Large slums developing in France

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

A bit bloody arrogant. The idea that Europe or the UK is going to be able to hold back the masses is risible. If you don't want them and you aren't prepared to shoot them (which would be a horrible idea I hope we can all agree) then you had better be prepared to find a solution that enables people to want to stay where they were. That means economic development: stop preventing poor people selling goods and services to Europe and start investing in the Sustainable Development Goals.

A bit utopian.

Are you and others prepared to see your income substantially reduced by supporting other countries to the extent that would be needed (they'd probably be labelled 'colonialist' anyway if they tried to do that, and the money would be stolen by powerful tribal leaders and corrupt individuals rather than used to better the countries), as well as individuals who come to Europe illegally and expect to be supported at great cost by taxpayers, probably throughout their lives in the case of many of them? In every society throughout the world there have always been very poor people and very affluent ones, and that will always be the case. This was the case even in Britain and other European countries in Victorian times and beyond, when people were literally dying on the streets and living in festering slums. So you think we should give up all our hard-won achievements (which took us centuries to achieve) to house and support the billions in Africa, the Middle East and Asia who have not achieved what we have? Don't you think it's better for the people who are entering Europe illegally to remain in their countries and try to effect changes there, instead of coming here and expecting to have education, housing, healthcare and so on at the expense of billions to the taxpayer, and ultimately disastrous effects on the economy and society?

In the past in Europe, people have largely dealt with their own problems (whether it be war or economic difficulties) themselves, by effecting changes internally, and not generally by fleeing in huge numbers unless in direct danger of death. Even then, the young men often stayed in their countries to fight for them. True refugees also certainly didn't travel through many safe countries to try and select one that would give them most benefits (they felt) of their choice.

You talk about 'shooting them', but unless something is done rapidly to stop the influx, there will be violence against these people (there is already in places like Germany, though information about it is being suppressed), and any 'liberal' attitudes towards them will change, because there is only so much that the indigenous peoples will take before an instinct for self-preservation will take over.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

A



The idea that Europe or the UK is going to be able to hold back the masses is risible. If you don't want them and you aren't prepared to shoot them (which would be a horrible idea I hope we can all agree) then you had better be prepared to find a solution that enables people to want to stay where they were. That means economic development: stop preventing poor people selling goods and services to Europe and start investing in the Sustainable Development Goals.

good heavens
some might even detect a miniscule criticism of the long standing EU policies here : but I'm sure I have over interpreted.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

good heavens
some might even detect a miniscule criticism of the long standing EU policies here : but I'm sure I have over interpreted.

The EU should engage in free trade across the world. We've discussed this many times and I am amazed that you still think I am some sort of cheerleader for the EU.

Free trade is good. Free trade within the EU is great but using the EU to negotiate free trade across the world is far better.

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

A bit utopian.

Are you and others prepared to see your income substantially reduced by supporting other countries to the extent that would be needed (they'd probably be labelled 'colonialist' anyway if they tried to do that, and the money would be stolen by powerful tribal leaders and corrupt individuals rather than used to better the countries), as well as individuals who come to Europe illegally and expect to be supported at great cost by taxpayers, probably throughout their lives in the case of many of them? In every society throughout the world there have always been very poor people and very affluent ones, and that will always be the case. This was the case even in Britain and other European countries in Victorian times and beyond, when people were literally dying on the streets and living in festering slums. So you think we should give up all our hard-won achievements (which took us centuries to achieve) to house and support the billions in Africa, the Middle East and Asia who have not achieved what we have? Don't you think it's better for the people who are entering Europe illegally to remain in their countries and try to effect changes there, instead of coming here and expecting to have education, housing, healthcare and so on at the expense of billions to the taxpayer, and ultimately disastrous effects on the economy and society?

In the past in Europe, people have largely dealt with their own problems (whether it be war or economic difficulties) themselves, by effecting changes internally, and not generally by fleeing in huge numbers unless in direct danger of death. Even then, the young men often stayed in their countries to fight for them. True refugees also certainly didn't travel through many safe countries to try and select one that would give them most benefits (they felt) of their choice.

You talk about 'shooting them', but unless something is done rapidly to stop the influx, there will be violence against these people (there is already in places like Germany, though information about it is being suppressed), and any 'liberal' attitudes towards them will change, because there is only so much that the indigenous peoples will take before an instinct for self-preservation will take over.

Yeah but going back to the camps thing. How are you going to build them?

You are Donald Trump and I claim my five pounds.

Why would my income be reduced by economic development in the rest of the world? The Americans worked out after WW2 that you can make yourself into the richest country the world has ever known by making your potential customers richer.

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

The EU should engage in free trade across the world. We've discussed this many times and I am amazed that you still think I am some sort of cheerleader for the EU.

