New Brexit polls suggest shift in favour of leaving the EU

[Caps]

Vote Leave’s ‘Migrant Myth’ – why migration is good for the UK’s economy

http://ukinvestormagazine.co.uk/vote-leaves-migrant-myth-migration-good-uks-economy/

Yes some Migration is good for the Country but being able to control it is even better. You think we should be told how many people we take rather than decide for ourselves? I know migration from outside the EU is larger...but that a UK Government problem and if not dealt with correctly we can remove them and get someone who will. The same can not be said of the EU

There is nothing wrong with the Points system that Canada and Australia use...they still have Migrants but they control it and get people they need rather than every man and his 3 legged dog coming across on a Ferry. If we were the same land mass as other countries in the EU then it might not be such a problem...but we aren't and I for one do not want to see more sprawling built up areas eroding our countryside.

Some thing like Christmas Island would be a great idea

[Caps]

We should not import workers from E Europe to do low skilled work. The people most likely to be on benefits are not indigenous Brits.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Can we look back a generation or 2 & see who we dragged over to clean the toilets & drive the buses or (do any of the over jobs that were "below us Brits").

Problem we have now adays is there are too many lazy chavs complainjng about the price of Ciggies, Special Brew & Sky Tv & it's all the "Foreigners" fault.

Totally agree with you but that is the fault of the government for giving to much out in Benefits to lazy useless fat slobs smoking and drinking themselves in to an early grave. They should stop it all together and only give out benefits in the form of wage boosters not freebies...mind you if some of them did a days work they would keel over ....problem solved!

[SheungWan]

We should not import workers from E Europe to do low skilled work. The people most likely to be on benefits are not indigenous Brits.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Can we look back a generation or 2 & see who we dragged over to clean the toilets & drive the buses or (do any of the over jobs that were "below us Brits").

Problem we have now adays is there are too many lazy chavs complainjng about the price of Ciggies, Special Brew & Sky Tv & it's all the "Foreigners" fault.

You can go back to the 60s if you want, and see northern town textile workers, hard working skilled people, who wanted a living wage. Replaced by workers from Southern Asia who would work for less. It's happening again. My paternal grandmother was from capitalist mill owner stock.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Completely untrue of course. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a shortfall of workers in Northern towns and this shortfall was filled by the encouragement of migration from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continenet. The suggestion that these immigrants usurped local workers is typical of the usual rubbish peddled by racists and extreme right-wing organisations.

[nontabury]

Vote Leaves Migrant Myth why migration is good for the UKs economy

http://ukinvestormagazine.co.uk/vote-leaves-migrant-myth-migration-good-uks-economy/

JB300

This is from 2010 / 11

article-2215070-156C345A000005DC-652_634x228.jpg

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

I read a report recently, I will have to try and find it and post. That figure is now £28 - 30,000 per individual to be a net contributor in the UK.

I am not, and will not, try and lay the blame on the UK ills on the doorstep of immigrants. Given the figures from 2010 / 11 I would be extremely hard pushed to believe that immigrants are net contributors to the UK. Granted that there will be some that earn over these figures, most likely in the banking sector.

I sort of agree with you, but you only need to look at why Germany is letting a lot of immigrants in (it needs cheap labour) to see that there's an argument for (controlled) immigration being net-positive for the country.

Obviously as an immigrant myself (I'm a Brit working in Singapore) I can also see this from the other side.

I think you might want to rephrase or rethink that statement. There was nothing controlled about what has just happened to Germany and the Southern EU as a whole.

I would also argue, that the UK currently has 1.7 Million officially unemployed. The true figure is actually unknown. A quick visit to the DWP website and a quick scan of who is not eligible to claim JSA ( Where the official unemployed figure comes from ) shows you that the official figures are a load of crap. Whilst the UK has that amount of unemployed it does not need immigration to augment the workforce. The task in hand should be to get these people into work.

I am willing to wager that you are not selling the Big Issue or washing cars in superstore car park

Lol, nobody is buying the Big Issue in Singapore (the locals will crawl over you to save the s$2 (assuming it's still £1).

