Current Affairs The benefits of Brexit Page

[Prevenger17]

Are we agreeing on something here mate? Haha.

I think you were talking about that feeling of starting a back-and-forth on GOT and constantly checking your phone for a response. I'm terrible for it tbh, I promise myself "not this time" and then just dive headfirst into the pool literally seconds later

 

[tremont]

I think you were talking about that feeling of starting a back-and-forth on GOT and constantly checking your phone for a response. I'm terrible for it tbh, I promise myself "not this time" and then just dive headfirst into the pool literally seconds later

Haha - That is exactly what has been happening here. I keep saying - "Right - that's it! I will not respond to anyone else! I'm done here. I don't even care now" - and sure enough, ten minutes later, there I am responding. I seriously need to stop. I can't even remember what my original point was anymore. I think it was something to do with a tweet.

I really should stay out of the Current Affair forums. My opinion usually goes against the grain. I am winning no popularity contests in here. These days I prefer the "where will we finish" forum. I am the eternal optimist in that one. I sometimes say the right things in there.

 

[Jebus_lives]

It means we will have the people we need, and not the people we don’t need. It's really that simple.

It assumed that the only people that can add any value are those that meet an arbitrary criteria imposed by the home office, which as has been pointed out to you would limit lots of people that may add value to the UK.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that uncontrolled immigration is beneficial to any country, I'd ask you to direct me to similar where it suggests that controlled immigration is proven to be beneficial.

I made a rather flippant point yesterday about why only limiting those that we want from outside, why not set a criteria for those from within? Where is the rational difference, if someone born here doesn't contribute effectively shouldn't we limit what they have access to? Perhaps reduce their public services or seek to exchange those we deem surplus for those that benefit us?

 

[Jebus_lives]

We can do that anyrate.

Precisely, why Brexit is needed to do this I'm not quite sure.

 

[Prevenger17]

My opinion usually goes against the grain

I'm with the grain mostly, it's not any easier believe me

 

[tremont]

It assumed that the only people that can add any value are those that meet an arbitrary criteria imposed by the home office, which as has been pointed out to you would limit lots of people that may add value to the UK.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that uncontrolled immigration is beneficial to any country, I'd ask you to direct me to similar where it suggests that controlled immigration is proven to be beneficial.

I made a rather flippant point yesterday about why only limiting those that we want from outside, why not set a criteria for those from within? Where is the rational difference, if someone born here doesn't contribute effectively shouldn't we limit what they have access to? Perhaps reduce their public services or seek to exchange those we deem surplus for those that benefit us?

It assumed that the only people that can add any value are those that meet an arbitrary criteria imposed by the home office, which as has been pointed out to you would limit lots of people that may add value to the UK.

I am saying that if there is a criteria that needs to be met in order to gain access to any country, and that person does not meet the criteria, then they should not be granted entry.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that uncontrolled immigration is beneficial to any country, I'd ask you to direct me to similar where it suggests that controlled immigration is proven to be beneficial.

Most of the country have a different take on it, because they live it. It doesn't really matter what the evidence says does it, because it doesn't gauge how people feel about it. If most of the country are not happy with immigration, then it's not up for debate. You can't force people to be happy about anything. It is also irrelevant whether you or I disagree with that. This is a democracy.

I made a rather flippant point yesterday about why only limiting those that we want from outside, why not set a criteria for those from within? Where is the rational difference, if someone born here doesn't contribute effectively shouldn't we limit what they have access to? Perhaps reduce their public services or seek to exchange those we deem surplus for those that benefit us?

You mean a bit like China? Do you really think I wouldn't have got on to that?

Anyways - I am going to stop now mate. Thanks for sharing you're point of view. Enjoy your evening.

 

[roydo]

Precisely, why Brexit is needed to do this I'm not quite sure.

Some might say that folk have been hoodwinked by politicians laying every ill at the door of the EU. When the answers are closer to home. No one who voted Leave will admit that though.

The latest narrative is that we havnt got a shiny new trade deal yet because of, you guessed it, the EU.

 

[Jebus_lives]

It assumed that the only people that can add any value are those that meet an arbitrary criteria imposed by the home office, which as has been pointed out to you would limit lots of people that may add value to the UK.

I am saying that if there is a criteria that needs to be met in order to gain access to any country, and that person does not meet the criteria, then they should not be granted entry.

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that uncontrolled immigration is beneficial to any country, I'd ask you to direct me to similar where it suggests that controlled immigration is proven to be beneficial.

Most of the country have a different take on it, because they live it. It doesn't really matter what the evidence says does it, because it doesn't gauge how people feel about it. If most of the country are not happy with immigration, then it's not up for debate. You can't force people to be happy about anything. It is also irrelevant whether you or I disagree with that. This is a democracy.

I made a rather flippant point yesterday about why only limiting those that we want from outside, why not set a criteria for those from within? Where is the rational difference, if someone born here doesn't contribute effectively shouldn't we limit what they have access to? Perhaps reduce their public services or seek to exchange those we deem surplus for those that benefit us?

You mean a bit like China? Do you really think I wouldn't have got on to that?

Anyways - I am going to stop now mate. Thanks for sharing you're point of view. Enjoy your evening.

I'm not really interested in if people believe something, regardless of how many might believe it. I'm asking for evidence and fact.

I'd suggest the facts do matter, regardless of whatever people might be conditioned to think because wrongly held beliefs can be extremely damaging. Like anti vaccination for example, where a significant proportion of people believe something which is damaging to public health.

It doesn't really help your argument being simultaneously pedantic about certain points and blase and dismissive of others.

 

[Jebus_lives]

Some might say that folk have been hoodwinked by politicians laying every ill at the door of the EU. When the answers are closer to home. No one who voted Leave will admit that though.

The latest narrative is that we havent got a shiny new trade deal yet because of, you guessed it, the EU.

The current thinking in the thread seems to be 'facts don't matter because people don't want to believe them. And beliefs, not matter absurd or ridiculous, are more powerful that facts. And that's how we now define democracy'.

Which is astonishing and troubling in equal measure. A very low watermark.

 

[Chewbacca]

The current thinking in the thread seems to be 'facts don't matter because people don't want to believe them. And beliefs, not matter absurd or ridiculous, are more powerful that facts. And that's how we now define democracy'.

Which is astonishing and troubling in equal measure. A very low watermark.

It’s like the Enlightenment never happened

 

[Jebus_lives]

It’s like the Enlightenment never happened

A summary of the thread today:

Controlled immigration is a good thing.
Is it?
Yes
Why?
Simple because the government get to let in only the people we want. We get to control who we want.
Are they the right people?
Yes because the government say so and it benefits us.
Yes but why does it benefit us?
It just does.
What evidence do you have to base that on?
Lots of people think it.
Yes but what actual evidence?
Lots of people think it so facts are irrelevant. Bye.

 

[Methuselah]

Some might say that folk have been hoodwinked by politicians laying every ill at the door of the EU. When the answers are closer to home. No one who voted Leave will admit that though.

The latest narrative is that we havnt got a shiny new trade deal yet because of, you guessed it, the EU.

Well its the EU who keep tagging on non-trade issues such as the Elgin marbles and Gibraltar etc.,

 

[Jebus_lives]

Well its the EU who keep tagging on non-trade issues such as the Elgin marbles and Gibraltar etc.,

How is that 'non trade?'

 

[roydo]

Well its the EU who keep tagging on non-trade issues such as the Elgin marbles and Gibraltar etc.,

Well you prove my point.

 

[Methuselah]

Well you prove my point.

Eh?