EU Referendum - How will you vote?

[tzijlstra]

So you will only ever do something that as been done before by someone else.

 

Now were would the human race be if everyone was unwilling to take risks.

 

Its been said to you before but its not sinking in.

 

What has been said to me before? And what risks are you talking about, people deserve to hear the results of an isolationist policy that eschews trade in exchange for a reduction in immigration. Spell it out then.

 

After Brexit our government will be fully unaccountable for all immigration, and they can be kicked out of government.

 

Can they? what, Labour/Tory/Labour/Tory/Labour/Tory - real proper kicking out indeed. Talk about sham democracy, there is no way. What was the absolute vote UKIP got at the last national elections, and what did they get back for it?

 

What a bizarre conclusion and I think I can safely say that you are very wrong as usual.

 

Nothing bizarre about it. Labelling the whole of Islam as unwelcome because there are terrorist elements in it is islamophobe and xenophobe. Zamo knows that, he doesn't actually challenge me on it, ever.

[I1L2T3]

You clearly are struggling, who said it would be turn off, using your analogy. Taps give you control, burst pipes don't give you control, leaving the EU fixes the burst pipe and leave us with a tap that can be controlled, in addition to the tap we can also be selective about who comes through it. That gives us the ability to say no to some whilst saying yes to others, it would enable us to plan for the future because we would have total control over numbers.

 

Not struggling at all.

 

Your idea of tight control goes out the window once the demands of business come into play.

 

I understand your idea but the reality is that as soon as you try what you suggest the squeals from British business leaders are going to burst your eardrums.

 

It's a theory, nothing more, and it will never be put into practice in the way you want even if we leave the EU. The principle driver around any kind of selection will not be what is the best for the country but what is best for business.

 

You just haven't though it through at all.

[sutty27]

What has been said to me before? And what risks are you talking about, people deserve to hear the results of an isolationist policy that eschews trade in exchange for a reduction in immigration. Spell it out then.

What isolationist policy.

 

 

 

 

Can they? what, Labour/Tory/Labour/Tory/Labour/Tory - real proper kicking out indeed. Talk about sham democracy, there is no way. What was the absolute vote UKIP got at the last national elections, and what did they get back for it?

 

Yes they can but only if the electorate want it.

 

 

Nothing bizarre about it. Labelling the whole of Islam as unwelcome because there are terrorist elements in it is islamophobe and xenophobe. Zamo knows that, he doesn't actually challenge me on it, ever.

 

No it isn't.

 

There are 100 people, one of them hates you and everything you stand for and wants to kill you, but you don't know which one it is, the other 99 share some of his beliefs but won't do you ant harm.

 

Ten of them want somewhere to live, do you invite them to share your home and risk the lives of you and your family or do say no to them all?

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2016 at 08:27 ----------

 

Not struggling at all.

 

Your idea of tight control goes out the window once the demands of business come into play.

 

Other countries manage just fine with a selective immigration policy, what makes you think the same policy wouldn't work here.

 

 

I understand your idea but the reality is that as soon as you try what you suggest the squeals from British business leaders are going to burst your eardrums.

The government is answerable to the electorate not British Business.

 

It's a theory, nothing more, and it will never be put into practice in the way you want even if we leave the EU. The principle driver around any kind of selection will not be what is the best for the country but what is best for business.

The best thing for business is to allow the people in that they need and stop the ones they don't need, now tell me in which world do businesses need immigrant to stand on a corner selling the big issue?

 

 

 

You just haven't though it through at all.

[Zamo]

I think it is a pretty easy riddle to solve - you are a xenophobic islamophobe who thinks anybody who reads the Koran is an extremist lunatic wanting to kill all Brits, am I wrong?

 

You are given many legitimate arguments why people oppose unselective, mass immigration but, because you have no counter arguments that hold water, you always retreat to labelling the opposing view as xenophobic and using that as your excuse for running away from the debate.

