Soldato
Which isn't an intelligence sharing issue, it's a judicial one.
Poll: The EU Referendum: What Will You Vote? (New Poll)
- Thread starter RJC
- Start date
- Status
Which isn't an intelligence sharing issue, it's a judicial one.
Soldato
Voted out, again.
You don't understand how immigration works do you? Let me put it in simple terms. Non-EU immigrants have requirements to meet in order to be accepted. These are designed to increase the quality (skills, English etc. ) of the immigrants. EU are free to move about, no requirements whatsoever. Despite this, EU migrants have better qualifications and English skills. They bring in more tax revenue. Think about what this means for a second. If high quality American or Chinese migrants wanted to come to Britain they could do so now. Decreasing the amount of EU migrants will decrease the median quality of migrants the country receives. Teachers and nurses from the rest of the world won't magically flood Britain just because it leaves the Eu. They are much more likely to be found within the Eu.
Caporegime
Approximately 50,000 people a year is the correct level of net migration for the UK. Current levels are six times that and are unsustainable. Coincidentally today a report came out highlighting the five least integrated towns and cities in the UK, it's no surprise that the places with the highest levels of immigration suffer from the highest amount of social integration issues.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-most-divided-place-in-england-a6838041.html
Have you seen UK entry requirements for non-EU nationals? It's high, the reason we accept so many is because it would be folly to turn them away when we have streets of unskilled dross coming in unchecked with their guides on how to claim as many benefits as possible for as little work as possible.
The unchecked unskilled dross have better qualifications and English skills than the checked ones. Can you try to organise your argument in such a way that it at least resembles a coherent line of thought?
We would not be stopping ourselves from importing labour from EU. I proposed a simplified and preferential VISA process for those in the EU. The only thing I'd like to see is less discrimination for those outside the EU.
Yet our jobless rate is still decreasing. What is causing problems with the current level is lack of investment in public services and housing.
Caporegime
I agree that we should be much fairer to would-be immigrants from outside the EU. I hate the way we're forced to discriminate against these people, and I don't see why we have to give preferential treatment to an applicant from say, Hungary over applicants from India, New Zealand and Brazil.
Britain is in a midst of a productivity crisis - you won't find the media talking about it much because they know people won't understand it. Simply put the availability of cheap labour is preventing the British workforce from developing better skills and enjoying higher wages.
My work side wants to stay in, my personal side wants out. Manufacturing is a funny thing, we have American customers with bases in the uk as springboards into Europe, I'm not sure what they will do if we are out.
But personally every time I hear one of the Euro MP's talking about the Europe Project I recoil a little more from the whole thing, the "Projects aim" is to centralise and become one imho and I feel more and more like a fish that hitched a ride on a hook and isn't liking where it's being pulled.
But personally every time I hear one of the Euro MP's talking about the Europe Project I recoil a little more from the whole thing, the "Projects aim" is to centralise and become one imho and I feel more and more like a fish that hitched a ride on a hook and isn't liking where it's being pulled.
Wow an unusual view that is, I'm English first, British second and would never ever consider myself even remotely European.
As regards the referendum if it does take place and by some miracle we vote out, we will never leave I think that has been made very clear.
Cameron will never take us out, it will either be some sort of political trick or we'll simply have to vote again until Europe gets the right result same as Ireland.
Saying all that because people are frightened of change I expect a 60% Stay in vote if the referendum day ever comes.
Cameron will never take us out, it will either be some sort of political trick or we'll simply have to vote again until Europe gets the right result same as Ireland.
Saying all that because people are frightened of change I expect a 60% Stay in vote if the referendum day ever comes.
Caporegime
If we vote to leave; we'll leave. We may well end up agreeing to large chunks of the same treaties afterwards, though.
Caporegime
Disagree with that. The problem with Boston is the mass immigration not the percentage of immigrants in the town to English. The town has been rejuvenate somewhat by the foreign nationals as there are more shops open and more choice. I have many Polish and Lithuanian friends and they are no different to us. In fact some are highly skilled professionals who get paid peanuts in their home countries.
The problem is because of the amount that has been let in all the local services are bursting at the seams and with the way housing is people are living 8-10 people for your average 3 bedroom house. This has lead to a huge increase in domestic crime. Also due to the freedom of movement there are a lot of criminals coming here to try and start a fresh which usually ends in them doing the same as what they did before.
I will be voting out not because I think immigration is bad but because I think mass immigration without any control is.
You know that Cameron has repeatedly refused to say there will only be one referendum.
My view hasn't changed. My mind is not yet made up.
