Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


That was long before the Lisbon Treaty. My understanding of its articles is that powers, once ceded under the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a. the EU Constitution), cannot be renegotiated. The only alternative is secession.

Any diplomat will tell you that virtually nothing is unnegotiable. It's just the trick of applying the right pressure in the right way. The Lisbon Treaty wasn't chiselled in stone from God himself, it can be modified.

Which debate? You're going to have to name the debate in question and the debate, otherwise thats an unverifiable, unchallengeable assertion. My guess is that it occurred long before UKIP even had MEPS. Maybe even before it was formed.

Truthfully? I can't remember where I read it off the top of my head. I just recall reading something about a recent fishing vote in the EU Parliament being one of UKIP's key campaigning policies before, and then not a single one of them bothered to actually show up on the day of the vote. The UKIP response was something along the lines of 'We protested that the entire issue was illegitimate and our votes wouldn't have affected it anyway, so we didn't participate'.

Nonetheless, I've always regarded it as bad form to be out lunching (I think they were throwing a cocktail party or something) instead of in the chamber voting. I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this entire affair though, as I genuinely cannot remember where I read it.

True. But I at least think a new Political party that's never been tested in office and has never reneged on its pledges, is at least less untrustworthy than parties that have been in office and numerous governments for decades, broken countless pledges and been proven to be untrustworthy.

Its better to vote for someone who's not yet been proven a liar, than someone who has been proven a liar many times over.

Eh. Politicians do what's in their best interest. Make it in their best interest to talk about the EU, and they'll pay attention. After all, isn't that the whole stated point of voting for UKIP by a lot of people?

The Liberal Democrats included a pledge for an In Out referendum in their manifesto. Then went back on their word.
The Conservatives don't want British independence. Cameron is in favour of British membership and will campaign for the status quo.

The Lib Dems have always been in the wonderful position that UKIP is in now. Namely, they knew they had no hope of power, so they promised anything and everything in the hope of winning votes. Now they're in the shocking surprise position of actually having influence in what goes on. I doubt they'll be so rash and generous in their promises this year.

The Conservative back backbenchers are spineless cowards, who grumble and bitch but will never act. Hopefully the threat of UKIP costing them their seats and thus their careers will prompt them to act.

Only a fool ignores the backbench. Thatcher didn't get removed in a general election.

I think I have.

Sorry? When was that?

I must have missed it. I only saw one line stating that mass immigration would reform British culture beyond recognition. But I haven't seen a single article linked or developed argument to substantiate it yet. If you could link back to your asserted proofs/defence for me, that would be useful.

 Ketara wrote:
On that note, I'm quite keen to hear you substantiate your earlier comments about why immigration is bad.

Oh, I notice what you did there, you sly git.

I'm not arguing against Immigration. We need immigration - scientists, engineers, electricians and other skilled trades and expertise that we may lack.

I'm arguing against Mass Immigration. The sort that changes the demographics of entire cities, turning white people into ethnic minorities and making them uncomfortable in their own local communities. The kind that creates ethnic ghettos, importing entire new cultures, values and morality that often conflict with and threaten our tolerant, secular, liberal values.

People can tolerate and welcome foreigners. But what they don't like is an influx of so many people that it radically changes their country to the point that they don't recognize it anymore.

I'm not arguing about race. I don't give a gak about a persons skin colour. We're not responsible for our skin colour - its totally irrelevant. What I do care about is western values of tolerance, liberalism and secularism, and those values are undermined by huge influxes of un-assimilated people from cultures that do not share those values (e.g. Islam).

(And yes, I'm aware that UKIP is socially authoritarian, thats not why I voted for them. In fact, had I not cared so much about the EU I probably would have abstained or spoiled my ballot).


Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/dont-listen-to-the-whingers--london-needs-immigrants-6786170.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222769/Dishonest-Blair-Straw-accused-secret-plan-multicultural-UK.html

New Labour and multiculturalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_multiculturalism#New_Labour_and_multiculturalism

Renewed controversy on the subject came to the fore when Andrew Neather — a former adviser to Jack Straw, Tony Blair and David Blunkett — claimed that Labour ministers had a hidden agenda in allowing mass immigration into Britain, to "change the face of Britain forever".This alleged conspiracy has become known by the sobriquet "Neathergate".

According to Neather, who was present at closed meetings in 2000, a secret Government report called for mass immigration to change Britain's cultural make-up, and that “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”. Neather went on to say that “the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.[75][76][77]

This was later affirmed after a request through the freedom of information act secured access to the full version of a 2000 government report on immigration that had been heavily edited on a previous release.[78] The Conservative party demanded an independent inquiry into the issue and alleged that the document showed that Labour had overseen a deliberate open-door ­policy on immigration to boost multi-culturalism for political ends.

In February 2011, Prime Minister David Cameron stated that the "doctrine of state multiculturalism" (promoted by the previous Labour government) has failed and will be no longer be state policy.[79] He stated that the UK needed a stronger national identity and signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
On that note, I'm quite keen to hear you substantiate your earlier comments about why immigration is bad.

Oh, I notice what you did there, you sly git.

I'm not arguing against Immigration. We need immigration - scientists, engineers, electricians and other skilled trades and expertise that we may lack.

My apologies. As you can see in my last post, I specified the 'mass' part there, it was just my shorthand style.

