A question for someone on here who might know the answer. What are the chances of Albania and/or Turkey being allowed to join the EU ?
And what affect on immigration would this have ?
The only reason these nations will not be allowed in any time soon is because of the effect of mass migration to the prosperous States. Are the EU rules any less anti-immigration than UKIP policy?
I can't see much difference, its self preservation for a community as opposed to self preservation for a nation. The fact that the EU is based on social principles of wealth distribution and protecting workers and the poor simply highlights the hypocrisy. Are there any more needy Europeans than Albanians with average monthly wages of £300, let them in I say, that's what the EU is for.
Oh come on, you know that's bollocks. Turkey has been in discussion for years but it is behind even Serbia ( well,until last night) EU members are divided about the merits of it. The Austrians are particularly against. EU members have to go through a big accession process, and there is a general feeling that in the case of Romania and Bulgaria the process wasn't tight enough.
The argument for Turkey would be a powerful market of 60m people. The argument against, what's on its Eastern borders, are obvious. I think if Istanbul declared independence it would get in pretty quickly and be an asset.
Really not sure what you are referring to. I didn't mention Turkey because their problem is to do with being run by a dictatorship.
If an imbalance of movement of people between states wasn't regarded as a problem, there wouldn't be concessions about controlling entry for a period after a nation joins e.g as some states did when Poland came in. If Albania came in, uncontrolled migration could potentially overwhelm a state if excessive numbers arrived in concentration in one place to find work and homes. So I am suggesting that a fundamental reason for not allowing poor nations to join the EU is the potential disruption from an imbalance of migration.
Personally, immigration doesn't affect me, but I think I understand why controls are sensible, just like the EU Commission, the Labour party, the Conservative party, the LibDems and UKIP. What seems to get people charged up is when someone actually tries to set out actions which exert some controls.
A question for someone on here who might know the answer. What are the chances of Albania and/or Turkey being allowed to join the EU ?
And what affect on immigration would this have ?
The only reason these nations will not be allowed in any time soon is because of the effect of mass migration to the prosperous States. Are the EU rules any less anti-immigration than UKIP policy?
I can't see much difference, its self preservation for a community as opposed to self preservation for a nation. The fact that the EU is based on social principles of wealth distribution and protecting workers and the poor simply highlights the hypocrisy. Are there any more needy Europeans than Albanians with average monthly wages of £300, let them in I say, that's what the EU is for.
Oh come on, you know that's bollocks. Turkey has been in discussion for years but it is behind even Serbia ( well,until last night) EU members are divided about the merits of it. The Austrians are particularly against. EU members have to go through a big accession process, and there is a general feeling that in the case of Romania and Bulgaria the process wasn't tight enough.
The argument for Turkey would be a powerful market of 60m people. The argument against, what's on its Eastern borders, are obvious. I think if Istanbul declared independence it would get in pretty quickly and be an asset.
Really not sure what you are referring to. I didn't mention Turkey because their problem is to do with being run by a dictatorship.
If an imbalance of movement of people between states wasn't regarded as a problem, there wouldn't be concessions about controlling entry for a period after a nation joins e.g as some states did when Poland came in. If Albania came in, uncontrolled migration could potentially overwhelm a state if excessive numbers arrived in concentration in one place to find work and homes. So I am suggesting that a fundamental reason for not allowing poor nations to join the EU is the potential disruption from an imbalance of migration.
Personally, immigration doesn't affect me, but I think I understand why controls are sensible, just like the EU Commission, the Labour party, the Conservative party, the LibDems and UKIP. What seems to get people charged up is when someone actually tries to set out actions which exert some controls.
Think you will find Turkey is now a well established democracy with a freely elected democratic government.
When I was 8 in 1973, Spain was run by a Facist Dictator, Portugal had just had a revolution, Greece was being run by a Military Junta, France was on it fifth Republic and half of Europe was behind an Iron Curtain of Marxist Dictatorships caused by two devastating wars.
I strongly believe that the EU has helped cement democracy, peace and prosperity across the continent. Even countries who joined ten years ago have enjoyed a doubling of living standards in a decade.
I believe it is our best hope of continued peace and prosperity.
When I was 8 in 1973, Spain was run by a Facist Dictator, Portugal had just had a revolution, Greece was being run by a Military Junta, France was on it fifth Republic and half of Europe was behind an Iron Curtain of Marxist Dictatorships caused by two devastating wars.
I strongly believe that the EU has helped cement democracy, peace and prosperity across the continent. Even countries who joined ten years ago have enjoyed a doubling of living standards in a decade.
I believe it is our best hope of continued peace and prosperity.
I thought you were somewhat deluded before given you referred to the risible New Statesman as 'good' but now you're implying that the EU was the cause for the fall of the USSR? Not sure even the Staggers would even make such a ludicrous correlation.
Also, the EU only came into being in its current form in 1993 and the USSR dissolved in 1991, I don't suppose you'd like to add 'time travel' to the list of the EU's accomplishments. Not to mention the fact that Europe has not entirely been peaceful or prosperous during the EU's lifetime.
If you had read the 23 pages of this thread you would have noticed that for the most part the debate has been civilised and intelligent. Do you not see that resorting to labelling everyone who might disagree with you as racist, xenophobic and a string of other insults is counter productive to getting your point of view across? Why not concentrate on explaining why you think that immigration is not an issue that impacts on things like education, the NHS, housing and infrastructure thus assisting those of us who may not have a dogmatic view one way or the other to better understand a reasoned argument against UKIP?
I think you will find that the name-calling last resort is counterproductive and by the way it was done about 20 pages ago.
I am stating a widely held opinion that UKIP as a political party is racist and xenophobic. Where is the name calling? Where are the " string of insults?"
Why not actually read my posts , including the link to a very good New Statemam article on UKIP.
You are entitled to your view.
In that spirit I do find your response puzzling to Goonerhater's similarly direct comment regarding "lefties" earlier in the thread.
If you had read the 23 pages of this thread you would have noticed that for the most part the debate has been civilised and intelligent. Do you not see that resorting to labelling everyone who might disagree with you as racist, xenophobic and a string of other insults is counter productive to getting your point of view across? Why not concentrate on explaining why you think that immigration is not an issue that impacts on things like education, the NHS, housing and infrastructure thus assisting those of us who may not have a dogmatic view one way or the other to better understand a reasoned argument against UKIP?
I think you will find that the name-calling last resort is counterproductive and by the way it was done about 20 pages ago.
I am stating a widely held opinion that UKIP as a political party is racist and xenophobic. Where is the name calling? Where are the " string of insults?"
Why not actually read my posts , including the link to a very good New Statemam article on UKIP.
If you read your post timed at 8:05 I think you will see an example of a string of insults.
I'm afraid that New Statesman link is no longer working, at least for me. I am not familiar with the politics of the New Statesman but there are plenty of journals that put forward biased views. Most do. Think Daily Mail for example. Anyway if it presents your views I'll read it if it is possible to do so.
What you could have done though is come back with a reasoned argument in support of your anti-UKIP views, if you have one. That would be more likely to influence hearts and minds. Asserting that your views are widely held is not much use because it is obvious that your views are not widely shared by whatever percentage of the electorate voted for them.
A question for someone on here who might know the answer. What are the chances of Albania and/or Turkey being allowed to join the EU ?
Albania is well down the list of candidates I think; it's also small and very poor. More chance of Kosovo or Bosnia TBH. If any of them joined it would have an impact on immigration - one of the reasons that the Austrians, Germans etc are against Turkey joining, but it would likely restricted initially. Turkey's membership application, which appears to have stalled a bit, was heavily supported by Britain (at the behest of the US) because of Turkey's role as a Nato ally and a muslim country that functions as a democracy, albeit one with a lot of internal issues. Turkey would become the biggest or 2nd biggest country in the EU immediately. It has a lot of poverty, particularly in the areas populated by the Kurds.There are other issues, like the Turks refusing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and their support of the North Cypriot state (effectively only recognised by Turkey). With Turkey's turn toward islamism, I suspect that the appetite for joining the EU is on the wane in Turkey as well; it is certainly asserting itself as a regional power in the Middle East at the moment.
