FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Farage’s migrant boats
Farage’s migrant boats
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Keir Starmer has blamed the Channel migrant crisis on Brexit and dubbed migrant dinghies “Farage boats”. Will this rhetoric stick or just more deflection on our failure to stop the boats " Well….. technically starmer is right… it was easier to get rid of illegals pre brexit than it is post brexit Farage likes to talk loads but not the consequences He is going to hate the farage boats tag as much as he hates the farage riots tag Is farage wants to be pm… scrutinise him…. He didn’t like the house stuff that wont go away More of that and people will see what a man of the people the public school, former merchant banker, former eu embezzler he is…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I rate Farage as one of the cleverest politicians of all time. A long career, in the news every day, every other post on a swingers site references him, and now the Prime Minister brings him into the forefront once more. And what has he actually done? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* Stupid he ain't... * "He brought about BREXIT" doesn't wash, it was Cameron who didn't take the possibility seriously enough, despite warnings from Obama, Juncker etc." Precious metals commodities trader Never needs notes or calculators Fake economist reeves couldn’t tie his shoe laces . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Keir Starmer has blamed the Channel migrant crisis on Brexit and dubbed migrant dinghies “Farage boats”. Will this rhetoric stick or just more deflection on our failure to stop the boats " He doesn’t want to stop them there is something very wrong with starmer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone actually have a solution for this? And what will the consequences be for the uk if the influx of immigrants keep coming ? X" It's blown out of all proportion, other countries have a much bigger issue with migrants, France and Germany are ones I've visited and seen first hand. The economy and NHS is a far bigger problem that you won't hear fartage mention because he has no plan beyond whipping up fear and hate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I rate Farage as one of the cleverest politicians of all time. A long career, in the news every day, every other post on a swingers site references him, and now the Prime Minister brings him into the forefront once more. And what has he actually done? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING* Stupid he ain't... * "He brought about BREXIT" doesn't wash, it was Cameron who didn't take the possibility seriously enough, despite warnings from Obama, Juncker etc." He's just fortunate, he spouts the message of the media tycoons who amplify his voice and give him traction. If he was on the other side, you wouldn't have heard of him. But he's a grifter by nature and would have jumped ships and flipped his beliefs, so you probably would still have heard of him. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Totally out of ideas." Exactly this And on economy and the 1.5 million new homes Still won’t regulate ultra processed foods keeping 26% adults obese and 37% overweight, while the country finger pointing at the nhs blaming them for self inflicted problems. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"27 September 2025 895 28 September 2025 403 29 September 2025 70 30 September 2025 531 While Starmer chatting shit at conference another 1900 arrived " Is somebody making up these figures? The boat operators must be a threat to airline companies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"27 September 2025 895 28 September 2025 403 29 September 2025 70 30 September 2025 531 While Starmer chatting shit at conference another 1900 arrived Is somebody making up these figures? The boat operators must be a threat to airline companies." ONS figs. About 5k arrivals since the one in/one out was announced | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"27 September 2025 895 28 September 2025 403 29 September 2025 70 30 September 2025 531 While Starmer chatting shit at conference another 1900 arrived Is somebody making up these figures? The boat operators must be a threat to airline companies. ONS figs. About 5k arrivals since the one in/one out was announced " Haha sounds like the 1 out 1 in scheme is a rousing success | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Dr Peter Walsh, a senior researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, suggested that the lack of a returns agreement with the EU could be to blame. He said leaving the Dublin system, which allowed asylum seekers to be transferred to countries of first entry, could have created incentives for migrants to reach the UK. This is because the UK left the European asylum fingerprints database, Eurodac, meaning migrants know the Home Office can’t tell if they have claimed asylum in another country. Otherwise, that would be a basis for a refusal and an attempt at removal. In a sense, it’s another bite of the cherry if you can get to the UK,” he said. ….sounds like Brexit has been a factor to me." That's almost certainly not what he actually said. The Dublin Agreements didn't allow us to return asylum seekers to the country of first entry. It allowed us to return anyone that had already applied in an EU country, and had been refused asylum there. It never applied to more than 5% of arrivals, and we had to accept more returns than we made. As he points out, it relied on fingerprint data being properly collected and shared by the other EU countries, something which certain countries were surprisingly bad at. What he fails to point out is that once someone had been accepted for asylum in an EU country, they could just get on the ferry and come over here under the freedom of movement rules. That route to the UK was, obviously, closed by Brexit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU. Farage is the key originator of this problem. It's unlikely that he wasn't completely aware of the difficulties that the UK would face. It was even discussed in the fab forum before the Brexit vote." Well listening to ITV news 5 minutes ago and they're saying almost no one got re -exported and a lot come the other way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Keir Starmer has blamed the Channel migrant crisis on Brexit and dubbed migrant dinghies “Farage boats”. Will this rhetoric stick or just more deflection on our failure to stop the boats " If Starmer had been successful to date with smashing the gangs as promised then there would be little or no boats to discuss. However as they have not stopped the boats or smashed the gangs so far, then they need to shift the blame elsewhere especially given this year has seen particularly high amount make the crossing | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"“Dr Peter Walsh, a senior researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford’s Migration Observatory, suggested that the lack of a returns agreement with the EU could be to blame. He said leaving the Dublin system, which allowed asylum seekers to be transferred to countries of first entry, could have created incentives for migrants to reach the UK. This is because the UK left the European asylum fingerprints database, Eurodac, meaning migrants know the Home Office can’t tell if they have claimed asylum in another country. Otherwise, that would be a basis for a refusal and an attempt at removal. In a sense, it’s another bite of the cherry if you can get to the UK,” he said. ….sounds like Brexit has been a factor to me. " The Dublin agreement is often brought up but the more I learn about it the less impressive it seems. Originally I assumed it was a one way route the way people used to talk about it. However that was wrong and EU countries could use the same agreement in the opposite direction and seemed better at it. From migration watch using government figures: The UK removed 786 immigrants to other EU countries under the Dublin Regulation between 2017 and 2019, according to Migration Watch UK analysis of Home Office statistics. During that same period, the UK received 2,390 asylum seekers from other EU states, meaning the UK accepted more than three times the number of people it sent back under the rules. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU. Farage is the key originator of this problem. It's unlikely that he wasn't completely aware of the difficulties that the UK would face. It was even discussed in the fab forum before the Brexit vote. Well listening to ITV news 5 minutes ago and they're saying almost no one got re -exported and a lot come the other way " 80,000 odd over the last two years have come in 4 were deported to Rwanda at a scheme cost of £800million (Yvette coopers figs) £450million paid to France by Sunak for border security £6bn odd hotel costs alone over last two years, add Serco/Mears Group/Clearsprings ready homes 10 year contracts at a billion £ each add home office caseload costs- staff and pensions /council workers administering people’s public services/border force/interpreters/police/schools/dentist/taxis/driving lessons/ clothes/ daily allowances/ three meals a day in hotels/ costs of return travel for family /lawyers/judges/courts/legal aid claims against uk by asylum seekers etc One or two recently returned to France on charter flight under Starmer’s one in/one out scheme All this massaging of figures and data; not hard to see where a sizeable chunk of Reeves black hole has been spent | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU. Farage is the key originator of this problem. It's unlikely that he wasn't completely aware of the difficulties that the UK would face. It was even discussed in the fab forum before the Brexit vote. Well listening to ITV news 5 minutes ago and they're saying almost no one got re -exported and a lot come the other way " That may be the case but read what you replied to again! leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU. Farage caused this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU. Farage is the key originator of this problem. It's unlikely that he wasn't completely aware of the difficulties that the UK would face. It was even discussed in the fab forum before the Brexit vote. Well listening to ITV news 5 minutes ago and they're saying almost no one got re -exported and a lot come the other way 80,000 odd over the last two years have come in 4 were deported to Rwanda at a scheme cost of £800million (Yvette coopers figs) £450million paid to France by Sunak for border security £6bn odd hotel costs alone over last two years, add Serco/Mears Group/Clearsprings ready homes 10 year contracts at a billion £ each add home office caseload costs- staff and pensions /council workers administering people’s public services/border force/interpreters/police/schools/dentist/taxis/driving lessons/ clothes/ daily allowances/ three meals a day in hotels/ costs of return travel for family /lawyers/judges/courts/legal aid claims against uk by asylum seekers etc One or two recently returned to France on charter flight under Starmer’s one in/one out scheme All this massaging of figures and data; not hard to see where a sizeable chunk of Reeves black hole has been spent " Presumably, it's still actually just a tiny minority of £40 billions! Immigrants are overall not contributors to the UK economy, so the mistakes the UK have made in recent years, spurred from Brexit, should be held with this in mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU." Is it? Under which law or agreement could we have done that back when we were members? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU. Is it? Under which law or agreement could we have done that back when we were members? " Under EU law, the Dublin Regulation, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU." "Is it? Under which law or agreement could we have done that back when we were members?" "Under EU law, the Dublin Regulation," As has been pointed out already, the Dublin Agreements only allowed us to return those people that had already applied for asylum in another country, and had failed there. It relied on those countries supplying accurate fingerprint records, which some countries 'forgot' to do. And it allowed other EU countries to send asylum seekers back here. In every year the Dublin Agreements were in place, we accepted more people back than we sent away. Another thing that has been pointed out already in this thread is that a person that applied for asylum in another EU country and was accepted, could just come here legally under the freedom of movement. We had no ability to send those people back. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's definitely the case that leaving the EU removed our abilities to more readily return immigrants to their original countries in the EU. Is it? Under which law or agreement could we have done that back when we were members? Under EU law, the Dublin Regulation, As has been pointed out already, the Dublin Agreements only allowed us to return those people that had already applied for asylum in another country, and had failed there. It relied on those countries supplying accurate fingerprint records, which some countries 'forgot' to do. And it allowed other EU countries to send asylum seekers back here. In every year the Dublin Agreements were in place, we accepted more people back than we sent away. Another thing that has been pointed out already in this thread is that a person that applied for asylum in another EU country and was accepted, could just come here legally under the freedom of movement. We had no ability to send those people back. " Absolutely correct. 
The Dublin agreement is regularly cherry picked as a way to blame brexit for the boats.
Had Britain stayed in the EU the problem would still be there.
Only the mode of transport would be different.
Long before brexit and long before the boats we all saw the scenes around the French ferry ports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking at today’s news Israel seems to have no problem stopping the boats, boarded by military and occupants arrested. " Once arrested then what do you do with them? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. " And in doing so, keep Calais as a camp for migrants? The only reason they are in Calais is because they want to get to the UK. They wouldn't be there if they couldn't get here. They might not even head to France if, as some suggest, they are all economic migrants wanting our freebies. If the French stopped every single boat then they would fix their problem. Why don't they? Well, maybe it just isn't that easy to do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. " Bearing in mind our "border" with France is physically in the middle of the English Channel,and International Maritime Laws relating to rescues at sea, how do YOU propose a "private agency" stops the crossings? Simple solutions are for simple minded Reform voters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. Bearing in mind our "border" with France is physically in the middle of the English Channel,and International Maritime Laws relating to rescues at sea, how do YOU propose a "private agency" stops the crossings? Simple solutions are for simple minded Reform voters." Build a wall ?   | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a bare faced lie. It's sweet FA to do with Brexit. Starmer is just thrashing around trying to deflect the public from labour's abysmal performance in office." Factually untrue. Brexit has made it much harder to police our borders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking at today’s news Israel seems to have no problem stopping the boats, boarded by military and occupants arrested. " and taken to Israel. The migrants would love that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. Bearing in mind our "border" with France is physically in the middle of the English Channel,and International Maritime Laws relating to rescues at sea, how do YOU propose a "private agency" stops the crossings? Simple solutions are for simple minded Reform voters." Well the best brains in the country haven't come up with a workable solution yet. KISS = Keep it Simple Stupid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. Bearing in mind our "border" with France is physically in the middle of the English Channel,and International Maritime Laws relating to rescues at sea, how do YOU propose a "private agency" stops the crossings? Simple solutions are for simple minded Reform voters. Build a wall ? "Definitely not a physical wall ....but a virtual wall. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. And in doing so, keep Calais as a camp for migrants? The only reason they are in Calais is because they want to get to the UK. They wouldn't be there if they couldn't get here. They might not even head to France if, as some suggest, they are all economic migrants wanting our freebies. If the French stopped every single boat then they would fix their problem. Why don't they? Well, maybe it just isn't that easy to do. " Or maybe they don't want to? Why would they when they can see the backs of between 700 and 1,000 migrants every single day? There's zero incentive for France to police departing dinghies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. Bearing in mind our "border" with France is physically in the middle of the English Channel,and International Maritime Laws relating to rescues at sea, how do YOU propose a "private agency" stops the crossings? Simple solutions are for simple minded Reform voters." 1) Infiltrate the smuggling gangs and their supply chains. 2) Police a virtual border fence in the channel. Let's hear your sophisticated solution. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking at today’s news Israel seems to have no problem stopping the boats, boarded by military and occupants arrested. " Large ships travelling a distance of days in more or less a convoy. Hardly comparable to the the dinghy problem. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a bare faced lie. It's sweet FA to do with Brexit. Starmer is just thrashing around trying to deflect the public from labour's abysmal performance in office." It’s 100% to do with Brexit, it removed the UK from the Dubs Agreement. The data shows before Brexit not a single crossing was made. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s 100% to do with Brexit, it removed the UK from the Dubs Agreement." We've discussed the Dublin Agreements up above in this thread. They only allowed removal in very specific circumstances, and they allowed more into the UK than could be removed. "The data shows before Brexit not a single crossing was made." That's just wildly untrue. Here's a BBC article from 2018 talking about the Home Secretary announcing a crisis over the number of small boat arrivals. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46722157 There's been a flow of migrants slowly increasing for decades.The reason we started to see small boat arrivals is because we blocked the previous route of stowing away on lorries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's a bare faced lie. It's sweet FA to do with Brexit. Starmer is just thrashing around trying to deflect the public from labour's abysmal performance in office. It’s 100% to do with Brexit, it removed the UK from the Dubs Agreement. The data shows before Brexit not a single crossing was made." nah they hid in the back of Larry's instead once customs checks started they had to find an alternative mode of transport,couldn't see them in the back of Larry's in a dinghy they are a lot more visable | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is Farage going to deport all the illegals to? How much will it cost? We need the fine details." To their country of origin or any third party we can do a deal with. Cost? A damn site less than it's costing now. And once in place the deterrent factor will reduce the cost over time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'll need to explain this claim to me. France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel." Seriously? It's called 'pass the parcel'. When the music stops, the idea is to get rid of the parcel so some other unfortunate fecker is left holding it. Hope that's clear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You'll need to explain this claim to me. France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel." The EU made agreements for fairer distribution of migrants within the EU. Separately the UN says another 1.2bn will enter Europe by 2070/80 through wars, famine and climate change. If that is correct we’ve seen nothing yet. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"France, and for that matter the entire EU, has an obvious vested interest in herding as many migrants as possible across the channel. It's naïve to think otherwise. So the only solution is to take matters into our own hands and police our borders. The answer is a private agency tasked with stopping the crossings, and incentivised by decreasing numbers attempting the crossings. Give them a free reign to get on with it. And in doing so, keep Calais as a camp for migrants? The only reason they are in Calais is because they want to get to the UK. They wouldn't be there if they couldn't get here. They might not even head to France if, as some suggest, they are all economic migrants wanting our freebies. If the French stopped every single boat then they would fix their problem. Why don't they? Well, maybe it just isn't that easy to do. " Put the Israeli navy in the channel and nobody coming over illegally ever again. Everybody else filling their pants about breaking international law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The solution could be simple if someone actually wanted to do it. D + D = D. D 1. Detain. No shipping out to hotels or HMO's. Short term detention centre's ideally in remote areas. D 2. Deportation. Processed in the detention centre's and fast tracked. Result is D 3. Deterrent. Once the first two become the norm then the draw factor will disappear. Oh and before the bleeding hearts get going with "what about the genuine refugees?" There are none. Once they jump on a boat and illegally enter the country all asylum claims become invalid. Hard? Yes. Necessary? Of course." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is Farage going to deport all the illegals to? How much will it cost? We need the fine details. To their country of origin or any third party we can do a deal with. Cost? A damn site less than it's costing now. And once in place the deterrent factor will reduce the cost over time." Sounds oh so easy doesn’t it? But in reality? Labour Party chairwoman Ellie Reeves criticised the lack of detail in the six-page plan, which Yusuf said four months ago would be a "comprehensive strategy" with "a full policy document" including "a year-by-year timeline" and "clear targets". "Today, we got none of those things, nor a single answer to any of the practical, financial or ethical questions about how their plan would work," she said. "Nigel Farage can't say where his detention centres will be, can't say what will happen to women and children, and can't say how he'll convince hostile regimes like Iran to take people back." The Conservatives said Reform was "reheating" plans it had already announced and pursued. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp MP said the Tories had already tabled a deportation bill, which detailed "how we would disapply the Human Rights Act from all immigration matters, and deport every illegal immigrant on arrival". "Months later, Reform have not done the important work necessary to get a grip on the immigration crisis and instead have produced a copy and paste of our proposals," Philip said. Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said Reform UK's plan "crumbles under the most basic scrutiny". "The idea that Reform UK is going to magic up some new places to detain people and deport them to, but don't have a clue where those places would be, is taking the public for fools," Cooper said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Where is Farage going to deport all the illegals to? How much will it cost? We need the fine details. To their country of origin or any third party we can do a deal with. Cost? A damn site less than it's costing now. And once in place the deterrent factor will reduce the cost over time. Sounds oh so easy doesn’t it? But in reality? Labour Party chairwoman Ellie Reeves criticised the lack of detail in the six-page plan, which Yusuf said four months ago would be a "comprehensive strategy" with "a full policy document" including "a year-by-year timeline" and "clear targets". "Today, we got none of those things, nor a single answer to any of the practical, financial or ethical questions about how their plan would work," she said. "Nigel Farage can't say where his detention centres will be, can't say what will happen to women and children, and can't say how he'll convince hostile regimes like Iran to take people back." The Conservatives said Reform was "reheating" plans it had already announced and pursued. Shadow home secretary Chris Philp MP said the Tories had already tabled a deportation bill, which detailed "how we would disapply the Human Rights Act from all immigration matters, and deport every illegal immigrant on arrival". "Months later, Reform have not done the important work necessary to get a grip on the immigration crisis and instead have produced a copy and paste of our proposals," Philip said. Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said Reform UK's plan "crumbles under the most basic scrutiny". "The idea that Reform UK is going to magic up some new places to detain people and deport them to, but don't have a clue where those places would be, is taking the public for fools," Cooper said." But Reform have no need to go into those kind of details now. The next election is minimum 3 years away. Plenty of time to put meat on the bones. Let's face it, Labour weren't exactly bristling with detail 4 years ago. Just a load of vague promises, most of which they've already broken. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quick question to all the reform fans! Since Farage claims leaving the ECHR will enable immigration to be tackled and controlled, how does he think this is true, given that Asylum rules fall under the Geneva Convention and have literally fuck all to do with the jurisdiction of the ECHR? Is he suggesting that the UK separates itself from the 196 countries worldwide that are signatories to it? Because he's never said anything publicly about that and I suspect he'd get a fair bit of push back if he did. 🤔🤷♂️" Sometimes though, you have to look at the big picture, not blindly follow self-imposed rules or laws. The question is, do we value our society and culture enough to protect it and if necessary take drastic measures to preserve it? The lefties probably not, but most reasonable-minded people do care enough. As for Reform, their progress could be stopped in it's tracks if only other mainstream parties had the balls to act decisively. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least Labour have moved on from blaming everything on the Tories. Progress of a kind. Still given that Farage was in the Hitler Youth according to Labour’s resident genius Lammy, seems like Farage has a lot more to answer for." Ah dont worry liebour will blame everyone else when they are out of NO 10 but not them selfs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quick question to all the reform fans! Since Farage claims leaving the ECHR will enable immigration to be tackled and controlled, how does he think this is true, given that Asylum rules fall under the Geneva Convention and have literally fuck all to do with the jurisdiction of the ECHR? Is he suggesting that the UK separates itself from the 196 countries worldwide that are signatories to it? Because he's never said anything publicly about that and I suspect he'd get a fair bit of push back if he did." Firstly, asylum is nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, which cover the protocols of war. It's instead governed by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Secondly, the 1951 Convention itself isn't the problem. The problem is the decades of decisions by the ECHR which make binding precedent on how the 1951 Convention has to be interpreted. If we leave the ECHR, we can drop all off that and just follow the 1951 Convention as written. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But Reform have no need to go into those kind of details now. The next election is minimum 3 years away. Plenty of time to put meat on the bones. Let's face it, Labour weren't exactly bristling with detail 4 years ago. Just a load of vague promises, most of which they've already broken. " True, but once the meat starts going on those bones, the scrutiny increases. “stop the boaty people" might be a vote winner at local elections one year into a five year government term. However, come the big day slogans such as “Privatise the NHS” “Kiss goodbye to workers rights whilst the rich get even richer” “The people who care for your elderly parents in their care homes at the moment can go back to where they came from” Will bring out more anti-Reform voters. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Quick question to all the reform fans! Since Farage claims leaving the ECHR will enable immigration to be tackled and controlled, how does he think this is true, given that Asylum rules fall under the Geneva Convention and have literally fuck all to do with the jurisdiction of the ECHR? Is he suggesting that the UK separates itself from the 196 countries worldwide that are signatories to it? Because he's never said anything publicly about that and I suspect he'd get a fair bit of push back if he did. Firstly, asylum is nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, which cover the protocols of war. It's instead governed by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Secondly, the 1951 Convention itself isn't the problem. The problem is the decades of decisions by the ECHR which make binding precedent on how the 1951 Convention has to be interpreted. If we leave the ECHR, we can drop all off that and just follow the 1951 Convention as written. " Semantics. It was drafted and signed in Geneva. So if we just follow the Convention as written what will change, given it includes all if this? The right not to be expelled, except under certain, strictly defined conditions (Article 32) The right not to be punished for irregular entry into the territory of a contracting State (Article 31) The right to non-discrimination (Articles 3 and 5) The right to decent work (Articles 17 to 19 and 24) The right to housing, land and property, including intellectual property (Articles 13, 14 and 21) The right to education (Article 22) The right to freedom of religion (Article 4) The right to access to justice (Article 16) The right to freedom of movement within the territory (Article 26 and Article 31 (2)) The right to be issued civil, identity and travel documents (Articles 12, 27 and 28) The right to social protection (Articles 23 and 24 (2-4)). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage has forced change, and will whether he holds power or not. Starmer has now admitted that international conventions, such as the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, need to be re-examined to stop exploitation. The left continually championing the exploitation of the ECHR and the refugee convention to the detriment of the nation has delivered Farage. well done 👏" That's some stretch. This is what he actually said and I don't think anyone would disagree with him at all. 🤷♂️ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd72p30v574o | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage has forced change, and will whether he holds power or not. Starmer has now admitted that international conventions, such as the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, need to be re-examined to stop exploitation. The left continually championing the exploitation of the ECHR and the refugee convention to the detriment of the nation has delivered Farage. well done 👏 That's some stretch. This is what he actually said and I don't think anyone would disagree with him at all. 🤷♂️ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd72p30v574o" I don’t see any stretch. The facts are plain. Loopholes and conventions written 75 years ago have gone unchallenged and the result is people entering the country at will. That has fuelled the rise of right wing populism, and ironically it has been driven by the progressives who only ever considered their own views while ignoring valid concerns of others. Even Starmer now accepts this, if Farage wasn't biting at his heels he would have remained passive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage has forced change, and will whether he holds power or not. Starmer has now admitted that international conventions, such as the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, need to be re-examined to stop exploitation. The left continually championing the exploitation of the ECHR and the refugee convention to the detriment of the nation has delivered Farage. well done 👏 That's some stretch. This is what he actually said and I don't think anyone would disagree with him at all. 🤷♂️ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd72p30v574o I don’t see any stretch. The facts are plain. Loopholes and conventions written 75 years ago have gone unchallenged and the result is people entering the country at will. That has fuelled the rise of right wing populism, and ironically it has been driven by the progressives who only ever considered their own views while ignoring valid concerns of others. Even Starmer now accepts this, if Farage wasn't biting at his heels he would have remained passive." Farage has been responsible for many things. Brexit - what a success as he has admitted himself. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ The rise of xenophobia. Huge profits for Chinese flag makers. Advising rich foreigners on how to relocate to the UK and avoid tax. But other parties views on legislation? Nope. That's a stretch. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage has forced change, and will whether he holds power or not. Starmer has now admitted that international conventions, such as the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, need to be re-examined to stop exploitation. The left continually championing the exploitation of the ECHR and the refugee convention to the detriment of the nation has delivered Farage. well done 👏 That's some stretch. This is what he actually said and I don't think anyone would disagree with him at all. 🤷♂️ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd72p30v574o I don’t see any stretch. The facts are plain. Loopholes and conventions written 75 years ago have gone unchallenged and the result is people entering the country at will. That has fuelled the rise of right wing populism, and ironically it has been driven by the progressives who only ever considered their own views while ignoring valid concerns of others. Even Starmer now accepts this, if Farage wasn't biting at his heels he would have remained passive. Farage has been responsible for many things. Brexit - what a success as he has admitted himself. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ The rise of xenophobia. Huge profits for Chinese flag makers. Advising rich foreigners on how to relocate to the UK and avoid tax. But other parties views on legislation? Nope. That's a stretch. " Nothing like a touch blind bias  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Farage has forced change, and will whether he holds power or not. Starmer has now admitted that international conventions, such as the ECHR and the Refugee Convention, need to be re-examined to stop exploitation. The left continually championing the exploitation of the ECHR and the refugee convention to the detriment of the nation has delivered Farage. well done 👏 That's some stretch. This is what he actually said and I don't think anyone would disagree with him at all. 🤷♂️ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd72p30v574o I don’t see any stretch. The facts are plain. Loopholes and conventions written 75 years ago have gone unchallenged and the result is people entering the country at will. That has fuelled the rise of right wing populism, and ironically it has been driven by the progressives who only ever considered their own views while ignoring valid concerns of others. Even Starmer now accepts this, if Farage wasn't biting at his heels he would have remained passive. Farage has been responsible for many things. Brexit - what a success as he has admitted himself. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ The rise of xenophobia. Huge profits for Chinese flag makers. Advising rich foreigners on how to relocate to the UK and avoid tax. But other parties views on legislation? Nope. That's a stretch. " Xenophobia? Christ Almighty, we've been a Christian country for almost 2 millenia. By some forecasts we will be a Muslim majority by 2050. That's not xenophobia it's real concern. What does it do to shake people out of their complacency? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Xenophobia? Christ Almighty, we've been a Christian country for almost 2 millenia. By some forecasts we will be a Muslim majority by 2050. That's not xenophobia it's real concern. What does it do to shake people out of their complacency?" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 when the irony is this strong there is always double face palm 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Xenophobia? Christ Almighty, we've been a Christian country for almost 2 millenia. By some forecasts we will be a Muslim majority by 2050. That's not xenophobia it's real concern. What does it do to shake people out of their complacency?" This is quite an interesting comment. What do people think Christian ideas are? What do people think Islamic ideas are? What significant differences are there? As an atheist I think both sets of beliefs are very similar and naive but anyone suggesting that Christian ideas are inherently far superior to Islamic ideas ought to be able to make an argument to support that claim. Why is it a real concern that Muslims might outnumber Christians in the UK in say 25 years time? Should action be taken to prevent religious freedoms if this actually became the case? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Xenophobia? Christ Almighty, we've been a Christian country for almost 2 millenia. By some forecasts we will be a Muslim majority by 2050. That's not xenophobia it's real concern. What does it do to shake people out of their complacency? This is quite an interesting comment. What do people think Christian ideas are? What do people think Islamic ideas are? What significant differences are there? As an atheist I think both sets of beliefs are very similar and naive but anyone suggesting that Christian ideas are inherently far superior to Islamic ideas ought to be able to make an argument to support that claim. Why is it a real concern that Muslims might outnumber Christians in the UK in say 25 years time? Should action be taken to prevent religious freedoms if this actually became the case? " If you have no concerns fair enough. I've lived in both Christian and Muslim countries. Individually there are marvellous people in both. But as a doctrine, I'd prefer my great grandchildren to live in a Christian country and it's associate liberal democracy. That said, given the arc we are currently on, it's a lost cause anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone actually have a solution for this? And what will the consequences be for the uk if the influx of immigrants keep coming ? X" I'd reinvent Rwanda. But instead of the offer of status in Rwanda anyone who is granted status, then can move to UK. You claim asylum, then off you go to Rwanda, you will be looked after in the usual way, health, bed and food, UK immigration officers on hand along with locally employed staff, asylum interview completed via video link. Most refused if transit through safe country. If they don't want to wait in Rwanda for outcome they can be moved back to country of origin or stay in Rwanda. Give it 6 months, no one will be paying to come over by boat to be immediately placed on a plane to Rwanda or similar. The time pressure on asylum claim decisions would then be lifted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Xenophobia? Christ Almighty, we've been a Christian country for almost 2 millenia. By some forecasts we will be a Muslim majority by 2050. That's not xenophobia it's real concern. What does it do to shake people out of their complacency? This is quite an interesting comment. What do people think Christian ideas are? What do people think Islamic ideas are? What significant differences are there? As an atheist I think both sets of beliefs are very similar and naive but anyone suggesting that Christian ideas are inherently far superior to Islamic ideas ought to be able to make an argument to support that claim. Why is it a real concern that Muslims might outnumber Christians in the UK in say 25 years time? Should action be taken to prevent religious freedoms if this actually became the case? " What do countries look like that was once a majority Christian country but now a majority Islamic country ? If I had to put a name to it I'd call myself agnostic but the west has always been Christian nations and will always be | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone actually have a solution for this? And what will the consequences be for the uk if the influx of immigrants keep coming ? X I'd reinvent Rwanda. But instead of the offer of status in Rwanda anyone who is granted status, then can move to UK. You claim asylum, then off you go to Rwanda, you will be looked after in the usual way, health, bed and food, UK immigration officers on hand along with locally employed staff, asylum interview completed via video link. Most refused if transit through safe country. If they don't want to wait in Rwanda for outcome they can be moved back to country of origin or stay in Rwanda. Give it 6 months, no one will be paying to come over by boat to be immediately placed on a plane to Rwanda or similar. The time pressure on asylum claim decisions would then be lifted. " So why bother with Rwanda? Why not look at this sensibly and humanely. We already take in less than many countries in Europe, where refugees still have to travel to and still have to go through the same processes. Why not save everyone time and effort and set up processing centres closer to the countries where the majority of Refugees come from? We already know where these are. There are already refugee camps set up and run by the UN and humanitarian groups and charities. A system could easily be put in place where applications could be processed for ALL countries. There'd be no more issues re crossing 'safe' countires. No more 'illegal' entry. No more kids drowning in the sea. Refugees could apply to seek asylum without travelling thousands of miles to do so, without paying traffickers, without having to set up tent camps and make dangerous channel crossings. Those accepted could then be transported to their destination countries and those refused documented, fingerprinted, placed on a database that all countries could access and sent away. There'd be no opportunity to try another country once refused. It would cost less, impact the existing residents of countries less and remove any waiting period whilst applications are ongoing, costs of accommodating and supporting those who may eventually be declined, and give the 'protect our borders' crowd nothing to shout about. Everyone would benefit. Taxpayers, Refugees and countries accepting Refugees. Everyone except the people traffickers. And of course Reform, who'd have to think of another group to hate on. 🤷♂️ The law that asylum can only be sought once in a country is what causes the majority of safety, societal and financial issues. Change that and most of the issues nations and governments face disappear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you have no concerns fair enough. I've lived in both Christian and Muslim countries. Individually there are marvellous people in both. But as a doctrine, I'd prefer my great grandchildren to live in a Christian country and it's associate liberal democracy. That said, given the arc we are currently on, it's a lost cause anyway." I have slight concerns in that religion is sometimes used as a tool to motivate people towards hatred of other people with different religions. It sounded from your post that you were edging into that territory, but hopefully I got the wrong impression. If your concern is about threats to liberal democracy then it might be best to focus on arguments about liberal versus conservative ideas and democratic versus autocratic ideas. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you have no concerns fair enough. I've lived in both Christian and Muslim countries. Individually there are marvellous people in both. But as a doctrine, I'd prefer my great grandchildren to live in a Christian country and it's associate liberal democracy. That said, given the arc we are currently on, it's a lost cause anyway. I have slight concerns in that religion is sometimes used as a tool to motivate people towards hatred of other people with different religions. It sounded from your post that you were edging into that territory, but hopefully I got the wrong impression. If your concern is about threats to liberal democracy then it might be best to focus on arguments about liberal versus conservative ideas and democratic versus autocratic ideas. " Well firstly, I have no strong religious views personally. But as I say, I'd prefer a Christian future for our country because I believe it ensures we remain a liberal democracy. I make no apologies for linking the two - can you suggest an example of an Islamic liberal democracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do countries look like that was once a majority Christian country but now a majority Islamic country ?" Do you have any countries in mind? I think the most obvious one would be Turkey. "If I had to put a name to it I'd call myself agnostic but the west has always been Christian nations and will always be" Always? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well firstly, I have no strong religious views personally. But as I say, I'd prefer a Christian future for our country because I believe it ensures we remain a liberal democracy. I make no apologies for linking the two - can you suggest an example of an Islamic liberal democracy?" One could I suppose argue a correlation between various religions and political systems but I don't see a causal link. Just because Germany, Spain and Italy were Christian countries it doesn't mean that Chrisitanity inevitably leads to fascism. In Japan, Shintoism wasn't the cause of their aggression. Similarly atheism doesn't lead to Stalinism. If you think that Christianity is genuinely what underpins liberal democracy then I'd be interested to hear why in more detail. Unfortunately some people use things like religion as a convenient vector for their hatred of the other. We should all try to avoid this. As much of a critic as I am of religion, I think it's unfair to blame everything on it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do countries look like that was once a majority Christian country but now a majority Islamic country ? Do you have any countries in mind? I think the most obvious one would be Turkey. Lebanon ?, I suppose I was referring to being more labral then most if not all Muslim dominated countries like countries that Islam now having the majority in, Iran, Syria, Tunisia etc If I had to put a name to it I'd call myself agnostic but the west has always been Christian nations and will always be Always?" In my opinion yes, I just think enough people will stand up and fight to keep it that way | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What do countries look like that was once a majority Christian country but now a majority Islamic country ? Do you have any countries in mind? I think the most obvious one would be Turkey. Lebanon ?, I suppose I was referring to being more labral then most if not all Muslim dominated countries like countries that Islam now having the majority in, Iran, Syria, Tunisia etc If I had to put a name to it I'd call myself agnostic but the west has always been Christian nations and will always be Always? In my opinion yes, I just think enough people will stand up and fight to keep it that way " I hope you're right, but it's not what the forecasts predict. Three reasons:- 1) The profile of immigrants. 2) Comparative birth rates. 3) The sacred duty of da'wah to convert non-believers to Islam. 4) The apathy of indigenous Brits (read this thread). Taking the above, it's a lost cause I'm afraid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the 2021 England and Wales census 46.2% identified as Christian. 37.2% identified as having no religion. 6.5% identified as Muslim. Given trends I expect that the percentage of Brits who identify as having no religion will overtake Christians in the next census. I see this as a positive development so long as there is universal tolerance for freedom of religious belief. " People identifying with no religion may take over Christianity at some point but most will still identify with Christianity in one way or the other without actually going to church, unless the birth rate of other religions continue to out grow the native peoples from western countries | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People identifying with no religion may take over Christianity at some point but most will still identify with Christianity in one way or the other without actually going to church, unless the birth rate of other religions continue to out grow the native peoples from western countries" It's been a one-way street since the Enlightenment. Most people don't really believe in religion other than at a superficial level. From my experience this applies to people from Muslim and Jewish backgrounds too although they are more reluctant to talk about it openly because their parents are much more conservative than them and they don't want to cause friction. I think for many young people religion is mostly just about cultural identity. And there are large numbers of atheists who don't speak out because they don't want to tread on other people's sensitivities. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"According to the 2021 England and Wales census 46.2% identified as Christian. 37.2% identified as having no religion. 6.5% identified as Muslim. Given trends I expect that the percentage of Brits who identify as having no religion will overtake Christians in the next census. I see this as a positive development so long as there is universal tolerance for freedom of religious belief. People identifying with no religion may take over Christianity at some point but most will still identify with Christianity in one way or the other without actually going to church, unless the birth rate of other religions continue to out grow the native peoples from western countries " Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." So, as I asked earlier... What do people think Christian ideas are? What do people think Islamic ideas are? What significant differences are there? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in. So, as I asked earlier... What do people think Christian ideas are? What do people think Islamic ideas are? What significant differences are there?" Not sure what you are getting at here? The 3 Abrahamic faiths have overlap but also fundamentally different teachings and beliefs. For example on the subject of Jesus. If you mean values, then again similarities, but striking differences. For example the role of women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does anyone actually have a solution for this? And what will the consequences be for the uk if the influx of immigrants keep coming ? X I'd reinvent Rwanda. But instead of the offer of status in Rwanda anyone who is granted status, then can move to UK. You claim asylum, then off you go to Rwanda, you will be looked after in the usual way, health, bed and food, UK immigration officers on hand along with locally employed staff, asylum interview completed via video link. Most refused if transit through safe country. If they don't want to wait in Rwanda for outcome they can be moved back to country of origin or stay in Rwanda. Give it 6 months, no one will be paying to come over by boat to be immediately placed on a plane to Rwanda or similar. The time pressure on asylum claim decisions would then be lifted. So why bother with Rwanda? Why not look at this sensibly and humanely. We already take in less than many countries in Europe, where refugees still have to travel to and still have to go through the same processes. Why not save everyone time and effort and set up processing centres closer to the countries where the majority of Refugees come from? We already know where these are. There are already refugee camps set up and run by the UN and humanitarian groups and charities. A system could easily be put in place where applications could be processed for ALL countries. There'd be no more issues re crossing 'safe' countires. No more 'illegal' entry. No more kids drowning in the sea. Refugees could apply to seek asylum without travelling thousands of miles to do so, without paying traffickers, without having to set up tent camps and make dangerous channel crossings. Those accepted could then be transported to their destination countries and those refused documented, fingerprinted, placed on a database that all countries could access and sent away. There'd be no opportunity to try another country once refused. It would cost less, impact the existing residents of countries less and remove any waiting period whilst applications are ongoing, costs of accommodating and supporting those who may eventually be declined, and give the 'protect our borders' crowd nothing to shout about. Everyone would benefit. Taxpayers, Refugees and countries accepting Refugees. Everyone except the people traffickers. And of course Reform, who'd have to think of another group to hate on. 