I'm arguing against Mass Immigration. The sort that changes the demographics of entire cities, turning white people into ethnic minorities and making them uncomfortable in their own local communities.

So presumably you'd be alright with mass immigration from white countries? Like from within Europe? Since then 'white' people wouldn't be ethnic minorities.

The kind that creates ethnic ghettos,

Like the Jews of East London? The ones recognised today as having been a healthy cultural force for British society?

importing entire new cultures, values and morality that often conflict with and threaten our tolerant, secular, liberal values.

Surely for that to occur, you'd need some sort of hive mind? I mean, within this 'mass immigration' wouldn't people be coming from all over the place? And therefore each have different cultural values depending on which country they came from? And then different opinions and beliefs within that cultural framework?

It's not like there's a country called 'The Democratic Republic of Al Qaeda' that sends us 500,000 people a year. Immigrants come from all around the world.

People can tolerate and welcome foreigners. But what they don't like is an influx of so many people that it radically changes their country to the point that they don't recognize it anymore.

To go back to my response to Enoch Powell who said the same thing sixty years ago, I can still buy a pint in the pub. What part from fifty years ago exists that you personally can't recognise anymore?

Not to mention that culture is a continuously evolving thing. It's not some static force that you can point to and say, 'this is the way things should be', and then measure all changes against. Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in the somewhat racist/sexist/homophobic Britain of sixty years ago. If immigration has helped to change that, then hurrah!

I'm not arguing about race. I don't give a gak about a persons skin colour. We're not responsible for our skin colour - its totally irrelevant. What I do care about is western values of tolerance, liberalism and secularism, and those values are undermined by huge influxes of un-assimilated people from cultures that do not share those values (e.g. Islam).

Islam is a religion, not a culture. If it were that simple, the Shias and Sunnis wouldn't be butchering each other the way they do.

Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.

...snip...

Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.

If you are going to use the age old Daily Mail/Melanie Phillips line about 'rubbing the rights nose in multiculturalism' then please look into what Andrew Neather actually said, especially this piece he wrote three days later.http://www.standard.co.uk/news/how-i-became-the-story-and-why-the-right-is-wrong-6739051.html

In particular this passage;

Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when - hard as it is to imagine now - the booming economy was running up against skills shortages.

But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's opposition to multiculturalism.

I was not comfortable with that. But it wasn't the main point at issue.

Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper columnists into being a "plot" to make Britain multicultural.

There was no plot. I've worked closely with Ms Roche and Jack Straw and they are both decent, honourable people whom I respect (not something I'd say for many politicians).

What's more, both were robust on immigration when they needed to be: Straw had driven through a tough Immigration and Asylum Act in 1999 and Roche had braved particularly cruel flak from the Left over asylum seekers.

 Ketara wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


That was long before the Lisbon Treaty. My understanding of its articles is that powers, once ceded under the Lisbon Treaty (a.k.a. the EU Constitution), cannot be renegotiated. The only alternative is secession.

Any diplomat will tell you that virtually nothing is unnegotiable. It's just the trick of applying the right pressure in the right way. The Lisbon Treaty wasn't chiselled in stone from God himself, it can be modified.

So then we should demand renegotiation and threaten to leave the EU if we don't get our own way.

The only prospect I see of David Cameron doing that is if UKIP twists his arm by threatening him with electoral annihilation by Labour.

Which debate? You're going to have to name the debate in question and the debate, otherwise thats an unverifiable, unchallengeable assertion. My guess is that it occurred long before UKIP even had MEPS. Maybe even before it was formed.

Truthfully? I can't remember where I read it off the top of my head. I just recall reading something about a recent fishing vote in the EU Parliament being one of UKIP's key campaigning policies before, and then not a single one of them bothered to actually show up on the day of the vote. The UKIP response was something along the lines of 'We protested that the entire issue was illegitimate and our votes wouldn't have affected it anyway, so we didn't participate'.

I'm thinking more of the original decision to cede control of our waters for fishing by all EU nations i.e. the Common Fisheries Policy, that permitted Spanish fisherman to fish our waters and placed caps on the amount of fish that we can catch (prompting media stories of fishermen having to dump dead fish because they've gone over their fishing quota and don't want to be fined). That was probably in the 80s or 90s, during the Conservative government, before the foundation of UKIP.

As I understand it our waters are now over fished, and our fishing industry is a shadow of its former self as a direct result of EU membership.

Which is one of many reasons why Iceland probably shouldn't join.

Nonetheless, I've always regarded it as bad form to be out lunching (I think they were throwing a cocktail party or something) instead of in the chamber voting. I'm prepared to be proven wrong on this entire affair though, as I genuinely cannot remember where I read it.

Well, like I said they are amateurs.

True. But I at least think a new Political party that's never been tested in office and has never reneged on its pledges, is at least less untrustworthy than parties that have been in office and numerous governments for decades, broken countless pledges and been proven to be untrustworthy.

Its better to vote for someone who's not yet been proven a liar, than someone who has been proven a liar many times over.

Eh. Politicians do what's in their best interest. Make it in their best interest to talk about the EU, and they'll pay attention. After all, isn't that the whole stated point of voting for UKIP by a lot of people?

Thats what I hope for.

