UK bombers, who did you vote for in the EU Parliament Election?

  • 181 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for sweep
sweep

10886

Forum Posts

3660

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 14

sweep  Moderator

Poll UK bombers, who did you vote for in the EU Parliament Election? (270 votes)

The Conservatives 7%
Labour 20%
The Liberal Democrats 10%
UKIP 11%
Other 51%

Only fill out this form if you have voted already!!

That way this poll can be an accurate representation of those who have voted. Please do not take part if you aren't eligible or can't be bothered to vote.

You don't have to explain your choice and this poll is, as always, anonymous. We have a pretty big UK contingent here, though, and I wanted to see if my theory about active internet participants being more liberal is true.

On a personal note, if UKIP win then I'm going to start flipping tables.

GLHB!

 • 
Avatar image for sweep
sweep

10886

Forum Posts

3660

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 14

#151 sweep  Moderator

I should have added a "I didn't vote, I just want to see results" option so people could see what's going on. My bad.

Avatar image for falx
Falx

366

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@sweep: And maybe a Green Party option. I'm not sure who all the "Other" votes are for though.

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

#153  Edited By diz

@forkboy said:

Yes. Do you think there were many people who turned up and refused to vote in one ballot & didn't in the other? Probably a couple of % may have but unlikely to be more than that. The 2012 local election turnout was 31%. 2008 was 35%. This is not abnormal. Local election turnout is higher in years with general elections & Scottish/Welsh national elections.

I don't understand the outrage of trade unions having a say in political parties. Why is their money different from the money of wealthy individuals & companies who fund the Tories and even Labour to some extent? I'd rather have stronger trade unions.

Funnily enough, I turned up to the polling station and only got one (Euro) vote, despite my local council being contested as well as these elections. I am trying to find out how this happened since I was not aware that council elections were taking place in my "Hertsmere" region.

I understand that low turnouts are not abnormal, despite many recent council elections polling over 50% electorate. I repeat that I find this generally low turnout worrying for the process of democracy and public engagement of politics.

I think union block voting is unfair on party members who should vote equally on who the best representative should be for their party, rather than who would give best support to trade unions. Even Miliband has conceded the funding model was unfair and that changes to it are needed, after they got him in. Previously, the funding influence and membership model for unions was vastly different to that of private funding, as the article I linked to explains.

Avatar image for fattony12000
fattony12000

8491

Forum Posts

22398

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

@falx said:

@sweep: And maybe a Green Party option. I'm not sure who all the "Other" votes are for though.

I like how you give UKIP a thingy but not the Greens, lol.

Avatar image for sweep
sweep

10886

Forum Posts

3660

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 14

#155  Edited By sweep  Moderator

@falx said:

@sweep: And maybe a Green Party option. I'm not sure who all the "Other" votes are for though.

@fattony12000 said:

I like how you give UKIP a thingy but not the Greens, lol.

I did that because, as predicted, in the local elections UKIP has 95 seats and the green party has 9. Compared to Labours 755 that number seemed somewhat trivial.

Here's the current results for the local elections, though these are still being counted:

No Caption Provided

Avatar image for explosivo
Explosivo

31

Forum Posts

54

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

#156  Edited By Explosivo

I voted lib dem, not because I want them to win so much as I don't want UKIP or any of the other racists that were present on my ballot paper to. My region historically votes conservative with a wide margin. Not to give away too much but Hammond is our MP so its pretty much a rock solid seat. So voting Lib Dem for me is more of a protest in vote, I guess I lean left generally. I don't want us out of Europe because you know, I like the economy to do well, and immigration is something we need to plug the holes in our ageing population. I just get annoyed when people claim we are a minority, because the last census showed White Britain as representing some where in the region of 80% of the populace, if that's a minority to people then fuck me maths education has fallen apart.

Avatar image for falx
Falx

366

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

@sweep: Well since you were expecting internet users to be more liberal it isn't so much of a leap that we would vote for the most liberal party (Greens) even if it didn't fit the national voting stats, that's all I meant.

Avatar image for dixavd
Dixavd

3013

Forum Posts

245

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@diz said:

Funnily enough, I turned up to the polling station and only got one (Euro) vote, despite my local council being contested as well as these elections. I am trying to find out how this happened since I was not aware that council elections were taking place in my "Hertsmere" region.

