Should We Leave the EU?

[TheKnightWho]

Well over 700 postings on this thread now, all made from the personal viewpoint of the person making the posting, but such is the question being asked, there will be another 700 postings of the same type, but as far as I am concerned, I know where I stand on the subject matter and no attempt at evangelisation will cause me to sway from that position.

Likewise, and I suspect that's the case for most people to be honest.

On the matter of criminal Brits in Spain, I'm starting to see a bit of a double-standard from those advocating we leave... I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[furnessvale]

On the matter of criminal Brits in Spain, I'm starting to see a bit of a double-standard from those advocating we leave... I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Certainly not from me.

If Spain wishes to evict them they had better do it now as, according to europhiles, it is much easier to do within the EU.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Certainly not from me.

If Spain wishes to evict them they had better do it now as, according to europhiles, it is much easier to do within the EU.

I meant in terms of your attitudes towards them and your assumptions.

Plus your second sentence is rubbish - it would help to learn what your opponents are actually saying.

 

[Antman]

Likewise, and I suspect that's the case for most people to be honest.

On the matter of criminal Brits in Spain, I'm starting to see a bit of a double-standard from those advocating we leave... I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You see 'double standards' because they are totally separate issues
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I meant in terms of your attitudes towards them and your assumptions.

Plus your second sentence is rubbish - it would help to learn what your opponents are actually saying.

Oh the hypocrisy!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Oh the hypocrisy!

Go on? They're not separate issues at all: they're both attitudes towards immigrants, it's just one type happen to be ones you share a nationality with.

 

[furnessvale]

I meant in terms of your attitudes towards them and your assumptions.

Plus your second sentence is rubbish - it would help to learn what your opponents are actually saying.

According to remainers, when we leave the EU, the European arrest warrant will no longer apply and it will be much harder to extradite criminals.

Is that not correct?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Sorry if my decision to vote out is based on the welfare of people who have chosen to remain within this country, rather than emigrate to sunnier climes with their pensions, but there it is.

I am sad and astonished that you put the welfare of such people before the needs of the people within the UK

I fear you have completely misunderstood my post. I am not putting the welfare of expats before people in the UK. Rather, I regard all human beings as equally important and base my views on a desire to help as many people as possible (while obviously recognizing that it's impossible for a Government to avoid disfavouring some people, so some balance needs to be drawn).

You on the other hand, described the prospect of law-abiding British citizens, who have done nothing wrong, being kicked out of their homes and prevented from subsequently living in their homes, as a "win". There is no plausible interpretation of that description other than that you are implying that innocent people being kicked out of their homes is a good thing. That appears to have nothing to do with concern for the welfare of people in the UK, but rather looks like a vindictive, nasty, attitude, towards those who have chosen to live abroad. That is why I objected so strongly to your remarks.

Whether you are for or against leaving the EU, surely, that viewpoint should be based on which choice you feel is most going to help people, not on seeking to hurt certain groups of people, or on taking any pleasure at the prospect of people being hurt?

 

[fowler9]

I read recently that there are more GB nationals claiming benefits abroad than there are other EU nationals claiming benefits in Britain. Could make things interesting if this is correct and we leave. Imagine our fantastic escape making the benefit bill go up.

Then there is of course the issue of why the French would bother stopping thousands of immigrants from doing what they want at Calais. "You want to leave France, feel free".

 

[anme]

I regard all human beings as equally important and base my views on a desire to help as many people as possible (while obviously recognizing that it's impossible for a Government to avoid disfavouring some people, so some balance needs to be drawn).

Very well put.

 

[Antman]

Go on? They're not separate issues at all: they're both attitudes towards immigrants, it's just one type happen to be ones you share a nationality with.

Whether the Spanish want to deport the British expats living there is a matter for them to decide. I think most of us know that won't happen though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I fear you have completely misunderstood my post. I am not putting the welfare of expats before people in the UK. Rather, I regard all human beings as equally important and base my views on a desire to help as many people as possible (while obviously recognizing that it's impossible for a Government to avoid disfavouring some people, so some balance needs to be drawn).