The Liberal Democrats included a pledge for an In Out referendum in their manifesto. Then went back on their word.
The Conservatives don't want British independence. Cameron is in favour of British membership and will campaign for the status quo.

The Lib Dems have always been in the wonderful position that UKIP is in now. Namely, they knew they had no hope of power, so they promised anything and everything in the hope of winning votes. Now they're in the shocking surprise position of actually having influence in what goes on. I doubt they'll be so rash and generous in their promises this year.

Hopefully they'll stop making promises they have no intention of ever keeping.

The Conservative back backbenchers are spineless cowards, who grumble and bitch but will never act. Hopefully the threat of UKIP costing them their seats and thus their careers will prompt them to act.

Only a fool ignores the backbench. Thatcher didn't get removed in a general election.

Its a shame they haven't shown that much backbone for two decades.

I think I have.

Sorry? When was that?

I must have missed it. I only saw one line stating that mass immigration would reform British culture beyond recognition. But I haven't seen a single article linked or developed argument to substantiate it yet. If you could link back to your asserted proofs/defence for me, that would be useful.

 Ketara wrote:


<Snip>

So presumably you'd be alright with mass immigration from white countries? Like from within Europe? Since then 'white' people wouldn't be ethnic minorities.

Uncontrolled, unconditional Mass Immigration? No - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.

Carefully controlled and targeted immigration that filters people based on their skills, qualifications and education according to Britains current needs; and on our ability to accommodate them without placing excessive pressure on education, NHS, housing, etc, and to integrate them peacefully into a common British identity based on tolerant, liberal and secular values? Yes - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.

But if an immigrant believes that homosexuals are filthy and immoral, that Jews are sub-human, that a woman has no right to an education and career and other freedoms, that supports female genital mutilation, who believes that Honour Killing is an appropriate way of dealing with rebellious teenage experimentation and so on...we should be very cautious about allowing them to settle here.

If you allow a large influx of people who aren't tolerant, who aren't liberal, who aren't secular, who aren't tolerant and don't want to assimilate, liberal secular values will be undermined.

Hell, if we're arguing over skin colour, how is it fair that people from white European countries automatically get priority no matter their qualifications and education over people from Asian, Middle Eastern or African countries?

The kind that creates ethnic ghettos,

Like the Jews of East London? The ones recognised today as having been a healthy cultural force for British society?

Tell that to their babies foreskins.

Seriously though, I quite like Jews (well, except maybe the ultra conservative sects like the people who build Jewish settlements in Palestine). I don't perceive Judaism to be as totalitarian, xenophobic and intolerant as say, Islam. Given the historical persecution and demonisation of Jews throughout the world and throughout history in every country they've ever had a presence in culminating in the Holocaust, I think Jews may be the only valid exception.

Do you have any other examples?

Surely for that to occur, you'd need some sort of hive mind? I mean, within this 'mass immigration' wouldn't people be coming from all over the place? And therefore each have different cultural values depending on which country they came from? And then different opinions and beliefs within that cultural framework?

It's not like there's a country called 'The Democratic Republic of Al Qaeda' that sends us 500,000 people a year. Immigrants come from all around the world.

People can tolerate and welcome foreigners. But what they don't like is an influx of so many people that it radically changes their country to the point that they don't recognize it anymore.

To go back to my response to Enoch Powell who said the same thing sixty years ago, I can still buy a pint in the pub. What part from fifty years ago exists that you personally can't recognise anymore?

Bradford. Birmingham. Parts of London. etc. Places where huge numbers of people haven't, or don't want to be British, with everything that being British is supposed to entail.

But I don't why you're asking if I personally don't recognise the change in demographics. Do you think I own a Tardis?

It took centuries for a tolerant British secular and liberal democracy to develop. I don't want to see that threatened by mass immigration of people who don't share those values, or who actively despise them. Much better for immigration to be slow, at a pace we can carefully control and accommodate and make sure that western style values are not threatened and undermined.

Nor do I want to see what little democracy we have snuffed out by an unaccountable bureaucratic elite in Brussels.

Not to mention that culture is a continuously evolving thing. It's not some static force that you can point to and say, 'this is the way things should be', and then measure all changes against. Frankly, I wouldn't want to live in the somewhat racist/sexist/homophobic Britain of sixty years ago. If immigration has helped to change that, then hurrah!

Nor do I. But in some places, I think that mass immigration is bringing it back. Do you really think Islamic values in general, are as tolerant, liberal and secular as western values?

I'm not arguing about race. I don't give a gak about a persons skin colour. We're not responsible for our skin colour - its totally irrelevant. What I do care about is western values of tolerance, liberalism and secularism, and those values are undermined by huge influxes of un-assimilated people from cultures that do not share those values (e.g. Islam).

Islam is a religion, not a culture. If it were that simple, the Shias and Sunnis wouldn't be butchering each other the way they do.

Shia's and Sunni's are butchering each other because the values and beliefs that they derive from the Quran direct them to butcher heretics and non-believers. They have different interpretations of the Quran, therefore they view each other as heretics. Those Islamic values are IMO broadly incompatible with western values. For instance, Islam's views on apostasy and homosexuality and the appropriate punishments.

Mass immigration was a deliberate policy of New Labour to "rub the rights nose in diversity". They sought to increase their electoral support by changing the demographics of Britain. This policy was never declared. They never presented it to the British electorate in a manifesto and asked for its approval.

...snip...

Sorry, but those are links talking about the previous immigration policy of a previous government. I'm not entirely sure how they prove that mass immigration is bad. As well as how it drowns out British cultures and values. Could you outline it for me?

See above.

As well as what numbers of people would be acceptable 'immigration', and at what stage it becomes the unacceptable 'Mass Immigration'.

Those details are for experts to decide, not an opinionated 23 year old running his mouth off on the internet and making a fool of himself in the process.

But IMO it would become "unacceptable Mass Immigration" when its a level that we cannot reasonably accommodate in terms of housing, education, Policing, employment, NHS services, social cohesion etc. What specifically that level is I have no fething clue.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:


Uncontrolled, unconditional Mass Immigration? No - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.

Carefully controlled and targeted immigration that filters people based on their skills, qualifications and education according to Britains current needs; and on our ability to accommodate them without placing excessive pressure on education, NHS, housing, etc, and to integrate them peacefully into a common British identity based on tolerant, liberal and secular values? Yes - no matter the country, no matter the skin colour.

But if an immigrant believes that homosexuals are filthy and immoral, that Jews are sub-human, that a woman has no right to an education and career and other freedoms, that supports female genital mutilation, who believes that Honour Killing is an appropriate way of dealing with rebellious teenage experimentation and so on...we should be very cautious about allowing them to settle here.

If you allow a large influx of people who aren't tolerant, who aren't liberal, who aren't secular, who aren't tolerant and don't want to assimilate, liberal secular values will be undermined.

Hell, if we're arguing over skin colour, how is it fair that people from white European countries automatically get priority no matter their qualifications and education over people from Asian, Middle Eastern or African countries?

To be frank, I would never have mentioned skin colour, except you specifically said ' turning white people into ethnic minorities'.

With regards to how allowing people with certain views to settle here undermines our 'liberal secular values', I assure you that I could most likely find a batch of 'British' people who probably hold the same views separately. Facists, racists, sexists and homophobes do come from home as well. There's a reason Turing was hounded to death for being gay within roughly a decade of Powell worrying about all those foreigners eroding our values.

Seriously though, I quite like Jews (well, except maybe the ultra conservative sects like the people who build Jewish settlements in Palestine). I don't perceive Judaism to be as totalitarian, xenophobic and intolerant as say, Islam. Given the historical persecution and demonisation of Jews throughout the world and throughout history in every country they've ever had a presence in culminating in the Holocaust, I think Jews may be the only valid exception.

Do you have any other examples?

You should meet some really frum Jews, they'd change your mind fast enough. Overly devout religion in any aspect tends to breed intolerance like dogs do fleas.

In terms of other examples, how about the Jamaican mass immigration to Britain back in the 1950's? They're well into their fourth generation now, and making a valid contribution to UK society. Yet back in the 1950's, you had the Notting Hill riots, and many people saying the same things about them as they do the Romanians now.

Integration is a wonderful thing. You might not be very British in terms of values, but your grandchildren tend to be.

Bradford. Birmingham. Parts of London. etc. Places where huge numbers of people haven't, or don't want to be British, with everything that being British is supposed to entail.

But I don't why you're asking if I personally don't recognise the change in demographics. Do you think I own a Tardis?

The funny thing is that Jews of the East End totally overpopulated the place (Hence being Jews of the 'East End'). They kept their own culture initially, and you had yids as far as the eye could see. Jews resorted to Beth Din to settle disputes (note the parallels with Sharia?). But look around today. How many of them are still there? And even more importantly, how many of their descendants are still Jewish Germans?

My point with regards to asking you if you personally can see any difference from the fifties, is because you can't. Culture in general has shifted so much, from our progressive attitude to homosexuals, to the introduction of computers, to so many things, that nobody, not you, not me, and not Mr Powell, can point to the Jamaicans and say 'They caused all that!'. Culture is a wonderful thing of give and take, and it evolves organically over time.

It took centuries for a tolerant British secular and liberal democracy to develop. I don't want to see that threatened by mass immigration of people who don't share those values, or who actively despise them.

For Mr Powell, those liberal values you're worrying about vanishing today were things that he would no doubt have been horrified by, and thought they had no place in 'British culture'. There are never going to be enough facist/racist/sexist immigrants to threaten the status quo here. Parliament will never be replaced by Sharia because too many muslims moved here. Why?

Because of integration. Sure, there might be a few people who think Sharia is great. Sure, they might even dominate a local council for ten, twenty years if they're particularly prolific in an area. But their kids will grow up watching Dr Who. Their grandchildren will be used to having a cup of tea to get through the day. Their great-grandchildren will marry someone who was descended from someone from the opposite side of the globe. Integration and values are a two way street. There will always be nuts, but they grow old and die. And the next generation supersedes them.

Then fifty years later, you have adults descended from Jamaican settlers agonising about Romanians swamping the job market, and Afghans dominating their local culture. If we fast forward another fifty years, it'll be the lovechilds of those Romanians and Afghans complaining about the evil Brazilian immigrants, or something. It's a regular cycle in domestic politics in this country, and will continue to be for as long as people keep coming here instead of leaving.

Much better for immigration to be slow, at a pace we can carefully control and accommodate and make sure that western style values are not threatened and undermined.

