EU immigration row / time to get out

[UndercoverElephant]

This thread reminded me of what Biff posted about the word 'hypocrisy' - that it's perfectly ok to have high ideals or aims whilst not achieving them, not being allowed to achieve them, indeed them being impossible to achieve.

I took these, David Fleming's, words to heart and have since used thm in conversation, whenever someone has criticised my principles.

Some here post about 'reality' above ideals and some post about ideals above reality. If we could accept that (and quit the insults) the thread would move up a level.

Hypocrisy is of little relevance if the consequences of it only affect the hypocrite. However, if those consequences affect every one else, then is is highly relevant. One of those consequences has been to make any reasoned debate about immigration controls all but impossible to the extent that anyone who objects is labelled as racist. This, in turn, has created a vacuum that the far right have been only too happy to fill.

In short, I am saying that the petty bourgeoisie strangling of rational debate about border controls.and immigration is a direct causal factor in the rise of the far right across Europe.

Absolutely. I am glad at least one person on this board actually understands what I'm posting. Right now I am wondering whether it is only one.

[UndercoverElephant]

Me, I throw it at UE a lot. Mainly because I'm uncomfortable with justifications like 'culturally backwards nations', Africa being 'one or two steps above primitive tribalism scaled up to national level' (not on Zuma's Christmas card list then) and a lot of previous debates the nadir of which was UE suggestion that Africans may be genetically incapable of government. So I feel it's kind of justified. I think it's fair to say that a lot of debate about immigration is based on misinformation and ignorance; degenerating the debate into one about racism is often invited.

ETA: Oh, and I take it J2M is a given.

You've just demonstrated Steve's point perfectly. This is actually a debate about immigration from Eastern Europe - a debate which therefore has bugger all to do with racism, because the immigrants in question belong to the same race as native British people. It should have nothing to do with this thread. What Steve says is absolutely true: not just here but in wider society, the moment anybody says "I think there is an immigration problem", all sorts of liberal-leftie types make an accusation that you are either xenophobic, racist or both. Never mind any actual rational thought about the reasons why the person thinks there is an immigration problem, like there being too many people here already.

Let me make this absolutely clear: I do not want any more PEOPLE to come to the UK. I don't care whether they are black, white, blue, green, eastern European, Japanese or from Mars. My views about what is going on in sub-saharan Africa are based on science, but they have nothing to do with this discussion.

This failure to distinguish between the likes of J2M, who really is a far-right racist and a xenophobe, and Steve and myself, who are on the far left/green of politics, is leading to the very real rise of the far right in European politics. There are real consequences of this failure to deal with reality, and they are the exact opposite of what anybody on the left of politics actually want to achieve. Part of the reason I get so wound up about the posts of BiffVernon and AndySir is that I can feel myself being pushed towards J2M politically, and I do not want to be pushed in that direction.

[UndercoverElephant]

The trouble as I see it is that some of Biff's posts give the impression that all would be hunkydory if we could just, just get rid of national borders/nation-states. I think he's right in a way but has confused cause with effect: we could get rid of borders if everything (else) was hunkydory.

That is a big part of the problem, yes.

[AndySir]

Note that the accusation did not, and was not intended to, shut down the debate. The counters to your initial post were largely based on economics, inequality and our relationship with the EU. Race did not enter the debate until you started jabbering about how Zimbabwe was better off when it was a colony.

At 24 pages and counting I think that SC's and your claims of debate being stifled by the liberal mob are somewhat exaggerated.

[UndercoverElephant]

Note that the accusation did not, and was not intended to, shut down the debate. The counters to your initial post were largely based on economics, inequality and our relationship with the EU. Race did not enter the debate until you started jabbering about how Zimbabwe was better off when it was a colony.

Actually, race still didn't enter the debate until you brought it up.

The people of Zimbabwe were better off when it was a colony. This is an unfortunate fact that you do not want to accept, which is your problem, not mine. My pointing it out this fact does not make me a racist. Racism is about discriminating against people based on race, not pointing out historical facts.

Stop trying to derail this thread.

[kenneal - lagger]

............ The people of Zimbabwe were better off when it was a colony. ......

Being pedantic, the people of one of the major tribes in Zimbabwe were better of under colonial rule while the other major tribe have been much better off since they took over government. That take over has allowed them to screw everyone else into the ground and extract all the loot that they can possibly find.

[UndercoverElephant]

............ The people of Zimbabwe were better off when it was a colony. ......

Being pedantic, the people of one of the major tribes in Zimbabwe were better of under colonial rule while the other major tribe have been much better off since they took over government. That take over has allowed them to screw everyone else into the ground and extract all the loot that they can possibly find.

OK, fair enough.

[UndercoverElephant]

So UE, let's ask the question again, What should I do?

If you want to show some good will - that you're actually willing to try to be a bit more honest and stop being disingenuous - a good place to start would be to answer Ken's question which you dodged like politician. It was a perfectly straightforward question: "At what point, in terms of population density, should we say that enough is enough and no more people should come to the UK? At about the same density as Hong Kong? Or a greater density? What density?" Your response to this was "I don't know how to reply to that question. I think it is the wrong question, because it assumes the UK is going to be a place people want to come to." Even by your low standards, this is a pile of stinking bullshit. There's nothing "wrong" about the question, and you know damned well that many other parts of the world are going down the toilet before the UK does and that many millions more people would very much like to come here. The real reason you dodged answering in the way you did was simply to avoid having to give an honest answer to an honest question, because that honest answer would force you to back down on certain other things you like say.

So let's see if you can do it. I expect you to simply ignore this post and hope people won't notice.

[RenewableCandy]

I think I'd start getting worried if it went up by more than about 25% (so, say, to 80M people). We're beginning to lose self-sufficiency in food and energy: we could get those back, with effort, with under 80M people but more than that and it'd probably be impossible.

But a far greater problem, imho, is the skewed wealth distribution here, particularly when it comes to ownership of land.

[biffvernon]

I'm asking you to stop lying.

I think this is going a little bit too far. I have never, ever, told a lie on PowerSwitch.

I have often said that I would prefer a world with fewer people and would prefer England to have fewer people. But what I prefer doesn't really count for much.

I do think that if the UK's population were to increase then GDP would probably also increase, but I've never said that would be a good thing. I'm all for degrowth. But my opinion doesn't change the economic facts.

I never deliberately mislead people here and try really hard to be honest and straight. I'm sorry when you read meaning into my words which is never meant. Of course I think that an extra X00,000 people in England is bad, and I hope it doesn't happen but that doesn't alter the fact that it would likely increase GDP and the fact that a lot of people seem to not mind living in cities. I don't like cities, but I'm not most people.

If you can find a single statement that I have ever made on PowerSwitch that you think is a lie, tell me about it and I will try to explain why it is not a lie.

[biffvernon]

If you want to show some good will - that you're actually willing to try to be a bit more honest and stop being disingenuous - a good place to start would be to answer Ken's question which you dodged like politician. It was a perfectly straightforward question: "At what point, in terms of population density, should we say that enough is enough and no more people should come to the UK? At about the same density as Hong Kong? Or a greater density? What density?" Your response to this was "I don't know how to reply to that question. I think it is the wrong question, because it assumes the UK is going to be a place people want to come to." Even by your low standards, this is a pile of stinking bullshit. There's nothing "wrong" about the question, and you know damned well that many other parts of the world are going down the toilet before the UK does and that many millions more people would very much like to come here. The real reason you dodged answering in the way you did was simply to avoid having to give an honest answer to an honest question, because that honest answer would force you to back down on certain other things you like say.

So let's see if you can do it. I expect you to simply ignore this post and hope people won't notice.

No, having carefully reconsidered my earlier answer, I'd repeat it now as it was my best answer: "I don't know how to reply to that question. I think it is the wrong question, because it assumes the UK is going to be a place people want to come to."

As I have often said, I would prefer it if Britain has a lower density of population than it has now, so asking how many more would be enough is not the right question. But we have to face the reality of the current population, which does not look like getting to where I prefer any time soon (or ever).

Now, as you know, I'm in favour of open borders and individuals having the choice as to where they live. So long as Britain is seen as the most desirable place to move to it means that our population will rise. Those of us who would like a stable or reducing population will therefore have a keen interest in ensuring that the push and pull factors that currently result in net immigration to the UK be addressed, such that it is more desirable for people to stay home or move to somewhere else. It seems to me that reducing the global imbalance is wealth and security would be a good place to start. Fortunately that would be a good thing in other respects, it being a fundamental aspect of international socialism and global sustainability.