You may not have been given a council ballot because your "ward" within your council was not up for election. For instance, I looked up the "Hertsmere" region on both the BBC voting website and on their council website, and it seems like 13 of the 39 council places were up for election (one third). This means that, while you are in the "Hertsmere" region, you may not be in one of the Council "Wards" that was up for election.

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

#159  Edited By diz

@dixavd: Thanks for that - You are right and my Aldenham Parish is not in the running this election. I was not denied my right to vote! I am much obliged to you.

Avatar image for deactivated-64162a4f80e83
deactivated-64162a4f80e83

2637

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

I'm not going to say anymore on the matter other than leave these words left by a UKIP spokesman as to why they don't get votes in London.

'The reason we don't get votes in London is because the people are cultured, educated and young' and with that I yield, I cannot believe people vote for people who say stuff like that in public. A hired spokesperson no less.

Avatar image for forkboy
forkboy

1663

Forum Posts

73

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

I'm not going to say anymore on the matter other than leave these words left by a UKIP spokesman as to why they don't get votes in London.

'The reason we don't get votes in London is because the people are cultured, educated and young' and with that I yield, I cannot believe people vote for people who say stuff like that in public. A hired spokesperson no less.

Haha, that was beautiful.

Avatar image for fattony12000
fattony12000

8491

Forum Posts

22398

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#162  Edited By fattony12000

European Parliament results

VotesMEPs
Political Group%Change+/-TotalChange+/-
After 740 of 751 seats
EPP24.22-8.33208-59
Socialist24.4+1.62186-2
Other20.97+7.45117+88
Liberal7.61-2.4858-23
Green7.360.0246-9
Conservative4.15-0.6545-11
Left6.11+2.0942+7
EFD5.180.2838+9

Conservative

Formed as the European Conservative and Reformist (ECR) group after the 2009 election, this group was born from the desire of the British Conservative party for a new right-of-centre, Eurosceptic group. Aside from the Conservatives, and Northern Ireland's Ulster Unionist Party, the ECR includes MEPs from seven EU states, including major parties from Poland and the Czech Republic.

EFD

The Europe of Freedom & Democracy (EFD) group opposes European integration from a broadly – but not exclusively – right-wing perspective and is often seen as a thorn in the side of the EU establishment. Britain supplies the most MEPs, including members of UKIP, with Nigel Farage serving as the group's co-president during the last parliament.

EPP

The centre-right European People's Party or EPP was the biggest group in the last parliament, and broadly supports deeper integration. Along with the Socialist and Democrats group, the EPP has always been one of the two powerhouses of the parliament, providing most of the presidents, vice-presidents and committee chairs. It was also where the UK's Conservative MEPs used to sit, until the party broke away to form the new Conservative and Reformist group after the 2009 election.

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-election-results

Avatar image for walkmanboy
WalkmanBoy

88

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Jesus, this is is depressing. Ukip in Britain, Front National in France, Golden Dawn in Greece. Far-right movements in Germany and all across Europe, what a shit-show.

Avatar image for alwaysbebombing
alwaysbebombing

2785

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Good thing that neither of the countries I belong to are part of the EU.

Avatar image for Levius
Levius

1358

Forum Posts

357

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Oh, god everything has gone to shit over here in Europe. Hopefully this will send message to the mainstream parties that they have to change, but I doubt it.

Avatar image for alexw00d
AlexW00d

7604

Forum Posts

3686

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@jaytow said:

Never have I seen an election with as a clear a message as this.

That people are cunts? If you think you can tell me, or anyone else, where I can and can't live on the basis of where I was born, or my skin colour, or any other number of arbitrary things, then you have some sort of weird superiority complex you need sorting out.

Avatar image for deactivated-64162a4f80e83
deactivated-64162a4f80e83

2637

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@jaytow said:

@forkboy said:

@yesiamaduck said:

I'm not going to say anymore on the matter other than leave these words left by a UKIP spokesman as to why they don't get votes in London.

'The reason we don't get votes in London is because the people are cultured, educated and young' and with that I yield, I cannot believe people vote for people who say stuff like that in public. A hired spokesperson no less.

Haha, that was beautiful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1n2OdUL39Ic

Apparently she didn't say it so it may be beautiful but is it true?

It is true, radio 4 was where it was stated. They even brought it back up in an interview on Radio 4 subsequently.

