Off Topic BREXIT
- Thread starter Chazz Rheinhold
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
I am voting "Remain".
What country are we getting back? Will leaving stop immigration, I do not think it will, if we leave and it is a success, more will want to come from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, we may stop other Europeans, but not the masses who are flooding across the EU borders. Just who is going to do the jobs that foreign workers do now? Who is going to provide the income to cover our future pensions?
Most laws that are passed by the EU do not apply to us and never will.
Switzerland and Norway are cited as models for the UK to follow but both accept more EU migrants per capita than the UK. In fact, many more.
In 2012, according to Eurostat, gross EU immigration to Switzerland was 90,107. This amounts to a gross inflow of 11.33 EU migrants per 1000 of its population. In comparison, gross EU migration to the UK was 157,554, but only at a rate of 2.48 per 1000 of its population. Norway, in the European Economic Area, also had a rate of gross EU immigration far higher than the UK, with 7.38 EU migrants per 1000 of its population.
If the UK had the same rate of EU immigration as Switzerland in 2012, the gross inflow of EU migration would have been 719,248 rather than the actual figure of 157,554. That’s just over four and a half times more.
Both countries have higher foreign-born populations than the EU average, but Switzerland’s is much larger than the UK’s. Those born within the EU account for 15 per cent of Switzerland’s population while in the UK it is only 4.19 per cent, much closer to the EU average of 3.45 per cent.
Yes, but the point, I hear you say, is that Switzerland and Norway have much more democratic control over their immigration policy than the UK. This is only semi-true for Switzerland. And Norway, which is outside the EU but inside the European Economic Area and Schengen, arguably has less control over its borders than the UK – exactly the same free movement rules but no votes on these rules.
Switzerland is outside the EU but subject to almost the same free movement rules as the UK (via the bilateral Free Movement of Persons Agreement, which will give citizens of Bulgaria and Romania full access to the Swiss Labour market as of 31 May 2016 at the latest).
In a referendum in February, the Swiss voted to introduce quotas on EU migrants from 2017. However, the EU has so far refused to agree to this and has threatened to suspend its other bilateral agreements with the country if it unilaterally imposes quotas. You can argue that due to the UK’s size, it would be in a much stronger position to strike a deal. However, what you cannot do is to hail Norway and Switzerland as “some of the most successful countries in the world outside the EU” on the one hand, and fail to mention that both of them accept more EU migrants per head than the UK on the other.
What country are we getting back? Will leaving stop immigration, I do not think it will, if we leave and it is a success, more will want to come from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, we may stop other Europeans, but not the masses who are flooding across the EU borders. Just who is going to do the jobs that foreign workers do now? Who is going to provide the income to cover our future pensions?
Most laws that are passed by the EU do not apply to us and never will.
Switzerland and Norway are cited as models for the UK to follow but both accept more EU migrants per capita than the UK. In fact, many more.
In 2012, according to Eurostat, gross EU immigration to Switzerland was 90,107. This amounts to a gross inflow of 11.33 EU migrants per 1000 of its population. In comparison, gross EU migration to the UK was 157,554, but only at a rate of 2.48 per 1000 of its population. Norway, in the European Economic Area, also had a rate of gross EU immigration far higher than the UK, with 7.38 EU migrants per 1000 of its population.
If the UK had the same rate of EU immigration as Switzerland in 2012, the gross inflow of EU migration would have been 719,248 rather than the actual figure of 157,554. That’s just over four and a half times more.
Both countries have higher foreign-born populations than the EU average, but Switzerland’s is much larger than the UK’s. Those born within the EU account for 15 per cent of Switzerland’s population while in the UK it is only 4.19 per cent, much closer to the EU average of 3.45 per cent.
Yes, but the point, I hear you say, is that Switzerland and Norway have much more democratic control over their immigration policy than the UK. This is only semi-true for Switzerland. And Norway, which is outside the EU but inside the European Economic Area and Schengen, arguably has less control over its borders than the UK – exactly the same free movement rules but no votes on these rules.
Switzerland is outside the EU but subject to almost the same free movement rules as the UK (via the bilateral Free Movement of Persons Agreement, which will give citizens of Bulgaria and Romania full access to the Swiss Labour market as of 31 May 2016 at the latest).
In a referendum in February, the Swiss voted to introduce quotas on EU migrants from 2017. However, the EU has so far refused to agree to this and has threatened to suspend its other bilateral agreements with the country if it unilaterally imposes quotas. You can argue that due to the UK’s size, it would be in a much stronger position to strike a deal. However, what you cannot do is to hail Norway and Switzerland as “some of the most successful countries in the world outside the EU” on the one hand, and fail to mention that both of them accept more EU migrants per head than the UK on the other.
The majority of MPs are in favour of remaining. Will they decide to ignore the wishes of the people if it goes against what they think? To them referendums are a nuisance, as people get a say, which is why you will never get one on certain matters.
Most laws passed by the EU don't apply to us and never will? Really? I would be interested to see the evidence of that.
The big question everyone should be asking is what does BIG VERN think? 
Having listen to both sides it is clear neither side know what would happen if we vote to leave, it is all conjecture. It also seems that financial experts saying to come out would be detrimental to the economy, are talking in the short term, as coming out will add volatility to the financial markets, until such time as reality actually comes to fruition.
Personally if the EU had remained the "common market" as it was when we entered then I would opt to remain in, but the EU now a bureaucratic nightmare and is moving towards federalism which I do not want any part of.
Personally if the EU had remained the "common market" as it was when we entered then I would opt to remain in, but the EU now a bureaucratic nightmare and is moving towards federalism which I do not want any part of.
Last edited:
Examples are easy to find.
Tobacco and Olive oil production laws and regulations.
Danish fishing
The fact is that EU regulations influence our laws, but it is virtually impossible to count them. We influence EU law as well.
There are urban myths surrounding EU laws, most are region specific and are just like our own Local Authority By Laws.
Of course Danish fishing is a good example, isn't it? As for olive oil and tobacco, production of which we are renowned for...
Something like 80 % of the laws which govern us are determined by the EU. Which makes you wonder why we need 650 MPs to pontificate about the rest when the US manages with 250 representatives in their equivalent.
Essentially i'm in a stage of my life where I cant afford any hickups regards finances/mortgages/work etc. and so I can't really take the risk of a few years of instability following an exit.
I also believe the EU is going to crumble anyway so we might as well stay in so it's a managed demolition rather than a quick pull out.
It does! I can't stand the EU. It's got its tentacles in everything we do but I can't afford the risk of leaving atm.
It doesn't equate to most, most being over 50%, not applying to us does it?
You cannot prove the figure, no one can, it has been the subject of programmes on the BBC and articles in the national press.
Of those 80%, how many would have been applied if we were not in the EU?
If we want to trade in the EU, we will have to accept EU Regulations. Nothing will change except we will not have a vote.
Thank **** for the referendum is all I can say... because without it, we have had nothing to talk about on this board since Wembley... I do however note that Ehab is cutting deals with the reps of Thud and Elmo.... SLIPPERY SLOPE...
In 100 years from now, History students will read of the UK's exit vote as the pivotal moment that started the break-up of the experimental EU.
They'll read how the attempt to unite Eastern, Western, Northern and Southern European economies & cultures into a single economic union with a single currency failed. The inevitable domino effect lead to other membership states being forced into holding referendums which confirmed that the ever closer political Union had progressed at a pace which was against the majority of European voters wishes.
And the History students of the future will then simply ask - Why were the people not consulted in the mid 1990's as to the future direction of the EU ?
It's very naïve to think that laws seemingly specific to a certain area don't have a knock on affect to other countries.
The question for me, is what do we achieve by leaving?
Do we solve immigration issues? The short answer is no. The majority of immigrants are not coming from the EU (quite why we are not tackling this first is beyond me) and even if we do leave, we'll almost certainly have to sign up to the European Free Trade Association to maintain our duty free status (as Norway and Switzerland have) and that carries with it a requirement for the free movement of people. Could we negotiate a free trade agreement without the free movement of people? Probably not, as other nations would want the same and the fundamental principal of free movement within the EU would be screwed.
If we could leave and limit our involvement to simply the free movement of goods, services and people, then I'd be happy. I don't see EU immigration as the major issue that many others do, they're paying their way and those original free movement principals we signed up to remain a good idea.
