Jump to content

Brexit - Merged Threads


panoma1
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 875
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

47 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

For me, Immigration is just a tiny part of wanting out, controlled immigration is good for the country, just not in the way it's done at the moment, unfortunately Germany learnt this the hard way.

This is not correct. Germany has one of the largest pension burdens of all developed countries a birth rate around 1.6 and a lengthy life expectancy. Without immigration they will be unable to pay the bills. There are some hiccups in the polls but don't believe what you read in the tabloids. 

I am not sure what controlled immigration would look like. I hear about a points system but this could easily preclude the very people we need. It's not just people with skills, we need a broad spectrum to keep the wheels turning. Three of the farms I shoot rely on European workers to run the farm. These are unskilled but workers that they cannot get from the resident cohort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

Others make posts like mine because a blind man can see you are being thrashed. Up to a point, I think you deserve it, but I have seen enough. neutron619 provides balanced argument, you just can't see anything but your own very narrow view.

Whichever side you are on - it won't be settled on here. There isn't a man / woman who can say whether Brexit will be a success or failure. Anyone who claims they can is lying. There are too many variables for anyone to know.

True. Success most often comes to those with belief, the dedication, hard work and mindset to make it happen. For Brexit to succeed we need a revolution in mindset from our politicians and civil servants. Unfortunately they have had decades absorbing the EU mantras and beliefs. They have been trained to obey the EU writ. Unless they can wean themselves away from this and show true patriotism and respect for the democratic vote, we will not move forward. The capitulation of the last 24 hours does not fill me with much hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

True. Success most often comes to those with belief, the dedication, hard work and mindset to make it happen.

LOL. That's right. If Brexit doesn't work for any particular individual, it's because they didn't believe in Brexit hard enough. Even more "article of faith" stuff now.

Just to add to the hilarity:

Brexit supporter tells James O'Brien he voted to leave EU over lack of 'white faces' at his local hospital - Caller insists he is not being racist 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-supporter-vote-leave-eu-lack-white-faces-hospital-james-obrien-lbc-northwick-park-a8099561.html

Edited by Granett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

This is not correct. Germany has one of the largest pension burdens of all developed countries a birth rate around 1.6 and a lengthy life expectancy. Without immigration they will be unable to pay the bills. There are some hiccups in the polls but don't believe what you read in the tabloids. 

I am not sure what controlled immigration would look like. I hear about a points system but this could easily preclude the very people we need. It's not just people with skills, we need a broad spectrum to keep the wheels turning. Three of the farms I shoot rely on European workers to run the farm. These are unskilled but workers that they cannot get from the resident cohort.

Take a look at Canada or Oz, ours would likely follow their example.

Your European workers on the farm can still come over every summer, no ones saying they cant.
What they cant do is cop benefits, or use the NHS (without insurance)

Finally Germany, do you seriously believe that importing a million or so Syrians, Iraqis and Africans via refugee status, will solve the issue of paying for their pension burden ?
That is utter madness !
They will bring a family in many cases, needing benefits, schooling, language instruction and medical care, likely costing far more than they could possibly earn from taxing them, thats if they even work !
The sums just dont add up, plus look at the social impact, France, Belgium and Holland already have ghettos full of immigrants who rarely work and have no intention of integrating properly.
The MSM keeps the numerous riots, rapes and violence out the headlines for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rubbish Australia and Canada are not the models to follow they don't have the anything like the labour issues of the UK. 

This is my point. These farm workers are not seasonal. When you last stayed at a hotel of any size the majority of the unskilled workers are Euro imports paying tax here permanently. The same in the NHS.  The same in so, so many industries, tourism, hospitality filling the jobs that others wont take. 

Germany has a program of resettlement, engagement and housing that works well to avoid the ghetto mentality. Its not about the numbers or where they are from its about how you deal with them when they arrive. 

This last bit is just tabloid nonsense. 

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

The sums just dont add up, plus look at the social impact, France, Belgium and Holland already have ghettos full of immigrants who rarely work and have no intention of integrating properly.
The MSM keeps the numerous riots, rapes and violence out the headlines for a reason.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Granett said:

Incorrect. They do. Via the Parliament, where they can build a consensus and put a proposal forward....

You'll have to forgive me if the prospect of spending another hour or two replying to you point by point looks either like disrespectfulness or a retreat. On a first read through, I'm sure I could come up with counter-arguments to most of the points, but since I'm tired and bored of having the same argument with you that I've had with other people of similar opinion for most of the last 10 years or more and especially since the referendum, let me make two more general points.

The first is that, like many in the remain camp (and the leave camp, but it seems to be more remainers) you are looking for a factual, reasoned, intellectual justification for your point of view and deploying it - admirably well and with great persistence - to advance your cause. I don't agree with most of what you're saying but I'll defend against anyone here your right to say it (if I thought you needed that) and I admire your resoluteness in making your case. Unfortunately, some of my apparent cheerleaders don't seem to recognize that being considered to be wrong also means that you have stood your ground, shown intellectual courage, taken a risk and that that is worthy in its own right, whatever the argument.

Returning to spiel, I believe you think you have found your justification for the beneficence of the EU and the point you make above is illustrative.

What you are saying is, I'm prepared to believe, technically correct. I imagine that there is a mechanism by which an MEP could introduce legislation, though I daresay it's a lot more convoluted than your MP or mine doing it in the House of Commons. I'd also like to see evidence in the standing orders for the European Parliament before I accept it as proved.

The trouble with that though - and it is a fault of modern philosophy, political and otherwise and, in my view, well-illustrated by the European Union - is that what is technically, "factually" or provably best is not always what's actually best for human beings. To take the economic argument as a whole, whether you think economists are simply modern day fortune tellers, or whether you think there's a "science" there doesn't matter - a large group of people warned us that it was economically dangerous to make a certain choice. Why did we make it anyway? Because decisions based on intelligence and reasonableness don't actually always lead to the greatest fulfillment in life and some of us recognize this. Or rather, many of us recognize it, but only some of us reject it as without factual basis and write it off as sentimental nonsense.

If you argue that it would be safer that we stayed in the EU forever or even that we took this or that behavior or made this or that law, I have no doubt you could provide statistically, factually, any point you'd care to argue. I used to make quite an art of it myself, for what it's worth.

The trouble is, like keeping an old coat even though we can afford a newer, more waterproof one, sometimes the technically superior option isn't what we want, what makes us happy or what will turn out to be the best for us in the long run. I can't prove, for instance, that the British character is fundamentally incompatible with the system of law used on the continent and that we would see frequent "injustices" (but perfectly legally-correct ones) if we lived under that system. How would you measure it, for a start? But I believe, strongly, that what I have just stated is true. If we end up, in 30 years time, being a vassal state of a United States of Europe, I daresay we'll see it proved, though I won't be any happier for being right.

The thing that Brexit has shown up isn't that we're better or worse off, or xenophobic or not, or any of the common arguments. Rather, it's a question about whether people are still allowed to make the "wrong" choice in our political system, be worse off for it, and yet be not only permitted to, but supported by our politicians when we choose wrongly.

As I've said before, I have no idea whether Brexit will make us the richest nation in the world or turn us into a third-world basket case, but the question about whether we should listen to the "experts" or not is pertinent. The lesson that we need to learn (and which remainers find so difficult) is that scientific study and its conclusions are important, but they aren't everything.

There probably are good economic arguments (amongst all the others you're deploying) for "remain" but the principal of freedom of determination is more emphemeral, but, to me and others, more important. We have to be free to choose our own path, or else we aren't free, and without freedom, we're only the puppets of those who control us. Anything that stands in the way of that has to be resisted, and it is this proxy war that has been so divisive since 24th June 2016. Just for once, the British people rejected Establishment warnings and said "we'll risk the 'wrong' choice, if it makes us feel one iota more like the decisions we make for our lives will actually make a difference". That shows you how far removed I and others feel from the possibility that working hard and doing the right thing will be rewarded.

That road isn't fully travelled yet. May we continue to live in interesting times. All the best. Out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, neutron619 said:

You'll have to forgive me if the prospect of spending another hour or two replying to you point by point looks either like disrespectfulness or a retreat. On a first read through, I'm sure I could come up with counter-arguments to most of the points, but since I'm tired and bored of having the same argument with you that I've had with other people of similar opinion for most of the last 10 years or more and especially since the referendum, let me make two more general points.