Avatar image for mento
Mento

4955

Forum Posts

551062

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 39

User Lists: 212

#171 Mento  Moderator

I don't want to live in this country any more.

Is GB NY hiring yet?

Avatar image for alexw00d
AlexW00d

7604

Forum Posts

3686

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#173  Edited By AlexW00d

@jaytow: but that's the thing, you've not actually outline any points against immigration. Are you scared about overpopulation? Are you scared of things the daily mail like to headline? Millions of foreigners coming here stealing our benefits etc.

If you were to actually give reasons against immigration then maybe people won't think you're a racist scumbag.

Also, referring to people who disagree with you as a leftie is pretty pathetic and not really offensive either. I'd rather be surrounded by lefties than fascists after all.

Avatar image for mracoon
mracoon

5126

Forum Posts

77135

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 15

I still don't understand how people can make predictions on the general election based on these results, as I see a lot of news organisations doing. The 2010 general election had a 65% turnout whereas the European elections had a 34% turnout. I don't see how you can extrapolate UKIP's success in Europe to them gaining any MPs. Also, you'd imagine that all those voters that had strong views on Europe would be part of that 34%, meaning the other half of voters don't consider the EU to be a pressing issue and probably wouldn't vote UKIP.

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

#175  Edited By diz

@alexw00d said:

@jaytow: but that's the thing, you've not actually outline any points against immigration. Are you scared about overpopulation? Are you scared of things the daily mail like to headline? Millions of foreigners coming here stealing our benefits etc.

If you were to actually give reasons against immigration then maybe people won't think you're a racist scumbag.

Also, referring to people who disagree with you as a leftie is pretty pathetic and not really offensive either. I'd rather be surrounded by lefties than fascists after all.

I think calling them "cunts", "racist scumbags" and saying they need "sorting out" shows a poor judgement on your part. Falling to those resorts amounts to the weakest of all arguments and mirrors the bigotry of a racist. I don't think jaytow was trying to be offensive by mentioning "lefties" either.

UK immigration stats from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_Irish_independence#European_Union
UK immigration stats from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_Irish_independence#European_Union

Being against the current EU immigration policy is not racist, since EU immigrants are typically the same race as people in the UK. We have a housing crisis and a job crisis that is being well hidden by the alarming overuse of zero hours contracts and revised methods of calculating unemployment stats. in 2013 - 2014 the UK had a net immigration of 212,000. As the Tories will admit; The UK can not control immigration to the UK from new EU states (like the huge net 2 million+ immigration figures for the last 2 decades) because of Schengen. The UK can't support immigration from the rest of the world because of the massive movements of EU people (particularly from new EU states) that are beyond government control. If EU immigration could be kept at a sensible level, then global immigration of people with skills would be possible.

It is all to easy to fall into a trap of demonising those who would disagree with you. Such fallacies are not rational, despite being used as emotional weight against parties like UKIP. Perhaps you could explain why you think unrestricted (same race) immigration and consequent overpopulation and wage reduction in the UK is a good thing for the country.

Avatar image for extomar
EXTomar

5047

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176  Edited By EXTomar

The problem is: If you believe in capitalism and a friendly business environment, then you should favor free flow of labor including low barriers for immigration and emigration.

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

@extomar said:

The problem is: If you believe in capitalism and a friendly business environment, then you should favor free flow of labor including low barriers for immigration and emigration.

For a start, capitalism is not bomb proof, as the recent UK bailout to banks has shown. Secondly, who are you being "friendly" to in this business environment? Surely not the indigenous workers; if you are opening up labour markets to people who's own national standard of living is a sixth (for example) of the country they move to. It is also worth noting the the UK, Ireland and Sweden were the only EU countries not to restrict labour market access from A8 countries, so the "free movement of workers" wasn't reciprocal with other EU states as it was for the UK.

European politics may work in some "United States of Europe", but Europe still exists as separate countries with governments who seem to suggest they are autonomous, self determining and have power. The "common market" trade agreement is one thing, but Euro-integration has distorted this into a behemoth, un-democratic, super-state project that takes too much control away from national governments. It should be something the countries involved should decide upon, rather than have it forced on them. In these recent elections, it seems that many European countries - as campaigned by far-left, far-right and neutral parties, have voted "no" for.

I'm glad that UKIP and the other anti-EU parties won so convincingly in these elections since it has now opened up the discussion and forced a change of agenda from the incumbent politicians here, in the EU parliament and in the other nations that make up our continent. Change for the better will come of this vote.

Avatar image for alexw00d
AlexW00d

7604

Forum Posts

3686

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@diz: You're missing my point. From what I have seen, most people who vote UKIP and are anti-immigration don't actually know what they are talking about. They read it in the Daily Mail etc and see the whole 'MILLIONS OF ROMANIANS WILL COME AND STEAL YER JOBS AND WIVES AND MAYBE SPIT IN YOUR LUNCH WHILE YOU AREN'T LOOKING' and automatically assume foreigners are bad. Those people are cunts, and they're also scumbags. When someone spurts out bullshit on the internet and doesn't give any sort of reasoning, I am definitely going to assume the above about them.

Nowhere have I said that supposed lower wages from immigration (which I don't honestly believe is a real thing, certain employers will pay the lowest they have to regardless of where you come from) and I have always known overpopulation to be a problem, and again haven't said a single thing about it being good. You can try and put all the words you want into my mouth, but it means nothing. My only point is that we shouldn't restrict people from relocating here based on them being from a different country, especially as I wholly doubt there would be people lobbying against my relocation to 'their' country. Maybe I'm one of those dirty liberals I hear so much about?

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

#179  Edited By diz

@alexw00d said:

@diz: You're missing my point. From what I have seen, most people who vote UKIP and are anti-immigration don't actually know what they are talking about. They read it in the Daily Mail etc and see the whole 'MILLIONS OF ROMANIANS WILL COME AND STEAL YER JOBS AND WIVES AND MAYBE SPIT IN YOUR LUNCH WHILE YOU AREN'T LOOKING' and automatically assume foreigners are bad. Those people are cunts, and they're also scumbags. When someone spurts out bullshit on the internet and doesn't give any sort of reasoning, I am definitely going to assume the above about them.

Nowhere have I said that supposed lower wages from immigration (which I don't honestly believe is a real thing, certain employers will pay the lowest they have to regardless of where you come from) and I have always known overpopulation to be a problem, and again haven't said a single thing about it being good. You can try and put all the words you want into my mouth, but it means nothing. My only point is that we shouldn't restrict people from relocating here based on them being from a different country, especially as I wholly doubt there would be people lobbying against my relocation to 'their' country. Maybe I'm one of those dirty liberals I hear so much about?

I don't think I have missed your point. Perhaps it is your perception from media and apocrypha, rather than their perception. Basing an idea off what you think others think is not as good as basing your ideas in finding and checking information from a variety of sources, discussions, etc, then dispassionately comparing contrasting it to other ways of thinking. Just so you know; I don't read any newspapers, since I find their political bias and sensationalism too much for me. I have seen no-one make the claims that you have in ALL CAPS above, so your derision is misplaced here. Even if those sentiments had been expressed, name-calling is meaningless and debases your own rebuttal. Particularly; the idea of people needing to be "sorted out" strikes me as something only a totalitarian bully would say from the safety of being behind a computer.

I'm not putting any words into your mouth: I'm asking you how it is a good think to have unlimited immigration into the UK from the EU. I'm interested in why you think moving to a different country should be "de-restricted" and how that would work. If you think a consequence of unfettered EU immigration is less population and higher wages, then please do explain your reasoning. I wonder if you have (or would) try to move to another country and for what reasons (i.e. economic, social welfare, standards of living, repression, healthcare, etc). Why do you think hundreds of thousands of people move to the UK every year from the EU? How does the UK cope in supporting this and how could the EU sustain those countries of origin so people would be content to remain there, or make it appealing for UK nationals to move there? Why do you think other EU states don't have the same freedom of movement as to the UK, Ireland and Sweden (as I wrote about in my last post)?

I don't think liberals are dirty. I consider myself to be far left of centre - i.e. against capitalism and corporate greed. Hearing "about liberals being dirty" is not as revealing as finding out what "they" think and why, then considering how such ideas can be implemented. The only revealing thing on hearing about "dirty liberals" is the narrow mindset of the person saying such things.

