British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
There are plenty of jalfrezy countries willing to take refugees right? send them there. If you are strip of your citizenship and left without citizenship that's a straightforward case of political asylum right?
It's a novel solution to the asylum problem that says let's create several million more asylum seekers by threatening them with persecution for being the "wrong" race, torture or in your wildest fantasies, death.
It's a novel solution to the asylum problem that says let's create several million more asylum seekers by threatening them with persecution for being the "wrong" race, torture or in your wildest fantasies, death.
not race at all. Polish, italian etc heritage people on welfare would be deported, while pakistani, indians, black carribeans and so on with british grandparents wouldn't.
And it's not persecution to kick you away.
Anyway even without deportation, you could simply take them off all welfare, they would quickly self deport anyway. And you can do all that with a simple majority in parliament in the UK, you can override all "non written" constitutional limitations
“Persecution is the systematic mistreatment of an individual or group by another individual or group.“
jalfrezi care to explain, in your moral model, why is the UK supposed to take in these people from France, and why you think there is a moral imperative for the UK to take them in while they are not under persecution in France?
yep removing a privilege isn't mistreatment.
Stopping to give you free stuff isn't mistreatment, unlike taking what's your would be.
Forcibly removing people including children from their homes based on them not having a sufficient number of grandparents born here is persecuting them
What's your plan for a couple with kids where the couple have three grandparents born here but the kids don't? And vice versa?
jalfrezi care to explain, in your moral model, why is the UK supposed to take in these people from France, and why you think there is a moral imperative for the UK to take them in while they are not under persecution in France?
Not clicking a Daily Heil link. Provide a respected source.
Oh it is on "your side" in this. Emotional pictures of the migrants attempting to cross the channel from France.
Anyway no need to look at them to answer, do you think the british people have a moral mandate to take in immigrants from France?
Asylum seekers in proportion, yes. Most Western European countries are already taking in many and I don't want the UK to shirk its responsibility.
You didn't answer my question.
What's your plan for a couple with kids where the couple have three grandparents born here but the kids don't? And vice versa?
You didn't answer my question.
What's your plan for a couple with kids where the couple have three grandparents born here but the kids don't? And vice versa?
If you are the son or daughter of a "real british" (3+ grandparents born in the UK) you are a real british as well (for the purpose of what we are discussing under my model), unfortunately there is no other solution to that.
if they have contributed appropriately to that, it is not welfare just a deferred payment.
if they didn't contribute enough then yes, that's welfare.
but I meant healthcare mostly, winter fuel allowance, disability if they qualified and so on. welfare
State pensions are part of welfare. They are paid from current taxation, not from the tax the pensioner has paid in the past.
State pensions are part of welfare. They are paid from current taxation, not from the tax the pensioner has paid in the past.
That's the flow accounting. But the way i and most people see it, it's completly different if you paid into the program or not. And that's also how courts see it usually throughout europe.
Ofc british law could be different but i am not making a legal claim, rather a moral / common sense one. I wouldn't call a deferred payment from a program you paid into when younger welfare, not in the scenario where i am describing who is a dead weight for taxpayers and who isn't.
So as explained state pension paid to people who contributed enough isn't welfare from the pov of determining if someone is a parasite or not basically.
Descriptions of it as a Ponzi aren't far off, though unlike Ponzis it's not pretending to be anything else. If people want to deceive themselves that their pensions are the same money they paid when working, after investment, that's their problem because it very clearly isn't.
Descriptions of it as a Ponzi aren't far off, though unlike Ponzis it's not pretending to be anything else. If people want to deceive themselves that their pensions are the same money they paid when working, after investment, that's their problem because it very clearly isn't.
It's not the same money and people don't claim that. But they claim that the right to get that pension that is generated by your previous contributions is of a different kind than, say, the generic right to a pension if disabled or to healthcare even in countries with universal socialized healthcare.
And again, that's actually how the law treats that in Italy, Germany, France.
In Italy in particular several attempts to reduce existing pensions have been made in the past. Most of them were deemed unconstitutional because those existing pensions were considered "acquired rights", ie some sort of legal obligation the state has toward those individuals, that the state cannot renege on.
Same things for the rights developed by already-paid contributions even if not retired yet. So with every pension reform, those X years of contribution already baked in guarantee some higher "rights" and only the subsequent, after-reform contributions enter a different computation that generate a lower pension at the end.
So, again, pensioners are closer to people who own public debt than they are to welfare recipients. At least, if they contributed proportionally in their past. And again details can vary depending on the country ofc.
THe amount a pensioner receives isn't directly related to the amount they paid in taxes but to how many years they paid.
Labout down to 20% in the latest yougov poll
Meanwhile apparantly there are now 850k signups for the new left wing party (who are not not in the poll)
