Brexit bites as EU workers start to say screw you UK we are outa here…

[Mayhem]

Nobody gives a shit about Austria.

I agree, not the point though.

Considering that it is the fifth largest immigrant population in the world and the conversation started when someone said the UK has not had mass immigration in comparison to other places, can you explain how many it would take to be considered mass immigration and where the fuck all those other places are?

Again, who gives a shit about total numbers? They are meaningless, literally meaningless. If you can't cope with an immigrant population as a percentage of your whole population way lower than other countries who are doing fine, it obviously can't be a problem with immigration because they didn't come at once.

Oh good God!

Migration is the movement of people from one place to another.
Immigration is the movement of people to a specific place - this is what we are talking about.
Emigration is the movement of people from a specific place.

Mass immigration is therefore a lot of people (8.5 million) moving to a specific place, in this case the UK.

In a given time... i mean that should be obvious. Would you seriously consider it mass immigration if 8.5 million people moved to the UK over a period of 1000 years?

[Kronik85]

I feel this video is relevant to this discussion. Probably won't change opinions, but it's something.

Video actually does a good job pointing out one of the issues many Europeans probably don't understand about Britain not wanting to be slowly absorbed into a European Superstate. Peace. Britain does not have the war guilt from WWII or the shame of being part of the Soviet Bloc, we are not trying to escape our history. Most Brits do not feel guilt over the Empire and we've always picked the right ideologies and sides in the 1900's......went west in the naughties like but Brits are largely proud of being Brits, we do not feel we need to be European to stop us picking fights with our neighbours.

[Mehrunes]

Well they are technically correct. Obviously we will still be practically being legislated to by the EU since they are our main trading partner but like you said in your next post our government will be free to gobble on that big business cock and attack worker rights and protections. Then at the end of it all we might actually get some culpability for the government rather than them being able to cry off and blame it on the EU.

Well, there's also that, but not what I was getting at. I meant that sovereignty is literally not an issue. UK was sovereign (and will continue to be for at least the next two years) throughout the entire time it was in the EU. The fact that UK did (and was able to to begin with) give some of its legislative powers to an international body is simply one of the aspects of state sovereignty.

And yet leavers were either ignorant of that fact or deliberately misrepresented it in case of EU. Even though it's not even the only international organization with legislative powers. Or the power to impose its will upon the member states in general (from the general category UN is a prime example, though not really applicable to UK due to their ability to cockblock anything aimed in their direction through veto power in UNSC). And in general sense it's a case of international law (that countries agreed to abide by) being supreme to national law.

From my encounters with leavers on this site there may be some confusion because of UK having parliamentary sovereignty that dictates the parliament is the highest authority in terms of legislation and is supreme over other government institutions in that area, but that's a misrepresentation. Precisely because it is in relation to other government institutions, which EU institutions are not. It's nothing more than a specific distribution of powers within a country and an alternative to separation of powers system. And is a separate concept from national sovereignty.

[Kronik85]

Well, there's also that, but not what I was getting at. I meant that sovereignty is literally not an issue. UK was sovereign (and will continue to be for at least the next two years) throughout the entire time it was in the EU. The fact that UK did (and was able to to begin with) give some of its legislative powers to an international body is simply one of the aspects of state sovereignty.

And yet leavers were either ignorant of that fact or deliberately misrepresented it in case of EU. Even though it's not even the only international organization with legislative powers. Or the power to impose its will upon the member states in general (from the general category UN is a prime example, though not really applicable to UK due to their ability to cockblock anything aimed in their direction through veto power in UNSC). And in general sense it's a case of international law (that countries agreed to abide by) being supreme to national law.

From my encounters with leavers on this site there may be some confusion because of UK having parliamentary sovereignty that dictates the parliament is the highest authority in terms of legislation and is supreme over other government institutions in that area, but that's a misrepresentation. Precisely because it is in relation to other government institutions, which EU institutions are not. It's nothing more than a specific distribution of powers within a country and an alternative to separation of powers system. And is a separate concept from national sovereignty.

I remember this discussion from the big Brexit thread we had. For they layman this is basically semantics and their concern is that a foreign entity is dictating what we should be legislating. Whilst I believe you to be correct many Brits simply do not like the idea Johnny Foreigner can tell us what to do even though it takes places all the time with our own Parliaments assent.

