The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[tonyh29]

57 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

over 50% of all our current immigration is already non EU, so that's hardly a restriction at the moment. I think there are something like 1.2 million non EU immigrants in the UK? Yet we can't find a competent american goalkeeper.

But is the number of american goalkeepers we can have more of a UEFA thing than an EU thing? I don't know, not a clue. But would Russian and Swiss teams be restricted by the same foreigner rules as a footballing not EU regulation? 

Personally, I'd change the rules to a maximum of less than 1 american goalkeeper per team. I think that would help us.

 

the rules bend based on the club rather than any Eu or UEFA thing so I'm not really sure footballers is a good example !!!

 

on the immigration argument itself  , personally I think anyone using immigration as their sole reasoning behind voting to leave should be lined up against a wall and shot ..but as we don't live in Saudi I guess we should go with milder alternatives like tattoo removal .

[Chindie]

You'd need a long wall...

[Awol]

I think the point consistently made about controlling immigration is that the UK should be able to choose who it lets in (like every other non EU country in the world) not that it should be stopped altogether. 

Even UKIP accept the economic need for immigration and argue for an Australian style points system. It is amusing that such a standard international model should be presented by so many as a knuckle dragging right wing agenda. 

[tonyh29]

36 minutes ago, Awol said:

Even UKIP accept the economic need for immigration and argue for an Australian style points system. It is amusing that such a standard international model should be presented by so many as a knuckle dragging right wing agenda. 

Australia is probably the third in the most racist country in the world behind India and Serbia ... not sure their points system should really be viewed as an example !!

 

[Heretic]

The real power in the EU lies with the Commission - an unelected bunch of greasy spooners.

I'm not thinking of any benefits of the past - I'm thinking of the future that the kind of people the EU attracts to go and work for it will bring.

They want a federal overarching state that makes current legislatures mere provinces. They are well on the way to achieving this and the process doesn't look like reversing.

I accept that co-operation with our continenal neighbours is positive, but that doesn't mean I want a European Union. They don't want co-operation - they want top-down coercion.

My preference is for Brexit.

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I think the point consistently made about controlling immigration is that the UK should be able to choose who it lets in (like every other non EU country in the world) not that it should be stopped altogether. 

Even UKIP accept the economic need for immigration and argue for an Australian style points system. It is amusing that such a standard international model should be presented by so many as a knuckle dragging right wing agenda. 

The UK already can control who it lets in.

[Chindie]

29 minutes ago, Heretic said:

The real power in the EU lies with the Commission - an unelected bunch of greasy spooners.

I'm not thinking of any benefits of the past - I'm thinking of the future that the kind of people the EU attracts to go and work for it will bring.

They want a federal overarching state that makes current legislatures mere provinces. They are well on the way to achieving this and the process doesn't look like reversing.

I accept that co-operation with our continenal neighbours is positive, but that doesn't mean I want a European Union. They don't want co-operation - they want top-down coercion.

My preference is for Brexit.

The Commission is the legislative arm of the EU, that's true, and it's unelected, which is also a problem and is the fundamental democratic deficit of the organisation. 

I'd be wary of jumping to the conclusion that that means the EU definitely wants to have a United States of Europe. I have no doubt whatsoever that there are members of the commission that want that. I also have no doubt there are as many that would burn the EU down the moment that was on the table. Because these Commissioners are nominated by their respective nations as representatives. Why would David Cameron send a bloke to Brussels who wants to put David Cameron's job further down the ladder? 'Our' current Commissioner, Jonathan Hill, who nobody had ever heard of, was almost certainly sent to Brussels as a way of sticking the middle finger up at them, because he was a nobody and Junkers wanted big names and diversity. So we send someone nobody would look twice at in the street and the whitest man possible.

There are so many bits of the EU and it's organisation is such that those bits are made up of hundreds of different people, and there whole elements of that which are pretty much there to decry the organisation, particularly in the Parliament who can, at will (provided there is 2/3rds agreement), make the Commission resign, and it can also tell the Commission to piss off with legislation if it wants. You'd have to have an enormous majority of every element of the EU that wanted a United States of Europe for it to happen. So it won't. Unless there's a cull of all the dissenters in which case the organisation falls apart, or unless they completely change the organisation unilaterally, which again would have so much uproar the EU would cease to be. Countries within the EU have already ignored it on issues far more minor than an existential sovereignty crisis.

I can see why the USE is a concern. But it's not a real one IMO.

[Awol]

42 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

The UK already can control who it lets in.

If someone has an EU passport they have a right to enter the UK.  The UK has lawfully given that right of control away, but nevertheless it has given it away.

[Awol]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

Australia is probably the third in the most racist country in the world behind India and Serbia ... not sure their points system should really be viewed as an example !!

 

Is that based on Tony's scale of premier league racist nations? I'm pretty amazed you'd come out with a statement like that.

That aside... If for example you wish to live in Canada, or the US or Japan, then you have to meet their criteria for entry. That includes things like level of education,  criminal record status, funds in the bank and private health insurance. Only within the EU can people pitch up in each other's countries no questions asked. 

Having a measure of control over immigration no matter what country an immigrant comes from seems a pretty sensible precaution - which is why the whole non EU world does it. 

[HanoiVillan]

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

If someone has an EU passport they have a right to enter the UK.  The UK has lawfully given that right of control away, but nevertheless it has given it away.

Subject to certain criteria, yes they do. However, they don't have an absolute right of entry, which is why there are lots of men and women in little boxes in the immigration room at the airport. Some people are turned away.

[Paddywhack]

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

Only within the EU can people pitch up in each other's countries no questions asked.

Great isn't it? I'm either going to settle in Spain or France

Edited April 8, 2016 by Paddywhack

[chrisp65]

The easy travel around the EU is something I've personally benefited from, having both worked and had holidays in France, Germany, Ireland and Malta.

Not a massively impressive list compared with some, but yeah, I've had a phonecall on a Sunday and got on a plane to Malta on a Monday to pick up a new job.

 

[snowychap]

47 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

... had a phonecall on a Sunday and got on a plane to Malta on a Monday to pick up a new job.

You went and pinched some local's job? I bet that made him cross.

[chrisp65]

Well we're trying to get a reunion organised at some point, so I couldn't have made too many Maltese cross.

Anyway, most of the management level were Brits or Germans and most of the site labour was north african. Quite a few locals moaning about foreigners taking jobs, whilst lots of middling jobs were difficult to fill. Reminded me of somewhere, I just can't quite put my finger on where it was....

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

 but yeah, I've had a phonecall on a Sunday and got on a plane to Malta on a Monday to pick up a new job.

 

Fairly sure you could have done that regardless of the U.K. being in the EU ?

[chrisp65]

12 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Fairly sure you could have done that regardless of the U.K. being in the EU ?

No idea to be honest. It was slightly more complicated than just getting on a plane. I was keeping it brief! I needed to set up bank accounts, help set up a joint business with a local firm and get a flat and a car. Maybe I could have done all that regardless, don't know.

I also know that trying to work in Nigeria and Libya proved blissfully awkward to arrange visas and export credit guarantees etc.. Awkward enough for me to have ended up not going, but having had the credit for saying I would. I wouldn't really have gone, but I just trusted in others to blink first.

[limpid]

Quote

Hi,

Right now, government leaflets telling us why we should stay in the EU are dropping through the letterbox in homes across the UK. Thousands of 38 Degrees members have chipped in to fund a team of experts to go through the leaflet and seperate the facts from the spin. Here's what they found. Please watch this and pass it on:
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/eu-leaflet-video-share

If enough of us get involved, we can make sure that millions of people across the UK will see the facts that’ll help them to make their mind up about Europe.

Please can you watch this two-minute video, then pass it on? 
https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/eu-leaflet-video-share

Thank you

 

[Wainy316]

Great isn't it? I'm either going to settle in Spain or France

Or go to Sweden and sponge off their generous welfare system.

[wazzap24]

On 8 April 2016 at 16:28, tonyh29 said:

Australia is probably the third in the most racist country in the world behind India and Serbia ... not sure their points system should really be viewed as an example !!

 

Is that relevant though? 

Regardless of how 'racist' a country is or not, if they have (what appears to be) a pretty good way of looking at immigration, then It's something we should consider. 

If this country doesn't get a grip of the immigration issue, the situation is just going to get worse. Racism on both sides will continue to rise and pave the way for more extremism. 

I think a points system, based on the needs of the country and a policy of 'spreading' immigration around is the way to go. 

[blandy]

3 hours ago, wazzap24 said:

If this country doesn't get a grip of the immigration issue, the situation is just going to get worse

It's interesting, because there are plenty of downsides to high levels of immigration. The strain on services, hospitals, schools, housing, racial cohesion, religionist nutters and all that. Cheap labour depressing wages...

But the other thing is we'd be goosed without it. The amount of NHS staff alone is reason enough. Then there's teachers and all kinds of other professions. There are something like 100,000 French people living in London, working in al kinds of jobs. Most immigrants are younger and pay taxes. We're an ageing population and we need younger people to come here to provide the workforce to pay for the pensioners.

So really the alternative to the current high levels of immigration is lower levels of immigration, but with all kinds of downsides as well as the upsides. Immigration is a problem as much because of government incompetence in the UK as because of the EU.