Politics, politics, politics

[glorygloryeze]

Personally, I see the ability to live and work in other countries as a good thing.

It is down to the nation state to regulate their country as they see fit and there is plenty of scope for putting measure in place to stop migrants moving to take advantage of more generous benefits systems, if they see fit. There are moves towards tax harmonisation throughout Europe but they have not got very far, in part down to the UK and Irish governments. Benefits obviously need to vary across the continent because the cost of living varies so much but the fact of the matter is that British benefits are not generous by continental standards (when adjusted for cost of living).

The people moving to the UK have been done so overwhelmingly to find work (with the bonus of improving their English). Most come here for a short while and then go back, some obviously settle. Few claim benefits and even fewer come here with that intention. All this has happened whilst the UK has had record levels of employment, so they are clearly not taking jobs from British workers. Evidence of wage suppression being caused by migrants is limited and the immigrants are generally better skilled than the indigenous workers. This has been a good thing for the UK economy.

The ability to live and work in other countries is a good thing for those willing and able to do so.

But i will always believe it should be the host country's right to manage their immigration policy with regards to migrant workers as they see fit and any given time.

There naturally cannot be a one-policy-fits all across a diverse set of countries as those that exist within the EU and it's no wonder that a move towards tax harmonisation across the EU has failed.

 

[glorygloryeze]

yeah, the whole point of that is there won't be any wars as we'll have realised we aren't actually different

a single racial group is the logical evolution of the human race

More lols...so what exactky will this "single racial group" be exactly in this new world of yours?

 

[glorygloryeze]

You ideally want movement for highly skilled workers (and university students), which benefits the whole country.

What you don't want is movement for unskilled workers, because all that effectively does is import the sweatshop, for the benefit of big company shareholders, and at the expense of the local working classes

So a work permit system

I think i agree with the basic gist of that.

A question to others: is this basically the immigration policy that the USA, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have?

 

[glorygloryeze]

We all have different welfare, that's one of the problems. So they are not through the front or back door melding all countries into one, or should I say not with this mandate

One of the problems of what? Can you clarify what you mean here?

 

[r-u-s-x01]

That's my issue; it is melding the countries within the EU into ONE country by default and relegating the different countries within the zone into regions.

We all have different welfare, that's one of the problems. So they are not through the front or back door melding all countries into one, or should I say not with this mandate

One of the problems of what? Can you clarify what you mean here?

One of the problems that encourages welfare tourism, if we all had the same welfare and similar costs of living there would be no need. The fact that each country has their own is a contributor of welfare tourism. As far as I am aware the EU does not mandate the level of welfare hence no melding of the countries

 

[glorygloryeze]

We all have different welfare, that's one of the problems. So they are not through the front or back door melding all countries into one, or should I say not with this mandate

One of the problems that encourages welfare tourism, if we all had the same welfare and similar costs of living there would be no need. The fact that each country has their own is a contributor of welfare tourism. As far as I am aware the EU does not mandate the level of welfare hence no melding of the countries

Surely the bigger issue is the difference in Economies and the different jobs and/or greater number of them on offer that is the main driver of migration within the EU (or anywhere).
But within a country you have 'free movement' of citizens to go from A to B to get a job (say from Plymouth to Manchester). Introducing 'free movement of citizens' within the EU area for me creates a situation whereby the EU become the equivalent of the new nation state and A and B become Portugal to Germany (for example).

This naturally leads to progressions towards policies that almost have to be EU-wide and the EU territory becomes the new nationstate.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think i agree with the basic gist of that.

A question to others: is this basically the immigration policy that the USA, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have?

I think Canada and Australia have points-based systems. These discriminate on broad criteria, but there's no room for more specific controls - i.e. if someone hits the points tally they are in.

But both Canada and Australia have been looking to increase their populations, as they are underpopulated (both combined are 7 million less than Britain).

A work permit system would be a better for our needs than a points-based system (May has been clear on that already)

 

[r-u-s-x01]

Surely the bigger issue is the difference in Economies and the different jobs and/or greater number of them on offer that is the main driver of migration within the EU (or anywhere).
But within a country you have 'free movement' of citizens to go from A to B to get a job (say from Plymouth to Manchester). Introducing 'free movement of citizens' within the EU area for me creates a situation whereby the EU become the equivalent of the new nation state and A and B become Portugal to Germany (for example).

This naturally leads to progressions towards policies that almost have to be EU-wide and the EU territory becomes the new nationstate.

OK but I thought we were talking specifically about welfare.

What you are saying is in essence correct, but the goal would be to get the worse economy on level with the best. As a nation we would be pooling sovereignty in return for the benefits of the single market. But as we can see with Brexit we still maintain it as we can choose to leave at any time (in addition to our veto in key matters)

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

The ability to live and work in other countries is a good thing for those willing and able to do so.

But i will always believe it should be the host country's right to manage their immigration policy with regards to migrant workers as they see fit and any given time.

There naturally cannot be a one-policy-fits all across a diverse set of countries as those that exist within the EU and it's no wonder that a move towards tax harmonisation across the EU has failed.

That is what I always thought.

I guess showing my age here but I was always more pi*sed that the French and Greeks etc got to retire at 55 and claim a pension but I have to work to 66, I am now in the position where the state pension is not so important but i would like to get back some of what I have paid in. They need to make the pension age the same across Europe, the new French guy might be doing that after the next election and I wonder how those lazy froggies will take that.....

 

[glorygloryeze]

That is what I always thought.

I guess showing my age here but I was always more pi*sed that the French and Greeks etc got to retire at 55 and claim a pension but I have to work to 66, I am now in the position where the state pension is not so important but i would like to get back some of what I have paid in. They need to make the pension age the same across Europe, the new French guy might be doing that after the next election and I wonder how those lazy froggies will take that.....

Surely, only if one wants an EU would the need for a consistent pension age across all the countries be necessary...

 

[Robspur12]

Surely the bigger issue is the difference in Economies and the different jobs and/or greater number of them on offer that is the main driver of migration within the EU (or anywhere).
But within a country you have 'free movement' of citizens to go from A to B to get a job (say from Plymouth to Manchester). Introducing 'free movement of citizens' within the EU area for me creates a situation whereby the EU become the equivalent of the new nation state and A and B become Portugal to Germany (for example).

This naturally leads to progressions towards policies that almost have to be EU-wide and the EU territory becomes the new nationstate.

Very interesting point GG. You and GB make very compelling arguments. I might sit on the opposite side of the fence to both of you in this argument but I have really enjoyed reading the debate. Much better than the Leave/Remain tripe served up by our politicians and popular media.

On the point about the EU being the new "nation state," what does that mean? A European population of 1/2 a billion people is impossible to govern from the centre. Even in Britain we have regional governments and regions with very individual identities. The UK is still the UK, there has been no loss of identity since 1993 when the markets opened up. I would not consider my self anything other than British. The EU's 4 freedoms are about making our relationships closer so that it is mutually beneficial on trade, on security etc. It is supposed to reduce bureaucratic barriers that will go up again should the Union break down. It is supposed to give us greater leverage in trade deals with countries outside the Union. It is supposed to make us safer by allowing our agencies to share intelligence and good practice (this does happen btw).

For sure there have to be safeguards to allow nation states to veto measures that we do not wish to adopt or to negotiate differences in the way some rules are interpreted, but these are already in place.

 

[Robspur12]

Surely, only if one wants an EU would the need for a consistent pension age across all the countries be necessary...

Why? We have an EU now and yet there is no consistent pension age across member states.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Why? We have an EU now and yet there is no consistent pension age across member states.

I was just poking fun that @Danishfurniturelover was/is a Eurosceptic

 

[glorygloryeze]

Very interesting point GG. You and GB make very compelling arguments. I might sit on the opposite side of the fence to both of you in this argument but I have really enjoyed reading the debate. Much better than the Leave/Remain tripe served up by our politicians and popular media.

On the point about the EU being the new "nation state," what does that mean? A European population of 1/2 a billion people is impossible to govern from the centre. Even in Britain we have regional governments and regions with very individual identities. The UK is still the UK, there has been no loss of identity since 1993 when the markets opened up. I would not consider my self anything other than British. The EU's 4 freedoms are about making our relationships closer so that it is mutually beneficial on trade, on security etc. It is supposed to reduce bureaucratic barriers that will go up again should the Union break down. It is supposed to give us greater leverage in trade deals with countries outside the Union. It is supposed to make us safer by allowing our agencies to share intelligence and good practice (this does happen btw).

For sure there have to be safeguards to allow nation states to veto measures that we do not wish to adopt or to negotiate differences in the way some rules are interpreted, but these are already in place.

The concept of the EU being a nationsate has even been discussed openly by the EU bigwigs themselves over the last couple of decades. Many times in the late 90s and 00s several bigwigs said openly that the process they were working towards "not just economic union but political union."

I will maybe take time tomorrow to find these quotes plus policy discussion papers where political union is openly discussed, even as recently as last year.

Of course it is not really workable to meld and turn 27 odd countries into one superstate (and one that can only really exist as a subtle superstate, much like the more overt Holy Roman Empires of the past) but it is certainly something the elites in Europe are looking to trying to do. My opinion is the that subtle erosion of national borders and trade barriers within the EU are stepping stones towards this. Turning individuals sovereign governments in countries like Italy, Spain etc into regional governments within the EU central government. There is inherently a large democratic deficit within such a Superstate (e.g. who is elected leader? how does a leader manage the realm and prioritise economic policy etc etc) and when it has been tried in the past it has always led to revolt and bloodshed (the iron being often the story is that the EU is good because it will prevent wars).

The sheer outcry and shock of the Brexit result shows how minds over the last 30 years have been subtly but very strongly shifted and conditioned to almost not know how life can possibly function if the UK is not part of the EU, showing that the bigwigs goal of "Economic and Political Union" is actually reasonably close to being complete - the mental barrier to it by the populace was and is the biggest obstacle to realisation.

The classic ironic joke of all of this is Scotland wanting to get its independence from the English-dominated United Kingdom (makes sense, after all the English monarchy took over and annexed Scotland into their realm from the times of the Stuarts) but yet want to run into and become part of another Union where again they will just be another region!

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Surely, only if one wants an EU would the need for a consistent pension age across all the countries be necessary...

hah

No it is one of the reasons I am anti the EU and as you point out, you could not make all Countries in Europe behave the same way for cultural reasons so forcing them is one of the reasons I hate the EU. If we had to be part of the EU I would not like it but had we voted to stay in I would have accepted it, but I have always said and if we go far enough back in this thread you could see, I have always said it is disgusting that Countries like Greece and France people can retire at 55 and receive the state pension.

So we vote again and we vote to stay in, then in 4 years time if and it is a big if, If I am still alive I want to get some of the fcuking money back I have paid in.

 

[Gutter Boy]

The concept of the EU being a nationsate has even been discussed openly by the EU bigwigs themselves over the last couple of decades. Many times in the late 90s and 00s several bigwigs said openly that the process they were working towards "not just economic union but political union."

I will maybe take time tomorrow to find these quotes plus policy discussion papers where political union is openly discussed, even as recently as last year.

Of course it is not really workable to meld and turn 27 odd countries into one superstate (and one that can only really exist as a subtle superstate, much like the more overt Holy Roman Empires of the past) but it is certainly something the elites in Europe are looking to trying to do. My opinion is the that subtle erosion of national borders and trade barriers within the EU are stepping stones towards this. Turning individuals sovereign governments in countries like Italy, Spain etc into regional governments within the EU central government. There is inherently a large democratic deficit within such a Superstate (e.g. who is elected leader? how does a leader manage the realm and prioritise economic policy etc etc) and when it has been tried in the past it has always led to revolt and bloodshed (the iron being often the story is that the EU is good because it will prevent wars).

The sheer outcry and shock of the Brexit result shows how minds over the last 30 years have been subtly but very strongly shifted and conditioned to almost not know how life can possibly function if the UK is not part of the EU, showing that the bigwigs goal of "Economic and Political Union" is actually reasonably close to being complete - the mental barrier to it by the populace was and is the biggest obstacle to realisation.

The classic ironic joke of all of this is Scotland wanting to get its independence from the English-dominated United Kingdom (makes sense, after all the English monarchy took over and annexed Scotland into their realm from the times of the Stuarts) but yet want to run into and become part of another Union where again they will just be another region!

The superstate has always been a goal of the architects. This is the famous quote from Jean Monnet in 1952:

“Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.”

It only started becoming a reality with Maastricht in 1992 though - that's when some decent co-operation started turning into an all-consuming monster.

 

[Robspur12]

The concept of the EU being a nationsate has even been discussed openly by the EU bigwigs themselves over the last couple of decades. Many times in the late 90s and 00s several bigwigs said openly that the process they were working towards "not just economic union but political union."

I am sure there have been discussions like there will be discussions on many issues.There will be idealists and there will be pragmatists. But it has not happened because I genuinely don't believe there is the political will for complete political integration. In the end each leader of the member state has to answer to his/her electorate. The leaders of the major powers are fiercely proud of their Countries' sovereignty and identity. This not just a British thing.

Of course it is not really workable to meld and turn 27 odd countries into one superstate (and one that can only really exist as a subtle superstate, much like the more overt Holy Roman Empires of the past) but it is certainly something the elites in Europe are looking to trying to do. My opinion is the that subtle erosion of national borders and trade barriers within the EU are stepping stones towards this. Turning individuals sovereign governments in countries like Italy, Spain etc into regional governments within the EU central government. There is inherently a large democratic deficit within such a Superstate (e.g. who is elected leader? how does a leader manage the realm and prioritise economic policy etc etc) and when it has been tried in the past it has always led to revolt and bloodshed (the iron being often the story is that the EU is good because it will prevent wars).

The close ties between the member states has helped them cooperate in a way that I believe is unprecedented in history. Each Member state maintaining its unique identity, its language, religion and culture whilst working together for a common good. This is not analogous with the Holy Roman Empire where regions were conquered, identities suppressed and religions coerced. I don't see that at all within the EU.

The sheer outcry and shock of the Brexit result shows how minds over the last 30 years have been subtly but very strongly shifted and conditioned to almost not know how life can possibly function if the UK is not part of the EU, showing that the bigwigs goal of "Economic and Political Union" is actually reasonably close to being complete - the mental barrier to it by the populace was and is the biggest obstacle to realisation.

I don't get this statement. In 30 years, major technological advances such as the internet, mobile phones, social media have also become part of every day life. We could function without them, we have done in the past. But we know life will be harder without those things and we would be at a major disadvantage against our competitors. It's the same with leaving the EU. We know Britain can survive, but life will be harder and there is a risk we will be left behind.

 

[milo]

Only if the goal is an ever expanding population and the continued economic and social surpression of all but the first world.

Work permits are easy if you keep the criteria simple. Something like one of: 1) university degree from a top 200 university, 2) considered internationally-excellent in a named profession (with appropriate testimonies), 3) £100,000 cash in the bank (with appropriate audit trail re legally acquired).

That's great but is someone in that position going to want to make me a coffee?

 

[scaramanga]

Surely the bigger issue is the difference in Economies and the different jobs and/or greater number of them on offer that is the main driver of migration within the EU (or anywhere).
But within a country you have 'free movement' of citizens to go from A to B to get a job (say from Plymouth to Manchester). Introducing 'free movement of citizens' within the EU area for me creates a situation whereby the EU become the equivalent of the new nation state and A and B become Portugal to Germany (for example).

This naturally leads to progressions towards policies that almost have to be EU-wide and the EU territory becomes the new nationstate.

Which is the long term plan if people don't stop it.

 

[scaramanga]

But as we can see with Brexit we still maintain it as we can choose to leave at any time (in addition to our veto in key matters)

The veto is less than worthless.

If the EU wanted to push something through they'd just rename a treaty as something else and get it past on a majority.