Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
What do you think about Turkey being/becoming a full member of the European Union?
I am against it, I'll tell you why later, I'm short of time.
I am against it, I'll tell you why later, I'm short of time.
Turkey at the edge of Europe, yet in the EU ?
- Thread starter Vrtbovska Zahrada
- Start date
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
I'm for Turkish membership in the EU.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
Against, they are not a European country, they are an Asian country. Turkey has a poor human rights record and has just as recently suffered bombings in its capital city from Kurdish suicide bombers. We should be trying to keep the European Union as small and powerful as possible, its original purpose was not to just keep expanding further and further.
Finally, do tribesmen in Eastern Turkey, near the Iraqi border consider themselves European? Of course not.
Finally, do tribesmen in Eastern Turkey, near the Iraqi border consider themselves European? Of course not.
Joshua
TNPer
Do all members of the EU have good human right's records?
Poland seems to have some issues with censorship and homophobia (comments made by sveral government members in 2006).
This was said about Germany on the Amnesty International website:
This was said about Malta:
I could go on and on, I am sure. The point being that you are right Turkey has many problems and a less then superb human right's record. But, many members of the EU have the same problem.
Poland seems to have some issues with censorship and homophobia (comments made by sveral government members in 2006).
This was said about Germany on the Amnesty International website:
This was said about Malta:
I could go on and on, I am sure. The point being that you are right Turkey has many problems and a less then superb human right's record. But, many members of the EU have the same problem.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
I think the key issue for Turkey's entrance into the EU is purely strategic. Between BP, Iran, and French contacts; they really have nothing else to tap into the Middle East that the US can't bomb, force out, or out-buy.
As for human rights, dangling the carrot of EU membership has forced even the Islamist party in power to to begin steep reforms towards better civil rights. With the recent massive demonstrations for a more secular party to maintain their secular traditions, the idea of Turkey being simply "not European enough," I just don't buy (well at least not yet.)
The Kurdish problem has been happening for centuries, it was dreadful where the Kurdish language was banned and simply claim that as an ethnicity would land you in jail. But it was just like that with the Basque, where during the same time period both Turkey and Franco were torturing them. Obviously this is a tricky problem with no obvious solution, in fact I'm against the US withdrawal solely because of the Iraqi Kurd havens to the north.
Turkey's expecting these negotiations to go on for at least a decade; so if the Kurdish population are beginning to be treated better, the extremism fades to the also rans (remember France still had Le Pen,) I'd support letting them in. If the EU is to be an effective counterweight to the US, they need Middle East access and a source to inform them of their culture that doesn't come from disgruntled immigrants.
As for human rights, dangling the carrot of EU membership has forced even the Islamist party in power to to begin steep reforms towards better civil rights. With the recent massive demonstrations for a more secular party to maintain their secular traditions, the idea of Turkey being simply "not European enough," I just don't buy (well at least not yet.)
The Kurdish problem has been happening for centuries, it was dreadful where the Kurdish language was banned and simply claim that as an ethnicity would land you in jail. But it was just like that with the Basque, where during the same time period both Turkey and Franco were torturing them. Obviously this is a tricky problem with no obvious solution, in fact I'm against the US withdrawal solely because of the Iraqi Kurd havens to the north.
Turkey's expecting these negotiations to go on for at least a decade; so if the Kurdish population are beginning to be treated better, the extremism fades to the also rans (remember France still had Le Pen,) I'd support letting them in. If the EU is to be an effective counterweight to the US, they need Middle East access and a source to inform them of their culture that doesn't come from disgruntled immigrants.
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Hahaha, great boys, I knew this topic would be popular...six responses in one night, not too bad...
HC, I'm sure the others are very curious for your reasons to be such a fervent defender of Turkey's EU memberhship! (I am, hell yes...)
EEEMMM...I never would've expected that we'd have the same opinion in RL politics!
I would not give a damn whether it is really in Europe or not, after all, the geographic boundaries between Europe and Asia are drawn rather randomly...for the sake of economical and political clout in the world for the EU, I would even ignore the poor human rights record.
As we saw, bombings can occur everywhere, even in Central London. Alright, they're much more frequent in Turkey, but that's a matter of getting used to it.
It astonishes me, though, that you, EM, as a declared "disliker" of the EU want to keep it as small and powerful as possible! That's exactly the reason for which I have changed my opinion from a supporter of Turkey's entry to an opponent!
Joshua..ehm...comparing Germany to Turkey still seems a bit awkward. To use the AI report does not help much, as every country is subject to complaints. You may check the report about your own country, too!
*points accusingly to the West, direction USA/Canada (or which ever country you may come from)*
And once more...Sniff, I also think that the EU should be a counterweight to the USA. The question is, can we be so with a (muslim) country which would have then the largest population (in some decades), the biggest army, and would be the biggest country in the EU? And bein also the poorest one? Can we afford that?
I fear that for the already stressed and overloaded EU institutions, Turkey might be just too big to work effectively. Yes, the EU needs reforms now, too. But I'm confident that it still is possible to co-ordinate the politics of all these states.
With Turkey, I think the EU won't be much more than a free trade zone, and that's what I want to avoid absolutely. (My goal would be the political Union one day!)
HC, I'm sure the others are very curious for your reasons to be such a fervent defender of Turkey's EU memberhship! (I am, hell yes...)
EEEMMM...I never would've expected that we'd have the same opinion in RL politics!
I would not give a damn whether it is really in Europe or not, after all, the geographic boundaries between Europe and Asia are drawn rather randomly...for the sake of economical and political clout in the world for the EU, I would even ignore the poor human rights record.
As we saw, bombings can occur everywhere, even in Central London. Alright, they're much more frequent in Turkey, but that's a matter of getting used to it.
