Lots of angry people today.
Discussion
MarshPhantom said:
rb5er said:
All that jazz said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Your opinions have been noted. Good bye.Ooh you are all racist.....err 'cos I said so.
Sam All said:
vonuber said:
Sam All said:
You think she would do a good job?
Yes. She is clearly passionate about what she believes and tries to do her best for those she represents.
Her No 1 objective is to strap on a dildo and screw Cameron.
MarshPhantom said:
The trouble is people on the Remain side can't see why you would vote leave unless you have a problem with immigration. If it isn't about that, why exactly did so many people vote leave? What's in it for them?
There were various reasons to vote leave.The big one may well be immigration but I don't see how it is racist to suggest that taking 330k people in a year (and rising every year) is unsustainable. We simply don't have the housing, schooling, hospitals etc to keep taking people in at that rate whatever their race, creed or religion.
MarshPhantom said:
The trouble is people on the Remain side can't see why you would vote leave unless you have a problem with immigration. If it isn't about that, why exactly did so many people vote leave? What's in it for them?
The exit polls were clear that the number one reason was "The principle that decisions taken about the UK should be made in the UK"the third reason was "Staying meant little or no control over how the EU expanded its membership or powers"
The biggest issue Remain have is that they jump from 'problem with immigration' to 'racist b
ds'. If you've ever attended a planning meeting you'll know we're a country of NIMBYs. If you walk into any school in the UK you'll know we're also one of the most racially integrated societies in the world. anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's no surprise that there are racist people out there, and they voted a certain way.But do you think that poster really changed their minds? Do you think there were on the fence racists that wanted to be in the EU, until they saw that picture?
Do you think everyone who is concerned about immigration in any shape or form is racist?
Do you think there are THAT many people who are racist?
There is as you say a notion that racism played a significant role in the outcome of the vote.
A notion that is just as reasonably argued to be right as wrong, and thus is best forgotten because it's offensive to all parties.
You undermine and offend both those who voted out for completely acceptable and reasonable reasons, and those who suffer from actual racism by crying wolf at every possible opportunity where racism *might* have played some small part in some voters attitudes.
If it's such a big issue, why not just have a national vote on immigration views.
1. Free for all with the world.
2. Free for all with the EU only.
3. Controlled worldwide.
4. Controlled EU only.
5. Controlled worldwide, EU free for all.
6. No immigration at all.
Then we can finally see where the percentages lay.
I personally like the idea of number 3.
If you're not xenophobic then 3 seems fine.
Infact I'd argue that *in* voters are potentially xenophobic because they're prioritising Europeans over the wider diversities of races, ethnicities and cultures from around the world!
Why would they support such clear xenophobia? Unless, shock horror, there are *other* reasons people voted in this referendum except on issues of immigration, on BOTH sides!
rb5er said:
MarshPhantom said:
The trouble is people on the Remain side can't see why you would vote leave unless you have a problem with immigration. If it isn't about that, why exactly did so many people vote leave? What's in it for them?
There were various reasons to vote leave.The big one may well be immigration but I don't see how it is racist to suggest that taking 330k people in a year (and rising every year) is unsustainable. We simply don't have the housing, schooling, hospitals etc to keep taking people in at that rate whatever their race, creed or religion.
So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
rscott said:
So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
If they're all doing good jobs and adding to the country and boosting GDP then that is what we need. Demographically we're short on young working age people.Now if we want what we need is another thing. What we need is only the case because we're in so much debt.
Which makes you wonder if we're boosting spending on services/infrastructure to meet the increased population demands, in line with the demands put upon those services/infrastructure?!
However you cut it, purely on democraphics, it's bleak times ahead. But rather than blame the economic model and the banks that live like vampires off it (perpetual growth required to sustain debts incurred because of abused keynesian economics), we blame immigrants and brexits and things instead.
Greece was shafted by bankers. Everyone else is next, eventually.
rscott said:
Of that 330k just over half came from outside the EU anyway and we had complete control over that portion. Of the EU immigrants, what % would we probably want to accept anyway (as they have skills we want/need) - I'd guess at least 20%.
So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
When you say "had control", do you include those who are found in the back of trucks?So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
I think it's quite widely acknowledged that nobody really knows how many illegal immigrants are here.
And yes, I know that membership of the EU has little bearing on this - apart from the fact their rules make it more difficult to deport said illegals when found.
Mr Whippy said:
Infact I'd argue that *in* voters are potentially xenophobic because they're prioritising Europeans over the wider diversities of races, ethnicities and cultures from around the world!
Why would they support such clear xenophobia? Unless, shock horror, there are *other* reasons people voted in this referendum except on issues of immigration, on BOTH sides!
Exactly that. The EU are mad keen on immigration from the white countries inside the big border. Not keen at all on immigration by Asian and African people.Why would they support such clear xenophobia? Unless, shock horror, there are *other* reasons people voted in this referendum except on issues of immigration, on BOTH sides!
Why?
rscott said:
Of that 330k just over half came from outside the EU anyway and we had complete control over that portion. Of the EU immigrants, what % would we probably want to accept anyway (as they have skills we want/need) - I'd guess at least 20%.
So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
Indeed its not ideal and still a huge number but are you suggesting that it won't help our infrastructure by at least making an attempt to reduce immigration to those sorts of levels?So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
Everything has to start somewhere. A reduction of 100k people a year is a good start. Thats maybe 30,0000 homes less every year that we somehow have to find.
rb5er said:
rscott said:
Of that 330k just over half came from outside the EU anyway and we had complete control over that portion. Of the EU immigrants, what % would we probably want to accept anyway (as they have skills we want/need) - I'd guess at least 20%.
So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
Indeed its not ideal and still a huge number but are you suggesting that it won't help our infrastructure by at least making an attempt to reduce immigration to those sorts of levels?So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
Everything has to start somewhere. A reduction of 100k people a year is a good start. Thats maybe 30,0000 homes less every year that we somehow have to find.
bmw535i said:
rscott said:
Of that 330k just over half came from outside the EU anyway and we had complete control over that portion. Of the EU immigrants, what % would we probably want to accept anyway (as they have skills we want/need) - I'd guess at least 20%.
So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
When you say "had control", do you include those who are found in the back of trucks?So we're still looking at net immigration of around 250,000 a year anyway, even if we get complete control over EU immigration as part of any deal.
I think it's quite widely acknowledged that nobody really knows how many illegal immigrants are here.
And yes, I know that membership of the EU has little bearing on this - apart from the fact their rules make it more difficult to deport said illegals when found.
rb5er said:
Indeed its not ideal and still a huge number but are you suggesting that it won't help our infrastructure by at least making an attempt to reduce immigration to those sorts of levels?
Everything has to start somewhere. A reduction of 100k people a year is a good start. Thats maybe 30,0000 homes less every year that we somehow have to find.
I like building homes...........Everything has to start somewhere. A reduction of 100k people a year is a good start. Thats maybe 30,0000 homes less every year that we somehow have to find.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff