Jump to content

Can we thank UKIP for one thing?


Barry Sanchez
 Share

Recommended Posts

Can we thank the UKIP party for thing at least? I refer to the fact they have brought the immigration question out in to the open so after a while the general population can now feel a little bit easier discussing it without fear of being called a racist or fascist by some parties/people?

I believe this is a good thing for all as it brings out all the questions into the open and we can see how to move onwards together with the agreement of all hopefully, the main parties now have to fully address the issues they have raised as in this next election it is going be a huge % of a voters thought time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has always been possible to talk about immigration without being racist. Problem is, a lot of people are racist to start with and the problems associated with immigration are simply validation of their pre-existing prejudices. A lot of racist sh!t can get said, thus they end up being called racist. You've also got to contend with people who conflate stemming the flow of present immigration with sending everyone back.

 

UKIP's main policy aim is to regain sovereignty. Though many of their supporters have doubtless jumped on board because of the immigration, sovereignty and the importance of the democratic process are what Farage talks about in the EU Parliament.

 

I really don't blame anyone for being concerned at the strain immigration places on our infrastructure, but then, our infrastructure has been p!ss-poor for decades in any case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To think, he was part of the Labour Party only a year ago! :)

 

As a person who will vote Labour and was in the Labour Party far longer than you Pap, went to Garton meetings and many others around South Liverpool you crack me up, you are a liberal capitalist, nothing more nothing less, Bearsy just goes on one now and again and I pay him no heed, I posted on the forum your little nemesis goes on thought Pap, have some dialogue with him and then apologise please my little hobbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a person who will vote Labour and was in the Labour Party far longer than you Pap, went to Garton meetings and many others around South Liverpool you crack me up, you are a liberal capitalist, nothing more nothing less, Bearsy just goes on one now and again and I pay him no heed, I posted on the forum your little nemesis goes on thought Pap, have some dialogue with him and then apologise please my little hobbit.

 

The indecipherable ramblings of a loon. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought it was disgusting seeing the nasty wing of the tory party playing politics to get back the racists of the tory party which defected to ukip in droves.david cameron must be tearing his hair out trying to modernise his party that they have sunk to the pathetic levels of debate.

also sad to see some labour playing the same game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought it was disgusting seeing the nasty wing of the tory party playing politics to get back the racists of the tory party which defected to ukip in droves.david cameron must be tearing his hair out trying to modernise his party that they have sunk to the pathetic levels of debate.

also sad to see some labour playing the same game.

 

Labour are f**king up big style imo, latching onto the same politics of hate as the Tories simply because they want to be seen as tough on sh!t.

 

They'd do a lot better if they spent their time flouting decent policies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour are f**king up big style imo, latching onto the same politics of hate as the Tories simply because they want to be seen as tough on sh!t.

 

They'd do a lot better if they spent their time flouting decent policies.

i agree but i,m like alot of people who are sad to see how low our politics has sunk to the daily mail level of hatred and mistruths and racism and the same nonsense being pedalled. it reminds me of the same scare storys of the 1970s when the Ugandan asians were being used as scapegoats.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought it was disgusting seeing the nasty wing of the tory party playing politics to get back the racists of the tory party which defected to ukip in droves.david cameron must be tearing his hair out trying to modernise his party that they have sunk to the pathetic levels of debate.

also sad to see some labour playing the same game.

You do realise you are just proving the point in the openng post? Anyone that challenges levels of immigration are classed as racist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do realise you are just proving the point in the openng post? Anyone that challenges levels of immigration are classed as racist.
what alot of crap trap ,got no problem on proper debates on immigration and controls but not emotive language made up to justify hidden racism.i,m still waiting for the Romanian scare invasion of the uk,what was it 25 people so far.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree but i,m like alot of people who are sad to see how low our politics has sunk to the daily mail level of hatred and mistruths and racism and the same nonsense being pedalled. it reminds me of the same scare storys of the 1970s when the Ugandan asians were being used as scapegoats.

 

What in Uganda? By a tyrant? Or here? Not too sure many Asian Ugandans settled on the South Coast (Leicester and a few other Cities in the midlands and North)so I can not comment but I thought the emergency measures to bring as many here as soon possible was a great success story(there was resistance but that I think was immigration as a whole not asylum), their contribution to the UK has been immense as well.

Not sure what point you are trying to make?

