'Never has so much been lost by so many to satisfy so few' - Sturgeon uses Churchill to slam Brexit

[kingfisher]

Cash cows are exempt.

[WHL]

Cash cows are exempt.

Racist's from whatever country, dont take cash cows into consideration.

[WHL]

Some of the comments I heard when discussing Brexit, was too many ''Black ********* in the country'', too many Muslim ****** taking over everything, well the last time I looked the vast majority of Europeans are White Christians, but Racists dont let facts get in the way, of a bit of Hate.

[Uncle D]

Yep, and those people already existed, its not a BREXIT phenomenon .

Correct, but as said earlier brexit has allowed the closet racists to come out of the woodwork, the unfortunate thing is that anyone that voted to leave are being tarred with the same brush no matter what other reasons they may have.

[kingfisher]

Maybe so-called closet racists are people who are upset that this sort of thing goes on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... ims-young/

[Jim B]

Maybe so-called closet racists are people who are upset that this sort of thing goes on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... ims-young/

Doesn't look like many of those are from EU countries.

Jim

[Jimgward]

Farage poster on immigration related to brexit -all brown faces... we have debated it many times.... that was stirring a ready-made hotbed of racism and many were stupid enough to believe it and to believe that ‘brown’ immigrants would be stopped.

It is, strangely enough, very strong in working class areas of north england, areas many expected to be remain, but were leave and where it has been shown that racism is strong. ‘They’re taking our jobs” crap, from long-term unemployed.....

The EDL support is strongest in these areas.

[Jim B]

.........That's not racism, that's common sense, and one of the issues Mr Cameron took up with the EU, free movement, and was laughed out of court.

Hudswell
You're not still going on about that old chestnut are you. What is it; a war of attrition? It's been proven many times by many posters; documents and links that he had (and the government still has) the tools to restrict immigration but went grandstanding to Brussels instead of using them.
Definitely a severe case of denialism.
Jim

[WHL]

Maybe so-called closet racists are people who are upset that this sort of thing goes on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... ims-young/

Disgusting individuals, But then again no different to other scumbags like Jimmy savile, Garry Glitter, Cyril Smith, Myra Hindley etc etc

[WHL]

Maybe so-called closet racists are people who are upset that this sort of thing goes on.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 ... ims-young/

and for every one of these filth, there are thousands of good people working in the NHS cleaning and looking after your friends and family back in the UK....

[Jimgward]

Hudswell, you dont read the facts in the previous threads on this and take them in. It is PROVEN that you DO NOT have to restrict the indigenous population, when restricting benefits. What tosh. Cyprus will give NO benefits to unemployed who arrive on their shores seeking employement, from EU nations..... why is that? It is PROVEN that only 3 countries in the EU were allowing this free movement and only 1 the access to full benefits and health. Go on, surprise me and name that one in one....

[Jim B]

Hudswel
I do read the facts; I honestly don't know or understand where you get your "facts" from. The Poles go to the UK because the salaries were a lot higher than in their homeland and they could afford to work and save much more than if they stayed at home, exactly the same reason that I worked overseas.
The whole problem of Immigration is down to the UK goverment; nothing to do with the EU.

[Jim B]

Hudswell
They are BRITISH rules; nothing to do with the EU. Everyone has to contribute to get the benefits; they're not a free gift. Immigration from everywhere can be controlled but the UK Govérment chooses not to bother with EU Citizens; again nothing to do with the EU.
You just don't appear able to comprehend this.

Jim

[kingfisher]

We can thank Blair, Brown and the BBC for the mass migration into UK.Some excerpts from Migration Watch.
“The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’. He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it.
Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats. Nor should we underestimate the power of ‘community leaders’ who have strong influence in constituency Labour parties and who, of course, benefit from a growth in numbers. Other activists, nurtured in the anti-apartheid movement of the last century, had no difficulty promoting the interests of minority groups — almost, it seems, regardless of the impact on the white working class.
There were also economic factors. A collection of essays published recently by the IPPR underlined the role of Gordon Brown’s Treasury in this affair. A high level of immigration made economic growth look better and helped keep wages and, therefore, inflation down.Others, too, saw economic benefits for themselves. The employers’ organisations kept their heads down, but there is little doubt that they were privately encouraging a supply of cheap labour which was good for profits, whatever its impact on society.
Then there were those members of the middle classes who found it convenient to have cheap exotic restaurants and even cheaper domestic help, but were blind to the wider consequences of this population inflow which were, of course, felt in the poorer neighbourhoods.
Another major factor was the attitude of the BBC and, in particular, its devotion to multiculturalism. For years it avoided discussing immigration if it possibly could.Although in the autumn of 2005 official statistics for the previous year showed an increase of 50 per cent in net immigration, there was no mention of this on the BBC. Its own report into impartiality, published in June 2007, concluded that its coverage of immigration amounted to bias by omission"

[Jim B]

So you confirm everything we've been saying Jon; immigration is a problem caused by the UK itself and not the EU as Hudswell keeps insisting?

