On Immigration (Brexit)

Latest YouGov poll has leave on 45% and stay on 41%.

The negative campaign by the Bremain camp is backfiring on them. They assumed they could label all Brexit supporters as right wing UKIP looneys and win, which is quite clearly ludicrous. Scotland is a prime example of this sort of negative campaign, once the Scottish realized they had been hoodwinked by scare stories, labour was annihilated as a political force.

Shar,
get your head out of the Morning Star and recognise there’s a bigger world out there.

If yu do, you’ll notice there’s a civil war going on in the Tory party – rightwing Tory+ UKIP bigots against Cameron Tories + Blairites. If we do vote to leave under the impact of fears by ordinary people about immigration, you’ll be voting for a very tough right-wing government indeed to deal with the ifnancial shock which will follow immediately, and to deal with the economic problems of unemployment and rising prices in the wake of the vote.

Or do you not exist in the real world??

My guess is not.

Do you even read the posts here which have questioned you, or do you just close your eyes and spout the latest rubbish you’ve read in the Morning Star?

From your posts so far, I think not.

So to you and your ally, BB – on immigration. Do you think Johnny Foreigner is the problem, and if so what are you going to do with the 2 million EU immigrants already here? And how are you going to deal with the 2 million UK workers with jobs abroad???

Just asking.

BB,
you say that these are facts from credible sources.

Not true. They are highly partisan sources.

The immigration figures come from Migration Watch UK, which dresses itself up as an independent and impartial group but is in fact quite the opposite – an anti-immigrant group described by the Migration Matters Trust (an organisation dedicated to public debate on immigration) as “not an independent think tank, or academic body, but a lobbying and campaigning organisation”. It has been criticised as a right-wing, anti-immigrant group engaged in using statistics to make dodgy projections to scare people about an issue that deeply worries many.

Britain is (so far) a very successful economy (- in the EU), so naturally attracts labour. This labour fills jobs that Brits don’t or won’t fill. If you want to rectify this, why not train Brits up to do the jobs instead?? And agitate for union rights for migrant workers to fight low-paying bosses such as the gangmasters of East Anglia who do employ dirt-cheap labour without adequate safety and protection rights to undercut the local labour force on harvesting and picking the crops in the Fens. And to consistently enforce the social rights embodied in EU and British law.

It’s foreign labour coming in which genuinely worries people, and for you to refuse to discuss this problem as ‘beneath contempt’ is typical of a dishonest slurring around a problem.

When black labour moved from the US Deep South to the North 100 years ago, US trade unions attacked black labour as ‘scab labour’. The result was not an attack on the employers, but on the black themselves in a series of bloody pogroms in which dozens of blacks were killed and maimed in Chicago, St louis and (later, in 1943) in Detroit. It wasn’t the blacks who were the problem, but their lack of unionisation.

*Good, even the right-wing Tories like Johnson and Gove (who wants to replace the EU with Albania and Ukraine(!) as our free trade zone, have to admit that the 2 million migrants stay! Train brit workers up to do the jobs required, enforce minmum wage and EU/British social rights, and the problems will be seen not to be migration.

*btw, the other substantive point you made in an earlier post, on the percentage of EU laws enacted by the UK in an earlier thread is not, as you say, “a helpful and definite answer that’s widely used by independent and impartial fact-checking organisations”.

The article’s from Business for Britain, a partial group involved in campaigning for exit, and the figures it uses are highly contentious. It’s stuck at percentages, when in fact the substance of the laws is ignored. Most of those laws are rules about cans of carrots and environmental standards, and are meant to harmonise the goods we trade with the goods from other countries to make sure nobody’s being swindled or posioned. They aren’t automatically made law for the most part, but are amended and changed in parliamentary committees in all EU countries, and that accopunts for the percentages. We do have to share laws with the EU, just as we do with the WTO and other trading organisations – it’s part of international trade with groups we choose to trade with. The EU is the group with which we choose to trade most closely, and it’s not surprising that rtrade laws are mainly concerned with intra-EU trade.

That does NOT make everything hunky-dory with the EU. I voted not to join when the first referendum was held, and I’m voting to stay in on 23 June for the same reasons – the economic dislocations caused bu such a radical change. This time around, they’re going to be much deeper and more negative for our standards of living.

sceptical guy wrote:

SHAR
chuckle away. There is no substanc e to your posts, unlike the openly right-wing BB.

All you do is constantly churn out the meaningless élitist phrase ‘neo-liberal’. You don’t define it, becaue there is no accepted definition. It’s a catch-all phrase whihc means anythng nasty you want it to mean. Some call austeity ‘neo-liberal’, some call anyone who talks of markets in favourable terms as ‘neo-liberal’., some call it an ideology of laisser-faire, some a pahse of captial accumulation, some call it a cover for monopoly rule.

One thing it does do is make the pretence of being superior. Unthinking ‘leftists’ shout it out at everyopportuity, knwoing that everybody’s going to be bamboozeld by a phrase they can’t make head nor tail of. The fact is that the ‘leftists’ can’t make either head or tail of it themselves.

That’s what it was meant to do. It was changed from its original meaning (of a social market) by French academics of the élite écoles because those people love to show themselves off as superior.

So prancing around shouting about ‘neo-liberal’ this and ‘neo-liberal’ that and shoutng down anyone who disagrees as economically innumerate will come naturally to you.

Talk in English next time, stop talking down to people from a high pedestal that you don’t really occupy, and engage in an argument with more substance.

Like I said your posts do make me smile.

Any chump can google all their knowledge, you do it well, while you attempt to dominate these boards with your “know it all googled knowledge”. You neo liberal pretend lefties are ten a penny. You do make me smile though the way you constantly pin labels on people on this site and then throw your toys out the pram when you get a dose of your own medicine.

You have to personalize these boards, you you you you, all about you, with your name calling and labels because you are a chump. An economically illiterate chump.