The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

England for the English?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by karl pilkington
Do you think that England should be for the English or be opened up to the world and everyone/anyone who wants to be allowed to live here?


By English, are you referring to the people who were born here?
As long as areas in England are mainly English people it's fine it is unfair to be pushed out of your country, mainly because of our own government. The UK shops, businesses, government has to adapt to the majority of UK people, so it is unfair if the majority aren't English as where would we live?
Original post by cherryred90s
By English, are you referring to the people who were born here?


English are anyone whose Great Grandparents were born here
Again someone else who is obsessed with money. If you live an an area where you no longer feel like it is your home then why would you want even more foreigners coming here. The state should protect the native culture and identity by completely halting all immigration.
I can tell you have never experienced or lived in situations where you have to compete with migrants for jobs or live where they live.

I suppose you think 100% of a workforce in local factories being foreign is acceptable meaning higher local unemployment (which the numbers become skewed due to the population rising but employment staying the same)

Oh and less bad but still a little annoying is in recent years every time I went for college interviews there has always been a Polish person wanting to do skilled courses, they always ask the same question "will I get a grant to be here" and when asked how long they have been there they say "4 years" the minimum time to qualify for state stupport.
Original post by cherryred90s
By English, are you referring to the people who were born here?


Apparently by Karls rule you can only be English if you are at least 4th generation and have a culture that is English or Irish.
Original post by 999tigger
Apparently by Karls rule you can only be English if you are at least 4th generation and have a culture that is English or Irish.


Interesting
Original post by cherryred90s
Interesting


I didnt get on to ask him about what eh would do with those that were only third generation or less or had a non irish culture.
Personalising a political issue? Because I don't like when things like statistics are skewed to suit agendas and bias?

I don't think people should be punished but if British workforces are being fired and foreign to replace them then thats not right.

I can't bring in YOUR personal situation but you can bring up mine? Double standard there

Please enlighten me to where I said EU migrants WEREN'T contributors? Since i never said that.

By the way my grandparents were Polish migrants.
Original post by Josb
An "economic equalisation" would concretely mean a massive wealth transfer to Third world countries and we would be much poorer.


It's not just a literal transfer of wealth to make them richer and us poorer, as though there's a limited amount of "money" in the world. It's more of a cooperation for mutual benefit.

For example, free movement gives companies a wider labour pool that they can employ people from, and access to a wider customer base that they can sell to. It gives individuals a greater choice of places they can go and work, and a wider choice of goods and services that they can purchase.

Overall, competitiveness increases which incentivises improvement in the quality of the goods and services we can all purchase (which is the whole point of being wealthy).

It would mean everyone is better off, although third world countries would improve more than first world countries.
Original post by karl pilkington
Your example doesn't make any sense if you look at a prosperous country like Japan or Germany they are very hard working and have a high wage manufacturing based economy.


They would be even more prosperous with a larger, tariff free market they can sell to, and a wider potential workforce.

They just happen to be the ones who are ahead of the current competition.

Also the economy has recently seen a boost in manufacturing as our exports are more competitive so the Brexit stuff was kind of nonsense.


Actually this statement is nonsense. It's like losing a £50 note, finding a £1 coin and then feeling really happy about it.

There's little point in receiving more money for our exports when the value of our money has nosedived so significantly, and anything we want to buy has become that much more expensive.

Overall, it's a matter of fact that our country is poorer since Brexit.

Also your replies are way too long/involved


That's because they don't just consider the situation from a superficial point of view.
Original post by tazarooni89
They would be even more prosperous with a larger, tariff free market they can sell to, and a wider potential workforce.

They just happen to be the ones who are ahead of the current competition.



Actually this statement is nonsense. It's like losing a £50 note, finding a £1 coin and then feeling really happy about it.

There's little point in receiving more money for our exports when the value of our money has nosedived so significantly, and anything we want to buy has become that much more expensive.

Overall, it's a matter of fact that our country is poorer since Brexit.



That's because they don't just consider the situation from a superficial point of view.


you do realise that we haven't actually left the EU and any financial volatility can be expected from an uncertain political environment. Also the value of currency has gone down due to 'quantitative easing' and other factors. We won't know how Brexit will affect the economy long term for at least a decade.
Original post by karl pilkington
Do you think that England should be for the English or be opened up to the world and everyone/anyone who wants to be allowed to live here?


Considering the English/British empire colonized 1/4th of the word you have a bloody check to moan about foreigners.
Original post by Marcus2016
Considering the English/British empire colonized 1/4th of the word you have a bloody check to moan about foreigners.


oh here we go this is another one of the most overused arguments. Firstly this happened over one hundred years ago. I was not alive then nor were you or anyone else in this country. Just because something bad happened in the distant past doesn't mean that we have to keep destroying our own nation because we feel bad. We also brought a lot of good things to the world through development and the industrial revolution. Almost all major nations have done bad things in the past.
Original post by karl pilkington
oh here we go this is another one of the most overused arguments. Firstly this happened over one hundred years ago. I was not alive then nor were you or anyone else in this country. Just because something bad happened in the distant past doesn't mean that we have to keep destroying our own nation because we feel bad. We also brought a lot of good things to the world through development and the industrial revolution. Almost all major nations have done bad things in the past.


Well okay, lets go to a more modern time, Iraq and Libya both pretty big messes, both of which were contributed to by the UK (admittedly not the sole cause). Secondly you say "we have to keep destroying this country." Immigrants do not destroy this country, they contribute to it.

I would also just add this quote from the economist which is rather telling.
By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons.
Original post by Marcus2016
Well okay, lets go to a more modern time, Iraq and Libya both pretty big messes, both of which were contributed to by the UK (admittedly not the sole cause). Secondly you say "we have to keep destroying this country." Immigrants do not destroy this country, they contribute to it.

I would also just add this quote from the economist which is rather telling.
By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons.


What's Iraq and Libya got to do with anything. Firstly the people of Libya wanted us to help them also I was against both of those conflicts. Most immigrants come from Pakistan. Also the other bit is kind of nonsense numerous studies have shown that immigration has no measurable effect on the economy. It also pushes down wages and increases house prices so the effects are diminished by this. Also as I said earlier I don't really care about the money side of it I meant gradually destroying our culture/way of life.
All nations have a duty to serve and protect their own citizens over others, this works both ways. we need to cut immigration, lower foreign aid and improve relationships with the commonwealth and the Anglosphere
Original post by Wōden
Allowing in vast numbers of migrants will ultimately destroy the unique ethnic and cultural identity of an indigenous people. That is what we want to protect against. Japan does it, they are unashamedly nationalistic, and whilst they do allow a small amount of immigration, it is still made it very clear that Japan is for the Japanese and that guests must conform to their culture and customs. And nobody bats an eyelid at this, Japan is not called "racist" or "xenophobic". Why are the Europeans, especially the English, denied the same right?


I believe the the problem is that the issue of immigrations has been hijacked by ultra nationalists in Europe as other serious political parties have been ignoring the question. That is the case here in Sweden were the big political parties have been ignoring the issue for years which has resulted in a once small populistic party with 3% of the votes 15 years ago, now has ammassed over 10%. All the major parties see the problem, but they are too afraid of talking about because someone will call them racist.
Original post by karl pilkington
you do realise that we haven't actually left the EU and any financial volatility can be expected from an uncertain political environment.


Yes, but it also depends on what type of uncertainty it is, and whether it provides for more upside potential or more downside potential.

If Brexit were definitely good for the economy (but we were just uncertain as to how good it would be), we wouldn't have a problem. But it's the much larger immediate downside potential that has led to, not only financial volatility, but an overall deterioration in our prosperity.

Also the value of currency has gone down due to 'quantitative easing' and other factors.


Not just because of that. The value of the currency dropped the moment the referendum result was confirmed.

We won't know how Brexit will affect the economy long term for at least a decade.


Now that is true - but the only way Brexit would be beneficial for the economy long term is if the UK were to negotiate equivalent deals with other countries in the world, that it couldn't have done while it was part of the EU.

If it's leaving the European Union for the sake of creating other unions with other countries, that might be fine, in the long term. But then those unions will also need to involve freedom of movement of goods, services, labour and capital (to some degree).

If it left the EU to pursue an isolationist policy of total self-sufficiency, that would definitely be bad for the economy.
Reply 79
Avatar for Recont
Recont
16
Original post by Wōden
Allowing in vast numbers of migrants will ultimately destroy the unique ethnic and cultural identity of an indigenous people. That is what we want to protect against. Japan does it, they are unashamedly nationalistic, and whilst they do allow a small amount of immigration, it is still made it very clear that Japan is for the Japanese and that guests must conform to their culture and customs. And nobody bats an eyelid at this, Japan is not called "racist" or "xenophobic". Why are the Europeans, especially the English, denied the same right?

Emm, how immigrants can ruin identity of locals? Usually locals do not communicate with immigrants and immigrants stay in their ethnic immigrant group.

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you