It astonishes me, though, that you, EM, as a declared "disliker" of the EU want to keep it as small and powerful as possible! That's exactly the reason for which I have changed my opinion from a supporter of Turkey's entry to an opponent!
Joshua..ehm...comparing Germany to Turkey still seems a bit awkward. To use the AI report does not help much, as every country is subject to complaints. You may check the report about your own country, too!
*points accusingly to the West, direction USA/Canada (or which ever country you may come from)*
And once more...Sniff, I also think that the EU should be a counterweight to the USA. The question is, can we be so with a (muslim) country which would have then the largest population (in some decades), the biggest army, and would be the biggest country in the EU? And bein also the poorest one? Can we afford that?
I fear that for the already stressed and overloaded EU institutions, Turkey might be just too big to work effectively. Yes, the EU needs reforms now, too. But I'm confident that it still is possible to co-ordinate the politics of all these states.
With Turkey, I think the EU won't be much more than a free trade zone, and that's what I want to avoid absolutely. (My goal would be the political Union one day!)
Lord Valentine
TNPer
I have two issues with Turkey joining:
a) Immigration. Would we see large numbers of immigrants coming from Turkey to the west such as when Poland joined the EU? I have no problem with skilled workers moving to Britain, but I believe that we can't take another deluge of unskilled workers and I also believe that the current labour government is too stupid to restrict them.
b) Will they be joining the EMU? Can they afford to do that? If they can't then why are they joining the EU?
If any asks me about Britain and the EMU in relation to point B, I'll stab them.
a) Immigration. Would we see large numbers of immigrants coming from Turkey to the west such as when Poland joined the EU? I have no problem with skilled workers moving to Britain, but I believe that we can't take another deluge of unskilled workers and I also believe that the current labour government is too stupid to restrict them.
b) Will they be joining the EMU? Can they afford to do that? If they can't then why are they joining the EU?
If any asks me about Britain and the EMU in relation to point B, I'll stab them.
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Consider me having asked that question and stab me, then, if it makes you feel better...
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Oh please, Turkey has been a proud secular country since its inception and the idea that their muslim beliefs would cause some divide in the EU just might ring true, since historically the Orthodox Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Catholics get along sooo well!
Once again Turkey's entrance is still decades away, as for population Poland and other Eastern European populations are already higher than those in the west (causing friction within constituent seats already with France and Germany.) Turkey's economy is only in shambles because of unfair trade conditions and extremists, once that's solved and the Kurds are finally respected as rightful citizens; their large population would actually be a boon as investors flock to this new market of consumers. A bustling population is actually a good thing, as it would help the tax base as medium Western population continues to age towards retirement.
Also when choosing to place Oil and Gas pipelines, what are the other options? Syria? Jordan? Iran?
Lord Valentine:
I got news for you, the open borders concept of the EU is what makes the EU a true political union. And for all the anti-immigrationists out there, here's a surprise! THEY'RE COMING EITHER WAY! Now we can either have them spend their life savings on a rickety boat and become undocumented workers who can't pay their taxes out of fear of jail time. Or we can actually get them processed, get them trained, and screen out the criminals and potentially dangerous. Also the sight of floating immigrants washing up on the shores might hurt British tourism.
We live in a new global economy now, where finances are no longer centralized in the West. Especially not on the strength of old Manufacturing but on newer Information Technologies. Muscle labour goes where muscle labour is cheap and that is not in the Western States. What we need is job re-training programs and to continually stay one step ahead of the economy. In short we need to diversify and make education a life time commitment.
As for these claims of unskilled workers, I'm sorry but if an EU citizen grew up under one of the finest education systems in the planet and wasted that chance, only to lose their job to someone who barely knows the language and is only trying to make a new life for themselves in a safe hospitable and free nation, I'm not wasting any tears on them.
If a worker in the EU loses their jobs; they have job re-training centers, they welfare, they employment insurance. If a person in Nigeria loses their job, they have nothing.
Lord Valentine
TNPer
tl;dr summary: Immigration is good, if the host country can support it. Quick floods like the Polish immigration is bad. UK needs to have a limit on immigrants and if there could be a similar flood from Turkey then I would not be happy with their membership until a system to protect the UK's interests is developed by our government.
They're coming either way; therefore, we should let them all in, regardless of whether we can support them or not? I'm not against immigration, I'm against the flood of immigrants that enter the country when we can't support them. Any idea of the number of homeless poles living on the streets of London? We need to deal with our own homeless and empoverished before we have to worry about the 600,000 (estimated polish immigrants) extra people entering the country who might not be able to find jobs. Didn't you hear, It's so very easy for immigrants to enter the country and live off the welfare state in the UK. That's what makes us so popular for the lorry container tourists
That's nice of you, but we have to protect our citizens, regardless of how lazy or stupid they may be. Looking after your own first will be a tenant as long as the concept of states and citizens exist.
I'm just being pragmatic. The UK is an island and it's getting rather crowded. Factor in the ageing population and the fact that the proles (Chavs, not the Polish) just keep breeding and getting richer from our wonderful 'welfare' state, the concept of another hundred-thousand immigrants taking unskilled jobs does not appeal to me.
I do the IT for a large regional recruitment agency; I've met quite a few well trained poles who end up packing crates into lorries or serving food at football matches. The jobs they come here en-mass to find, just don't turn up, so they take what they can find temping. In fact, just the other day, I met a Polish person who should by all rights be earning a better salary than me as a Cisco engineer; guess what he's working as in the UK?
And of course, those that don't speak English well enough to work, don't have translatable skills or don't have the mind-set for manual labour end up on the streets.
Europe as one big nation is a great idea, except of course we don't speak the same language, have the same jobs or even the same quality of social care from nation to nation. The further east you go, the worse the situation can get. Hell, we don't even get along that well.
( France (
*removes soapbox, places you on floor*
They're coming either way; therefore, we should let them all in, regardless of whether we can support them or not? I'm not against immigration, I'm against the flood of immigrants that enter the country when we can't support them. Any idea of the number of homeless poles living on the streets of London? We need to deal with our own homeless and empoverished before we have to worry about the 600,000 (estimated polish immigrants) extra people entering the country who might not be able to find jobs. Didn't you hear, It's so very easy for immigrants to enter the country and live off the welfare state in the UK. That's what makes us so popular for the lorry container tourists
That's nice of you, but we have to protect our citizens, regardless of how lazy or stupid they may be. Looking after your own first will be a tenant as long as the concept of states and citizens exist.
So, instead of worrying about the people in my own country, I should shed a tear for the poor Nigerians?
I'm just being pragmatic. The UK is an island and it's getting rather crowded. Factor in the ageing population and the fact that the proles (Chavs, not the Polish) just keep breeding and getting richer from our wonderful 'welfare' state, the concept of another hundred-thousand immigrants taking unskilled jobs does not appeal to me.
I do the IT for a large regional recruitment agency; I've met quite a few well trained poles who end up packing crates into lorries or serving food at football matches. The jobs they come here en-mass to find, just don't turn up, so they take what they can find temping. In fact, just the other day, I met a Polish person who should by all rights be earning a better salary than me as a Cisco engineer; guess what he's working as in the UK?
And of course, those that don't speak English well enough to work, don't have translatable skills or don't have the mind-set for manual labour end up on the streets.
Europe as one big nation is a great idea, except of course we don't speak the same language, have the same jobs or even the same quality of social care from nation to nation. The further east you go, the worse the situation can get. Hell, we don't even get along that well.
( France (
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Okay...
Thanks Joshua for...well, for what actually? Thanks anyway!
Sniffles....
Turkey might consider itself a secular country, and it is so in politics. But in every- day life, the religious tolerance is still rather low to non-existent. Sadly.
The entrance is surely not "decades" away, theoretically, Turkey could join in 2014...surely not what I call way off!
Dead stop right here, Sniffles...what do you mean exactly??
Consider this:
Russia: 148 mio
Germany: 80 mio
France: 59 mio
UK: 58 mio
Italy: 57 mio
Spain: 41 mio
Poland: 39 mio habitants
Also, seeing that most countries in Europe have decreasing populations, I would like to state that the 20 fastest decreasing populations on earth are all in Eastern Europe. Russia is expected to have only 120 mio people left by 2050!
Turkey, on the other hand, has a (by European standards) rapid population increase of 1,4 % per annum...
And immigration...poohh.
Well, it was Britain's own decision to open its borders for the Easterners, most other countries didn't do so. So I can't really argue with you there.
As with Turkish immigration, the majority would come to Germany, as there are many of them already living in Germany (the Turkish are by far the biggest group of immigrants to Germany)...
600,000 Poles in the UK?
Tha...2,6 million Turks in Germany, no need to worry about that, the rest will find shelter there, too!
LV, no need to be paranoid, it is not only the UK being popular for immigrants! Actually, I saw my first black immigrant in Czechia last year!
Well, living in a nation 23 official languages would be a wonderful incentive to learn some of them? Hm?
I don't see why the Europeans shouldn't have the same jobs (as everyone else in the world, also, by the way).
And it is clear that there are many differences, whatever they may concern, but that's what makes life interesting, no (and countries, too!) ?
And who doesn't get along with France?
Thanks Joshua for...well, for what actually? Thanks anyway!
Sniffles....
Turkey might consider itself a secular country, and it is so in politics. But in every- day life, the religious tolerance is still rather low to non-existent. Sadly.
The entrance is surely not "decades" away, theoretically, Turkey could join in 2014...surely not what I call way off!
Dead stop right here, Sniffles...what do you mean exactly??
Consider this:
Russia: 148 mio
Germany: 80 mio
France: 59 mio
UK: 58 mio
Italy: 57 mio
Spain: 41 mio
Poland: 39 mio habitants
Also, seeing that most countries in Europe have decreasing populations, I would like to state that the 20 fastest decreasing populations on earth are all in Eastern Europe. Russia is expected to have only 120 mio people left by 2050!
Turkey, on the other hand, has a (by European standards) rapid population increase of 1,4 % per annum...
And immigration...poohh.
Well, it was Britain's own decision to open its borders for the Easterners, most other countries didn't do so. So I can't really argue with you there.
As with Turkish immigration, the majority would come to Germany, as there are many of them already living in Germany (the Turkish are by far the biggest group of immigrants to Germany)...
600,000 Poles in the UK?
Tha...2,6 million Turks in Germany, no need to worry about that, the rest will find shelter there, too!
LV, no need to be paranoid, it is not only the UK being popular for immigrants! Actually, I saw my first black immigrant in Czechia last year!
Europe as one big nation is a great idea, except of course we don't speak the same language, have the same jobs or even the same quality of social care from nation to nation. The further east you go, the worse the situation can get. Hell, we don't even get along that well.
Well, living in a nation 23 official languages would be a wonderful incentive to learn some of them? Hm?
I don't see why the Europeans shouldn't have the same jobs (as everyone else in the world, also, by the way).
And it is clear that there are many differences, whatever they may concern, but that's what makes life interesting, no (and countries, too!) ?
And who doesn't get along with France?
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
That would be a nightmare, I would immediately move away to Australia, South Africa, Canada or the US.
