Who the f**** needs Europe. We have all we need here.

boromike85 said:
See, this is what happens when you react to the poster and don't actually try to comprehend what was said. I didn't say immigrants cause slums, I said housing poor people in poor areas cause slums. You will remember I also mentioned ex-cons like in halfway houses, alcoholic rehab centres etc. Asylum seekers are not allowed to work and so can't make any money and so can't contribute to the economic output of the area they are housed. I definitely didn't say immigrants in general because that would include all immigrants, many that do come to live and work and contribute, I said asylum seekers. They don't cause an area to become a slum, the government/council/whoever houses them in areas already suffering from economic deprivation causes areas to become slums. Maybe slums is the wrong word, it was to make a point, but change the word to area of economic deprivation which becomes a hotspot for drugs, crime and anti-social behaviour and those areas become less desirable to live in. The people that own their houses there can't afford to move out because their house prices will never rise. The landlords won't repair anything because they are not getting any capital gains so all of their margin is in ripping off their tenants.

Boomer can definitely be an insult when used in "Ok boomer" for example.
Click to expand...

Which raises the point - if immigrants coming in and contributing to the economy creates wealth - what is the issue? You'll then somehow manage to lay every issue of governmental underinvestment at the door those least deserving of blame and continue thinking Brexit is a good idea as it keeps the wrong sort out.

The other part of the riposte will be some prognostication about an imaginary trade deal/complete restructuring of the UK economy which isn't going to happen.

Pointing towards things that *could* happen while ignoring what had, liek a gambling addict chasing his big pay day while the bailiff's letters pile up at the door. Ok, boomer.
 
LaPennaBianca said:
Which raises the point - if immigrants coming in and contributing to the economy creates wealth - what is the issue? You'll then somehow manage to lay every issue of governmental underinvestment at the door those least deserving of blame and continue thinking Brexit is a good idea as it keeps the wrong sort out.

The other part of the riposte will be some prognostication about an imaginary trade deal/complete restructuring of the UK economy which isn't going to happen.

Pointing towards things that *could* happen while ignoring what had, liek a gambling addict chasing his big pay day while the bailiff's letters pile up at the door. Ok, boomer.
Click to expand...

I didn't say immigration was bad, not even once. I am fully supportive of immigration. I only think that there should be a limit, that limit being one where all skills gap are filled and infrastructure doesn't exceed capacity.

I am well aware that there are many benefits to immigration, especially in terms of the cultural benefits they bring, but at some point it becomes negative for some people. Remember only last week when the A-Level results were released? The headlines from the government were that the algorithm they used had resulted in a record number of A & A* grades. As a total, this year's cohort had performed better than last years. Great, right? However, when it was looked at in more detail there were winners and losers across the country with the majority of winners being well off and the majority of losers being less so. Immigration is similar. You can't just use one measure like GDP to measure the impact on individuals within society. As an economy we are better off but who benefits from the increase in the economy? Similar to the A-Levels it is the rich that benefit most because their businesses have lower wages to pay and their services are cheaper but the poorest have more competition for jobs, houses and school places. These are mainly an issue with unskilled immigration. I'm also not saying that unskilled immigrants don't contribute because they do but their contribution can take away opportunities and services for the existing population. A controlled immigration system will allow us to fill gaps as necessary, even in unskilled roles if actually necessary such as carers, although personally I'd far rather see a trained, skilled care industry that doesn't pay the minimum wage.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to guess what m riposte would be. You don't know me so don't generalise.

Being called a boomer is a new one. The 85 in my username is my year of birth, not my age (or IQ).


Some more for remainer bingo I see. Land of Milk & honey, sovereignty and wonky bananas. I think we're only sunlit uplands away from a full house. Make sure you get all those likes in everyone!

Adi - I thought you were better than that. SmallTown, not so much.
 
boromike85 said:
I didn't say immigration was bad, not even once. I am fully supportive of immigration. I only think that there should be a limit, that limit being one where all skills gap are filled and infrastructure doesn't exceed capacity.

I am well aware that there are many benefits to immigration, especially in terms of the cultural benefits they bring, but at some point it becomes negative for some people. Remember only last week when the A-Level results were released? The headlines from the government were that the algorithm they used had resulted in a record number of A & A* grades. As a total, this year's cohort had performed better than last years. Great, right? However, when it was looked at in more detail there were winners and losers across the country with the majority of winners being well off and the majority of losers being less so. Immigration is similar. You can't just use one measure like GDP to measure the impact on individuals within society. As an economy we are better off but who benefits from the increase in the economy? Similar to the A-Levels it is the rich that benefit most because their businesses have lower wages to pay and their services are cheaper but the poorest have more competition for jobs, houses and school places. These are mainly an issue with unskilled immigration. I'm also not saying that unskilled immigrants don't contribute because they do but their contribution can take away opportunities and services for the existing population. A controlled immigration system will allow us to fill gaps as necessary, even in unskilled roles if actually necessary such as carers, although personally I'd far rather see a trained, skilled care industry that doesn't pay the minimum wage.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to guess what m riposte would be. You don't know me so don't generalise.

Being called a boomer is a new one. The 85 in my username is my year of birth, not my age (or IQ).


Some more for remainer bingo I see. Land of Milk & honey, sovereignty and wonky bananas. I think we're only sunlit uplands away from a full house. Make sure you get all those likes in everyone!

Adi - I thought you were better than that. SmallTown, not so much.
Click to expand...


Keep on preaching. You might even convert a few yet.
 
So the issue is with distribution of wealth, regardless of makeup of the population? That is something I'm fully on board with!

By the way, be mindful of conflating fewer individuals with a more equitable distribution of wealth. That goes against nearly every sinew of our current administration.
 
boromike85 said:
Adi - I thought you were better than that. SmallTown, not so much.
Click to expand...

Better than what? Mine is simply a recognition that we have gone from sunlit uplands, the easiest deal in human history, the land of milk and honey, having our cake and eating it etc etc to this abomination of a thread in which you amongst others are trying to clutch the tiniest of straws to justify a position that has long since evaporated. We aren't now arguing about whether there might be benefits to Brexit or the extent to which we might gain. We are now discussing bananas and whether they will be more expensive or not and whether we could simply erect greenhouses all over the place to replace those foods that come from warmer climates. It's beyond parody.
 
Last edited:
Having read through the thread I'm not sure if I should even start posting, there is that much to address.

Since South African oranges have been mentioned I'll just point out that the EU have a Trade Deal with South Africa which allows South African oranges access to the Single Market with zero tariff's for most of the SA growing season. There are tariff's imposed for a few weeks at the start and end of the SA growing season because there is an overlap with the Spanish Orange growers season. For the consumer then, they have abundant cheaper oranges all year round, South Africa has good access to the EU for most of the year and the Spanish Orange Growers are looked after. Tariff's are not always a bad thing.
 
boromike85 said:
However, when it was looked at in more detail there were winners and losers across the country with the majority of winners being well off and the majority of losers being less so. Immigration is similar.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Unless you mean that you welcome immigrants with money and reject those who are fleeing oppression and/or war and are penniless?

So, would you sink these poor fukkers in the channel or shoot them on the beaches?
 
boromike85 said:
I didn't say immigration was bad, not even once. I am fully supportive of immigration. I only think that there should be a limit, that limit being one where all skills gap are filled and infrastructure doesn't exceed capacity.

I am well aware that there are many benefits to immigration, especially in terms of the cultural benefits they bring, but at some point it becomes negative for some people. Remember only last week when the A-Level results were released? The headlines from the government were that the algorithm they used had resulted in a record number of A & A* grades. As a total, this year's cohort had performed better than last years. Great, right? However, when it was looked at in more detail there were winners and losers across the country with the majority of winners being well off and the majority of losers being less so. Immigration is similar. You can't just use one measure like GDP to measure the impact on individuals within society. As an economy we are better off but who benefits from the increase in the economy? Similar to the A-Levels it is the rich that benefit most because their businesses have lower wages to pay and their services are cheaper but the poorest have more competition for jobs, houses and school places. These are mainly an issue with unskilled immigration. I'm also not saying that unskilled immigrants don't contribute because they do but their contribution can take away opportunities and services for the existing population. A controlled immigration system will allow us to fill gaps as necessary, even in unskilled roles if actually necessary such as carers, although personally I'd far rather see a trained, skilled care industry that doesn't pay the minimum wage.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to guess what m riposte would be. You don't know me so don't generalise.

Being called a boomer is a new one. The 85 in my username is my year of birth, not my age (or IQ).


Some more for remainer bingo I see. Land of Milk & honey, sovereignty and wonky bananas. I think we're only sunlit uplands away from a full house. Make sure you get all those likes in everyone!

Adi - I thought you were better than that. SmallTown, not so much.
Click to expand...

35 and already this bitter. You're a boomer at heart at least!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top