Free trade is good. Free trade within the EU is great but using the EU to negotiate free trade across the world is far better.

you are cheerleader for the EU

for every post that mentions the EU external tariffs, there are at least 100 posts that praise the EU without qualification.

The EU doesn't need to 'negotiate ' with anyone to remove tariff barriers against the poor African countries.
The EU has done huge harm for the last 40 years to these countries, all to support a few rich European farmers.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

you are cheerleader for the EU

for every post that mentions the EU external tariffs, there are at least 100 posts that praise the EU without qualification.

The EU doesn't need to 'negotiate ' with anyone to remove tariff barriers against the poor African countries.
The EU has done huge harm for the last 40 years to these countries, all to support a few rich European farmers.

No I'm not. I think the UK is better off inside the EU than out. The EU doesn't exist merely to support French farmers.

On the issue of the EU as with both the others you post about (immigration and Scottish independence) you have a one dimensional view and are unable to address any substantial point without resorting to a ridiculous series of hypothetical questions.

kabayiri

Generali wrote: »

...
Why would my income be reduced by economic development in the rest of the world? The Americans worked out after WW2 that you can make yourself into the richest country the world has ever known by making your potential customers richer.

300bn Euro spent by the EU on developing Poland over the last decade.

In the same period 800,000 Poles have left Poland and come to UK for a better life, and no doubt significant numbers have gone elsewhere.

What evidence is there that people will remain where you want them to voluntarily?

Would it not have been better for the EU to spend 300bn Euro on developing UK; the place where many Poles want to come?

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

No I'm not. I think the UK is better off inside the EU than out. The EU doesn't exist merely to support French farmers.

On the issue of the EU as with both the others you post about (immigration and Scottish independence) you have a one dimensional view and are unable to address any substantial point without resorting to a ridiculous series of hypothetical questions.

We will have to disagree: I don't see the damage that the EU has done to poor countries as hypothetical. Indeed, the issue of effective help to poor countries seems to just about entering the mainstream except, that the EU, as such, won't be blamed.

One can think that the UK is better off, in the broadest multi dimensional sense of the word, and believe that a lower population is better or a larger population is better.
Which option is 'one dimensional' seems a matter of prejudice rather than analysis.

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

Why would my income be reduced by economic development in the rest of the world? The Americans worked out after WW2 that you can make yourself into the richest country the world has ever known by making your potential customers richer.

Read my previous post properly, for example: 'Are you and others prepared to see your income substantially reduced by supporting other countries to the extent that would be needed (they'd probably be labelled 'colonialist' anyway if they tried to do that, and the money would be stolen by powerful tribal leaders and corrupt individuals rather than used to better the countries), as well as individuals who come to Europe illegally and expect to be supported at great cost by taxpayers, probably throughout their lives in the case of many of them?' Additionally, the UK has enough problems with supporting its own people in terms of health services, education, housing and other services – they need to come first and be improved before more taxpayers' money is spent on 'helping' African, Middle Eastern and Eastern countries. Do you want to see Europe bankrupted? I know you live in Australia, so you aren't affected by all this – but it is of great concern to many Europeans.

Also note that making 'clever' remarks to the effect that everyone who disagrees with the influx of large numbers of illegal economic immigrants who have nothing to offer in economic terms, and who want to come to Europe for benefits, is 'racist' is clearly not any kind of argument.

wotsthat

Sapphire wrote: »

Read my previous post properly, for example: 'Are you and others prepared to see your income substantially reduced by supporting other countries to the extent that would be needed (they'd probably be labelled 'colonialist' anyway if they tried to do that, and the money would be stolen by powerful tribal leaders and corrupt individuals rather than used to better the countries), as well as individuals who come to Europe illegally and expect to be supported at great cost by taxpayers, probably throughout their lives in the case of many of them?' Additionally, the UK has enough problems with supporting its own people in terms of health services, education, housing and other services – they need to come first and be improved before more taxpayers' money is spent on 'helping' African, Middle Eastern and Eastern countries. Do you want to see Europe bankrupted? I know you live in Australia, so you aren't affected by all this – but it is of great concern to many Europeans..

Our 'problems' in the UK are of our own making. We deter work by offering a reasonable standard of living to those who choose not to. We also allow the government to legislate a 'free' health service, run it and assess how well it's being run.

I know you favour some sort of not prison camps for foreigners built in a far flung part of the empire but it's not a long term solution. We could spend money helping to build economies which would reduce the draw of Europe and we could also sell stuff to them and vice versa. It could be a virtuous circle and increase rather than substantially reduce income. My guess would be terrorist recruits would be a little harder to find - I'd be a tad more resentful towards a Europe that used concentration camps and, of course, it's a pain in the backside to be planting IED's at night when you've got to get up for work in the morning.