Any fine would not apply to us since we're not party to the agreement on refugees. It would apply to other countries if they refused their treaty obligations. What do you expect to happen when countries don't live up to their treaty obligations?
Poll: The EU Referendum: How Will You Vote? (May Poll)
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
- Status
Blair handed it over to Brown who was unelected.
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
we're not party to this particular set of refugees but remaining in the EU with this policy going forward would mean potential harm in the future. It's more something to keep an eye out for but lets be honest, if we ever chose to be helpful and considerate and join in on the next issue with refugees then we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot should we not accept as many as they want us to and receive fines.
You realise that is per refugee though? It would only take 8 refugees for it to account for 2 million. While I appreciate it's not quite as large a figure as it could be it's a bit disillusioned and evasive to ignore what the implication of not taking in refugees would be. 2,000 refugees = £500,000,000 or 4,000 refugees = £1,000,000,000.
You realise most countries don't want to throw away a billion? Maybe I'm mistaken and we're not party to any and all refugee situations but I doubt that would last forever. Like datalol said before, there's no point in the carrot without the stick but there is no carrot here. It's take on refugees you don't want or get huge fines, so whereas the EU is in the right to enforce existing rules with penalisations there is little logical value (increasingly the EU is becoming over authoritarian in there idealism though) with them having the power over punishing us or ... punishing us. It seems they want to get to the point where what they want is all that matters and this highlights that because it's no longer about agreeing on national interest and putting things in place but rather forcing us to do what they think is best in a lose - lose scenario of there making. A seemingly increasing occurence with the EU.
Last edited:
It is religion, rather than politics that drives that I'm afraid.
Whilst the world is worshipping dozens of different fantasy cloud pixies and hating everyone else for not believing in their particular one it's just going to turn into more of a segregated hell hole.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2015
- Posts
- 399
So your happy for the UK to be swamped with migrants & sink in to the abyss because of them.
Great reason to vote to stay
While i agree, the EU isnt in the sort of shape to accept such a regime.
Sometimes someone has to just cut ties for a while so that the neurotic rot can have some reflection time, an out vote is temporary in my mind, like all politics.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
Not...sure....if.....joking, about the Federation?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Jan 2010
- Posts
- 1,379
Exactly, sad truth is most politics is a balancing game. Those who would want only labour or only conservative in government for example would quickly find that if that was the case then you tend to lose out some way or another as they never invest in the things they deem unimportant. Votes swing often and different parties get in depending on the major issues of the time but sadly the EU represents this problem to the extreme, not only do they seek to integrate to the point of not being able to remove them but then they make laws that are far more difficult to remove along with referendums being 40 or more years apart. It seems the idea of flexibility or swapping parties to balance out the needs of the time is instead met by unchanging, near irreversible policy. You're right in stating that the idea of leaving and possibly rejoining later (especially since france and others have expressed if we left they would want a referendum so possibly reform some of the stuff that needs changing) could be the best option. The referendum certainly hasn't got quite enough out of the EU.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,371
- Location
- Northumberland
No obviously not, but in the run up to any election, yeah I'd take that kind of info with a pinch of salt. You obviously saw the piece about the BBC not covering the Tory election fraud scandal?
http://evolvepolitics.com/twitter-erupts-bbc-struggle-keep-tory-election-fraud-wraps-may-elections/
My point being as was put to me, it is state funded not government controlled. Yes I'm sure it is.
Not the same: they were leaders of the Labour party not the Conservative party; the rules are different and, in any case, the situation is different. Cameron is likely to be knifed not stand down and Osborne does not have the large support he needs in the Tory party to persuade others not to stand. Brown had the backing of his own supporters and Tony Blair, even then he was only able to run unopposed because John McDonnell was unable to gather enough support to stand.
Last edited:
"Swamped" with migrants? The UK has a lower immigrant population than Germany, Italy and Spain among others:
And since migrants, and EU migrants in particular, are a net benefit to the UK I'm not sure how you imagine they're going to "sink" the UK.
Besides which, there's absolutely no guarantee that leaving the EU will end free movement and, even if it does, current levels of non-EU migration show how little real political interest there is in reducing immigration. Remember that Osborne's boasts about "fastest growing economy" are entirely dependent on the increase in GDP generated by immigrants coming and helping boost our economy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,102
The immigrants to those countries is a very recent phenomenon as you're well aware whilst we've had persistent and large scale immigration over a long period of time.
I would love to see how the 'they are a net benefit' calculate their figures. When you take into account the large amount (albeit minority, but still a large number) who work cash in hand or minimum wage jobs, the cost on the NHS, the schools, roads, police, housing and social care etc etc. I find the net benefit stance laughable.
*(That's a vile slur), I like and admire Jews and Israel in general, you seem to forget that they are a democracy and thus subject to governmental change, I dislike Netanyahu and the policies his government carries out just as more than half of world Jewery does.
*Having re read the comment quoted the part before the comma wasn't a statement aimed at me so not a vile slur but one can't be too careful while unfounded accusations of anti semitism are being bandied about.
Last edited:
Net benefit in what way?
Adults make money for the state by paying taxes and doing required work unlike natives they require no childhood medical, education or benefit support so an adult immigrant carries way less cost to a state than native born folk.
- Status