Yesterday my usual adversary posted a response which was more addressed to the issues and less to personal abuse than usual, although he has since slipped back into normal guise. I was going to let it slide into oblivion but it made a few incorrect claims that I feel ought not be left unchallenged.

He again introduced the term "white" when that was not mentioned by me. Any societal differences in the UK have nothing to do with skin colour. They are all either cultural or religious. Many people of colour are now as British in outlook as you and me. It is therefore very misleading to measure anything by those who self identify as "white". As a consequence the 81.9% figure stated is very misleading.

Not for the first time I am accused of supporting "mass immigration". I have refuted that before and do so again. I am in favour of "controlled immigration" sufficient to meet our requirements. Alongside that are our international treaty obligations to accept our share of refugees and asylum seekers. The two need to considered together but cannot always be balanced. I also acknowledge we have a major current issue with illegal immigration for which no-one has yet found a solution and which, I fear, will get worse after Brexit.

Japan has often been cited as a viable alternative model but it's not really a valid comparison. They face exactly the same problems of an aging population and low birth rate as us, and as a consequence need to increase the 2% of the population who are immigrants. I think they face problems because they don't have the connections with an old Empire that we do and not many other countries teach Japanese. It is taught in some Filipino schools and there are many from the Philippines who go to Japan to work in the factories. Or as entertainers in the bars! English is one of the primary reasons so many illegals try to come here. It's everyone's first or second language. So I think the problem is reversed. Japan needs, and accepts it needs, more people to come there. It's not actively trying to exclude people. We on the other hand are currently getting more than most want.

My own fiscals are safe enough. I have given away a large part of all I earned during my working life in an effort to help others but have sufficient to ensure that both myself and my wife can live modestly so long as a huge disaster doesn't strike. What I want to conserve is the sense of fairness and equality of opportunity that we have strived for during my lifetime. It's still a work in progress and I don't want it to be thrown under a bus.

I am certainly an internationalist, or if you prefer a globalist. Not only because I believe that is a healthy development but because it is an inevitable one. The world is smaller, people move. We either accept that and be part of the system, or we withdraw behind our walls, hunker down and try to be self sufficient. We would be deluding ourselves if we think we can do both. Who wants to trade with a nation that pulls the shutters down on the needy?

Technology has undoubtedly contributed a great deal to our wellbeing. I shudder to think how things might have been if it had not. Whether social liberalism has strengthened or weakened society is a matter of opinion. Mine being that is has greatly improved things in many ways. Nothing is ever achieved without some bumps in the road being felt, and we certainly haven't yet reached the final destination. We have though been heading in the right direction and to turn at 180 deg back towards where we came from would be madness.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Placing some limitations on freedom of movement, so that demand and supply is kept in balance, by ensuring that those that come must either have a job offer prior to departure, or get work within a defined period has always made sense to me. Finding a way to persuade the EU to compromise on this would have been in my bucket list of things I would encourage them to reform. In any case this is, to a degree, self limiting. If people cannot find work then it's unlikely they would want to stay here, unless we offer over generous benefits to do so.

How does anyone really know the extent of illegal immigration? It can only ever be an estimate.

We could do more to find and remove the overstayers, if there was the political will to devote the necessary resources. Whether the cost is worth the benefit is a judgement I don't know.

If people are fleeing desperate situations in their own country, or even simply as economic migrants, it would have to get a whole lot worse here before that modified their behaviour. I suspect many target the UK simply because they speak English and not either French or German and because they see us as a stepping stone to their ultimate dream destination in the USA. It might be unrealistic but I suspect that's what is in their mind. Look at the unfortunate young people from Vietnam who all died in that refrigerated truck. Sent by families, at significant cost, so they could gain a foothold in the west to remit their earnings back home.

When we leave the EU I can see France losing any interest in assisting us in restricting the flow. Indeed I can see them oiling the wheels to get them shunted off their hands asap. I anticipate their attitude will be "you made the bed, now lie in it".

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Cameron asked for reform, the EU were having none of it hence why we had the referendum. Maybe if the EU would've listened things could have been different. Normally there is give a take in a relationship but the EU just want to take and command.

Getting a compromise on selective immigration may have been all Cameron needed to not put the decision to us.
The EU dropped the ball, not the public who voted.
Cameron went and made requests and probably had a list of importance.
This may have been no1.
Now you blame us.
Look over the channel for the blame, not north.

Playing the blame game or indeed claiming "victory" and demeaning those you think you have "defeated" actually achieves zilch, other than divide the people even more.

What matters is not why it happened but whether it was sensible. If the consensus says it was not then working reverse the decision makes sense. You don't stop just because other people made mistakes.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Mentioning racists would not be necessary unless they existed. Skin colour has nothing to do with racist attitudes, which can exist in people from every origin.

Mass immigration is an emotional term thrown about as scaremongering propaganda. We have always had immigration. And migration. The levels have varied over the years. Integration has always happened, sometimes more quickly than at other times. It also results in some places being over loaded and changing character. Picking out individual examples does not prove anything other than that they are untypical examples. Patience, determination and fortitude is what is needed. Not defeatism.

I have a friend who is a fellow Palace supporter, and member of HOL, who is an English professor working a University in Japan. he has lived there for many years. It's been a while since we were in touch but I will attempt to contact him and get his views on the situation there and which way it is going. The last time we spoke about this indicated they were having to review and revise their past approach.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.