[Closed] What relationship do you want out of Europe?

why should the Eu have any different deal?

they need to stop trying to be the superstate dictatorship that they are!

and i'll be happy with NO TTIP.

Peace.

In my time and for our children

Swedish Pron.

It had LOTS of miles on the clock cos he used to drive from Durham to London in it rather than get the train.

a well known MP expense fiddle as they had a significantly higher mileage rate than the IR standard rates

- some controls on the rate of migration linked to housing availability so that we don't add to the problem of 100K children waking up each day in temporary accommodation

Or better still OUR government ensuring that there is sufficient investment in social housing to accommodate all those in need.

The current emphasis on migration is a useful diversion from the unpleasant fact that the last 5 (?) governments (based on parliamentary terms) have failed to invest sufficient money in services for the growing populace which should be their primary concern.

Also "ask not what the EU can do for us, ask what can we do for the EU" to paraphrase the 'hotdog'.

That's quite funny Lawmanmx. Didn't bother watching it after reading the blurb. There are some deluded idiots posting videos on the web.

Eh? you comment on something you Didn't watch???? 😆

I worked for a while with a Romanian lass who I'd have quite like closer relations with, is that the sort of thing the OP means?
😀

Lawmanmx - I commented on the blurb. Having read the blurb I didn't feel like wasting my time on the clip.

but felt like commenting anyway 😆

I want the UK to rule over Europe, with each European Nation paying us yearly tribute with large percentages of their wealth in terms of Food, Minerals, Gold and Women.

Well you did ask.

What I want, is what we have now, but it's not to be.

I'd like

Free Movement
Free Trade
Economic Development fund to continue.

We'd lose our MEPs and voice in Brussels, but does it really matter? The U.K. Has never given a shit about the EU unless it's moaning about bananas or blaming it for anything our Goverment would rather we didn't blame them for, so the majority of people who can be bothered to vote for MEPs have got an axe to grind so we end up with UKIP MEPs making an arse of themselves rather than working for us.

I suspect I'll get the first two, but not the last - that "£350m" a week will be going to find tax breaks for corporates and high earners, or at least the real figure will be - which will pretty much stall state funded development for Wales (where I'm from) but sod 'em they voted for it. I wonder how the Thick Cuts of Swansea, Newport and the Valleys will feel when all the development projects end and they're back to watching their towns and cities fail again. Cardiff will be just fine, we've had our barrage, our bay and a million other things, the plan worked and Cardiff works.

Bitter, yes.

relationship?
well there was that time in Amsterdam... .

What P-jay said. In Swansea and I think Thick Cuts is ascribing more intelligence than is deserved.

Something Victorian wouldn't go amiss.
See no obvious reasons why not.
Balls to equality, its only ever fair to those who think they haven't got it and any attempts to create it are unfair to someone else.

"accommodate all those in need."
From those who originate here? Oh yes, others ? Nope We are bloody well full! Why don't those who spout racism get that. I don't know a single person who objects to immigration on grounds of race. I know many who just want fewer people to fill the houses we have. We don't care a toss if they are bloody Martians as long as the same number go to Mars

Given it appears that areas that have more immigration tended to vote more remain and the strongest leave areas were the ones generally that had least immigration then perhaps what the UK needs is more immigration.

Do we agree?

i haven't really looked at your comment but i will say No! 😆

another Not to watch

Given it appears that areas that have more immigration tended to vote more remain and the strongest leave areas were the ones generally that had least immigration then perhaps what the UK needs is more immigration.

Do we agree?

Economist looked into this: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21701950-areas-lots-migrants-voted-mainly-remain-or-did-they-britains-immigration-paradox

[i]But that is not the full picture. Consider the percentage-change in migrant numbers, rather than the total headcount, and the opposite pattern emerges (chart 2). Where foreign-born populations increased by more than 200% between 2001 and 2014, a Leave vote followed in 94% of cases. The proportion of migrants may be relatively low in Leave strongholds such as Boston, in Lincolnshire (where 15.4% of the population are foreign-born). But it has grown precipitously in a short period of time (by 479%, in Boston’s case). [b]High levels of immigration don’t seem to bother Britons; high rates of change do.[/b][/i]

So, by that principle, what you needed was either less immigration, or slower immigration

Ok ninfan, that makes some sense.

So I think what one might draw from that is that to some extent the leave vote was a protest against change more than against immigration. A fear of the new and different.

I wonder if that is all change, just revealed in immigration, or specifically a change in immigration.

Also by the nature of numbers, two other things jump out. Firstly that you can only have the highest changes in the level of immigration where you had a low rate to start with. Secondly high percentage changes cannot last for a long time, so does the fear subside as people get used to immigration?

Comparing the two graphs, and I'd love to see proper regressions and indications of the tightness of the correlation, I'm not sure that the point is made particularly well. I'm not saying it's wrong, but it is messy to claim their isn't a correlation between low immigration and high leave, but there is between high change and high leave. However for the reasons noted, the two correlations are not mutually exclusive.

Can someone who feels strongly that free movement within the EU is important to them explain why free movement Worldwide *isn't* important to them.

Massive economic and cultural differences make it impractical. Even a tiny proportion of india and China moving here would completely overwhelm the country.

Long term I probably do want worldwide free movement - and I've said that before on one of these threads. As Jamba points out, there is always freedom of movement for the privileged classes, it's just the rest of us I'm talking about.

However do I want the entire world turning up here - probably not.

So how do I square that circle?

Well the key is to make sure that everywhere is a good place to live, so that there isn't a simple economic or security reason to all rush in one direction.

Expanding the EU slowly is a good start to that. Has it happened to fast some places? Perhaps. Remember the worries about impoverished East Germans flooding west Germany and from there the rest of Europe? Still true to some extent but not the issue it was.

Countries are and should remain temporary. They rise, they fall. People, humanity, hopefully will last a little longer.

Like I said previously on some thread I doubt my vision is going to happen tomorrow.

thecaptain, igm.

In which case have we not proved that there are perfectly good non-racist reasons to want less net immigration. All you're arguing about is at what point at which the numbers are too big.

There are at some level non-racist discussions about the level of immigration, agreed.

However pictures of refugees (a la Farage) ain't one of them.

Igm, there's likely a huge number of variables - one might be, for example, 'white flight' whereby people with strong feelings about immigration have moved away from areas of high immigration to lower, so skew the figures.

As always, extrapolation and averaging are blunt tools and presumptuous - I pointed out on here that Slough (34% white British) voted leave, while neighbouring Maidenhead and Windsor (77% white British) voted remain.

think what one might draw from that is that to some extent the leave vote was a protest against change more than against immigration. A fear of the new and different.

Maybe a protest against recent immigration (influx of low skilled workers from A8+ accession countries)? i have heard several people in the Asian community locally talk about a feeling that they and their families came here and worked, and express clear frustration at recent immigrants (rightly or wrongly) over coming here for benefits (in this case they were discussing particularly Romanian and Bulgarians who had moved to the area)

"There are at some level non-racist discussions about the level of immigration, agreed"

LOL!

So the immigration controls you want, largely aimed at people of a different race to you are not based on racism. In contrast, the immigration controls some other people want, largely aimed at people of the same race as them are based purely on racism.

...and remainers wonder why they lost the argument?

So the immigration controls you want, largely aimed at people of a different race to you are not based on racism. In contrast, the immigration controls some other people want, largely aimed at people of the same race as them are based purely on racism.

Eh?

Farige s picture was of a train of middle eastern refugess

Ironically it turns out that poster wasn't racist because this thread tells us that it's not racist to be opposed to non-EU immigration.

No oob, that's an absurd leap to go from a hypothetical statement about what might plausibly happen if we allowed unlimited immgration from China and the rest of the world, to then say that we need less net immigration now.

Currently we have a few percent of immigrants, and also a few percent of Uk nationals living abroad. It seems to me that we do fairly well out of this, I don't see many Spanish pensioners coming here to take advantage of our free healthcare. Theoretically, of course it could be a problem if the entire population of Germany (say) decided to move here next week. It has been possible for many years and has never happened in the past. I don't think it's a plausible proposition that it will happen in the near future, and don't think it is worth leaving the EU to prevent it from happening.

