Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

ukip (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 88 of 311 < 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 >

Topic Locked

SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 25 May 14 9.49pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.40pm Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.35pm Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me. In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year. Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming? What has changed? Why do we suddenly need so many more people coming into the country for work purposes? Why does this level of immigration demonstrate that the economy is "on the up" (as has been claimed by many espousing the virtues of the influx, including Vince Cable). The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration? I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example: [Link] When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?[/quote] 1st January 1993. It came in with the same freedoms for the movement of goods, services and capital. We have gained massively from all four freedoms. Thanks SD, must've been that Maastricht treaty we were all given a referendum on back then? I assume we wouldn't have been able to trade with Europe had we not signed it. Glad we all voted for ratification in that case. Shame we didn't join the Euro at the time. It was, but as with all thing 'European' it divides the parties. The Labour Party used to oppose the EU (EEC) because they did not like the concept of free trade. Then the Tory party did not like it because of the free movement of people. The UK, historically, has not been based on referenda and they only happen when their are major constitutional changes (or where it suits the position of the political parties). Trade agreements are a nightmare and, to answer your question - no, we would have immediate and automatic trade barriers if we left the EU. As a minimum, they would include the need to comply with their legal requirements and we would also face potential tariff barriers. Do not underestimate the importance of trade agreements. 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

SloveniaDave

Tirana, Albania 25 May 14 9.49pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.40pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.35pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm

As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me.

In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year.

Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming?

What has changed? Why do we suddenly need so many more people coming into the country for work purposes? Why does this level of immigration demonstrate that the economy is "on the up" (as has been claimed by many espousing the virtues of the influx, including Vince Cable).

The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration?

I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example:

[Link]

When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?[/quote]

1st January 1993. It came in with the same freedoms for the movement of goods, services and capital. We have gained massively from all four freedoms.

Thanks SD, must've been that Maastricht treaty we were all given a referendum on back then? I assume we wouldn't have been able to trade with Europe had we not signed it. Glad we all voted for ratification in that case. Shame we didn't join the Euro at the time.

It was, but as with all thing 'European' it divides the parties. The Labour Party used to oppose the EU (EEC) because they did not like the concept of free trade. Then the Tory party did not like it because of the free movement of people.

The UK, historically, has not been based on referenda and they only happen when their are major constitutional changes (or where it suits the position of the political parties).

Trade agreements are a nightmare and, to answer your question - no, we would have immediate and automatic trade barriers if we left the EU. As a minimum, they would include the need to comply with their legal requirements and we would also face potential tariff barriers. Do not underestimate the importance of trade agreements.

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

legaleagle 25 May 14 9.52pm
In fact,if the below is correct, it goes back somewhat further: "The Treaty of Paris (1951)establishing the European Coal and Steel Community established a right to free movement for workers in these industries and the Treaty of Rome (1957)[5] provided a right for the free movement of workers within the European Economic Community. The Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely assembles the different aspects of the right of movement in one document, replacing inter alia the directive 1968/360/EEC. It also clarifies procedural issues, and it strengthens the rights of family members of European citizens using the freedom of movement"
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

25 May 14 9.52pm

In fact,if the below is correct, it goes back somewhat further:

"The Treaty of Paris (1951)establishing the European Coal and Steel Community established a right to free movement for workers in these industries and the Treaty of Rome (1957)[5] provided a right for the free movement of workers within the European Economic Community. The Directive 2004/38/EC on the right to move and reside freely assembles the different aspects of the right of movement in one document, replacing inter alia the directive 1968/360/EEC. It also clarifies procedural issues, and it strengthens the rights of family members of European citizens using the freedom of movement"

Alert a moderator to this post

davenotamonkey 25 May 14 9.53pm
Quote legaleagle at 25 May 2014 9.35pm Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me. In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year. Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming? What has changed? Why do we suddenly need so many more people coming into the country for work purposes? Why does this level of immigration demonstrate that the economy is "on the up" (as has been claimed by many espousing the virtues of the influx, including Vince Cable). The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration? I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example: [Link] When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest? "It is a core principle, enshrined in the EU treaties, which works in parallel with the other three basic freedoms in the single market: freedom of goods, capital and services. The European Commission says it is the right most closely associated with EU citizenship. An EU survey suggests it is seen as the EU's most positive achievement, ahead of peace in Europe, the euro and student exchanges. More than 14 million EU citizens are resident in another member state - 2.8% of the total EU population. Before the EU's big eastward expansion in 2004, citizens of the former communist bloc countries had less freedom to travel than western Europeans. That was a legacy of the Cold War. The EU's Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding told students in Belgium recently: "Today, as European citizens... you can travel 3,000km (1,860 miles) across Europe - from Vilnius in Lithuania to Valencia in Spain - without once stopping at a border." Freedom of movement helps to fill job vacancies in many EU countries and gives employers a wider talent pool, the Commission argues. Germany, resilient in the euro crisis, is proving a magnet for jobseekers from recession-hit countries like Spain, Italy and Greece. Europe's football clubs are among those who have benefited from the freedom of professionals to move". Well, I'm glad for these EU surveys. They are well known not to be loaded with bias or taxpayer propaganda mouthpieces designed to keep the plebs subservient. I'm very grateful for the EU keeping the peace - otherwise we'd have Greek grandfathers blowing their brains out in front of their parliament, the installation of unelected governments in Italy, and popular votes for far-right parties across Europe. I think giving all poor countries the right to join Europe and move where they want is a great idea. I can't wait for all of Africa to join us. Because it's only fair you see, and we in the UK have the infrastructure and capacity to accommodate loads more than 200,000 a year. It's also great that we can fill all those job vacancies from a pool of 200,000 extra people per year, because there just aren't enough people currently out of work in this country to fill them. Phew. My point remains. Why do we need this level of immigration when we have 10X less 2 decades ago. What has changed in this country that requires it? I'm not asking if it's legally allowed (it clearly is - isn't the EU wonderful?), I'm asking why we need it? What is the skills shortage in the labour market that desperately needs to be plugged by this level of immigration? Are all these 200,000 people heart surgeons and professional footballers? Will I be able to get to see the doctor within 24 hours thanks to all those extra Polish doctors moving to the UK? Why can't we operate a supply-and-demand skill-driven migration policy? Why should we have no say in what type of people come into our own country to settle? Is that really racist? Fascist?
Alert a moderator to this post

davenotamonkey

25 May 14 9.53pm

Send a Private Message to davenotamonkey

Quote legaleagle at 25 May 2014 9.35pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm

As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me.

In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year.

Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming?

The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration?

I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example:

[Link]

When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?

"It is a core principle, enshrined in the EU treaties, which works in parallel with the other three basic freedoms in the single market: freedom of goods, capital and services.

The European Commission says it is the right most closely associated with EU citizenship. An EU survey suggests it is seen as the EU's most positive achievement, ahead of peace in Europe, the euro and student exchanges.

More than 14 million EU citizens are resident in another member state - 2.8% of the total EU population.

Before the EU's big eastward expansion in 2004, citizens of the former communist bloc countries had less freedom to travel than western Europeans. That was a legacy of the Cold War.

The EU's Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding told students in Belgium recently: "Today, as European citizens... you can travel 3,000km (1,860 miles) across Europe - from Vilnius in Lithuania to Valencia in Spain - without once stopping at a border."

Freedom of movement helps to fill job vacancies in many EU countries and gives employers a wider talent pool, the Commission argues. Germany, resilient in the euro crisis, is proving a magnet for jobseekers from recession-hit countries like Spain, Italy and Greece.

Europe's football clubs are among those who have benefited from the freedom of professionals to move".

Well, I'm glad for these EU surveys. They are well known not to be loaded with bias or taxpayer propaganda mouthpieces designed to keep the plebs subservient. I'm very grateful for the EU keeping the peace - otherwise we'd have Greek grandfathers blowing their brains out in front of their parliament, the installation of unelected governments in Italy, and popular votes for far-right parties across Europe.

I think giving all poor countries the right to join Europe and move where they want is a great idea. I can't wait for all of Africa to join us. Because it's only fair you see, and we in the UK have the infrastructure and capacity to accommodate loads more than 200,000 a year.

It's also great that we can fill all those job vacancies from a pool of 200,000 extra people per year, because there just aren't enough people currently out of work in this country to fill them. Phew.

My point remains. Why do we need this level of immigration when we have 10X less 2 decades ago. What has changed in this country that requires it? I'm not asking if it's legally allowed (it clearly is - isn't the EU wonderful?), I'm asking why we need it? What is the skills shortage in the labour market that desperately needs to be plugged by this level of immigration? Are all these 200,000 people heart surgeons and professional footballers? Will I be able to get to see the doctor within 24 hours thanks to all those extra Polish doctors moving to the UK?

Why can't we operate a supply-and-demand skill-driven migration policy? Why should we have no say in what type of people come into our own country to settle? Is that really racist? Fascist?

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 25 May 14 10.02pm
Nothing you say is racist or fascist. That part comes in when people like Farage ramble on about Romanian people as potential neighbours. But, the point is, we gain far more overall from free movement of goods, capital, services and people, as a country than we lose...Nothing is perfect, but if we leave, we are worse off. We can't cherry pick.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

25 May 14 10.02pm

Nothing you say is racist or fascist. That part comes in when people like Farage ramble on about Romanian people as potential neighbours.

But, the point is, we gain far more overall from free movement of goods, capital, services and people, as a country than we lose...Nothing is perfect, but if we leave, we are worse off. We can't cherry pick.

Alert a moderator to this post

davenotamonkey 25 May 14 10.03pm
Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.49pm Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.40pm Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.35pm Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me. In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year. Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming? What has changed? Why do we suddenly need so many more people coming into the country for work purposes? Why does this level of immigration demonstrate that the economy is "on the up" (as has been claimed by many espousing the virtues of the influx, including Vince Cable). The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration? I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example: [Link] When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?[/quote] 1st January 1993. It came in with the same freedoms for the movement of goods, services and capital. We have gained massively from all four freedoms. Thanks SD, must've been that Maastricht treaty we were all given a referendum on back then? I assume we wouldn't have been able to trade with Europe had we not signed it. Glad we all voted for ratification in that case. Shame we didn't join the Euro at the time. It was, but as with all thing 'European' it divides the parties. The Labour Party used to oppose the EU (EEC) because they did not like the concept of free trade. Then the Tory party did not like it because of the free movement of people. The UK, historically, has not been based on referenda and they only happen when their are major constitutional changes (or where it suits the position of the political parties). Trade agreements are a nightmare and, to answer your question - no, we would have immediate and automatic trade barriers if we left the EU. As a minimum, they would include the need to comply with their legal requirements and we would also face potential tariff barriers. Do not underestimate the importance of trade agreements. Indeed, you're very correct here. Trade agreements are almost impossible to set up, so I'm really happy that the EU managed to secure an FTA with Japan very recently. A true triumph for international trade, surpassed only by India signing their FTA with Japan in 2011 (1.1bn people), Switzerland in 2009, Chile in 2006..... ...what a nightmare indeed.
Alert a moderator to this post

davenotamonkey

25 May 14 10.03pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.49pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.40pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.35pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm

As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me.

In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year.

Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming?

The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration?

I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example:

[Link]

When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?[/quote]

1st January 1993. It came in with the same freedoms for the movement of goods, services and capital. We have gained massively from all four freedoms.

The UK, historically, has not been based on referenda and they only happen when their are major constitutional changes (or where it suits the position of the political parties).

Indeed, you're very correct here. Trade agreements are almost impossible to set up, so I'm really happy that the EU managed to secure an FTA with Japan very recently. A true triumph for international trade, surpassed only by India signing their FTA with Japan in 2011 (1.1bn people), Switzerland in 2009, Chile in 2006.....