The first is that, like many in the remain camp (and the leave camp, but it seems to be more remainers) you are looking for a factual, reasoned, intellectual justification for your point of view and deploying it - admirably well and with great persistence - to advance your cause. I don't agree with most of what you're saying but I'll defend against anyone here your right to say it (if I thought you needed that) and I admire your resoluteness in making your case. Unfortunately, some of my apparent cheerleaders don't seem to recognize that being considered to be wrong also means that you have stood your ground, shown intellectual courage, taken a risk and that that is worthy in its own right, whatever the argument.

Returning to spiel, I believe you think you have found your justification for the beneficence of the EU and the point you make above is illustrative.

What you are saying is, I'm prepared to believe, technically correct. I imagine that there is a mechanism by which an MEP could introduce legislation, though I daresay it's a lot more convoluted than your MP or mine doing it in the House of Commons. I'd also like to see evidence in the standing orders for the European Parliament before I accept it as proved.

The trouble with that though - and it is a fault of modern philosophy, political and otherwise and, in my view, well-illustrated by the European Union - is that what is technically, "factually" or provably best is not always what's actually best for human beings. To take the economic argument as a whole, whether you think economists are simply modern day fortune tellers, or whether you think there's a "science" there doesn't matter - a large group of people warned us that it was economically dangerous to make a certain choice. Why did we make it anyway? Because decisions based on intelligence and reasonableness don't actually always lead to the greatest fulfillment in life and some of us recognize this. Or rather, many of us recognize it, but only some of us reject it as without factual basis and write it off as sentimental nonsense.

If you argue that it would be safer that we stayed in the EU forever or even that we took this or that behavior or made this or that law, I have no doubt you could provide statistically, factually, any point you'd care to argue. I used to make quite an art of it myself, for what it's worth.

The trouble is, like keeping an old coat even though we can afford a newer, more waterproof one, sometimes the technically superior option isn't what we want, what makes us happy or what will turn out to be the best for us in the long run. I can't prove, for instance, that the British character is fundamentally incompatible with the system of law used on the continent and that we would see frequent "injustices" (but perfectly legally-correct ones) if we lived under that system. How would you measure it, for a start? But I believe, strongly, that what I have just stated is true. If we end up, in 30 years time, being a vassal state of a United States of Europe, I daresay we'll see it proved, though I won't be any happier for being right.

The thing that Brexit has shown up isn't that we're better or worse off, or xenophobic or not, or any of the common arguments. Rather, it's a question about whether people are still allowed to make the "wrong" choice in our political system, be worse off for it, and yet be not only permitted to, but supported by our politicians when we choose wrongly.

As I've said before, I have no idea whether Brexit will make us the richest nation in the world or turn us into a third-world basket case, but the question about whether we should listen to the "experts" or not is pertinent. The lesson that we need to learn (and which remainers find so difficult) is that scientific study and its conclusions are important, but they aren't everything.

There probably are good economic arguments (amongst all the others you're deploying) for "remain" but the principal of freedom of determination is more emphemeral, but, to me and others, more important. We have to be free to choose our own path, or else we aren't free, and without freedom, we're only the puppets of those who control us. Anything that stands in the way of that has to be resisted, and it is this proxy war that has been so divisive since 24th June 2016. Just for once, the British people rejected Establishment warnings and said "we'll risk the 'wrong' choice, if it makes us feel one iota more like the decisions we make for our lives will actually make a difference". That shows you how far removed I and others feel from the possibility that working hard and doing the right thing will be rewarded.

That road isn't fully travelled yet. May we continue to live in interesting times. All the best. Out.

Cheers. Likewise. It's been an entertaining but laborious exchange. I am certain a handful of Leavers have decent informed reasons for their decision. I feel most of yours are misconceived, but some certainly have a degree of merit, in principle, if not necessarily in practical outcome. I'd also say that a lot of them run utterly at odds to the arguments made by other Brexiteers.

Any chance of a measure by which and by when you'd determine Brexit a success?

Regardless, all the best.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Granett said:

Cheers. Likewise. It's been an entertaining but laborious exchange. I am certain a handful of Leavers have decent informed reasons for their decision. I feel most of yours are misconceived, but some certainly have a degree of merit, in principle, if not necessarily in practical outcome. I'd also say that a lot of them run utterly at odds to the arguments made by other Brexiteers.

Any chance of a measure by which and by when you'd determine Brexit a success?

Regardless, all the best.  

 

Well actually, I got a bit sidetracked by what I said above and the second point I intended but failed to make was to say that what was technically correct isn't necessarily always practically true - but there's another long thread I can't be bothered to start. 

You won't be surprised to hear that I think most of your arguments are along these lines and show a naiveté which gives too much credit to politicians with an established record of ignoring the wishes of their electorate (and cajoling them when they disagree) but then we'd have nothing to argue about if I didn't think that.

I can't tell you whether or when Brexit will be a success because it will be a process and a step in our national life which can't be evaluated independently, but what I will say is that it won't be measured by economic comparisons or changes in net migration or any of those things. I'll think further about whether I have any more to say on that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Laird Lugton said:

Oowee with Qualified Majority Voting the eastern states might not get a say and according to Schulz if they refuse then they can be thrown out the EU.

Can we have some of that please?:friends:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, oowee said:

This is not correct. Germany has one of the largest pension burdens of all developed countries a birth rate around 1.6 and a lengthy life expectancy. Without immigration they will be unable to pay the bills. There are some hiccups in the polls but don't believe what you read in the tabloids. 

I am not sure what controlled immigration would look like. I hear about a points system but this could easily preclude the very people we need. It's not just people with skills, we need a broad spectrum to keep the wheels turning. Three of the farms I shoot rely on European workers to run the farm. These are unskilled but workers that they cannot get from the resident cohort.

I was actually referring to the terrorist outrages that occurrd there due to uncontrolled immigration, in my opinion you can't put a price on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, oowee said:

Rubbish Australia and Canada are not the models to follow they don't have the anything like the labour issues of the UK. 

How do you know? Have you lived or worked there? I can assure you that both countries are screaming out for labour.  The difference is, unless you're emigrating, you aren't getting any benefits. 

 

This is my point. These farm workers are not seasonal. When you last stayed at a hotel of any size the majority of the unskilled workers are Euro imports paying tax here permanently. The same in the NHS.  The same in so, so many industries, tourism, hospitality filling the jobs that others wont take. 

Yes, they might pay £50 in tax, then claim £200 a week in tax credits, plus schooling and medical costs. But hey, as long as they're paying tax! 

Germany has a program of resettlement, engagement and housing that works well to avoid the ghetto mentality. Its not about the numbers or where they are from its about how you deal with them when they arrive. 

Good for them, 

This last bit is just tabloid nonsense. 

Is it, you know this, you've spoken to people who lived there, and it's definitely not happening?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Rewulf said:
14 hours ago, oowee said:

This is my point. These farm workers are not seasonal. When you last stayed at a hotel of any size the majority of the unskilled workers are Euro imports paying tax here permanently. The same in the NHS.  The same in so, so many industries, tourism, hospitality filling the jobs that others wont take. 

Yes, they might pay £50 in tax, then claim £200 a week in tax credits, plus schooling and medical costs. But hey, as long as they're paying tax! 

 

And your point is? You want them to pay more tax, don't have kids or get sick? There is no difference between this worker and any other. It's a filled vacancy. You might not like that they use the facilities but that's nothing to d with where they come from. 

Perhaps you are suggesting that only those that can pay for what they use can use it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, oowee said:

And your point is? You want them to pay more tax, don't have kids or get sick? There is no difference between this worker and any other. It's a filled vacancy. You might not like that they use the facilities but that's nothing to d with where they come from. 

Perhaps you are suggesting that only those that can pay for what they use can use it? 

What kind of stupid argument is that ?
You suggest getting more migrants in, to pay tax into the system, to help  pay for our pensions ect.
When in most cases they cost the system more money, but more migrants makes it better ?
Never mind the FACT that our infrastructure is struggling to cope with what we have NOW.
But its OK blame the tories I suppose.

