The EU: IN or OUT?

masonic

bigadaj wrote: »

It's a lovely sentiment but in that case why have any immigration restrictions at all, why not allow billions of people to access the uk from China, India, South America and Africa?

My comments were in relation to the statement by maxie014 (which I quoted), who stated that he thought those whose parents and grandparents worked and paid taxes in the UK should have better treatment than those whose parents and/or grandparents did not. Presumably that includes the British born children and grandchildren of immigrants, as well as those who themselves were not born in the UK. I'm sure you do not think that British citizens whose parents or grandparents were not British should have fewer opportunities in life... so the corollary must be that parents and ancestry should not determine anyone's chances in our society.

As far as I can tell, you are misrepresenting my position as thinking that everyone in the world should have the same opportunity to come and live in the UK? I don't believe that. All I believe is that it shouldn't be decided by the contribution your parents made or your ancestry. I am absolutely fine with an individual's entitlements in the UK to be determined by their own nationality and residency, just not that of their parents and ancestors.

kingrulzuk

We have doggy dave, useless chancellor and Canadian governor. We are doomed IN or OUT :rotfl:

HornetSaver

blutto wrote: »

That show is as bad as Question time, biast in the view of the presenter or the production teams political view!

As yes, David Dimbleby. As Marxist as Marxists come. :huh:

george4064

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPX9MLALjAE

bigadaj

masonic wrote: »

My comments were in relation to the statement by maxie014 (which I quoted), who stated that he thought those whose parents and grandparents worked and paid taxes in the UK should have better treatment than those whose parents and/or grandparents did not. Presumably that includes the British born children and grandchildren of immigrants, as well as those who themselves were not born in the UK. I'm sure you do not think that British citizens whose parents or grandparents were not British should have fewer opportunities in life... so the corollary must be that parents and ancestry should not determine anyone's chances in our society.

As far as I can tell, you are misrepresenting my position as thinking that everyone in the world should have the same opportunity to come and live in the UK? I don't believe that. All I believe is that it shouldn't be decided by the contribution your parents made or your ancestry. I am absolutely fine with an individual's entitlements in the UK to be determined by their own nationality and residency, just not that of their parents and ancestors.

Sounds like an arbitrary line in the sand that you are drawing to me.

The last paragraph in your quote now sounds very odd. Peoples nationality is generally determined either by where they were born or where their parents were, and we have the ongoing issues with the bizarre British notion of non domiciled as an example.

Most people will play a system to their advantage, be they poorer immigrants or multi millionaire non doms, it's up to a country to ensure that their laws and rules are robust enough to deal with such issues to the good of the majority of the population.

You need to be careful what you say and the context it is made in; Cameron found that out with his comments about Nigeria and Afghanistan as ten corruption he commented upon is facilitated by tax havens generally under uk government control or protection.

maxie014

masonic wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society where someone's chances in life were predetermined by what their parents did and their ancestry. People should be judged on their own merits.

Its a bit late for that after centuries of the upper class,old boys networks etc.

Nocto wrote: »

Whilst I can see your point, it seems to me like a typically British and parochial way of looking at things. If we remain a member of the EU then you and your children, grandchildren, etc. can live and work in 27 other countries without the need for visas, work permits, etc., where you / they have never paid any tax

It’s a freedom I value, though I appreciate that others do not.

That said, I think the EU has managed the integration of new member states badly (amongst other things…), and only have themselves to blame if we vote to leave.

Whens the next bus to albania or some other dump leaving lol.
Parochial i maybe,after all surely nearly everyone is to some extent,proud of where i was born and bred,yes thats me and probably most people in the eu.Is there anything wrong with that?

supermario1965

I'll be voting OUT but I think it's too late. What do we do with the millions who have ruined our country and have already acquired British citizens or are going to acquire it after the referendum?

melbury

kingrulzuk wrote: »

The EU is scared that if UK vote OUT all the other EU countries will follow and that will be the end of EU rule.

Exactly, wouldn't that be great:T

melbury

supermario1965 wrote: »

I'll be voting OUT but I think it's too late. What do we do with the millions who have ruined our country and have already acquired British citizens or are going to acquire it after the referendum?

Can't they all be repatriated if we are no longer a part of the EU?

masonic

bigadaj wrote: »

Sounds like an arbitrary line in the sand that you are drawing to me.

I guess it depends on your definition of "society". My definition is limited to the population of the UK, who all live together as a nation. When I stated that: "Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society where someone's chances in life were predetermined by what their parents did and their ancestry. People should be judged on their own merits." I thought it was clear that I was referring to our society in that context.

So, I am saying, in essence, that British society should be meritocratic and that we should not be required to give people in our society opportunities based on the status of their parents and grandparents.

You assert that I am drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, but to me it is not at all arbitrary. Those who are neither citizens nor resident in our society are clearly not part of it. They are outside of our jurisdiction, so to speak, and part of different societies with different cultures, philosophies and values. How we respond to those wishing to join our society is a rather different issue from how we treat those who we have already accepted into our society.

The last paragraph in your quote now sounds very odd. Peoples nationality is generally determined either by where they were born or where their parents were, and we have the ongoing issues with the bizarre British notion of non domiciled as an example.

You are right, it does sound odd, so allow me to explain: As you stated, someone can have British nationality (a) if their parents are British, or (b) if their parents are not British, but they were born in Britain or naturalised. Should the former group of people be afforded more opportunities within our society than the latter? Not in my view.

Furthermore, I think that anyone who is not a UK citizen but is granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK should be afforded the same opportunities in our society as those in the above two groups.

So that's three groups of people, all three of which in my view should be afforded equal opportunities in our society, despite the nationality of their parents and ancestors being quite different. Which is what I meant when I said their entitlements should not be determined by the nationality of their parents or ancestors. Does that explain it adequately?

Most people will play a system to their advantage, be they poorer immigrants or multi millionaire non doms, it's up to a country to ensure that their laws and rules are robust enough to deal with such issues to the good of the majority of the population.

You need to be careful what you say and the context it is made in; Cameron found that out with his comments about Nigeria and Afghanistan as ten corruption he commented upon is facilitated by tax havens generally under uk government control or protection.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but I would like to clarify that I have very little responsibility for or control over the issues I have been referring to in this thread.