Who is in and who is out?

[Jake]

From the FT...

"Some aspects of EU membership have not been so good for the British economy. Today one in 20 UK residents was born in another EU country. But numerous studies have shown that most gains from immigration have fallen to the immigrants themselves. Apart from a net benefit to public finances of importing workers, free movement has not itself obviously increased British people’s prosperity."

Is that a balanced representation of the FT position Roger?

 

[RogerS]

It is a shame that our prime ministers are so gullible.

That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible.
They're probably the most well informed and briefed people in the UK. They're the people that have sat on the top tables and know what other leaders around the globe think/want/expect/would like.
Most importantly they are acutely aware of the consequences of their actions. Read their autobiographies and learn how much impact their first meeting with the heads of defence staff when they told of their responsibilities of our nuclear arsenal are brought home to them.
They can't further their own political careers as they've already been at the top.

It's telling that everyone of them is now saying exactly the same thing, remain.

Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?

 

[Wuffles]

A good friend of mine came up with a great idea. If you don't have the time/inclination to find out all the facts about the EU referendum (I don't blame you) and are possibly unsure which way to vote, perhaps knowing how other notable people are thinking could help out...

Please excuse nobody responding to this, but it's been posted before in this thread, and a million or more times on Facebook, where it originated.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

I asked her on a different occasion if we should be building a new city the size of Sheffield every year just to house immigrants and said that was quite obviously ridiculous.

Which is a silly question to ask.
A growing population obviously needs housing, but that's never done by just building new cities. It's about using the housing we already have most effectively and allowing sensible amounts of new housing to be built.
Increasing population isn't a problem caused just by immigration either.

Maybe you should listen more closely to your daughter, she sounds like she's better educated.

It's not at all silly - that is the amount of housing needed to house immigrants and the children of immigrants - of course no one is going to build a new city - but it's a city over a wider area.
My point was that it is very easy to elicit the answer that suits your purposes. Do you think it's good for the Country to see 300,000 educated, fairly wealthy people (they are, because the Countries they go to won't accept them otherwise) emigrate and for nearly two thirds of million to come here EVERY YEAR?
The British birthrate is at its lowest ever - where's the population increase coming from if not immigration? Outer space?

 

[Eric The Viking]

In WWII we had a population of about 35m. We grew crops on every possible square yard, including in public parks and gardens. Yet, until we defeated the U-boats and restored trade in the Atlantic........

Move on. It's the twenty first century and we're living in a globalised economy.

SERIOUSLY?

That's your plan? I'm not sure you even understood my point!

We do not have the resources to cope with current immigrants i.e. those who are ALREADY here, never mind the RATE of immigration that is rapidly increasing.

We do not have the public services to cope RIGHT NOW, particularly in education and healthcare. Ask anyone who works in them.

We do not have sufficient housing, we cannot generate enough electricity, and actually we do not have sufficient jobs for them either.

How about doing a straight swap with other EU countries:"you can send us one of your unemployed, BUT you have to take one of ours in exchange."

That would work, at a numerical level, but I can see "issues" :roll:

E.

PS: Seriously, there is no plan, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.

 

[Rhossydd]

Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?

Long dead. We're talking about NOW.

 

[Rhossydd]

PS: Seriously, there is no plan, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.

Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.

 

[BearTricks]

PS: Seriously, there is no plan, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.

Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.

Not to mention an arrogant assumption that the UK can survive and compete on its own.

 

[DiscoStu]

I think the leave campaign cannot have a plan as they will not be the government as they are made up of a mixture of parties etc. It will also take a long time to exit from Europe as its a complex process and will require negotiations. Does the remain campaign have a plan for what happens if we remain? No, no more of a plan that the leave campaign does for some of same reasons and if we do remain our position in Europe will be weakened. Look at the scenario:

The Conservatives we worried about the UKIP vote at the last election so to combat the they said they would provide a vote on Europe. So Europe knows that the UK isn't overly happy with Europe.

They get into power and are concerned the public will vote out so they try to renegotiate with Europe. Europe knows we now have a referendum coming but they refuse to improve our deal (which is their right) and we fail to secure anything.

We now go to vote and vote to stay in despite the EU telling us to "jog on" in previous renegotiations. Do we really think that they are then suddenly going to allow us to control our borders? I think it's far more likely that they will press on with greater rule from Brussels and a European army etc.

And what is the remains plan for that?

There is no detailed plan for either scenario as neither really knows what will happen and it's impossible to have a plan as the will come down to the government and that is currently split on the issue. I'm sure that once a vote has been decided that there will be some shuffling and then a plan will begin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rhossydd]

Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases.

There are probably about half a million people who will benefit from leaving. The fishing magnates, the right wing politicians who crave power, lots of legal folk that will have a full workload dealing with replacement legislation, some of the media moguls that want exclusive UK power* and a few of the business minnows that can take advantage of the chaos.


*quote in the Anthony Hilton column for the Evening Standard:
"I once asked Rupert Murdoch why he was so opposed to the European Union. 'That’s easy,' he replied. 'When I go into Downing Street they do what I say; when I go to Brussels they take no notice.'
and people trust The Sun ? remember Hillsborough.

Phil.p
Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.

 

[Rhossydd]

Does the remain campaign have a plan for what happens if we remain?

