• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Britain Considering Leaving the EU

whichphilosophy said:
The interesting thing about statistics is you can look at them honestly over any timespan.
The current upturn shows something healthy but taking into account the long term trend it has been a long term decline.

No, it hasn't.

Look, I'm not a fan of the Euro, I'm heartily glad that the UK didn't join. But the currency is only 16 years old, and at no point in that entire 16 year history is there any pattern whatsoever that could reasonably be described as 'long term decline'. Don't just repeat what you've heard, look at the data, which is freely available.

http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exch...B=1&P=&I=1&DD2=24&MM2=06&YYYY2=2015&btnOK=Go!

Now, take any slice of that graph, anywhere you want, and try and show a long term decline. Your claim just isn't true. It's not a matter of opinion, or perspective, it's just wrong.

I don't think that being an asylum seeker is mutually exclusive with being an illegal immigrant: an asylum seeker can still come to the country illegally. And my understanding is that a vast majority of those coming to EU right now are in this category.

Asylum seekers are a very small proportion of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. If you're talking about immigration in general, Asylum Seekers are almost irrelevant, since they have such a small impact on the numbers.

Hard figures are available from the UK Home Office
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...statistics-july-to-september-2014#citizenship
 
Whoever employs them. As illegal immigrants, they can't access state benefits, so their only sources of income are paid work, and charity.

Most will opt for paid work, usually doing shit jobs that EU citizens don't want, for pay EU citizens wouldn't accept.

That's generally not a bad thing (which is why the analogous problem in the USA with Mexican illegal immigrants is never seriously addressed; if the US sent all the illegals home, then who would mow their yards, and scrub their toilets?).

You still are accepting the notion that great wealth disparities are acceptable. They are not.

As I said the Americans were cleaning their toilets and moving the lawns before the Mexicans arrived.
Before people came over from poorer countries in the UK all the Shit jobs were done locally, as indeed this is how I started, but the money was good.

Cut price immigrants can force wages down, not up. As I mentioned earlier, where immigrants are legally employed, their rate of pay should be at least equal to local pay. This protects the local residents from unfair competition.

This is not 100 per cent fool proof but where did this work? Hong Kong under the British. When I was there, workers from India on contract earned six years pay in six months to one year. This is because they earned the same as HK workers. If one was injured, the employer was forbidden to sack them. If one had a dispute through the labour courts, the employer was not allowed to sack them. If they were paid, the employer in charge of payroll could face up a maximum six months in Jail and ad HK€50k fine for EACH one no paid, or not paid within seven days of the end of the month.

Some of the Indian worker we employed for airport construction projects didn't even want to stay after a year saying they could retire for a few years. This minimised cut throat labour at the expense of local jobs and stopped exploitation to some degree.

Look at YOUTUBE. Illegal Indians come to England looking for work They pay thousand of pounds to come over. They rent a shed from a British Indian for around £1,000 per month. Southall in the UK has about 2,500.

In fact so many that you can see them from the air. When interviewed the illegal immigrants blamed Indian traffickers, employers and English Indians who charged enormous rates of rent. Some have ended up leaving and living outdoors. Every morning in Southall, casual workers wait for the chance to get some small change for loading a truck, just as what I have seen in DELHI.

Illegal immigration may raise their own income but it will also the income of the residents down.
 
Immigration is a key topic. It is not a racial issue.

Anti-immigration can insist all they want that it's not about them bigoted; they're not particularly convincing.

I can go through immigration policies I have seen in China, Hong Kong, India and the UAE. If Holland took in 2 million migrants from Africa and Syria, how would it support them with immediate housing, medical assistance and the cost of living.

A bullshit argument since that is a completely made up and intentionally extreme example. Sure, if we took in 2 million immigrants in a year, we'd be in trouble with things like housing. If we took in 2 million immigrants over a decade, we wouldn't be. And neither would the UK if it understood the value of pragmatism over petty housing politics.

Before Immigration I scrubbed toilets. Before immigration the hotel beds got made and the lawns were mowed.

