FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why it's time to end EU Free Movement
Why it's time to end EU Free Movement
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"this is cribbed from a New Statesman article by Vince Cable in January. Should really credit your sources." My apologies, yes it was Vince Cable. Now Liberal Democrat leader. I thought it was a very good piece. | |||
 | |||
"Yet today Michael Gove has been saying that the whole cabinet agrees that it's not the time to end few movement of labour, and we need years and years of transition. "The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period. | |||
"The part about British asians voting for brexit because they resented free movement of Eastern Europeans.I find confusing. Is he saying they were not happy about Asians outside EU not having free movement in the EU. Also asia is massive and includes dozens of countries and cultures.From the borders of europe to china and down to Australia." About twenty years ago an Asian shopkeeper said to me `these people will ruin this country' he was talking about East Europeans, he was offended that I smiled at his remark and told me he was serious. | |||
"Yet today Michael Gove has been saying that the whole cabinet agrees that it's not the time to end few movement of labour, and we need years and years of transition.
The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period. "Yesterday Liam Fox said he had been waiting to leave the EU "for a very long time, another two years, say, wouldn't be too much to ask". Brexit transition period could take two years, says Fox - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667030 | |||
"The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period. " I doubt that the Cabinet will get it's wish or that there will be any transitional period unless we pay the EU what they decide we owe them. After all the reality is the EU get to call all the shots now. | |||
"The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period. I doubt that the Cabinet will get it's wish or that there will be any transitional period unless we pay the EU what they decide we owe them. After all the reality is the EU get to call all the shots now." As many have said on here before and since the vote, the reality which many like Boris and some posters on here simply refuse to acknowledge is that the EU hold the cards and we will as we have done already do things their way.. Kin idiot of a Foreign Secretary when presented with facts from this weeks talks did the usual 'its the BBC talking things down' bullshit.. head in the sand idiocy and deflection is not what we as a nation need, and certainly not from someone in such a prestigious position.. | |||
 | |||
| |||
"Yet today Michael Gove has been saying that the whole cabinet agrees that it's not the time to end few movement of labour, and we need years and years of transition.
The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period.
Yesterday Liam Fox said he had been waiting to leave the EU "for a very long time, another two years, say, wouldn't be too much to ask".
Brexit transition period could take two years, says Fox - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667030"Liam Fox did initially say a transition of a couple of months. So now he is saying 2 years he seems to have allied himself with David Davis on this issue. Phillip Hammond's 5 years transition wish is far too long and won't happen. It'll be a 2 years time limited transition at the most and when that 2 year transition ends so will the free movement of people from the EU. | |||
"Yet today Michael Gove has been saying that the whole cabinet agrees that it's not the time to end few movement of labour, and we need years and years of transition.
The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period.
Yesterday Liam Fox said he had been waiting to leave the EU "for a very long time, another two years, say, wouldn't be too much to ask".
Brexit transition period could take two years, says Fox - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667030
Liam Fox did initially say a transition of a couple of months. So now he is saying 2 years he seems to have allied himself with David Davis on this issue. Phillip Hammond's 5 years transition wish is far too long and won't happen. It'll be a 2 years time limited transition at the most and when that 2 year transition ends so will the free movement of people from the EU. "I think your statement is a triumph of hope over reality. Initially BREXITers were all saying there was no need for a transition period and, if we don't get exactly what we wanted we'd simply leave after the two years and trade on WTO terms. Now, finally, some BREXITers are starting to realise the realities of what leaving the EU actually means and the absolutely massive amount of work and effort that is required for BREXIT to have even the remotest chance of being a success. I think it's more than likely that any transition period will be of an undeterminant period. For BREXIT to stand any chance of delivering any real benefits to the UK it has to done slowly and correctly, not this headlong, mindless dash to the exit without any real thought or plan as to what we should do once through the door. | |||
| |||
" “Taking back control” starts with immigration control, ending free movement inside the European Union. For the Remain resistance movement, that freedom has been a fundamental principle, to be defended to the last. I value the freedom to travel around Europe for business or pleasure with minimal restriction. But I have serious doubts that EU free movement is tenable or even desirable. First, the freedom is not a universal right, but selective. It does not apply to Indians, Jamaicans, Americans or Australians. There was a large Brexit vote among British Asians, many of whom resented the contrast between the restrictions they face and the welcome mat laid out for Poles and Romanians. British opposition to immigration is mainly colour-blind. (and yet remainers insist on labelling brexiters racists). Until well into the 1990s “immigration” was code word for race. But in recent years concerns over immigration have been precisely that. The question has become: is unrestricted immigration – albeit from some countries only – desirable? The economics are ambiguous. Seen globally, more migration is undeniably a positive….. But the benefits accrue mainly to migrants themselves (and business owners). For the receiving country, the benefits are less obvious: a bigger economy but not necessarily a richer one. Immigrants……are usually young people and therefore likely to be more flexible, more mobile and more likely to work contributing more in tax than they take out in benefits and subsidised services. But they grow older so these benefits are non-recurring. There are also distributional effects. Critics complain that immigrant workers depress wages and reduce job