and the biggest threat to the UK economy in 2016 is...

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

just to take one point

do you believe that Germany's invitation for anyone from Syria (and de facto from anywhere) to come to Germany (and then be compulsorily shared out between the 28 EU nations
was a decision of Germany alone
or a considered joint decision of the EU nations?

The issue of further and closer integration is ongoing and inevitable : to simply deny isn't an argument.
The Major comment was totally wrong and nonsense wishful thinking : give us a half a dozen examples (or maybe one) were power is being given back to individual countries

How can either of us know the answer to that question, not being privy to any discussions that may or may not have taken place? But you ask what I believe, not know, which is that the decision on who could come to Germany was Germany's alone. A bit daft I think, but to give them credit they were leading by example. As to the sharing part of recursion, as far as I know it was not compulsion, and some countries refuse.

The Major comment was certainly not nonsense, even if you did not like it. He was in fact arguing that subsidiarity was not being acted upon as it should have been and that since it was supposedly an already agreed principle in the EU treaty, then it was a lever that might be used effectively. My belief is that there could be mileage in that since there is support for it in other countries. In fact I would think all countries would go along with the idea that their national governments enjoyed greater autonomy outside what really needed to be harmonised.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

How can either of us know the answer to that question, not being privy to any discussions that may or may not have taken place? But you ask what I believe, not know, which is that the decision on who could come to Germany was Germany's alone. A bit daft I think, but to give them credit they were leading by example. As to the sharing part of recursion, as far as I know it was not compulsion, and some countries refuse.

The Major comment was certainly not nonsense, even if you did not like it. He was in fact arguing that subsidiarity was not being acted upon as it should have been and that since it was supposedly an already agreed principle in the EU treaty, then it was a lever that might be used effectively. My belief is that there could be mileage in that since there is support for it in other countries. In fact I would think all countries would go along with the idea that their national governments enjoyed greater autonomy outside what really needed to be harmonised.

ridiculous

even Germany didn't claim that had consulted with other EU members let alone there was any such agreement.

whatever reason would there to have been to keep such an agreement secret.

But, any way we both agree that an action, that affects the whole of the EU, was decided by Germany acting alone: a reason to talk about the United States of Germany without any reference to events of 70 years ago but bang up to date.

I've no idea what the rest of your post meant.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

ridiculous

even Germany didn't claim that had consulted with other EU members let alone there was any such agreement.

whatever reason would there to have been to keep such an agreement secret.

But, any way we both agree that an action, that affects the whole of the EU, was decided by Germany acting alone: a reason to talk about the United States of Germany without any reference to events of 70 years ago but bang up to date.

I've no idea what the rest of your post meant.

Having difficulty in getting your meaning - but no, I did not say that Germany had consulted others but said I believed they did not. But maybe I misunderstood your remark.

I really cannot see why Germany's decision to let in those migrants was dictating to the rest of the EU to follow suit any more why I can why the UK's decision not to let landed migrants dictated anything either.

Don't you like Germans?

I do understand, however, that you didn't understand my post though.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

Having difficulty in getting your meaning - but no, I did not say that Germany had consulted others but said I believed they did not. But maybe I misunderstood your remark.

I really cannot see why Germany's decision to let in those migrants was dictating to the rest of the EU to follow suit any more why I can why the UK's decision not to let landed migrants dictated anything either.

Don't you like Germans?

I do understand, however, that you didn't understand my post though.

We agree that Germany unilaterally invited a million or more migrants without consulting the other EU countries.
The EU (led by Germany) decided a compulsory redistribution of those migrants.: that seems quite wrong and speaks of some countries being more equal than others.

I consider it discourteous to suggest my views about EU politics are based on any racial dislike of the German peoples.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

We agree that Germany unilaterally invited a million or more migrants without consulting the other EU countries.
The EU (led by Germany) decided a compulsory redistribution of those migrants.: that seems quite wrong and speaks of some countries being more equal than others.

I consider it discourteous to suggest my views about EU politics are based on any racial dislike of the German peoples.

No, racial is more about other races, like most of the migrants, but from your protest I take it you like Germans. Good for you - all Europeans together then.

You seem to be implying though that Germany is forcing its will on Europe, a favourite assertion of anti EU argumentation. Is that what you think?

I should really look up the voting mechanisms in the EU, with some votes all countries can veto a decision, in others, Majority Voting I think it's called, countries are assigned voting rights according to their population. Perhaps we need more immigrants so we can get a larger voting clout.

But I prefer to get back to what passes for mince pies in this place.


Merry Xmas to all.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

No, racial is more about other races, like most of the migrants, but from your protest I take it you like Germans. Good for you - all Europeans together then.

You seem to be implying though that Germany is forcing its will on Europe, a favourite assertion of anti EU argumentation. Is that what you think?

I should really look up the voting mechanisms in the EU, with some votes all countries can veto a decision, in others, Majority Voting I think it's called, countries are assigned voting rights according to their population. Perhaps we need more immigrants so we can get a larger voting clout.

But I prefer to get back to what passes for mince pies in this place.


Merry Xmas to all.

when germany announced to the world that they would take all syria people , there was NO VOTE or opportunity for other countries to take a view: reality was made that day.
The Germany said they didn't want them all and all other sengren countries must share the burden.


