And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Do you mean EEA? The EEC has become the EU, as far as I'm aware.
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
I see this thread has continued without one of the Europhiles answering the question asked a few pages back.
Why would you not want our boarders controlled?
I would imagine that no one answered because everyone does want or border controlled.
I travelled home from Brussels yesterday and had to navigate UK border control twice (once in another country !) so I can't quite understand your point.
Point is very simple, in the EU, uncontrolled mass immigration from Europe, out of it, controlled immigration from Europe. Why wouldn't you want to control this?
You asked if we want our "borders controlled" and I answered that they are, with a practical example of how they are.
Did you instead mean to ask "why would you not want immigration from specific other countries controlled ?
Quite different questions, and probably why I was the first person on many pages of debate to bother answering.
You can word it how you like mate, it's quite clear what I mean.
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
It was clear - you asked a question about whether we should "protect our borders" and I gave you an answer. But for some reason you really wanted an answer on immigration.
No answer from SE9addick then, anyone else?
Can you clarify which question you're asking ?
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
Would you like this in larger font?
Because I understand that being in a club also means signing up for the rules of the club.
You seem solely focused on the issue of immigration but surely whether or not we're members of the EU has many, many more factors - both negative and positive - than just immigration ?
Re immigration specifically - I believe that our country would be poorer economically without those 380,000 immigrants and therefore our "run down and overcrowded public services" would be even more underfunded than they are now. Leaving the EU will not improve public services, I believe that your thinking it will is a false economy.
To test out your theory let's see how the German economy responds to its current immigration levels. By your logic Germany will be economically richer and its public services will go from strength to strength over the next few years.
At which point did I say our public services had gone from strength to strength ? Please don't put words in my mouth because that certainly wasn't "my theory".
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Do you mean EEA? The EEC has become the EU, as far as I'm aware.
Yes, with all the acronyms being throw about I was bound to get one wrong
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
Those who are campaigning to leave the EU are mainly doing so because they want to keep the economic relationship but without the political union and usually point to countries in the EEA (and also EFTA) as examples of how this is possible.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
I see this thread has continued without one of the Europhiles answering the question asked a few pages back.
Why would you not want our boarders controlled?
I would imagine that no one answered because everyone does want or border controlled.
I travelled home from Brussels yesterday and had to navigate UK border control twice (once in another country !) so I can't quite understand your point.
Point is very simple, in the EU, uncontrolled mass immigration from Europe, out of it, controlled immigration from Europe. Why wouldn't you want to control this?
You asked if we want our "borders controlled" and I answered that they are, with a practical example of how they are.
Did you instead mean to ask "why would you not want immigration from specific other countries controlled ?
Quite different questions, and probably why I was the first person on many pages of debate to bother answering.
You can word it how you like mate, it's quite clear what I mean.
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
It was clear - you asked a question about whether we should "protect our borders" and I gave you an answer. But for some reason you really wanted an answer on immigration.
No answer from SE9addick then, anyone else?
Can you clarify which question you're asking ?
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
Would you like this in larger font?
Because I understand that being in a club also means signing up for the rules of the club.
You seem solely focused on the issue of immigration but surely whether or not we're members of the EU has many, many more factors - both negative and positive - than just immigration ?
Re immigration specifically - I believe that our country would be poorer economically without those 380,000 immigrants and therefore our "run down and overcrowded public services" would be even more underfunded than they are now. Leaving the EU will not improve public services, I believe that your thinking it will is a false economy.
To test out your theory let's see how the German economy responds to its current immigration levels. By your logic Germany will be economically richer and its public services will go from strength to strength over the next few years.
At which point did I say our public services had gone from strength to strength ? Please don't put words in my mouth because that certainly wasn't "my theory".
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
I see this thread has continued without one of the Europhiles answering the question asked a few pages back.
Why would you not want our boarders controlled?
I would imagine that no one answered because everyone does want or border controlled.
I travelled home from Brussels yesterday and had to navigate UK border control twice (once in another country !) so I can't quite understand your point.
Point is very simple, in the EU, uncontrolled mass immigration from Europe, out of it, controlled immigration from Europe. Why wouldn't you want to control this?
