Britain and the EU

antrobus

michaels wrote: »

Funny, in a sovereign democracy I thought you could control your boarders and decide not to admit non-citizens, indeed I would say that was fundamental....

But this sovereign democracy known as the UK signed up to the Single European Market which (amongst other things) set out that there would be freedom of movement for all the citizens of the members of that market. That is what the UK agreed, and that's what the UK has got.

As a sovereign democracy this UK can indeed now seek to amend that earlier agreement or, failing that, cancel the entire agreement, and start again with something else. Or just live with it. Those are the choices that we are faced with.

Generali

Wild_Rover wrote: »

On another thread I had posted the Bet 365 odds.... on 30 August the odds were ....

Stay in ..... 2/9

Leave ....... 3/1

Today they are.....

Stay in ....... 4/11

Leave. ....... 2/1

Not in any way scientific, but it seems to me that the 'out' folk are betting on their preferred outcome ... of course, you can't read much into that.... it could be that folk who bet (not a trait traditionally regarded as particularly wise!) are more likely to think that the UK will leave ?

Betting odds are after all simply a reflection of where the money is going, not 'the bookies' informed expectation of what the result will be. Interesting nonetheless?

WR

Interesting that the odds have moved in for Leave but it would be interesting to see how liquidity has changed. After all, when a bookie first makes a book he has to take a guess at what the odds should be and then watch the money change his book as time goes on.

On Betfair which is 'purer' because that literally follows the money as it's simply a market, you can get 1.45 on Stay and 3.15 on Leave. Having said that you can still get 1.08 (about 12-1 on) that there will be a referendum during this Parliament!

So that's about a 68% chance of Stay winning and a 32% chance of Leave winning from the odds from Betfair and a 93% chance that there will be a referendum during this Parliament at all.

Sapphire

antrobus wrote: »

But this sovereign democracy known as the UK signed up to the Single European Market which (amongst other things) set out that there would be freedom of movement for all the citizens of the members of that market. That is what the UK agreed, and that's what the UK has got.

As a sovereign democracy this UK can indeed now seek to amend that earlier agreement or, failing that, cancel the entire agreement, and start again with something else. Or just live with it. Those are the choices that we are faced with.

But the migrants invading the European continent, which some countries categorically do no want to take, either now or in the future once they are settled in Germany, are not 'citizens of that market'.

If the EU (aka Germany) wants to impose these people onto other countries apart from its own, then I would argue that yes, the entire agreement should be cancelled for all the sovereign countries and it should then be renegotiated for each one. Individual countries can then come to an agreement that they will not take unlimited numbers of migrants from the EU if they feel they do not have the circumstances to do so (in terms of healthcare and housing, for example). It is absurd to have a blanket directive with regard to migration, which can be imposed on sovereign nations by Germany, given how different the economic, social and historical circumstances of each country are.

antrobus

Sapphire wrote: »

But the migrants invading the European continent, which some countries categorically do no want to take, either now or in the future once they are settled in Germany, are not 'citizens of that market'....

That's a different issue altogether. And not one that directly affects the UK, because....

Sapphire wrote: »

...If the EU (aka Germany) wants to impose these people onto other countries apart from its own,...

.... they are not imposing them on the UK. We are not in Schengen.

Sapphire wrote: »

... then I would argue that yes, the entire agreement should be cancelled for all the sovereign countries and it should then be renegotiated for each one. Individual countries can then come to an agreement that they will not take unlimited numbers of migrants from the EU if they feel they do not have the circumstances to do so (in terms of healthcare and housing, for example). It is absurd to have a blanket directive with regard to migration, which can be imposed on sovereign nations by Germany, given how different the economic, social and historical circumstances of each country are.

Nothing is being imposed by Germany. The decision on setting quotas for the reallocation of refugees from Italy and Greece was approved by the European Parliament by 370 votes to 134, with 52 abstentions.

Sapphire

antrobus wrote: »

That's a different issue altogether. And not one that directly affects the UK, because....

.... they are not imposing them on the UK. We are not in Schengen.

Nothing is being imposed by Germany. The decision on setting quotas for the reallocation of refugees from Italy and Greece was approved by the European Parliament by 370 votes to 134, with 52 abstentions.

