Politics, politics, politics

[Grays_1890]

Freedom of movement is not the problem, nor is immigration to work, immigration to claim is the problem

 

[parklane1]

These are the key points to Migration based on the independent watchdog:

• The current scale of migration to the UK, 330,000 a year, of which roughly half is from the EU, is completely unsustainable.
• As a result our population is projected to rise by half a million every year – the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool.
• England is already twice as crowded as Germany and 3.5 times as crowded as France.
• Population growth adds to the pressures on public services when public spending is being reduced
• Those now being accepted in the EU as refugees, and their families, will become EU citizens entitled to free movement to the UK in 5-6 years.
• If Turkey were to join the EU 79 million people would have the right to live and work in the UK and Turkey would become a significant power in the EU.
• The split between non EU and EU migrants is nearly 50/50 year on year

Migration Watch revealed immigration costs us £17billion a year

But allegedly its because of a aging population that our services are struggling, nothing to do with immigration.

 

[milo]

But allegedly its because of a aging population that our services are struggling, nothing to do with immigration.

Let's go through this one by one. Please feel free to correct me on any points that I get wrong.

Do we have an aging population? Yes.

Does an aging population but extra pressure on public services, particularly the health service? Yes.

Has the government cut funding to public services and local authorities over the last six year? Yes.

Have we seen more people coming into the UK from Europe than going in the other direction? Yes.

Do EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they have take in benefits and public services? Yes.

Could the government use that money to improve public services and help areas where higher levels of immigration puts particular pressure on public services? Yes.

Is immigration from the rest of the world higher than from the EU? Yes.

Is it a red herring to blame immigrants when the blame for the state of our public services should rest with the government? Yes.

 

[milo]

These are the key points to Migration based on the independent watchdog:

• The current scale of migration to the UK, 330,000 a year, of which roughly half is from the EU, is completely unsustainable.
• As a result our population is projected to rise by half a million every year – the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool.

I'll deal with the rest after the match but maths doesn't appear to be Migration Watch's strong point.

 

[milo]

These are the key points to Migration based on the independent watchdog:

• The current scale of migration to the UK, 330,000 a year, of which roughly half is from the EU, is completely unsustainable.
• As a result our population is projected to rise by half a million every year – the equivalent of a city the size of Liverpool.

Migration Watch revealed immigration costs us £17billion a year

Firstly, Migration Watch are not a reliable source for data or analysis on immigration. They are a single issue pressure group who wilfully distort data to suit their arguments.

The Channel 4 Fact Check piece gives a more balanced and better researched look at the same base data

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-eu-immigration/23016

England is already twice as crowded as Germany and 3.5 times as crowded as France.

Here's a population density map of Europe, we're not that different from most comparable states.

http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=21000&r=eu&l=en

Those now being accepted in the EU as refugees, and their families, will become EU citizens entitled to free movement to the UK in 5-6 years.

Again this is not quite the truth. They would be eligible for a long term residency permit after five years but the UK opted out of this and it would not entitle them to freedom of movement to the UK. In order to have freedom of movement to come here they would have to become nationals of their host country which is far more difficult and consequently done in relatively small numbers.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog...l-refugees-acquire-full-free-movement-rights/

Population growth adds to the pressures on public services when public spending is being reduced

Population growth does put pressure on public services but immigration is just one of the causes of that.

...The number of people aged 65 and over is projected to grow by 25.8 per cent between 2010 and 2019...The planned reduction in public services spending will imply an 18.7 per cent cut per person — from £5,700 per head in 2010-11 to £4,600 in 2019-20

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b12181a0-2332-11e6-9d4d-c11776a5124d.html#axzz4C9XYXliP

If Turkey were to join the EU 79 million people would have the right to live and work in the UK and Turkey would become a significant power in the EU.

Turkey is not going to join the EU any time soon. It would need the unanimous support of all member states to happen (Cyprus, France and possibly others would currently veto it).

If we vote to stay in the EU the UK has a "double veto" on Turkish (and any other country) joining

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36354705

In order for any country to be eligible for accession, negotiations on signing up to all the EU’s rules must be completed in 35 ‘chapters’.