Also trying to compare Western European nation's human rights record with Turkey's seems fairly pointless.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Once again, we can process them and train them to better accomodate to their new life. There's no doubt that current immigration policies in the UK have failed but just because a half-hearted effort fails, it doesn't mean it is a failure in total. Closing off the borders would be even more disastrous*removes soapbox, places you on floor*
They're coming either way; therefore, we should let them all in, regardless of whether we can support them or not? I'm not against immigration, I'm against the flood of immigrants that enter the country when we can't support them. Any idea of the number of homeless poles living on the streets of London? We need to deal with our own homeless and empoverished before we have to worry about the 600,000 (estimated polish immigrants) extra people entering the country who might not be able to find jobs. Didn't you hear, It's so very easy for immigrants to enter the country and live off the welfare state in the UK. That's what makes us so popular for the lorry container tourists
English, American, Nigerian? Last time I checked we were all human beings with families. Especially when EU protectionist trade policies are causing most of the poverty in Nigeria. Hmmm maybe that's why they're turning to terrorism. Also it's just splitting hairs "in taking care of our own," when "our own" could be anything from East Londoners, Welsh, or Scottish Separatists.
Do you think people are proud to be on welfare? I still cannot fathom how someone created this imagery of the working poor or the unemployed, choosing to send their kids to school or paying off the utilities, being fed on food stamps seem to be suckling on the teet of the great tax payer. And only when we have an open immigration policy, they too will pay their share of taxes.
That's where the job integration system I was mentioning before comes back in. I've met taxi drivers who used to be neurosurgeons in Pakistan, obvious Canada has different standards but a pakistani brain is just the same as a Canadian brain. A worker is a worker, if your argument is simply those not naturalized Brits can't do British labour, I refuse to engage in this discussion. Neverminding racist hiring practises, who do you think will pay the welfare system when the average British citizen is a senior, if they "just keep breeding"? It works both ways.
Not to get into semantics but nations is defined with the idea of "nationality" in mind. Meaning a collection of people who share the common culture, language, and religions. Colonialism and immigration has completely redefined that definition. A closer political union is good but an overbearing government lording over a league of nations so diverse would simply not work.
Of course the further east you go the worst it gets, the Iron Curtain only fell a little over a decade ago. And with EU membership acting like the Marshall Plan, the union can only go stronger.
Considering the two world wars and the cold war, I disagree with that statement. All negotiations contain tension from self-interest but the fact that the EU has gotten this far is a testament to just how far away we are from another two world wars and nuclear staring contests.
Lord Valentine
TNPer
When did I ever suggest closing borders? I suggested that the UK was not in a position to accept all comers and a system of limitations was necessary. There's a talk of a points-based system for work visas and I think that's a great idea.
Our own = British Citizens. Our government's first duty is to the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the citizens of the European Union. It's hardly splitting hairs.
So, yes, "our own" does include Rab, the drunken scottish SNP voter, or Glynn, the rugby-loving teenager from Swansea and every other damn citizen of this country.
Proud? You do realize there are people on benefits who earn more money a year than I do, and pay less in taxes? Believe you me, having children and being unemployed is a rather profitable activity under New Labour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/4286756.stm Check that out, nearly £40,000 a year in benefits just popping out a few sprogs.
You get the double-deluxe bonus for your cunning mixture of straw-man and ad hominem.
My argument was that the jobs that the immigrants come here to find don't exist, so they end up either homeless or working in the very same unskilled jobs that our government is encouraging our citizens to take to keep them off the benefits. It was in support of my argument for a limitation of immigration based on need. Immigration is necessary to our economy, I agree, but we have to remain in control of it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/immigration/stor...1869215,00.html
An example of what I mean.
Colonialism and immigration, pah! Maybe in the new world it has, but over here the old feuds run deep. Tell me, have you ever watched the Eurovision song contest? I think it would be an education for you.
There's certainly a lot more to international relations than how long ago the last war was. Europe might not have had a proper war since the end of the Balkan troubles, but it certainly doesn't mean everyone gets along enough to make a political union workable.
Upper Kirby
TNPer
Anecdote: There is a gentleman at my favorite local petrol station, with whom I chat regularly (he used to sell grass and glass pipes out the back when we were kids). Before emigrating and finding himself the manager of a petrol station and convenience clerk, he was once a professor of history at a prestigious university in Iran (Shirav?), before the SAVAK troubles and Khomeini's revolution.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
To go right back to EM's first point about Turkey: They had a suicide bomb attack there and thats a reason for no? 7/7, Madrid, the IRA attacks? Thats just 2-3 EU nations already. Turkey does have an issue with Kurdistan and its potential independence but thats a multi-national issue.
I have no fundemental problems with turkey eventually entering the EU. I dont think it can happen any time soon however. There needs to be a demonstration of a long term and working change in human rights issues, and the Kurd independence issue should be further discussed first. The EU itself would also need to change and develop first.
Anyway onto more immediate topics
You show a basic misunderstanding of how economics and business works.
You have a British or French or Italian kid grow up and he goes out to get a job. because of a variety of factors (not least his better education) he wants a higher rate of pay. Someone else arrives and offers to do the same job to the same standard for a lower rate and he is instantly more attractive. On top of that the increase in labour in the UK is at least partially why we are still doing so economically well. It sounds stupid but a country starts to ahve problems the closer it gets to 0% unemployment and immigration is a good way to solve it, as well as generating tax revenue to support the NHS and the economy in general.
However there are fundemental problems with the system that havent been properly dealt with by the UK or the EU. Firstly, we cannot take everybody, not all at once. A balance has to be found and that should include the old system of deciding (the risk a person faces if he/she isnt granted access to Britain), the skills they can provide compared to what Britain needs and how britain can support them. The same thing I believe occured during the "Brain Drain" s floods of immigrants came from the eastern bloc pre-berlin wall. There is also the tax issue. Workers need to be properly registered and paying tax. If everyone contributes equally that negates slightly the "stealing our jobs, benefits, whatever" point. But for this to work immigrants have to work, obviously.
But of course this cant happen. The EU is fundementally flawed. The EU dictates laws and procedures to its member states. britain, I believe, needs to be able to decide on what it has to do based on its needs. But we cant change things because of unified policys and laws (H.R.A anyone?). This has to change.
