Britain is leaving the EU

[Silurian]

What happened to the Mars bar index

 

[Takhisis]

Will it be any use once the Scots have left the Union?

 

[FriendlyFire]

There is typically a distinction between migration and colonisation.
But when foreign countries seek to impose migration targets or require unlimited migration and/or impose their laws, it is very close to colonisation.
Like what Australia was colonised by people from these islands.

So Technologically inferior country colonizes a technological superior country by cleaning toilets ?

Meanwhile, both India, Pakistan are commonwealth countries and immigration is controlled by the UK itself. The large black minority population in UK is because of the UK slave trade.
Maybe UK should leave the commonwealth as well ?

 

[Agent327]

Yes, I'm sure that's the result of official Polish emigration policy.

But when foreign countries seek to impose migration targets or require unlimited migration and/or impose their laws, it is very close to colonisation.

Come again? (Why were these Brits even in the EU, one may start to wonder... To colonize?) By the way, what are 'foreign countries'? Countries not located on the British Isles?

Anyway, I was actually going to post something about the surprising EU unanimity regarding the oncoming Brexit negotiations. Apparently, there will be no free Brexit. We'll see how that pans out once actual negotiations start. which, again, may be a while still. What with elections and all.

 

[Colon]

There is typically a distinction between migration and colonisation.

But when foreign countries seek to impose migration targets or require unlimited migration and/or impose their laws, it is very close to colonisation.

Like what Australia was colonised by people from these islands.

The European single market, with its free movement of people, was brought about by Thatcher. The principal architect was her man in Brussels, Cockfield.

In the 1980s, when the economy of the EEC began to lag behind the rest of the developed world, Margaret Thatcher sent Arthur Cockfield, Baron Cockfield to the Delors Commission taking the initiative to attempt to relaunch the common market whereby he wrote and published a White Paper in 1985 identifying 300 measures to be addressed in order to complete a single market. [7][8][9] The White Paper was well-received and led to the adoption of the Single European Act, a treaty which reformed the decision-making mechanisms of the EEC and set a deadline of 31 December 1992 for the completion of a single market. In the end, it was launched on 1 January 1993.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#History

Moreover, the UK for ages was the EU's biggest proponent for expansion, including the ones that brought Poland and Romania aboard.

Scary to see what years of tabloid hate speech can do.

 

[Kyriakos]

^The Uk didn't want expansion out of wanting to be in an actual union with many other nations, but apparently out of the calculation that more nations would render actual union impossible. Which was true. The 2003 massive expansion should never had happened, cause without it the Eu wouldn't be what it now is, namely a farce and a bane.
And despite massive interests and manipulation by the larger countries already there prior to 2003, at least the Eu actually had some shared positive values back then, mostly re democracy/non-zenophobia and so on.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Polish cleaners and Pakistani taxi drivers aren't stealing all the land, declaring their own state with them in charge, butchering tens of thousands of people in a decades-long war of annihilation to enforce that state's claims, confining the survivors to camps, trying to destroy their culture, stealing their children, and then blaming you for the social struggles that your people are left with.

There is a distinction to the "near colonisation" term that I used and outright invasion and eviction which is your description.

Colonisation can and has taken place without invasion.

Please list all EU "migration targets" for the UK at any time in the last 40 years. Hell, list any "migration target" imposed by the EU.

Please stop pretending that the absolute freedom of movement that the EU demands is not an unlimited migration target.

And India demanded that the UK admit more immigrants when Theresa May went to visit them. The fact is that the Republic of India has
a growing population and are producing more graduates than they can employ so they target other other countries one of which is the UK.
Now I do not know the numerics that each Indian University has, I doubt they publish that, but I would be naive to assume that they neglect their
responsibilities to pupils and do not seek foreign placements, and set targets in their minds, for so many of their students.to the USA, to EU etc.

 

[EnglishEdward]

The European single market, with its free movement of people, was brought about by Thatcher. The principal architect was her man in Brussels, Cockfield.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#History

The concept of free movement of people dates back to the EEC for which it was Edward Heath who was the UK culprit as the UK government signed up in 1972.

The UK entered the EEC on the public promise of large export growth arising from the removal of EEC tariffs and thereby faster economic growth for the UK.
When neither happened, it was convenient for UK politicians to say that the absence of increased exports was due to non tariff related discrimination,
and that the single market would provide for the economic growth originally promised in 1972, rather than admit the original mistakes. And the other states
and the european commission wanted the single market enhancement to the common market as part of its standardisation drive. To be blunt I rather think that
Thatcher and Cockfield were claiming credit for what the EU Commission wanted to happen anyway. However the single market has not resulted in greater growth.

Moreover, the UK for ages was the EU's biggest proponent for expansion, including the ones that brought Poland and Romania aboard.

Germany wanted to economically expand its influence East. The UK government was fooled into thinking that expansion would substitute for integration.

Scary to see what years of tabloid hate speech can do.

I rarely read tabloids.

 

[Arakhor]

Please stop pretending that the absolute freedom of movement that the EU demands is not an unlimited migration target.

So, instead of saying what you actually meant, you decided to say something so contorted that no reasonable person would infer what you meant from what you actually said.

In other words, please stop pretending.

And India demanded that the UK admit more immigrants when Theresa May went to visit them. The fact is that the Republic of India has a growing population and are producing more graduates than they can employ so they target other other countries one of which is the UK.

And that has what to do with the EU? Just because India insisted on immigration targets, utterly rubbishing the usual Brexit claims of being able to set up preferable trade arrangements whilst also reducing immigration, that does not mean that the EU insisted upon them. Claiming otherwise is simply deceitful.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that whoever made this graph is conflating "ethnicity" with "country of origin". There are something like three million South Asian people in the UK, and this only accounts for half of them.

(Also, strictly speaking, the largest ethnic minorities in the UK are the Scots, Welsh and Irish, in roughly that order. Even if "India" counts as an ethnicity- dubious- it still trails the Welsh at about 1.5 million.)

 

[Arakhor]

What's more, if you count up all the bars in that graph, it comes to about 5 million. So, 1 in 12 people in all of the UK is not of British extraction. I find it hard to be concerned about that.

 

[Silurian]

Please stop pretending that the absolute freedom of movement that the EU demands is not an unlimited migration target.

There is no absolute freedom of movement and there are no migaration targets.

From European Parliament

• For stays of under three months: the only requirement for Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country.
• For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.
• Right of permanent residence: Union citizens acquire this right after a five-year period of uninterrupted legal residence, provided that an expulsion decision has not been enforced against them. This right is no longer subject to any conditions. The same rule applies to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have lived with a Union citizen for five years. The right of permanent residence is lost only in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State.
• Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are not taken on economic grounds, comply with the proportionality principle and are based on personal conduct, among others.

Finally, the directive enables Member States to adopt the necessary measures to refuse, terminate or withdraw any right conferred in the event of abuse of rights or fraud, such as marriages of convenience.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_2.1.3.html

 

[EnglishEdward]

So they merely have to have a valid id and claim to have a job.

 

[Silurian]

Or have sufficent funds to pay for themselves.

If they do not have a job or funds then they have to leave after three months.

 

[EvaDK]

Germany wanted to economically expand its influence East. The UK government was fooled into thinking that expansion would substitute for integration.

bullfeathers.

The process that occurred before and during the 2004 EU expansion, is well described and well known in my country, because the final negations took part in our Capital, Copenhagen. A documentary crew followed our Prime Minister, Fogh Rasmussen, as he negotiated final details with individual EU PMs and Presidents, to secure the expansion deal. It was abundantly clear that especially the UK Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, was one of the most vocal proponents for Polands terms to be accepted into the EU and that is exactly what transpired.

No one was 'fooled', unless the UK fooled itself for whatever reason.

PS: here's Tony Blair's speech from Warsaw, given in 2003, essentially arguing why Poland belongs in the EU and its historic ties with The United Kingdom.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/30/eu.speeches

You're welcome.

 

[Colon]

The concept of free movement of people dates back to the EEC for which it was Edward Heath who was the UK culprit as the UK government signed up in 1972.

The UK entered the EEC on the public promise of large export growth arising from the removal of EEC tariffs and thereby faster economic growth for the UK.
When neither happened, it was convenient for UK politicians to say that the absence of increased exports was due to non tariff related discrimination,
and that the single market would provide for the economic growth originally promised in 1972, rather than admit the original mistakes. And the other states
and the european commission wanted the single market enhancement to the common market as part of its standardisation drive. To be blunt I rather think that
Thatcher and Cockfield were claiming credit for what the EU Commission wanted to happen anyway. However the single market has not resulted in greater growth.

There was little more than a customs union beforehand. The current rights EU-nationals have to move between EU states were established with the 92 Maastricht Treaty.
And please read what I've posted. Cockfield's white paper formed the basis of the European Single Market. Almost all of the 300 measures he proposed in it became law. Delors, the head of the European Commission at the time (it wasn't the "EU" yet BTW) wanted to pursue institutional reform and a shared currency instead, but Cockfield convinced him to prioritise the single market. This "standardisation drive" you speak of was exactly born then. And that is exactly what makes the single market: removal of non-tariff trade barriers by harmonising rules.

And even if you insist on ignoring the huge role Thatcher and Cockfield played in its creation, you cannot ignore that the UK entered the deal out of its own will. The only thing that was imposed on the UK is what it chose for itself.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that Poland would have worked in the Eu, as would Czech republic. But not the full ocean of baltic and/or eastern (former soviet block) countries that entered. It caused the balance of power to shift, and later on become one where Germany could control the Eu if it just controlled a number of those new members as clients.

 

[Takhisis]

I rarely read tabloids.

Then how do you know what to quote?

 

[Kozmos]

google "news articles that support my positions"

 

[Takhisis]

Which always yields pieces from the Telegraph or the Daily Mail.