EU immigration row / time to get out

[RenewableCandy]

wouldnt you expect a growth in trade after a long running civil war and zimbabwe has the potential to be a rich country, but it had that potential for thousands of years when there were only black people there, it also had the potential for people who could understand and use the wheel.

It would be interesting to think what economic growth Rhodesia could have had without the constant terrorist murder campaign, or if the whites in that country had taken the offer of a ethno-state .

it would be interesting to see how well a boer ethno state might work in south africa

The name "Zimbabwe", iirc, comes from a massive fortified city they built there in about AD900. I don't know how that particular civilisation eventually came to an end, but it shows the place/people hasn't always been a basket case.

[jonny2mad]

Who knows who built great Zimbabwe the last theory I heard was Indonesian sailors, and it’s quite possible that you had earlier colonies in Africa that came to the same end that ours did.

[jonny2mad]

a couple of days ago you had horror over Ian Watkins raping a couple of babies http://www.censorbugbear.org/genocide/t ... ist-report

Report there of a million babies and children a year being raped as a cure for Hiv in south Africa.

You have the present ANC president of South Africa who’s in favour of traditional African medicine i.e. witch doctors thats one of their teachings.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... s-way.html also in favour of ditching white man’s legal system .

Now if Africans want to do this sort of thing I don’t know what outsiders can do about it I unlike most people am not a paternalist. I am concerned if being ruled by these people affects the Boers, even if they were very stupid to trust people like nelson Mandela who sings about killing the whites or shooting the Boers at the same time as doing his martin Luther king act.
The Rwanda genocide was thought to be planned to take place at the same time as the ANC were elected both happened in April 1994, and it’s very likely at some point the govt of south Africa will try to kill off the remaining couple of millions whites in the country .
I’m concerned if that happens

[AndySir]

What you, Andysir, don't like, is the FACT, uncomfortable as it is, that in a large proportion of the countries in question, those white colonial racists turned out to be correct: a catastrophe did indeed follow.

...

So there you have it. It is a FACT that those racists have been proven correct. It is NOT racist in itself to point out this FACT.

I believe that over the last fifty years sub-saharan Africa has had the largest increase in life expectancy, literacy and drop in infant mortality rates than anywhere and anywhen in the world. So that FACT is in dispute. I suspect that that fact is based on cherry picked data - you see only the worst aspects of post-colonial Africa and pronounce the racists 'right'. Rather reminiscent of J2M's data points above, actually.

You're posting as if I have asked this question and provided the answer "those governments failed because they were black, and blacks are indeed unfit to rule." But that, AndySir, is all an extrapolation that is going on in your own head. It is not actually in any of my posts. We have not had that debate, and I have no intention of having it now, especially not with somebody whose debating skills are as poor as yours are.

Let me remind you that we have had this debate before, in which you did ask that question and did provide an answer.

It is also not safe to leap to the conclusion that the problems which are endemic not only in sub-saharan Africa but wherever there is a significant population of "black" people have nothing to do with genetic dispositions. Maybe genetics does matter, even though this will make many of us feel uncomfortable. All things considered, I think the problems we are talking about are at least partly caused by a genetic disposition to be less able to adapt to the modern world.

Or am I putting words in your mouth again?

[jonny2mad]

Andy are Assyrians sub saharan africans ?

I thought you corrected me when I pointed out sub saharan africans didnt develop the wheel

Sub-saharan post colonial africa gets millions in aid, it also has lots of western aid workers teachers and charitys and lots of western developed medicine and technology

[AndySir]

Dragging things back into context, my point was that if the protection of inequality within the UK by the super rich (by building walls around their wealth, hiding it in Jersey etc.) is immoral then protection of inequality between nations by means of border controls & tariffs must also be immoral. The point is rarely addressed, but instead the consequences of unrestrained movement of people, both plausible and paranoid, are described. This does not alter the contention that support for immigration controls is an immoral choice, it simply provides a reason why we are unwilling to make the moral one - because the cost is too great.

In order to avoid thinking of oneself as making an immoral choice, a narrative has to be constructed in which you are powerless to make the moral one: that the impoverished are 'culturally backwards' or somehow to blame for their condition, which seems a logical extention of the 'undeserving poor' argument. So racism enters the debate not as a motivation for border control, but a justification of an otherwise untenable position.

