Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Here's another clue: the UK has decided it. In 1973, when the UK joined the EEC, parliament gave effect to the 1972 European Communities Act. This says that the UK has decided to join the club and abide by its rules. Further UK Acts of Parliament and various treaty changes cemented that position.

    The point you are failing to understand is that we live in an increasingly globalised world, where cooperation with other nations is essential. You concentrate on the EU, but the UK is signatory to dozens, possibly hundreds of treaties that control UK legislation and restrict the ways in which law can be made in this country. That will not change if we leave the EU. These treaties put pressure on law in the UK right across the board, that is the nature of international treaties.
    Except the EEC was never suppose to be a political union like the EU. And dictating policy is one thing but for the government to hire another political body to dictate the policy is another thing. It is not up to a government to say whether or not another political body dictates their law, that is for the electorate to decide. Our views on democracy are just two different things so let's agree to disagree on that.

    I will not dispute other organisations. But these organisations are not political organisations of the likes of the EU. That is the difference. The EU and the UN are not comparable. The EU and the WTO are not comparable. The EU and NATO are not comparable. The list follows that pattern. The EU has stepped into territory not even the Arab or African leagues have stepped into. It is a whole different kettle of fish. But I guess we should agree to disagree on that one.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Um, guess what, people from all over the world can get into the UK with a valid passport. That's not smoke and mirrors, that's the fact of the matter. Additionally, I haven't looked recently (ie in the last 12 months) but it's certainly the case that the number of legal immigrants from outside the EU is substantially larger than that from within the EU, and that doesn't even include illegal immigrants.



    This is from the latest ONS stats at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/migrat...mber-2015.html

    ie 53% of immigrants are from outside the EU.
    53% is correct, so what? That means 47% of all migrants to this country haven't been selectively let in.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    53% is correct, so what? That means 47% of all migrants to this country haven't been selectively let in.
    You think there's some "selection" to the process!? The government says it wants to reduce migration to the low tens of thousands but still the part it really is supposed to be able to control is 200k+.

    My point is simple: most immigration is from outside the EU, if you cannot control that then why believe that leaving the EU will change that situation?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You think there's some "selection" to the process!? The government says it wants to reduce migration to the low tens of thousands but still the part it really is supposed to be able to control is 200k+.

    My point is simple: most immigration is from outside the EU, if you cannot control that then why believe that leaving the EU will change that situation?
    Because that's the governments choice.

    If after brexit it is still too high in the publics opinion the government can actually move the rules on this should they wish.

    It's an issue of sovereignty


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Leave , the eu is going to expand meaning more immigration from much poorer countries meaning our own poorest suffer, the u.k will be a horrible place to live if we carry on and I'm going to get Australian P.R if we vote to stay, the nhs won't exist anymore, benefits won't exist because we can't to afford to support millions more unskilled workers who need top ups.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Camoron)
    Except the EEC was never suppose to be a political union like the EU. And dictating policy is one thing but for the government to hire another political body to dictate the policy is another thing. It is not up to a government to say whether or not another political body dictates their law, that is for the electorate to decide. Our views on democracy are just two different things so let's agree to disagree on that.
    You have democracy in that you delegate your say on running the country to the government of the day. You can't sit in your armchair pressing a button on what you do or do not like about every move the government might make. Successive governments have increased our integration with the EU, whatever party they represented.

    And you are completely missing the point that the people did choose to support the government in joining the EEC, via the 1975 referendum.

    I will not dispute other organisations. But these organisations are not political organisations of the likes of the EU. That is the difference. The EU and the UN are not comparable. The EU and the WTO are not comparable. The EU and NATO are not comparable. The list follows that pattern. The EU has stepped into territory not even the Arab or African leagues have stepped into. It is a whole different kettle of fish. But I guess we should agree to disagree on that one.
    The difference with the EU and these other organisations is that the EU has a proper legal system and democratic representation. The UK could well end up facing the USA in a WTO hearing, and lose. There's no democratically elected parliament to watch over that particular organisation.

    Other talk of having free trade agreements with EU members states or other nations should we leave the EU, but all those agreements come with strings attached, that precisely restrict our laws in the way you want to avoid.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Because that's the governments choice.
    The government has made its choice about joining the EU, and reaffirmed and reinforced that choice on many occasions. The way you talk is like you want to accept some government choice and reject others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    Here's a few:

    Working time Directive: gives all UK employees the right to four weeks annual holiday, restricts working week of employees to no more than 48 hours.

    European Acquired Rights Directive: gives rise to Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE)

    Pregnant Workers Directive

    Parental Leave Directive

    Health and Safety Framework Directive

    Collective Redundancies Directive

    Equality Framework Directive

    Race Equality Directive

    Equal Treatment Directive

    Part-time Workers Directive

    Temporary and Agency Work Directive
    Nothing here cannot be written into law via Act of Parliament so way to prove my point
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vickidc18)
    Leave , the eu is going to expand meaning more immigration from much poorer countries meaning our own poorest suffer, the u.k will be a horrible place to live if we carry on and I'm going to get Australian P.R if we vote to stay, the nhs won't exist anymore, benefits won't exist because we can't to afford to support millions more unskilled workers who need top ups.
    On average EU migrants claim fewer benefits that UK residents.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by typonaut)
    On average EU migrants claim fewer benefits that UK residents.
    That's kinda because the NEED to have a job if they come here, there is no coming here and sitting on their arse for 5 years claiming benefits, but do you know what would happen if they were all made to **** off? Suddenly there are a bunch of new jobs and then you just need a government with the balls to make people take the jobs or lose their benefits and suddenly there is a much lower benefit bill.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorace)
    Nothing here cannot be written into law via Act of Parliament so way to prove my point
    You asked why the left supported the EU, I've given you a long list of directives that are exactly in line with the politics of the left.

    Of course these measures could have been enacted by the UK Parliament acting alone. But the simple fact is that they were not.

    QED.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    You asked why the left supported the EU, I've given you a long list of directives that are exactly in line with the politics of the left.

    Of course these measures could have been enacted by the UK Parliament acting alone. But the simple fact is that they were not.

    QED.
    Nothing here requires us to be a member of the EU. It's quite clear what side you are on and I think the out campaign is rather tired of examples like this which just prove the EU is useless because everything it can do can be done better by parliament.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    That's kinda because the NEED to have a job if they come here, there is no coming here and sitting on their arse for 5 years claiming benefits, but do you know what would happen if they were all made to **** off? Suddenly there are a bunch of new jobs and then you just need a government with the balls to make people take the jobs or lose their benefits and suddenly there is a much lower benefit bill.
    Well, that's a different argument. But also see the points I have made above, that the UK government thinks it correct to let in 200k+ non-EU migrants each year (presumably mostly working), so it seems that we have a skills/labour shortage that the economists want to plug.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whorace)
    Nothing here requires us to be a member of the EU. It's quite clear what side you are on and I think the out campaign is rather tired of examples like this which just prove the EU is useless because everything it can do can be done better by parliament.
    That is entirely false. The UK Parliament did not enact these measures on its own initiative - if it could have done so why didn't it?

    You asked about issues that the left supported specifically, so I did not go any further. For a neutral measure that the UK Parliament could not have brought about look simply to the EU legislation that has already significantly brought down the cost of mobile phone roaming within the member states, and will in the future eliminate it altogether.

    Once again, QED.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by typonaut)
    That is entirely false. The UK Parliament did not enact these measures on its own initiative - if it could have done so why didn't it?

    You asked about issues that the left supported specifically, so I did not go any further. For a neutral measure that the UK Parliament could not have brought about look simply to the EU legislation that has already significantly brought down the cost of mobile phone roaming within the member states, and will in the future eliminate it altogether.

    Once again, QED.
    There's a distinct difference between doing something of your own accord and undoing it. For instance minimum wage law and the NHS, did you see the Tories supporting them in the early days? Do you see them dare go anywhere near getting rid of them?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    There's a distinct difference between doing something of your own accord and undoing it. For instance minimum wage law and the NHS, did you see the Tories supporting them in the early days? Do you see them dare go anywhere near getting rid of them?
    I don't see the connection between what you have written and your original question.

    The Tories were vociferous in their objections to minimum wage legislation. David Cameron has acted to increase it recently, but I think that's as a realisation that minimum wages act to increase in-work benefits - ie the state is subsidising low-wage employers.

    No government in the current climate could go near dismantling the NHS, there would literally be a revolution if they tried. But again, the Tories have significantly damaged the NHS, in supporting privatised services and subsidising these through tax breaks.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ozzyoscy)
    One poll can show a lot of contradictory things, depending on who's reading it. Then we have to pretend that polls are particularly reliable, and that the poll isn't months before voting happens, and by people with short memories.

    On top of all these, we have to then pretend the poll results are directly caused by the people you mentioned saying they're voting out, when 90% of the public have no idea who most of them are, let alone how they're voting.
    Time will tell but I shouldn't be surprised if in the end the STAY crowd win hands down. Not because (in my opinion) their arguments are superior but because they are better resourced, have more money, and already have their hands on the levers of power. They'll use fear to scare the crap out of everybody. It won't be an even campaign.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by typonaut)
    I don't see the connection between what you have written and your original question.

    The Tories were vociferous in their objections to minimum wage legislation. David Cameron has acted to increase it recently, but I think that's as a realisation that minimum wages act to increase in-work benefits - ie the state is subsidising low-wage employers.

    No government in the current climate could go near dismantling the NHS, there would literally be a revolution if they tried. But again, the Tories have significantly damaged the NHS, in supporting privatised services and subsidising these through tax breaks.
    The joys of misinformation.

    Regardless, I was not asking the question initially, whatever it was, but pointing out that it is easier to not implement something politically then to get rid of it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by typonaut)
    On average EU migrants claim fewer benefits that UK residents.
    So what ? They can still claim so we are footing the bill for carwashers who contribute nothing. We shouldn't have to give any welfare to low skilled foreigners.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vickidc18)
    So what ? They can still claim so we are footing the bill for carwashers who contribute nothing. We shouldn't have to give any welfare to low skilled foreigners.
    The "so what" is that if there are "carwashers" "contributing nothing" then the logical position is that the benefits they might be receiving are being paid for by the other EU migrants doing higher paid/skilled jobs - since overall EU migrants claim fewer benefits than other UK residents.

    The other issue is that if people are migrating to wash cars then there is a serious deficiency in the UK labour market.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.