And who'se going to do that when all the white people are old and no longer being replaced by an equal or greater amount of white people?
 
Anti-immigration can insist all they want that it's not about them bigoted; they're not particularly convincing.

I can go through immigration policies I have seen in China, Hong Kong, India and the UAE. If Holland took in 2 million migrants from Africa and Syria, how would it support them with immediate housing, medical assistance and the cost of living.

A bullshit argument since that is a completely made up and intentionally extreme example. Sure, if we took in 2 million immigrants in a year, we'd be in trouble with things like housing. If we took in 2 million immigrants over a decade, we wouldn't be. And neither would the UK if it understood the value of pragmatism over petty housing politics.

Before Immigration I scrubbed toilets. Before immigration the hotel beds got made and the lawns were mowed.

And who'se going to do that when all the white people are old and no longer being replaced by an equal or greater amount of white people?

Protecting borders and qualifying immigrants is not anti-immigration or extreme, It is also called security. Even some governments in the EU are slowly waking up from this fact.
Hong Kong restricted immigrants to protect local jobs. Those immigrants who came for the Chep Lap Airport project were paid the going rate.
They enjoyed full citizen rights and often more than local wages. We should consider such laws in the UK.
China is also reasonable when people overstay. Usually it is a fine.
India can be harsh and also requires guarantors in case the visitor ends up with no money.

If you want extreme examples then Singapore is one with so many lashes for a person who overstays.
In the UK, Indian business is brisk for the sweatshops that are mushrooming to continue to exploit their own people just like in India.
Examples are Fruit picking contractors, restaurants and garment factories. Also there is still a booming business in bogus colleges. Britain has sent its own customs people to DELHI to deal with 1,500 applications a day to go to the UK.

200,000 a year is agreed even by the Labour and Tory parties to be too much. They feel a figure around 25,000 or so is sufficient.
England consists of all ethnicities. White people and others or simply British people is the best term to use nowadays.
The immigrants will get old one day too. Who will scrub their toilets?

As I said the hotels will still make the beds with or without immigration.
 
No, it hasn't.

Look, I'm not a fan of the Euro, I'm heartily glad that the UK didn't join. But the currency is only 16 years old, and at no point in that entire 16 year history is there any pattern whatsoever that could reasonably be described as 'long term decline'. Don't just repeat what you've heard, look at the data, which is freely available.

http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exch...B=1&P=&I=1&DD2=24&MM2=06&YYYY2=2015&btnOK=Go!

Now, take any slice of that graph, anywhere you want, and try and show a long term decline. Your claim just isn't true. It's not a matter of opinion, or perspective, it's just wrong.

I don't think that being an asylum seeker is mutually exclusive with being an illegal immigrant: an asylum seeker can still come to the country illegally. And my understanding is that a vast majority of those coming to EU right now are in this category.

Asylum seekers are a very small proportion of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. If you're talking about immigration in general, Asylum Seekers are almost irrelevant, since they have such a small impact on the numbers.

Hard figures are available from the UK Home Office
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...statistics-july-to-september-2014#citizenship

My post 114 did raise a similar issue. I was looking at 2008. You could look further but it was downhill since then. 25,000 is regarded as a desirable limit for the UK to absorb
At one time where were nearly over 80,000 Asylum seekers but in the last few years that has declined.
 
Sure, if we took in 2 million immigrants in a year, we'd be in trouble with things like housing. If we took in 2 million immigrants over a decade, we wouldn't be. And neither would the UK if it understood the value of pragmatism over petty housing politics.

Goodness, when it comes to spouting off about UK topics you don't understand, you just can't help yourself, can you?

You mind explaining why UK housing issues are just a 'petty' matter?

And who'se going to do that when all the white people are old and no longer being replaced by an equal or greater amount of white people?

Fewer people paid better. If janitorial work is important enough to change the demographics of the country over, then it's important enough to actually pay decent money. What I'm struggling to see is why it's so trivial we can't expect to pay enough that natural born citizens want to do it, but important enough to manipulate the demographics of the nation.
 
No, it hasn't.

