Hornet 6
Well-Known Member
You really don't get it do you ?
We don't need more houses if we don't let immigrants in, and then get rid of all the illegals and benefit tourists.
Neil
Brexit
- Thread starter finnbear270
- Start date
- Status
You really don't get it do you ?
We don't need more houses if we don't let immigrants in, and then get rid of all the illegals and benefit tourists.
Neil
Pine Marten
Well-Known Member
Of course I get it. I just don't agree with your view of who the fault lies with or the solution.
Actually I think the language "thing" matters hugely. A vast amount of the problems arising from fears of immigration come about because "ordinary" people can't talk to these people and learn that they are "ordinary" people too. Years ago governments of all political persuasion should have grasped the nettle and said that all business would be conducted in English. If you couldn't fill in the paperwork unassisted you got no help from the government, the speed people learned the language would have been incredible. Sounds terribly harsh I know but it would have gone a long way to eliminating them and us situations.
David.
David.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
That's like seeing your neighbours getting flooded and rather than help them and in the process stop yourself getting flooded you leave them to it as currently you're OK. A short while later you get flooded too and then there is no one left to help fight the flood! A very short term view
The Fourth Reich are probably going to stuff us anyway they can. I will have to change to a Pagan,bring the Old feller back to life, furnish him with the only Lanc we have and a ten ton load to do another German visit or two.
tikka_madras
Well-Known Member
+1 Integration was the key, and doing things slowly enough that the majority were OK with the pace of change. But remember, Labour wanted to "rub the Right's noses in diversity". And so we get what we have here.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
The million pound question. The answer is something like no one in particular is at fault and there isn't one point in history that can be called the cause or beginning and there isn't a single solution. This was the problem with the referendum in that certain parties and politicians turned a simple question into the answer for a multitude of problems that wouldn't be solved either way by which ever way you voted.
2130martin
Well-Known Member
howa243
Well-Known Member
The fault lies with the politicians. We are a generous country that has always accepted immigrants but we all know that it takes time for those immigrants to assimilate into our country. The mistake that has been made is that we have taken many more in in such a short period of time than is able to assimilate and therefore creating ghettos and the feeling amongst natives that they have to assimilate with newcomers. You cannot force natives to accept migrants you can create an environment where this happens over a long period of time. This will mean not providing benefits of any kind that are on an equal footing with those given to natives. What I find most odd about this whole topic is that the outcome of these policies was so obvious and so easily avoided but clearly being in the EU stopped us from discriminating against immigrants in the payment of benefits. If people in this country knew that immigrants did not get paid benefits that they had health insurance much of the oxygen that has fanned the flame of extremism would have been extinguished.
The solution in my view is to accept freedom of movement, but not to pay in or out of work benefits or provide housing or health cover. These benefits would be retained for natives and would remove the argument that immigrants are a drain. It may very well be that most are not, but this does not matter, what does is that many natives think that they are and politicians have a duty to respond to their concerns.
Of course the opposite view caused our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, intervention in Libya and contributed powerfully to the mess in the Middle East. It's impossible to "what if" but we can't be sure that either of the world wars actually made the world a better place.
Heath took the UK into the Common Market based on a colossal deceit. The 1975 referendum was a stitch up with three campaigns. One for in and out and a taxpayer funded government campaign to remain. The vote was 2-1 to stay in, but even then it was to stay in a common market.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lied-lied-true-purpose-European-behemoth.html
Heath collected a £40K bonus for selling his compatriots into eventual EU servitude.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lied-lied-true-purpose-European-behemoth.html
Heath collected a £40K bonus for selling his compatriots into eventual EU servitude.
nun_hunter
Well-Known Member
I agree, it's an almost impossible situation to read and decide what needs intervention and what doesn't. Forget and altruistic desires to help others less fortunate than us and take a completely self serving view and it doesn't get any easier. Due to a global economy and every country dependent on another in some way or another it's in our interests to keep the world in peace. It's not possible to achieve but doesn't mean it's not worth trying to find a way to do it.
timbrayford
Well-Known Member
Not really:-
WW1 The Germans wanted to invade France and asked the Belgians to allow 3 military trains passage to the French border, the Belgians refused and as guarantors to their independence we were dragged in.
WW2. Germans invaded Poland as Polish allies both ourselves and the French declared war on Germany, France then invaded Germany (unsuccessfully) and again we were dragged in.
Whatever you might think of the morality of the German actions on neither occasion did they initiate hostilities against us, it is simply a case of other European nations dragging us into their conflicts
Are there many other areas where you also favour trying as hard as you can to do something that you know will make things worse, over doing nothing?
Look at it this way...would you consider the Swiss or Swedes to have stupid, short term and morally defective foreign policies? The fact is that the UK tries to do more to sort out the world than almost any other country and we gain no concrete advantage whatsoever from it.
LeftHandGuy
Well-Known Member
That's ridiculous. If you tell someone that if they do something then that puts you at a state of war, their doing that thing is an act of aggression. They initiated hostilities. It is most striking in the case of Belgium in the first world war, the treaty was what 90 years old? The Belgian coast was a security threat to Britain, it wasn't merely national-honour that was at stake.
I will grant you that the case of Poland during the Second World War is somewhat more constructed - but you are surely not going to suggest that going to war against Nazism was anything other the morally correct thing to do?
As an outsider looking in - I fully understand the pro Brexit view of self determination and dislike of EU involvement, but what I can not understand is why almost blatant racism of some of the pro Brexit lobby is let go unchallenged!! Are there no British coloured people or do they have to be white?? I worked in Birmingham and the east end of London in the 1980s - there were many coloured faces and very little English spoken in these areas and this was long long before EU emigration.
It's not racist to have an objection to your community literally being decimated without any form of clear democratic consent and without the new arrivals contributing suitably. Virtually nobody objects to helping other people, but the issue is one of scale. My local community is less than half British now, and the people you may have heard not speaking English still haven't learned it 30 years later. The entire premise on which immigration was justified - i.e. that it was modest in scale, and the people concerned would integrate and provide a net positive contribution to society has been shown to be demonstrably false.
Which members of the pro-Brexit lobby have said anything almost blatantly racist? It's a rather odd claim when, to the extent they care about immigration, the people they are objecting to are white, while the people they don't mind are other colours.
I think his argument is more one of utility than morality. Do you suggest that allying with Stalin, facilitating and condoning horrendous purges and mass murder, and the hostile occupation of a dozen countries for forty years was morally correct?
Had we not entered World War 2, and at the time one must remember that we didn't have formidable forces, who's to say that fascism and communism might have cancelled each other out. Either way, the result we got - the "morally correct" one condemned half the world to communism for forty years, with the countless millions of murders and torture that involved, and created the conditions that led to the catastrophic wars and famines across Africa and the Middle East we still have today.
It might feel that what we did was the morally correct thing to do, but that is not necessarily true.
LeftHandGuy
Well-Known Member
I sort-of, kind-of agree with this. It isn't racist, or at least it doesn't have to be, and I believe that most British people are not racist.
Part of the image problem is that it is going to appeal to those who do hold racist views - it sort of has to really - so it's an easy connection to make even if it is pretty unfair.
I actually think that serial refusal to have an honest conversation and consultation about immigration over the past, what, 20 years, is one of the factors that left so many people feeling betrayed and ignored - and I think part of the reason people voted as they did...
- Status
