Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)

[datalol-jack]

What is wrong with them?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/03/eu-to-fine-countries-that-refuse-refugee-quota/

"
Jean-Claude Junker is tomorrow expected to unveil plans to impose a penalty of €250,000 euros for countries that refuse to accept refugees, in a bid to salvage his botched migration quota scheme.
"

This sort of behaviour makes me want to fall back into the out camp.

For the upteenth time -- Juncker cannot impose anything on anyone -- he doesn't have the power, and if he loses confidence, he can be voted out by the very representatives he is meant to be doing the imposing upon, and he knows it. It might not even get past the Council talks, considering the mood and Britain's preferred alternative, which has been criticised but appears to function better and hence may be adopted as an altertative in the next Dublin Regulation review.

"with a quota system of allocations that kick in if there is another vast wave of migrants that overwhelms a country."

"Eastern European states opposed the scheme for two reasons: because they said refugee admissions should be a sovereign national decision; and because many of their voters are virulently opposed to Muslim immigration."

"Mr Juncker now faces another bruising row as he attempts to pass the plans through the European Council."

"It is expected that the plan will, in times of emergency, replace the Dublin rule which says asylum seekers must be returned to the first country they arrive in."

"There is quiet satisfaction among British officials that Mr Cameron's original proposal - to forget about quotas and instead focus on taking in vulnerable refugees directly from camps near Syria - has proven more successful. "

Even the Telegraph knows it, lol. But the drama comes first -- it sells papers and clicks.

So why is there talks like these to begin with? Well, the Eastern Europeans happen to want to claim structural funds without playing ball, hence from an administrative point of view it makes sense to impose some means of reclaiming funds from member states increasing load on others by stalling in emergencies to channel the funds where the refugees actually do end up. He's a conservative too, so expect arguments about fairness, doing one's bit and money; but in the end, it'll be down to the national leaders and ministers to decide on a way forward (second part of this Turkey deal is re-housing of genuine asylum seekers), and for the EUP to vote on it. We're however not party to this, as Dave went to great pains to explain.

 

[datalol-jack]

What?

Columbia have visa free access to Schengen too, did you know that?

This is all about access to Schengen of which we are not a part. Schengen is not the EU, there are EU countries not in it and there are non EU countries who are in it.

Visa free access to Schengen is nothing to do with our membership of the EU and is something countries all over the world including from both South America and the Middle East already have!

Brexit myth: free movement = Schengen = migration crisis = millions of people here in the next fortnight, stealling all the jobs and claiming all the benefits... at the same time!

 

[Yaayuh!]

Forever in, it's not perfect but it's progression. Let's improve it and step forward, not take several steps backwards.

 

[Dugganator]

Still on the fence and cant seem to decide either way. Both sides remind me of two people that couldn't punch their way out of a wet paper bag. I hate all the future will look like this for sure.... err how do we know what is going to happen.

The best bit about this is regardless of who wins the other side will be blaming left/stayed side for all the problems regardless.

If we left it wouldn't be this way!
if we stayed it wouldn't be this way!

 

[squerble]

Here's a question which I want to ask but don't want to tip the boat:

If your average refugee settles in Germany, France, Sweden etc, will they eventually be given a passport for their respective country? And if they do, and we remain in the EU, then they get free reign for moving over here, yes? Whereas they can't do that now because we aren't in the Schengen area?

 

[Insanties_birth]

Great speech by Daniel Hannan

I decided to watch the whole debate as datalol seemed to think it was somehow better for the pro EU side Got to admit the leave camp had a better debate in my opinion and I feel that combining it with the fact that we get 2 years to renegotiate trade agreemants in the divorce period, the fact we do get a say and some level of influence (diminished of course, but still a say) thanks to EFTA members being included in the decision shaping process, the lower amount of policies we have to accept being an EFTA member and turkey coming closer and closer to joining then I am getting ready to switch back to the out side.

My main issues with switching sides was that I valued the economic argument but the divorce period and trade agreements where you can accept far less EU policy diminish that greatly. Another issue was scotland and Ireland having issues and although I won't comfortably believe ireland is a sure thing based sheerly on the lady speakers statements in the video it's a reduced risk to scotland which is increasingly looking to shut down nicola sturgeons antics of repeatedly calling for reform so diminishing that argument as well. My only real gripe with leaving is I believe the economic impact (just like stock markets acting on prediction) is largely going to be enhanced by sheer misinformation and incompetence from people not recognising how little we'd lose by remaining in a trade agreemant and having that divorce period of 2 years. Other reasons to want to stay in the EU was as others regularly state, the idea that we can reform it from within. The referendum was our biggest sole chance to have the EU listen to UK issues and have all countries listen to us yet it looks like there is no real guarantee in any regard that what has been negotiated will be accepted when the vote comes after we have had our vote.

