This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
ukip (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Proper_Gander  Anerley 15 May 14 9.59am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote Penge Eagle at 15 May 2014 9.47am
Westminster cannot control our borders. Look it up. Many people think they should be the people too - it's kinda the main issue here.
Schengen Agreement: Immigration Rules: I think you're the one who has some looking up to do.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Penge Eagle Beckenham 15 May 14 9.59am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 11.45pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 14 May 2014 11.42pm
I think White Horse and Nick totally miss the point, and as ever, move the goal posts. The UKIP argument is that the UK should be in charge of controlling our borders, with an emphasis of quality, not quantity. At the moment, having the EU in charge allows the opposite - which you clearly prefer! And it also disregards high quality professionals from places like India or Australia. Edited by Penge Eagle (14 May 2014 11.44pm) Lets compromise on a third option. What do you think to nobody controlling our borders... To White Horse, question for you... Would you prefer to have totally unrestricted immigration and just limited to Europeans? All the rules made by bureaucrats in Belgium who have no real interest in the UK. OR Controlled immigration with people seeking asylum and immigrants who can fill certain job shortages that will benefit the country. Rules decided by our MPs in London and can easily held accountable. Having CONTROL ensures the balance between numbers and the impact on infrastructure and social aspects. Edited by Penge Eagle (15 May 2014 10.00am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
SloveniaDave  Tirana, Albania 15 May 14 10.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Penge Eagle at 15 May 2014 9.59am
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 11.45pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 14 May 2014 11.42pm
I think White Horse and Nick totally miss the point, and as ever, move the goal posts. The UKIP argument is that the UK should be in charge of controlling our borders, with an emphasis of quality, not quantity. At the moment, having the EU in charge allows the opposite - which you clearly prefer! And it also disregards high quality professionals from places like India or Australia. Edited by Penge Eagle (14 May 2014 11.44pm) Lets compromise on a third option. What do you think to nobody controlling our borders... To White Horse, question for you... Would you prefer to have totally unrestricted immigration and just limited to Europeans? All the rules made by bureaucrats in Belgium who have no real interest in the UK. OR Controlled immigration with people seeking asylum and immigrants who can fill certain job shortages that will benefit the country. Rules decided by our MPs in London and can easily held accountable. Having CONTROL ensures the balance between numbers and the impact on infrastructure and social aspects. Edited by Penge Eagle (15 May 2014 10.00am)
Although this results in economic migration within the EU, which causes some problems, I am convinced that the overall benefits associated with it far outweigh the problems The same principle which allows other EU nationals to come to the UK is also the one which allows the Nissan plant in Sunderland to export hundreds of thousands of cars throughout Europe with no restrictions.
Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand! My opinions may have changed, but not the fact that I am right. (Member of the School of Optimism 1969-2016 inclusive) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kangel 15 May 14 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote SloveniaDave at 15 May 2014 10.17am
Quote Penge Eagle at 15 May 2014 9.59am
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 11.45pm
Quote Penge Eagle at 14 May 2014 11.42pm
I think White Horse and Nick totally miss the point, and as ever, move the goal posts. The UKIP argument is that the UK should be in charge of controlling our borders, with an emphasis of quality, not quantity. At the moment, having the EU in charge allows the opposite - which you clearly prefer! And it also disregards high quality professionals from places like India or Australia. Edited by Penge Eagle (14 May 2014 11.44pm) Lets compromise on a third option. What do you think to nobody controlling our borders... To White Horse, question for you... Would you prefer to have totally unrestricted immigration and just limited to Europeans? All the rules made by bureaucrats in Belgium who have no real interest in the UK. OR Controlled immigration with people seeking asylum and immigrants who can fill certain job shortages that will benefit the country. Rules decided by our MPs in London and can easily held accountable. Having CONTROL ensures the balance between numbers and the impact on infrastructure and social aspects. Edited by Penge Eagle (15 May 2014 10.00am)
Although this results in economic migration within the EU, which causes some problems, I am convinced that the overall benefits associated with it far outweigh the problems The same principle which allows other EU nationals to come to the UK is also the one which allows the Nissan plant in Sunderland to export hundreds of thousands of cars throughout Europe with no restrictions. What are the problems you are referring to?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Proper_Gander Anerley 15 May 14 11.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote kangel at 15 May 2014 10.46am
What are the problems you are referring to?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Johnny Eagles  berlin 15 May 14 11.27am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 4.16pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
To avoid it turning into an absolute waffle-fest, I'll concentrate my reply on just the points above. I think we actually broadly agree. We differ essentially only on one point. You think it "unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly". I disagree. To borrow your melting pot analogy, I see the recent wave of immigration (ie, all the Eastern Europeans) if it continues at a similar pace as much more than a few extra ingredients. I think it will completely change the recipe. I'm not claiming certainty, but I do think it likely given the scale over the last few years and the changes which have already happened in a relatively short space of time. I've yet to see anything which convinces me otherwise. I think AT BEST the politicians who unleashed this wave of immigration have simply no idea what the long-term effects will be. I therefore think it likely that the prevailing culture will be radically altered and many things which are "traditionally British" (I know this is an incredibly slippery term to use, but I don't want to get bogged down in long definitions) will disappear or alter beyond recognition. I think that's fairly speculative and doesn't culture essentially operate on a supply and demand basis? If Morris dancing is part of the traditional culture, it will be maintained only if there's a demand for it. Likewise if there are elements that disappear, that's not likely to be because the immigrants didn't care about it, more likely that non-immigrants couldn't be bothered to keep it going. I'd argue that immigration has been going on for decades in the eyes of those alive today and yet there are few examples of culture that has died. Things have been added (curry being the most obvious example) but I don't think many elements of British culture have been mourned. Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
Which isn't to foretell doom, necessarily. He he who rejects change is the architect of decay and all that. And I love a curry as much as the next person. But it will be sad to see some things go. And, most importantly, it's absolutely fair enough for some people to be concerned and even angry about it. It's going to have a massive effect on them and their children and they've not been given any choice in the matter whatsoever. I don't think politics should be the realm at which the parameters of culture should be defined, I think that culture should be an accidental product of society. If you want something cultural to survive, then promote it, simple as that. Speaking as a white (notionally) Christian middle class man, many facets of culture simply don't appeal to me, British or otherwise. I find this odd, since I'm kind of the target group for it. But if I don't give a toss about St George's Day or Morris dancing or whatever, I fail to see the harm on an individual level. If as an individual I ought to be contributing to the common good, I can't say I'm particularly fond of the common good being "culture", since I value far more tangible things like education, healthcare, jobs, housing and so on. If I thought immigration was a threat to these things, it might bother me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night over "culture". I find it quite amusing that the left-wing unionista is preaching "supply and demand" when it comes to culture. Let the free market rip, eh?
I don't agree. I think that culture isn't just about supply and demand. It is something which gets handed down the generations and needs to be protected. My view on British culture is a lot like Tony Benn's view on industry, in fact. Just as you can destroy a culture of male bread-winning employment by letting the free market rip through industrial communities, so can you destroy a "traditional British" culture (again, apologies for the slippery term) by, say, letting a few million Eastern Europeans come and settle within the space of a single generation. It's not just about morris dancing and curry. It's about language, law, sense of humour. Most of all, it's about a sense of cohesion, feeling as though one is part of the same culture as the people one shares one's country with. The truth is that immigrants who come as part of a large wave tend not to integrate with the host culture but end up in ghettoes and islands of solitude. This undermines the sense of cohesion and ultimately damages society.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 May 14 11.34am |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 15 May 2014 11.27am
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 4.16pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
To avoid it turning into an absolute waffle-fest, I'll concentrate my reply on just the points above. I think we actually broadly agree. We differ essentially only on one point. You think it "unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly". I disagree. To borrow your melting pot analogy, I see the recent wave of immigration (ie, all the Eastern Europeans) if it continues at a similar pace as much more than a few extra ingredients. I think it will completely change the recipe. I'm not claiming certainty, but I do think it likely given the scale over the last few years and the changes which have already happened in a relatively short space of time. I've yet to see anything which convinces me otherwise. I think AT BEST the politicians who unleashed this wave of immigration have simply no idea what the long-term effects will be. I therefore think it likely that the prevailing culture will be radically altered and many things which are "traditionally British" (I know this is an incredibly slippery term to use, but I don't want to get bogged down in long definitions) will disappear or alter beyond recognition. I think that's fairly speculative and doesn't culture essentially operate on a supply and demand basis? If Morris dancing is part of the traditional culture, it will be maintained only if there's a demand for it. Likewise if there are elements that disappear, that's not likely to be because the immigrants didn't care about it, more likely that non-immigrants couldn't be bothered to keep it going. I'd argue that immigration has been going on for decades in the eyes of those alive today and yet there are few examples of culture that has died. Things have been added (curry being the most obvious example) but I don't think many elements of British culture have been mourned. Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
Which isn't to foretell doom, necessarily. He he who rejects change is the architect of decay and all that. And I love a curry as much as the next person. But it will be sad to see some things go. And, most importantly, it's absolutely fair enough for some people to be concerned and even angry about it. It's going to have a massive effect on them and their children and they've not been given any choice in the matter whatsoever. I don't think politics should be the realm at which the parameters of culture should be defined, I think that culture should be an accidental product of society. If you want something cultural to survive, then promote it, simple as that. Speaking as a white (notionally) Christian middle class man, many facets of culture simply don't appeal to me, British or otherwise. I find this odd, since I'm kind of the target group for it. But if I don't give a toss about St George's Day or Morris dancing or whatever, I fail to see the harm on an individual level. If as an individual I ought to be contributing to the common good, I can't say I'm particularly fond of the common good being "culture", since I value far more tangible things like education, healthcare, jobs, housing and so on. If I thought immigration was a threat to these things, it might bother me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night over "culture". I find it quite amusing that the left-wing unionista is preaching "supply and demand" when it comes to culture. Let the free market rip, eh?
I don't agree. I think that culture isn't just about supply and demand. It is something which gets handed down the generations and needs to be protected. My view on British culture is a lot like Tony Benn's view on industry, in fact. Just as you can destroy a culture of male bread-winning employment by letting the free market rip through industrial communities, so can you destroy a "traditional British" culture (again, apologies for the slippery term) by, say, letting a few million Eastern Europeans come and settle within the space of a single generation. It's not just about morris dancing and curry. It's about language, law, sense of humour. Most of all, it's about a sense of cohesion, feeling as though one is part of the same culture as the people one shares one's country with. The truth is that immigrants who come as part of a large wave tend not to integrate with the host culture but end up in ghettoes and islands of solitude. This undermines the sense of cohesion and ultimately damages society. With respect, is it a surprise that they don't integrate given the attitude by some towards them. Tis a 2 way street.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Johnny Eagles berlin 15 May 14 12.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2014 11.34am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 15 May 2014 11.27am
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 4.16pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
To avoid it turning into an absolute waffle-fest, I'll concentrate my reply on just the points above. I think we actually broadly agree. We differ essentially only on one point. You think it "unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly". I disagree. To borrow your melting pot analogy, I see the recent wave of immigration (ie, all the Eastern Europeans) if it continues at a similar pace as much more than a few extra ingredients. I think it will completely change the recipe. I'm not claiming certainty, but I do think it likely given the scale over the last few years and the changes which have already happened in a relatively short space of time. I've yet to see anything which convinces me otherwise. I think AT BEST the politicians who unleashed this wave of immigration have simply no idea what the long-term effects will be. I therefore think it likely that the prevailing culture will be radically altered and many things which are "traditionally British" (I know this is an incredibly slippery term to use, but I don't want to get bogged down in long definitions) will disappear or alter beyond recognition. I think that's fairly speculative and doesn't culture essentially operate on a supply and demand basis? If Morris dancing is part of the traditional culture, it will be maintained only if there's a demand for it. Likewise if there are elements that disappear, that's not likely to be because the immigrants didn't care about it, more likely that non-immigrants couldn't be bothered to keep it going. I'd argue that immigration has been going on for decades in the eyes of those alive today and yet there are few examples of culture that has died. Things have been added (curry being the most obvious example) but I don't think many elements of British culture have been mourned. Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
Which isn't to foretell doom, necessarily. He he who rejects change is the architect of decay and all that. And I love a curry as much as the next person. But it will be sad to see some things go. And, most importantly, it's absolutely fair enough for some people to be concerned and even angry about it. It's going to have a massive effect on them and their children and they've not been given any choice in the matter whatsoever. I don't think politics should be the realm at which the parameters of culture should be defined, I think that culture should be an accidental product of society. If you want something cultural to survive, then promote it, simple as that. Speaking as a white (notionally) Christian middle class man, many facets of culture simply don't appeal to me, British or otherwise. I find this odd, since I'm kind of the target group for it. But if I don't give a toss about St George's Day or Morris dancing or whatever, I fail to see the harm on an individual level. If as an individual I ought to be contributing to the common good, I can't say I'm particularly fond of the common good being "culture", since I value far more tangible things like education, healthcare, jobs, housing and so on. If I thought immigration was a threat to these things, it might bother me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night over "culture". I find it quite amusing that the left-wing unionista is preaching "supply and demand" when it comes to culture. Let the free market rip, eh?
I don't agree. I think that culture isn't just about supply and demand. It is something which gets handed down the generations and needs to be protected. My view on British culture is a lot like Tony Benn's view on industry, in fact. Just as you can destroy a culture of male bread-winning employment by letting the free market rip through industrial communities, so can you destroy a "traditional British" culture (again, apologies for the slippery term) by, say, letting a few million Eastern Europeans come and settle within the space of a single generation. It's not just about morris dancing and curry. It's about language, law, sense of humour. Most of all, it's about a sense of cohesion, feeling as though one is part of the same culture as the people one shares one's country with. The truth is that immigrants who come as part of a large wave tend not to integrate with the host culture but end up in ghettoes and islands of solitude. This undermines the sense of cohesion and ultimately damages society. With respect, is it a surprise that they don't integrate given the attitude by some towards them. Tis a 2 way street. "It's a two way street". This implies that I am blaming immigrants for the problems of immigration. Let me clear that I am not. I admire people who uproot themselves to improve life for their family. I am an immigrant myself and I know how much easier it is to stick to what you know and people you know rather than engage and integrate with your host culture. This is exacerbated by perceived differences which ends up in a downward spiral leading to conflict. It is recognising these problems that help me see the danger of removing border controls and then complacently saying, "supply and demand" will sort any cultural issues out.
...we must expand...get more pupils...so that the knowledge will spread... |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 15 May 14 12.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 15 May 2014 12.32pm
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2014 11.34am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 15 May 2014 11.27am
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 4.16pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
To avoid it turning into an absolute waffle-fest, I'll concentrate my reply on just the points above. I think we actually broadly agree. We differ essentially only on one point. You think it "unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly". I disagree. To borrow your melting pot analogy, I see the recent wave of immigration (ie, all the Eastern Europeans) if it continues at a similar pace as much more than a few extra ingredients. I think it will completely change the recipe. I'm not claiming certainty, but I do think it likely given the scale over the last few years and the changes which have already happened in a relatively short space of time. I've yet to see anything which convinces me otherwise. I think AT BEST the politicians who unleashed this wave of immigration have simply no idea what the long-term effects will be. I therefore think it likely that the prevailing culture will be radically altered and many things which are "traditionally British" (I know this is an incredibly slippery term to use, but I don't want to get bogged down in long definitions) will disappear or alter beyond recognition. I think that's fairly speculative and doesn't culture essentially operate on a supply and demand basis? If Morris dancing is part of the traditional culture, it will be maintained only if there's a demand for it. Likewise if there are elements that disappear, that's not likely to be because the immigrants didn't care about it, more likely that non-immigrants couldn't be bothered to keep it going. I'd argue that immigration has been going on for decades in the eyes of those alive today and yet there are few examples of culture that has died. Things have been added (curry being the most obvious example) but I don't think many elements of British culture have been mourned. Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
Which isn't to foretell doom, necessarily. He he who rejects change is the architect of decay and all that. And I love a curry as much as the next person. But it will be sad to see some things go. And, most importantly, it's absolutely fair enough for some people to be concerned and even angry about it. It's going to have a massive effect on them and their children and they've not been given any choice in the matter whatsoever. I don't think politics should be the realm at which the parameters of culture should be defined, I think that culture should be an accidental product of society. If you want something cultural to survive, then promote it, simple as that. Speaking as a white (notionally) Christian middle class man, many facets of culture simply don't appeal to me, British or otherwise. I find this odd, since I'm kind of the target group for it. But if I don't give a toss about St George's Day or Morris dancing or whatever, I fail to see the harm on an individual level. If as an individual I ought to be contributing to the common good, I can't say I'm particularly fond of the common good being "culture", since I value far more tangible things like education, healthcare, jobs, housing and so on. If I thought immigration was a threat to these things, it might bother me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night over "culture". I find it quite amusing that the left-wing unionista is preaching "supply and demand" when it comes to culture. Let the free market rip, eh?
I don't agree. I think that culture isn't just about supply and demand. It is something which gets handed down the generations and needs to be protected. My view on British culture is a lot like Tony Benn's view on industry, in fact. Just as you can destroy a culture of male bread-winning employment by letting the free market rip through industrial communities, so can you destroy a "traditional British" culture (again, apologies for the slippery term) by, say, letting a few million Eastern Europeans come and settle within the space of a single generation. It's not just about morris dancing and curry. It's about language, law, sense of humour. Most of all, it's about a sense of cohesion, feeling as though one is part of the same culture as the people one shares one's country with. The truth is that immigrants who come as part of a large wave tend not to integrate with the host culture but end up in ghettoes and islands of solitude. This undermines the sense of cohesion and ultimately damages society. With respect, is it a surprise that they don't integrate given the attitude by some towards them. Tis a 2 way street. "It's a two way street". This implies that I am blaming immigrants for the problems of immigration. Let me clear that I am not. I admire people who uproot themselves to improve life for their family. I am an immigrant myself and I know how much easier it is to stick to what you know and people you know rather than engage and integrate with your host culture. This is exacerbated by perceived differences which ends up in a downward spiral leading to conflict. It is recognising these problems that help me see the danger of removing border controls and then complacently saying, "supply and demand" will sort any cultural issues out. The problem is that you only see it as a 'danger' if you think the country would be worse off if supply and demand doesn't enable cultural norms to persist. I don't care about culture, British or otherwise, so the debate about whether immigration damages cultural identity goes right over my head. You'd think my view on this would be based upon the fact that I'm in favour of immigration, but I think I'm just indifferent about culture. If immigrants completely assimilated to the indigenous culture, I wouldn't see this as a missed opportunity to add valuable cultural elements.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Proper_Gander Anerley 15 May 14 12.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This talk about immigration having a damaging effect on the indigenous culture has been going on for centuries. The truth is, culture changes and shifts constantly, as does language. Furthermore, the world, through modern technology, is getting smaller. Peoples' mix more. It is a modern inevitability and really nothing to be afraid of. Lastly, the percentage of foreigners which have "flooded" the UK is 7%-odd. If that's enough to dilute British "culture" (British culture being very subjective in itself, let's not forget) then we can't have a very strong culture.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| The White Horse 15 May 14 12.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Penge Eagle at 15 May 2014 9.59am
To White Horse, question for you... Would you prefer to have totally unrestricted immigration and just limited to Europeans? All the rules made by bureaucrats in Belgium who have no real interest in the UK. OR Controlled immigration with people seeking asylum and immigrants who can fill certain job shortages that will benefit the country. Rules decided by our MPs in London and can easily held accountable. Having CONTROL ensures the balance between numbers and the impact on infrastructure and social aspects. The first option. I'm in favour of immigration, so obviously I'm going to pick the one that's less prohibitive to immigrants (even if it does indirectly mean immigrants are largely white). I don't think state control is useful, so I'd generally only endorse it for issues that are clearly national in nature and where state intervention is the best option. I'd argue immigration is quite obviously an international issue.
"The fox has his den. The bee has his hive. The stoat, has, uh... his stoat-hole... but only man chooses to make his nest in an investment opportunity.” Stewart Lee |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 15 May 14 1.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Johnny Eagles at 15 May 2014 12.32pm
Quote nickgusset at 15 May 2014 11.34am
Quote Johnny Eagles at 15 May 2014 11.27am
Quote The White Horse at 14 May 2014 4.16pm
Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
To avoid it turning into an absolute waffle-fest, I'll concentrate my reply on just the points above. I think we actually broadly agree. We differ essentially only on one point. You think it "unlikely that an "external culture" would be able to affect the original culture profoundly". I disagree. To borrow your melting pot analogy, I see the recent wave of immigration (ie, all the Eastern Europeans) if it continues at a similar pace as much more than a few extra ingredients. I think it will completely change the recipe. I'm not claiming certainty, but I do think it likely given the scale over the last few years and the changes which have already happened in a relatively short space of time. I've yet to see anything which convinces me otherwise. I think AT BEST the politicians who unleashed this wave of immigration have simply no idea what the long-term effects will be. I therefore think it likely that the prevailing culture will be radically altered and many things which are "traditionally British" (I know this is an incredibly slippery term to use, but I don't want to get bogged down in long definitions) will disappear or alter beyond recognition. I think that's fairly speculative and doesn't culture essentially operate on a supply and demand basis? If Morris dancing is part of the traditional culture, it will be maintained only if there's a demand for it. Likewise if there are elements that disappear, that's not likely to be because the immigrants didn't care about it, more likely that non-immigrants couldn't be bothered to keep it going. I'd argue that immigration has been going on for decades in the eyes of those alive today and yet there are few examples of culture that has died. Things have been added (curry being the most obvious example) but I don't think many elements of British culture have been mourned. Quote Johnny Eagles at 14 May 2014 2.15pm
Which isn't to foretell doom, necessarily. He he who rejects change is the architect of decay and all that. And I love a curry as much as the next person. But it will be sad to see some things go. And, most importantly, it's absolutely fair enough for some people to be concerned and even angry about it. It's going to have a massive effect on them and their children and they've not been given any choice in the matter whatsoever. I don't think politics should be the realm at which the parameters of culture should be defined, I think that culture should be an accidental product of society. If you want something cultural to survive, then promote it, simple as that. Speaking as a white (notionally) Christian middle class man, many facets of culture simply don't appeal to me, British or otherwise. I find this odd, since I'm kind of the target group for it. But if I don't give a toss about St George's Day or Morris dancing or whatever, I fail to see the harm on an individual level. If as an individual I ought to be contributing to the common good, I can't say I'm particularly fond of the common good being "culture", since I value far more tangible things like education, healthcare, jobs, housing and so on. If I thought immigration was a threat to these things, it might bother me, but I'm not going to lose any sleep at night over "culture". I find it quite amusing that the left-wing unionista is preaching "supply and demand" when it comes to culture. Let the free market rip, eh?
I don't agree. I think that culture isn't just about supply and demand. It is something which gets handed down the generations and needs to be protected. My view on British culture is a lot like Tony Benn's view on industry, in fact. Just as you can destroy a culture of male bread-winning employment by letting the free market rip through industrial communities, so can you destroy a "traditional British" culture (again, apologies for the slippery term) by, say, letting a few million Eastern Europeans come and settle within the space of a single generation. It's not just about morris dancing and curry. It's about language, law, sense of humour. Most of all, it's about a sense of cohesion, feeling as though one is part of the same culture as the people one shares one's country with. The truth is that immigrants who come as part of a large wave tend not to integrate with the host culture but end up in ghettoes and islands of solitude. This undermines the sense of cohesion and ultimately damages society. With respect, is it a surprise that they don't integrate given the attitude by some towards them. Tis a 2 way street. "It's a two way street". This implies that I am blaming immigrants for the problems of immigration. Let me clear that I am not. I admire people who uproot themselves to improve life for their family. I am an immigrant myself and I know how much easier it is to stick to what you know and people you know rather than engage and integrate with your host culture. This is exacerbated by perceived differences which ends up in a downward spiral leading to conflict. It is recognising these problems that help me see the danger of removing border controls and then complacently saying, "supply and demand" will sort any cultural issues out.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.