Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 12:32:48 GMT
Funnily enough I agree with him, we are full dont need anymore people here we dont have housing or infrastructure to cope with them, so its time to say goodbye to the EU before we sink. Cameron was on R2 today saying how wonderful it all is, but never really answered the questions or anything but scare scare scare!!! he is a buffoon and with luck will be gone soon when we vote out I agree with this Peter
|
|
|
Post by Saltysplash on Jun 6, 2016 12:40:33 GMT
Polls seem to be bouncing around all over the place, Saw on this morning from childcare.co.uk. 25,000 votes with 83% voting to leave
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 13:08:00 GMT
Well Ricco you used to spout some shit on CWDF but you have excelled yourself here. You haven't really 'done your bit' you have simply duped somebody into thinking leaving the EU will solve all the ills of this country. But to be fair to you this is no better an effort than the professional Brexiters are feeding to the British Public via. the press nor for that matter no better than the 'Remainers' are. However sadly this is the level of decision making that a lot ( the majority) of people will apply to their vote, coupled of course with the stoking of exaggerated consequences of 'unfettered' EU Immigration. I even know of people who seriously still believe that if we come out of the EU it will stop people coming illegally from none EU countries, really? I can just see it now. (not). The more I read and hear the more I align myself with those that think it was a seriously bad idea to hand this over the 'Great British' public to decide on. Surely Martin and Delta9,I address both of you as you appear to share the same opinion,its a bad day for democracy when the British People in your opinion are too stupid to be trusted to make a decision.Is it not perhaps more fair to say that the Politicians of either persuasion have failed to make a convincing argument on which the Public can base a valid opinion upon Probably a mixture of both. The politicians have taken their so called 'arguments' for staying in or leaving to the lowest common denominator, either because they think that is all people can grasp or because they themselves can't think of a more intelligent tack. What they do forget though that our so called political leaders bear some (??most) responsibility for any lack of infrastructure issues because of a lack of forward planning, making EU immigrants take the blame is just a smokescreen for a lack of a proper strategy to deal with a foreseeable impact of lots of people wanting to come to work here. Demonising them is just a despicable tactic that anyone can (or should) see through
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 13:16:23 GMT
Surely Martin and Delta9,I address both of you as you appear to share the same opinion,its a bad day for democracy when the British People in your opinion are too stupid to be trusted to make a decision.Is it not perhaps more fair to say that the Politicians of either persuasion have failed to make a convincing argument on which the Public can base a valid opinion upon Probably a mixture of both. The politicians have taken their so called 'arguments' for staying in or leaving to the lowest common denominator, either because they think that is all people can grasp or because they themselves can't think of a more intelligent tack. What they do forget though that our so called political leaders bear some (??most) responsibility for any lack of infrastructure issues because of a lack of forward planning, making EU immigrants take the blame is just a smokescreen for a lack of a proper strategy to deal with a foreseeable impact of lots of people wanting to come to work here. Demonising them is just a despicable tactic that anyone can (or should) see through I don't know about demonising but what controls if any are we to put on immigration. Its clear the present infrastructure can't cope and you have placed the blame for that where it belongs, but what if the Infrastructure could cope,would you be in favour of a city the size of Newcastle being created each year? effectively free movement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 13:31:03 GMT
Probably a mixture of both. The politicians have taken their so called 'arguments' for staying in or leaving to the lowest common denominator, either because they think that is all people can grasp or because they themselves can't think of a more intelligent tack. What they do forget though that our so called political leaders bear some (??most) responsibility for any lack of infrastructure issues because of a lack of forward planning, making EU immigrants take the blame is just a smokescreen for a lack of a proper strategy to deal with a foreseeable impact of lots of people wanting to come to work here. Demonising them is just a despicable tactic that anyone can (or should) see through I don't know about demonising but what controls if any are we to put on immigration. Its clear the present infrastructure can't cope and you have placed the blame for that where it belongs, but what if the Infrastructure could cope,would you be in favour of a city the size of Newcastle being created each year? effectively free movement. I would just say that if you believe we can restrict EU immigration AND continue trading with them on exactly the same basis (As some brexiters claim) then we are deluding ourselves. If we leave the EU we will have to have a very different trading relationship with it and one which risks stifling small to medium businesses that trade with the EU solely or primarily. The consequences of that is higher unemployment. The alternative will be to accept trading in the same or similar way will come with conditions, and guess what, I reckon one of those conditions will be to retain free movement within the EU. Free movement cuts both ways and I want my kids (and grandkids) to have the same opportunities I could have taken and be able to work anywhere they wish in the EU. I am after a period of hesitancy back to voting to remain, not because I don't think the EU is flawed, it clearly is but it is to me a decision made 'on balance' and as things stand we are in my opinion 'on balance' better in than out. ed - and on that last note that reminds me I should change my avatar.
|
|
|
Post by smileypete on Jun 6, 2016 13:31:24 GMT
If the vote for Brexit, some of the blame must go to Blair and Brown's open door policy.
