[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

Nothing I have seen really breaks the rules however he is on the receiving end of a fair amount of flak and takes it well for which he can be commended.

Ah, the privilege card....

It's really post Maastricht and Lisbon that things have gone really bad, that plus the significant expansion which has caused the freedom of movement policy to break under the strain.

So your answer in the face of a problem is simply to walk away? Into nothing?

That's equivalent to simply getting in your car and driving off when your marriage hits difficulties.

I quite agree Captain - I merely commended him for taking the flak well rather than flouncing or going into attackmode or being unpleasant and snidy

😀

They voted the wrong way for some, shall we punish them by stopping their pensions? We need to fund them and the generations to follow will need to fund us (fingers crossed on that). What ever the figures say about OAP wealth at present, there are still a lot of proper poor old folk out there.

Here we have a VAST problem, the SO works in a care home, they have very few UK staff, the area i live in has very low unemployment for a starter. Remove expat workers and they will have insufficient staff even taking on agency staff is not really an option as most of them are also expats.

You could argue raise the salaries and get more staff that way. But if there are no unemployed those bodies have to come from somewhere, it also increases the costs of the elderly on the workers.

Throw in to the mix the fact that the UK birthrate is below replacement. There is a huge problem. The elderly now won't have to face the worst of it. It is those who voted remain who will suffer be the ones who are really shafted.

Yup, aging population means we need more immigrants, yet aging population also means political climate is more anti-immigrant.

I can't square that circle for you, sorry.

In some areas of the country less than 25% of the working population are net contributors, potentially if things don't go well they'll also be "benefit junkies".

Most of you are spongers:

"the top 40pc of households, ranked by earnings, carried the burden. The lower-earning 60pc are net beneficiaries of the system, taking more back in benefits than they contribute in the many forms of tax to which we are all subject.
The point at which a household switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000."

"the top 40pc of households, ranked by earnings, carried the burden. The lower-earning 60pc are net beneficiaries of the system, taking more back in benefits than they contribute in the many forms of tax to which we are all subject.
The point at which a household switches from being an overall “taker” to a “giver” is where disposable income, after all taxes and benefits are taken into account, passes a threshold of about £27,000, Smith & Williamson found. This would be where a household’s gross income fell somewhere between £35,000 and £38,000."

those figures have been disputed they also take no account of the fact that people's value to a society is much more than their financial contributions and end up costing the state much more if they werent doing them- eg street cleaners not there, rubbish piling up, disease epidemics, plague, pestilence etc

kelvin - Member
Yup, aging population means we need more immigrants, yet aging population also means political climate is more anti-immigrant.

I can't square that circle for you, sorry.

this is a sad irony of brexit

"they also take no account of the fact that people's value to a society is much more than their financial contributions"

I blame Thatcher.

TJ, thanks and I would say a fair interpretation, getting banned achieves little imo and I try and focus on the arguments and not the people.

Molgrips I am 100% committed to tariff free access to Europe just without EU membership inc freedom of movement, ECJ for anything except trade issues and no budget contribution, hardly walking away ? In fact to the contrary its looking gobally something the EU is very much against. Where I am realistic is that if the EU want to buggar around with political self preservation (ie jobs for the EU comission boys and (very very few) girls then I'll focus on growth and opportunity and just go WTO.

EDIT: I also see another side of the immigrant/refugee and indeed islamist terrorist argument and feel that Jamba would benefit massively by experiencing this (part of the real world) rather than spouting from what appears to be a priviledged, cossetted position.

Where I have lived and worked for most of the last 30 years it was 60% Remain. Pretty much anywhere else in the UK (ex Scotland) I would be experiencing a 55-60% Leave vote environment. As I have posted Scotland imo voted Remain for tactical Indy reasons.

I grew up in a council house in Tooting, Indian grandmother and many Indian relations, moved to Oz as a £10 POM, worked with global clients throughout my career and worked for one of the most ethically diverse organisations in the world with a multi national team.

I think that is why I am global in outlook and see the unattractiveness of an immigration system which basically favours Europeans over all other races and nationalities. If I was xenophobic then having an extra million white Christians (eg Poles) would be preferable no ?

As I have posted Scotland imo voted Remain for tactical Indy reasons

What? You now think 62% of scots now want independence? Give em another vote then, the people have spoken!

If I was xenophobic then having an extra million white Christians (eg Poles) would be preferable no ?

Xenophobic and racist do not mean the same thing. You can have a problem with "Poles", even if they share a skin tone with you. There is a big crossover between people who are racists and xenophobic, but you can be one with out being the other.

I think that is why I am global in outlook and see the unattractiveness of an immigration system which basically favours Europeans over all other races and nationalities.

