Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Bubbles on September 07, 2016, 11:37:10 AM
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37294187
We are too.
-
I'm astonished the French allow us to do all this.
-
It's a rather different wall, Rose, but I'm not sure that it's sensible use of money. It isn't dealing with the problem, just moving its location.
-
I'm astonished the French allow us to do all this.
I'm astonished the French have allow this mess to build up. Why didn't they send them back from where they came from or stopped them coming in in the first place? Oh that's right crappy Schengen!!!
-
It's a rather different wall, Rose, but I'm not sure that it's sensible use of money. It isn't dealing with the problem, just moving its location.
This is what you get from the crappy EU!!!
-
This is what you get from the crappy EU!!!
It's not really the EU 's fault.
They would still be there EU or not.
They want a decent life where if they fall ill and need treatment they get it.
IMO them wanting to come here so badly makes me realise how fortunate we are in the uk, and how our society looks after us.
It's not perfect, but it's more then they get in the places they have come from.
It's a pity some other countries arn't stable and pleasant places to live.
We are so lucky.
-
It's not really the EU 's fault.
They would still be there EU or not.
They want a decent life where if they fall ill and need treatment they get it.
IMO them wanting to come here so badly makes me realise how fortunate we are in the uk, and how our society looks after us.
It's not perfect, but it's more then they get in the places they have come from.
It's a pity some other countries arn't stable and pleasant places to live.
We are so lucky.
The thing that I have a problem is, that these people are in FRANCE!
France is stable and pleasant place to live. These people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution and terror as they have ALREADY reached safety.
-
The thing that I have a problem is, that these people are in FRANCE!
France is stable and pleasant place to live. These people are NOT refugees fleeing persecution and terror as they have ALREADY reached safety.
And living in a Jungle!
-
And living in a Jungle!
Of their own making though.
They could assimilate into France, just as they would like to in the UK.
The point is that they are safe, and no longer refugees.
-
Of their own making though.
They could assimilate into France, just as they would like to in the UK.
The point is that they are safe, and no longer refugees.
Of course they are still refugees!
-
Of course they are still refugees!
Not now, they are safe.
They are now economic migrants.
You stop being a refugee when you reach a safe country.
As I say, they are in a France. A great country. I would not mind living there at all.
It like finding yourself in Canada, and wanting to go the the US.
-
BR is correct. Once in a safe country they are classed as migrants. They are technically France's responsibility to deal with them, either as asylum seekers, or send them back to their country of origin, if it is safe to do so. They are not our responsibility. It's worth mentioning that we are sending France cash to help deal with the problem when others might be less helpfuI.
I wonder why they are so keen to come here when France is a desirable place to live?
-
Not now, they are safe.
They are now economic migrants.
You stop being a refugee when you reach a safe country.
As I say, they are in a France. A great country. I would not mind living there at all.
It like finding yourself in Canada, and wanting to go the the US.
You are still a refugee until you are settled in a home not a garbage dump, imo!
-
You are still a refugee until you are settled in a home not a garbage dump, imo!
That's not the point. The point is that they are in the EU already and should really be processed as asylum seekers or illegal immigrants in France.
-
That's not the point. The point is that they are in the EU already and should really be processed as asylum seekers or illegal immigrants in France.
They are still refugees.
-
They are still refugees.
Are they fleeing persecution from France?
No, they are safe, and they are now just wanting to pick and choose.
Real refugees are happy just to be safe. They have achieved that.
-
They are still refugees.
That.
Is.
Not.
The.
Point.
-
That.
Is.
Not.
The.
Point.
And your point is?
-
And your point is?
They are safe, and do not need to come to the UK to avoid persecution.
Coming to the UK is a financial decision.
-
They are safe, and do not need to come to the UK to avoid persecution.
Coming to the UK is a financial decision.
NIMBY!
-
NIMBY!
Don't be silly. We have a net surplus of migrants entering this country of 330,000 a year! We send more in aid to other countries than anyone else, other than the US. We have considerable poverty here, including a high rate of child poverty. The food banks are more active than ever. We are still a country deep in debt, and we cannot be all things to all people.
-
They are still refugees.
A refugee is a person who ‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…’
(Definition quoted from the 1951 Refugee Convention)
Legally, an asylum seeker is a person who has applied for asylum in the UK and is waiting for a decision on his or her claim. A refugee on the other hand has already received a positive decision from the authorities on his or her asylum claim. So, strictly speaking the migrants in Calais are neither refugees or asylum seekers from a UK legal perspective – at least as long as they remain in French territory.
.
However some of the will be economic migrants.
The term economic migrant is often confused with the term refugee, but economic migrants leave their country due to bad economic conditions, not due to fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.
-
I reckon many of us would become economic migrants too if we lived in a country where the living conditions were intolerable and we faced starvation.
-
I reckon many of us would become economic migrants too if we lived in a country where the living conditions were intolerable and we faced starvation.
And the economic migrants in Calais are now in a stable country that can offer them what they need to live decently. So why need to come here, and be prepared to be violent in order to do so? Why those attacking lorry drivers should think that makes us liable to embrace their cause baffles me.
-
I reckon many of us would become economic migrants too if we lived in a country where the living conditions were intolerable and we faced starvation.
Are you happy that all economic migrants who wish to live in the UK, get that wish granted?
-
Are you happy that all economic migrants who wish to live in the UK, get that wish granted?
As long as they are prepared to be good citizens of this country and play their part. I could be considered a migrant as I wasn't born in the UK.
-
As long as they are prepared to be good citizens of this country and play their part.
How do you determine that when they apply to come here?
-
As long as they are prepared to be good citizens of this country and play their part. I could be considered a migrant as I wasn't born in the UK.
And you would have no objections for an immigration camp being built next to your property to hold several thousand people whilst they wait an indeterminate time to get jobs and housing?
-
And you would have no objections for an immigration camp being built next to your property to hold several thousand people whilst they wait an indeterminate time to get jobs and housing?
We haven't such camps in the UK have we?
-
A refugee is a person who ‘owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…’
(Definition quoted from the 1951 Refugee Convention)
Legally, an asylum seeker is a person who has applied for asylum in the UK and is waiting for a decision on his or her claim. A refugee on the other hand has already received a positive decision from the authorities on his or her asylum claim. So, strictly speaking the migrants in Calais are neither refugees or asylum seekers from a UK legal perspective – at least as long as they remain in French territory.
.
However some of the will be economic migrants.
The term economic migrant is often confused with the term refugee, but economic migrants leave their country due to bad economic conditions, not due to fear of persecution on the basis of race, religion, or ethnicity.
Ah, yes. The first rule is that everyone needs to be treated according to their label. Label missing? ... then straight into the bin.
-
We haven't such camps in the UK have we?
But we might need them if we allow everyone in that wants in.
So if we do....you won't object if one is built next to you?
-
To me it is only common sense that an economic migrant must have a job to come to, somewhere to live, and a certain standard of English; and must be vetted as regards a possible criminal record, and also on medical grounds to ensure they are not carrying any serious transferable disease. I don't think any of that is in any sense unreasonable.
-
It's not really the EU 's fault.
They would still be there EU or not.
They want a decent life where if they fall ill and need treatment they get it.
IMO them wanting to come here so badly makes me realise how fortunate we are in the uk, and how our society looks after us.
It's not perfect, but it's more then they get in the places they have come from.
It's a pity some other countries arn't stable and pleasant places to live.
We are so lucky.
That's because of our self serving leaders, over the odd hundred years or so have created these hell holes for their/our profit and gain. The EU is to blame as well as it has been inward looking, using its power to make trade only profitable to its self and to hinder good trade deals with other countries/continents like Africa. Their chickens are coming home to roust!!!
-
And living in a Jungle!
Made by themselves.
-
As long as they are prepared to be good citizens of this country and play their part. I could be considered a migrant as I wasn't born in the UK.
Well, that explains a lot!!!
-
That's because of our self serving leaders, over the odd hundred years or so have created these hell holes for their/our profit and gain. The EU is to blame as well as it has been inward looking, using its power to make trade only profitable to its self and to hinder good trade deals with other countries/continents like Africa. Their chickens are coming home to roust!!!
No, other countries like France and Spain also colonised countries, but they don't have our welfare system and the immigrants arn't looking to stay in those countries.
-
No, other countries like France and Spain also colonised countries, but they don't have our welfare system and the immigrants arn't looking to stay in those countries.
France has that problem, but I was also talking about how we have supported dictators who have ruled with an iron fist and worked with the West for each others' gains but not for the people.
And they aren't coming here for those things they are coming for jobs, the fact that many speak English so it is an easy option and they think Britain is paradise.
-
Well, that explains a lot!!!
Meaning?
-
Meaning?
Your whole attitude. You probably have very little psychological connections to this place and so are quite happy to give it away free of charge. Like politicians throwing tax payers money around because it has no costs to them. People all always generous with other peoples' possessions.
-
Your whole attitude. You probably have very little psychological connections to this place and so are quite happy to give it away free of charge. Like politicians throwing tax payers money around because it has no costs to them. People all always generous with other peoples' possessions.
You are talking through your bottom! I have every right to live in the UK having a British passport and have lived here for nearly three quarters of my life, 47 years to be exact. I am half English, a quarter Channel Islander and a quarter Irish. I wouldn't wish to live anywhere else and have plenty of psychological attachment to the country, my husband and children are English.
This country is built on migrants very few can trace their ancestry back to the original Anglo Saxon occupants, as most are incomers.
-
Of course they are still refugees!
Technically, they are no longer refugees, Floo. That term has very stringently defined meanings if you care to look it up, and as people have already said here, once they have reached Europe they no longer fit into those definitions.
-
This country is built on migrants very few can trace their ancestry back to the original Anglo Saxon occupants, as most are incomers.
Precisely, Floo; this country is built on migrants - and only very few refugees. Remember that whilst migrants are allowed to work, but many refugees struggle to get work in their early days/months because of their undeterminate status. Only once they have been given permission to reside, can they start to work.
-
"This country is built on migrants very few can trace their ancestry back to the original Anglo Saxon occupants, as most are incomers."
All that is irrelevant. The problems today are unique in our history, and are fraught with social and economic, not to mention securit, problems, on an unprecedented scale.
-
You are talking through your bottom! I have every right to live in the UK having a British passport and have lived here for nearly three quarters of my life, 47 years to be exact. I am half English, a quarter Channel Islander and a quarter Irish. I wouldn't wish to live anywhere else and have plenty of psychological attachment to the country, my husband and children are English.
This country is built on migrants very few can trace their ancestry back to the original Anglo Saxon occupants, as most are incomers.
So if 5 million came in each year and some parked outside your house or begged in your high street and so on and littered the place up and lived like pigs and smelling like them etc., you'd be quite happy about it?
-
So if 5 million came in each year and some parked outside your house or begged in your high street and so on and littered the place up and lived like pigs and smelling like them etc., you'd be quite happy about it?
You are unpleasant! I hope you never have to escape from a war torn country and live in the conditions those poor people have to endure.
-
No, other countries like France and Spain also colonised countries, but they don't have our welfare system and the immigrants arn't looking to stay in those countries.
hmm, of-course France, Spain .. also Italy, Germany have plenty of people looking to immigrate .. in general. 3rd world immigrants tend to prefer to go to the countries that colonised them, mainly due to family members already there, language and other cultural issues. Also they may well feel they have a right to. I don't think they are intending to live on "benefits".
-
hmm, of-course France, Spain .. also Italy, Germany have plenty of people looking to immigrate .. in general. 3rd world immigrants tend to prefer to go to the countries that colonised them, mainly due to family members already there, language and other cultural issues. Also they may well feel they have a right too. I don't think they are intending to live on "benefits".
Not sure about that suggestion.
-
hmm, of-course France, Spain .. also Italy, Germany have plenty of people looking to immigrate .. in general. 3rd world immigrants tend to prefer to go to the countries that colonised them, mainly due to family members already there, language and other cultural issues. Also they may well feel they have a right too. I don't think they are intending to live on "benefits".
Not sure about that suggestion. We have immigrants here from almost every country on Earth, and we certainly didn't colonise them all. If you are a migrant you will choose a country you perceive to be able to offer you the most advantageous options. I don't think the high number of Syrian or Afghanistan would-be migrants are a throw-back to our colonial past. As I said before, France is a desirable new country for either asylum-seekers or economic migrants, and France has a colonial past, but it doesn't seem to be an over-riding fact with the migrants in Calais, for example.
-
You are unpleasant! I hope you never have to escape from a war torn country and live in the conditions those poor people have to endure.
You didn't answer the question!!!
And those wore torn countries have been war torn by the West over the centuries for their own greed and no doubt you have voted some of them into power.
