Jump to content
BANGKOK 19 August 2019 04:24
webfact

EU rebuffs May, says no-plan Brexiteers deserve 'place in hell'

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, samran said:

You implied in a previous post that support of free movement is racist. It isn’t. 

 

Is it discriminatory and preferential? Yep. That is the nature and the raisin d’etre of economic blocs at their most basic. I’ve got no great issue with that all things considered. 

 

It isn’t just economics that justifies it, though I’d argue that it a bigger factor than you give it credit for. Add this to the European project - a union where people can live and work beside each other rather than killing each other, then you have a wonderful argument for free movement. 

 

But back to discrimination. Just like over 50’s can come and live in Thailand just by chucking GBP 20K in the bank, it is discriminatory. 

 

Just like cinemas, utilities and public transport give pensioners discounts. It is discriminatory.

 

So I guess if you decide to rip up your pensioners discount card, and you go out to convince others here foregoe living in Thailand on a retirement visa, I’ll start listening to you about egalitarianism. 

Some fairly silly comparisons there. OK, there are different types of discrimination.

 

I have no problem with a system in which everyone over 50 has to show 20k in the bank to live in Thailand, as long as it is open to all. Yes, it is discriminating against people who don't have 20k in the bank, but people who don't have 20k in the bank can't reasonably be expected to support themselves.

 

I have no problem with pensioners being given special benefits because pensioners are usually on a fixed income and i think taking care of the older generation is important and doing so is not discriminating against younger people. After all, younger people will be old one day if they are lucky, and get the same benefits.

 

I also have no problem with discriminating immigrants based upon the skills they have and how they will integrate into the country. That's because if they can't fit in and don't have the skills that will see them gainfully employed, the system won't be able to support them (and nor should it) and society will become divided. That is a totally different type of discrimination to welcoming one immigrant because he or she was born in country "x", but turning away another immigrant purely because they happen to be born in country "y".

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Some fairly silly comparisons there. OK, there are different types of discrimination.

 

I have no problem with a system in which everyone over 50 has to show 20k in the bank to live in Thailand, as long as it is open to all. Yes, it is discriminating against people who don't have 20k in the bank, but people who don't have 20k in the bank can't reasonably be expected to support themselves.

 

I have no problem with pensioners being given special benefits because pensioners are usually on a fixed income and i think taking care of the older generation is important and doing so is not discriminating against younger people. After all, younger people will be old one day if they are lucky, and get the same benefits.

 

I also have no problem with discriminating immigrants based upon the skills they have and how they will integrate into the country. That's because if they can't fit in and don't have the skills that will see them gainfully employed, the system won't be able to support them (and nor should it) and society will become divided. That is a totally different type of discrimination to welcoming one immigrant because he or she was born in country "x", but turning away another immigrant purely because they happen to be born in country "y".

As I said, common market, I have no issues with the freedom of movement capital, labour, goods and services. Not a whit. 

 

So long as there is no discrimination along the lines of race or religion (which certain members seem to be just fine with) within that subset, I have no issue. 

 

When you are coming from similar economic levels, immigrants tend to be self selecting anyway. 

 

Putting unelected bureaucrats in the way of the labour market sorting itself seems pointless. And I know how much your lot hate unelected bureaucrats...

 

As for finding my comparisons ‘silly’, funny isn’t it that things that probably benefit you, you have no issue with!

Edited by samran
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, samran said:

As I said, common market, I have no issues with the freedom of movement capital, labour, goods and services. Not a whit. 

 

So long as there is no discrimination along the lines of race or religion (which certain members seem to be just fine with) within that subset, I have no issue.

For me i would say i'm against ANY discrimination that is arbitrary, whether it be along the lines of race, religion OR nationality.

 

I find it strange that when it comes to nationality, you find discrimination no problem whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

For me i would say i'm against ANY discrimination that is arbitrary, whether it be along the lines of race, religion OR nationality.

 

I find it strange that when it comes to nationality, you find discrimination no problem whatsoever.

Genuinely curious to know why you think I have a problem with it. 

Edited by samran
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

I’m not sure how you can assuredly assert ‘I’m nothing like him or his views’ without having listened to him.

I've never listened to his views either, but gather he is BNP etc. - and so realise (without listening to him) that I don't agree with his views.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, evadgib said:

Tweaking his tail can be such fun 😊

AKA trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I've never listened to his views either, but gather he is BNP etc. - and so realise (without listening to him) that I don't agree with his views.

UKIP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

AKA trolling.

Nothing more than Banter and would quite likely have earned a 😊 had I been on the other side.

Edited by evadgib

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A scary thought!  Could you imagine  Nancy Pelosi on on side of Parliament and Donald Trump on the other and Nancy having to call Trump the "Right Honorable Gentleman"!  She'd crap her pants first!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, samran said:

You implied in a previous post that support of free movement is racist. It isn’t. 

 

Is it discriminatory and preferential? Yep. That is the nature and the raisin d’etre of economic blocs at their most basic. I’ve got no great issue with that all things considered. 

 

It isn’t just economics that justifies it, though I’d argue that it a bigger factor than you give it credit for. Add this to the European project - a union where people can live and work beside each other rather than killing each other, then you have a wonderful argument for free movement. 

 

But back to discrimination. Just like over 50’s can come and live in Thailand just by chucking GBP 20K in the bank, it is discriminatory. 

 

Just like cinemas, utilities and public transport give pensioners discounts. It is discriminatory.

 

So I guess if you decide to rip up your pensioners discount card, and you go out to convince others here foregoe living in Thailand on a retirement visa, I’ll start listening to you about egalitarianism

EU free movement is not racist, as such. However, this broad right of large numbers of people to move to countries that afford better pay and benefits, at short notice, also produces great strain on that country's infrastructure, to the point that it breaks down. This is very evident in the UK today.

 

The peace that you imagine to be promoted by free movement is likely to be shattered if it continues in the UK to the point where enough native-born people can't access doctors, schools and homes etc. 

 

Your over 50’s in Thailand comment is not a valid comparison. There is no welfare for these non-immigrants.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nauseus said:

EU free movement is not racist, as such. However, this broad right of large numbers of people to move to countries that afford better pay and benefits, at short notice, also produces great strain on that country's infrastructure, to the point that it breaks down. This is very evident in the UK today.

 

The peace that you imagine to be promoted by free movement is likely to be shattered if it continues in the UK to the point where enough native-born people can't access doctors, schools and homes etc. 

 

Your over 50’s in Thailand comment is not a valid comparison. There is no welfare for these non-immigrants.

 

I think that even among remainers, the majority think that complete free movement can cause many problems. David Cameron had it agreed that EU immigrants could only stay here for a very limited time if they couldn't support themselves. Why can't people access doctors? Well a lot of them have gone back to the continent because they have progressively seen that there is something sick in the English Psyche, and feel their contribution is not valued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, nauseus said:

EU free movement is not racist, as such. However, this broad right of large numbers of people to move to countries that afford better pay and benefits, at short notice, also produces great strain on that country's infrastructure, to the point that it breaks down. This is very evident in the UK today.

 

The peace that you imagine to be promoted by free movement is likely to be shattered if it continues in the UK to the point where enough native-born people can't access doctors, schools and homes etc. 

 

Your over 50’s in Thailand comment is not a valid comparison. There is no welfare for these non-immigrants.

 

Or, you could argue that the creaking infrastructure is the result of decades of under investment which has little to do with migrants.

 

After all, in particular EU migrants, they work and pay tax for the most part, no? 

 

As for your last comment, not unusual for the TV mob to find themselves hot and bothered when it comes to being compared to ‘immigrants’.

 

‘Oh, I’m an expat, not an immigrant - by visa even says so!’ 

 

Wrong, your non-immigrant visa dies after 3 months, after which you are given an extension of stay. And where do you do that extension of stay? At the immigration department. 

 

But enough of the semantics. The Thai government offers very little in the way of decent welfare to its own people. So for the most part you are no different.

 

You can still come here, utilise public infrastructure - roads, rail, power which is either subsided or under written by the Thai tax payer and visit doctors who were trained at a massive subsidy by the Thai government which is why their fees are so comparatively low.

 

So don’t say you receive nothing. It’s disingenuous at best and wilful ingnorance at worst. 

 

 

Edited by samran
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...