When I was 8 in 1973, Spain was run by a Facist Dictator
gonna stop you there
have you seen the state of their current government? dear god
i'm broadly pro-eu but you're not serving the ukipsceptic side of this debate particularly well with such blanket statements. ukip feasts on blanket statements & falls when confronted with fine detail & nuance
I've consistently been two days behind with this thread, but found it fascinating reading. 99% of the inputs have been fantastic. The few that don't add anything to the picture, or are inflammatory, don't dwell on, just move on without comment and then it doesn't get derailed.
@Covered End youve done a great unofficial modding job with this thread and kept re-steering it. Thanks for doing so, as it wouldn't have been such a good thread otherwise.
I have been intrigue by this thread and its made me look up various site for further information. This link might be useful as to the populations of Europeon countries (not just the EU) and their growth.
When I was 8 in 1973, Spain was run by a Facist Dictator
gonna stop you there
have you seen the state of their current government? dear god
i'm broadly pro-eu but you're not serving the ukipsceptic side of this debate particularly well with such blanket statements. ukip feasts on blanket statements & falls when confronted with fine detail & nuance
I would like to come to @IAgree's defence regarding the particular point he was making there
My new life in the Czech Republic started the week after we returned to the Valley. It was in contractual terms supposed to last six months.
Is the Czech republic now a fully functioning democracy along UK lines with a rule of law and justice system that offers people similar protection? (see my discussion with @Dippenhall above). No it is not. Has it moved steadily along that path so that it is a functioning democracy where people can do, say, establish and think what they like without fear of the State? Hell yes.
When I look back to 1993 I am gobsmacked at how naive we Westerners were. On the one hand we were nervous that the country would make it at all. I was particularly comforted that I had friends in the local British Airways team, in case we had to get out quick before the Russians piled back in. On the other hand we had the mindset that just because democracy had been proclaimed, we thought that everything - laws, courts, newspapers, police - should function just like in our home countries. How stupid was that? Such things require the population to have a mindset, a civic education, that ensures judges, journalists and policemen behave in a certain way. The accession process into the EU did more than anything else to provide that education.
These things take time. Spain has had longer than the post communist countries, it is true, but I am fairly sure that most older educated Spaniards would have a similar view of the country's progress, and that where it is struggling, it would look to EU "best practice" for the inspiration on how to be better.
Thanks so much for that Prague. It explains very well some of the positive but hidden benefits of the EU. Far too much coverage has been given over to scaremongering. My bit about cows wearing nappies was one such story. We need to restore some notion of balance and more focus on the benefits we have enjoyed without even realising.
If you had read the 23 pages of this thread you would have noticed that for the most part the debate has been civilised and intelligent. Do you not see that resorting to labelling everyone who might disagree with you as racist, xenophobic and a string of other insults is counter productive to getting your point of view across? Why not concentrate on explaining why you think that immigration is not an issue that impacts on things like education, the NHS, housing and infrastructure thus assisting those of us who may not have a dogmatic view one way or the other to better understand a reasoned argument against UKIP?
I think you will find that the name-calling last resort is counterproductive and by the way it was done about 20 pages ago.
I am stating a widely held opinion that UKIP as a political party is racist and xenophobic. Where is the name calling? Where are the " string of insults?"
Why not actually read my posts , including the link to a very good New Statemam article on UKIP.
You are entitled to your view.
In that spirit I do find your response puzzling to Goonerhater's similarly direct comment regarding "lefties" earlier in the thread.
Is it one law for one?
No Mr Hater has repeatedly had rants over the deplorable events in Rotheram. These usually end by suggesting some sort of guilt by association in theses dispicable crimes for any Labour supporters.
The issue is cynically being used by UKIP in their targeting of the Rotheram seat.
