There are a lot of nutters around Goldie, and if they read the Sun as well then things like this can happen. It seems logical to presume that the murder of a politician, in these circumstances, had a political motive, and whether it is to do with Syrian refugees or Eastern European migrants is probably not important because, in his mind, the themes are probably not distinct from each other.
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
-
Just go through the points RCol has taken the time to make...
RCol said: You are falling into the same trap as many others, by believing that the Country will fall apart if we leave. You even say that "hospitals will close". Most of those "experts" who urge us to stay have been wrong on many, many previous occasions, including the Euro and the exchange rate mechanism.
I say: It's not my personal opinion. It's from informed experts who are right more often than they are wrong and nearly always right when it's bleeding obvious. They can't all be wrong about this.
RCol said: Yes, the pound is falling through uncertainty, but it will recover. It always has.
I say: The dollar rate used to be 4USD to 1UKP. Looks like it still hasn't recovered yet. I expect it to reach a new, stable lower value.
RCol said: A weaker pound can also help some businesses.
I say: True. Our exports will be cheaper. Exports to the EU will then be subject to tariffs making them more expensive for EU customers. We import far more than we export, so a weaker pound will mean those imports, and prices in the shops, will be higher. Our overall Balance of Payments will be worse. That means less money to spend on pubic services.
RCol said: Lower house prices would also be a good thing.
I say: In general, yes. Houses will be cheaper to buy. Unfortunately, the interest rate rise we will need to make in order for Sterling to be more attractive will mean mortgages to buy them will be more expensive. Which is fine if you're rich and don't need a loan to buy a property. Your interest from savings will go up. Investment loans for business growth and exports would also become more expensive.
RCol said: Not wanting too many immigrants because of the fear of over-crowding essential services IS NOT RACIST.
I say: Agree totally. I just believe shutting our borders to uncontrolled immigration by leaving the EU is the wrong solution to the problem. UK government(s) could have dealt better with this if they had wanted to and believed there were votes in it. They could have planned for this rather more than they have, but they didn't and encourage you to believe it is just too difficult. Crap. The EU is the whipping boy here for their failure. Don't swallow it. Ask more of them from now on.
RCol said: My main point is independence and sovereignty, but immigration is also part of it for me.
I say: There is no such thing as independence and sovereignty any more in the way it's being sold to "Leavers" by the Brexit campaign. It's a lie. An attractive concept, yes, but a lie. All countries are interdependent now. If we leave the EU, we will have to pay their tariffs when we sell to them yet still obey its trading and freedom of movement regulations. We are not self sufficient in the UK for raw materials, food or manufactured goods. That's not me talking us down, it's recognising reality. Most countries are in the same boat or starving their populations (Hi, independent North Korea).
RCol said: Lastly, there is no way we can effect the EU or their final end-game of a united states of Europe. Look how pathetic Cameron's recent negotiations were. Vote to remain and our masters will take that as our approval of everything they want to do.
I say: Cameron has been poor regarding the EU - and much else IMHO. We can, however, stay in the EU and stay out of ever closer union if we wish to. If we do end up remaining and avoid the economic disaster I believe would follow a "Leave" vote, then why not contact your MP in a weeks or so and make it clear that your vote for them (feel free to lie if you didn't vote for them) will vanish in 2020 if we don't start reforming the EU so it improves accountability and responsiveness.
RCol said: You are falling into the same trap as many others, by believing that the Country will fall apart if we leave. You even say that "hospitals will close". Most of those "experts" who urge us to stay have been wrong on many, many previous occasions, including the Euro and the exchange rate mechanism.
I say: It's not my personal opinion. It's from informed experts who are right more often than they are wrong and nearly always right when it's bleeding obvious. They can't all be wrong about this.
RCol said: Yes, the pound is falling through uncertainty, but it will recover. It always has.
I say: The dollar rate used to be 4USD to 1UKP. Looks like it still hasn't recovered yet. I expect it to reach a new, stable lower value.
RCol said: A weaker pound can also help some businesses.
I say: True. Our exports will be cheaper. Exports to the EU will then be subject to tariffs making them more expensive for EU customers. We import far more than we export, so a weaker pound will mean those imports, and prices in the shops, will be higher. Our overall Balance of Payments will be worse. That means less money to spend on pubic services.
RCol said: Lower house prices would also be a good thing.
I say: In general, yes. Houses will be cheaper to buy. Unfortunately, the interest rate rise we will need to make in order for Sterling to be more attractive will mean mortgages to buy them will be more expensive. Which is fine if you're rich and don't need a loan to buy a property. Your interest from savings will go up. Investment loans for business growth and exports would also become more expensive.
RCol said: Not wanting too many immigrants because of the fear of over-crowding essential services IS NOT RACIST.
I say: Agree totally. I just believe shutting our borders to uncontrolled immigration by leaving the EU is the wrong solution to the problem. UK government(s) could have dealt better with this if they had wanted to and believed there were votes in it. They could have planned for this rather more than they have, but they didn't and encourage you to believe it is just too difficult. Crap. The EU is the whipping boy here for their failure. Don't swallow it. Ask more of them from now on.
RCol said: My main point is independence and sovereignty, but immigration is also part of it for me.
I say: There is no such thing as independence and sovereignty any more in the way it's being sold to "Leavers" by the Brexit campaign. It's a lie. An attractive concept, yes, but a lie. All countries are interdependent now. If we leave the EU, we will have to pay their tariffs when we sell to them yet still obey its trading and freedom of movement regulations. We are not self sufficient in the UK for raw materials, food or manufactured goods. That's not me talking us down, it's recognising reality. Most countries are in the same boat or starving their populations (Hi, independent North Korea).
RCol said: Lastly, there is no way we can effect the EU or their final end-game of a united states of Europe. Look how pathetic Cameron's recent negotiations were. Vote to remain and our masters will take that as our approval of everything they want to do.
I say: Cameron has been poor regarding the EU - and much else IMHO. We can, however, stay in the EU and stay out of ever closer union if we wish to. If we do end up remaining and avoid the economic disaster I believe would follow a "Leave" vote, then why not contact your MP in a weeks or so and make it clear that your vote for them (feel free to lie if you didn't vote for them) will vanish in 2020 if we don't start reforming the EU so it improves accountability and responsiveness.
I can't speak for the nutter, Cologne, and the killing may be politically motivated, and underpinned by racism. But on the facts known, there is nothing whatever to connect it with the EU referendum. Even Labour IN MP's are saying this.
Even if there was no impending referendum, this country would still have to have a serious debate about unlimited immigration. Why? Because a city the size of Newcastle is coming in each year, and the recent forecast from the respected Migrationwatch takes the total population of the UK up to 80 million in little more than 20 years.
Do we say - forbid all talk about immigration levels, in case some saddo that thinks he's Goebbel's cousin commits a heinous act? That really would be fuel for the Mad Right
Question for the leavers re immigration-
It's clear beoyond all reasonable doubt that we have to have a trade deal with the eu in a post brexit result(the leave lot have said this too), there's just no feesible way we could continue without one as 45% of our trade goes there and using something like the WTO model would cripple our industries.
So with that in mind and he fact that the eu exports 16% to us it's pretty obvious that they will hold most of the cards in any negotiation, ultimately they need us but we need them more and they will know this.
So why would they agree to a trade deal that does not include free movement as it is now?
The reason I say this is because
1. Norway and Switzerland who both have trade deals have to accept free movement the same way as an eu member, if we were given a deal without it surely they would both demand the same immediately which the eu wouldn't want.
2. If we are given a free trade deal that requires less payment and no free movement there is a strong possibility of a domino effect of other countries wanting the same, the likes of Germany and France don't want the break up of the eu which would damage their economies far more then selling us a few less cars, it's not in their long term interests to give us a good deal.
3. A trade deal would require agreement from all member states, the likes of Poland who don't export huge amounts to us would have to agree to a deal that would restrict the ability of their citizens from being able to come and visit their families here without passing visa requirements, why would they agree to that?
On top of that I'd like to know how we could restrict the mass migration that would occur between a vote to leave and actually leaving as every Eastern European that wants to work here ever flocks in to beat the cut off? You can't just shut the door when we are still a member as it would have far reaching consequences in regards to negotiations. We could see for a number of years a public service crippling amount of people arriving.
It's clear beoyond all reasonable doubt that we have to have a trade deal with the eu in a post brexit result(the leave lot have said this too), there's just no feesible way we could continue without one as 45% of our trade goes there and using something like the WTO model would cripple our industries.