🤷♂️ The law that asylum can only be sought once in a country is what causes the majority of safety, societal and financial issues. Change that and most of the issues nations and governments face disappear. " It basically exists. Someone can claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. Most people travel through many countries before ever getting onto a boat in France. Many have worked their way through several countries depending on originating country, taking many years to arrive in France. There was a system that took families from camps straight to UK destination but the people who get in boats have no intention of using these routes as they offer no guarantee. To get you feet on the ground in UK and then wait, sometimes many, many years for an outcome, the longer the time taken, the more time you can build a life here and use any children, relationships, community to challenge any refusal. Not that bothered if it be Rwanda or any other country, maybe many countries that would fit with their nationality be it North or sub Sahara, east / west Africa, middle east etc. While there is a situation where once the asylum interview is completed and then freedom to enter the community is the norm and support supplied, the boats will keep coming. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure what you are getting at here? The 3 Abrahamic faiths have overlap but also fundamentally different teachings and beliefs. For example on the subject of Jesus. If you mean values, then again similarities, but striking differences. For example the role of women." Yes, Judaism sees the concept of Jesus as idolatry while Islam sees Jesus as a holy prophet called Isa. Do you really want to debate the Quran versus the Bible on their attitudes to women? I can shred the Bible because it contains some extremely misogynistic passages. But I'm less knowledgeable about the Quran so would welcome learning more in a debate that compares the two. Don't get me wrong though. I see the Bible and the Quran as ancient texts that reflect the times they came from so I think both are out of date in terms of our understanding of ethics and obviously as an atheist I reject the mystical justifications too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not sure what you are getting at here? The 3 Abrahamic faiths have overlap but also fundamentally different teachings and beliefs. For example on the subject of Jesus. If you mean values, then again similarities, but striking differences. For example the role of women. Yes, Judaism sees the concept of Jesus as idolatry while Islam sees Jesus as a holy prophet called Isa. Do you really want to debate the Quran versus the Bible on their attitudes to women? I can shred the Bible because it contains some extremely misogynistic passages. But I'm less knowledgeable about the Quran so would welcome learning more in a debate that compares the two. Don't get me wrong though. I see the Bible and the Quran as ancient texts that reflect the times they came from so I think both are out of date in terms of our understanding of ethics and obviously as an atheist I reject the mystical justifications too. " You’re basing your argument on scripture, which leans into extremes. There are values and morals provided by religions that have carried into societies over centuries, and have shaped whole communities over time and still do today, if you can’t see that, there can't be a serious discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It basically exists. Someone can claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. Most people travel through many countries before ever getting onto a boat in France. Many have worked their way through several countries depending on originating country, taking many years to arrive in France. There was a system that took families from camps straight to UK destination but the people who get in boats have no intention of using these routes as they offer no guarantee. To get you feet on the ground in UK and then wait, sometimes many, many years for an outcome, the longer the time taken, the more time you can build a life here and use any children, relationships, community to challenge any refusal. Not that bothered if it be Rwanda or any other country, maybe many countries that would fit with their nationality be it North or sub Sahara, east / west Africa, middle east etc. While there is a situation where once the asylum interview is completed and then freedom to enter the community is the norm and support supplied, the boats will keep coming." Some people who speak English and/or have connections to the UK want to claim asylum. But there are no mechanisms for people from places like Iran or Afghanistan to do so from outside the UK - they must already be inside the UK in order to apply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re basing your argument on scripture, which leans into extremes. There are values and morals provided by religions that have carried into societies over centuries, and have shaped whole communities over time and still do today, if you can’t see that, there can't be a serious discussion." As always, I'm up for serious discussion. You arrive armed with wool and knitting needles. What are the values and morals of Christianity that are superior to the values and morals of Islam? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You’re basing your argument on scripture, which leans into extremes. There are values and morals provided by religions that have carried into societies over centuries, and have shaped whole communities over time and still do today, if you can’t see that, there can't be a serious discussion. As always, I'm up for serious discussion. You arrive armed with wool and knitting needles. What are the values and morals of Christianity that are superior to the values and morals of Islam? " You started your reply well and then let yourself down so quickly, again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It basically exists. Someone can claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. Most people travel through many countries before ever getting onto a boat in France. Many have worked their way through several countries depending on originating country, taking many years to arrive in France. There was a system that took families from camps straight to UK destination but the people who get in boats have no intention of using these routes as they offer no guarantee. To get you feet on the ground in UK and then wait, sometimes many, many years for an outcome, the longer the time taken, the more time you can build a life here and use any children, relationships, community to challenge any refusal. Not that bothered if it be Rwanda or any other country, maybe many countries that would fit with their nationality be it North or sub Sahara, east / west Africa, middle east etc. While there is a situation where once the asylum interview is completed and then freedom to enter the community is the norm and support supplied, the boats will keep coming. Some people who speak English and/or have connections to the UK want to claim asylum. But there are no mechanisms for people from places like Iran or Afghanistan to do so from outside the UK - they must already be inside the UK in order to apply." They can claim asylum in the first safe country. A relative or the ability to speak English is not one of the criteria to claim asylum in this or any other country. You claim asylum in the first safe country. If status granted, there may be scope to arrange a move to UK. I do believe if you take away the ability to wait in this country, for usually years, until an asylum claim is decided, the boats would most certainly decrease. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It basically exists. Someone can claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. Most people travel through many countries before ever getting onto a boat in France. Many have worked their way through several countries depending on originating country, taking many years to arrive in France. There was a system that took families from camps straight to UK destination but the people who get in boats have no intention of using these routes as they offer no guarantee. To get you feet on the ground in UK and then wait, sometimes many, many years for an outcome, the longer the time taken, the more time you can build a life here and use any children, relationships, community to challenge any refusal. Not that bothered if it be Rwanda or any other country, maybe many countries that would fit with their nationality be it North or sub Sahara, east / west Africa, middle east etc. While there is a situation where once the asylum interview is completed and then freedom to enter the community is the norm and support supplied, the boats will keep coming. Some people who speak English and/or have connections to the UK want to claim asylum. But there are no mechanisms for people from places like Iran or Afghanistan to do so from outside the UK - they must already be inside the UK in order to apply. They can claim asylum in the first safe country. A relative or the ability to speak English is not one of the criteria to claim asylum in this or any other country. You claim asylum in the first safe country. If status granted, there may be scope to arrange a move to UK. I do believe if you take away the ability to wait in this country, for usually years, until an asylum claim is decided, the boats would most certainly decrease. " Nope. Once asylum is granted in another country you can't then choose to apply elsewhere. This is the issue. People are forced to travel thousands of miles to make an application, paying traffickers en route. Cut out that travel need and you 'smash the gangs'. And save time, effort and money on everyone's part. But no systems bar the ones for the Ukraine and the one for Afghans who aided the UK military exist. It's a question of 'boots on UK soil' before anyone can apply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You started your reply well and then let yourself down so quickly, again." I make silly jokes about wool and knitting because you very rarely make a substantive argument about anything. You post bold opinions but when challenged you run away, It's OK to just post pure opinions of course, my lame jokes about wool are just opinions. If you want serious debate then perhaps address my question "What are the values and morals of Christianity that are superior to the values and morals of Islam?" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"But no systems bar the ones for the Ukraine and the one for Afghans who aided the UK military exist." The Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (ACRS) has been closed down. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You started your reply well and then let yourself down so quickly, again. I make silly jokes about wool and knitting because you very rarely make a substantive argument about anything. You post bold opinions but when challenged you run away, It's OK to just post pure opinions of course, my lame jokes about wool are just opinions. If you want serious debate then perhaps address my question "What are the values and morals of Christianity that are superior to the values and morals of Islam?" " My response had nothing to do with your wool comments. It was aimed at your repeated attempts to drag people into positions you think you can attack with AI driven morality responses. The discussion in this forum is dying because of that lure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My response had nothing to do with your wool comments. It was aimed at your repeated attempts to drag people into positions you think you can attack with AI driven morality responses. The discussion in this forum is dying because of that lure." Why do you think my comments are AI driven? I'm here to engage people in lively debate where arguments stand on their own merits. Hopefully, now and then I learn something new and modify my position. I thought that was the point of political/philosophical debate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"My response had nothing to do with your wool comments. It was aimed at your repeated attempts to drag people into positions you think you can attack with AI driven morality responses. The discussion in this forum is dying because of that lure. Why do you think my comments are AI driven? I'm here to engage people in lively debate where arguments stand on their own merits. Hopefully, now and then I learn something new and modify my position. I thought that was the point of political/philosophical debate." Spelling and structure, however, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Do you recognise religious values exist that shape societies? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Spelling and structure, however, I'm happy to be proven wrong." You think my spelling and the structure of my sentences gives a signature of AI? My guess is that you use AI a lot and assume that everybody else must do so too. Maybe it's because I use a slightly American/internationalist style but that's because my long tern partner was an American and I routinely write documents for an international audience where US spellings are the norm so I tend to mix US and British English. "Do you recognise religious values exist that shape societies?" Yes, although I'd say that it's a two-way process and religious values are shaped by society first and foremost. Or more accurately by those who created and disseminated the texts rather than society as a whole. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Spelling and structure, however, I'm happy to be proven wrong. You think my spelling and the structure of my sentences gives a signature of AI? My guess is that you use AI a lot and assume that everybody else must do so too. Maybe it's because I use a slightly American/internationalist style but that's because my long tern partner was an American and I routinely write documents for an international audience where US spellings are the norm so I tend to mix US and British English. Do you recognise religious values exist that shape societies? Yes, although I'd say that it's a two-way process and religious values are shaped by society first and foremost. Or more accurately by those who created and disseminated the texts rather than society as a whole." Let’s park the AI point. I have simply noticed you switch between US and UK English, and your sentence structures sometimes feel unnatural then revert to a natural structure when challenged, often with added “expertise” that explains the nuance. Back on point.. if you recognise that religion inputs to moral values in a society, then it is inevitable that two different religious societies will clash when their values are called into question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s park the AI point. I have simply noticed you switch between US and UK English, and your sentence structures sometimes feel unnatural then revert to a natural structure when challenged, often with added “expertise” that explains the nuance." As well as shifting between US and Britsh English I have a range of writing styles. I sometimes write with rhetorical strength in the same manner as my formal public speaking, then I might switch to midground or completely informal chat. I'm fluid, that you think this is all down to AI is kind of hilarious. " Back on point.. if you recognise that religion inputs to moral values in a society, then it is inevitable that two different religious societies will clash when their values are called into question" Which brings us back to the question that you have been avoiding - what do you think are the significant differences between Christian and Islamic values and morals? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It basically exists. Someone can claim asylum in the first safe country they enter. Most people travel through many countries before ever getting onto a boat in France. Many have worked their way through several countries depending on originating country, taking many years to arrive in France. There was a system that took families from camps straight to UK destination but the people who get in boats have no intention of using these routes as they offer no guarantee. To get you feet on the ground in UK and then wait, sometimes many, many years for an outcome, the longer the time taken, the more time you can build a life here and use any children, relationships, community to challenge any refusal. Not that bothered if it be Rwanda or any other country, maybe many countries that would fit with their nationality be it North or sub Sahara, east / west Africa, middle east etc. While there is a situation where once the asylum interview is completed and then freedom to enter the community is the norm and support supplied, the boats will keep coming. Some people who speak English and/or have connections to the UK want to claim asylum. But there are no mechanisms for people from places like Iran or Afghanistan to do so from outside the UK - they must already be inside the UK in order to apply. They can claim asylum in the first safe country. A relative or the ability to speak English is not one of the criteria to claim asylum in this or any other country. You claim asylum in the first safe country. If status granted, there may be scope to arrange a move to UK. I do believe if you take away the ability to wait in this country, for usually years, until an asylum claim is decided, the boats would most certainly decrease. Nope. Once asylum is granted in another country you can't then choose to apply elsewhere. This is the issue. People are forced to travel thousands of miles to make an application, paying traffickers en route. Cut out that travel need and you 'smash the gangs'. And save time, effort and money on everyone's part. But no systems bar the ones for the Ukraine and the one for Afghans who aided the UK military exist. It's a question of 'boots on UK soil' before anyone can apply. " Didn't say that. I said once status is granted, be that in another country, applications can then be made to move to a different country, if you have in place necessary visas abd work permits, just like everyone else. You are correct, once status through asylum is granted in one country you can't just seek asylum in another, and god knows they try.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Let’s park the AI point. I have simply noticed you switch between US and UK English, and your sentence structures sometimes feel unnatural then revert to a natural structure when challenged, often with added “expertise” that explains the nuance. As well as shifting between US and Britsh English I have a range of writing styles. I sometimes write with rhetorical strength in the same manner as my formal public speaking, then I might switch to midground or completely informal chat. I'm fluid, that you think this is all down to AI is kind of hilarious. Back on point.. if you recognise that religion inputs to moral values in a society, then it is inevitable that two different religious societies will clash when their values are called into question Which brings us back to the question that you have been avoiding - what do you think are the significant differences between Christian and Islamic values and morals?" Business returns of 200% profit and the ability to switch between US and UK English are impressive, but let’s move on. I asked: “Do you recognise religious values exist that shape societies?” You answered: “Yes, although it’s a two way process and religious values are shaped by society first and foremost. Or more accurately by those who created and disseminated the texts rather than society as a whole.” So you do recognise difference, correct? If so, what difference "do you see" at the societal or community level? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Business returns of 200% profit, and the ability to switch between US and UK English are very impressive." Just because some things are outside of your limited experience doesn't mean they don't exist. In software development cost are essentially wages plus small amounts for office and equipment. So yes 200% profits are not only possible but pretty routine. And yes some of us have non-UK partners and lives that stretch beyond the shores of Albion. "However, moving on.. this is what we have been through: Me: Do you recognise religious values exist that shape societies?" You: Yes, although I'd say that it's a two-way process and religious values are shaped by society first and foremost. Or more accurately by those who created and disseminated the texts rather than society as a whole. You recognise difference, is that correct?" Yes, but where is this going? This is why I think about wool whenever we have a discussion. It seems you simply are not willing to explain what you think are the significant differences between Christian and Islamic values and morals. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Business returns of 200% profit, and the ability to switch between US and UK English are very impressive. Just because some things are outside of your limited experience doesn't mean they don't exist. In software development cost are essentially wages plus small amounts for office and equipment. So yes 200% profits are not only possible but pretty routine. And yes some of us have non-UK partners and lives that stretch beyond the shores of Albion. However, moving on.. this is what we have been through: Me: Do you recognise religious values exist that shape societies?" You: Yes, although I'd say that it's a two-way process and religious values are shaped by society first and foremost. Or more accurately by those who created and disseminated the texts rather than society as a whole. You recognise difference, is that correct? Yes, but where is this going? This is why I think about wool whenever we have a discussion. It seems you simply are not willing to explain what you think are the significant differences between Christian and Islamic values and morals." LOL I have mentioned that I'm a M&A consultant, from my experience your claims are totally unfounded. If you could point me to the business you had I would be grateful, I never look a gift horse in the mouth. I'm not going to be drawn into the argument you want to create ref the differences in communities, that is your aim and what motivates you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL I have mentioned that I'm a M&A consultant, from my experience your claims are totally unfounded. If you could point me to the business you had I would be grateful, I never look a gift horse in the mouth." I guess you deal with crappy companies who are trying to squeeze out a few percent by merging with other crappy companies in order to reduce competiion so I'm not surprised that you know nothing about entrepreneurship, "I'm not going to be drawn into the argument you want to create ref the differences in communities, that is your aim and what motivates you." It's been the subject of our debate since you posted... "Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"LOL I have mentioned that I'm a M&A consultant, from my experience your claims are totally unfounded. If you could point me to the business you had I would be grateful, I never look a gift horse in the mouth. I guess you deal with crappy companies who are trying to squeeze out a few percent by merging with other crappy companies in order to reduce competiion so I'm not surprised that you know nothing about entrepreneurship, I'm not going to be drawn into the argument you want to create ref the differences in communities, that is your aim and what motivates you. It's been the subject of our debate since you posted... "Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." " You have guessed wrong, but I'm willing to look into 200% profits. Can you DM me or provide here the name of the business that achieved these results? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You have guessed wrong, but I'm willing to look into 200% profits. Can you DM me or provide here the name of the business that achieved these results?" No I'm not going to dox myself. Besides my business history has got nothing to do with this thread. If you don't want to talk about the subject under discussion then fine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"200% profit doesn't exist. It's bad enough when people sell something for twice what they paid and say: "I made 100% profit"" Explain why you think that the 100% profit idea is incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been the subject of our debate since you posted... "Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." " What part of that are you finding difficult to understand? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"200% profit doesn't exist. It's bad enough when people sell something for twice what they paid and say: "I made 100% profit"" I see this diversion isn't going to go away. If a company has running costs of X and produces a turnover of 3X then the investment of X produces a pre-tax profit of 2X. In intellectual property development this is not uncommon. Say an author writes a book or a band produces an album that takes say six months to produce then there are certain direct costs involved. Then a publisher has costs in producing and marketing so their margin may be small but the originator's income through royalties can be many many times their direct costs. In software the overheads in production are minimal. We are selling bytes. Tax obviously and rightly impacts on profits and VAT if applicable is particular impactful because input deductions can amount to virtually nothing. I'm semi-retired now so only dabble part-time in development but every month I get a royalty payment on sales of stuff I created as much as five years ago. My publisher takes a commision and there are banking and currency exchange cost plus I run a related website etc but from my perspective I'm not investing anything other than peanuts yet am getting a regular income. So margins in IP development are nothing like the margins involved in running something like a supermarket. In the past I've run companies that were successful in that income was sometimes three times the running costs. Although technically these profits rarely showed up on the books because they were mostly used to pay enormous productivity related bonuses to staff. Being paid twice as much in bonus payments than basic salary is commonplace for high end creators especially in high stress roles where there are tight deadlines. Also some of the businesses I've run made net losses so it's not all plain sailing. I hope we can put this to bed now and return to the topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been the subject of our debate since you posted... "Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." What part of that are you finding difficult to understand? " I understood it. That's why I asked what you think the significant differences are between the values and morals of Christianity and Islam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's been the subject of our debate since you posted... "Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." What part of that are you finding difficult to understand? I understood it. That's why I asked what you think the significant differences are between the values and morals of Christianity and Islam." I'm not talking specifically about the religion, I'm saying societies are built on foundations formed by values often found in religious teachings that influence whether you are religious or not. If you visit a mainly muslim area, do you notice a difference from a mainly christian area? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religious texts are usually very vague and hence open to numerous interpretations. So when we talk about immigration, we should look at how these people interpret their religion. Are the Islamic migrants to UK predominantly supportive of liberal values? I don't think so. If they did, we won't have de facto blasphemy laws. Salman Rushdie wouldn't have to live in hiding. Pretending like all religions are same in the context of immigration is just gaslighting." Personally I think many Christians indigenous to the UK aren't supportive of liberal values. You only need to read some comments on this forum to see that. Although to be fair I'm just assuming that many conservatives on fab identify as Christian. Maybe I'm wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religious texts are usually very vague and hence open to numerous interpretations. So when we talk about immigration, we should look at how these people interpret their religion. Are the Islamic migrants to UK predominantly supportive of liberal values? I don't think so. If they did, we won't have de facto blasphemy laws. Salman Rushdie wouldn't have to live in hiding. Pretending like all religions are same in the context of immigration is just gaslighting. Personally I think many Christians indigenous to the UK aren't supportive of liberal values. You only need to read some comments on this forum to see that. Although to be fair I'm just assuming that many conservatives on fab identify as Christian. Maybe I'm wrong. " How many of the conservative Christians in UK do you think will stab people for burning the Bible or send death threats for offending Christians? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not talking specifically about the religion, I'm saying societies are built on foundations formed by values often found in religious teachings that influence whether you are religious or not." Your original post was... "Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." I took this to mean that different religions have different values and if the most popular religion changed then society would change because the values of the religions were different. Now you seem to have shifted to something like religous teachings influence whether or not you are religious or not. So it's difficult to understand what you are trying to argue. Is it now that we should be a secular society? If so as an atheist I agree. Although I recognise that many people do believe in the supernatural so I try to respect that. "If you visit a mainly muslim area, do you notice a difference from a mainly christian area?" I lived in Halifax for a couple of years in an area that appeared to be mainly Muslim. My partner and I were only ever treated with the utmost respect and friendliness by our Muslim neighbours. The only unpleasantness in the area came from the BNP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Religious texts are usually very vague and hence open to numerous interpretations. So when we talk about immigration, we should look at how these people interpret their religion. Are the Islamic migrants to UK predominantly supportive of liberal values? I don't think so. If they did, we won't have de facto blasphemy laws. Salman Rushdie wouldn't have to live in hiding. Pretending like all religions are same in the context of immigration is just gaslighting. Personally I think many Christians indigenous to the UK aren't supportive of liberal values. You only need to read some comments on this forum to see that. Although to be fair I'm just assuming that many conservatives on fab identify as Christian. Maybe I'm wrong. How many of the conservative Christians in UK do you think will stab people for burning the Bible or send death threats for offending Christians?" The phrase 'these people' always makes me a little sick in my mouth. Lumping every single person of a faith into a one size fits all group of fanatics and people of violence. There's plenty of evidence of white folk committing horrific racially motivated crimes. Do we then accuse all white people of being violent and I tolerant? No. Because that would be both idiotic and stupid. Government statistics show you're far more likely to be the victim of crime if you're non white. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm not talking specifically about the religion, I'm saying societies are built on foundations formed by values often found in religious teachings that influence whether you are religious or not. Your original post was... "Many dismiss religion as fantasy and forget it is a value system that shapes society, laws and everyday life. Saying “so what” if another religion becomes more dominant misses the point, society changes with it. Too many are blinkered and can't see how deeply these values underpin the world they live in." I took this to mean that different religions have different values and if the most popular religion changed then society would change because the values of the religions were different. Now you seem to have shifted to something like religous teachings influence whether or not you are religious or not. So it's difficult to understand what you are trying to argue. Is it now that we should be a secular society? If so as an atheist I agree. Although I recognise that many people do believe in the supernatural so I try to respect that. If you visit a mainly muslim area, do you notice a difference from a mainly christian area? I lived in Halifax for a couple of years in an area that appeared to be mainly Muslim. My partner and I were only ever treated with the utmost respect and friendliness by our Muslim neighbours. The only unpleasantness in the area came from the BNP. " You asked: “Why is it a real concern that Muslims might outnumber Christians in the UK in 25 years’ time?” It’s a concern because it will change the society we live in. It really is that simple. There is no need to dive into scripture or theological detail if the majority religion changes, then the values shaping society change with it. A mostly Muslim country would not look or feel like today’s UK. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many of the conservative Christians in UK do you think will stab people for burning the Bible or send death threats for offending Christians?" Burning the Bible? Probably none but many Christians know more about particle physics than they do about the Bible. As for death threats and encitement to murder. For foreigners and anyone who stands up for them, it seems sadly too common. Reform even put one on a conference platform recently. Whether many conservatives are Christian in any meaningful sense is debatable of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You asked: “Why is it a real concern that Muslims might outnumber Christians in the UK in 25 years’ time?” It’s a concern because it will change the society we live in. It really is that simple. There is no need to dive into scripture or theological detail if the majority religion changes, then the values shaping society change with it. A mostly Muslim country would not look or feel like today’s UK." You keep saying that society would change but refuse to say in what way. If you think Muslims have inferior values to Christians then please spell it out in detail so that we can debate whether this is actually the case. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" There's plenty of evidence of white folk committing horrific racially motivated crimes. Do we then accuse all white people of being violent and I tolerant? No. Because that would be both idiotic and stupid. People need to keep that train of thought when bringing up slve trade colonialism and privilege Government statistics show you're far more likely to be the victim of crime if you're non white. it would be be opposite in a majority non White country " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You asked: “Why is it a real concern that Muslims might outnumber Christians in the UK in 25 years’ time?” It’s a concern because it will change the society we live in. It really is that simple. There is no need to dive into scripture or theological detail if the majority religion changes, then the values shaping society change with it. A mostly Muslim country would not look or feel like today’s UK. You keep saying that society would change but refuse to say in what way. If you think Muslims have inferior values to Christians then please spell it out in detail so that we can debate whether this is actually the case. " You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really?" Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. "Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country?" Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. " The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. " The UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities. This would change both domestic and foreign policy and the way other nations perceive us - especially the US who have expressed concerns already. For example, we might adopt Sharia law to replace or co-exist with our common law. You infer that you don't care. But I do, because it will be the end of our liberal democracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. " Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? " Who's 'we' exactly? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Who's 'we' exactly?" The people who have run the UK over the last several decades. Stop diverting from the point. You aren’t happy about ‘too many Muslims’ What you going to do about it then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"How many of the conservative Christians in UK do you think will stab people for burning the Bible or send death threats for offending Christians? Burning the Bible? Probably none but many Christians know more about particle physics than they do about the Bible. As for death threats and encitement to murder. For foreigners and anyone who stands up for them, it seems sadly too common. Reform even put one on a conference platform recently. Whether many conservatives are Christian in any meaningful sense is debatable of course. " Yeah conservatism and Christianity might have some overlap but it's not that big. So it doesn't make sense to take compare reform with Islam. Let me put it this way: Three stand up comedians in UK make some super offensive jokes about different religions. One about Jesus, one about Prophet Muhammad, one about Buddha. Which of the three comedians will face the most threat because of this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? " Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? " Behave, ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is a mere fraction of that which has been allowed over several decades. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? Behave, ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is a mere fraction of that which has been allowed over several decades." Do you agree with uncontrolled immigration? It would ut you in a very small group of people if you did. The important element here is controlled and uncontrolled. We are also drifting from the point that was made, if the UK became a Muslim majority, it would, by definition, become an Islamic state, the cultural identity we have now would be lost. The change would be immense and radical as the balance swung. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities. This would change both domestic and foreign policy and the way other nations perceive us - especially the US who have expressed concerns already. For example, we might adopt Sharia law to replace or co-exist with our common law. You infer that you don't care. But I do, because it will be the end of our liberal democracy." The most recent large scale study (Pew 2017) resulted in a different conclusion. "Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern. A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050. Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe." Another study (Citation Pierre Rostan & Alexandra Rostan, 2019. "When will European Muslim population be majority and in which country?,") includes projected years where Muslim populations may be in the majority in European countries. "Three scenarios are considered: the zero-migration scenario where the authors assume that the Muslim population has a higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern; a 2017 migration scenario: to the Muslim population obtained in the zero-migration scenario, the authors add a continuous flow of migrants every year based on year 2017; the mid-point migration scenario is obtained by averaging the data of the two previous scenarios. Findings - Among three scenarios, the most likely mid-point migration scenario identifies 13 countries where the Muslim population will be majority between years 2085 and 2215: Cyprus (in year 2085), Sweden (2125), France (2135), Greece (2135), Belgium (2140), Bulgaria (2140), Italy (2175), Luxembourg (2175), the UK (2180), Slovenia (2190), Switzerland (2195), Ireland (2200) and Lithuania (2215)." In both France and the UK, the predictions (if they were to happen) are over a century away. And these predictions are largely based on maths of course, not taking into account any political, climate, or societal changes that may well take place over those 100+ years. Simply saying that 'the UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities' is as overly simplistic as much of what is posted on social media on the subject. Remember that huge brexit poster Farage circulated saying 76 million Turks were due to join the EU? Turkey has been a 'candidate' to join since 1999. Accession talks were suspended in 2019. It'll likely never happen. 155 years ago the British Empire was at it's peak. 155 years into the future is anyone's guess. 🤷♂️ Times change. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Who's 'we' exactly? The people who have run the UK over the last several decades. Stop diverting from the point. You aren’t happy about ‘too many Muslims’ What you going to do about it then?" There's nothing to be done, a Muslim majority is inevitable. Partly because people like you don't value the culture and values handed down to us by our forebears enough. I've lived in a Muslim country. At a personal level the people are friendly and peaceful, but at a state level, it's not for me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? Behave, ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is a mere fraction of that which has been allowed over several decades. Do you agree with uncontrolled immigration? It would ut you in a very small group of people if you did. The important element here is controlled and uncontrolled. We are also drifting from the point that was made, if the UK became a Muslim majority, it would, by definition, become an Islamic state, the cultural identity we have now would be lost. The change would be immense and radical as the balance swung." I don’t agree with uncontrolled immigration, no. But I’m also aware that as a % of total immigration the amount of attention it is receiving is disproportionate. At face value, Farage may whittle on about loss of ‘British culture’ etc but what he really is is being a snide racist. Why? Because of his sudden interest in birth rates. He KNOWS the UK needs workers NOW to support our ageing population etc, he’s just not keen on immigrants fulfilling that objective, he instead wants Brits to have more kids (preferably white Brits having more kids, to preserve ‘our culture’ but he won’t actually say that of course will he, because he is spineless) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities. This would change both domestic and foreign policy and the way other nations perceive us - especially the US who have expressed concerns already. For example, we might adopt Sharia law to replace or co-exist with our common law. You infer that you don't care. But I do, because it will be the end of our liberal democracy. The most recent large scale study (Pew 2017) resulted in a different conclusion. "Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern. A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050. Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe." Another study (Citation Pierre Rostan & Alexandra Rostan, 2019. "When will European Muslim population be majority and in which country?,") includes projected years where Muslim populations may be in the majority in European countries. "Three scenarios are considered: the zero-migration scenario where the authors assume that the Muslim population has a higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern; a 2017 migration scenario: to the Muslim population obtained in the zero-migration scenario, the authors add a continuous flow of migrants every year based on year 2017; the mid-point migration scenario is obtained by averaging the data of the two previous scenarios. Findings - Among three scenarios, the most likely mid-point migration scenario identifies 13 countries where the Muslim population will be majority between years 2085 and 2215: Cyprus (in year 2085), Sweden (2125), France (2135), Greece (2135), Belgium (2140), Bulgaria (2140), Italy (2175), Luxembourg (2175), the UK (2180), Slovenia (2190), Switzerland (2195), Ireland (2200) and Lithuania (2215)." In both France and the UK, the predictions (if they were to happen) are over a century away. And these predictions are largely based on maths of course, not taking into account any political, climate, or societal changes that may well take place over those 100+ years. Simply saying that 'the UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities' is as overly simplistic as much of what is posted on social media on the subject. Remember that huge brexit poster Farage circulated saying 76 million Turks were due to join the EU? Turkey has been a 'candidate' to join since 1999. Accession talks were suspended in 2019. It'll likely never happen. 155 years ago the British Empire was at it's peak. 155 years into the future is anyone's guess. 🤷♂️ Times change. " Common sense alone tells you that your prediction is way out. It will come much sooner because :- 1) The profile of incoming migrants. 2) The comparative birth rates 3) The sacred duty of Muslims to dawah (conversion) 4) The complacency and ambivalence of people like you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? Behave, ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is a mere fraction of that which has been allowed over several decades. Do you agree with uncontrolled immigration? It would ut you in a very small group of people if you did. The important element here is controlled and uncontrolled. We are also drifting from the point that was made, if the UK became a Muslim majority, it would, by definition, become an Islamic state, the cultural identity we have now would be lost. The change would be immense and radical as the balance swung. I don’t agree with uncontrolled immigration, no. But I’m also aware that as a % of total immigration the amount of attention it is receiving is disproportionate. At face value, Farage may whittle on about loss of ‘British culture’ etc but what he really is is being a snide racist. Why? Because of his sudden interest in birth rates. He KNOWS the UK needs workers NOW to support our ageing population etc, he’s just not keen on immigrants fulfilling that objective, he instead wants Brits to have more kids (preferably white Brits having more kids, to preserve ‘our culture’ but he won’t actually say that of course will he, because he is spineless)" Do you think British culture should be written off, or is it something worth preserving? I would want my future relatives to enjoy freedoms afforded to them through Western values, rather than authoritarian Islamic state rules. We as in the West are very quick to criticise religion and the church, but we also seem to be sleep walking into setting up the country to be governed by religion in the future. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities. This would change both domestic and foreign policy and the way other nations perceive us - especially the US who have expressed concerns already. For example, we might adopt Sharia law to replace or co-exist with our common law. You infer that you don't care. But I do, because it will be the end of our liberal democracy. The most recent large scale study (Pew 2017) resulted in a different conclusion. "Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern. A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050. Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe." Another study (Citation Pierre Rostan & Alexandra Rostan, 2019. "When will European Muslim population be majority and in which country?,") includes projected years where Muslim populations may be in the majority in European countries. "Three scenarios are considered: the zero-migration scenario where the authors assume that the Muslim population has a higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern; a 2017 migration scenario: to the Muslim population obtained in the zero-migration scenario, the authors add a continuous flow of migrants every year based on year 2017; the mid-point migration scenario is obtained by averaging the data of the two previous scenarios. Findings - Among three scenarios, the most likely mid-point migration scenario identifies 13 countries where the Muslim population will be majority between years 2085 and 2215: Cyprus (in year 2085), Sweden (2125), France (2135), Greece (2135), Belgium (2140), Bulgaria (2140), Italy (2175), Luxembourg (2175), the UK (2180), Slovenia (2190), Switzerland (2195), Ireland (2200) and Lithuania (2215)." In both France and the UK, the predictions (if they were to happen) are over a century away. And these predictions are largely based on maths of course, not taking into account any political, climate, or societal changes that may well take place over those 100+ years. Simply saying that 'the UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities' is as overly simplistic as much of what is posted on social media on the subject. Remember that huge brexit poster Farage circulated saying 76 million Turks were due to join the EU? Turkey has been a 'candidate' to join since 1999. Accession talks were suspended in 2019. It'll likely never happen. 155 years ago the British Empire was at it's peak. 155 years into the future is anyone's guess. 🤷♂️ Times change. Common sense alone tells you that your prediction is way out. It will come much sooner because :- 1) The profile of incoming migrants. 2) The comparative birth rates 3) The sacred duty of Muslims to dawah (conversion) 4) The complacency and ambivalence of people like you." 1. It's not my prediction. 2. The research (if you look) includes all of what you mentioned bar number 4. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities. This would change both domestic and foreign policy and the way other nations perceive us - especially the US who have expressed concerns already. For example, we might adopt Sharia law to replace or co-exist with our common law. You infer that you don't care. But I do, because it will be the end of our liberal democracy. The most recent large scale study (Pew 2017) resulted in a different conclusion. "Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern. A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050. Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe." Another study (Citation Pierre Rostan & Alexandra Rostan, 2019. "When will European Muslim population be majority and in which country?,") includes projected years where Muslim populations may be in the majority in European countries. "Three scenarios are considered: the zero-migration scenario where the authors assume that the Muslim population has a higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern; a 2017 migration scenario: to the Muslim population obtained in the zero-migration scenario, the authors add a continuous flow of migrants every year based on year 2017; the mid-point migration scenario is obtained by averaging the data of the two previous scenarios. Findings - Among three scenarios, the most likely mid-point migration scenario identifies 13 countries where the Muslim population will be majority between years 2085 and 2215: Cyprus (in year 2085), Sweden (2125), France (2135), Greece (2135), Belgium (2140), Bulgaria (2140), Italy (2175), Luxembourg (2175), the UK (2180), Slovenia (2190), Switzerland (2195), Ireland (2200) and Lithuania (2215)." In both France and the UK, the predictions (if they were to happen) are over a century away. And these predictions are largely based on maths of course, not taking into account any political, climate, or societal changes that may well take place over those 100+ years. Simply saying that 'the UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities' is as overly simplistic as much of what is posted on social media on the subject. Remember that huge brexit poster Farage circulated saying 76 million Turks were due to join the EU? Turkey has been a 'candidate' to join since 1999. Accession talks were suspended in 2019. It'll likely never happen. 