You on the other hand, described the prospect of law-abiding British citizens, who have done nothing wrong, being kicked out of their homes and prevented from subsequently living in their homes, as a "win". There is no plausible interpretation of that description other than that you are implying that innocent people being kicked out of their homes is a good thing. That appears to have nothing to do with concern for the welfare of people in the UK, but rather looks like a vindictive, nasty, attitude, towards those who have chosen to live abroad. That is why I objected so strongly to your remarks.

Whether you are for or against leaving the EU, surely, that viewpoint should be based on which choice you feel is most going to help people, not on seeking to hurt certain groups of people, or on taking any pleasure at the prospect of people being hurt?

It's very laudable saying all human beings are equally important but I would expect a British government to put British people first just as I would expect the governments of other countries to put their natives first.

I agree with the previous point that needs of people living in the UK should come before Brits who have chosen to go and live abroad.

 

[anme]

I agree with the previous point that needs of people living in the UK should come before Brits who have chosen to go and live abroad.

Who should take into account the needs of British people living abroad? Should governments put the interests of foreign citizens living within their borders on the same level as their own nationals (remembering that the foreigners will often not have a vote)? Or should people living outside their own country be forever second class citizens?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It's very laudable saying all human beings are equally important but I would expect a British government to put British people first just as I would expect the governments of other countries to put their natives first.

Well technically the people we're discussing are British. But that's not really the point.

If FurnessVale had said said something along the lines of that s/he really did not want the lives of British expats in Spain to be disrupted, and hoped that they would be able to remain in their homes in Spain if we left the EU, but that the harm being done by the EU in other ways was so great that we couldn't afford to remain in the EU purely on account of British expats, then that would have been arguably putting the interests of British people first, and I probably wouldn't have thought the remark worthy of comment. But what FurnessVale actually said was that it would be a win (which clearly implies a good thing) if these people were kicked out of their homes. That's something very different.

It's perfectly possible to give priority to the interests of one's own citizens living in their home country without also seeking harm to other people!

 

[dcsprior]

I'll be voting to stay in.

However I find the in campaign completely uninspiring, all that is talked about is the economic impact. Making the economy the sole focus of the campaign in the Scottish Independence referendum saw the "No" campaign turn a 60 percentage point lead early in the campaign into a 10 point one - while that took us closer to the result I wanted then, it risks losing the EU referendum, especially as there's far less of a lead to start off with.

I want to hear the in campaign talking about the protection for workers and the weaker in society; the fact that "regulation" isn't always a dirty word, with some examples of where things have been improved for consumers, travellers, etc ; and of course about the part the EU has played in ensuring peace in Europe for the past 70 years.

Telling this positive story is surely better than just repeatedly saying "it'll cost money that we can't afford" which often comes over as saying "it's bad for big business".

 

[TheKnightWho]

Whether the Spanish want to deport the British expats living there is a matter for them to decide. I think most of us know that won't happen though.

Why not? Because of the economic benefits? I don't see the economic benefits of migrants to the UK (of which there are *many*) convincing Outers that migration is a good thing! Even those who are supposedly "unskilled" have a net contribution to the UK.

You can't have your cake and eat it: either migration is good because of economic benefits, or not because of cultural disruption and driving wages down. You can't pick and choose.

 

[tony_mac]

Spain already offer 'retirement' visas for citizens from outside the EU - I doubt they will suddenly stop doing so.

However, the requirements are an annual income of over €25k; I imagine that would rule out quite a lot of UK citizens currently in Spain.
The UK stopped offering such visas around 2008.

I want to hear the in campaign talking about the protection for workers and the weaker in society; the fact that "regulation" isn't always a dirty word, with some examples of where things have been improved for consumers,

While I agree, I can see that politicians don't want to go down that road. It is highlighting positive things that they could have done themselves, but didn't, and had to be forced to by European pressure.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Spain already offer 'retirement' visas for citizens from outside the EU - I doubt they will suddenly stop doing so.