So with that in mind and he fact that the eu exports 16% to us it's pretty obvious that they will hold most of the cards in any negotiation, ultimately they need us but we need them more and they will know this.
So why would they agree to a trade deal that does not include free movement as it is now?
The reason I say this is because
1. Norway and Switzerland who both have trade deals have to accept free movement the same way as an eu member, if we were given a deal without it surely they would both demand the same immediately which the eu wouldn't want.
2. If we are given a free trade deal that requires less payment and no free movement there is a strong possibility of a domino effect of other countries wanting the same, the likes of Germany and France don't want the break up of the eu which would damage their economies far more then selling us a few less cars, it's not in their long term interests to give us a good deal.
3. A trade deal would require agreement from all member states, the likes of Poland who don't export huge amounts to us would have to agree to a deal that would restrict the ability of their citizens from being able to come and visit their families here without passing visa requirements, why would they agree to that?
On top of that I'd like to know how we could restrict the mass migration that would occur between a vote to leave and actually leaving as every Eastern European that wants to work here ever flocks in to beat the cut off? You can't just shut the door when we are still a member as it would have far reaching consequences in regards to negotiations. We could see for a number of years a public service crippling amount of people arriving.
All perfectly honourable opinions from your viewpoint. I just happen to disagree with nearly all of it.
Just on your comment that the "experts" tend to get most things right. I take issue with this and would suggest the opposite to be more accurate.
Anyway, I don't think either of us will be swayed by anything the other says. I respect your opinions and would rather leave it there.
Of course we could shut the borders the day after the vote, or at least greatly reduce the influx from Europe. Who would stop us?
Then what would stop the eu instantly cutting us adrift with nothing in place? A vote to leave doesn't mean we have left, until we are gone we are still members and have to stick to the rules, we have to try and come to a deal with these people, giving them the finger isn't really a good way to start and is completely unrealistic!
Why do we have to play by their rules? Why would they cut us adrift when they need us just as much as we need them, probably more.
Let's govern ourselves.
Because we are signed up to them until we leave! Do you honestly think it's as simple as just saying no? If it was we would have just shut the doors already and to hell with the rules!! The U.K. market to the eu is 60 million peopl and around 16% of exports, the eu market to us is 500million people and 45% of exports, it really doesn't take a genius to see we need them far more then they need us, it's just more of project lies run by the leave camp. You've also failed to even touch on the other issues as per the leave camp who completely side step issues that they have no answer or plan to.
But if they also say bollocks to us then we have a problem exporting to them......not to mention the 2 million British living in the EU, including me !
But if they also say bollocks to us then we have a problem exporting to them......not to mention the 2 million British living in the EU, including me !
You think they won't want to buy from us or sell to us?
Of course they will.
They have more alternatives than we do - we export nearly 50% of our exports to them they export only about 16% to us. There is also the little matter of tourism - for every one European migrating to England there are about 20 tourists, do you know how important that is to London ? Start asking for visas etc. and they might just go somewhere else.
Were no Brits living in Europe before the EEC was createdBut if they also say bollocks to us then we have a problem exporting to them......not to mention the 2 million British living in the EU, including me !
Another alternative is to give EU immigrants coming in after a Brexit vote a separate visa-like status - the visa could be revoked later at the will of the UK government
Most Brits were living in the same town they were born in at the time the EEC was created.....things have changed.
Most
But how many were living in Europe
Was it an easy option or was it hard to do
This and everything else you are saying is pretty much the very core of the argument to leave, there is absolutely zero substance to it! It's a 'do what we want and to hell with the consequences' attitude. You, like Farage and his cronies, are unable to address the fundamental issues that leaving will cause, you are happy to gamble away everyone financial security with no plans in place what so ever to deal with the fallout which will almost certainly be disastrous for our economy not just in the short term but in the medium and probably long term as well.
I have absolutely no idea, the treaty of Rome was in 1958. At that time most Englishmen worked in factories in relatively homogeneous working class towns .....I think the idea of emigration first really started in the 60s and the English, not being particularly bilingual, first went to English speaking countries. Germany had a number of people who were bilingual, sometimes with dual nationality, from an early time because of so many British soldiers having been stationed there.