-
Not sure about that suggestion. We have immigrants here from almost every country on Earth, and we certainly didn't colonise them all. If you are a migrant you will choose a country you perceive to be able to offer you the most advantageous options. I don't think the high number of Syrian or Afghanistan would-be migrants are a throw-back to our colonial past. As I said before, France is a desirable new country for either asylum-seekers or economic migrants, and France has a colonial past, but it doesn't seem to be an over-riding fact with the migrants in Calais, for example.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/12111108/Mapped-Which-country-has-the-most-immigrants.html
Further into the article is a comparison of UK against other G8 countries.
UK does not have (relatively) many from Syria. Migrants from Afghanistan were rare before our joint action with the US but increased as refugees fled through Pakistan, and were trafficked from there.
The most advantageous options are usually in places where you have the best contacts.
The migrants in Calais are just a few thousand, mostly from Asia, most migrants in France are from North and sub-Saharan Africa.
-
So if 5 million came in each year and some parked outside your house or begged in your high street and so on and littered the place up and lived like pigs and smelling like them etc., you'd be quite happy about it?
See... and some people say they don't try and integrate!
-
"This country is built on migrants very few can trace their ancestry back to the original Anglo Saxon occupants, as most are incomers."
All that is irrelevant. The problems today are unique in our history,
No they aren't. This country has been subject to repeated invasions by illegal immigrants before.
and are fraught with social and economic, not to mention securit, problems, on an unprecedented scale.
Not really no. Compared with the population that is already here, these illegal immigrants are a drop in the ocean.
-
No they aren't. This country has been subject to repeated invasions by illegal immigrants before.
Not really no. Compared with the population that is already here, these illegal immigrants are a drop in the ocean.
This country is absorbing more than 330,000 immigrants every year, quite apart from any count of illegal immigrants, whose real numbers no-one knows. That is most certainly unique in our history. The numbers far outway anything seen before, if only in the short space of time we have had to try and assimilate them. The cultural, social and financial repercussions are enormous. To accept even more without some kind of control is madness.
-
Not sure about that suggestion. We have immigrants here from almost every country on Earth, and we certainly didn't colonise them all. If you are a migrant you will choose a country you perceive to be able to offer you the most advantageous options. I don't think the high number of Syrian or Afghanistan would-be migrants are a throw-back to our colonial past. As I said before, France is a desirable new country for either asylum-seekers or economic migrants, and France has a colonial past, but it doesn't seem to be an over-riding fact with the migrants in Calais, for example.
Unemployment in France is pretty high at the moment. Maybe they don't see any prospects.
-
This country is absorbing more than 330,000 immigrants every year, quite apart from any count of illegal immigrants, whose real numbers no-one knows. That is most certainly unique in our history.
In absolute terms: maybe. Relative to the existing population: no.
330,000 represents less than 0.5% of the current population. If it carries on at this level (unlikely because this is, as you say, a historic high) in ten years it means that a school with 100 children in it now will have a 105 children. It means a queue that has 10 people in it now, in ten years will have 11 people in it (half the time).
Immigration is a drop in the ocean - as I said before.
-
In absolute terms: maybe. Relative to the existing population: no.
330,000 represents less than 0.5% of the current population. If it carries on at this level (unlikely because this is, as you say, a historic high) in ten years it means that a school with 100 children in it now will have a 105 children. It means a queue that has 10 people in it now, in ten years will have 11 people in it (half the time).
Immigration is a drop in the ocean - as I said before.
Firstly, the 330,000 figure is only for legal immigrants. There are various estimates as to how many illegals there are, varying from 300,000 to 800,000. But more importantly, your scenario sounds very reasonable, and would be if the newcomers were spread evenly across the different communities. It is not so. We will all be aware of cities where the migrant population in schools outnumbers the indigenous population. This is a highly dangerous situation in my opinion, and can only lead to social unrest. It is in such areas where migrants are in large numbers in the community that the Brexit campaign had its greatest success. Further, though you suggest the incoming numbers can be easily absorbed in schools it is not true. In reality many schools are having the greatest difficulty in integrating migrants, many of whom have little or no English, and that situation is to the detriment of all. The large numbers are having a severe effect on housing and in health care, where the numbers are putting an increasingly severe strain on the system. In your allusion, a correct one of course, that we have always had waves of migration, it was always in a totally different social structure, where things were never equal and in many ways it was a free for all, with an underclass who, largely, were not considered. But even so, in past times the numbers were never so high over a relatively short period of time. With respect, I think your attitude smacks of complacency. I believe we are in the midst of a social crisis not seen in my life-time, or for a long time before.
-
Are you happy that all economic migrants who wish to live in the UK, get that wish granted?
On a personal level, that doesn't bother me because people will come and go, maybe stay here for a while and then move on to somewhere else; some will stay forever if they like it.
The British also go to other countries for economic reasons and set up home. Always have.
Quote: Road hauliers called the wall a "poor use" of public money.
Couldn't agree more.
-
Firstly, the 330,000 figure is only for legal immigrants. There are various estimates as to how many illegals there are, varying from 300,000 to 800,000.
But that is the total number here, not the amount by which the number of illegal immigrants is increasing or decreasing per annum.
But more importantly, your scenario sounds very reasonable, and would be if the newcomers were spread evenly across the different communities. It is not so. We will all be aware of cities where the migrant population in schools outnumbers the indigenous population.
So what? Almost everybody in the UK is descended from immigrants.
This is a highly dangerous situation in my opinion, and can only lead to social unrest.
Only because of the hysteria whipped up by people like you.
It is in such areas where migrants are in large numbers in the community that the Brexit campaign had its greatest success.
Which must mean the migrants generally voted for Brexit. Why are you so unhappy?
Further, though you suggest the incoming numbers can be easily absorbed in schools it is not true. In reality many schools are having the greatest difficulty in integrating migrants, many of whom have little or no English, and that situation is to the detriment of all.
So they need to get better at it.
The migrants are, on the whole, good for the country. In general, they pay their taxes and they work hard. If you count yourself as English, your ancestors were migrants, and I can tell you that migration was a bit more violent than the current one.
-
Which must mean the migrants generally voted for Brexit. Why are you so unhappy?
Only if they had already acquired British citizenship.
-
But that is the total number here, not the amount by which the number of illegal immigrants is increasing or decreasing per annum.
So what? Almost everybody in the UK is descended from immigrants.
Only because of the hysteria whipped up by people like you.
Which must mean the migrants generally voted for Brexit. Why are you so unhappy?
So they need to get better at it.
The migrants are, on the whole, good for the country. In general, they pay their taxes and they work hard. If you count yourself as English, your ancestors were migrants, and I can tell you that migration was a bit more violent than the current one.
You just don't get it. Firstly, I do not whip up hysteria - a comment which simply shows your lack of appreciation of the issues and others' point of view, and an unpleasant and personal assertion, and only to be expected from someone as self-important and mired in his own certainties as you. I am making a reasonable argument, and you have made no intelligent attempt to answer. You merely resort to being personal. As for your throw-away comment that migrants voted Brexit: any figures to back that up, or is it another of your, "I said it, so it's true" assertions. As to all immigrants being hard-working tax-payers: no doubt you have figures to back that up. No doubt most are, but I have no corroboration. And why mention violence? You seem to be the one dealing in hysteria. You are a most closed-minded, self important debater, merely throwing out one-liners. Have you ever debated without becoming abusive to some extent or other? Don't answer: it's self-evident, and no doubt you will supply ample evidence yet.
Have a good day.
-
... With respect, I think your attitude smacks of complacency. I believe we are in the midst of a social crisis not seen in my life-time, or for a long time before.
Whatever. We may be in a social crisis but it is nothing compared to the crises in the ME and Africa at the root of the migrations.
-
Whatever. We may be in a social crisis but it is nothing compared to the crises in the ME and Africa at the root of the migrations.
I am fully aware of that, and this country does more than every one else, apart from the US, in providing money and resources to help: we have a basic foreign aid budget of £12 billion a year! We give more than all the rest of the precious EU put together, and we are, after all, bankrupt. We cannot be everything to every one. We do a great deal, and I care as much as the next about the needy, but there is such a thing as being realistic, and we still have poor and needy here; we are still seeing food banks growing in number; we still have many homeless. We do a lot for those in trouble.
-
er .. yes., but it is obviously not working!
Just because we spend all that money does not mean that migrants that want to come here must be taken care of by France or Spain!
-
er .. yes., but it is obviously not working!
Just because we spend all that money does not mean that migrants that want to come here must be taken care of by France or Spain!
What do you mean, "not working"? What do you suggest? We give a billion pounds a year in foreign aid; we even give half a million a year to France to pay for the Calais camp. We have to absorb 330,000 migrants from around the world every year. We do a great deal. Should we simply open our doors to unlimited migration? Surely you don't suggest that. So how would you make it work?
What France and Spain do is their concern: they certainly don't do more than us. We are simply being realistic and doing what we can. Do you suggest we follow Merkel's lead and open our doors without restriction? She regrets it now.
-
You just don't get it. Firstly, I do not whip up hysteria
But you've even been doing it here.
a comment which simply shows your lack of appreciation of the issues and others' point of view, and an unpleasant and personal assertion, and only to be expected from someone as self-important and mired in his own certainties as you.
No I understand the issues far better than you appear to.
I am making a reasonable argument, and you have made no intelligent attempt to answer.
Wrong. I demonstrated why your fear of immigrants is misplaced.
I see no attempt by you to engage in a rational discussion as you seem to have descended into insult. Your absence hasn't improved your intellect.
As for your throw-away comment that migrants voted Brexit: any figures to back that up, or is it another of your, "I said it, so it's true" assertions.
It was you who made that claim. You said areas with lots of migrants voted Brexit. Who was doing the voting if not the migrants?
As to all immigrants being hard-working tax-payers: no doubt you have figures to back that up. No doubt most are, but I have no corroboration.
I didn't say they all were, I said "in general".
And why mention violence? You seem to be the one dealing in hysteria.
I brought up the violence of the Anglo Saxon migration as a contrast to the present one.
You are a most closed-minded, self important debater, merely throwing out one-liners.
The irony. Absence hasn't diminished your insult skills. I guess that is what comes of not having an argument worth shit.
-
But you've even been doing it here.
No I understand the issues far better than you appear to.
Wrong. I demonstrated why your fear of immigrants is misplaced.
I see no attempt by you to engage in a rational discussion as you seem to have descended into insult. Your absence hasn't improved your intellect.
It was you who made that claim. You said areas with lots of migrants voted Brexit. Who was doing the voting if not the migrants?
I didn't say they all were, I said "in general".
I brought up the violence of the Anglo Saxon migration as a contrast to the present one.
The irony. Absence hasn't diminished your insult skills. I guess that is what comes of not having an argument worth shit.
A few corrections to your shabby and deceitful post:
Firstly, it is both an untruth and a pretty despicable slur to accuse me of whipping up hysteria. I make reasonable and debatable points. To make such a comment by you simply demonstrates that you have no answers, and so resort to accusations, in the age-old manner of those who have nothing substantial to say.
You allege you know more about the situation than I. Then why don't you answer my points regarding the NHS, housing, and schools with regard to immigration?
Then you say you have demonstrated my fear of immigration: nonsense: you cannot demonstrate an untruth - I have no fear of immigration at all, but only a sensible and realistic approach to a difficult situation.
You have not debated anything, only resorted to your usual denunciation of anything you disagree with. It's a joke!
I spoke of areas of high immigrant population being mainly out-voters. You made the absurd comment that how could they be as presumably migrants would have voted Remain. Well, clearly the rest of the areas concerned didn't - it's not quite rocket science. And my point was that in high immigrant areas the population is more concerned about such things as housing, schooling, employment, and the NHS. What is your answer to that?
And, as usual, you accuse me of insulting you. Take a look at yourself and try very hard to see yourself as others do: arrogant, self-important, supercilious, and a self-appointed expert on all things: religion, politics, sport, science. You confuse insult with truthfulness. And finally, the hypocrisy: to accuse me of insult and yet finish your appalling post with your habitual obscenity. Try and see how ridiculous your arguments appear. Of course, it is plain that your bile is down to the fact that the majority did not follow your learned example, and vote Remain. In other words: you're a sore loser!
-
Without the help of incomers this country would be in a very sorry state. They often do jobs Brits don't want to do, or not enough have the skills needed. Our hospitals would be in a much worse state if the only staff were Brits.
I think a lot of people who voted to leave the EU using the migrants as an excuse, are racists at heart, especially those who support the ghastly UKIP mob.
-
I certainly agree with you on that one, floo.
So - if all illegal or/and legal immigrants are sent away, the Brit pop will pick turnips, wait tables, mend fences, valet cars, work for cleaning companies, iron ..... yeah right, some might.
-
To dismiss UKIP as a "mob" shows a certain level of political ignorance. To dismiss some 4,000,000 voters is foolhardy. You see, Cameron did, and too late realised his mistake. It cost him his job. So, UKIP had their use. They got rid of Cameron's "mob."
-
I certainly agree with you on that one, floo.
So - if all illegal or/and legal immigrants are sent away, the Brit pop will pick turnips, wait tables, mend fences, valet cars, work for cleaning companies, iron ..... yeah right, some might.
If all the migrants left our shores, the disgusting racist UKIP mob would really have something to moan about when the jobs they do were left undone.
-
/quote] author=Floo link=topic=12512.msg633835#msg633835 date=1473579315]
If all the migrants left our shores, the disgusting racist UKIP mob would really have something to moan about when the jobs they do were left undone.
Strange: all those jobs were done in the past, before the large numbers of migrants were allowed in because of the EU. The point is, these EU workers are very often working here on wages which are undercutting people here. I do wish some of you people would look more closely into the facts, and get a grip on what is actually happening.
-
Strange: all those jobs were done in the past, before the large numbers of migrants were allowed in because of the EU. The point is, these EU workers are very often working here on wages which are undercutting people here. I do wish some of you people would look more closely into the facts, and get a grip on what is actually happening.
But the past is a long time ago.
Farmers repeatedly bang on about the fact that they cannot get English people to work in the fields even though they pay the minimum wage. They can't afford to pay more because our big supermarkets demand prices are kept low for all of us dear consumers. When the migrants go (if) then prices will either go up because farmers will be forced to pay more to English people - or we will see farming go into decline and we will have to import more. Quite a lot of those imports will come from an economic block we have decided to leave thus cutting us out of favourable trading terms for that produce - with higher costs for us the consumer again.
This isn't rocket science its the way the market works.
-
But the past is a long time ago.
Farmers repeatedly bang on about the fact that they cannot get white English people to work in the fields even though they pay the minimum wage. They can't afford to pay more because our big supermarkets demand prices are kept low for all of us dear consumers. When the migrants go (if) then prices will either go up because farmers will be forced to pay more to English people - or we will see farming go into decline and we will have to import more. Quite a lot of those imports will come from an economic block we have decided to leave thus cutting us out of favourable trading terms for that produce - with higher costs for us the consumer again.
This isn't rocket science its the way the market works.
Good post.
-
What do you mean, "not working"? What do you suggest? We give a billion pounds a year in foreign aid; we even give half a million a year to France to pay for the Calais camp. We have to absorb 330,000 migrants from around the world every year. We do a great deal. Should we simply open our doors to unlimited migration? Surely you don't suggest that. So how would you make it work?
What France and Spain do is their concern: they certainly don't do more than us. We are simply being realistic and doing what we can. Do you suggest we follow Merkel's lead and open our doors without restriction? She regrets it now.
There is no single simple answer. What is needed is establishing better governance and successful businesses in those countries. Corruption needs to be eliminated. Aid does not help except when resources are needed for relieving disasters and emergencies. Trade would be much better.
Ultimately there is no solution unless the standard of life is pretty much even across the world. But for this to even be a remote hope, global warming and climate change need to be reduced to a minimum and the rich need to start trading fairly with everyone else.
You have mentioned how badly off we are - poor health services, education, unemployment and so on - but in fact the country is immensely rich, we just choose to limit the benefits to a few percent here and abroad. Even during the height of the empire, when the wealth of the world was pouring into Britain, the streets were packed with unemployed, starving and unhoused.
-
There is no single simple answer. What is needed is establishing better governance and successful businesses in those countries. Corruption needs to be eliminated. Aid does not help except when resources are needed for relieving disasters and emergencies. Trade would be much better.
Ultimately there is no solution unless the standard of life is pretty much even across the world. But for this to even be a remote hope, global warming and climate change need to be reduced to a minimum and the rich need to start trading fairly with everyone else.
You have mentioned how badly off we are - poor health services, education, unemployment and so on - but in fact the country is immensely rich, we just choose to limit the benefits to a few percent here and abroad. Even during the height of the empire, when the wealth of the world was pouring into Britain, the streets were packed with unemployed, starving and unhoused.
The British Empire was of no credit to the UK whatsoever. It treated the citizens of the countries it acquired as lesser mortals, if not slaves, and plundered their assets.
Compared to third world countries Britain is immensely rich even when there is a recession on.
-
Strange: all those jobs were done in the past, before the large numbers of migrants were allowed in because of the EU. The point is, these EU workers are very often working here on wages which are undercutting people here. I do wish some of you people would look more closely into the facts, and get a grip on what is actually happening.
Which is why the Brexiteers stressed control of immigration and borders rather than control of numbers and even supporting non EU immigration as opposed to EU immigration.
That covers them for letting in even cheaper labour.
I'm sure the Brexit campaigners don't hate the indigenous Briton...........they just want her to work for less.
-
Which is why the Brexiteers stressed control of immigration and borders rather than control of numbers and even supporting non EU immigration as opposed to EU immigration.
That covers them for letting in even cheaper labour.
I'm sure the Brexit campaigners don't hate the indigenous Briton...........they just want her to work for less.
You seem to know a lot about the thinking of 17,000,000 people! Where do you get your info?
-
Strange: all those jobs were done in the past, before the large numbers of migrants were allowed in because of the EU. The point is, these EU workers are very often working here on wages which are undercutting people here. I do wish some of you people would look more closely into the facts, and get a grip on what is actually happening.
I couldn't give a monkey's if immigrants do a job cheaper and undercut other people, as long as they are not exploited! A lot of them become self employed after a while. They work harder, do a decent job, are reliable which is not something to be sneezed at, polite and humourous. Anyone who has employed an 'EU immigrant builder', gardener, cleaner or driver will tell you the same. Jolly good luck to them.
-
I couldn't give a monkey's if immigrants do a job cheaper and undercut other people, as long as they are not exploited! A lot of them become self employed after a while. They work harder, do a decent job, are reliable which is not something to be sneezed at, polite and humourous. Anyone who has employed an 'EU immigrant builder', gardener, cleaner or driver will tell you the same. Jolly good luck to them.
There are a million Poles alone in this country; I don't know how many other EU nationals, probably another million who were not born here. And many of them are taking employment off our work-force. That may not worry someone as complacent as you, but it matters to our work-force and their families, and it matters, ultimately to the country's economy. And of the millions of migrant workers who are so hard-working and diligent, how many can you vouch for: a couple of hundred thousand? Or perhaps one or two!!! To say they are all so commendable is a silly claim, impossible to substantiate. Anyway, good luck to them, and the devil take the rest, eh..
And just a thought: if all these Polish workers are so hard-working and diligent, how come Poland is doing so poorly in economic terms, so that they have to find work elsewhere?
-
Oy Anthony, I was a diligent member of the work force once and my husband still is, so is son! We have all worked with and known many people from different countries.
I understood Poland was quite up and coming economically but these things take time. Since when have people in this country objected to Poles anyway? A lot of Polish people have gone back to Poland, people come and go, especially young ones. Likewise, English people go elsewhere for more money and sometimes come back.
-
Oy Anthony, I was a diligent member of the work force once and my husband still is, so is son! We have all worked with and known many people from different countries.
I understood Poland was quite up and coming economically but these things take time. Since when have people in this country objected to Poles anyway? A lot of Polish people have gone back to Poland, people come and go, especially young ones. Likewise, English people go elsewhere for more money and sometimes come back.
I am not against Poles, or anyone else. I am for this country and its success in the world. Neither am I against the movement of people. But like anything else, it should be in moderation. At the moment this country is taking in more than it can sensibly manage. The pressure on our infrastructure is becoming more and more onerous. Housing, education and the precious NHS are in crisis. It makes sense by any standard to manage these numbers rather than let matters slide further and further into difficulty.
Have a good night.
-
Thanks Bash, had a flippin' awful night, hardly slept! Hee hee, that's life. Quite good day today though so far.
We are all entitled to say what we think and we have. Hope you are having a good day.
-
Thanks Bash, had a flippin' awful night, hardly slept! Hee hee, that's life. Quite good day today though so far.
We are all entitled to say what we think and we have. Hope you are having a good day.
I'm lucky these days. If I'm tired I nap; if I'm not tired I stay up and do something. I've had a busy day, so I'll rest tonight, and try to think of devastating comments to post!
-
Wot you? Never! ;)
-
A few corrections to your shabby and deceitful post:
Firstly, it is both an untruth and a pretty despicable slur to accuse me of whipping up hysteria.
Lying about the illusory dangers of immigration is pretty shabby and despicable.
I make reasonable and debatable points.
Why don't you debate them then?
why don't you answer my points regarding the NHS, housing, and schools with regard to immigration?
I told you: these historic highs in immigration still represent drop in the ocean. If the NHS, schools and housignare problematic, it is nothing to do with immigration.
I have no fear of immigration at all, but only a sensible and realistic approach to a difficult situation.
Why are you lashing out against it then?
I spoke of areas of high immigrant population being mainly out-voters. You made the absurd comment that how could they be as presumably migrants would have voted Remain.
No I didn't. Read my comment again, this time for comprehension.
You said that areas of high immigration voted to leave. I did not dispute that assertion, I pointed out that if the areas where immigration id high voted leave, the immigrants must have been voting leave in general.
And, as usual, you accuse me of insulting you.
Well you do. Let's see....
Take a look at yourself and try very hard to see yourself as others do: arrogant, self-important, supercilious, and a self-appointed expert on all things: religion, politics, sport, science. You confuse insult with truthfulness.
Take a look in the mirror.
And finally, the hypocrisy: to accuse me of insult and yet finish your appalling post with your habitual obscenity.
Fuck you.
Oh look, I did it again. Maybe you should take a look at some of my other posts and try to understand why I usually only throw the obscenities into my posts to you.
Try and see how ridiculous your arguments appear. Of course, it is plain that your bile is down to the fact that the majority did not follow your learned example, and vote Remain. In other words: you're a sore loser!
If you'd been around when the Brexit vote fiasco was happening, you'd know why I'm very angry about the result. In five years time when all the international companies have left, the banking sector has gone and Scotland has voted to leave xenophobic England to wallow pathetically in its past glories, you might understand why this was such a bad, and cowardly decision.
-
I am for this country and its success in the world.
That's not going to happen now.
The pressure on our infrastructure is becoming more and more onerous. Housing, education and the precious NHS are in crisis.
The NHS is not in crisis because of immigrants. Without immigrants there would not be enough cleaners, porters, doctors and nurses. If you want to see the NHS in crisis, stop immigrants from being employed by it.
-
I don't think that the relation between numbers of immigrants and voting Leave or Remain is as simple as all that. Some areas with high immigration voted Remain (many areas of London), and some areas with low immigration, vote Leave, e.g. Hartlepool. In fact, it has become something of a cliche to say that low immigration predicts a Leave vote, but there are in fact other factors, e.g. age, education, and income. Thus Leave voters tended to be older, less well educated, and lower paid. However, there are outliers as well, which complicate the picture.
-
Lying about the illusory dangers of immigration is pretty shabby and despicable.
Why don't you debate them then?
I told you: these historic highs in immigration still represent drop in the ocean. If the NHS, schools and housignare problematic, it is nothing to do with immigration.
Why are you lashing out against it then?
No I didn't. Read my comment again, this time for comprehension.
You said that areas of high immigration voted to leave. I did not dispute that assertion, I pointed out that if the areas where immigration id high voted leave, the immigrants must have been voting leave in general.
Well you do. Let's see....
Take a look in the mirror.
Fuck you.
Oh look, I did it again. Maybe you should take a look at some of my other posts and try to understand why I usually only throw the obscenities into my posts to you.
If you'd been around when the Brexit vote fiasco was happening, you'd know why I'm very angry about the result. In five years time when all the international companies have left, the banking sector has gone and Scotland has voted to leave xenophobic England to wallow pathetically in its past glories, you might understand why this was such a bad, and cowardly decision.
You use obscenities on a regular basis in all contexts.
You are just a self-important, foul-mouthed, narrow-minded, vitriolic, Referendum LOSER. OOH, I insulted you again! No, not really. It's all true! Take another look in the mirror, and just remember the words of the blessed Robbie Burns.
-
, and just remember the words of the blessed Robbie Burns.
Very true
D'ye mind that day when in a bizz
Wi' reekit duds, an' reestit gizz,
Ye did present your smoutie phiz
'Mang better folk,
An' sklented on the man of Uzz
Your spitefu' joke?
-
Very true
D'ye mind that day when in a bizz
Wi' reekit duds, an' reestit gizz,
Ye did present your smoutie phiz
'Mang better folk,
An' sklented on the man of Uzz
Your spitefu' joke?
I wasn't referring to you, but hey, if the cap fits...
-
That's not going to happen now.
The NHS is not in crisis because of immigrants. Without immigrants there would not be enough cleaners, porters, doctors and nurses. If you want to see the NHS in crisis, stop immigrants from being employed by it.
Good post. Some people with racist tendencies like to blame migrants the UK's problems which would still exist, migrants or no migrants.
-
I think when a person suggests another has "racist tendencies," they should have the courage to name names: put up, or shut up should be the key. IF someone was to say that about me, I would give them a really hard time. As it happens they won't because I am not in the least racist.
-
Good post. Some people with racist tendencies like to blame migrants the UK's problems which would still exist, migrants or no migrants.
The NHS is in financial crisis because it cannot cope with the demand on it. So, it makes sense to try and control the numbers using it. That is the crisis, and it has nothing to do with who is employed by it.
-
The NHS is in financial crisis because it cannot cope with the demand on it. So, it makes sense to try and control the numbers using it. That is the crisis, and it has nothing to do with who is employed by it.
But the crisis in the NHS has very little to do with migrants and a lot more to do with an aging population combined with the severe cutbacks on social care thus creating bed blocking and all the consequences that brings for hospitals.
Whereas migrants are now essential for keeping the NHS running.
-
But the crisis in the NHS has very little to do with migrants and a lot more to do with an aging population combined with the severe cutbacks on social care thus creating bed blocking and all the consequences that brings for hospitals.
Whereas migrants are now essential for keeping the NHS running.
It would be in a much worse mess without them.
-
But the crisis in the NHS has very little to do with migrants and a lot more to do with an aging population combined with the severe cutbacks on social care thus creating bed blocking and all the consequences that brings for hospitals.
Whereas migrants are now essential for keeping the NHS running.
As I have said, I am well aware of the input of overseas workers in the NHS, but that is not what I am arguing. I agree with your analysis of the reasons why there is an NHS crisis. What I am arguing is that it makes sense to address the problems where we can. It would be excellent if the Government were to relent on cut-backs - not very likely. But it is more realistic in the current climate to control migration, and not just for the NHS, but to alleviate the housing crisis, and the difficulties schools face.
-
The NHS is in financial crisis because it cannot cope with the demand on it. So, it makes sense to try and control the numbers using it.
Introduce compulsory euthanasia?
-
Introduce compulsory euthanasia?
I'm sure that would appeal to someone like you.
-
I'm sure that would appeal to someone like you.
Someone like me?
What exactly is, someone like me?
-
Introduce compulsory euthanasia?
I have often mused that compulsory euthanasia when one reaches a certain age, might be introduced one day if Earth's population became unsustainable.
-
I think when a person suggests another has "racist tendencies," they should have the courage to name names: put up, or shut up should be the key. IF someone was to say that about me, I would give them a really hard time. As it happens they won't because I am not in the least racist.
That's all very well Bash but we will all be with people at times who display certain attitudes but we won't necessarily remember their names and, even if we do, it would be wrong to name names of ordinary people on a forum like this. We can 'name names' when it comes to public figures, that is fair game, but not people, for example, whom we've met at work, at a friend's house, a neighbour or maybe even family.
Nobody's going to name you; even if we they disagree with your opinions you don't display any personal animosity towards people from 'elsewhere' - you don't say, "These flipping foreigners..!", etc. At least I haven't seen that from you.
-
I have often mused that compulsory euthanasia when one reaches a certain age, might be introduced one day if Earth's population became unsustainable.
Hmm....Carousel.
-
Hmm....Carousel.
Carousel????
Logan's Run more like.
-
That's all very well Bash but we will all be with people at times who display certain attitudes but we won't necessarily remember their names and, even if we do, it would be wrong to name names of ordinary people on a forum like this. We can 'name names' when it comes to public figures, that is fair game, but not people, for example, whom we've met at work, at a friend's house, a neighbour or maybe even family.
Nobody's going to name you; even if we they disagree with your opinions you don't display any personal animosity towards people from 'elsewhere' - you don't say, "These flipping foreigners..!", etc. At least I haven't seen that from you.
You won't see any of that name-calling about migrants from me. Why should I? I simply make by arguments, purely in debate. I have no personal animosity to anyone, never have had - except a few bits, on here, in retaliation, to jp, and a few others; people I know nothing about in reality, and who are probably a nice enough guys, off here. My point was that if you are prepared to make covert accusations, then it is cowardly and is open to people jumping to all kinds of accusations. If what you believe is so, then say it, instead of hiding behind innuendo. It's a horrid way to post.
-
I wasn't actually thinking about people on forums, Anthony, but people we rub up against in the outside world. Like if I came on here and talked about my neighbour's friends, Betty Squires and her husband (fictional people), whom I encountered at a barbecue; that would be unfair, however I might say I'd come across certain characters with a particular attitude. Which we all do.
Certainly there should never be dark hints about fellow posters, unless it is obvious that could lead to all sorts of speculation. Far better to say what we have to say to the poster or keep quiet. So I agree with you on that. Also not to say anything about anyone privately that we would not want public, always keep it innocuous.
To move on, here is a nice picture of Mr Trump:
http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DonaldTrump
-
That picture is too flattering! :D
-
I wasn't actually thinking about people on forums, Anthony, but people we rub up against in the outside world. Like if I came on here and talked about my neighbour's friends, Betty Squires and her husband (fictional people), whom I encountered at a barbecue; that would be unfair, however I might say I'd come across certain characters with a particular attitude. Which we all do.
Certainly there should never be dark hints about fellow posters, unless it is obvious that could lead to all sorts of speculation. Far better to say what we have to say to the poster or keep quiet. So I agree with you on that. Also not to say anything about anyone privately that we would not want public, always keep it innocuous.
To move on, here is a nice picture of Mr Trump:
http://www.independent.co.uk/topic/DonaldTrump
Thanks for the thought; but I won't look at the pic right now: I don't expect to see anything nice about Donald. Anyway, I'm just about to have my dinner!!!
-
Carousel????
Logan's Run more like.
That IS what I was thinking about - when they ascended to the ceiling and sparked out of existence it was called Carousel.
-
I am fully aware of that, and this country does more than every one else, apart from the US, in providing money and resources to help: we have a basic foreign aid budget of £12 billion a year! We give more than all the rest of the precious EU put together, and we are, after all, bankrupt. We cannot be everything to every one. We do a great deal, and I care as much as the next about the needy, but there is such a thing as being realistic, and we still have poor and needy here; we are still seeing food banks growing in number; we still have many homeless. We do a lot for those in trouble.
Just to point out that we give more than any single country in the EU in absolute terns, there are a number of countries that give more % wise and in no way do we give more than the rest of the EU put together. In fact overall that give about three times what we give. So please check your facts
-
Just to point out that we give more than any single country in the EU in absolute terns, there are a number of countries that give more % wise and in no way do we give more than the rest of the EU put together. In fact overall that give about three times what we give. So please
I'd be interested to see the figures you suggest, and see how factual they are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
So what figures did you have to make your claim?
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors
So what figures did you have to make your claim?
Look up, "List of development aid country donors." Where did you get yours?
-
Look up, "List of development aid country donors." Where did you get yours?
The same place, it disproves your claim that the UK gives more than the rest of the EU combined.
-
The same place, it disproves your claim that the UK gives more than the rest of the EU combined.
There's little in it. The point is, we are massive contributors compared to all but the US, and to a lesser extent, Germany.
-
There's little in it. The point is, we are massive contributors compared to all but the US, and to a lesser extent, Germany.
err no there's not. From your own source the total from the EU is 87.64 billion dollars and from the UK 18.70 bn. This means that the rest of the Eu gives 68.94 bn which is 3 and a half times the UK total. So not only more than the UK gives which was your original statement but not even close to being a little in it either.
Further as I pointed out earlier the countries giving more in % terms are in the main in the EU
-
err no there's not. From your own source the total from the EU is 87.64 billion dollars and from the UK 18.70 bn. This means that the rest of the Eu gives 68.94 bn which is 3 and a half times the UK total. So not only more than the UK gives which was your original statement but not even close to being a little in it either.
Further as I pointed out earlier the countries giving more in % terms are in the main in the EU
The EU figure includes all put together, and is the figure for the EU as a whole, including money paid in by the UK, and is independent of the UK's individual contribution.. Look down the list for each country's individual contribution.
-
[The EU figure includes all put together, and is not independent of the UK. Cut out ours and Germany's contributions. Look further down the list for each country's individual contribution.
why are you cutting out Germany's contribution?
-
why are you cutting out Germany's contribution?
I am making a point that the UK gives an inordinate amount of aid compared to others. I am not complaining about this: why do you question it? Your argument should be aimed at those who give little. or less. And don't say it's because they are poor: we are bankrupt, and still give freely.
-
I am making a point that the UK gives an inordinate amount of aid compared to others. I am not complaining about this: why do you question it? Your argument should be aimed at those who give little. or less. And don't say it's because they are poor: we are bankrupt, and still give freely.
you made a statement that the UK gave more than the rest of the EU combined. When I pointed out this was wring you then said there was little difference, which us also wring. Further you lpwant to look at it in absolute terns and seem to think that % donation isn't important which is economically illiterate.
Why are you avoiding just saying that you were wrong?
Oh and while we are on it, we are not bankrupt.
-
you made a statement that the UK gave more than the rest of the EU combined. When I pointed out this was wring you then said there was little difference, which us also wring. Further you lpwant to look at it in absolute terns and seem to think that % donation isn't important which is economically illiterate.
Why are you avoiding just saying that you were wrong?
Oh and while we are on it, we are not bankrupt.
I was not "wring," and any country who owes tens of billions, and is still borrowing more than it earns is, technically, in all but name, bankrupt. We are borrowing to pay our debts; in fact, that is a pretty good definition of bankruptcy.
-
I was not "wring," and any country who owes tens of billions, and is still borrowing more than it earns is, technically, in all but name, bankrupt.
You were indeed wrong in saying the UK gave more than rest of the EU combined just admit it.
I also wouldn't use words like 'technically' in regards to bankruptcy. Because in the subject of bankruptcy, it has a technical meaning covering being unable to repay debts, not as you seem to want to use it as being in debt. So in addition to having been wrong about the UK's donations, both in the original statement about it giving more than rest of the EU combined,and wrong when you then said there was not much difference in it, you are technically wrong here as well.
By the way can you explain why you wanted to cut Germany's contributions out of the figures?
-
You were indeed wrong in saying the UK gave more than rest of the EU combined just admit it.
I also wouldn't use words like 'technically' in regards to bankruptcy. Because in the subject of bankruptcy, it has a technical meaning covering being unable to repay debts, not as you seem to want to use it as being in debt. So in addition to having been wrong about the UK's donations, both in the original statement about it giving more than rest of the EU combined,and wrong when you then said there was not much difference in it, you are technically wrong here as well.
By the way can you explain why you wanted to cut Germany's contributions out of the figures?
We are unable to repay our debts without borrowing massively - that IS a definition of bankruptcy, technically.
I only exempted Germany in order to highlight the huge differential with all the other EU countries. So what?
-
We are unable to repay our debts without borrowing massively - that IS a definition of bankruptcy, technically.
no it isn't, bankruptcy is being unable to pay your creditors.
-
no it isn't, bankruptcy is being unable to pay your creditors.
We are unable to pay our creditors, unless we borrow to do so.
-
We are unable to pay our creditors, unless we borrow to do so.
Which is technically not bankruptcy
-
Which is technically not bankruptcy
I've been posting now for a couple of hours and I only meant to have a quick look in. I must go and have some lunch and get a few things done.
Whatever you're doing this afternoon, have a good one.
-
We are unable to pay our creditors, unless we borrow to do so.
We can borrow, so we are not bankrupt.
-
We are unable to repay our debts without borrowing massively - that IS a definition of bankruptcy, technically.
I only exempted Germany in order to highlight the huge differential with all the other EU countries. So what?
no, it isn't. The TECHNICAL definition of bankruptcy is being unable to pay your debts.
Is it a surprise that there is a gap in absolute terms between usvand Luxemburg? Even though they give a significantly higher % of GDP?
Oh and can you just confirm clearly that you were wrong to say the UK gives more than the rest of the EU combined?And confirm that you were also wrong, when having pointed out that your own figures showed that to be incorrect, to state there was not much difference?
-
I've been posting now for a couple of hours and I only meant to have a quick look in. I must go and have some lunch and get a few things done.
Whatever you're doing this afternoon, have a good one.
You too