And lots of people voted Leave because they also thought that our UK immigration rules are unfair to people from lots of other countries, but if they think UK immigration rules will change for the better because of the Leave vote they are deluded.

I'm wondering if the EU will soon be free to offer Mode 4 access to service sector workers in a FTA with India? UK is the main party trying to keep Indian workers out, no? Leave vote may well help more Indian workers carry out their trade in EU, but not UK. So, in that regard, the Leave vote may help some, but won't open up the UK in the slightest.

Lets be clear I have no issue with Poles. I have an issue of a million people net arriving in 10 years from one country. It's too many too quickly with integration issues not least for the UK population who where not ready for that, so yes partly our problem.

@metal no but it was instrumental in pushing the vote from 50/50 to 60/40 (imo). Scots also like the "EU keeping Westminster (ie English Tories) in check" argument.

[for clarity, by "for the better", I mean make it easier for more people to enter UK from non-EU countries]

As I have posted Scotland imo voted Remain for tactical Indy reasons.

As you've been told many times

[b]100% BOLLOCKS[/b]

I don't think you have a problem with "Poles", I think you want immigration decreased.
All this "unfair to non-EU immigrants" bullshit is just a disguise for wanting fewer immigrants.

Now, lots of other people voted Leave because they genuinely thought that it is because we are in the EU that the UK has overly restrictive immigration rules as regards the rest of the word. I genuinely feel for these people. They were conned.

@metal no but it was instrumental in pushing the vote from 50/50 to 60/40 (imo). Scots also like the "EU keeping Westminster (ie English Tories) in check" argument

And there was me thinking it was because we actually [i]wanted[/i] to stay in Europe. What an idiot I am. Glad you cleared it up for me...

Mind you I thought the Leavers only voted so because they wanted to keep out the [i]Untermensch[/i].... 😉

I know I'm one of few people that believe we should have more open immigration rules with ALL countries, but I'd like to point out the "numbers game" plays into the hands of the anti-immigrant hard right. Why? Because it makes people see people as a zero sum game… that allowing people from one country to work here necessitates stopping people form another country coming. That is only true if trying to find some "magic number" of immigrants (tens of thousands anyone) rather filling the posts that companies have with the right people to get things done.

Molgrips I am 100% committed to tariff free access to Europe just without EU membership inc freedom of movemen

You are aware that's having cake and eating it, yes?

If you really want tariff free trade you should've voted remain, as that is seriously in jeopardy now.

Yup, aging population means we need more immigrants, yet aging population also means political climate is more anti-immigrant.

Trying to solve the problem of an ageing population by increasing the population is by definition a Ponzi scheme. Where does that stop, when we get to 200 million people, 500m, a billion ?

You are aware that's having cake and eating it, yes?

If you really want tariff free trade you should've voted remain, as that is seriously in jeopardy now.

Well it's a win for the EU as the alternative is their goods are taxed €10bn more than ours. I can understand why the UK Govt think that's a possible outcome.

Free trade is far less important to me than sovereignty issues.

Trying to solve the problem of an ageing population by increasing the population is by definition a Ponzi scheme. Where does that stop, when we get to 200 million people, 500m, a billion

How very Logan's Run of you. 😉

PS - Sovereignty? Well we have that otherwise we would not be able to leave the EU club. What is it you actually mean by sovereignty? Traditionally it means parliament (our elected representatives) getting to exert its will. Now I will admit that has been in jeopardy since June 23rd.

Free trade is far less important to me than sovereignty issues.

Take me through the sovereignty issues?

Take me through the sovereignty issues?

People are the slaves of their nations, and shouldn't form supranational organisations to improve their lives.

Trying to solve the problem of an ageing population by increasing the population is by definition a Ponzi scheme.

So, you want old people to look after our old people, and the retired people to fund the services that other retired people use? An interesting proposition. And are you suggesting that having a static population size, but a shrinking workforce, is sustainable?

We're talking next 60 years here, not the next 6000 by the way.

Long, long term, the nature of work will probably change, meaning people work longer, with the support of different technology. But in the near term, we need workers. The best ones possible.

People can be looked after by people with work visas and no right to remain.

A perfect reason below why I want out of the EU ASAP

http://news.sky.com/story/eu-judges-rule-against-uk-governments-snoopers-charter-10703892

Your last few posts show that:

1) you want workers to be shipped out of the country when you see fit
2) you don't except people have rights beyond what their current national government see fit to grant them

I disgree, strongly, and fear that your views are quite a close fit to the views of those now running our country, and about to have what few external restrains they have on their actions removed.

