Article 50 Discussion

[brassnecked]

Strange that families could manage on one wage in the 1980's, but need two today, also housing isn't just mortgage or rent payments, its council tax and utilities, so total cost of occupation should be the true indicator of housing outgoings.

[fletch70]

16 minutes ago, brassnecked said:

Strange that families could manage on one wage in the 1980's, but need two today, also housing isn't just mortgage or rent payments, its council tax and utilities, so total cost of occupation should be the true indicator of housing outgoings.

 

I don't think it is strange but it is complicated. I know I say capitalism is evil but here is one example of why it is. New ways of generating profit have led to targeting people to believe they 'need' things such as an xbox or £200 trainers or a 1/2 mile wide HDTV that washes up and hoovers as well( Ok I exaggerate ). We do not need any of these things but the capitalist machinery needs us to believe we need them. Add to that the stagnation in wages and as you say the very real increases in housing, rent, council tax and utilities , we see why households need two incomes, Add in the politics of envy and we have another strand.

 

Just sayin like!

[tobyjugg2]

Little sideways jump but perhaps highly relevant to the withheld Russia report

 

In a disturbing update on the Russian skripal poisoning issue, which I initially thought was crazy as the Russians wouldn't be that incompetent ...

... Well it seems quite possible I was mistaken - and it perhaps wasn't simple incompetence as such, just confidence that they would get away with it no matter what !!!!! Even walking across London with radioactive substances.

 

https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/from-russia-with-blood-14-suspected-hits-on-british-soil

[Jase1982]

19 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

 

They are all actually your interpretations,

and nothing more than incorrect assumptions and extreme misrepresentations (at best) of mine

(and thats being kind)

 

 

I was just pointing out the negative implications of what you were saying, and the language other people use when discussing immigration.  You might not "mean" them in that extreme way, but they do have historical importance when dealing with immigration and the treatment of minorities.  Saying we only want people that are of benefit to society is very close to Nazism; I don't need to prove that, the history books show it.  I don't think anyone that uses that language is that extreme, but the similarities are always there.  We need to break free as a society and develop one based on compassion above all!

 

 

[tobyjugg2]

26 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

We need to break free as a society and develop one based on compassion above all!

 

 

 

You're continuing to defend calling me a nazi deleted, rather than responded to with the utter contempt, disdain and offence it truly deserves.

Hardly being compassionate except to your own distorted, unrealistic (IMO) perspective it seems.

 

 

We need to focus on the achievable,

and by that I mean realistically achievable and not some fantasy that might be argued as 'achievable' just because it doesn't break any known laws of physics.

 

 

Come back with that when you can't afford internet because you have given the money you would have spent on it away to one of the thousands of better causes.

and even if you could afford it, you haven't the time because you are working more hours to give more money away to those desperately needy causes rather than abusing your free time accusing people with honest opinions of promoting nazi perspectives.

.. and even then you would need to do far better to change my views - but you would perhaps look a little less like a clueless self-righteous student (who should have given his place to someone more needy.

 

 

 

I set my sights on achievable goals a step at a time, not some shangri lala land fantasies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jase1982]

I didn't call you a nazi.  Calling you a Nazi directly would suggest I thought you were anti semetic and right wing, which I don't.  I just said that the language used bares similarities, and it's language I hear a lot of, which people don't seem to be aware of.  I want to bring my daughter up in a better society, and the type of language used by some people in this country scares me.  I think we should always be weary of repeating the mistakes made throughout history, and immigration is one of them.  If people want to live and work and move about without restrictions then let them - They're not stealing things from you if there's nothing to steal.  If someone comes here to perform a job it doesn't really bother me.  We already have systems in place to deport people that have committed a criminal offence, and for people who don't have any work.

[tobyjugg2]

37 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

If people want to live and work and move about without restrictions then let them

 

Now that I do agree with, which it seems to you have NOT actually been promoting ..

 

or do you actually mean 'If people want to live and move about without restrictions wherever whim and state benefits funded by those who do work take them - then let them - which is what you seemed to be promoting ...

 

I think anyone with a job offer, provided they are NOT a perceived danger to society, should get that job

I think that migratory labour is exactly that - and a boon wherever they go

The 'cheap imported labour' issue should be addressed by SIMPLE regulation of industry, and is anyway rather self regulating as if that immigrant is good - they would soon move on to a competitor for more money - something the Tory plans would prevent and labours wouldn't help.

- in that its keeping them outside our society that keeps them in lower paid work hence affecting UK skills. [added]

 

 

 

I do NOT think an open border policy, everyone welcome whether they are a boon or not is anything other than asking for that society to be destroyed.

I do also think that any immigrant coming to this country should be able to pass at least a basic English language test.

