EU Referendum

[websaway]

Nearly half of all new homes built in England in the next five years are needed to cope with the influx of migrants, official figures have suggested.
The Government yesterday forecast that high levels of net immigration will lead to the creation of 95,000 new households a year.
But ministers have only set a target of building 1 million new homes in England by 2020, equivalent to 200,000 a year.
This suggests that almost half will be needed to help accommodate the expected arrival of 217,000 migrants annually.
David Cameron is facing criticism for failing to meet his target to reduce net migration to "tens of thousands" as the government struggles to build enough homes to cope with current demands.

The shortage of new homes - the worst since the 1970s - has been blamed for current record house prices with first time buyers increasingly unable to get on the property ladder.

 

[Toonz]

Who here is confident that Britain will be able to obtain a trade agreement with the EU without permitting freedom of movement? After all, we know that Norway had to accept this. What is your reason for believing that Britain will be any different?

All I've heard from Brexiters about this are jocular assurances that the Germans will still want to sell us their VWs, the French their cheese, and so on.

As I see it, Britain has more to lose from not getting an EU trade agreement than the Germans and French have from not being able to sell us their cars and cheese. Ergo, they're in the stronger negotiating position.

And that's not including the fact that they'll be looking to make an example of the UK to discourage other EU states from following the same path - indeed the future of the EU will depend on us being seen to be in a sticky situation.

Websaway - whadyasay?

 

[scottmccloud]

We could yet find the outcome of the referendum being decided not on rational arguments about sovereignty, economics and immigration but on a wave of public emotion following a 'black swan' type event such as a terrorist attack either here or on the continent.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of their reasons for doing so, there would almost certainly be a big public swing towards Brexit.

 

[Toonz]

That's a good point. I've heard it said that Islamic State stand to benefit from a fractured and weakened EU. Let's just hope European security services are operating at maximum capacity over the next 3 weeks.

Ex-KGB thug Putin - no stranger to false flag ops and the dark arts - would also benefit, but I doubt he'd be that stupid on foreign soil, at least not on that scale.

 

[websaway]

Who here is confident that Britain will be able to obtain a trade agreement with the EU without permitting freedom of movement? After all, we know that Norway had to accept this. What is your reason for believing that Britain will be any different?

All I've heard from Brexiters about this are jocular assurances that the Germans will still want to sell us their VWs, the French their cheese, and so on.

As I see it, Britain has more to lose from not getting an EU trade agreement than the Germans and French have from not being able to sell us their cars and cheese. Ergo, they're in the stronger negotiating position.

And that's not including the fact that they'll be looking to make an example of the UK to discourage other EU states from following the same path - indeed the future of the EU will depend on us being seen to be in a sticky situation.

Websaway - whadyasay?

Norway population 5 million UK population 70 million.
Free movement is the carrot for countries to join this pyramid scheme.
We won't accept closer union or uncontrolled immigration. That's why we are leaving.

 

[websaway]

That's a good point. I've heard it said that Islamic State stand to benefit from a fractured and weakened EU. Let's just hope European security services are operating at maximum capacity over the next 3 weeks.

Ex-KGB thug Putin - no stranger to false flag ops and the dark arts - would also benefit, but I doubt he'd be that stupid on foreign soil, at least not on that scale.

You could equally say that isis benefit from EU unity because they can easily invade the furthermost parts of Europe through Trojan horse immigration. New statistics show that Islam is the fastest growing movement in the west.

 

[Toonz]

You could equally say that isis benefit from EU unity because they can easily invade the furthermost parts of Europe through Trojan horse immigration. New statistics show that Islam is the fastest growing movement in the west.

To date almost all of those arrested for plotting or carrying out terror attacks in the UK have been home-grown, ie. born in the UK. This isn't conventional warfare - Islamism is an ideology. It doesn't need foreigners to infiltrate a country. It spreads primarily through propaganda, not warships. It doesn't "invade" in the traditional sense. There is a danger of Isis fighters entering the UK from Syria posing as refugees but that would be the case whether we were inside or outside the EU since we can set how many we take in.