I also don't really accept that there's loads of laws being forced upon us by Brussels, most of them are perfectly reasonable laws that we have in place anyway. It's also not true that the laws are made by unelected officials in Brussels, they're made by MEP's who we elect, though not many of us bother paying much attention to who they are, what they stand for, or even bother voting for them. In fact, they're more elected than the House Of Lords who are in part responsible for making our domestic laws.
The problem with the above, is that the EU is inefficient, it's systems are ridiculous, they waste a fortune, the moving of 5,000 people and all their kit to Strasbourg once a month is simply bizarre. Some of the arrangements are equally ridiculous, the Common Agricultural Policy is quite simply the worst piece of legislation ever written by anyone, anywhere, ever. I also accept that national self interest make our MEP's less effective, as they're regularly outvoted on the legislation they oppose.
In addition, the expansion of the EU has diluted our influence, while increasing the costs and massively increasing the appeal for economic migrants from the poorer member states. This is an issue that's likely to be increasingly problematic as the EU is expanded further.
The EU is largely in the **** financially, the only continent in the world with a slower growth rate is Antarctica. We would definitely benefit from being able to agree our own trade agreements with the rest of the world, the question is, would that benefit be higher than the drop we risk by coming out of the EU? Sadly, I don't know the answer to that one and, it seems, neither does anyone else.
Personally, I don't think the world will end if we leave, neither will it be a disaster if we stay, both have risks and both have benefits.
Do we solve immigration issues? The short answer is no. The majority of immigrants are not coming from the EU (quite why we are not tackling this first is beyond me) and even if we do leave, we'll almost certainly have to sign up to the European Free Trade Association to maintain our duty free status (as Norway and Switzerland have) and that carries with it a requirement for the free movement of people. Could we negotiate a free trade agreement without the free movement of people? Probably not, as other nations would want the same and the fundamental principal of free movement within the EU would be screwed.
If we could leave and limit our involvement to simply the free movement of goods, services and people, then I'd be happy. I don't see EU immigration as the major issue that many others do, they're paying their way and those original free movement principals we signed up to remain a good idea.
I also don't really accept that there's loads of laws being forced upon us by Brussels, most of them are perfectly reasonable laws that we have in place anyway. It's also not true that the laws are made by unelected officials in Brussels, they're made by MEP's who we elect, though not many of us bother paying much attention to who they are, what they stand for, or even bother voting for them. In fact, they're more elected than the House Of Lords who are in part responsible for making our domestic laws.
The problem with the above, is that the EU is inefficient, it's systems are ridiculous, they waste a fortune, the moving of 5,000 people and all their kit to Strasbourg once a month is simply bizarre. Some of the arrangements are equally ridiculous, the Common Agricultural Policy is quite simply the worst piece of legislation ever written by anyone, anywhere, ever. I also accept that national self interest make our MEP's less effective, as they're regularly outvoted on the legislation they oppose.
In addition, the expansion of the EU has diluted our influence, while increasing the costs and massively increasing the appeal for economic migrants from the poorer member states. This is an issue that's likely to be increasingly problematic as the EU is expanded further.
The EU is largely in the **** financially, the only continent in the world with a slower growth rate is Antarctica. We would definitely benefit from being able to agree our own trade agreements with the rest of the world, the question is, would that benefit be higher than the drop we risk by coming out of the EU? Sadly, I don't know the answer to that one and, it seems, neither does anyone else.
Personally, I don't think the world will end if we leave, neither will it be a disaster if we stay, both have risks and both have benefits.
This superbly saves me having to type something similar (or attempt to).
I will be voting LEAVE tomorrow.
Even if in the short term it causes me financial pain, it is the correct decision IMO for the long term future of our country, our children and grandchildren.
I have a feeling the people wanting to leave will turn out in higher numbers than the remain, so fingers crossed its Bon Voyage Europe (and I'm not just talking about Woys Team).
I don't think I am naive about it. The debate has been about self government, but every country that trades with another country has to abide by some form of regulation that is made by the receiving country. Look how long it has take Canada to conform, it will not take us as long as the laws made by the EU will still be applied if we trade with it. Nothing will change.
So you maintain that the majority of EU laws don't affect us whilst also maintaining it is a figure which can't be proved?
- Status