Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ] |
| Subject: One reservation.... | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 12:44:17 10/29/04 Fri In reply to: Dave (UK) 's message, "HK Immigration" on 15:29:27 10/28/04 Thu I'm glad that we seem to see this issue in the same way. There is, however, one thing with which I would take issue: you say that two million immigrants over 13 years would create a housing crisis... Well, the government's own figures suggest that our population will rise by about 2.5 million by 2010, only six years, as a result of net in-migration, and they seem unconcerned. Certainly, this government and its immigration policies will still be in power at least until 2009, so that is the immigration which we are going to get. How much easier to cope, I would say, if the immigrants were 2 million Hong Kongers who would rent and buy their own houses rather than indigent Bulgarian 'builders' who demand that everyone else rent their houses for them through the housing benefits system! I don't want to be accused of racism (as happens all too often when anyone in this country talks seriously about immigration problems), but I ask you one question: have you ever, and I mean ever, seen on the streets of the UK a Chinese beggar, or an Indian one? I will bet substantial amounts that you haven't; and these two constitute our first and third largest immigrant groups. I say, we need more of them. We don't really need South Londoners, so they could all live there! ;-) [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Clarification, and more Hoon... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:20:20 10/29/04 Fri Yes, your point about housing is valid. I was commenting on the premise that the Government’s judgement and position was likely based on the potential prospect of 2 million immigrants arriving on the 2nd July 1997, rather than over 13 years. I totally agree with your observations about immigration and the debates in this country. They are, all too often, stifled by political correctness and over-sensitivity, where talking about immigration becomes a debate about race, and they really do not serve as useful debates at all. It is sad to see our politicians are afraid to have a sensible debate on this issue, and instead, they often adopt a circumlocutory position when questioned about these issues. On a separate issue, Hoon’s treachery strikes again!!!! Today’s Scotsman newspaper reports that all the other Scots regiments in Iraq are to be placed on standby to replace the Black Watch when they leave the nest of vipers before Christmas. This is a day after it emerges that the Scottish regiment amalgamation is to be brought forward to lessen the impact of the regiments’ supporters’ campaign while they are serving in a dangerous situation. That’s just bloody great isn’t it? Yeah – let’s use all the Scots as cannon fodder, and then disband their regiments when they get home! That is the true definition of adding insult to injury. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I hope this doesn't fan the flames of nationalism again | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:28:50 10/29/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Vote Conservative | |
|
Author: ROberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:31:15 10/29/04 Fri I hope the Conservatives have no such anti-British aspirations [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Conservatives' colonial policy | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:56:22 10/29/04 Fri Hm. I freely admit that I am the sort of person whose hands would shake with shame and confusion if ever I held my pen in the ballot box and were obliged by circumstances to put my cross in any box other than the 'Conservative Party' one, and thereafter I should need a good stiff drink and some comforting words from my fiancee and possibly even, old as I am, my dear white-haired old mother, but... ...The Conservatives have been almost as bad about colonial policy - such as is left to us - as anyone else. It was Mrs T. who signed the millions of Hong Kongers over to the Chinese Dictatorship, in spite of the fact that the 99 Year Lease only covered the New Territories around the city, not the town itself. The argument was that the city on its own was not a viable political unit. I can only presume that the Iron Lady, fond as I am of her, had never visited Singapore, Liechtenstein, San Marino, or the Vatican... some of the most prosperous states on earth. Perhaps She would argue that these other city states have special and particular circumstances. No doubt she is right, but I imagine that being the richest city in Asia next to the fastest-growing economy in the world might qualify as a Special Circumstance for Hong Kong. On the other hand, the Conservtives did boot the Argies out of the Falklands, whilst Labour argued that, since they were there now, we might as well let them keep it; and the military importance of Gibraltar is something which the Conservatives understand, whereas Geoff Hoon probably imagines that "Strategically Essential" is a kind of board game, For Adults & Children over 12 Yrs, by Waddingtons, Available At WH Smith and All Good Retailers. Perhaps, then, the Conservatives are the lesser of two evils as far as our remaining dependencies are concerned. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Hong Kong Treaty | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:12:19 10/30/04 Sat Ed – with regard to the handing over of Hong Kong, was it not infrastructure issues like water supply etc that made the island an unviable state, rather than political issues? I can imagine the Chinese would have made it clear to Margaret Thatcher that the whole of Hong Kong was to be handed over after the lease expired. Otherwise we would have had a Gibraltar-style siege on our hands. The Chinese have shown that they are not averse to taking territory which they believe is theirs. Unlike the Falklands however, there is not a think we could do about it. I think Thatcher made a wise agreement, and probably spared Britain some future humiliation. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Moreover... | |
|
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:13:36 10/30/04 Sat Had the Chineese wished it, they would simply cut off the water supply, and then we'd be stuffed. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I doubt it.... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:00:44 10/30/04 Sat I believe that the Chinese were amazed at HM Government's desperation to get HK off their hands back in the early 1980s... The Chinese had the gravest reservations about taking the city: the Chinese are not stupid - indeed, they are frequently demonstrated by testing to be amongst the cleverest people on Earth - and were well aware of the can of worms which would be opened by the incorporation of HK into China. We are seeing now how the One Country, Two Systems nonsense is breaking down: riots, non-co-operation, demonstrations etc., to which the Chinese are responding with smear campaigns, mild oppression, the planting of dodgy evidence of crimes in the flats of prominent exponents of HK political freedoms, etc. Moreover, while China is quite prepared to bully its neighbours, it has shown a remarkable reluctance to throw its weight around as far as western nations are concerned. Britain is a bigger investor in China than the US, and the biggest in the world. Admittedly, the outcome of a war would be hard to prejudge and would leave HK a smoking hole, which would defeat the object of fighting for it in the first place; but I doubt if there would need to be a war. We would not have needed to send in the battleships, just call in our debts: "Don't point my gun at me, sir; and take my helmet off when you're speaking to me." Without British investment, the much-exaggerated Chinese 'economic miracle' (remember what happened to the Italian one? And the Chinese, Korean etc ones?) would collapse tomorrow, and the Party is well aware of this. They would not have turned off the water. In cases of this kind, confidence can win a battle befor it has started, by preventing hostilities in the first place. That is how the Royal Navy functioned for generations! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Nationalism? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:42:39 10/29/04 Fri How do you mean, fan the flames of nationalism? Do you mean Scots nationalism, or Iraqi nationalism, or British nationlism in its anti-US form? On Dave's point, I wonder if anyone saw the "Any Questions?" programme a few weeks ago, in which one gormless audience member asked, "Would you guarantee that you won't adopt the Conservatives' immigration quota system, even though it might mean that we get no more Michael Howards?" Anyway, every single member of the panel who wanted to say that, actually, immigration should be managed, was falling over themselves to preface their remarks with their Non Racist Credentials... "I've nothing against immigrants, because my family came from Romania." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my grandfather was Irish." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my grandmother's butler was Philipino." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my brother's wife's cousin's daughter once went out with an Indian guy." "I've nothing against immigrants, because my goldfish is a type called 'West Indian Miniature Three-Gilled Goldfish'." And only then were they prepared to go on and say what they meant, for fear of being branded 'racists'. I have never heard anything so ridiculous. As if any intelligent person does not realise that someone who lives in Ludlow, Shropshire, ethnic population nil, can be open-minded and tolerant and non-racist, whereas someone who lives in Clapham, London, ethnic population 89%, who has a mixed race background, can easily be the most bigotted white supremacist on the market! But still the panellists felt the need to justify their comments by "proving" that they were not racists BEFORE they could talk about immigration... guilty until proven innocent. It reminded me of a French revolutionary tribunals. I weep for the future. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I meant Scottish nationalism. | |
|
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:38:35 10/29/04 Fri [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |