Immigrant numbers into Greece are 100,000 already this year, first two months of 2015 they where 4,000. Belgium has reintroduced border controls as they are worried with Calais/Jungle being dismanteled immigrants will try and cross into Belgium (French TV reporting). No signs of the EU being able to deal this issue
plan B for Leave in the event of no trade deal is to apply same import duties as does the EU and we end up with say £10bn pa more tax revenue than we pay as we run a trade deficit
True that the EU certainly wont turn to cheaper EU suppliers they will just pay more for ours and trade will be exactly the same as now and we will be quids in.
#jambyfact
o signs of the EU being able to deal this issue
Any suggestions on what they'd do? These people are refugees. They're heading to the EU for a reason.
Refugees?
Why does the leave camp place such a stress on "them"? Who is them, the enemy? Or our trading partners and allies? Grayling almost spat the word out last night on TV.
And why the fear of [s]Losing[/s] Pooling Sovereignty? We do it all the time in all aspects of life? Its part of growing up and acting maturly. And we benefit from it, which helps too.
So basically this was good
[img] 
[/img]
but this is bad
[img] 
[/img]
jambalaya - Member
Immigrant numbers into Greece are 100,000 already this year, first two months of 2015 they where 4,000. Belgium has reintroduced border controls as they are worried with Calais/Jungle being dismanteled immigrants will try and cross into Belgium (French TV reporting). No signs of the EU being able to deal this issue
Considering countries around the world are taking refugees from Syria it's not an EU issue it's a world issue. The UK can't excuse itself morally from the situation by leaving the EU.
Any suggestions on what they'd do? These people are refugees. They're heading to the EU for a reason.
They're not all refugees though are they? Of course, life would be easy if everyone who claimed asylum/refugee status actually was a refugee rather than an economic migrant, but in fact even Germany, Sweden, France etc. end up rejecting about 50% of applications.
The UK can't excuse itself morally from the situation by leaving the EU.
Whoever suggested we wanted to? Britain has a long and honourable history of taking in genuine refugees, however there are very strong arguments about why we should only take refugees who had been vetted and approved through the EU refugee camps and assessment system in the region rather than just accepting anyone who pitches up over the EU border.
Sounds like a good reason not to leave to me.
Whatever the UK's history the current policy is avoid/reject/hide
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-migrants-scorecard-20150908-story.html
UK 20,000 By 2020
Lebanon Population 4.5 Million - Taken 1.5 million
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/09/world/welcome-syrian-refugees-countries/
Way down the list
Typo, should read the UN.vetted and approved through the EU refugee camps and assessment system
😆Whoever suggested we wanted to? Britain has a long and honourable history of taking in genuine refugees,
Which part would you like to suggest is untrue Junky?
Given the duration of the topic, this may already have been covered - but have we touched on the UK's dependance on financial migrants versus the undeniable illegality of, ermmm, illegal migrants? I only ask because I fear that the latter get confused with the former, and no-one condones the latter.
Also on the great history on refugees...
Past performance is no guarantee of future returns.
Britain has a long and dishonourable history of creating genuine refugees
QFT
however there are very strong arguments about why we should only take refugees who had been vetted and approved through the EU refugee camps and assessment system
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of refugees are arriving on the shores. What should we do with them?
Britain is the second largest donor to Syrian refugee support after the US. It is very clear that has been the best way to provide humantiarian support. Refugees and the immigrant crises are a PERFECT example of the failings of the EU as a body to unable to make decisions, manage a crises or apply rules
Schengen was a decent idea in its original form (eg France, Belgium, Holland, Lux) its morphed into a disaster obvious to the UK as we opted out but not kt seems to the EU. Currently effectively suspended by a number of countries. schengen is a central pillar fnthe EU and a dogs breakfast
Migrant crises. Even Merkel and otherwise very thoughtful keadsr made theiodiotic promise to accept all Syrians who arrived legally (see next point). She did this unilaterally and made the crises worse and pit a huge burden on other EU states as a result.
Obeying the rules. So many examples where EU members just don't follow the rules. The EU has a shicking record in enforcing its own rules. With regard to kigrnats the safeguards in the Dublin Agreement are just ignored in so many cases.
On the trade negotiations as noted by others numerous times the importance of the EU to the UK as an export market is overstated by the Rotterdamn effect. Secondly in the event of a Leave vote the negotiations will take place against the backdrop of an economically weak EU, a likley Greek debt default and the refugee crises. That's not a scenario where the EU is going to cut off its nose to spite its face.
however there are very strong arguments about why we should only take refugees who had been vetted and approved through the EU refugee camps and assessment system
There is no argument at all, we have agreed to take refugees vetted by the UN direct from camps in the region. Start and end of it.
@mike the key differemce with the Empire is we where in charge, it wasn't perfect but it worked.
Countires around the world aren't taking refugees. How many are the Gulf states taking ? How many are Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia taking - answer none they are actually providing refugees. 5000 refused asylum seekers in Germany alone in first 6 months of 2015 and onky 35 deported as thise countries refuse to take them back. Germany the supposed leader of Europe.
The refugee crises began with the boat loads of people from sub-Saharan Africa coming via Libya whixh the EU totally failed to deal with cutting thenfunding for the patrols and recovery programme and leaving Italy to handle it alone. Absolutely totally mishandled.
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of refugees are arriving on the shores. What should we do with them?
Put them on an island, or in a big processing camp, while we establish the veracity of their application and background - this would also enable us to offer them dedicated and professional services such as the vitally important medical and trauma counselling that genuine refugees are likely to need, alongside language and familiarisation classes to help them cope with the transition to their new home and it's culture.
It's got to be better than shoving them in hotels and b&b's with no support services, and letting the dodgy ones, criminals and failed applicants just wander off into the black economy.
. Agreed, and rightly so - but personally I think that the UK should go a step further and [i]only[/i] accept Syrian refugees from there, to ensure there was no role for the people traffickers and dissuade people from unsafe sea crossings.There is no argument at all, we have agreed to take refugees vetted by the UN direct from camps in the region. Start and end of it.
Check the cnn link, got numbers for Iraq, Egypt and many more. I think Australia are taking as many as the UK plan to.
Jordan: 629,000Jordan provides shelter to a large number of refugees from Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan, but Syrians constitute the majority of Jordan's refugee population, the United Nations says.
Egypt: 132,000Egypt rounds out this look at how the Mideast hosts most of the Syrian refugees.
No refugees live in camps there.
In fact, Egyptian billionaire Naguib Sawiris, one of the region's wealthiest men, has offered to buy an island for refugees. He would like to buy an isle from Greece or Italy. His name for the proposed island home: Hope.
The empire worked well if you were an English man from a good family... Not so well for the natives.
Jambalaya, you are priceless
How many indigenous people did the empire kil?, estimates are between 10 & 30 million iirc
It was founded of the backs of slaves !
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-the-truth-our-empire-killed-millions-404631.htmlhttp://abolition.e2bn.org/slavery_45.html
It is very clear that has been the best way to provide humantiarian support.
How, the humanitarian crisis is getting worse and neighbouring countries are struggling more that EU?
Schengen was a decent idea in its original form (eg France, Belgium, Holland, Lux) its morphed into a disaster obvious to the UK as we opted out but not kt seems to the EU.
Why a disaster? People have been able to migrate solving labour shortages in EU and addressing lack of labour demand in others. That has been a good thing.
Migration has also benefited the UK.
..and pit a huge burden on other EU states as a result.
Huge, really? Some perspective required both on numbers and "burden"...
On the trade...
...John Kay in FT today is correct, stats will be misused and abused. But I do like his conclusion
The EU has reduced barriers to trade in goods; for most services, however, the single market remains an aspiration rather than reality. If there is an issue to be raised around trade in the referendum debate, this should be it.
We want more trade not less.
Put them on an island
You mean an island like, say, Britain? Or are only other peoples' islands eligible?
Britain isn't an island
If that's your biggest flaw ninfan then I reckon the plans a decent one...
Britain isn't an island
You're right. My mistake. Phew!! Now we're off the hook!!
Britain isn't an island
Every day's a school day, eh?
Rotterdam effect:
"The Rotterdam effect
It has been claimed that the importance of the UK’s trade with the EU is exaggerated by “the Rotterdam effect”. This refers to the fact that the UK does a large amount of trade with the Netherlands.4 It has been argued that some of this trade may ultimately be with countries outside the EU, for example if UK goods are shipped to China via Rotterdam. If this is the case, and some of the goods bound eventually for China are recorded as exports to the Netherlands, the volume of UK trade with the EU will be overstated. However, if trade with the Netherlands is ultimately with another EU member state, the volume of trade with the EU will not be affected. An article published by the ONS explains the Rotterdam effect as follows:
The Rotterdam effect is the theory that trade in goods with the Netherlands is artificially inflated by those goods dispatched from or arriving in Rotterdam despite the ultimate destination or country of origin being located elsewhere.
Some commentators feel that the Rotterdam effect distorts the UK’s trade relationship with EU and non-EU countries. For example, oil exported from Saudi Arabia to Rotterdam and re-exported to the UK (possibly without processing) may be counted as an EU import rather than a non-EU import. Conversely, a product exported by the UK to Rotterdam and subsequently transited to a non-EU country may be counted as an export to the EU rather than the rest of the world.5
The ONS has said that the scale of this effect is unknown. It published 2013 estimates assuming that either 50% or 100% of recorded UK trade in goods with the Netherlands should be excluded from the EU total." PAGE 6
&
"This shows that if all goods trade with the Netherlands is counted as EU trade, then 49.7% of UK exports went to the EU and 54.1% of imports came from the EU in 2014. If, to take an extreme assumption, all trade with the Netherlands is excluded from the EU total, these figures fall to 42.1% for exports and 46.2% for imports. If 50% of trade with the Netherlands is excluded, the figures are 45.9% for exports and 50.1% for imports. This 50% assumption is described by ONS as “perhaps a more realistic assumption” but also “perhaps towards the top end of the range” PAGE 6
&
"Even if all trade with the Netherlands were excluded, the EU would still account for 42% of goods exports and 46% of goods imports." PAGE 1
Source: [url= http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN06091 ]HOUSE OF COMMONS RESEARCH PAPER EU/UK ECONOMICS, page 1, 6[/url]
Not quite the effect Jamba thinks it is?..
Terrorists and the broader criminal community have freedom of movement throughout Europe. This was absolutely poven in the Paris attacks last year. Freedom of movement for work is a seperate issue to not having to show your passport at the border. The (vast) majority of our positive experiemce of migration is based on controlled migration we've had with the rest of the world. Also even the EU migrants who've had a positive imoact would almost certainly been given a work visa if they had had to apply for one.
Just to reiterate a remind people it was the EU in Brussels which cut the funding for the Mediterranean sea based patrol/rescue operation.
Which part would you like to suggest is untrue Junky?
All the posts you made on here ever 😉
On the trade negotiations as noted by others numerous times the importance of the EU to the UK as an export market is overstated by the Rotterdamn effect.
ONS link already provided for you to ignore - cited in great detail above for you to ignore.
The only one overstating anything are the outers who think that mentioning the rotterdam effect somehow changes it from us being massively more reliant on them than we are on them. Its just not true
the key differemce with the Empire is we where in charge, it wasn't perfect but it worked
So where the EU has gone wrong is not in using slavery and imposing it wills by military force on a subjugated people - this is what is stopping you supporting them?. The EU clearly works it is not collapsing ...FFS hyperbole off the scale
As for work I think those who had the empire inflicted on them may well disagree with that assesment
Countires around the world aren't taking refugees. How many are the Gulf states taking ? How many are Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia taking
That is not even a jambyfact its either a lie or a sign of your ignorance. As you are so well read and massively informed i can only assume its the former
As Dr J said why do you keep repeating things that are factually incorrect?
Not quite the effect Jamba thinks it is?..
How can you say that when even the article you cut and pasted says that the scale of the effect is unknown?
@ Junky
[IMG]All the posts you made on here ever
[/IMG]
t was the EU in Brussels which cut the funding for the Mediterranean sea based patrol/rescue operation.
The one the UK refused to fund?
I dont think that claim is true the Itlaians stopped doing Mare Nostrum as it was too expensive for one state then the EU funded Operation Trident [ at less] and then increased it.
Operation Triton [funders]are Croatia, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Austria, Switzerland, Romania, Poland, Lithuania and Malta.
Finally
On 23 April a 5-hour emergency summit was held and EU heads of state agreed to triple the budget of Operation Triton to €120 million for 2015-2016
STW might as well autocorrect your posts to say Jamby said somethign that was not true and save us all some time. 🙄
MrL you are ignoring that whilst its called the Roterdamn effect it applies to to all EU ports/distribution channels not just Holland. Even removing only Holland it changes the results by 16% (1-42/50). See all my other points, the EU looses one of its most affluent (second only to Germany) members. Look at the trade between Germany and UK I posted in the chart.
You cannot ignore the background in the coming 2 years where the Greek/euro crises is going to reach heights/depths which will make the last round look like a village fete. Add to that elections in France (Front Nationale to run off against UMP with PS excluded ?) and Germany in 2017.
We have in Germany citizens obstructing the fire brigade trying to put out a fire (deliberately started) which destroyed a building due to open as a refugee centre. In Calais yiu've riot police regularly deployed against the illegal migrant camps. They have totally mismanaged the situation
As Dr J said why do you keep repeating things that are factually incorrect?
I'd like to propose to jamby that he does a little experiment -
next time you post, please check every statement you make as if you were presenting a paper for peer review, or for a legal process, or whatever. This need not be onerous - for example I just googled "syrian refugees tunisia" and the very first link refuted your claim ( http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e486166.html).
If you can get into the habit of only posting verifiable facts I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the reaction of readers.
How can you say that when even the article you cut and pasted says that the scale of the effect is unknown?
Very easily.
I've provided a detailed explanation of what it is, yet Jamba failed to say anything at all about it......only to hint that it was significant by virtue of noting it.
I have shown that the effect is unknown & even in a worst case scenario the EU remains the Uk's single biggest trading partner.
Something Jamba was hinting at wouldn't be the case if the Rotterdam effect was valid.
Even removing only Holland it changes the results by 16%
Where do you get this figure from? The ONS states it's more likely to be closer to 8%..
How can you say that when even the article you cut and pasted says that the scale of the effect is unknown?
Disappointed, ninfan - usually you are smarter than this. The article says that the scale is unknown but even its maximum possible effect is not that big.
ONS:
[i]The port of Rotterdam is not unique in acting as a ‘gateway’ for other countries; it is accurate to say that this form of trading can occur in almost any place. For example, goods arriving in France from China could, after clearing customs, be distributed to other EU member states and potentially be recorded as imports from France[/i]
Even if your argument was correct, it would mean that despite being a lonely island off the coast of Europe, as part of the free market, over half our export trade is 'rest of world' - given our location, that's spectacular, and shows just why we shouldn't be limited in our thinking to believe that Europe is the answer to our problems, or that we couldn't do better off outside it.
jambalaya - Member@mike the key differemce with the Empire is we where in charge, it wasn't perfect but it worked.
Best #jambyfact ever. If Millions of deaths "isn't perfect" what is "bad?" mass extinction?
Hitchens' razor is an epistemological razor which asserts that the burden of proof in a debate (the onus) lies with whoever makes the (greater) claim; if this burden is not then met, the claim is unfounded and its opponents do not need to argue against it. It is named, echoing Occam's razor, for the journalist and writer Christopher Hitchens, who, in 2003, formulated it thus:[1][2] "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor
Where do you get this figure from?
As usual he just made it up- I hope he does an appeal to his own authority to justify it. They are always my favourite...oh go on will you tell us how awesome and well read you are again?
Clearly this thread is showing that to be true.
I like that DrJ - that's rather brilliant. I shall need to remember it.
I'd just like to say that all this is a side show. What's needed is a Free Yorkshire! we need a referendum on remaining in the EU for Yorkshire (Hull and Yarm included). We could then form a Yorkshire Economic Community that for a small fee other areas could become members of. The Netherlands would be welcome as they pride themselves in being right tight buggers as would Scotland (Especially Aberdonions).
Even if your argument was correct, it would mean that despite being a lonely island off the coast of Europe, as part of the free market, over half our export trade is 'rest of world' - given our location, that's spectacular, and shows just why we shouldn't be limited in our thinking to believe that Europe is the answer to our problems, or that we couldn't do better off outside it.
I'm not denying that - all I'm saying is we need to carefully consider whether we want to willingly increase trade barriers to one of our biggest markets..
[i]Terrorists and the broader criminal community have freedom of movement throughout Europe. This was absolutely poven in the Paris attacks last year. Freedom of movement for work is a seperate issue to not having to show your passport at the border.[/i]
Anyone remember what it was like before they lifted the border checks? I do, absolute PITA for everyone, all the time.
I read David Charters' "Au Revoir Europe" a couple of summers ago. Still a good read. Some bites (tried to be balanced but not succeeded)
The EU adopted a bold plan called the Lisbon Agenda which aimed to ‘make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’.5 The strategy was ‘designed to enable the Union to regain the conditions for full employment’
OK, so not a good start!
Instead of consolidating its considerable achievements, the EU over-reached itself. And here we get to one of the fundamental irritations that many in Britain have with the whole project
Very true IMO
The actual point of departure will come when the eurozone countries press on to create the ‘real European Union’, leaving the non-euro nations with a choice. They will have to commit to adopting the single currency and join the real EU, devise a comfortable form of second-tier membership or withdraw altogether
Exactly. But we are being sidetracked from the proper discussion of option (2)
To get the single market that Britain coveted, Thatcher would have to consent to a whole raft of European social and political powers that were shovelled into the new treaty. The momentum towards ‘ever closer union’ was back. Although angry at what she saw as the Italian betrayal, Thatcher went along with the treaty as the price of progress. That was because the Single European Act set out the conditions for creating ‘the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital’ – the so-called four freedoms – by the end of 1992. This was the part of the treaty that Thatcher approved of, although Europe is still waiting for the completion of this goal, most notably in services such as banking, healthcare, insurance, maintenance and training.
Can't forget a largely absent friend's poster girl!
The potent combination of the single market, QMV and Margaret Thatcher kick-started some spectacular commercial successes taken very much for granted by consumers today. In May 2012, a leading eurosceptic commentator wrote: ‘Mine was the generation that was taught that Europe would be our oyster in a post-Soviet world. And it came to pass – not thanks to the European Union but to 1p Ryanair flights, email and text messages.’30 Yet the first of these owes its existence entirely to the EU, thanks to air transport liberalisation measures taken through the single market between 1987 and 1992, while the third has been facilitated by Brussels using its powers to limit the cost of texting. Before EU intervention, it was impossible for private airline companies to offer cheap flights between European countries because of the carefully guarded and price-controlled monopolies of national flag-carriers. Ryanair is a case in point, as it was only able to start flights from Ireland to the UK under the EU’s market-opening ‘double disapproval’ regime, which stated that the governments of both countries had to object to prevent the service. The Irish government refused permission in order to protect Aer Lingus, but Ryanair got the go-ahead from the Thatcher government. It is now Europe’s largest low-cost carrier.
and on Turkey
Turkey, if it finally joins. With its population of more than seventy-four million people, and the second-largest army in NATO behind the USA, Turkey would easily become the second-largest EU nation. Its population is forecast to overtake that of Germany, currently the largest member, by 2020, which would give it the most MEPs and the biggest voting weight in the European Council.181 The population of Turkey is forecast to reach 97.8 million by 2050, compared to 79.1 million for Germany and 66.2 million for the UK. 182 Turkey would extend the EU’s borders to Syria, Iraq and Iran. It would also be the member state with the youngest age profile, given that more than a quarter of its population is under fifteen. The centre of EU activity would move dramatically eastwards.
and finally some food for thought
To a europhile, these demographic changes provide even more reason to stick together in the EU. Europeans will only have real clout on the world stage as a coherent bloc. To a eurosceptic, they suggest that Europe’s importance as a trading partner for the UK will be even less promising in future than during the ‘lost decade’ being discussed as a result of the euro crisis. If Britain were to leave the EU, its first port of call would be the so-called Anglosphere (basically, the Commonwealth plus the USA). And this brings us back to the old question of whether the Commonwealth is simply a sepia-tinted relic or something with genuine modern-day economic potential.
a good read - these are just some of my kindle highlights. Apologies for the long post!!