The point in my post above was that Germany, having said that it could take in 500,000 of the migrants from outside the EU a year itself, is now attempting to impose quotas of illegal migrants from outside the EU on sovereign nations within the EU. As I said, sovereign nations should be allowed to make their own decisions with regard to whether they want to permit such people into their countries – either now or in the future, once they have been accepted by Germany.

There should be a negotiation with regard to this subject, with countries that do not agree with it being allowed to refuse to take these people. It is simply not right that countries which have suffered waves of cruel invasion, and which have absolutely nothing in common with these migrants, should have to have them forced on them.

In addition, the EU must remove economic migrants and stop them coming onto the continent. Small countries such as Greece and Italy are being ruined by the invasion, and potentially millions more will come if this is not stopped – which would have a destructive effect on the whole of Europe, both in terms of the economic impact and with regard to social cohesion.

patanne

Look at the people involved here. Merkel comes from EAST Germany and will move heaven and earth NOT be under the influence of the Soviet Bloc again. I can't disagree with her on that at all. As for the UK, if we had never gone in I would say don't go in, but we did so I think stay in.

Back many many years ago, before we went into the EEC, I worked for a university. In this context, for a professor & a senior lecturer, doing calculations. Computers had hardly been invented and computor (not er) was my job title. One of them proved that going in was a good idea and one of them proved that it was a bad idea. Using the same base figures. My decision - going in was a bad idea but once we were in, then staying in was the only decision because too many boats had been burnt.

Which all goes to prove - lies, damn lies and statistics

leveller2911

antrobus wrote: »

.... they are not imposing them on the UK. We are not in Schengen.

Correct me if I'm wrong but if they claim citizenship they will have freedom of movement to move anywhere within the EU including the UK. This is not just the predicted 1.5million that Germany will be taking but also the those entering/moving to all the other EU states within the Shengen zone.

Nothing is being imposed by Germany. The decision on setting quotas for the reallocation of refugees from Italy and Greece was approved by the European Parliament by 370 votes to 134, with 52 abstentions.

The German/French governments have threatened other EU states by saying their EU funding could be affected by the lack of support for the German plan of re settling the refugees/economic migrants throughout the EU. "Don't take your fair share of refugees and your subsidies could be cut" is not imposing ?........

leveller2911

patanne wrote: »

. My decision - going in was a bad idea but once we were in, then staying in was the only decision because too many boats had been burnt.

I'm interested to know what these were?.......

antrobus

Sapphire wrote: »

The point in my post above was that Germany, having said that it could take in 500,000 of the migrants from outside the EU a year itself, is now attempting to impose quotas of illegal migrants from outside the EU on sovereign nations within the EU. ...

And my point would be that Germany is not imposing anything. The decisions have been made by the EU.

leveller2911 wrote: »

...Correct me if I'm wrong but if they claim citizenship they will have freedom of movement to move anywhere within the EU including the UK. This is not just the predicted 1.5million that Germany will be taking but also the those entering/moving to all the other EU states within the Shengen zone....

Ultimately, yes. But that's what we signed up to with the Single Market. If you don't like that, you know what to do.

leveller2911 wrote: »

....The German/French governments have threatened other EU states by saying their EU funding could be affected by the lack of support for the German plan of re settling the refugees/economic migrants throughout the EU. "Don't take your fair share of refugees and your subsidies could be cut" is not imposing ?........

The nature of being a member of a club, is that you have to abide by the rules of that club. The SNP, for example, are very unhappy about some of the rules that Club UK are adopting, which probably explains why they would prefer to leave Club UK and set up their own club.

CLAPTON

antrobus wrote: »

And my point would be that Germany is not imposing anything. The decisions have been made by the EU.



Ultimately, yes. But that's what we signed up to with the Single Market. If you don't like that, you know what to do.



The nature of being a member of a club, is that you have to abide by the rules of that club. The SNP, for example, are very unhappy about some of the rules that Club UK are adopting, which probably explains why they would prefer to leave Club UK and set up their own club.

The Germany open door policy was made BEFORE the other countries agreed.
The decision was made by Germany acting alone and then the other members were faced with the (inevitable) reality on the ground.

In a sense you are correct though : the other member states did sign up to German Hegemony over Europe and that's exactly what they have got. It just wasn't so obvious and blatant before.