UKIP in a nutshell.

[kurczak]

This is false. The European Commission is made up of people selected by their state's executive and then appointed a portfolio, Baroness Ashdown ('High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy') has never been elected by the people of Europe of the people of Britain.

The Eurofederalists would love nothing more than having the Comission directly responsible to the EP only. But guess who prevented that from happening? That's right, the eurosceptics, having the Comissioners first nominated by national governments and then "only" approved by the EP is a move that gives the Members States more power, not less. All this nonsense talk about unelected bureaucrats is a hypocrisy of the first order. Having the Comissioners directly elected or responsible to the EP only would give them more political legitimacy over the national governments, which is exactly what the eurosceptics don't want.

He's not making it a race issue, he's simply talking about an oversupply in the labour market, seeing reduce pay etc... With unemployment currently standing at 6.8%, having no control over who enters the country from Europe is certainly a worrying affair.

I don't think that you understand the argument at all. The issue is not one of race but a simple understanding of the impracticalities of open borders with no control over who comes in. When unemployment is still relatively high, taking more and more people in is not going to wonders for the job market, especially considering that it is largely unskilled labour. It's a matter of rejecting or accepting people into the country on their relative merits and skills, not race.

False. The UK is not part of the Schengen area so it does retain control over its borders. It is, of course, obligated to let in citizens of other Member States, because you know freedom of movement of natural person and freedom of movement of labor has been like, I don't know, one of the four friggin founding principles of the EU, since the 1950s, contrary to the Farage drivel that "booo, this is not what our fathers signed up for" This is EXACTLY what they signed up for. Every member state has a veto right when taking in a new Member State. The UK agreed with taking in the eastern/Balkans countries, they knew what it meant.

We're not in a recession and we haven't been since 2010. The economic instability of countries such as Greece and Spain quite rightly worries people, especially considering the Euopean Commission's large role in dictating Grecian economic policy during the incidents.

The EU, together with the IMF, bailed out Greece. How horrible of a creditor to demand the debtor make steps to make sure it doesn't go bankrupt again.

It is important not to confuse EU law with the European Convention on Human Rights  (but to be apart of the EU you have to sign the ECHR), but there have been numerous times in the early 2000's when legislation made in the full knowledge that it contradicts the ECHR has been declared incompatible. David Blunkett said on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act "Parlimanet did debate this, we were aware of the circumstances, we did mean what we said and, on behalf of the British people, are going to implement it".

I can understand an agreement between nations to have a general 'spirit' in their law making, guidelines as it were, but if our directly elected officials want to make a law that goes against that they should - with the full knowledge that it does go against that. 

Notably you have the Factortame case 1991, where the British Government sought to make sure that the fish going towards their fishing quotas were actually caught by British people, saw EU law overrule British law adversely in my opinion.

A single market requires a single set of rules, otherwise the British would be taking advantage of the Member States with more restrict regulation. There's no "hurr we just want a free trade agreement and that's it" middle ground.

However, our civil service is not the sole source of legislation in the country. The commission is the only European institution capable of initiating bills.

Which again, is a rule forced by the eurosceptics, because since the Comission consists of Comissioners appointed by the national governments, the national governments retain more control over the European legislation.

 

[MadocComadrin]

It is, of course, obligated to let in citizens of other Member States

How are member states regulated in granting new citizenship, if at all? I could see a problem if it was quite easy to gain citizenship in one member state, as a person could get a citizenship there then simply move to their desired country unhampered. 

 

[kurczak]

They're not, to my knowledge. Which once again was blocked by the eurosceptics, because "omg granting citizenship is the pinnacle of national sovereignity, hands off, filthy EU!" However, residence for more than three months in a different MS is conditioned by either having a job there or proving you have enough money to support yourself without a job.

The entire problem with the EU as is, is that it is a half measure.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

But mass immigration in europe isn't a huge issue, and never has been unless you're talking about the mongol invasions. It's more of a trickle, and a trickle of people who are, by and large, travelling to work.
Remember when farage said something like "ten trillion romanians are going to teleport over here when the borders open, then we'll all die of asphyxiation and I'll be laughing smugly with a beer and crushed ribs" and then under 100 actually came.
There also seems to be this weird assumption that immigrants don't contribute to the economy at all and just sit around eating free samples at Sainsbury's and using the NHS.

Spoiler

I'm an exception

 

[Paronomasia12]

But mass immigration in europe isn't a huge issue, and never has been unless you're talking about the mongol invasions. It's more of a trickle, and a trickle of people who are, by and large, travelling to work.
Remember when farage said something like "ten trillion romanians are going to teleport over here when the borders open, then we'll all die of asphyxiation and I'll be laughing smugly with a beer and crushed ribs" and then under 100 actually came.
There also seems to be this weird assumption that immigrants don't contribute to the economy at all and just sit around eating free samples at Sainsbury's and using the NHS.