Jim

[kingfisher]

In large part, yes, Jim. The UK government cynically chose not to use opt-outs from EU law, in order to allow uncontrolled EU immigration.
However, the freedom of movement of people enshrined in EU law has been the cause of much of the UK's problem.'

[Jimgward]

Hudswell, you dont read the facts in the previous threads on this and take them in. It is PROVEN that you DO NOT have to restrict the indigenous population, when restricting benefits. What tosh. Cyprus will give NO benefits to unemployed who arrive on their shores seeking employement, from EU nations..... why is that? It is PROVEN that only 3 countries in the EU were allowing this free movement and only 1 the access to full benefits and health. Go on, surprise me and name that one in one....

Jim, once "entitled" the benefits are the same, you can't give a Polish person less child benefit than a UK citizen! ..and the influx of EU and other "citizens is simply overloading the system...and that is a fact...immigration for such a small island has to be controlled...why on earth you cannot understand that is beyond me...the UK has rules as well..and those rules are used, trust me I know, My SIL is Brazilian and I know every hoop and the cost of living in the UK requires....and rules apply to EU citizens as well..

Hudswell, I knowyoure not a moron, but sometime you behave like one..... How many times? The UK could and can and should make entitlement different for EU citizens, or citizens from any other countries. Very different from the UK citizens. We could say, 5 years entitlement before NHS, 5 years before child benefit etc. This CAN ands SHOULD have been done. It is NOT against EU rules. Why cant you understand that? Are you simply being controversial and smirking offline, or being a moron deliberately?

[Jimgward]

In large part, yes, Jim. The UK government cynically chose not to use opt-outs from EU law, in order to allow uncontrolled EU immigration.
However, the freedom of movement of people enshrined in EU law has been the cause of much of the UK's problem.'

No it haSNT, freedom to move, yes, but not stay. You c an kick them out, as and when they dont have jobs, contribute etc. We never did. The UK’s problem, not the EU rules.. So EU law would have supported us. Belgium kicks you out after 6 months. We could have done anything similar. How many times must this be said?

[Jim B]

Jon
I think Jim W has given the reply I would have given.
Unfortunately all of the Immigration problems are of our own making.
Jim

[WHL]

We can thank Blair, Brown and the BBC for the mass migration into UK.Some excerpts from Migration Watch.
“The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’. He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it.
Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats. The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats. Nor should we underestimate the power of ‘community leaders’ who have strong influence in constituency Labour parties and who, of course, benefit from a growth in numbers. Other activists, nurtured in the anti-apartheid movement of the last century, had no difficulty promoting the interests of minority groups — almost, it seems, regardless of the impact on the white working class.
There were also economic factors. A collection of essays published recently by the IPPR underlined the role of Gordon Brown’s Treasury in this affair. A high level of immigration made economic growth look better and helped keep wages and, therefore, inflation down.Others, too, saw economic benefits for themselves. The employers’ organisations kept their heads down, but there is little doubt that they were privately encouraging a supply of cheap labour which was good for profits, whatever its impact on society.
Then there were those members of the middle classes who found it convenient to have cheap exotic restaurants and even cheaper domestic help, but were blind to the wider consequences of this population inflow which were, of course, felt in the poorer neighbourhoods.
Another major factor was the attitude of the BBC and, in particular, its devotion to multiculturalism. For years it avoided discussing immigration if it possibly could.Although in the autumn of 2005 official statistics for the previous year showed an increase of 50 per cent in net immigration, there was no mention of this on the BBC. Its own report into impartiality, published in June 2007, concluded that its coverage of immigration amounted to bias by omission"

You fail to mention it was Enoch Powell as a Minister who went over to the Caribbean and encouraged people to immigrate and work in the UK.