The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
RYH64E said:
MajorProblem said:
If George Osborne said he's identified billions of pounds worth of savings by not giving benefits to these sort what would happen?
What would the EZ do?
I see no good reason why we can't align our benefits system with that of any one of the less (least) generous EU states. As I understand it, the EU only has a point of view about it if we pay less to an EU citizen who isn't from The UK than we pay to our own, indigenous benefit claimants. What would the EZ do?
Several EU countries have a 'net contributor' clause which states you can't receive certain benefits without having first paid into the system for a number of years beforehand, which restricts new arrivals in what they can claim but ostensibly treats all claimants the same way.
RYH64E said:
turbobloke said:
Not only that, if it wasn't for the constraints of France's EU-EZ membership combined with electing a socialist muppet to sit at the foot of the EU high table while screwing their economy an additional cinq ways to Noël, they could be complaining about the migrants wanting to stay in France.
More like the socialist muppets have come up with a means of not paying benefits to asylum seekers whilst still abiding by EU rules and regulations, so non-working migrants want to move to somewhere more hospitable. It says something when said socialist muppets in France are criticising the UK for having an overly generous benefits system. Surely the answer to that is in our own hands?And if we left the EU they would have no reason not to let more come across the channel. The suggestion that they wouldn't because "they wouldn't want to fall out with us" is more risible than a communist party manifesto
Scuffers said:
It really is a David vs Goliath battle. The entire establishment, big business, charities, most of the media, Obama and his unlimited resources (there were rumours of CIA involvement in the the 1975 referendum), the "rebellious Scots" 
, the EU itself etc will do anything to make sure we vote to stay in the EU. FiF said:
Dave_lotus said:
Except of course that far more immigrants end up in France than the UK
Do they? EUstats say emphatically not true by a very long chalk. Figs for 2013.
Dave_lotus said:
FiF said:
Dave_lotus said:
Except of course that far more immigrants end up in France than the UK
Do they? EUstats say emphatically not true by a very long chalk. Figs for 2013.
So France accepted 50% more, yet has a population approximately the same as UK but covers a much larger area and thus has a population density less than half that of UK.
Not sure what point you are trying to make
3x as many asylum seekers apply in France as in UK. But the French reject a higher proportion. That must be
a) Because those that get here have a better case
b) that the UK is more sympathetic/softer whatever
Either way, I don't see why that makes it an EU problem, or why leaving the EU would help. Which is the topic
3x as many asylum seekers apply in France as in UK. But the French reject a higher proportion. That must be
a) Because those that get here have a better case
b) that the UK is more sympathetic/softer whatever
Either way, I don't see why that makes it an EU problem, or why leaving the EU would help. Which is the topic
treepke said:
Wonder how many people, that voted "IN" 50 or so years ago, are still alive? What % of the current UK population they represent and would they vote the same way now?
I'm still here. Hang on a sec ...50 or so years ago? I'm not that bloody old (well, maybe to the wet behind the ears EU lovers).I voted in June 1975 - that ain't 50 or so years ago! Maths today, eh?
I voted, like many, for a 'Common Market' not a bloody gravy train.
What percentage are still alive now? Well, what is it they say? We're an aging population, so I suspect there are a bloody lot of us!
And how will I vote this time? Well, for one thing it's voting for something that ain't what we were led to believe back in the 70s.
I will vote NON, NEIN, NO!!!!
Edited by dandarez on Tuesday 4th August 01:18
RYH64E said:
I see no good reason why we can't align our benefits system with that of any one of the less (least) generous EU states. As I understand it, the EU only has a point of view about it if we pay less to an EU citizen who isn't from The UK than we pay to our own, indigenous benefit claimants.
This is not so clear. Cameron has made a big play of his so called renegotations, but almost every tangible change I have seen mentioned has been changes to the British benefit system. As far as I know it's already basically established in treaties (Maastricht and Lisbon) that you can't explicitly discriminate between locals and other EU citizens, and treaty change is not on the table, so he can't simply say no more benefits for EU migrants. What you can do is demand contributions before any benefits are paid, which sort of has the same effect. I know for a fact Spain does this and I beleive other countries do too.
Germany won a case in the ECJ on this last year securing it's right to do this. However, it also showed that we dont have complete control over our own welfare system. We are still subject to EU law and ECJ decisions.
The EU also has a common immigration policy and a common asylum policy, and these do accord rights to non-EU migrants too. Quite how this applies now, in the UK is not so clear but Camerons clearly seems to feel that he needs to consult the EU before making any major changes.
In other words our "national government" is subject to a higher authority on this matter, just as for instance a county council couldn't introduce charges for health services, because it is subject to the higher authority of the British government which has a policy of operating a free to use NHS.
This is exactly what I, and I believe many others, find totally unacceptable about the EU, because the bottom line is that so long as we are members not only are we not an independent country, but due to the opaque treaties and arbitrary rulings which always favour integration it's not even clear what degree of autonomy we do retain over what areas.
Dave_lotus said:
Not sure what point you are trying to make
3x as many asylum seekers apply in France as in UK. But the French reject a higher proportion. That must be
a) Because those that get here have a better case
b) that the UK is more sympathetic/softer whatever
Either way, I don't see why that makes it an EU problem, or why leaving the EU would help. Which is the topic
Well there are several points really. 3x as many asylum seekers apply in France as in UK. But the French reject a higher proportion. That must be
a) Because those that get here have a better case
b) that the UK is more sympathetic/softer whatever
Either way, I don't see why that makes it an EU problem, or why leaving the EU would help. Which is the topic
The first is that in your effort to make your case you wrote something that was clearly untrue and that needed to be corrected.
You then tried to sidestep by claiming that you'd been imprecise
and it was all about applications with again the comparison with France. Yet there are frequent claims from the migrants that they are trying to get into UK because France and others will not accept their claims for asylum. There is evidence to back this up.
Turbobloke has dealt with the issue of why this is an EU problem so no need to go there again but the EU, and we too, do seem to be not particularly effective at picking up illegal migrants and dealing with them in an effective way. Such as arrested by police who are then told to release them and tell them to make their way to Liverpool or wherever. Like that's going to happen. This area is completely under resourced. But essentially if these people have applied for asylum and been refused before in other countries then they should be returned from there. The EU is failing because member countries are thinking parochially and just trying to get someone out of their patch and not thinking wider of the EU,and the EU itself is completely powerless to enforce them to act within the terms of the agreement.
Why does UK grant more applications is not clear. Maybe these are the most determined. Maybe the reasons you gave. Maybe, considering these people have deliberately thrown away their identity, in their journey across several states and possible several asylum applications they've managed to learn and adapt their story.
Finally it's necessary to look at the asylum figures in context with the whole immigration figures, an issue which you introduced, through being imprecise
and see that the numbers are relatively minor. So all these claims that are made on various threads of issues such as pressure on housing seem strange when the number of asylum seekers are vastly outweighed by even returning British citizens into the immigration figures before we get to intra EU migration. Sorry one final thing. Probably because the situation is in Calais comparisons have been made with France yet nobody picks up on the states which show a net emigration eg Poland, Baltic states etc. Indeed the EU has said that these nations need to step up and take more. Aiui they have got a refusal to that request.
Leaving the EU will not affect this situation at Calais very true. But as already stated on this thread afaic we should do everything possible to keep the immigration debate out of the wider EU debate as it will risk poisoning the issues.
FiF said:
So France accepted 50% more, yet has a population approximately the same as UK but covers a much larger area and thus has a population density less than half that of UK.
The Sahara has a really low population density but you couldn't make many people live there. It's where the jobs are that counts, not where green space is. You can't just dump people in a field and expect them to get on with it. This population density argument is a red herring.Bluebarge said:
This population density argument is a red herring.
Only because the pro EU camp want it to be. In fact, the population density of the UK as a whole is the true red herring. It does not reveal the true population densities of the countries of the Union.
England has a density per square km of 413
Yet Scotalnd a mere 68 per square K/m
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums...
People shout of services struggling under the strain, its hardly surprising. England has one of the highest population densities in the world, around 20th , (from memory).
Cheese Mechanic said:
Only because the pro EU camp want it to be. In fact, the population density of the UK as a whole is the true red herring.
It does not reveal the true population densities of the countries of the Union.
England has a density per square km of 413
Yet Scotalnd a mere 68 per square K/m
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums...
People shout of services struggling under the strain, its hardly surprising. England has one of the highest population densities in the world, around 20th , (from memory).
Population density is the ultimate local thing. It does not reveal the true population densities of the countries of the Union.
England has a density per square km of 413
Yet Scotalnd a mere 68 per square K/m
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums...
People shout of services struggling under the strain, its hardly surprising. England has one of the highest population densities in the world, around 20th , (from memory).
How is the population density of Northumberland compared to say metro Paris? Which one can take more migrants?
Cheese Mechanic said:
Bluebarge said:
This population density argument is a red herring.
Only because the pro EU camp want it to be. In fact, the population density of the UK as a whole is the true red herring. It does not reveal the true population densities of the countries of the Union.
England has a density per square km of 413
Yet Scotalnd a mere 68 per square K/m
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums...
People shout of services struggling under the strain, its hardly surprising. England has one of the highest population densities in the world, around 20th , (from memory).
The Channel Islands have a population density which is double that of England, yet holidaymakers still flock there for its scenery and way of life. See? it's a complete red herring unless you are approaching the type of population densities found in some poorly-planned 3rd World cities. Which we're not.
Bluebarge said:
Cheese Mechanic said:
Bluebarge said:
This population density argument is a red herring.
Only because the pro EU camp want it to be. In fact, the population density of the UK as a whole is the true red herring. It does not reveal the true population densities of the countries of the Union.
England has a density per square km of 413
Yet Scotalnd a mere 68 per square K/m
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/compendiums...
People shout of services struggling under the strain, its hardly surprising. England has one of the highest population densities in the world, around 20th , (from memory).
The Channel Islands have a population density which is double that of England, yet holidaymakers still flock there for its scenery and way of life. See? it's a complete red herring unless you are approaching the type of population densities found in some poorly-planned 3rd World cities. Which we're not.
Urban centres!
Bluebarge said:
The Channel Islands have a population density which is double that of England, yet holidaymakers still flock there for its scenery and way of life. See? it's a complete red herring unless you are approaching the type of population densities found in some poorly-planned 3rd World cities. Which we're not.
talk about red herrings!how is people going on holiday somewhere got anything to do with migration numbers?
If I go and stay in the Atlantis hotel (the Palm in Dubai), the density of people per square mile must be immense as it's a multi-story hotel with several people per room.
How is that in any way relevant to permanent housing for migrants? or are you suggesting we start building 60's style high-rise shoe boxes again?
Scuffers said:
Bluebarge said:
The Channel Islands have a population density which is double that of England, yet holidaymakers still flock there for its scenery and way of life. See? it's a complete red herring unless you are approaching the type of population densities found in some poorly-planned 3rd World cities. Which we're not.
talk about red herrings!how is people going on holiday somewhere got anything to do with migration numbers?
If I go and stay in the Atlantis hotel (the Palm in Dubai), the density of people per square mile must be immense as it's a multi-story hotel with several people per room.
How is that in any way relevant to permanent housing for migrants? or are you suggesting we start building 60's style high-rise shoe boxes again?
Population density is a measure of how many people permanently reside somewhere, folks with buckets and spades don't count.
Kippers constantly trot out the argument that England has a high population density so can't take any more people. That is tosh because plenty of places with much, much higher population density (Monaco, Guernsey, Malta etc.) still contrive to be pleasant places to live that attract many visitors.
That's why the population density argument is tosh.
As to high-rise - you've plainly not visited London at any time in the last 30 years - high-rise living is very popular.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff