Brexit

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?

Hold on, are you talking about the terrorist threat or the migrant issue?

Are they not linked? People are fleeing Syria thanks to a combination of Assad and ISIS. Solve the problem of Assad murdering his own people and ISIS blowing people up and people will not be fleeing Syria in such numbers.

I approve of UK military involvement in taking on the threat of Islamic State. I would approve - if it were even a option - the use of the military (NATO forces and multinational UN peacekeepers) to establish heavily policed and protected safe zones for internally displaced populations within Syria.

Cool. So would I.

The problem is, the wars of the early millennium has put the UK electorate off direct military involvement, anywhere, off the table for generations. The idea of British soldiers dying abroad (unless it's for somewhere like the Falklands, for example) is completely anathema and for a politician to approve measures that would lead to this would be political suicide. Even if our military involvement would be critical for the 'common good' of the world.

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?

Hold on, are you talking about the terrorist threat or the migrant issue?

Are they not linked? People are fleeing Syria thanks to a combination of Assad and ISIS. Solve the problem of Assad murdering his own people and ISIS blowing people up and people will not be fleeing Syria in such numbers.

I approve of UK military involvement in taking on the threat of Islamic State. I would approve - if it were even a option - the use of the military (NATO forces and multinational UN peacekeepers) to establish heavily policed and protected safe zones for internally displaced populations within Syria.

But you wouldn't approve of using the military to take on Assad?

Cal wrote:People living in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc are not 'my neighbour'.

Crikey.

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Cal wrote:

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:So you're pro-active UK military involvement in Syria?

Hold on, are you talking about the terrorist threat or the migrant issue?

Are they not linked? People are fleeing Syria thanks to a combination of Assad and ISIS. Solve the problem of Assad murdering his own people and ISIS blowing people up and people will not be fleeing Syria in such numbers.

I approve of UK military involvement in taking on the threat of Islamic State. I would approve - if it were even a option - the use of the military (NATO forces and multinational UN peacekeepers) to establish heavily policed and protected safe zones for internally displaced populations within Syria.

But you wouldn't approve of using the military to take on Assad?

I have mixed feelings about that in a way that I don't when it comes to Islamic State. I can't help but feel Assad is going to have be of some use to us as we seek to find solutions in Syria - especially given the Russian dimension. I mean, Putin's a fairly unsavoury character, but everyone seems to think he can be useful in the fight against Islamic State and nobody's under any illusions that we won't have to deal with Assad through his offices. I don't see how attacking Assad's forces will help us work with the Russians constructively to bring some kind of closure to the Syrian upheaval. I wouldn't want to support Assad any more than I would want to support many of the extremely dubious 'rebels' fighting against him (you can look up their credentials on wikkipedia if you're curious).

Anyway, going off-topic here, so better stop.

Karl wrote:

Cal wrote:People living in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc are not 'my neighbour'.

Crikey.

They're not though? The UK is an island on the fringes of Western Europe. Those countries are either in Asia or Africa. And there are plenty of safe countries in Asia and Africa they have to pass through to get to the UK.

Far too far away to argue those countries are neighbours. It's not like we're talking about Australia or New Zealand which is basically just sunburnt British people with upside down seasons. They may be more remote but there is a shared culture, history, language etc that connects the two. Aussies coming to the UK is just returning to their ancestral home.

Migrants coming from the third world and ignoring all the other safe countries they have to pass through are just asylum shopping. On the scale at which it's happening, it's just not in the UK's interests to accept abandoning the Dublin agreement.

Grumpy David wrote:

Karl wrote:

Cal wrote:People living in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc are not 'my neighbour'.

Crikey.

They're not though? The UK is an island on the fringes of Western Europe. Those countries are either in Asia or Africa. And there are plenty of safe countries in Asia and Africa they have to pass through to get to the UK.

Far too far away to argue those countries are neighbours. It's not like we're talking about Australia or New Zealand which is basically just sunburnt British people with upside down seasons. They may be more remote but there is a shared culture, history, language etc that connects the two. Aussies coming to the UK is just returning to their ancestral home.

Migrants coming from the third world and ignoring all the other safe countries they have to pass through are just asylum shopping. On the scale at which it's happening, it's just not in the UK's interests to accept abandoning the Dublin agreement.

They're not though, they are mostly stopping at countries like Greece and it's at the point that these neighbouring countries are being overwhelmed. The UK contribution (while great) isn't as significant as these other countries. It makes sense that everyone shares the burden, does it not?

After all we are happy to meddle with the politics of these countries, destabilising parts when it's beneficial for us, but turn our back on the side affects.

Let's put this the other way around... What if the large majority of Iceland, Greenland, Ireland were in a similar situation and had to flee their countries from war/natural disaster or something else and we were seeing many people arrive in the UK. Would you still expect the UK to take on all of these extra people at once? I appreciate that the countries I've mentioned have small populations compared to their land mass, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

BID0 wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Karl wrote:

Cal wrote:People living in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, etc are not 'my neighbour'.

Crikey.

They're not though? The UK is an island on the fringes of Western Europe. Those countries are either in Asia or Africa. And there are plenty of safe countries in Asia and Africa they have to pass through to get to the UK.

Far too far away to argue those countries are neighbours. It's not like we're talking about Australia or New Zealand which is basically just sunburnt British people with upside down seasons. They may be more remote but there is a shared culture, history, language etc that connects the two. Aussies coming to the UK is just returning to their ancestral home.

Migrants coming from the third world and ignoring all the other safe countries they have to pass through are just asylum shopping. On the scale at which it's happening, it's just not in the UK's interests to accept abandoning the Dublin agreement.

They're not though, they are mostly stopping at countries like Greece and it's at the point that these neighbouring countries are being overwhelmed. The UK contribution (while great) isn't as significant as these other countries. It makes sense that everyone shares the burden, does it not?

If 'everyone' is given a democratic vote and votes for it, then yes, it would make sense.

BID0 wrote:After all we are happy to meddle with the politics of these countries, destabilising parts when it's beneficial for us, but turn our back on the side affects.

Our 'meddling' was subject to the democratic process here in the UK. Parliament debated and voted on military intervention in Syria.

BID0 wrote:Let's put this the other way around... What if the large majority of Iceland, Greenland, Ireland were in a similar situation and had to flee their countries from war/natural disaster or something else and we were seeing many people arrive in the UK. Would you still expect the UK to take on all of these extra people at once? I appreciate that the countries I've mentioned have small populations compared to their land mass, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

It's not the same thing. It's a false equivalence. Iceland, Greenland and Ireland all share (as Grumpy David has pointed out already) a cultural similarity to the UK. I don't think there are too many who would object to providing asylum to their peoples as integration would be relatively simple and painless.

Cal wrote:

BID0 wrote:Let's put this the other way around... What if the large majority of Iceland, Greenland, Ireland were in a similar situation and had to flee their countries from war/natural disaster or something else and we were seeing many people arrive in the UK. Would you still expect the UK to take on all of these extra people at once? I appreciate that the countries I've mentioned have small populations compared to their land mass, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

It's not the same thing. It's a false equivalence. Iceland, Greenland and Ireland all share (as Grumpy David has pointed out already) a cultural similarity to the UK. I don't think there are too many who would object to providing asylum to their peoples as integration would be relatively simple and painless.

I know many people from Iran, Iraq etc. They're very well educated, even more so than myself. They're not the mindless animals you seem to think they are.

Besides, London has the biggest cultural diversity in the world, generates the most revenue for the country and it's not burning to the ground.

BID0 wrote:

Cal wrote:

BID0 wrote:Let's put this the other way around... What if the large majority of Iceland, Greenland, Ireland were in a similar situation and had to flee their countries from war/natural disaster or something else and we were seeing many people arrive in the UK. Would you still expect the UK to take on all of these extra people at once? I appreciate that the countries I've mentioned have small populations compared to their land mass, but hopefully you can see what I'm getting at.

It's not the same thing. It's a false equivalence. Iceland, Greenland and Ireland all share (as Grumpy David has pointed out already) a cultural similarity to the UK. I don't think there are too many who would object to providing asylum to their peoples as integration would be relatively simple and painless.

I know many people from Iran, Iraq etc. They're very well educated, even more so than myself. They're not the mindless animals you seem to think they are.

Besides, London has the biggest cultural diversity in the world, generates the most revenue for the country and it's not burning to the ground.

Break down those London stats and you'll find it's immigrants from Western Europe and English speaking states that are the biggest net gain immigrant for the UK. Followed by Eastern European. Pretty certain that Somalia was dead last in the report IIRC.

Grouping immigrants as a whole distorts the figures, when you break it down by where the immigrants come from you see the true picture.

Grumpy David wrote:when you break it down by where the immigrants come from you see the true picture.

And what picture is that exactly - that some people are worth less?

Just because someone can press a few buttons in a bank tower and make millions, doesn't make them any more or less important than somebody washing a car, emptying bins, putting out fires or administering medicine. All of these people form a society and have their part to play.

Michael Caine has come out in support of OUT.

BBC Radio 4, TODAY Programme wrote:To me you’ve now got in Europe a sort of government by proxy of everybody who has now got carried away and I think unless there are some extremely significant changes we should get out.

Because you’ll say ‘well, we’ll fail’ and you’ll go ‘well okay, so you fail. Get better, work harder, try harder and then you’ll be a success.

But you cannot be dictated to by thousands of faceless civil servants who make these rules and you say ‘oh, wait a minute.’

Then they argue about financially but we buy more from them than we sell to them.

I sort of feel certain we should come out.

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:when you break it down by where the immigrants come from you see the true picture.

And what picture is that exactly - that some people are worth less?

Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't. Why take in loads of people who will be net losses? Why not have a points based system that allows the UK to cherry pick?

BID0 wrote:Just because someone can press a few buttons in a bank tower and make millions, doesn't make them any more or less important than somebody washing a car, emptying bins, putting out fires or administering medicine. All of these people form a society and have their part to play.

We don't need to import immigrants to do these jobs when we've got plenty of unemployed people and students who could do these jobs instead.

You favour big business by constantly over supplying the labour market, I favour allowing the market to reach a natural supply and demand equilibrium without the distortion caused by 300,000 net immigration to the UK.

Grumpy David wrote:

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:when you break it down by where the immigrants come from you see the true picture.

And what picture is that exactly - that some people are worth less?

Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't. Why take in loads of people who will be net losses? Why not have a points based system that allows the UK to cherry pick?

That is very different to "this country appears lower down on the table of net gain to the economy so let's restrict their migrants and asylum seekers and favour the higher-earning nations".

Also

Grumpy David wrote:

BID0 wrote:Just because someone can press a few buttons in a bank tower and make millions, doesn't make them any more or less important than somebody washing a car, emptying bins, putting out fires or administering medicine. All of these people form a society and have their part to play.

We don't need to import immigrants to do these jobs when we've got plenty of unemployed people and students who could do these jobs instead.

Except those unemployed people and students aren't applying for these service level jobs, causing a hole in the job market which we're having to plug with migrant workers.

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Constant Christmas Countdown wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:when you break it down by where the immigrants come from you see the true picture.

And what picture is that exactly - that some people are worth less?

Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't. Why take in loads of people who will be net losses? Why not have a points based system that allows the UK to cherry pick?

That is very different to "this country appears lower down on the table of net gain to the economy so let's restrict their migrants and asylum seekers and favour the higher-earning nations".

Also

Grumpy David wrote:

BID0 wrote:Just because someone can press a few buttons in a bank tower and make millions, doesn't make them any more or less important than somebody washing a car, emptying bins, putting out fires or administering medicine. All of these people form a society and have their part to play.

We don't need to import immigrants to do these jobs when we've got plenty of unemployed people and students who could do these jobs instead.

Except those unemployed people and students aren't applying for these service level jobs, causing a hole in the job market which we're having to plug with migrant workers.

Dan, I'm not aware of anyone who is against the use of migrant workers. That really isn't the point, so let's not get derailed. I am against wholly unsustainable open-door immigration with no regard to need or want, which is why I oppose our staying in the EU. Even today, the French Prime Minister is expressing grave concerns...

French Prime Minister Manuel Valls has warned that Europe's migration crisis is putting the EU at grave risk. Mr Valls told the BBC Europe could not take all the refugees fleeing what he called terrible wars in Iraq or Syria. "Otherwise," he said, "our societies will be totally destabilised."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35375303

Of course, I had to go looking for that on the BBC website - it certainly wasn't on the front page.

It was this morning at around 9am. It's since been replaced with "EU referendum: Czechs propose benefit 'brake'" and the Michael Caine story.

Cal wrote:Dan, I'm not aware of anyone who is against the use of migrant workers. That really isn't the point, so let's not get derailed.

Grumpy David wrote:Some people are of net benefit to the tax man and some aren't.
[...]
We don't need to import immigrants to do these jobs when we've got plenty of unemployed people and students who could do these jobs instead.

Now you are, Cal.

I literally can't keep up with Cal. Makes a mountain out of a molehill every time

We are talking about sharing immigration across all European countries so the countries along the border aren't taking in every single person fleeing from conflicts. That would be in line with what you want surely? not having one country 'flooded' with people.

I honestly don't think you know what you want.

I feel like the whole EU referendum is now wrapped up in some mad game theory. Of the three possible outcomes:

1) Remain in Europe with renegotiated terms
2) Remain in Europe without renegotiated terms
3) Leave Europe

Option 3 is the worst outcome for both the UK and Europe. Option 2 is the best outcome for Europe, and option 1 is the best outcome for the UK. However, knowing that the UK would prefer option 2 over option 3, Europe has no reason to accept any renegotiations. Which means that in order to secure the best outcome for the UK, the public have to commit to the worst outcome, as Europe would then prefer to renegotiate terms rather than lose the UK entirely.

I don't see any result in a referendum other than remaining in Europe, but we need enough of a possibility of leaving to help leverage a better deal.

I can't see how there will be any deal. Any terms that are changed to benefit the UK will be applied to all countries. The UK won't get preferential treatment.