This isn't the fault of the EU, but has made people concerned about the expansion of the EU, and what happens when the migrants/refugees in other EU states get their passports.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 13:34:19 GMT
Surely Martin and Delta9,I address both of you as you appear to share the same opinion,its a bad day for democracy when the British People in your opinion are too stupid to be trusted to make a decision.Is it not perhaps more fair to say that the Politicians of either persuasion have failed to make a convincing argument on which the Public can base a valid opinion upon Probably a mixture of both. The politicians have taken their so called 'arguments' for staying in or leaving to the lowest common denominator, either because they think that is all people can grasp or because they themselves can't think of a more intelligent tack. What they do forget though that our so called political leaders bear some (??most) responsibility for any lack of infrastructure issues because of a lack of forward planning, making EU immigrants take the blame is just a smokescreen for a lack of a proper strategy to deal with a foreseeable impact of lots of people wanting to come to work here. Demonising them is just a despicable tactic that anyone can (or should) see through I must admit to being anti EU for many years and I have tried to explain why I will vote for Brexit.I have therefore concerned myself particularly with the BREXIT argument and it saddens me when I continually here unrealistic demands from various quarters as regards what will be the results of an exit,there is no way that every scenario can either be known or indeed planned for, it is largely a belief that things could and would be better allied with an acceptance that the present situation is a dead loss
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 13:53:13 GMT
I don't know about demonising but what controls if any are we to put on immigration. Its clear the present infrastructure can't cope and you have placed the blame for that where it belongs, but what if the Infrastructure could cope,would you be in favour of a city the size of Newcastle being created each year? effectively free movement. I would just say that if you believe we can restrict EU immigration AND continue trading with them on exactly the same basis (As some brexiters claim) then we are deluding ourselves. If we leave the EU we will have to have a very different trading relationship with it and one which risks stifling small to medium businesses that trade with the EU solely or primarily. The consequences of that is higher unemployment. The alternative will be to accept trading in the same or similar way will come with conditions, and guess what, I reckon one of those conditions will be to retain free movement within the EU. Free movement cuts both ways and I want my kids (and grandkids) to have the same opportunities I could have taken and be able to work anywhere they wish in the EU. I am after a period of hesitancy back to voting to remain, not because I don't think the EU is flawed, it clearly is but it is to me a decision made 'on balance' and as things stand we are in my opinion 'on balance' better in than out. You have chosen to ignore the points I have raised in order to arrive at your final conclusion. The fact is your argument is all supposition and might be which again is the common factor in both scenarios nationally
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 13:54:31 GMT
I don't know about demonising but what controls if any are we to put on immigration. Its clear the present infrastructure can't cope and you have placed the blame for that where it belongs, but what if the Infrastructure could cope,would you be in favour of a city the size of Newcastle being created each year? effectively free movement. I would just say that if you believe we can restrict EU immigration AND continue trading with them on exactly the same basis (As some brexiters claim) then we are deluding ourselves. If we leave the EU we will have to have a very different trading relationship with it and one which risks stifling small to medium businesses that trade with the EU solely or primarily. The consequences of that is higher unemployment. The alternative will be to accept trading in the same or similar way will come with conditions, and guess what, I reckon one of those conditions will be to retain free movement within the EU. Free movement cuts both ways and I want my kids (and grandkids) to have the same opportunities I could have taken and be able to work anywhere they wish in the EU. I am after a period of hesitancy back to voting to remain, not because I don't think the EU is flawed, it clearly is but it is to me a decision made 'on balance' and as things stand we are in my opinion 'on balance' better in than out. ed - and on that last note that reminds me I should change my avatar. Flag Waving Bastard
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 14:07:23 GMT
I would just say that if you believe we can restrict EU immigration AND continue trading with them on exactly the same basis (As some brexiters claim) then we are deluding ourselves. If we leave the EU we will have to have a very different trading relationship with it and one which risks stifling small to medium businesses that trade with the EU solely or primarily. The consequences of that is higher unemployment. The alternative will be to accept trading in the same or similar way will come with conditions, and guess what, I reckon one of those conditions will be to retain free movement within the EU. Free movement cuts both ways and I want my kids (and grandkids) to have the same opportunities I could have taken and be able to work anywhere they wish in the EU. I am after a period of hesitancy back to voting to remain, not because I don't think the EU is flawed, it clearly is but it is to me a decision made 'on balance' and as things stand we are in my opinion 'on balance' better in than out. You have chosen to ignore the points I have raised in order to arrive at your final conclusion. The fact is your argument is all supposition and might be which again is the common factor in both scenarios nationally I haven't claimed its based on fact - much of what I believe is based on listening to people other than politicians though. The reality is nobody but nobody truly knows what the consequences of in or out are, people just have to understand that and go with what they believe as I will be and I guess you will too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 14:51:22 GMT
You have chosen to ignore the points I have raised in order to arrive at your final conclusion. The fact is your argument is all supposition and might be which again is the common factor in both scenarios nationally I haven't claimed its based on fact - much of what I believe is based on listening to people other than politicians though. The reality is nobody but nobody truly knows what the consequences of in or out are, people just have to understand that and go with what they believe as I will be and I guess you will too. Absolutely no argument with you Martin,you live in hope of hearing some irrefutable nugget which will put it beyond all doubt,but I don't think that ever really had any prospect of occurring so instead its down to personal instinct.
