Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

leveller2911

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

If the UK is being forced to accept a high net movement of EU citizens into the UK... why does the EU not dish out money back to countries like ourselves?

If EU citizens can move as and when they like, how can countries be expected to cope with this rapid change in demand on infrastructure? Roads, health, transport, services, facilities...

Surely there should be some support from the EU?

Also,... has anybody discussed the possibility of these EU citizens moving from the UK back to their countries of origin? What would that do if they did it on mass? This might happen if Spain, Italy etc move back into a vibrant healthy economic state.

This wouldn't have been such a problem if the EU and member states had equelised all the tax, benefits bands etc across Europe, basically become a single European Superstate. They Knew of coarse they would never have got that past the citizens of all of the member states so they thought they would give it a go anyway........

Look no further than the Euro and the EU economies of Greece,Portugal,Spain and now France to see the results of the EU Social engineering project. Which BTW doesn't affect a single EU beaurocrat personally.....

jjlandlord

leveller2911 wrote: »

I still find it very strange that the likes of Hamish will still say "low skilled" immigrants will be net contributors.

No way on Gods earth are the majority or EU immigrants net contributors. If you don't believe me see for yourself and put in a few scenarios from single parent to couples with 5 kids ,low skilled and earning around the NMW.

Any facts apart from your own opinion, which is based on your own feelings?

leveller2911 wrote: »

If the UK had the power to stop Arnis Zalkalns from entering the UK then Alice Gross would still be alive.In 2009 he was accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.

What an argument...

Once I had food poisoning after eating a pizza. If only the UK had the power to ban bad foreign food I would have been spared a night kneeling in the toilet.

leveller2911

jjlandlord wrote: »

What an argument...

Once I had food poisoning after eating a pizza. If only the UK had the power to ban bad foreign food I would have been spared a night kneeling in the toilet.

Couldn't come up with a better anology that that..........

What percentage of EU migrants are earning NMW or just above?.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10647625/EU-migrants-must-earn-150-a-week-for-months-before-claiming-benefits.html

EU immigrants qualify for "thousands of pounds of in work benefits a year " BUT don't tell me they don't claim them because they don't want to claim them. Are EU migrants somehow superior to UK residents and refuse to claim benefits...

Jeezuz wept , theres a few on here like you who shouldn't be allowed out on their. own






My post re Zalkalns along with many other EU criminals is factually correct in that we can not stop them from living in the UK.

Personally I think other EU states should stop UK criminals from entering their country. Yes it is my "opinion" but I wouldn't mind betting the vast majority of the UK population would agree.

Do you agree or not , feel free to give your "opinion". It is a Forum (a place for debate) after all.

Jason74

danothy wrote: »

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.

Apologies for "butting in" on this discussion, but I think you raise a very good point in terms the inherent unfairness of "birthright", and it's worth an attempt at a serious response.

I'm taking the key question here as effectively being "is it unfair that people born here have a whole host of advantages that cannot be taken away simply by being born here, while we stop others coming here to enjoy those advantages". The simple answer to that question is of course it is. It is inherently unfair that someone can enjoy all the benefits of living here (of which there are many, despite our problems as a society) while making no attempt to contribute, while others who would love to contribute to our society are prevented from doing so based simply on where they are born.

But having ackbnowledged that, then what ?. Different people are born into different circumstances, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Someone born into a rich family for example will (all other things being equal) enjoy all sorts of advantages that someone born intoa very poor one will not. Nationality is just another "luck" factor where some people get a much better hand than others.

My understanding (although I'm no expert here, so stand to be corrected) is that international law prevents us from taking citizenship away from people bornm here . So, assuming I'm right (and if I'm not, we're back to how we work that process through in practice), that option isn't available even if we wanted to go down that route.

The question then becomes how we deal with people wanting to come into the UK. There are lots of options available,ranging from a "closed shop", where we don't let anyone in, to complete free access to anyone. I don't claim to have all the answers there, and personally I think the current status quo (while not perfect) is probably about right re immigration. But there's no getting away from the fact that lots of people disagree with me on that point, and so a sensible debate is needed to find a way forward that works for as many of our citizens as possible.

jjlandlord

leveller2911 wrote: »

Jeezuz wept , theres a few on here like you who shouldn't be allowed out on their. own

Ah, insults and spelling mistakes.

I think that it has made the quality of your point crystal clear.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

please do try and keep up;

people who believe in AOBE and believe that the Flower of Scotland is a suitable anthem in the 21st century can reasonably be called racist

people who believe that further 'integration within Europe' is against their own interests are not racist.

You may believe in unlimited and unrestricted immigration into the UK from all countries of the world but I don't think it is in my own or my families best interest.

I'm not sure I can be bothered to debate these proliferating straw men with you any more.

You didn't like Scottish independence for the same reason that you don't like the EU. You have a very fixed idea of England (which for you also includes the principalities of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) as a closed shop.