"Come here, work hard, have no rights, then leave when we say"

Alternatively, go and live somewhere where they treat people like people.

A perfect reason below why I want out of the EU ASAP
http://news.sky.com/story/eu-judges-rule-against-uk-governments-snoopers-charter-10703892

Strangely that looks like one of the good reasons to stay to me.

Governments who spy on their population is very Orwellian / Stasi / Gestapo.

And our Brexit secretary agrees I think, for was it not he that launched the action?

A perfect reason below why I want out of the EU ASAP

And a perfect reason why I want in. The EU seems to be able to make better decisions on long term or social issues than our government.

People can be looked after by people with work visas and no right to remain.

Visas are shit for the workers. I think many potential immigrants won't come here, they'll go elsewhere. So we won't get their skills, and other countries will, which will end up more competitive than us.

And anyway - if you want the snooper's charter to be allowed in the UK then you want UK citizens to have fewer rights than those in the EU?

Really?

Anyone who voted leave voted for UK citizens to have less rights than EU citizens.

Britain should free itself from all the constraints which Europe imposes and from its essential social democratic model and go for a new type of economy altogether.

This economy would be defined in a sense by its very opposition to that European model. It would be free market, free trading, light regulation, low tax, low social protection – a sort of attempt to ?replicate the city states of Hong Kong and Singapore.

Has anyone got a guide for dummies about the Davies case, I've not really looked into it, but it seems the EU has ruled (rightly) that several aspects of it are illegal under current law.

Here is a link to the opinion of the Advocate General - the ECJ normally follows such an opinion.

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=181841&doclang=EN&mode=req&occ=first

Her sensible conclusion was:

In light of the foregoing, I propose that the Court’s answer to the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Kammarrätten i Stockholm (Administrative Court of Appeal, Stockholm, Sweden) and the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) should be as follows:

Article 15(1) of Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (‘Directive on privacy and electronic communications’), as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009, and Articles 7, 8 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union are to be interpreted as not precluding Member States from imposing on providers of electronic communications services an obligation to retain all data relating to communications effected by the users of their services where all of the following conditions are satisfied, which it is for the referring courts to determine in the light of all the relevant characteristics of the national regimes at issue in the main proceedings:

– the obligation and the safeguards which accompany it must be provided for in legislative or regulatory measures possessing the characteristics of accessibility, foreseeability and adequate protection against arbitrary interference;

– the obligation and the safeguards which accompany it must observe the essence of the rights recognised by Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

– the obligation must be strictly necessary in the fight against serious crime, which means that no other measure or combination of measures could be as effective in the fight against serious crime while at the same time interfering to a lesser extent with the rights enshrined in Directive 2002/58 and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights;

– the obligation must be accompanied by all the safeguards described by the Court in paragraphs 60 to 68 of its judgment of 8 April 2014 in Digital Rights Ireland and Others (C?293/12 and C?594/12, EU:C:2014:238) concerning access to the data, the period of retention and the protection and security of the data, in order to limit the interference with the rights enshrined in Directive 2002/58 and Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights to what is strictly necessary; and

– the obligation must be proportionate, within a democratic society, to the objective of fighting serious crime, which means that the serious risks engendered by the obligation, in a democratic society, must not be disproportionate to the advantages which it offers in the fight against serious crime.

The really odd thing about it is the person who raised the case.. Not that I disagree, but it just goes to show what disarray the government is currently in if they don't have a United opinion.

Are these people really the right people to lead us through potentially the biggest change I've seen in my lifetime? I'm sure they're not.

And the alternatives are even more diabolical.

Davies raising the case and losing is genious. [b]The result is perfect for Leavers[/b]. Everytime anyone asks me for an example of when the ECJ/EU interferes then I can justpost this.

1) you want workers to be shipped out of the country when you see fit
2) you don't except people have rights beyond what their current national government see fit to grant them

1) No they leave when their visa is up. I went to the US on the basis it was 3 years renewable once for a total of 6 and to Singapore on the basis that if I lost my job I would leave within 2 weeks. I forget the term of the visa, 3yrs I think
2) They have rights equal to those the UK government grant them, their homeland rights don't apply when in the UK

@molgrips In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties.

dave call me dave davis has a long track record on civil liberties that is commendable so not that strange

Davies raising the case and losing is genious.

He didn't lose.

In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties.

Would it be okay if a policeman follows you round at all times, night and day, just to make sure you're safe? We think he's trustworthy. Probably. Is that okay? You'll be safe, after all!

In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties

Secure and alive.

[img] [/img]

@molgrips In my view the right to remain secure and alive tops all other so called liberties.

Now you're just being silly.