BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

BelgianBeerGeek

Rick Chasey wrote:

What that 50% trade with Europe means in instance of Brexit 50% of UK exports will continue to have to adhere to EU regulation.

Only, of course, UK will not even be present at the table when those regulations are debated, voted on, and passed.

And for those who argue that we need to escape EU red tape, will leaving help? As Rick says, all that EU regulation to adhere to will mean a beefed up DTI, for instance. Leaving may not mean smaller govt., it may mean quite a lot more of it.

mamba80

We didnt want anything to do with the treaty of rome back in 1957, so stayed out of europe, we went into a downward spiral of economic decline, the french kept us out for years before finally relenting and we joined in 1973.

there is an awful lot wrong with EU but being in a trading block of 300m plus people shouldnt be thrown away lightly, EU would never let us back in if it went wrong.
to me its a leap into the unknown but right now, DC's bl00dy referendum is causing the £ to free fall against the euro, meaning my summer hols are going to cost me even more, pus as many manufacturers & exporters need to buy in commodities its costing them far more too....cheers Dave!!!

rick_chasey

Field Marshal Lord Bramall in the FT:

ballysmate

Have I understood this right?
We should vote to stay because without us the EU would become unstable. The other 20 odd countries couldn't possibly manage without us. We must carry on being a member of an organisation we think is crap because it would be even more crap without us. So we must choose between being a member of an unsuitable club or living next to an even more unsuitable club?
What a beacon of light the EU must be in a world of shite.
Hobson's choice.

Jesus wept!!!!

ballysmate

mamba80 wrote:

We didnt want anything to do with the treaty of rome back in 1957, so stayed out of europe, we went into a downward spiral of economic decline, the french kept us out for years before finally relenting and we joined in 1973.

there is an awful lot wrong with EU but being in a trading block of 300m plus people shouldnt be thrown away lightly, EU would never let us back in if it went wrong.
to me its a leap into the unknown but right now, DC's bl00dy referendum is causing the £ to free fall against the euro, meaning my summer hols are going to cost me even more, pus as many manufacturers & exporters need to buy in commodities its costing them far more too....cheers Dave!!!

Are our exports not cheaper?

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

Have I understood this right?
We should vote to stay because without us the EU would become unstable. The other 20 odd countries couldn't possibly manage without us. We must carry on being a member of an organisation we think is crap because it would be even more crap without us. So we must choose between being a member of an unsuitable club or living next to an even more unsuitable club?
What a beacon of light the EU must be in a world of shite.
Hobson's choice.

Jesus wept!!!!

The guy's argument is that an unstable Europe is more harmful to the UK than a bit of Brussels interference, and Brexit makes the EU, ergo Europe, a lot more unstable.

I guess he takes a broader perspective, having served in the war. Europe's peacefulness is, relatively speaking, a short and recent state of affairs.

rick_chasey

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We didnt want anything to do with the treaty of rome back in 1957, so stayed out of europe, we went into a downward spiral of economic decline, the french kept us out for years before finally relenting and we joined in 1973.

there is an awful lot wrong with EU but being in a trading block of 300m plus people shouldnt be thrown away lightly, EU would never let us back in if it went wrong.
to me its a leap into the unknown but right now, DC's bl00dy referendum is causing the £ to free fall against the euro, meaning my summer hols are going to cost me even more, pus as many manufacturers & exporters need to buy in commodities its costing them far more too....cheers Dave!!!

Are our exports not cheaper?

Yup. Because our sh!t is worth less.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

We didnt want anything to do with the treaty of rome back in 1957, so stayed out of europe, we went into a downward spiral of economic decline, the french kept us out for years before finally relenting and we joined in 1973.

there is an awful lot wrong with EU but being in a trading block of 300m plus people shouldnt be thrown away lightly, EU would never let us back in if it went wrong.
to me its a leap into the unknown but right now, DC's bl00dy referendum is causing the £ to free fall against the euro, meaning my summer hols are going to cost me even more, pus as many manufacturers & exporters need to buy in commodities its costing them far more too....cheers Dave!!!

