Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Top of the morning to you, BB and SHR.
You’ve only quoted me there yet address both of us to make it seem like we’re the same person. We’re not. We’re totally independent people, with totally independent views.
Most of the groups of the Far Right – including Britain First, which conducts streetfighting exercises – have distanced themselves from the murder of Jo Cox.
But many of their members may be a bit more militant.Stormfront, one of the Nazi-type groups in Britain, has praised the killer of this brave mother.
The killer told the court on Saturday that his name was ‘Death to Traitors, Freedom for Britain’.
One of the leading Tory Brexiteers, announcing her decision to distance herself from the campaign to leave, said that she wouldn’t want to get on the night bus with some of these people.
Well scep, as a member of the far right organisation Britain First and a frequent visitor of Stormfront with various KKK and Nazi memorabilia in my room myself, I do have to admit that the views you’ve posted there suggesting that Brexiteers are made up of pretty vile people such as me (as demonstrated in my previous reply – I’m literally Hítler) is actually quite accurate from my experience; but it has to be said though that I met three Brexiteers the other day that were actually amazingly civilised! So much so in fact that I even mistakenly thought that they belonged to the remain campaign and was about to murder them in cold blood for being traitors! So, we need to be fair in saying that there is at least a handful of Brexiteers that do still have an ounce of humanity left in them – albeit it a very small minority, thankfully!
Sceptical guy shamelessly trying to exploit a woman’s death for political gain here.
Not surprised.This has to be a low point in this campaign, that there are those who would use this tragic death this way. This poster uses similar language to describe the murderer that he has used previously on this site to describe those who support Brexit.
There really are no depths these people won’t stoop to.
BB,
you say that these are facts from credible sources.Not true. They are highly partisan sources.
The immigration figures come from Migration Watch UK
Which figures?
That big green map showing the UK to be the 4th most densely populated country in the EU, is based on combining the European Commision’s 2014 “Eurostats” data, with national data.
The only figures used coming from Migration Watch is the future forecast of England being the most densely populated country in the EU. And if you read the link provided you’ll find that those figures aren’t just plucked out of thin air, but that they likewise originate from and are based upon the European Comission’s Eurostats data (particularly EUROPOP 2013 based population projections ), the Office of National Statistics 2012 Principal Projection , and with added geographical data from the World Bank.
…which dresses itself up as an independent and impartial group but is in fact quite the opposite – an anti-immigrant group described by the Migration Matters Trust (an organisation dedicated to public debate on immigration) as “not an independent think tank, or academic body, but a lobbying and campaigning organisation”. It has been criticised as a right-wing, anti-immigrant group engaged in using statistics to make dodgy projections to scare people about an issue that deeply worries many.
It’s been criticised as that by certain groups and commentators – by people like yourself for instance who (and of which is abundantly clear from your posts on here), absolutely despise this country, have no allegiance to or care for the people in it, and who is willingly in favour of mass uncontrolled immigration – all the while underhandedly trying to characterise any negative attention given to such as being motivated by xenophobia, bigotry, racism or right-wing extremism.
For example, that specific critique you’ve quoted there against Migration Watch, is from an organisation that aims to challenge the perceptions of mass uncontrolled immigration being a bad thing:
“The big political parties need to be brave enough to be straight about this, with the British people. Britain needs immigration, immigration is broadly good for the country, that’s why its rising. It would be rising under a government of any stripe. ” – Migration Matters Trust
And it’s also chaired by Barbara Roche, a former Labour immigration minister who is alleged to have been a part in the deliberate encouragement of mass immigration into the UK during Blair’s time as Prime Minister.
So to claim that Migration Watch isn’t impartial or therefore credible, by quoting assertions made against them by organisations that want to push the agenda of uncontrolled mass immigration being a good thing, is nothing short of hilarity.
If you really do insist on bringing Migration Watch into disrepute though, then you’d need to take issue with the sources and methodology that they’ve used and explain why their forecast of England becoming the most densely populated country in the EU, is not a credible one. You might also do well to contact fullfact.org and ask them why they’re happy to use them as a reference in their articles.
Britain is (so far) a very successful economy (- in the EU), so naturally attracts labour. This labour fills jobs that Brits don’t or won’t fill. If you want to rectify this, why not train Brits up to do the jobs instead?? And agitate for union rights for migrant workers to fight low-paying bosses such as the gangmasters of East Anglia who do employ dirt-cheap labour without adequate safety and protection rights to undercut the local labour force on harvesting and picking the crops in the Fens. And to consistently enforce the social rights embodied in EU and British law.
Britain does have a very successful and strong economy–the 2nd biggest economy in the EU and the 5th biggest in the world!–and which is why so many people want to come here. This place is a prize asset.
Yes Brits should be trained up to do the jobs and encouraged into all areas of work; and your point about putting pressure on bosses who undercut local labour with cheap migrants isn’t something I particularly object to (nor is allowing in some immigration in a controlled way for that matter), but neither of your points address the fundamental detrimental effects of the sheer volume of people coming into the country on a year-on-year basis, and all of the resulting ills that come with that – not just in terms of the higher demand and competition for jobs (gifting employers the upper hand over employees), but in all areas of society as a whole.
It’s foreign labour coming in which genuinely worries people, and for you to refuse to discuss this problem as ‘beneath contempt’ is typical of a dishonest slurring around a problem.
Your specific use of “johnny foreigner” in attempt to frame the argument as coming from a place of xenophobia, is what I objected to as being beneath contempt. And it is you who has been trying to downplay mass immigration here and misconstrue the arguments against it. That you now have the audacity to try and spin this as me refusing to discuss immigration, all the while pretending to take the helm of being the champion of peoples concerns about it, just goes to highlight what a thoroughly dishonest and deceitful person you are. Perhaps even a tad psychotic?
All I’m getting from you is flapping and flailing around because you don’t like the fact that the arguments highlight the cons of mass uncontrolled immigration that goes hand-in-hand with EU membership.
When black labour moved from the US Deep South to the North 100 years ago, US trade unions attacked black labour as ‘scab labour’. The result was not an attack on the employers, but on the black themselves in a series of bloody pogroms in which dozens of blacks were killed and maimed in Chicago, St louis and (later, in 1943) in Detroit. It wasn’t the blacks who were the problem, but their lack of unionisation.
Okay, but what does that have to with anything?
*Good, even the right-wing Tories like Johnson and Gove (who wants to replace the EU with Albania and Ukraine(!) as our free trade zone, have to admit that the 2 million migrants stay! Train brit workers up to do the jobs required, enforce minmum wage and EU/British social rights, and the problems will be seen not to be migration.
It’s not that they have to admit it, it’s that expelling people has never been an issue in the first place. Brexit isn’t about chucking out “all the foreigners” as you’re so keen to imply it is. It’s about controlling immigration to a manageable level and ensuring it positively benefits us.
And the only way immigration is never going to be a problem is when Britain suddenly transforms into a magical expanding Island with unlimited resources (obviously not going to happen), so mass immigration currently is, and will increasingly be, a problem – especially so if we don’t take the chance to control it by leaving the EU.
That does NOT make everything hunky-dory with the EU. I voted not to join when the first referendum was held, and I’m voting to stay in on 23 June for the same reasons – the economic dislocations caused bu such a radical change. This time around, they’re going to be much deeper and more negative for our standards of living.
Not necessarily.
amidst all the dodgy projections, there is one fact you’ve had to admit.
2 million migrants are here to stay for as long as the UK is economically successful.Not dodgy projections, and not had to “admit” it.
So we have the choice – make the economy poorer by leaving the EU, whihc will lead t6o many migrants getting out quick.
It’s not necessarily going to be poorer though. There’s differing economic forecasts with some estimating that we’ll even be better off outside of the EU.
And it’s to be noted that practically all of the doom-and-gloom forecasts that have been headlining in the news recently by “top economic bodies”, aren’t saying that we might become “permanently poorer” as such, but just that we might not be as richer at a later date in the future. For example, estimating that the economy will expand by 29% by 2030 if we were to stay in, compared to only expanding by 26% by 2030 if we left – and then the remain campaign/media dressing this up to mean that the economy will shrink by 3% if we leave and we’ll all be permanently poorer. It’s a subtle play on language to make it seem gloomier than it is. Our economy is still predicted to grow and we’re still going to be richer in the long-term than we are now, and this regardless of how the vote goes.
Or stay in the EU to change it – why not train up Brits for the jobs we need instead???
Cameron’s “negotiations” proved how unchangeable it is.
And simply put: training up Brits doesn’t nullify the detrimental effects of mass uncontrolled immigration.Lies, damned lies and statistics.
Facts, please, not more dodgy estimates.What specifically do you think is a lie, and what specifically do you want “facts” on?
My posts are based upon credible sources.So to you and your ally, BB – on immigration. Do you think Johnny Foreigner is the problem,
I think it’s pretty clear that it’s the level of mass immigration and the accompanying risks posed by certain types of migrants that are the main issues here. You asking whether we think “johnny foreigner” is the problem, as if to imply that this is solely about hating anyone who isn’t British, is wholly disingenuous on your part and so I’ll be showing the contempt that deserves by not answering it. Sad!
and if so what are you going to do with the 2 million EU immigrants already here? And how are you going to deal with the 2 million UK workers with jobs abroad???
