Europe: In or Out

[Kalimantan Gull]

Go on then,why would they have to leave.? Seems rather dramatic
If we left the EU will there be no avenues to pursue or circumstances at all where it would be possible for them to remain playing for the club?

seems you are trying to say everyone from Europe will have to pack their bags and go home,no questions asked.

sorry, I assumed that was the point of the anti-immigration lot. Three young men coming over here from Europe, bringing their families with them, taking jobs that lots of British people are qualified for and want, using public services, sending their kids to local schools.... I mean, if they're OK to stay then pretty much every EU migrant is welcome to stay, no?

 

[cunning fergus]

I never said immediate disintegration of a sanctions regime or an energy policy. I am talking about weakening an organisation that is already battered and bruised. A sanctions programme, which harms some states (Greece) more than others (Portugal) requires political will. Brexit will damage the standing of the EU and its political authority. This in turn weakens the ability to push through tough measures. If Russia can unpick the threads of European unity it can begin to dismantle pan-European policy. For example Greece has cosied up to Russia hoping for economic relief in exchange for Greece delaying the ratification of EU sanctions against Russia related to Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. A weaker Europe is a stronger Russia.

On the periphery this will have longer-term consequences. For example the European accession process in Serbia will be delayed and it will instead look for aid from Russia. A stronger Europe can be more coherent on these issues and look forward rather than fighting a constant rear-guard action. Moldova is another country that needs European help to implement reforms, a distracted Europe has not been able to deliver the technical support to ensure these reforms are successful. This pulls Moldova back into the Russian orbit as people become dissatisfied with the failure of pro-Western parties.

Like with all policy our approach can be amplified through Europe. As a country with frozen relations with Russia us leaving weakens a pro-sanctions policy - there are plenty of Russophiles (Schroeder et al. ) in Germany who will try to shift the wider European debate.

In terms of significant concessions let's remember that as a starting point we have a lot of concessions and special treatment already: no commitment to joining the Euro, no Schengen, justice opt-outs, the rebate. Now we are asking for more. It is not just the Commission we have to convince but the other member-states - obviously Poland is going to be tougher to convince than the Netherlands. It is about compromise and on that score I think Cameron has done fine.

Facinating stuff here, so a few points, there could have been many more................interested in your views.

What is the "political authority of the EU"?
How was it derived?
Who has been democratically elected to execute this "political authority"?
Who has voted for Serbia and Moldova to be accepted in the EU?
Why is the accession of even more poorer countries in the interests of the UK?

The above answers should all include somewhere a part about democracy.

One last one............as you have concerns with Russo-Western relationships.

Why do you think, despite frozen relationships with Russia, the EU's space agency is happy to cozy up to Russia so that astronauts (like Tim Peake) can get up to space via Russian spacecraft?

 

[GT49er]

Big banks don't seem to want Brexit:

What the big banks want seems to have a track record of going badly wrong, and often costing us a lot of money for bail-outs, and he other troubles of recession.

So if the big banks don't seem to want it, I'm all for it! Out!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

If Britain withdrew from the EU it would preserve the benefits of trade with the EU by imposing a UK/EU Free Trade Agreement.

– The EU sells a lot more to us than we sell to them. In 2014 there was a trade deficit of over £50bn, with a current account deficit of nearly £100 billion. It seems unlikely that the EU would seek to disrupt a trade which is so beneficial to itself.

A huge point you're overlooking is that the UK runs a trade surplus on financial services. And, sadly, financial services is arguably the most important sector the UK has contributing over 10% in UK taxes. This single item alone puts the EU in the box-seat when it comes to any trade negotiations.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

sorry, I assumed that was the point of the anti-immigration lot. Three young men coming over here from Europe, bringing their families with them, taking jobs that lots of British people are qualified for and want, using public services, sending their kids to local schools.... I mean, if they're OK to stay then pretty much every EU migrant is welcome to stay, no?

Most of us are happy to embrace immigration, but not these stupid open door rules imposed by the EU. It should be up to us who we allow in because the current system is open to abuse. It's all about the numbers.

 

[pastafarian]

sorry, I assumed that was the point of the anti-immigration lot. Three young men coming over here from Europe, bringing their families with them, taking jobs that lots of British people are qualified for and want, using public services, sending their kids to local schools.... I mean, if they're OK to stay then pretty much every EU migrant is welcome to stay, no?

3,basically headhunted for their skills from the same profession is slightly less than 100`s of thousands over a few years and not really comparable.......non?

my understanding of(the anti immigration lot) is not everyone in or everyone out but a managed points based system where we address the needs of the country. If there is a chronic shortage of a set skill then encourage say 5000(ballpark figure) people from abroad to come here and work,at the same time set in motion schemes to encourage British youngsters to train in the profession that was lacking so we dont have a shortage again.

No one is saying pull up the drawbridge and shut everyone out,we should certainly manage the numbers of people coming in though,to both fit our needs and make sure services and infrastructure are not put under strain

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

– Moreover, the Lisbon Treaty stipulates that the EU must make a trade agreement with a country which leaves the EU.
– World Trade Organization (WTO) rules lay down basic rules for international trade by which both the EU and UK are obliged to abide. These alone would guarantee the trade upon which most of those 3 million jobs rely.

These are both spurious statements. A trade agreement is one thing. A favourable trade agreement is something entirely different. And there might be WTO rules....but as you say they're basic. And even if they did guarantee trade, which they don't, who's to say it's on favourable terms?

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

All these problems don't go away if we leave the EU. They probably get worse. Why not try to resolve this issues (as much as they can be) in a way we would like? We can't immunise ourselves from the challenges Europe faces, but we have a choice about whether we help solve them.

why should we try and solve them , we've been in it long enough and things haven't got any better, open your eyes FFS
regards
DR

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why do you think, despite frozen relationships with Russia, the EU's space agency is happy to cozy up to Russia so that astronauts (like Tim Peake) can get up to space via Russian spacecraft?

EU space agency? That's a new one.

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

sorry, I assumed that was the point of the anti-immigration lot. Three young men coming over here from Europe, bringing their families with them, taking jobs that lots of British people are qualified for and want, using public services, sending their kids to local schools.... I mean, if they're OK to stay then pretty much every EU migrant is welcome to stay, no?

stop them entering in the first place solves most of the issues
regards
DR

 

[looney]

These are both spurious statements. A trade agreement is one thing. A favourable trade agreement is something entirely different. And there might be WTO rules....but as you say they're basic. And even if they did guarantee trade, which they don't, who's to say it's on favourable terms?

People make agreements because they are by definition in their favour. If they are not then they dont agree.
Seriously? How difficult is it to grasp?

 

[Soulman]

3,basically headhunted for their skills from the same profession is slightly less than 100`s of thousands over a few years and not really comparable.......non?

my understanding of(the anti immigration lot) is not everyone in or everyone out but a managed points based system where we address the needs of the country. If there is a chronic shortage of a set skill then encourage say 5000(ballpark figure) people from abroad to come here and work,at the same time set in motion schemes to encourage British youngsters to train in the profession that was lacking so we dont have a shortage again.

No one is saying pull up the drawbridge and shut everyone out,we should certainly manage the numbers of people coming in though,to both fit our needs and make sure services and infrastructure are not put under strain

Seems nobody has answered the question of how the UK (mostly England) can cope/sustain a net migration in of 330,000 people a year. I believe that England is the second most densely populated country in Europe, second behind Malta. It was fourth up until 2012, but has since overtaken the Netherlands and Belgium.

 

[pastafarian]

And there might be WTO rules....but as you say they're basic. And even if they did guarantee trade, which they don't, who's to say it's on favourable terms?

WTO rules ensure that any trade deals set up must offer the same favourable terms that an existing trading partner enjoys and cannot discriminate by charging the UK higher tariffs than China for example ,so the Uk would certainly have the same favourable terms as any other non EU country

 

[brighton fella]

That is probably just predisposed to hear the arguments that way. People on here are saying that staying in the EU is positive for national security, positive for the environment, positive for trade, and it would be bad for all these things if we left. You are clearly choosing to hear these arguments as 'scare stories'.

Here's another positive reason for staying in. If we stay in the EU then Inigo Calderon, Bruno and Anthony Knockaert can carry on playing for Brighton but if we leave the EU they'll have to go.

another scare story.

 

[brighton fella]

why should we try and solve them , we've been in it long enough and things haven't got any better, open your eyes FFS
regards
DR

that's all that needs to be said really, you've nailed it

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

People make agreements because they are by definition in their favour. If they are not then they dont agree.
Seriously? How difficult is it to grasp?

What nonsense. Look up the word duress. It's quite close to desperate and disadvantaged in the dictionary.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

WTO rules ensure that any trade deals set up must offer the same favourable terms that an existing trading partner enjoys and cannot discriminate by charging the UK higher tariffs than China for example ,so the Uk would certainly have the same favourable terms as any other non EU country

Okay. So, UK currently buys A from EU for X. China buys A from EU for X+Y. U.K. leaves EU and WTO stipulates EU must trade with the U.K. same as China....so UK now has to pay X+Y. Have I got this right?

 

[The Rivet]

What nonsense. Look up the word duress. It's quite close to desperate and disadvantaged in the dictionary.

A bit like you have come across in this thread.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Most of us are happy to embrace immigration, but not these stupid open door rules imposed by the EU. It should be up to us who we allow in because the current system is open to abuse. It's all about the numbers.

3,basically headhunted for their skills from the same profession is slightly less than 100`s of thousands over a few years and not really comparable.......non?

my understanding of(the anti immigration lot) is not everyone in or everyone out but a managed points based system where we address the needs of the country. If there is a chronic shortage of a set skill then encourage say 5000(ballpark figure) people from abroad to come here and work,at the same time set in motion schemes to encourage British youngsters to train in the profession that was lacking so we dont have a shortage again.

No one is saying pull up the drawbridge and shut everyone out,we should certainly manage the numbers of people coming in though,to both fit our needs and make sure services and infrastructure are not put under strain

It sort of makes sense what you're saying, but it also kind of undermines your argument. When you start presenting individual cases of EU residents in the UK they all start becoming useful, and before you know it all 100,000+ are worthwhile and needed. The footballers might seem a silly case, but of all the people here from the EU they are arguably the least needed and the most replaceable. But if they're OK then you're not making a good argument to exclude others.

EU people I know include an Italian guy who has opened up a hairdresser's down here in Cornwall, invested in a business and employs a few young british people, I assume he's welcome. There's a French student at the uni in penryn who does some babysitting for me. My cousin's girlfriend is Polish, she's here with her daughter, she works as a nurse in the NHS, the job was advertised back in Poland so she came. We don't see that much of her because she does all the shifts that British nurses don't want, Christmas Day, friday nights and so on. She's obviously welcome.

Points systems and work-permits are fine and dandy to a point, but I assume all these people will get them, and many more. But they do create red-tape that is discouraging for businesses wanting to move or expand to the UK. One thing any large business wants is a large supply of good cheap labour, and Britain without immigration doesn't have that. We have a good supply of educated, quality labour, but not so much spare at the minimum-wage end of the market. One of my best friends works in management for a large waste management company in Peterborough. He manages a couple of dozen people who work conveyor belts of waste from people's bins, sorting it and separating out recycleables, organics and so on. Sounds like a god-damn awful job, boring and disgusting in equal measure, minimum wage, and everyone working there is eastern european. According to him thats just the way it is, and apparently Brits don't want it - nor do they need to do that job, there's more rewarding, interesting and better-paid jobs out there for hard-working non-skilled british people. Now I assume all these people fail your points test and don't get in, but what does that mean for this company, or others like it?

Simple truth is, as the British population ages, our workforce is becoming stretched. If there is zero immigration to the UK we're going to be unable to fill jobs and generate the tax income we need to pay pensions and fund an NHS with more demands on it. Retirement age is going up but this won't be enough, we need blue-collar immigration and our government has to wrestle the demands of an encomy that needs immigration, with the desires of a populace that rejects immigration. [actually, from an environmental standpoint I would be delighted with a zero or negative-growth country, and would support this if I thought the anti-EU people were serious about closing borders]

Theoretically the EU expansion should have been the perfect solution - in the past we've encouraged people from the Carribbean, Africa and south Asia to come with resultant strains on communities from incompatible cultures, religion and so on. An influx of white, Christian people should have been easier to swallow, but it hasn't worked. So if the EU migrants are stopped, I guess we're back to more people from Pakistan, Syria and so on. Or, more likely, the immigration from eastern europe continues but is just illegal, it was a pretty open secret that all the vegetable farms and flower farms in East Anglia, prior to the expanded EU, were staffed by cash-in-hand eastern europeans. At least now they're legal they're contributing to the economy.

The only viable solution to keep our healthy economy and have no immigration of low-skilled people is to dramatically raise our birth-rate, from the current 1.83 infants per woman up to around 2.1 - which the rate at which the British population replaces itself - and above. In fact birth rates are only as high as this because the migrant birth rate is much higher than the indigenous birth rate - which is about 1.75 - a quarter of all babies born last year were to mothers born outside the UK. Huge numbers of indigenous British women are not having children at all any more.

 

[pastafarian]

Okay. So, UK currently buys A from EU for X. China buys A from EU for X+Y. U.K. leaves EU and WTO stipulates EU must trade with the U.K. same as China....so UK now has to pay X+Y. Have I got this right?

Well yes if you take into account X(price) can be variable and Y (tariffs etc) must be on an equal footing
And if The UK then agreed a deal with the EU to buy A for X without Y then EU would not be able to discriminate against China in the market concerning product A and would have to drop Y as well. China could still come up trumps by dumping shed loads of A at rock bottom prices which no one can compete with whether Y is there or not