You asked if we want our "borders controlled" and I answered that they are, with a practical example of how they are.
Did you instead mean to ask "why would you not want immigration from specific other countries controlled ?
Quite different questions, and probably why I was the first person on many pages of debate to bother answering.
You can word it how you like mate, it's quite clear what I mean.
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
It was clear - you asked a question about whether we should "protect our borders" and I gave you an answer. But for some reason you really wanted an answer on immigration.
No answer from SE9addick then, anyone else?
Can you clarify which question you're asking ?
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
Would you like this in larger font?
Because I understand that being in a club also means signing up for the rules of the club.
You seem solely focused on the issue of immigration but surely whether or not we're members of the EU has many, many more factors - both negative and positive - than just immigration ?
Re immigration specifically - I believe that our country would be poorer economically without those 380,000 immigrants and therefore our "run down and overcrowded public services" would be even more underfunded than they are now. Leaving the EU will not improve public services, I believe that your thinking it will is a false economy.
To test out your theory let's see how the German economy responds to its current immigration levels. By your logic Germany will be economically richer and its public services will go from strength to strength over the next few years.
At which point did I say our public services had gone from strength to strength ? Please don't put words in my mouth because that certainly wasn't "my theory".
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
Those who are campaigning to leave the EU are mainly doing so because they want to keep the economic relationship but without the political union and usually point to countries in the EEA (and also EFTA) as examples of how this is possible.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
For me, the thing to remember is that, with a vote for Brexit, nothing is certain, including precisely how currently close relationships will pan out. (But then, other than death, taxes and the fact that Duchatelet is a complete f***wit, nothing is certain).
The only thing I can say with a degree of certainty is that, unlike referenda about individual EU treaties, another vote is almost impossible to imagine. For one thing, this referendum is not an EU requirement, it's an entirely UK thing. If the UK votes to leave, there is no reason to expect that the EU will suddenly offer more goodies. The people will have decided that they want out, and a divorce settlement will be arranged (I personally believe that, in this circumstance, the UK position will be less strong than some think). Only when, at some distant point in the future, if ever, the UK government wishes to start accession talks will a question of a new referendum arise.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Brexit could actually lead to a core of EU countries considering even closer union (but the economic and political crises we face will determine whether this will ever happen). The Franco-German axis is likely to be much more powerful (assuming the peoples in both nations are persuaded), and historically, has been pro-integration.
It would be brilliant if people spent as much time thinking about, say, education as they do about immigration. Life goes on, and there are so many more interesting things out there to think about. The topic obviously sells papers though as so many people are obsessed with it.
I see this thread has continued without one of the Europhiles answering the question asked a few pages back.
Why would you not want our boarders controlled?
I would imagine that no one answered because everyone does want or border controlled.
I travelled home from Brussels yesterday and had to navigate UK border control twice (once in another country !) so I can't quite understand your point.
Point is very simple, in the EU, uncontrolled mass immigration from Europe, out of it, controlled immigration from Europe. Why wouldn't you want to control this?
You asked if we want our "borders controlled" and I answered that they are, with a practical example of how they are.
Did you instead mean to ask "why would you not want immigration from specific other countries controlled ?
Quite different questions, and probably why I was the first person on many pages of debate to bother answering.
You can word it how you like mate, it's quite clear what I mean.
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
It was clear - you asked a question about whether we should "protect our borders" and I gave you an answer. But for some reason you really wanted an answer on immigration.
No answer from SE9addick then, anyone else?
Can you clarify which question you're asking ?
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
Would you like this in larger font?
Because I understand that being in a club also means signing up for the rules of the club.
You seem solely focused on the issue of immigration but surely whether or not we're members of the EU has many, many more factors - both negative and positive - than just immigration ?
Re immigration specifically - I believe that our country would be poorer economically without those 380,000 immigrants and therefore our "run down and overcrowded public services" would be even more underfunded than they are now. Leaving the EU will not improve public services, I believe that your thinking it will is a false economy.
To test out your theory let's see how the German economy responds to its current immigration levels. By your logic Germany will be economically richer and its public services will go from strength to strength over the next few years.