Just asking.
Nothing, because both groups are protected in international law under the Vienna Convention of 1969, which states that the termination of a treaty “does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the execution of the treaty prior to its termination”.
They would be unaffected.
As too for the current migrant crisis:
Estimates of 4 million migrants are expected to have arrived in Europe from 2015-2017, with further more expected in the years following. They are overwhelmingly made up of people who come from Islamic Middle Eastern and North African countries whose Islamic cultures are completely at odds with Western ones.
Some of the countries of origin include: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Albania, Serbia, Pakistan and Somalia, to name but a few.
A disproportionate number of these migrants are also recorded as being young, unmarried, unaccompanied males. For example for the year 2015 (when the migrant crisis got in full swing) there’s recorded to have been approximately 1.3 million claims for asylum in EU countries, and a mammoth 72% of these claims were made by males.
Now obviously there will be genuine refugees amongst this lot so I’m not going to claim that they’re all likely to be bad or undeserving people, but what I am going to do is highlight what’s already happened to two countries that have welcomed people from these regions, into their own borders en masse.
Sweden:
* In 1975 their population stood at around 8.2 million people and by 2014 it had grown to 9.7 million people. This growth has been attributed almost entirely to immigration from MENA countries.
* In this time, violent crime had increased by 300% and rapes had increased by 1,472%
Read in full here
Germany:
The country that has undoubtedly taken in the biggest number of migrants that have reached Europe in the current migrant crisis, with over 1 million new arrivals in 2015 – but yet curiously, only 476,000 of them registering for asylum.
* Cologne: I’m sure this doesn’t need explaining but for statistical purposes there were 2,000 sexual assaults and robberies reported on new years eve 2015, with 1,950+ victims of approximately 1,000 suspected male perpetrators of Arab and North African appearance. An overwhelming majority of those arrested were non-Germans, asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.
* In a more general sense, and according to a confidential police report: Migrants committed 208,344 crimes in 2015. This figure represents an 80% increase over 2014 and works out to around 570 crimes committed by migrants every day, or 23 crimes each hour, between January and December 2015. The true number of crimes may also exceed 400,000 – a visual map of each crime can be seen here
Read in full here
Again it doesn’t mean that all migrants are bad, but just that a significant trend exists that everyone probably ought to be aware of if they’re trying to weigh up the pros/cons of EU immigration.
In order for any of the expected 4 million+ migrants to come to the UK legally, they only first need to become a citizen of any EU country. Each country determines their own naturalization laws for someone to become an official citizen, but generally a common requirement is that a migrant must be living in that country for at least a few years. So, real potential does exist that those who might be inclined to commit these sorts of crimes or hold hostile attitudes towards our society, will ultimately be able to gain freedom of movement by becoming an EU citizen, and then come to the UK.
Essentially, as an EU member, we are powerless to stop other countries allowing whoever they want into their own borders, powerless to control the requirements that they enact for then granting those people citizenship, and then powerless to stop them from entering here once they have been granted citizenship due to the accompanying right to freedom of movement that comes with it.
Angela Merkel is currently acting as our gatekeeper.
Oh and here we have one of the highest ranking officials of the EU trying to threaten intimidate and bully anyone who wants to vote to leave:
http://news.sky.com/story/1699424/eu-chief-juncker-warns-uk-over-deserters
It speaks volumes.
How could anyone tolerate this?We have the 2nd biggest economy in Europe and the 5th biggest economy on the entire planet, with a prosperous looking future. We have to liberate ourselves from the clutches of these power hungry nuts and their anti-democratic superstate and set the precedence for other European nations to follow in our footsteps.
Sorry, BB, I have news for you while you’re waving the flag.
The flag you’d urinate on no doubt.
Britain is still a sovereign country – that’s why we can have a referendum on this. If we make the mistake of voting out, then you and I and the EU will have to accept all the consequences, because the UK is sovereign.
We stop being sovereign when we can’t opt to leave. Manchester cannot vote to leave the UK (without the permission of parliament) because manchester is not sovereign. The UK is.
Quite a strange way to define sovereignty, it’s not how I would define it.
For me sovereignty is the degree to which we control and regulate ourselves in all areas of law and policy that is necessarily free from the control of external authorities.