opportunities for natives. Undoubtedly, this happens in some occupations, like building and taxi driving. But there are other areas where immigrants are not competing and bring complementary skills, creating jobs. The economic arguments are not conclusive but, on balance, favour some net migration of younger, skilled workers. More liberal Brexiteers concede that point. It is also reasonable for Remainers to accept that there should be controls, as for non-EU migrants. That is also where public opinion is. There is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement; the economics is debatable; and the politics is conclusively hostile. The argument for free movement has become tactical: it is part of a package that also contains the wider economic benefits of the single market. Those benefits are real, which is why the government must prioritise single market access and shared regulation. Yet that may not be possible to reconcile with restrictions on movement. One advantage of Brexit is the opportunity for a more rational immigration policy. First, it will involve legitimising the position of EU nationals already here. It must involve a more sensible way of dealing with overseas students, who are not immigrants and benefit the UK. The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe. And, not least, there can be a narrative in which control on labour movement is matched by control on capital – halting the takeovers that suffocate the innovative companies on which the country’s future depends. " In 2004 when the eastern block countries joined there were controls in place! EU nationals were only allowed freedom of movement for 3 Months. After 3 Months an EU citizens living in another EU state had to be working in that state & paying tax, if not they had to have sufficient capital to support themselves, not be a burden on the host state, they had to have private comprehensive medical insurance & not be a threat to the state. The UK government chose not to invoke this law - hence it's been kept quiet. So if they fail the above they can be returned. Also if we are full of EU citizens then why did we let 180,000 in from the rest of the world? Why didn't we say "sorry we are full"? There are exceptions for students in full time education. | |||
" “Taking back control” starts with immigration control, ending free movement inside the European Union. For the Remain resistance movement, that freedom has been a fundamental principle, to be defended to the last. I value the freedom to travel around Europe for business or pleasure with minimal restriction. But I have serious doubts that EU free movement is tenable or even desirable. First, the freedom is not a universal right, but selective. It does not apply to Indians, Jamaicans, Americans or Australians. There was a large Brexit vote among British Asians, many of whom resented the contrast between the restrictions they face and the welcome mat laid out for Poles and Romanians. British opposition to immigration is mainly colour-blind. (and yet remainers insist on labelling brexiters racists). Until well into the 1990s “immigration” was code word for race. But in recent years concerns over immigration have been precisely that. The question has become: is unrestricted immigration – albeit from some countries only – desirable? The economics are ambiguous. Seen globally, more migration is undeniably a positive….. But the benefits accrue mainly to migrants themselves (and business owners). For the receiving country, the benefits are less obvious: a bigger economy but not necessarily a richer one. Immigrants……are usually young people and therefore likely to be more flexible, more mobile and more likely to work contributing more in tax than they take out in benefits and subsidised services. But they grow older so these benefits are non-recurring. There are also distributional effects. Critics complain that immigrant workers depress wages and reduce job opportunities for natives. Undoubtedly, this happens in some occupations, like building and taxi driving. But there are other areas where immigrants are not competing and bring complementary skills, creating jobs. The economic arguments are not conclusive but, on balance, favour some net migration of younger, skilled workers. More liberal Brexiteers concede that point. It is also reasonable for Remainers to accept that there should be controls, as for non-EU migrants. That is also where public opinion is. There is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement; the economics is debatable; and the politics is conclusively hostile. The argument for free movement has become tactical: it is part of a package that also contains the wider economic benefits of the single market. Those benefits are real, which is why the government must prioritise single market access and shared regulation. Yet that may not be possible to reconcile with restrictions on movement. One advantage of Brexit is the opportunity for a more rational immigration policy. First, it will involve legitimising the position of EU nationals already here. It must involve a more sensible way of dealing with overseas students, who are not immigrants and benefit the UK. The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe. And, not least, there can be a narrative in which control on labour movement is matched by control on capital – halting the takeovers that suffocate the innovative companies on which the country’s future depends. " Why would eu free movement apply to non eu citerzens last time I checked India and Jamaica is not in the EU | |||
" Why would eu free movement apply to non eu citerzens last time I checked India and Jamaica is not in the EU " because as part of any trade deal its is rumoured that certainly india would like some level of "freedom of movement" for their citizens...... | |||
"Yet today Michael Gove has been saying that the whole cabinet agrees that it's not the time to end few movement of labour, and we need years and years of transition.
The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period.
Yesterday Liam Fox said he had been waiting to leave the EU "for a very long time, another two years, say, wouldn't be too much to ask".
Brexit transition period could take two years, says Fox - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667030
Liam Fox did initially say a transition of a couple of months. So now he is saying 2 years he seems to have allied himself with David Davis on this issue. Phillip Hammond's 5 years transition wish is far too long and won't happen. It'll be a 2 years time limited transition at the most and when that 2 year transition ends so will the free movement of people from the EU. "Will you be happy if free movement ends, but immigration levels remain the same or higher? | |||
"Yet today Michael Gove has been saying that the whole cabinet agrees that it's not the time to end few movement of labour, and we need years and years of transition.
