There is a sizeable number of UK born and bred that offer no value to society. I could include myself amongst them depending upon who draws up the list.
Very wealthy people and highly qualified people have little difficulty moving from country to country. There aren't too many of them, and they are welcome almost anywhere. Debates about immigration are really about ordinary folk en masse.
As Spanish I can come and work as a waiter. As Albanian I cant. So being Spanish is more important than being Albanian? Same person, same skills, not a National from UK.
Sometimes debates about immigration are about flagging posts "Disagree" without any indication of where the disagreement lies.
No. of course it's not obvious, or even true. Hence I disagree. There are always hundreds of issues and hundreds of personalities in play in politics at any given time, which cut across parties. In a general election, voters take all of them in to account, or as many as they care to. So what? You seem to be saying that simple, universal point somehow justifies having a referendum on this one particular matter, but not on hundreds of other matters. That's nonsense - obviously!
Pete you would have made a great school master. Perkins (insert surname) you are an idiot boy now go and stand in the corner.
The US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. All want highly qualified or highly wealthy immigrants and nothing else. Trying getting a visa for the states without marrying an American citizen and see how far you get if you don't have $500,000 to invest or a doctorate in something super smart and brainy. Unless you're a model. Models get in for free. If we follow suit all the super brainy educated people, all the good looking people and all the rich people will have to vote UKIP whilst complaining about all the foreign types coming over and taking their jobs. Mean while the rest of us will be priced out of, and financially excluded from, the housing market by the banks and other rich people. (Foreign migrants obviously, what with the British Nationals all having had their jobs took.)
What do you mean, "will be"? Try buying a house in central London and see if you aren't priced out by rich foreign nationals and indigenous bankers. You are still allowed to buy in Tower Hamlets.
Pete, your anti-referendum stance is pretty much nonsense. You cling to the idea that democracy is voting for a party once every 5 years which is probably in some way corrupt, and even if it isn't, represents a large smorgasbord of policies, only some of which you might agree with. In addition, it will be fielding a candidate for your area whom you won't know, and from the little you have seen of them (if you have) you might well not like. Whilst you feel that the electorate is in some way qualified to make this choice twice a decade, it is somehow unqualified to have a view on many policy issues which, you feel, should be left to professional politicians. Of course, the last time the electorate felt very strongly about something, such that a few million people turned out into the streets to try and prevent the Iraq War, they were totally disregarded by the professional politicians who went ahead anyway after swallowing the lies peddled by Cheney and his neocon acolytes. Lies that stuck in the throat of many ordinary people (if it looks like a rat, smells like a rat - it probably is a rat). If people want the electorate to re-engage with politics, they can start, in this 21st century, but letting it have a real voice on the issues that are important to it, rather than having itself "represented" by a cabal of people in Westminster. The Brits want a referendum on Europe. It's a bit bloody sad that they are reduced to voting for the "swivel-eyed loons" in order to actually get one.
Glidd replied in a very thorough fashion and there is no need for me to re-iterate any of the points he covered. However, for myself, I believe Pete's core argument is utterly silly, if not mendacious. I mean, really? Equating membership of the EU, with all its harmonisation of laws, perceived loss of sovereignty, immigration issues, economic implications, etc with an issue like, oh, say, "Do we spend £100M on extra training for apprenticeships?" is, well ... bonkers. Come on, I like a joke and an devil's argument as much as the next guy but let's keep it slightly sensible at least.