Personally I'd be for going back to a more economic union like we signed up for in the 60's but its unlikely to happen. They have us by the balls! but that may be another debate!
I have no fundemental problems with turkey eventually entering the EU. I dont think it can happen any time soon however. There needs to be a demonstration of a long term and working change in human rights issues, and the Kurd independence issue should be further discussed first. The EU itself would also need to change and develop first.
Anyway onto more immediate topics
You show a basic misunderstanding of how economics and business works.
You have a British or French or Italian kid grow up and he goes out to get a job. because of a variety of factors (not least his better education) he wants a higher rate of pay. Someone else arrives and offers to do the same job to the same standard for a lower rate and he is instantly more attractive. On top of that the increase in labour in the UK is at least partially why we are still doing so economically well. It sounds stupid but a country starts to ahve problems the closer it gets to 0% unemployment and immigration is a good way to solve it, as well as generating tax revenue to support the NHS and the economy in general.
However there are fundemental problems with the system that havent been properly dealt with by the UK or the EU. Firstly, we cannot take everybody, not all at once. A balance has to be found and that should include the old system of deciding (the risk a person faces if he/she isnt granted access to Britain), the skills they can provide compared to what Britain needs and how britain can support them. The same thing I believe occured during the "Brain Drain" s floods of immigrants came from the eastern bloc pre-berlin wall. There is also the tax issue. Workers need to be properly registered and paying tax. If everyone contributes equally that negates slightly the "stealing our jobs, benefits, whatever" point. But for this to work immigrants have to work, obviously.
But of course this cant happen. The EU is fundementally flawed. The EU dictates laws and procedures to its member states. britain, I believe, needs to be able to decide on what it has to do based on its needs. But we cant change things because of unified policys and laws (H.R.A anyone?). This has to change.
Personally I'd be for going back to a more economic union like we signed up for in the 60's but its unlikely to happen. They have us by the balls! but that may be another debate!
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
I was just trying to use it to illustrate the instability of Kurdistan and their fight for independence.
Also, these debates are fun! We should try to have at least one going at any one time.
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Heyhey, nothing to worry about! Just nice of you to admit that the US hasn't the best human rights record...
Why so? I don't think that much would change in comparison to today. Only that the oh-my-god-so-holy-and-independent British political system would have a master above it (which it has in fact now already).
And that scary people from the continent would have free access (to the UK), with the adoption of the Schengen treaty!
MWAHAHAAA...
As for immigration, yes, it should absolutely be controlled. But don't pretend that once Turkey is in the EU
-there will be all of a sudden coming tens of millions of them
-and that they all will come to the UK solely.
-and that all of them will be totally exploiting the welfare systems of Western Europe.
You won't have to take "everybody", as some claim.
And the EU dictates laws and such to Britain because the British policy-makers agreed to that?!
If Turkey really is to join the EU, I would propose the foundation of an inner circle of states who would be willing and able to take a more rapid pace of integration.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
Other EU nations wont have them like we will. indeed many pick and choose which EU mandates they follow, unlike the UK which is too weak to!
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Uhuuum......that's also why the UK has been able to not adopt the Euro. Or the Schengen treaty. Or why it fights the CAP whenever it can.
I do not have the impression that the UK is weak, not at all.
*This is the famous "outsider's voice" to cheer up grumpy moods*
Yay! I thought so...
I do not have the impression that the UK is weak, not at all.
*This is the famous "outsider's voice" to cheer up grumpy moods*
Yay! I thought so...
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
That is pretty much my view, we British are the greatest nation in the world and we should remain sovereign and not surrender to a load of appointed bureaucrats in Brussels.
Lord Valentine
TNPer
Europe tends to forget that Britain spent a good proportion of its history (and eventually its empire) policing the disagreements and wars between European countries.
We've always had a sense of detachment from the main land because we've had to. So, after watching centuries of petty squabbles, and knowing that Charles De Gaulle tried to keep us away from the EU because we'd stop some of the crazier policies, our trust in the EU as a political entity is limited.
Fix the CAP; hobble the French; sort out immigration and fair representation and the UK will be interested, no doubt.
We've always had a sense of detachment from the main land because we've had to. So, after watching centuries of petty squabbles, and knowing that Charles De Gaulle tried to keep us away from the EU because we'd stop some of the crazier policies, our trust in the EU as a political entity is limited.
Fix the CAP; hobble the French; sort out immigration and fair representation and the UK will be interested, no doubt.
mr_sniffles
TNPer
I Understand what you're saying and yes, the economy needs to keep moving with workers either moving up or down but to claim that a 5.5% 1 is too low to fill positions, especially when Britain is effortlessly diversifying into a post-industrial economy, is something we'll just have to agree to disagree. Economic potential right now is everywhere within the Western states, (not to go off-topic but billions alone could be made by enacting, enforcing, and going beyond the Kyoto Pact.) By continually being one step of the economy in Research and Development (which no one sane could disagree with,) the problem solves itself.
My point wasn't that a European who failed to gain the basic skills a Western State can offer is doomed by those who are willing to take a lower wage but to continue to offer programs that keep them competitive, to flex the muscles between their ears instead of manual labour, and to make education a lifetime achievement. Don't know the Euro stats but the avg American changes career paths up to three times. I'm talking about an economic system based on merits founded by education, the unambitious have no place in this new economy.
Fulhead Land:
First off, a point system does work but only pushes the media panic towards the lowest rung of the ladder of refugee claimants "stealing our jobs and getting our welfare." All the while I still am confounded at the prospect of how a tax paying immigrant is monumentally worse than a Brit on welfare. Opening up immigration and dealing with them is still better than hitchiking across the Chunnel. Once again, programs where language, laws, and integration skills teaching national standards can only be a boon when the median Brit citizen edges closer and closer to that of retirement age.
As for the "brain drain," I feel it's just another media induced panic. Canada once had the same terror in the recession of the early 90's and now because of our free education and healthcare packages, we're poaching professionals from the States. Like you've said before, workers go to where wages and conditions are better. We've been poaching them for centuries, from colonialism to the promise of the (North American) western expansion. It's just the another symptom of the Capitalist system (quite another discussion entirely) but quite solvable by
equalizing EU economic standards and opening up investment oppoutunities to these Eastern European countries with flat taxes as low as 10% and with non-existent capital gains taxes.
Lord Valentine:
Yes, but once again you're creating two classes of immigrants. Both seeking a better life in a freer country but one with the money to get in and the other packed into a trawler.
Lord Valentine:
Yeah, from a barrel of a much bigger gun might I add, It took the Germans to end that, so not much I don't think there's much to be bragging about.
We live in a globalized economy and world now. Trilingualism is more of an asset than a generous 401k now, education aid or a Pakistani immigrant in a British education system means lowering the odds of one more potential terrorist who went to a Madrassa instead. Shifting military aid in Colombia to farm aid means one less Coca or Poppy plant being produced for drugs. (None of which is a problem in Britain of course.)
For a proud Brit whose sense of history includes that the Egyptian canal and Indian cotton, I find it hard to think you do not believe that local actions do not have international consequences. Especially when one can help themselves only or help all including themselves.
A reality star being the poster child of a normal brit? Hate to break it to you but reality stars aren't real reps of the local population, it just means they look good in a bathing suit or is a complete bitch who'll clash with others. And what else are you saying? A Brit welfare cheat is less of a catastrophe than an immigrant welfare cheat? Of there's going to be welfare cheats, along with Olympic challengers taking steroids, and people who peek at another's cards during poker; of course we need to prosecute criminals to the fullest extent but corruption is a human problem not of race. But the notion that a few cheats should end a system which benefits millions is just cruel and short sighted. I mean a politician doesn't live up to one of their election promises? Should we eliminate politicians (wait a sec, that made sense...) or the election system all together?
Lord Valentine:
Yeah that's right, attack the structure of the argument instead of the ideas behind it.
Wow, Polish people can be just as poor as normal Brits? 35% too, I mean sure the other 65% is almost double that of the non-immigrants but geez, if a third of the poor are not like us then hot diggity damn; we got a problem.
Lord Valentine
TNPer
So we should allow unfettered immigration because they'll just break into the country anyway? I can't agree with that at all, I'm afraid.
Our military was superior out of necessity! It's hardly shameful to say that we had the bigger gun because we needed it to keep the rest of Europe from destroying itself.
So, limiting immigration, or showing preference to our citizens encourages terrorism? Don't you think that's stretching it a little far?!
Local actions do have international consequences, but I hardly see what that has to do with a nation giving preferential treatment to its own citizens.
A reality star? Glynn was just the first Welsh name I could think of. I don't think you understood my meaning there, skipper.
I'm afraid this is where I'll have to assume you've stopped reading my arguments. I've said all along that benefit cheats are a problem and my argument was that our country should look at dealing with the ones we've got before we allow the potential for more to enter the country.
If you can't structure your argument without resorting to misdirection and insults against my person, then I shan't do you the dignity of responding.
The point of my last reference was that Polish immigrants are having to live on the streets because they cannot find work! I believe that firmly supports my argument for a controlled immigration system. Are you really arguing that we should allow people to enter this country to find jobs that don't exist? Don't you think that would be akin to saying "Hey, Europe! Our tax money isn't really doing much at the minute, how about you send some people to put it to good use on special brew and sleeping bags."
mr_sniffles
TNPer
Yes, because unfettered immigration is equal to open immigration?! No, I mean creating an open system to process them; help them to match the jobs to their skills, recognize them as actual people within the UK, and set them on the path to better integration. To the jobs they want and are capable of doing, which the UK is in demand for.
Necessity? Really, how horrible the world would have been without colonialism raping the third world and the great Catholic Schism kept "the rest of Europe from destroying itself" just so King Henry could divorce and behead. Oh yes, it was completely necessary to play war with the smaller countries especially the Italian city states in a game of chess with France.
No, but it helps fight it. This is a good immigration policy with far reaching goals going beyond merely "protecting our own" with outdated protectionist economics.
Preferation is one thing, stealing from others is quite another. And we've well seen the consequences of our selfish actions.
There's homeless people in every country including and especially Britain, the fact that 65% of those soup kitchens were Brits only magnifies the idea that the problem isn't that they're homeless but that they're homeless and not Brits. As for jobs that don't exist, the idea is ludicrious! From low wage to highly skilled, there will always be jobs available from field picker to higher management especially given the continually high growth of the UK GDP (5.5% Unemployed too.) And as long as the proper programs help integrate both immigrants and locals jobs and prosperity will continue. These job programs which will pay off more in the long run in taxes supporting the ever aging majority of the British population.
All I've heard from you is not that immigration is good or bad, but simply if whether we can use them like the colonies in the empire or not. Yes, I think we've both said all we've need to have said.
Emperor Matthuis
TNPer
There was a friendly Welsh contestant named Glynn on last year's Big Brother, he did quite well and got to the final I think.
Lord Valentine
TNPer
That's exactly what I'm arguing for...
Colonialism hardly raped the third world; in fact, the empire did as much good as it did bad. In any case, I hardly see what Henry's little problems with the Pope have to do with our position policing Europe?
Italy was a strategic sector of Europe because of the Med. We weren't playing chess with the French, we were trying to help the Italians defend themselves against invasion. We can hardly be blamed for the factionalism and infighting of the principalities of the time.
No nation would be stupid enough to support immigration to the detriment of its own people. That's what I don't think you understand!
Of course the problem is that they're homeless and not Brits! Jesus Christ man, that's the whole crux of my argument! We couldn't support the number of immigrants that entered the country from Poland, which led to them sleeping rough; therefore, to prevent that happening again we need to place some controls on immigration!
Care to back that argument up with some evidence?
Fulhead Land
TNPer
muich much much more horrible. Imagine a world where there were never any splits from the Catholic church then imagine a world that still believed in the 4 Humors and didnt have birthcontrol.
The arguement isnt that Immigration is bad on its own, its that unplanned and unmanaged immigration creates problems; for the country and for the immigrants themselves. If a country cant support it it doesnt work. Its a logical point, its not some throwback to colonialism, we're hardly toying with Europe and the rest of the world!
Thats a good point. But there are still hubdreds of laws passed in brussels that Parliament never debates and cant change. The highest court in Britain isnt the highest court anymore. laws, rulings, policy, can all be overturned from outside
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Yes, correct. And?
It's a shame to see just how much many people whine about "Technocrats in Brussels" deciding over all-European laws and such.
It is exactly the same process like Confederational legislation being superior to Cantonal legislation in Switzerland in case of conflict. Or the laws of the Bund breaking the laws of the Länder in Germany.
Right, it is not the case for the UK, where on some topics, the UK parliament can't change the legislation of the regional Scottish etc. parliaments (or??). But the EU law being able to prevail to British law is a very normal democratic process. You might argue that the law-making process within the EU itself is not very democratic, and that's unfortunately true, but the Parliament has already made big steps in legitimation, 30 years before it was hardly more than a chatting club, now it has real powers, and the Commission has become weaker (even though not weak enough, I think). The other point is, as there are apparently not many EU citizens who are actually interested in voting for the Parliament, there's not much of a point in giving it more powers, as it lacks of legitimation from the voters, anyway.
Again, Britain has subordinated itself to this way of making laws (it is irreal to be sugggesting that there are no laws to be made on a European scale, they are necessary to establish the Single Market), as has every other country in the EU.
"hobble the French" ?
Why even hobble them further?
You seem to think that all of the continent is something of a French colony, or what? The French have far less influence than you might think.
Or do you think that for example the country with the third-biggest economy in the world, and the biggest overall exporter (Germany), is to receive directives from Paris? (Not at all, but tell nobody!)
Every single European country is proud enough to react in a rejecting way to proposals from another, who might be damaging its own cause, do not worry about that.
Calls for a "fair representation"?
I don't see what is unfair with the current representation system?
In the Parliament, the seats are fairly distributed after the size of the population, ranging from Germany with 99 seats to Malta with 5 (I again don't see no need to "hobble the French", who have the same number of seats as the British, 78).
The Commission has now 27 members, one Commissioner from every country.
The Council of Ministers even gives advantage to the small countries, as the seats are distributed unequally to any size...
That I find extremely funny!
You might not know that Czechoslovakia had a military alliance with both England and France in the time during the world wars. When Nazi-Germany wanted to occupy one third of Czechoslovakia (the Sudet land, in 1938), what did these wonderful allies decide? Appeasement! They willingly let the Germans take one third of their ally's country! Not what I call "policing disagreements".
Oh, and other European countries were quite involved in European history, too!
The UK is a European country, whether you may like it or not.
And others lost their empires, too! *Yes, there were other than the British one!*
Haor Chall
The Power of the Dark Side
- TNP Nation
- Haor Chall
That I find extremely funny!
You might not know that Czechoslovakia had a military alliance with both England and France in the time during the world wars. When Nazi-Germany wanted to occupy one third of Czechoslovakia (the Sudet land, in 1938), what did these wonderful allies decide? Appeasement! They willingly let the Germans take one third of their ally's country! Not what I call "policing disagreements".
I will respond to the original topic at some point I promise, but just to correct you, only France had an alliance with Czechoslovakia, Britain did not. I think LV is referring to earlier periods in British/European history when we hadn't forgotten what the balance of power was about.
Upper Kirby
TNPer
Don't forget Poland!
That I find extremely funny!
You might not know that Czechoslovakia had a military alliance with both England and France in the time during the world wars. When Nazi-Germany wanted to occupy one third of Czechoslovakia (the Sudet land, in 1938), what did these wonderful allies decide? Appeasement! They willingly let the Germans take one third of their ally's country! Not what I call "policing disagreements".
Yalta-Potsdam left all of eastern Europe out to dry.
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
You're correct HC!That I find extremely funny!
You might not know that Czechoslovakia had a military alliance with both England and France in the time during the world wars. When Nazi-Germany wanted to occupy one third of Czechoslovakia (the Sudet land, in 1938), what did these wonderful allies decide? Appeasement! They willingly let the Germans take one third of their ally's country! Not what I call "policing disagreements".
I will respond to the original topic at some point I promise, but just to correct you, only France had an alliance with Czechoslovakia, Britain did not. I think LV is referring to earlier periods in British/European history when we hadn't forgotten what the balance of power was about.
But whether it is much more sensible to help create a small, rather helpless country ravaged from WWI, and then not being willing to help defend it is another question...
Lord Valentine
TNPer
Appeasement was a big mistake on our part (but in our defence, we were still influenced by the sheer number of losses we suffered in the first World War), but it doesn't detract from that fact that our navy and armies were honed policing the in-fighting in Europe.
France still receives the highest amount of income from the CAP doesn't it? It's the French agriculture groups that keep the EU from reforming it isn't it? It seems to me like France does have quite a lot of say in the EU, whether people want to admit it or not.
France still receives the highest amount of income from the CAP doesn't it? It's the French agriculture groups that keep the EU from reforming it isn't it? It seems to me like France does have quite a lot of say in the EU, whether people want to admit it or not.
Fulhead Land
TNPer
aye ^ man
Britain has been based on democracy for hundreds of years. We have the mother of all democratic systems and we were the first to start laying down rights for all, right from the magna carta. We, as many other nations, fought wars to defend that. World Wars 1 and 2 most rcently fought to defend our soverignty. It seems strange to me that in an effort to stop that type of conflict happening again, we sign away the very thing we try to defend.
I dont have a problem with the EU making laws and mandates etc. But what every nation needs is the ability to decide which fit them. For example, newer EU laws on Airplane safety are less stringent than former UK ones. So by our own standards we are letting in inferior products into the UK, products we deem unsafe. The boundaries on how safe an airoplane is hasn't changed either. We are just forced to accept it.
It should be note dother nations dont actually take evrything like the UK does. The UK is one of the EU and the worlds largest importers and one of the biggest EU contributors compared to little return. If we turned around and stated "we dont want to accept X Y and Z for the moment" no-one is going to turn around a tell us we can't be an EU country anymore.
Britain has been based on democracy for hundreds of years. We have the mother of all democratic systems and we were the first to start laying down rights for all, right from the magna carta. We, as many other nations, fought wars to defend that. World Wars 1 and 2 most rcently fought to defend our soverignty. It seems strange to me that in an effort to stop that type of conflict happening again, we sign away the very thing we try to defend.
I dont have a problem with the EU making laws and mandates etc. But what every nation needs is the ability to decide which fit them. For example, newer EU laws on Airplane safety are less stringent than former UK ones. So by our own standards we are letting in inferior products into the UK, products we deem unsafe. The boundaries on how safe an airoplane is hasn't changed either. We are just forced to accept it.
It should be note dother nations dont actually take evrything like the UK does. The UK is one of the EU and the worlds largest importers and one of the biggest EU contributors compared to little return. If we turned around and stated "we dont want to accept X Y and Z for the moment" no-one is going to turn around a tell us we can't be an EU country anymore.
Vrtbovska Zahrada
TNPer
Sorry, seeing that there is actually a British rebate, I think it's a bit ridiculous to state that the UK pays too much to the EU. It should be paying more instead, as it is now one of the richest EU members!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
(Just in case you don't know what I'm talking about)
Well, like I said, the CAP should really be reformed (and be it only because it is unfair to pay so few to poor Eastern European farmers, and so much to their rich Western colleagues.), but the British rebate needs to be abolished then, too.
And Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then can say goodbye to the money from the structural funds.
And much more horrible than the French farmers I find the Spanish ones. France, as one of the richer members of today's EU, is at least net contributor. But Spain, which is in fact one of the richer members, too (compared to the Eastern bloc countries), does not care about getting rid of its massive CAP subsidies from the EU, and is the biggest net repicient of EU funds. Despite being rather rich. Blerg.
Ermmm, FL, you sound there like the EU was a authoritarian monstrum, led by some dictator.
You can vote directly in the elections for the European parliament.
The Commissioners are appointed by the respective national government, which is in turn elected by us voters (last time I checked, that was the case even in Britain).
And the council of ministers consists of ministers from the national governments.
It is clear that the British parliament can't change EU laws once they've passed the EU parliament, they laws are being discussed before, and not after they have passed!
Oh, and your example for airplane safety is valable in the other direction, too. The UK would be able to produce GMO food, and export it then to other EU countries, if it wanted to.
That's the famous "Cassis de Dijon" principle, named after a case in the early 90ies, when the German administration didn't want to allow a French alcoholic drink, the "Cassis de Dijon", to enter the German market because they deemed it unsafe. The European Court then decided in favour of the French, and argued that things that are deemed to be safe for use in country may be sold in every country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate
(Just in case you don't know what I'm talking about)
Well, like I said, the CAP should really be reformed (and be it only because it is unfair to pay so few to poor Eastern European farmers, and so much to their rich Western colleagues.), but the British rebate needs to be abolished then, too.
And Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland then can say goodbye to the money from the structural funds.
And much more horrible than the French farmers I find the Spanish ones. France, as one of the richer members of today's EU, is at least net contributor. But Spain, which is in fact one of the richer members, too (compared to the Eastern bloc countries), does not care about getting rid of its massive CAP subsidies from the EU, and is the biggest net repicient of EU funds. Despite being rather rich. Blerg.
Ermmm, FL, you sound there like the EU was a authoritarian monstrum, led by some dictator.
You can vote directly in the elections for the European parliament.
The Commissioners are appointed by the respective national government, which is in turn elected by us voters (last time I checked, that was the case even in Britain).
And the council of ministers consists of ministers from the national governments.
It is clear that the British parliament can't change EU laws once they've passed the EU parliament, they laws are being discussed before, and not after they have passed!
Oh, and your example for airplane safety is valable in the other direction, too. The UK would be able to produce GMO food, and export it then to other EU countries, if it wanted to.
That's the famous "Cassis de Dijon" principle, named after a case in the early 90ies, when the German administration didn't want to allow a French alcoholic drink, the "Cassis de Dijon", to enter the German market because they deemed it unsafe. The European Court then decided in favour of the French, and argued that things that are deemed to be safe for use in country may be sold in every country.
Lord Valentine
TNPer
Well, it depends on your thinking, doesn't it? Just because others pay more does not mean we aren't paying too much. Not that I agree, I like our rebate.
Reform the CAP and the rebate goes. That's always been the gentlemen's agreement we've had with Europe.
The whole thing is a shambles, which is why we're so hesitant to throw in our lot completely. I'm pretty sure Britain will stay out until either:
i. We are forced to enter for economic/trade reasons
ii. The system is fairly representative of the whole of Europe, not just the western mainland.
I think what FL is trying to say is that the EU infringes upon our sovereignty, and he isn't keen on that. Regardless of how the MEPs are chosen, the laws passed in Brussels hold more weight than local law in most cases.
One of the reasons I don't like the EU. Why should Germany have its citizens safety dictated to like that?