Corruption. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
Figures.
Oh my goodness what do you think that free movement of people was doing to the poor people of this country. And who do you think was getting the charitable donations from our country to other countries?
I really would think that as you’re such a great supporter of the EU you would know how many black politicians there were in European countries. You really should read The Guardian more and read all its articles rather than just the ones that suits your agenda.
Poland was having to pay it’s people to come back to Poland and it’s since they’ve returned that they’ve started blossoming. And according to you Poland being in the EU is all sweetness and roses is it, dream on.
So you are not going to defend your claims. That is fine but simply confirms that you do not even trust your own thinking. Which makes sense given what you write.
Here’s an example:
Why should you think that? You are clearly a supporter of England - so do you know how many Asian councilors there are across England? Of course not. So it does not make any sense on any level that I would be tracking the numbers of ethnic minorities who are politicians in individual European countries. I’m not Italian or Bulgarian or Greek. I do not even know the ethnic mix of their populations. Yet in your mind anyone who thinks that EU membership is beneficial needs to investigate details of the make up of the parliament of all EU member countries. Right, that makes so much sense, not. Your thinking is beyond flawed, its patently dumb.
'Smash the gangs': UK Labour leader sets out plans for illegal migration | Reuters.
Neither Conservative or Labour can change this, whoever wins the next Election. Might as well face it they have no desire to admit the failures they are both responsible for. The snivel service no doubt complacent. UK has no security.
Defend what claims, if you ask me a question, I’ll answer. And I was asking you about MPs, not councillors and as I’ve said this was only brought to light to me because I read The Guardian.
Explain
When we were in the EU we had free movement of people from the EU, but the rest of the world had restrictions if they wanted to come and live and work in this country. The majority of the EU people are white Europeans, this to me is being racist, i.e. allowing one set of people above the rest.
1 Like
Excellent lack of logic.
The UK and many other European countries were in the European Union. This has four freedoms of movement as a central part of the EU free market. This allows anyone from any EU country to freely move to another EU country - of course provided they could meet key conditions. Anyone of any colour, race or creed. There is no judgement on the individual apart from the fact they are citizens of a EU country. North African citizens of France, Ethiopian citizens of Italy, Turkish citizens of Germany were all openly included in this freedom. There is no racism. If there was some selectivity written into this freedom then yes - but there is not.
Now, where you’ve got yourself confused is that the vast majority of Europeans are European white and therefore the vast majority of people moving between countries were white. That is simply a matter of who moved to another country - not any selectivity, discrimination or judgement. No racism. Countries who have a majority of non-white people like Algeria or Zambia or India or Japan are, you will observe, not in Europe. Which kind of excludes them from joining the EU a bit. Not being in the EU makes freedom of movement tricky, no? So yes it was white people who moved to the UK from Europe. But not for racist reasons.
I imagine that you struggle with comparisons. But for everyone and for a laugh lets create one. I went to a rural school many years ago. There literally were no black pupils or teachers and only one Chinese boy. The school was involved in an exchange programme with a school in north France. Every year a few pupils from each school would swap for a week or two. A few of our pupils went to France and a few of theirs came to ours. Over the years not a single black pupil from our school went to the French school. We had no black pupils to send. Funnily enough a couple of black French kids did come to ours. The French school had some black pupils. Then (here’s the fun comparison) a teacher from the French school, one Madame le Wendeey, send a strongly worded letter to our headmaster. In this letter she accused our school of being racist because we never sent them any black children. She was outraged at our obvious racism by only sending white pupils to France. We did laugh a lot at that.
Do you see now? Did it occur to you that some of the non-EU countries that have freedom of movement restrictions are majority white - and your rubbish notions fall down here? The UK does not allow free movement from the US where 80% are white - is that also racist? I’m literally weeping with laughter here.
1 Like
Do you think there is something wrong with white Europeans?
1 Like
You really don’t understand do you, this article from what you class as a ‘genuine’ newspaper might explain it better than I can:
No, do you?
I am not the one who said it’s “racist” for white Europeans to come over here to work. Making it more difficult in your words for white Europeans to come here is according to you a) a Brexit benefit and b) a reduction in racism. Surely the point of Brexit was that we would have more jobs for people who already live here (whatever ethnicity they may be). I’m failing to see your logic here. How is importing vast numbers from countries which will lose “some of their brightest and best workers” a Brexit benefit for us? The unemployment rate here is on the rise, yet importing labour is a Brexit benefit. Please explain how these two factors make sense.
Oh gawd, controlled immigration, not any Tom, Dick or Harry which was what happened when we were in the EU. i.e. if we need employees in a certain sector then they are quite welcome from any country in the world, if we haven’t enough of our own home grown ones, which has happened in the NHS. Thankfully now more companies are training up more of our own instead of bringing in cheap labour from the EU.
I still have no idea how the article demonstrates a Brexit benefit. Nobody was stopping us from letting in people from around the world before Brexit. You’re saying it’s controlled now, yet net migration has doubled since pre-covid. How is this a benefit if our services infrastructure isn’t matching the increase in population?
1 Like
If you can’t see this as a benefit I can’t help you.
Do you begrudge taking in the Ukrainians who will hopefully be able to go home one day?
Do you begrudge taking in the Hong Kongers?
A lot of those migrants you mention are students, who will be going back home and a lot of those migrants are helping us in the NHS.
This isn’t about my feelings on the subject but about whether you can demonstrate how it’s a Brexit benefit. Clearly not a likely outcome of this conversation!
Pre-Brexit anybody from the EU could come to this country, didn’t matter if they had a job or not, if they did get a job didn’t matter how much they earnt and if on low wages or had children could receive tax credits. They might have not even been paying tax. They didn’t have to speak English. Now they have to go by these rules:
A while ago I received an email from one of those fact-checking websites questioning a story I had written about Sir Keir Starmer trying to block Brexit 48 times. As is often the case with such supposedly “unbiased” inquisitions, the intention seemed to be to find me guilty of falsely maligning the former shadow Brexit secretary. Suffice to say the investigation ended abruptly when I supplied a comprehensive and detailed list of every time the Labour leader tried to block Brexit, complete with Hansard references.
But then the fact-checkers set their sights on former prime minister Boris Johnson after he made a slightly different claim: that Starmer had “voted” 48 times to take the UK back into the European Union. “This is not correct,” they concluded with trademark pomposity. “The figure appears to be based on how Mr Starmer voted in 48 votes related to Brexit. But some of these votes were not about whether Britain should be part of the EU, and all but three took place before Britain left the EU.”
While the site argued Johnson was wrong to say the former director of public prosecutions had “voted” 48 times to take the UK back into the EU – by doing so, it reminded everyone of just how many times Starmer did set his face against the result of a referendum in which a clear majority voted to leave the bloc.
Of course, you do not have to undertake a lengthy fact-checking mission to know that Starmer was one of Parliament’s Brexit blockers in chief. You just have to have a memory. And while I appreciate that a week is a long time in politics, you’d have to have appalling powers of recall to forget his declaration, in November 2018, that Brexit “can be stopped”.
Only those suffering from severe amnesia would fail to remember all the times he campaigned to remain in the single market, the customs union and the bloc itself.
So when he insists that he doesn’t want to reverse the referendum result, anyone with any knowledge of politics from 2016 to 2019 will suspect that Starmer is speaking politically not personally. He’s not giving an honest opinion, he’s simply trying to win back the Red Wall voters Labour lost in 2019. Like most members of the liberal metropolitan elite, he deplores Brexit and would surely go running back to Brussels in a heartbeat if he could.
This week, the truth of the lie was exposed by Labour’s proposal to effectively take an annual quota of asylum seekers from the EU in return for an agreement that would allow Britain to send back some Channel migrants.
Insisting that closer co-operation with Brussels on the small boats crisis would mean taking back control of a situation the Government had lost total control of, he was forced to deny the proposals were a first step towards reversing Brexit, saying there was “no case for going back to the EU”.
Yet he refused to say how many asylum seekers he would be willing to accept as part of a “burden sharing” deal with Brussels, suggesting it would be a matter of negotiation. Negotiation with the EU? Good luck with that, mate. After holding discussions with Europol on Thursday, the opposition leader will meet Emmanuel Macron to discuss the plan next week.
He is also due to meet that other bastion of social cohesion, Justin Trudeau, prime minister of Canada, this weekend.
Make no mistake, this looks to be all about realigning with Brussels, as spelled out by David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, when he suggested in June that Labour could tear up the Brexit deal to forge closer economic links with the bloc, as part of his “Britain Reconnected” scheme.
But that is not the end of Labour’s deception. For Starmer is also being dishonest with voters about the implications of cosying back up to a system that is currently in chaos. Post-Brexit Britain may well be broken but the EU is a complete basket case.
Take its migrant settlement schemes. Europe is facing a massive influx of undocumented people. In June, EU interior ministers endorsed a scheme to distribute migrants among its members more evenly, sharing responsibility for people entering the Schengen Area without authorisation.
But this week, Germany pulled the plug on an initiative to accept refugees from Italy, despite it nearly collapsing under the weight of mass arrivals at Lampedusa. More than 123,800 migrants have arrived in Italy this year, including more than 8,000 this week. In a move that should raise serious alarm bells with Starmer, Berlin has accused Rome of failing to meet its own obligations to take back migrants. So much for solidarity.
Last month, meanwhile, Mateusz Morawiecki, the prime minister of Poland, agreed to go ahead with a referendum on the EU migration scheme, in which voters will be asked if they are willing to accept “thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East and Africa”. Along with Hungary, Poland has objected to the proposals from the start, regarding the quotas set by Brussels as “illegal”.
Several European countries have also been flirting with Rwanda-style schemes. Earlier this month, Karl Nehammer, the chancellor of Austria, said his government plans to “outsource” applications for asylum procedures to third states, saying: “We will not give in.” Despite already having some of the strictest rules in Europe on asylum applications, Denmark has also considered the idea of processing migrants in Kigali.
Presumably, no one has thought to mention any of this to all those Remainers, gormlessly waving EU flags at the Proms at the Royal Albert Hall last weekend.
These poor deluded souls “remain” under the illusion that the EU is some sort of friendly and progressive family of nations, when in fact its members are at each other’s throats over immigration.
Moreover, a lot of them are now what they would probably describe as “rabidly” Right-wing. Wave an EU flag these days and you are celebrating a union of countries led by politicians who most Remainers would never dream of backing if they were British. And those that haven’t lurched to the Right yet look ripe to do so, with Marine Le Pen polling well in France and the AfD gaining momentum in Germany. So-called “populists” have been doing well in the Netherlands, too, as part of a revolt against net zero.
If more nationalists get elected in the coming years, the EU “project” is going to start looking even more shaky than it is already. And let’s not even get started on some of the member states’ economic woes, which sometimes make stagnant Britain look like an economic powerhouse.
Remainers’ view of the EU as an efficient, technocratic progressive bloc is a fantasy. Think the situation in Britain is bad today? Just wait until Starmer gets into power and seeks to drag us back into this madness.
I see. So you believe that the people coming from all corners of the world and settling here (with their extended families) are of a higher calibre post-Brexit and that makes doubling the net migration rate worthwhile regardless of the fact that there is no expansion of the services infrastructure and that our unemployment rate is rising?
1 Like
There was no small boat crisis prior to Brexit
2 Likes