The cabinet does not agree on a time scale for any transition. As little as 2 months was suggested by Liam Fox while Philip Hammond suggested 5 years. Brexit secretary David Davis went in the middle and suggested a 2 year transition period.
Yesterday Liam Fox said he had been waiting to leave the EU "for a very long time, another two years, say, wouldn't be too much to ask".
Brexit transition period could take two years, says Fox - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40667030
Liam Fox did initially say a transition of a couple of months. So now he is saying 2 years he seems to have allied himself with David Davis on this issue. Phillip Hammond's 5 years transition wish is far too long and won't happen. It'll be a 2 years time limited transition at the most and when that 2 year transition ends so will the free movement of people from the EU.
Will you be happy if free movement ends, but immigration levels remain the same or higher? "That would be the definition of pyrrhic victory. The UKs immigration wouldnt decrease and they would lose thousands of necessary workers and see them replaced with immigrants who on average have a lower quality education. And if you think Brexiters wont celebrate that anyway then you dont know Brexiters! | |||
"ok, so you vented the bile from your spleen ... but why is it time to end EU free movement?"  | |||
| |||
"this is cribbed from a New Statesman article by Vince Cable in January. Should really credit your sources. My apologies, yes it was Vince Cable. Now Liberal Democrat leader. I thought it was a very good piece." Vince who wants a second referendum | |||
| |||
" “Taking back control” starts with immigration control, ending free movement inside the European Union. For the Remain resistance movement, that freedom has been a fundamental principle, to be defended to the last. I value the freedom to travel around Europe for business or pleasure with minimal restriction. But I have serious doubts that EU free movement is tenable or even desirable. First, the freedom is not a universal right, but selective. It does not apply to Indians, Jamaicans, Americans or Australians. There was a large Brexit vote among British Asians, many of whom resented the contrast between the restrictions they face and the welcome mat laid out for Poles and Romanians. British opposition to immigration is mainly colour-blind. (and yet remainers insist on labelling brexiters racists). Until well into the 1990s “immigration” was code word for race. But in recent years concerns over immigration have been precisely that. The question has become: is unrestricted immigration – albeit from some countries only – desirable? The economics are ambiguous. Seen globally, more migration is undeniably a positive….. But the benefits accrue mainly to migrants themselves (and business owners). For the receiving country, the benefits are less obvious: a bigger economy but not necessarily a richer one. Immigrants……are usually young people and therefore likely to be more flexible, more mobile and more likely to work contributing more in tax than they take out in benefits and subsidised services. But they grow older so these benefits are non-recurring. There are also distributional effects. Critics complain that immigrant workers depress wages and reduce job opportunities for natives. Undoubtedly, this happens in some occupations, like building and taxi driving. But there are other areas where immigrants are not competing and bring complementary skills, creating jobs. The economic arguments are not conclusive but, on balance, favour some net migration of younger, skilled workers. More liberal Brexiteers concede that point. It is also reasonable for Remainers to accept that there should be controls, as for non-EU migrants. That is also where public opinion is. There is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement; the economics is debatable; and the politics is conclusively hostile. The argument for free movement has become tactical: it is part of a package that also contains the wider economic benefits of the single market. Those benefits are real, which is why the government must prioritise single market access and shared regulation. Yet that may not be possible to reconcile with restrictions on movement. One advantage of Brexit is the opportunity for a more rational immigration policy. First, it will involve legitimising the position of EU nationals already here. It must involve a more sensible way of dealing with overseas students, who are not immigrants and benefit the UK. The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe. And, not least, there can be a narrative in which control on labour movement is matched by control on capital – halting the takeovers that suffocate the innovative companies on which the country’s future depends. " Well argued and very reasonable,it is a pity that the stupid polititions cannot see this | |||
" “Taking back control” starts with immigration control, ending free movement inside the European Union. For the Remain resistance movement, that freedom has been a fundamental principle, to be defended to the last. I value the freedom to travel around Europe for business or pleasure with minimal restriction. But I have serious doubts that EU free movement is tenable or even desirable. First, the freedom is not a universal right, but selective. It does not apply to Indians, Jamaicans, Americans or Australians. There was a large Brexit vote among British Asians, many of whom resented the contrast between the restrictions they face and the welcome mat laid out for Poles and Romanians. British opposition to immigration is mainly colour-blind. (and yet remainers insist on labelling brexiters racists). Until well into the 1990s “immigration” was code word for race. But in recent years concerns over immigration have been precisely that. The question has become: is unrestricted immigration – albeit from some countries only – desirable? The economics are ambiguous. Seen globally, more migration is undeniably a positive….. But the benefits accrue mainly to migrants themselves (and business owners). For the receiving country, the benefits are less obvious: a bigger economy but not necessarily a richer one. Immigrants……are usually young people and therefore likely to be more flexible, more mobile and more likely to work contributing more in tax than they take out in benefits and subsidised services. But they grow older so these benefits are non-recurring. There are also distributional effects. Critics complain that immigrant workers depress wages and reduce job opportunities for natives. Undoubtedly, this happens in some occupations, like building and taxi driving. But there are other areas where immigrants are not competing and bring complementary skills, creating jobs. The economic arguments are not conclusive but, on balance, favour some net migration of younger, skilled workers. More liberal Brexiteers concede that point. It is also reasonable for Remainers to accept that there should be controls, as for non-EU migrants. That is also where public opinion is. There is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement; the economics is debatable; and the politics is conclusively hostile. The argument for free movement has become tactical: it is part of a package that also contains the wider economic benefits of the single market. Those benefits are real, which is why the government must prioritise single market access and shared regulation. Yet that may not be possible to reconcile with restrictions on movement. One advantage of Brexit is the opportunity for a more rational immigration policy. First, it will involve legitimising the position of EU nationals already here. It must involve a more sensible way of dealing with overseas students, who are not immigrants and benefit the UK. The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe. And, not least, there can be a narrative in which control on labour movement is matched by control on capital – halting the takeovers that suffocate the innovative companies on which the country’s future depends. Well argued and very reasonable,it is a pity that the stupid polititions cannot see this" It was a politician that said it | |||
" “Taking back control” starts with immigration control, ending free movement inside the European Union. For the Remain resistance movement, that freedom has been a fundamental principle, to be defended to the last. I value the freedom to travel around Europe for business or pleasure with minimal restriction. But I have serious doubts that EU free movement is tenable or even desirable. First, the freedom is not a universal right, but selective. It does not apply to Indians, Jamaicans, Americans or Australians. There was a large Brexit vote among British Asians, many of whom resented the contrast between the restrictions they face and the welcome mat laid out for Poles and Romanians. British opposition to immigration is mainly colour-blind. (and yet remainers insist on labelling brexiters racists). Until well into the 1990s “immigration” was code word for race. But in recent years concerns over immigration have been precisely that. The question has become: is unrestricted immigration – albeit from some countries only – desirable? The economics are ambiguous. Seen globally, more migration is undeniably a positive….. But the benefits accrue mainly to migrants themselves (and business owners). For the receiving country, the benefits are less obvious: a bigger economy but not necessarily a richer one. Immigrants……are usually young people and therefore likely to be more flexible, more mobile and more likely to work contributing more in tax than they take out in benefits and subsidised services. But they grow older so these benefits are non-recurring. There are also distributional effects. Critics complain that immigrant workers depress wages and reduce job opportunities for natives. Undoubtedly, this happens in some occupations, like building and taxi driving. But there are other areas where immigrants are not competing and bring complementary skills, creating jobs. The economic arguments are not conclusive but, on balance, favour some net migration of younger, skilled workers. More liberal Brexiteers concede that point. It is also reasonable for Remainers to accept that there should be controls, as for non-EU migrants. That is also where public opinion is. There is no great argument of liberal principle for free EU movement; the economics is debatable; and the politics is conclusively hostile. The argument for free movement has become tactical: it is part of a package that also contains the wider economic benefits of the single market. Those benefits are real, which is why the government must prioritise single market access and shared regulation. Yet that may not be possible to reconcile with restrictions on movement. One advantage of Brexit is the opportunity for a more rational immigration policy. First, it will involve legitimising the position of EU nationals already here. It must involve a more sensible way of dealing with overseas students, who are not immigrants and benefit the UK. The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe. And, not least, there can be a narrative in which control on labour movement is matched by control on capital – halting the takeovers that suffocate the innovative companies on which the country’s future depends. Well argued and very reasonable,it is a pity that the stupid polititions cannot see this It was a politician that said it "Now that's a suprise | |||
| |||
"If I said Brexit would lead to the break up of the UK, you would tell me I'm scaremongering, yet isn't that what is being called for in the line "The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe." To me that reads as NI joining the Republic of Ireland. What do you interpreted "United Ireland" to mean?" I think one day the Scots would leave sadly anyway.The Irish situation is very complex and it will resolve itself wheather we are in or out of the EU.Brexit is irrevilent just an excuse | |||
| |||
"If I said Brexit would lead to the break up of the UK, you would tell me I'm scaremongering, yet isn't that what is being called for in the line "The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe." To me that reads as NI joining the Republic of Ireland. What do you interpreted "United Ireland" to mean?" re-unification of ireland | |||
"If I said Brexit would lead to the break up of the UK, you would tell me I'm scaremongering, yet isn't that what is being called for in the line "The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe." To me that reads as NI joining the Republic of Ireland. What do you interpreted "United Ireland" to mean?" Are you saying that staying in the EU will stop reunification of Ireland? | |||
"If I said Brexit would lead to the break up of the UK, you would tell me I'm scaremongering, yet isn't that what is being called for in the line "The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe." To me that reads as NI joining the Republic of Ireland. What do you interpreted "United Ireland" to mean? Are you saying that staying in the EU will stop reunification of Ireland?"  The reunification of Ireland is no where on the political agenda at the moment. The article that you ripped off unattributed is saying that Brexit will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom with Northern Ireland leaving the Union. You talk about Remainers talking the country down, yet you are seemingly happy for the country to actually break apart. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia." .. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia." All the commonweath countries ? or just the ones you like. Can we cherry pick from the commonwealth | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. All the commonweath countries ? or just the ones you like. Can we cherry pick from the commonwealth "Yes we can, if we want. However free movement only works if it's both ways and I'm not sure that Canada, Australia or New Zealand actually would want free movement of citizens with us; after all they already have some stricter immigration for UK citizens than we do for theirs. | |||
| |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia." Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. | |||
"If I said Brexit would lead to the break up of the UK, you would tell me I'm scaremongering, yet isn't that what is being called for in the line "The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe." To me that reads as NI joining the Republic of Ireland. What do you interpreted "United Ireland" to mean? Are you saying that staying in the EU will stop reunification of Ireland? The reunification of Ireland is no where on the political agenda at the moment. The article that you ripped off unattributed is saying that Brexit will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom with Northern Ireland leaving the Union. You talk about Remainers talking the country down, yet you are seemingly happy for the country to actually break apart. "Yet another question you don't answer! Do you think Sinn Fein don't want reunification then? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason." There's a proposal that these commonwealth countries allow free movement. Check it out online and get your nasty little racist mind out of the gutter. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. There's a proposal that these commonwealth countries allow free movement. Check it out online and get your nasty little racist mind out of the gutter." Why these 3.Based on what.?GDP? | |||
"If I said Brexit would lead to the break up of the UK, you would tell me I'm scaremongering, yet isn't that what is being called for in the line "The permeability of the Irish border must lead to a united Ireland in Europe." To me that reads as NI joining the Republic of Ireland. What do you interpreted "United Ireland" to mean? Are you saying that staying in the EU will stop reunification of Ireland? The reunification of Ireland is no where on the political agenda at the moment. The article that you ripped off unattributed is saying that Brexit will lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom with Northern Ireland leaving the Union. You talk about Remainers talking the country down, yet you are seemingly happy for the country to actually break apart.
Yet another question you don't answer!
Do you think Sinn Fein don't want reunification then?"I don't think that NI would leave the UK without Brexit, no. The article that you attempted to pass off as your own seems to suggest that it will happen as a result of Brexit though. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. There's a proposal that these commonwealth countries allow free movement. Check it out online and get your nasty little racist mind out of the gutter." I wasn't the one with the racist views here. Why did you only mention the commonwealth countries with major white populations. Unless you give a valid response then one can only assume that your very defensive response belies the true nature of your statement. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. There's a proposal that these commonwealth countries allow free movement. Check it out online and get your nasty little racist mind out of the gutter. I wasn't the one with the racist views here. Why did you only mention the commonwealth countries with major white populations. Unless you give a valid response then one can only assume that your very defensive response belies the true nature of your statement." This isn't something I've instigated. There's a movement online raising signatures to put to the government you pillock. I have only repeated what the online petition wants to achieve. Better ask them if you want to know why those countries have been chosen. So get your facts right, do a little research and stop being so racist orientated. | |||
| |||
"Visa free movement between UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: 200K sign petition | World | News | Express.co.uk https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/806280/commonwealth-visa-free-UK-australia-canada-new-zealand/amp" Rather than resorting to insults, I think you should do a little research in advance too. The selection of those three countries by you might not have been based around race, but the originators of the petition clearly were. If they are talking about the head of state, then why limit to those three countries rather than all commonwealth countries. If they are talking about common language then there are even more exceptions. For a starter it is being shared via the Express, possibly the most xenophobic and racist of our major newspapers. That should have given a clue. It is clearly a petition based around race as there is no other justification to choose those countries and not others. Why no India, why no Ghana, why no Nigeria for example. They fit all of the criteria stated in the petition but are conveniently omitted, leaving only one conclusion. As I say, I'm not accusing you of racism, but clearly the source of this petition is very dubious. | |||
"Visa free movement between UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: 200K sign petition | World | News | Express.co.uk https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/806280/commonwealth-visa-free-UK-australia-canada-new-zealand/amp Rather than resorting to insults, I think you should do a little research in advance too. The selection of those three countries by you might not have been based around race, but the originators of the petition clearly were. If they are talking about the head of state, then why limit to those three countries rather than all commonwealth countries. If they are talking about common language then there are even more exceptions. For a starter it is being shared via the Express, possibly the most xenophobic and racist of our major newspapers. That should have given a clue. It is clearly a petition based around race as there is no other justification to choose those countries and not others. Why no India, why no Ghana, why no Nigeria for example. They fit all of the criteria stated in the petition but are conveniently omitted, leaving only one conclusion. As I say, I'm not accusing you of racism, but clearly the source of this petition is very dubious." The Express newspaper did not start the petition, it merely ran a story about it so your view that the petition is racist is flawed on that level. You started the insults by insinuating that I was a racist because I mentioned those countries when in fact I had no input into the countries chosen. It would have been better if you'd Just kept your nasty little racist thoughts to yourself. | |||
| |||
"Visa free movement between UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand: 200K sign petition | World | News | Express.co.uk https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/world/806280/commonwealth-visa-free-UK-australia-canada-new-zealand/amp Rather than resorting to insults, I think you should do a little research in advance too. The selection of those three countries by you might not have been based around race, but the originators of the petition clearly were. If they are talking about the head of state, then why limit to those three countries rather than all commonwealth countries. If they are talking about common language then there are even more exceptions. For a starter it is being shared via the Express, possibly the most xenophobic and racist of our major newspapers. That should have given a clue. It is clearly a petition based around race as there is no other justification to choose those countries and not others. Why no India, why no Ghana, why no Nigeria for example. They fit all of the criteria stated in the petition but are conveniently omitted, leaving only one conclusion. As I say, I'm not accusing you of racism, but clearly the source of this petition is very dubious. The Express newspaper did not start the petition, it merely ran a story about it so your view that the petition is racist is flawed on that level. You started the insults by insinuating that I was a racist because I mentioned those countries when in fact I had no input into the countries chosen. It would have been better if you'd Just kept your nasty little racist thoughts to yourself. " I think those words you end with can clearly be said to you. I am sure that anybody reading this can make their mind up as to who is being racist here. It's pretty clear. You say you had no choice ad to which countries were chosen. You chose to list those countries without any source for information. You weren't forced to choose those three or limited to those three. If your choices weren't based on race, or the originators choices weren't based on race, I'd be very glad to hear any other justification. You have already been asked this by more than one poster and the lack of an answer doesn't leave us with many options of what to think. It would be interesting to know your position on free movement. For clarity, my position is for total free movement of all peoples, irrespective of nationality or wealth. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia." What a great idea. I have relatives in Australia. Where do I sign the petition? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. What a great idea. I have relatives in Australia. Where do I sign the petition?" Apparently its a racist idea so don't bother. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia." Again, this is what you posted. It's not a statement that begins "there is a petition which says ....." It's a statement of your personal opinion. All I was asking is was there a reason for the choice of just those countries? What's your opinion of free movement deals with India, Bangladesh, Nigeria, Ghana, Pakistan? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. What a great idea. I have relatives in Australia. Where do I sign the petition? Apparently its a racist idea so don't bother." What moron called it racist?  | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. What a great idea. I have relatives in Australia. Where do I sign the petition? Apparently its a racist idea so don't bother. What moron called it racist? "Read above comments!!! | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. What a great idea. I have relatives in Australia. Where do I sign the petition? Apparently its a racist idea so don't bother." It's not that free movement deals are racist at all. It's the choice of which countries to do deals with. If we choose only developed white countries and place large restrictions on other countries, then it is clearly racist. If it is an open deal with all countries then no, it's not racist. I was only ever after clarity around the limited choice of countries. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason." oh god there's always one isn't there | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there"Well go on then. Either of you, I don't mind. What is the reason for the limited choice of countries? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there
Well go on then. Either of you, I don't mind. What is the reason for the limited choice of countries?
"Dont you just hate desperate men lol  | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there
Well go on then. Either of you, I don't mind. What is the reason for the limited choice of countries?
Dont you just hate desperate men lol "Don't you just hate racist women. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there
Well go on then. Either of you, I don't mind. What is the reason for the limited choice of countries?
Dont you just hate desperate men lol
Don't you just hate racist women."Oh god the mans obsessed with racism lol | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there
Well go on then. Either of you, I don't mind. What is the reason for the limited choice of countries?
Dont you just hate desperate men lol
Don't you just hate racist women."And men who have small dicks lol  | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there"Two | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two "Yeah you and your boyfriend! | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend!"Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..? "No I'll leave that to your boyfriend. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend."Homophobic as well as racist eh? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend.
Homophobic as well as racist eh?"You do like accusing people of things don't you. They do say that those who accuse a lot are themselves hiding latent racist homophobic views. I'd say based on that you have the problems. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend.
Homophobic as well as racist eh?
You do like accusing people of things don't you. They do say that those who accuse a lot are themselves hiding latent racist homophobic views. I'd say based on that you have the problems."But then if you are accusing him of that, wouldn't that then mean that you are too? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend.
Homophobic as well as racist eh?"I think its already been proven that your the racist lol | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend.
Homophobic as well as racist eh?
You do like accusing people of things don't you. They do say that those who accuse a lot are themselves hiding latent racist homophobic views. I'd say based on that you have the problems.
But then if you are accusing him of that, wouldn't that then mean that you are too? "Wooosh and over his head.. | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend.
Homophobic as well as racist eh?
I think its already been proven that your the racist lol"Highlight me where that proof is? Unless you are not sure what proof means? I have asked several times why only those commonwealth countries with majority white populations were chosen. How can it possibly be racist to ask that, but not be racist to only choose those countries. Why the reluctance to answer that question, or at least attempt to give even one reason why those countries should be chosen for deals, but all others not chosen? | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend.
Homophobic as well as racist eh?
I think its already been proven that your the racist lol
Highlight me where that proof is? Unless you are not sure what proof means?
I have asked several times why only those commonwealth countries with majority white populations were chosen. How can it possibly be racist to ask that, but not be racist to only choose those countries.
Why the reluctance to answer that question, or at least attempt to give even one reason why those countries should be chosen for deals, but all others not chosen?
"Oh sorry. I thought today was national lets make wild accusations day lol | |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Oh, just the ones with majority white populations then? Unless there's some other reason. oh god there's always one isn't there Two
Yeah you and your boyfriend! Ahh so you have no answer as to why these 3 countries for.Do you need a hug fella..?
No I'll leave that to your boyfriend.
Homophobic as well as racist eh?
You do like accusing people of things don't you. They do say that those who accuse a lot are themselves hiding latent racist homophobic views. I'd say based on that you have the problems.
Wooosh and over his head.. "Just like your boyfriends cock lolol | |||
| |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those?" From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt | |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt "It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries. I asked why just those three. For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look. I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself. | |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself."Why do you need to know that? Its like the poster saying that he likes apples in his cider and you jump all over him asking whats wrong with oranges and pears. He may like oranges and pears but he was being specific about a particular petition. Doesnt make him racist. Just makes you someone who likes to stir up trouble in the forums | |||
| |||
"Anybody decided yet why these 3 countries....Nope .i see. I think you might get many brits leaving and going to live in these countries and less migration from these three.However choosing to give free movemrnt to india you would get mass migration one way. . You see its not to painful to give a response." would love to live in india | |||
"Anybody decided yet why these 3 countries....Nope .i see. I think you might get many brits leaving and going to live in these countries and less migration from these three.However choosing to give free movemrnt to india you would get mass migration one way. . You see its not to painful to give a response." Give it up already!!!! Havent you anything better to do? | |||
"Anybody decided yet why these 3 countries....Nope .i see. I think you might get many brits leaving and going to live in these countries and less migration from these three.However choosing to give free movemrnt to india you would get mass migration one way. . Exactly one way traffic to the sun lol You see its not to painful to give a response." | |||
"Anybody decided yet why these 3 countries....Nope .i see. I think you might get many brits leaving and going to live in these countries and less migration from these three.However choosing to give free movemrnt to india you would get mass migration one way. . Exactly one way traffic to the sun lol You see its not to painful to give a response." | |||
"Anybody decided yet why these 3 countries....Nope .i see. I think you might get many brits leaving and going to live in these countries and less migration from these three.However choosing to give free movemrnt to india you would get mass migration one way. . You see its not to painful to give a response. would love to live in india" A good place to retire from what I've heard. | |||
"Anybody decided yet why these 3 countries....Nope .i see. I think you might get many brits leaving and going to live in these countries and less migration from these three.However choosing to give free movemrnt to india you would get mass migration one way. . Exactly one way traffic to the sun lol You see its not to painful to give a response." Yep free movement down under to the sun would be popular.A vote winner.. | |||
| |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself.
Why do you need to know that? Its like the poster saying that he likes apples in his cider and you jump all over him asking whats wrong with oranges and pears. He may like oranges and pears but he was being specific about a particular petition. Doesnt make him racist. Just makes you someone who likes to stir up trouble in the forums "That analogy doesn't work I'm afraid. First of all he made the statement about those countries without the context of the petition. Secondly, The notion of free movement either refers to toal free movement or free movement with some national or border limits. With EU free movement we can either agree or disagree with it, but the specifics of applying to all EU countries at least has it's own logic. When the poster chose 3 countries, I simply asked what was the link there. We've asked several more times, but with the total absence of any type of answer we are left to assume the reasons why. Thirdly, the poster was asked many times whether he agrees with free movement between the UK and several other countries, or total free movement. It is easy to clarify the position. It was he who posted that he thought we should have free movement with three specific countries, and despite numerous people asking for a clarification we are left with none. Surely in a politics forum it is the exact place to ask such questions. To avoid the answers so often raises all sorts of questions. So, no, to say you agree with free movement between four developed, first world, majority white countries, is not the same as saying you like apple cider. It's a politics forum and we asked for a political justification of the countries. | |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself.
Why do you need to know that? Its like the poster saying that he likes apples in his cider and you jump all over him asking whats wrong with oranges and pears. He may like oranges and pears but he was being specific about a particular petition. Doesnt make him racist. Just makes you someone who likes to stir up trouble in the forums
That analogy doesn't work I'm afraid.
First of all he made the statement about those countries without the context of the petition.
Secondly, The notion of free movement either refers to toal free movement or free movement with some national or border limits. With EU free movement we can either agree or disagree with it, but the specifics of applying to all EU countries at least has it's own logic. When the poster chose 3 countries, I simply asked what was the link there. We've asked several more times, but with the total absence of any type of answer we are left to assume the reasons why.
Thirdly, the poster was asked many times whether he agrees with free movement between the UK and several other countries, or total free movement. It is easy to clarify the position.
It was he who posted that he thought we should have free movement with three specific countries, and despite numerous people asking for a clarification we are left with none.
Surely in a politics forum it is the exact place to ask such questions. To avoid the answers so often raises all sorts of questions.
So, no, to say you agree with free movement between four developed, first world, majority white countries, is not the same as saying you like apple cider.
It's a politics forum and we asked for a political justification of the countries. "What are you looking to achieve? | |||
| |||
"I'm not looking to achieve anything. I merely asked a question at the start and your response was very aggressive." Why did you ask in the first place? | |||
| |||
"He didn't last long! " I wonder if he was just a sock puppet.Continually punching himself in the face til he left.A strange one indeed. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself."Common English language would've been my first guess rather than your first guess of skin colour and playing the race card. I see you listed some other commonwealth countries on one of your posts but many countries in the commonwealth don't have English as a first language. | |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself.
Common English language would've been my first guess rather than your first guess of skin colour and playing the race card. I see you listed some other commonwealth countries on one of your posts but many countries in the commonwealth don't have English as a first language. "but more people speak english in nigeria, or india, or pakistan than they do in canada, new zealand or australia..... | |||
| |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself.
Common English language would've been my first guess rather than your first guess of skin colour and playing the race card. I see you listed some other commonwealth countries on one of your posts but many countries in the commonwealth don't have English as a first language.
but more people speak english in nigeria, or india, or pakistan than they do in canada, new zealand or australia....."I'd say more people as a percentage of population speak English in Australia than they do in Pakistan. Pakistan's first language is Punjabi and other variations of urdu. The first language of India is Hindi. | |||
"in fact.... i'll take it one further.... there are more "english" speakers in nigeria, and india.... than there are english speakers in the UK.... "Only because of population density. As a percentage of population your argument just doesn't stand up. | |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself.
Common English language would've been my first guess rather than your first guess of skin colour and playing the race card. I see you listed some other commonwealth countries on one of your posts but many countries in the commonwealth don't have English as a first language.
but more people speak english in nigeria, or india, or pakistan than they do in canada, new zealand or australia.....
I'd say more people as a percentage of population speak English in Australia than they do in Pakistan. Pakistan's first language is Punjabi and other variations of urdu. The first language of India is Hindi. "true.... but approx 12.5% of the indian population speak english as a 2nd language... which would mean there are about 125 million people out there... | |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself.
Common English language would've been my first guess rather than your first guess of skin colour and playing the race card. I see you listed some other commonwealth countries on one of your posts but many countries in the commonwealth don't have English as a first language.
but more people speak english in nigeria, or india, or pakistan than they do in canada, new zealand or australia.....
I'd say more people as a percentage of population speak English in Australia than they do in Pakistan. Pakistan's first language is Punjabi and other variations of urdu. The first language of India is Hindi.
true.... but approx 12.5% of the indian population speak english as a 2nd language... which would mean there are about 125 million people out there..."And English is pretty good too, hence why all the call centres moved there. Its polite too. | |||
"It's a quite simple question. I can break it down into parts if you like: 1. Do you believe in free movement of peoples between all nations or just those mentioned (UK, Canada,Aus and NZ). 2. If just those, why specifically those? From what I can see, the article just mentioned those few countries. I can't see what your trying to get at with this witch hunt
It's clearly not a witch hunt. I was asking for clarification as the first post mentioned nothing of the article, just the posters view that we should have free movement with those 3 countries.
I asked why just those three.
For asking that, it was I who first was insulted. Look at the posts above. I asked a question and was accused of being racist, in the gutter etc. Just look.
I ask again, how can it be racist to ask why those 3 countries alone. It was not me who resorted to insults. Look for yourself.
Common English language would've been my first guess rather than your first guess of skin colour and playing the race card. I see you listed some other commonwealth countries on one of your posts but many countries in the commonwealth don't have English as a first language. "It wasn't playing the race card. All of the countries I mentioned have English as either the first, official or common use language. I could see no other distinction. | |||
"The part about British asians voting for brexit because they resented free movement of Eastern Europeans.I find confusing. Is he saying they were not happy about Asians outside EU not having free movement in the EU. Also asia is massive and includes dozens of countries and cultures.From the borders of europe to china and down to Australia. About twenty years ago an Asian shopkeeper said to me `these people will ruin this country' he was talking about East Europeans, he was offended that I smiled at his remark and told me he was serious." That shopkeep has been wrong so far. Eastern Europeans haven't ruined this country. And never will. But the Government of this country is doing a pretty good job at ruining it 24/7. | |||
" .... but approx 12.5% of the indian population speak english as a 2nd language... which would mean there are about 125 million people out there... And English is pretty good too, hence why all the call centres moved there. Its polite too." ...and difficult to understand at times after you spend 30min waiting to be connected. A major selling point of many companies is that their call centres are in Britain, not in Asia. | |||
| |||
"I think there should be free movement of citizens between the UK, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. What a great idea. I have relatives in Australia. Where do I sign the petition? Apparently its a racist idea so don't bother. It's not that free movement deals are racist at all. It's the choice of which countries to do deals with. If we choose only developed white countries and place large restrictions on other countries, then it is clearly racist. If it is an open deal with all countries then no, it's not racist. I was only ever after clarity around the limited choice of countries." . Its all about colour the colour of money!. How much migration happens between new York state and California?. A reasonable amount that allows for business and infrastructure because of parity. Now how much migration takes place between California and Mexico, its slightly more one sided because of a lack of parity. Multi culturalism is fine until you find your now the minority culture, it tends to go downhill after that, ask any Palestinian | |||
