pete0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 The difference is that the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation, and the United States is a sovereign nation, so individuals are migrating from one part of the country to another. This is the entire point: Romania is NOT the UK; Bulgaria is NOT Belgium; etc. Why should individuals be free to migrate to another country based on a dictate from the EU leadership that, for some reason known to them and not to the rest of us, free migration must be a prerequisite to belonging to a free trade block. It's pretty obvious to me that this is a policy designed to implement and cement a single super-state. This is precisely what most Britons do not want and why Leave supporters won the vote. What gives someone the right over another where to live? People are people. MikeO and Johnsy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chach Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Why should individuals be free to migrate to another country based on a dictate from the EU leadership that, for some reason known to them and not to the rest of us, free migration must be a prerequisite to belonging to a free trade block. Surely in a union such as the EU its fairer to have free migration so that British companies have exactly the same access to labour/skills as everyone else in the union and vice versa? This is precisely what most Britons do not want and why Leave supporters won the vote. To me this is the thing though, while I acknowledge that the overall leave vote won, there is no average "Briton", younger people were clearly in favour of remain so is the Brexit going to happen and then as soon as the baby boomers shuffle off, then there's a groundswell to rejoin? How can you say "most Britons" (I know technically 52% is more than 48% so lets not get into semantics of the word most) when the result is almost split down the middle? Surely between remainers and leavers we can all agree this is an absolute clusterf^&k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 The difference is that the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation, and the United States is a sovereign nation, so individuals are migrating from one part of the country to another. This is the entire point: Romania is NOT the UK; Bulgaria is NOT Belgium; etc. Why should individuals be free to migrate to another country based on a dictate from the EU leadership that, for some reason known to them and not to the rest of us, free migration must be a prerequisite to belonging to a free trade block. It's pretty obvious to me that this is a policy designed to implement and cement a single super-state. This is precisely what most Britons do not want and why Leave supporters won the vote. Let's be careful in our terminology: We are NOT EU citizens. The two of us are British citizens. There is no EU superstate, and I, for one, do not want to see a superstate. It says EU citizen on my passport, I assume it does on yours aswell. The EU is not a sovereign nation, it also isn't just an international organisation. It is a supranational organisation ('sui generis' if you want to get technical) which has certain exclusive competences, where sovereignty has been transferred from the member state to the EU (the EU being the grouping of 27 (28) member states, not some faceless bureaucratic institution) because the 27 (28) members decided that some issues are better decided at a European level. So in simple terms you could actually say that concerning certain areas the EU is a country in your sense of the word (how else could one explain decisions taken at a European level by 27 (28) countries with majority voting). Anyway I'm not going to get into it that much because it won't convince you in the slightest, but what I wrote is the gist of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 The difference is that the United Kingdom is a sovereign nation, and the United States is a sovereign nation, so individuals are migrating from one part of the country to another. This is the entire point: Romania is NOT the UK; Bulgaria is NOT Belgium; etc. Why should individuals be free to migrate to another country based on a dictate from the EU leadership that, for some reason known to them and not to the rest of us, free migration must be a prerequisite to belonging to a free trade block. It's pretty obvious to me that this is a policy designed to implement and cement a single super-state. This is precisely what most Britons do not want and why Leave supporters won the vote. To give people freedom of choice where they live. Why the fuck should borders founded by war and greed stop people living their lives where they want? Let's be careful in our terminology: We are NOT EU citizens. The two of us are British citizens. There is no EU superstate, and I, for one, do not want to see a superstate. I am an EU citizen, it says it right on top of the passport and the country I was born and raised in is part of that alliance. Because of my EU citizenship, I've been allowed to live and work in 4 countries without any hassle and will receive pension contributions from 2 of them. I am a European much more than I am English, having lived abroad for 10 years already holystove and Chach 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFC-Paul Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Surely in a union such as the EU its fairer to have free migration so that British companies have exactly the same access to labour/skills as everyone else in the union and vice versa? To me this is the thing though, while I acknowledge that the overall leave vote won, there is no average "Briton", younger people were clearly in favour of remain so is the Brexit going to happen and then as soon as the baby boomers shuffle off, then there's a groundswell to rejoin? How can you say "most Britons" (I know technically 52% is more than 48% so lets not get into semantics of the word most) when the result is almost split down the middle? Surely between remainers and leavers we can all agree this is an absolute clusterf^&k. I agree with that Chach and I've no issue with it in that regard (beneficial to both sides) my problem is it does need tweaking, we see a far greater number of immigrants coming in than we do migrants leaving I think it's around 150.000 when you take people migrating into account and without adding the estimated 25.000 illegals per year I worry when does it all come to a crunch? We can't continuously sustain the numbers that's my only problem with the system I'm all for it just in a more controlled way Just going back a tad onto making the other less fortunate states more livable, the EU has had decades to do just that it hasn't and it simply isn't going to happen just look at how they've handled Greece it's appalling It is a clusterfukc I don't think the leave camp actually thought they'd win and visa versa.... worrying that both sides have campaigned hard for this and now it's happened it's a case of "what now" Chach 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFC-Paul Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 thats jealousy mate, you're confusing it Ha you've got me.. Every credit though Matt I'd love to do something similar and it is/was a massive benefit of remaining Find me a train drivers job and you'll have a FIFA partner for life ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Ha you've got me.. Every credit though Matt I'd love to do something similar and it is/was a massive benefit of remaining Find me a train drivers job and you'll have a FIFA partner for life Actually, I've seen people applying for both TGV and SBB of late, so theres clearly opportunities! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Just going back a tad onto making the other less fortunate states more livable, the EU has had decades to do just that it hasn't and it simply isn't going to happen just look at how they've handled Greece it's appalling Greece is a bad example because their national government committed massive fraud. The majority of member states now believe austerity is the way out for the Greeks. They are still receiving billions of Euro though. Portugal would be a better example of a country that has been part of the EU for decades and has greatly benefited from European integration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Show me the part where I said ALL (your caps), and I'll show you the part where using the term straw man fell out of fashion on TT. That's how I read it, apologies if I musunderstood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFC-Paul Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Greece is a bad example because their national government committed massive fraud. The majority of member states now believe austerity is the way out for the Greeks. They are still receiving billions of Euro though. Portugal would be a better example of a country that has been part of the EU for decades and has greatly benefited from European integration. Greece isn't a bad example in my eyes it's the perfect example of the EU (Merkel) slamming a bullish fist down throwing unsustainable bail out loans at them then demanding a pound of flesh back http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3623005/The-German-iron-fist-smashing-Europe-apart-Merkel-s-brutal-treatment-Greece-means-peaceful-prosperous-EU-pipe-dream.html Portugal is said to be the next potential casualty by many economists with their largest bank on the brink of collapse needing to find 4 billion to pull itself out of the shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Greece is a bad example because their national government committed massive fraud. The majority of member states now believe austerity is the way out for the Greeks. They are still receiving billions of Euro though. Portugal would be a better example of a country that has been part of the EU for decades and has greatly benefited from European integration. There is always a bad example when it doesn't fit the pattern. Greece should never have been allowed to join the euro. They fiddled the figures and the EU turned a blind eye, desperate to get them in. Youth unemployment 2016. Greece 49% Spain 45% Italy 39% Portugal 30% I'm not sure that the youth of those countries see the EU as 'their future'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329850-600-end-of-nations-is-there-an-alternative-to-countries/ Interesting article on the end of nation states. Worth a read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 But it has already been tried, and failed. The Soviet Union and now, the EU which is failing. There is a saying 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupt absolutely'. Any political 'dictatorship' - and at global level it becomes so remote from the people that it inevitably becomes a dictatorship - will ultimately fail. The real power in the EU is remote from the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 But it has already been tried, and failed. The Soviet Union and now, the EU which is failing. There is a saying 