[Politics] Brexit

[Hampster Gull]

Miserable, not me. I am enjoying goading you EU slaves. One S by the way.

Keep goading, its funny

 

[The Rivet]

The question should really be " would you rather stay in and all get shafted together, or leave and get shafted on your own?"

If I'm gonna get screwed one way or another, I'd rather do it #together

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

Tart.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Tart.

 

[The Rivet]

What is it with you facepalmers can't you look the truth in the eye?
Yes I am being very sarcastic.

 

[brighton fella]

By the time someone I trust gets into power the country will already be in tatters

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

And it aint in tatters now then. . it is in a terrible mess, due to us being in the EU.

 

[The Rivet]

Well for me the debate in Glasgow, QT and now TW remainers are going through the grilling that is needed. They are coming out lacking, badly.

 

[The Rivet]

Well the witching hour has come and gone and I guess both remainers and outers are to bed and so must I.
Another day for bashing tomorrow. Sleep tight all.

 

[Maldini]

After watching the TV debate I have come to the conclusion that a large fraction of remain voters simply don't care about immigration.

And Leave voters don't care about the economy.

In 10 years time and another 5 million migrants the remain voters will change their tune.

 

[Maldini]

So that's 333.000 net migration.How many moved from this country?Let's say 100.000.Then let's ad at least another 100.000 illegal immigrants who have come here in the last year and that's another 533.000 foreign people.Wow.Goodbye Great Britain.

 

[brighton fella]

Well for me the debate in Glasgow, QT and now TW remainers are going through the grilling that is needed. They are coming out lacking, badly.

That debate in Glasgow was so promising at first, equal representatives from both sides and the undecided bunched in the middle, however as the debate progressed it was easy to recognize who's side the presenter was on and it was also telling to see that the undecided were in fact not undecided and,that they were for remain from the very start. but then again it was the BBC,what else can you expect.

 

[brighton fella]

So that's 333.000 net migration.How many moved from this country?Let's say 100.000.Then let's ad at least another 100.000 illegal immigrants who have come here in the last year and that's another 533.000 foreign people.Wow.Goodbye Great Britain.

The documentary Tuesday evening about the last remaining cockneys proved that.

 

[Scotchegg]

So that's 333.000 net migration.How many moved from this country?Let's say 100.000.Then let's ad at least another 100.000 illegal immigrants who have come here in the last year and that's another 533.000 foreign people.Wow.Goodbye Great Britain.

Certainly sounds like solid figures you got there. Let's say 100,000? LET'S SAY you actually look it up, AT LEAST that way you're not just promoting numbers from thin air.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

And it aint in tatters now then. . it is in a terrible mess, due to us being in the EU.

Yeah the conservative cuts have nothing to do with it

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[cunning fergus]

The question should really be " would you rather stay in and all get shafted together, or leave and get shafted on your own?"

If I'm gonna get screwed one way or another, I'd rather do it #together

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

And yet all the evidence from the euro crisis is that the bankers and their chums avoided being shafted leaving the poor to pick up the pieces.

It's the poor that are being ground into dust by EU's own austerity programme leaving catastrophic levels of unemployment in Greece, Spain et al.

The EU is not #together........you need to decide what side you are on.

 

[cunning fergus]

Let me answer these questions.

EU treaties are designed to ensure closer cooperation across member states. That is there point. There is no point in having a treaty that is designed to create disharmony. An example would be the Treaty of Rome which included proposed legislation on equality at work and working conditions across Europe.

On immigration, we are not part of Schegen and so can check every passport of any EU national wishing to enter the UK. This way we can prevent those with criminal records entering the UK or we can monitor them whilst they are here. We have one truly open border and that is with Ireland. Ireland is also not a member of the Schengen area. Now, is immigration a bad thing. In all likelihood no. Studies have shown time and again that the net contribution of immigrants to this country far outweighs the costs. Immigrants are required for two reasons: to shore up the critical skills shortage gap, and to fuel our economy. At present, we simply do not have enough native Brits to fill all the roles that exist in the UK (for example, we will need 70,000 nurses to deal with the ageing native population, and those skills are not available amongst the population as it stands - this is just one industry.)

The argument then goes that we should stop immigration and hand all jobs to the native population. This is a short-termist view. As I have said, the ONS statistics show a surplus of jobs to those out of work. The issue is that many of these jobs are low-paid and low-skilled. It is not in the long-term interests of UK plc to direct its combined workforce into filling low-pains and low-skilled work. This is not going to boost the GDP of the country, it will suppress. If we suppress our GDP, then we have less money to spend on the infrastructure of the country - less money to spend on schools, hospitals and vital public services. As I have mentioned, we are an ageing population, so we have to find the growth to cater for our needs.

We therefore must invest in hi-tech industries; in pharmaceutical research; in finch (financial technology); in mechanical engineering; in design. All of these industries are less likely to be replaced through artificial intelligence or automation as they require human beings. They are high value industries we can export. We will not be able to do this unless we embrace immigration and welcome those that can both help us develop these industries and, crucially, fill other roles right through the economy. This is the macro-economic picture we face.

So, do we want to control immigration? Yes, we want to keep the bad apples out - and we can do that - but much wider than that, no, we need immigration.