When I was 8 in 1973, Spain was run by a Facist Dictator
gonna stop you there
have you seen the state of their current government? dear god
i'm broadly pro-eu but you're not serving the ukipsceptic side of this debate particularly well with such blanket statements. ukip feasts on blanket statements & falls when confronted with fine detail & nuance
These things take time. Spain has had longer than the post communist countries, it is true, but I am fairly sure that most older educated Spaniards would have a similar view of the country's progress, and that where it is struggling, it would look to EU "best practice" for the inspiration on how to be better.
One small example of that: Many share boiler room scams operated from Spain, usually Barcelona. They were operated by Brits and targeted British dupes. Spanish law provided that an investigation could only be carried out if there were Spanish victims. Pressure from the EU changed that and now the various police forces and the CNMV investigate on behalf of British victims in co-operation with the FCA. Here's a report on a recent series of successes. cityoflondon.police.uk/news-and-appeals/international-police-operation-targets-suspected-boiler-room-masterminds/Pages/default.aspx
Office for National Statistics says migrants from Bulgaria and Romania topped 150,000 in the second quarter of this year, up by 13,000, as overall EU migration jumps by 187,000 in just three months.
And two million ex pat British people live in the EU!
Yes but not 187,000 of them have left this country in the last 3 months.
Your point being??
What is wrong with people from the EU living in Britain?
Nothing at all ... provided they work and are not living off UK state benefits to which they have not contributed and never will contribute .. I would LOVE to spend a few months living off local state benefits by the Black Sea in Bulgaria or Romania .. would either of those countries support me in my wishes, even temporarily? .. would they F%$*&
Totall agree but benifits tourism really is largely a myth. Not to mention the two million UK ex pats receiving access to benifits and healthcare across the EY
The UK EU expats who are not working whilst they are abroad and paying local taxes and deductions, in the majority will receive any benefits and healthcare on a reciprocal basis as they will have paid UK dues for many years. Most will be pensioners drawing UK state pensions. I cannot believe that hundreds of thousands of UK citizens across the EU are living off locally available dole money. You may well believe this to be the case.
As for 'benefits tourism' in the UK, I can quote no figures and neither I suspect can you .. However, a contact of mine who works for the DWP tells me that in her area alone, scores of EU citizens (that is non UK citizens) apply for state benefits every week at the various job centres ... I suspect that many get some kind of assistance from the government, especially those who have children with them. This is anecdotal information, but I believe what she says. As I have already stated, fair enough IF the same courtesy were to be extended to UK subjects in the less developed EU states .. you and I know (or at least I do) that this is just not the case. Did you never see the STATE SPONSORED Czech Republic TV ads encouraging Roma people to come to England where they could get benefits and stop being a burden on the Czech exchequer? Admittedly this was a few years back, but I suspect the theory and philosophy still exists in many of the new EU member states .. 'take our poor and huddled masses you British mugs .. because we do not want them'
The highlighted phrases are key here, these are just what you think Lincs, or in the case of your friend's story applying is very different to receiving, I can apply for benefits anywhere in the world, doesn't mean I will get them.
As others have stated, benefits really don't add up to much, however many scroungers with eighteen kids and forty seven bedroom mansions the Daily Mail drag up as an example to prove that the entire country is taking the piss out of the hard working tax payer. They never have billionaire tax avoiders like Philip Green on their front page, even though he costs more in a week than the bloke in their stories costs in a year... Neither party are breaking any laws.
I know a few pensioners here in Portugal who should be paying taxes on their income over here, but remain domiciled in the UK to save money.
For those that retire here and do declare their presence, they receive the same state health care benefits as the Portuguese thanks to reciprocal arrangements within the EU.
Is this the "advert" you are talking about? If so there's no mention of benefits, just one reference to funding education.
If you had read the 23 pages of this thread you would have noticed that for the most part the debate has been civilised and intelligent. Do you not see that resorting to labelling everyone who might disagree with you as racist, xenophobic and a string of other insults is counter productive to getting your point of view across? Why not concentrate on explaining why you think that immigration is not an issue that impacts on things like education, the NHS, housing and infrastructure thus assisting those of us who may not have a dogmatic view one way or the other to better understand a reasoned argument against UKIP?
I think you will find that the name-calling last resort is counterproductive and by the way it was done about 20 pages ago.
I am stating a widely held opinion that UKIP as a political party is racist and xenophobic. Where is the name calling? Where are the " string of insults?"
Why not actually read my posts , including the link to a very good New Statemam article on UKIP.
If you read your post timed at 8:05 I think you will see an example of a string of insults.
I'm afraid that New Statesman link is no longer working, at least for me. I am not familiar with the politics of the New Statesman but there are plenty of journals that put forward biased views. Most do. Think Daily Mail for example. Anyway if it presents your views I'll read it if it is possible to do so.
What you could have done though is come back with a reasoned argument in support of your anti-UKIP views, if you have one. That would be more likely to influence hearts and minds. Asserting that your views are widely held is not much use because it is obvious that your views are not widely shared by whatever percentage of the electorate voted for them.
The comment about " Closet racists and looneys" was David Cameron . The comment about " A load of racist nutters" was from UKIPS former leader Kilroy. A little bit relevant therefore.
UKIPS main policies are withdrawal from the EU and pulling up the drawbridge. They encourage fear and misinformation amongst the public and then capitalise upon this. Therefore the suggestions of Racism and xenaphobia are apt. Their current strategy of targeting former BNP voters in the North confirms this.
I think that why people vote UKIP is another matter. Some are overtly racist and have no problems with this. I suspect many others have other reasons.
When I was 8 in 1973, Spain was run by a Facist Dictator, Portugal had just had a revolution, Greece was being run by a Military Junta, France was on it fifth Republic and half of Europe was behind an Iron Curtain of Marxist Dictatorships caused by two devastating wars.
I strongly believe that the EU has helped cement democracy, peace and prosperity across the continent. Even countries who joined ten years ago have enjoyed a doubling of living standards in a decade.
I believe it is our best hope of continued peace and prosperity.
I thought you were somewhat deluded before given you referred to the risible New Statesman as 'good' but now you're implying that the EU was the cause for the fall of the USSR? Not sure even the Staggers would even make such a ludicrous correlation.
Also, the EU only came into being in its current form in 1993 and the USSR dissolved in 1991, I don't suppose you'd like to add 'time travel' to the list of the EU's accomplishments. Not to mention the fact that Europe has not entirely been peaceful or prosperous during the EU's lifetime.
The treaty of Rome did a great deal to ensure democracy and economic growth. My point us that many of those Countries who had previously been subject to a Dictatorship of one sort or another often found direction and stability through the EU.
The fact that there was unprecedented peace, prosperity and democracy did indeed play a role during and after the fall of the Soviet block. It provide a hopeful alternative and once States had been liberated real stability, peace and prosperity.
Some people don't like elements of what this is accompanied by. In some case I agree however I think this UK should remain part of it and reform.
If views are intellectually legitimate why rail against them rather than robustly putting forward a counter-argument? Don't feel the need to duck out. What I've been on about is do us all the favour of putting forward reasoned arguments and win over the undecided, because if UKIP does force a referendum, the "EU Better Together" campaign will not win by belittling its opponents. Even Cameron is waking up to that. Have a think about it and bring your views on here whilst giving the insults a swerve?
Incidentally, as you don't see it, saying this thread is a UKIP love-in insults about half the posters including Prague and others who argue for the EU!
I will take AFKA's sound advice and leave this now.
I will let you all get on with you UKIP love- in now.
This is not a debate it is the intellectual legitimisation of views I will always rail against.
I wouldn't say this was a love in - many on here, myself included, are not fans of UKIP. However, despite how much you disagree with them, you must recognise that their policies, particularly on immigration and independence of the EU, appeal to a large number of people in this nation. For any political party to ignore that fact is at the least, naive if not downright insane. Immigration may not be at the top of your list of issues, but it does resonate with many, including some of those on this forum, so if you wish to contribute to this debate then by all means put forward some reasoned argument but please don't dismiss it because the issue isn't on your list.
