What's the political climate like in the UK right now?

Page 4 of 41 [ 656 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 41  Next

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Aug 2018, 2:51 am

climber9 wrote:
One tiny example - the NHS ophthalmology service is geared to perform around 400,000 cataract operations a year. Throughout the EU there are probably fifty million people who need such surgery but who can't get it.
In the real world, are we going to offer treatment to an almost-blind Romanian and deny it to a not-quite-so-blind Mancunian? [I suppose I shall now be asked what I have against Romanians!]


But... but... they're EU citizens. A rich white woman from Slovakia who's just moved here should be given the same treatment as a poor British Muslim man from Birmingham. Apparently.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

Mythos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 457
Location: England

22 Aug 2018, 4:03 am

climber9 wrote:
I'm not sure that somebody with a subconscious bias against foreigners could be described as a 'far right nationalist activist'. [Yet again I feel that I have to point out that saying this does NOT mean that I sympathise with their views in any way at all]
Activists are those idiots who throw paint at mosques and campaign for the compulsory repatriation of everyone who isn't white.

I agree I should've worded that better. That's on me. What I meant to say is that a lot of individuals, regardless of whether or not they consider themselves racist, could have an underlying bias. There's nothing wrong with loving your heritage and focusing on your own as a priority, but it's concerning that a lot of people think this way. It makes me wonder why, if not propaganda, they make these assumptions about foreigners.

I have no sympathy whatsoever with bigotry. However, the knee-jerk accusations of racism that are made as soon as someone expresses an opinion that someone else doesn't like belittle the issue rather than highlighting it.

It's pretty much a fact that the leave campaign was constructed on bigotry, even if leave voters didn't feel like this was a key issue. Farage was the face of the leave campaign (Gove and Johnson were just leeches, in my opinion) and we know exactly how he felt in this regard. So not all leave voters were racist but I can imagine a fair enough amount were.

I support a particular policy. Without even being asked why I support this, I am a xenophobe, a racist, I don't like foreigners, I don't like working with foreigners, and I don't want foreigners living in this country [especially if they're Turks].

What would that policy happen to be?

I know that all this is b*llocks. My natural inclination now is to dismiss such slurs if made against anybody else unless I have first-hand experience of their bigotry. So maybe I think racism is less of a problem than it really is.

The problem with this is ignoring the nuances and subtlety of racism. Because people aren't directly bigoted, you can't assume they're not. Most of us realise these kinds of people when we hear them speak; the kinds that say, "I'm not racist, but...", "I don't hate women, but...", "I'm no fan of Hitler, but...", yet you would blindly take their word for it. It's hard to be racist these days, at least in some places. That's a good thing. It just means that most of them are now trying to cover themselves.

This is polarisation. In Trump's US, if you don't support his anti-immigrant measures then you're supporting terrorism. Here, if you want to leave the EU then you're a racist.

There's a big difference here; not supporting anti immigration policy isn't supporting terrorism because there's no direct link. People that don't support this can't be linked to supporting terrorism at all. If you want to leave the EU because of border control policy, that doesn't make you racist but it could. Look at the rise of hate crimes over the past few months and tell me with a straight face this isn't a problem.

The idea of the UK support services being available to everyone is great in theory [and probably makes people feel good!] but unworkable in practice.
One tiny example - the NHS ophthalmology service is geared to perform around 400,000 cataract operations a year. Throughout the EU there are probably fifty million people who need such surgery but who can't get it.

The NHS is strained because it's underfunded. The government needs to rectify this or just admit they want a full privatised service.

In the real world, are we going to offer treatment to an almost-blind Romanian and deny it to a not-quite-so-blind Mancunian? [I suppose I shall now be asked what I have against Romanians!]

No, because denial doesn't really happen. Delays do. Again, we need funding for the NHS to fix this problem. It wouldn't surprise me if our health services worsen due to us being out of the EU.



Mythos
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 457
Location: England

22 Aug 2018, 4:07 am

Tequila wrote:
climber9 wrote:
One tiny example - the NHS ophthalmology service is geared to perform around 400,000 cataract operations a year. Throughout the EU there are probably fifty million people who need such surgery but who can't get it.
In the real world, are we going to offer treatment to an almost-blind Romanian and deny it to a not-quite-so-blind Mancunian? [I suppose I shall now be asked what I have against Romanians!]


But... but... they're EU citizens. A rich white woman from Slovakia who's just moved here should be given the same treatment as a poor British Muslim man from Birmingham. Apparently.
Yes. Why wouldn't they?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Aug 2018, 4:22 am

Mythos wrote:
No, because denial doesn't really happen. Delays do. Again, we need funding for the NHS to fix this problem. It wouldn't surprise me if our health services worsen due to us being out of the EU.


Should we offer treatment to that Romanian or Hungarian on the same terms as someone from Blackburn, Bridgend, Belshill or Belfast?



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Aug 2018, 4:23 am

Mythos wrote:
Yes. Why wouldn't they?


Maybe because they're not our citizens? A British man or woman is our citizen, regardless of race or religion. A Hungarian is not.



