Off Topic The Politics Thread
- Thread starter Stroller
- 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
-
Dealing with your last point first. Not addressing these points would indeed be foolish, but let's be a little patient. The starting gun for the referendum in June has only just sounded, and since then we've been subjected to a storm of increasingly hysterical and doom-laden propaganda from Cameron and his Brussels mates - you'd think if we voted to leave the EU, the channel tunnel would be severed and the UK would float off to mid-Atlantic and sink.
The Brexit camps have to put egos aside and address the issues we're discussing. I've no doubt the Gove camp is working on this.
Visa - My point here is that it's in everyone's interests to keep this as practical as possible. We need visas to go to the US. It doesn't put us off going. We apply and get a visa for up to 10 years - job done. Thinking of what visa's may be needed:
UK citizens going into the EU - If the EU wants it, a blanket visa could be granted like that in the US, lasting up to 10 years. Bear in mind the EU will not want to dissuade UK citizens from travelling. They bring trade, and they bring money. It's said that if the UK pensioners all left Spain and took their money with them, the economy of Southern Spain would collapse.
EU citizens coming into the UK - this would be a matter for the UK Parliament. There would obviously, as I have said previously, have to be visas for certain of the newer EU countries
Trade - It's one thing to try to deter a country from leaving, it's another when the second biggest net contributor has left and is a massive customer for EU countries. Germany, in particular, needs our trade badly. If you don't see that, we'll have to agree to differ.
Migrants - there are terrorists here (in Londonistan - due to our over-liberal attitudes in the past) that want to damage France alone. Jihadists from ex French colonies like Algeria for example. I just don't see France doing anything to jeopardise its own security. When Hollande was asked this week whether the Calais arrangement would be ditched, he did not say it would - just that there would be consequences, which is a meaningless phrase and could cover a re-look at the financial arrangments, which is happening all the time anyway - we've just agreed to pay the French another £27m to help deal with the Jungle
EU Citizens - You ask how would it could be proved that someone had been here? Well, if they had been working here, they would be paying tax. There would be employer records. There would be property records, including rental. They may be registered for the NHS. If they are a dependent living with family here, there would be bank records etc. If they work on the black market or do not work but take benefits instead, there would be few records and, anyway, may have to leave. I have no doubt there would be an equitable arrangement worked out between the UK and the EU.
You don't need a visa to visit the States from most EU states, you need an online ESTA which costs $14 and lasts two years, valid for multiple entries (Fnarr, Fnarr).I renewed mine this week. Of course if you are going to live and work there continuously (I.e it is your place of residence) it's rather more complicated.
I think the French would think twice about changing the current border agreement with the U.K. Not because of their fear of an influx from the UK (seriously? Despite the fact that our border controls aren't very good geography means we don't have a pool of migrants/refugees wanting to go elsewhere). More because making it possible for migrants to avoid British controls in France would lead to even more coming through France to get to the UK, leading to chaos over there as we would require the carriers to do all the checks and fine them massively if illegals got through. It could paralyse cross channel travel and lead to even bigger camps in France.
If a major reason for us to leave the EU is to exert more control over immigration of course we have to have a visa system and employment restrictions in place for everywhere we want to limit immigration and travel from. It will be interesting to see how this will be designed and applied. Will we accept qualified/ skilled workers from Romania on the same basis we would accept a German workers with similar skills? That's a pretty big question for the NHS, where 66% of organisations are actively recruiting abroad, in place like Romania (doctors) and the Phillipines (nurses).
Trade I think is a genuine unknown. Of course it wouldn't stop but this us v them rhetoric is very misleading. Our economy is at least partially integrated with the EU, a lot of the trade is in the supply chain for parts for companies on both sides of the channel. I think it will take a couple of years to work through, but trade will obviously continue. The question will be whether the terms of trade are efficient enough to prevent alternative suppliers emerging within the world's biggest single market - the EU. Of course there will be massive incentive for the EU to support developing more financial services especially within the Eurozone, as the City loses its hypocritical protection. About which I could not care less.
I think the French would think twice about changing the current border agreement with the U.K. Not because of their fear of an influx from the UK (seriously? Despite the fact that our border controls aren't very good geography means we don't have a pool of migrants/refugees wanting to go elsewhere). More because making it possible for migrants to avoid British controls in France would lead to even more coming through France to get to the UK, leading to chaos over there as we would require the carriers to do all the checks and fine them massively if illegals got through. It could paralyse cross channel travel and lead to even bigger camps in France.