Spoiler

I'm an exception

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2014/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2014
I expect people who take this seriousily to read these

 

[Jhessail]

I was going to rage all over BlackTide's BS posts but luckily for my blood pressure, kurczak beat me to it.

I expect people who take this seriousily to read these

Good stuff, thanks.

In the 9 months since the accession of Croatia on 1 July 2013, 416 applications were received from Croatians for either authorisation to work or for a registration certificate confirming that the applicant is exercising a right to reside in the UK.

Yeah, ****ing mass invasion of Croatians!

The entire "because of EU, immigrants stealing our jobs and women!!!"-argument is such bull****. Sure, quite a number of East Europeans came to the UK in search of work when EU made it easier. Those people also mostly go back home. If you check the stats, you see that most Bulgarians and Romanians who enter UK to work are between 18 and 34. I've met several while living in the UK - vast majority of them go back home to set-up a family after getting their degree or having built a nest-egg while working.

If UKIP was truthful about curbing immigration, they would focus on the non-EU immigration. But that's already heavily restricted, requiring a visa and so on, so it's far easier to attack EU. Especially as the sort of voters that UKIP targets are poorly educated and not that gifted in the brain department to begin with. Heck, I read their election pamphlet a month ago and it did not have one piece of truth in it - nothing but lies, fabrications and misleading statements.

So most of the people here are arguing about this but the sad truth of the matter is it if UKIP comes into power it won't affect 90% of you.

UKIP is NOT coming to power. This was the EU Parliament elections, it has nothing to do with national parliamentary elections. Previous election cycles have proven that voters behave differently between EU and national elections.

 

[MadocComadrin]

vast majority of them go back home to set-up a family after getting their degree or having built a nest-egg while working.

Doesn't this present a problem though too? Aren't public resources--which are more often then not long-term investments--being spent on them only to have them go off after taking the short term benefits?

I find it similar to Chinese and Indian college students getting a STEM-field degree and doing a bit of work in the US then shipping off back home. (Of course, the tech sector would love to grant them citizenships and get them to stay since they work for less money, but that's another problem in its own right).

 

[Jhessail]

No it really doesn't. While they are working or studying, they do not really strain the national infrastructure much - what with being young and healthy - while they do pay taxes and social security and tuition fees, and spend money in British services and businesses.

In fact, without European and International students, many UK universities would go bankrupt.

 

[user1324865215]

But mass immigration in europe isn't a huge issue, and never has been unless you're talking about the mongol invasions. It's more of a trickle, and a trickle of people who are, by and large, travelling to work.
Remember when farage said something like "ten trillion romanians are going to teleport over here when the borders open, then we'll all die of asphyxiation and I'll be laughing smugly with a beer and crushed ribs" and then under 100 actually came.
There also seems to be this weird assumption that immigrants don't contribute to the economy at all and just sit around eating free samples at Sainsbury's and using the NHS.

Spoiler

I'm an exception

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2014/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2014
I expect people who take this seriousily to read these

That's interesting. In the US, people, to some degree, would welcome immigrants. There is some hostility against illegal immigrants from Mexico, but it seems to have died down over recent years and isn't nearly as big of a deal as it seems in the EU, GB especially.

No it really doesn't. While they are working or studying, they do not really strain the national infrastructure much - what with being young and healthy - while they do pay taxes and social security and tuition fees, and spend money in British services and businesses.

In fact, without European and International students, many UK universities would go bankrupt.

I have borderline good enough grades to get into St. Andrews in Scotland, and it's quite interesting because tuition is comparatively low in relation to major American universities. At the same time, there are rather large numbers of Brits at American universities, so it goes both ways.

 

[Mage246]

There are large numbers of Brits at American universities? I usually saw Asians. French more than anything when it came to Europeans. In terms of foreigners taking up spots at universities, from what I understand we have it way worse than you guys. The percentage of students that are foreigners has gone up astronomically. Even so, I don't begrudge them that. I blame the universities for not expanding to compensate.

 

[user1324865215]

It may be that I live near one of the best universities in the US, let alone the world, so I see a disproportionately large number of Brits. I do see a lot of Asians, but few Frenchies.

 

[K-64]

That's because the French usually smell too bad to be allowed out of the country.

 

[MadocComadrin]

No it really doesn't. While they are working or studying, they do not really strain the national infrastructure much - what with being young and healthy - while they do pay taxes and social security and tuition fees, and spend money in British services and businesses.

In fact, without European and International students, many UK universities would go bankrupt.

I suppose it really comes down to the actual cost of an education and how much of that is NOT being payed out of pocket. They may leave a short term bonus, but they may be taking away from the long term...

If you're investing in education (human capital) that sticks around for only a few years, (even if it's replaced by incoming students), you're losing production in the long term. If I have my macroeconomics correct, saved output (as opposed to consumed output) is spent on (human) capital that literally leaves the equation (for a particular country, the UK in this example), so essentially, some saved output is lost where it could have been otherwise invested in capital or retained--leading to less production or less production growth. Likewise, some economists argue that increases in capital (especially human capital) increases the rate of technological growth, so removing human capital lowers the rate of technological increases, thus lowering the growth of output in the UK. 

Sure, you get an increase in labor (to make things simpler, let's assume that for each person that leaves the country, a new student arrives, giving a permanent boost to labor). However, while you get a small boost in production from that, you don't get as big of a boost you could get from increases in human capital that sticks around as well as the tech boost it would bring. You also get a smaller capital per labor ratio, which, IIRC, means less production overall.

Now, this effect is lessened the longer that these people stay around, (as they contribute to production a bit longer than say, a student that studies and goes right back home), but you still lose some human capital in the long run. All in all, this give an incentive to either reduce the number of foreign students or to retain them for life.

That's interesting. In the US, people, to some degree, would welcome immigrants. There is some hostility against illegal immigrants from Mexico.

The problem in the US is that many of the immigrants who come in, whether it be educated (often in the US) Asians and Indians (the ones who stick around anyway) or unskilled Hispanics, is that they work for cheaper than a US citizen would. This is why you see the tech sector and companies like Walmart* lobby for amnesty and less immigrations regulation.  However, at the end of the day, this really only lowers everyone's wages (even people who aren't in that sector)* while creating wealth and saving expenses for the companies themselves. Given the current trend, instead this wealth will go to the CEOs and such, thus contributing to the widening income-gap issue--both by decrease wages as mentioned and increasing the profits of the super-rich.

*For example due to the how poorly Walmart actually pays its employees, the mere presence of a Walmart can lower the wages of nearly everyone in the surrounding county (http://prospect.org/article/40-year-slump) in addition to driving out higher-paying competition,destroying small businesses and other forms Walmartization.

On a side note, since we're talking about foreign students,  it's interesting to note that for the 2009 graduating class--the largest graduating class of its time--many of the top US Universities (and many in general) did not lower the percent of foreign students they took in to accommodate the larger graduating US class--leading to increased competition among these students.

 

[Mage246]

It may be that I live near one of the best universities in the US, let alone the world, so I see a disproportionately large number of Brits. I do see a lot of Asians, but few Frenchies.

I don't quite get what you mean by that. You think Brits are smarter than other people? 

 

[Anthropoid]

I hope the free trade with the US is stopped. Boycott their wares and we'll have one less superpower.

Butthurt Yuropeens are funny. If they ever succeed we'll see how big of a fan they are of Russia and China.

If you do not happen to occupy a high position in an influential multinational corporation, I reckon there is no sensible reason to be in favour of the implementation of the so called Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership regardless of if you are US-American or European.

The simple fact that such an important treaty was negotiated in secret behind our back ( before  it was made public by a whistleblower) show who is really in charge of this union.
In other times, the responsables would have been hanged for high treasons, but you know, now we just use twitter instead.

They have been negotiating the terms "behind our backs." But before it ever went into effect it would be subject to national approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#Negotiations

Negotiations are held in week-long cycles alternating between Brussels and Washington. The negotiators hope to conclude their work in 2014 or 2015.

The 28 governments will then have to approve the negotiated agreement in the EU Council of Ministers. At this point, the European Parliament will be asked for its decision. It is empowered to approve or reject it. A controversy has arisen on the issue of whether the national Parliaments should also ratify this agreement. In France, Article 53 of the Constitution states that trade treaties can only be ratified by a law. In the US, the Congress will have to ratify the text.

You think it would have been better to waste taxpayer money and bandwidth on a referendum about either (a) whether such an initiative be devised at all, or (b) the specific content of it?

Developing the terms of the agreement and then, once it is well written and thoroughly thought out, submitting for public inspection and national if not local approval(s) seems like the only legitimate way to handle such an initiative, whether one is pro-mercantilism or pro-globalism.

But mass immigration in europe isn't a huge issue, and never has been unless you're talking about the mongol invasions. It's more of a trickle, and a trickle of people who are, by and large, travelling to work.
Remember when farage said something like "ten trillion romanians are going to teleport over here when the borders open, then we'll all die of asphyxiation and I'll be laughing smugly with a beer and crushed ribs" and then under 100 actually came.
There also seems to be this weird assumption that immigrants don't contribute to the economy at all and just sit around eating free samples at Sainsbury's and using the NHS.

Spoiler

I'm an exception

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313401/nino-analytical-report-may-2014.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2014/immigration-statistics-january-to-march-2014
I expect people who take this seriousily to read these

The total number of NINo registrations to adult overseas
nationals in 2013/14 was 603 thousand, an increase of 40
thousand (7%) on the previous year.
 Within the European Union (EU) - The number of NINo
registrations from EU nationals in 2013/14 was 439 thousand,
an increase of 54 thousand (14%) on the previous year.
 The number of NINo registrations to adult overseas nationals
from EU2 nationals (Bulgaria and Romania) in 2013/14 was 65
thousand, an increase of 36 thousand (129%) on the previous
year
 Rest of the world - The number of NINo registrations to adult
overseas nationals from outside the EU in 2013/14 was 162
thousand, a decrease of 14 thousand (8%) on the previous
year.

Wow. Couple hundred thousand per year with increases in the 50% per year range in recent years; that is not inconsequential and the word "trickle" doesn't seem apt.

 

[Mage246]

I don't understand why it's "behind our backs", anyway. I guess someone people just can't be bothered to understand how trade negotiations work. You sit the trade representatives from both sides down in a room and they talk and bargain for days or weeks until they come to something that they think will be mutually agreeable. Then they propose it to their legislatures for approval. If that's "behind our backs", then all trade negotiations are "behind our backs".

It actually seems more like these people have a fundamental lack of understanding as to how representative democracies work. Yes, you vote for someone in an election, but what about all of the positions that the person you vote for has to fill in order to do the job that you voted for him to do? You don't vote for those positions. The guy you picked chooses who fills those slots, and also has the final say as to whatever that person does. So it really doesn't matter at all whether or not the person at the bargaining table or the person at this or that commission is someone that you, individually speaking or as a part of the larger electorate, voted for. Every choice that person makes is either directly ordered by or validated by the person that you did vote for. It's a direct causal chain. Whether or not you voted for them is completely irrelevant.

 

[MadocComadrin]

I don't know about TAFTA, but the ACTA incident revolved around (aside from the content) was the private-negotiations where certain corporate reps were invited and the idea that the president would, through the use of an executive-agreement create a politically (but not legally, as it wouldn't be passed by the legislature) binding agreement. There would be no legislation binding our citizens to comply, but there would be political repercussions for not obeying. From this argument, it was seen as an attempt to secretly force something on the US that would never pass legitimate legislation. A second argument was that Congress had dubiously passed the legislation ex-ante.

I don't have all the information (on either), but for TAFTA, I'd say it's less trying to push the agreement "behind-our-backs" and more "under-our-noses." That is, by using private negotiations and an under-reported legislative vote, you could pass something the general public wouldn't necessarily like or benefit from.

 

[Mage246]

Then they should be mad at the people they elected for allowing it. Not claim that it's undemocratic.

 

[Jhessail]

Wow. Couple hundred thousand per year with increases in the 50% per year range in recent years; that is not inconsequential and the word "trickle" doesn't seem apt.

That's only because the Romanians and Bulgarians could freely come to the UK for the first time. Note that it does not discuss people who go back home. Getting NIN is the first step for legal work, but it remains with you forever, it's not a work visa or anything like that, as it's more akin to the US social security number.

 

[pentagathus]

No it really doesn't. While they are working or studying, they do not really strain the national infrastructure much - what with being young and healthy - while they do pay taxes and social security and tuition fees, and spend money in British services and businesses.

In fact, without European and International students, many UK universities would go bankrupt.

EU students pay exactly the same tuition fees as native students so I don't see how they're preventing bankruptcy of Universities. International students do pay a lot though, some geezer from Oxford was suggesting we might need to raise all fees to the levels that international students pay.

I have borderline good enough grades to get into St. Andrews in Scotland, and it's quite interesting because tuition is comparatively low in relation to major American universities. At the same time, there are rather large numbers of Brits at American universities, so it goes both ways.

Universities in Scotland charge a lot less than in the rest of the UK, I believe in England you'd be looking at about £12000 a year as an international student. EU students would only be paying a mere 9000, those lucky devils (although I think they'd get the same funding system as us so they wouldn't really be paying until they're earning enough to do so.)