1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UK Government Performance 2019-2024

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Dirk Diggler, Dec 13, 2019.

  1. Devilman

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 9, 2004

    Posts: 581

    This right here is the problem...

    Let me frame it in a different context and see if you can spot the problem....

    See the problem now?

    The very thinking that 1 group should "come first" over another, is entirely in conflict with the notion and ideals of equality.


    *Edit*

    Why are you seeing it as something negative ?

    Why do you support preferential treatment for a specific group of people?
     
  2. Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

    Capodecina

    Joined: Aug 4, 2007

    Posts: 10,490

    Location: Wilds of suffolk

    I think the problem is a relatively recent one.
    Go back a relatively short time and most had very little, not really much to their name, didn't live in a democracy that infers more than it reality it gives.
    Plus of course whilst the UK is a rich country, the wealth disparity is huge.
    Its the age old issue, those best off want to hang on to it, those less able to think for themselves are persuaded generation after generation that their issues are not domestically produced, but the fault fo someone who has come here, or maybe not even that, someone who doesn't want whats best for the UK who is sitting in another country.

    People now expect to be able to say things like priority to people born here. Where as you didn't go far back and the only benefit of being born here was to be drafted into the British forces when someone decided to go to war on some other state who basically couldn't defend themselves. Your luck to being british was you would have better gear and knowledge and therefore a far higher chance of survival.

    Really when you think about it, the whole notion of lines on a map constraining people is bizarre. If we were setting it up now the whole notion would be so ludicrous anyone suggesting it would be considered a total idiot.
    (Slightly less relevant for the UK than say continental europe as an example)

    The nations have basically been defined by which groups of people were best at poking each other with various forms of sharpened sticks, eventually evolving into sharpened metal. Very little has actually changed post that period when you look at it.

    If there is a genuine global catastrophe countries are goign to have to be prepared to mow down hundreds of millions on borders, or the whole concept of nation states is going to be severly tested.
     
  3. thenewoc

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 9, 2012

    Posts: 5,925

    Location: West Sussex, England

    Equality is not meant to operate outside your jurisdiction though as far as your own jurisdiction is concerned. He said British first not men first or white first.
     
  4. Devilman

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 9, 2004

    Posts: 581

    What does that bunch of waffle have to do with anything? Nobody is "operating outside their jurisdiction" by offering equal opportunities to people born both inside and outside the UK.

    He said we should give priority to 1 group of people over another, different group of people, for no other reason than the geographical location they come from.

    And that we should do it within the UK, which would be within our jurisdiction.

    So why is it not acceptable to give preferential treatment to men or white people, but perfectly acceptable if they come from "here" and not "over there" ?
     
  5. thenewoc

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 9, 2012

    Posts: 5,925

    Location: West Sussex, England

    It should be obvious, if they're born outside the UK they have no automatic right to come and settle here. There obviously has been a right for those in the EU for some years but this was not something that UK citizens voted to allow, it was something along with many changes that were introduced to the EU model over time. Hence the fact that when UK citizens eventually had a chance to vote upon whether we wanted to remain in the EU having seen what it has become, they rejected it and again more recently in the conservative won GE.
     
  6. Devilman

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 9, 2004

    Posts: 581

    What is this even supposed to mean? What relevance does it have to whether or not it is acceptable to give preferential treatment to 1 group, over another group.

    That's a lot of correlation doesn't equal causation going on there...

    As we are repeatedly told by Brexiteers themselves, they voted for Brexit for many different reasons and when pressured on those reasons, they almost always insist it has nothing to do with bigotry, xenophobia or prejudice.

    We well know about leave-EU's campaign of misinformation and lies, via Cambridge Analytica and the like, to target the most easily swayed and cognitively vulnerable across social media. A process which has continued under the conservative government, which Cummings Boris now sits at the top of.

    Yet it sounds to me like you are trying to assert that bigotry, xenophobia and prejudice are in-fact the reasons people chose to vote leave and vote Boris.

    So which is it?
     
  7. thenewoc

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 9, 2012

    Posts: 5,925

    Location: West Sussex, England

    It's relevant for obvious reasons because if everyone let anyone resettle to their country we'd be swamped with unskilled immigrants from poor countries, higher crime and too many people chasing too few jobs. Not least some of those coming from poor countries with little regard for law and order who've already leveled some of these places to the ground over years of fighting would bring that mentality here.

    If you don't like the fact that the UK is a majority white, christian, democratic country then don't come. You know the score before coming so don't arrive and think you have the right to tell UK citizens how their country should be run, outside of the democratic process for being represented in parliament.

    It's not bigotry to not want an open doors immigration policy though, that's just your rhetoric to paint anyone who doesn't want unlimited numbers of immigration as being wrong. There's no bigotry, xenophobia or ethnic prejudice of having a points based system as has been pointed out many times that our future immigration would consist of more non EU applicants which would obviously include people from all sorts of ethnic backgrounds. It's also UK citizens right to make this democratic choice without being painted as being far right just because they don't want a continuation of an uncontrolled system that they never voted to introduce in the first place along with many other changes such as basket case countries joining the EU over the years after we joined.
     
  8. Devilman

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 9, 2004

    Posts: 581

    If they come here, integrate into society and become a functioning member of UK society, they absolutely have a right to tell UK citizens how their country should be run, as they themselves would be a UK citizen.

    How arrogant does a person need to be to think that just because you happen to be born somewhere, you should be automatically treated as "better" than people who were not.

    It's an utterly disgusting attitude on display. "I Deserve more than this other guy, simply because I was born here".

    Who the **** do you think you are? Such utter self-absorbed, self-important prattle. The empire does not exist and we are not "better" or "more deserving" than anyone else, This is nothing more than British Exceptionalism on display, yet again.

    As has been proven time and time again, Immigrants are a net contributor to our economy, which is more than can be said for a lot of "UK Natives". So please, tell me again why you think you deserve preferential treatment simply because you were born here?
     
  9. Dirk Diggler

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 6, 2013

    Posts: 14,262

    The comparison between people who live here and ethnicity/race/sex is not valid in this context, surely? The country is dependant on the money generated by it's inhabitants being spent in the country it was earned, particularly when there's an employment crisis looming.
     
  10. Devilman

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 9, 2004

    Posts: 581

    It is absolutely valid in this context, because as has been already demonstrated many times in the Brexit thread, Immigrants are a net contributor to our economy, so to prevent them from having the same opportunities as a "Native Brit" is actually causing harm to the economy, not helping it.


    And yet, we have had FOM with EU for how long now and this still hasn't happened?

    Let me guess, it was "just around the corner"... or "on the brink of..." wasn't it?

    It is such a weak argument to wield when the very reality we have lived in for the last 28 years says otherwise.
     
  11. thenewoc

    Soldato

    Joined: Mar 9, 2012

    Posts: 5,925

    Location: West Sussex, England

    And again... it's the citizen's right in the UK to choose how it is governed and the majority of which being British chose to put Brits first.

    As for having a right to how the country is run, I said there was already a democratic process for that. However, if you don't like that process it is not your right to start pulling statues down for example or demanding separate faith schooling. You know the country is a predominantly white christian country so no it's not a right of ethnic minorities to demand that the country is changed as they are in a minority and knew that before choosing to relocate here. Has nothing to do with the empire, it's to do with protecting what has been built up and not just giving it away to just anyone. If people don't like that they can exercise their right to leave and move elsewhere but do please check you're happy with the destination before doing so as changing it upon arrival is not an automatic right. I suspect many won't leave as many places don't have the benefits system that we do and probably why many risk their lives still to cross the channel in reckless conditions when they could have settled in dozens of safe havens that were far enough from any conflict they were supposedly fleeing.

    As for the EU migration, it had been climbing to unprecedented levels and the referendum was a potential one off chance to do something about it rather than wait to see the country decimated by it. Prevention is better than cure.
     
  12. Devilman

    Hitman

    Joined: Feb 9, 2004

    Posts: 581

    Nobody is asking whether they have the right to choose how it is governed, I asked if it was right to give preferential treatment to people simply based upon where they were born?

    I agree, it is not the right way to go about enacting change. However we also know that it is a small minority which are committing such acts and they rarely reflect the greater majority of the particular subset they claim to represent, as such, condemning a whole group of people based upon the actions of a few is a pretty flawed argument.

    We could equally say that countries should deny UK citizens entry because some of them might be football hooligans, something for which we are well known already. Would you consider this fair, equal or "right" ?

    What does this have to do with giving people preferential treatment due to the arbitrary geographical location in which they were born?

    Ahh the old "they're coming over here to steal our benefits and get a free ride" argument. - Need I remind you that it is a proven fact that immigrants are a net benefit to our economy? How can they do that if they are having it "just given away to them" as you claim?

    And since the Brexit vote and EU Referendum, EU migration has dropped sharply, while Rest-of-World migration has increased proportionally to that. Bringing in more of those whom might have as you yourself put it...

    Which would seem to suggest that people who voted leave for this reason either failed to understand the facts, or were deliberately misled, wouldn't you say?
     
  13. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 4,368

    Erm, it was something that UK citizens voted to allow. We did that in the 1970 GE when we elected a Conservative government on a mandate to start negotiations on joining the Common Market, that before you say it people were told was about more than a Common Market and were told it was about political integration.
    We voted twice in 1974 and elected a Labour government with a mandate to hold a referendum on EU membership that took place in 1975, and we voted to remain in the EU along with freedom of movement that had been in effect for 2 years by that time.
    We then voted in a further 7 general elections where you and every registered voter voiced their opinion, where UK citizens voted to continue allowing freedom of movement.

    And we've not even touched on 7 European parliament elections where every registered voter in the UK got to vote for MEPs who could've pushed for changes to FoM, so that's something like 17 times that UK citizens voted to continue allowing freedom of movement.
     
  14. do_ron_ron

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 23, 2002

    Posts: 10,162

    """ This is another lie the tabloid press started. It was always a political union.
     
  15. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 19,110

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    Precisely:

    [​IMG]
     
  16. UTmaniac

    Soldato

    Joined: Nov 9, 2005

    Posts: 5,643

    Location: Southampton

  17. Greebo

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 20, 2005

    Posts: 35,488

    Location: Co Durham

    Its these pesky environmental red tape things which is holding back Great Britain. The sooner we get rid of protecting the environment, the sooner some of us can start making lots more money.
     
  18. wesimmo

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 19, 2012

    Posts: 4,270

    Is this like the EU red tape he kept making up, well mis-assigning blame to the EU anyway, to incite the xenophobes?
     
  19. arknor

    Caporegime

    Joined: Nov 22, 2005

    Posts: 37,206

    Location: Newcastle/Zurich

    how to waste 100million
    Scheme backed by Dominic Cummings to ‘suck’ excess carbon dioxide from the air and bury it underground gets £100m from the Treasury

    why don't they just spend 100million to plant loads of trees in scotland where there is already projects to try and regrow the forests.

    for every 3 of these machines they build do they have to build a 4th to make up for the carbon contribution they are making based on the energy they are using.

    the whole thing sounds mental and such a stupid idea
     
  20. Murphy

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 4,368

    Because trees don't have children that need to be sent to expensive private schools, million pound houses to keep going, and flashy cars. ;)