Gee, I wonder why their economy is struggling. The solution to the problem is to keep importing more of the problem. If people start becoming too poor to afford things, the answer is we need more cheap labor? If Europe struggles now, what makes you think it won't struggle with more even more people? If old people need someone to take care of them, who is going to take care of all these new people when they eventually age? It doesn't take a genius to see that this is going to flood the country with poverty and lead to all sorts of long-term social problems in European society as all these cheap workers won't have the means to adequately provide for themselves.
Where did you get that information please? And more to the point, what makes you think you know the situation in Belgium better than DutchClogCyborg?
Er, get the hell out of it? Get the hell out before it crashes and burns and takes us down with it?? Thankfully when the Euro fails it won't affect us - well done Gordon Brown, at least you got something right!
The EU might have worked better had they designed more rigid controls to prevent individual member countries from debasing the shared currency. The big bailouts were unpopular too and also diluted the value of the currency at everyone's expense. Then the free movement of people was another big point of contention, not only did it begin to etch away at national identities (which was probably the intended plan all along) but it also brought the overall standard of living between different regions in Europe closer in line, so the population in the rich Western and Northern parts did not see more prosperity. It did help create more labor competition, but this had more the effect of benefiting big business and capital interests than the normal worker. The generation of young workers has really been hurting, all over Europe, job opportunities are minimal and many struggle to afford going off to live on their own.
LMAO, I'm thinking 90% of Irish emigrants don't! Certainly all the pikey's that EU membership allows to freely come here and rob me don't.
My attitude is, as long as you can pay for a migrant, you should be able to have one. I don't see this as a problem that needs state solutions, but rather one that can be addressed by massed individual solutions. If you want to rescue a migrant, you should be allowed to. As many as you can provide for. What I dislike to see is people demanding charity from others. You must accept yay many migrants. That is not charity at all. That is only tyranny. Charity cannot be demanded. Only given. Hence individual solutions. Other people may not feel as charitable, may not be able to afford charity, or may prefer to donate the limited funds they have available to gift, to alternative good causes. This is a private decision between each man, his conscience and his wallet. Only a fool would pass judgement. Enforced charity is a contradiction in terms ands in no way offers any moral high ground to those who propose it. Quite the opposite. It demonstrates to me the contempt they feel for their peers and the lack of will to take the personal responsibility required to actually do anything to address their own concerns. Migrant labour is good and bad for the economy. It's good if I can get a migrant to pick the crops in my fields at a price that makes the job worth doing. Otherwise? The crop doesn't get harvested. It just rots in the fields. So cheap labour means that marginally profitable enterprises can exist. Livings can be made where otherwise no livings can be made. Hypothetical example: If I run a burger van that makes a profit of £100 a night, if you require £100 a night in wages, I make no money, so I won't get paid. So I won't even buy the van in the first place. But... if you agree to work for less, say £50 a night, I too will take home £50 a night and so I will buy the van and earn a living. On the other hand I used to work nightshifts to earn extra money, but now nightshifts don't pay any extra money. There is a glut in minimum wage willing employee's. Nightshift work now pays minimum wage too. And also it's not always a fair game. If a migrants family all lives in Lithuania, his overheads for food, heating, fuel, clothing are all going to be very much cheaper than mine. He may be able to raise a family of four on minimum wage, where I simply cannot. Equally if you give all your high skilled work to pre-trained foreign labour instead of apprenticing your own children... that is only a short term advantage and the price to pay for it is large. However more citizens in the country = more tax. So if your money falls out of the taxpayer tree, migration will often be good for you.
Yeah, just think about it. 5 000 000 whites, throw in 60 000 jihadists. They'll all turn black. There was a man somewhere, was it Spain or near it, who raped a ten-year-old boy and explained himself; he'd left his wife and daughter at home as he joined the refugees, no way to get laid.. Some of the stories are obscene, but then about the women. Some women really like it, they are given human rights. They don't have to veil themselves - but for some husband will demand this for sure - they can in time become free as far as their male relatives at the same place allow. For some it really is a passport to a better life. I'm happy for those. About the skill level. Turkey is receiving the very bottom I believe, so deal with it. Aren't some third of them children? Children are alright.. they learn, but the old and the unwilling, not so much. To say they make getting a job for the nationals more difficult is ridiculous. First of all, they're not competing for the same, mostly. And anyways, the whole story every country is in trouble because of the unemployment is just because people can't get jobs from their own profession and don't want others, and others don't want any jobs. If some kid complains he can't move out of his home cause he can't get a job with the current unemployment level why don't you try?
Other than Cameron's pledge to take in 3000 'lone child refugees'? I confidently predict that as soon as they're settled - although don't ask me what sort of bureaucratic and domestic infrastructures are going to be needed, or how much it will all cost - where was I? Oh yes, I remember . . . I confidently predict that as soon as they're settled here, thousands of migrant adults will suddenly 'remember' they've become estranged from their children, have a sneaking suspicion that they might be in the UK, and will demand to come here to find out. Nope - nothing to see here? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36134837
aka the useful idiots. - - - Updated - - - I believe recidivist burglars have been described as 'professional burglars'. - - - Updated - - - Self-determination?
Typical PC peabrain reply, I see. What about Bradford Birmingham or (the Islamic republic) of Leicester then ? Go back 50 years no muslims. Now it's 50/50 at best. And it's getting worse daily Never had a high opinion of the pompous PC types. You're par for course. Dumb and arrogant
It was revealed many of the so-called "child migrants" are anything BUT children. They're are at best in late teens, and most just lie about their age as a way to get into UK in particular. Its like a bearded man with scars on his face and a rocket launcher strapped to his back claiming he was 10 years old and the PC turds BELIEVING IT
I am so amused that the Calais Mayor has already spoken about the need for renegotiations and let all those Calais migrants make their way to dover.
All this back and forth about migrants and "what to do about them". Why is it so complicated, when they are either on the move for free stuff or their home State has been taken over, personally I feel both are applicable. I feel chaos exist in most the ME and Africa, probably created by the inactions of the American Government, simply allowing the chaos. This said however, the cure for migration is to eliminate the need or some forms of security zones, where needed and shutting down all free stuff, outside those zones. Financing may be a problem, since IMO the US has caused much of this, should/could be legally responsible for the cost, but can no longer afford it.......
Actually that is not true. This is a common misconception. Go to places that have not seen as much immigration and take a look who is working in those lower level jobs. Teenagers, younger people, and elderly people. Downtrodden people with drug or alcohol problems who have trouble getting their life together. Sometimes people with mental disabilities. Basically all the people who are generally less desirable to employers. But there are jobs available to them. This helps create a social safety net too. Now tell me, what happens to all these people in our society when those low level jobs are not available anymore? What happens to an elderly woman when she is so old and slow that no one wants to hire her? The solution is providing that free stuff in the countries they already are in, instead of making them have to come here to get that free stuff. Think about that. Basically we are paying them to come here. How does that make any sense?? We could provide for 10 people in Somalia for the price it costs to put one of them up in London. I rather suspect it was never actually about helping these people.
Most people on the move, so to speak, know or have heard from migrants say in the US or France and know all they have been given, basically just to get their. Medical, education, housing and so on, if shut off, getting the word out...would shut down the migrant highway....IMO. Think of this; What percentage of the worlds people, nearing 8 BILLION, would rather chance getting into the US, than living where ever they are. I'll suggest 90% or more....If we can help create economic growth else where, would not be that big a problem, those folks would stay home..