Look, I'm not a fan of the Euro, I'm heartily glad that the UK didn't join. But the currency is only 16 years old, and at no point in that entire 16 year history is there any pattern whatsoever that could reasonably be described as 'long term decline'. Don't just repeat what you've heard, look at the data, which is freely available.

http://fxtop.com/en/historical-exch...B=1&P=&I=1&DD2=24&MM2=06&YYYY2=2015&btnOK=Go!

Now, take any slice of that graph, anywhere you want, and try and show a long term decline. Your claim just isn't true. It's not a matter of opinion, or perspective, it's just wrong.



Asylum seekers are a very small proportion of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. If you're talking about immigration in general, Asylum Seekers are almost irrelevant, since they have such a small impact on the numbers.

Hard figures are available from the UK Home Office
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...statistics-july-to-september-2014#citizenship

My post 114 did raise a similar issue. I was looking at 2008. You could look further but it was downhill since then.

You were looking at a one-off fall when the banking crisis hit the commercial mortgage market. I've given you a link to a site which will generate any graph on any timescale. Play with the sliders, and show me your 'downhill trend'.

25,000 is regarded as a desirable limit for the UK to absorb
At one time where were nearly over 80,000 Asylum seekers but in the last few years that has declined.

But we take in several times that in skilled and semi-skilled immigrants every year. Asylum seekers are a small percentage. The amount the UK can 'absorb' is nothing to do with whether they are seeking asylum.
 
I think the situation is not as analogous as you think. The illegals in EU have less options than US, and the current influx isn't as much characterized by people willing to stay illegally but rather applying for asylum via legal means. While their applications are processed they are provided a roof over their heads and basic welfare.

If they are refugees or asylum seekers, then they are not illegal immigrants at all; and giving them the basic necessities to live is both morally right and, in relation to EU government expenditure as a whole, easily affordable.

The people coming over from Africa are exploiting a loophole. They were throwing away their passports and even refusing to give any ID or fingerprints. In Italy the authorities allowed this. So these people by their own actions could not be classed as refugees or Asylum seekers. This is because the EU regulations forbid the deportation of persons where we cannot establish their whereabouts by way of documents. I watched a video about illegal workers in the UK. One was even laughing in the Border Farce patrollers face as he said he could not remember his birthday.

Now anyone with no identification can roam freely in Europe as is in welcome ISIS through a wide security breach.

What you say may be right but an Italian factory worker gets something like €1,000 per month. His tax is very high. His employer must also pay an additional amount of 30% of what he pays the worker for social security payments. Should the worker then pay extra tax to cover the €35.00 euro per day plus accommodation given to migrants when he has to stay at his parents house because he cannot afford another one.
The money is not a lot but it's more than the factory worker. plus accommodation and phone is thrown on top.
Those who play the system like that are likely not to have a strong case.
 
Goodness, when it comes to spouting off about UK topics you don't understand, you just can't help yourself, can you?

You mind explaining why UK housing issues are just a 'petty' matter?

I already explained earlier in the thread (post #63) that the UK affordable housing issue is a problem that is entirely down to politics. The UK routinely managed to build more than 300,000 homes until the late 70's. Up until 1979, local government alone managed to build at least 100,000 homes a year. The UK could easily provide enough affordable housing if it was serious about it and got back into the housing business itself. But doing that appears blocked by what I would call petty politics. There's really no sound reason why they couldn't; it just comes down to ideological bickering; which I consider to be 'petty'. You may disagree with my notion of what petty is, but do you have some real reason why the UK government can't step in and do again what it did just fine in the past?



Fewer people paid better.

We already have issues with people in old-care homes going unwashed for weeks because there's just not enough people to work in these homes. Fewer people, regardless of how well they're paid, will only ensure these problems become worse. That isn't to say that I oppose paying them better. Far from it. But you still need immigration either way to provide enough of a future workforce. Assuming we don't get super-bitching robots, of course.
 
Anti-immigration can insist all they want that it's not about them bigoted; they're not particularly convincing.