The thing is, most people who come here come here because they actually want to integrate. You have Africans who look around in wonder at a country where there's no risk of getting dragged off in the night by the police. You have ex-Gurkhas from Nepal who can't believe the benefits offered by public healthcare. Syrians who want nothing more than to settle down and rebuild their lives after fleeing a civil war. Romanians who love the amount of work they can find and the high tech nature of British society. Russians who love they can publish without fear of Government censorship.

These people are here because they love those values you're worrying about losing. Sure, there's always a few nuts. But if you talk to most immigrants, you'll find that they're not here to supersede British culture with their own. They're here because one person came, and liked it so much that they sent the message home for their entire family to up sticks and join them. Then that family tells their friends, and because they want to be close, they all buy houses on the same street.

Nor do I. But in some places, I think that mass immigration is bringing it back. Do you really think Islamic values in general, are as tolerant, liberal and secular as western values?

I don't believe for one minute that the few immigrants who are hardcore muslims will impact on British society in a meaningful way. They simply don't have the numbers, and people know nutters when they hear them. 99.9% of people in the world just want to get on with their lives. Most muslims just want to enjoy their dinner, go to work, love their spouses, nod their head at the altar when appropriate, and tune into the Only Fools and Horses Christmas Special. They're really not worrying about installing Sharia Law and beheading all women who don't cover themselves up.

Shia's and Sunni's are butchering each other because the values and beliefs that they derive from the Quran direct them to butcher heretics and non-believers. They have different interpretations of the Quran, therefore they view each other as heretics. Those Islamic values are IMO broadly incompatible with western values. For instance, Islam's views on apostasy and homosexuality and the appropriate punishments.

Try Leviticus in the Bible for comparable Western 'culture'. 'Western Values' used to consist of women doing as they were told and 'queers' being shamed out of town. Maybe less extreme than stoning, but not much different in sentiment. That's only changed extremely recently, and a lot of older people still feel that way about things.

As well as what numbers of people would be acceptable 'immigration', and at what stage it becomes the unacceptable 'Mass Immigration'.

Those details are for experts to decide, not an opinionated 23 year old running his mouth off on the internet and making a fool of himself in the process.

But IMO it would become "unacceptable Mass Immigration" when its a level that we cannot reasonably accommodate in terms of housing, education, Policing, employment, NHS services, social cohesion etc. What specifically that level is I have no fething clue.

See, the strain on public services, that I can totally get behind as a reason to limit immigration.

It's the whole 'drowning out British culture' that I find ludicrous as a motive. It only ever comes down to anecdotal evidence, and that basic psychological awareness of people who are different from 'us'. I find though that when you sit down with most people and ask them to rationally and logically pin that eel of a thought/opinion/belief down with the fork of their mind, they actually realise it's not particularly based on reason.

I know you're disagreeing with me, but I just couldn't help but exalt that comment. Even when you're tearing my arguments to shreds, you remain polite and refrain from making insults. I still have no regrets voting for UKIP in the EU elections (no local elections this time in my town) as they're the only one in favour of withdrawal but I'll certainly re-examine their policies on immigration and reconsider my own opinions.

It was a pleasure talking with you. Now I really ought to get to bed.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I know you're disagreeing with me, but I just couldn't help but exalt that comment. Even when you're tearing my arguments to shreds, you remain polite and refrain from making insults. I still have no regrets voting for UKIP in the EU elections (no local elections this time in my town) as they're the only one in favour of withdrawal but I'll certainly re-examine their policies on immigration and reconsider my own opinions.

It was a pleasure talking with you. Now I really ought to get to bed.

A pleasure talking with you too, squire. I always like it when internet debates can end amicably, even when both sides disagree.

Although having said that, I don't necessarily disagree with you on that we need to somehow bring down the levels of immigration if they continue at their current rate. But my motivation for that is simply because of the pressure on local services, and the skyrocketing population on one corner of what is ultimately, a very small island. We need to have some space here for people in forty years time, eh wot?

Having said that though, I'm not convinced the current level of immigration will carry on much longer anyway. Simply because, all the Eastern Europeans who want to move here already have. And there aren't many nations in Europe left to join the EU to provide a fresh influx of immigrants. So logic dictates that immigration will slow over the next year regardless, which no doubt the Conservatives will (inaccurately) pass off as a victory for their (supposedly) tighter border controls.

People feel betrayed by the whole political an mediatical class (not whithout any reason by the way).

The feeling might be similar on my end, though I feel we (citizens) are partially responsible for not acting and being too passive and the old guard far too stuck in their own old ways. I'm not sure what's going to happen, but right now I think it is the worst time to be apathetic. I'm sure in due time I'm going to listen from people who didn't vote, how others decide instead of them.

 Paradigm wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The EU Parliament doesn't dictate UK policy.

No! But we do have to abide by certain EU rules. For example, on immigration where even the current government may want a different policy, they can't have that as they have to go by the EU laws.

To me, that is not a situation that should exist.

The UK has to abide by international laws that it has entered into under treaty.

On immigration, I do agree that mass immigration is potentially detrimental to Britain as a nation. I don't say this because I'm racist or Xenophobic, but simply pratical.

I think we should be prioritising those who are actually going to contribute to Britain as a society. Those with education, respect for the law and a willingness to work, should. ewelcomed with open arms, regardless of their nation of origin, EU or outside it. But by the same token, those that are coming over just to exploit the welfare state (and they do exist regardless of what we're always told) should not be welcomed the way they our. When we struggle to look after the unemployed in our own country then we should not be offering such an incentive for more unemployed or unemployable to come into the nation.

And this is a policy that would be far more effective if we weren't forced to take the influx of EU immigrants in leiu of more useful Asians, Africans, Americans or anyone else.

Then theres the culture issue. While I am all for cultural integration, and happy to accept any advance to culture in Britain, the problem is where that culture is coming from. Not being funny, but the majority of immigrants are from Poland and Romania, and with absolutely no offence intended, those cultures hardly offer anything to ours, they're not celebrated internationally as pinnacles of culture, the arts, food or whatever. So all we are doing by bringing them in is dilouting the ever changing British culture with something that really adds nothing. I don't ever recall anyone deciding to go out for a Polish meal or celebrating Romanian art.

To reiterate, I have no intention to be racist. If anything, I can be accused of being meritocratic in that I want a nation in which those with useful, relevant, diverse and professional skillsets are welcomed regardless of origin, but at the same time, if you don't contribute, you don't get anything for that. And for the record, I support the same for British citizens as well, those who just sponge off benefits and won't contribute shouldn't get those benefits if you ask me. But that's a different matter entirely.

No-one ever used to go out for an Indian meal or a Chinese meal before there were Indian and Chinese immigrants to set up restaurants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_painters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Polish_composers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Polish_science_and_technology

 Kilkrazy wrote:
No-one ever used to go out for an Indian meal or a Chinese meal before there were Indian and Chinese immigrants to set up restaurants.

I know, but what I'm saying is that even in a couple of generations, people won't be going for a Polish. The culture does not seem as prone to that kind of thing as Indian or Chinese, which is notably different from British food. It may just be lack of exposure, but I've never seen Poland referred to as a culinary innovator.

Out of interest, does anyone know the hallmarks of Polish cooking? Is it something you can see becoming a part of British culture in the same way Chinese, Indian or Thai food has?

So the value of an immigrant has to be judged two generations after they come and it will be based on whether people like to go to their restaurants.

That doesn't sound like a viable method of deciding on entry requirements.

There is lots of Polish cooking in the USA, like pierogies, sauerkraut and kielbasa. I bet you can get them here if you go to one of the many Polish delicatessens that have sprung up.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So the value of an immigrant has to be judged two generations after they come and it will be based on whether people like to go to their restaurants.

Only culturally, as culture will take that time to integrate, and of course the restaurants is just a simplification. When immigrating, though, the concerns should be on what they can offer the country, be it a skill, a culture, a profession or a service.

 Paradigm wrote:
On immigration, I do agree that mass immigration is potentially detrimental to Britain as a nation. I don't say this because I'm racist or Xenophobic, but simply pratical.

Go on.

I think we should be prioritising those who are actually going to contribute to Britain as a society.

What about refugees?

Those with education, respect for the law and a willingness to work, should. ewelcomed with open arms, regardless of their nation of origin, EU or outside it.

Wait, you need to have an education to make a contribution to British society? Most artists I know of have little in the way of academic qualifications. Lots of nurses, plumbers, and whatnot also aren't exactly loaded down with them. You might want to double-check your entrance criteria there.

But by the same token, those that are coming over just to exploit the welfare state (and they do exist regardless of what we're always told) should not be welcomed the way they our.

To an extent, for most of them, it's not 'coming over to exploit us', as much as it is, 'I have no health cover and I'd like to live somewhere where I do'. Generally speaking, it's been calculated several times that immigrants generate more money in taxation than they extract from the country in public services.

The issue is that even if the paycheque to the government is larger and meets costs, the numbers of immigrants just swamp a system that isn't prepared to handle the additional numbers. There aren't enough school places, hospital beds, and houses. It's not a question of cost, or immigrants 'exploiting' the system, but that the system at any given time has trouble coping with the sheer numbers of people it's expected to handle.

For example, you might have 1,200 primary school places at a school, but if there are 1,300 children, you have a problem. Now whilst the money generated by the immigrants will be forthcoming to help mitigate that, it won't arrive for a year or two, and it certainly won't mitigate the issues of space within the school/teachers available. So you skip forward a year and make do, and increase yourself to 1,300 school places and another two teachers, but by then you now have 1,400 kids who need school places. It's an infrastructure issue as opposed to a financial one. You can apply it to hospitals, council housing, and most other things.

When we struggle to look after the unemployed in our own country then we should not be offering such an incentive for more unemployed or unemployable to come into the nation.

Incentive? You mean the benefits system? Most immigrants are drawn by the availability of work, healthcare and education far more than the benefits system. Benefits are annoyingly hard to claim for a new immigrant. And more refugees from outside the EU tend to be benefits claimants rather than European migrants. Simply because EU immigrants tend to be moving for work reasons, whereas Middle-East/African immigrants are usually fleeing something with whatever they can carry with them.

And this is a policy that would be far more effective if we weren't forced to take the influx of EU immigrants in leiu of more useful Asians, Africans, Americans or anyone else.

See my last response above. I believe this is a fallacy.

Then theres the culture issue. While I am all for cultural integration, and happy to accept any advance to culture in Britain, the problem is where that culture is coming from. Not being funny, but the majority of immigrants are from Poland and Romania, and with absolutely no offence intended, those cultures hardly offer anything to ours, they're not celebrated internationally as pinnacles of culture, the arts, food or whatever.

Culture is an entirely subjective thing as with regards to what's an 'advance'. I'm sure that those Polish immigrants could name various cultural achievements and personages you wouldn't recognise, and you'd be able to do the same vice versa. You also have to remember that Poland's been carved up a number of times and ceased to exist historically, so a number of their own achievements can get passed off as other nation's ones.

So all we are doing by bringing them in is dilouting the ever changing British culture with something that really adds nothing. I don't ever recall anyone deciding to go out for a Polish meal or celebrating Romanian art.

Diluting British culture? Oh God. Not this again.

Culture tends to be strengthened by multiple influences and inputs. Otherwise you end up worrying about things like 'degenerate artwork' amongst other things. Selective insularity is almost as bad as complete insularity. You may find little merit in a piece of artwork or music, but that does not mean that there are not those who do.

To boot, culture isn't something you can 'dilute' without wandering into the Enoch Powell end of things, which only works if you accept the very loosest and most static subjective definition of 'culture' to begin with.

To reiterate, I have no intention to be racist. If anything, I can be accused of being meritocratic in that I want a nation in which those with useful, relevant, diverse and professional skillsets are welcomed regardless of origin, but at the same time, if you don't contribute, you don't get anything for that. And for the record, I support the same for British citizens as well, those who just sponge off benefits and won't contribute shouldn't get those benefits if you ask me. But that's a different matter entirely.

It's a grand thing the vast majority of immigrants don't do that then I guess. Trust me, as someone who's lived on benefits for a period, it's bleeding difficult to live off the welfare estate and have any quality of life. People who are prepared to sponge do exist, but they're very much in the minority, and usually have to supplement it with petty crime and cash in hand work to make it livable.

Refugees should not be be conflated with economic migration.

Refugees are of course a different case, but as there is not really a part of the EU from which we get refugees, it's kind of irrelevant here.

By 'an education', I don't mean you have to have a double First from Cambridge or be a Nobel Prize winner. I imagine those plumbers, artists and nurses had some kind of basic education, they weren't born with the knowledge of how to do that job.

I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.

And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.

The culture thing really is a matter of perspective, really, but in my own experience, I have yet to see any evidence that mass immigration is adding to British culture. In fact, I see the opposite- ethnic groups form fairly insular communities, and almost shy away from integrating in my experience, which doesn't really benefit either party.

As a final point, you refer to how the largest strain is the expanding population on the infrastructure rather than the economy. Surely, though, if this is the case, the British government should have the power to be able to do something about this, like slowing the rate of immigration through stricter border control? In the EU, we can't really do that.

 Paradigm wrote:
Refugees are of course a different case, but as there is not really a part of the EU from which we get refugees, it's kind of irrelevant here.

Gotcha. Your original statement was a little bit generalistic, so I was just pegging out exactly where you stood on that one.

By 'an education', I don't mean you have to have a double First from Cambridge or be a Nobel Prize winner. I imagine those plumbers, artists and nurses had some kind of basic education, they weren't born with the knowledge of how to do that job.

In places like Romania, you'd be surprised how often an 'education' consists of 'What my dad who is a general handyman taught me about plumbing/electrics/bricklaying'. Not saying that applies for all of them, but certainly for the more menial/hands on jobs.

I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.

We did actually have transitional controls in place whereby the numbers of Romanians who could emigrate to Britain were strictly limited for the first seven years of Romania's EU membership. It would appear to be a sensible thing to negotiate a suitable extension/amendment/modification to those rules.

And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.

Fortunately, as long as the majority contribute, there still seems to be a general net benefit across the country. But then that gets into a separate question; namely whether or not we should have a safety net available for all at the risk of the occasional exploitation, or whether we should just cancel/restrict the safety net altogether.

The culture thing really is a matter of perspective, really, but in my own experience, I have yet to see any evidence that mass immigration is adding to British culture. In fact, I see the opposite- ethnic groups form fairly insular communities, and almost shy away from integrating in my experience, which doesn't really benefit either party.

I work with two Polish ladies right now. Wonderful women. One of them spends her time doing touristy things around London, and the other one just got married to a Turkish bloke. They both shop in Polski scleps, they both do a fine job and pay their taxes, and buy drinks from the local pub. True, a good number of their friends are Polish, but that's to be expected. Their kids though, will go to local schools, and integrate. They'll be bilingual, have some tastes for some Polish foods (and Turkish), and culture marches on. And who knows? One of them might be the next Einstein/Hawking.

As a final point, you refer to how the largest strain is the expanding population on the infrastructure rather than the economy. Surely, though, if this is the case, the British government should have the power to be able to do something about this, like slowing the rate of immigration through stricter border control? In the EU, we can't really do that.

I agree. I agree that this is an issue. I'm far from convinced it's something to leave the EU over, or indeed, even that it's a set in stone unnegotiable point.

Very reasonable post there, I can't really argue with a lot of it. It may well be your experience with immigrants is the more common one than mine, and to be honest, I hope it is. If there are people coming into the country who are engaging with it socially, economically and culturally then that can't be a bad thing (which is why I have no problem with immigration as a whole).