[UndercoverElephant]

If you want to show some good will - that you're actually willing to try to be a bit more honest and stop being disingenuous - a good place to start would be to answer Ken's question which you dodged like politician. It was a perfectly straightforward question: "At what point, in terms of population density, should we say that enough is enough and no more people should come to the UK? At about the same density as Hong Kong? Or a greater density? What density?" Your response to this was "I don't know how to reply to that question. I think it is the wrong question, because it assumes the UK is going to be a place people want to come to." Even by your low standards, this is a pile of stinking bullshit. There's nothing "wrong" about the question, and you know damned well that many other parts of the world are going down the toilet before the UK does and that many millions more people would very much like to come here. The real reason you dodged answering in the way you did was simply to avoid having to give an honest answer to an honest question, because that honest answer would force you to back down on certain other things you like say.

So let's see if you can do it. I expect you to simply ignore this post and hope people won't notice.

No, having carefully reconsidered my earlier answer, I'd repeat it now as it was my best answer: "I don't know how to reply to that question. I think it is the wrong question, because it assumes the UK is going to be a place people want to come to."

Not good enough. That answer is pathetic, and shows you to be a pathetic, dishonest individual. F--k off.

[UndercoverElephant]

I think I'd start getting worried if it went up by more than about 25% (so, say, to 80M people). We're beginning to lose self-sufficiency in food and energy: we could get those back, with effort, with under 80M people but more than that and it'd probably be impossible.

But a far greater problem, imho, is the skewed wealth distribution here, particularly when it comes to ownership of land.

Oh we have plenty of other problems, including some very serious ones, such as the one you've highlighted. I would, in fact, have accepted any population density as a reasonable answer from Mr Vernon. At least that would have given us something to debate. Instead, he slithered and slimed and proudly dodged the question again.

Personally I'd say we're already in trouble, but I can accept a difference of opinion on matters like these. What I refuse to accept are people who claim that there is something wrong with the question.

[SleeperService]

I think I'd start getting worried if it went up by more than about 25% (so, say, to 80M people). We're beginning to lose self-sufficiency in food and energy: we could get those back, with effort, with under 80M people but more than that and it'd probably be impossible.

But a far greater problem, imho, is the skewed wealth distribution here, particularly when it comes to ownership of land.

Oh we have plenty of other problems, including some very serious ones, such as the one you've highlighted. I would, in fact, have accepted any population density as a reasonable answer from Mr Vernon. At least that would have given us something to debate. Instead, he slithered and slimed and proudly dodged the question again.

Personally I'd say we're already in trouble, but I can accept a difference of opinion on matters like these. What I refuse to accept are people who claim that there is something wrong with the question.

It is a valid question in my opinion at least, it is also very subjective. The big variable is 'What standard of living would be accepted?' The higher that level the lower the population that could be supported.

So RC's 80M could be accommodated but likely with a reduced life expectancy brought about by crowding, disease, restricted diet, stress and violence. If you aim for a standard similar to now then I think 45M would be more realistic assuming cities could be supplied from their hinterland. If the aim was quality of life and a high degree of national independence then 25M would be about right. That level could be supported without too much infrastructure (ie. non-productive costs) but still have a viable future. At that level the current rail system would be adequate and the cost of impulse items would be higher making them a considered purchase. There would be enough demand for fundamental items to make production viable locally as transport would be that much more expensive due to reduced volumes.

As you agree though the big problem is the skewed distribution wealth and, unless that is addressed, there is no answer to your question. Migrant workers are being exploited and everybody except those who are responsible for the means of production suffer.

Until wages, conditions of employment, safety and welfare are harmonised across the EU this problem will remain. In the end either the EU will fail because of the disparate economies within it or we will all suffer under it. The only alternative is complete harmonisation.

[biffvernon]

Not good enough. That answer is pathetic, and shows you to be a pathetic, dishonest individual. **** off.

Well, I've tried. You accused me of lying but have not produced a single example of a lie that I have written. I've tried to answer your questions as honestly, as straightforwardly and clearly as I can and still get this a response of ****off.

What to do?