Liverpool FC Forum

[jeffiroquai]

At least you folks are lucky enough to get rid of him now!  I have to wait until January 2009 before the Shrub is gone!

[LFC2007]

Of course there is different types of migration some is required by nations themselves, places like Canada who just don't have the population to sustain the country.

But in terms of asylum and fleeing persecution - up until recently - it was considered more sympathetically - genuine, now its become a joke and many people have abused the process - leaving it more of way to get in to a country because other ways are nigh impossible.

People are fleeing and jumping over several nations to come to these shores ? Why, not go to the countries in the vicinity so when the political situations improve you can go back?

Opportunity and the way of life here and its freedoms, to practice what you wish (with-in the confines of law) are appealing.

Britain is now also experiencing the life style choice of migration , with people moving to other countries for a better lifestyle, weather and tranquility etc - places like Spain, the far east, Dubai, Floria and even Eastern Europe.

However we seek to dress it up - every Bristish PM is an ally of America. It's not about right or wrong, its about self interest and preservation - of industries, economies, the nation.

To answer your points individually Zarababe:

1) I mentioned economic migrants in my previous post, it is a fact of life, I have said this before. It is a necessity that Britain and many other countries have economic migrants, our economy depends on them.

2) In terms of assylum, there are those who will abuse the system to try and get into the U.K. for a better life. That is a case for the Home Office on a case to case basis to decide who are genuinely seeking assylum or not. For those who do attempt to get in under the premise of assylum but who are really fleeing poverty, it is the wealth and opportunity of work in our country that they seek, not necessarily our culture or an 'American type of life' as you put it. It is purely down to the standard of living. These migrants, some of whom (for example) are Muslim, detest parts of our culture and 'freedoms' and are here purely for the standard of living, wealth and opportunity to work. There is a difference between having a desire to come to our country for our culture and for the standard of living.This is the distinction I was making. That is why we have social divides along ethnic lines in some communities.

3) Regarding fleeing persecution, there are many people who do go back to their home countries once conflict has subsided. There are many who also go to neighbouring countries instead of coming to the U.K.,for example, many have fled Zimbabwe to go to South Africa. The same could be said with the Ugandan civil war in the 90's where many fled to Tanzania. In these cases, cases of genocide, it is the combination with poverty that makes some move to Western Europe. The two are inextricably linked, poverty is symptomatic of genocidal regimes and political instability. These people come to the U.K. for both reasons, it is often a case that once the political situation has stabilised the economy is still suffering and hence massive poverty remains. Political conflict is one of the main reasons why the standard of living is so poor in these countries. In the meantime, they have extablished a new life, in a place where affluence is relatively rife and work is readily available. Political conflict and persecution often lasts for many years even decades and the remnants of the damage usually linger on for years afterwards.Whilst the immediate threat of persecution/conflict has been removed, it takes many years to improve the standard of living to one that is relatively good (as good as it can be in Africa). It is not as simple as OK the situation has improved, let's go back, if they have established a new life in another country, possibly with a new family, then they may want to stay. It is not just Britain that has a high immigrant population, many other Western European countries also have aswell e.g. France has a large African poulation, as does Spain to a lesser degree. Our immigration laws are more liberal than these countries. To sum up on the initial point, many countries that surround persecuted nations in Africa are also in extreme poverty and conflict aswell, therefore to say 'why not move to neighbouring countries until conflict subsides' ignores the reality of the situation. It is a combination of both poverty and political instability/conflict that forces these people to Western Europe (not just Britain, it is simply easier to get into Britain as our laws are more liberal than other Western European states).

4) Of course some migrants move here due to the freedoms of our country, like I said it is the standard of living and freedom from persecution and poverty that they come here. It is not very often that migrants come here because of our culture, most of these migrants have come from countries that have their own distinctive cultures and they are proud of their customs. They primarily come here for the standard of living, political stability and the freedom to live how they like, there's no doubt the degree to which they impose their own customs on our society has caused conflict within society and within the law e.g. to allow the Burkha to be worn at school, although this is not solely an immigration related case, it demonstrates how conflict can arise from new cultures entering our shores.

5) Of course people from Britain migrate for lifestyle changes I have said that before e.g. UK > USA. I was merely pointing out that there may also be other factors to consider, e.g. if someone is offered a job in a new country, or whether that country has a lower overall rate of tax than the U.K.

6) I didn't fully understand your final point about 'dressing it up'. I made my point about our relationship with the U.S.A. in my last post, the point being that there are other factors PM's consider when deciding on foreign policy issues, e.g. that the U.S. are the wealthiest nation in the world, the strongest nuclear force, and have a strong influence on trade and oil. On that point I agree with you, these factors undoubtedly come into play when the PM decides to support the U.S. on foreign policy issues.

[Sabre]

Thank you for the insight LFC2007, very didactic.

I have two questions, if you are so kind

Our 'special relationship' with America is something that would benefit us if it was to be preserved

Should I read an especific nuance in the 'special relationship' because it's between quotes? My english understanding is limited.

Also, I'm a bit cynical perhaps, but what's in this 'special relationship' for UK? Meaning I don't think decissions are taken because they're brothers, but due to real interests and profits. Which ones would those be?

[The Manhattan Project]

The only "special relationship" we need to maintain with America is an occasional use of their clonetroopers and maybe an aircraft carrier to do our dirty work.

[LFC2007]

Thank you for the insight LFC2007, very didactic.

I have two questions, if you are so kind

Our 'special relationship' with America is something that would benefit us if it was to be preserved

Should I read an especific nuance in the 'special relationship' because it's between quotes? My english understanding is limited.

Also, I'm a bit cynical perhaps, but what's in this 'special relationship' for UK? Meaning I don't think decissions are taken because they're brothers, but due to real interests and profits. Which ones would those be?

I don't fully understand what you are trying to ask Sabre but I will do my best.

1) The term 'special relationship' is a phrase used to describe the close relationship between us and the U.S.A. It stems from our co-operation with America during the 2nd World War and has continued in more or less the same way ever since, e.g. Macmillan-Kennedy in the 60's, Thatcher-Raegan in the 80's, Bush-Blair now . No other country in the world has shared the same level of political, military and economic co-operation as we have with the U.S.A. Some examples of this relationship:
i) The USA has used British aircraft bases frequently over the years, most recently on missions to Iraq.
ii) Blair's support for Bush in Iraq is the most recent example of the 'special relationship'.
iii) U.S. investment in the U.K. is larger than any other nation.
iv) U.K. and U.S. intelligence services share information with each other, more so than with any other international intelligence service.

To sum up...
It is just a phrase that has been used for a long time and it specifically refers to the strong U.K. - U.S. relationship.


When I say this relationship will benefit us what I mean is in the long term it is probably in our best interests to maintain a strong relationship with the U.S.A. That is not to say I think we should give them unconditional support on foreign affairs, because I don't, I am just saying that other factors within this relationship have influenced Blair e.g. our strong trade links with the U.S., intelligence links and cultural links. The relationship is NOT purely based along military lines, it is economic, cultural and also personal between the PM and President. In terms of our economy, the U.S. invest heavily in the U.K., it is therefore within our interests to continue the 'special relationship'. Culturally, modern day America was established as a result of British migrants who sought a new life, they are a former British colony. In terms of religion, the U.K. is fundamentally a Christian nation as is the U.S. In terms of modern day culture, there are discerning parallels between the U.S. and UK. My point regarding Iraq is that Blair, in all likelihood, considered our strong relationship with the U.S. as a point in favour of supporting Bush in Iraq, that is to say, had he not backed him he may have compromised the relationship.

Hope I've clarified my points, any other just ask.

[Sabre]

Your points were clear for the beginning thank you for completing them a bit. Despite I'm an utter ignorant of politics and history, I did study at school some chapters of history about U.S.A. And a lot more chapters (more time) about England.

The Boston Tea Party

and all that. We do learn about the rest of the world!


I was asking because my concern is that as long as that 'special relationship' remains strong, I don't see UK involved in the European Union, as I think USA doesn't see that union with good eyes. And precisely because I've studied more chapters of history about UK, I think UK should be more involved in that Union: While I believe every European country has enough cultural legacy and genuine identity, and that shouldn't be lost, I see the EU as the chance to put peace once and for all in this continent, after centuries of war (Spain-France, UK-France, UK-Spain, Germany vs everybody) etc.


Meaning, I know there are a lot "Back off Brussels" euro-escepticals in UK, which is nice, but I think that the major problem for further involvement is that especial relationship.

[Igor Zidane]

I don't give two fecks about the rest of the country , but i grew up in liverpool at a time when the tories and thatcher were at there most powerful . Thatcher and her cronies precided over the following.

Decimation of the unions

Distruction of the Coal industry

Distruction of the shipping industry

Privatisation of the railways

Mechano

Tate and lyle

Dunlops

ALL closed down

Mass enemployment

Underfunding of the health service and public services in general

THE POLL TAX

and a hell of alot more that i could mention.

Thankfully not all of us have short memories.

[LFC2007]

In the long term I don't think our close relationship with America will prevent us from being more involved with the E.U. In recent times, we have never been seen to be as committed over certain E.U. issues as many other E.U. states have been e.g. over the Euro and E.U. constitution.
Britain has always been regarded as only partially committed to the E.U. by the rest of Europe, but I think they are issues regarding the balance of sovereignty that have made the us reluctant to committ further. At a very basic level, the harmony between the U.K. and other European states is something that I cannot see being compromised by our U.S. relationship in a big way. The U.S. have always disliked the idea of a united Europe, even during WW2 they only intervened once they had been attacked at Pearl harbour, before that they were happy to see the War drain Europe and its economy. Under Blair our relationship with the U.S. has been closer than under any other U.K. gov't in recent times, under future British gov'ts I don't see the dogged and seemingly unconditional support for America being continued in the same vein. I think Britain is committed to the E.U., there are just a few nuances over areas such as the C.A.P. etc. that make us appear as not fully committed.

[66-1112520797]

during WW2 they only intervened once they had been attacked at Pearl harbour,

Prior to Pearl Harbour Nazi Germany was sinking American supply ships because the US was providing financial and military support to the Allied troops (England, France, China and Russia).

[112-1077774096]

I don't give two fecks about the rest of the country , but i grew up in liverpool at a time when the tories and thatcher were at there most powerful . Thatcher and her cronies precided over the following.

Decimation of the unions

Distruction of the Coal industry

Distruction of the shipping industry

Privatisation of the railways

Mechano

Tate and lyle

Dunlops

ALL closed down

Mass enemployment

Underfunding of the health service and public services in general

THE POLL TAX

and a hell of alot more that i could mention.

Thankfully not all of us have short memories.

i can remember the day she came to power mate, some little tory running round school all excited (even though he knew nothing about politics and turned out to be gay).

this is what i was intimating at earlier in the thread when i mention that someone who supported the tories on here was obviously not from the north.

[Sabre]

In the long term I don't think our close relationship with America will prevent us from being more involved with the E.U. In recent times, we have never been seen to be as committed over certain E.U. issues as many other E.U. states have been e.g. over the Euro and E.U. constitution.
Britain has always been regarded as only partially committed to the E.U. by the rest of Europe, but I think they are issues regarding the balance of sovereignty that have made the us reluctant to committ further. At a very basic level, the harmony between the U.K. and other European states is something that I cannot see being compromised by our U.S. relationship in a big way. The U.S. have always disliked the idea of a united Europe, even during WW2 they only intervened once they had been attacked at Pearl harbour, before that they were happy to see the War drain Europe and its economy. Under Blair our relationship with the U.S. has been closer than under any other U.K. gov't in recent times, under future British gov'ts I don't see the dogged and seemingly unconditional support for America being continued in the same vein. I think Britain is committed to the E.U., there are just a few nuances over areas such as the C.A.P. etc. that make us appear as not fully committed.

I'm happy to read that oppinion. While I do read the Beeb and other English media, most of my opinion on this matter is formed by contrasting opinions of several Spanish papers (El Mundo (shitty nowadays), El Pais, ABC, El Diario vasco), so it's good to hear that a well informed english is more optimistic on the matter.

Another point about Blair's years can be how he Managed the Gibraltar issue. As I've stated many times, I don't give a fúck for that róck, and I think it's something that doesn't bother to most of Spaniards, in other words, while I think that the Schengen treaty is a bit anachronical in that point, I can live with it because UK is not seen as a threat or unfriendly anymore. Of course it causes concern facts like damaged nuclear subs (i.e. HMS Tireless) being repaired there and sailing around, but that are minor issues of any foreign Office.

I think Blair has achieved to make major steps about this matter with Spain, and ended once and for all with the Franco times tensions, and some tensions aswell in the Thatcher era. In fact, it's the local government of the colony, with that Caruana the main obstacle right now. Shared sovereignty, and other options are being discussed. Since I don't care much the outcome, it's not very important, but it's nice to see both countries are in the negotiation and friendly mood rather than with the childish discussions of the past.

What's your take on Gibraltar, LFC2007 (or others if they want to join?)

[66-1112520797]

What's your take on Gibraltar, LFC2007 (or others if they want to join?)

This isnt my opinion, infact I remember reading another forum, LFC. And a few members actually live and work there. So here is there opinon, I've heard several like it before.

Written by Sem, from TalkLFC.

Nice and civil, gents. I like it.

For the record, I've spent the last 20 years of my life living in Spain. The last 17 of those years I've worked in Gibraltar. So I dare say I'm qualified to comment on the subject.
Spain, no matter what people say, is still a very backward country. Until the current generation (or possibly the next) of politicians, generals, Guardia Civil leaders die out, there will be very little progress. The Spaniards themselves recognise this.
And it's attitude to Gibraltar is disgusting. Fact. There have been years of border queues of up to one/two hours to either enter or exit gib. Now that Spain have been allowed to use the Gibraltar airport, these queues suddenly disappear.
Ask anyone from from the other side of the border what they think about Madrid's stance on the issue, and you wouldn't get a polite reply. The cause of all this resentment has always come from some little ponce sat in an office in madrid who probably couldn't find Gib on a map.
Another quick fact: the Guardia Civil hate serving in the Basque country due to the obvious problem: ETA.
The next worst place they hate being sent to? The border with Gibraltar due to all the grief they get from Gibraltarians and Spaniards alike for follwing orders they don't agree with.

[The Manhattan Project]

It's a shame Britain lost it's shipping industy. Fincanteri in Italy make a killing building all those cruise liners. As for coal, why not just hire Poles to dig it up? Makes sense to me.

[Sabre]

What's your take on Gibraltar, LFC2007 (or others if they want to join?)

This isnt my opinion, infact I remember reading another forum, LFC. And a few members actually live and work there. So here is there opinon, I've heard several like it before.

Written by Sem, from TalkLFC.

Nice and civil, gents. I like it.

For the record, I've spent the last 20 years of my life living in Spain. The last 17 of those years I've worked in Gibraltar. So I dare say I'm qualified to comment on the subject.
Spain, no matter what people say, is still a very backward country. Until the current generation (or possibly the next) of politicians, generals, Guardia Civil leaders die out, there will be very little progress. The Spaniards themselves recognise this.
And it's attitude to Gibraltar is disgusting. Fact. There have been years of border queues of up to one/two hours to either enter or exit gib. Now that Spain have been allowed to use the Gibraltar airport, these queues suddenly disappear.
Ask anyone from from the other side of the border what they think about Madrid's stance on the issue, and you wouldn't get a polite reply. The cause of all this resentment has always come from some little ponce sat in an office in madrid who probably couldn't find Gib on a map.
Another quick fact: the Guardia Civil hate serving in the Basque country due to the obvious problem: ETA.
The next worst place they hate being sent to? The border with Gibraltar due to all the grief they get from Gibraltarians and Spaniards alike for follwing orders they don't agree with.

In that post there's some truth, and some bóllocks.

Needless to say staying 1000Km away from the Gibraltar borderline, influences quite much the view of the matter (I live in the north). And it's a fact there has been and there is some *minor* conflicts in the borderline. I have friends there, but the problem is not much more than some insults, and some flags showing in world cups. It was a hell lot worse decades ago, and in the big picture, the foreign relation of the two nations it has improved a lot

Until 1975, we had a dictatorship, and it's a fact removing some of the old generals, and deadwood wasn't made from the night to the morning, very quickly. As much as everybody would love doing that quickly, transition to a democracy is a delicate matter to deal with.

Spain, no matter what people say, is still a very backward country

Well I reckon there is and there will be lots of Spains, you have the modern Spain, and you'll have also what we call the Deep Spain, and that will be always that because Spain is different.

But the country as a whole has improved a lot in the last 20 years, and I reffer not to my opinion, but to the official economical and social facts that third parties do about the countries of the world. No doubt there's a Deep England aswell, and the odd English working class man giving his opinion with a beer pint in the hand about foreign countries, but that will exist always aswell.

[LFC2007]

during WW2 they only intervened once they had been attacked at Pearl harbour,

Prior to Pearl Harbour Nazi Germany was sinking American supply ships because the US was providing financial and military support to the Allied troops (England, France, China and Russia).

Yes, but the yanks levied us with massive debts, debts that crippled Europe.

It was not just a 'favour' it was for their own interests i.e. trade interests. They benefitted massively from selling us munitions and war supplies. The allies were crippled by debts owed to the U.S.,  It was only in 1941 when the U.S. decided to provide us with supplies on a lend-lease (including interest) basis did Europe start to make progress. We only finally paid off these debts last year!


The Americans only fully decided to commit to the Allied cause when Pearl Harbour was bombed in late 1941, only when it was their own interests at stake were they prepared to help out. Before this they had a strong isolationist policy. It is typical of the U.S..
Even since the end of the war they rarely reciprocated any support that we gave them, we help them but when we need help we're isolated.