 

Same tactic when it comes to Islam. I have given you a number of valid reasons why we should challenge Islam and those perpetuating it. I point out that even in its' supposedly 'moderate' form it induces extremism, as demonstrated by the huge number of British Muslims from 'moderate' Muslim backgrounds joining ISIS. 'Moderate' Muslims choose to introduce their children to Islam fully aware that it increases the risk of radicalisation and the consequence that occur when this happens. They choose to teach their young to revere a holy book that literally revels in violence and intolerance and they can't simply absolve themselves of all responsibility when some start taking it literally... they told them it was the word of god after all.

 

I know most Muslims do not hate non-Muslims or want us all dead but it is irrelevant because Islam is still dangerous nonsense and they are the ones sustaining it.

 

You know full well that it is nasty and divisive, for example, to teach kids that those who don't believe in the faith will be condemned to burn in hell for eternity. You know it is the sort of dehumanising that makes it easier for impressionable young minds to accept and embrace the reality of violent extremism. But it is Muslims doing it and you are so scared of the the racism label that you turn a blind eye and shout 'Islamophobe!' to try and silence the criticism. You are a traitor to your own values and principles.

 

So how do you explain that there were more non-EU migrants than EEA migrants in the past year?

 

Government failure to control both EU and non-EU immigration?

 

I believe we need a single immigration policies that is indiscriminately applied. I believe we need to review asylum policy. I also believe this needs to be done by our government alone so we can hold them 100% to account for it's success or failure... which means we have to leave the EU.

 

So what would Brexit do for that? I genuinely don't understand why people like Open Borders and Zamo seem to think leaving the EU is going to slow down immigration, there is no precedent for it.

 

Leave the EU and we can stop the free movement of people from within the EU and cherry pick who we allow in. We can ignore EU directives about asylum and any future plans for 'redistribution'. Our government will make immigration policy and decisions and we will hold them 100% instead of having just an 8% say on matters taken by the EU (less when/if other countries join the EU).

 

The Balkan states have clearly shown that when you retake control of your boarders you can quiet successfully stem the flow of immigration. And we don't even need to build fences... we have the sea.

[I1L2T3]

What isolationist policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes they can but only if the electorate want it.

 

 

 

 

No it isn't.

 

There are 100 people, one of them hates you and everything you stand for and wants to kill you, but you don't know which one it is, the other 99 share some of his beliefs but won't do you ant harm.

 

Ten of them want somewhere to live, do you invite them to share your home and risk the lives of you and your family or do say no to them all?

 

---------- Post added 11-05-2016 at 08:27 ----------

 

Other countries manage just fine with a selective immigration policy, what makes you think the same policy wouldn't work here.

 

 

The government is answerable to the electorate not British Business.

 

The best thing for business is to allow the people in that they need and stop the ones they don't need, now tell me in which world do businesses need immigrant to stand on a corner selling the big issue?

 

 

 

You just haven't though it through at all.

 

The Tories increased net immigration year on year until 2015 but still got voted in. I think you know as well who really pulls the strings and it isn't us. I'm not defending that situation but it's the reality.

 

Like it not the policies you describe will never happen even if we leave the EU.

[sutty27]

The Tories increased net immigration year on year until 2015 but still got voted in. I think you know as well who really pulls the strings and it isn't us. I'm not defending that situation but it's the reality.

 

Like it not the policies you describe will never happen even if we leave the EU.

 

 

They didn't increase it because they have no control over numbers, but they were more selective when it came to non EU migration, they can't be selective when it comes to EU migration.

[L00b]

I believe we need a single immigration policies that is indiscriminately applied.

So, that would be the UK's 2008 points-based-system which is currently (and steadfastly for years) letting more non-EU immigrants into the UK than the free-for-all free movement which less EU immigrants are using.

Leave the EU and we can stop the free movement of people from within the EU and cherry pick who we allow in.

If the UK manages to stay out of EEA/EFTA-like conditions.

 

My money says that, in case of a Brexit, the ensuing negotiations will eventually result in granting free movement into the UK back to EU nationals.

 

Because that's been a fundamental requirement for doing business with the EU for decades, whether it's called "free movement" or "simplified visa procedure" or <etc.>, and that won't ever change (it's been widely reported, lastly by pro-Brexit IDS at the weekend, that all other EU member states would sooner let the UK Brexit with all the risks to the EU that this entails, than erode the core principle of free movement).

 

Feel free to disbelieve or disagree. But don't ever say you weren't told

We can ignore EU directives about asylum and any future plans for 'redistribution'.

The UK already can, and already has, by exercising its opt-out (which is enshrined in EU statutes and which, to be changed, would require all member states to agree - which is never going to happen, since the UK is never going agree to it).

The Balkan states have clearly shown that when you retake control of your boarders you can quiet successfully stem the flow of immigration. And we don't even need to build fences... we have the sea.

The Balkans states have clearly shown that when they perceive that their national interest is endangered by Germany and the EU, and once their leaders have popular backing, it's quite alright to give the rods to the EU...and they won't get kicked out of the EU for it.

 

Perhaps you should demand your government and MEPs to emulate the Balkans/do more, rather than hold Brexiting as the 'solution', which it so clearly won't be insofar as immigration is concerned. In the least.

 

EDIT - be sure to tune in to Channel 4 on the eve of the referendum

Edited May 11, 2016 by L00b

[alchresearch]

Brexit campaign group fined £50k for sending half a million spam texts

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/11/leave_eu_campaign_fined_50k_sending_half_a_million_spam_texts/

[Zamo]

So, that would be the UK's 2008 points-based-system which is currently (and steadfastly for years) letting more non-EU immigrants into the UK than the free-for-all free movement which less EU immigrants are using.

 

The points based system needs review because net migration levels are still too high. When this happens you create strain on public services (NHS, schools, Housing etc) and this leads to division because those already here see their standard of living/choices declining because of immigration. This is not the way to create social harmony.

 

Surely L00b you are not seriously suggesting that free movement is somehow more effective at controlling immigration that a points based selection process?!? Do you not think the reason that immigration from outside the EU might be higher is perhaps because there are 13 times as many people in the rest of the world and there is more poverty and warring (the main drivers for migration)?

 

If the UK manages to stay out of EEA/EFTA-like conditions.

 

My money says that, in case of a Brexit, the ensuing negotiations will eventually result in granting free movement into the UK back to EU nationals.

 

Because that's been a fundamental requirement for doing business with the EU for decades, whether it's called "free movement" or "simplified visa procedure" or <etc.>, and that won't ever change (it's been widely reported, lastly by pro-Brexit IDS at the weekend, that all other EU member states would sooner let the UK Brexit with all the risks to the EU that this entails, than erode the core principle of free movement).

 

Feel free to disbelieve or disagree. But don't ever say you weren't told

 

Thanks for your assessment of the situation. I don't agree so let's agree to disagree.

 

The UK already can, and already has, by exercising its opt-out (which is enshrined in EU statutes and which, to be changed, would require all member states to agree - which is never going to happen, since the UK is never going agree to it).

 

There is an interesting piece here that examines whether the EU could get around the opt out. I don't think anyone can say with certainty that it we stay in we will not have migrants imposed on us.

 

The Balkans states have clearly shown that when they perceive that their national interest is endangered by Germany and the EU, and once their leaders have popular backing, it's quite alright to give the rods to the EU...and they won't get kicked out of the EU for it.

 

Perhaps you should demand your government and MEPs to emulate the Balkans/do more, rather than hold Brexiting as the 'solution', which it so clearly won't be insofar as immigration is concerned. In the least.

 

The bureaucratic wheels of the EU turn slowly and they are deliberately turning slowly when it comes to throwing its weight around regarding the migration crisis... they don't want to British public thinking they're in control before the referendum do they? Only time will tell what punishments may befall the rebellious Balkan states if they don't step back in line. You may recall the UK picking up a £1.7bn bill from the EU not long ago after retrospectively reviewing economic performance since 1995! The EU can creep up and bite a country years after an event.

[unbeliever]

Brexit campaign group fined £50k for sending half a million spam texts

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/11/leave_eu_campaign_fined_50k_sending_half_a_million_spam_texts/

 

Cool. A few more hundred such fines and it'll pay for the remain leaflets.