However, the requirements are an annual income of over €25k; I imagine that would rule out quite a lot of UK citizens currently in Spain.
The UK stopped offering such visas around 2008.

There have been cases over the last fifteen years where unscrupulous Spanish businessmen have erected new dwellings for retired non-Spanish people without the full legal land checks being carried out, in some cases aided and abetted by Spanish solicitors, where these "dream homes" have been subsequently demolished by the local area authorities.

 

[Antman]

Why not? Because of the economic benefits? I don't see the economic benefits of migrants to the UK (of which there are *many*) convincing Outers that migration is a good thing! Even those who are supposedly "unskilled" have a net contribution to the UK.

You can't have your cake and eat it: either migration is good because of economic benefits, or not because of cultural disruption and driving wages down. You can't pick and choose.

What on earth are you talking about?

We don't need masses of unskilled migrants in the UK, simple as that!

 

[Steveman]

Of course about the part the EU has played in ensuring peace in Europe for the past 70 years.

This utter myth keeps being repeated.

Who do you think kept the peace after 1945 seeing as the EU didn't exist, why were wars not starting all over Europe in the 10 years before the EU was formed.
The American Marshall Plan restored European economies and from 1949 to the present day it is NATO alone that keeps a check on the Russians.

50 years of Basque problems - No EU intervention.
Cyprus invasion by Turkey - No EU intervention.
Northern Ireland - EU had no part in ending the troubles.
2 Balkan conflicts and a Croatian war - ended by a NATO protection force.
Bosnian war and trouble in Albania - ended by NATO.
The first second and third Kosovo wars - ended by NATO.
Conflict in Macedonia - ended by NATO.
North Kosovo crisis - resolved by NATO.

It was EU diplomatic recklessness that started the Ukraine crisis, and the EU’s desire to spread influence, this EU imperialism has considerably strengthened the hand of fascists and communists in those countries.

Merkel has now stirred up the far right in Germany which will cause massive problems as it spreads across Europe. So not only has the EU spectacularly failed to keep the peace in Europe the German dominated organisation is fanning the flames of extremism all over the place which was largely predicted after Merkel invited anyone who fancied a better life to Europe.
Can you tell me how well EU police forces have done in preventing migrants entering Europe ?

Can you tell me how many European conflicts the EU has bought an end to ?

This myth that the EU somehow keeps the peace in Europe is laughable as not only does it fail to do so it actively makes things far worse than they need be.


As regarding Germany effectively running the EU this quote from the pm of Iceland last week is spot on.

Britain has little or no say over decisions made in a European Union increasingly dominated by German interests, Iceland’s prime minister has said.
Iceland’s Sigmundur Gunnlaugsson warned larger member states like the UK wield “diminishing power” in institutions still under the sway of the Franco-German alliance.
When it comes to the big stuff the decisions are made by two, and increasingly one country
“Others are called to meetings to approve of what has been decided, if not in the afternoon then during the middle of the night.
“This seems to have become the standard way of doing things in Brussels”, he said.

His comments come in a week where German chancellor Angela Merkel has been accused of bouncing fellow member states into accepting a controversial refugee swap scheme with Turkey.

 

[NSEFAN]

This myth that the EU somehow keeps the peace in Europe is laughable as not only does it fail to do so it actively makes things far worse than they need be.

I agree that political expansion has been reckless, although I think that economic interdependence through (what we now call) the EU has made war in western Europe basically impossible. Expansion of the EU should have been allowed to happen more slowly to avoid rattling the cages of nationalists, and we really shouldn't have let countries with completely different attitudes towards tax join so quickly!

 

[furnessvale]

Then there is of course the issue of why the French would bother stopping thousands of immigrants from doing what they want at Calais. "You want to leave France, feel free".

This has already been done to death.

Carrier liability ensures that ferries and airlines will not bring people to the UK who do not have the correct documentation for entry.

If that were not the case, thousands of fleeing Syrians would not make the perilous journey across Europe but would instead go to the first airport in Turkey and fly to the UK.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Following various posts I must make the following comment.

I wish to apologise for my use of the Phrase "Win, Win".

I was trying to convey the fact that, following Brexit, if Spain were to allow British pensioners to remain, that would be a Win.

If however, Spain expelled British pensioners, that would be a Win for the UK in the sense that it would repatriate at least £7bn of state and personal pension money. It was never meant as a Win in the sense that somehow they were being punished for daring to live abroad in the first place.

My subsequent posts on this matter were a statement of the fact that, if forced to make a choice, I would choose to support those people within the UK. I have never suggested that I would take pleasure in punishing expats.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Following various posts I must make the following comment.

I wish to apologise for my use of the Phrase "Win, Win".

I was trying to convey the fact that, following Brexit, if Spain were to allow British pensioners to remain, that would be a Win.

If however, Spain expelled British pensioners, that would be a Win for the UK in the sense that it would repatriate at least £7bn of state and personal pension money. It was never meant as a Win in the sense that somehow they were being punished for daring to live abroad in the first place.

My subsequent posts on this matter were a statement of the fact that, if forced to make a choice, I would choose to support those people within the UK. I have never suggested that I would take pleasure in punishing expats.

Thanks for that explanation. That sounds much more reasonable. In the light of those comments, I too apologize that it seems I misunderstood your earlier remarks.

 

[TheKnightWho]

What on earth are you talking about?

We don't need masses of unskilled migrants in the UK, simple as that!

Migrants have brought economic prosperity - even unskilled ones. If you want to talk about British migrants bringing that to Spain, you have to hold Britain to the same standard.

You can't prioritise culture with Britain and economics with Spain, then call that a win! And simply stating something that suits you and going "simple as that" with no evidence isn't going to convince anyone; sorry!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was EU diplomatic recklessness that started the Ukraine crisis, and the EU’s desire to spread influence, this EU imperialism has considerably strengthened the hand of fascists and communists in those countries.

I think you'll find that was Russian aggression. The EU can't win on this front: they're called aggressive imperialists one way, or weak cowards the other! Almost like people have made their conclusions beforehand and are looking to justify them...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You can't have your cake and eat it: either migration is good because of economic benefits, or not because of cultural disruption and driving wages down. You can't pick and choose.

I don't think that logic really follows. Migration affects the host country in many different ways at the same time - some good and some bad (For example, unskilled migration of labourers to the UK does appear to benefit the UK economy as a whole, but it also adds some pressure to the housing shortage, and arguably harms social cohesion, at least in the short term. There are some situations in which the good effects might outweigh the bad, and other cases in which the bad might outweigh the good. Either way, it doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to consider both the good and the bad effects of migration.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't think that logic really follows. Migration affects the host country in many different ways at the same time - some good and some bad (For example, unskilled migration of labourers to the UK does appear to benefit the UK economy as a whole, but it also adds some pressure to the housing shortage, and arguably harms social cohesion, at least in the short term. There are some situations in which the good effects might outweigh the bad, and other cases in which the bad might outweigh the good. Either way, it doesn't seem unreasonable for someone to consider both the good and the bad effects of migration.

I agree - and I'm not saying migration is something that can never be bad - but what I'm taking issue with is the double-standard in priorities over migration being exhibited by some.

 

[Antman]

Migrants have brought economic prosperity - even unskilled ones. If you want to talk about British migrants bringing that to Spain, you have to hold Britain to the same standard.

You can't prioritise culture with Britain and economics with Spain, then call that a win! And simply stating something that suits you and going "simple as that" with no evidence isn't going to convince anyone; sorry!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I think you'll find that was Russian aggression. The EU can't win on this front: they're called aggressive imperialists one way, or weak cowards the other! Almost like people have made their conclusions beforehand and are looking to justify them...

You are just going round and round in circles here but not saying anything worthwhile:roll:

 

[johnmoly]

This utter myth keeps being repeated.

Who do you think kept the peace after 1945 seeing as the EU didn't exist, why were wars not starting all over Europe in the 10 years before the EU was formed.
The American Marshall Plan restored European economies and from 1949 to the present day it is NATO alone that keeps a check on the Russians.

50 years of Basque problems - No EU intervention.
Cyprus invasion by Turkey - No EU intervention.
Northern Ireland - EU had no part in ending the troubles.
2 Balkan conflicts and a Croatian war - ended by a NATO protection force.
Bosnian war and trouble in Albania - ended by NATO.
The first second and third Kosovo wars - ended by NATO.
Conflict in Macedonia - ended by NATO.
North Kosovo crisis - resolved by NATO.

It was EU diplomatic recklessness that started the Ukraine crisis, and the EU’s desire to spread influence, this EU imperialism has considerably strengthened the hand of fascists and communists in those countries.

Merkel has now stirred up the far right in Germany which will cause massive problems as it spreads across Europe. So not only has the EU spectacularly failed to keep the peace in Europe the German dominated organisation is fanning the flames of extremism all over the place which was largely predicted after Merkel invited anyone who fancied a better life to Europe.
Can you tell me how well EU police forces have done in preventing migrants entering Europe ?

Can you tell me how many European conflicts the EU has bought an end to ?

This myth that the EU somehow keeps the peace in Europe is laughable as not only does it fail to do so it actively makes things far worse than they need be.


As regarding Germany effectively running the EU this quote from the pm of Iceland last week is spot on.

Spot on, well stated.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

We don't need masses of unskilled migrants in the UK, simple as that!

This is the kind of statement that makes me feel uneasy. We are talking about human beings here. Migrants are not merely objects that you might or might not need - they are people in their own right, with families, ambitions, emotions, dreams, etc., and who are just as deserving of respect and consideration as anyone who happened to be born in the UK. And there is an aspect to this debate of: Shouldn't any human being have the right to choose in which locality s/he wishes to live?

Talking about people in the sense of 'we don't need them' carries a bit of a dehumanising ring to it, although I suspect you didn't mean it in that sense.

It's perfectly reasonable, when formulating policy, to assess whether or not large scale migration is likely to help or harm a country's economy, and to consider what impact that migration might have on the local population. But there's a bit of a fine line between that and treating other human beings merely as objects to be measured solely in terms of whether their existence helps 'Britain' - which seems to be clearly wrong. I would suggest that comments along the lines of 'we don't need [these people] risk reinforcing that kind of attitude.

 

[TheKnightWho]

You are just going round and round in circles here but not saying anything worthwhile:roll:

No, you're just refusing to actually answer the point.

 

[Antman]

This is the kind of statement that makes me feel uneasy. We are talking about human beings here. Migrants are not merely objects that you might or might not need - they are people in their own right, with families, ambitions, emotions, dreams, etc., and who are just as deserving of respect and consideration as anyone who happened to be born in the UK. And there is an aspect to this debate of: Shouldn't any human being have the right to choose in which locality s/he wishes to live?

Talking about people in the sense of 'we don't need them' carries a bit of a dehumanising ring to it, although I suspect you didn't mean it in that sense.

It's perfectly reasonable, when formulating policy, to assess whether or not large scale migration is likely to help or harm a country's economy, and to consider what impact that migration might have on the local population. But there's a bit of a fine line between that and treating other human beings merely as objects to be measured solely in terms of whether their existence helps 'Britain' - which seems to be clearly wrong. I would suggest that comments along the lines of 'we don't need [these people] risk reinforcing that kind of attitude.

I'm afraid I disagree, you can word it however you like but economic migrants are here for no other reason than to supress wages
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, you're just refusing to actually answer the point.

I'll try just one more time.......what point am I failing to answer?

 

[Steveman]

Shouldn't any human being have the right to choose in which locality s/he wishes to live?

By that statement you are obviously in favour of complete and open borders.