[biffvernon]

[extractorfan]

If the UK had some kind of cultural tendency towards zero growth, then I could accept the intolerance of immigration. Until we stop the growth in consumption of resources, growth of debt, growth of population and all that malarkey we can't be complaining about Romanians or whoever coming here and increasing consumption of resources.

UK companies are encouraged to set up shop in far eastern Europe in order to lower their cost base. This competitive edge means they make more profit, presumable taxed in the UK in the form of corporation tax and taxes on dividend income. If this is encouraged then we have no right to say the same labour can't come here and earn some of the money back.

We shouldn't be hypocritical, if it's ok for us to do then it's ok for them.

[UndercoverElephant]

Dragging things back into context, my point was that if the protection of inequality within the UK by the super rich (by building walls around their wealth, hiding it in Jersey etc.) is immoral then protection of inequality between nations by means of border controls & tariffs must also be immoral.

That is what is known as a non-sequitur, and is another example of poor debating abilities. You have claimed that X follows from Y, but provided no justification of why it should do so. The super-rich protecting their wealth in tax havens is one issue. Border controls and trade arrangements are two other issues. None of them automatically follows from the other, just because both happen to be connected to inequality of wealth. You might just have well said "If some cheese is blue then it must mean that some fruit is also blue."

The point is rarely addressed, but instead the consequences of unrestrained movement of people, both plausible and paranoid, are described. This does not alter the contention that support for immigration controls is an immoral choice, it simply provides a reason why we are unwilling to make the moral one - because the cost is too great.

You have not provided any justification for claiming border controls are immoral. If we allowed anybody who wanted to come to the UK then the standard of living in the UK would very rapidly deteriorate to something out of the "third world". How would that achieve anything? How would anybody gain anything from that? Why would it be a good thing?

In order to avoid thinking of oneself as making an immoral choice, a narrative has to be constructed in which you are powerless to make the moral one: that the impoverished are 'culturally backwards' or somehow to blame for their condition, which seems a logical extention of the 'undeserving poor' argument. So racism enters the debate not as a motivation for border control, but a justification of an otherwise untenable position.

What a pile of crap you post.

[UndercoverElephant]

And what is that supposed to demonstrate, apart from the fact that very few British people choose to live in eastern Europe? The movement of people between the UK and places like France and Germany is not important, because it is bipartisan/equal. There is very little net economic migration.

[Little John]

If the UK had some kind of cultural tendency towards zero growth, then I could accept the intolerance of immigration. Until we stop the growth in consumption of resources, growth of debt, growth of population and all that malarkey we can't be complaining about Romanians or whoever coming here and increasing consumption of resources.

UK companies are encouraged to set up shop in far eastern Europe in order to lower their cost base. This competitive edge means they make more profit, presumable taxed in the UK in the form of corporation tax and taxes on dividend income. If this is encouraged then we have no right to say the same labour can't come here and earn some of the money back.

We shouldn't be hypocritical, if it's ok for us to do then it's ok for them.

What's all this with the "we" and the "us"? I didn't ask for an economic model of perpetual growth based on an endless consumption of limited-lifespan, pointless products paid for by coercive colonial appropriations of resources and a system of FIAT lent-into-existence-debt. All of which further requires an ever-expanding army of consumers. Nobody I know asked for it either. We're merely dancing to an insane tune that was composed for us on a stage not of our making. So, if you want to feel guilt for the sins of your masters, go ahead. But don't include me in that guilt trip.

[SleeperService]

.....UK companies are encouraged to set up shop in far eastern Europe in order to lower their cost base. This competitive edge means they make more profit, presumable taxed in the UK in the form of corporation tax and taxes on dividend income. If this is encouraged then we have no right to say the same labour can't come here and earn some of the money back....

Sentence 1 They are encouraged by the same breed of politician we have, by their own greed for bonuses and by the big share holders greed. The result is that greater long-term gains are often dropped in favour of smaller short-term gains. In other words investment, and provision for it, is reduced and the competition (who do invest) gains advantage.

Sentence 2 Most British companies aggressively avoid tax and the corporate share holders likewise. The last figure I found was ~30% of the FTSE100 paying NO tax at all. Some take more from HM Govt in subsidies, incentives and the like than they pay (DODGY TAX AVOIDERS apparently had a net receipt of £100K last figures show). The 'brains' are employed to avoid tax rather than increase profits which would be of more benefit.

Sentence 3 then becomes irrelevant as, I believe, the first 2 are disproved or at least disconnected.

To repeat myself a little we need to address the problem not the symptoms. These East Europeans will be attracted because they believe they will be better off, corporate thinking turns to opportunity offered by this (lower wages, hire and fire through agencies, more easily dominated and so on) to make it 'easier' to 'run' the company. The answer is above in Steve's post, across the EU either race everybody to the bottom or bring everybody up to the same level. The Eurozone problems are then trotted out as the reason why Option A is the only real choice so we're back to the short-term issue again.

[extractorfan]

What's all this with the "we" and the "us"?

"We" are the residents of the UK who don't want Jonny foreigner coming over here and overpopulating the place.

I didn't ask for an economic model of perpetual growth based on an endless consumption of limited-lifespan, pointless products paid for by coercive colonial appropriations and a system of FIAT lent-into-existence-debt and all of which further requires an ever-expanding army of consumers. Nobody I know asked for it either.

I didn't ask for it either. We are free to participate in a political system, we are free to educate ourselves and make life choices that have been impossible for the span of human history. We are lucky.

We're merely dancing to an insane tune that was composed for us on a stage not of our making. So, if you want to feel guilt for the sins of your masters, go ahead. But don't include me in that guilt trip.

I don't feel guilty. If you / we / us set up a political system that doesn't exploit resources in far off lands, isn't based on the impossibility of infinite growth and doesn't export people and wars all over the globe, then that system has a moral justification for preventing the degradation of it's environment and culture by doing things like controlling immigration. I imagine a system designed by you Steve would be something like that.

This is the problem with debating isolated subjects like "foreigners coming over here taking our jobs and working harder for less money".

Someone plays the racism card, someone plays the white mans guilt card and it's all a load of old b******s. There's nothing wrong or wimpish about not wanting to be a hypocrite.

[extractorfan]

Sentence 1 They are encouraged by the same breed of politician we have, by their own greed for bonuses and by the big share holders greed. The result is that greater long-term gains are often dropped in favour of smaller short-term gains. In other words investment, and provision for it, is reduced and the competition (who do invest) gains advantage.

Like it or not, "they" the politicians and "they" the greedy capitalists, are us. they are not a different breed of human.

[Little John]

What's all this with the "we" and the "us"?

"We" are the residents of the UK who don't want Jonny foreigner coming over here and overpopulatingthe place

.

Stop trying to dishonestly characterise and caricature my position in the racist language you have employed above.

I didn't ask for an economic model of perpetual growth based on an endless consumption of limited-lifespan, pointless products paid for by coercive colonial appropriations and a system of FIAT lent-into-existence-debt and all of which further requires an ever-expanding army of consumers. Nobody I know asked for it either.

I didn't ask for it either. We are free to participate in a political system, we are free to educate ourselves and make life choices that have been impossible for the span of human history. We are lucky.

No we are not free. We just have fuller bellies and a few more toys. Furthermore, the majority of people in this country are not in an equal position, for a variety of reasons, to be able to make the choice to educate themselves to the necessary level to be able to choose to relocate themselves as an economic response and so they are stuck with the consequences of immigration policies implemented by those who are far more likely to have such choices at their disposal. All of which is in addition to the question of why people who already live and work in this country should be forced into a position of having to make such re-location choices simply because someone else has implemented a policy of immigration of cheaper labour in a context of insufficient jobs and straining public services, all without their consent. Which leads, finally, to the issue of democracy. If you really think your votes make a difference, then you are far more naive than I ever gave you credit for. Your vote isn't worth shit and neither is mine.

We're merely dancing to an insane tune that was composed for us on a stage not of our making. So, if you want to feel guilt for the sins of your masters, go ahead. But don't include me in that guilt trip.

I don't feel guilty. If you / we / us set up a political system that doesn't exploit resources in far off lands, isn't based on the impossibility of infinite growth and doesn't export people and wars all over the globe, then that system has a moral justification for preventing the degradation of it's environment and culture by doing things like controlling immigration. I imagine a system designed by you Steve would be something like that.

This is the problem with debating isolated subjects like "foreigners coming over here taking our jobs and working harder for less money".

Someone plays the racism card, someone plays the white mans guilt card and it's all a load of old b******s. There's nothing wrong or wimpish about not wanting to be a hypocrite.

I repeat, I didn't set up this political system and neither did you. And again, stop trying to misrepresent my position with weasel insinuations of racism by the use of the word "foreigners" in the culturally loaded way you have done on at least a couple of occasions now.