Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2010
- Posts
- 6,316
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ta-exposes-limits-of-camerons-emergency-brake
ROFL, Cameron's 'emergency brake' will only affect 84,000 migrants out of 2,225,000 migrants from EU countries. Even the pro-EU lobby aren't defending this.
Did you want it to apply retrospectively to everyone in the country already? I'm not sure that was on the cards to begin with. Plus aren't you forgetting ~2 million Brits in Europe? 84,000, out of even 300,000 net figure, is a significant chunk of the net migration figures, most of whom aren't on benefits and are in work. Would you give up our European veto altogether, or accept a banking levy, to get extended migrants' benefits measures instead?
Just saying, it's not as terrible of a deal as you seem to make out. The talks continue too. I'll wait for the final text of the deal to emerge before passing judgement.
One thing I've noticed is that the pro-EU lobby aren't very self-confident - most of their arguments involve diminishing the UK somehow e.g. little Britain won't have a chance negotiating against the big boys from Brussels. We're the world's fifth largest economy for crying out loud, our own economy is 20% of the size of the other EU 27 nations put together. Sometimes however their arguments border on sinister, actually implying that Britain is a force for evil and we must be run from Brussels for the good of the rest of the world. I reject that notion utterly.
So what's your source of confidence for us keeping our position if we vote out? Data, figures, experts, reports, draft deals -- where are they? Last I heard, the two Leave groupings were shuffling people and fighting like ferrets in a barrel!
I read some polling data and ads produced for them by contractors and a few news stories and tabloid hot messes; but not much else. In fact, they're going with a data-lite approach so far.
You're kidding yourself if you believe things will carry on much the same after an exit vote, with a few less foreigners about in the news thereafter and a new Gilded Age on the horizon, should we go Independence-MAX, tariffs, job losses and all.
You seem pro-jobs and pro-workers, but paradoxically oppose one thing that both guarantees their income and decent employment rights. :\ Particularly, why should the poorest in society bear the brunt of an almost arbitrary transition to an uncertain end; since it's their incomes, cost of living and jobs that will be proportionately affected the most? What's your thinking there?