Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%

  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%
  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
peteblue said:
It's a conversation well overdue. It's a shame that it's taken the best part of 20 years to get past the raising of the immigration issue as 'racist' and 'xenophobic'. Proper debate over admission and actions to integrate those that do come in, coupled with helping citizens who are being left behind or feel shut out, is in the best interests of everyone.......
Click to expand...

Well, I should add that I sincerely hope that it isn't focusing purely on immigration as that's a huge red herring. The issue is more about helping people to be competitive in the labour market, whether that's through migrants entering it, companies outsourcing work, technology automating things, regulations changing or economics shifting. Disruption is likely to be an ever present force, and the Brexit debate seemed polarised between those who felt well placed to respond to that versus those who weren't.

I'll repeat again, I don't think stopping the use of technology or taking a protectionist approach to industry or, yes, reducing the movement of people, is the right way to tackle this as opposed to doing a lot more to help people get the skills they need to thrive. That's the core difference between those who believe they can adapt to change and those who don't.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Well, I should add that I sincerely hope that it isn't focusing purely on immigration as that's a huge red herring. The issue is more about helping people to be competitive in the labour market, whether that's through migrants entering it, companies outsourcing work, technology automating things, regulations changing or economics shifting. Disruption is likely to be an ever present force, and the Brexit debate seemed polarised between those who felt well placed to respond to that versus those who weren't.

I'll repeat again, I don't think stopping the use of technology or taking a protectionist approach to industry or, yes, reducing the movement of people, is the right way to tackle this as opposed to doing a lot more to help people get the skills they need to thrive. That's the core difference between those who believe they can adapt to change and those who don't.
Click to expand...
Bruce by all means immigrate all the skills, but not a free for all you do realise apart from the immigration wealth makers, and I have a successful one next door to me from Italy great guy, and family.
Even he is against the freedom of movement unless they come to engage in a proper job, not get state benefits, and take child benefit back home with them why is he against them coming in with free. Movement!
 
Last edited:
bobbydigital said:
I think you can figure it out. There is a big clue that exists in the name European Union. If that's not enough have a look at a world map.

The US is in NAFTA with it's own nearest trading partners.
Click to expand...
Ok then tell me how some of the 27 countries outside the original 7 have joined towards the Middle East ? IF the USA can join NATO then surely if they thought the mighty EU was so great they woul break the bank with subscriptions to join it oh
I for got they are in the WOrld trade deal and somehow gain access I don't see any contributions, just an easy ride as always they have the clout now we want some of that its wrong!
Albania next to join that's so close to Europe Urm!
 
Joey66 said:
Ok then tell me how some of the 27 countries outside the original 7 have joined towards the Middle East ? IF the USA can join NATO then surely if they thought the mighty EU was so great they woul break the bank with subscriptions to join it oh
I for got they are in the WOrld trade deal and somehow gain access I don't see any contributions, just an easy ride as always they have the clout now we want some of that its wrong!
Albania next to join that's so close to Europe Urm!
Click to expand...

Do you know that NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Do you realise the US was a founding member of NATO? Do you realise the US is situated in the North Atlantic?

Do you realise where Albania is on a map? It is closer to Central Europe than Greece. Just because you don't like Albanians doesn't mean the country isn't situated in Europe.
 
bobbydigital said:
Do you know that NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? Do you realise the US was a founding member of NATO? Do you realise the US is situated in the North Atlantic?

Do you realise where Albania is on a map? It is closer to Central Europe than Greece. Just because you don't like Albanians doesn't mean the country isn't situated in Europe.
Click to expand...
Look just face since the fall of the Berlin Wall Germany who were the top financial power have encouraged the struggling former USSR countries into the EU, and burdened them with the Euro 7 became 28 with more to join - The Euro has collapsed in Italy, Spain is on its knees, as we would have been if we had listened to experts and joined it!
Germany is the only country to gain by the Euro!
Interest rates deliberately halved today so in November the new chancellor will borrow money to boost our economy without selling our assets away just what Gideon should have done years ago!
 
bobbydigital said:
I think you can figure it out. There is a big clue that exists in the name European Union. If that's not enough have a look at a world map.

The US is in NAFTA with it's own nearest trading partners.
Click to expand...

There is also a big clue in the name NAFTA, North American Free Trade Association, just like we joined something called The EEC or European Economic Community which was basically the same thing. We did not join something that required political union, or a common currency, or common foreign policy, or something that has now morphed into a near United States of Europe with a centre having 5 different presidents........if it were still the EEC we would have all voted to remain. His point about the USA joining the EU was not regarding geography, but about sovereignty and political union which would never be tolerated by the USA......
 
peteblue said:
There is also a big clue in the name NAFTA, North American Free Trade Association, just like we joined something called The EEC or European Economic Community which was basically the same thing. We did not join something that required political union, or a common currency, or common foreign policy, or something that has now morphed into a near United States of Europe with a centre having 5 different presidents........if it were still the EEC we would have all voted to remain. His point about the USA joining the EU was not regarding geography, but about sovereignty and political union which would never be tolerated by the USA......
Click to expand...
Thanks Pete stated it better than me the Remainers forget the status quo the easy option long term could collapse leaving us dependant upon them being an independant country yes Brexit will have a bumpy start not the one predicted by the way , but I am confident we will do better without the bureaucrats in Brussels telling us what we can do, and what we can't do in which the USA and other major countries have their independence.
Before the referendrum the remainers - I ask you this would you vote to join this awful EU organisation??????
the percentage would have been a lot larger on NO!
as we would have been thriving even more than we were!
The EU is in crisis even more now in 2 years we will not contribute 18 billion with concessions that will hurt them when we just offer to it just a small contribution for a trade deal with negotiation!
 
peteblue said:
There is also a big clue in the name NAFTA, North American Free Trade Association, just like we joined something called The EEC or European Economic Community which was basically the same thing. We did not join something that required political union, or a common currency, or common foreign policy, or something that has now morphed into a near United States of Europe with a centre having 5 different presidents........if it were still the EEC we would have all voted to remain. His point about the USA joining the EU was not regarding geography, but about sovereignty and political union which would never be tolerated by the USA......
Click to expand...

You make the assumption that everyone who voted remain did so because they believe the EU is perfect as it is, which is not the case. I will share with you a link to a report done by the Centre for European Reform prior to the referendum.

https://www.cer.org.uk/publications...leaving-eu-final-report-cer-commission-brexit

I know it's not the Daily Express and they use sources such as PwC, the London School of Economics and Oxford University for their evidence rather than unabashed fantasies but you may still learn something about the economic effects of leaving if the impending recession has not signalled anything to you.
 
bobbydigital said:
You make the assumption that everyone who voted remain did so because they believe the EU is perfect as it is, which is not the case. I will share with you a link to a report done by the Centre for European Reform prior to the referendum.

https://www.cer.org.uk/publications...leaving-eu-final-report-cer-commission-brexit

I know it's not the Daily Express and they use sources such as PwC, the London School of Economics and Oxford University for their evidence rather than unabashed fantasies but you may still learn something about the economic effects of leaving if the impending recession has not signalled anything to you.
Click to expand...

If all you wish to do is make snide and frankly poor attempts to show your superiority I suggest you try it on someone else. If you wish to have a rational debate then please continue.

In respect of this deeply pro-EU 'report' from a deeply pro-EU group who have Lord Mandelson as one of it's commissioners, I have seen most of this before. It does however put over a peculiar one sided summary and draws some very dubious conclusions while trying to portray balance. I was reminded of an episode from Yes Minister........

Bernard Woolley: What if he demands options?
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Well, it's obvious, Bernard. The Foreign Office will happily present him with three options, two of which are, on close inspection, exactly the same.
Sir Richard Wharton: Plus a third which is totally unacceptable.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Like bombing Warsaw or invading France.

...The report even suggested that under WTO rules we would be at a disadvantage trying to sell cars into Europe, whilst completely omitting the issue of the EU's sale of cars to the UK...

Having dealt on a regular basis with the NAO, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury in a previous existence, and having produced and read many reports that lead the reader to a desired conclusion, presenting a 122 page biased report produced specifically to support the remain position doesn't particularly impress me, no matter what sources they used. It's also a truism that while the daily press rags seek to shock and whip up support for a one sided argument, sometimes they do contain little snippets of truth or at least the basis to perhaps question the accepted beliefs.......Even a broken clock is right twice a day.....
 
Joey66 said:
A controlled immigration system based on skills all over the world not free movement other countries do it, yes let's live in a fair multi cultural society!
Click to expand...

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I have a couple of issues with this.

Firstly, I'm not at all convinced that they could do it. If the state were in any way good at knowing what skills the economy needed then you could justly argue that we wouldn't have a homegrown skills shortage in the first place. The economy is changing at such a pace these days that it pays to be agile, which is something that governments very seldom are (more of which later). Even assuming however that they have any capability to predict what skills we need, there's little evidence to suggest that they would reduce numbers. We already have more non-EU migrants coming to the UK than EU migrants, plus it isn't often reported but the much vaunted Australian system sees Australia have more immigrants per capita than we do, even with our apparently open border.

Secondly, this assumes that it is the migrants per se that are the problem rather than how we respond to it. I've mentioned the poor way the government already responds in terms of helping communities that have been impacted by globalisation. They have a fund for this (and rejected EU assistance because of this fund), yet it has just £8 million in it, so is not really a lot of cop. We can do an awful lot more to help re-train people so that they don't feel so left out as a result of people coming in. There is also a lot we can do about how local councils and services are funded. At the moment funding is based upon census data, which as I'm sure you know means that it is very likely to be permanently out of date, and certainly ill equipped to respond to rapid changes in population numbers. One would think in our technological age that a much better way could be devised to ensure local authorities have the funding commensurate to their population in real time rather than using a once a decade, paper based exercise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top