The 'No to the EU' campaign
Discussion
Esseesse said:
Hugh Jarse said:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36202490
Any country not accepting Islamic over population/overspill will now be fined.
Who voted for this?
EU commits suicide, by fining members for their democratic choice.
Ah well it was nice while it lasted and i was a beneficiary culturally, financially and spiritually.
Afghans have 8 children per family = endless civil war = endless refugees = endless Islamic immigration to Europe = high birth rates in Europe = .......
Brexit, more like Allexit, is inevitable.
Did I hear mention of us accepting extra refugees on the radio? Was that noises from the government pre-empting this?Any country not accepting Islamic over population/overspill will now be fined.
Who voted for this?
EU commits suicide, by fining members for their democratic choice.
Ah well it was nice while it lasted and i was a beneficiary culturally, financially and spiritually.
Afghans have 8 children per family = endless civil war = endless refugees = endless Islamic immigration to Europe = high birth rates in Europe = .......
Brexit, more like Allexit, is inevitable.
Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers..
Problem is, we now appear to be in a place where economic migrants become refugees. The Eu has lost the support, legitimacy and goodwill of a large number of voters.Digga said:
Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers..
Problem is, we now appear to be in a place where economic migrants become refugees. The Eu has lost the support, legitimacy and goodwill of a large number of voters.Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers..
Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
When the EU leans to properly differentiate between an asylum seeker, a refugee and an illegal immigrant, then we can talk quotas and fines. For the moment, they can, to coin a phrase, fMuch more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
k right off.Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers.. Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
95%+ refugees and migrants are coming from Islamic countries with high birth rates.High birth rates equals rabid youth with nothing to do. Equals civil war.
Syria population 1950 4 million, population now 24 million. Even if everyone there had 2.3 kids for the next thirty years, due to the pyramid, population will be 60 million in thirty years.
High birth rate = s
t quality of life.Low birth rate = good quality of life.
Birth rate in Yemen eight per family = civil war.
Open border in Europe = Islamic Europe or end of EU and individual borders again.
Simple as that IMO.
Ooooo we had ten people in our family because its our culture.
Ooooo now we have a civil war.
Ooooo now we must come to your country to be safe.
Ooooo but we will carry on having ten people per family.
Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers..
Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
Any idea how the existing obligations are defined? For example do we have to take as many as France?Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
Hugh Jarse said:
95%+ refugees and migrants are coming from Islamic countries with high birth rates.
High birth rates equals rabid youth with nothing to do. Equals civil war.
Syria population 1950 4 million, population now 24 million. Even if everyone there had 2.3 kids for the next thirty years, due to the pyramid, population will be 60 million in thirty years.
High birth rate = st quality of life.
Low birth rate = good quality of life.
Birth rate in Yemen eight per family = civil war.
Open border in Europe = Islamic Europe or end of EU and individual borders again.
Simple as that IMO.
Ooooo we had ten people in our family because its our culture.
Ooooo now we have a civil war.
Ooooo now we must come to your country to be safe.
Ooooo but we will carry on having ten people per family.
Harsh but it is realty I'm afraid. People will not like this post because it's politically incorrect but it is the truth. High birth rates equals rabid youth with nothing to do. Equals civil war.
Syria population 1950 4 million, population now 24 million. Even if everyone there had 2.3 kids for the next thirty years, due to the pyramid, population will be 60 million in thirty years.
High birth rate = s
t quality of life.Low birth rate = good quality of life.
Birth rate in Yemen eight per family = civil war.
Open border in Europe = Islamic Europe or end of EU and individual borders again.
Simple as that IMO.
Ooooo we had ten people in our family because its our culture.
Ooooo now we have a civil war.
Ooooo now we must come to your country to be safe.
Ooooo but we will carry on having ten people per family.
What boils my piss is the celebrity's cheerleading for us to take refugees. Those very celebrity's live in huge houses so why don't they take a few in themselves if they are that worried ?
Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers..
Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
Obligations determined by QMV and which Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and the Czech republic voted against. What's more all of these countries specifically protested when Merkel suspended the Dublin Agreement last year, which essentially led to the surge.Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
Despite that, for example Romania got landed with a quota of 4000. At £200,000 per space that's a fine of £800m.
This really isn't very clever is it? What could possibly go wrong? I know! lets look who the Hungarians keep voting in because of his anti immigrant stance? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n
Legend83 said:
Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers..
Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
Any idea how the existing obligations are defined? For example do we have to take as many as France?Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
There is a resettlement programme with quotas, but we have opted out, so the answer to your second question is no, we don't have to take as many as France.
Quotas are all good and well and, as far accepting genuine refugees go, this is what we have always done and always should do, even if other EU nations don't want to play ball.
However, there is no real, comprehensive EU (or UK for that matter) policy for integrating economic migrants right now and that - not Islam per se - is at the heart of the problems we are seeing. In a week where some people are getting uppity because 6 and 7 year old British school children are 'supposed' to know what a subordinating conjunction is (rightly so IMHO) we are, it is absurd that we're only just beginning to appreciate and legislate for the importance of reading, writing and speaking English with regard to migrants.
However, there is no real, comprehensive EU (or UK for that matter) policy for integrating economic migrants right now and that - not Islam per se - is at the heart of the problems we are seeing. In a week where some people are getting uppity because 6 and 7 year old British school children are 'supposed' to know what a subordinating conjunction is (rightly so IMHO) we are, it is absurd that we're only just beginning to appreciate and legislate for the importance of reading, writing and speaking English with regard to migrants.
Zod said:
Here is the Asylum Procedures Directive. The Directive has no quotas.
There is a resettlement programme with quotas, but we have opted out, so the answer to your second question is no, we don't have to take as many as France.
Interesting thanks.There is a resettlement programme with quotas, but we have opted out, so the answer to your second question is no, we don't have to take as many as France.
Hugh Jarse said:
Zod said:
This is not about accepting extra refugees. It is about Member States meeting their existing obligations in relation to asylum seekers.. Much more exciting though to write about "Islamic overpopulation".
95%+ refugees and migrants are coming from Islamic countries with high birth rates.High birth rates equals rabid youth with nothing to do. Equals civil war.
Syria population 1950 4 million, population now 24 million. Even if everyone there had 2.3 kids for the next thirty years, due to the pyramid, population will be 60 million in thirty years.
High birth rate = s
t quality of life.Low birth rate = good quality of life.
Birth rate in Yemen eight per family = civil war.
Open border in Europe = Islamic Europe or end of EU and individual borders again.
Simple as that IMO.
Ooooo we had ten people in our family because its our culture.
Ooooo now we have a civil war.
Ooooo now we must come to your country to be safe.
Ooooo but we will carry on having ten people per family.
Moderation.
Edited by Sam All on Wednesday 4th May 16:38
Digga said:
Quotas are all good and well and, as far accepting genuine refugees go, this is what we have always done and always should do, even if other EU nations don't want to play ball.
There isn't the neat divide between "genuine" refugees and economic migrants that some like to pretend. In reality the control at the moment in the UK is to not let people have the opportunity to claim asylum, not in the process of evaluating asylum seekers.Those who could already justifiable (under the rules as currently applied by the courts) claim asylum if they could get here already number in the tens of millions and, as more and more of the Islamic world falls into chaos, the numbers will only grow. We need to stop importing chaos and start exporting stability (to repeat a phrase I heard). Anyone who clings to the 1951 convention in a very different world is indeed signing their civilisation's death warrant.
Legend83 said:
Interesting thanks.
It should be in mind though , that as we are now effectively in a minority of one, should a majority of states via treaty change, or other mechanism, wish to change those parameters , then there is nothing we can do about it, aside leave the EU, of course. Hosenbugler said:
Legend83 said:
Interesting thanks.
It should be in mind though , that as we are now effectively in a minority of one, should a majority of states via treaty change, or other mechanism, wish to change those parameters , then there is nothing we can do about it, aside leave the EU, of course. Zod said:
Hosenbugler said:
Legend83 said:
Interesting thanks.
It should be in mind though , that as we are now effectively in a minority of one, should a majority of states via treaty change, or other mechanism, wish to change those parameters , then there is nothing we can do about it, aside leave the EU, of course. Hardly surprising, you are the loathsome creep who reports people you disagree with. Get off my back, stalker.
Anyway leaving aside immigration, [url]
The EU is losing its grip on the Single Market, a global marketplace is emerging|http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=198[/url]
The EU is losing its grip on the Single Market, a global marketplace is emerging|http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=198[/url]
Leave Alliance said:
[bold]The EU is losing its grip on the Single Market, a global marketplace is emerging[/bold]
LeaveHQ, 04/05/2016
The treasury estimation of the EEA solution costing £2600 per household per annum by 2031 could not be more irrelevant. It makes one very significant and fundamentally flawed assumption that the EU controls the single market. The EU has been steadily losing its grip on the single market for some time and by 2031, it will not control the single market at all. The clue is in a UNECE tweet earlier today on the UNECE working party on perishable foodstuffs. Arcane I know. Stay with me.
The primary functions of Working Party 11 are to develop and update the Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs and to promote the facilitation of international transport of perishable foodstuffs by harmonising the relevant regulations and rules and the administrative procedures and documentation requirements to which this refrigerated transport is subject. 49 countries are parties to the agreement including three, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, from outside the UNECE region.
This is just one of many is a massive matrix of global regulators. That is a global region which conforms to the same standards throughout, and most of ratifying states have a tariff agreement with the EU of some kind. At present it is not a single market. But when you add the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), TIR and the various mutual recognition agreements embodying ISO standards and the likes, it very much starts to look like a global single market.
What's more, development of these happens all the time in back-room committee meetings in Geneva and elsewhere, all working inside the framework of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. The activity is ongoing, every week. Item by item, common agreement is reached.
When agreements are reached then they become treaty revisions and the standards are updated. But that's just concerning one area of trade. There is also the IMO's agreement on container weighing, UNECE standards and UN regulations on vehicle design, emissions and safety. Then there are the various Codex committees. There is a committee or body for just about everything you can imagine.
And because all these nations all agree to the same standards, the EU has little choice but to adopt them as its own. And while it is an influential bloc, commanding a majority within it, the WTO is in the process of pushing more and more nations into abiding by Codex and UNECE, including the USA little by little. So the EU's power is very much dependent on the subject matter.
We saw an example of this dynamic just recently with the IMO having the collective clout to push back against unwelcome interventions from the EU - and New Zealand has just adopted Codex standards as the basis of its own food safety and export rules - the global single market is growing all the time. In the food industry especially.
Meanwhile, there are several regional N-Cap car safety bodies all of which are gradually merging under the mantle of Global N-Cap. All of this is far more significant than TTIP, especially with negotiations at serious risk of collapse.
Consider the significance of a global standard for vehicle design and safety features. Any car produced anywhere in the world by 2031 could be a saleable commodity anywhere on the planet. The same will be true of foodstuffs too, not least because of a global standard on refrigerated containers.
And with tariffs being already quite low the tendency is not to bother entering trade talks for the removal of tariffs when you can do more by establishing common standards and thus reducing transaction costs by a sum greater than that of the tariff.
Where it ends nobody knows, but it is part of the global trend toward continuous development and harmonisation of standards. By international law, if any goods meet the international standard and there is a recognised mutual agreement on compliance inspection then the EU may not refuse goods. So it's no longer the boss.
We will hear much in the coming weeks about the EU and its digital single market, but in most respects, we have one in the works, not at the EU level but at the global level - which needs further improvements not least to cut down on video piracy and counterfeit goods. We want a global agreement. Nobody is downloading hacks so they can access the French version of Netflix. Everybody wants the USA version.
So by 2031, there will be a nexus of global accords that completely surpasses the EU, to which the EU may not by law erect barriers. If anything, because of the EU's insistence on a common position, it is the slow man of the world in implementing standards and we lose out. That's why there were African states abolishing roaming charges before the EU.
What these global accords are is the manifestation of multilateralism and cooperation, whereas the EU is purely about establishing a country called Europe which speaks on behalf of all its members. We need to leave them to it and make our own way in the modern globalised age; we can be at the cutting edge of standards implementation.
So when you hear the meme that other countries wouldn't be interested in trade talks with the UK, that's really nothing to get worked up about because they do tend their own delegations to these global forums - and so will we. Their very membership of these bodies means they will be talking to us because nothing gets done if they don't.
And that brings us back to this treasury report that essentially claims we will be frozen out of any future EU bilateral deals. I can't think of anything that matters less. Any agreements it makes will be to strong arm outsiders into adopting the global standard, not EU standards, therefore all they will be doing is bring on new nations on stream to the global single market - and in so doing weakening its own influence on global bodies by way of being a smaller proportion of the votes.
Since there is then an established commonality between all parties, WTO rules then take effect where the agreement can be replicated without even having direct talks. There is a growing trend for agreements to be replicated without the need for diplomatic missions. It's all just part of the daily business of the various global regulators and the WTO. By 2031, that is how most agreements will be conducted making things like TTIP positivity antique.
You can argue that being in the EU gives the EU extra clout, but being out of the EU does not mean opposing the EU automatically. We will likely be allied more often than not, but as an independent nation we could choose to side with the EU or not according to the situation
The bottom line is, the EUs hegemony in regulations and standards is coming to a close, and ultimately agility is far more valuable than the clout that comes with market size. And as part of EFTA we are then part of the fourth largest bloc with an independent right of veto. That really is the best of both worlds.
By 2031, the global single market will be entirely voluntary, accession will not be controlled by the EU and the EU will not call all of the shots. From port dredging to computerising container terminals or compliance assistance. Every new nation that comes on-line is one more voice stacked against the EU.
The faster we work independently the more we can undermine the EU's control on the global single market. And that makes it a global community of equals each cooperating in accordance with their material needs rather than the desire to create an artificial region with borders and its own flag.
Effectively we will be handing the EU its redundancy notice and making it as relevant as the Commonwealth is now (i.e. not).
Britain is better out of the EU.
LeaveHQ, 04/05/2016
The treasury estimation of the EEA solution costing £2600 per household per annum by 2031 could not be more irrelevant. It makes one very significant and fundamentally flawed assumption that the EU controls the single market. The EU has been steadily losing its grip on the single market for some time and by 2031, it will not control the single market at all. The clue is in a UNECE tweet earlier today on the UNECE working party on perishable foodstuffs. Arcane I know. Stay with me.
The primary functions of Working Party 11 are to develop and update the Agreement concerning the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs and to promote the facilitation of international transport of perishable foodstuffs by harmonising the relevant regulations and rules and the administrative procedures and documentation requirements to which this refrigerated transport is subject. 49 countries are parties to the agreement including three, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, from outside the UNECE region.
This is just one of many is a massive matrix of global regulators. That is a global region which conforms to the same standards throughout, and most of ratifying states have a tariff agreement with the EU of some kind. At present it is not a single market. But when you add the Paris Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), TIR and the various mutual recognition agreements embodying ISO standards and the likes, it very much starts to look like a global single market.
What's more, development of these happens all the time in back-room committee meetings in Geneva and elsewhere, all working inside the framework of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. The activity is ongoing, every week. Item by item, common agreement is reached.
When agreements are reached then they become treaty revisions and the standards are updated. But that's just concerning one area of trade. There is also the IMO's agreement on container weighing, UNECE standards and UN regulations on vehicle design, emissions and safety. Then there are the various Codex committees. There is a committee or body for just about everything you can imagine.
And because all these nations all agree to the same standards, the EU has little choice but to adopt them as its own. And while it is an influential bloc, commanding a majority within it, the WTO is in the process of pushing more and more nations into abiding by Codex and UNECE, including the USA little by little. So the EU's power is very much dependent on the subject matter.
