|
Post by politicidal on Feb 9, 2018 0:24:14 GMT
I think it was Innsmouth or someone who said it was because of resentment towards the Romanians or Poles competing for jobs or something.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 9, 2018 1:53:10 GMT
etc etc While Thor's rhetorical question is full of his usual provocative hyperbole, there is no doubt that feelings towards 'the other', whether described through race or religion have grown much worse of late, not helped by the emotions around Brexit. It certainly hasn't help the struggle against xeno- and Islamophobia, for instance, or the feelings of east Europeans here about their future. Personally I think the more united Europe is, the better - at least it will keep Germany and France from ever fighting again - one of the main intentions of the original set-up of the European Community. It is just a shame that the UK will have to stand outside, determined now to be outside the customs union, so working through tariffs and yet (it looks like) obeying all the EU rules of commercial engagement anyway, but without a say in the matter. But hey, with the authority of the House of Lords over UK legislation, at least, er, we won't have to put up with unelected bureaucrats eh? Britain's veto is gone too, so look forward to things like the European army in due course. Looking forward, too, to that early, quick trade deal with Donald "America First" Trump... We've been through this Flim Flam. A report of hate crime is not actually proof of anything since it doesn't have to be proven or even reported to the police. Or did you think I forgot that? The fact that hate crime "spiked" isn't the argument you think it is..... And if the EU wants an army it can have one. If it wants a single nation it can have one. But the UK won't be part of it. Good eh? ...except by Muslims! lol
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Feb 9, 2018 2:18:34 GMT
It was for me.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 9, 2018 2:43:20 GMT
The one thing I'm taking a bit of solice from the whole Brexit thing is that the areas of the country that tended to me most in favour of Brexit are the ones are the ones that are going to be hardest hit by the economic downturn following Brexit. In other words - the reason that North of England has a sh!t economy isn't because of the EU or immigration, it's because they can't get over the fact that developed western nations can't do basic heavy industry as cheaply as third world countries and they need to find smarter ways to earn a living rather than just blaming everyone else. So you're happy that the poorest people will get poorer? Nice. So we can't do heavy industry? Interesting. See the thing is we can, sadly the likes of you are happy to outsource jobs from the UK to India and China, cutting employment in the UK whilst the products are sold back to us at the same price. Thus only benefiting the corporations. Such as Cadbury, which when bought out closed the factories in the UK with the loss of over 1000 jobs, moved the production to Eastern Europe and made an inferior product sold back to us at the same price. What benefit was that to the UK? We closed the mines in the North and Wales, causing massive hardship, yet imported 60,000,000 tons a year. What did you expect miners of 20 years to do? Become bankers? How much was invested by Westminster in retraining? Or we could encourage an open borders system with nations with significantly lower wages than our own and depress the wages of our own poorest people, then get all pissy and call them racist when they object. So we ripped out the heart of industry in the North of England, then allowed hundreds of thousands of unskilled labourers into the UK to compete with our own working class for what jobs remain. Then people like you have the gaul to say shit like you just said.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 9, 2018 2:47:01 GMT
I think it was Innsmouth or someone who said it was because of resentment towards the Romanians or Poles competing for jobs or something. That was part of it. Very few people had a problem with these people specifically, the issue was an increase in population of around 400,000 per year for a decade and a half. This increase is largely seen in poorer areas with less work, thus depressing wages, increasing competition for jobs and placing a strain on public services.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 9, 2018 3:00:27 GMT
The Europeans have hidden behind the American Armed Forces since the end of the Second World War. Of the major powers, only the UK has maintained its NATO spending obligation. France is the only real other military power, which means that the EU is going to have to vastly increase spending on its armed forces. Its current combined carrier fleet would have about the same capability as a single Ford Class carrier with disadvantage of not being a homogeneous force. Lol at that. A kind euphemism on your part. Let's put it this way: an honest to goodness war between the combined "might" of the EU and Great Britain would last about as long as your campaign against Argentina lasted. The only difference is that you'd hear a dozen different phrases of surrender instead of one. To be fair the French military is pretty competent. They get a lot of stick, but they are capable and are the only ones besides the UK with any real combat in recent times. The British armed forces are not what they were either. Our army is now less than 90,000 and we struggle with our overseas commitments. Same for thee Royal Navy. By 2020 we will have two carriers that are only lightly armed but not enough surface vessels to protect both and our new frigates not expected till the mid 2020's
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 9, 2018 4:15:44 GMT
We've been through this Flim Flam. A report of hate crime is not actually proof of anything since it doesn't have to be proven or even reported to the police. Or did you think I forgot that? The fact that hate crime "spiked" isn't the argument you think it is..... And if the EU wants an army it can have one. If it wants a single nation it can have one. But the UK won't be part of it. Good eh? ...except by Muslims! lol I don't know what point you think you are making. Its no secret I oppose the UK's current hate crime and hate speech legislation, regardless of who the perpetrators supposedly are.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 9, 2018 7:39:19 GMT
I think it was Innsmouth or someone who said it was because of resentment towards the Romanians or Poles competing for jobs or something. That was part of it. Very few people had a problem with these people specifically, the issue was an increase in population of around 400,000 per year for a decade and a half. This increase is largely seen in poorer areas with less work, thus depressing wages, increasing competition for jobs and placing a strain on public services. It's good to see that the board's biggest proponents of Brexit isn't disputing that Brexit will cause severe economic damage to the UK. So if we're not doing it for economic reasons and we're not doing it to appease the inner racists in the Brexiteers, why are we doing it?
|
|
|
Post by yougotastewgoinbaby on Feb 9, 2018 7:42:48 GMT
It's good to see that the board's biggest proponents of Brexit isn't disputing that Brexit will cause severe economic damage to the UK. So if we're not doing it for economic reasons and we're not doing it to appease the inner racists in the Brexiteers, why are we doing it?Cause it's funny.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 10:04:16 GMT
We've been through this Flim Flam. A report of hate crime is not actually proof of anything since it doesn't have to be proven or even reported to the police. Or did you think I forgot that? This is a non-sequitur since my reply here was merely about the widely noticed, and generally acknowledged, increase in hate crime or different sorts since Brexit. And, duh, such crime will yes include that which is not reported in official police statistics. Which makes things worse. [Flim Flam] Childish name games are still not an argument, just as they weren't before. After all, I would never dream of calling you ThorHasshole. It is certainly a reasonable assumption it reflects the Islamo- and Xenophobia of some who voted to leave, the success of which has acted to embolden, and make more acceptable unpleasant sentiments. As we have seen on the boards here. But the fact that, for whatever reason, it suits you to play down that which is well documented is certainly an argument for something. I think I know what it is, too. I am sure know your various nationalistic stances by now, but thanks anyway.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 10:05:25 GMT
...except by Muslims! lol I don't know what point you think you are making. Its no secret I oppose the UK's current hate crime and hate speech legislation, regardless of who the perpetrators supposedly are. Yes, it must be tough having to rein yourself in all the time...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 10:10:53 GMT
That was part of it. Very few people had a problem with these people specifically, the issue was an increase in population of around 400,000 per year for a decade and a half. This increase is largely seen in poorer areas with less work, thus depressing wages, increasing competition for jobs and placing a strain on public services. It's good to see that the board's biggest proponents of Brexit isn't disputing that Brexit will cause severe economic damage to the UK. So if we're not doing it for economic reasons and we're not doing it to appease the inner racists in the Brexiteers, why are we doing it? The principal reasons are: to keep out the swarms of Johnny Foreigner, who take all our jobs apparently (even though employment rates in the UK are at level highs, and haven't dipped much) and soak up health services (even though they pay taxes like everyone else and keep social care and the NHS going through essential staffing); as well as to 'take back control' of our laws and courts (even though it looks like we will, by whatever mechanism, still have to obey EU commercial regulations, and follow some internal social, standards in order to do future trade with them and offer 'regulatory alignment'). However things eventually settle, no matter what trade deals we seek, it is also worth noting that there will inevitably have to be some higher, transnational court to resolve trade disputes and set standards.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 9, 2018 10:12:08 GMT
[Flim Flam] Childish name games are still not an argument, just as they weren't before. After all, I would never dream of calling you ThorHasshole. The thing is: The only poster who I remember calling you Flim Flam on the old IMDb board was the poster formerly known as Ada Lovelace / Helen Black. Coincidence? Maybe...
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 10:14:49 GMT
[Flim Flam] Childish name games are still not an argument, just as they weren't before. After all, I would never dream of calling you ThorHasshole. The thing is: The only poster who I remember calling you Flim Flam on the old IMDb board was the poster formerly known as Ada Lovelace / Helen Black. Coincidence? Maybe... LOL could be, but I have had it three or four times recently, from a least two different posters. Although both rude and unimaginative like this, the writing style, and obsessions, are different from each.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,668
Likes: 1,292
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 9, 2018 14:25:53 GMT
The principal reasons are: to keep out the swarms of Johnny Foreigner, who take all our jobs apparently (even though employment rates in the UK are at level highs, and haven't dipped much) Figures skewed by counting people on casual contracts as employed: www.theguardian.com/business/2017/aug/06/employment-statistics-wages-uk-jobs-market And employment figures aside, wages have fallen when adjusted for inflation. The EU immigration policy is designed to increase the labour market for employers and keep wages low in the west as a result. While as in the east it creates a brain drain which means their economies don't improve so they either remain poor or leave their families to go west and compete with westerners who will hate them as a result. As regards hating Johnny Foreigner, sure there is a lot of that and it's unfair but don't think that there is no negative impact on working class people as a result of the EU's free movement policy. Also there is a lot of scapegoating by racist pricks like Farage and Johnson but don't forget the reason they can scapegoat is people are hard done by and are looking for someone to blame. And Farage and co blame immigrants who (let's face it) are only trying to make a living too rather than the true cause - the austerity measures of the capitalist class. And aside from that, the EU is no friend of immigrants that don't provide any economic advantages to EU businesses - which is why they erect barbed wire fences on the eastern borders, make dodgy deals with Turkey to deport migrants and let people drown in the Mediterranean. The one thing I'm taking a bit of solice from the whole Brexit thing is that the areas of the country that tended to me most in favour of Brexit are the ones are the ones that are going to be hardest hit by the economic downturn following Brexit. In other words - the reason that North of England has a sh!t economy isn't because of the EU or immigration, it's because they can't get over the fact that developed western nations can't do basic heavy industry as cheaply as third world countries and they need to find smarter ways to earn a living rather than just blaming everyone else. This sounds like something Thatcher would say.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 9, 2018 14:46:22 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 9, 2018 14:53:43 GMT
That was part of it. Very few people had a problem with these people specifically, the issue was an increase in population of around 400,000 per year for a decade and a half. This increase is largely seen in poorer areas with less work, thus depressing wages, increasing competition for jobs and placing a strain on public services. It's good to see that the board's biggest proponents of Brexit isn't disputing that Brexit will cause severe economic damage to the UK. So if we're not doing it for economic reasons and we're not doing it to appease the inner racists in the Brexiteers, why are we doing it? The economic impact is in dispute. All the negative forecasts come from remainers. The true is we cannot predict how our economy will go. There are advantages to both. Personally I think short term it will hurt us, but long term we will be better off. And its amazing to me that people like you still do not get that calling everyone a racist if they don't agree with you stopped working about five years ago. Brexit and Trump showed us this. Freedom of movement has been around since 1992. Nobody cared, it only became a problem when Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria etc joined, because then we started seeing mass movement of people into Western Europe. Not rich people, but working class men competing for jobs and services. The population of the UK has risen by 7,000,000 in the last 15 years, but remainers cannot see any link between that and the housing crisis and the current strain on the NHS. IF you bothered to actually listen to the main arguments of the Brexiteers, instead of labelling them, the main objection to the EU was lack of Sovereignty of Westminster. www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-30/poll-shows-brexit-vote-was-about-british-sovereignty-not-anti-immigrationYou lot had the chance to argue that point, but you didn't. You instead chose to do what you are still doing. Call us all racist. It failed then and it will continue to fail.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Feb 9, 2018 14:57:56 GMT
I don't know what point you think you are making. Its no secret I oppose the UK's current hate crime and hate speech legislation, regardless of who the perpetrators supposedly are. Yes, it must be tough having to rein yourself in all the time... Duh, yoo is tez racistz and jus wantz to call teh brownz namz........... I've explained this to you. I've explained my objections to hate speech laws. I've explained why the government should not be allowed to legislate what I can and cannot say. I've explained why the police should not be taking a feelings over facts approach to the law. I've explained why current legislation allows you to be convicted of a "Homophobic Hate Crime" even if you didn't know the victim was gay, that was confirmed to me by the police. But you know all that don't you?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 9, 2018 15:16:18 GMT
Yes, it must be tough having to rein yourself in all the time... Duh, yoo is tez racistz and jus wantz to call teh brownz namz........... I've explained this to you. I've explained my objections to hate speech laws. I've explained why the government should not be allowed to legislate what I can and cannot say. I've explained why the police should not be taking a feelings over facts approach to the law. I've explained why current legislation allows you to be convicted of a "Homophobic Hate Crime" even if you didn't know the victim was gay, that was confirmed to me by the police. But you know all that don't you? Yes, you have explained a lot and what you think ought to be the case in lieu of the existing laws on hate speech, as it would suit you and others better. And you have made it very clear the minorities which would benefit from your kindly attentions after. Too much so, unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by OpiateOfTheMasses on Feb 9, 2018 15:31:02 GMT
It's good to see that the board's biggest proponents of Brexit isn't disputing that Brexit will cause severe economic damage to the UK. So if we're not doing it for economic reasons and we're not doing it to appease the inner racists in the Brexiteers, why are we doing it? The economic impact is in dispute. All the negative forecasts come from remainers. The true is we cannot predict how our economy will go. There are advantages to both. Personally I think short term it will hurt us, but long term we will be better off. And its amazing to me that people like you still do not get that calling everyone a racist if they don't agree with you stopped working about five years ago. Brexit and Trump showed us this. Freedom of movement has been around since 1992. Nobody cared, it only became a problem when Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria etc joined, because then we started seeing mass movement of people into Western Europe. Not rich people, but working class men competing for jobs and services. The population of the UK has risen by 7,000,000 in the last 15 years, but remainers cannot see any link between that and the housing crisis and the current strain on the NHS. IF you bothered to actually listen to the main arguments of the Brexiteers, instead of labelling them, the main objection to the EU was lack of Sovereignty of Westminster. www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-30/poll-shows-brexit-vote-was-about-british-sovereignty-not-anti-immigrationYou lot had the chance to argue that point, but you didn't. You instead chose to do what you are still doing. Call us all racist. It failed then and it will continue to fail. It's all about sovereignty... because there were so many things that the EU prevented the UK from doing that we'll be free to do once we leave that will revolutionise this country such as... what exactly? What is it that all the "give us back our sovereignty" people want that the EU stopped them doing? Blue Passports? We were actually allowed blue passports under the EU legislation, the government just decided to adopt the EU colours. Bring back the death penalty? Well that's not going to happen anyway. Get better trade deals? That may happen. It may not. Who knows. But it's sure as hell going to take a veeeeeeery long time and cost us Billions and Billions in the interim so they better be f*cking awesome trade deals, the best trade deals the world has ever seen to make up for the money it's cost the country waiting for them. Do away with Fisheries Policies? So we can over-fish now and destroy the fishing industry in 20 years time and everyone then will say "why didn't they do something about 20 years ago?" and if we're out of the EU (who buy most of our fish) - who are we going to sell it to anyway? So what does that leave?
|
|