Edited by Barry Sanchez
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought it was disgusting seeing the nasty wing of the tory party playing politics to get back the racists of the tory party which defected to ukip in droves.david cameron must be tearing his hair out trying to modernise his party that they have sunk to the pathetic levels of debate.

also sad to see some labour playing the same game.

 

You really are a f*cking knob. I can't tell if you're always just on the wind up or actually believe what you post. Pathetic levels of debate? What questioning wether having an open door immigration policy is sensible when a million young Brits are out of work, we've got a housing crisis,and our services are at breaking point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has always been possible to talk about immigration without being racist. Problem is, a lot of people are racist to start with and the problems associated with immigration are simply validation of their pre-existing prejudices.

 

Can't agree with that pap. I think all parties have been guilty of sweeping it under the carpet, which by default made it an almost taboo subject.

 

Perception is everything and there are huge amounts of people who genuinely believe that Johnny Foreigner is taking all of our council houses, jobs and benefits.

 

The reality is quite different, but by not addressing the issues / topic, those perceptions have been allowed to manifest and create divides.

 

There is a direct correlation between the issues we face now and the seemingly determined efforts not to discuss these topics in the past

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what alot of crap trap ,got no problem on proper debates on immigration and controls but not emotive language made up to justify hidden racism.i,m still waiting for the Romanian scare invasion of the uk,what was it 25 people so far.

 

The only person on this thread that is not having a proper debate is you. The only person using emotive language is you. It is so typical of your side of the arguement , your line seems to be " you can discuss it without being racist, provided you agree with me" . Of course you have to throw in the obligatory Daily Mail remark. In fact the only things missing from your leftie handbook of discussing immigration is some facts around how good immigration has been for the country and how hardly any immigrants claim benefits. I often watch QT playing "immigration bingo" awaiting the standard responses and cries of "it's not racist to discuss immigration......but".

 

My view is very simple, every immigrant that gets a job, particularly in the minimum wage sector, it is one less job available for a British person. That seems to me to be an indisputable fact. Therefore, our government should decide the level of immigration into this country and the rules around who can work and what skill base or independent wealth they should have. Therefore if the British people feel that too much has taken place, or indeed too little , and this is having a negative effect on growth and prosperity then the British people can throw the governing party out.

 

I apply this to all races equally, unlike the Labour party who do distinguish between races and nationality. Surely the UKIP postion of work permits for all nationals is less racist than a points system for Africans,Pakistanis,and Asians and nothing at all for Germans,Irish and French nationals. If ukips position was that Canadians, Australians and new Zealanders could come and go as they please, but johhny foreigners from India, Sri Lanka and Gambia had a points system imposed on them, im sure you'll soon be starting a thread about it, with a link to the daily mail thrown in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only person on this thread that is not having a proper debate is you. The only person using emotive language is you. It is so typical of your side of the arguement , your line seems to be " you can discuss it without being racist, provided you agree with me" . Of course you have to throw in the obligatory Daily Mail remark. In fact the only things missing from your leftie handbook of discussing immigration is some facts around how good immigration has been for the country and how hardly any immigrants claim benefits. I often watch QT playing "immigration bingo" awaiting the standard responses and cries of "it's not racist to discuss immigration......but".

 

My view is very simple, every immigrant that gets a job, particularly in the minimum wage sector, it is one less job available for a British person. That seems to me to be an indisputable fact. Therefore, our government should decide the level of immigration into this country and the rules around who can work and what skill base or independent wealth they should have. Therefore if the British people feel that too much has taken place, or indeed too little , and this is having a negative effect on growth and prosperity then the British people can throw the governing party out.

 

I apply this to all races equally, unlike the Labour party who do distinguish between races and nationality. Surely the UKIP postion of work permits for all nationals is less racist than a points system for Africans,Pakistanis,and Asians and nothing at all for Germans,Irish and French nationals. If ukips position was that Canadians, Australians and new Zealanders could come and go as they please, but johhny foreigners from India, Sri Lanka and Gambia had a points system imposed on them, im sure you'll soon be starting a thread about it, with a link to the daily mail thrown in.

 

Seems reasonable. Remember though, from the last point? that's basically the standard line from your a-typical UKIP voter "I think we should get back to getting closer to the commonwealth; you know, Canada, New Zealand, Australia....none of those darkie countries though, like India or Africa."