Turkey first applied to join what was then the EEC in 1987. It was declared an eligible candidate in 1997. Negotiations were formally opened in 2005.

Now, in 2016, negotiations have closed on just one out of 35 chapters—‘science and research’, which was completed in 2006, the year after it was opened.

https://fullfact.org/europe/turkey-likely-join-eu/

The split between non EU and EU migrants is nearly 50/50 year on year

We have a points based immigration system for non-EU migrants has done little to decrease numbers because immigration is vital to the economy and politicians know that they could choke off the recovery if they cut numbers. If we have been unable to control non-EU migration through a points based system, why should we think that EU migration would be any different post Brexit?

 

[milo]

I've not watched it all but isn't that the point, you need a 25 minute video just to give you a brief EU overview, it's so bloated and bureaucratic that no one understands it.

It isn't a brief EU overview. It is a Professor of European Law giving his views on the referendum, claims made by both camps and the possible impact of a Brexit vote.

 

[P.D.]

It isn't a brief EU overview. It is a Professor of European Law giving his views on the referendum, claims made by both camps and the possible impact of a Brexit vote.

Yes and he's providing us with an overview of the EU, trying to debunk myths and describe in practice how it works and what it can/can't do. That in my view is a brief overview.

 

[scaramanga]

I thought that might be the case but you do not know if that is what would follow and the leaders of the Leave campaign have promised pretty much the opposite.

I think that it is the economies best chance of success if we did leave the EU but it would come at a high price. There would be a huge amount of resentment within the country about reduced job security and employment benefits. Parts of the north would suffer greatly from the end of manufacturing. London would become even more of a home for foreign billionaires hiding and/or laundering their money. If politicians continued to blame immigrants for their unpopular decisions it could become very toxic.

I don't think for a second any politician has the foresight or nerve to make such decisions. Thatcher was a one-off in that regard and it will be a while before we see someone of her ability and commitment.

The best way for us to deal with Brexit would be for the government to use the extra income from inbound tariffs to discount exports so that our exports are still competitive in the EU. What's left over (as it would be a surplus) should be used to discount VAT for EU imports to reduce the increased cost for consumers. It's far from an ideal solution and has far too much intervention for my liking, but it's the only way to deal with such ridiculous methods as import tariffs.

 

[scaramanga]

How do you allow working people free movement but check everyone else? What is wrong with being free to travel to Italy at the drop of a hat - I'm in Lake Como now. In less than 2 hours you can be in Barcalona, Milan, Lisonbon, why would you want to check that? Its terrific. It would be awful if you needed a visa.

I'm not proposing visas, just that borders should be actively protected with passport checks as we do in the UK.

Whilst anyone should have the right to work wherever they like, each country should also have the right to refuse entry to whoever they like based on what is best for that individual country - eg anyone with a criminal record or religious beliefs.

Fair play with country services and costs. But does it really cost the UK a lot? What would it cost to administer a setup like you outline?

I suspect it would cost the countries with high emigration numbers more than they currently pay and those with high immigration less. It's probably far from the ideal solution, but what I really want to get to is a situation where labour moves freely like goods but without the weight of social costs for that labour.

Whilst business would love to make more and more cash, they have to be regulated. Is it a bad thing to stop pollution, or to protect peoples' working conditions? I'm sure you are making enough cash from your biz, and these small EU laws don't stop that. Sadly they've become seen as 'meddling' or the other intervening. A bit like if The Scum were able to dictate the FAs policy. This has all been built up in the media for a couple of decades - as it sells papers. Real stories about Europe are fuking dull, stories about how they are controlling us, meddling, controlling far more interesting! Publishers like them.

The WTD isn't about protecting people's working conditions, it's about the French being unable to control their own workforce. Because their workforce won't do more than about 20 hours of shrugging a week, they can't compete on price. So they have to lobby for regulation that restricts everyone else's working hours in order to compete. There are plenty of people paid an hourly rate that would love more overtime but are restricted by current regulations and are likely not to be able to do any at all when we eventually lose our right to opt out.

As for pollution, the SED is just a joke. Solvent emissions are less than a tiny fraction of pollution and the only reason the regulation exist is for larger car manufacturers to try and force smaller ones out of business. Some industries don't have an alternative method like the car industry does (such as shipbuilding and refurbishing) and are also being put out of business to keep BMW/Renault happy.

But the reality is, the EU is pretty boring, functional, and has done the UK proud. If you look at where we were in the 70s, we are in a far far better place. Take out the emotion, and the 'them and us' media cobblers, which is cobblers, and its a positive association that we'd be crazy to leave.

We have become a much better place to live since the 70s. Those EU tiger-scaring rocks have also done a great job of keeping the EU free of tigers.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Tongue in cheek reason for voting out:
Players at Premier League clubs that don't automatically qualify for permit


Bournemouth 3
Burnley 2
Chelsea 3
Palace 1
Everton 2
Hull 3
Leicester 3
Liverpool 9
City 4
United 6
Middlesboro 8
Southampton 7
Stoke 9
Sunderland 8
Swansea 6
Tottenham 2
Watford 9
WBA 2
West Ham 4
Woolwich 8

Source Daily Telegraph

 

[milo]

 

[ricky2tricky4city]

When we putting a poll up, so the mighty GG can give the nation it's heavyweight verdict?

 

[glorygloryeze]

Below is a press release by the European Commission last year.

======

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

European Commission - Press release
Five Presidents' Report sets out plan for strengthening Europe's Economic and Monetary Union as of 1 July 2015
Brussels, 22 June 2015

Today, the five Presidents – European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, together with the President of the Euro Summit, Donald Tusk, the President of the Eurogroup, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, and the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz – have revealed ambitious plans on how to deepen the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) as of 1 July 2015 and how to complete it by latest 2025. To turn their vision for the future of EMU into reality, they put forward concrete measures to be implemented during three Stages: while some of the actions need to be frontloaded already in the coming years, such as introducing a European Deposit Insurance Scheme, others go further as regards sharing of sovereignty among the Member States that have the euro as their currency, such as creating a future euro area treasury. This is part of the Five Presidents’ vision according to which the focus needs to move beyond rules to institutions in order to guarantee a rock-solid and transparent architecture of EMU. Delivering a Deeper and Fairer Economic and Monetary Union has been one of the top 10 priorities of President Juncker in his Political Guidelines.

President Juncker said: "The euro is a currency shared by 19 EU Member States and more than 330 million citizens. It is something to be proud of. It is something that protects Europe. But it is also something that can work better. Our Economic and Monetary Union remains incomplete and I promised when taking office that I would work to consolidate and complement the unprecedented measures we took during the crisis and make them more socially fair and democratically legitimate. Today we, five Presidents, are setting out our common vision. The world is watching us and they want to know where we are going. Today we lay out monetary integration and bring it to its ultimate destination."

Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President for the Euro and Social Dialogue, said: "The Economic and Monetary Union has been strengthened in recent years, not least in the light of the financial and economic crisis. Yet it remains incomplete. Today's report suggests how it can be further strengthened, in stages, over the coming years. We stand ready to bring forward the specific proposals needed to turn this ambitious, yet pragmatic vision into reality. A complete EMU is however not an end itself. It is a means to contribute to more growth, jobs and prosperity for all citizens, now and in the future."

Despite the progress made in the past few years, particularly with the launch of the Banking Union, EMU remains incomplete. Divergence across the euro area is significant and the crisis of recent years has further highlighted existing shortcomings. It is clear that with 18 million unemployed and many within our societies exposed to risks of social exclusion, a lot more needs to be done to turn the euro area - the world's second largest economy – into a rock-solid architecture. We need a lasting, fair and democratically legitimate basis for the future which contributes to more growth, jobs and prosperity for all citizens.

The Report sets out three different stages for turning the vision of the Five Presidents into reality (see Annex 1):

- Stage 1 or "Deepening by Doing" (1 July 2015 - 30 June 2017): using existing instruments and the current Treaties to boost competitiveness and structural convergence, achieving responsible fiscal policies at national and euro area level, completing the Financial Union and enhancing democratic accountability.

