It's a fairly big report. Can you point out the offending sections? A glance through it shows nothing that matches the tweet.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
It's a fairly big report. Can you point out the offending sections? A glance through it shows nothing that matches the tweet.
I think it's the philosophy of the EU apparently trying to influence how immigrant related news is reported. Should the EU be spending effort and money in this sort of thing. Authoritarian much?
The beginning of the report makes it clear they are guidelines. The preamble is quite short, you can read it and decide for yourself.
Would you be ok with the UK Govt or Trump issuing 'guidelines' on how specific issues be reported then?
It depends on the official weight behind them. These are guidelines which seem to be formulated by meetings among journalists, and enforced by nobody.
So yes, I am fine with that.
Going further, I think the Leveson inquiry was very necessary, and its recommendations* should be implemented.
*which go much much further than a set of guidelines, and oog into how the press can be investigated and sued.
I'd much prefer it if there was some oversight on the media to ensure the hate filled bile published by Murdoch and Dacre was forced to provide a burden of proof to their lies if not condemned and made illegal. Given the symbiotic relationship between the tories and particularly Trump and the right wing gutter press and media there's Fox all chance of that happening though.
Good pun or Fraudian Slip?
But everyone is supposed to roll over, forget their interests, and do as brexiteers please. Otherwise we're 'unreasonable', 'punishing the UK' or 'blackmailing' them.
Weird world you live in.
Edit: To be clear, I don't want to belittle the problems you raise, they are legitimate and sometimes pressing problems. However they are UK problems caused by UK governments voted in by UK citizens.
Last edited:
They do
As I said before, that wasn’t the point of bringing that course up...
And forming a Jamaica coalition was always going to be difficult migration or not. The talks actually broke down for different reasons. Not that you would know or be interested, it needs to serve your agenda.
Now you’ve shown me! I didn’t know that!
Seriously mate, look it up. We do have a gouvernment. A consequence of us having a gouvernment is that we actually have a small gouvernmental crisis atm because some minister acted against Merkels wishes...
It’s some NGO‘s report probably funded from a broad money fund that didn’t even know what the result would be. Don’t act like this is some official document.
The land is definitely finite but it's nowhere near close to actually being a problem. People just need to stop thinking this in horizontal terms. Double the people could be housed in the UK if every (residential) building would be twice as high. So maybe we need to start thinking this more vertical.
The land is definitely finite but it's nowhere near close to actually being a problem. People just need to stop thinking this in horizontal terms. Double the people could be housed in the UK if every (residential) building would be twice as high. So maybe we need to start thinking this more vertical.
That is all well and good but the problems are multifaceted. I would say the biggest issues is the complete reliance on private companies to supply housing stock. They land bank and don't want to build on more costly Brownfield sites whilst releasing Greenbelt land is hugely controversial and resisted fiercely by residents. Then you have the issues with getting things through planning, in some case it takes 40 years+!
Exactly. Housing can’t be private entirely. Although those greenbelts really are huge bullshit and are the bane of the UK housing market. Dissolving them would probably solve the problem for decades to come.
Why would we want them to pave over some of the most beautiful land in Britain?
I'm not with you on the Greenbelt issue. There is enough unused Brownfield sites in the UK to satisfy demand but due to the extra costs in preparing the land due to contamination etc private companies don't want to touch it.
There had been plans to release Greenbelt in Greater Manchester recently but I don't recall any other civic plan that faced such resistance from the public. Andy Burnham got elected as Manchester's first Mayor with a promise to put a halt to it.
Not all of it is "beautiful". And lloking between the UK, France and Germany, three countries with very similar structures, it is clear that the greenbelt directives are one of the major reasons that the UK housing market is so disproportionally expensive.
It's a question of ideology, I get that. But eithe have way cheaper housing or have greenbelts. Choose. And honestly, living in a country which doesn't have greenbelts, but rather sensible decision makers when it comes to designating land, I can assure you the countryside outside of my 500.000+ town isn't some deserted wasteland....and when I want to walk through a forest, although I live in the city center, it's a 20 minute walk away, or 4 minutes by train. Strategic gaps are the solution.
Also, looking at how the end of greenbelt would affect people already owning property, it's pretty clear why many would be against it: they want to protect their money for selfish reasons.
Edit: looking at how Britian acts towards private investors and their demands, I guess the shortage of such people might be an issue. But one that can get solved.
Last edited:
Because there's a ton more of it and giving people somewhere decent and affordable to live is more important than some pretty views for those lucky enough to already have their own home. Shades of NIMBY.
It's not only their view. It's also their money. Scarcity inflates prices, so those lucky enough to already own property are naturally against touching the green belts.
No, wrong assumption.
Most of the time - sorry , actually all of the time I did win as in voting Tory in a safe Tory seat but if I'd voted Monster Raving Loony Party it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference. I didn't always get the PM at the end of the day but could not control that at all which is really my point.
Now if I voted in a french presidential election my vote actually counts no matter where I live, even abroad and in which constituency I live in.
As a rule, i don't debate Brexit policy on the forum any longer, but taking housing in isolation...
The previously posted Guardian article uses the world 'fantasy' quite frequently throughout the text, which i think is particularly apt given the writer's decision to ignore real-world realities and politics with his solutions. So to cite as some cure for our ills would be misplaced. Most of the aspiring homeowners i know, or those who have recently purchased, do not typically seek out high-density, high-rise locations with limited green space.
Strategically, i would focus on: land-banking/hoarding of planning applications (a serious issue going by the recent Budget), promotion of self-build schemes, and the regeneration towns and cities to reduce the push factors which may exist. While the departure from FoM ought to enable future governments to introduce other migration opportunities, and depending on the party hue improve the labour market, they are both medium-long term ambitions at this point. For the present, however, id' have supposed that EU citizens put the greatest strain on the rental sector as opposed to ownership. Of course with things as they are, an increasing proportion of the existing population are also vying for those very properties until such time as they can buy themselves. The extent of controls post-Brexit should depend on the numbers as well as the intended destination.
*Once again exits the echo chamber*
The previously posted Guardian article uses the world 'fantasy' quite frequently throughout the text, which i think is particularly apt given the writer's decision to ignore real-world realities and politics with his solutions. So to cite as some cure for our ills would be misplaced. Most of the aspiring homeowners i know, or those who have recently purchased, do not typically seek out high-density, high-rise locations with limited green space.
Strategically, i would focus on: land-banking/hoarding of planning applications (a serious issue going by the recent Budget), promotion of self-build schemes, and the regeneration towns and cities to reduce the push factors which may exist. While the departure from FoM ought to enable future governments to introduce other migration opportunities, and depending on the party hue improve the labour market, they are both medium-long term ambitions at this point. For the present, however, id' have supposed that EU citizens put the greatest strain on the rental sector as opposed to ownership. Of course with things as they are, an increasing proportion of the existing population are also vying for those very properties until such time as they can buy themselves. The extent of controls post-Brexit should depend on the numbers as well as the intended destination.
*Once again exits the echo chamber*
Last edited:
I see you're trying this one again, you even tried it with me , hilarious, because you live in the UK you know everything that goes on and people who don't live there haven't got a clue.
Taking this line of reasoning you haven't got a clue what is going on in Brussels or Strasbourg or anywhere further than the bottom of your road , because if you live in Guildford for example how the hell do you know what it's like to live in Sunderland.
The main reason we don't have enough housing is because a) the government didn't invest enough into building new homes and b) the government made it extremely attractive to buy homes to let out. It has very little do so with some small percentage of the countries land being protected.
Inflate ego showing once again! You're a clown really aren't you?
I've not avoided any points you are the one ignoring reality.
I referred back to 1999 because you asked me!
Paul the Wolf said: ↑
Why do keep referring to 1999
Because that was a potential watershed time for the EU to clean house and reset its democratic credentials, just after the whole Santer Commission (of unelected Commissioners ) was forced to resign because of corruption, specifically around Mrs Cresson and her cronies activities and some incompetence in others that followed in trying to cover it up; however because of the gravy-train effect and the impending millennium celebrations it chose not to do so, in its own arrogance believing it could weather the storm and carry on regardless, which in fairness it has bumbled on... so far!
Having once worked for the EU and seen first hand its weaknesses in terms of democracy, in terms of preventing fraud, in terms of its tendency towards ''grandstanding' projects rather than projects which really do help people then in my mind and for many others the EU proved it cannot be reformed from within and hence sealed its own death warrant. Since then it has appointed idiots like Juncker and has gathered speed towards self destruction, on tracks it built itself, but has consistently failed to re-route. For a time the UK has acted as a 'brake', unintendedly I admit, but now the brake will be removed and the train can go full speed ahead on to the buffers... hopefully we won't still be on-board.
The one hope for the EU was perhaps with the 'pesky' British (opt outs, rebates etc.) all gone, Merkel and Macron, could through force of 'big stick wielding' change the direction away from the buffers, dragging, if necessary, the other states with them. However Macron still has a job to do in France and poor Angela in Germany is not looking much safer than Theresa in the UK, so things don't look to good, especially if the cliff edge scenario becomes a reality!
This is my sole reason for wanting the UK out of the EU, I recognise that amongst bexiteers I am probably in the minority, that many voted leave because of immigration and because previous UK governments had been too stupid to address the matter properly. I would love to see a truly democratic (and as far as humanly possible incorruptible) Europe, in terms of trade and security and environmental matters, and indeed people encouraged to move between the various member states, but with controls exercised by the host nation, not forced from above. This however I have come to realise is impossible whilst the EU survives in its present form, since its clear we (UK) cannot change its destination and date with the buffers, then we have to get off the train... whatever it costs!
The quote I gave was taken directly from the link you provided, below
https://europa.eu/european-union/ab...n-commission_en#how_does_the_commission_work?
You could either move to his constituency and then vote him out, or visit his constituency at election time and campaign against him, neither are highly likely I admit, but this is hypothetical situation (as I understand it you are domiciled in France?) so in that sense it is possible, because he was voted in originally as an MP.
'Hence once more into the breach'... Commissioners are not voted in, they are selected!
Last edited:
On the greenfield / brownfield thing, one quite interesting idea is to accept that the internet is slowly killing the high street and rather than watch it die a slow death it could be put out of its misery and then a large amount of retail property could be converted into affordable homes for sale or council houses in town centres. Leave behind local / convenience stores and a few other selected shops if a convincing case can be made, otherwise 90% of them can go. Then to make sure nobody gets left behind invest in superfast broadband across the country and make sure every single home has access to the internet so people can shop online.
Obviously highly disruptive and unlikely to be universally popular, but radical and forward looking.
Obviously highly disruptive and unlikely to be universally popular, but radical and forward looking.
A lot of people, especially the young, rely on those retail and service jobs.
Brexit will sort that for us. The shops will all be empty because it will be too expensive to import the stuff that used to sit on the shelves. Or people wont have any money to buy anything anyway because their jobs will have moved to the continent to be inside the customs union.
And laying off hundreds of thousands of people would somehow make housing more affordable?
It was a tongue in cheek comment - though I did see it as a real suggestion.
I think if you were to take it seriously the point would be that there would still be commerce going on, it just wouldnt be taking place in shops. People laid off as shopkeepers would have to become postmen or work in retail warehouses or whatever. The main point being that this is happening anyway, it would be accelerating a trend that is already occurring.
But yeah, I dont actually advocate forcibly closing all the shops.
I see you're resorting to personal insults, always happens with Brexiters when they lose an argument which is extremely often, sorry always. Like our friend Nick who deigned to make a brief visit to the thread, he'll lose yet another discussion and skulk away for a while. At least you stick it out.
Then we have those who pretend to have voted remain, just in case it does go all wrong and then continue to criticise all remainers. They think we don't know... keep it under your hat.
But I already told you I was an arrogant sod and name-calling matters not.
I pointed out that you missed out the most crucial point.
As for your darling Brexit secretary, if 16 million people suddenly decided to descend on his constituency at election time I think that may cause a problem, if would be more than that because no doubt a lot of Brexiters are not happy with his performance.
Next problem is that the election is in 2022 - Uk will be long gone with a really bad deal - it'll be too late
Further problem - there is more than one minister we want to get rid off, can't vote in two or more places at once.
Yes it was a hypothetical problem as I do indeed live in France, the more Davis makes a hash of it the better off we'll be on this side of Channel.
You keep agreeing with me, everyone knows Commissioners are (s)elected - saw your correction. Just as well they are not the masters and that legislation is passed by the Council and Parliament
Edit: apparently Davis is threatening to quit over the Damien Green porn scandal - well that was quick work
Last edited:
Who pretended to vote remain? Name names!
I would not like it to work that way yet rather like before we were in the EU we had Anzac kids coming here for their OE and working and going back home after a few years with savings.
Before the EU we had groups like gypsies (now under the travellers umbrella) doing agricultural work and older people on lower incomes and pensions doing less desirable jobs.
In my view if we use immigrants in this way it should enable them to take back savings.
Otherwise our population will exponentially continue to expand so fast that social problems will develop for those that see their state support not being sufficient and others jealous of other groups they see being helped by the state. The latter when they are struggling on low incomes and see other foreign groups appearing to be helped when they don't qualify.
We have 11m renters and also workers no longer on final salary pensions which to me equates to a coming political crisis at some point in the relatively near future.
England is already the most congested country in Europe (except little Malta).
Last edited:
No more than you do! I had thought that even if you held different views we could hold debates in a realistic manner, but there you go! Just returning with interest!
I do indeed, you've had the towel in once but retrieved it, so I'm ahead on points in those terms!
Indeed, if the cap fits..wear it!
I thought it was all crucial that's why I copied and pasted the "What the Commission Does" from the link you sent me, it certain highlights what enormous powers the unelected Commissioners have. I've never argued about what they do, only that they are unelected at any level.
The reference to UK Senior civil servants (introduced by @712) was simply to point out the similarities with Commissioners and that you seem to be arguing that having directly elected law makers is not important, where I consider it is. UK Civil Servants are probably less well known, or visible to the Public than Commissioners are in the EU, although certainly in the UK I suspect not many people could name either who the specific Senior Civil Servants are, or what they do; however such officials do/can strongly influence, if indirectly ( the Sir Humphrey types) laws and policy that they have been instructed to develop by the elected MP's, although they quite often make the outcomes seem like it was the elected members ideas. So in that sense the work of the EU Commissioners, it could be argued, is more visible to the public, but yet it is they way they are chosen rather than what they do, that is in my opinion undemocratic.
That's funny just a few post ago you were claiming something different!
By the way talking about missing things out what is your view of;
Paul the Wolf said: ↑
You've avoided all the points again but keep referring back to 15 to 20 years ago
I've not avoided any points you are the one ignoring reality.
I referred back to 1999 because you asked me!
Paul the Wolf said: ↑
Why do keep referring to 1999
Because that was a potential watershed time for the EU to clean house and reset its democratic credentials, just after the whole Santer Commission (of unelected Commissioners ) was forced to resign because of corruption, specifically around Mrs Cresson and her cronies activities and some incompetence in others that followed in trying to cover it up; however because of the gravy-train effect and the impending millennium celebrations it chose not to do so, in its own arrogance believing it could weather the storm and carry on regardless, which in fairness it has bumbled on... so far!
Having once worked for the EU and seen first hand its weaknesses in terms of democracy, in terms of preventing fraud, in terms of its tendency towards ''grandstanding' projects rather than projects which really do help people then in my mind and for many others the EU proved it cannot be reformed from within and hence sealed its own death warrant. Since then it has appointed idiots like Juncker and has gathered speed towards self destruction, on tracks it built itself, but has consistently failed to re-route. For a time the UK has acted as a 'brake', unintendedly I admit, but now the brake will be removed and the train can go full speed ahead on to the buffers... hopefully we won't still be on-board.
The one hope for the EU was perhaps with the 'pesky' British (opt outs, rebates etc.) all gone, Merkel and Macron, could through force of 'big stick wielding' change the direction away from the buffers, dragging, if necessary, the other states with them. However Macron still has a job to do in France and poor Angela in Germany is not looking much safer than Theresa in the UK, so things don't look to good, especially if the cliff edge scenario becomes a reality!
This is my sole reason for wanting the UK out of the EU, I recognise that amongst bexiteers I am probably in the minority, that many voted leave because of immigration and because previous UK governments had been too stupid to address the matter properly. I would love to see a truly democratic (and as far as humanly possible incorruptible) Europe, in terms of trade and security and environmental matters, and indeed people encouraged to move between the various member states, but with controls exercised by the host nation, not forced from above. This however I have come to realise is impossible whilst the EU survives in its present form, since its clear we (UK) cannot change its destination and date with the buffers, then we have to get off the train... whatever it costs!
Nothing to say on the above?
I've set out the strategic reasons why I believe the UK needs to leave the EU, how about you make you case for a strategic remaining?
Then we can discuss and forget all the childish name calling, especially since we are both over 50?
That's Germany though, it is what Germans are good at. I wouldn't trust the dopes in local authorities over here to make those sensible decisions. The danger is that you end up with like some of them mess you see in the Irish countryside where they basically let anyone build whatever they want.
Would still rather live in Ireland atm. Such chilled people.
From Wikipedia, Netherlands and Belgium have more density, but anyway. Right now I am in Canada, by choice as I am a privileged european citizen. After almost 2 years I have my place (rent), car, starting my professional career and the most important, I am developing personal relationships of any kind. I am DEFINITELY adding at the society and you are telling me that in 3/5 years I should leave with your policiy? because I might have health problems?
Then why the immigrant would pay as much taxes than a local if it will most likely not make as much use of it? because most of the taxes that you pay is for healthcare (a 20/30 years old is less likely to use it, feck I barely got sick of any kind in the last 10 years, let alone use health care system) and for retirement pensions. Why those immigrants should pay as much taxes? For the privilege of being exploited in shit jobs (with the kind of workers you propose)?
In order to save, do you know in which conditions they have to live with the shit salary they are earning? I have been there because I lived in 8 different countries, I worked legally and illegally. Always by choice. They have no choice. I lived in piled up houses with 3 rooms 1 bathroom and kitchen with 15-20 people in it I even been in jail and put in a plane for working illegally, again by choice. I can't imagine the drama of spending thousands and risking life to enter to a country, shit living conditions finding a job to make a living, scraping every cent to send to their family, fighting for each small improvement and suddenly a decision made by entitled people from their ivory tower that their only merit is that they were born in a place by luck makes them go back home. I sort of understand entry filters, but once you are inside and you contribute i simply say: "now you are old and we broke your back doing jobs we don't want to do and you are useless, get the feck out and don't dare to ask for the taxes that you paid".
Do you really think that people that comes to the "1st world countries" do that because of savings? they or fleeing from a war zone or they want a FUTURE and 5/7 years is not a future. the few savings that they earn, barely cover the money they spend going in the country and certainly not covers the risks. They are doing that not even for themselves but for their kids, that if you are a normal person living in UK with all that second, third and fourth generations, that kids, now they are your friends.
You are asking having people that they will barely save money with the cost of coming and scrapping from shit salaries, you are asking that they live in shit conditions, away form their society, friends and usually from their families, you are asking them to work shit jobs that people like you don't want to do and you take them away basically what they are looking for: FUTURE
And you are asking that in WHICH RIGHT as a human being?
Last edited:
Long-term we'll probably see a lot of closures anyway with a gradual transition to universal income.