I do think capping immigration numbers-wise can be a good solution, but we need a representation in both UK and EU politics willing to do that. If it's not set in stone, then we need MPs and MEPs that are willing to attempt to renegotiate the terms.

 Paradigm wrote:
Very reasonable post there, I can't really argue with a lot of it.

Thank you.
Needless to say, if you or Edithae are ever local to London at any point, feel free to send me a message for a drink and a game.

It may well be your experience with immigrants is the more common one than mine, and to be honest, I hope it is. If there are people coming into the country who are engaging with it socially, economically and culturally then that can't be a bad thing (which is why I have no problem with immigration as a whole).

I do think capping immigration numbers-wise can be a good solution, but we need a representation in both UK and EU politics willing to do that. If it's not set in stone, then we need MPs and MEPs that are willing to attempt to renegotiate the terms.

The problem is that no political party ever offers everything you want. The Tories are less likely to do something about the EU than UKIP, but UKIP are somewhat moronic in the rest of their policies as things stand. I don't like any of them particularly, but I have a feeling I'm going to be forced into voting Tory simply for pure tactical voting reasons. The less said about New Labour and the Lib Dems, the better.

Which is why I voted for Ukip for the EU elections, as I agree with their policy on that aspect. There is very little chance I'd vote for them in a general election as their ideas on domestic policy are somewhat odd, to say the least.

Hailing from the country who contributes the largest single immigrant group to the UK, and having lived in the UK and had people complain about "bloody immigrants" to me, even though I am an immigrant, I am pretty sure there's a bit of "they're too different!" to it, and it's not just motivated by economic concerns. I was over there, taking their jobs, and yet my polish colleague got a lot more of that crap off people than I did- they mostly used to complain conspiratorially about the Poles to me.

I find the whole thing pretty hilarious, and kind of pathetic. "Oh no, our country is so awesome that other people uproot their lives at a shot at living here!"

Coming from a country that has historically and presently been ravaged by widespread emigration, it's hard not to be scornful of the attitude.

Also, considering UKIP vote No to everything, even if it is in the British interest, and that they rarely bother showing up at committees or showing up to vote, I don't see how they're representing british interests at all, really.

 Da Boss wrote:
Hailing from the country who contributes the largest single immigrant group to the UK, and having lived in the UK and had people complain about "bloody immigrants" to me, even though I am an immigrant

That's because to the British, the Irish don't count as immigrants.

Which is a pretty decent argument that the immigration debate is more about "otherness" than it is about economic and social concerns.

We're white and speak the same language, so we're less "other" than immigrant groups who don't. I know australians who've had similar experience.

That is a pretty decent argument come to think of it.

 Paradigm wrote:


I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.

And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.

British euro skeptics were the champions of rapid EU expansion. They supported full membership for East European countries as a counter to Franco-German efforts for greater integration. It's typical that they now blame the EU for the immigration problem they themselves helped to create. Leaving the EU wouldn't necessarily change immigration, as free trade agreements like EEA also require similar rights of free movement.

The right of free movement and residency in the EU goes two ways. There are close to two million UK nationals residing in other member states. Do you suppose they are all hardworking, well educated or an addition to local culture?

 Antario wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.

And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.

British euro skeptics were the champions of rapid EU expansion. They supported full membership for East European countries as a counter to Franco-German efforts for greater integration. It's typical that they now blame the EU for the immigration problem they themselves helped to create. Leaving the EU wouldn't necessarily change immigration, as free trade agreements like EEA also require similar rights of free movement.

The right of free movement and residency in the EU goes two ways. There are close to two million UK nationals residing in other member states. Do you suppose they are all hardworking, well educated or an addition to local culture?

Devils advocate here: Can you point to any links or article that denounce these benefits scrounging lazy and yet job thieving UK nationals as threats to the EU?

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 Antario wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:


I agree it's only a small percentage that live on benefits and scrounge from the system without really trying to work, and that they both British citizens and immigrants are part of this group, which is precisely why, at no point, have I said I have an issue with immigration as a concept. My issue is that, by dint of EU immigration laws, we are forced to accept that minority and can do very little about it.

And by incentive, I mean a combination of both the British welfare system, state education and healthcare and the fact that you can basically enter the country whatever you have, or don't have, to offer. So if immigrants are going to come here and use the NHS and other services, putting a strain on them both practically and economically, they should be giving something back for that. In fairness, the majority do, but as I said above, we still have to deal with the ones that don't.

British euro skeptics were the champions of rapid EU expansion. They supported full membership for East European countries as a counter to Franco-German efforts for greater integration. It's typical that they now blame the EU for the immigration problem they themselves helped to create. Leaving the EU wouldn't necessarily change immigration, as free trade agreements like EEA also require similar rights of free movement.

The right of free movement and residency in the EU goes two ways. There are close to two million UK nationals residing in other member states. Do you suppose they are all hardworking, well educated or an addition to local culture?

Devils advocate here: Can you point to any links or article that denounce these benefits scrounging lazy and yet job thieving UK nationals as threats to the EU?

I don't know of any evidence of the free movement of EU citizens being a threat to the economies of other member states, so that is an impossible question to answer, but abuse does exist. Not that the British are worse on average then anyone else.

An example: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/oct/05/british-expats-health-tourism-spain