Will the EU clamp down on immigration?

Originally posted by phil3000
Very interesting , thumbs up from me .
Nationalism is a pack mentality, it's in our genes .

We are social animals - that's in our genes. Some behaviour resembles that of a pack.

Nationalism is a modern and particular way of playing on our capacity for being hyper vigilant about our group versus outsiders and it works best at times of fear or social disintegration. We are watching the dismantling of our welfare state and with that, exposing more than half of our population to levels of risk and hardship against which they have no resources to protect themselves. We are in a period of so called austerity, in which the savings to public expenditure through savage cuts to services are matched by corresponding increased benefits for the wealthy. We are not paying off debt - that is increasing vastly. We are just robbing the poor to pay more to the rich. We are confronted with a blatant lie, which is that our economy was wrecked by welfare spending, when it was wrecked in reality by our banks and financial sector, which we are all paying to rescue by destroying our public services. Our media is working to destroy all confidence in our democratic system and setting us up for being screwed.

What the hell is UKIP? Two Conservative MPs re-branded as UKIP MPs is not a change! It just means we get to vote for a more right wing Conservative party than the one we've got and if that is the solution, I wonder what people think might be the problem?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Among the chavs and other scum whose votes the Tories seek, yes.

So you like to put down the people if you don't like what the people want. Interesting way to view a democratic society where the will of the people is supposed to be supreme.

Originally posted by phil3000
You can cherry pick claims all day and you will find the one to back your argument . There is a massive strain on public services ,housing ,schooling, etc . I believe a city the size of Birmingham would have to be built every year to accommodate the influx of migrants coming to the UK .
Look at the swing toward UKIP ,this is not a far right reaction but a ...[text shortened]... ople of all political persuasions fed up of being dictated to by Brussels and left wing nutter's

Okay, so predictably, you are not going to back up your claims. This makes me wonder: what is your claim that EU migrants are a burden on the UK economy based on?

Originally posted by Eladar
So you like to put down the people if you don't like what the people want. Interesting way to view a democratic society where the will of the people is supposed to be supreme.

I find it interesting that you would consider differing opinions in a democratic society a bad thing. Isn't that the point of democracy: to reconcile people's differences in such a way as to reach a compromise that most people can live with?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I find it interesting that you would consider differing opinions in a democratic society a bad thing. Isn't that the point of democracy: to reconcile people's differences in such a way as to reach a compromise that most people can live with?

A compromise between good and evil means that evil wins.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Among the chavs and other scum whose votes the Tories seek, yes.

Actually, all three major political parties in the UK are proposing plans to curb migration.

Originally posted by finnegan
What the hell is UKIP?

The first winner of a modern election which wasn't one of the two main ruling parties.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Among the chavs and other scum whose votes the Tories seek, yes.

"chavs and scum" would be more on the Labour party radar would they not ?

Originally posted by Wajoma
A compromise between good and evil means that evil wins.

Good = people who agree with you.
Evil = people who do not agree with you.

That thinking is inherently evil and propagated by extremists.

Originally posted by phil3000
"chavs and scum" would be more on the Labour party radar would they not ?

Although benefitting from socialism chavs see themselves as victims
and are easy targets for the right wing.

Much the same as Hitler gained support from the lower classes.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
The first winner of a modern election which wasn't one of the two main ruling parties.

THREE major parties.
And the Greens took a seat in Brighton!

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Good = people who agree with you.
Evil = people who do not agree with you.

That thinking is inherently evil and propagated by extremists.

You let loose, shoot from the hip, like Finnegan, take your time, there is time, time to think. We're not playing blitz here, don't need to let the fingers go skittering all over the keyboard.

Didn't say anything about what was good and what was evil, just said that in a compromise between good and evil it is evil that wins.

Here's how it works wolfgang.

Good folks believe in the non initiation of force, the directive comes down from the dictator in chief, heir Comandante' No2s, "Far too many freedom lovers getting uppity ideas, send 5 million to the gas chambers, that'll get em settled down."

His staff try to calm him "Heir Commandante' can't there be some compromise?"

Heir commandante' replies; "Ok let's make it 3 million."

Staff in unison: "Jawhol"

Ok, so the example is extreme, but you get the idea right, sometimes you blokes need to be battered across the head by a 2x4 to get the idea to sink in.

(can't there be some compromise?)

Ok let's make it an axe handle.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
THREE major parties.
And the Greens took a seat in Brighton!

Oh all right, three if you must!

Interestingly, I have a number of politically active Lib Dems as friends.

They argued vigorously with me that PR was essential for true democracy for years and years.

Now, suddenly, they have gone strangely quiet on this topic.

In a nutshell, I think that explains their demise at the next election.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I find it interesting that you would consider differing opinions in a democratic society a bad thing. Isn't that the point of democracy: to reconcile people's differences in such a way as to reach a compromise that most people can live with?

You can have a differing opinion and not feel the need to belittle the other side in attempt to marginalize them. You clearly believe that those who disagree with you have no real right to believe as they do.

Originally posted by Eladar
You can have a differing opinion and not feel the need to belittle the other side in attempt to marginalize them. You clearly believe that those who disagree with you have no real right to believe as they do.

I staunchly defend both the right of others to be idiots and my right to belittle them for being idiots.