If views are intellectually legitimate why rail against them rather than robustly putting forward a counter-argument? Don't feel the need to duck out. What I've been on about is do us all the favour of putting forward reasoned arguments and win over the undecided, because if UKIP does force a referendum, the "EU Better Together" campaign will not win by belittling its opponents. Even Cameron is waking up to that. Have a think about it and bring your views on here whilst giving the insults a swerve?
Incidentally, as you don't see it, saying this thread is a UKIP love-in insults about half the posters including Prague and others who argue for the EU!
I will take AFKA's sound advice and leave this now.
For Christ sake, stop trying to persuade IAgree not to duck out of the discussion:-)
I believe people deserve a say on the EU, we didn't sign up to political union, we signed up for a common market. That's not democracy. We are dictated to by people, many have not heard of and did not vote for. Regardless of your stance on the EU, surely we can all agree a referendum is the right choice.
If views are intellectually legitimate why rail against them rather than robustly putting forward a counter-argument? Don't feel the need to duck out. What I've been on about is do us all the favour of putting forward reasoned arguments and win over the undecided, because if UKIP does force a referendum, the "EU Better Together" campaign will not win by belittling its opponents. Even Cameron is waking up to that. Have a think about it and bring your views on here whilst giving the insults a swerve?
Incidentally, as you don't see it, saying this thread is a UKIP love-in insults about half the posters including Prague and others who argue for the EU!
I will take AFKA's sound advice and leave this now.
For Christ sake, stop trying to persuade IAgree not to duck out of the discussion:-)
He's not really added to it to be fair, other than calling anyone who mentions anything to with immigration a racist.
I think about 3/4 people on this thread have committed to voting for UKIP, the rest are raising legitimate questions and concerns and are generally being given solid opinions from the 'why you souldn't vote UKIP' posters.
And I for one am finding it a fascinating debate.
Out of interest Prague/Algarve; if the UK were to leave the EU, would it change your ability to stay and work in your respective Countries?
I believe people deserve a say on the EU, we didn't sign up to political union, we signed up for a common market. That's not democracy. We are dictated to by people, many have not heard of and did not vote for. Regardless of your stance on the EU, surely we can all agree a referendum is the right choice.
I share many of your views. My problem is that a referendum will require people to be very fully informed of all the issues. I fear a simplistic yah boo slanging match which will generate heat but very little light.
I will let you all get on with you UKIP love- in now.
This is not a debate it is the intellectual legitimisation of views I will always rail against.
I wouldn't say this was a love in - many on here, myself included, are not fans of UKIP. However, despite how much you disagree with them, you must recognise that their policies, particularly on immigration and independence of the EU, appeal to a large number of people in this nation. For any political party to ignore that fact is at the least, naive if not downright insane. Immigration may not be at the top of your list of issues, but it does resonate with many, including some of those on this forum, so if you wish to contribute to this debate then by all means put forward some reasoned argument but please don't dismiss it because the issue isn't on your list.
Still, 19% is a substantial number. I'm no fan of UKIP and do believe that Farage is pandering to SOME people's prejudices but regardless you are right that people are concerned about immigration. whether IAgree likes it or not it is an issue. Aliwibble makes a number of very valid points above that it is too often cited as the cause (and its control as the solution) for a wide range of issues such as housing to which it is a factor but not by a long way the only or major factor.
People on the left such as Nick Cohen and Billy Bragg have been saying for a long while in the context of defeating the genuinely fascist and racist BNP in Barking and elsewhere that you have to address the issue and distinguish between those (the majority in my view) who have fears about numbers and the impact from (the minority in my view) who are just prejudice and were/would have been blaming Jews, Irish, Caribbean, Asian, etc etc immigrants at various points in the last 100 years and beyond.
What is interesting about the poll linked is that the split of UKIP voters. Much more support in the rest of the south outside of London, very much older but the same on gender.
Also on 2010 voters twice as many tory voters in 2010 intend to vote UKIP than labour voters in 2014.
The other issue is that Fargage has moved UKIP from a single issue lobby party (leave the EU) which was there to force the tories to hold a referendum on membership to a wider issue right of centre party.