Are our exports not cheaper?

Yup. Because our sh!t is worth less.

And yet it is necessary to maintain peace in Europe.
What a fickle planet.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Finchy. Russia has annexed land in Europe. first time any nation has done that since the end of the Second World War. They're belligerent and have shown a willingness to exploit the West's unwillingness to wage war against them.

The question is, why are they belligerent? Why have they gone from being a country that was looking to build a better relationship with the West a mere decade ago to one in which anti-Western rhetoric is now the norm?

You've overlooked fear as a factor. It's easy, when we are part of the most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen, to accuse a weakened power of acting belligerently, but do you not accept that for the Russian people (especially given their history), NATO might not exactly seem like a benign presence to have on your doorstep? If you do accept that the Russians have good reason to fear, then what would you do if you were in the Russian government's place?

I'm not a supporter of Putin or his actions, BUT the West (in particular the USA) should also show some respect for Russia. Planning a nuclear missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, justifying this by saying that it was to defend the USA against Iran (snigger) was sheer provocation and a signal to Russia that the West still sees it as an enemy.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Russia is run by gangsterism dictatorship.

Yep, I know that. Still doesn't mean that the Russians aren't allowed to have legitimate security concerns.

Rick Chasey wrote:

This isn't about NATO.

It isn't for you. It is for the Russians. Simple question - do you think that Russia trusts the West?

bompington

finchy wrote:

Simple question - do you think that Russia trusts the West?

Russia is run by a paranoid, psychotic KGB man. Of course he doesn't trust the West, he doesn't trust anyone - and so he is willing to use all the old tricks - propaganda, murder, ruthless control of the media, business, everything. I would suggest that Putin is far more interested in his own personal power than any external considerations.

finchy

bompington wrote:

finchy wrote:

Simple question - do you think that Russia trusts the West?

Russia is run by a paranoid, psychotic KGB man. Of course he doesn't trust the West, he doesn't trust anyone - and so he is willing to use all the old tricks - propaganda, murder, ruthless control of the media, business, everything. I would suggest that Putin is far more interested in his own personal power than any external considerations.

I'm not talking about Putin, I'm talking about Russia as a whole - the government, people, military...

No leader, no government exists in a vacuum. They have to appeal to certain people, and Putin has done remarkably well in appealing to the masses in Russia. So why is it that anti-Western rhetoric is such an effective tool in Russia? Could it not be because they fear us? Why is that people here refuse to even consider such an idea?

rick_chasey

finchy wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Finchy. Russia has annexed land in Europe. first time any nation has done that since the end of the Second World War. They're belligerent and have shown a willingness to exploit the West's unwillingness to wage war against them.

The question is, why are they belligerent? Why have they gone from being a country that was looking to build a better relationship with the West a mere decade ago to one in which anti-Western rhetoric is now the norm?

You've overlooked fear as a factor. It's easy, when we are part of the most powerful military alliance the world has ever seen, to accuse a weakened power of acting belligerently, but do you not accept that for the Russian people (especially given their history), NATO might not exactly seem like a benign presence to have on your doorstep? If you do accept that the Russians have good reason to fear, then what would you do if you were in the Russian government's place?

I'm not a supporter of Putin or his actions, BUT the West (in particular the USA) should also show some respect for Russia. Planning a nuclear missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, justifying this by saying that it was to defend the USA against Iran (snigger) was sheer provocation and a signal to Russia that the West still sees it as an enemy.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Russia is run by gangsterism dictatorship.

Yep, I know that. Still doesn't mean that the Russians aren't allowed to have legitimate security concerns.

Rick Chasey wrote:

This isn't about NATO.

It isn't for you. It is for the Russians. Simple question - do you think that Russia trusts the West?

I think Russia understands that the West is a barrier to its expansionist aims, so no I don't think Russia trusts the West.

Doesn't make it right. It's Russia who is assassinating critics of its own regime in London hotels, who is arming local uprisings on the other side of its border, and blowing up passenger aircraft full of civilians. If I was doing all of that, I wouldn't trust anyone. Like a criminal.

mamba80

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think Russia understands that the West is a barrier to its expansionist aims, so no I don't think Russia trusts the West.

Doesn't make it right. It's Russia who is assassinating critics of its own regime in London hotels, who is arming local uprisings on the other side of its border, and blowing up passenger aircraft full of civilians. If I was doing all of that, I wouldn't trust anyone. Like a criminal.

Really? the WEST has helped cause the death and murder of perhaps millions in the last few years, in Iraq, Afgan, Libya.... before that armed the mujaheddin in Afgan, spawning the Taliban, the US also shot down an Iranian airliner too

These actions have also caused the mass movement of people not seen since the WW2.

only recently the US blow up a MSF hospital in Afgan.....

What does US do with the opposition? lock them with out trial or have them flee to Russia under threat of death should they return to US.

Which country with its corrupt banking system caused the near collapse of the world economy? or helped over throw the Libyian regime, ensuring its leader was torn to bits by a mob?

Putin is of course no angel but the West isnt to trusted either, as i said earlier, you need to look at russian history to understand Russian actions.

mr_goo

Just a couple of things that occur to me after listening to the news on the car radio over the last couple days.

1. It only appears to be the 'new' eastern european states that are digging their heals in over the proposed reduction in benefits to EU migrants. Could this be because they will see a reduction in money flowing into their respective states?
The EU is all about redistribution of wealth, after all it is a pseudo socialist/liberal super state.

2. Whatever concessions or new agreement Cameron gets the EU to sign up to, I am sure that if the UK proletariat vote to stay in, then it will be ripped up within 12 months. And this time with no chance of getting out of the EU for many years.

ballysmate

Goo, your first point nails the lie that we should stay in to reform from within. Cameron has asked for very little in the way of reforms and appears to be getting Jack Sh1t. The EU is not interested in reform, each member state only being interested in what is good for them, a position I can understand.
The political agenda has outpaced the economic agenda. People in the UK, some of them on here, have bemoaned a north/south divide, but f*ck me, it's a chasm between some EU member states. So yes there will be a major redistribution of wealth and take a guess if that is in or out of the UK. One size does not fit all.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/74ab02a6-fd85 ... z40VPPMf62

Waiting for today's story about how our world will collapse or how things will improve overnight if we leave. That bilge from Lord Bramall set a new standard though and will take some beating.

bobmcstuff

Mr Goo wrote:

Just a couple of things that occur to me after listening to the news on the car radio over the last couple days.

1. It only appears to be the 'new' eastern european states that are digging their heals in over the proposed reduction in benefits to EU migrants. Could this be because they will see a reduction in money flowing into their respective states?
The EU is all about redistribution of wealth, after all it is a pseudo socialist/liberal super state.

Given that most migrants come here to work rather than claim benefits (the proportion of migrant benefit claimants is very small), I think that the government's much vaunted upcoming massive increase to the minimum wage will do much, much more to attract more migrants than a token reduction in benefits.

It's just that benefits is very politically charged.

ballysmate

bobmcstuff wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Just a couple of things that occur to me after listening to the news on the car radio over the last couple days.

1. It only appears to be the 'new' eastern european states that are digging their heals in over the proposed reduction in benefits to EU migrants. Could this be because they will see a reduction in money flowing into their respective states?
The EU is all about redistribution of wealth, after all it is a pseudo socialist/liberal super state.

Given that most migrants come here to work rather than claim benefits (the proportion of migrant benefit claimants is very small), I think that the government's much vaunted upcoming massive increase to the minimum wage will do much, much more to attract more migrants than a token reduction in benefits.

It's just that benefits is very politically charged.

Always been the case. Higher the wages, more attractive the destination. Why do you think all the migrants headed for cold Germany and Scandinavia rather than the nice warm Greek Med climate?
What the proposed freeze on in work benefits was supposed to do was to ensure that the migrants that did come would be able to support themselves and be a tax payer. They would not flock to take up the unskilled low paid jobs.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

I think Russia understands that the West is a barrier to its expansionist aims, so no I don't think Russia trusts the West.

I thought that from the context the meaning of my question was clear, but let me just expand it to clarify what I meant:

Do you think that Russia trusts the West not to act in a way that is harmful to Russia's legitimate interests?

My answer to that question is no, and probably with good reason. With overwhelmingly superior forces at its disposal, the West, if it manages to nullify Russia's nuclear threat (and the USA and the more advanced European economies can massively outspend Russia on R&D for anti-missile defences), would be able to smash Russia in a war. I wouldn't blame your average Ivan for wanting the government to take pre-emptive action - however unethical - to prevent this situation. We don't know who will be in power in the USA in 20 years' time, it could be any belligerent lunatic, so of course Russia will never want to be in a position in which she is just a genuinely hollow power.

I'm not saying that the West should just allow Russia to get away with anything, I'm saying that the West isn't above blame and needs to understand that we're playing a very dangerous game. EU and NATO borders have expanded to take in some countries with large Russian minorities and whether we like it or not, nationalism is still a powerful force in much of Central and Eastern Europe, and this problem is rearing its ugly head again. If we are going to punish Russia for violations of other nations' sovereignty (which I believe that we should), then we simultaneously need to make sure that the Russians don't live in genuine fear of the West, otherwise they will kick back.

Rick Chasey wrote:

Doesn't make it right. It's Russia who is assassinating critics of its own regime in London hotels, who is arming local uprisings on the other side of its border, and blowing up passenger aircraft full of civilians. If I was doing all of that, I wouldn't trust anyone. Like a criminal.

As I have already said, the argument that Russia has done X, Y and Z does not mean that it can't be concerned about its own security.

bompington

OK, one at a time if we have to:

mamba80 wrote:

the WEST has helped cause the death and murder of perhaps millions in the last few years, in Iraq, Afgan, Libya....
I don't think many would deny that invading Iraq was a bad idea - or, probably more importantly in view of the consequences, that whether or not it was a bad idea, it was very poorly executed when it came to working out what to do with the country.
But don't forget that the invasion of Afghanistan was in response to 9/11: essentially Al Qaeda and the Taliban were acting in concert as the government, and they had launched mass killing attacks on the US.
Libya, again, was extremely poorly thought out: but that, too, was started as a response to a dictator who was busy murdering his own people.
And of the "millions" (it depends who you ask - it's certainly into the 100,000s) killed, the majority were civilians killed by their countrymen (or imported jihadis, I suppose).
Of course those deaths followed as a consequence of the invasions, but who did the killing?

before that armed the mujaheddin in Afgan, spawning the Taliban,
Again, turned out to be strategically not clever - but it just happens that it was done in response to Soviet expansionism - the US weren't the first to invade Afghanistan.

the US also shot down an Iranian airliner too
Stupid mistake, and the preventative measures put in place afterwards show that to be the case. Not that the Russians would ever accidentally shoot down a plane

These actions have also caused the mass movement of people not seen since the WW2.
Again, the consequences are clear, but the chain of causation is way more complex, as is the question of who should bear the responsibility

only recently the US blow up a MSF hospital in Afgan.....
In a typical battlefield cockup. As opposed to what looks like a very deliberate strategy by the Russians in Syria.

What does US do with the opposition?
Allow people to vote for them so they can get to govern if they get more votes?

lock them with out trial or have them flee to Russia under threat of death should they return to US.
Oh of course, "the opposition" is Snowden. When was he locked up without trial? And funnily enough, I thought he was under threat because he was a US agent who broke the law - specifically treason - and, although you might reasonably consider the death penalty to be excessive, don't you also think it's reasonable for a country to have a law stopping its employees from revealing secrets to the enemy?