A bullshit argument since that is a completely made up and intentionally extreme example. Sure, if we took in 2 million immigrants in a year, we'd be in trouble with things like housing. If we took in 2 million immigrants over a decade, we wouldn't be. And neither would the UK if it understood the value of pragmatism over petty housing politics.

Before Immigration I scrubbed toilets. Before immigration the hotel beds got made and the lawns were mowed.

And who'se going to do that when all the white people are old and no longer being replaced by an equal or greater amount of white people?

Protecting borders and qualifying immigrants is not anti-immigration or extreme, It is also called security.

You don't seem to get it. Derec may be right when he says that sometimes women falsely accuse men of being rapists and he may insist that he has nothing against women but just wants to present some balance; but the fact that he keeps bringing it up again and again and again leads the rest of us to think of him as an obsessive sexist bastard. Or take someone who, during a conversation about pie, somehow manages to start bitching about arabs. That's you. You keep bringing immigrants up. You keep doing this even when it's not relevant to anything that's being talked about.
 
I thought this was a "Britain leaving the EU thread?"

Where'd that conversation go?
 
Anti-immigration can insist all they want that it's not about them bigoted; they're not particularly convincing.



A bullshit argument since that is a completely made up and intentionally extreme example. Sure, if we took in 2 million immigrants in a year, we'd be in trouble with things like housing. If we took in 2 million immigrants over a decade, we wouldn't be. And neither would the UK if it understood the value of pragmatism over petty housing politics.

Before Immigration I scrubbed toilets. Before immigration the hotel beds got made and the lawns were mowed.

And who'se going to do that when all the white people are old and no longer being replaced by an equal or greater amount of white people?

Protecting borders and qualifying immigrants is not anti-immigration or extreme, It is also called security.

You don't seem to get it. Derec may be right when he says that sometimes women falsely accuse men of being rapists and he may insist that he has nothing against women but just wants to present some balance; but the fact that he keeps bringing it up again and again and again leads the rest of us to think of him as an obsessive sexist bastard. Or take someone who, during a conversation about pie, somehow manages to start bitching about arabs. That's you. You keep bringing immigrants up. You keep doing this even when it's not relevant to anything that's being talked about.

Uncontrolled immigration is very relevant today in terms of security and the economies of the member countries. It is now on virtually every government agenda. It is relevant to the ineffectiveness of the European Union Management which is at best misguided in this area and at other times irresponsible. Then of course we have Greece, Spain and Italy. I haven't checked Portugal recently. How many people can they pack in.

Of course there are some women who make false accusations of rape as there are others who are raped but the perpetrator is never brought to justice. What point are you making with that.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought this was a "Britain leaving the EU thread?"

Where'd that conversation go?

Immigration and lack of border controls is a key issue.
 
Uncontrolled immigration is very relevant today in terms of security and the economies of the member countries. It is now on virtually every government agenda. It is relevant to the ineffectiveness of the European Union Management which is at best misguided in this area and at other times irresponsible. Then of course we have Greece, Spain and Italy. I haven't checked Portugal recently. How many people can they pack in.

Of course there are some women who make false accusations of rape as there are others who are raped but the perpetrator is never brought to justice. What point are you making with that.

who14-020.jpg
 
I already explained earlier in the thread (post #63) that the UK affordable housing issue is a problem that is entirely down to politics.

Except that it isn't. There isn't an issue for affordable housing, except in certain areas. The problem is not lack of houses, but rather everyone wanting to live in the same areas, which are already some of the mostly highly populated in Europe. In most countries the houses are owned by private landlords, so increasing density is a straightforward trade off between one big payment and two or more medium payments - they make the switch when it makes sense to do so. In the UK, houses are more often privately owned, at a rate unprecedented in the rest of Europe, and the trade off for a private owner is less obvious.

There's really no sound reason why they couldn't; it just comes down to ideological bickering; which I consider to be 'petty'. You may disagree with my notion of what petty is, but do you have some real reason why the UK government can't step in and do again what it did just fine in the past?

They could, but all it would do is make housing in less desirable areas less expensive, which isn't where the problem is. I'd like to see more development of brownfield sites, and more social housing projects, but I don't think that will resolve the issue.

