racist?
Because there is no such influx? Or they don't have different cultural values? Or there won't be social unrest?
Genuine question BTW
2
In reply to Andy Say:
Racism is to do with prejudice about skin colour and other physical characteristics, not differences in culture, religion or politics. Extending the meaning as you are trying to means objecting to any form of behaviour no matter how odious becomes racist, and discussion impossible.
> BUT 'To let a large influx of single males with significantly different cultural values and habits into a country is a recipe for disaster for the host country. It doesn't matter where the blame may lie and what's fair or not fair the bottom line is it will cause social unrest' is a statement that is racist in its heart.
Racism is to do with prejudice about skin colour and other physical characteristics, not differences in culture, religion or politics. Extending the meaning as you are trying to means objecting to any form of behaviour no matter how odious becomes racist, and discussion impossible.
3
In reply to Chris H:
So you think the EU should be able to hand out other people's money willy nilly and not exercise some supervision or restrain over it?
They should fund no hope projects with taxpayers money?
> Its hardly the EUs fault if the funding wasn`t used effectively.
So you think the EU should be able to hand out other people's money willy nilly and not exercise some supervision or restrain over it?
They should fund no hope projects with taxpayers money?
1
In reply to Big Ger:
It's rather pathetic how leavers are desperately chasing every penny the EU has misspent, and completely missing the bigger picture. But frankly I don't think local councils do any better with their own money. Where I live they spent a billion quid on a one line tram that is slower than the bus.
> So you think the EU should be able to hand out other people's money willy nilly and not exercise some supervision or restrain over it?
> They should fund no hope projects with taxpayers money?
It's rather pathetic how leavers are desperately chasing every penny the EU has misspent, and completely missing the bigger picture. But frankly I don't think local councils do any better with their own money. Where I live they spent a billion quid on a one line tram that is slower than the bus.
Post edited at 23:56
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
It's rather pathetic how leavers are desperately dismissing every penny the EU has misspent, and completely missing the bigger picture
It's rather pathetic how leavers are desperately dismissing every penny the EU has misspent, and completely missing the bigger picture
2
1
In reply to MG:
You are wrong.
If a white European from one country comments about a white European from another country, that comment could be taken as racist.
It is not just about colour.
This has, as you suggest, made making a disparaging remark about someone become very difficult when the recipient wants to be awkward. It is up to the recipient of the comment to decide whether they were racially insulted/harassed, never mind the view or intention of the person making the remark.
> Racism is to do with prejudice about skin colour and other physical characteristics, not differences in culture, religion or politics. Extending the meaning as you are trying to means objecting to any form of behaviour no matter how odious becomes racist, and discussion impossible.
You are wrong.
If a white European from one country comments about a white European from another country, that comment could be taken as racist.
It is not just about colour.
This has, as you suggest, made making a disparaging remark about someone become very difficult when the recipient wants to be awkward. It is up to the recipient of the comment to decide whether they were racially insulted/harassed, never mind the view or intention of the person making the remark.
In reply to fred99:
OK, just about.
. It is up to the recipient of the comment to decide whether they were racially insulted/harassed, never mind the view or intention of the person making the remark.
Nonsense.
> If a white European from one country comments about a white European from another country, that comment could be taken as racist.
OK, just about.
. It is up to the recipient of the comment to decide whether they were racially insulted/harassed, never mind the view or intention of the person making the remark.
Nonsense.
In reply to MG:
Racism isnt just about colour its about abuse of a definable racial group. Every European country has seen racial abuse just based on nationality let alone definable sub groups (jews, gypsys etc). White on white racism isn't just possible, it is sadly common.
Racism isnt just about colour its about abuse of a definable racial group. Every European country has seen racial abuse just based on nationality let alone definable sub groups (jews, gypsys etc). White on white racism isn't just possible, it is sadly common.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...