155 years ago the British Empire was at it's peak. 155 years into the future is anyone's guess. 🤷♂️ Times change. Common sense alone tells you that your prediction is way out. It will come much sooner because :- 1) The profile of incoming migrants. 2) The comparative birth rates 3) The sacred duty of Muslims to dawah (conversion) 4) The complacency and ambivalence of people like you. 1. It's not my prediction. 2. The research (if you look) includes all of what you mentioned bar number 4. " Yes I get they are institutional reports, but their conclusions are counter intuitive to what we see with our own eyes. The trend is crystal clear, and by extrapolation we can see where it takes us and roughly when. As I said, it's inevitable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities. This would change both domestic and foreign policy and the way other nations perceive us - especially the US who have expressed concerns already. For example, we might adopt Sharia law to replace or co-exist with our common law. You infer that you don't care. But I do, because it will be the end of our liberal democracy. The most recent large scale study (Pew 2017) resulted in a different conclusion. "Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern. A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050. Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe." Another study (Citation Pierre Rostan & Alexandra Rostan, 2019. "When will European Muslim population be majority and in which country?,") includes projected years where Muslim populations may be in the majority in European countries. "Three scenarios are considered: the zero-migration scenario where the authors assume that the Muslim population has a higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern; a 2017 migration scenario: to the Muslim population obtained in the zero-migration scenario, the authors add a continuous flow of migrants every year based on year 2017; the mid-point migration scenario is obtained by averaging the data of the two previous scenarios. Findings - Among three scenarios, the most likely mid-point migration scenario identifies 13 countries where the Muslim population will be majority between years 2085 and 2215: Cyprus (in year 2085), Sweden (2125), France (2135), Greece (2135), Belgium (2140), Bulgaria (2140), Italy (2175), Luxembourg (2175), the UK (2180), Slovenia (2190), Switzerland (2195), Ireland (2200) and Lithuania (2215)." In both France and the UK, the predictions (if they were to happen) are over a century away. And these predictions are largely based on maths of course, not taking into account any political, climate, or societal changes that may well take place over those 100+ years. Simply saying that 'the UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities' is as overly simplistic as much of what is posted on social media on the subject. Remember that huge brexit poster Farage circulated saying 76 million Turks were due to join the EU? Turkey has been a 'candidate' to join since 1999. Accession talks were suspended in 2019. It'll likely never happen. 155 years ago the British Empire was at it's peak. 155 years into the future is anyone's guess. 🤷♂️ Times change. Common sense alone tells you that your prediction is way out. It will come much sooner because :- 1) The profile of incoming migrants. 2) The comparative birth rates 3) The sacred duty of Muslims to dawah (conversion) 4) The complacency and ambivalence of people like you. 1. It's not my prediction. 2. The research (if you look) includes all of what you mentioned bar number 4. Yes I get they are institutional reports, but their conclusions are counter intuitive to what we see with our own eyes. The trend is crystal clear, and by extrapolation we can see where it takes us and roughly when. As I said, it's inevitable." Jesus. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ Studies based on actual numerical data and facts are 'counter intuitive to what we see with our own eyes'? So you see things that people who compile actual statistics....you know...numbers of real live people...don't? This is why you can never have a valid discussion with some people. Because black is white, verifiable data is wrong and 'feelings' are more accurate than facts. I give up. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? Behave, ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is a mere fraction of that which has been allowed over several decades. Do you agree with uncontrolled immigration? It would ut you in a very small group of people if you did. The important element here is controlled and uncontrolled. We are also drifting from the point that was made, if the UK became a Muslim majority, it would, by definition, become an Islamic state, the cultural identity we have now would be lost. The change would be immense and radical as the balance swung. I don’t agree with uncontrolled immigration, no. But I’m also aware that as a % of total immigration the amount of attention it is receiving is disproportionate. At face value, Farage may whittle on about loss of ‘British culture’ etc but what he really is is being a snide racist. Why? Because of his sudden interest in birth rates. He KNOWS the UK needs workers NOW to support our ageing population etc, he’s just not keen on immigrants fulfilling that objective, he instead wants Brits to have more kids (preferably white Brits having more kids, to preserve ‘our culture’ but he won’t actually say that of course will he, because he is spineless) Do you think British culture should be written off, or is it something worth preserving? I would want my future relatives to enjoy freedoms afforded to them through Western values, rather than authoritarian Islamic state rules. We as in the West are very quick to criticise religion and the church, but we also seem to be sleep walking into setting up the country to be governed by religion in the future." I think the possibility of an actual Muslim majority in the UK is way off & certainly won’t be happening in my lifetime (if it ever does). The prediction ‘In 25 years?’ is nonsense. Net migration after the so called Boris Wave is coming down from those lofty peaks. IF the UK became majority Muslim, you assume all Muslims would be unified in their fundamentalist aims. There are Muslim militants & there are moderate Muslims. Why couldn’t ‘British Culture’ continue to exist anyway? Muslim run shops sell alcohol do they not etc? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities. This would change both domestic and foreign policy and the way other nations perceive us - especially the US who have expressed concerns already. For example, we might adopt Sharia law to replace or co-exist with our common law. You infer that you don't care. But I do, because it will be the end of our liberal democracy. The most recent large scale study (Pew 2017) resulted in a different conclusion. "Even if all migration into Europe were to immediately and permanently stop – a “zero migration” scenario – the Muslim population of Europe still would be expected to rise from the current level of 4.9% to 7.4% by the year 2050. This is because Muslims are younger (by 13 years, on average) and have higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern. A second, “medium” migration scenario assumes that all refugee flows will stop as of mid-2016 but that recent levels of “regular” migration to Europe will continue (i.e., migration of those who come for reasons other than seeking asylum; see note on terms below). Under these conditions, Muslims could reach 11.2% of Europe’s population in 2050. Finally, a “high” migration scenario projects the record flow of refugees into Europe between 2014 and 2016 to continue indefinitely into the future with the same religious composition (i.e., mostly made up of Muslims) in addition to the typical annual flow of regular migrants. In this scenario, Muslims could make up 14% of Europe’s population by 2050 – nearly triple the current share, but still considerably smaller than the populations of both Christians and people with no religion in Europe." Another study (Citation Pierre Rostan & Alexandra Rostan, 2019. "When will European Muslim population be majority and in which country?,") includes projected years where Muslim populations may be in the majority in European countries. "Three scenarios are considered: the zero-migration scenario where the authors assume that the Muslim population has a higher fertility (one child more per woman, on average) than other Europeans, mirroring a global pattern; a 2017 migration scenario: to the Muslim population obtained in the zero-migration scenario, the authors add a continuous flow of migrants every year based on year 2017; the mid-point migration scenario is obtained by averaging the data of the two previous scenarios. Findings - Among three scenarios, the most likely mid-point migration scenario identifies 13 countries where the Muslim population will be majority between years 2085 and 2215: Cyprus (in year 2085), Sweden (2125), France (2135), Greece (2135), Belgium (2140), Bulgaria (2140), Italy (2175), Luxembourg (2175), the UK (2180), Slovenia (2190), Switzerland (2195), Ireland (2200) and Lithuania (2215)." In both France and the UK, the predictions (if they were to happen) are over a century away. And these predictions are largely based on maths of course, not taking into account any political, climate, or societal changes that may well take place over those 100+ years. Simply saying that 'the UK and France are on track to be Muslim majorities' is as overly simplistic as much of what is posted on social media on the subject. Remember that huge brexit poster Farage circulated saying 76 million Turks were due to join the EU? Turkey has been a 'candidate' to join since 1999. Accession talks were suspended in 2019. It'll likely never happen. 155 years ago the British Empire was at it's peak. 155 years into the future is anyone's guess. 🤷♂️ Times change. Common sense alone tells you that your prediction is way out. It will come much sooner because :- 1) The profile of incoming migrants. 2) The comparative birth rates 3) The sacred duty of Muslims to dawah (conversion) 4) The complacency and ambivalence of people like you. 1. It's not my prediction. 2. The research (if you look) includes all of what you mentioned bar number 4. Yes I get they are institutional reports, but their conclusions are counter intuitive to what we see with our own eyes. The trend is crystal clear, and by extrapolation we can see where it takes us and roughly when. As I said, it's inevitable. Jesus. 🤦♂️🤦♂️ Studies based on actual numerical data and facts are 'counter intuitive to what we see with our own eyes'? So you see things that people who compile actual statistics....you know...numbers of real live people...don't? This is why you can never have a valid discussion with some people. Because black is white, verifiable data is wrong and 'feelings' are more accurate than facts. I give up. 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️" You've produced reports that confirm your point. There are reports that suggest 2050. The end result is inevitable, only the date changes according to the weighting of the factors I listed. But it's a bit academic when the end result doesn't change. As for statistics vs judgement - I'll go with the latter. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? Behave, ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is a mere fraction of that which has been allowed over several decades. Do you agree with uncontrolled immigration? It would ut you in a very small group of people if you did. The important element here is controlled and uncontrolled. We are also drifting from the point that was made, if the UK became a Muslim majority, it would, by definition, become an Islamic state, the cultural identity we have now would be lost. The change would be immense and radical as the balance swung. I don’t agree with uncontrolled immigration, no. But I’m also aware that as a % of total immigration the amount of attention it is receiving is disproportionate. At face value, Farage may whittle on about loss of ‘British culture’ etc but what he really is is being a snide racist. Why? Because of his sudden interest in birth rates. He KNOWS the UK needs workers NOW to support our ageing population etc, he’s just not keen on immigrants fulfilling that objective, he instead wants Brits to have more kids (preferably white Brits having more kids, to preserve ‘our culture’ but he won’t actually say that of course will he, because he is spineless) Do you think British culture should be written off, or is it something worth preserving? I would want my future relatives to enjoy freedoms afforded to them through Western values, rather than authoritarian Islamic state rules. We as in the West are very quick to criticise religion and the church, but we also seem to be sleep walking into setting up the country to be governed by religion in the future. I think the possibility of an actual Muslim majority in the UK is way off & certainly won’t be happening in my lifetime (if it ever does). The prediction ‘In 25 years?’ is nonsense. Net migration after the so called Boris Wave is coming down from those lofty peaks. IF the UK became majority Muslim, you assume all Muslims would be unified in their fundamentalist aims. There are Muslim militants & there are moderate Muslims. Why couldn’t ‘British Culture’ continue to exist anyway? Muslim run shops sell alcohol do they not etc?" Setting aside the date, it's a good point about British Culture continuing. So in secular Malaysia, Muslims are around 62% of the population. Yet the country is run along Islamic lines. Taking your example of alcohol, it is available only in a separate room in supermarkets with it's own staff and tills. Ditto pork. If that's what you want for your descendants in the UK, fair enough. Personally I think it's a betrayal of the liberal democracy we've been handed down by our forebears. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Yes I get they are institutional reports, but their conclusions are counter intuitive to what we see with our own eyes. The trend is crystal clear, and by extrapolation we can see where it takes us and roughly when. As I said, it's inevitable." I wouldn't say it's inevitable. The country just needs politicians who are pragmatic and honest about this. India recently passed the citizenship amendment act that gives immediate citizenship to religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh but not for others. In practice, it means citizenship to all non-Muslims. As expected, there was a lot of backlash as this was anti-muslim. But the government didn't back down. The government does pretend in public that they weren't trying to be anti-muslim. But most people know that the goal was to stop India from becoming a Muslim majority country. And I don't believe there's anything wrong with that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You need me to spell out what would be different if the UK became majority Muslim? Really? Yes. Debate works by you presenting an argument not by you expecting me to read your mind and present one on your behalf. Let’s start with something straightforward, our foreign relations. Do you think the UK’s allies would stay the same, or would they change? And if they changed, what do you see as the consequences for the country? Why would a change in the particular religion that was the most popular in the UK affect who our allies are? If you think it would then explain why. The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. Funny you mention Israel. An area that under went wholesale demographic change over a short period of time where the incumbent majority were supposed to just like it or lump it. Can Western countries really have it all ways? WE invited Muslim immigration. Don’t go crying about it now because they are outbreeding whitey from Blighty. What do you propose? Mass expulsion? Encouraging immigration after a world war can’t be compared with people entering the country unchecked whenever they choose. One was a managed rebuilding effort, the other is uncontrolled. It also shouldn’t mean our cultural identity is reshaped beyond recognition but it might, and that’s what people are rightly concerned about. Your choice of words such as outbreeding whitey from blighty as a self flagellation tone, why is that? Behave, ‘uncontrolled immigration’ is a mere fraction of that which has been allowed over several decades. Do you agree with uncontrolled immigration? It would ut you in a very small group of people if you did. The important element here is controlled and uncontrolled. We are also drifting from the point that was made, if the UK became a Muslim majority, it would, by definition, become an Islamic state, the cultural identity we have now would be lost. The change would be immense and radical as the balance swung. I don’t agree with uncontrolled immigration, no. But I’m also aware that as a % of total immigration the amount of attention it is receiving is disproportionate. At face value, Farage may whittle on about loss of ‘British culture’ etc but what he really is is being a snide racist. Why? Because of his sudden interest in birth rates. He KNOWS the UK needs workers NOW to support our ageing population etc, he’s just not keen on immigrants fulfilling that objective, he instead wants Brits to have more kids (preferably white Brits having more kids, to preserve ‘our culture’ but he won’t actually say that of course will he, because he is spineless) Do you think British culture should be written off, or is it something worth preserving? I would want my future relatives to enjoy freedoms afforded to them through Western values, rather than authoritarian Islamic state rules. We as in the West are very quick to criticise religion and the church, but we also seem to be sleep walking into setting up the country to be governed by religion in the future. I think the possibility of an actual Muslim majority in the UK is way off & certainly won’t be happening in my lifetime (if it ever does). The prediction ‘In 25 years?’ is nonsense. Net migration after the so called Boris Wave is coming down from those lofty peaks. IF the UK became majority Muslim, you assume all Muslims would be unified in their fundamentalist aims. There are Muslim militants & there are moderate Muslims. Why couldn’t ‘British Culture’ continue to exist anyway? Muslim run shops sell alcohol do they not etc?" The point of this part of the thread was how culture, when driven through religion, shapes society. A shift in the dominant religion will inevitably change culture, laws, and the way society will function. Some don’t seem willing to see those consequences, but that is exactly where such a shift would lead. There are people who don't care, others who care greatly and some who are trying to change the future. However, what I find interesting is the English attitude of we had it coming, suck it up, we deserve nothing better, and then it gets tied into racists and racism. But those very same people tend to support the idea of an independent Scotland, Wales etc, and support the nationalist movements towards that aim. It is a contradiction I struggle to understand other than some king of self hate towards their own country, for what reason I'm unclear. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A shift in the dominant religion will inevitably change culture, laws, and the way society will function. " This is where having a written constitution usually helps. It is not bulletproof in face of a massive demographic change. But it documents what the country's values are all about. In the US, they can just say that freedom of speech, gun ownership, property rights, etc are fundamental values of their society and they can point to the constitution. Immigrants are expected to follow these hard coded laws which are difficult to change. At least, it takes a really long time for people from other cultures to come in, influence and change these hard coded laws. UK on the other hand is more vulnerable to such changes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners." That implies that you think that the UK is currently a "Christian state". Is that correct? Even though people who identify as Christian are a minority of the population? And in any realistic projection even if Islam became more popular than Christianity those identifying as Muslim would still be a minority. On the Israeli-Palestine conflict YouGov polling indicates that currently only 15% of Brits sympathise with the Israeli side. So what would change is there were more Brits following Islam than Christianity? Do you really think that our position in NATO and our world trade would suffer just because of a shift in religion? Why exactly? And again you are avoiding saying why you think that Islamic values are inferior to Christian values. It's like you just assume everybody knows what you mean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A shift in the dominant religion will inevitably change culture, laws, and the way society will function. This is where having a written constitution usually helps. It is not bulletproof in face of a massive demographic change. But it documents what the country's values are all about. In the US, they can just say that freedom of speech, gun ownership, property rights, etc are fundamental values of their society and they can point to the constitution. Immigrants are expected to follow these hard coded laws which are difficult to change. At least, it takes a really long time for people from other cultures to come in, influence and change these hard coded laws. UK on the other hand is more vulnerable to such changes." The UK is indeed vulnerable - not least because so many Brits are uncaring or ambivalent to where this takes us as a nation. Complacency at it's worst. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. That implies that you think that the UK is currently a "Christian state". Is that correct? Even though people who identify as Christian are a minority of the population? And in any realistic projection even if Islam became more popular than Christianity those identifying as Muslim would still be a minority. On the Israeli-Palestine conflict YouGov polling indicates that currently only 15% of Brits sympathise with the Israeli side. So what would change is there were more Brits following Islam than Christianity? Do you really think that our position in NATO and our world trade would suffer just because of a shift in religion? Why exactly? And again you are avoiding saying why you think that Islamic values are inferior to Christian values. It's like you just assume everybody knows what you mean. " I'm going to have to stop you there.. You keep on putting phrases into your replies that read as if I said them historically. Such as "you still haven't said why you think Islamic values are inferior". Please stop doing that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting aside the date, it's a good point about British Culture continuing. So in secular Malaysia, Muslims are around 62% of the population. Yet the country is run along Islamic lines. Taking your example of alcohol, it is available only in a separate room in supermarkets with it's own staff and tills. Ditto pork. If that's what you want for your descendants in the UK, fair enough. Personally I think it's a betrayal of the liberal democracy we've been handed down by our forebears." It's even worse in some parts of the US and Canada. I wanted to buy a bottle of wine in Vancouver at the supermarket right next to where I was staying but had to walk for about ten minutes to a special store that was allowed to sell wine then ten minutes back. Next time I went I bought two bottles. By your logic liberal democracy has been betrayed or doesn't exist in the US and Canada. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going to have to stop you there.. You keep on putting phrases into your replies that read as if I said them historically. Such as "you still haven't said why you think Islamic values are inferior". Please stop doing that." Aww, you poor delicate thing. If you don't think Islamic values are inferior to Chrisitan values then you could just say that. Isn't your whole argument that if Islam became more popular than Christianity it would change the nature of UK society for the worse? If so, it's reasonable to ask why you think so in detail. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting aside the date, it's a good point about British Culture continuing. So in secular Malaysia, Muslims are around 62% of the population. Yet the country is run along Islamic lines. Taking your example of alcohol, it is available only in a separate room in supermarkets with it's own staff and tills. Ditto pork. If that's what you want for your descendants in the UK, fair enough. Personally I think it's a betrayal of the liberal democracy we've been handed down by our forebears. It's even worse in some parts of the US and Canada. I wanted to buy a bottle of wine in Vancouver at the supermarket right next to where I was staying but had to walk for about ten minutes to a special store that was allowed to sell wine then ten minutes back. Next time I went I bought two bottles. By your logic liberal democracy has been betrayed or doesn't exist in the US and Canada." Would you rather be a Muslim in a Christian country or a Christian in a Muslim country? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Setting aside the date, it's a good point about British Culture continuing. So in secular Malaysia, Muslims are around 62% of the population. Yet the country is run along Islamic lines. Taking your example of alcohol, it is available only in a separate room in supermarkets with it's own staff and tills. Ditto pork. If that's what you want for your descendants in the UK, fair enough. Personally I think it's a betrayal of the liberal democracy we've been handed down by our forebears. It's even worse in some parts of the US and Canada. I wanted to buy a bottle of wine in Vancouver at the supermarket right next to where I was staying but had to walk for about ten minutes to a special store that was allowed to sell wine then ten minutes back. Next time I went I bought two bottles. By your logic liberal democracy has been betrayed or doesn't exist in the US and Canada." But you see, you're just adapting to imported customs. Should we have to do that, and where does it end? Your flexibility is laudable, but I doubt it will be reciprocated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I'm going to have to stop you there.. You keep on putting phrases into your replies that read as if I said them historically. Such as "you still haven't said why you think Islamic values are inferior". Please stop doing that. Aww, you poor delicate thing. If you don't think Islamic values are inferior to Chrisitan values then you could just say that. Isn't your whole argument that if Islam became more popular than Christianity it would change the nature of UK society for the worse? If so, it's reasonable to ask why you think so in detail. " Have a read above, it is more than obvious in my exchanges with another poster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. That implies that you think that the UK is currently a "Christian state". Is that correct? Even though people who identify as Christian are a minority of the population? And in any realistic projection even if Islam became more popular than Christianity those identifying as Muslim would still be a minority. On the Israeli-Palestine conflict YouGov polling indicates that currently only 15% of Brits sympathise with the Israeli side. So what would change is there were more Brits following Islam than Christianity? Do you really think that our position in NATO and our world trade would suffer just because of a shift in religion? Why exactly? And again you are avoiding saying why you think that Islamic values are inferior to Christian values. It's like you just assume everybody knows what you mean. I'm going to have to stop you there.. You keep on putting phrases into your replies that read as if I said them historically. Such as "you still haven't said why you think Islamic values are inferior". Please stop doing that. " Do you think it's inferior/worse than Christianity? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would you rather be a Muslim in a Christian country or a Christian in a Muslim country?" I'm an atheist so that's a difficult question. It depends on the time and place. Would I have wanted to be a Bosnian Muslim in the 1990s or a Muslim in Al-Andalus in the 15th and 16th centuries, no. Would I be OK being a Christian in any modern Muslim country, probably yes. But I get your drift. But to me it's not Christianity that makes countries like the UK tolerant, it's secularism forged by hundreds of years of Christians fighing sectarian wars amongst themselves. What's concerning though is the current trend towards religious intolerance as illustrated by some posters on this forum. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Would you rather be a Muslim in a Christian country or a Christian in a Muslim country? I'm an atheist so that's a difficult question. It depends on the time and place. Would I have wanted to be a Bosnian Muslim in the 1990s or a Muslim in Al-Andalus in the 15th and 16th centuries, no. Would I be OK being a Christian in any modern Muslim country, probably yes. But I get your drift. But to me it's not Christianity that makes countries like the UK tolerant, it's secularism forged by hundreds of years of Christians fighing sectarian wars amongst themselves. " The fact that you have to hand pick specific countries from decades or even centuries back to find a Christian country where it's difficult to be a Muslim tells you all you need to know. " What's concerning though is the current trend towards religious intolerance as illustrated by some posters on this forum. " Which religion is more intolerant today? I asked this question above. I am asking again. Three stand up comedians in UK make some super offensive jokes about different religions. One about Jesus, one about Prophet Muhammad, one about Buddha. Which of the three comedians will face the most threat because of this? You just have to read about Salman Rushdie and what happened to all the translators if Satanic verses around the world to see why one specific religion is worse when it comes to tolerance | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact that you have to hand pick specific countries from decades or even centuries back to find a Christian country where it's difficult to be a Muslim tells you all you need to know." OK tell me in which Muslim countries in recent decades have over 8,000 Christians been massacred. "Which religion is more intolerant today? I asked this question above. I am asking again. Three stand up comedians in UK make some super offensive jokes about different rel8igions. One about Jesus, one about Prophet Muhammad, one about Buddha. Which of the three comedians will face the most threat because of this?" I've no doubt that Muslims would be most offended by jokes about their faith. But I'm not sure this means anything in practical terms unless you enjoy taking the piss out of Muslims. "You just have to read about Salman Rushdie and what happened to all the translators if Satanic verses around the world to see why one specific religion is worse when it comes to tolerance" That was horrific and I condemn it and all acts of terrorism by anyone no matter their faith or ideology. But I don't see this has much bearing on religious tolerance in the UK. Regular Muslims do not support terrorism just like regular Catholics didn't support Republican bombings. You seem to be promoting religious intolerance. Maybe that's not your intention but it's how your many anti-Muslim posts come across. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The UK being an Islamic state would without doubt reshape foreign relations. Islamic values and political directions don’t tie in neatly with our current Western allies. Example, our stance on Israel, our close relationship with US defence, our position in NATO, and our trading partners would come under pressure and inevitably the country would pivot towards Islamic partners. That implies that you think that the UK is currently a "Christian state". Is that correct? Even though people who identify as Christian are a minority of the population? And in any realistic projection even if Islam became more popular than Christianity those identifying as Muslim would still be a minority. On the Israeli-Palestine conflict YouGov polling indicates that currently only 15% of Brits sympathise with the Israeli side. So what would change is there were more Brits following Islam than Christianity? Do you really think that our position in NATO and our world trade would suffer just because of a shift in religion? Why exactly? And again you are avoiding saying why you think that Islamic values are inferior to Christian values. It's like you just assume everybody knows what you mean. I'm going to have to stop you there.. You keep on putting phrases into your replies that read as if I said them historically. Such as "you still haven't said why you think Islamic values are inferior". Please stop doing that. Do you think it's inferior/worse than Christianity?" What is it with the pushing to say something is inferior, is a type of baiting that has become popular? To answer your question... I think Islam is far more authoritarian with state overreach in terms of freedoms and personal choice. Which is very counter intuitive for many people in the west but something a few are happy to sleep walk into. Do you disagree with this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact that you have to hand pick specific countries from decades or even centuries back to find a Christian country where it's difficult to be a Muslim tells you all you need to know. OK tell me in which Muslim countries in recent decades have over 8,000 Christians been massacred. Which religion is more intolerant today? I asked this question above. I am asking again. Three stand up comedians in UK make some super offensive jokes about different rel8igions. One about Jesus, one about Prophet Muhammad, one about Buddha. Which of the three comedians will face the most threat because of this? I've no doubt that Muslims would be most offended by jokes about their faith. But I'm not sure this means anything in practical terms unless you enjoy taking the piss out of Muslims. You just have to read about Salman Rushdie and what happened to all the translators if Satanic verses around the world to see why one specific religion is worse when it comes to tolerance That was horrific and I condemn it and all acts of terrorism by anyone no matter their faith or ideology. But I don't see this has much bearing on religious tolerance in the UK. Regular Muslims do not support terrorism just like regular Catholics didn't support Republican bombings. You seem to be promoting religious intolerance. Maybe that's not your intention but it's how your many anti-Muslim posts come across. " Expressing an opinion on religious intolerance is not anti muslim...  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
