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]

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?

Rather that to achieved the goals intended the spending would surpass that fraction. But I see that in the meantime Germany has backtracked for the moment

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?

Precisely. The democratic element is there to keep the anti-democratic element, which only demonstrates the existence and threat of the latter.

[Bust Nak]

Rather that to achieved the goals intended the spending would surpass that fraction. But I see that in the meantime Germany has backtracked for the moment

So are you ready to retract your earlier claim that "socialism practically involves throwing vast amounts of money at inequalities and even more if/when the earlier efforts fail, usually without heed of practical limits." Especially the part in bold?

Precisely. The democratic element is there to keep the anti-democratic element, which only demonstrates the existence and threat of the latter.

So you are saying the EU's not any more anti-democratic than say the UK?

[Paprika]

Rather that to achieved the goals intended the spending would surpass that fraction. But I see that in the meantime Germany has backtracked for the moment

So are you ready to retract your earlier claim that "socialism practically involves throwing vast amounts of money at inequalities and even more if/when the earlier efforts fail, usually without heed of practical limits." Especially the part in bold?

Of course not. Merkel and others would happily keep the borders open except that members of her coalition, for example, revolted against it and the right-wingers are gaining in popularity. It's generally the non-socialists that have remained sane.

Precisely. The democratic element is there to keep the anti-democratic element, which only demonstrates the existence and threat of the latter.

So you are saying the EU's not any more anti-democratic than say the UK?

No.

[Bust Nak]

Of course not. Merkel and others would happily keep the borders open except that members of her coalition, for example, revolted against it and the right-wingers are gaining in popularity. It's generally the non-socialists that have remained sane.

That would be an instance of heeding practical limits.

No.

How does that work? You do think European commissioners are the EU's version of House of Lords, but somehow more anti-democratic?

[Paprika]

Of course not. Merkel and others would happily keep the borders open except that members of her coalition, for example, revolted against it and the right-wingers are gaining in popularity. It's generally the non-socialists that have remained sane.

That would be an instance of heeding practical limits.

Not practical financial limits, which was the sense intended.

No.

How does that work? You do think European commissioners are the EU's version of House of Lords

No.

[Bust Nak]

Not practical financial limits, which was the sense intended.

How is limiting how much to spend in terms of money, not financial?

No.

So in what way are European commissioners more anti-democratic than the House of Lords?

[Paprika]

Not practical financial limits, which was the sense intended.

How is limiting how much to spend in terms of money, not financial?

Because what caused Merkel to reverse course were not financial limits as was the intended sense, but political pressure.

No.

So in what way are European commissioners more anti-democratic than the House of Lords?

The executive body of the EU has executive power.

[Bust Nak]

Not practical financial limits, which was the sense intended.

How is limiting how much to spend in terms of money, not financial?

Because what caused Merkel to reverse course were not financial limits as was the intended sense, but political pressure.

At worse that's Merkel lowering the financial limits due to political pressure.

So in what way are European commissioners more anti-democratic than the House of Lords?

The executive body of the EU has executive power.

Much like the House of Lords then?

[Paprika]

Not practical financial limits, which was the sense intended.

How is limiting how much to spend in terms of money, not financial?

Because what caused Merkel to reverse course were not financial limits as was the intended sense, but political pressure.

At worse that's Merkel lowering the financial limits due to political pressure.

She's lowering spending due to political pressure.

So in what way are European commissioners more anti-democratic than the House of Lords?

The executive body of the EU has executive power.

Much like the House of Lords then?

How so?

[Bust Nak]

She's lowering spending due to political pressure.

Like I said lowering the financial limits due to political pressure. What is lowering spending if not lowering the financial limits?

Much like the House of Lords then?

How so?

In being un-elected and having similar powers.