Avatar image for alexw00d
AlexW00d

7604

Forum Posts

3686

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#180  Edited By AlexW00d

@diz: You are putting words in my mouth 'cause I've not said I do think it's a good idea. I am saying in an ideal world, you would be able to live wherever the fuck you want, regardless of what some middle aged, middle class public-schoolboy thinks. An ideal world is very much different to a world in practice.

Also regarding the sorting out thing, I really don't know why you assume I mean it in a violent way, or whatever it is you're even implying. It's more an implication that if that guy really does think of himself as better or more worthy based on whatever, then that is a problem. One that can probably be fixed. Or colloquially, sorted out.

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

@alexw00d said:

@diz: You are putting words in my mouth 'cause I've not said I do think it's a good idea. I am saying in an ideal world, you would be able to live wherever the fuck you want, regardless of what some middle aged, middle class public-schoolboy thinks. An ideal world is very much different to a world in practice.

Also regarding the sorting out thing, I really don't know why you assume I mean it in a violent way, or whatever it is you're even implying. It's more an implication that if that guy really does think of himself as better or more worthy based on whatever, then that is a problem. One that can probably be fixed. Or colloquially, sorted out.

In an ideal society, we wouldn't need any government or laws. There would be no crime, and everyone would be nice to each other. Clearly we don't live in an ideal world, so we have to do what we can to make the best of it. I never said that you thought immigration was a good idea, only asked you about your ideas. I thought you may have some since you seemed so dismissive of ideas that control immigration in our non-perfect world.

The idea of needing to be "sorted out" was based on an assumed "weird superiority complex" about where people are born (and their skin colour. etc), rather than on the economics of unrestricted (or even restricted) immigration. Does the idea of "fixing" mean people reflecting a view that all immigration controls means racism? Perhaps there is no superiority complex and such people are only trying to make the best economic sense for their countries. But perhaps it is easier to think in ideals while demonizing those who would be realists.

Avatar image for deactivated-629fdfa1dbf9a
deactivated-629fdfa1dbf9a

176

Forum Posts

172

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I tactically voted in Europe (Labour) to stop UKIP, but in my Local i voted for who i follow (Conservative)

Avatar image for alexw00d
AlexW00d

7604

Forum Posts

3686

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

@diz said:

@alexw00d said:

@diz: You are putting words in my mouth 'cause I've not said I do think it's a good idea. I am saying in an ideal world, you would be able to live wherever the fuck you want, regardless of what some middle aged, middle class public-schoolboy thinks. An ideal world is very much different to a world in practice.

Also regarding the sorting out thing, I really don't know why you assume I mean it in a violent way, or whatever it is you're even implying. It's more an implication that if that guy really does think of himself as better or more worthy based on whatever, then that is a problem. One that can probably be fixed. Or colloquially, sorted out.

In an ideal society, we wouldn't need any government or laws. There would be no crime, and everyone would be nice to each other. Clearly we don't live in an ideal world, so we have to do what we can to make the best of it. I never said that you thought immigration was a good idea, only asked you about your ideas. I thought you may have some since you seemed so dismissive of ideas that control immigration in our non-perfect world.

The idea of needing to be "sorted out" was based on an assumed "weird superiority complex" about where people are born (and their skin colour. etc), rather than on the economics of unrestricted (or even restricted) immigration. Does the idea of "fixing" mean people reflecting a view that all immigration controls means racism? Perhaps there is no superiority complex and such people are only trying to make the best economic sense for their countries. But perhaps it is easier to think in ideals while demonising those who would be realists.

Well ok then. How do you think we should 'control immigration'? You see, I'm not a politician, and nor are you I assume, so I really don't think either of us are truly qualified to answer the question, else we'd be the ones people may or may not be voting for. Should we be allowing/disallowing people based on their monetary wealth? Based on their skills? Based on how good looking they are? This is one of the things I don't like. How do we choose who we say yes or no to? I am very much against, as you can tell, using country of origin as a basis for allowing/disallowing. The only requirement I can really think of is potential immigrants being able to prove they have enough money to live until they find work. But then, what do we do with the case of asylum seekers? People who come here because they're persecuted at home, because there is war in their home country?