You havnt answered the question about whether youve lived or worked in Canada or Oz.
Yet you seem qualified to tell me how it works over there ?

Dont you think we have enough of a social security bill with our own home grown layabouts ?
But no you say, migrants work, yes they do, low paid work, that attract tax credits, sometimes more than what they actually earn, where do you think that money comes from ?
Other migrants income tax contributions ? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A while back there was some interesting and seemingly non-partisan work done by the BBC.  I think that a single person doesn't make contribution to the treasury's pot until they earn about £25k and a couple with two children about £40k.  Up until then, in monetary terms, they are a taker from the tax pot.  This busts the myth about extra numbers of people paying for pensions, they are in the economy though so there may be some benefit.  It could also be argued they are negative in that wider sense as well though as plentiful supplies of cheap labour stifles investment which reduces our stubbornly low productivity and is a drag on the economy, it is simply cheaper to employ labour than to invest in technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, yod dropper said:

A while back there was some interesting and seemingly non-partisan work done by the BBC.  I think that a single person doesn't make contribution to the treasury's pot until they earn about £25k and a couple with two children about £40k.  Up until then, in monetary terms, they are a taker from the tax pot.  This busts the myth about extra numbers of people paying for pensions, they are in the economy though so there may be some benefit.  It could also be argued they are negative in that wider sense as well though as plentiful supplies of cheap labour stifles investment which reduces our stubbornly low productivity and is a drag on the economy, it is simply cheaper to employ labour than to invest in technology.

Indeed, it doesnt take too much working out, what was the estimate for putting a child through schooling, £100-150,000? , child benefit, medical and dental costs.
I know how much you can receive in tax credits, my exs daughter had one child, and earned £100  a week, but got nearly £300 a week in benefits.
That maybe the top end of the scale, but she didnt pay ANY tax, like I say, if someone is paying £50 a week tax and has children , they are considered a low earner and will receive tax credits that effectively wipe out  any contributions and then some.
Im not saying this shouldnt happen, but the argument for importing migrants or taking in refugees to boost the nations income is ridiculous !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps someone could explain why someone can come into the country, earn a low wage and claim benefits for wife / children who are not living in the UK. In this instance - legitimate family, let alone those who claim for disabled triplets, who don't exist.

The fact is that this is relatively commonplace, but just why do we tolerate it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Perhaps someone could explain why someone can come into the country, earn a low wage and claim benefits for wife / children who are not living in the UK. In this instance - legitimate family, let alone those who claim for disabled triplets, who don't exist.

The fact is that this is relatively commonplace, but just why do we tolerate it?

 

Your spot on Gordon and the answer is because we haven't got a choice and have never been asked, Brexit is the first time the public has been given a say on anything linked to immigration and look at those in power scurrying about trying their best to stop Brexit, the idea that we live in a democracy is a myth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Your spot on Gordon and the answer is because we haven't got a choice and have never been asked, Brexit is the first time the public has been given a say on anything linked to immigration and look at those in power scurrying about trying their best to stop Brexit, the idea that we live in a democracy is a myth.

Very true. We live in a two party state, where both parties have embraced the globalisation agenda of mass imigration at the expense of the indigenous population. As has been noted the low skills/low pay migrant brings nothing to the economy. Unfortunately until the sheeple stop voting as their parents/grandparents have done on bi-partisan lines the status quo will be preserved. Each of the two parties can count on roughly 30% of the electorate voting for them at any election. Changes in government are decided by the swing voters between the two. Upsetting this cosy system is difficult with the mass media on board and the two parties combining to suppress any emerging political party that is seen as a threat.

 

Edited by TriBsa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

Very true. We live in a two party state, where both parties have embraced the globalisation agenda of mass imigration at the expense of the indigenous population. As has been noted the low skills/low pay migrant brings nothing to the economy. Unfortunately until the sheeple stop voting as their parents/grandparents have done on bi-partisan lines the status quo will be preserved. Each of the two parties can count on roughly 30% of the electorate voting for them at any election. Changes in government are decided by the swing voters between the two. Upsetting this cosy system is difficult with the mass media on board and the two parties combining to suppress any emerging political party that is seen as a threat.

 

Yes another excellent post, which is why they are so afraid of Nigel Farage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...