Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

Bantex_2

danothy wrote: »

I would pick the good ones, and throw out any bad ones I had at home. Humans however are not consumable, they are autonomous beings that I seek no dominion over as individuals so do not pass judgement on their individual worth.

My views are consistent on the matter. It seems however that you are the worst of both worlds, keeping the rotten apples and thinking of human beings as consumables. It's also worth noting that "the way the world works" is not immutable, and hence not an excuse for racism.

OK then, if you needed to take in a lodger to help pay the rent, would you not wish to find out whether they were honest, reliable and capable of paying the bill before inviting them in?

As opposed to if you had a child that you knew was a bad un who you would keep anyway as a matter of responsibility.

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes.

Because one is pretty much ethnic cleansing.

The other is immigration.

Two wildly different things that you are doing your absolutely utmost to pathetically link and draw argument on.

And that will be the end of that conversation from me, as it's frankly repulsive.

No, ethnic cleansing is removing an ethnic group from a population. The clue is in the name. This is critical, and you're basically a terrible person for suggesting otherwise.

You're right about ethnic cleansing being repulsive though. And by that same logic, that you think that excusing one ethnic group, those native born in the UK, from any citizenship criteria that you would otherwise apply to anyone else is anything but maintaining an ethnic preference really shows your true colours. You're closer to advocating ethnic cleansing than I am, and that completely ignores the fact that I support freedom of movement in preference of fairness of application of citizenship criteria.

If it was truly about objective criteria and what was best for the country from an economic or capacity or quality of life point of view then it wouldn't be about where people were born. That you are implying that a uniform objective criteria that was applied to the UK population as well as potential immigrants would be ethnic cleansing is just another example of your toxic world view.

It's telling that you haven't even attempted to justify why people born in the UK shouldn't be held to the same standards to live here as those who weren't born here. It's almost as if you know that being born in the UK by chance isn't actually an objective reason, but is in fact nothing more than a birthright, a concept that is clearly racist in nature. Yet you seem to anger at the idea of depatriating people but not at the idea of blocking access.

What is so special about those born in the UK, other than where they were born, that they are allowed to be immune the criteria for living here that you want immigrants to be held to?

Graham_Devon

ruggedtoast wrote: »

How about Devon, Graham; is it ok for the uncontrolled immigration from the rest of the UK your county receives every year between June and August to continue, or do you want to pull the barricades up on that too?

You mean, people taking holidays?

If you are going to make a point, then make it, but trying to make out someone taking a holiday in the UK is the same as immigration is a tad poor.

I don't want to simply keep arguing about this, but just look at the responses on this page alone to anything said. Wild accusations follow on, which only cause argument.

Bantex_2

danothy wrote: »

What is so special about those born in the UK, other than where they were born, that they are allowed to be immune the criteria for living here that you want immigrants to be held to?

Nothing special, just that there is no practical way of getting rid of them. I would love to send all our chavs somewhere else, nobody would take them though.

danothy

Bantex wrote: »

Nothing special, just that there is no practical way of getting rid of them. I would love to send all our chavs somewhere else, nobody would take them though.

So you're happy to advocate a change to the UK's agreement to a free movement principle but not a citizenship criteria principle? As I said, the way the world works is not immutable. Implying that it is is not an excuse to advocate one change but not another.

Bantex_2

danothy wrote: »

So you're happy to advocate a change to the UK's agreement to a free movement principle but not a citizenship criteria principle? As I said, the way the world works is not immutable. Implying that it is is not an excuse to advocate one change but not another.

I do not believe citizenship is changeablen (Cannot see how it ever could be). Entry criteria is a matter of choice.

danothy

Bantex wrote: »

I do not believe citizenship is changeablen (Cannot see how it ever could be).

Then you lack imagination.

Bantex_2

danothy wrote: »

Then you lack imagination.

Be interested on how we could get rid of our own that we don't want or need.

What is your suggestion?

Can't see ypu advocating extermination camps or transportation.

danothy

Bantex wrote: »

Be interested on how we could get rid of our own that we don't want or need.

What is your suggestion?

I tell you what, I'll address the practicalities of implementation when the morality and fairness of such an arrangement, and by extension the unfairness of operating on the basis of birthright, is acknowledged.

Linton

CLAPTON wrote: »

I see no logic in your selection of 300 million people as being the 'right' size' : why not 8 billion as being the right size?

Simple - its the size of the market.

The US is demonstrably large enough to sustain an internal market for most industries and also large enough to manage the multinationals. So for example it can apply massive fines which no multinational can ignore as they cant afford to be excluded from the US market. Europe appears to be in a similar position, for example fining Microsoft $100Ms. Do you believe the UK could do the same? No - we need them more than they need us. We cant prevent them moving profits away from our country, the US can from theirs.

The US has many globally important companies compared with the UK. Its simply because US companies can grow to a large size within the US and so have the resources to move elsewhere. In software for example most packages are US. Why? UK ones could be better. Again its the size of the internal market. Software development usually only becomes viable if there are large numbers of customers to pay the large development and maintenance costs. Its very difficult to make profits early on if you start in a small local market and very expensive if you start outside your own locality.

So currently only the US, EU and increasingly China provide the right environment for the creation of the globally important industries that are going to become more and more important in our lives. My prediction for what its worth is that the economic pressures for larger markets will continue, at some stage the US and EU will be too small to be more than niche players like the UK would be outside the EU.