|
|
|
Post by PaulG2 on Jun 6, 2016 15:46:30 GMT
I suggested to her that once upon a time in her nice suburb there were lots of little woods that her children could play in. 30 years on they have all gone, swallowed up by housing to meet the needs of a growing population. I suggested to her that in years gone by the rush hour used to start at 7.30 and end just after 9.00. Followed by another in the late afternoon. Nowadays there's no obvious rush hour, just solid traffic from 6.30 a.m. until 7.00 p.m. Does she really want her great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren to suffer gridlock from 5.00 a.m. until 10.00 p.m.? I asked her if she really wanted to support a racist club. A club that offers freedom of movement to the privileged mostly caucasian members whilst excluding those from different regions, of a different skin colour. Not just that. By excluding those of a different colour in favour of those privileged causasian Europeans the country will suffer in its futile efforts to restrict immigration. Suffer in that those blacks, Chinese etc. etc. with valuable skills will be excluded, unable to make their positive contribution. Better to have a European shop worker rather than a black engineer eh I've done my bit. Anyone else up for doing their bit? Ricco has received some criticism for these remarks, but the reality is that his arguments are supported by fact. Open borders will always result in migration to wealthier countries, particularly to those countries with good social welfare programs. The social ills that Ricco mentioned, housing sprawl and traffic congestion, are the direct result of uncontrollable population growth. If immigration is one of the primary factors driving population increase in the UK, then reducing immigration will help to reduce population growth, which will help to mitigate the undesirable aspects of uncontrollable population growth. One cannot argue that open borders will not result in uncontrollable population growth - it's already happening. While being put back in control of your national borders will not be a panacea, or overnight cure, it is the first step you need to take to get a handle on your uncontrollable population growth. As far as his last paragraph goes, just imagine how many Syrian refugees the UK would be able to accept right now if it weren't for the fact that you have so many other foreigners there now competing for housing and jobs. Imagine what your wages would be like if there weren't an oversupply of labor from less developed countries. Remember in first year biology how you learned about living organisms in a petri dish? Remember the lesson learned from the petri dish experiments? Here's a news flash, your island is a petri dish. If you want to enjoy any kind of traditional quality of life, you need to control your own borders! Staying in the EU means multi-national corporations and their paid-for whores in politics will control your borders, and your quality of life. Brexit means you will control your own borders, and your quality of life. If that kind of thing is important to you, which way to vote seems obvious. JMHO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 15:54:23 GMT
I suggested to her that once upon a time in her nice suburb there were lots of little woods that her children could play in. 30 years on they have all gone, swallowed up by housing to meet the needs of a growing population. I suggested to her that in years gone by the rush hour used to start at 7.30 and end just after 9.00. Followed by another in the late afternoon. Nowadays there's no obvious rush hour, just solid traffic from 6.30 a.m. until 7.00 p.m. Does she really want her great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren to suffer gridlock from 5.00 a.m. until 10.00 p.m.? I asked her if she really wanted to support a racist club. A club that offers freedom of movement to the privileged mostly caucasian members whilst excluding those from different regions, of a different skin colour. Not just that. By excluding those of a different colour in favour of those privileged causasian Europeans the country will suffer in its futile efforts to restrict immigration. Suffer in that those blacks, Chinese etc. etc. with valuable skills will be excluded, unable to make their positive contribution. Better to have a European shop worker rather than a black engineer eh I've done my bit. Anyone else up for doing their bit? Ricco has received some criticism for these remarks, but the reality is that his arguments are supported by fact. Open borders will always result in migration to wealthier countries, particularly to those countries with good social welfare programs. The social ills that Ricco mentioned, housing sprawl and traffic congestion, are the direct result of uncontrollable population growth. If immigration is one of the primary factors driving population increase in the UK, then reducing immigration will help to reduce population growth, which will help to mitigate the undesirable aspects of uncontrollable population growth. One cannot argue that open borders will not result in uncontrollable population growth - it's already happening. While being put back in control of your national borders will not be a panacea, or overnight cure, it is the first step you