Stay or go? EU poll - Oh the irony.

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

one couldn't make it up really.

That's the justification. Nice one.

CLAPTON

Linton wrote: »

EU rules are the detailed regulations resulting from the implementation of the policies agreed by the elected authorities of the member states. They are of course open to negotiation between those elected authorities.

Your approach seem fixated in seeing the world in terms of "us" and "them". "them" is everyone who isnt "us". "them" apparently have a mission in life to do "us" down. So lets look at who "us" may be.

My "us" could include retired people living in semi rural areas. From that point of view a Frenchman living near Lyons may be more "us" than a fisherman living in the outer Hebrides or a London banker working in the City. Many Scots and possibly some Welsh or Cornish people may not include you as part of "us". Many Northern Irish people I guess may consider "us" to include Dubliners but not include people living in SE England.

My "us" includes people with an egalitarian, liberal outlook. At the moment I am ruled by "them", or at least from my point of view "them" have an undesirable influence.

Who is your "us"?

Perhaps we need to move towards "us" being far more inclusive. Then the question of the EU, the UK, Scotland, local authorities etc becomes one of moving towards a system which optimises the balance between the efficiencies of commonality with the need for people to have control over their immediate lives. I suspect that the UK as an entity is too big to effectively provide the local control and too small to provide the full efficiency of commonality. The USA is at the moment a viable size, the EU is a viable size, the UK isnt.

I see no logic in your selection of 300 million people as being the 'right' size' : why not 8 billion as being the right size?


What is the efficiency of commonality? Are the people of Greece, Portugal, Italy etc. currently benefiting?

Generali

CLAPTON wrote: »

Some would struggle to see the substantive difference between Aus policy on illegal immigrants and boat people and those of the UK far racist right.

Mostly from people that don't understand the policy.

antrobus

Bantex wrote: »

I do find it rather odd when an Australian (European decent) claims that it is not a racist country when you look at the state of the aborignal population and how they have been and still are treated.

Well yes, the orginal European settlers were not nice to the Aboroginals, and at one time there was such a thing as the 'White Australia' policy. But that was then, and this is now.

This Australia might well have the 'burden' of deciding its own immigration policy, but oddly enough that policy appears to result in a lot of immigrants. According to the Aussie govt, 27% of the population in 2011 was born overseas; the equivalent figure for the UK appears to be 11%.

It is difficult to see how a 'racist country' could be that succesful in attracting immigrants.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm
http://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-overview

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

I see no logic in your selection of 300 million people as being the 'right' size' : why not 8 billion as being the right size?....

What 300 million people?

The population of the EU 28 is just over 500 million if that's what you mean. The world population is currently estimated at 7.2 billion, not expected to reach 8 billion until 2025.

But what's a few hundred million here or there?:)

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

Mostly from people that don't understand the policy.

Yes, I believe that was the normal response of any Southern States (of the US) politician when challenged about the racist policies in the counties in the 60s/70s.


Australia wants control of it's immigration policy : something you seem to support.
I want the Uk to have control of its immigration policy something you define as racist.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

I want the Uk to have control of its immigration policy something you define as racist.

I think it is racist to want to be able to tell other people they can't live somewhere because they weren't born there. Unless you support depatriation of people born in the UK who possess the same exclusion criteria you would have for potential immigrants? Is that the case?

antrobus

CLAPTON wrote: »

Yes, I believe that was the normal response of any Southern States (of the US) politician when challenged about the racist policies in the counties in the 60s/70s...

An example of the association fallacy; arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.

Bantex_2

danothy wrote: »

I think it is racist to want to be able to tell other people where they can't live because they weren't born there. Unless you support depatriation of people born in the UK who possess the same exclusion criteria you would have for potential immigrants? Is that the case?

I believe it should be the responsibilty of a government to put the interests and wishes of it's own people (citizens) first. If that involves controlling borders, so be it.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

I see no logic in your selection of 300 million people as being the 'right' size' : why not 8 billion as being the right size?


What is the efficiency of commonality? Are the people of Greece, Portugal, Italy etc. currently benefiting?

You have spent months telling Scottish Nationalists that their wanting to separate from the UK is a sign of their innate racism yet apparently your lot wanting to separate from Europe is completely different.

I dont want to live with Scottish nationalists or English ones. I like getting on a plane and having access to dozens of countries and the freedom to work and do business wherever I want.

I dont want the likes of you and Graham mucking it up for me.