But by the same token I am pure working class (Warrington lad), from a council estate / working class family so please don't project any "Privilege" on me.

FWIW all my family are voting leave, I just see things from the other side being an "Immigrant" (from Kampala, through Karachi to Singapore with a few places in between) myself for so many years.

:::::::::::;;;;

1 also came from a council estate,and made my money through hard graft,sometimes working three jobs,before starting my own business and making my small fortune. There I separate from you, while realizing some people are lazy and work shy, I also know that most people are still hard working,yet are not determined to climb the ladder of life,does that make them any inferior to me, of course not,unless of course I
Was to think of myself as superior and think to hell with everybody else.
The vast majority of these immigrants are taking the jobs of those at the bottom of the pile. I'm assuming your Profession ( sounds more important than job)requires high qualifications from which you can demand a high salary. I just wonder if the supply of people with your qualifications were to multiply overnight and subsequently threaten your life style, would you join your family and vote Brexit.

:::::::::.......:::::::::

My profession (I'm an IT consultant) does require a lot of qualifications but I don't have them (quit 6 form after 6 months to take a YOP in IT) so got to where I am by (as you say) hard work.

Working in IT (& done a fair few outsourcing/off-shoring projects) "cheaper labour" has been a constant threat to my life style but you "Right Shift" along the food chain (started off as a programmer, when companies started moving this to India I moved myself to designer then architect/consultant).

I do empathise with your point, but at the end of the day we brought immigrants over to do jobs that we didn't want to do or to plug gaps where we had a skills shortage (do you remember trying to get a plumber in the mid-90s before the Polish came over? I know a couple of guys that quit their IT career to cross-train as a plumber because the money was better).

Singapore has been going through a similar thing for a few years, locals are complaining about foreigners taking their jobs with Indians taking all of the IT roles & Filipinos taking the sales/restaurant jobs but none of them are complaining about the Bangladesh construction workers as it seems that the Singaporeans don't want to do that job (ring any bells?).

The biggest difference here is that there's no social security/benefits in Singapore so people have to work to live, if we're going to do cut down on immigration in the UK to create more jobs then let's also crack down on benefits & force people who can work to work.

:::::::::::


I totally agree with your idea of making the work shy actually work.Not easy for any government, as many of them use their children's rights to gain benefits to finance their lifestyle. As for your job security, does the government of Singapore have an open boarder policy, for 500 million people?

P.s for some reason my post seems to have disappeared. Edited June 20, 2016 by Scott

[Orac]

Has anybody heard that the Lisbon agreement will allow for military conscription in the future. I believe the EU are in the process of forming a EU army and if so I find that very very worrying.

I thought some of the stuff that 'project fear' was putting out was bad and the UKIP breaking point campaign was about as low as you can get but the suggestion that the EU has written some clause into the Lisbon Treaty that they can literally take our children from us without any sort of link or proof is plumbing a whole new depth.

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Point 7

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.



​What a load of drivel.

Most of the countries are in NATO and what did they do when Russia wanted a piece of the Ukraine? Sh!te themselves, and carried out sanctions...well gee whiz....I bet Putin has never laughed so much. I can not see the EU Army doing any different because they Do Not have any backbone

Ukraine is neither in NATO or the EU.

[nontabury]

Has anybody heard that the Lisbon agreement will allow for military conscription in the future. I believe the EU are in the process of forming a EU army and if so I find that very very worrying.

I thought some of the stuff that 'project fear' was putting out was bad and the UKIP breaking point campaign was about as low as you can get but the suggestion that the EU has written some clause into the Lisbon Treaty that they can literally take our children from us without any sort of link or proof is plumbing a whole new depth.

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Do you think those Unelected Bureacrats in Brussel,write everything in simple plain English?

Read it again,very easy for our masters to interprete it to what they want.

[Orac]

Has anybody heard that the Lisbon agreement will allow for military conscription in the future. I believe the EU are in the process of forming a EU army and if so I find that very very worrying.

