Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Shame For Britain As BNP Win European Parliament Seats

page: 18
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
For those traitors, those liars, those smoke and mirrors merchants who dismiss Britain as a "land of immigrants", your arguments are ridiculous- you refer back to the Romans

Does that mean we should react in a similar manner........

www.dailymail.co.uk...


Is this a sign of things to come if the BNP get into power? Anyone that disagrees with them gets branded a traitor and a liar?

Interesting...

[edit on 12-6-2009 by mattpryor]




posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor
Is this a sign of things to come if the BNP get into power? Anyone that disagrees with them gets branded a traitor and a liar?

Interesting...

[edit on 12-6-2009 by mattpryor]



I am not specifically referring to anyone who is "anti bnp", I am referring to those purveyors in deceit who try and stifle honest debate about immigration by blandly saying "we are a nation of immigrants"

There has never been immigration on such a scale, and when some try and say ridiculous things referencing events over a thousand years ago, such as the romans, do they think it was a non violent migration then......



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


"My own view is that Nationalist politics are simply outdated. They don't work any more because the concept of nation has changed. It might be regrettable to some degree, we may lose some things that we held dear, but on the other hand globalisation gives us so much in return."

Globalization is based on David Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. One of the central assumptions of that theory is that capitalists will reemploy their capital in their own country to produce a product with a comparative advantage.

The reality is that capitalists often don't keep their capital in their own country. They move it to other countries and build factories in those countries with lower wages.

Globalisation has effectively turned into wage arbitrage. Essentially a race to find the cheapest labour around the globe with the poorest and least skilled in the West being the chief losers because the factories they used to work in are now in China.

The chief winner of globalisation are the holders of capital - people with money who can invest it in the parts of the world where returns are higher due to lower input costs (primarily cheaper non British labour). The chief loser is the British worker at the bottom. The net effect is that the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.

"The reason Griffin stance on immigration is so absurd is that it suggests that by removing the immigrant workers you remove the problem. You don't. In effect you create an economic disaster for the country by removing cheaper labour and forcing running costs up wildly. That isn't a sustainable way forward."

Perhaps but perhaps not. It was predicted that the introduction of the minimum wage would have the effect of costing jobs and wildly driving up costs. It did neither.

You appear to be assuming that those goods and services which will revert to their previous higher cost could be supplied from abroad at a cheaper rate or are for export.

Many, many types of goods and services can be neither exported nor imported i.e. the services sector in general. When you pay an Eastern European waiter less than a British waiter that isn't creating a more competitive Britain. It is merely redistributing wealth away from the bottom of society upwards.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the vast majority of immigrants who work in the UK, work in the domestic service sector and haven't reduced the cost or increased the competitiveness of UK exports in any significant way.

Globalisation has made the rich, richer. The poor have watched their manufacturing jobs disappear to China to be replaced with low paid service jobs.

Mass immigration into the UK has pushed the wages of the lowest paid in down.

The BNP is the only party that isn't ignoring the fact that British people at the bottom are the ones who are being squeezed.

Of course the Oxbridge dominated Tory, Labour and Liberal parties don't want to pay any attention to the plight of the working class - they are the ones enjoying the fruits of capitalisation and mass immigration.



[edit on 12-6-2009 by gpzrd350]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   


Correct me if I am wrong, but the vast majority of immigrants who work in the UK, work in the domestic service sector and haven't reduced the cost or increased the competitiveness of UK exports in any significant way.


Can I point out a few corrections to this:

Although a few immigrants do work in the domestic service, alot more work in the construction industry, petro chemicals industry etc, at a subsidised wage related pay to that off British Workers.

To add to this a British worker says is paid £7.00 per hour,

An immigrant is paid £3.20 per hour, this does not include the so called rent which emplyers supposingly pay for them. Most off the immigrant I have seen where I work all day with just one meal, because they cannot afford to buy for themselves.

Basically alot of immigrants come here to work, are used for cheap labour nothing else. I would like someone to say I am wrong, But I know I am right, I have seen this first hand. Alot of the Emplyers in the UK are doing this and the Gov knows about it. Either they turn a blind eye or do not want to know.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Laurauk]

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


There has never been immigration on such a scale, and when some try and say ridiculous things referencing events over a thousand years ago, such as the romans, do they think it was a non violent migration then......

Europe is not having enough children and we are facing a demographic squeeze in the future when the West will have too few people working and too many old people to support.

Western governments seem to see the solution as mass immigration. This has the unfortunate side effect that many Europeans do not welcome the wave of non European immigrants and the introduction of mass non European culture and relgion in their own homelands.

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to implement economic policies that encourage Europeans to have more children?

Surely that would avoid the demographic timebomb and also respect the wishes of a significant proportion of the European population who do not want mass immigration from the third world?



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


Although a few immigrants do work in the domestic service, alot more work in the construction industry, petro chemicals industry etc, at a subsidised wage related pay to that off British Workers.

The UK domestic construction industry, by definition, does not export, so paying cheap wages to immigrants merely benefits the shareholders' of those constrction companies at the expense of working class British workers.

Effectively a redistribution of UK wealth from the bottom upwards.

The Petrochemical industry does export so effectively the UK GDP does get bigger but still the working class workers at the bottom are being cut out.

Wealth is being created and also redistributed upwards.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by gpzrd350
Europe is not having enough children and we are facing a demographic squeeze in the future when the West will have too few people working and too many old people to support.

Western governments seem to see the solution as mass immigration. This has the unfortunate side effect that many Europeans do not welcome the wave of non European immigrants and the introduction of mass non European culture and relgion in their own homelands.

Wouldn't a simpler solution be to implement economic policies that encourage Europeans to have more children?

Surely that would avoid the demographic timebomb and also respect the wishes of a significant proportion of the European population who do not want mass immigration from the third world?


you are bang on the money, of course.

The problem with this is twofold

* Immigration is viewed as a plus by a liberal/left political class which hates British (I am talkin from a British example) history, culture, tradition etc- the promotion of large scale immigration has allowed the notion of multi culturalism to be promoted to help these people attack the host nation.

* The same liberal/left political class has promoted the politics of family disfunction, abortion, dismissal of marriage etc since the 1960s- as you say, birth rates are now low.

It will take massive movement on behalf of such people to rectify this situation- clearly, like you say, promoting bigger families in the indigenous/host populace was the obvious and most effective (whether financially or socially/culturally), but we are dealing with a class which is mired in the above two mindsets



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by gpzrd350
 


And why are the working class being cut out?

Because Employers are using Immigrant workers as cheap labour. UK Employees have to be payed the minimum wage. Where employers can pay immigrant workers what ever they like, while trying to cover this by Stating that they also pay for the immigrant workers rent. Which in somecases, those immigrant workers live in none more less than a squatters pad.

Emplyers are getting away with this and they know they are.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 


You are absolutely 1000% correct!!

It is the employers who are employing foreigners and not British citizens. The heads of these companies are probably British so why is no anger directed towards them?

I do think the government is partly to blame for the following reasons.

The government do not pay enough attention to the people who will then look for some one who will, this creates a situation where the people can be easily manipulated.

The lesson from history, Hitler was able to take control because of the failings of the last rulers. He gave the people pride and strength but was himself tainted by, no other way to put it madness.

I will read up on the BNPs policies as soon as I can but does anyone know what they would do if they came to power.

Hypothetically speaking, If I was the head of a party like the BNP I would probably bring in racial tests to see if you are British, Aryan etc. Now how many of you BNP supporters would like it if they could profile your DNA and say hmm sorry you are not racially pure enough. Then you would be the outsider.

Also people are not stupid ( I know some of you would beg to differ). Everyone knows what the BNP is about and what they stand for. If you voted for them because they put a leaflet through your front door!! Need I say more. If you dont like any parties then dont vote.


[edit on 12-6-2009 by bharata]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bharata
 


As someone said on a Programe last night that I watched, and this was a ordinary citizen, and not an mp, reporter or anyone on the discussion panel,:

You cannot blame the fringe, extreme parties or the main parties for this.

There has and will always be Racism in the UK. No matter which party incites this.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by Laurauk]



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gpzrd350
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 



Globalisation has effectively turned into wage arbitrage. Essentially a race to find the cheapest labour around the globe with the poorest and least skilled in the West being the chief losers because the factories they used to work in are now in China.

The chief winner of globalisation are the holders of capital - people with money who can invest it in the parts of the world where returns are higher due to lower input costs (primarily cheaper non British labour). The chief loser is the British worker at the bottom. The net effect is that the poor get poorer while the rich get richer.




I don't dispute your points about capitalism and the widening gap between rich and poor. The latter is indeed indisputable. I'm simply saying it isn't a race issue. It's an economic issue. What the BNP does is take the theory that you have put forward, and pin the blame for it not on the holders of capital but on the immigrants themselves.

For sure there is a huge problem with widening wage gaps and the advancing wealth of the very rich compared to the increased poverty at the other end of the scale. But the idea that you can simply boot out an entire population of settled workers in order to reduce that gap is simply idiotic. You might be dealing with a symptom but the sickness will remain.

I would advocate a more reasoned economic redistribution based on higher taxes for the rich and lower for the poor, greater welfare payments and subsidies for deserving, not undeserving industries. The reason I advocate that is because economically those ideas make sense to me. The BNP's arguments - quite aside from the utterly loathsome ethical barbarism they display - don't make any sense economically at all.



Mass immigration into the UK has pushed the wages of the lowest paid in down.

The BNP is the only party that isn't ignoring the fact that British people at the bottom are the ones who are being squeezed.

Of course the Oxbridge dominated Tory, Labour and Liberal parties don't want to pay any attention to the plight of the working class - they are the ones enjoying the fruits of capitalisation and mass immigration.

[edit on 12-6-2009 by gpzrd350]


Speaking as an Oxbridge educated Liberal voter, I can tell you my fruit bowl, and those of the majority of my university peers, remains pretty much bare of the "fruits of capitalisation". We didn't have special classes set up on How To Take Advantage of People Worse Off Than Oneself, believe it or not. Neither was my education paid for. I worked for it. But actually I take offence not at the generalisation but at the absurd over-simplification of the problem.

LW



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneWeasel
 


Speaking as an Oxbridge educated Liberal voter, I can tell you my fruit bowl, and those of the majority of my university peers, remains pretty much bare of the "fruits of capitalisation". We didn't have special classes set up on How To Take Advantage of People Worse Off Than Oneself, believe it or not. Neither was my education paid for. I worked for it. But actually I take offence not at the generalisation but at the absurd over-simplification of the problem.


No need to take offence, not unless you are an MP. I was talking about Oxbridge educated MPs, not Oxbridge graduates in general. No offence was intended, not unless you are an MP. I apologise for not making myself clearer.


But the idea that you can simply boot out an entire population of settled workers in order to reduce that gap is simply idiotic. You might be dealing with a symptom but the sickness will remain.


I presume that the sickness is 'racism'. Is that correct?


I would advocate a more reasoned economic redistribution based on higher taxes for the rich and lower for the poor, greater welfare payments and subsidies for deserving, not undeserving industries. The reason I advocate that is because economically those ideas make sense to me.


If talented people and capital are allowed to freely move from country to country, then they will simply leave the high tax UK and then the total tax revenue will actually drop. Maryland in the USA has recently found that taxing millionaires at a high rate leads to missing millionaires who have simply moved to another state.

Subsidies are illegal under EU law except on the grounds of national security.

The reason why the poor get saddled with much of the taxes is because they can't do much about it, unlike the rich whose person and capital are often mobile.



posted on Jun, 12 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
I don't know if anyone's pointed this out already but I find it interesting that the title is not 'Shame for Britain as majority no longer feel the need to vote' but 'Shame for Britain as BNP wins two EU seats'.

It makes it seem more like the issue they don't like is the voters, not the non-voters who could have prevented it easily.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:12 AM
link   
A YouGov poll, which was commissioned by Migrationwatch for the Cross Party Group on Balanced Migration, found that 79 per cent of people were “concerned” or “very concerned” about the issue of immigration.

Net foreign immigration – the number of immigrants minus the number of emigrants – has run at about 300,000 a year for the last five years.

* 17% of adults questioned believed that net foreign immigration should be reduced to 50,000 a year – a level last seen in the early 1990s.
* 39% of adults thought that there should be no net immigration (i.e. the number of immigrants should reflect the number of emigrants).
* 16% of adults thought there should be more emigrants than immigrants.

www.migrationwatchuk.org...



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   
The simple fact is that our "leaders" will not listen to the people, we have no say in whether we join the EU, adopt the Euro, and they will not discuss immigration.

This is something that must be addressed, we cannot continue to allow the mass immigration of people from the 3rd World who want to come here & live on benefits & state handouts.

Sure some immigrants want to come here to work in meaningful jobs, but many are uneducated, unskilled, and want to live for free of the taxpayer - they travel half way around the World to get here, refusing to stay in other countries on the way, because we are too soft.

The UK, & other countries in Europe are virtually bankrupt - our defecits & debts are huge.

It isn't racism to discuss these issues & to oppose mass imigration, it is essential if our country isn't going to collapse economically, and if the only party that will address the problem is the BNP then they'll get more votes.

Watch this video & tell me why these people want to come here, & what they can offer this country:

www.france24.com...

www.france24.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Laurauk
 



Plus the employers save a fortune in National Insurance contributions. If you employ someone earning even minimum wage the employee pays approaching double figure % of their earnings in NI contributions.

The employer pays I think around 13% of the employees income as NI contributions.

So you go from say 300 British workers all paying tax & NI & the employer paying NI, to 300 cheap labour workers paying zero tax, zero NI, and the employer paying zero NI.

You go from 300 people using services & contributing to pay for them, to 600 people using the Health service, education, transport, etc, you have a big chunk of 300 people claiming benefits, & no money coming in to cover any of it.

Therefore the rest of the taxpayers pick up the bill & the winners are the employers who's workforce is now subsidised by the taxpayer.

More Labour lying, cheating, and deceit.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   


Subsidies are illegal under EU law except on the grounds of national security.


Well it seems tome that they, the so called ministers in the EU, turn a blind eye to this, France is bad for giving subsidies to thier citizens, that has been going on for years. But still the EU turn a blind eye to it.

The eu is just as bad as the UK parliament. Its a no wonder hardly anyone went out and voted during the EU Elections.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by mattpryor


Is this a sign of things to come if the BNP get into power? Anyone that disagrees with them gets branded a traitor and a liar?

Interesting...

[edit on 12-6-2009 by mattpryor]


But isn't that exactly what you are guilty of....anyone who disagrees with your opinion must be castigated, even banned!

Interesting...

Hypocrisy and double standards methinks



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Subsidies to business are illegal under EU competition law unless it is a national security issue.

Still, governments can presumably give 'loans' to businesses that never gets paid back.

Even the concept of national security could be construed very widely.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I hope its not regarded as ot, but I just read this article after being directed from Rense

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Some of the feedback seems to be saying that uncontrolled immigration is to blame for California going bust.

It also says that wealthy people have been leaving the area taking money and business with them, because they are fed up supporting illegal aliens.

This is the sort of future the BNP are warning us about surely ?

[edit on 13-6-2009 by bigyin]





new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 15  16  17    19  20 >>

log in

join