A place where 'foreigners', who for you are people like the French and the Germans, have to show their passports at entry. And where those from less trustworthy and suspicious lands are turned round and sent packing before setting foot here.

There is absolutely no correlation between continued membership of the EU and "unrestricted immigration from all countries of the world"; but I suspect for you Clapton, one foreign accent on the bus in the morning is one too many so I'm not about to talk you round am I?

danothy

Jason74 wrote: »

Apologies for "butting in" on this discussion, but I think you raise a very good point in terms the inherent unfairness of "birthright", and it's worth an attempt at a serious response.

No apology needed. I've broken your response down below into sections and responded.

Jason74 wrote: »

I'm taking the key question here as effectively being "is it unfair that people born here have a whole host of advantages that cannot be taken away simply by being born here, while we stop others coming here to enjoy those advantages". The simple answer to that question is of course it is. It is inherently unfair that someone can enjoy all the benefits of living here (of which there are many, despite our problems as a society) while making no attempt to contribute, while others who would love to contribute to our society are prevented from doing so based simply on where they are born.

This is effectively what I am highlighting, that we discriminate against people, by telling some of them where they can't live, based essentially on their birthplace.

Jason74 wrote: »

But having ackbnowledged that, then what ?. Different people are born into different circumstances, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. Someone born into a rich family for example will (all other things being equal) enjoy all sorts of advantages that someone born intoa very poor one will not. Nationality is just another "luck" factor where some people get a much better hand than others.

Indeed people do start out differently, but should we subsequently treat them different because of that different start?

Jason74 wrote: »

My understanding (although I'm no expert here, so stand to be corrected) is that international law prevents us from taking citizenship away from people bornm here . So, assuming I'm right (and if I'm not, we're back to how we work that process through in practice), that option isn't available even if we wanted to go down that route.

I'm not disputing any of the impracticalities of altering the system, I am simply saying that we do treat people differently based on a supposed birthright, namely that we treat UK born people with less restrictions than non-UK born people (a practice that can fairly be described as racism, even if it is 'practical'). I personally advocate not treating people differently based on birthplace, and not holding non-UK born people to some standard different to UK born people.

Jason74 wrote: »

The question then becomes how we deal with people wanting to come into the UK. There are lots of options available,ranging from a "closed shop", where we don't let anyone in, to complete free access to anyone. I don't claim to have all the answers there, and personally I think the current status quo (while not perfect) is probably about right re immigration. But there's no getting away from the fact that lots of people disagree with me on that point, and so a sensible debate is needed to find a way forward that works for as many of our citizens as possible.

Indeed, and those who do advocate some sort of criteria or control on citizenship by way of some supposed objective criteria should, in theory, then advocate it being applied to the UK born population too, as the 'practicality' of racist behaviour does not excuse it nor negate the intent of the claimed objectivity. I personally support freedom of movement, in part, because of the impracticality of a non-discriminating citizenship control system.

Putting aside practicality, consider ideology. Ideologically advocating the concept of birthright by way of supporting a different criteria for citizenship based on nothing more than birth location. Practicality of abolishing it be damned, if you agree with it as a concept then that's just a bit racist. This is what I object to, the inherent racist element tolerated under the pretext of practicality. It isn't racist to want to control our borders, as long as we want to control what spawns inside those borders by the same standard. For some reason mentioning this concept appears to anger some, and I can only speculate as to why.

mayonnaise

leveller2911 wrote: »

If the UK had the power to stop Arnis Zalkalns from entering the UK then Alice Gross would still be alive.In 2009 he was accused of sexually assaulting a young girl.

jjlandlord wrote: »

What an argument...

And that's the kind of argument we'll hear more and more I'm afraid.
The rabid anti-EU press will continue to drip-feed an irrational fear of anything Europe, and the simple minded hillbillies will lap it up.
There won't be a debate. There will be easy to digest slogans from the anti-EU camp, and any counterargument will be dismissed as 'elitist'.
A sad state of affairs.

N1AK

leveller2911 wrote: »

I look forward to seeing you post a single racist policy from UKIP.

I never claimed UKIP had racist policies, they do however have stupid policies; designed to ensure wide appeal amongst racists. UKIPs transition over the last decade is fascinating, for observers with some rational perspective: Changing their public image from clear racism, to more Tory than Tory with just a hint of discrimination and now moving towards more centre ground popularism.

Generali

antrobus wrote: »

Then you'd be wrong.

Returning to post #226 he merely stated that "Australia is making genuine steps towards a settlement with the First Australians, migration policy has moved on hugely from the White Australia policy which was effectively alive and well in my lifetime."

As far as I'm aware, that is a reasonably accurate statement of where Australia is these days, and I'm not sure how, by making such as statement, he is excluded from having an opinion about racism elsewhere in the world.

Im sure that there a lot of people who live here in the UK, like for example you, who similarly 'accept' the situation in the UK, and I don't believe that it would be logical, to exclude them from having an opinion on racism somewhere else in the world. Such as Australia for example.

Thank you for bringing light where there was only hot air.