I thought some of the stuff that 'project fear' was putting out was bad and the UKIP breaking point campaign was about as low as you can get but the suggestion that the EU has written some clause into the Lisbon Treaty that they can literally take our children from us without any sort of link or proof is plumbing a whole new depth.

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Do you think those Unelected Bureacrats in Brussel,write everything in simple plain English?

Read it again,very easy for our masters to interprete it to what they want.

Unanimous agreement of the European Council means that the UK Prime Minister must give his approval hence the governments of the indivudual nation states retain an effective veto power over this article.

[Caps]

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Point 7

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

​What a load of drivel.

Most of the countries are in NATO and what did they do when Russia wanted a piece of the Ukraine? Sh!te themselves, and carried out sanctions...well gee whiz....I bet Putin has never laughed so much. I can not see the EU Army doing any different because they Do Not have any backbone

Ukraine is neither in NATO or the EU.

Yes I totally agree but the deal was that if the Ukraine did not build up its Nuclear capability then NATO would look after it, also....

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:^[7]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

• Dialogue and cooperation started after the end of the Cold War, when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).
• Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
• Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial with Ukraine being the only partner to have contributed actively to all NATO-led operations and missions.
• Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
• In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity building in Ukraine.

Well spotted that its not in the EU... I didn't say that...I said 'Most of the countries are in NATO'....I will spell it out for you...I meant most of the EU countries so if they have no backbone in NATO they won't have any in an EU Army

Edited June 20, 2016 by Caps

[Orac]

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Point 7

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

​What a load of drivel.

Most of the countries are in NATO and what did they do when Russia wanted a piece of the Ukraine? Sh!te themselves, and carried out sanctions...well gee whiz....I bet Putin has never laughed so much. I can not see the EU Army doing any different because they Do Not have any backbone

Ukraine is neither in NATO or the EU.

Yes I totally agree but the deal was that if the Ukraine did not build up its Nuclear capability then NATO would look after it, also....

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:^[7]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

• Dialogue and cooperation started after the end of the Cold War, when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).
• Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
• Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial with Ukraine being the only partner to have contributed actively to all NATO-led operations and missions.
• Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
• In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity building in Ukraine.

Well spotted that its not in the EU... I didn't say that...I said 'Most of the countries are in NATO'....I will spell it out for you...I meant most of the EU countries so if they have no backbone in NATO they won't have any in an EU Army

Can't really see the relevance here to Brexit apart from the Ukrainian parliament voted to reject NATO in 2010 but since 2013/14 have been desperate to get back involved again - hopefully not an analogy for the UK.

[Caps]

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Point 7

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

​What a load of drivel.

Most of the countries are in NATO and what did they do when Russia wanted a piece of the Ukraine? Sh!te themselves, and carried out sanctions...well gee whiz....I bet Putin has never laughed so much. I can not see the EU Army doing any different because they Do Not have any backbone

Ukraine is neither in NATO or the EU.

Yes I totally agree but the deal was that if the Ukraine did not build up its Nuclear capability then NATO would look after it, also....

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:^[7]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

• Dialogue and cooperation started after the end of the Cold War, when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).
• Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
• Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial with Ukraine being the only partner to have contributed actively to all NATO-led operations and missions.
• Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
• In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity building in Ukraine.

Well spotted that its not in the EU... I didn't say that...I said 'Most of the countries are in NATO'....I will spell it out for you...I meant most of the EU countries so if they have no backbone in NATO they won't have any in an EU Army

Can't really see the relevance here to Brexit apart from the Ukrainian parliament voted to reject NATO in 2010 but since 2013/14 have been desperate to get back involved again - hopefully not an analogy for the UK.

It was about the Lisbon treaty, EU army, again you are not telling me now't I don't know

[Orac]

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Point 7

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

​What a load of drivel.

Most of the countries are in NATO and what did they do when Russia wanted a piece of the Ukraine? Sh!te themselves, and carried out sanctions...well gee whiz....I bet Putin has never laughed so much. I can not see the EU Army doing any different because they Do Not have any backbone

Ukraine is neither in NATO or the EU.