Can I ask a question? You've put this down to politics, because you see 'no good reason' to just do something you assume would solve the problem. You lectured on Cameron's offering a referendum as 'just politics' because you couldn't see any reason to put EU membership in jeopardy. You've said that British appeals for EU reform are 'just politics' because you can't see any real issue there. Is it possible that these all seem to be purely bickering and political and people being unreasonable to you, because you don't really understand these issues?

Fewer people paid better.

We already have issues with people in old-care homes going unwashed for weeks because there's just not enough people to work in these homes.

No, we have issues with people in care homes going unwashed because the private care-home owners are trying to make a fast buck by not hiring sufficient staff. They've (perhaps correctly) identified that they can pay tiny wages and ignore staff turnover, because there aren't sufficient effective controls and checks on the care they provide to put them out of business.

I'm not aware of any drastic shortage of people to hire. They are short-staffed of course, but that's deliberate on their part. It's just that they pay badly, treat their staff badly, and prefer minimal levels of staffing to maximise profit.

Fewer people, regardless of how well they're paid, will only ensure these problems become worse.

How? Please be specific.
 
I thought this was a "Britain leaving the EU thread?"

Where'd that conversation go?

We have one poster insisting that Britain should leave in order to limit immigration, particularly from certain groups. For example a small number of West Africans are a problem, but the many times larger number of Americans and Europeans is not. We have another poster who keeps on insisting that the only reason Britain wants to leave the EU is because we're all either just pretending to want to leave to gain political advantage in negotiations, or because we're stupid.

It's quite hard to have a sensible discussion about the various issues when one person insists on inserting keeping out the undesirables into every conversation, and the other insists that by definition no good reason exists to leave the EU, therefore any suggestion of doing so must be a political tactic.

Maybe I should try and push the discussion in a different direction.

We have a lot of forces pushing towards an exit. A ruling party that is right wing, looking at a comparatively socialist Europe in which they have increasingly little influence. We have an economy that is, and always has been, out of step with that of Europe. We tend to experience longer shallower recessions and longer shallower booms. Our economy is more outward facing that most of Europe. Our economy is stronger than most European member states. Europe is making some of the issues we're experiencing, from being a minor military power looking for a role to the possible break up of the union, somewhat worse. And of course we're strongly aligned with the US, at a time when that's a pretty tough position to justify, particularly in Europe.

We also have lots of forces pushing us towards Europe. Strongest of all is a desire not to be left out decision making about our own continent. There's also the trade advantages, and to a lesser extent the political and economic advantages of being part of a larger bloc.

The issue at the moment is that many of the pro-Europe forces are breaking down. We appear to be losing any power to influence events in Europe. We can't get reforms carried out, we can't get exemptions to policies and events that effect us. There's a constant refrain (of which dystopian here is a good example) that we should not expect to have any influence. Several prominent business leaders have come out arguing against the trade advantages of being the in the EU, and EU political decision making on things like foreign affairs seems less than competent to a nation that pays and values its foreign office very well, and gets good results.

The net result is that the UK is not seeing those advantages. We want to be in a trade bloc and policy bloc over which we have some influence, which is broadly well disposed to us. What we're seeing is a reasonably corrupt agricultural support group that is occasionally hostile, wrestling with an economic crisis. Obviously that's overstating the case, but the EU itself is an issue in the UK, in a way it simply isn't in Germany.

My own experiences has been a long slow continuous cold war between the Bank of England's PRA and Europe's EBA and ECON committee, over who gets to decide what happens to London's financial rules.
 
Thanks Togo!

So, has the EU been very good to anyone outside of Germany?
 
Can I ask a question? You've put this down to politics, because you see 'no good reason' to just do something you assume would solve the problem.

It solved the problem in the past. Is there some reason why it wouldn't do the same today?

You lectured on Cameron's offering a referendum as 'just politics' because you couldn't see any reason to put EU membership in jeopardy. You've said that British appeals for EU reform are 'just politics' because you can't see any real issue there. Is it possible that these all seem to be purely bickering and political and people being unreasonable to you, because you don't really understand these issues?

It's possible. But turn that question back around to yourself; is it possible these really *are* just examples of unreasonable politics at play?


No, we have issues with people in care homes going unwashed because the private care-home owners are trying to make a fast buck by not hiring sufficient staff. They've (perhaps correctly) identified that they can pay tiny wages and ignore staff turnover, because there aren't sufficient effective controls and checks on the care they provide to put them out of business.

I'm not aware of any drastic shortage of people to hire. They are short-staffed of course, but that's deliberate on their part. It's just that they pay badly, treat their staff badly, and prefer minimal levels of staffing to maximise profit.

This is a fair point; but I'm not sure you can solve the staffing problem in the long-term just by raising wages; not if without immigration European countries' population growth will fall below replacement level.
 
Uncontrolled immigration is very relevant today in terms of security and the economies of the member countries. It is now on virtually every government agenda. It is relevant to the ineffectiveness of the European Union Management which is at best misguided in this area and at other times irresponsible. Then of course we have Greece, Spain and Italy. I haven't checked Portugal recently. How many people can they pack in.

Of course there are some women who make false accusations of rape as there are others who are raped but the perpetrator is never brought to justice. What point are you making with that.

who14-020.jpg

photobucket? Do you mean rustbucket, as in the leaky boat that set sail from Libya to Italy?

- - - Updated - - -

It solved the problem in the past. Is there some reason why it wouldn't do the same today?

You lectured on Cameron's offering a referendum as 'just politics' because you couldn't see any reason to put EU membership in jeopardy. You've said that British appeals for EU reform are 'just politics' because you can't see any real issue there. Is it possible that these all seem to be purely bickering and political and people being unreasonable to you, because you don't really understand these issues?

It's possible. But turn that question back around to yourself; is it possible these really *are* just examples of unreasonable politics at play?


No, we have issues with people in care homes going unwashed because the private care-home owners are trying to make a fast buck by not hiring sufficient staff. They've (perhaps correctly) identified that they can pay tiny wages and ignore staff turnover, because there aren't sufficient effective controls and checks on the care they provide to put them out of business.

I'm not aware of any drastic shortage of people to hire. They are short-staffed of course, but that's deliberate on their part. It's just that they pay badly, treat their staff badly, and prefer minimal levels of staffing to maximise profit.

This is a fair point; but I'm not sure you can solve the staffing problem in the long-term just by raising wages; not if without immigration European countries' population growth will fall below replacement level.

There's no problem with controlled immigration but we cant squeeze in the whole of Africa into Europe.
 
It solved the problem in the past. Is there some reason why it wouldn't do the same today?

You lectured on Cameron's offering a referendum as 'just politics' because you couldn't see any reason to put EU membership in jeopardy. You've said that British appeals for EU reform are 'just politics' because you can't see any real issue there. Is it possible that these all seem to be purely bickering and political and people being unreasonable to you, because you don't really understand these issues?

It's possible. But turn that question back around to yourself; is it possible these really *are* just examples of unreasonable politics at play?


No, we have issues with people in care homes going unwashed because the private care-home owners are trying to make a fast buck by not hiring sufficient staff. They've (perhaps correctly) identified that they can pay tiny wages and ignore staff turnover, because there aren't sufficient effective controls and checks on the care they provide to put them out of business.

I'm not aware of any drastic shortage of people to hire. They are short-staffed of course, but that's deliberate on their part. It's just that they pay badly, treat their staff badly, and prefer minimal levels of staffing to maximise profit.

This is a fair point; but I'm not sure you can solve the staffing problem in the long-term just by raising wages; not if without immigration European countries' population growth will fall below replacement level.

There's no problem importing the correct skills and requirements as required, but due to EU policy on open borders migration is out of control. In fact is this illegal immigration or an invasion of many we don't require.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsSJrWvU9ss
 
whichphilosophy said:
we cant squeeze in the whole of Africa into Europe.

The Europeans sure didn't think that when they were looting the continent's resources.
 
Back
Top Bottom