Soldato
Then surely the answer is to be less generous, not to abandon the largest economic and military alliance in existence.
My house was too warm last night, I didn't rip out the central heating, I turned it down.
Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)
- Thread starter RJC
- Start date
- Status
Then surely the answer is to be less generous, not to abandon the largest economic and military alliance in existence.
My house was too warm last night, I didn't rip out the central heating, I turned it down.
What if you could only turn down the heating if you could prove you had to turn it down because of exceptional economic circumstances, along with the approval of your entire street who have been leeching 'energy' off you for many years
Last edited:
David Cameron could have also done that to solve the benefits criteria of his negotiations. 'No person shall be able to apply for benefits without 4 years continuous national insurance payments'. The left wouldn't be happy and that solution is cutting off the nose to spite the face...
Caporegime
As part of the EU we're not allowed to turn down the heating without getting the permission from the other 27 member states (there'll always be one who says they're too cold).
If the EU had any sense they'd welcome the UK leaving, that way they'd be free to complete their European Project and achieve their goals of a federal superstate without Britain constantly objecting and vetoing things.
Soldato
They like our "Donations" !!
Suspended
Lol.
Sadly it's actually plausible though. They could be working illegally low paid jobs whilst claiming benefits.
Caporegime
They are. You can't tell me the Romanians who drive around our streets in a crappy old transit, grabbing anything that you dare to leave out the front, are above board and registered self employed?
Their giro lands on their mat each fortnight don't worry about that. And it probably goes straight back to Romania.
For those still blindly pro-euro, watch The Daily Politics on BBC2 right now on iPlayer, rewind to the beginning.
Cameron is already trying to spin a failure in re-negotiation and rewording it to sound like we can now control immigration. The reality is he come back with nothing, he failed
EDIT - Tory MP Daniel Hannan totally killing it 10mins into the programme
Cameron is already trying to spin a failure in re-negotiation and rewording it to sound like we can now control immigration. The reality is he come back with nothing, he failed
EDIT - Tory MP Daniel Hannan totally killing it 10mins into the programme
Last edited:
Caporegime
You can also get benefits while working legally - tax credits for example.
Soldato
The UK sells more outside of the EU, namely the USA. Just because it's bigger doesn't mean it's better.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
The migration camp here is surreal.
Remember the 'crisis' before this, when you proclaimed that the entire population of Bulgaria and Romania will uproot and move here wholesale for handouts and social housing, after EU lifted its transitional measures on them? Looking at the set of ONS figures for relevant years... OOPS! At the current rate, it'd take the poor souls nearly a century to complete that wild prediction, which is about as likely to come to pass as a meteor falling on every GD remember this instant! The vast majority of arrivals are productively employed, and their out-of-work ratio outperforms the native population, i.e. they still put in more than they take out.
Now you're lumping war refugees and asylum seekers with economic migrants, criminals and extremists -- great logic there, chaps!
But let's take your core argument at face value: income distribution is worse and all of us are getting poorer because the wily Johnny Foreigner is somehow capable of both taking employment away from you, contributing nothing back and claiming all possible benefits at the same time, correct? Think again:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7878
Then don't forget the GDP figures. If there are more 'scroungers' or working poor in the system than supposed strivers, shouldn't we be in negative (recession) figures by now?!
As for crime, the largest proportion of people in our prisons is white, British, poor men, with a pattern of re-offending featuring prominently in the histories of many. Their religious identification is also broadly in line with the recent census data. Should we now start locking people up by income bracket, religious identification and skin colour? No! But following your logic of one-is-many, we should, and it's absurd in the extreme.
Furthermore, if all of these refugees were the vile violent, raping fiends you proclaim, then surely the crime ratio in these categories for their ethnic and religious category would grow proportionately with the rate of their influx into the country... IT HASN'T! In the past year we got better at recording and reporting crime -- all good things -- but that's about it.
Now, 'but Muslims have different values mutually exclusive with our own [insert Christian denomination]' -- utter poppycock! I don't have a spiritual dog in the race, but all Abrahamic religions, which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, share a common set of virtues and values, as well as core assumptions about the world. Extremists are not representative of an entire demographic, and are present in all communities. More engagement and community integration is the answer not arbitrary demonization.
'But... but -- look the terror is now on every corner!' Not really. You can keep arguing that extreme events make a trend, but the weight of data and history is against you. Isolated, homogeneous societies with 'good values' are no more or less capable of producing incidents of instability, terror and oppression than their multicultural counterparts. They are both complex systems, and fixed assumptions are worthless for tackling these.
In fact, Europe is less violent and more stable than it ever was, terrorism included. The whole project, and it is its most redeeming feature, was created so that excesses of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could never be repeated, and that alone is worth sticking with it for.
