Penistone999 Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 The way things are going the whole thing might fall to bits prior to us getting a vote on it. Hopefully...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbalharry Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 I vote stay in. The uk is better in one Unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrystottle Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Funny thing, the EU. Every time Cameron trots off to Brussels he is told that his demands will mean changing EU treaties, and this will take years. Frau Murky unilterally drives a coach and horses through the Dublin agreement of people having to seek asylum in the first EU country, and is now demanding that the Dublin agreement be replaced. So obviously it depends who is asking for Treaty change, as to how quickly it can happen! I'm for "out". Merkel has decided that Europe needs millions more people. OK, good for her. But she has no mandate whatsoever to inflict her opinion on the rest of Europe, and in forcing other nations to accept quotas of people who are illegal immigrants, this is exactly what she is trying to do. No thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 .....to accept quotas of people who are illegal immigrants...... Germany went out its way to welcome those people. You can hardly call someone an illegal immigrant when they were so welcomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gomgeg Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Funny thing, the EU. Every time Cameron trots off to Brussels he is told that his demands will mean changing EU treaties, and this will take years. Frau Murky unilterally drives a coach and horses through the Dublin agreement of people having to seek asylum in the first EU country, and is now demanding that the Dublin agreement be replaced. So obviously it depends who is asking for Treaty change, as to how quickly it can happen! I'm for "out". Merkel has decided that Europe needs millions more people. OK, good for her. But she has no mandate whatsoever to inflict her opinion on the rest of Europe, and in forcing other nations to accept quotas of people who are illegal immigrants, this is exactly what she is trying to do. No thank you. Spot on. Plus the facts that most of the problems in this country are caused by the open borders policy that Cameron can't do anything about while we are in, Overcrowded schools, housing shortages, low wages, NHS can't cope and we can't do anything about people claiming human rights at every opportunity supported by parasite lawyers on legal aid. It's also been said that if we leave, the EU will impose trade barriers but seeing as we buy twice as much from Europe as they buy from us so any barriers put up will harm them more than us. ---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 18:53 ---------- Germany went out its way to welcome those people. You can hardly call someone an illegal immigrant when they were so welcomed. Why are they trying to get rid of them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L00b Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 You can hardly call someone an illegal immigrant when they were so welcomed.Ah well, ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GLASGOWOODS Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Funny thing, the EU. Every time Cameron trots off to Brussels he is told that his demands will mean changing EU treaties, and this will take years. Frau Murky unilterally drives a coach and horses through the Dublin agreement of people having to seek asylum in the first EU country, and is now demanding that the Dublin agreement be replaced. So obviously it depends who is asking for Treaty change, as to how quickly it can happen! I'm for "out". Merkel has decided that Europe needs millions more people. OK, good for her. But she has no mandate whatsoever to inflict her opinion on the rest of Europe, and in forcing other nations to accept quotas of people who are illegal immigrants, this is exactly what she is trying to do. No thank you. And she will expect us to throw more in the pot to pay for them. I'm oot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Funny thing, the EU. Every time Cameron trots off to Brussels he is told that his demands will mean changing EU treaties, and this will take years. Frau Murky unilterally drives a coach and horses through the Dublin agreement of people having to seek asylum in the first EU country, and is now demanding that the Dublin agreement be replaced. So obviously it depends who is asking for Treaty change, as to how quickly it can happen! I'm for "out". Merkel has decided that Europe needs millions more people. OK, good for her. But she has no mandate whatsoever to inflict her opinion on the rest of Europe, and in forcing other nations to accept quotas of people who are illegal immigrants, this is exactly what she is trying to do. No thank you. 1. Changing th EU treaties is a big deal. H'es been told he wont get treaty change before the referendum becayse its impractical for the other 28 to have ratified it by then. 2. The Dublin rules are not a treaty they are rules. The UK and many other member states have suspended the application of the Dublin rules because they are unworkable. By suspending the rules it is to their detriment and not advantage. 3. If you dont want refugees or immigrants, then you should design a system that works and decide if you want to be part of the UN convention on Refugees. ---------- Post added 20-01-2016 at 19:36 ---------- Germany went out its way to welcome those people. You can hardly call someone an illegal immigrant when they were so welcomed. I dont believe she is calling them illegal immigrants. They need to lodge asylum claims and for the time their application is being processed they are asylum seekers. They would only become illegal once their claim had been rejected and they had stayed beyond the time allowed following a failed application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swarfendor437 Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 tbh, swarfendor, the UK has been pushing towards getting signed up to the TTIP twice as hard as the EU (since it enjoys that special relationship with the TTIP's chief architect, don't you know ) and with just as much transparency i.e. none. In or out, where the TTIP is concerned the UK and the EU are just as bad as one another. Well Entrepreneur of the Year has started the ball rolling asking small business to sign the petition to bring it to a halt - if people do nothing then nothing happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted January 23, 2016 Share Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) I would vote OUT. Here are my three main reasons. 1) In 2013 (latest figures I can find) we paid into the Failed EU £17.06 billion. In return we received back 6.3 billion. Leaving a net contribution by the UK of £11 billion, give or take a few million. In July 2015 the UK agreed extra payments of £3.1 billion up to 2020, therefore the 2013 figures WILL have risen. 2) During its existence the Failed EU as we know it has never had it's books (accounts) ratified (examined and signed off as legal and above board). 3) The Failed EU has a yearly costs of £6.5 billion to run it. The gravy train really does start and stop here. 1) I think our Country could spend our contribution of £11 billion much better, hospitals, doctors, nurses, schools, defence, and more. 2) I believe it's a legal must to have your accounts ratified every year. How does the EU escape doing this. 3) £6.5 billion paid to a failed institution is simply ridiculous. Angel1. Edited January 24, 2016 by ANGELFIRE1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts