Peter Hitchens on immigration

[Paprika]

Though of course his comments do not apply merely to the UK:

Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged.

It is one of the heaviest responsibilities we will ever have. We cannot just give it away to complete strangers on an impulse because it makes us feel good about ourselves.

Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education.

If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the ‘living wage’, and ‘social housing’, when in fact open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs up.

As William Blake rightly said: ‘He who would do good to another must do it in minute particulars. General good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite and flatterer.’

...So now, on the basis of an emotional spasm, dressed up as civilisation and generosity, are we going to say that we abandon this legacy and decline our obligation to pass it on, like the enfeebled, wastrel heirs of an ancient inheritance letting the great house and the estate go to ruin?

[Paprika]

The current spending policy of Germany that we've already touched on. The official estimate is 8 billion additional euros these year alone, and the number of immigrants is only going to rise.

And how is this not an example of you thinking the Germany government is spending too much on the refugees, you don't want it to spend so much?

Because the policy is to keep spending, and with an increasing number of people coming in every year it means an escalating spending in the billions per year. So it's not a merely a matter of me 'thinking it's spending too much', but that the policy is genuinely unsustainable. In addition, I have no 'want' either way.

Quite, but those that are appointed have been voted in as MPs and potential appointees, which is unlike the EU's executive body.

This isn't the case with the UK cabinet, which is the system I am familiar with. The members don't have to be MPs.

Quite, but almost all are chosen from the House of Commons, are they not?

[Bust Nak]

Because the policy is to keep spending, and with an increasing number of people coming in every year it means an escalating spending in the billions per year. So it's not a merely a matter of me 'thinking it's spending too much', but that the policy is genuinely unsustainable. In addition, I have no 'want' either way.

Even if I grant you that it is unsustainable, how exactly does that mean it's not another case of you not liking how much Germany intend to spend in the years to spend. You say you have no want, but clearly you disapprove of the German government policy.

Quite, but almost all are chosen from the House of Commons, are they not?

Yes.

[Paprika]

Because the policy is to keep spending, and with an increasing number of people coming in every year it means an escalating spending in the billions per year. So it's not a merely a matter of me 'thinking it's spending too much', but that the policy is genuinely unsustainable. In addition, I have no 'want' either way.

Even if I grant you that it is unsustainable, how exactly does that mean it's not another case of you not liking how much Germany intend to spend in the years to spend. You say you have no want, but clearly you disapprove of the German government policy.

My like or dislike has nothing to do with the plain fact that it is unsustainable.

Quite, but almost all are chosen from the House of Commons, are they not?

Yes.

And if they were almost all chosen from the House of Lords instead, would it not make the system less democratic?

[Bust Nak]

My like or dislike has nothing to do with the plain fact that it is unsustainable.

It does, when unsustainable means you disagreeing with them on what the practical limits ought to be.

And if they were almost all chosen from the House of Lords instead, would it not make the system less democratic?

No, since it's we have no choice over the matter either way.

[Paprika]

My like or dislike has nothing to do with the plain fact that it is unsustainable.

It does, when unsustainable means you disagreeing with them on what the practical limits ought to be.

No, it means that the funding is completely unsustainable because it will keep ballooning into the tens and hundreds of billions over time.

And if they were almost all chosen from the House of Lords instead, would it not make the system less democratic?

No, since it's we have no choice over the matter either way.

Given that the practical rule is to appoint almost all cabinet ministers from the House of Commons, to which ministers are elected, it follows that the people have some democratic control over who are eligible to be appointed. Under the EU there exists an executive body unelected, so being under the EU has led to a more antidemocratic state of affairs.

[Bust Nak]

No, it means that the funding is completely unsustainable because it will keep ballooning into the tens and hundreds of billions over time.

Lets assume that it would indeed ballooning into the hundreds of billions over time. How is this not an example of you disagreeing with the practical limits the German government ought to spend on refugees?

Given that the practical rule is to appoint almost all cabinet ministers from the House of Commons, to which ministers are elected, it follows that the people have some democratic control over who are eligible to be appointed. Under the EU there exists an executive body unelected, so being under the EU has led to a more antidemocratic state of affairs.

Which, as I stated above, is just the repercussion of a larger coalition. There is no difference between cabinet ministers and EU commissioners. At worse it's less democratic, not anti-democratic.

[Paprika]

No, it means that the funding is completely unsustainable because it will keep ballooning into the tens and hundreds of billions over time.

Lets assume that it would indeed ballooning into the hundreds of billions over time. How is this not an example of you disagreeing with the practical limits the German government ought to spend on refugees?

Because the cost spent on the refugees will outweigh the output of the entire economy.

Given that the practical rule is to appoint almost all cabinet ministers from the House of Commons, to which ministers are elected, it follows that the people have some democratic control over who are eligible to be appointed. Under the EU there exists an executive body unelected, so being under the EU has led to a more antidemocratic state of affairs.

Which, as I stated above, is just the repercussion of a larger coalition. There is no difference between cabinet ministers and EU commissioners.

Except that as has been pointed out multiple times, those in the executive body are not elected so that the difference is not that of vote dilution because of a larger voting pool but an entire branch of executive decision-makers over which there is little democratic oversight.

At worse it's less democratic, not anti-democratic.

Less democratic is anti-democratic in this case, at least, because it shifts power more from the people to the bureaucrats and the political class.

[Bust Nak]

Because the cost spent on the refugees will outweigh the output of the entire economy.

Even if I take your hundreds of billion cost a year on face value, the GDP of Germany is in the trillions. It is just an example of you not liking how Germany spends its money.

Except that as has been pointed out multiple times, those in the executive body are not elected so that the difference is not that of vote dilution because of a larger voting pool but an entire branch of executive decision-makers over which there is little democratic oversight.

I am not just talking about vote dilution. It's simply impractical for sitting MPs to working from Brussels. Like I said simple repercussion of a larger coalition.

Less democratic is anti-democratic in this case, at least, because it shifts power more from the people to the bureaucrats and the political class.

How is that any different in principle than the House of Lords?

[Paprika]

Because the cost spent on the refugees will outweigh the output of the entire economy.

Even if I take your hundreds of billion cost a year on face value, the GDP of Germany is in the trillions. It is just an example of you not liking how Germany spends its money.

On the contrary, the GDP will drop not least because much of the output is spent on the basic needs of the immigrants and not anything productive.

Yet I can concede this detail and my point still stands: only a fraction of the GDP is available for such spending in immigrants and will be dwarfed by the amounts required.

I am not just talking about vote dilution. It's simply impractical for sitting MPs to working from Brussels. Like I said simple repercussion of a larger coalition.

Is this true impracticality, or you merely claiming that it is so?

Less democratic is anti-democratic in this case, at least, because it shifts power more from the people to the bureaucrats and the political class.

How is that any different in principle than the House of Lords?

What part of aristocracy strikes you as not anti-democratic?

[Bust Nak]

On the contrary, the GDP will drop not least because much of the output is spent on the basic needs of the immigrants and not anything productive.

Yet I can concede this detail and my point still stands: only a fraction of the GDP is available for such spending in immigrants and will be dwarfed by the amounts required.

So you are saying as long as Germany spends that fraction of the GDP, instead of the amounts required, the government is actually heeding practical limits?

Is this true impracticality, or you merely claiming that it is so?

It's even impractical for non-London MPs to operate from London, let alone Brussels. Appointing a sitting MP would mean a by-election for his constituency.

What part of aristocracy strikes you as not anti-democratic?

The part where there is a House of Commons to keep it in check perhaps? You know, much like the EU?