Brexit

padington

kabayiri wrote: »

They most certainly don't know this.
.

How do you know what a nation state doesn't know ?

What a preposterous thing to say.

Generali

RJP33 wrote: »

You could flip that round and say our current policy is discriminatory against non-EU people, who have to go through the full visa process while EU countries don’t.

It’s a ridiculous set of circumstances where a surgeon from Pakistan on our skilled shortage list needs to wait months and pay substantial fees when EU workers can come anytime.

That's not flipping my point around, it's making a completely different point.

The fact is that there will be a constituency that doesn't want to be in the EU simply because they are racists.

Generali

RJP33 wrote: »

You could flip that round and say our current policy is discriminatory against non-EU people, who have to go through the full visa process while EU countries don’t.

It’s a ridiculous set of circumstances where a surgeon from Pakistan on our skilled shortage list needs to wait months and pay substantial fees when EU workers can come anytime.

That's not flipping my point around, it's making a completely different point.

The fact is that there will be a constituency that doesn't want to be in the EU simply because they are racists.

purch

Generali wrote: »

That's not flipping my point around, it's making a completely different point.

And that surprises you on this forum :eek:

kbrumann

antrobus wrote: »

The actual wording is from Treaty of Rome of 1957. Granted we did have a Conservative Government in 1957, but I am at a loss to understand why the six signatories of that treaty would have needed to compromise with the UK at that time.

The original wording appeared in the Rome Treaty in 1957 as you rightly point out. The UK later applied to join. For the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 the aim was a Federation, which John Major wouldn't accept. Instead, the original wording from Rome Treaty was reused as "this Treaty marks a new stage in the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen."

kbrumann

RJP33 wrote: »

You could flip that round and say our current policy is discriminatory against non-EU people, who have to go through the full visa process while EU countries don’t.

It’s a ridiculous set of circumstances where a surgeon from Pakistan on our skilled shortage list needs to wait months and pay substantial fees when EU workers can come anytime and do anything.

[FONT=&quot] Prove it, vs. our contribution.[/FONT]

That's the problem with nation states. People Scotland, Ireland, France, Poland, the UK or any other EU can move within the EU freely and UK citizens make great use of it. People from the USA, Mexico, Syria or Pakistan have to apply for permission and so do we if we want to move there.

Migration takes place in both directions. According to a study by the OECD, the UK has the world's second largest number of emigrants (born in the UK but living abroad), after Mexico but more than China, India and Germany.

alleycat`

Generali wrote: »

The fact is that there will be a constituency that doesn't want to be in the EU simply because they are racists.

Whilst i generally enjoy the things you write on here using "racism" as an argument for or against EU membership is one of the things that pee's me off.

It's the same as waving around the scary words "terrorist" or "!!!!!phile" to shut people up and steamrole an opinion point.

On this particular subject:-

The news (radio) this morning was saying that "almost" 50% of people surveyed would want to stay in the EU if they thought it would harm the UK economy to leave.

Why isn't that reported as more than 50% of people would wish to leave the EU even if it did impact the UK economy?

kbrumann

alleycat` wrote: »

The news (radio) this morning was saying that "almost" 50% of people surveyed would want to stay in the EU if they thought it would harm the UK economy to leave.

Why isn't that reported as more than 50% of people would wish to leave the EU even if it did impact the UK economy?

It doesn't say anything about a majority, as there are people who want to stay in the EU independent of the economic analysis. Any economic analysis is based on assumptions and economic models.

The "no-camp" claims that Britain will become an open, internationally trading economy. I look at the UK before joining the EU, when it was protecting its industries and was considerably poorer than it's Continental neighbours.

In case of the UK leaving the EU, its influential elites are likely to lobby Westminster to protect their industries again: http://iitm.be/notBrexit

alleycat`

kbrumann wrote: »

It doesn't say anything about a majority, as there are people who want to stay in the EU independent of the economic analysis. Any economic analysis is based on assumptions and economic models.

The "no-camp" claims that Britain will become an open, internationally trading economy. I look at the UK before joining the EU, when it was protecting its industries and was considerably poorer than it's Continental neighbours.

In case of the UK leaving the EU, its influential elites are likely to lobby Westminster to protect their industries again: http://iitm.be/notBrexit

So they should just report the numbers then and let people make up their own minds?

Giving just one value seems to be maniuplative and not "news" but posturing to set a position?

I don't disagree with you about people with money trying to protect their interests but I suspect if proper analysis was done then this happens in the rest of the EU generally anyway.

I'm not 100% sure how i feel about the EU generally as it's very hard to get truthful data sets which haven't been slanted to support the author(s) view points.

I'm minded that most people tend to seek out information that supports their own personal opinions.

When you aren't an economist, and i'm certainly not, it's difficult to get a genuine "un-biased" view of such things.

I'd rather be given the data to make up my own mind than be pointed at any data that is skewed to support someones view of the world.

Armed with that sort of information it's much easier to have the difficult conversations and not be bogged down in emotive language.

MacMickster

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The question is not whether the UK would be successful outside of Europe, of course it could be, but in all probability not as successful as we are today.

We have one of the fastest growing economies in the developed world and one of the lower rates of unemployment, our average wealth, living standards, access to services and household income put us firmly in the top handful of most desirable countries to live in.

Much of this has been enhanced through the benefits of EU membership, not all of course, but a significant portion.

The benefits of membership far outweigh the costs.... It would be daft to leave.

I haven't contributed to this forum for a couple of years now, but looked in and on this occasion felt that I need to respond.

The economic case for remaining as a member of the EU is pretty much a no-brainer. Outside of the EU the UK will definitely be worse off economically - but will still be OK.

For some of us it is the corrupt and undemocratic nature of the beast that we object to. The EU may be a well intentioned and benevolent dictatorship (at present, and the Greeks may well disagree) but in a referendum I will vote for democracy - despite the economic cost.