Last edited by Tequila on 22 Aug 2018, 4:31 am, edited 2 times in total.

climber9
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 24 Sep 2011
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 36
Location: NE England

22 Aug 2018, 4:26 am

Mythos wrote:
Tequila wrote:
climber9 wrote:
One tiny example - the NHS ophthalmology service is geared to perform around 400,000 cataract operations a year. Throughout the EU there are probably fifty million people who need such surgery but who can't get it.
In the real world, are we going to offer treatment to an almost-blind Romanian and deny it to a not-quite-so-blind Mancunian? [I suppose I shall now be asked what I have against Romanians!]


But... but... they're EU citizens. A rich white woman from Slovakia who's just moved here should be given the same treatment as a poor British Muslim man from Birmingham. Apparently.
Yes. Why wouldn't they?


...because the Brummie has contributed to the NHS all his life whereas the Slovakian hasn't? Can you understand that this is likely to be a cause of resentment for the Brummie?

In this instance I would argue that the Slovakian will be resident in the UK and will contribute to it's infrastructure, but I would understand the Brummie's point of view even if I didn't agree with it. I certainly wouldn't call him a racist.

Incidentally, I don't see how the sex, colour or religion of the people in this example is at all relevant.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Aug 2018, 4:33 am

My point is: if it's British people, it's alright. If it's someone who isn't, they pay to use our services or take out private health insurance. Other countries (even EU ones) do it, it's time we did.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

22 Aug 2018, 4:46 am

I appreciate this debate is more than just about the financials of it all but I did read that EU immigrants to the UK since 2000 pay in on average £1.34 in tax for every £1 they cost the UK Govt in benefits, state support etc.

Those that arrived before 2000 pay in less than £1.34 for each £1 cost to the UK but having been here for a long time would have paid in for a number of years



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Aug 2018, 4:51 am

Biscuitman wrote:
I appreciate this debate is more than just about the financials of it all but I did read that EU immigrants to the UK since 2000 pay in on average £1.34 in tax for every £1 they cost the UK Govt in benefits, state support etc.


Quote:
The latest findings estimate that recent immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (mainly eastern European) contributed £1.12 for every £1 received. Those from the rest of the EU put in £1.64 for every £1.


https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

22 Aug 2018, 4:53 am

Tequila wrote:
My point is: if it's British people, it's alright. If it's someone who isn't, they pay to use our services or take out private health insurance. Other countries (even EU ones) do it, it's time we did.


I have read before that much of these kind of issues are purely around the financials for the govt. The 'lost money' to the UK Govt is less than the money it would cost to run a system that makes sure it can't happen.

I have no idea if that is really true for the issue you point out, but it's obviously something that does have to be taken into account by the government when dealing with these kind of things. For as much as the sums of money talked about are unimaginable in terms of our own bank accounts, when a government is handling hundreds of billions of pounds per year these numbers might not amount to much.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

22 Aug 2018, 4:54 am

Tequila wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
I appreciate this debate is more than just about the financials of it all but I did read that EU immigrants to the UK since 2000 pay in on average £1.34 in tax for every £1 they cost the UK Govt in benefits, state support etc.


Quote:
The latest findings estimate that recent immigrants from the 10 countries that joined the EU in 2004 (mainly eastern European) contributed £1.12 for every £1 received. Those from the rest of the EU put in £1.64 for every £1.


https://fullfact.org/immigration/do-eu- ... y-receive/


good info. So in monetary terms they are giving more than they take, which can can only be a positive thing.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Aug 2018, 4:58 am

Biscuitman wrote:
good info. So in monetary terms they are giving more than they take, which can can only be a positive thing.


12p in every £1 doesn't replace the costs of administration. It's not a profit. The eastern European ones are a net loss. Basically, a lot of the eastern European immigrants are not that much of a good deal. A lot of the western EU ones will be weathier people much like us.

Anyway, the argument isn't about migration from EU countries, but literally accepting anyone that wants to work here.



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

22 Aug 2018, 5:04 am

as a side issue - when new countries join the EU, the existing countries have the option of blocking migration for 7 years from them. In 2004 when the Daily Mail types got hysterical about Poland, Romania etc joining it was actually the UK Govt who chose not to implement this 7 year block. We were 1 of only 3 countries that did not impose it.



Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

22 Aug 2018, 5:04 am

Biscuitman wrote:
as a side issue - when new countries join the EU, the existing countries have the option of blocking migration for 7 years from them. In 2004 when the Daily Mail types got hysterical about Poland, Romania etc joining it was actually the UK Govt who chose not to implement this 7 year block. We were 1 of only 3 countries that did not impose it.


And what party was that Government?



Biscuitman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers

22 Aug 2018, 5:07 am

Tequila wrote:
Biscuitman wrote:
good info. So in monetary terms they are giving more than they take, which can can only be a positive thing.


12p in every £1 doesn't replace the costs of administration. It's not a profit. The eastern European ones are a net loss


not sure we really know the admin costs do we? do you have any data on the eastern Europeans being a net loss?

Tequila wrote:
Anyway, the argument isn't about migration from EU countries, but literally accepting anyone that wants to work here.


I have no issue if someone wants to come here, can find a job within 3 months, pays taxes and takes out comprehensive sickness insurance.



Last edited by Biscuitman on 22 Aug 2018, 5:09 am, edited 1 time in total.