Jump to content

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


webfact

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".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 524
  • Created
  • Last Reply
3 hours ago, Spidey said:

You have consistently expressed a racist attitude throughout this thread. It's you that should apologise, not me. However I'm glad to see that it's the only thing that you disagreed with in my post.

Once again you accuse me of listening to Tommy Robinson which you have no evidence. A better man would own up and apologise. I didn't reply to the rest of your thread as you can't even respond to one item.

 

Lets get something clear. Religion is not a race. The EU is not a race. The countries like Germany, France, Ireland, Greece, etc etc are lovely with great people in. I have previously mentioned I have lived in a couple and have first hand experience.

 

Throwing the racist and xenophobic card is cheap, unwarranted and shows little intellect. It seems that in the UK and on here if you are against the entity of the EU you get slanted with being racist and a xenophobe which is totally incorrect.

 

It seems to be the norm now that having a difference opinion on the EU and you get shouted down. I see it happening on TV with politicians and is quite frankly embarrassing.

 

Show me where I am racist or a xenophobe. I would suggest that you look up the definition flower.

 

 

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!

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.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know very well that I have; and your squirming proves it.
 
And please don't call me 'pal.' I would not care for anyone to think that I could be pals with the likes of you.

Sorry darling. I’m not squirming, far from it, laughing at your last post to me. It simply reinforces my observations on your supportive agenda is specially selected - it all is for any poster. You attached something about Facebook ads and something from an outfit called ‘Centre for Social Investigations’. (Who are they?) The veracity of either of these is suspect.

The difference is that I don’t wail about your posts being all lies. I also don’t hurl abusive names at posters in an effort to shut them down. Eg calling them xenophobe and racists. I’m very comfortable with my own arguments and happily dismiss yours, without the histrionics

You do realise doncha, that ‘pal’ doesn’t necessarily mean we’re friends.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
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.

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

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!

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.

 

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.

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...