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.

I’m at Nigel Farage’s speech to Germany’s far-right AfD party. He just seems utterly astounded that Brexit isn’t a German election issue.

He devoted a good chunk of time to this bewilderment. Audience is quite receptive to anti-EU talk, but not so enthusiastic re: helping UK

That'd be the same Farage who railed against foreign types "interfering" by offering opinions, thoughts and so forth with regards to the referendum and so on yes ?

Farage is only interested in attention (and becoming a somebody), so it's hardly surprising that he's upset that Germans don't care about what he's gloating about.

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc.

Is there? Far as I can see, people in here who've commented are more mentioning their respect towards someone for publicly and honestly sticking to their beliefs in the face of potential hardship or adversity.

This is what I was saying? Anyway this is digressing. If we ever vote Moggy in as PM then the country has gone even further to the dogs than I though possible.

What is more important is the way May is trying to 'undo' the inconvenience of the election result and stack as many cards in her favour as possible (despite there in effect being a hung parliament). Of course May is just saying it is common sense; I wonder if she told that to MPs before the election...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-rigging-parliament-committee-of-selection-standing-committees_uk_59b1a514e4b0dfaafcf68a04?utm_hp_ref=uk

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:

That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc.

Is there? Far as I can see, people in here who've commented are more mentioning their respect towards someone for publicly and honestly sticking to their beliefs in the face of potential hardship or adversity.

This is what I was saying? Anyway this is digressing. If we ever vote Moggy in as PM then the country has gone even further to the dogs than I though possible.

What is more important is the way May is trying to 'undo' the inconvenience of the election result and stack as many cards in her favour as possible (despite there in effect being a hung parliament). Of course May is just saying it is common sense; I wonder if she told that to MPs before the election...

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-rigging-parliament-committee-of-selection-standing-committees_uk_59b1a514e4b0dfaafcf68a04?utm_hp_ref=uk

On this we are in agreement.

A controversial new motion tabled by Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom seeks to ensure that Conservatives have a majority on all standing committees that are the powerhouses of all prospective laws.

If passed, the new move would tear up a long-standing convention that Commons committee strictly reflect the proportion of the parties in a general election result.

As much as I want Brexit, I don't want the Government to feth with our (unwritten) Constitution and set dangerous precedents that could be used by future Governments. If they break this convention, it gives a future Labour Government an excuse not to respect it either.

Never set a double edged precedent that you don't want to be used against you one day.

Blair was on the Andrew Marr show today. Made my flesh crawl.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Blair was on the Andrew Marr show today. Made my flesh crawl.

I heard he made a U Turn and now admits we do need to control immigration, but thinks we don't need to leave the EU to do that. Which strikes me as an oxymoron - if we don't control our borders, how can we control immigration?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Blair was on the Andrew Marr show today. Made my flesh crawl.

I heard he made a U Turn and now admits we do need to control immigration, but thinks we don't need to leave the EU to do that. Which strikes me as an oxymoron - if we don't control our borders, how can we control immigration?

Because, as has been discussed in the thread earlier, there are legal ways to control immigration (or elements of it) within the EU, it's just our government(s) never bothered to apply them.

Just because you have the right to go and work in another EU state doesn't automatically mean you have the right to access their social security systems and if you do not have work / find work (edit; or a means to support yourself) you can be asked to leave.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Blair was on the Andrew Marr show today. Made my flesh crawl.

I heard he made a U Turn and now admits we do need to control immigration, but thinks we don't need to leave the EU to do that. Which strikes me as an oxymoron - if we don't control our borders, how can we control immigration?

Bare faced check isn't it? Especially since he was the one who relaxed the controls so much in the first place.

Blair's actions in government paved the road to Brexit. People didn't want uncontrolled migration and he ignored them. He also eroded a lot of trust people had in government and in the Labour Party meaning cynicism in our government at the moment is quite high.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Blair's actions in government paved the road to Brexit. People didn't want uncontrolled migration and he ignored them. He also eroded a lot of trust people had in government and in the Labour Party meaning cynicism in our government at the moment is quite high.

I really don't see the issue people have with immigration. They bring jobs, wealth to the country and do the jobs less and less of us are willing to do. What they put back into the economy is vastly more than the small amount they take out. All our families were immigrants at some point in the past. I fear that immigration is an easy thing to blame for the countries issues, something that people can latch on to, at first sight being a panacea for them. Yet the reality is that a significant reduction in immigration will only make the country weaker long term, as immigrants look for more accommodating shores. I've said it a lot before but deciding on who should be let on simply because they were born past a certain line is not the way forward.

I'm quite happy with immigration as it is so I'd prefer you say "Some people". I know plenty of immigrants that have worked all their lives in the country adding to it economically, socially and culturally. The more the better to be honest!

 Whirlwind wrote:
I really don't see the issue people have with immigration.

They bring jobs, wealth to the country

Then you're wilfully ignorant. They also increase pressures on public services, emergency services, housing, education, healthcare; through rapid increases in population. Hence the argument for controlled immigration proportional to our ability to invest in those services to account for the increase in population. Mass Immigration means public spending is forever falling behind the rapid increase in population, we simply can't keep up.

and do the jobs less and less of us are willing to do.

Oh I wonder why...it can't possibly be because the wages for those jobs have been kept down by the oversupply of cheap foreign labour? Its hardly surprising that people don't want to do those jobs when those jobs pay poorly.

All our families were immigrants at some point in the past.

Thats a myth actually. The English gene pool has remained largely unchanged since the Stone Age.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/07/0719_050719_britishgene_2.html

I'm quite happy with immigration as it is so I'd prefer you say "Some people". I know plenty of immigrants that have worked all their lives in the country adding to it economically, socially and culturally. The more the better to be honest!

Right. And plenty of other immigrants don't work and simply add to the drain on the welfare state. You're making a massive sweeping generalisation, pointing only to the productive immigrants and ignoring the unproductive immigrants at the other end of the spectrum.

The more the better my arse - we should be selective in the people we allow in, selecting on merit. That means discriminating based on the skills and education that immigrants have to offer us. To be clear, I am NOT against all immigration. I simply want it to be controlled and planned.

Pressure on infrastructure should easily be covered by the money they provide - that it isn't is 100% the government's fault.

Migrants can't use the benefits system unyil they've paid in for a few years, so that's a myth too.

I'm not sure low wages isn't also a government problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have some concerns about immigratio; mostly in terms of avoiding brain drain from weaker economies. I've no idea how we address that except for having enough trained ______'s across Europe or offering them subsidies for working there.

Second reading and vote on the Great repeal Bill tonight.

It's getting serious, and already, cracks appearing in Labour with a one woman rebellion.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/11/former-europe-minister-caroline-flint-to-defy-labour-whips-on-eu-bill

Will more Labour MPs join her?

It's an error to reject it now instead of amending it later? Gakking hell.

Herzlos wrote:
It's an error to reject it now instead of amending it later? Gakking hell.

It makes sense from a parliamentary tactics point of view.

Herzlos wrote:
Pressure on infrastructure should easily be covered by the money they provide - that it isn't is 100% the government's fault.

Migrants can't use the benefits system unyil they've paid in for a few years, so that's a myth too.

I'm not sure low wages isn't also a government problem.

Still. It's misguided to look at the new EU members for that.


EU8 are immigrants from the 2004 enlargement: Czech Republic Poland, the Baltics, etc.

UK has held the key for non-EU migrants all this time. Why would it work now?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It's an error to reject it now instead of amending it later? Gakking hell.

It makes sense from a parliamentary tactics point of view.

To pass a bill you don't like in the hopes you can change it later? Or am I missing a stage out between approving it and pushing through ammendments?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Then you're wilfully ignorant. They also increase pressures on public services, emergency services, housing, education, healthcare; through rapid increases in population. Hence the argument for controlled immigration proportional to our ability to invest in those services to account for the increase in population. Mass Immigration means public spending is forever falling behind the rapid increase in population, we simply can't keep up.

No I'm not, rather looking at it from a wider perspective and that much larger issues are at play than immigration, but it is 'easy' to blame it on a scapegoat.

Firstly where is your evidence on the impacts relative to the populace at large?

The vast majority of immigrants are working age. Our public services are put under vastly more strain by an aging population than immigration does. You can see that simply from the how much funding gets put into each of the pots of money for different elements. Which emergency services are put under more pressure. Where is the evidence that migration is causing more fires or using more ambulances? How many people from immigrant backgrounds are now working as first responders that we wouldn't have otherwise? How short are we becoming as EU nurses stop coming to support the UK NHS (and lets not forget that UK nationals are abandoning the profession). House building is not going to magically stay the same if there are less people requiring a house. What that results in less houses being built as businesses attempt to maintain profit levels by cutting back the number they build. They aren't going to keep the same number being built - that means less work all along the chain from plasterers, labourers, electricians down to the company making the bricks. Less work means less jobs. Why is there a housing demand - because the number of people per property is reducing, more of us live alone and have our own property. As you have pointed out previously a lot of migrants live together, that reduces the burden on housing per head. It's our own, aging, population again that is the bigger wider issue. The number of school children is lower than it was in the 1970s (as I've posted before) - why is it then that we could manage school children then? If we can't cope now why is it we coped then? Rather that teachers are underpaid and overworked, education budgets are being decreased relatively, schools now have to 'beg' parents for donations simply to make ends meet. And those migrant children will grow up educated and support our society as we all grow into old age, which we need if you want even semblance of the services you take for granted now in the future. We can't keep up with spend because more people are retiring and taking out of the system than are coming into the system and paying into it. The recent immigration flux stabilised this trend - and one of the reasons why in Labour were so keen to open the doors because they saw the long term problems our aging population was bringing.

Oh I wonder why...it can't possibly be because the wages for those jobs have been kept down by the oversupply of cheap foreign labour? Its hardly surprising that people don't want to do those jobs when those jobs pay poorly.

Again this is focusing on one issue rather than looking at it globally. Paying higher wages results in more expensive goods. In a global market that means the strawberry farmer in Norfolk can't compete with the one in Spain. That farmer then goes out of business. When wooden units were all made bespoke or in less numbers are now mass produced in global factories, many in Asian countries where they are lucky to get paid 10p a week. This means the relatively low skilled jobs are less in demand and much more vulnerable to the demands of the market. People spend half a year moving to somewhere where there are no jobs. They come because there are jobs that are vacant. Businesses are paying what they think they can afford to be competitive, if wages go up it means money is spent in less outlets which inevitably means less businesses and more people out of work until you reach a point where the unemployed are driving wages down to the point where businesses become viable again. The real question is why someone in the UK earning £X can't afford to live and the answer to that lies elsewhere.

The Bank of England's own report indicates that in unspecialised areas (e.g. not footballers) at most wages decrease by 1.88% for every 10% of immigration. That *at most* accounts for aabout a 1-2p reduction in wages per year (and we haven't even seen the reports May buried whilst at the Home Office).

Thats a myth actually. The English gene pool has remained largely unchanged since the Stone Age.

And where did we come from before that?

Right. And plenty of other immigrants don't work and simply add to the drain on the welfare state. You're making a massive sweeping generalisation, pointing only to the productive immigrants and ignoring the unproductive immigrants at the other end of the spectrum.

We've had this discussion before, immigrants cost £800m to the welfare state (and that's a Daily Fail figure so assume it's exaggerated). That's pennies compared to our overall budget. Immigrants add vastly more to the economy than what they take out.

The more the better my arse - we should be selective in the people we allow in, selecting on merit. That means discriminating based on the skills and education that immigrants have to offer us. To be clear, I am NOT against all immigration. I simply want it to be controlled and planned.

What do you mean by merit? Why should someone come here if they may be deemed to have merit, but their spouse or children are not? Some of the least educated may add the most to society, some of the most educated might turn out to be psychopaths. Who are we to determine who is right and who is wrong? Perhaps I should suggest that open immigration should be allowed because of the merit that they all bring an improved culture to the UK. Would you accept that as a level of merit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
It's an error to reject it now instead of amending it later? Gakking hell.

It makes sense from a parliamentary tactics point of view.

To pass a bill you don't like in the hopes you can change it later? Or am I missing a stage out between approving it and pushing through ammendments?

I would suggest she is probably one of the few Labour MPs that is pro-Brexit but can't come out and say it. Regardless I'm more worried about the sweeping powers it gives MPs (in conjunction that they are trying the rig the committees that make these decisions). If my interpretation of what Kier Starmer said the other day is correct I believe this Bill would allow ministers to completely change the date of the next election to being when they want to allow it to fit into the Wrexit discussions as it is not one of the areas exempt (as there is a specific bill that it must happen every 5 years).

... so remember that group that Rees-Mogg gave a speech to/for ?

https://twitter.com/TradBritGroup/status/907223998513197056




uh huh.

 reds8n wrote:
... so remember that group that Rees-Mogg gave a speech to/for ?

https://twitter.com/TradBritGroup/status/907223998513197056




uh huh.

please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n is a Mulato?

A derogatory term for someone with one white and one black parent, assuming that it's a misspelling of "mulatto".

It's an archaic term for someone of mixed Caucasian and African ancestry.

Too little, too late?

Brexit: Deportations of EU citizens soar since referendum
​http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-citizens-deportations-rise-uk-home-office-referendum-a7935266.html

jouso wrote:

Too little, too late?

Brexit: Deportations of EU citizens soar since referendum
​http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-citizens-deportations-rise-uk-home-office-referendum-a7935266.html

I'm afraid our government is just becoming more bigoted and racist as time goes on in an effort to buy over that element of the populace. Empress May looks more like Cruella de Vil (or should that be "the vile") in each passing day. This isn't what a compassionate caring country does, I'm ashamed to be associated with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 reds8n wrote:
... so remember that group that Rees-Mogg gave a speech to/for ?

https://twitter.com/TradBritGroup/status/907223998513197056




uh huh.

please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n is a Mulato?

The link is dead so I'm not sure I get the reference or the implication?

Still I hear that Boris the Clown is flying out to the Virgin Islands. The people living there have heard there is another disaster heading their way and are making the appropriate preparations....

Juncker gave his state of the union speech today. And to nobody's surprise, was heckled by Farage. I'm no Juncker fan, but that was plain rude from Farage

Summary here https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/13/jean-claude-juncker-plays-down-brexit-in-eu-state-of-union-speech

People will probably expect me to say this, but the EU seems to have learned nothing from Brexit. It's full steam ahead as far as they're concerned.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Juncker gave his state of the union speech today. And to nobody's surprise, was heckled by Farage. I'm no Juncker fan, but that was plain rude from Farage

Summary here https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/13/jean-claude-juncker-plays-down-brexit-in-eu-state-of-union-speech

People will probably expect me to say this, but the EU seems to have learned nothing from Brexit. It's full steam ahead as far as they're concerned.

What, in your opinion, should EU have learned from Brexit?

If anything, Brexit has showed the EU, that people are now more aware than ever of the many pitfalls of leaving the union.
Populist parties all over europe are backpedaling on their promises to pull their respective countries out of the EU.

If anything, Brussels has learned that now is the perfect time to push for further european integration.

The EU should have learned the lesson that an EU super state is neither welcome nor desired. But no, it's full steam ahead and to hell with the consequences.

Britain had a narrow escape. Thank God we got on the last plane out of Stalingrad.

Juncker wants:

The President of the EU parliament and the EU commission merged into one

EU army expansion.

A pan-European EU finance minister.

No funding of parties that don't support the EU. It won't just be the extremists affected by this.

A more assertive EU foreign policy.

Juncker:
'"Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council (…) Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship (…) Having a single President would better reflect the true nature of our European Union as both a Union of States and a Union of citizens."'

To be fair to Juncker, and I don't like being fair to him, he was open. They're not hiding it anymore. It's all there for everybody to see: full on EU integration.

Juncker even had the nerve to talk about freedom and the diversity of Europe, only minutes before these proposals!

Never let it be said that Juncker doesn't have a sense of humour.

Thank God Britain voted to leave. Talk about narrow escapes.

No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.

No chance either that the ordinary people will get to vote for this new super president. It'll probably be left up to the M.E.Ps...well, the ones not opposed to the eu in any way, since the ones who are won't have any funding.

So then, the message from Drunker is clear, we're having a full on totally intergraded superstate weither you like it or not. And here's me being told repeatedly that we'd never have to do anything we didn't want to.

I'm glad we're leaving.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.

Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.

No chance either that the ordinary people will get to vote for this new super president. It'll probably be left up to the M.E.Ps...well, the ones not opposed to the eu in any way, since the ones who are won't have any funding.

So then, the message from Drunker is clear, we're having a full on totally intergraded superstate weither you like it or not. And here's me being told repeatedly that we'd never have to do anything we didn't want to.

I'm glad we're leaving.

I'll shed no tears about neo-Nazis being blocked from the EU parliament, but the problem with defining things like extremism is that the definition becomes very narrow.

Legitimate criticism of the EU could end up being defined as extremism. it's a slippery slope.

And there is talk of Britain's vacant seats in the EU parliament being turned into pan-European seats! WTF!

Only EU friendly candidates need apply by the sounds of thing.

I'll repeat: thank God we got out while we could.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MinscS2 wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.

Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?

Because the people are supposed to decide on these things and not some pen pusher in Brussels.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Because the people are supposed to decide on these things and not some pen pusher in Brussels.

But they already do? The EU doesn't force people to vote for a party that is against the EU.
Guess I just find it funny (and slightly sad) how people who are against the EU start to cry "unfair" when the EU doesn't give them money so they can more easily get out of the EU.
What's next, neo-nazis filing a formal complaint to the UN when they are barred entry from Israel?