At which point did I say our public services had gone from strength to strength ? Please don't put words in my mouth because that certainly wasn't "my theory".
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
I believe your views are laughably naive but as Germany is now a giant petri dish for the ideas you champion, we'll see.
I see this thread has continued without one of the Europhiles answering the question asked a few pages back.
Why would you not want our boarders controlled?
I would imagine that no one answered because everyone does want or border controlled.
I travelled home from Brussels yesterday and had to navigate UK border control twice (once in another country !) so I can't quite understand your point.
Point is very simple, in the EU, uncontrolled mass immigration from Europe, out of it, controlled immigration from Europe. Why wouldn't you want to control this?
You asked if we want our "borders controlled" and I answered that they are, with a practical example of how they are.
Did you instead mean to ask "why would you not want immigration from specific other countries controlled ?
Quite different questions, and probably why I was the first person on many pages of debate to bother answering.
You can word it how you like mate, it's quite clear what I mean.
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
It was clear - you asked a question about whether we should "protect our borders" and I gave you an answer. But for some reason you really wanted an answer on immigration.
No answer from SE9addick then, anyone else?
Can you clarify which question you're asking ?
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
Would you like this in larger font?
Because I understand that being in a club also means signing up for the rules of the club.
You seem solely focused on the issue of immigration but surely whether or not we're members of the EU has many, many more factors - both negative and positive - than just immigration ?
Re immigration specifically - I believe that our country would be poorer economically without those 380,000 immigrants and therefore our "run down and overcrowded public services" would be even more underfunded than they are now. Leaving the EU will not improve public services, I believe that your thinking it will is a false economy.
To test out your theory let's see how the German economy responds to its current immigration levels. By your logic Germany will be economically richer and its public services will go from strength to strength over the next few years.
At which point did I say our public services had gone from strength to strength ? Please don't put words in my mouth because that certainly wasn't "my theory".
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
I believe your views are laughably naive but as Germany is now a giant petri dish for the ideas you champion, we'll see.
I see this thread has continued without one of the Europhiles answering the question asked a few pages back.
Why would you not want our boarders controlled?
I would imagine that no one answered because everyone does want or border controlled.
I travelled home from Brussels yesterday and had to navigate UK border control twice (once in another country !) so I can't quite understand your point.
Point is very simple, in the EU, uncontrolled mass immigration from Europe, out of it, controlled immigration from Europe. Why wouldn't you want to control this?
You asked if we want our "borders controlled" and I answered that they are, with a practical example of how they are.
Did you instead mean to ask "why would you not want immigration from specific other countries controlled ?
Quite different questions, and probably why I was the first person on many pages of debate to bother answering.
You can word it how you like mate, it's quite clear what I mean.
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
It was clear - you asked a question about whether we should "protect our borders" and I gave you an answer. But for some reason you really wanted an answer on immigration.
No answer from SE9addick then, anyone else?
Can you clarify which question you're asking ?
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
Would you like this in larger font?
Because I understand that being in a club also means signing up for the rules of the club.
You seem solely focused on the issue of immigration but surely whether or not we're members of the EU has many, many more factors - both negative and positive - than just immigration ?
Re immigration specifically - I believe that our country would be poorer economically without those 380,000 immigrants and therefore our "run down and overcrowded public services" would be even more underfunded than they are now. Leaving the EU will not improve public services, I believe that your thinking it will is a false economy.
To test out your theory let's see how the German economy responds to its current immigration levels. By your logic Germany will be economically richer and its public services will go from strength to strength over the next few years.
At which point did I say our public services had gone from strength to strength ? Please don't put words in my mouth because that certainly wasn't "my theory".
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
Do you read the news? Remember New Years Eve? HUNDREDS of sexual assaults, yeah, great for Germany.
I see this thread has continued without one of the Europhiles answering the question asked a few pages back.
Why would you not want our boarders controlled?
I would imagine that no one answered because everyone does want or border controlled.
I travelled home from Brussels yesterday and had to navigate UK border control twice (once in another country !) so I can't quite understand your point.
Point is very simple, in the EU, uncontrolled mass immigration from Europe, out of it, controlled immigration from Europe. Why wouldn't you want to control this?