 

And also, yep, UKIP's main focus is in retain sovereignty but have you seen their social care policies?.....Shocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical of the "it's not racist to discuss immigration..............but" brigade.

 

Make up complete and utter nonsense that the "typical " UKIP supporter doesn't want darkies in the country.

 

UKIP actually want to treat everybody equally regardless of nationality. It is the people who scream "racist" that want to treat Europeans ( who are in fhe vast majority white ) differently than Africans and Asians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't agree with that pap. I think all parties have been guilty of sweeping it under the carpet, which by default made it an almost taboo subject.

 

Perception is everything and there are huge amounts of people who genuinely believe that Johnny Foreigner is taking all of our council houses, jobs and benefits.

 

The reality is quite different, but by not addressing the issues / topic, those perceptions have been allowed to manifest and create divides.

 

There is a direct correlation between the issues we face now and the seemingly determined efforts not to discuss these topics in the past

 

Exactly this, in reality most intelligent people realise that immigration isnt the devil at play that many believe it to be, in fact it is positively vital at certain levels. The problem is completely ignoring it and removing peoples voice on the subject sows the seed of discontent and even hatred.

 

Spend any time in the main industries that have been effected by immigration and you will see far more racism and even hatred then there was say 10 years ago. I dont agree with it, in faxt it upsets me the levels that some people speak but all in all its been caused by a refusal to believe an issue exists and has caused a bigger devide than actually tackling the issues head on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical of the "it's not racist to discuss immigration..............but" brigade.

 

Make up complete and utter nonsense that the "typical " UKIP supporter doesn't want darkies in the country.

 

UKIP actually want to treat everybody equally regardless of nationality. It is the people who scream "racist" that want to treat Europeans ( who are in fhe vast majority white ) differently than Africans and Asians.

 

It's more the fact that nationalism is a paradigm that was created to keep people in line (generally by the people who have it good to silence those that don't), xenophobic and generally bend to the will of those in power unquestionably and to a lot of people, nationalism IS just an excuse to be a bigot which is why people view Farage as a bigoted buffoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

which is why people view Farage as a bigoted buffoon.

 

 

Another baseless "fact" based on your political opinions.

 

The only way to judge what people think of party leaders is opinion polls and Farage polls higher than Clegg or Milliband. You may think that Farage is a bigoted buffoon but believe it or not that doesn't mean "people" do.

 

I think Ed Balls is an incompetent numpty, that the Green party are a bunch of loons and that Ed Milliband is trying to con the public, perhaps I'll post that "people" view them the same as me. I'm sure there are people out there that agree, but that doesn't make it true for me to post "that's why people think Ed Milliband is a con man".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't agree with that pap. I think all parties have been guilty of sweeping it under the carpet, which by default made it an almost taboo subject.

 

Perception is everything and there are huge amounts of people who genuinely believe that Johnny Foreigner is taking all of our council houses, jobs and benefits.

 

The reality is quite different, but by not addressing the issues / topic, those perceptions have been allowed to manifest and create divides.

 

There is a direct correlation between the issues we face now and the seemingly determined efforts not to discuss these topics in the past

 

There are some short memories at work here. Let's not forget that Michael Howard made immigration the central focus of his campaign against New Labour back in 2005. He talked about the issues and lost that campaign quite resoundingly.

 

Where our views don't diverge is your assertion that perception is everything. That's really the biggest issue, largely because most people are incapable of forming their own views leaving their perception of the situation f**ked.

 

Immigration is hardly alone in its status as a de facto ignored topic. There are a range of "untouchables" that'll never get addressed, from drug prohibition to the green economy. For this, I think the electoral system plays a huge part. Huge numbers of people vote for certain principles, only to have their wishes diluted by the first-past-the-post constituency-based system. Using the immigration question as an example, you might find that there are millions of concerned voices with no political representation, simply because those voices are not joined up and never can be. UKIP would have 20 Westminster seats based on a fair reflection of the 2010 General Election; BNP would have had 12. Some might argue that's not a bad thing; pointing out that FPTP keeps extremists out of Parliament.

 

I tend to see the other angle; we disenfranchise the electorate and feed the extremists within the parties that we'd seek to exclude. They'll always be able to correctly claim that the system is set up against them, because it is. That applies to any special interest party.

Edited by pap
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another baseless "fact" based on your political opinions.

 

The only way to judge what people think of party leaders is opinion polls and Farage polls higher than Clegg or Milliband. You may think that Farage is a bigoted buffoon but believe it or not that doesn't mean "people" do.

 

I think Ed Balls is an incompetent numpty, that the Green party are a bunch of loons and that Ed Milliband is trying to con the public, perhaps I'll post that "people" view them the same as me. I'm sure there are people out there that agree, but that doesn't make it true for me to post "that's why people think Ed Milliband is a con man".

 

I'd say it wasn't just me...what happens every time he leaves the country again? he either gets pelted with coins or told in no uncertain terms he's not wanted. He plays to the crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it wasn't just me...what happens every time he leaves the country again? he either gets pelted with coins or told in no uncertain terms he's not wanted. He plays to the crowd.

 

Sounds like mob rule to me. Just because a few lefties organise incidents to basically close down free speech (if you believe these are just spontaneous displays from ordinary Joe's , you're deluded) does not make him hated. How do you explain his poll rating's compared to Cleggys and Millibands. Personally, I cant wait for the European elections when he sticks it to the man. Coupled with Ceggys bunch of Euro loons getting wiped out, the European elections are going to shake up the establishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like mob rule to me. Just because a few lefties organise incidents to basically close down free speech (if you believe these are just spontaneous displays from ordinary Joe's , you're deluded) does not make him hated. How do you explain his poll rating's compared to Cleggys and Millibands. Personally, I cant wait for the European elections when he sticks it to the man. Coupled with Ceggys bunch of Euro loons getting wiped out, the European elections are going to shake up the establishment.

 

I think it can be partly explained by where we are in the election cycle.

 

At this stage, opponents are always more popular, as people rarely like the incumbent. BNP & UKIP always poll well in the run up to elections, and can even have some success in perceived 'lesser' elections such as locals or european (probably misguided perceptions, but still). This in part, along with the FPTP system, can explain poll success that is then not replicated into general election success.

 

UKIP are helped in that Farage is a pretty charismatic man, and does his best to seperate himself from the loonies and, blatant racists of the BNP. He suffers from planks like Godfrey making them look a bunch of bigoted buffoons. Again, perception comes into it, I do not for a second think the entire party and it's membership are racist or xenophobic, but there are undoubtedly those within it that are.

 

Anyways, just my 2 cents, not that it's really worth much. In my opinion this is part of the reason for poll success at the moment. The govt are amongst the most unpopular ever, and the fact Milliband isn't streets ahead as leader of the oppo speaks volume of how good a job he is doing. He probably isn't helped by his close ties to the previous administration and New Labour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it can be partly explained by where we are in the election cycle.

 

At this stage, opponents are always more popular, as people rarely like the incumbent. BNP & UKIP always poll well in the run up to elections, and can even have some success in perceived 'lesser' elections such as locals or european (probably misguided perceptions, but still). This in part, along with the FPTP system, can explain poll success that is then not replicated into general election success.

 

UKIP are helped in that Farage is a pretty charismatic man, and does his best to seperate himself from the loonies and, blatant racists of the BNP. He suffers from planks like Godfrey making them look a bunch of bigoted buffoons. Again, perception comes into it, I do not for a second think the entire party and it's membership are racist or xenophobic, but there are undoubtedly those within it that are.

 

Anyways, just my 2 cents, not that it's really worth much. In my opinion this is part of the reason for poll success at the moment. The govt are amongst the most unpopular ever, and the fact Milliband isn't streets ahead as leader of the oppo speaks volume of how good a job he is doing. He probably isn't helped by his close ties to the previous administration and New Labour.

 

There you've done it again, trying to link UKIP with the BNP. The closer comparison in the run up to the EU elections would be The Greens, who polled similarly in the past. However, that wont sit with your "UKIP are racist" agenda. UKIP is the only party that bans people who were previously members of the BNP, by the way.

 

All parties have loons, from Diane Abbot saying West Indian mothers want the best for their children and white people cant understand it, to Tories dressing up as Nazi's. Lib/Dems and Macshane going to clinck and Hughes running the most blatant anti gay campaign ever, despite batting for the other side himself.

 

The establishment want to portray anyone who has concerns about immigration as bigots, from Mrs Duffy to Nigel Farage. As I said earlier, what is more racist. Treating people differently on the basis of their nationality, or treating everbody the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you've done it again, trying to link UKIP with the BNP. The closer comparison in the run up to the EU elections would be The Greens, who polled similarly in the past. However, that wont sit with your "UKIP are racist" agenda. UKIP is the only party that bans people who were previously members of the BNP, by the way.

 

All parties have loons, from Diane Abbot saying West Indian mothers want the best for their children and white people cant understand it, to Tories dressing up as Nazi's. Lib/Dems and Macshane going to clinck and Hughes running the most blatant anti gay campaign ever, despite batting for the other side himself.

 

The establishment want to portray anyone who has concerns about immigration as bigots, from Mrs Duffy to Nigel Farage. As I said earlier, what is more racist. Treating people differently on the basis of their nationality, or treating everbody the same?

 

It's very easy to link UKIP with the BNP actually...Then again, it's very easy to link Toryism to Nazism. As for worrying about European Immigration...well, we crapped on the planet for such a long time, it's unfortunately fair that they might do the same to us. In my view people who worry about immigration want to have their cake and eat it...well, I'm sorry but you can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to link UKIP with the BNP actually...Then again, it's very easy to link Toryism to Nazism. As for worrying about European Immigration...well, we crapped on the planet for such a long time, it's unfortunately fair that they might do the same to us. In my view people who worry about immigration want to have their cake and eat it...well, I'm sorry but you can't.

 

So in a thread about whether its racist to worry about immigration, you link the BNP to UKIP and then make the pathtic and ignorant point that its "easy" to link Tories to nazis. And then go on to add that people who worry " want their cake and eat it". Well done in one glorious post you've proved yet again how lefties shut down debate by lies and slurs. Its what always happens the left warn about discussing this sensibly and avoiding inflammatory language, before doing just that themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you've done it again, trying to link UKIP with the BNP. The closer comparison in the run up to the EU elections would be The Greens, who polled similarly in the past. However, that wont sit with your "UKIP are racist" agenda. UKIP is the only party that bans people who were previously members of the BNP, by the way.

 

All parties have loons, from Diane Abbot saying West Indian mothers want the best for their children and white people cant understand it, to Tories dressing up as Nazi's. Lib/Dems and Macshane going to clinck and Hughes running the most blatant anti gay campaign ever, despite batting for the other side himself.

 

The establishment want to portray anyone who has concerns about immigration as bigots, from Mrs Duffy to Nigel Farage. As I said earlier, what is more racist. Treating people differently on the basis of their nationality, or treating everbody the same?

 

Sorry mate, I'm not trying to link the two at all. I don't believe UKIP are like the BNP at all. The BNP are completely nasty racist idiots. Plain and simple.

 

UKIP are different, but due to immigration being a key policy pillar for them, they will attract idiots.

 

Read my post again. I'm not linking the too, I'm drawing comparisons between the two parties performance in recent local and EU elections to their performance in general elections. It is not a comparative comment on whether ones representatives, members or policies is racist or anything else.

 

I can't help but feel you are downplaying the fact that such debate, and such parties (intentionally or not) can bring out racists, and racist opinions. To attempt to deny that is silly.

Edited by KelvinsRightGlove
Two not too. Bloody iPhone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

KelvansRightGlove he's talking to me; You can always make links if you wish to...it's just not particularly hard in certain political areas. The same for both sides but when you're at the bottom it's hard to understand the right so I suppose if you've done reasonably well or if you feel you are continually striving towards it (Cameron's society of strivers for example), it's hard to understand the left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Labour welcome BNP with open arms.

 

Jolly nice of them

 

Then they're not really labour now are they since Marxism and far right ideals are diametrically oposite....but hey, that depends on your viewpoint, if you want it to be true you'll convince yourself it is. Kinda like Michael Gove or IDS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then they're not really labour now are they since Marxism and far right ideals are diametrically oposite....but hey, that depends on your viewpoint, if you want it to be true you'll convince yourself it is. Kinda like Michael Gove or IDS.

 

Without want of being argumentative, there are actually a movement of political thinkers that claim Nationalism and socialism/Marxism are actually more compatible bedfellows than many would think, and that hey have simply misunderstood each other.

 

Not sold on it personally, but they are much more intelligent than I (not that it's hard).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without want of being argumentative, there are actually a movement of political thinkers that claim Nationalism and socialism/Marxism are actually more compatible bedfellows than many would think, and that hey have simply misunderstood each other.

 

Not sold on it personally, but they are much more intelligent than I (not that it's hard).

 

I've seen some right wing thinkers say "oh they must be close because the Nazi's were National Socialists" but they forget that Hitler wanted to do away with the socialist bit....I can see what they mean on a few points, since, I suppose you have to take into account the Human desire for greed and such like which Marxist theory really doesn't and take a look at a lot of the "marxist" regimes around the world (who were actually totalitarian regimes very similar indeed to Nazism). But I would say to you that A. Marxist-socialism is just a financial system and that B. there hasn't ever been a government that truly practises it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord D; you do your own content a great disservice with generalisations about the left. The same could be said for Hockey's barely-explained assertion that "people want to have their cake and eat it", a saying I've never really understood. What else are you going to do with a cake?

 

Something worth bearing in mind is that many immigrants think immigration is a problem. Now is this simply a case of pulling the ladder up, once you've established your own situation, or is it a reflection of the fact that it's going to be difficult to accommodate more people into the existing infrastructure, at a time when the existing infrastructure isn't serving the existing population correctly?

 

Immigration can be a tremendous asset to a country if used properly. In the UK context, it seems to be operating mostly for the benefit of business and the hard-working immigrant population. Prospective employers gain access to a much larger labour market, often containing skills that would have otherwise have been renewed in apprenticeships. Anyone coming here to apply themselves can benefit from the economies of scale. Live like a pauper here for five years and go home a winner.

 

The problem is, the benefits of immigration aren't as apparent, and indeed, aren't as real for the average Brit. If you're working, you're going to worry about job security and wage pressure. If you've got kids, you wonder how they'll fit into this enlarged market, or whether they'd emerge with a better education if resources weren't being expended on getting the nippers from overseas up to speed. Cameron likes to talk tough on quotas for non-EU migration, but the elephant in the room is EU migration. I know we're not going to have the hypothetical worst case of 500 million people turning up at the same time, but at the same time, EU migration can't be planned for and it can't really be controlled. The best a country gets is seven years grace. After that, all bets are off, and here hockey_saint gets his wish; we're all the same.

 

To Lord D's point though, we're not all the same. There are vast cultural differences between different parts of the European Union, formed and forged for a myriad of different reasons. Which begs the fundamental question; are all of these nation states supposed to be one country? That is what many of the European statesmen would like us to be, and that's the reality you must face long-term if you are pro-EU. Sovereignty will eventually transfer to a central authority; so much of it has already. That is an incredibly dangerous position to be if you are interested in promoting the ideals of freedom. The rise of totalitarianism was largely inhibited by the construct of nation states and their ability to subdue other nation states. Knowing that, is it really wise to concentrate power in one, largely unaccountable place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll explain my assertation...

 

Those who complain about the country being over-run with immigrants and generally losing sovereignty, and not in all cases I should say, tend to be right wingers who long for the days of empire when the British were running amok throughout the planet stealing land by drugging up and killing the locals (I like to use the example of a neighbour walking into you house, saying "that looks nice...it's mine now") but they'll be the first to complain when THEIR country gets one too many johnny foreigners in "stealing their jobs, lowering the minimum wage and, heaven-forbid, not speaking the local language"

 

See? cake and eat it, that's why I've never understood the term "conservatism" why? what do you want to conserve? most of it was horrible and if not for us, some poor schmuck was getting it and simply saying "we don't want any part of this EU nonsense" is paddling against a tide and smacks of little Englander, trying to return to "splendid isolationism" in the days of the global market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord D; you do your own content a great disservice with generalisations about the left. The same could be said for Hockey's barely-explained assertion that "people want to have their cake and eat it", a saying I've never really understood. What else are you going to do with a cake?

 

Something worth bearing in mind is that many immigrants think immigration is a problem. Now is this simply a case of pulling the ladder up, once you've established your own situation, or is it a reflection of the fact that it's going to be difficult to accommodate more people into the existing infrastructure, at a time when the existing infrastructure isn't serving the existing population correctly?

 

Immigration can be a tremendous asset to a country if used properly. In the UK context, it seems to be operating mostly for the benefit of business and the hard-working immigrant population. Prospective employers gain access to a much larger labour market, often containing skills that would have otherwise have been renewed in apprenticeships. Anyone coming here to apply themselves can benefit from the economies of scale. Live like a pauper here for five years and go home a winner.