If a major reason for us to leave the EU is to exert more control over immigration of course we have to have a visa system and employment restrictions in place for everywhere we want to limit immigration and travel from. It will be interesting to see how this will be designed and applied. Will we accept qualified/ skilled workers from Romania on the same basis we would accept a German workers with similar skills? That's a pretty big question for the NHS, where 66% of organisations are actively recruiting abroad, in place like Romania (doctors) and the Phillipines (nurses).
Trade I think is a genuine unknown. Of course it wouldn't stop but this us v them rhetoric is very misleading. Our economy is at least partially integrated with the EU, a lot of the trade is in the supply chain for parts for companies on both sides of the channel. I think it will take a couple of years to work through, but trade will obviously continue. The question will be whether the terms of trade are efficient enough to prevent alternative suppliers emerging within the world's biggest single market - the EU. Of course there will be massive incentive for the EU to support developing more financial services especially within the Eurozone, as the City loses its hypocritical protection. About which I could not care less.
Simon Heffer, Tory journo and an ex boss of Boris has said "you are more likely to see a fish taking a walk than to see Boris taking a correct but unpopular decision." With friends like these......
Dealing with your question about terrorists coming from the UK into Europe, London is still the base of some that want to wage war on the Continent of Europe. There's a case in the newspapers today (jihadist group - Rawti Shax) where Kurdish refugees accused of plotting attacks on high profile figures in Europe have successfully argued against extradition to Italy using the European Convention on Human Rights on the grounds that they will be tortured in Italy if they are sent there...The CPS is appealing. Londonistan is a lot less safe for terrorists than it was, but France will want assurances their northern borders are as safe as possible.
It occurs to me that in the event of an OUT vote in the referendum, the arrangements in Calais may form part of the wider security arrangement negotiations between the UK and the EU countries. At the end of the day, our border checks in Calais will come down to cost.
Looks increasingly like Cameron is toast. If OUT win, he's gone. If IN win, half of his MP's and most of the grassroots will be out for his blood. Then, step forward for the leadership campaign the Eurosceptic ministers who have stayed in the IN camp for the sake of their careers...
Agreed. I don't like Osborne and I don't think Boris is pm material. The Tories may look farther afield, Theresa May or Sajid Javid. If there's an OUT vote, may be even Michael Gove. He's an intellectual and classless
Not heard of Javid. Can't see the Tory decision-makers allowing that in any case. T.May doesn't bear thinking about.
He must have had a better first half than second. Workers' rights is an important issue that will go largely ignored in the EU debate. A lot of the rights that workers in the UK currently enjoy have come from the EU and would be swiftly eroded by a Tory government unfettered by EU membership.
Goldie it seems you are saying you believe nothing at all will change if we leave? Why leave then? Bearing in mind we'll still need to contribute as Norway does to access the single market?
We may have to contribute to being part of the single market, Tooting, but it will be cheaper than the £28million a day we're paying at the moment. And we can control immigration, taking what we need from where we need e.g. including from the US, Australia, NZ, India etc as opposed to having to take citizens from countries such as those in Eastern Europe which (no disrespect to them) do not have the same level of economic enjoyment that we do.
Parliament will once again be sovereign - the elected government can make its own laws without being frustrated by Brussels. The British Courts will not longer have to abide by decisions from the European Court (the judges of which I believe are nothing like the calibre of ours, however much we may complain about our judges at times)
We trade with who we like around the world. We can sit on international trade boards in our own right, rather than being represented by another country in the EU.
These are the main benefits from my perspective
How strong will our economy be if we leave eu and then following that Scotland almost certainly votes for independence from the rest of the uk? The combination of both of those would surely hit it pretty hard, would certainly effect our bargaining position for any trade deals!
It's by no means certain that Scotland would leave and tie themselves to the coat tails of an EU in crisis, and make their trade with England (which is highly important to them) more difficult.
If they do go, it still leaves a huge economy south of Carslisle
John Longworth head of The British Chamber of Commerce said Britain would thrive outside of the EU. Promptly was dismissed for having those views. You couldn't make it up, or maybe you could if you are a Remainian
It does seem like anyone with that view is written off as a nutter. My pretty basic Economics degree, most of which I can't remember or didn't turn up for, suggests to me there's little risk from an economic point of view.
Why can't Michael Gove **** off and support another team? It's an embarrassment having him associated with QPR.
The Sunday Times give him a few billion pixels to claim that the EU is responsible for a rise in fascism and 'Hitler worship' in Europe, and we are not 'safe' if we remain. With what would be delicious irony if it were not so dangerous he adopts a range of tactics which are textbook fascism - creating fear of a supposed 'enemy' which has features which are alien to our 'culture', making the aliens the scapegoat for all our ills, offering populist solutions to our problems, claiming that their opponents have all the advantages and are unfair, 'we' are the permanent blameless and powerless victims and underdogs.
Now Gove is probably the most intelligent and definitely the most radical Tory in the government. I don't believe for one second that he is a fascist, or that the vast majority of Brexiters have any leaning in that direction (though of course the ultra nationalist tendency will be pro exit). There are plenty of logical reasons to feel that an exit would be good for the UK. Reducing the debate to this level is just as bad as the shameless scaremongering of the 'stay' campaign. We are not getting the debate we deserve.
Still, it's fun watching the Tories tear themselves to pieces. Some are plotting a vote of no confidence in Cameron, despite the fact that he is a self declared dead man walking. There is no chance of the Tory Brexiters accepting a stay vote with good grace. A leave vote will leave the party in the hands of Johnson, a vile self publicist who is driven purely by ego, our very own Trump.
The Sunday Times give him a few billion pixels to claim that the EU is responsible for a rise in fascism and 'Hitler worship' in Europe, and we are not 'safe' if we remain. With what would be delicious irony if it were not so dangerous he adopts a range of tactics which are textbook fascism - creating fear of a supposed 'enemy' which has features which are alien to our 'culture', making the aliens the scapegoat for all our ills, offering populist solutions to our problems, claiming that their opponents have all the advantages and are unfair, 'we' are the permanent blameless and powerless victims and underdogs.
Now Gove is probably the most intelligent and definitely the most radical Tory in the government. I don't believe for one second that he is a fascist, or that the vast majority of Brexiters have any leaning in that direction (though of course the ultra nationalist tendency will be pro exit). There are plenty of logical reasons to feel that an exit would be good for the UK. Reducing the debate to this level is just as bad as the shameless scaremongering of the 'stay' campaign. We are not getting the debate we deserve.
Still, it's fun watching the Tories tear themselves to pieces. Some are plotting a vote of no confidence in Cameron, despite the fact that he is a self declared dead man walking. There is no chance of the Tory Brexiters accepting a stay vote with good grace. A leave vote will leave the party in the hands of Johnson, a vile self publicist who is driven purely by ego, our very own Trump.
Thanks for the reply Goldie.
I think the supremacy and accountability of Westminster being impeded by being in the EU is the most valid and (irrefutable) of the exit reasons that I've heard and one that I agree with.
On the economy, I can't see how being out of the single market zone is going to increase investment in the UK or improve exports. It would take time and lots of uncertainty to arrange trade deals which will be damaging to the economy. Would the country go down the pan? No, we'll still be a reasonably strong economy but I don't see any great benefits of what we'd get out of it. Of course they'd still be more than happy to sell us their BMWs and Meiles, but would arch-marketeers like IDS even impose tariffs when they do for our goods?
On immigration the majority of the recent increase in net migration is non-EU. We control this wholly and yet it's still ~200,000 per year. That's under a right/ centre-right government supposedly tough on immigration.this is my concern. It's a valid argument to say that as all EU citizens have the right to come that it's impossible for Westminster to control how many come, but the market will play a part here. They won't come if there is no work. Personally I don't have an issue with EU migration (my wife is non-British and European I should add), I find they integrate better than some non-EUropean groups and are more likely to return to their country as they age (reducing social burdens). I think if the UK government had limited access to the newer States (Bulgaria and Romania) like the Germans and France did, this would have been less of an issue for people.
In short, there's a lot of pros and cons for me for staying, but the big one for me is I think is the economic uncertainty of leaving. I don't see the need for the risk unless it's going to give me a massive increase in my living standard - the best case scenario being offered is everything will stay the same.
I am so bored by the EU debate already. It's everywhere and the same old stuff is being trotted out by both sides. I suspect the actual referendum will be a narrow 'stay in' after which the British people will never be asked a similar question again, certainly not in my lifetime. Even if the people were to vote 'out' I suspect the rest of Europe will go through the pretence of valuing British membership so highly that further unquantifiable concessions will be offered and another referendum called, this time culminating in an 'in' vote. Either that, or we'll be out, but still in, insofar as our continued embracing of EU rules and standards are concerned. In other words, little difference whatever the actual outcome of the first referendum and the whole thing will be a stitch-up.
I'm changing my vote to 'apathy'.
I'm changing my vote to 'apathy'.
Last edited:
I wouldn't say the sovereignty argument is irrefutable. If the terms of access to the EU market post-Brexit include abiding by EU law (which is likely looking at deals with other non-EU countries), then we would be in a situation where we have to abide by law that we have no say in making. Hardly sovereignty in the sense I understand it to be.