I am also largely opposed to mini=xxxx societies popping up everywhere although I see a melting pot of integrating cultures as overwhelmingly a boon.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Jase1982]

14 minutes ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Now that I do agree with, which it seems to you have NOT actually been promoting ..

 

or do you actually mean 'If people want to live and move about without restrictions wherever whim and state benefits funded by those who do work take them - then let them - which is what you seemed to be promoting ...

 

Well, if they're living and working then they wouldn't be taking any state benefits surely?  So I dont see any issue.

 

Of course, the universal wage for all would eradicate any ill feeling towards people, and this constant narrative that someone is taking something from someone.  That's my real issue with capitalism if we move on slightly - we're all on different levels of the pyramid and most people are constantly looking over their shoulder at what the person next to them has.  Tory's talk about labour indulging in the politics of envy, but it's actually the capitalist free market system they have created which fuels this hatred towards other people.  I think that capitalism promotes competition and as such envy plays a big role in every one of us because we're all competing with one another...  better house, better car, better this and that.

 

Ask yourself if you'd be worried about an immigrant taking what you perceive to be yours by rights if there wasn't a more level playing field and people were treated equally regardless of where they were born/skin colour/gender etc?  People can't seriously be happy living like this.. constantly mistrusting, looking over your shoulder, paranoid, angry...

[tobyjugg2]

1 hour ago, Jase1982 said:

 

Well, if they're living and working then they wouldn't be taking any state benefits surely?  So I dont see any issue.

 

 

 

Then we are agreed that people come here to a job that supports them, not to open door benefits?

 

 

 

[fletch70]

To throw oil onto water

 

I agree in principle to a national wage but question 1 is, at what point would a migrant become eligible for it? On arrival is , in most cases wrong as it encourages economic tourism but if they are genuine refugees it’s different.

 

I think we all agree ,(well the three of us)  doing away with the hostile environment is a must.  It makes me ashamed to be a human being when I hear some of the rhetoric coming out of many Tories and other right wing mouths. Tell me, do you risk death in a freezer unit because you think staying in your country of origin is really good? 

[tobyjugg2]

Let me throw more oil on while we await Jase's confirmation that the appearance that he was being disingenuous was mistaken.

 

Does letting people run here in any way whatsoever resolve the issues in that persons own country?

and would they allow our destitute skill-less people entry to their country and feed home and support them from their own resources once the people we vote for in corrupt deceitful outside influenced elections have turned our nation into a bled dry, over-crowded, destitute hell-hole of asset stripped poisoned land and starving children, whether through ideological design or ideological incompetence  ?  (ask Priti Patel for starters)

... particularly if there were thousands of children in their own country being fed from food banks?

 

and does allowing an open door policy to those claiming oppression mean those people will be generous good people who want to join and add to our society? (ask Abu Hamsa)

 

Extreme examples, and some might argue those examples knew exactly how to 'manage' in out society - but for me they do demonstrate we need to have a process that integrates immigrants into our society before we can define an immigration policy based on anything more than OUR societies economic and social needs.

[fletch70]

This is the problem; can we fix the problems in their own countries. Can we make it safe for queer people to live in certain Islamic/African/Russian areas or do we do what a compassionate and modern society would do, take them in. Priti Patel would have them go back and be discreet, for many not only is that not an option it is wrong. I love whom I love and denying me that opportunity goes against all the values even the Tories say they hold dear. Even Cameron moved on Queer equalities. 

[tobyjugg2]

I dont care what race, colour, creed, sexuality or personal religious beliefs anyone holds

and just like I dont believe anyone should be penalised in any way for their purely personal choices and beliefs,

neither do I believe they should expect or be given benefit or preference over any others based on them.

 

Real non-discrimination in my opinion.

 

If a person is a benefit to our society - I don't care about their purely personal choices.

If a person is not a benefit to our society - I dont care about their purely personal choices.

 

... and that certainly is not anything approaching Nazi-ism in my opinion. Sounds more like real world socialism to me than most self-proclaiming socialists I hear and see.

 

 

Are people who make 'profit' - all 'bad' - are they heck as like

Are people who say we should give everything away to those more 'needy' - all 'good' - are they heck as like

and in the vast majority of those cases most are nether of the extremes of 'good' or 'bad',

 

.. although it is arguable that those who consciously make a personal choice give away all their personal belongings other than perhaps the absolute minimum they NEED - to those more needy ... are 'saints' - if their personal choices accept that, and whether officially acknowledged or not.

 

 

I agree it would be great if the world was at peace with itself and everyone,

and no-one went hungry or feared for their childrens futures, and there was no greed, or fear or hate or even want

- but this is the real world, and we have to deal with it in real ways.

 

Not even Star Treks federation is close, let alone the reality we need to deal with.

[Jase1982]

17 hours ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Then we are agreed that people come here to a job that supports them, not to open door benefits?

