The EU deal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clint Planet said:
Since then, many hundreds of thousands of Caribbean, Indian, Pakistani and Bengali people who have woven themselves into British life and become a valued part of it. Of course, they were vilified and assaulted by the xenophobes and racists at first.

Now it's the Eastern Europeans and refugees' turn.....
Click to expand...
The scale of immigration is the problem. There won't be a British identity afterwards and you can forget about socialism if there's no unified society.

The rich whites aren't going to pay taxes to support the poor immigrants. The will use them as cheap labour. The poor whites will just have to live with it. The poor whites and the poor immigrants won't be able to join together to outvote the rich whites because the rich whites will play them off against each other. Offering policies like affirmative action or better social housing for one group over the other etc

That's how this will play out. Merkel, Cameron and their cronies in big business aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
 

Cypher said:
So given there's been at least 700 years you would accept that a "British identity" (English, Scotish, Welsh, Northern Irish) has formed within that time.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But it is an identity that would not have formed or existed without that aforementioned history. The Welsh Britons would not have been forced to the West of our land if the Celts hadn't encroached on the mainland and pushed them that far; the Irish wouldn't have ties to the Scottish if the Dans and the Picts hadn't set up trade routes and interbred; our roads wouldn't have advanced as far if it wreren't for the Romans who came in search of resources to fight the Gauls in France; the Briton tribes wouldn't have been able to force the Romans out of the Southern regions without proclaiming an alliance; the Northumbrians and Yorkshiremen wouldn't have town names with Brough, Ham and Ton without the incursion of the Danelaw and the subsequent settlement of thousands of Vikings in those Northern regions; the South of England wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today without the establishment of the Norman (French Vikings) hierarchy in those lands; the Irish counties of Galway, Mayo, Cork and Kerry wouldn't be interwoven with French surnames if it wasn't for those Normans settling in those areas...

The point I am making is, immigration, invasion, incursion - whatever we need to call it - inextricably builds nations through history.

We wouldn't exist.

We can't discard 3,000 years of history to build an accepted culture that has only existed for 200 years. We're not America (sorry to our cousins)

I identify with the previous 3,000 years far more than I do with "British" history for those very reasons. I'm Northumbrian before anything else.
 
Durham Toffee said:
Indeed. But it is an identity that would not have formed or existed without that aforementioned history. The Welsh Britons would not have been forced to the West of our land if the Celts hadn't encroached on the mainland and pushed them that far; the Irish wouldn't have ties to the Scottish if the Dans and the Picts hadn't set up trade routes and interbred; our roads wouldn't have advanced as far if it wreren't for the Romans who came in search of resources to fight the Gauls in France; the Briton tribes wouldn't have been able to force the Romans out of the Southern regions without proclaiming an alliance; the Northumbrians and Yorkshiremen wouldn't have town names with Brough, Ham and Ton without the incursion of the Danelaw and the subsequent settlement of thousands of Vikings in those Northern regions; the South of England wouldn't be the powerhouse it is today without the establishment of the Norman (French Vikings) hierarchy in those lands; the Irish counties of Galway, Mayo, Cork and Kerry wouldn't be interwoven with French surnames if it wasn't for those Normans settling in those areas...

The point I am making is, immigration, invasion, incursion - whatever we need to call it - inextricably builds nations through history.

We wouldn't exist.

We can't discard 3,000 years of history to build an accepted culture that has only existed for 200 years. We're not America (sorry to our cousins)

I identify with the previous 3,000 years far more than I do with "British" history for those very reasons. I'm Northumbrian before anything else.
Click to expand...
Yes it does inextricably build nations through history. It also brings social turmoil during that time. The question I am asking is why as British people do we want to start that process?
 

Clint Planet said:
You're most likely genetically Viking. I'm mostly Celtic judging by my family names and place of birth. My first wife was half Celtic, half Indian. We're all British, though. Great, innit?
Click to expand...

I'm definitely Viking. I did a lot of History-based modules at College and University and had a mate who was into ancestry and genetics.

He did a gene "map" and could guarantee that I had Viking (likely Norwegian), Irish and German (likely Saxon) heritage.

My surname is certainly of Scandanavian origin.
 
The-Guilty-As-Charged.jpg
 
Cypher said:
The scale of immigration is the problem. There won't be a British identity afterwards and you can forget about socialism if there's no unified society.

The rich whites aren't going to pay taxes to support the poor immigrants. The will use them as cheap labour. The poor whites will just have to live with it. The poor whites and the poor immigrants won't be able to join together to outvote the rich whites because the rich whites will play them off against each other. Offering policies like affirmative action or better social housing for one group over the other etc

That's how this will play out. Merkel, Cameron and their cronies in big business aren't doing this out of the goodness of their hearts.
Click to expand...
Year Foreign born population Total population Irish born population Percentage of total population that was born abroad
1851 100,000 17,900,000 520,000 0.6
1861 150,000 20,100,000 600,000 0.7
1871 200,000 22,700,000 565,000 0.9
1881 275,000 26,000,000 560,00 1.1
1891 350,000 29,000,000 460,000 1.2
1901 475,000 32,500,000 425,000 1.5
1911 900,000 36,100,000 375,000 2.5
1921 750,000 37,900,000 365,000 2
1931 1,080,000 40,000,000 380,00 2.7
1951 1,875,000 43,700,000 470,000 4.3
1961 2,290,000 46,000,000 645,000 5.0
1971 3,100,000 48,700,000 585,000 6.4
1981 3,220,000 48,500,000 580,000 6.6
1991 3,625,000 49,900,000 570,000 7.3
2001 4,600,000 52, 500,000 475,000 8.8
2011 7,500,000 56,000,000 400,000 13.4
 
edge said:
Percentage of total population that was born abroad

2011 = 13.4%
Click to expand...

1 in 8 doesn't seem a lot to me but then I live in London which has a much greater cultural mix than the rest of the UK. London survives, by the way. Most of us here see it as a strength of the city, not a weakness.
 

Clint Planet said:
1 in 8 doesn't seem a lot to me but then I live in London which has a much greater cultural mix than the rest of the UK. London survives, by the way. Most of us here see it as a strength of the city, not a weakness.
Click to expand...
Look at the graph. It's exponential. In 2021 it will be around 25%.
 
Clint Planet said:
1 in 8 doesn't seem a lot to me but then I live in London which has a much greater cultural mix than the rest of the UK. London survives, by the way. Most of us here see it as a strength of the city, not a weakness.
Click to expand...
wasn't offering an option, Clint just putting the figures up , to put a but of flesh on the bones of what he was saying.
London is to fast for me,don't mind visiting but couldn't live there
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top