EU immigration row / time to get out

[clv101]

Hey, but in any event, it's okay if urban resources are stretched to breaking point...

It's clear that recent immigration has benefited the nation, macro-economically. If urban resources are stretched to braking point it is the fault of our politicians/administrators for not investing the immigrant generated wealth correctly.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hey, but in any event, it's okay if urban resources are stretched to breaking point...

It's clear that recent immigration has benefited the nation, macro-economically.

Is it??

If urban resources are stretched to braking point it is the fault of our politicians/administrators for not investing the immigrant generated wealth correctly.

Those immigrants are sending much of that wealth back home.

There is no benefit whatsoever to the recent immigration from poor parts of the EU. If you disagree with that statement, please explain why. Slimy bullshit spewing from the mouth of David Cameron doesn't count as evidence.

[Tarrel]

Perhaps we could encourage people to move out of the South East by investing in, say Grampian and the Scottish Highlands. Plenty of water there, but not much in the way of work.

Here's a map of unemployment:

I see that Grampian and Highland do not have especially high unemployment. Of course there's not much work, but that's because there are few people. There were, the previous time I visited the place in the 1970s, few people and not much work at Canary Wharfe. Now the workers are stacked up high to the sky following a great deal of investment. Things can change.

Unemployment in the Highlands and Islands is at 3.5%. The trouble with a lot of these stats is that they use local authority boundaries as the unit of geography. The Highlands and Islands is one unitary Scottish region covering a vast range of economic "habitats", from urban, relatively prosperous Inverness, to remote crofting settlements. It's a bit like colouring the whole of the UK one colour and saying unemployment is 7.7% (or whatever), ignoring the differences between London and, say, Handsworth.

[UndercoverElephant]

Your self-satisfied smugness knows no bound does it Biff.

I've really no idea what you mean by that.

[snip]

Please try to keep polite, Steve. Discussion is so much pleasanter without the personal abuse and do remember that what I write is as honest and truthful as I can make it - any perceptions of smugness and disingenuity are not intended and are more likely in the mind of the reader.

Biff, you're either being disingenuous or you are being unbelievably stupid. And the "smugness" accusation is entirely justified because of your previous comment about how my attitude to the enforcement of existing immigration rules was so abhorrent.

Shall I explain it yet again, so it can go in one of your ears and out the other yet again?

No, there's no point, is there? I've offered to give you a long explanation of what is wrong with your position before, and you basically said you couldn't be bothered to read it. Steve has explained very clearly to you what the problem is, again, and you've ignored it again.

In short: you are leaving people like myself and Steve to face reality and try to find real answers to the really difficult questions, while you go around trying to claim the moral high ground. These involve tough choices, like making sure illegal immigrants are removed, even if they go on hunger strike in an attempt to avoid this.

Our objection to what you post is your posturing as being morally superior to us when the truth is that you are just point blank refusing to face up to difficult realities. Given the context of this forum and all the discussion we have here, you have no right to expect anything but utter derision from us in return.

If you want to stop these angry responses from people like Steve and myself, then stop asking for it.

[jonny2mad]

Hey, but in any event, it's okay if urban resources are stretched to breaking point...

It's clear that recent immigration has benefited the nation, macro-economically. If urban resources are stretched to braking point it is the fault of our politicians/administrators for not investing the immigrant generated wealth correctly.

At the end of world war two this country was that awful thing a pretty homogeneous country, now we are the balkans, actually maybe worse than the balkans. I know what that country we once had could do, withstand blockcade and privations rationing and bombardment .
but this divided balkans we have I think is going to tear itself apart .

"More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_ ... ulturalism

[AndySir]

In short: you are leaving people like myself and Steve to face reality and try to find real answers to the really difficult questions, while you go around trying to claim the moral high ground. These involve tough choices, like making sure illegal immigrants are removed, even if they go on hunger strike in an attempt to avoid this.

Are you facing reality, though, or are you simply trying to protect your own privilege when the reality is that it is unsustainable?

[biffvernon]

The reality that I see is a world deeply divided between rich and poor, between those whose consumption of resources and pollution is unsustainable and those who, perforce of their modest means live comparatively sustainable lives.