Remember the 'crisis' before this, when you proclaimed that the entire population of Bulgaria and Romania will uproot and move here wholesale for handouts and social housing, after EU lifted its transitional measures on them? Looking at the set of ONS figures for relevant years... OOPS! At the current rate, it'd take the poor souls nearly a century to complete that wild prediction, which is about as likely to come to pass as a meteor falling on every GD remember this instant! The vast majority of arrivals are productively employed, and their out-of-work ratio outperforms the native population, i.e. they still put in more than they take out.
Now you're lumping war refugees and asylum seekers with economic migrants, criminals and extremists -- great logic there, chaps!
But let's take your core argument at face value: income distribution is worse and all of us are getting poorer because the wily Johnny Foreigner is somehow capable of both taking employment away from you, contributing nothing back and claiming all possible benefits at the same time, correct? Think again:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7878
Then don't forget the GDP figures. If there are more 'scroungers' or working poor in the system than supposed strivers, shouldn't we be in negative (recession) figures by now?!
As for crime, the largest proportion of people in our prisons is white, British, poor men, with a pattern of re-offending featuring prominently in the histories of many. Their religious identification is also broadly in line with the recent census data. Should we now start locking people up by income bracket, religious identification and skin colour? No! But following your logic of one-is-many, we should, and it's absurd in the extreme.
Furthermore, if all of these refugees were the vile violent, raping fiends you proclaim, then surely the crime ratio in these categories for their ethnic and religious category would grow proportionately with the rate of their influx into the country... IT HASN'T! In the past year we got better at recording and reporting crime -- all good things -- but that's about it.
Now, 'but Muslims have different values mutually exclusive with our own [insert Christian denomination]' -- utter poppycock! I don't have a spiritual dog in the race, but all Abrahamic religions, which are Judaism, Christianity and Islam, share a common set of virtues and values, as well as core assumptions about the world. Extremists are not representative of an entire demographic, and are present in all communities. More engagement and community integration is the answer not arbitrary demonization.
'But... but -- look the terror is now on every corner!' Not really. You can keep arguing that extreme events make a trend, but the weight of data and history is against you. Isolated, homogeneous societies with 'good values' are no more or less capable of producing incidents of instability, terror and oppression than their multicultural counterparts. They are both complex systems, and fixed assumptions are worthless for tackling these.
In fact, Europe is less violent and more stable than it ever was, terrorism included. The whole project, and it is its most redeeming feature, was created so that excesses of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany could never be repeated, and that alone is worth sticking with it for.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
Look at the returns made plus investment drawn from Europe. EU common market area exceeds that of the USA, and the costs of trading with Europe are fewer (it's nearer for one). You should also consider the rate of business creation. The oft reported figure of 1 in 7 being created by a migrant is overwhelmingly European in its composition, something not immediately reflected in revenue figures (businesses take time to grow and make money).
Personally I'm undecided (and hence haven't voted in the poll) but I'm leaning towards out. Before I vote/decide though I acknowledge that I need to do a lot more research into the pros/cons of each side.
One thing I would say is that if there was a theoretical third option of even closer integration with Europe, pushing the agenda of a 'united states', further fiscal and political union with the other member states then I would likely be split between that and out, given my current knowledge/feelings on the matter.
However our current situation, and the situation we'd be voting for as part of an 'in'/remain vote, is some weird and ultimately ineffective half-in/half-out stance. We're part of the EU but we have opt-outs on various areas, including the big things like Schengen and currency, as well as the smaller things like having a lower 'discount' VAT rate than the rest of the EU. It's no wonder we're largely ignored by the German/French effective rulers of the EU.
One thing I would say is that if there was a theoretical third option of even closer integration with Europe, pushing the agenda of a 'united states', further fiscal and political union with the other member states then I would likely be split between that and out, given my current knowledge/feelings on the matter.
However our current situation, and the situation we'd be voting for as part of an 'in'/remain vote, is some weird and ultimately ineffective half-in/half-out stance. We're part of the EU but we have opt-outs on various areas, including the big things like Schengen and currency, as well as the smaller things like having a lower 'discount' VAT rate than the rest of the EU. It's no wonder we're largely ignored by the German/French effective rulers of the EU.
Soldato
I got a weeks "holiday" from here for using that word.
I take it you'll be getting the same ?
Really? Really?
That seems unlikely. Sounds like poppycock, to be honest
Which is a valid word in the dictionary meaning "nonsense".
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
I've said my piece, and shall leave the mods to moderate as they see fit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Did anyone seriously suggest the whole population of Romania would come here? There's now over 125,000 Romanians and Bulgarians in the UK, which I am sure you'll agree, is quite a lot.
Also, it's a myth that immigrants bring in more than they take out. Non-EU immigrants cost us a lot of money. EU immigrants make a small net contribution of circa £4bn, which is not even 1/3rd of our foreign aid budget.
And that £4bn figure is inflated significantly by all the European workers coming here to work in Finance.
Why do people harp on about benefit fraud whilst tax evasion and avoidance are significantly larger costs to the exchequer.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...ut-benefit-fraud-and-tax-evasion-9520562.html
Caporegime
Why can't we tackle both?
- Status