Once the date is actually set, we at least have a fixed set of goalposts. Until then, it's not entirely clear even what we'd be leaving if we left. On the one hand, the core Eurogroup members are determined to tighten integration, not least because fiscal integration is fundamentally necessary to protect monetary union. On the other hand, events beyond the Euro elite's control look to be doing a superb job of undermining and dismantling Schengen.
So, once we finally know what the actual decision is, I'll make up my mind how to vote.
That said, unless something significant changes for the better, my vote is very likely to be to leave. And I think it unlikely that it will change. Cameron's much-publicised "re-negotiation" looks to be a major PR exercise with little chance of achieving anything that matters much.
I don't accept the doom and gloom argument that we'll collapse economically if we leave. For a start, a trade agreement is likely and in the interests of both sides. It's also underpinned by WTO rules preventing punitive trade barriers, and if we do leave, the exit process protocols mean nothing changes for two years, both in terms of membership benefits and obligations, giving a good chance to get such agreements in place.
Nor do we have to adopt a subservient Norway or Switzerland type role. Plenty of other countries trade with the EU without doing so, from the giants like the USA and China, to far more modest-sized economies like Canada or Australia.
Being out will mean we lose many privileges of club membership. It also means we lose many costs, and many limitations and restrictions. It has both and upside and downside, and watching many people adopt such a polarised view either that 'in' is great and out will be a disaster, or the opposite position, thoroughly depresses me. It's not black and white, it's a very finely graduated greyscale and deciding on the pros and cons is complex. Add in the simple fact that it is impossible to predict the economic consequences resulting either from staying or leaving, and then that a significant part of the consequences aren't even economic, and we end up with a decision that is extremely hard to break down, rationally.
For most people, it'll probably come to two or three aspects out of dozens, and how you feel about them, That is, gut feel. Neither side currently look capable of holding a polite, adult, rational debate that acknowledges that the factual basis for economic justification, for either case, is both mixed and impossible to prove. Instead, both sides seem determined to indulge in a war of dubious claims and dodgy and biased statistics.
When the date is finally announced and the campaigns start properly, I'll listen to both sides before deciding, but my guess is I'll vote to leave unless something convinces me otherwise. So my view hasn't changed - I'm undecided.
EDIT
The poll really needs an "undecided" option, and probably a "won't vote" option for those that don't care, or just won't bother.
Once the date is actually set, we at least have a fixed set of goalposts. Until then, it's not entirely clear even what we'd be leaving if we left. On the one hand, the core Eurogroup members are determined to tighten integration, not least because fiscal integration is fundamentally necessary to protect monetary union. On the other hand, events beyond the Euro elite's control look to be doing a superb job of undermining and dismantling Schengen.
So, once we finally know what the actual decision is, I'll make up my mind how to vote.
That said, unless something significant changes for the better, my vote is very likely to be to leave. And I think it unlikely that it will change. Cameron's much-publicised "re-negotiation" looks to be a major PR exercise with little chance of achieving anything that matters much.
I don't accept the doom and gloom argument that we'll collapse economically if we leave. For a start, a trade agreement is likely and in the interests of both sides. It's also underpinned by WTO rules preventing punitive trade barriers, and if we do leave, the exit process protocols mean nothing changes for two years, both in terms of membership benefits and obligations, giving a good chance to get such agreements in place.
Nor do we have to adopt a subservient Norway or Switzerland type role. Plenty of other countries trade with the EU without doing so, from the giants like the USA and China, to far more modest-sized economies like Canada or Australia.
Being out will mean we lose many privileges of club membership. It also means we lose many costs, and many limitations and restrictions. It has both and upside and downside, and watching many people adopt such a polarised view either that 'in' is great and out will be a disaster, or the opposite position, thoroughly depresses me. It's not black and white, it's a very finely graduated greyscale and deciding on the pros and cons is complex. Add in the simple fact that it is impossible to predict the economic consequences resulting either from staying or leaving, and then that a significant part of the consequences aren't even economic, and we end up with a decision that is extremely hard to break down, rationally.
For most people, it'll probably come to two or three aspects out of dozens, and how you feel about them, That is, gut feel. Neither side currently look capable of holding a polite, adult, rational debate that acknowledges that the factual basis for economic justification, for either case, is both mixed and impossible to prove. Instead, both sides seem determined to indulge in a war of dubious claims and dodgy and biased statistics.
When the date is finally announced and the campaigns start properly, I'll listen to both sides before deciding, but my guess is I'll vote to leave unless something convinces me otherwise. So my view hasn't changed - I'm undecided.
EDIT
The poll really needs an "undecided" option, and probably a "won't vote" option for those that don't care, or just won't bother.
Last edited:
As with the election polls, there's no point, it skews the results as they won't be counted in the real referendum anyway
- Status