NO MAJORITY VOTING

What part of that don't you understand?

BobQ

Generali wrote: »

The polls are looking very strongly in favour of staying in and people do like to vote with the status quo.

Not sure that is the case. Poll of Polls suggest 56:44 but that is still close.

However they are currently trending in the right direction.

http://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-polls/poll-of-polls/

vivatifosi

chris_m wrote: »

Poor choice of subject line there. I initially read it as "and the biggest threat to the UK economy in 2016 is... vivatifosi" and wondered what they'd done to deserve that

:rotfl:

They must have heard that if I got into power I'd put tax on Jimmy Choos at zero as they are an essential item;). I know Mrs McT will vote for me, even if nobody else does.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

when germany announced to the world that they would take all syria people , there was NO VOTE or opportunity for other countries to take a view: reality was made that day.
The Germany said they didn't want them all and all other sengren countries must share the burden.


NO MAJORITY VOTING

What part of that don't you understand?

What I do understand or rather recognise is that the line of knuckle dragging Dad's Amy view of the world where the villains of a war 70 years in the past are still regarded as alive and well and plotting to rule Europe and us with it.

I fail to understand any logic in your assertion that somehow Germany ordered the rest of Europe to follow her instructions on the migrant issue. I can see a principled stand for a certain approach to migrants/asylum seekers, by Germany, which I happen to disagree with, but not the scenario you are pretending has happened.

I don't happen to agree that Germany is the biggest threat to the UK's economy, the biggest threats are in our own hands, in whether Scotland is tricked into another referendum and ends up screwing up its own economy and damaging ours in the process, or whether the UK population at large are similarly tricked into voting for Brexit by some comic book nonsense about wicked foreigners of one type of another.

Sapphire

.string. wrote: »

What I do understand or rather recognise is that the line of knuckle dragging Dad's Amy view of the world where the villains of a war 70 years in the past are still regarded as alive and well and plotting to rule Europe and us with it.

I fail to understand any logic in your assertion that somehow Germany ordered the rest of Europe to follow her instructions on the migrant issue. I can see a principled stand for a certain approach to migrants/asylum seekers, by Germany, which I happen to disagree with, but not the scenario you are pretending has happened.

I don't happen to agree that Germany is the biggest threat to the UK's economy, the biggest threats are in our own hands, in whether Scotland is tricked into another referendum and ends up screwing up its own economy and damaging ours in the process, or whether the UK population at large are similarly tricked into voting for Brexit by some comic book nonsense about wicked foreigners of one type of another.

Carry on with your rosy-eyed view of the world – no doubt you'll still be doing so when Britain's culture (not to mention its economy, in very short order) is overwhelmed by people with a medieval outlook that does not change (it'll happen comic-book style, of course, as shown in ISIS videos). Well done.

You see, that's the trouble. Britain has never experienced invasion, as, say, Poland did by Germany and Russia in the Second World War. Had it done so, I doubt whether there would have been many people in this country holding your 'liberal lefty-type views', according to which anyone who does not want their culture destroyed by the 'deserving' millions from the Middle East and Africa, is a 'racist' or a 'bigot'.

With regard to Merkel's actions, she certainly did impose the illegal migrant issue onto Europe without other European countries' consent, with very bad consequences for other countries in Europe (especially those through which the migrants passed). She invited Syrians to come – and at some time that morphed into Syrians, Afghans and Iraqis – though we now see people from sub-Saharan Africa, Pakistan and other places illegally breaking into Europe. None of them are ejected from Europe, encouraging millions more to come. These people are mainly healthy young men, who clearly express why they are coming to Europe – they expect to be given housing, education, girls and so on for free, and have even said so.

The 'liberal' press in this country has cynically focused on children that are being used by these healthy young men (held up in the air and so on) to try and get themselves into Europe and elicit sympathy. Meanwhile that same press does little to report what has happened to European countries that have taken in many Muslim migrants, like Sweden, where there have been numerous rapes and other crimes committed by migrants, where these people have been foisted onto small villages and so on.

I also don't think 'Germany is the biggest threat to Britain's economy'. Did anyone say that? However, allowing millions of people to settle in Britain, especially when they have nothing to offer, when there aren't enough jobs and housing for the indigenous population, when the NHS does not have nearly enough capacity to care for its own, when taxpayers cannot be asked to fund more than a very small proportion of people who cannot fund themselves – not to mention the security question, which I do believe exists – is crass stupidity and asking for enormous problems in the near and distant future.

For myself, I'd like to avoid the above scenario as much as possible. I also don't agree with 'ever-closer integration' into a bloc run by Germany, which also attempts to do things like bullying weaker countries into accepting migrants, when they have never colonised anyone (but have been colonised themselves), are overwhelmingly Christian, don't have any experience of peoples from the Middle East and Africa, and don't wish to have. And the issue of free movement of people is a problem, especially if/when the migrants that Germany is accepting obtain passports and will be able roam around Europe as they please. That's why I'll be voting for 'out'.

As I said before, if Scotland wants to leave the UK, fine, it should do so, and join the EU and take the Euro when it does so – good luck to the Scots in this respect. I used to like the Scots, but am thoroughly sick of their sectarianism and demands from British taxpayers.