Yes I totally agree but the deal was that if the Ukraine did not build up its Nuclear capability then NATO would look after it, also....

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:^[7]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

• Dialogue and cooperation started after the end of the Cold War, when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).
• Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
• Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial with Ukraine being the only partner to have contributed actively to all NATO-led operations and missions.
• Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
• In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity building in Ukraine.

Well spotted that its not in the EU... I didn't say that...I said 'Most of the countries are in NATO'....I will spell it out for you...I meant most of the EU countries so if they have no backbone in NATO they won't have any in an EU Army

Can't really see the relevance here to Brexit apart from the Ukrainian parliament voted to reject NATO in 2010 but since 2013/14 have been desperate to get back involved again - hopefully not an analogy for the UK.

It was about the Lisbon treaty, EU army, again you are not telling me now't I don't know

So nothing to do with Ukraine then. Forgive me but i cannot really understand what you point is specific to the Lisbon Treaty.

[SgtRock]

Cameron showing just how much of a deluded fool he really is.

David Cameron has said he has four days left to make a better case to keep Britain in the EU as many voters remain confused about the referendum that will decide the fate of his leadership.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/19/david-cameron-case-remain-eu-referendum-bbc-question-time-special

1. With 4 days to go, let me suggest that there will be very few voters who remain confused about which way to vote.

2. 4 days to make a better case to keep Britain in the UK. You have not made any positive case for remaining in the EU. A multitude of scare stories does not equate to a positive case for remaining in the EU.

You set out your stall, right from the get go and it has bitten you in the arse.

[SheungWan]

Can we look back a generation or 2 & see who we dragged over to clean the toilets & drive the buses or (do any of the over jobs that were "below us Brits").

Problem we have now adays is there are too many lazy chavs complainjng about the price of Ciggies, Special Brew & Sky Tv & it's all the "Foreigners" fault.

You can go back to the 60s if you want, and see northern town textile workers, hard working skilled people, who wanted a living wage. Replaced by workers from Southern Asia who would work for less. It's happening again. My paternal grandmother was from capitalist mill owner stock.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Completely untrue of course. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a shortfall of workers in Northern towns and this shortfall was filled by the encouragement of migration from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continenet. The suggestion that these immigrants usurped local workers is typical of the usual rubbish peddled by racists and extreme right-wing organisations.

I think you'll find that Mosha makes his post, based on his observations and experiance of actually being brought up and living in one of those Northern towns. Unlike someone from the small minded chattering class.

I think you will find that his bogus subjectivism is completely wrong based on the slightest reading on the matter. There was a similar immigration in London during the same period from the Caribbean to cover the shortfall in labour for London Transport. Maybe if you are from London you would like to rope in your granny to suggest something different.

Edited June 20, 2016 by SheungWan

[chiang mai]

You can go back to the 60s if you want, and see northern town textile workers, hard working skilled people, who wanted a living wage. Replaced by workers from Southern Asia who would work for less. It's happening again. My paternal grandmother was from capitalist mill owner stock.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Completely untrue of course. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a shortfall of workers in Northern towns and this shortfall was filled by the encouragement of migration from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continenet. The suggestion that these immigrants usurped local workers is typical of the usual rubbish peddled by racists and extreme right-wing organisations.

I think you'll find that Mosha makes his post, based on his observations and experiance of actually being brought up and living in one of those Northern towns. Unlike someone from the small minded chattering class.

I was born and raised six miles from Batley, I lived there until age 17, go chatter that!

[chiang mai]

You can go back to the 60s if you want, and see northern town textile workers, hard working skilled people, who wanted a living wage. Replaced by workers from Southern Asia who would work for less. It's happening again. My paternal grandmother was from capitalist mill owner stock.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Completely untrue of course. In the 1950s and 1960s there was a shortfall of workers in Northern towns and this shortfall was filled by the encouragement of migration from the Caribbean and Indian sub-continenet. The suggestion that these immigrants usurped local workers is typical of the usual rubbish peddled by racists and extreme right-wing organisations.

I think you'll find that Mosha makes his post, based on his observations and experiance of actually being brought up and living in one of those Northern towns. Unlike someone from the small minded chattering class.

I think you will find that his bogus subjectivism is completely wrong based on the slightest reading on the matter. There was a similar immigration in London during the same period from the Caribbean to cover the shortfall in labour for London Transport. Maybe if you are from London you would like to rope in your granny to suggest something different.

Not entirely true, in the late 1950's/early 1960's the woollen and cotton industries in the North were very short of labour so initially Pakistani migrants were used en-masse, later Indian labour would also be used extensively. So acute was the reliance of those industries on migrant labour that it nearly collapsed when many went back to fight for their homeland during the India/Pakistan war. My dad owned a carpet mill in Batley and I'd go down to the mill with him on Saturday mornings, there was hardly a white face to be seen there anywhere.

[Caps]

So what about - Point 3 of article 42 of section 2 " Provisions on the common security and military capabilities available to the Union"

Can't see anything about conscription there though it does mention a couple of times the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-european-union-and-comments/title-5-general-provisions-on-the-unions-external-action-and-specific-provisions/chapter-2-specific-provisions-on-the-common-foreign-and-security-policy/section-2-provisions-on-the-common-security-and-defence-policy/129-article-42.html

Point 7

7. If a Member State is the victim of armed aggression on its territory, the other Member States shall have towards it an obligation of aid and assistance by all the means in their power, in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. This shall not prejudice the specific character of the security and defence policy of certain Member States.

​What a load of drivel.

Most of the countries are in NATO and what did they do when Russia wanted a piece of the Ukraine? Sh!te themselves, and carried out sanctions...well gee whiz....I bet Putin has never laughed so much. I can not see the EU Army doing any different because they Do Not have any backbone

Ukraine is neither in NATO or the EU.

Yes I totally agree but the deal was that if the Ukraine did not build up its Nuclear capability then NATO would look after it, also....

On December 5, 1994 the leaders of Ukraine, Russia, Britain and the United States signed a memorandum to provide Ukraine with security assurances in connection with its accession to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state. The four parties signed the memorandum, containing a preamble and six paragraphs. The memorandum reads as follows:^[7]

The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Welcoming the accession of Ukraine to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as non-nuclear-weapon State,

Taking into account the commitment of Ukraine to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time,

Noting the changes in the world-wide security situation, including the end of the Cold War, which have brought about conditions for deep reductions in nuclear forces.

• Dialogue and cooperation started after the end of the Cold War, when newly independent Ukraine joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (1991) and the Partnership for Peace programme (1994).
• Relations were strengthened with the signing of the 1997 Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, which established the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) to take cooperation forward.
• Cooperation has deepened over time and is mutually beneficial with Ukraine being the only partner to have contributed actively to all NATO-led operations and missions.
• Priority is given to support for comprehensive reform in the security and defence sector, which is vital for Ukraine’s democratic development and for strengthening its ability to defend itself.
• In response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, NATO has reinforced its support for capability development and capacity building in Ukraine.

Well spotted that its not in the EU... I didn't say that...I said 'Most of the countries are in NATO'....I will spell it out for you...I meant most of the EU countries so if they have no backbone in NATO they won't have any in an EU Army

Can't really see the relevance here to Brexit apart from the Ukrainian parliament voted to reject NATO in 2010 but since 2013/14 have been desperate to get back involved again - hopefully not an analogy for the UK.

It was about the Lisbon treaty, EU army, again you are not telling me now't I don't know

So nothing to do with Ukraine then. Forgive me but i cannot really understand what you point is specific to the Lisbon Treaty.

If you can't see the point, I haven't got the time, patience or be bothered to explain it to you and let's face it you kept it going by making rather obvious stupid replies

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk whilst drinking a cold beer

[cumgranosalum]

We should not import workers from E Europe to do low skilled work. The people most likely to be on benefits are not indigenous Brits.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Can we look back a generation or 2 & see who we dragged over to clean the toilets & drive the buses or (do any of the over jobs that were "below us Brits").

Problem we have now adays is there are too many lazy chavs complainjng about the price of Ciggies, Special Brew & Sky Tv & it's all the "Foreigners" fault.

You can go back to the 60s if you want, and see northern town textile workers, hard working skilled people, who wanted a living wage. Replaced by workers from Southern Asia who would work for less. It's happening again. My paternal grandmother was from capitalist mill owner stock.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

absolute complete nonsense - you are totally misinformed about immigration and how why and where or even when it occurred. However As I pointed out earlier - in or our=t that sort of immigration is nothing to do with the EU - the commonwealth extended citizenship to all members of the commonwealth who were then entitled to decide where they wanted to settle.

Most people from the subcontinent were already skilled in the textile industry as India and that subcontinent has always been the world centre for textile manufacture.

what the UK did was to systematically de-industrialise the Indian subcontinent so that they would concentrate on growing the raw materials and the production would be centred on the mills of Northern England.

The UK has always relied on export for it's textiles (we even supplied Germany in WW!). However after the war they had to firstly compete on a new world market and face a labour shortage - they turned to the commonwealth to address this - later they joined the EU - however of course now if Brexit succeeds there will be no supporting Union of nations so England (not UK won't exist) will have to sort it's problems out on its own - good luck with that....and with the ignorance displayed by some of the Brexiteers on this thread they'll need a LOT of luck.

[SgtRock]

JB300

This is from 2010 / 11

article-2215070-156C345A000005DC-652_634x228.jpg

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2215070/Are-contributor-burden-nations-finances--Squeezed-middle-increasingly-dependent-state.html

I read a report recently, I will have to try and find it and post. That figure is now £28 - 30,000 per individual to be a net contributor in the UK.

I am not, and will not, try and lay the blame on the UK ills on the doorstep of immigrants. Given the figures from 2010 / 11 I would be extremely hard pushed to believe that immigrants are net contributors to the UK. Granted that there will be some that earn over these figures, most likely in the banking sector.

I sort of agree with you, but you only need to look at why Germany is letting a lot of immigrants in (it needs cheap labour) to see that there's an argument for (controlled) immigration being net-positive for the country.

Obviously as an immigrant myself (I'm a Brit working in Singapore) I can also see this from the other side.

I think you might want to rephrase or rethink that statement. There was nothing controlled about what has just happened to Germany and the Southern EU as a whole.

I would also argue, that the UK currently has 1.7 Million officially unemployed. The true figure is actually unknown. A quick visit to the DWP website and a quick scan of who is not eligible to claim JSA ( Where the official unemployed figure comes from ) shows you that the official figures are a load of crap. Whilst the UK has that amount of unemployed it does not need immigration to augment the workforce. The task in hand should be to get these people into work.

I am willing to wager that you are not selling the Big Issue or washing cars in superstore car park

Lol, nobody is buying the Big Issue in Singapore (the locals will crawl over you to save the s$2 (assuming it's still £1).

But by the same token I am pure working class (Warrington lad), from a council estate / working class family so please don't project any "Privilege" on me.

FWIW all my family are voting leave, I just see things from the other side being an "Immigrant" (from Kampala, through Karachi to Singapore with a few places in between) myself for so many years.

I was being facetious with the Big Issue / Car wash and I had no intention of insinuating that you were '' Privileged '' My apologies if that is they way it came across.

My point being that you currently work in, and have worked in a load of NON-EU Countries. Just like myself and millions of others. The EU is not the great utopia that it is cracked up to be.

I think the question should be, if you did not have the skills, training and experience that you have. Would you currently be in Singapore ? That is the difference, in Singapore there is no welfare to speak of and if you could not provide for you and your family ( whatever it is you do ) you would not be there.

Now contrast that with the UK. Totally different ball game. Contrary to the procrastinations of those that just love to scream Racist, Bigot and xenophobe, the free movement of people, within the EU, regardless of their levels of education, skills and experience is detrimental to the UK.

One of the small reasons that I live in Thailand is the Thai Government gives me nothing and asks me for nothing. A concept that I am more than happy with. I have 2 feet, I am more than capable of standing on them and I certainly do not need my arse wiped by the State.

A concept that I am not happy with is give us more and more money to continually feed an ever growing bloated beast. The epitome of the UK / EU.

Edited June 20, 2016 by SgtRock

[JB300]

Sgt, though we are on the opposite side of the fence, I agree with all of your comments above & the UK could do much worse than adopt the Singapore immigration approach (qualifications, skills, experience, salary & family ties).

But I think we should be fighting to change this from within the EU rather than from outside so I'd ask you, if the UK were able to implement a criteria based immigration policy, would you still be voting leave?

[SgtRock]

Sgt, though we are on the opposite side of the fence, I agree with all of your comments above & the UK could do much worse than adopt the Singapore immigration approach (qualifications, skills, experience, salary & family ties).

But I think we should be fighting to change this from within the EU rather than from outside so I'd ask you, if the UK were able to implement a criteria based immigration policy, would you still be voting leave?

In a word NO.

As a supporter of leaving the EU, my reasons have got very little to do with immigration.

As I have highlighted on many posts throughout this thread and others. My main reason for leaving the EU is where the EU is heading. Not what has occurred during the last 40 years.

On the part that I have highlighted. The EU is not for changing, so to try and fight and change it from the inside is futile. It is simply not going to happen.

What may happen. is that in the event of a vote leave, fearing the domino effect, the EU might just change it's position. I would not be putting a wager on that though.

[Jip99]

Sgt, though we are on the opposite side of the fence, I agree with all of your comments above & the UK could do much worse than adopt the Singapore immigration approach (qualifications, skills, experience, salary & family ties).

But I think we should be fighting to change this from within the EU rather than from outside so I'd ask you, if the UK were able to implement a criteria based immigration policy, would you still be voting leave?

A very good question and it evidences the fact that many Exiteers and Remainers are not that far apart in their thinking. Different conclusions are coming from the same sets of 'facts' (however distorted).

For me it is about more than immigration, although that features high on the list. If it was just immigration then the UK has had chance to effect changes already - but has failed to do so.

My biggest reason for Exit is that the EU is not what the EEC was and it will continue to become even further removed. I would not vote to join the EU as it is now and that is a good enough reason for to vote OUT.

[cumgranosalum]

So the future of the EU is down to 2 issues for the Brexiteers - Sovereignty and immigration - neither of which curiously enough have any more than a tangential connection to the Eu......but why let rational thought and reason get in the way?

[SgtRock]

I think that this is typical of the behaviour of the EU

European commission warned of car emissions test cheating, five years before VW scandal

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/european-commission-warned-car-maker-suspected-cheating-five-years-vw-scandal

The only thing that the EU Commission and other entities are any good at is further entrenching themselves in their own little bubble.

Edited June 20, 2016 by SgtRock

[SheungWan]

Ask yourself this.

If it was a vote to JOIN the EU and we had never been in it....what would your answer be?

Currently the UK would not meet the economic entry criteria for the EU.

The limit is 60% debt ratio of gross domestic product.

The Uk has currently a gearing ratio of 90.6%

Roughly speaking, the country is living beyond its means.

It spends more money than it earns.

Frightening the lack of economic information from the bawlers.

I should like to remind you that Greece "doctored" its figures when applying for entry to the European Union, and the EU turned a blind eye to it

in its single-minded (simple minded?) determination to attempt integration. It is yet one further example of political considerations riding roughshod

over common sense; its own "rule book". Talk about beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

It is common cause that the EU has an enormous problem on its hands with the present Greece situation; it is just one of the shaky foundations

underpinning the European Union currently.

The fact that the United Kingdom is heavily geared is actually of no great concern, providing it is well managed. There is enough talent in

Britain to accomplish this.

I thought most of the guys in Thailand were here because they had definitively written off all the talent in the UK......

[Kwasaki]

I would have to have considerable talent to live as i do in Thailand if I had stayed in the UK.

[SgtRock]

I should like to remind you that Greece "doctored" its figures when applying for entry to the European Union, and the EU turned a blind eye to it

in its single-minded (simple minded?) determination to attempt integration. It is yet one further example of political considerations riding roughshod

over common sense; its own "rule book". Talk about beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

It is common cause that the EU has an enormous problem on its hands with the present Greece situation; it is just one of the shaky foundations

underpinning the European Union currently.

The fact that the United Kingdom is heavily geared is actually of no great concern, providing it is well managed. There is enough talent in

Britain to accomplish this.

I thought most of the guys in Thailand were here because they had definitively written off all the talent in the UK......

Out of the Brits that I know here in Thailand. One of the reasons they are here is because we refuse to throw huge amounts of tax and NI contributions into a system that feeds the bloated beast that is the EU.

It is not really a hard concept. Work to look after your own. Or work to feed a monster that continually needs vast amounts of money.

[SheungWan]

FTSE futures called massively up this morning and sterling cable on a tear as risk of BREXIT reverses.

[Johnyo]

I should like to remind you that Greece "doctored" its figures when applying for entry to the European Union, and the EU turned a blind eye to it

in its single-minded (simple minded?) determination to attempt integration. It is yet one further example of political considerations riding roughshod

over common sense; its own "rule book". Talk about beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

It is common cause that the EU has an enormous problem on its hands with the present Greece situation; it is just one of the shaky foundations

underpinning the European Union currently.

The fact that the United Kingdom is heavily geared is actually of no great concern, providing it is well managed. There is enough talent in

Britain to accomplish this.

I thought most of the guys in Thailand were here because they had definitively written off all the talent in the UK......

Out of the Brits that I know here in Thailand. One of the reasons they are here is because we refuse to throw huge amounts of tax and NI contributions into a system that feeds the bloated beast that is the EU.

It is not really a hard concept. Work to look after your own. Or work to feed a monster that continually needs vast amounts of money.

Do you know how much in percentage terms from your taxes go to the EU?

[chiang mai]

I should like to remind you that Greece "doctored" its figures when applying for entry to the European Union, and the EU turned a blind eye to it

in its single-minded (simple minded?) determination to attempt integration. It is yet one further example of political considerations riding roughshod

over common sense; its own "rule book". Talk about beware of Greeks bearing gifts!

It is common cause that the EU has an enormous problem on its hands with the present Greece situation; it is just one of the shaky foundations

underpinning the European Union currently.

The fact that the United Kingdom is heavily geared is actually of no great concern, providing it is well managed. There is enough talent in

Britain to accomplish this.

I thought most of the guys in Thailand were here because they had definitively written off all the talent in the UK......

Out of the Brits that I know here in Thailand. One of the reasons they are here is because we refuse to throw huge amounts of tax and NI contributions into a system that feeds the bloated beast that is the EU.

It is not really a hard concept. Work to look after your own. Or work to feed a monster that continually needs vast amounts of money.

So you're a tax evader, cool, the UK needs more of those! It might have been better to simply say your reason for being here is sex, that's more acceptable these days.

[Laughing Gravy]

We should not import workers from E Europe to do low skilled work. The people most likely to be on benefits are not indigenous Brits.

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

Can we look back a generation or 2 & see who we dragged over to clean the toilets & drive the buses or (do any of the over jobs that were "below us Brits").

Problem we have now adays is there are too many lazy chavs complainjng about the price of Ciggies, Special Brew & Sky Tv & it's all the "Foreigners" fault.

Totally agree with you but that is the fault of the government for giving to much out in Benefits to lazy useless fat slobs smoking and drinking themselves in to an early grave. They should stop it all together and only give out benefits in the form of wage boosters not freebies...mind you if some of them did a days work they would keel over ....problem solved!

Yes far too many benefits. Only last week my friend saw a group of immigrants in Tesco in the UK with vouchers. They were buying crates of beer and nothing else. Living the dream for sure.