As we’re already in the EU then we currently aren’t a very sovereign nation as it is (see below), so a vote to remain in the EU is therefore a vote to further suspend and concede more of our sovereignty until we decide that we want to try and get it back again at a later date in the future… but by then of which thousands of new laws and regulations that affect us would have already been passed without our consent since we’d have no way to object to or reject them. The EU’s intention for “greater and closer union” also practically guarantees that we will lose more and more of our independence and powers that we do currently have—including militarily since there’s also apparently a new EU Armed Forces in the works. Essentially we will eventually be nothing but a star in the EU flag; Britain will be no more.
If we opt to stay in, which is the sensible decison, then it’s a vote to accept being part of a trading block, which involves accepting the rules and the costs of being part of a club. That is a good deal, as we aren’t in the Euro (unless and until we want to join), refuse to sign the Schengen Agreement on travel, and get the big discount on our contributions to teh EU won by Thatcher in 1984. We do that because we are soveeign
We pay these costs and abide by the rules of a number of organisations – not just the EU. We also accept the costs of being in the UN, in the IMF, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. etc.
There’s a lot of arguments to be had against what you’ve said here, but instead of dragging this out I’ll just quickly summarise to say that neither side can claim to be more sensible than the other, and that it’s purely all down to where people stand in terms of their values and principles. For those that value freedom and individual liberty, democracy, parliamentary accountability, sovereignty, national and cultural identity, and being able to control our own borders, then the most “sensible” thing for them to do would absolutely be to leave now while they can; whereas those who don’t particularly value these things, or who even actively opposes them, would therefore likewise be doing the most “sensible” thing in voting to remain.
One of the biggest points of contention leading up to the referendum is on the amount that the EU does currently control us. There seems to be a lot of people who are confused about this and don’t know how many UK laws are created by our parliament vs those that are imposed upon us by the EU.
Here I think is a helpful and definite answer that’s widely used by independent and impartial fact-checking organisations:
Full report can be read here: https://forbritain.org/percentagelaws.pdf
A mammoth 59.3% of all UK laws are forcefully imposed upon us by the EU.
#Not in my name though
Here’s to hoping more Brits join the side of the ordinary people against the establishment elites, and then vote to leave this corrupt and failing EU so that we ultimately win our country back.I’m completely out.
Why?
Principally because I highly value freedom and individual liberty for myself and for others to be able to live how we want to live ; to be able to determine our own futures and govern our own societies that we live in, in whichever way we deem fit for ourselves.
There is absolutely zero chance of this happening at all while we’re apart of the EU.
If we remain we will always just be the slaves to the interests and demands of others—others that we won’t appoint or elect, and who consequentially won’t have our best interests at heart.To treat otherwise free people of various culturally rich sovereign nations as statistics at best and at burdens at worst—in the way that the globally oriented EU project necessarily does—for me, is completely unacceptable.
So as I hold the pen to mark “leave” in the voting booth, you can be sure that I’ll also be momentarily loosening my grip to extend a one-fingered salute to the EU elites such as this man, the current president of the European Parliament:
No I’m in England.
I just like keeping tabs on what’s going on in the world with current affairs and politics etc. This whole US election thing especially has me gripped though, The Donald is a real breath of fresh air; he’s unapologetically saying mostly all the right things (in my view) that others dare not say, while simultaneously causing millions of politically correct commies who despise their own country to have meltdowns, it’s amazing.
He completely dominated the votes last Tuesday too which is good – including winning the votes of all major age demographics.
The Trump train is fully in motion, next stop South Carolina, (Saturday 20th).
Wow, imagine the overwhelming stench of that lot.
Can almost smell it through the screen.I don’t think it’s a secret that Trump knows how to get the media’s attention. What are your thoughts about him as a candidate for the Republican nomination?
I think he’s the best of the bunch, the other candidates seem pretty lacklustre and generic in comparison. His mentality of not toeing the lines for the politically correct establishment is exactly what the US and the entirety of the Western world needs right now.
He came second in the opening votes of Iowa recently to Ted Cruz, but I don’t think that matters much because Iowa wasn’t really a priority. Trump said himself he didn’t spend hardly any money campaigning there because of being advised that he wouldn’t do well, especially with Iowa being made up of hardcore evangelicals who would always likely favour the likes of Ted Cruz.
The biggest test on whether Trump can be president will be this Tuesday I think with the state of New Hampshire undertaking their voting. The polls in New Hampshire put Trump ahead by a big margin, but more importantly they most accurately reflect the wider national polls, so if Trump does really well there then you would expect him to carry that success through to the end to hopefully become the official repub nominee.
We’ll see how it goes in a few days time I guess…
Definitely rooting for Trump though.