It doesn't need a plan, because it will be business as usual. Just with a few minor improvements Cameron secured. Hopefully a remain decision will also focus people's mind on who they elect as MEPs in future. Then the UK will be better represented rather than the non-attendance and participation of UKIP members (which is a scandal in itself regardless, being paid by us and refusing to work).

 

[Phil Pascoe]

If I choose to I will. So very few in the greater scheme of things compared to all the people who have a vote who think their jobs are threatened and who've been bought by the EU?
Cameron hasn't actually secured anything at all.

 

[RogerS]

Now remind me, Rhossydd, what was the name of that chap, wandering off an aeroplane, and waving a piece of paper in the air and shouting 'Peace in our time' ?

Long dead. We're talking about NOW.

You weren't. This is what you wrote "That's just ridiculous. There's no way ex-prime ministers are in any way gullible."

Clearly your statement is wrong.

So which other ones are also wrong ?

 

[RogerS]

PS: Seriously, there is no plan, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.

Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.

Not to mention an arrogant assumption that the UK can survive and compete on its own.

On what basis do you make that statement ? Are we suddenly going to stop trading? Importing? Running financial services ? I don't think so.

 

[RogerS]

Who has a vested interest in getting out? I can't think of anyone - quite the opposite in many cases.

.....

Phil.p
Please learn to use the quote system properly. At 8.5k+ posts you really should be able to use it effectively by now. It makes it far easier for everyone to follow a discussion here if it's clear where quotes start and finish.

Don't be so patronising.

 

[Eric The Viking]

PS: Seriously, there is no plan, only platitudes and utterly ridiculous and meaningless assurances.

Which is the exact problem with the leave campaign.
No plan and an arrogant assumption that they will become a new government.

Thus you gloss over a real, measureable, and SERIOUS problem with staying in.

The Remain camp needs a plan because it won't be 'business as usual' at all.

• Our public services are close to meltdown in the inner-cities right now, and this can only get worse.
• That is in large part caused by immigration, and this can only get worse.
• We have borrowed to bailout banks and finance the eurozone, and this can only get worse.
• So, amongst other things, we cannot finance, let alone actually find, the teachers and healthcare professionals we need, and guess what? It takes at least seven years to train a doctor, and four or five years to train a teacher. They don't grow on trees, and right now (not in three years's time) there is a large shortfall. So this can only get worse.

I'm not ducking the issue of a Brexit plan, at all, but you're not answering the points, are you?

One more time: What is the plan to cope with the collapse of the euro and mass immigration attending?

You want the Project - what is the plan to cope with the unintended consequences?

E.

 

[Cheshirechappie]

To address the question of not having a plan if we leave.

We don't need one.

Everything the UK needs to function as a nation is in place, and has been for in some cases many centuries, so it's tried and tested. We have a functioning, democratic system of government, we have a system of Law and a judiciary to apply it, we have armed services loyal to Queen and country, we have a diverse economy, we have systems of local government, we have a long history of trading.

Why on earth do we need A Plan? We just carry on - there will be some changes to the personnel of government (maybe even a general election in due course), and we'll have to gradually sift through a lot of EU legislation currently on the statute book to see what we can reasonably keep and what we can repeal (European Arrest Warrant, for example - incompatible with habeas corpus, so it should go), and some government Ministers will have to make their own decisions instead of just doing what they're told by Brussels (Agriculture and Energy, for example). Trade? We just do what we've always done, and go and trade - the normal business of government includes the negotiation of free trade deals, so that activity might intensify for a while, but in the meantime - we just trade.

Economically - nobody knows what will happen. If the Euro collapses (which looks likely) the effects on the world's economy will probably not be positive, for a while. But it will recover in due course - and we'd be less damaged away from it than tied to it through EU membership. History suggests that the most stable, peaceful and prosperous countries are those with fully-functioning democracies; those with more 'managed' economies under less democratic governments have rarely, if ever, done well.

Freedom matters. Freedom can only really exist where there is democratic government. Democracy is one of the cornerstones of freedom. The EU doesn't currently 'get' this - though many European people do - and it needs to if it is to survive.

If for no other reason than to drop a whacking great hint to the EU that democracy matters - vote Leave.

 

[Jake]

Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.

So who has a veto as to whether there is more QMV? We do. Circular argument, the rabidly paranoid guns one was better.

 

[Eric The Viking]

Jake et al - yes, we have a veto. How long do you think this will last? It's nigh impossible for them to run 28 Countries without vetos let alone with them. Everything of any importance (to them) will be passed on QMV.

So who has a veto as to whether there is more QMV? We do. Circular argument, the rabidly paranoid guns one was better.

Sorry. I bet you wish that was true. Heck, if it was I'd be more in favour of the EU.

But you evidently havn't read any of the treaties, and, I note, chosen not to reply to me providing chapter + verse on why we're committed right now to propping up the Euro and open borders (and the commitment in AMSTERDAM, 20 years ago, to what will become an European army).

The EU army is only a surprise because our politicians haven't talked about it (and journalists can be very lazy). To those who've made the effort, only the timing is surprising - rather hubristic, don't you think?

Anyway, I await your rebuttal, but I won't be holding my breath.

E.