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

kabayiri

What's the long term plan if we stay in the EU?

All I can see for the coming years is the EU directing all it's financial resources Eastwards.

What have they spent on Poland in the last decade : 300bn Euros isn't it? How many more hundreds of billions of Euros do they intend to spend ?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

Indeed it does. How then can you object to some people coming here and possibly changing our culture? After all did we not spend couple of centuries interfering in the cultures of a quarter of the globe? We of course did this as a force for good as we divided and ruled the Empire, while the johnny foreigners coming here today are doing so much harm.

I appreciate your arguments on the facts of our EU relationship (although I do not agree with them), but they are not helped by your implicit racial views.

seems a rather bizarre logic

the lessons of history are mainly that is it best to resist the foreign hoards

-were the celts better off when the anglo saxons pushed then out of England?

-were the american indians better off when the Europeans pushed then onto the reservations?

-were the Anglo saxons better off for the Norman invasions

-are the aboriginals better off for the white arrivals.

-would Russia have been better off if the Nazi had won

-would we be better off if we had lost the battle of Britain?

-do the 'Yugoslavs' celebrate the cultural diversity that was the Balkans just so recently

Whilst my own resistance to further un-necesary population increase, is based on self interest of the existing inhabitants of the UK, I do indeed hold that my cultural preferences are superior to many others : I have no problems about making value judgements about disagreeing with killing gay people, against FGM, about freedom to practice any religion (or none), being against killing witches, forced marriages and many other things.

.string.

Sapphire wrote: »

No, you shouldn't be scared of her – she is European (presumably).

To quote from your other post:

'I wrote that because almost all the argumentation about migration from the leave side of the argument would have us believe that we are being swamped by ISIS loonies from Non-EU countries and that this would be solved by leaving the EU, which is simply not true, not least because we already have autonomy of action on such migrants.

... Or, indeed, some scary stuff about a Fourth Reich'

The reason why many people are fearful of the huge influx of migrants from outside Europe is precisely because ISIS promised to import many of its loonies among the migrants (and has probably done so). I don't know how much autonomy of action we actually have when it comes to such migrants. There are people being illegally smuggled into Britain, and the government does not seem to keep track of them, or deport them when they are found. And why have these people (many of them from places like Africa and Pakistan, as well as the Middle East) been allowed to enter Europe illegally in the first place, and moreover to travel right across Europe? Why have they not already been deported, when they threaten lorry drivers with machetes and knives?

As for the remark about 'a Fourth Reich', I do not know what you are talking about – but coming from a background where Germany imposed great suffering on my immediate family (who were Slavs, incidentally), I find the flippancy surrounding such remarks, and saying such things as 'the past is the past' to people who bear great scars, quite abhorrent.

But the non EU migration is nothing to do with the EU except that it introduces a filter. How do you imagine that leaving the EU will improve the situation any more than we are entitled to do at the moment.

Regarding flippant - yes I did exaggerate for effect in using the term Fourth Reich to get the point across but as for being flippant - I refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of vendettas that spread over generations. It was 70 years ago for Heavens sake! I worked for over 30 years with Germans, as people in industry, as colleagues, as bosses or people that worked for me and with personal friends and I can tell you that with only one exception they were all people that any of us could relate to and whose company we would all enjoy. None of them fought in the 2nd World War and I felt rather safe. You may find that strange, but it's the truth.

I worked also during that time with citizens of most European Countries and found little disagreeable from any, bar the odd garlic breath.

Rose tinted? No - Experience.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

seems a rather bizarre logic

the lessons of history are mainly that is it best to resist the foreign hoards

-were the celts better off when the anglo saxons pushed then out of England?

-were the american indians better off when the Europeans pushed then onto the reservations?

-were the Anglo saxons better off for the Norman invasions

-are the aboriginals better off for the white arrivals.

-would Russia have been better off if the Nazi had won

-would we be better off if we had lost the battle of Britain?

-do the 'Yugoslavs' celebrate the cultural diversity that was the Balkans just so recently

Whilst my own resistance to further un-necesary population increase, is based on self interest of the existing inhabitants of the UK, I do indeed hold that my cultural preferences are superior to many others : I have no problems about making value judgements about disagreeing with killing gay people, against FGM, about freedom to practice any religion (or none), being against killing witches, forced marriages and many other things.

A nice argumentation that had me puzzled until I remembered that we are not actually being invaded and that we (that is the German-descended Anglo Saxons) have benefited from the inclusion of polyglot immigrants over the ages which make us who we are today.