We're British and we will god damn do what we please! It's not for the likes of the Krauts and the Frogs to tell us what to do.....even if we agree with them and want to do it anyway.....just you know....don't tell them that.

[Vash The Stampede]

Because the vast majority of immigrants from poorer countries are part of the high-skill sector, am I right?

No one should cry for losing a ton of people with such low skill they actually cost the country far more than they pay in taxes (because remember, these people also use the services paid by taxes far more).

Skill is a thing I don't think is relevant today. For most jobs people can adapt and learn very quickly, and they don't need extensive education. Especially with tools like Google and YouTube, anyone can do jobs that people get paid fairly well for. This isn't a good thing for countries like the UK, which devalue their work.

[Kalis]

Again, who gives a shit about total numbers? They are meaningless, literally meaningless. If you can't cope with an immigrant population as a percentage of your whole population way lower than other countries who are doing fine, it obviously can't be a problem with immigration because they didn't come at once.

Who gives a shit about numbers when talking about MASS immigration? Seriously?

Mass
adjective

1. relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things.

Are you really trying to say that 8.5 million people is not a large number of people? Half the countries in the EU have a population equal to or lower than 8.5 million people. The population of London is about 8.5 million people.

In a given time... i mean that should be obvious. Would you seriously consider it mass immigration if 8.5 million people moved to the UK over a period of 1000 years?

You still do not get to redefine the English language. I still have no idea why you think that you do.

[Mayhem]

Who gives a shit about numbers when talking about MASS immigration? Seriously?

Mass
adjective

1. relating to, done by, or affecting large numbers of people or things.

Are you really trying to say that 8.5 million people is not a large number of people? Half the countries in the EU have a population equal to or lower than 8.5 million people. The population of London is about 8.5 million people.

Ok, now define large.

Try reading, i wrote total numbers. In relation is what makes sense when you look at mass immigration, because if you go by numbers alone without relation to country/population size everything becomes mass immigration. And then it is a meaningless term. To smaller countries a number of a few ten thousand migrants is mass immigration. Would you say 60.000 migrants coming to the UK in one year would be considered mass immigration? (yes/no).

You still do not get to redefine the English language. I still have no idea why you think that you do.

I see you are unable to answer even simple questions, also i'm not redefining anything here. You want to blow 11% immigrants out of proportion to something totally unbarable for the UK. That is just laughable.

[Deleted]

QFT

Incompetent, doctors, dentists, IT workers from "commonwealth" is what our country needs.

Wow what a cunt you are.

infracted - minor flaming

[Fojos]

And that has little to do with immigration, since all types of wages have stagnated even those that come from jobs that are not as exposed to immigrant workers as others. Using immigrants as a scapegoat is something only hacks do

- - - Updated - - -

Also he is right the whole austerity argument is based on a flawed paper.

I'm not using immigrants as scapegoats, you are implying things. My scapegoats are people like you and neoliberal politicians that want all immigrants in the country.

Low-skill immigration HURTS ALL WAGES. This is pretty basic economy.

[Mayhem]

Low-skill immigration HURTS ALL WAGES. This is pretty basic economy.

How does it do that?

[Serpha]

Wow what a cunt you are.

Are you one of those incompetent people? You took it very personally.

[Deleted]

How does it do that?

You know how it does, I have explained it to you before yet you ignore it.

Low Skill immigration causes a glut in low skill people able to do low skill jobs, this means, for example, that Brick layers can never go above minimum wage now because cheap unskilled laborers will simply offer Minimum wage ( or lower ) and the higher expectant income Britons then lose out.

This has caused such a problem, a whole class of workers, the Self-laborers has been destroyed in Britain.

The easiest way for a man to go from Working Class to Middle class in Britain was a thing called the Construction business. Get a job as a Brick-layer at 16. Learn additional skills in different areas by 18, becoming an Apprentice in a specialist building field, Work under someone by 25, Own your own business by 40. Repeat.

This cycle has been broken, Electrician, Plumber, Brick layer, All of these jobs are becoming worse and worse in the UK, so much so, places like British Gas have started mass recruitment programs.

- - - Updated - - -

I see you are unable to answer even simple questions, also i'm not redefining anything here. You want to blow 11% immigrants out of proportion to something totally unbarable for the UK. That is just laughable.

Did you say 11% of the population of the UK is "Small" for Immigrant populations? That's a fucking huge Demographic shift.

[Kalis]

Ok, now define large.

Try reading, i wrote total numbers. In relation is what makes sense when you look at mass immigration, because if you go by numbers alone without relation to country/population size everything becomes mass immigration. And then it is a meaningless term. To smaller countries a number of a few ten thousand migrants is mass immigration. Would you say 60.000 migrants coming to the UK in one year would be considered mass immigration? (yes/no).

We are talking about MASS immigration and you are trying to say that 8.5 million people is not a lot of people.

On one side we have Mayhem saying it is not mass immigration.

And on the other side we have...

This lady. She seems familiar. I wonder what became of her...
BBC
Times
Guardian
Telegraph
Independent
Mirror
Express
Sun
Daily Mail
Reuters
Russia Today
Even the Peterborough Telegraph refers to mass immigration!

Mayhem versus the Prime Minister of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, as well as all out major media outlets, some foreign ones and the Peterborough Telegraph.

I see you are unable to answer even simple questions, also i'm not redifing anything here. You want to blow 11% immigrants out of proportion to something totally unbarable for the UK. That is just laughable.

You putting an arbitrary timeframe on something that does not have a timeframe in its definition, is redefining the word.

If you cannot speak English to a standard required to form a coherent argument, you do not get to redefine the English language and declare yourself a winner. That is not how English works.

[Nitro Fun]

I see you are unable to answer even simple questions, also i'm not redefining anything here. You want to blow 11% immigrants out of proportion to something totally unbarable for the UK. That is just laughable.

11% is a lot.

[Deleted]

Austria does not have an immigrant population 20% higher than the UK.



8.5 million is a lot, it is the entire population of your country.



Someone linked a definition of migration earlier, there is no arbitrary timeframe on it, so why are you imposing one?

Sorry, but that does not make any sense...is 30k immigrant a mass immigration and a lot of people just because in San Marino the population is 30k-ish?
Or just turn it...in China roughly 1.3 billion people lives..compared to that 8.5 million is nothing...

[Deleted]

Sorry, but that does not make any sense...is 30k immigrant a mass immigration and a lot of people just because in San Marino the population is 30k-ish?
Or just turn it...in China roughly 1.3 billion people lives..compared to that 8.5 million is nothing...

11% of the population of an area is a huge issue.

[Deleted]

We are talking about MASS immigration and you are trying to say that 8.5 million people is not a lot of people.

On one side we have Mayhem saying it is not mass immigration.

And on the other side we have...

This lady. She seems familiar. I wonder what became of her...
BBC
Times
Guardian
Telegraph
Independent
Mirror
Express
Sun
Daily Mail
Reuters
Russia Today
Even the Peterborough Telegraph refers to mass immigration!

Mayhem versus the Prime Minister of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, as well as all out major media outlets, some foreign ones and the Peterborough Telegraph.



You putting an arbitrary timeframe on something that does not have a timeframe in its definition, is redefining the word.

If you cannot speak English to a standard required to form a coherent argument, you do not get to redefine the English language and declare yourself a winner. That is not how English works.

What you can`t understand: getting 8,5 million immigrant in the SAME TIME is mass immigration...during 5-10-20 years? No, it`s not...

- - - Updated - - -

11% of the population of an area is a huge issue.

Depends...you are alone in an island...2 other people appears..that`s 200% increase of population...problem?

[Kalis]

Sorry, but that does not make any sense...is 30k immigrant a mass immigration and a lot of people just because in San Marino the population is 30k-ish?
Or just turn it...in China roughly 1.3 billion people lives..compared to that 8.5 million is nothing...

I just posted links from numerous well known sites referring to mass immgration into the UK, including one from the UK Government quoting our Prime Minister.

[Deleted]

Depends...you are alone in an island...2 other people appears..that`s 200% increase of population...problem?

Yes? Are you being obtuse on purpose? two more people is two more people to feed, have opinions and eventually breed. Imagine out of those two people, one is a murderer.

[Kalis]

What you can`t understand: getting 8,5 million immigrant in the SAME TIME is mass immigration...during 5-10-20 years? No, it`s not...

You are arguing with a term used by the Prime Minister, BBC, Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, Mirror, Express, Sun and Daily Mail, and you think you are correct.

That is some impressive levels of delusion you have there.