We saw an example of this dynamic just recently with the IMO having the collective clout to push back against unwelcome interventions from the EU - and New Zealand has just adopted Codex standards as the basis of its own food safety and export rules - the global single market is growing all the time. In the food industry especially.
Meanwhile, there are several regional N-Cap car safety bodies all of which are gradually merging under the mantle of Global N-Cap. All of this is far more significant than TTIP, especially with negotiations at serious risk of collapse.
Consider the significance of a global standard for vehicle design and safety features. Any car produced anywhere in the world by 2031 could be a saleable commodity anywhere on the planet. The same will be true of foodstuffs too, not least because of a global standard on refrigerated containers.
And with tariffs being already quite low the tendency is not to bother entering trade talks for the removal of tariffs when you can do more by establishing common standards and thus reducing transaction costs by a sum greater than that of the tariff.
Where it ends nobody knows, but it is part of the global trend toward continuous development and harmonisation of standards. By international law, if any goods meet the international standard and there is a recognised mutual agreement on compliance inspection then the EU may not refuse goods. So it's no longer the boss.
We will hear much in the coming weeks about the EU and its digital single market, but in most respects, we have one in the works, not at the EU level but at the global level - which needs further improvements not least to cut down on video piracy and counterfeit goods. We want a global agreement. Nobody is downloading hacks so they can access the French version of Netflix. Everybody wants the USA version.
So by 2031, there will be a nexus of global accords that completely surpasses the EU, to which the EU may not by law erect barriers. If anything, because of the EU's insistence on a common position, it is the slow man of the world in implementing standards and we lose out. That's why there were African states abolishing roaming charges before the EU.
What these global accords are is the manifestation of multilateralism and cooperation, whereas the EU is purely about establishing a country called Europe which speaks on behalf of all its members. We need to leave them to it and make our own way in the modern globalised age; we can be at the cutting edge of standards implementation.
So when you hear the meme that other countries wouldn't be interested in trade talks with the UK, that's really nothing to get worked up about because they do tend their own delegations to these global forums - and so will we. Their very membership of these bodies means they will be talking to us because nothing gets done if they don't.
And that brings us back to this treasury report that essentially claims we will be frozen out of any future EU bilateral deals. I can't think of anything that matters less. Any agreements it makes will be to strong arm outsiders into adopting the global standard, not EU standards, therefore all they will be doing is bring on new nations on stream to the global single market - and in so doing weakening its own influence on global bodies by way of being a smaller proportion of the votes.
Since there is then an established commonality between all parties, WTO rules then take effect where the agreement can be replicated without even having direct talks. There is a growing trend for agreements to be replicated without the need for diplomatic missions. It's all just part of the daily business of the various global regulators and the WTO. By 2031, that is how most agreements will be conducted making things like TTIP positivity antique.
You can argue that being in the EU gives the EU extra clout, but being out of the EU does not mean opposing the EU automatically. We will likely be allied more often than not, but as an independent nation we could choose to side with the EU or not according to the situation
The bottom line is, the EUs hegemony in regulations and standards is coming to a close, and ultimately agility is far more valuable than the clout that comes with market size. And as part of EFTA we are then part of the fourth largest bloc with an independent right of veto. That really is the best of both worlds.
By 2031, the global single market will be entirely voluntary, accession will not be controlled by the EU and the EU will not call all of the shots. From port dredging to computerising container terminals or compliance assistance. Every new nation that comes on-line is one more voice stacked against the EU.
The faster we work independently the more we can undermine the EU's control on the global single market. And that makes it a global community of equals each cooperating in accordance with their material needs rather than the desire to create an artificial region with borders and its own flag.
Effectively we will be handing the EU its redundancy notice and making it as relevant as the Commonwealth is now (i.e. not).
Britain is better out of the EU.
Edited by FiF on Wednesday 4th May 17:46
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff