RS8055 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I moved out of the UK due to my father's job 18 years ago when i was 10, have been living abroad since then I appreciate your situation but I feel it would be unfair for someone who has spent the last 18yrs living outside of the country trying to dictate to those of us who still reside here how we should be living our lives. The same way I can imagine all the ex-pats in Spain and their ilk getting their knickers in a twist over it. I also appreciate your point of view, but I am 100% British through and through, which is something that not that many people can say about their lineage these days. Just because I have not been living in the country, doesn't mean that I do not deserve a say in what happens. From my point of view, the fact that I have a British Passport, the same passport that I have had since birth, adding to the fact that I was born and raised in England, should mean I have the right to have my say in this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 Exactly. The point that seems to have been made time and again albeit subtly is that those not 'born' here should not be let in. So those born here have more rights than those who do not. So why is RS not entitled to a say given he was born here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 im still undecided cant help but see everyone trying to push people either way has a personal agenda which i guess makes sense but im still cynical. but between the two im leaning towards remain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I think voting is simple on all fronts, government, eu, scottish independence, whichever, unless you pay into the country, you have zero say of how its run and what it does and yes that does mean non british born paying into the system get a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargara Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Exactly. The point that seems to have been made time and again albeit subtly is that those not 'born' here should not be let in. So those born here have more rights than those who do not. So why is RS not entitled to a say given he was born here? Because hes been happy to distance himself from politics/elections and how we chose to live our lives until this point, and its only now that something may impact him in Luxemberg that hes suddenly interested in UK affairs? I'm sorry if this is not accurate but its how it comes over from reading the posts here on the forum which is all i can form an opinion on. Edited June 17, 2016 by Sargara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GappySmeg Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) im still undecided cant help but see everyone trying to push people either way has a personal agenda which i guess makes sense but im still cynical. but between the two im leaning towards remain Well if it helps sway you, think of this: leaving is a one-way street, there is no coming back (not on anytime soon at least, and not on anywhere near the terms we enjoy now)... so choose to leave, and we cannot change our mind. Whereas choose to stay, and we have the luxury of changing our mind in the future if the EU fails to reform. Edited June 17, 2016 by GappySmeg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 British born not paying in and never have done, have their vote removed then I presume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevoD Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 im still undecided cant help but see everyone trying to push people either way has a personal agenda which i guess makes sense but im still cynical. but between the two im leaning towards remain Well if it helps sway you, think of this: leaving is a one-way street, there is no coming back (not on anytime soon at least, and not on anywhere near the terms we enjoy now)... so choose to leave, and we cannot change our mind. Whereas choose to stay, and we have the luxury of changing our mind in the future if the EU fails to reform. see you basically hit on the head the only thing im taking from both sides, better the devil you know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 Exactly. The point that seems to have been made time and again albeit subtly is that those not 'born' here should not be let in. So those born here have more rights than those who do not. So why is RS not entitled to a say given he was born here? Because hes been happy to distance himself from politics/elections and how we chose to live our lives until this point, and its only now that something may impact him in Luxemberg that hes suddenly interested in UK affairs? I'm sorry if this is not accurate but its how it comes over from reading the posts here on the forum which is all i can form an opinion on. My point being that the Leave campaign have leaned on immigration (and many people on FB have mentioned it overtly) as a reason to leave - because they believe in the power of those born here - why is it because RS hasnt been here for last decade his right to decide on the UK when also being born here doesn't apply? Its basically making a hypocrisy of the immigration argument, that they say being born here gives you the right - when in fact what its really about, is paying in. So my argument above, those born here and never paid in we take their vote away right? And those that were born in the UK lived in the UK and worked every day of their lives here, retired and moved to Spain ten years ago, they don't get a say? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 British born not paying in and never have done, have their vote removed then I presume. Absolutely, shouldnt even be allowed to put pen to paper 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) I have an aunt and uncle, he worked until he was 25 then got a back injury that prevented him ever working again. They are retired now with a house paid for by the state, they own an immaculate Harley Davidson bikes which they go out on biking tours. Having grown up watching those two - I am very much in the least worried about immigrants coming here and getting some of our own people off their lazy backsides. But then again, no one is allowed to say that about 'our' people. Edited June 17, 2016 by coldel 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargara Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 How would more competition for low wage/skilled jobs encorage lazy people exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 And to be fair, no one is allowed to say anything about immigrants without being branded a racist, thats just the world we live in. I used to know a girl who had a disabled batch, motobility car scheme, benefits etc, she was a lapdancer who went wakeboarding, airsoft, jetski, horse riding, long story but wasnt immediately obvious or yes I would have grassed. Every year her "disability" was assessed. On the flip side a mates dad had lost a leg in a bike accident, he always worked, never claimed, he had to have the same yearly assessment, every year he walked in, looked down and said, "nope, still not grown back" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) You assume lazy people are low wage and low skilled then? Assumptions aside, if we do believe low wages are such an issue, thats why the minimum wage was brought in. If immigrants are working for cash in hand for lower than that then thats a failing of the state to legislate and control it, thats not an immigration issue (as people born and bred here were doing the same as well before the minimum wage). You cannot create a government policy on immigration on the back of people taking cash in hand. The problem I see for what you might deem the 'lazy' is that they believe they are worth so much more, but do nothing to prove that. I was between jobs a couple of years back and whilst applying for jobs went and volunteered in local schools to help out in classrooms for free - I actually got a job out of it. Not saying I personally am wonderful which I am certainly not, but there is work, you just need to dig deep and go get it. Edited June 17, 2016 by coldel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargara Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 I never said lazy people are low wage/low skilled, I am saying alot of the immigration we recieve from the EU is. To welcome more immigration is to welcome more competition in these sectors, why would this motivate "lazy people" as you phraised it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) But you are inferring that lazy people are low skilled, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question. If they were not, then they wouldn't have a concern about low skilled immigration because they wouldn't compete. Immigration has been a constant for decades, the level we are at now we were at back in the 70s. This is not some new phenomena that the Leave campaign would have you believe. People back in the 70s got jobs in low skilled areas, so why not now? The job I am in now, is highly qualified, so yes I am not in that position. But I do know that I was the only British born person in the final interviews, also within my team of 12, half are British born. These are all at least degree educated people doing what would be deemed 'higher skilled' work competing 1:1 with immigrants. The idea that immigration is a thing that low skilled people have to deal with exclusively is quite frankly rubbish. So in answer to your question, the reason they should be motivated is the same as every other person in this country - that you look to achieve something and do it off your own back. Immigration is not a single issue for those at the bottom of the pay scale - if we all took that attitude the country would fall over. Edited June 17, 2016 by coldel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargara Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 But you are inferring that lazy people are low skilled, otherwise you wouldn't be asking the question. If they were not, then they wouldn't have a concern about low skilled immigration because they wouldn't compete. I didnt ask the question. You did with your comparison of your uncle. "lets welcome more migrants to sort out the lazy population" Immigration has been a constant for decades, the level we are at now we were at back in the 70s. This is not some new phenomena that the Leave campaign would have you believe. People back in the 70s got jobs in low skilled areas, so why not now? No its not. "The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater than the number emigrating since 1994. For much of the twentieth century, the numbers migrating to and from the UK were roughly in balance, and from the 1960s to the early 1990s the number of emigrants was often greater than the number of immigrants." http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06077/SN06077.pdf The idea that immigration is a thing that low skilled people have to deal with exclusively is quite frankly rubbish. "Overall, of the 1.33 million EU migrants in work who have arrived since 2004, 509,000 (38%) are in occupations regarded as skilled by the Migration Advisory Committee while 822,000 (62%) were in jobs regarded as low-skilled including 28% who were in Elementary Occupations, the lowest category of low skilled employment." http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/371 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS8055 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Exactly. The point that seems to have been made time and again albeit subtly is that those not 'born' here should not be let in. So those born here have more rights than those who do not. So why is RS not entitled to a say given he was born here? Because hes been happy to distance himself from politics/elections and how we chose to live our lives until this point, and its only now that something may impact him in Luxemberg that hes suddenly interested in UK affairs? I'm sorry if this is not accurate but its how it comes over from reading the posts here on the forum which is all i can form an opinion on. My point being that the Leave campaign have leaned on immigration (and many people on FB have mentioned it overtly) as a reason to leave - because they believe in the power of those born here - why is it because RS hasnt been here for last decade his right to decide on the UK when also being born here doesn't apply? Its basically making a hypocrisy of the immigration argument, that they say being born here gives you the right - when in fact what its really about, is paying in. So my argument above, those born here and never paid in we take their vote away right? And those that were born in the UK lived in the UK and worked every day of their lives here, retired and moved to Spain ten years ago, they don't get a say? Prime example of this is my parents. Both of which were born, lived and worked in England for over 25 years and owned 2 properties in the UK... paying into the system for all those years. Fast-forward to today - they live out here in Luxembourg, With my mum due to retire in the next year or two. Do you they have the right to vote in the referendum? - No. To this day, my parents still own a property in the UK which is being rented out. To be fair, after discussing with my father, he would probably even vote to leave for whatever reason he has to do this... but my argument is not necessarily about the overall decision. It's simply about having the right to have your own say when you deserve it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 As I said, low skilled immigration is not a single issue - nearly 40% are skilled. So yes my argument still stands, the reason to be motivated is the same as everyone else's. If that % was 95/5 then I would agree with you, but clearly its not. I also didn't say lets welcome migrants and to sort out lazy people - why you put that in a quote I am not sure as clearly I said nothing of the sort which is in plain view above. I said I am not so concerned about immigrants as I am about people that were born here and choose not to work. People born here clearly have the advantage, they speak the native language fluently, they have residential status etc. That already puts them in a better position for a job if thats the point. There are people I understand that apply every week and struggle because of geographic issues i.e. jobs to number of people, and there I can see an issue. However plenty sit and do nothing in London and Essex for example where work is certainly more gettable. You cannot paint a single picture that immigration makes it more difficult for all currently out of work lower skilled people. And it is not a single issue for them as per my reason above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS8055 Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Also, with regards to paying into the system, I told you that I underwent my university studies in England for 4 years between 2006 and 2010. So I am currently in the process of paying off my Student Loan to the SLC. Would a student loan in excess of £30,000 not be considered as paying into the system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Maybe this is a valid point, the whole system needs reform, voting, benefits etc and i really dont think we could ever do that whilst we have the eu commission telling us what we can and cant do, what is fair and what isnt, i.e human rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted June 17, 2016 Author Share Posted June 17, 2016 Maybe, although the European Court of Justice (which isnt the EU) has backed the UK with its view on 'right to reside' and not paying non working EU immigrants benefits - although that really is a small win financially as just something like 10% of all immigrants claim out of work benefits. But it shows the UK can challenge and win against the EU utilising the European Courts. That said, if we exit, we will likely have this as a major concession thrown at us in any trade deals. We might get a tariff free approach as adopted by Canada but have to take the EU freedom of movement and benefits as a requirement. This is a grey area it might or might not happen, what is certain is that voting out does not guarantee that we can control this area, if it is included in the subsequent trade deals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetpilot Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Maybe, although the European Court of Justice (which isnt the EU) has backed the UK with its view on 'right to reside' and not paying non working EU immigrants benefits - although that really is a small win financially as just something like 10% of all immigrants claim out of work benefits. But it shows the UK can challenge and win against the EU utilising the European Courts. Not entirely true, they are not entitled to 100% of the benefits, they can still claim, so a part win but still having to make some concessions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sargara Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 (edited) Yeah i spotted that too earlier in the week: http://www.independe...s-a7081046.html Be interesting to see what the Gov decide to do with this ruling. Makes you wonder how much (if any) of this is being influenced by Brexit, maybe a silver-lining of this is the EU are more sympathetic towards subjects as this? Edited June 17, 2016 by Sargara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juggalo Posted June 17, 2016 Share Posted June 17, 2016 Immigration has been a constant for decades, the level we are at now we were at back in the 70s. Not true. Immigration through the 70's was appx 70k per year. Now it's five times that. This is not some new phenomena Yes it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts