BPX002: This May Be Our Independence Day

[nakamura]

I'm English. My wife is Japanese. She gets ****ed over big style because of the hits to non EU foreigners coming to live over here. The money we've spent on visa's and simple things like transferring data would have given us enough deposit money to buy a house from those middle/upper class ***** that bought all the houses up.

[PaTaito]

Just to echo what's already been said, the housing crisis isn't really a valid reason to want to leave the EU. It's got bugger all to do with the EU. And to assert that we might not have a housing crisis without "20-30 years of mass immigration" is also false. We've had mass immigration a lot longer than that. What about Indian and Pakistani immigration in the 50s? What about mass Irish immigration, which predates our accession to the EU?

According to this here link,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29594642

the top 5 countries for arriving immigrants in 2014 were: the US, Australia, China, India and Poland. Yes, there's an EU country in there, but it's hardly a damning indictment of intra-EU immigration, is it?

We had much more space and a rather more stable political landscape to accommodate people in the 50's, and people didn't come here with a knowledge of how to exploit the benefit system.

Explain to me how millions of migrants over the last decade or more has no effect on the housing system? Demand > Rising costs. Simple cause and effect.

This article is from 2009...

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/144

A couple of points from the article:

1: Allowing for those who leave, net foreign migration reached 333,000 in 2007, three times the level of 1997.

7: Nearly 40% of household formation in the period 2006-31 will be a result of new immigration - that is 2.5 million extra households.

No effect on housing, and nothing to do with the EU?

Britain needs to be able to make the rules now regarding benefits and borders, and europe not only prevents that, but makes even small changes an act of grovelling to other EU leaders. Many of whom who will likely have a conflict of interest.

[Team Andromeda]

I'm English. My wife is Japanese. She gets ****ed over big style because of the hits to non EU foreigners coming to live over here. The money we've spent on visa's and simple things like transferring data would have given us enough deposit money to buy a house from those middle/upper class ***** that bought all the houses up.

Tell me about it . Its total and utter discrimination. Be you from the EU or Japan or the USA you should have all the same rights not just workers rights but human rights , its disgraceful the EU is allowed to and able to act in this way for me

[endo]

Well how about Donald tusk for starters ? Did you vote for him, did the people of Europe vote for him to be President of the European Council ? (Yet he was the one conducting talks with our elected PM ). Nope didn't think so .... Same went for Herman Van Rompuy.

But the Council has no legislative powers and is composed of the heads of state or government of the member states. The president is also answerable to the directly elected parliament.

[endo]

Why do you think that if we vote to leave the UK will not be able to do business with the EU ?. I like the Xbox One and PS4 are Microsoft or SONY European corps ? . Loads of Steel workers are losing their jobs thanks to the High Carbon targets of the EU (and so it leads to high energy prices) and the EU being flooded with cheap Chinese steel . Is China (which manufactures over 80% of EU goods) part of the EU too? , I don't think so

So don't give me we not be able to trade with the EU if we pull out, more so when there's parts of Spain and Greece that would go into economical collapse with out the British tourist, never mind the French wine we buy or the German cars

You've missed the point there. I didn't mention I wouldn't be able to do business with EU countries. Of course I will. It'll cost more and involve more bureaucracy, that's the issue. A relatively minor pain in the arse for a sole trader like me, a considerably bigger one for large corporations.

Also, according to this (granted, it's for 2014, but things haven't changed that radically in a year), Chinese imports account for 18% of EU trade, so I'm not sure where 80% of all goods comes from.
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documen...2015-AP-EN.pdf

[Team Andromeda]

You've missed the point there. I didn't mention I wouldn't be able to do business with EU countries. Of course I will. It'll cost more and involve more bureaucracy, that's the issue.

I can't see it myself ...since we contribute some 10 Billion a year 'net' into the EU budget ... even if we have to pay to be part of the single market like Norway I doubt will be any better or any worse off myself . Anyway to me it's not about financial or immigration issues. Its all about democracy/accountability and the complete lack of it in the EU and that's why I'm voting to leave

[endo]

We had much more space and a rather more stable political landscape to accommodate people in the 50's, and people didn't come here with a knowledge of how to exploit the benefit system.

Explain to me how millions of migrants over the last decade or more has no effect on the housing system? Demand > Rising costs. Simple cause and effect.

This article is from 2009...

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/144

A couple of points from the article:

1: Allowing for those who leave, net foreign migration reached 333,000 in 2007, three times the level of 1997.

7: Nearly 40% of household formation in the period 2006-31 will be a result of new immigration - that is 2.5 million extra households.

No effect on housing, and nothing to do with the EU?

Britain needs to be able to make the rules now regarding benefits and borders, and europe not only prevents that, but makes even small changes an act of grovelling to other EU leaders. Many of whom who will likely have a conflict of interest.

I didn't say that millions of immigrants haven't had an effect on the housing system. I said it's nothing to do with the EU and leaving won't fix it. As you could see from the link I posted, only Poland was in the top 5 countries from which immigrants arrive. Leaving the EU will have precisely no effect on immigrants arriving from Australia, the US, China and India. The link you posted even mentions that the majority of immigrants come from outside the EU, but yeah let's leave and it'll magically fix the problem.

[Team Andromeda]

But the Council has no legislative powers and is composed of the heads of state or government of the member states. The president is also answerable to the directly elected parliament.

Please the MEP's only have a minimum say . The unelected commission that runs the day to day matters and more importantly coming up with and imposing new Laws which affect all members of EU members . Also I'm glad you bring up the council, they always meet and agree to treaties behind closed doors... very democratic that I must say ..

Anyone vote for Catherine Ashton to be EU head of Foreign Affairs.. I don't think so . The EU is undemorcatic it's untrue and even when the people do vote as in Greece or on the Constitution Treaty the EU just goes ahead and ignores and overrules the 'electorate'

[Nu-Eclipse]

overrules the electric

Bringing new, literal meaning to losing and gaining power in politics, no?

[Team Andromeda]

Bringing new, literal meaning to losing and gaining power in politics, no?

Sorry for the phones Predictive text

[endo]

The unelected commission that runs the day to day matters and more importantly coming up with and imposing new Laws with affect all members of EU members

But, but, but the Commission only implements law that has been passed by the Parliament. It cannot act unilaterally and impose legislation on anyone without approval by the directly elected body.

As for the Council "meeting and agreeing to treaties behind closed doors", like what? I can't think of any secretly agreed treaties they've come up with recently.

[Team Andromeda]

As for the Council "meeting and agreeing to treaties behind closed doors", like what? I can't think of any secretly agreed treaties they've come up with recently.

Treaty of Lisbon ?

but the Commission only implements law that has been passed by the Parliament

No the Parliament doesn't have that sort of power.

[endo]

Er, yes it does. The Parliament passes legislation. It is the legislative branch of the EU.

As for the Treaty of Lisbon, it wasn't some kind of secret deal like you seem to be suggesting when you say "they always meet and agree to treaties behind closed doors". The Treaty of Lisbon was widely publicised and amended the two main EU treaties, which essentially determine how the EU works. What's wrong with that?

[PaTaito]

I didn't say that millions of immigrants haven't had an effect on the housing system. I said it's nothing to do with the EU and leaving won't fix it. As you could see from the link I posted, only Poland was in the top 5 countries from which immigrants arrive. Leaving the EU will have precisely no effect on immigrants arriving from Australia, the US, China and India. The link you posted even mentions that the majority of immigrants come from outside the EU, but yeah let's leave and it'll magically fix the problem.

Right your article says of 560,000 arriving in 2014 a whopping 214,000 came from the EU. I mean really...enough said.

Around 40% of immigration that suddenly becomes controllable, and likely the largest drain on our benefit system out of them all.

Maybe it doesn't fix our housing situation in "the now", but it certainly helps going forward and helps us to put the brakes on further overcrowding in a country that is second only to bloody malta. Outside the EU is obviously an entirely different topic, and one that given your admittedly surprising set of stats, also clearly needs attention.

[Neon Ignition]

Wow, this one ran quick.
I'd say I'm firmly in the boat of the undecided. I feel like the EU as it stands doesn't work all too well, there's definite issues in the way it's structured and operated as well as in the way it's designed for purpose. The idea of a European wide initiative to ease trade and level the playing field whilst looking out for rights is fine but the central column of trying to effectively drive the member nations towards becoming a United States of Europe just doesn't work. I can understand why it came out and it's design does have an air of the era it was made in but the only way it can pan out is with massive, massive reforms which I feel incredibly doubtful will ever come thanks to the systems in place and the self service higher ups involved.

For the out campaign it feels like a lot comes down to evidencing that the UK would operate just fine back on the outside of the EU. I don't think we'll get too much on the facts front though, just a lot more Scottish Referendum style scare tactics and bs.

For the in campaign, they just need to give solid reasons for staying. First up is the renegotiations, for that I think Cameron is in for a sharp and surprising shock as to just how much the nation could not nor ever did care less about them. The second is just plain old benefits of staying and this part should be really easy after the last few decades yet it's genuinely concerning that no-one seems to know what they are or how to communicate them. The most vocal voice that can be heard tends to be that of the big businesses who spin off multiple cost related issues but when it comes to big business the public already doesn't care what they say thanks to the wave of tax avoidance. Crying hard times ahead is much more convincing when the public isn't already annoyed over stolen earnings.

I personally don't feel a sway either way yet and worry it'll quickly devolve into a popularity contest between Cameron and Johnson. I'm concerned the out campaign will drown in latent racism and I'm truly concerned at how the pro-camp struggles painfully to justify the EU membership.

It's easy to see how this will dominate media for months now. One thing I'm hoping didn't hold is a bar on further referendums. All member states should be free to hold further referendums if they see fit within a reasonable timeframe. Situations change and future generations shouldn't be bound by the status of today. I'm fine with a time cap on it though, no allowances for a quick revote to get the desired result just as how Scotland shouldn't be able to hold another referendum for at least 20 or so years after getting their last result.