- Stage 2, or "completing EMU”: more far-reaching actions will be launched to make the convergence process more binding, through for example a set of commonly agreed benchmarks for convergence which would be of legal nature, as well as a euro area treasury.

- Final Stage (at the latest by 2025): once all the steps are fully in place, a deep and genuine EMU would provide a stable and prosperous place for all citizens of the EU Member States that share the single currency, attractive for other EU Member States to join if they are ready to do so.

To prepare the transition from Stage 1 to Stage 2, the Commission will present a White Paper in spring 2017 outlining the next steps needed, including legal measures to complete EMU in Stage 2. This follows the model of the Jacques Delors White Paper of 1985 which – through a series of measures and a timetable attached to them – paved the way to the Single European Act, the legal basis of the Single Market project.

You can read more of the press release here:
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5240_en.htm

It's interesting how "Five Presidents" are referred to...not sure if anyone i know in the UK voted directly for any of them (or even anyone living in Europe).
Happy to be corrected if i'm wrong on this..

 

[glorygloryeze]

The full "Five President Plan" document is available here: https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/5-presidents-report_en.pdf

On page 4 it states:
"The euro is more than just a currency. It is a political and economic project. All members of our Monetary Union have given up their previous national currencies once and for all and permanently share monetary sovereignty with the other euro area countries. In return, countries gain the benefits of using a credible and stable currency within a large, competitive and powerful single market. This common destiny requires solidarity in times of crisis and respect for commonly agreed rules from all members."

From the end of page 4 and into page 5:
"Today’s divergence creates fragility for the whole Union. We must correct this divergence and embark on a new convergence process. The success of Monetary Union anywhere depends on its success everywhere. Moreover, in an increasingly globalised world, Member States have a responsibility and self-interest to maintain sound policies and to embark on reforms that make their economies more flexible and competitive.
Progress must happen on four fronts: first, towards a genuine Economic Union that ensures each economy has the structural features to prosper within the Monetary Union. Second, towards a Financial Union that guarantees the integrity of our currency across the Monetary Union and increases risk-sharing with the private sector. This means completing the Banking Union and accelerating the Capital Markets Union. Third, towards a Fiscal Union that delivers both fiscal sustainability and fiscal stabilisation. And finally, towards a Political Union that provides the foundation for all of the above through genuine democratic accountability, legitimacy and institutional strengthening."

So it is clear from their own words that part of the Euro project is to create Fiscal, Economic AND Political Union. They seem to have a plan for this to happen by 2025. Obviously the main concentration will be the Eurozone, but in my honest opinion that seems like just the start and will have implications for countries in Europe but outside the Eurozone.

Comment on this publication is available from this EU news and policy debating site: http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-...sidents-report-and-what-it-means-for-britain/

Another commentary on the publication is given by this Vote Leave campaigning group: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/the_five_presidents_report_and_the_next_eu_treaty

It will be interesting what people make of these docs....

 

[Richie]

I start a new job in a couple of weeks, a job which is funded by the EU, so when I argue that we should vote to leave the EU I say it knowing that a leave vote may come at significant personal cost. Regardless, it’s where I stand on the most important vote I’ve ever been a part of.

On the economy uncertainty is inevitable when you consider no country has left the EU before, and frankly it’s disingenuous to suggest the majority of economists are simply wrong, but that uncertainty is being brushed over in this debate. Economists don’t have crystal balls, they don’t know what kind of deals we will strike with the EU, US, or other major and developing economies, and they don’t know when the next disaster is going to hit, be it another Euro crisis, bank collapse, war, or a thousand other possibilities. Long term economic predictions are total guesswork but short term it’s likely they’re right and we’ll see a slight downturn in GDP growth, although recession is far from inevitable. Is that a price worth paying for sovereignty?

I certainly consider myself pro-immigration, but the issue simply comes down to control. The Remain campaign keep talking about Australia having twice our net migration per capita under a points system but that completely misses the point. Australia can have twice the migration we have, or quadruple, or half, the fact is that they are able to choose that level for themselves. In the EU we have no choice and that will never change.

