Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

[afcftw]

Mate, if the people at the negotiating table believe the consensus of opinion within the leave camp was that immigration was the key factor - which Cameron has supposedly already said, then it makes freedom of movement a non negotiable. Which in turn means we'll be at that table for literally years. We'll be royally ****ed if that's the stance they take, but conversely, if they're right (which I think they definitely are) then to come back with free trade and free movement makes the entire process a complete nonsense in terms of it delivering what the populous seemingly wanted.

No wonder Cameron lobbed the grenade into Boris's hands.

It's a complete mess. Leave have said they had no strategy for any of this post the actual vote ffs! I mean what the actual ****

Clearly immigration was a key factor for a lot of voters, but both Boris and Osbourne, who would appear to be from differing factions of the Tory party have alluded to free movement of people being on the table. I think governments tend to be quite happy to **** over the voters to do what they want tbh

 

[swanseaandproud]

Because treble they lied to get their votes that's why parliament should totally ignore the advisory vote because that's all it is and use their positions and have a free vote and vote for what's best for our country as the public don't know what coming out really means if Boris don't......

 

[afcftw]

I have a genuine question around free movement. One of the problems for me, is that the UK benefits system will attract immigration. My own view is we could reduce immigration by making the UK less attractive (in terms of benefits), however this needs to be across the board and include our own "work shy" population, (this is a further debate for another day!!).
I know Cameron, last year managed to negotiate some concessions, but they didn't meet his initial demands.
If free movement is the price to pay for access to trade, are we now able to impose restrictions to benefits to discourage economic migrants?

That's a good point and one I'd have to look into further, not sure if the rules on benefits are intrinsically linked to the principle of free movement or not

 

[Treble]

I supported them to achieve an EU referendum because of factors not linked to immigration. It seemed the most likely way to achieve a route out of the EU. I'm not a UKIP voter in the way people seem to declare themselves for the tories or labour and vote that way regardless and identify with some kind of social status because of it. I'm happy to switch parties to achieve what I think is best for the country and I couldn't care less if people aren't happy with a compromise on free movement.

I completely accept there will be lots of angry people when inevitably the compromise is made. And despite being a supporter of leaving the EU I did try to point this out to people before the referendum took place.

Ok, but it's like a political party promising something central to their manifesto, and then the day after renegging on it. If you voted for them on their manifesto you're ****ed off and hard done by. If you voted against them and lost, you feel ****ed off and hard done by. Or to put it another way, had the likes of Boris and Gove fought the referendum on the issues they could deliver, would they have got the result? In that sense, the minority have got their way (you being part of that minority - no disrespect).

 

[DMD]

Professionals with degrees who were retired or who worked in Maccies D's?

Don't bother letting me know about the students pal, as I already know their general consensus in the Yorkshire region

Hull is a backwater full of inbred, spineless, **** house, bigots, I lived there for years. When the Eatern Europeans moved into the Avenues and Beverley Road, the local feckless population weren't chuffed to say the least we're they

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

The Eastern Europeans have pretty much been welcomed from the get go. There were some from other countries that ended up being moved on because of issues they created, and the eastern europeans were in full agreement with the locals and help make the point. The more recent europeans are having fall outs with the earlier settlers.

We're a port and a University City that has strong historic links with Europe and the rest of the world which is why up until very recently, new arrivals tended to be happy to settle where they liked, rather than feeling the need to congregate together. More recent arrivals have been lumped together by clueless out of town types that didn't listen to the locals,because they thought they knew best and made money out of it. Sounds familiar.

Of course, no doubt you'll know better than us mere local types.

 

[afcftw]

As I've said, it will leave a lot of voters pissed off that immigration hasn't changed. But, it's either that of we will have to accept that there will be tarriffs involved.

If we get completely unfettered trade with Europe - sort of associate member status, possibly we won't suffer as much. But, damage has already been done and some of it is probably irreparable.

But it's more than that, the EU has ploughed a lot of money into the UK to support various projects. That will all go. Projects like crossrail I think are ****ed TBH!

Mainly, I ask myself why? Why have we traded, particularly at this time of fragility in the economic cycle, the recovery we had going nicely for all this chaos and uncertainty.

I very much hope, for the UK's sake that this bright new future actually exists. But, I must say that I'm highly sceptical.

If long term our economy isn't effected negatively due to a trade deal then there will be a saving in membership fees that can be used to plug the gap in EU funding.

I can understand scepticism by the way, I didn't think enough people would go for the chance at the bright future over the perceived stability of the current one, which I suppose is why the immigration card was so overplayed during the campaign. It does annoy me that the real facts weren't just presented and that the campaign wasn't focused on actually informing people about what the two different options were.

 

[Treble]

Because treble they lied to get their votes that's why parliament should totally ignore the advisory vote because that's all it is and use their positions and have a free vote and vote for what's best for our country as the public don't know what coming out really means if Boris don't......

I think the main problem with this is it could cause serious widespread civil unrest. EVEN IF some people realise what they voted for wasn't true, there will still be far too many who won't realise it and probably riot. And then you'll have some who voted out for other reasons who will be pissed off. Look at what's happening with the Remain lot protesting en mass outside parliament tonight.

 

[afcftw]

Ok, but it's like a political party promising something central to their manifesto, and then the day after renegging on it. If you voted for them on their manifesto you're ****ed off and hard done by. If you voted against them and lost, you feel ****ed off and hard done by. Or to put it another way, had the likes of Boris and Gove fought the referendum on the issues they could deliver, would they have got the result? In that sense, the minority have got their way (you being part of that minority - no disrespect).

Like the tories saying they would cut immigration to the tens of thousands? Or like the Lib Dems saying they would remove university fees? Or Labours new mayor Khan promising a total freeze of transport costs in the capital? Political parties constantly lie to achieve there own aims and routes to power. If they all told the truth the voter numbers would be very different in lots of situations I'm sure. And yes, once a deal is done it may well end up being a minority who get there way, as is so often the case.

 

[pieguts]

What about the many hundreds of thousands that come for jobs? I don't think restrictions on benefits will have much of an impact. It's economic migration that we kept being told was the main problem. Now that's changed?

I did say in one of my first posts on this thread, that we, the U.K., need immigration to be successful. If the skills are needed then welcome. Sorry if the above post didn't make that clear.
My comments relate to the economic migrants, that see the UK as some kind of "cash cow" to be milked at their leisure. Surely, if our benefits system was less attractive to these people (and our own work shy), the numbers would naturally reduce. However, it seems to me that Cameron, when trying to address this issue, was unable to get all he wanted.
My question then remains, in the event of allowing free movement for trade, are we able to set the appropriate level of benefits which will ultimately deter economic migrants?

 

[pieguts]

Because treble they lied to get their votes that's why parliament should totally ignore the advisory vote because that's all it is and use their positions and have a free vote and vote for what's best for our country as the public don't know what coming out really means if Boris don't......

Both sides lied to get there points across. And a free vote for what's best for the country, when have politicians ever done what's best for the country!

 

[Treble]

Like the tories saying they would cut immigration to the tens of thousands? Or like the Lib Dems saying they would remove university fees? Or Labours new mayor Khan promising a total freeze of transport costs in the capital? Political parties constantly lie to achieve there own aims and routes to power. If they all told the truth the voter numbers would be very different in lots of situations I'm sure. And yes, once a deal is done it may well end up being a minority who get there way, as is so often the case.

Yep very much like that. But the difference is (as we keep being told) you can vote those people/parties out. This referendum is finite. There's no undoing that.

 

[Tobes]

Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?

The Eastern Europeans have pretty much been welcomed from the get go. There were some from other countries that ended up being moved on because of issues they created, and the eastern europeans were in full agreement with the locals and help make the point. The more recent europeans are having fall outs with the earlier settlers.

We're a port and a University City that has strong historic links with Europe and the rest of the world which is why up until very recently, new arrivals tended to be happy to settle where they liked, rather than feeling the need to congregate together. More recent arrivals have been lumped together by clueless out of town types that didn't listen to the locals,because they thought they knew best and made money out of it. Sounds familiar.

Of course, no doubt you'll know better than us mere local types.

Were they **** as like, you can't bullshit me on this one as I ****ing lived there and have direct knowledge of the issues that Eastern Europeans faced there. The Eastern Europeans were scorned and still are.

A port City that traded in fish from local trawler men since the 80's it's been nothing more than a ferry port and container terminal.

I brought some of the first polish skilled labour immigrants into Hull in the mid 2000's and housed them off Holderness Road. They were abused and had to relocate because of it.

It's one of the most insular, small minded, provincial **** holes in the entire country.

 

[DMD]

I did say in one of my first posts on this thread, that we, the U.K., need immigration to be successful. If the skills are needed then welcome. Sorry if the above post didn't make that clear.
My comments relate to the economic migrants, that see the UK as some kind of "cash cow" to be milked at their leisure. Surely, if our benefits system was less attractive to these people (and our own work shy), the numbers would naturally reduce. However, it seems to me that Cameron, when trying to address this issue, was unable to get all he wanted.
My question then remains, in the event of allowing free movement for trade, are we able to set the appropriate level of benefits which will ultimately deter economic migrants?

No need to alter the social security system, well not for that reason anyway, as our economy is doomed and the pound is worthless, so why would they want to come here from what must be Shangri La in Europe anyway.

 

[pieguts]

Were they **** as like, you can't bullshit me on this one as I ****ing lived there and have direct knowledge of the issues that Eastern Europeans faced there. The Eastern Europeans were scorned and still are.

A port City that traded in fish from local trawler men since the 80's it's been nothing more than a ferry port and container terminal.

I brought some of the first polish skilled labour immigrants into Hull in the mid 2000's and housed them off Holderness Road. They were abused and had to relocate because of it.

It's one of the most insular, small minded, provincial **** holes in the entire country.

You mean my fish fingers don't come from Hull !!

 

[DMD]

Were they **** as like, you can't bullshit me on this one as I ****ing lived there and have direct knowledge of the issues that Eastern Europeans faced there. The Eastern Europeans were scorned and still are.

A port City that traded in fish from local trawler men since the 80's it's been nothing more than a ferry port and container terminal.

I brought some of the first polish skilled labour immigrants into Hull in the mid 2000's and housed them off Holderness Road. They were abused and had to relocate because of it.

It's one of the most insular, small minded, provincial **** holes in the entire country.

Of course, your time here clearly outstrips people like me that have only spent a lifetime here.

Had you been brighter, you'd know that the fishing trade was a relatively recent and short lived occurrence as far a trade goes, with much longer and closer relationships with various countries, including the Baltic states.

that's why we've had Pole's here since well before 2000 ffs. The ones you drove were probably abused because the locals heard your accent, thought it was a van full of your lot and didn't want the neighbour hood to go that far down. They'd have preferred Romanians to the high pitched scouse whine, increase in petty theft and **** jokes.

 

[Tobes]

You mean my fish fingers don't come from Hull !!

Grimsby mate. A place that's even worse than Hull.

 

[Treble]

I did say in one of my first posts on this thread, that we, the U.K., need immigration to be successful. If the skills are needed then welcome. Sorry if the above post didn't make that clear.
My comments relate to the economic migrants, that see the UK as some kind of "cash cow" to be milked at their leisure. Surely, if our benefits system was less attractive to these people (and our own work shy), the numbers would naturally reduce. However, it seems to me that Cameron, when trying to address this issue, was unable to get all he wanted.
My question then remains, in the event of allowing free movement for trade, are we able to set the appropriate level of benefits which will ultimately deter economic migrants?

From my personal experience I think it's more complex. I've worked in areas with a higher immigrant demographic. The UK is not seen as a cash cow for its benefits system. They believe life is better because they see the currency and associate that with a better standard of living. So to them doing those unskilled jobs are "fine by them" because £1 may be worth 150 Rs. They don't necessarily see the cost of living is proportionate to that. That last point is so important because when I've spoken to people that's the one thing they were naive about. They believed that once you get to the UK, the streets are lined with gold. BUT, and I must stress this, the people I've spoken to are also hardworking folk who won't grumble about how hard it is when they're here and many do 2 jobs or awkward shift hours that I wouldn't touch with a barge pole. The benefits are a bonus because they may well be entitled to them (and they'll take them)... but they are a bonus, NOT their primary driving factor for coming here for the vast majority of cases I've seen. For all these reasons, the vast majority of immigrants will still be motivated to come here even IF we take away the benefits.

 

[DMD]

You mean my fish fingers don't come from Hull !!

They did, and we'll send another one if you don't pay the ransom.

 

[Treble]

Were they **** as like, you can't bullshit me on this one as I ****ing lived there and have direct knowledge of the issues that Eastern Europeans faced there. The Eastern Europeans were scorned and still are.

A port City that traded in fish from local trawler men since the 80's it's been nothing more than a ferry port and container terminal.

I brought some of the first polish skilled labour immigrants into Hull in the mid 2000's and housed them off Holderness Road. They were abused and had to relocate because of it.

It's one of the most insular, small minded, provincial **** holes in the entire country.

Of course, your time here clearly outstrips people like me that have only spent a lifetime here.

Had you been brighter, you'd know that the fishing trade was a relatively recent and short lived occurrence as far a trade goes, with much longer and closer relationships with various countries, including the Baltic states.

that's why we've had Pole's here since well before 2000 ffs. The ones you drove were probably abused because the locals heard your accent, thought it was a van full of your lot and didn't want the neighbour hood to go that far down. They'd have preferred Romanians to the high pitched scouse whine, increase in petty theft and **** jokes.

Not being funny but that's two of the best exchanges I've seen on this thread yet

 

[Tobes]

Of course, your time here clearly outstrips people like me that have only spent a lifetime here.

Had you been brighter, you'd know that the fishing trade was a relatively recent and short lived occurrence as far a trade goes, with much longer and closer relationships with various countries, including the Baltic states.

that's why we've had Pole's here since well before 2000 ffs. The ones you drove were probably abused because the locals heard your accent, thought it was a van full of your lot and didn't want the neighbour hood to go that far down. They'd have preferred Romanians to the high pitched scouse whine, increase in petty theft and **** jokes.

My sincere condolences for that. Maybe if you'd have gained a decent education and had a bit of ambition, you'd have had the opportunity to **** off

Trying to make out Hull is either a genuine multi cultural society in any sense of the phrase a welcoming place for either Eastern Europeans or immigrants from any other culture (including Scousers btw) for that matter is absolutely laughable.

Not many brothers in Hull eh?