 

[Toonz]

Norway population 5 million UK population 70 million.
Free movement is the carrot for countries to join this pyramid scheme.

So you're saying that we'll be able to obtain a decent trade deal with the EU that doesn't require free movement because we're a more populous country, is that right?

I mean, you may well be correct but I'm just curious how you feel so sure of it, especially in light of the reasons to doubt it that I mentioned in my last post, and the risks involved. I'm curious to know what gives Brexiters that confidence, apart from a tub-thumping sense of "We're British, damnit!" - that our being a population of 64 million is going to swing it.

 

[martin-s]

As with all negotiations, there would be to'ing and fro'ing while the positions are eeked out. If the UK's position is that free movement is an absolute red line we will not cross, a deal would be found despite that.

Trade is in everyone's interests. We might not get as good a deal as we would by allowing free movement, but isn't that a price worth paying?

Particularly Albania, Serbia, Turkey, etc. pending.

Immigration based on a points system is perfectly reasonable. People value coming to the UK because of the opportunity it offers and anyone with something valuable to offer in return should be welcome.

And it shouldn't just be based on a salary threshold like it is at the moment.

 

[websaway]

To date almost all of those arrested for plotting or carrying out terror attacks in the UK have been home-grown, ie. born in the UK. This isn't conventional warfare - Islamism is an ideology. It doesn't need foreigners to infiltrate a country. It spreads primarily through propaganda, not warships. It doesn't "invade" in the traditional sense. There is a danger of Isis fighters entering the UK from Syria posing as refugees but that would be the case whether we were inside or outside the EU since we can set how many we take in.

With the greatest respect that's rubbish, they are already in Europe and they will get in here because of the free movement policy. Possibly 4 million in Europe could have EU passports by 2020 . We know there are several thousands in the UK under the radar how many of those are potential jihadis. I do agree though that it is a new form of warfare and the objective is terrorism. Core islam does not integrate with us in the west.

 

[Toonz]

As with all negotiations, there would be to'ing and fro'ing while the positions are eeked out. If the UK's position is that free movement is an absolute red line we will not cross, a deal would be found despite that.

Trade is in everyone's interests. We might not get as good a deal as we would by allowing free movement, but isn't that a price worth paying?

Particularly Albania, Serbia, Turkey, etc. pending.

Immigration based on a points system is perfectly reasonable. People value coming to the UK because of the opportunity it offers and anyone with something valuable to offer in return should be welcome.

And it shouldn't just be based on a salary threshold like it is at the moment.

I think it would reassure a lot of Brits. Immigration has been a national gripe for as long as I can remember. One good thing about "resolving it" (if I can put it like that) is that it hopefully lessens the chance of far right politics taking hold in Britain. I just hope people aren't too disappointed by what happens in the event of Brexit. I had to laugh when Farage responded to this point on one of the panel shows by saying that taking fewer Europeans frees us up to take in more migrants from Asia. (I pictured my dear old Dad's eyes on stalks.)

 

[websaway]

So you're saying that we'll be able to obtain a decent trade deal with the EU that doesn't require free movement because we're a more populous country, is that right?

I mean, you may well be correct but I'm just curious how you feel so sure of it, especially in light of the reasons to doubt it that I mentioned in my last post, and the risks involved. I'm curious to know what gives Brexiters that confidence, apart from a tub-thumping sense of "We're British, damnit!" - that our being a population of 64 million is going to swing it.

Leave aside what Obama says he won't be there next year. So I think we have strength in volume, yes. I don't see companies pulling out of the UK I think the UK will develop into an Island fortress and be a physical haven in a very dangerous world. We won't leave Europe as an ally, we will just not be increasingly ruled by Europe. Theresa May nearly opted for the leave side and she's home secretary. You need to look at the government members who have gone brexit. Gove schools, IDS benefits, they know that the EU is harming the core of our society. The country will go back to the tenement days of the 1940's when people could not afford housing, secured short hold tenancies are not family homes they are temporary accommodation. When families fall behind in rent because of ever increasing rents due to the low supply of housing they are out of the decent family home market, blacklisted. Children's school education can be disrupted relationships break down and this affects the least privileged in our country. The people who can't or don't want to make a decision are the all right jack's who don't see the real world, they are insulated from the affects, for now at least, of the EU membership downside.

 

[Toonz]

With the greatest respect that's rubbish, they are already in Europe and they will get in here because of the free movement policy. Possibly 4 million in Europe could have EU passports by 2020 . We know there are several thousands in the UK under the radar how many of those are potential jihadis. I do agree though that it is a new form of warfare and the objective is terrorism.

Sorry, I misunderstood your point about jihadis. Yes I accept that's a risk and a scary unwelcome one that leaving the EU would nip in the bud - but that relies on the assumption that we won't have to sign up to free movement, so we're back to that one again. It's going to be a pretty damn important red line by the look of it. I just look at the meagre concessions that Cameron went looking for 6 months ago and wonder how they'll respond the next time.

 

[atlas]

UK Voters Lean Towards Brexit:

Public opinion has shifted towards the UK leaving the EU, two Guardian/ICM polls suggest as the referendum campaign picks up pace – with voters split 52% -48% in favour of Brexit, whether surveyed online or by phone.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-leaning-towards-brexit-guardian-poll-reveals

 

[Mark84]

To date almost all of those arrested for plotting or carrying out terror attacks in the UK have been home-grown, ie. born in the UK. This isn't conventional warfare - Islamism is an ideology. It doesn't need foreigners to infiltrate a country. It spreads primarily through propaganda, not warships. It doesn't "invade" in the traditional sense. There is a danger of Isis fighters entering the UK from Syria posing as refugees but that would be the case whether we were inside or outside the EU since we can set how many we take in.

This is a complete myth which many people mistakenly use, it is completely and utterly wrong to suggest that just because the attacks were UK citizens then immigration doesn't have a connection with terrorism and I'll explain why.

The security services have finite resources. The more immigrants they need to follow, the less they are able to focus on home grown terrorists. The 7/7 terrorists were all known to security services before they blew themselves up. It was a resources issue as to why the surveillance was pulled from them in the month before.

Subsequent inquiries found that if they weren't running round chasing immigrants in 2005 (bearing in mind, immigration in 2005 wasn't a touch on what it is now), they would have been able to follow the 2 suspects out of the group that they were aware of and stopped the attacks.

Sorry but I hear this UK born terrorist myth a lot from politicians and it is completely false.

 

[Edwin]

The referendum explained, in two (and a bit) minutes...
http://www.theguardian.com/global/v...ferendum-brexit-for-non-brits-video-explainer

 

[martin-s]

The referendum explained, in two (and a bit) minutes...
http://www.theguardian.com/global/v...ferendum-brexit-for-non-brits-video-explainer

The referendum explained BY THE GUARDIAN!

 

[Edwin]

The referendum explained BY THE GUARDIAN!

True. There wasn't a single reference to the £350 million a week figure, which has been debunked more thoroughly than the moon landing conspiracies, yet which is still quoted daily by Remain (Boris Johnson did so yesterday afternoon, for example). But in just over two minutes, there's not enough room to squeeze everything in

 

[Edwin]

BTW, is anyone of "remain" persuasion bothered about the Leave camp's attempts to create new policy on the fly, for example:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...english-in-post-brexit-uk-says-leave-campaign

As we've already discussed earlier in this thread, they're not the ones who will be implementing a post-Brexit scenario, so it seems a mite cheeky to be spitting out new policies like a shopping list when they in practice have zero say in whether their ideas make the cut or not. Especially since they're being issued in the same "language of certainty" that real, actual policies use i.e. "we will", etc.

 

[Edwin]

(I think by page 26 of this thread, none of us are going to convince the others to change their position, so it's really just friendly water cooler talk at this point...)