pwa wrote: I see that as a failing of the EU, and I think the EU is incapable of finding a solution that will give the UK a role we feel happy with. Leaving is the right thing for the UK and for the EU.
And having left then what? Refuse to trade with them? You'll have no option, we can't afford not to, they know that and we'll accept similar (if not worse) conditions than we currently have whilst patting ourselves on the back for having "shown Johnny Foreigner" a thing or two...
You misrepresent my views. I want Free Trade (a concept as old as the hills) but not Free Movement of Labour. Trade with the EU will continue. Nobody says otherwise. The EU without the UK will need that, and so will the UK. The "Johnny Foreigner" attitude is mostly a figment of your imagination.
I would be dismayed if we ended up in an EU that included Turkey. That would be the absolute end.
I wonder why nobody (on either side) ever brings up The Turkish Model, instead of the Norwegian or Swiss Models.
pwa wrote:You misrepresent my views. I want Free Trade (a concept as old as the hills) but not Free Movement of Labour. Trade with the EU will continue. Nobody says otherwise. The EU without the UK will need that, and so will the UK. The "Johnny Foreigner" attitude is mostly a figment of your imagination.
I would be dismayed if we ended up in an EU that included Turkey. That would be the absolute end.
"Johnny Foreigner" is an impression I get from watching a lot of interviews with folk in the 'out' camp, more a nod towards the imperialist Britain attitude that bubbles under the surface as a generalisation and not a nod to you personally.
The problem with "Free Trade" is there's not really such a thing, Free Trade means making a trade agreement, which means having conditions imposed and quite likely conditions you don't like otherwise you'd have already jumped at the chance to implement them. Bargaining from a position of weakness is most definitely not where one should be when making one either.
As far as 'Free Movement' goes I suspect any agreement will includes a degree of free movement of EU residents. To what degree I don't know but then neither does the out camp.
pwa wrote:You misrepresent my views. I want Free Trade (a concept as old as the hills) but not Free Movement of Labour. Trade with the EU will continue. Nobody says otherwise. The EU without the UK will need that, and so will the UK. The "Johnny Foreigner" attitude is mostly a figment of your imagination.
I would be dismayed if we ended up in an EU that included Turkey. That would be the absolute end.
"Johnny Foreigner" is an impression I get from watching a lot of interviews with folk in the 'out' camp, more a nod towards the imperialist Britain attitude that bubbles under the surface as a generalisation and not a nod to you personally.
The problem with "Free Trade" is there's not really such a thing, Free Trade means making a trade agreement, which means having conditions imposed and quite likely conditions you don't like otherwise you'd have already jumped at the chance to implement them. Bargaining from a position of weakness is most definitely not where one should be when making one either.
As far as 'Free Movement' goes I suspect any agreement will includes a degree of free movement of EU residents. To what degree I don't know but then neither does the out camp.
Of course the details of our Free Trade agreement will involve detailed negotiation, but both sides need it to work. The EU is economically weak at the moment and will not be in a position to seek terms that disadvantage the UK. The EU has never lost a member, and it would be devastating to the EU to see trade with the UK thrown into doubt. The Free Trade agreement will be unlike any other arrangement between the EU and another state. It will be unique. It will be in the interests of the UK and the EU to keep trade flowing freely upto and after the agreement, and to reassure investors that business will continue as normal.
fear campaigning? At least half the out campaign seems to focus on fear of immigrants and immigration. One thing the outers haven't mentioned so far is just how they propose to round up some 2 million plus EU immigrants for deportation. They say they have no current plans to do this but they will have if they win, oust Cameron and our new political masters are the likes of Peter Bone, Bill Cash, Michael Gove, David Davies and Boris Johnson.
I think you are raising an issue that doesn't exist. The OUT campaign does not involve a plan to repatriate those who are already established here. It does involve a plan to control the flow of future immigration. Even there, nobody is proposing that no immigration will be allowed from the EU. The idea that we will be rounding up large numbers of East Europeans for deportation is fantasy.
You're correct that the out campaign doesn't CURRENTLY involve a plan to deport EU immigrants. Many who oppose membership do so because they dislike the large numbers of EU immigrants in the UK and openly state they think there is far too much immigration. I believe you fall into this category. Even without a plan of deportation en masse EU immigrants will have to apply for leave to remain and those with unsuccessful applications will be rounded up and deported. I wonder how the outers will weight the rules against leave to remain being granted after Cameron is ousted and the anti EU right of the Conservative party take control. My guess is Johnson PM, Gove Chancellor and cabinet roles for the likes of Bone, Cash and Davis. As well as their attacks on immigrants they'll also start dismantling employment rights introduced by EU legislation such as the working time directive, Tupe and the minimum holiday entitlement.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
Pete75, I think your main concern is groundless. I've heard nobody seriously suggest mass deportation of mainland Europeans already established here. You are imagining stuff.
My experience, talking to others who want out, is that they like and admire the East Europeans they work with, and they do not want those people to have to leave. We simply want some control over future immigration to prevent a recurrence of the huge surges that have occurred in recent years.
I don't know exactly what controls will be used, but I imagine they could be confined to employment. EU citizens visiting for personal reasons other than employment could still enter without restriction. The right to work here would be the only major control required, and there is no reason why it should be denied to those already established here.
Psamathe wrote:I surprised myself this morning in that as somebody who was strongly supportive of staying in the EU I am now reconsidering. The news that it looks likely that Turkey's membership application is to be speed through (so they will help Germany or rather Merkel with some action on migrant/refugee problems to save her political career).
And I would be strongly against turkey joining the EU given the way their government behaves (at least strongly against Turkey currently joining an EU the UK was a member of). I seem to recall (maybe incorrectly) that back in the days when Turkey's government was more "moderate" the EU still found it unacceptable, so how we can now be considering a far more oppressive government for membership ...
Ian
So you think an Independent UK is going to keep more distant from Turkey for moral reasons?
No but I'm unconvinced that EU enlargement has worked well. Not that I have anything against the EU getting bigger, just that the politicians have not made a good job of setting the basis and when you have very different economies running under common rules things are less likely to work well.
My concerns are a along the same lines as I disapprove of the UK selling arms to Saudi Arabia. In practice I recognise that Saudi Arabia is going to get its arms from somewhere and still use them in the same manner. So bombs are still going to be dropped, people are still going to be killed either with UK supplied weapons or with weapons supplied from elsewhere - so why no allow UK industries to take the profits and keep people employed? However, to me it seems wrong and gives the impression that the UK is supporting the dropping of bombs and killing people.
Same with Turkey (or rather their government). when they government takes over the free press and behaves in an ever more oppressive manner and at the same time has its application for EU membership speed up because of electoral challenges to the Ms. Merkel it seems a poor way to make important decisions regarding the EU. And I'm questioning is the EU really does have a future when such long term and important decisions are influenced by short term political considerations over the interests of individuals.
I've not changed to now vote to leave, but have moved more to the "undecided" group.
Psamathe wrote:I surprised myself this morning in that as somebody who was strongly supportive of staying in the EU I am now reconsidering. The news that it looks likely that Turkey's membership application is to be speed through (so they will help Germany or rather Merkel with some action on migrant/refugee problems to save her political career).
And I would be strongly against turkey joining the EU given the way their government behaves (at least strongly against Turkey currently joining an EU the UK was a member of). I seem to recall (maybe incorrectly) that back in the days when Turkey's government was more "moderate" the EU still found it unacceptable, so how we can now be considering a far more oppressive government for membership ...
Ian
So you think an Independent UK is going to keep more distant from Turkey for moral reasons?
No but I'm unconvinced that EU enlargement has worked well. Not that I have anything against the EU getting bigger, just that the politicians have not made a good job of setting the basis and when you have very different economies running under common rules things are less likely to work well.
My concerns are a along the same lines as I disapprove of the UK selling arms to Saudi Arabia. In practice I recognise that Saudi Arabia is going to get its arms from somewhere and still use them in the same manner. So bombs are still going to be dropped, people are still going to be killed either with UK supplied weapons or with weapons supplied from elsewhere - so why no allow UK industries to take the profits and keep people employed? However, to me it seems wrong and gives the impression that the UK is supporting the dropping of bombs and killing people.
Same with Turkey (or rather their government). when they government takes over the free press and behaves in an ever more oppressive manner and at the same time has its application for EU membership speed up because of electoral challenges to the Ms. Merkel it seems a poor way to make important decisions regarding the EU. And I'm questioning is the EU really does have a future when such long term and important decisions are influenced by short term political considerations over the interests of individuals.
I've not changed to now vote to leave, but have moved more to the "undecided" group.
Ian
To be fair, Ian, I believe that sort of pragmatism operates as much in Westminster as in Brussels.
kwackers wrote:As far as 'Free Movement' goes I suspect any agreement will includes a degree of free movement of EU residents. To what degree I don't know but then neither does the out camp.
Switzerland gives a reasonable guide as to how the EU reacts when you suspend free movement.
pwa wrote:Pete75, I think your main concern is groundless. I've heard nobody seriously suggest mass deportation of mainland Europeans already established here. You are imagining stuff.
My experience, talking to others who want out, is that they like and admire the East Europeans they work with, and they do not want those people to have to leave. We simply want some control over future immigration to prevent a recurrence of the huge surges that have occurred in recent years.
I don't know exactly what controls will be used, but I imagine they could be confined to employment. EU citizens visiting for personal reasons other than employment could still enter without restriction. The right to work here would be the only major control required, and there is no reason why it should be denied to those already established here.
I've heard very different things from "Outers" over what should happen to EU immigrants already here. Remember you're in Wales, a country where UKIP has made little, if any, leeway and there aren't many Tories either. I'm in England.
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
pwa wrote:My experience, talking to others who want out, is that they like and admire the East Europeans they work with, and they do not want those people to have to leave. We simply want some control over future immigration to prevent a recurrence of the huge surges that have occurred in recent years.
What huge surge? 2 million citizens of the rest of the EU live in the UK and almost all are in productive employment helping our economy with their skills and labour. 2 million citizens of the UK live in the rest of the EU, mostly retired and drawing on their health and social care systems. Seems to me we've done very well out of that exchange.
pwa wrote:Of course the details of our Free Trade agreement will involve detailed negotiation, but both sides need it to work.
Lets be realistic here. The EU dominates the UK's trade but the EU's trade is dominated by the Rest of the World. They are important to us but we are not important to them.
The immediate effect of leaving on e.g. our farming sector will be dramatic. We will go from free movement of goods to import tariffs. The dairy sector for example is struggling at the moment and the EU is a dominant market for their produce. If we leave and move onto a dairy tariff such as that enjoyed by the US (19% IIRC), it would decimate our dairy farming industry. We simply will not be competitive on price with EU dairy products and the EU would quite like to cut our imports to help its own dairy industry.
pwa wrote:Pete75, I think your main concern is groundless. I've heard nobody seriously suggest mass deportation of mainland Europeans already established here. You are imagining stuff....
It's actually a difficult one and might happen (though not through immediate mass expulsions). When I lived in France I was in effect "expelled" through indirect measures (though I did actually continue to live there whilst breaking those regulations so not a true "expulsion" and I actually decided to return to the UK for other reasons anyway). I was in France as what they call "inactif" which means not working, not on pension, not claiming benefits, etc. And Sarkozy didn't like Brits living in French villages (changing the character, etc.) so he introduced restrictions to health cover. When I 1st moved to France my health cover was under an E106 (a bit like a EHIC on steroids) where I'm fully treated in France just as any French citizen but the UK is billed for my treatments. However that only provides up to 3 years cover (depending on UK NI contributions) after which you switch to the French system. And Sarkozy stopped that requiring you instead to take private insurance to the same level of cover as provided by the French system. Except as there was no private health insurance in France there were no companies offering such insurance and the French cover is very extensive and would be very expensive for private insurance. So catch 22. there were arguments with the EU about discrimination, etc. and in the end it was reduced to requiring you to be resident legally for 5 years before you were able to switch to the French system and have health cover. Except, when resident in France you cannot return to the UK for treatment under the NHS (even if you continue to pay UK tax). So you are completely "in-limbo" without and health cover anywhere.
(When you reached UK retirement age, the UK government then undertook paying the French for your health treatments again so no problem).
Some actions can be taken indirectly. And were the UK no longer e EU member state the "no discrimination" rules would no longer apply.
pwa wrote:Pete75, I think your main concern is groundless. I've heard nobody seriously suggest mass deportation of mainland Europeans already established here. You are imagining stuff....
It's actually a difficult one and might happen (though not through immediate mass expulsions). When I lived in France I was in effect "expelled" through indirect measures (though I did actually continue to live there whilst breaking those regulations so not a true "expulsion" and I actually decided to return to the UK for other reasons anyway). I was in France as what they call "inactif" which means not working, not on pension, not claiming benefits, etc. And Sarkozy didn't like Brits living in French villages (changing the character, etc.) so he introduced restrictions to health cover. When I 1st moved to France my health cover was under an E106 (a bit like a EHIC on steroids) where I'm fully treated in France just as any French citizen but the UK is billed for my treatments. However that only provides up to 3 years cover (depending on UK NI contributions) after which you switch to the French system. And Sarkozy stopped that requiring you instead to take private insurance to the same level of cover as provided by the French system. Except as there was no private health insurance in France there were no companies offering such insurance and the French cover is very extensive and would be very expensive for private insurance. So catch 22. there were arguments with the EU about discrimination, etc. and in the end it was reduced to requiring you to be resident legally for 5 years before you were able to switch to the French system and have health cover. Except, when resident in France you cannot return to the UK for treatment under the NHS (even if you continue to pay UK tax). So you are completely "in-limbo" without and health cover anywhere.
(When you reached UK retirement age, the UK government then undertook paying the French for your health treatments again so no problem).
Some actions can be taken indirectly. And were the UK no longer e EU member state the "no discrimination" rules would no longer apply.
Ian
My parents have recently returned from Ireland, where their state pension was paid by the UK government. People who retire to other parts of the EU take their UK pensions with them to contribute to local economies elsewhere. And they are not always getting free NHS style treatment when they have an illness.
Young migrants coming to the UK do contribute to the economy, but they are also having children. They are mainly at that stage in life. If a country swaps old people for young people it gets a jump in population. That causes a demand for more homes, it causes fields to be built on and it puts more traffic on our roads. We can cope with a bit of that but if we let it go on for too long we will have a less pleasant land to live in. That is regardless of what the economy is doing.
meic wrote:I will be voting to remain as a proud Nationalist.
..but a Welsh nationalist?
Nationalism - a horrid creed and responsible for many of the ills of the last century. As de Gaulle said 'Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.'
'Give me my bike, a bit of sunshine - and a stop-off for a lunchtime pint - and I'm a happy man.' - Reg Baker