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupt absolutely'. Any political 'dictatorship' - and at global level it becomes so remote from the people that it inevitably becomes a dictatorship - will ultimately fail. The real power in the EU is remote from the people. The United States of America haven't done too bad though. Anyway, the article I posted is also about why the EU in its current form is set up to fail. "Zielonka agrees that further integration of Europe’s governing systems is needed as economies become more interdependent. But he says Europe’s often-paralysed hierarchy cannot achieve this. Instead he sees the replacement of hierarchy by networks of cities, regions and even non-governmental organisations. " Anyway, it's not gospel, just food for thought for those who want to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Power to the people eh. I knew Wolfie Smith would come good in the end. The reason America have done OK is that it is a democratic country. Neither the Soviet Union or the EU are democratic. Edited July 1, 2016 by johnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
holystove Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Power to the people eh. I knew Wolfie Smith would come good in the end. The reason America have done OK is that it is a democratic country. Neither the Soviet Union or the EU are democratic. It's OK. I should have known you were just winding me up. (and if you weren't, please re-read the thread from page 1 :thumbs up: ) Although I do think the fact that you use the same bold and invalidated statements as 20 pages are a show of ill will (or dementia). Edited July 1, 2016 by holystove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 What gives someone the right over another where to live? People are people. I understand that some would like to see a superstate with free migration of people - access to education, healthcare, welfare, housing, etc. no matter where in the union they choose to move. But that is the very definition of a superstate, and I just happen to disagree with it. So do a majority of Britons, it seems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Surely in a union such as the EU its fairer to have free migration so that British companies have exactly the same access to labour/skills as everyone else in the union and vice versa? To me this is the thing though, while I acknowledge that the overall leave vote won, there is no average "Briton", younger people were clearly in favour of remain so is the Brexit going to happen and then as soon as the baby boomers shuffle off, then there's a groundswell to rejoin? How can you say "most Britons" (I know technically 52% is more than 48% so lets not get into semantics of the word most) when the result is almost split down the middle? Surely between remainers and leavers we can all agree this is an absolute clusterf^&k. Yes, 52% is greater than 48%. As for those who didn't vote, shame on them - and we can make no assumptions about their views. All we know is that a majority of voters support Leave and extrapolate to conclude that so do a majority of Britons as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) holystove, If we had a 'thumbs up' emoticon I would show it. Edited July 1, 2016 by johnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 It says EU citizen on my passport, I assume it does on yours aswell. The EU is not a sovereign nation, it also isn't just an international organisation. It is a supranational organisation ('sui generis' if you want to get technical) which has certain exclusive competences, where sovereignty has been transferred from the member state to the EU (the EU being the grouping of 27 (28) member states, not some faceless bureaucratic institution) because the 27 (28) members decided that some issues are better decided at a European level. So in simple terms you could actually say that concerning certain areas the EU is a country in your sense of the word (how else could one explain decisions taken at a European level by 27 (28) countries with majority voting). Anyway I'm not going to get into it that much because it won't convince you in the slightest, but what I wrote is the gist of it. Here's the rub, I think. Leaders of member nations did indeed transfer authority for many aspects of life to the EU - but the people never really had a choice. You can argue that the people elected these leaders, but they didn't elect them based on this issue but on others. Consistently, the British people (at least from anecdotal evidence) did not want this to happen. The Brexit vote was the first opportunity since Britain was solely in a Common Market/Economic Community to make their views clear on this one issue alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 holystove, If we had a 'thumbs up' emoticon I would show it. Edited for you . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete0 Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 I understand that some would like to see a superstate with free migration of people - access to education, healthcare, welfare, housing, etc. no matter where in the union they choose to move. But that is the very definition of a superstate, and I just happen to disagree with it. So do a majority of Britons, it seems. Should all those things not be right for all people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Thanks Mike, where did that come from? (If I knew I would put a 'thumbs up emoticon here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornish Steve Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Should all those things not be right for all people? Well then. Let's just tear down all barriers between all nations and let everyone migrate wherever they want with unfettered access to healthcare, education, welfare, and so on. Let's see what happens then. There's nothing wrong with having the goal of overcoming inequality. I'm a huge proponent of that. It's why I support outsourcing, because it's been by far the most successful form of foreign aid. The answer is not to simply tear down all barriers. Nations exist because every culture is different, and values are different, and problems are different. If we really cared about inequality, we'd truly help African nations, for example, saddled with huge debt and ridiculous austerity measures. The world's current approach is a travesty. The solution respects national sovereignty; we can't just ignore it. My argument is that all of Europe is ready for, and really wants, economic union. Many countries are completely unready for political union. Let's recognize that fact. If we do, maybe, in a few decades, political union will be a real possibility. It isn't right now. EFC-Paul and Romey 1878 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makis Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 But it has already been tried, and failed. The Soviet Union and now, the EU which is failing. There is a saying 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupt absolutely'. Any political 'dictatorship' - and at global level it becomes so remote from the people that it inevitably becomes a dictatorship - will ultimately fail. The real power in the EU is remote from the people.Then we should get rid of countries as well. Great Britain is a collection of nations and those nations could further be divided to smaller units. We need to go down to groups of just a few hundred to get to a level where those things don't matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 This has been my bugbear with it all and why the whole racism issue has been blown out of proportion as a tool for "operation fear" Come to Telford...it's not properganda. Polish are getting leaflets through thier doors saying fuck off back home. Embarrassing. Shameful. Disgusting. And sadly....real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnh Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 When I came out of the army in 1957 I started work at a Caterpillar Tractor dealer in Leeds. There were several Polish workers in the workshops. I can still remember their names. Marian Mrowka and Mykola Krupianka worked on reconditioning tractors and engines. Peter Powydysz was one of the elite 'Field Service Engineers'. Josef Szular who operated the steam cleaning bay. I used to make up the wages and pay them out. Mykola Krupianka was a big bloke and a bit fiesty. If he had a query on his wage he would stomp down to my office and you could hear his voice a mile away. Whether the problem was my fault or not, once it was sorted he would always hold his hand out to shake and say thank you. Brilliant blokes, salt of the earth. I am distraught to read what has been going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shukes Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 Jonh are you some kind of genius....your memory is incredible. Love your story's. great to read. EFC-Paul 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EFC-Paul Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) Come to Telford...it's not properganda. Polish are getting leaflets through thier doors saying fuck off back home. Embarrassing. Shameful. Disgusting. And sadly....real. It is real you'd be daft to the think otherwise and no one has said its purely propaganda so I'm not sure what your referencing.... I've got polish neighbours they've never had an issue since moving next door five years ago and there's a fair amount of racial tension in parts of Preston Edited July 1, 2016 by EFC-Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted July 1, 2016 Report Share Posted July 1, 2016 When I came out of the army in 1957 I started work at a Caterpillar Tractor dealer in Leeds. There were several Polish workers in the workshops. I can still remember their names. Marian Mrowka and Mykola Krupianka worked on reconditioning tractors and engines. Peter Powydysz was one of the elite 'Field Service Engineers'. Josef Szular who operated the steam cleaning bay. I used to make up the wages and pay them out. Mykola Krupianka was a big bloke and a bit fiesty. If he had a query on his wage he would stomp down to my office and you could hear his voice a mile away. Whether the problem was my fault or not, once it was sorted he would always hold his hand out to shake and say thank you. Brilliant blokes, salt of the earth. I am distraught to read what has been going on. My first "proper" (1977) job we had an incredibly well spoken photographer who was introduced to me as "Chris". Was only when I got a list of phone extension numbers given to me me that I saw his name was actually Krzysztov Walicki; he was Polish also. Lovely bloke except for his habit of never putting his hand in his pocket at the pub; he used to arrive five minutes after the rest of us at lunchtime and buy himself a pint and come and sit with us. Then he'd barely touch it until someone said, "Who wants another?" at which point he'd neck it. He'd then shamelessly do the same thing with every future round (and there used to be many). Drove a Porsche unsurprisingly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.