...what a nightmare indeed.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 May 14 10.05pm
Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.29pm That is probably the crux of the issue. It is never nice to patronize anyone, but if you do, then better to patronize them from a position of knowledge and wisdom. That way the patronization may still be offensive, but at least it is accurate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value. You have a very myopic, remote and disengaged view of life in general and that is reflected in your posts. My (patronizing) suggestion, is that you get out and live a bit more - that way you could actually gather some evidence and knowledge to support your opinions, so that they are not simply prejudices. Not just patronizing but itself myopic, arrogant and emotional...Well, your previous post was emotional. But now I'm trading insults and frankly I'm tired of insults that go beyond the knockabout. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value'. Dependent upon what you regard as important. There is no such thing as absolute truth in life or political opinions but rather there are world views. You characterized an opinion as being closer to wisdom..Those who claim to know wisdom snatch at delusion ..More like you regard your own biases as enabling the world that you wish to live in.....That doesn't mean that's the right world for many others. From what I remember you got a right monk on over our discussion about nationality.....Well, that is what it is....Do we have to carry that over? Sure we don't really agree upon multiple nationalities and aspects of nationalism I remember that our viewpoints upon the EU were not that different from what I remember. Insomuch that it requires change....To some extent we both see the point in an EU of some type. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2014 10.07pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

25 May 14 10.05pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.29pm

That is probably the crux of the issue. It is never nice to patronize anyone, but if you do, then better to patronize them from a position of knowledge and wisdom. That way the patronization may still be offensive, but at least it is accurate.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value.

You have a very myopic, remote and disengaged view of life in general and that is reflected in your posts.

My (patronizing) suggestion, is that you get out and live a bit more - that way you could actually gather some evidence and knowledge to support your opinions, so that they are not simply prejudices.

Not just patronizing but itself myopic, arrogant and emotional...Well, your previous post was emotional.

But now I'm trading insults and frankly I'm tired of insults that go beyond the knockabout.

'Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value'.

Dependent upon what you regard as important.

There is no such thing as absolute truth in life or political opinions but rather there are world views. You characterized an opinion as being closer to wisdom..Those who claim to know wisdom snatch at delusion ..More like you regard your own biases as enabling the world that you wish to live in.....That doesn't mean that's the right world for many others.

From what I remember you got a right monk on over our discussion about nationality.....Well, that is what it is....Do we have to carry that over?

Sure we don't really agree upon multiple nationalities and aspects of nationalism I remember that our viewpoints upon the EU were not that different from what I remember.

Insomuch that it requires change....To some extent we both see the point in an EU of some type.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2014 10.07pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 25 May 14 10.10pm
Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 10.03pm Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.49pm Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.40pm Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.35pm Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me. In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year. Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming? What has changed? Why do we suddenly need so many more people coming into the country for work purposes? Why does this level of immigration demonstrate that the economy is "on the up" (as has been claimed by many espousing the virtues of the influx, including Vince Cable). The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration? I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example: [Link] When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?[/quote] 1st January 1993. It came in with the same freedoms for the movement of goods, services and capital. We have gained massively from all four freedoms. Thanks SD, must've been that Maastricht treaty we were all given a referendum on back then? I assume we wouldn't have been able to trade with Europe had we not signed it. Glad we all voted for ratification in that case. Shame we didn't join the Euro at the time. It was, but as with all thing 'European' it divides the parties. The Labour Party used to oppose the EU (EEC) because they did not like the concept of free trade. Then the Tory party did not like it because of the free movement of people. The UK, historically, has not been based on referenda and they only happen when their are major constitutional changes (or where it suits the position of the political parties). Trade agreements are a nightmare and, to answer your question - no, we would have immediate and automatic trade barriers if we left the EU. As a minimum, they would include the need to comply with their legal requirements and we would also face potential tariff barriers. Do not underestimate the importance of trade agreements. Indeed, you're very correct here. Trade agreements are almost impossible to set up, so I'm really happy that the EU managed to secure an FTA with Japan very recently. A true triumph for international trade, surpassed only by India signing their FTA with Japan in 2011 (1.1bn people), Switzerland in 2009, Chile in 2006..... ...what a nightmare indeed. Bilateral FTAs are of course easier, because the issues are more simple and direct )(and often compromised by political issues). But the move (in Africa, Asia and S America) is to regional agreements. That gets much more complicated, and the current global negotiation (GATT) has been running for over 20 years, without resolution. International trade is about real money and real jobs and its importance should not be underestimated. The UK would not exist as we know it, if we were not a trading nation. 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

SloveniaDave

Tirana, Albania 25 May 14 10.10pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 10.03pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.49pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.40pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.35pm

Quote davenotamonkey at 25 May 2014 9.27pm

As just a simple racist and fascist having voted UKIP, I'm keen for the enlightened on here to explain something that has eluded me.

In the 90s, post-recession, the economy was growing (driven by debt) strongly and net migration into the UK was about 20-30k average per year.

Why is it, 20 years later, we suddenly require a migrationary level 10X that, for an economy that is very much not booming?

The UK population increased by about 6.5 million from 1991 to 2012, considerably from the Labour flood. But does that require 10X higher level of immigration?

I'm looking at graphs such as this, for example:

[Link]

When did EU freedom of movement come into effect anyway, out of interest?[/quote]

1st January 1993. It came in with the same freedoms for the movement of goods, services and capital. We have gained massively from all four freedoms.

The UK, historically, has not been based on referenda and they only happen when their are major constitutional changes (or where it suits the position of the political parties).

...what a nightmare indeed.

Bilateral FTAs are of course easier, because the issues are more simple and direct )(and often compromised by political issues). But the move (in Africa, Asia and S America) is to regional agreements. That gets much more complicated, and the current global negotiation (GATT) has been running for over 20 years, without resolution.

International trade is about real money and real jobs and its importance should not be underestimated. The UK would not exist as we know it, if we were not a trading nation.

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

SloveniaDave Tirana, Albania 25 May 14 10.28pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 25 May 2014 10.05pm Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.29pm That is probably the crux of the issue. It is never nice to patronize anyone, but if you do, then better to patronize them from a position of knowledge and wisdom. That way the patronization may still be offensive, but at least it is accurate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value. You have a very myopic, remote and disengaged view of life in general and that is reflected in your posts. My (patronizing) suggestion, is that you get out and live a bit more - that way you could actually gather some evidence and knowledge to support your opinions, so that they are not simply prejudices. Not just patronizing but itself myopic, arrogant and emotional...Well, your previous post was emotional. But now I'm trading insults and frankly I'm tired of insults that go beyond the knockabout. 'Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value'. Dependent upon what you regard as important. There is no such thing as absolute truth in life or political opinions but rather there are world views. You characterized an opinion as being closer to wisdom..Those who claim to know wisdom snatch at delusion ..More like you regard your own biases as enabling the world that you wish to live in.....That doesn't mean that's the right world for many others. From what I remember you got a right monk on over our discussion about nationality.....Well, that is what it is....Do we have to carry that over? Sure we don't really agree upon multiple nationalities and aspects of nationalism I remember that our viewpoints upon the EU were not that different from what I remember. Insomuch that it requires change....To some extent we both see the point in an EU of some type. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2014 10.07pm) I think you may be missing my point on this. You make some perfectly reasonable 'theoretical' points, but you do not seem to be able to see that your own viewpoint is a very limited one and therefore does not really carry much weight. I completely accept that my views and opinions are based on my experience and knowledge, but the reality is that I am considerably more experienced than you, in this area. That will inevitably come across as extremely arrogant but the fact is that we have many opinions here on HoL, some of which we agree with and some of which we don't. The issue of whether we should or should not be EU members is a very important one and you can make very good arguments on both sides, but you can't (or shouldn't) base your argument on irrational prejudice, which is where you seem to be coming from. 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

SloveniaDave

Tirana, Albania 25 May 14 10.28pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 25 May 2014 10.05pm

Quote SloveniaDave at 25 May 2014 9.29pm

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value.

You have a very myopic, remote and disengaged view of life in general and that is reflected in your posts.

My (patronizing) suggestion, is that you get out and live a bit more - that way you could actually gather some evidence and knowledge to support your opinions, so that they are not simply prejudices.

Not just patronizing but itself myopic, arrogant and emotional...Well, your previous post was emotional.

But now I'm trading insults and frankly I'm tired of insults that go beyond the knockabout.

'Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not mean that everyone's opinion carries equal value'.

Dependent upon what you regard as important.

From what I remember you got a right monk on over our discussion about nationality.....Well, that is what it is....Do we have to carry that over?

Sure we don't really agree upon multiple nationalities and aspects of nationalism I remember that our viewpoints upon the EU were not that different from what I remember.

Insomuch that it requires change....To some extent we both see the point in an EU of some type.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 May 2014 10.07pm)

I think you may be missing my point on this. You make some perfectly reasonable 'theoretical' points, but you do not seem to be able to see that your own viewpoint is a very limited one and therefore does not really carry much weight.

I completely accept that my views and opinions are based on my experience and knowledge, but the reality is that I am considerably more experienced than you, in this area.

That will inevitably come across as extremely arrogant but the fact is that we have many opinions here on HoL, some of which we agree with and some of which we don't.

The issue of whether we should or should not be EU members is a very important one and you can make very good arguments on both sides, but you can't (or shouldn't) base your argument on irrational prejudice, which is where you seem to be coming from.

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

legaleagle 25 May 14 10.32pm
Its interesting that the latest official figures show that more non-EU than EU citizens migrated to the UK in 2013. 249,000 non EU nationals (including students) immigrated to the UK as opposed to 201,000 EU nationals. Biggest rises in national groups coming here were Italian and Polish people. 314,000 people left the UK...
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

25 May 14 10.32pm

Its interesting that the latest official figures show that more non-EU than EU citizens migrated to the UK in 2013. 249,000 non EU nationals (including students) immigrated to the UK as opposed to 201,000 EU nationals. Biggest rises in national groups coming here were Italian and Polish people.

314,000 people left the UK...

Alert a moderator to this post

radsyrendot From Coventry now in Leicester 25 May 14 10.46pm
well done UKIP massive shake up Edited by radsyrendot (25 May 2014 10.47pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

radsyrendot

From Coventry now in Leicester 25 May 14 10.46pm

well done UKIP
massive shake up

Edited by radsyrendot (25 May 2014 10.47pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000 25 May 14 11.14pm
UKIP should really win and win quite handsomely. If you are anti-Europe/anti-European immigration you really only have one party to vote for. If you are pro-Europe then you have several main political groups you could vote for so that vote is split. I'd go as far to say if UKIP don't win it would be a massive failure on their part as wanting to come out of Europe is their reason for existing. 'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'
Alert a moderator to this post

johnno42000

25 May 14 11.14pm

UKIP should really win and win quite handsomely. If you are anti-Europe/anti-European immigration you really only have one party to vote for. If you are pro-Europe then you have several main political groups you could vote for so that vote is split. I'd go as far to say if UKIP don't win it would be a massive failure on their part as wanting to come out of Europe is their reason for existing.

'Lies to the masses as are like fly's to mollasses...they want more and more and more'

Alert a moderator to this post

The White Horse 26 May 14 1.34am
Quote Stirlingsays at 25 May 2014 3.05pm Quote The White Horse at 25 May 2014 2.46pm It's the most reliable stereotype there is politically, I'd say. Was it Marx who said it originally? Something like "a man's politics is the best reflection of his material circumstances". I personally know plenty of low income people who vote Tory. I grew up on a council estate and you'd be surprised. I wouldn't be surprised. But quite obviously, you're far more likely to support Labour than Tories if you live on a council estate. "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

The White Horse

26 May 14 1.34am

Send a Private Message to The White Horse

Quote Stirlingsays at 25 May 2014 3.05pm

Quote The White Horse at 25 May 2014 2.46pm

It's the most reliable stereotype there is politically, I'd say. Was it Marx who said it originally? Something like "a man's politics is the best reflection of his material circumstances".

I personally know plenty of low income people who vote Tory. I grew up on a council estate and you'd be surprised.

I wouldn't be surprised. But quite obviously, you're far more likely to support Labour than Tories if you live on a council estate.

"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

Topic Locked

Page 88 of 311 < 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

ukip (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors