For the last time Britain is not in Schengen - can still inspect passports to its hearts content and nobody anywhere else is asking for that to change. This will not change inside or outside of the EU, and is irrelevent to the question of Britain staying in the EU. as is the entire question of illegal immigration.
If you actually bother to read the posts you will discover that OFH actually brought up the subject of the Schengen Agreement in a favourable light, suggesting it may be good for the UK. I am entitled to disagree with him. This is a political thread and often strays off subject for a while, no problem. I can understand why you do not want to discuss such a lousy agreement. I see there has been substantial disagreement within the area regarding access by illegal immigrants, this undoubtably will only increase.
In my scenario Scotland wouldn't be applying to join. They would just carry on as "the UK" inside the EU, as England, Wales and Northern Ireland would have done if Scotland had decided to leave the UK. One other thing is if this came about England would have another land border with the EU, the UK already has one - with the Republic of Ireland, who are currently outside the Schengen area. Should Ireland and an independent Scotland within Europe ever join the Schengen Accord would they become the preferred transit route for all the people wishing to get into England. When the BBC track down people who are migrants you never hear a desire to go to Scotland or Wales, it's generally England (perhaps not understanding the UK, divisions within and lumping everything together as England) or more specifically London. Would these people move from their camps outside Calais and Boulogne to somewhere allowing easier access to Scotland or Ireland? With the prospect of the UK leaving the EU the problem of non-EU origin people trying to get into the UK will not dry up, if anything it will get worse.
I do not want to see immigration dominating this debate - something which you appear to be intent on doing. The more important stumbling block between Britain and the EU is the future of the City of London and it's special privileges ie. that the City is at the centre of a global web of tax havens which are enabling the theft of vast sums of public money from the entire World. I believe that the British people are open to the idea of both 'finance taxes', and a reigning in of the privileges enjoyed by the city - things wanted also by the rest of the EU.
Whether you like it or not immigration is a major topic within the UK. There is also no desire from the British public whatsoever for the EU to meddle with the City of London. They do not want extra taxes imposed by the EU which will diminish the value of their pension funds. You must have been away from the UK for ages as you simply do not have a clue about the current attitudes in Britain.
Are you trying to tell me that the British (particularly those in the North) feel happy about the City of London milking tax payers money from the rest of the World - exactly what you so vehemently accused Switzerland of doing in some previous posts. Immigration will only be an important theme if it is kept there by constant misinformation.
The British public are very angry with the fallout from the sub prime fiascos and the ludicrous financial incentives, often for not rewarding success, paid to employees by financial institutions. They are not at all interested in any further control or intervention by the EU. They fully understand the jealousies which other weaker financial centres within the EU possess. The immigration issues and therefore further widespread discussions in the UK will only increase with the eurozone performing so badly compared to the UK. The UK is the job centre for Europe at the moment.
Incidentally, what's this with the British people think this and the British people think that? We're a nation of over 60 million and the last time I looked (i.e. the general election) there was quite a wide range of opinions expressed allbeit some were more popular than others.
Jealousy has nothing to do with it - it must be reasonably clear that an organization like the EU cannot tolerate tax havens within for more than a limited time be it London, Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg or wherever. You must really be living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe that jobs such as fruit picking, working in call centres or as doormen (or any of a miriad of other zero contract jobs) constitutes 'the job centre of Europe'. Britain will always be a goal for migrants with or without the EU, and with or without a growing economy, simply by virtue of its language and because people tend to go where they can be understood. Before raising the subject of immigration again I suggest you look at the figures for European immigration to countries like Germany, France etc. by comparison.
The city of London is not a tax haven. It is somewhere the world likes to do business. The Uk is open for business as we have a most attractive corporate tax rate. As part of the Irish bailout the French and Germans tried to bully the Irish into raising their corporate tax rates. Thankfully they were resisted. The only way to succeed is to be attractive for investors, not to make everyone else less attractive. EU migrants come to the UK because there are jobs available and in most cases the pay is significantly higher than their homelands. Euroland is one hell of a failed project. Whilst Germany benefits from its generous entry exchange rate most southern countries are paying an unacceptable price. Generally expats from the UK move to France to retire or live on ample proceeds. The French come to Britain because of work opportunities. You cannot pretend that immigration is not a major concern to the British public just because you don't want it discussed.
The City of London is a corporation with laws for itself - whether you are a Russian oligarch who has fallen out of favour with the Kremlin, or an Arab Sheikh, or a transnational with profits to hide, or a Greek shipping magnate doing the same then the City of London is the place to be. It's age old rights and privileges mean that the UK government has virtually no jurisdiction over the City's affairs. It is highly likely that this will be the main stumbling block for EU negotiations. Please take off your blinkers and look at the facts on immigration. Firstly only about a third of uk immigration comes from a European source - this is much lower than eg. Germany. Secondly the numbers are about the same in both directions ie. from and to the EU. Thirdly the numbers of Europeans claiming benefits in the UK is pitifully low - there are actually more Britons claiming in Germany than the other way around. The assumption that most of the 2.3 million Britons living in the EU are pensioners is also not substantiated. It is natural that I do not want to see Britain's most important referendum dominated by middle English xenophobia rather than balanced debate.
Not sure why you quote pensioners in the EU, I only spoke about expats in France. People in the UK don't care about your quoted numbers they just think there are too many immigrants arriving in the UK, full stop. It is the working class of the UK that is feeling the effect of so much immigration. Lowered wages, housing shortages, NHS and GP waiting times etc. The well off encourage immigration as it provides an ample supply of willing cheap labour as nannies, builders car cleaners etc. The UK cannot and will not let Brussels interfere with the City of London. That should be one of Cameron's red lines.
Like you Cologne I do not see immigration or emigration as a problem. However the newspaper reading masses are fed stories by the Mail, Sun, Mirror, Express and so on - these papers do not care about truth -they are only interested in selling papers. As a result of their constant banging on about foreigners taking our jobs, forcing pay down to poverty rates and claiming benefits an awful lot of people believe immigration is a real problem. Witness UKIP whose only real claim to exist is immigration and they got nearly 4m votes in the general election. I doubt that anyone giving an honest and balanced account will make much difference. Fortunately these days papers a much lower readership. I think that like the general election and the Scottish referendum economics will in the end be the major factor in how people vote. If it can be shown that the UK will be more prosperous as part of the EU I think the vote will be to stay in. For myself though I hope that Cameron is able to create that two tier Europe that many used to talk about. There will always be the likes of Germany and France with an ever increasing drive to one large European Superstate - common laws, taxes, currency, defence and so on. Then there will be others for whom the ideal is to participate in a large economic bloc but to have individual laws and rights, taxes and currency.
I know this sounds strange Leo, but I now wish Cameron well in his negotiations because I do not want the UK to leave. I also think that Europe must realise what made it important in the first place namely 'Vive le difference' it is the difference between European states which made Europe strong in the past and we need a 'Europe' in which the British can do what they do best, the Germans the same and so on. Every nation has made some important contribution to European history at a time in which only they could have done this - the Rennaissance, the Enlightenment, Britain's early industrialization, the printing press and reformation in Germany etc. We need to celebrate the differences because that is what makes us different to eg. the USA. However, the City of London is a problem in the same way as Switzerland and for the same reasons. How long can Europe coexist with so many tax havens and places where excess profits can just disappear within its midst ?
Leo, you make quite a statement on the intelligence of the electorate I'm sure many of them would not agree with your simplistic analysis of their concerns. Some would no doubt describe your comments as condescending.
My comment is directed more at the power and influence of the media. When I see people interviewed and they spout the drivel fed from the red tops I make a judgement. If you believe people are more resistant to the power of newspapers then fine - I have watched elections swayed by support from the likes of the Sun. Condescending - I don't know; simplistic - well it was only a few lines not a blooming thesis. I have to say I smile at the idea of you giving anyone else a lecture on debating style.
You do not surprise me Cologne. Unlike BB who seems to have an almost pathological dislike for Cameron, your views tend to be based on a philosophy that you hold. I share your views on "vive le difference". Europe can cooperate on the things that it needs to be unified and uniform on. Even the USA gives States massive power of difference - eg on capital punishment and gay rights. The City of London, tax havens etc are part of a more detailed analysis rather than a makeweight in what Superhorns would call my simplistic argument