Right, so you're not opposed to restrictions on free movement

It's just an argument over where you draw that line.

Ninfan - you've mentioned Slough and Windsor before and other than them being southern English areas on the edge of London I know little about them. I am assuming you quote them because they didn't vote as you'd expect.
However if you corrected for education, age and affluence would you still get a similarly unusual result? Given younger, more highly skilled, more affluent people tended to vote remain, as well as those more exposed to immigration.

As you say a number of factors involved but it does look like the leave vote was about fear, and probably fear of change - people with skills and money have less to fear and the young are generally happier to embrace change.

On the freedom of movement thing, my own experience is that lots of Getmans here wouldn't change the UK much because they are very much like us, whereas lots of Americans here would because they are not. I've lived in the states and worked with Germans. But given the financial / economic position even if you opened both borders not many of either would arrive.
If you think about other places that f/e position would mean lots would arrive. Now I definitely want some - this part of the world is built on immigration - but far better to stabilise the economic drivers first. We need to build up the economies of the rest of the world, and then open the borders.

This is one of the things EU expansion has tried to do - not always successfully.

For the record, I'd love a world with fully open borders, where everywhere is a good place to live, but the curious can wander freely.

There are at some level non-racist discussions about the level of immigration, agreed.

Yes and they point in one direction - it has a positive not a negative impact on UK economy. No one has provided any research to prove the opposite, the best attempt was the BoE study that concluded that in a specific case the impact on wages was small.

@ IGM - I mentioned them because I know the areas reasonably, and IMO the pretty diametrically opposed result strongly challenges the 'areas with greater exposure to immigrantion voted remain' narrative.

I suspect that age only really made a significant difference in the big university towns, and as for "people with wealth and skills have less to fear" I think you could easily paint that a different way and say that "people with wealth and skills were more likely to be swayed by the economic arguments against Brexit as they had more to lose" whereas those without had less/nothing to lose, so in fact it was them who had less to fear from voting for change.

I take it i'm the only one who's all for 'ever closer union'? I'd quite like a single European federal state along the lines of how the US is organised. I suspect I won't get it tho!

it has a positive not a negative impact on UK economy

But not necessarily on individuals or communities.

Ewan, i would be happy with that too, But it will be more like Russia as that's the model they seem to be using, watch the above vids for more info, i voted leave and it WASN'T anything to do with immigration! or racism! it was to do with Self governance and democratic determination.

Ewan - I'd quite like it. And I wasn't bothered particularly about the model that we were using to get there. It wouldn't have been sustained in the end game anyway. That said I can live with an individual states with open borders too.
The real problem was that because we didn't turn up to the elections we got UKIP MEPs which made us a joke in Europe.

Slough is a low income manufacturing area, working class if you like. 10 years ago there were lots of Asian shops, now there are Polish shops too. Windsor is posh - after all the Queen live there sometimes.

There has always been a strong Polish connection in this area as lots of Free Polish settled here after WW2 rather than go home and be killed.

Slough is a low income manufacturing area, working class if you like. 10 years ago there were lots of Asian shops, now there are Polish shops too. Windsor is posh - after all the Queen live there sometimes.

No it isn't.

Residents in full time work in Slough earn on average £528.60 per week (gross) compared to
£567.00 in the south east and £520.80 in Great Britain

So richer than average then. Albeit poorer than average in the SE which could lead to that perception I guess.

Lots of stats to back up my ascertain here - generally doing better than most of the UK, so presumably middle class....

"Yes and they point in one direction - it has a positive not a negative impact on UK economy."

Yup, 'cos houses full of people are undeniably better for the economy than fields.

However, people don't want the new houses and are happy to take the economic hit of not having them.

Its like you putting a market stall in my back garden without asking me and being incredulous that I'm not happy because its bringing in cash.

The UK has had a gutful of growth.

People can understand that argument on a larger scale, everyone accepts that quadrupling the population would be bad even though the economy would be four times bigger. Why it gets difficult to comprehend when the numbers are smaller is beyond me.

"Right, so you're not opposed to restrictions on free movement
It's just an argument over where you draw that line."

This. 100pc this.