 

The problem is, the benefits of immigration aren't as apparent, and indeed, aren't as real for the average Brit. If you're working, you're going to worry about job security and wage pressure. If you've got kids, you wonder how they'll fit into this enlarged market, or whether they'd emerge with a better education if resources weren't being expended on getting the nippers from overseas up to speed. Cameron likes to talk tough on quotas for non-EU migration, but the elephant in the room is EU migration. I know we're not going to have the hypothetical worst case of 500 million people turning up at the same time, but at the same time, EU migration can't be planned for and it can't really be controlled. The best a country gets is seven years grace. After that, all bets are off, and here hockey_saint gets his wish; we're all the same.

 

To Lord D's point though, we're not all the same. There are vast cultural differences between different parts of the European Union, formed and forged for a myriad of different reasons. Which begs the fundamental question; are all of these nation states supposed to be one country? That is what many of the European statesmen would like us to be, and that's the reality you must face long-term if you are pro-EU. Sovereignty will eventually transfer to a central authority; so much of it has already. That is an incredibly dangerous position to be if you are interested in promoting the ideals of freedom. The rise of totalitarianism was largely inhibited by the construct of nation states and their ability to subdue other nation states. Knowing that, is it really wise to concentrate power in one, largely unaccountable place?

 

You’ve made some very good points there, pap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen some right wing thinkers say "oh they must be close because the Nazi's were National Socialists" but they forget that Hitler wanted to do away with the socialist bit....I can see what they mean on a few points, since, I suppose you have to take into account the Human desire for greed and such like which Marxist theory really doesn't and take a look at a lot of the "marxist" regimes around the world (who were actually totalitarian regimes very similar indeed to Nazism). But I would say to you that A. Marxist-socialism is just a financial system and that B. there hasn't ever been a government that truly practises it.

 

Whilst you are right to make that link, what I actually meant were some political thinkers of a more left persuasion.

 

I know how this sounds, and Im not trying to get uppity about the fact I went to uni or anything like that. The reason I mention it, or even know about this, is because one of my lecturers was one of these writers and wrote books on the subject.

 

As I said, I'm not sold on the arguments entirely, and I'm not trying to sell them to anyone, just saying the exist.

 

51kcM9B9fsL.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I'll explain my assertation...

 

Those who complain about the country being over-run with immigrants and generally losing sovereignty, and not in all cases I should say, tend to be right wingers who long for the days of empire when the British were running amok throughout the planet stealing land by drugging up and killing the locals (I like to use the example of a neighbour walking into you house, saying "that looks nice...it's mine now") but they'll be the first to complain when THEIR country gets one too many johnny foreigners in "stealing their jobs, lowering the minimum wage and, heaven-forbid, not speaking the local language"

 

See? cake and eat it, that's why I've never understood the term "conservatism" why? what do you want to conserve? most of it was horrible and if not for us, some poor schmuck was getting it and simply saying "we don't want any part of this EU nonsense" is paddling against a tide and smacks of little Englander, trying to return to "splendid isolationism" in the days of the global market.

 

How many people reading this forum remember the British Empire at its height? Whitey G, maybe? ( /ducks ) :)

 

The question is serious; how can you long for days you don't remember? Those with a living memory of the Empire will just remember it unravelling amongst various declarations of independence. Those who've done any research will realise that a big part of Empire was having a protectionist trading system; autarky within the Empire, if you will. It was that which our enemies sought to destroy; they largely succeeded in that respect, leaving us with this fantastic globalised economy you seem to be in thrall to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people reading this forum remember the British Empire at its height? Whitey G, maybe? ( /ducks ) :)

 

The question is serious; how can you long for days you don't remember? Those with a living memory of the Empire will just remember it unravelling amongst various declarations of independence. Those who've done any research will realise that a big part of Empire was having a protectionist trading system; autarky within the Empire, if you will. It was that which our enemies sought to destroy; they largely succeeded in that respect, leaving us with this fantastic globalised economy you seem to be in thrall to.

 

Just because you don't remember or were not around for it, it doesn't mean you don't long for it...Lots of people do.

 

Also, I'm not enthralled by the global market but it's the situation we find ourselves in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

View Terms of service (Terms of Use) and Privacy Policy (Privacy Policy) and Forum Guidelines ({Guidelines})