need to take to get a handle on your uncontrollable population growth. As far as his last paragraph goes, just imagine how many Syrian refugees the UK would be able to accept right now if it weren't for the fact that you have so many other foreigners there now competing for housing and jobs. Imagine what your wages would be like if there weren't an oversupply of labor from less developed countries. Remember in first year biology how you learned about living organisms in a petri dish? Remember the lesson learned from the petri dish experiments? Here's a news flash, your island is a petri dish. If you want to enjoy any kind of traditional quality of life, you need to control your own borders! Staying in the EU means multi-national corporations and their paid-for whores in politics will control your borders, and your quality of life. Brexit means you will control your own borders, and your quality of life. If that kind of thing is important to you, which way to vote seems obvious. JMHO I think whats being intimated is that BREXIT may not lead to control of our own borders as any Trade Agreement with Europe may hinge on Free Movement of People
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2016 15:55:11 GMT
I suggested to her that once upon a time in her nice suburb there were lots of little woods that her children could play in. 30 years on they have all gone, swallowed up by housing to meet the needs of a growing population. I suggested to her that in years gone by the rush hour used to start at 7.30 and end just after 9.00. Followed by another in the late afternoon. Nowadays there's no obvious rush hour, just solid traffic from 6.30 a.m. until 7.00 p.m. Does she really want her great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren to suffer gridlock from 5.00 a.m. until 10.00 p.m.? I asked her if she really wanted to support a racist club. A club that offers freedom of movement to the privileged mostly caucasian members whilst excluding those from different regions, of a different skin colour. Not just that. By excluding those of a different colour in favour of those privileged causasian Europeans the country will suffer in its futile efforts to restrict immigration. Suffer in that those blacks, Chinese etc. etc. with valuable skills will be excluded, unable to make their positive contribution. Better to have a European shop worker rather than a black engineer eh I've done my bit. Anyone else up for doing their bit? Ricco has received some criticism for these remarks, but the reality is that his arguments are supported by fact. Open borders will always result in migration to wealthier countries, particularly to those countries with good social welfare programs. The social ills that Ricco mentioned, housing sprawl and traffic congestion, are the direct result of uncontrollable population growth. If immigration is one of the primary factors driving population increase in the UK, then reducing immigration will help to reduce population growth, which will help to mitigate the undesirable aspects of uncontrollable population growth. One cannot argue that open borders will not result in uncontrollable population growth - it's already happening. While being put back in control of your national borders will not be a panacea, or overnight cure, it is the first step you need to take to get a handle on your uncontrollable population growth. As far as his last paragraph goes, just imagine how many Syrian refugees the UK would be able to accept right now if it weren't for the fact that you have so many other foreigners there now competing for housing and jobs. Imagine what your wages would be like if there weren't an oversupply of labor from less developed countries. Remember in first year biology how you learned about living organisms in a petri dish? Remember the lesson learned from the petri dish experiments? Here's a news flash, your island is a petri dish. If you want to enjoy any kind of traditional quality of life, you need to control your own borders! Staying in the EU means multi-national corporations and their paid-for whores in politics will control your borders, and your quality of life. Brexit means you will control your own borders, and your quality of life. If that kind of thing is important to you, which way to vote seems obvious. JMHO You and Ricco miss the point. Leaving will only change things regarding EU immigration IF the UK is able to close it's borders in the way envisaged by some. I don;t believe we will be able to for the reasons I have already outlined. So if voting is based on that than you are voting under a misapprehension IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by Clinton Cool on Jun 6, 2016 16:10:58 GMT
Peterboat picked up on the main reason why I want us to leave. Britain is full. It's not just the cost of building infrastructure for an increasing population. That point has been done to death by the ineffective 'out' politicians. More important, to me, is that increased population has negative spin offs. Or at least, spin offs that are negative to me. Loss of green land, increased traffic and pollution. Quality of life in general, as the vast majority of people are happier having space rather than being crowded together. That's what convinced my mother to change her mind.
|
|