You asked if we want our "borders controlled" and I answered that they are, with a practical example of how they are.
Did you instead mean to ask "why would you not want immigration from specific other countries controlled ?
Quite different questions, and probably why I was the first person on many pages of debate to bother answering.
You can word it how you like mate, it's quite clear what I mean.
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
It was clear - you asked a question about whether we should "protect our borders" and I gave you an answer. But for some reason you really wanted an answer on immigration.
No answer from SE9addick then, anyone else?
Can you clarify which question you're asking ?
Okay let me put it to you this way. Net immigration at 380k I believe, give or take a few 1000, around half of which from the EU, made up skilled/unskilled people, why wouldn't you want a government that can control this, what with our run down and overcrowded public services?
Would you like this in larger font?
Because I understand that being in a club also means signing up for the rules of the club.
You seem solely focused on the issue of immigration but surely whether or not we're members of the EU has many, many more factors - both negative and positive - than just immigration ?
Re immigration specifically - I believe that our country would be poorer economically without those 380,000 immigrants and therefore our "run down and overcrowded public services" would be even more underfunded than they are now. Leaving the EU will not improve public services, I believe that your thinking it will is a false economy.
To test out your theory let's see how the German economy responds to its current immigration levels. By your logic Germany will be economically richer and its public services will go from strength to strength over the next few years.
At which point did I say our public services had gone from strength to strength ? Please don't put words in my mouth because that certainly wasn't "my theory".
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
Do you read the news? Remember New Years Eve? HUNDREDS of sexual assaults, yeah, great for Germany.
Clearly that was absolutely shocking, and - for what it's worth - I think Merkel was wrong to encourage huge number of migrants to Germany, I was just trying to explain the rationale behind the decision.
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
Those who are campaigning to leave the EU are mainly doing so because they want to keep the economic relationship but without the political union and usually point to countries in the EEA (and also EFTA) as examples of how this is possible.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
Thank you - a simple, "Yes, you are correct I am also using hypothetical scenarios" would have done...
Don't worry, they'll all get EU passports then they can come here!
That is going to be the big game in the next few years. If SE9 is wrong and these people are an economic and social basket case every EU country is going to go out of its way to dump their new citizens on other EU states. That puts us in a poor position with our non contributory welfare state.
Don't worry, they'll all get EU passports then they can come here!
That is going to be the big game in the next few years. If SE9 is wrong and these people are an economic and social basket case every EU country is going to go out of its way to dump their new citizens on other EU states. That puts us in a poor position with our non contributory welfare state.
Each media outlet shows what they want according to their agenda. BBC show women and children, Mail show 1000s of men in their 20s with ISIS flags.
Don't worry, they'll all get EU passports then they can come here!
That is going to be the big game in the next few years. If SE9 is wrong and these people are an economic and social basket case every EU country is going to go out of its way to dump their new citizens on other EU states. That puts us in a poor position with our non contributory welfare state.
You know none of the Syrian refugees that arrives in Germany (or anywhere else) obtained German/EU citizenship ? Simply having refugee status in a country doesn't give you full citizenship rights.
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
Those who are campaigning to leave the EU are mainly doing so because they want to keep the economic relationship but without the political union and usually point to countries in the EEA (and also EFTA) as examples of how this is possible.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
Thank you - a simple, "Yes, you are correct I am also using hypothetical scenarios" would have done...
Surely any discussion regarding anything post-Brexit relies on hypotheticals. Hypothetically, the U.K. would remain in the EEA if it left the EU - this is based on what the Out side of the debate is proposing. Hypothetically, France could send all the migrants down the Channel Tunnel. However no one in a position of influence to make this happen has even indicated this is going to be a possibility.
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
Those who are campaigning to leave the EU are mainly doing so because they want to keep the economic relationship but without the political union and usually point to countries in the EEA (and also EFTA) as examples of how this is possible.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
Thank you - a simple, "Yes, you are correct I am also using hypothetical scenarios" would have done...
Surely any discussion regarding anything post-Brexit relies on hypotheticals. Hypothetically, the U.K. would remain in the EEA if it left the EU - this is based on what the Out side of the debate is proposing. Hypothetically, France could send all the migrants down the Channel Tunnel. However no one in a position of influence to make this happen has even indicated this is going to be a possibility.
Whom do you consider to be such a person? Hollande? The French PM? Do you really think they would come out and say such a thing now, in public? Really?
It's about time you explained why, in the event of Brexit, the French would continue to put up with the camp in Calais. Go on, give me one good, politically rational reason, if you can manage for just one minute to put yourself in French shoes.
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
Those who are campaigning to leave the EU are mainly doing so because they want to keep the economic relationship but without the political union and usually point to countries in the EEA (and also EFTA) as examples of how this is possible.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
Thank you - a simple, "Yes, you are correct I am also using hypothetical scenarios" would have done...
Surely any discussion regarding anything post-Brexit relies on hypotheticals. Hypothetically, the U.K. would remain in the EEA if it left the EU - this is based on what the Out side of the debate is proposing. Hypothetically, France could send all the migrants down the Channel Tunnel. However no one in a position of influence to make this happen has even indicated this is going to be a possibility.
I'm an "In" supporter and voted that way last time around. I have a genuine request to anyone on the "Out" team on CL.
Can you suggest where I can find something from "Out" explaining how, post Brexit, Britain would fare in relation to the immigration question. The controls which would be put into place, how they would work, projections for net migration, which sections of the economy would contract, which would grow and by how much, and how the labour market would fare?
I've tried Googling and looking at the "Out" organisations but haven't had much luck so far, maybe I'm missing something?
And honestly, if we're going to play the 'club' card, then if we leave the EU we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe and NATO, so I doubt we will see our relationship with France (and Belgium since you bizarrely insist that Belgium are also going to kick us out) go the way that Cuba and the USA interact, which is the scenario you appear to be painting. Except even Cuba lets the US station guards on Cuban soil. So you're suggesting if we left the EU but remained in the EEC our relationship with France would be even worse than the one between Cuba and the US?
Are both you, Prague and indeed most of us on this thread not using a continual set of hypotheticals? For example "we will likely stay in the EEC, EU Customs Union, Council of Europe". How do any of us know that is likely or unlikely?
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
Those who are campaigning to leave the EU are mainly doing so because they want to keep the economic relationship but without the political union and usually point to countries in the EEA (and also EFTA) as examples of how this is possible.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
Thank you - a simple, "Yes, you are correct I am also using hypothetical scenarios" would have done...
Surely any discussion regarding anything post-Brexit relies on hypotheticals. Hypothetically, the U.K. would remain in the EEA if it left the EU - this is based on what the Out side of the debate is proposing. Hypothetically, France could send all the migrants down the Channel Tunnel. However no one in a position of influence to make this happen has even indicated this is going to be a possibility.
Whom do you consider to be such a person? Hollande? The French PM? Do you really think they would come out and say such a thing now, in public? Really?
It's about time you explained why, in the event of Brexit, the French would continue to put up with the camp in Calais. Go on, give me one good, politically rational reason, if you can manage for just one minute to put yourself in French shoes.
The burden of proof is not on me to prove why the status quo will remain the status quo, it is on you to prove that it is going to change. The fact is until the PM opened his gob and let out this gaffe no one had even considered the possibility of the Calais camp moving across the Channel.
The Calais camp is there for one reason only; because the French are horribly shirking their responsibility to process these unregistered migrants and are instead tolerating the situation in the hope as many as possible will illegally enter Blighty. The camp is there as a symbol of French irresponsibility. Why the PM would say the camp would move to the South Coast is ridiculous - the camp only exists because the migrants are waiting to enter Britain, they are not camping there for a holiday you numpties. If, for some idiotic reason, some migrants did attempt to build a shanty town in Kent, I would hope a bulldozer was there before the first family even moved in. As soon as they enter England they will become yet another illegal immigrant that disappears and won't turn up again until he is caught driving without insurance. If the French decide to change the arrangements and make it easier for migrants to attempt passage into the UK, all that would happen is that the UK strengthen border controls this side, making it more difficult for migrants to cross en masse - the camp would still have to exist Calais side.