.string.

kabayiri wrote: »

What's the long term plan if we stay in the EU?

All I can see for the coming years is the EU directing all it's financial resources Eastwards.

What have they spent on Poland in the last decade : 300bn Euros isn't it? How many more hundreds of billions of Euros do they intend to spend ?

A good question, the answer will be somewhere in the EU documents but to be honest on this day my enthusiasm for poking my small tablet is starting to ebb.

But I did find this

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2012/01/26/EU27_Money.pdf

which shows the budget for as year. 2010 if I recall correctly.

Look for the comparison between what we pay per person and other countries, what our net (repeat net) contribution is ( another area of misinformation by UKIP)

Note that Luxemburg is distorted due to the small size and international organisations based there.

CLAPTON

.string. wrote: »

A nice argumentation that had me puzzled until I remembered that we are not actually being invaded and that we (that is the German-descended Anglo Saxons) have benefited from the inclusion of polyglot immigrants over the ages which make us who we are today.

My clear and present argument is that a smaller population is in the self interest of the people of the UK and a that many cultural alternatives and repugnant.

Not a point dependent on whether the increase is a forced invasion or not.

I doubt the peoples of the old Yugoslavia share your view of the merits of repeated invasions.
Of course the American Indians probably invite you over there on a regular basis to share your views.

BobQ

One of the issues that keeps being mentioned is the "we joined a free market not a European state", but this is very misleading. Even in 1973 we were joining more than that since we were signing up to things like harmonisation of taxes and we endorsed it by a referendum. Over time we have signed treaties that have modified this original objectives. These were not imposed on us we signed them in accordance with our UK democratic processes. These have had the effect of greater integration, commonality of law and regulation on some issues. All of which we signed up to.

Granted not all nations have in mind the same degree of integration and UK stands at one of the extremes. But those who want to leave the EU present this as if the rest of the EU conned us into the current position. In reality leaving the EU is saying that we disagree with the things we have agreed to do up until now and no longer wish to continue arguing our case. . While this is a credible position, I think that if we leave our relationship with the EU will be severely damaged to our disadvantage.

Rinoa

BobQ wrote: »

One of the issues that keeps being mentioned is the "we joined a free market not a European state", but this is very misleading. Even in 1973 we were joining more than that since we were signing up to things like harmonisation of taxes and we endorsed it by a referendum. Over time we have signed treaties that have modified this original objectives. These were not imposed on us we signed them in accordance with our UK democratic processes. These have had the effect of greater integration, commonality of law and regulation on some issues. All of which we signed up to.

Granted not all nations have in mind the same degree of integration and UK stands at one of the extremes. But those who want to leave the EU present this as if the rest of the EU conned us into the current position. In reality leaving the EU is saying that we disagree with the things we have agreed to do up until now and no longer wish to continue arguing our case. . While this is a credible position, I think that if we leave our relationship with the EU will be severely damaged to our disadvantage.

1973 was 42 years ago. Most of those who voted to join are no longer with us. None of the subsequent treaties were voted on.

Time to reassess our membership.

.string.

CLAPTON wrote: »

My clear and present argument is that a smaller population is in the self interest of the people of the UK and a that many cultural alternatives and repugnant.

Not a point dependent on whether the increase is a forced invasion or not.

I doubt the peoples of the old Yugoslavia share your view of the merits of repeated invasions.
Of course the American Indians probably invite you over there on a regular basis to share your views.

Then the solution is apparently very simple:

Refuse entryimmigrants who do not belong to the EU and pass a law banning more than 1 child per person.

But that's got nothing to do with the EU

... , and to be really sure about not diluting our Anglo Saxon culture, ban Christmas trees, Star Trek, any religion but C of E and French Cheeses.


Just how myopic do you want to get? Your choice.

BobQ

Rinoa wrote: »

1973 was 42 years ago. Most of those who voted to join are no longer with us. None of the subsequent treaties were voted on.

Time to reassess our membership.

Referendums are a relatively modern thing. Most people have not voted on all sorts of Treaties signed on their behalf by our Government. Most people have not voted on UN membership or joining NATO either.

Since in this case the Government has promised one we should of course hold one. Hopefully those who favour leaving understand the implications of the decision not just for our future but in terms of the complexities of disentangling the treaty obligations we have entered into in the past 42 years and remain committed to if we leave the EU.