Now, to your last question, how can we reform the EU to our liking. The EU by its very nature is a partnership. It is not a partnership of equals, but it is a partnership. In the South East we have around 16 MEPs. This number is determined according to the size of population in the South East. So, we have more MEPs than say Wales for example. Similarly, the number of MEPs the UK has is predicated on the size of our population. Therefore we have more MEPs than Austria, but less than Germany. All these MEPs are responsible for shaping legislation inside the EU. By working together, they are able to fashion laws that are in the interests of all Europeans. That's a tall ask, as there is always going to be someone who feels hard done by. They also influence the Commission. Now the Commission desperately needs reforming. It is wasting taxpayers money and can be far more efficient. However, it is responsible for negotiating on matters like TTIP and therefore acts as a civil service in negotiating deals for EU member states. All EU members can influence appointments within the Commission, but the more involved a nation is, the more influence it can have. We have seen that our attitude to Europe has not been that positive over the past 40 years, so we really should not be surprised that the more proactive and willing participants are probably more influential.

European Commissioners can, as well as MEPs, draft legislation and laws. There is one Commissioner for each EU member state. As this is a partnership, that seems fair at this point. The more populous the more MEPs, but each member has one Commissioner. One could argue that here there is room for some reform. Should more populous nations have more than one Commissioner, but looking back down the system, MEPs should and are drafting the lion's share of legislation and here there is proportionality. Laws are ratified by EU member states i.e. Dave, Angela etc.

So, can we reform the EU to our liking? No, but we can reform the EU to the benefit of all Europeans and by default the benefit of the UK.

As I have said many times, this is not a polar debate i.e. all good/all bad. There are many things that need to change, but the UK will not prosper outside of the EU. We need to work with all Europeans; we need to learn to turn immigration to our advantage; we need to celebrate the fact that people want to come and work here, not because of 'easy money', but because the country is admired, it rewards work, it is tolerant and fair. And we ourselves need to do two things - decide what role we want in Europe and play an active part (don't return a UKIP MEP that by very definition just wants to smash things up and slow things down), and secondly, hold our own MPs at Westminster to account. Don't let them lie to us that it is the EU that is stopping them from passing policies that are in the interests of the UK. The Living Wage is controlled by UK MPs, the NHS by UK MPs, Schools by UK MPs, Trident by by UK MPs, zero contract hours by UK MPs, franchises for train operating companies by UK MPs, HS2 by UK MPs, HMRC and corporate tax dodgers by UK MPs.

I hope I have addressed some of the issues you [MENTION=277]looney[/MENTION] [MENTION=12825]cunning fergus[/MENTION] and others raise. I understand where concerns come from, I do. I think many are emotive and not real, and I think there is scaremongering on both sides, but on balance, I believe we must remain.

Quite a lot here, but I don't buy the argument on democracy, the EU is patently undemocratic, in fact it has 3 Presidents, we (the people do not elect a single one).

As for the immigrants and the view that they benefit the UK I don't buy it, because it does not make sense.

Yesterday on C4 news they stated that of the 2m employed EU immigrants here 88% would not qualify to come here if non EU visa rules on jobs were applied. This means 88% were earning under 21k.

Given you need to be earning approx. 38k how can this massive cohort of migrants benefit the UK?

At best, the benefit would be that they are prepared to earn such low wages they help generate more profit for the businesses they work for.

That at least makes some sense........more profit for the rich.

 

[drew]

So that's 333.000 net migration.How many moved from this country?Let's say 100.000.Then let's ad at least another 100.000 illegal immigrants who have come here in the last year and that's another 533.000 foreign people.Wow.Goodbye Great Britain.

Maybe the answer is to repatriate all immigrants over the last 60/70 years!!!!!

 

[drew]

Quite a lot here, but I don't buy the argument on democracy, the EU is patently undemocratic, in fact it has 3 Presidents, we (the people do not elect a single one).

As for the immigrants and the view that they benefit the UK I don't buy it, because it does not make sense.

Yesterday on C4 news they stated that of the 2m employed EU immigrants here 88% would not qualify to come here if non EU visa rules on jobs were applied. This means 88% were earning under 21k.

Given you need to be earning approx. 38k how can this massive cohort of migrants benefit the UK?

At best, the benefit would be that they are prepared to earn such low wages they help generate more profit for the businesses they work for.

That at least makes some sense........more profit for the rich.

Do you think the UK is democratic then when 64% of the population are governed by a party they didn't vote for?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Maybe the answer is to repatriate all immigrants over the last 60/70 years!!!!!

My mum is a migrant, came from Italy in 1964 and paid in this system for 50 years. My dad was British.

When I told my mum that migrants might be deported, she laughed. She would like to see this country Leave the EU, she thinks there are too many people here now. Mum says this is half the country it used to be.

Wish some Remainers would listen to the older generation on this one and stop listening to these career politicians. The older generation have life experience.

 

[Wrong-Direction]

And yet all the evidence from the euro crisis is that the bankers and their chums avoided being shafted leaving the poor to pick up the pieces.

It's the poor that are being ground into dust by EU's own austerity programme leaving catastrophic levels of unemployment in Greece, Spain et al.

The EU is not #together........you need to decide what side you are on.

#neither
As soon as I win the lottery, I'm off[emoji106]

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[cunning fergus]

Of the 10,000 foreigners in UK prisoners, how many are Irish and how many Jamaican?

Why does that matter?

The point we were debating (I can see things have moved on, or not) is that if you argue immigrants are are NET benefit how is that arrived at?

The arrival of hundreds of thousands of people in the UK is not a zero sum game, and yet you and others continue to make statements that these people are an unequivocal benefit.

That makes no sense, the most capitalist country in the world would not allow anyone in the world who gets there to start working.

So why does it work in the EU? If immigration is such an economic benefit why don't all countries , especially those in recession just open its borders?

The 10,000 foreign prisoners is just a single case in point, and they will cost the taxpayer many hundreds of millions a year, incl. investigating, prosecuting, incarcerating and probation ......so is this undoubted negative cost (and others) deducted from the dubious benefits of mass migration we are so often told about?