And this supposed economic worry of yours. Can you at least explain it? We've already covered that you aren't a Daily Mail reader so it's not like you think that every immigrant is here to steal welfare cheques from the tax payer. Are you worried they're here to take our jobs? With or without immigrants, plenty of employees will pay minimum wage, thus keeping down average earnings. If we're going to stop immigrants coming to this country because they might possibly take minimum wage jobs, does that mean we need to start ferrying UK nationals out of the country for the same reasons? There are too many of these probably silly questions I can put forward.

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

@alexw00d said:

Well ok then. How do you think we should 'control immigration'? You see, I'm not a politician, and nor are you I assume, so I really don't think either of us are truly qualified to answer the question, else we'd be the ones people may or may not be voting for. Should we be allowing/disallowing people based on their monetary wealth? Based on their skills? Based on how good looking they are? This is one of the things I don't like. How do we choose who we say yes or no to? I am very much against, as you can tell, using country of origin as a basis for allowing/disallowing. The only requirement I can really think of is potential immigrants being able to prove they have enough money to live until they find work. But then, what do we do with the case of asylum seekers? People who come here because they're persecuted at home, because there is war in their home country?

And this supposed economic worry of yours. Can you at least explain it? We've already covered that you aren't a Daily Mail reader so it's not like you think that every immigrant is here to steal welfare cheques from the tax payer. Are you worried they're here to take our jobs? With or without immigrants, plenty of employees will pay minimum wage, thus keeping down average earnings. If we're going to stop immigrants coming to this country because they might possibly take minimum wage jobs, does that mean we need to start ferrying UK nationals out of the country for the same reasons? There are too many of these probably silly questions I can put forward.

We are all entitled to a view - that is the mechanism of democracy - we don't all have to be politicians, but interest in politics helps.

I think Immigration should match the skills requirements and capacity planning of the destination country. If an immigrant has the skills to improve the economy of the country they want to immigrate to, and the country lacks those skills, then there is a good synergy and benefit between the two. We can not control the number of people moving to the UK from the new EU countries. I am not against immigration per se, and I don't think UKIP are either. I agree with them that the current uncontrolled rates of EU immigration are too much though. Our ability to accept immigrants from the rest of the world is severely hampered by our commitment to EU policy.

I think it is obvious there should be limits to immigration - for any country. I also think that political asylum is an entirely separate issue and that our asylum policy is fair. To be called a racist, nationalist or xenophobe is a cheap deflection from the real issues that have nothing to do with race at all.

What is happening because of zero hours contracts is that employers can pay beneath the minimum wage for weekly employment and also deny employment rights (sick/holiday pay, etc) to their workforce. Often immigrant work-forces are prepared to work beneath the minimum wage and "off the books". I believe that the unemployed have to accept zero hours contracts as work or benefits are removed. Zero hours contracts are good for employers, since they can dictate if and when an employee can work on a daily basis. Sometimes people have to turn up to a job to be told whether there is work for them that day. I feel this is unacceptable and an echo of Victorian values on labour.

As another specific example, in the mid 2000's many Polish people immigrated here (because of Poland's acceptance as an EU member state) and provided building services (for example) below the rates that UK building firms charged, which put many self-employed UK builders out of business. Some did give great value, but others did not follow UK building and safety regulations, VAT and tax payments. Many sent wages back to Poland, so the wealth generated was not recirculated in the UK economy.

A larger picture is about infrastructure and the ability to cope with a rapidly growing, unchecked population in terms of transport, schools, homes, energy, health and other needs. As an example of one of these; the current housing shortage and price bubble is indicative of a rise in population that increases demand. This means that interest rates have to stay ridiculously low, else people who have bought houses can't afford interest increases on their high mortgages. It also means that landlords can charge extortionate rents and have punitive contracts that can remove tenants at short notice. Alternatively, people will live in ever-smaller boxes now, rather than have some space to live.

I've made it quite clear what I think already in this thread and was asking you about your ideas. If you are to criticize others for their view, then perhaps having views of your own would be beneficial to you. I think the notion of repatriation is ridiculous and offensive, if that's what you were suggesting as one of your questions.

Avatar image for extomar
EXTomar

5047

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#186  Edited By EXTomar

@diz said:

@extomar said:

The problem is: If you believe in capitalism and a friendly business environment, then you should favor free flow of labor including low barriers for immigration and emigration.

For a start, capitalism is not bomb proof, as the recent UK bailout to banks has shown. Secondly, who are you being "friendly" to in this business environment? Surely not the indigenous workers; if you are opening up labour markets to people who's own national standard of living is a sixth (for example) of the country they move to. It is also worth noting the the UK, Ireland and Sweden were the only EU countries not to restrict labour market access from A8 countries, so the "free movement of workers" wasn't reciprocal with other EU states as it was for the UK.

European politics may work in some "United States of Europe", but Europe still exists as separate countries with governments who seem to suggest they are autonomous, self determining and have power. The "common market" trade agreement is one thing, but Euro-integration has distorted this into a behemoth, un-democratic, super-state project that takes too much control away from national governments. It should be something the countries involved should decide upon, rather than have it forced on them. In these recent elections, it seems that many European countries - as campaigned by far-left, far-right and neutral parties, have voted "no" for.

I'm glad that UKIP and the other anti-EU parties won so convincingly in these elections since it has now opened up the discussion and forced a change of agenda from the incumbent politicians here, in the EU parliament and in the other nations that make up our continent. Change for the better will come of this vote.

I never said capitalism is "the besterist" where studying 19th century philosophy has a lot of discussion on the topic which I won't rehash. I'm just stating if you want a functioning free market economy you really really really should favor easy immigration (and easy emigration).

Here is your hint: "Indigenous workers" (what a stupid moniker) don't want most of the jobs that need to be done in developed economies yet someone needs to work those roles. They are tedious, low paying, high effort affairs that no one who went to post high school let alone post college ever wants. The idea that "THE DIRTY FOREIGNERS ARE COMMING TO STEAL JOBS" is ludicrous unless you wanted to be that guy that drives a taxi or that guy who works late at McDonalds or whatever or the guy who sweeps then waxes floors. You really want those guys to come in and do those jobs and pay those taxes so you can spend your time working on other things while your family lives a more comfortable standard of living.

If you need it spelled out simply: Am I suggesting that Europe needs to throw open the doors and accept anyone? No that is nutty where there are plenty of good reasons to restrict people from crossing established borders. I'm saying that "because of jobs!" is one of the dumber reasons to restrict the flow of people.

Avatar image for diz
diz

1394

Forum Posts

961

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

@extomar said:

I never said capitalism is "the besterist" where studying 19th century philosophy has a lot of discussion on the topic which I won't rehash. I'm just stating if you want a functioning free market economy you really really really should favor easy immigration (and easy emigration).

Here is your hint: "Indigenous workers" (what a stupid moniker) don't want most of the jobs that need to be done in developed economies yet someone needs to work those roles. They are tedious, low paying, high effort affairs that no one who went to post high school let alone post college ever wants. The idea that "THE DIRTY FOREIGNERS ARE COMMING TO STEAL JOBS" is ludicrous unless you wanted to be that guy that drives a taxi or that guy who works late at McDonalds or whatever or the guy who sweeps then waxes floors. You really want those guys to come in and do those jobs and pay those taxes so you can spend your time working on other things while your family lives a more comfortable standard of living.

If you need it spelled out simply: Am I suggesting that Europe needs to throw open the doors and accept anyone? No that is nutty where there are plenty of good reasons to restrict people from crossing established borders. I'm saying that "because of jobs!" is one of the dumber reasons to restrict the flow of people.

And I never said that free market economies were the best thing since sliced bread. I never inferred that you did say that capitalism was bestest. As a philosopher, should you know that it is better to state what you do think than state what you didn't say? I was expressing my own views there rather than transferring them onto you.

The idea that "service-type" jobs can only be done by cheap imported labour is a ridiculous falsehood. I also think the idea that everyone should get a degree is inappropriate too. It is better to make service-type jobs part of a career progression and/or pay them better and not look down on people trying to earn an honest living. Cleaning bogs and driving cabs are both jobs I would do if they paid well enough. They do this in other European countries too, where pride is a more important factor in employment and employment law favours workers' rights. Please don't demean those sort of jobs, since if you take a reductionist view about this, then most any worker is expendable and most any job isn't worthy.

Do you think I need things spelled out simply? And, as a philosopher, shouldn't that always be your aim though? The nutty idea you speak of is current EU policy that our government can not control. But what reasons would you think it is "nutty", as you said? - You forgot to mention them. Do you think it better to present false claims from your imagined opposition instead (i.e. calling all foreigners "dirty" in ALL CAPS), rather than explain your own view?