 

 

 

 

I think you're conflating the discussion with your own view of what open borders means.  Obviously I don't think it's sensible to allow people to come to the country and claim whatever they can - They can't even do that now.  If they have a job, and are able to support themselves then that is what I would say is fair enough.  The real issue with selecting who comes to the country is that you can't devise a system that selects people fairly, and it would need some human intervention down the line.  How do you decide who is of benefit to the country etc.. I think if we go down that route, that is where I feel uncomfortable.  Even if we adopted an Australian points based system it wouldn't reduce immigration, and the hole notion of only allowing people that earn above a certain sum of money to come to the country is plain silly - As if the amount of money someone earns is the mark of their character.  And as we know, we rely heavily on low skilled seasonal labour.

 

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

Does letting people run here in any way whatsoever resolve the issues in that persons own country?

and would they allow our destitute skill-less people entry to their country and feed home and support them from their own resources once the people we vote for in corrupt deceitful outside influenced elections have turned our nation into a bled dry, over-crowded, destitute hell-hole of asset stripped poisoned land and starving children, whether through ideological design or ideological incompetence  ?  (ask Priti Patel for starters)

... particularly if there were thousands of children in their own country being fed from food banks?

 

Your point is moot because our low skilled workforce have no reason to move to another country unless the standard of living is equal or better to ours.  I did read the other day though that the UK provides the greatest number of immigrants from any other country to Australia.

 

I would suggest that the foreign aid everyone likes to grumble at is a way to improve living standards in other countries.

[tobyjugg2]

18 minutes ago, Jase1982 said:

 

I think you're conflating the discussion with your own view of what open borders means. 

Obviously I don't think it's sensible to allow people to come to the country and claim whatever they can

 

 

- They can't even do that now.

 

 

Why are you adding "They can't even do that now"

... when we are discussing Labours stated intent to open the borders and refuse any system based on usefulness or quantity ? (deliberately left business out unless someone defines what is meant by 'business'

 

and before firing off about hostile environment, consider that anything OTHER than open border free for all could be classed as 'hostile to some.

 

Quote

Even if we adopted an Australian points based system it wouldn't reduce immigration

 

So what - if its implemented based on filling our societies needs, and those needs are NOT just someones personal profit needs and because our own aren't trained and educated properly?

or are temporary to fill a temporary need perhaps while we do train up our own and aren't simply to get the workers cheap.

... Like migratory workers - do we accept thats a good way, or do we force UK citizens to do the work via a hostile benefits system?

 

but an open door is no answer to anything.

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[Jase1982]

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

Why are you adding "They can't even do that now"

... when we are discussing Labours stated intent to open the borders and refuse any system based on usefulness or quantity ? (deliberately left business out unless someone defines what is meant by 'business'

 

 

Because when talking about immigration most people seem to think immigrants can come here and claim every benefit they want straight away.

 

1 hour ago, tobyjugg2 said:

 

So what - if its implemented based on filling our societies needs, and those needs are NOT just someones personal profit needs and because our own aren't trained and educated properly?

or are temporary to fill a temporary need perhaps while we do train up our own and aren't simply to get the workers cheap.

... Like migratory workers - do we accept thats a good way, or do we force UK citizens to do the work via a hostile benefits system?

 

but an open door is no answer to anything.

 

 

I would suggest that any immigration system based on any state intervention isn't something the Tory's believe in, and any suggestion that they would do anything remotely positive about the subject is disingenuous when they include it in their manifesto year after year. 

 

Who decides who's of benefit to society?  You say so what, but the majority of people want immigration reduced, and they are either under the misguided sense that the Conservatives would do something about it, or that an Australian points based system would sort it out.

 

Also, I thought we already established that Labour's open door policy isn't an accurate reflection of what would be in their manifesto.  In terms of education - Labour have put forward some good ideas about this area, and I would agree that we need better educated workforce.  The Tory's have spent years creating an unskilled uneducated workforce in order maintain their ideological desires.

[tobyjugg2]

2 hours ago, Jase1982 said:

 

Because when talking about immigration most people seem to think immigrants can come here and claim every benefit they want straight away.

 

 

Despite that not being what we are discussing - and just seems to be your disingenuous sidestepping.

it IS Labours stated intent - as stated and linked and as voted on - unless and until its at least as clearly stated otherwise.

 

 

Quote

Also, I thought we already established that Labour's open door policy isn't an accurate reflection of what would be in their manifesto. 

 

Quite clear statements of policy and intent - simple fact as quoted from labourlist not some Brexit pit of lies.

 

 

 

Quote

 In terms of education - Labour have put forward some good ideas about this area, and I would agree that we need better educated workforce.

 

All of which are needed anyway, and NONE of which justify an open door policy. In fact more the opposite unless we 'offer a job' and bring in trainers/teachers or temporary place fillers while brits are trained. Permanent roles can be offered to those people/positions suitable.

 

 

 

Quote

Well, if they're living and working then they wouldn't be taking any state benefits surely?  So I dont see any issue.

 

So we are agreed they need a job - or at the very least they are sent back if they don't get one within 3 months

 

- but realistically the best option if we want foreign nationals to work is that any immigrants or migrants have a job offer/work before they come - as the immensely valuable migrant Labour forces do (did?)

.. which is the only sensible option in the current climate - and they can apply for work online from anywhere - just like many if not most brits do.
 

yes or no?

 

[tobyjugg2]

Clarification:

immensely valuable seasonal migrant Labour forces

[tobyjugg2]

So whos lying about the peerage offers?

 

.. OH says its just another thing whoever will get away with whoever is lying - probably;y the Johnson crew.

 

Says all fraudster crims should just use johnson as an excuse in court - if the PM can do it why can't we?

 

 

One of them is lying.

 

[honeybee13]

Did anyone watch the debate last night and who do you think performed best?

 

Interesting that one of the Guardian thinks what I said when Jo Swinson announced she would revoke Article 50. The audience last night didn't seem to approve.

 

 

[brassnecked]

Lib Dems have caught a backlash caused by all parties, for messing up Brexit, as in denial of result blocking tactics,  politicians in Leave areas pushing Remain, Voters are fed up, as Lib Dems only ones saying they will  Revoke and Remain no thing less, they are being lambasted for overturning Democracy they are the only ones actually being honest saying what they will do.   Labour is on the fence, promising to Nationalise everything and it's dog, with a Soviet style Command top down Economy.  Free Broadband will be as tightly controlled as China and Iran under Labour, with dissent criminalised.  Labour are frightening Jews with antisemitic elements within the Parties,  Maureen Lipman  Beattie from the 1980's BT phone ads, has done an anti Corbyn and labour video   https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/maureen-lipman-returns-as-beattie-in-video-mocking-jeremy-corbyns-labour/  and Boris can still get his No Deal if nothing is sorted by December 2020 The UK Party political system i broken and not fit for purpose.

[tobyjugg2]

7 hours ago, brassnecked said:

Lib Dems have caught a backlash caused by all parties, for messing up Brexit, as in denial of result blocking tactics,  politicians in Leave areas pushing Remain, Voters are fed up, as Lib Dems only ones saying they will  Revoke and Remain no thing less, they are being lambasted for overturning Democracy they are the only ones actually being honest saying what they will do.

 

 

Why is no-one saying where the hell is the All signing all dancing Brexit sold by the Leave campaigns in the referendum run up?

Offering one thing, then saying what people voted for is whatever the politicians want it to be is the real overturning of democracy.

 

Hold johnson to his own 'rules, if people vote for him, they aren't voting for him to be elected, what they are really voting for is for him to be prosecuted.

I'm sure more people would agree than disagree with that 'interpretation' of what was being voted for.

At least isn't being specifically stated as NOT being what people are voting for - unlike the Brexit now compared to the Brexit promoted.

 

Who remembers:

* No one is threatening our place in the single market - and understood it to mean: because we wont have one to threaten?

* Theres no plan for no deal as wee will get a great deal - and understood it to mean: a border in the Irish sea as that great deal?

* We will have trade agreements across the world - - and understood it to mean: having the worst WTO arrangement on the planet?

* We will have higher standards than the EU - and understood it to mean: as long as higher means lower?

* 350M a week extra to the NHS - and understood it to mean: to give to American pharmaceutical companies for less products and more limited markets and fighting US litigation claims

 

etc etc

 

 

Edited November 23, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[tobyjugg2]

So Johnson effectively confirms a hong kong deregulated economy with a bonfire of workers and environmental protections

 

We can rip up the EU rule book, Johnson tells UK voters

 

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-johnson/we-can-rip-up-the-eu-rule-book-johnson-tells-uk-voters-idUKKBN1YD2F8

 

Explains (if there was ant doubt) why the EU has put any UK/EU deal on the far back burner.

 

 

Look forward to far more of this unless you have private medical insurance and can keep your job when you have no rights  :

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/dec/09/tories-accused-lying-distract-photo-boy-hospital-floor

 

 

Edited December 10, 2019 by tobyjugg2

[honeybee13]

There seems to be a lot if you read between the lines of the Tory manifesto, I agree. Page 48 is quite scary in terms of a possible intended weakening of Parliament and the judiciary to make the government sovereign and not subject to scrutiny from anyone.

 

And they want to tear up the Human Rights Act.

[tobyjugg2]

Yes, to say they used the lie about Turks coming in in the referendum, they certainly seem to be taking the Edogan government techniques to heart.