How will leaving the EU affect the UK housing market?

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

If it's such an integral part of EU membership, and only leaving the EU can stop it, how come 23 of the 28 EU countries DON'T allow it?
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/288
^ Yes, that's from MigrationWatch - the anti-migration lobby group. Hardly the most Europhilic of groups, I'm sure you'll agree...

I never said it was an integral part of EU membership. For me the key thing with remaining a member of the EU is: What is the limit in numbers of countries allowed to join?. With every new member who joins the EU the UK's influence diminishes.

A question for you Adrian:

Name me a single affluent country that has joined the EU within the past 15 years or one that intends to join the EU in the future?. The fact is the affluent countries are expected to pay more and more in each year and the money to be handed out to more and more begging bowls. Please don't mention how in the 1970's the UK was the "Poor man of Europe" and how we were supported by the EU. just remember that in those 43 years of membership the UK has been a net contributor to the EU for 42 of those 43 years.IIRC 1974 was the only year we received more from the EU than we contributed.

From what I see its always poor countries wanting to join for the obvious reasons of getting EU subsidies and investment.

Poland joined in 2004 and between 2004-2020 they will have received more money than was spent post WW2 to rebuild the whole of Europe. Then when they were asked to play their part in the EU and take their fair share of migrants they told the EU to f*** off as did the other Eastern European states.

And that just shows that you understand neither the role of an MEP nor the role of the House of Lords.

Can you explain?.

Miss_Samantha

leveller2911 wrote: »

Name me a single affluent country that has joined the EU within the past 15 years or one that intends to join the EU in the future?

Because the 'affluent' european countries are either founding members or joined long ago...

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

Because it doesn't suit the vested interests of those doing all the shouting about it.

You mean the current UK govt?. They are the ones who have the power (allegedly)

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

No.



Except you forget one thing - the deal offered at the second referendum was different - abortion, always a hot-button in Ireland, was excluded from the Treaty, as well as other changes.

So the Irish Public voted "No" so the Irish Govt/EU change the question asked and tells the Irish population to "vote again".......

So if the UK public votes to remain in the EU I look forward to a 2nd referendum based on a "slightly" different question posed........

I'm cool with that Ade..;) But are either of the above good for democracy?.Telling the public to vote again until they vote for the right answer.

leveller2911

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Because the 'affluent' european countries are either founding members or joined long ago...

So there isn't a single affluent country left in Europe who wants to join.. There is a limited EU budget to go round so you can't see a problem with that?... ie: supposedly wealthy countries being asked to pay for the neverending queue of poor countries looking to join?..

I ask again as a Pro EU voter can you tell me where is the limit of EU expansion?. Ukraine,Turkey already looking to join who next?.

Otherwise you are voting for a huge leap in the dark in the same way the Brexiters are.

The EU could have worked but in 2004 they made a fatal decision to allow Eastern European countries to join and there is no sign of the end. The whole idea of the EU was to have a peaceful Europe of equals but we have had neither equality or peace (Balkans war,Ukraine).

Oh and before anyone posts "The EU has prevented a European war" they haven't ,peace has been kept by NATO.

AdrianC

leveller2911 wrote: »

I never said it was an integral part of EU membership.

Great. So you accept that it's actually just a UK decision to do child benefit that way, and nothing whatsoever to do with the EU? That the UK could change it any time, IF the political will was there?

For me the key thing with remaining a member of the EU is: What is the limit in numbers of countries allowed to join?

There isn't one. BUT every single new applicant needs the approval of every single member.

A question for you Adrian:

Name me a single affluent country that has joined the EU within the past 15 years or one that intends to join the EU in the future?

Let me answer that by turning it round.
At the start of that period, which affluent European countries weren't already a member...?

If the period had been a little longer, then Austria, Sweden and Finland joined in 1995, the last round of accession before 2004.

Poland joined in 2004 and between 2004-2020 they will have received more money than was spent post WW2 to rebuild the whole of Europe.

Are you adjusting that figure for inflation...?

I can't easily find a figure for the TOTAL reconstruction costs, but the US Marshall Plan alone spent about $13bn at 1945 rates. Using UK inflation figures, that would be $515bn. Poland has received about €100bn so far, and is earmarked for about the same again - so about 40% of just the Marshall Plan cost, ignoring the huge costs on every other country in rebuilding post-war Europe.

Except, of course, those Polish figures are gross, rather than net of Poland's payments into the EU. Take 2010 alone - Poland received €11.8bn, but paid in €3.3bn, for a net receipt of €8.5bn, about €230/person. The UK paid out €12.1bn, but received back €6.7bn, for a net cost of €5.4bn, about €90/person.

Then when they were asked to play their part in the EU and take their fair share of migrants they told the EU to f*** off as did the other Eastern European states.

Will you PLEASE stop conflating Schengen and the EU? The first time or two, it's possible that you didn't know or understand the difference. I can only assume that you are now doing it deliberately.

AdrianC

leveller2911 wrote: »

You mean the current UK govt?. They are the ones who have the power (allegedly)

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

Great. So you accept that it's actually just a UK decision to do child benefit that way, and nothing whatsoever to do with the EU? That the UK could change it any time, IF the political will was there?

No I don't accept it. The UK govt is not allowed to discriminate against EU migrants.........

There isn't one. BUT every single new applicant needs the approval of every single member.

Absolutely and just because France currently doesn't like the idea of Turkey joining there is a lot of deals going on behind the scenes that we don't know about.

The deal that Cameron came back from europe with also needs the approval of every single member so its quite possible it won't ever be implemented.........

True or false?



Let me answer that by turning it round.
At the start of that period, which affluent European countries weren't already a member...?

If the period had been a little longer, then Austria, Sweden and Finland joined in 1995, the last round of accession before 2004.



Are you adjusting that figure for inflation...?

I can't easily find a figure for the TOTAL reconstruction costs, but the US Marshall Plan alone spent about $13bn at 1945 rates. Using UK inflation figures, that would be $515bn. Poland has received about €100bn so far, and is earmarked for about the same again - so about 40% of just the Marshall Plan cost, ignoring the huge costs on every other country in rebuilding post-war Europe.

Except, of course, those Polish figures are gross, rather than net of Poland's payments into the EU. Take 2010 alone - Poland received €11.8bn, but paid in €3.3bn, for a net receipt of €8.5bn, about €230/person. The UK paid out €12.1bn, but received back €6.7bn, for a net cost of €5.4bn, about €90/person.

There was a link posted on the discussion thread a while ago showing all of the data so I will have a look and see if I can find it and post the link.

Will you PLEASE stop conflating Schengen and the EU? The first time or two, it's possible that you didn't know or understand the difference. I can only assume that you are now doing it deliberately.

I am fully aware of what the Schengen Zone is and that we didn't sign up to Schengen and also what the EU is so how have I conflated the two?. Maybe you are getting confused with my posts so quote my conflation and I will be happy to clarify.

Marktheshark

You will not see it in any papers or on any news, because they are owned by those involved.
However in Towns up and down the UK coaches pick up hired by the day labour from migrant workers to be driven in to sweatshops up and down the country.
Many owned by those with connections and donators to political parties.
Billionaires sit exploiting these desperate people and those exploiting them sit thinking of ways to undercut and exploit them even further.
Minimum wage for 23 hours for six days a week, 6.30 am until 9-30 pm.
Say anything and they fired.

leveller2911

AdrianC wrote: »

Great.


Let me answer that by turning it round.
At the start of that period, which affluent European countries weren't already a member...?

If the period had been a little longer, then Austria, Sweden and Finland joined in 1995, the last round of accession before 2004.

But I wasn't asking you that was I. I asked what affluent country has joined since 2004 or intends to join in the future?.......

You just side stepped my question because the answer is there are no affluent countries intending to join the EU so the EU will enlarge in the future with only poor countries joining and as Europe hasn't reformed the EU economy will stagnate and the likes of the UK will end up paying more and more money into a failing project.

the rich and the affluent middle class in the UK love the EU .Where else will they get their endless supply of cheap labour and where Tabatha and Tarquin can keep on paying £1-75 for a Latte at Star bucks.

The poor and working class who have seen their wages suppressed by immigration , longer queues at the local NHS hospital (not all down to immigration admittedly) and also the increased pressures on housing and schools don't benefit from EU membership.