Which country with its corrupt banking system caused the near collapse of the world economy?
The causes of the recent recession are complex. What I can tell you is that, since the end of the cold war and the consequent adoption of capitalist trading and economic models around the world, poverty has decreased MASSIVELY.

or helped over throw the Libyian regime, ensuring its leader was torn to bits by a mob?
See above. Said leader was a longstanding murderous despot who, as soon as a real opposition started to develop in his country, set in train the whole war.

Putin is of course no angel but the West isnt to trusted either, as i said earlier, you need to look at russian history to understand Russian actions.
It's true that Russians see things differently: but that, as Rick says, doesn't make them right.
For example, I remember once hearing (in a lecture on WW2 by Max Hastings) that the USSR shot more of its own troops during the war than the entire British death toll. Now there are two ways of looking at that. On the "sympathy for the Soviets" side, it's true that they suffered desperately (although the now-common assertion that "the USSR won the war" is very contestable, and much of the suffering was caused by Stalin - either deliberately in his war strategy, or accidentally by the way he had purged the Red Army of most of its competent and experienced officers)
On the other hand, think about the calculated brutality that shows (which you can easily correlate with Putin's current actions). And remember that this is a period of history that many Russians look back to as their finest hour, and lots (Putin for example) still revere the bloody psychopath who led them through it.


The fact that many, like you, want to hold the leaders of the West accountable for crimes/mistakes/whatever, would suggest that we have moved on from the days when international relations were seen purely as a power game. Can that really be said of the Russians?

bompington

finchy wrote:

As I have already said, the argument that Russia has done X, Y and Z does not mean that it can't be concerned about its own security.

The point is that security, in this day and age, does not depend on who has the biggest cojones and the biggest army. The biggest guarantor of security is free trade and open exchange of culture. If the Russians pursued this (and to a great extent they did under Yeltsin) then they would find their security improved markedly, as well as their economy. It is the insistence in seeing the West as an enemy that is holding them back: and the more old-fashioned thuggery they engage in, the worse they make it for themselves. It's almost as if someone in power didn't want them to grow prosperous, free and open.

finchy

bompington wrote:

The point is that security, in this day and age, does not depend on who has the biggest cojones and the biggest army.

Would you like to stake your country's future on that? Because given the disparity between NATO military spending and Russian military spending, it looks like western governments don't share your view.

bompington wrote:

The biggest guarantor of security is free trade and open exchange of culture.

The biggest guarantor of security is to sell commodities to powerful countries and make tactical alliances with them so they'll establish a military presence and/or sell you a load of nice, new shiny hardware. That's how authoritarian regimes from Saudi Arabia to the Central Asian dictatorships get by.

bompington wrote:

If the Russians pursued this (and to a great extent they did under Yeltsin) then they would find their security improved markedly, as well as their economy. It is the insistence in seeing the West as an enemy that is holding them back: and the more old-fashioned thuggery they engage in, the worse they make it for themselves. It's almost as if someone in power didn't want them to grow prosperous, free and open.

Once again you are completely ignoring the West's actions and putting all the blame on Russia. As for Putin trying to stop Russia prospering, is that a joke? Their economic performance once he came into power was vastly superior to the Yeltsin years. Why do you think he's got so much popular support? Russia was falling to pieces in the 1990s, it was a lawless Mafia state.

bbrap

Ok lets throw the cat amongst the pidgeons. The fact is people from the EU think that because the British economy is performing well (wether is is or not is irrelevant, they percieve it to be so) they want to come here to work. All the migrants who get interviewed ( wether by design or intent I don't know) state they are not here for benefits but for a better life. OK fine, but what about the indiginous population (us), do we get a say as to wether millions of people should be allowed to just roll up and start living here. I find it incredible that all the business leaders and politicians state that it is good for Britain. Well I don't think it is good or sustainable. I want a say on who comes in and more importantly who we kick out. The experiment has not worked, lets try something different, then if that does not work we can have another referendum in 40 years time.

mamba80

bbrap wrote:

Ok lets throw the cat amongst the pidgeons. The fact is people from the EU think that because the British economy is performing well (wether is is or not is irrelevant, they percieve it to be so) they want to come here to work. All the migrants who get interviewed ( wether by design or intent I don't know) state they are not here for benefits but for a better life. OK fine, but what about the indiginous population (us), do we get a say as to wether millions of people should be allowed to just roll up and start living here. I find it incredible that all the business leaders and politicians state that it is good for Britain. Well I don't think it is good or sustainable. I want a say on who comes in and more importantly who we kick out. The experiment has not worked, lets try something different, then if that does not work we can have another referendum in 40 years time.

i totally agree with you BUT i do not believe leaving EU and still having access to the EU single market will give us this freedom on immigration so many want.
what is needed is wholesale reform of benefits system, to a contribution based one, something europe has, it wouldnt stop immigration but its the only think that will act as a brake, plus an ID card and policing of who is working legally or not.

mamba80

bompington wrote:

The fact that many, like you, want to hold the leaders of the West accountable for crimes/mistakes/whatever, would suggest that we have moved on from the days when international relations were seen purely as a power game. Can that really be said of the Russians?[/color]

[/quote]


No i dont believe the west has nor have the russians, let alone the Chinese.

Western leaders are no more accountable for the fubars in Afgan and Iraq than the Russians have been in crimea or ukraine.

and going back 4 or 5 decades, i wonder how many people were killed in Vietnam & Laos under that years of carpet bombing? not too mention the unexploded bombs that continue to kill and maim.....of course the generals and presidents responsible are all in jail arent they? :roll:

in terms of countries invaded and body counts, the USA and the west are way ahead of Russia.

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

bbrap wrote:

Ok lets throw the cat amongst the pidgeons. The fact is people from the EU think that because the British economy is performing well (wether is is or not is irrelevant, they percieve it to be so) they want to come here to work. All the migrants who get interviewed ( wether by design or intent I don't know) state they are not here for benefits but for a better life. OK fine, but what about the indiginous population (us), do we get a say as to wether millions of people should be allowed to just roll up and start living here. I find it incredible that all the business leaders and politicians state that it is good for Britain. Well I don't think it is good or sustainable. I want a say on who comes in and more importantly who we kick out. The experiment has not worked, lets try something different, then if that does not work we can have another referendum in 40 years time.

i totally agree with you BUT i do not believe leaving EU and still having access to the EU single market will give us this freedom on immigration so many want.
what is needed is wholesale reform of benefits system, to a contribution based one, something europe has, it wouldnt stop immigration but its the only think that will act as a brake, plus an ID card and policing of who is working legally or not.

It's already been established countless times that economic migrants do not come over for benefits. Including by the independent commission that was asked to look into it. Have a google.

They come over for jobs and higher wages, and often, a more liberal life.

The second question is - who is your beef with bbrap and mamba? After all, If they're not EU passport holders, EU has no say over what the UK does anyway.

mamba80

Rick, its in the EU s own interests to limit the free movement of people, Poland and Portugal are 2 countries that have seen mass emigration, Portugal especially has had its ability to grow severely limited as its brightest youngsters leave.
EU migrants coming to UK have held down wages especially in low skilled employment and though many do not come for benefits, they ll take WTC, CB, HB and healthcare and education if offered/needed and lower paid workers pay little or no tax.

unlimited migration has caused pressures on housing, schooling health and transport or do you think the millions that have come here over the last decade have not placed any additional burden on what was some pretty second rate services?

Anecdotally, good friend s of mine, a Polish couple, are going back to home to raise their new born child as they see that schooling, housing and some very racist attitudes makes them believe the UK isnt the best place to live as a family, their view is social spending has not kept pace with population growth and that the numbers coming into UK are now too much.

But for me, mass eu migration has meant the UK is no longer helping the worlds most persecuted, as genuine refugees get lumped in with eco ones from europe and beyond.

bbrap

mamba80 wrote:

Rick, its in the EU s own interests to limit the free movement of people, Poland and Portugal are 2 countries that have seen mass emigration, Portugal especially has had its ability to grow severely limited as its brightest youngsters leave.
EU migrants coming to UK have held down wages especially in low skilled employment and though many do not come for benefits, they ll take WTC, CB, HB and healthcare and education if offered/needed and lower paid workers pay little or no tax.

unlimited migration has caused pressures on housing, schooling health and transport or do you think the millions that have come here over the last decade have not placed any additional burden on what was some pretty second rate services?

Anecdotally, good friend s of mine, a Polish couple, are going back to home to raise their new born child as they see that schooling, housing and some very racist attitudes makes them believe the UK isnt the best place to live as a family, their view is social spending has not kept pace with population growth and that the numbers coming into UK are now too much.

But for me, mass eu migration has meant the UK is no longer helping the worlds most persecuted, as genuine refugees get lumped in with eco ones from europe and beyond.

Very well put and I totally agree. Unfortunately some will only see benefits in allowing ever larger numbers to move where they want. The pressures brought upon services and quality of life are overlooked, the solution seems to be to throw ever larger pots of money to try and maintain the overloaded systems. That as anyone with half a brain will see is unsustainable. Population movements need to be controlled to enable existing systems to recover, the right to go wherever you want needs to be stopped. If that messes up the plans so be it. But ruining the lives and prospects of indigenous populations to give the right of access to all and sundry is bonkers.

Stevo_666

For once I am siting on the fence - for now. It's an important and a difficult decision. I've been reading the arguments on both sides in this thread with some interest but am seeing what deal Cameron does with the EU before deciding.

Stevo_666

bompington wrote:

The causes of the recent recession are complex. What I can tell you is that, since the end of the cold war and the consequent adoption of capitalist trading and economic models around the world, poverty has decreased MASSIVELY.

A bit off topic on this thread but a very good link, thanks for posting. Will come in handy in some of the leftiebollox threads

rick_chasey

mamba80 wrote:

Rick, its in the EU s own interests to limit the free movement of people, Poland and Portugal are 2 countries that have seen mass emigration, Portugal especially has had its ability to grow severely limited as its brightest youngsters leave.
EU migrants coming to UK have held down wages especially in low skilled employment and though many do not come for benefits, they ll take WTC, CB, HB and healthcare and education if offered/needed and lower paid workers pay little or no tax.

unlimited migration has caused pressures on housing, schooling health and transport or do you think the millions that have come here over the last decade have not placed any additional burden on what was some pretty second rate services?

Anecdotally, good friend s of mine, a Polish couple, are going back to home to raise their new born child as they see that schooling, housing and some very racist attitudes makes them believe the UK isnt the best place to live as a family, their view is social spending has not kept pace with population growth and that the numbers coming into UK are now too much.

But for me, mass eu migration has meant the UK is no longer helping the worlds most persecuted, as genuine refugees get lumped in with eco ones from europe and beyond.

Im not sure I follow.

You think free movement of labour and capital is costly?

If you think that you're a lost cause!

You think it's bad some migrants come here, having been educated elsewhere, work, pay taxes and head back when they have children? How is that bad for the UK?

Basically pays for pensioners.

People have been saying the UK is full since the 16th century and it's been a constant drone since 1955.

Immigration has been the single biggest addition to economic growth in the past 20 years.

I'd be more sympathetic to the out argument if people took on the "depressed wages for unskilled work" argument which is where the cost really lies. But EU immigrant integration is largely successful.

Your case example only illustrates that.