The Student Room Group

What is with the fixation on 'right to live and work' in the EU

Scroll to see replies

Original post by CherishFreedom
I didn't say 'view' in my response. A collective position means that although you might not agree with it, you accept the decision because it was decided by majority.


You wrote "the British". What British are you talking about?
Original post by yudothis
You wrote "the British". What British are you talking about?


I wrote the British on the context of immigration. Your accusation that I'm imposing my views on everyone is on the referendum. The British is a general term that applies to the majority. Now if you don't like it, I can add 'majority of' in front of that if you feel more comfortable, but that won't change a thing - Brexit will still happen.

Our official position is that we are leaving the EU, it was decided by a majority vote. The government represents the British people, and are now delivering Brexit.

Now feel free to say that 48.1% don't agree with it. You don't win a majority with 48.1%.

If you are only comfortable with accepting results delivered by unanimous agreement, then democracy probably isn't for you.
Original post by CherishFreedom
I wrote the British on the context of immigration. Your accusation that I'm imposing my views on everyone is on the referendum. The British is a general term that applies to the majority. Now if you don't like it, I can add 'majority of' in front of that if you feel more comfortable, but that won't change a thing - Brexit will still happen.

Our official position is that we are leaving the EU, it was decided by a majority vote. The government represents the British people, and are now delivering Brexit.

Now feel free to say that 48.1% don't agree with it. You don't win a majority with 48.1%.

If you are only comfortable with accepting results delivered by unanimous agreement, then democracy probably isn't for you.


No. Britain is going for Brexit. You do not speak for "the British".

And how many more times, I am happy you ****ed off :smile:
Original post by yudothis
No. Britain is going for Brexit. You do not speak for "the British".

And how many more times, I am happy you ****ed off :smile:



I do not speak for the British, but the government is delivering Brexit on behalf of every British. Changes a lot isn't it? :smile:

Also nice to know someone from Germany is happy that we are leaving with such enthusiasm and maturity. Must make such a difference.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by CherishFreedom
I do not speak for the British, but the government is delivering Brexit on behalf of every British. Changes a lot isn't it? :smile:

Also nice to know someone from Germany is happy that we are leaving with such enthusiasm and maturity. Must make such a difference.


No, they are not doing it "on behalf" of "every" British. Maybe you should read your oh so nice post about majority and democracy above.

Ok then.
Original post by yudothis
No, they are not doing it "on behalf" of "every" British. Maybe you should read your oh so nice post about majority and democracy above.

Ok then.


The statement is true unless some British people can opt out of Brexit. Just because you don't like the sound of it doesn't mean it's not true.
Original post by CherishFreedom
The statement is true unless some British people can opt out of Brexit. Just because you don't like the sound of it doesn't mean it's not true.


That assumes people feel the government represents them. I doubt that's the case here.
Original post by yudothis
That assumes people feel the government represents them. I doubt that's the case here.


Democracy doesn't require unanimous agreement, only majority. The government is carrying out the referendum's instruction because it is a mandate. Brexit applies to every UK citizens even if they voted for remain.
Original post by CherishFreedom
Democracy doesn't require unanimous agreement, only majority. The government is carrying out the referendum's instruction because it is a mandate. Brexit applies to every UK citizens even if they voted for remain.


Oh wow, you keep enlightening me on this complicated issues, thanks so much!

Are you seriously trying to convince me that your generalization is adequate? Well actually, knowing what I do about you from your posts, that shouldn't be a surprise anymore.
Original post by ByEeek
I think you are crossing your wires. If we want access to the single market, we must accept free market. But that is not to say some form of watered down deal couldn't be brokered. My feeling is that the big issue is with allowing those already here to remain here. And that goes for UK Expats too. It isn't in anyone's interest to see hundreds of thousands of people turfed out of their homes and sent to a country they no longer have any contact with. And that goes for the 1+ million UK expats. If they had to come home, they would make the EU immigration we have been experiencing over the last few years look like small fry.

It's not just residence that's important-there's also the issue of whether UK expats can continue to receive free health care. Many of them are retired and can't afford to pay.
Original post by yudothis
Oh wow, you keep enlightening me on this complicated issues, thanks so much!

Are you seriously trying to convince me that your generalization is adequate? Well actually, knowing what I do about you from your posts, that shouldn't be a surprise anymore.


You got the message.

You used the word 'people' on post 168 despite knowing that it only applies to some people. Don't then lecture me on generalising because it only makes you a hypocrite.
Original post by CherishFreedom
You got the message.

You used the word 'people' on post 168 despite knowing that it only applies to some people. Don't then lecture me on generalising because it only makes you a hypocrite.


Yes some people. Not "the people" as in "the British".

You are so pathetic. I am getting tired of arguing with a child.
Original post by yudothis
Yes some people. Not "the people" as in "the British".

You are so pathetic. I am getting tired of arguing with a child.


British people are not people?

By that standard you've set, I can refer to majority of or some British people as 'the British'.
Original post by saayagain
Made by the government perhaps. As I said, people will have to revolt and change the government. Parties will arise which will reject the dominant economic ideology in some way.

Currently, this does not happen because they can just move here and earn 5 times as much as they would in the home country.

People from broken countries generally agree with the ideology that made it broken, and when they become immigrants to better run countries they cling to their belief that the home country's way was better. People are not rational.

It won't end with the control of migrants.

What does badly governed mean?

So you want these countries to develop more right? Good. Tell the Western countries to share technology and allow the advancement of their economies instead of giving them freedom of movement :smile:

I don't really care if they develop more; it isn't my problem.

They don't fail to develop because of technology secretz. Hardly any technology is secret; the vast majority of all basic research is published with no restriction. They fail to develop because of their bad politics, not lack of physical resources or technical knowledge.
Original post by Observatory
People from broken countries generally agree with the ideology that made it broken, and when they become immigrants to better run countries they cling to their belief that the home country's way was better. People are not rational.




So all these extremist Muslims of Pakistani heritage don't really want a Caliphate. What they really want is governments alternating between military juntas and corrupt businessmen professing Peronism.
Original post by nulli tertius
So all these extremist Muslims of Pakistani heritage don't really want a Caliphate. What they really want is governments alternating between military juntas and corrupt businessmen professing Peronism.


Pakistan is ruled by military juntas to keep the Islamists out of power. Islamism may not be the ruling ideology in Pakistan but it is a major popular one.

If Britain fills up with Pakistani muslims we will need juntas too.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Observatory
People from broken countries generally agree with the ideology that made it broken, and when they become immigrants to better run countries they cling to their belief that the home country's way was better. People are not rational.


What are you talking about? How is this relevant to the freedom of movement?

Are you afraid that migrants will make your country worse by accepting corrupt governments? Is this what Brexit was about?

I gave you the overview of the impact of freedom of movement and how it prevents development elsewhere.

Original post by Observatory
I don't really care if they develop more; it isn't my problem.

They don't fail to develop because of technology secretz. Hardly any technology is secret; the vast majority of all basic research is published with no restriction. They fail to develop because of their bad politics, not lack of physical resources or technical knowledge.


It is in the interest of the richer countries to prevent development in the poorer countries. Countries are competing with each other. etc etc

It's quite simple.
Original post by CherishFreedom
You know, it's a fair deal that we offer citizenship to those who we feel can in return offer us their skill. They apply for citizenship because obviously they feel like they can have a better life in the UK. It is isn't just one sided, the UK has to dedicate its resources to maintain the rights and benefits of the citizenship, including the public service.

I think by implying that we should accept them even if they are a net loss for the UK, you are asking for charity. If the UK has an apatite to be charitable to all immigrants, the government would have a mandate. However this is not the case, the Conservatives manifesto actually pledged to reduce immigration. Since they are elected as government, they have a mandate to reduce it.

You simply can't shame someone just because they refuse to do something that is outside of their duty and responsibility. In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to expect something in return for the expense of granting citizenships.


And some how all of this will make the working class's lives better eh...

I think that all peoples of all nations should band together to guarantee a specific standard of living for all. This battle between nations concept is bs.
Original post by saayagain
What are you talking about? How is this relevant to the freedom of movement?

Are you afraid that migrants will make your country worse by accepting corrupt governments? Is this what Brexit was about?

By the current selection mechanisms, I am pretty much certain migrants will make my country worse.

I gave you the overview of the impact of freedom of movement and how it prevents development elsewhere.

Whatever.

It is in the interest of the richer countries to prevent development in the poorer countries. Countries are competing with each other. etc etc

It's quite simple.

If countries were competing with each other then the USA would rule most of the world.

Countries are not competing with each other and that is the problem.

Corrupt, stupid populations want to live under government of honest, intelligent populations. The best way to do this is imperialism, not mass immigration.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by saayagain
And some how all of this will make the working class's lives better eh...

I think that all peoples of all nations should band together to guarantee a specific standard of living for all. This battle between nations concept is bs.


What I was saying are pretty fundamental tbh, it is best to have a system where both sides can consent to and can mutually benefit.

You can't just force someone to accept something they don't want, and then take a moral high ground by accusing that person being 'not generous enough'. It is very grand and easy for you to say we should guarantee a specific minimum standard of living for all, but when you think about the scale of things, it is very difficult and not everyone is willing. You simply don't speak for everyone. Many people have different judgements on immigration to you, and you have to accept those differences.

It is not even about competition between nations. The scenario is more fundamental. Imagine you are the PM and you decide to spend everyone's money to a cause that 52% of people disagree with, you'd those people to oppose you because you are in effect spending their money against their will. You can't pretend to be the better person by saying that they are not generous enough, because you are simply trying to force your standard of 'generosity' on others. You might as well take their money and say 'I'll spend it for you because you don't know how to spend it wisely'.

Quick Reply

Latest