The reality that I see is a world divided into nation states, whose competition for land and resources leads to wars.

Wherever I can I seek to argue against these divisions, even if we, the rich and privileged, may have to give something away, and I am always disappointed when my argument upsets a couple of people on this forum. It's rather sad.

[jonny2mad]

andy as I said earlier to stop the drive for immigration, you would need to lower uk living standards to not the average but the lowest so say Afghanistan .
you would also need to make the uk less free and more oppressive.

Having a country thats free and richer than other countrys is sustainable, we have managed to have one for hundreds of years, but at that time the country wasnt so full of traitors as it is today

[Little John]

The reality that I see is a world deeply divided between rich and poor, between those whose consumption of resources and pollution is unsustainable and those who, perforce of their modest means live comparatively sustainable lives.

The reality that I see is a world divided into nation states, whose competition for land and resources leads to wars.

Wherever I can I seek to argue against these divisions, even if we, the rich and privileged, may have to give something away, and I am always disappointed when my argument upsets a couple of people on this forum. It's rather sad.

Yes, but the divisions you feel most comfortable with are those that are sufficiently distant from you so you can sufficiently abstract your hand wringing for them from your own life Biff. That way you can present an affectation of the moral high ground without having to deal with any of the awkward and messy moral dilemmas inherent in dealing with such inequity when it's closer to home and the moral implications that has for you. This kind of rank hypocrisy really is the most sickening of all and certainly makes me angry. I reserve my sadness, however, for the people whose voices are not heard and whose lives that hypocrisy fucks up.

[jonny2mad]

The reality that I see is a world deeply divided between rich and poor, between those whose consumption of resources and pollution is unsustainable and those who, perforce of their modest means live comparatively sustainable lives.

The reality that I see is a world divided into nation states, whose competition for land and resources leads to wars.

Wherever I can I seek to argue against these divisions, even if we, the rich and privileged, may have to give something away, and I am always disappointed when my argument upsets a couple of people on this forum. It's rather sad.

Humans are naturally territorial as are most animal and bird species even many fish are territorial..... its part of us, we are tribal .

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8 ... 132862bcf6 thats a gang map for chicago, walk down the wrong street your going to get shot, people don't need nation states to divide and be in conflict its natural.

Get yourself a puppy and see if the puppy barks at strangers that come to the door, no ones taught that puppy to bark, but they see you as a pack and the stranger as a outsider.
Now you whomp that puppy with a rolled up newspaper and guilt trip that puppy, but sooner or later nature will out. Whether nature and territoriality makes you sad or not doesn't matter to nature it dont care about your tears

[biffvernon]

Yes,

I'm glad you agree with me.

I've read the rest of your post four times through and still don't understand it. UE must be right and I am unbelievably stupid.

[Tarrel]

andy as I said earlier to stop the drive for immigration, you would need to lower uk living standards to not the average but the lowest so say Afghanistan .
you would also need to make the uk less free and more oppressive.

Having a country thats free and richer than other countrys is sustainable, we have managed to have one for hundreds of years, but at that time the country wasnt so full of traitors as it is today

Even that might not be enough. In the near future, the places to be will be those that are:
a) Above sea level
b) Of a tolerable temperature
c) Have enough of an eco-system left to provide some level of sustenance.

[biffvernon]

J2m, I think we are not puppies, birds or fish. What marks us out is the intelligence to move beyond the behaviour characteristic of species with less brain power. Therein lies hope.

[biffvernon]

In the near future, the places to be will be those that are:
a) Above sea level
b) Of a tolerable temperature
c) Have enough of an eco-system left to provide some level of sustenance.

That'll be Ross Shire then

[Tarrel]

In the near future, the places to be will be those that are:
a) Above sea level
b) Of a tolerable temperature
c) Have enough of an eco-system left to provide some level of sustenance.

That'll be Ross Shire then

Hope so, but who knows..

Jorgen Randers seems to think so. (See "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years" - the chapter on The New North).

If so, I'm sure we'll all be lined up ready to repel the Afghans by lifting our kilts. (Worked in "Carry On Up The Khyber"). (Thought I'd add a bit of gravitas to this debate )