For me the main crux of the matter is democracy. The EU is too large and too diverse to be an effective democracy, the European people can’t hold power to account across such differences in culture, not to mention language. The EU has far too much control over member states, forcing austerity on Greece being most glaring example, and is only looking to increase that control with “ever closer Union”. David Cameron had to get permission from the EU Commission and agreement from 27 other governments to reduce UK VAT on tampons, and granted it’s not an issue particularly high on my agenda, the idea that the EU feels it has the right to control such areas is a sign of a political union that has taken too much power from sovereign governments. The UK political system is far from perfect, I’m all for proportional representation and a reformed House of Lords, but voting to retain a less democratic, more bureaucratic supranational body with the power to legislate over all aspects of our lives is not the solution. Vote Leave.

 

[milo]

It's interesting how "Five Presidents" are referred to...not sure if anyone i know in the UK voted directly for any of them (or even anyone living in Europe).
Happy to be corrected if i'm wrong on this..

The presidents are chosen by the governments of the member states. I would expect there to be widespread objections if it was suggested that an EU president should be directly elected because it would be seen as the EU extending it's powers.

 

[glorygloryeze]

The presidents are chosen by the governments of the member states. I would expect there to be widespread objections if it was suggested that an EU president should be directly elected because it would be seen as the EU extending it's powers.

Interesting. So let me get this straight; you are saying that if the populations had been given a vote to decide who were to be these "Presidents" it would have been seen as the EU extending its power, so to avoid this perception (Reality?) the "Presidents" were instead "chosen" by the Governments of the member states?
So basically these "Presidents" were elected/created by the back door instead in the open because there was a fear that the populations would see it for what it is: extending EU power. And say "No thanks."
If it is not extending EU power, why is there:
a) a need for an "EU President"
b) documentation outlined by these very same "Presidents" advocating AND planning for the creation of a Fiscal, Financial and POLITICAL Union?

Also, do you not think the above is the very definition of "unelected Bureaucrats" and do you not then see it as natural that many in the population want to Vote out because they did not ask their Government to choose said "Unelected Bureaucrats" on their behalf?

 

[Grays_1890]

Let's go through this one by one. Please feel free to correct me on any points that I get wrong.

Do we have an aging population? Yes.

Does an aging population but extra pressure on public services, particularly the health service? Yes.

- Is it the right for the ageing British population to put pressure on the NHS? Yes thats what it is there for

Has the government cut funding to public services and local authorities over the last six year? Yes.

Have we seen more people coming into the UK from Europe than going in the other direction? Yes.

Do EU migrants contribute more in taxes than they have take in benefits and public services? Yes.

- This is a hugely debatable point, Cameron himself admitted to reform needed as too many come to claim not contribute.

Could the government use that money to improve public services and help areas where higher levels of immigration puts particular pressure on public services? Yes.

- But they don't so you don't solve a failing public service by adding more numbers too it, its as simple as that in my case. Either the Government need to invest more in the service or the number have to be cut,

Is immigration from the rest of the world higher than from the EU? Yes.

Is it a red herring to blame immigrants when the blame for the state of our public services should rest with the government? Yes

- No one is going out and pointing the finger at individual immigrants but immigration tactics as a whole, if the system as it is set can not sustain the numbers regardless of the reason then immigration is a problem. The fact that immigration was meant to be kept under numbers in Government pledges and has not/can not whilst being in the EU is a major factor of this debate.

 

[K.D.D.D.D.Soc]

Unfortunately the immigration problem has been a time bomb waiting to explode. For years it's been avoided as the lowlifes in the far right faction have claimed it as one of their policies, moderate people have not wanted to raise the issue as they will either be seen as a racist or xenophobic. Even lefties like Corbyn now acknowledge there is a problem. I can't see how leaving the european union will cure this problem, it may restrict europeans coming to the country but they are outnumbered by non-europeans, unless their members stop non-european "refugees" using the continent as a stepping stone to here.

 

[Grays_1890]

Coming out the EU could help us force work Visa's for both EU and non EU immigrants.

Thats the only controlled way forward for me