I still believe there's argument to stay in though as the only real reforms (i.e. proposing our own changes rather than just shaping new policy that others have made) for future issues can be accomplished inside and the improvements (although they can't be guaranteed so it's pie in the sky) would strengthen us further economically and we would still have issues with having to reallocate funding to sciences and subsidies for agriculture etc. (although could save some of that from the budget but I'll admit I'm clueless on how much subsidy would be needed but presume both together to be higher than what we lose on the EU) not to mention the fact that supporting the EU to be stronger helps us get those pro consumer laws like with the mobile companies and workers rights and more could be in line for the future. For me though I'm more concerned about my previous points, turkey, ttip and other issues of sovereignity and forced integration so I'm about a hair line from voting out right now.

 

[datalol-jack]

Snip

I just didn't want Hannan's bit to be the only video posted from said debate.

 

[Freakbro]

Here's a question which I want to ask but don't want to tip the boat:

If your average refugee settles in Germany, France, Sweden etc, will they eventually be given a passport for their respective country? And if they do, and we remain in the EU, then they get free reign for moving over here, yes? Whereas they can't do that now because we aren't in the Schengen area?

All migrants can claim residency/nationality in the host country after a period of time, currently 5 -8 yrs (dependant on country) and have to be economically active (working), speak the language etc etc

So if a migrant has done this in Germany say, built up connections, speaks the language, has a job and gets German nationality, why do you think they would up sticks and move to the UK?

So, the answer is yes, but logically it's not going to happen in any significant quantity.

It's also got nothing to do with Schengen, an EU citizen can move here anyway, Schengen just means you don't need any ID to cross the border, which we are not in. Hence we do still 'control our borders'

 

[datalol-jack]

All migrants can claim residency/nationality in the host country after a period of time, currently 5 -8 yrs (dependant on country) and have to be economically active (working), speak the language etc etc

So if a migrant has done this in Germany say, built up connections, speaks the language, has a job and gets German nationality, why do you think they would up sticks and move to the UK?

So, the answer is yes, but logically it's not going to happen in any significant quantity.

It's also got nothing to do with Schengen, an EU citizen can move here anyway, Schengen just means you don't need any ID to cross the border, which we are not in. Hence we do still 'control our borders'

As I've said also, successful asylum seekers in the EU do not automatically become eligible for freedom of movement, that is to work and settle anywhere in the EU. That right is inextricably tied to EU citizenship. Depending on the country, restrictions are also placed on their movement and work whilst their claim is processed and verified.

If the application for asylum fails, or they've cheated or whatever else, they will be returned all the way to Turkey, and not to the first country where they've entered as before the crisis, iirc. Yes, we also check EU ID cards and passports as well and do proper border control. Yes, it does regrettably suffer from the same budget reduction all non-ringfenced departments had to go through, hence occasional media furores; but this part is firmly in the HS and Treasury's hands.

 

[Avenged7Fold]

If they settle in the EU and obtain permanent residency then they will still have to go through the same channels as they would if they were from outside the eu. If they somehow get a passport after acquiring citizenship, which is given at a very low percentage due to the requirements, than they can travel to the UK but as we are not members of Schengen, it would just follow the same procedure as any other EU citizen and their entry can still be under our scrutiny.

 

[Insanties_birth]

I just didn't want Hannan's bit to be the only video posted from said debate.

That's fair, so I never meant any offense (and stated what came of the full debate was just my opinion) and thank you for posting it as well but I stand by the point that my particular view is that the entire debate didn't have much merit to the pro EU side. There's good reason to be pro EU but that debate did the side no favours and you've made more good points yourself in the past than the 3 politicians did as there was far less clapping and rejoicing to the pro EU points which was quite notable. It's all opinion though so others might disagree anyway.

 

[datalol-jack]

Knowing the sort of people the border discussion normally brings out of the woodwork: yes, we can also turn down and deport people at the border or from whatever EU port of entry our officials are in on security grounds, even if they have an EU passport. More related reading on this:

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/
https://fullfact.org/law/are-foreign-criminals-using-human-rights-avoid-being-deported/
https://fullfact.org/crime/european-arrest-warrant-justice-without-borders/

There's also a review coming on how spent convictions are processed. But this is probably going to come later in the year or next year on the reform agenda. Not much hard data on the review is available yet. I'm concerned however by May's desire to rewrite our human rights, and opt-in/opt-out of certain things to support that better -- she's more vicious than Gove on this part, hard as it is to believe atm!

That's fair, so I never meant any offense (and stated what came of the full debate was just my opinion) and thank you for posting it as well but I stand by the point that my particular view is that the entire debate didn't have much merit to the pro EU side. There's good reason to be pro EU but that debate did the side no favours and you've made more good points yourself in the past than the 3 politicians did as there was far less clapping and rejoicing to the pro EU points which was quite notable. It's all opinion though so others might disagree anyway.

I wouldn't expect great applause in a Spectator-hosted debate, but they're all grown up girls and boys and were there to put their point across as best they could. The devil is as always in the detail.

 

[Trifid]

For the upteenth time -- Juncker cannot impose anything on anyone -- he doesn't have the power, and if he loses confidence, he can be voted out by the very representatives he is meant to be doing the imposing upon, and he knows it. It might not even get past the Council talks, considering the mood and Britain's preferred alternative, which has been criticised but appears to function better and hence may be adopted as an altertative in the next Dublin Regulation review.

The problem is the threat and trying to impose rules with an iron fist instead of being a mutual collection of equals. I don't think we will be a part of the actual rule (assuming it is tagged onto the sharing of migrants between EU nations) but I don't want to be part of a club with that sort of attitude. Do you? In addition, the EU has a problem of fining everything they can (Microsoft, Google, and only a matter of time, London emissions and the UK road tax on foreign lorries).

 

[datalol-jack]

The problem is the threat and trying to impose rules with an iron fist instead of being a mutual collection of equals. I don't think we will be a part of the actual rule (assuming it is tagged onto the sharing of migrants between EU nations) but I don't want to be part of a club with that sort of attitude. Do you? In addition, the EU has a problem of fining everything they can (Microsoft, Google, and only a matter of time, London emissions and the UK road tax on foreign lorries).

No point having carrots without the stick.

But the stance is not eternal: vote for Socialists/liberals to elect a socialist/liberal? He gets plenty of abuse, but his days at the helm of the Commission are unlikely to exceed Barroso's, and if you discard silly rhetoric he's a conservative on par with Cameron, who got the job precisely for the same reasons Dave got the job here -- more trusted on financial matters and appears tough.

He doesn't really scare me as a result. Ultimately he's a reflection of a more conservative swing across Europe. And just to clarify: he's not the leader of our leaders; he's a glorified counterpart of the head of the Civil Service.

 

[Trifid]

No point having carrots without the stick.

I don't want to see a Europe with a stick. It should be a club for the collective benefit of the nations and people that live under it. This is why I am for the freedom of movement but against a EU army.


I wouldn't join a club that threatened me with a stick for breaking rules. I'd leave and find another club.

 

[squerble]

All migrants can claim residency/nationality in the host country after a period of time, currently 5 -8 yrs (dependant on country) and have to be economically active (working), speak the language etc etc

So if a migrant has done this in Germany say, built up connections, speaks the language, has a job and gets German nationality, why do you think they would up sticks and move to the UK?

So, the answer is yes, but logically it's not going to happen in any significant quantity.

It's also got nothing to do with Schengen, an EU citizen can move here anyway, Schengen just means you don't need any ID to cross the border, which we are not in. Hence we do still 'control our borders'

Thanks - I don't think there'd be a mass upheaval but I was just curious as to the logistics.

 

[Tosno]

However, if said migrant in Germany say marries an EU citizen (real or scam marriage) they can enter Britain, which is currently happening.

Edit: In fact I used said EU law to get my non EU wife into Finland when we go this month, it was so easy, too easy... and the visa is FREE.

 

[datalol-jack]

I don't want to see a Europe with a stick. It should be a club for the collective benefit of the nations and people that live under it. This is why I am for the freedom of movement but against a EU army.


I wouldn't join a club that threatened me with a stick for breaking rules. I'd leave and find another club.

So, by your reasoning, FIFA/Premiership should cease issuing cards, banning racists from grounds and issuing penalties for doping? If there were no consequences for not complying by any of the jointly agreed rules, in general, no international club would work. Even independent bi-lateral deals have consequences for non-compliance. And as you know, conservatives are fairly big on the sanctions bit. The refugee crisis is a joint humanitarian responsibility, whether some members have exemption like we do, or would like to discriminate on racial or religious grounds, is beside the point; indeed the US and Russia are as involved in the region, and should be contributing just as much, but the world isn't perfect.

As for feisty civil servants -- that's why the EUP votes, amends and returns proposals that do not meet muster, and why the Council is a separate body for negotiating the finer details of international agreements very much on equal footing as equals -- effectively leaders and ministers of member states, with their own rep and legislative initiative powers; who operate very much as a cabinet government for the bloc.

 

[datalol-jack]

However, if said migrant in Germany say marries an EU citizen (real or scam marriage) they can enter Britain, which is currently happening.

Edit: In fact I used said EU law to get my non EU wife into Finland when we go this month, it was so easy, too easy... and the visa is FREE.

Was she a refugee?

I suppose you'd be quite happy for May to have a bash at human rights, no surprise there. But there's as always more to the story than your anecdotes:
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-limiting-residence-rights/

And just to clarify it further for "right to family life boo hoo" critics: ECHR and Council of Europe, and the relevant court, is a separate pan-European organisation we are not voting to leave. May as Tory HS wants to leave it separately, but this is not on the ballot nor does it have anything to do with the EU referendum proper.

 

[Tosno]

Was she a refugee?

I suppose you'd be quite happy for May to have a bash at human rights, no surprise there. But there's as always more to the story than your anecdotes:
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-limiting-residence-rights/

No she is not a refugee All non EU spouses can travel with their EU other half to any EU country and the visa is free and processed at priority.

https://eumovement.wordpress.com/2007/04/15/requirements-for-a-short-stay-visa-family-of-eu-citizen/