Again, this has nothing to do with us being in the EU with France - we are already in several clubs with them, including crucially NATO. France isn't allowing us any privileges because we're both in the EU and they are quite happy to be spiteful towards us even for national security matters, such as when they were funding Saddam in the run up to the Iraq invasion. If France is willing to help provide weapons to the enemies of its allies, then it will sure as hell try to send over 3000 migrants to a fellow EU state if it was inclined - being in the EU has no bearing on it.
I'm an "In" supporter and voted that way last time around. I have a genuine request to anyone on the "Out" team on CL.
Can you suggest where I can find something from "Out" explaining how, post Brexit, Britain would fare in relation to the immigration question. The controls which would be put into place, how they would work, projections for net migration, which sections of the economy would contract, which would grow and by how much, and how the labour market would fare?
I've tried Googling and looking at the "Out" organisations but haven't had much luck so far, maybe I'm missing something?
I have not decided whether I am in or out yet, but I am sympathetic to the Out side and I definitely do not view the EU as working in the UK's interests. Most of the arguments I see in favour of the EU seem to be along the lines of 'it's corrupt and awful but better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in' which seems like the worst possible reason to stay inside a club that has nothing but contempt for us, even when we spent 13 years being completely subservient to it.
I also have seen little from the Out campaigns regarding immigration and that is because beyond attracting the votes of White Man Van and Daily Mail types, which UKIP and the Tories court well, immigration and related issues such as benefit tourism is not considered to really be a problem, at least not EU-related migration. Border control is highlighted but this is usually from a security point of view as opposed to stopping immigration. Here are the 10 reasons to leave from the Better Off Out campaign, you will notice borders are mentioned once, immigration is not.
1. Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.
2. Freedom to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of our citizens.
3. Freedom to control our national borders.
4. Freedom to restore Britain’s special legal system.
5. Freedom to deregulate the EU’s costly mass of laws.
6. Freedom to make major savings for British consumers.
7. Freedom to improve the British economy and generate more jobs.
8. Freedom to regenerate Britain’s fisheries.
9. Freedom to save the NHS from EU threats to undermine it by harmonising healthcare across the EU, and to reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens.
10. Freedom to restore British customs and traditions.
Again, I do not support the Better Off Out campaign but it is an unfair caricature of the Out campaigns that they are obsessed with immigration because in reality EU immigration is not particularly considered a problem and if we left the EU, the Out campaigns would probably still be in favour of freedom of movement and employment amongst other EEA countries, which we would most likely be a member of if we left.
I'm an "In" supporter and voted that way last time around. I have a genuine request to anyone on the "Out" team on CL.
Can you suggest where I can find something from "Out" explaining how, post Brexit, Britain would fare in relation to the immigration question. The controls which would be put into place, how they would work, projections for net migration, which sections of the economy would contract, which would grow and by how much, and how the labour market would fare?
I've tried Googling and looking at the "Out" organisations but haven't had much luck so far, maybe I'm missing something?
I have not decided whether I am in or out yet, but I am sympathetic to the Out side and I definitely do not view the EU as working in the UK's interests. Most of the arguments I see in favour of the EU seem to be along the lines of 'it's corrupt and awful but better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in' which seems like the worst possible reason to stay inside a club that has nothing but contempt for us, even when we spent 13 years being completely subservient to it.
I also have seen little from the Out campaigns regarding immigration and that is because beyond attracting the votes of White Man Van and Daily Mail types, which UKIP and the Tories court well, immigration and related issues such as benefit tourism is not considered to really be a problem, at least not EU-related migration. Border control is highlighted but this is usually from a security point of view as opposed to stopping immigration. Here are the 10 reasons to leave from the Better Off Out campaign, you will notice borders are mentioned once, immigration is not.
1. Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.
2. Freedom to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of our citizens.
3. Freedom to control our national borders.
4. Freedom to restore Britain’s special legal system.
5. Freedom to deregulate the EU’s costly mass of laws.
6. Freedom to make major savings for British consumers.
7. Freedom to improve the British economy and generate more jobs.
8. Freedom to regenerate Britain’s fisheries.
9. Freedom to save the NHS from EU threats to undermine it by harmonising healthcare across the EU, and to reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens.
10. Freedom to restore British customs and traditions.
Again, I do not support the Better Off Out campaign but it is an unfair caricature of the Out campaigns that they are obsessed with immigration because in reality EU immigration is not particularly considered a problem and if we left the EU, the Out campaigns would probably still be in favour of freedom of movement and employment amongst other EEA countries, which we would most likely be a member of if we left.
Thanks for posting this info @Fiiish, apologies for my tardy response.
Funny really, the Better Off Out site is very short on considered arguments to support their reasons to leave. 10 easy things to say but 10 difficult things to deliver.
"Freedom to" is meaningless, having the freedom to do something doesn't guarantee better outcomes, if that's the best they can say to further their cause they sure haven't convinced me of anything other than their ineptitude.
Their argument is heading into election territory really, "make the promises people want to believe".
Probably true for both sides but quite disappointing that for such an important issue there isn't much decent info and debate around.
I think it is true on both sides though - The best the In campaign can manage is 'better to inside the expensive, bureaucratic, undemocratic, useless tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in'. I'd be less sceptical of Europhiles if they even had the faintest interest in reforming the EU, but I have to see anyone who is pro-EU and who also sees the danger in continually unconditionally supporting the growth of a politically charged superstate whose accountability becomes less and less reversible every passing day.
It is easy to demonise those who want out as racists and loonies when you support the status quo, but bear in mind a lot of pretty awful regimes in the last 100 years got away with crimes purely because their own people unquestionably supported the status quo.
I'd submit that the "In" benefits are much more in the open as they've been part of everyday life since we joined decades ago. Grown to become 2nd largest economy in Europe with our important Financial economy (am I remembering correctly that it's 30% of our GDP?) "protected" by our membership. UK GDP growth is envied by many others countries inside and outside the EU. If we were to move outside of the EU trading block I can't see how that can continue and importantly, can't see anyone from the "Out" side explaining exactly how any continuation (or improvement) would be achieved.
Anyway back to campaign transparency - current state indicates the benefits of "In" plus whatever Cameron negotiates to improve our position will also be transparent once concluded. Will we ever be able to say the same for the "Out" side?
Comments
There's a Eurostar terminal in Brussels, I suspect that's why Prague includes that with his points about that particular subject. I don't see why there is anything bizarre.
This wave of immigration to Germany from Syria will benefit Germany, which has an aging population and a massive oncoming shortage of workers to generate the taxes required to support that aging population (which require more in the way of healthcare, pensions etc). That's why Merkel rolled the red carpet out.
I believe sections of Britains public services do suffer from major structural issues but I believe that's more to do with ridiculous underinvestment by central government, that won't change if we aren't in the EU.
Yes this is a hypothetical but it actually has some basis in what those who are campaigning to leave have put forward as their proposal. Other hypotheticals, such as the complete breakdown in diplomacy between France and the U.K., has no basis beyond desperate fearmongering by our Prime Minister and those naive enough to believe him. There is no serious indication that the border control collapse predicted will happen. I will concede that it could happen, but to date beyond conjecture there is no reason to suspect this is a likely scenario.
The only thing I can say with a degree of certainty is that, unlike referenda about individual EU treaties, another vote is almost impossible to imagine. For one thing, this referendum is not an EU requirement, it's an entirely UK thing. If the UK votes to leave, there is no reason to expect that the EU will suddenly offer more goodies. The people will have decided that they want out, and a divorce settlement will be arranged (I personally believe that, in this circumstance, the UK position will be less strong than some think). Only when, at some distant point in the future, if ever, the UK government wishes to start accession talks will a question of a new referendum arise.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Brexit could actually lead to a core of EU countries considering even closer union (but the economic and political crises we face will determine whether this will ever happen). The Franco-German axis is likely to be much more powerful (assuming the peoples in both nations are persuaded), and historically, has been pro-integration.
It's about time you explained why, in the event of Brexit, the French would continue to put up with the camp in Calais. Go on, give me one good, politically rational reason, if you can manage for just one minute to put yourself in French shoes.
Can you suggest where I can find something from "Out" explaining how, post Brexit, Britain would fare in relation to the immigration question. The controls which would be put into place, how they would work, projections for net migration, which sections of the economy would contract, which would grow and by how much, and how the labour market would fare?
I've tried Googling and looking at the "Out" organisations but haven't had much luck so far, maybe I'm missing something?
The Calais camp is there for one reason only; because the French are horribly shirking their responsibility to process these unregistered migrants and are instead tolerating the situation in the hope as many as possible will illegally enter Blighty. The camp is there as a symbol of French irresponsibility. Why the PM would say the camp would move to the South Coast is ridiculous - the camp only exists because the migrants are waiting to enter Britain, they are not camping there for a holiday you numpties. If, for some idiotic reason, some migrants did attempt to build a shanty town in Kent, I would hope a bulldozer was there before the first family even moved in. As soon as they enter England they will become yet another illegal immigrant that disappears and won't turn up again until he is caught driving without insurance. If the French decide to change the arrangements and make it easier for migrants to attempt passage into the UK, all that would happen is that the UK strengthen border controls this side, making it more difficult for migrants to cross en masse - the camp would still have to exist Calais side.
Again, this has nothing to do with us being in the EU with France - we are already in several clubs with them, including crucially NATO. France isn't allowing us any privileges because we're both in the EU and they are quite happy to be spiteful towards us even for national security matters, such as when they were funding Saddam in the run up to the Iraq invasion. If France is willing to help provide weapons to the enemies of its allies, then it will sure as hell try to send over 3000 migrants to a fellow EU state if it was inclined - being in the EU has no bearing on it.
I also have seen little from the Out campaigns regarding immigration and that is because beyond attracting the votes of White Man Van and Daily Mail types, which UKIP and the Tories court well, immigration and related issues such as benefit tourism is not considered to really be a problem, at least not EU-related migration. Border control is highlighted but this is usually from a security point of view as opposed to stopping immigration. Here are the 10 reasons to leave from the Better Off Out campaign, you will notice borders are mentioned once, immigration is not.
1. Freedom to make stronger trade deals with other nations.
2. Freedom to spend UK resources presently through EU membership in the UK to the advantage of our citizens.
3. Freedom to control our national borders.
4. Freedom to restore Britain’s special legal system.
5. Freedom to deregulate the EU’s costly mass of laws.
6. Freedom to make major savings for British consumers.
7. Freedom to improve the British economy and generate more jobs.
8. Freedom to regenerate Britain’s fisheries.
9. Freedom to save the NHS from EU threats to undermine it by harmonising healthcare across the EU, and to reduce welfare payments to non-UK EU citizens.
10. Freedom to restore British customs and traditions.
Again, I do not support the Better Off Out campaign but it is an unfair caricature of the Out campaigns that they are obsessed with immigration because in reality EU immigration is not particularly considered a problem and if we left the EU, the Out campaigns would probably still be in favour of freedom of movement and employment amongst other EEA countries, which we would most likely be a member of if we left.
Funny really, the Better Off Out site is very short on considered arguments to support their reasons to leave. 10 easy things to say but 10 difficult things to deliver.
"Freedom to" is meaningless, having the freedom to do something doesn't guarantee better outcomes, if that's the best they can say to further their cause they sure haven't convinced me of anything other than their ineptitude.
Their argument is heading into election territory really, "make the promises people want to believe".
Probably true for both sides but quite disappointing that for such an important issue there isn't much decent info and debate around.
It is easy to demonise those who want out as racists and loonies when you support the status quo, but bear in mind a lot of pretty awful regimes in the last 100 years got away with crimes purely because their own people unquestionably supported the status quo.
Grown to become 2nd largest economy in Europe with our important Financial economy (am I remembering correctly that it's 30% of our GDP?) "protected" by our membership.
UK GDP growth is envied by many others countries inside and outside the EU. If we were to move outside of the EU trading block I can't see how that can continue and importantly, can't see anyone from the "Out" side explaining exactly how any continuation (or improvement) would be achieved.
Anyway back to campaign transparency - current state indicates the benefits of "In" plus whatever Cameron negotiates to improve our position will also be transparent once concluded. Will we ever be able to say the same for the "Out" side?