Farage has publicly praised the SDPs break away from the Labour Party in the 1980s and it seems to me that he is now on course to try and do the same with the conservatives. He wants a lot more than just UK out of the EU, he wants a go at being in government and he may just get that by splitting the Tory party after a labour win in 2015 or even a coalition if the tories win.
That is far from certain but so far he has played his hand very well. He knows there are/where too many loose cannons such as Geoffrey Bloom behind him so is taking steps to oust them (as he has done with "bongo bongo Bloom") and replace them with safe, experienced tory MPs such as Cresswell and Reckless. Even Arron Banks, the former Tory who donated £1m to UKIP has been fast tracked to fight a general election seat as Farage knows he can't trust the old guard of UKIP and a lot of them no longer trust him (see Bloom's exit speech).
Comments
If an imbalance of movement of people between states wasn't regarded as a problem, there wouldn't be concessions about controlling entry for a period after a nation joins e.g as some states did when Poland came in. If Albania came in, uncontrolled migration could potentially overwhelm a state if excessive numbers arrived in concentration in one place to find work and homes. So I am suggesting that a fundamental reason for not allowing poor nations to join the EU is the potential disruption from an imbalance of migration.
Personally, immigration doesn't affect me, but I think I understand why controls are sensible, just like the EU Commission, the Labour party, the Conservative party, the LibDems and UKIP. What seems to get people charged up is when someone actually tries to set out actions which exert some controls.
I strongly believe that the EU has helped cement democracy, peace and prosperity across the continent. Even countries who joined ten years ago have enjoyed a doubling of living standards in a decade.
I believe it is our best hope of continued peace and prosperity.
Also, the EU only came into being in its current form in 1993 and the USSR dissolved in 1991, I don't suppose you'd like to add 'time travel' to the list of the EU's accomplishments. Not to mention the fact that Europe has not entirely been peaceful or prosperous during the EU's lifetime.
In that spirit I do find your response puzzling to Goonerhater's similarly direct comment regarding "lefties" earlier in the thread.
Is it one law for one?
I'm afraid that New Statesman link is no longer working, at least for me. I am not familiar with the politics of the New Statesman but there are plenty of journals that put forward biased views. Most do. Think Daily Mail for example. Anyway if it presents your views I'll read it if it is possible to do so.
What you could have done though is come back with a reasoned argument in support of your anti-UKIP views, if you have one. That would be more likely to influence hearts and minds. Asserting that your views are widely held is not much use because it is obvious that your views are not widely shared by whatever percentage of the electorate voted for them.
If any of them joined it would have an impact on immigration - one of the reasons that the Austrians, Germans etc are against Turkey joining, but it would likely restricted initially. Turkey's membership application, which appears to have stalled a bit, was heavily supported by Britain (at the behest of the US) because of Turkey's role as a Nato ally and a muslim country that functions as a democracy, albeit one with a lot of internal issues. Turkey would become the biggest or 2nd biggest country in the EU immediately. It has a lot of poverty, particularly in the areas populated by the Kurds.There are other issues, like the Turks refusing to acknowledge the Armenian genocide and their support of the North Cypriot state (effectively only recognised by Turkey).
With Turkey's turn toward islamism, I suspect that the appetite for joining the EU is on the wane in Turkey as well; it is certainly asserting itself as a regional power in the Middle East at the moment.
have you seen the state of their current government? dear god
i'm broadly pro-eu but you're not serving the ukipsceptic side of this debate particularly well with such blanket statements. ukip feasts on blanket statements & falls when confronted with fine detail & nuance
@Covered End youve done a great unofficial modding job with this thread and kept re-steering it. Thanks for doing so, as it wouldn't have been such a good thread otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_population
My new life in the Czech Republic started the week after we returned to the Valley. It was in contractual terms supposed to last six months.
Is the Czech republic now a fully functioning democracy along UK lines with a rule of law and justice system that offers people similar protection? (see my discussion with @Dippenhall above). No it is not. Has it moved steadily along that path so that it is a functioning democracy where people can do, say, establish and think what they like without fear of the State? Hell yes.
When I look back to 1993 I am gobsmacked at how naive we Westerners were. On the one hand we were nervous that the country would make it at all. I was particularly comforted that I had friends in the local British Airways team, in case we had to get out quick before the Russians piled back in. On the other hand we had the mindset that just because democracy had been proclaimed, we thought that everything - laws, courts, newspapers, police - should function just like in our home countries. How stupid was that? Such things require the population to have a mindset, a civic education, that ensures judges, journalists and policemen behave in a certain way. The accession process into the EU did more than anything else to provide that education.
These things take time. Spain has had longer than the post communist countries, it is true, but I am fairly sure that most older educated Spaniards would have a similar view of the country's progress, and that where it is struggling, it would look to EU "best practice" for the inspiration on how to be better.
The issue is cynically being used by UKIP in their targeting of the Rotheram seat.
As others have stated, benefits really don't add up to much, however many scroungers with eighteen kids and forty seven bedroom mansions the Daily Mail drag up as an example to prove that the entire country is taking the piss out of the hard working tax payer. They never have billionaire tax avoiders like Philip Green on their front page, even though he costs more in a week than the bloke in their stories costs in a year... Neither party are breaking any laws.
I know a few pensioners here in Portugal who should be paying taxes on their income over here, but remain domiciled in the UK to save money.
For those that retire here and do declare their presence, they receive the same state health care benefits as the Portuguese thanks to reciprocal arrangements within the EU.
Is this the "advert" you are talking about? If so there's no mention of benefits, just one reference to funding education.
UKIPS main policies are withdrawal from the EU and pulling up the drawbridge. They encourage fear and misinformation amongst the public and then capitalise upon this. Therefore the suggestions of Racism and xenaphobia are apt. Their current strategy of targeting former BNP voters in the North confirms this.
I think that why people vote UKIP is another matter. Some are overtly racist and have no problems with this. I suspect many others have other reasons.
The fact that there was unprecedented peace, prosperity and democracy did indeed play a role during and after the fall of the Soviet block. It provide a hopeful alternative and once States had been liberated real stability, peace and prosperity.
Some people don't like elements of what this is accompanied by. In some case I agree however I think this UK should remain part of it and reform.
This is not a debate it is the intellectual legitimisation of views I will always rail against.
If views are intellectually legitimate why rail against them rather than robustly putting forward a counter-argument? Don't feel the need to duck out. What I've been on about is do us all the favour of putting forward reasoned arguments and win over the undecided, because if UKIP does force a referendum, the "EU Better Together" campaign will not win by belittling its opponents. Even Cameron is waking up to that. Have a think about it and bring your views on here whilst giving the insults a swerve?
Incidentally, as you don't see it, saying this thread is a UKIP love-in insults about half the posters including Prague and others who argue for the EU!
I will take AFKA's sound advice and leave this now.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2014/oct/15/john-lydon-russell-brand-revolution-video
I think about 3/4 people on this thread have committed to voting for UKIP, the rest are raising legitimate questions and concerns and are generally being given solid opinions from the 'why you souldn't vote UKIP' posters.
And I for one am finding it a fascinating debate.
Out of interest Prague/Algarve; if the UK were to leave the EU, would it change your ability to stay and work in your respective Countries?
Still, 19% is a substantial number. I'm no fan of UKIP and do believe that Farage is pandering to SOME people's prejudices but regardless you are right that people are concerned about immigration. whether IAgree likes it or not it is an issue. Aliwibble makes a number of very valid points above that it is too often cited as the cause (and its control as the solution) for a wide range of issues such as housing to which it is a factor but not by a long way the only or major factor.
People on the left such as Nick Cohen and Billy Bragg have been saying for a long while in the context of defeating the genuinely fascist and racist BNP in Barking and elsewhere that you have to address the issue and distinguish between those (the majority in my view) who have fears about numbers and the impact from (the minority in my view) who are just prejudice and were/would have been blaming Jews, Irish, Caribbean, Asian, etc etc immigrants at various points in the last 100 years and beyond.
What is interesting about the poll linked is that the split of UKIP voters. Much more support in the rest of the south outside of London, very much older but the same on gender.
Also on 2010 voters twice as many tory voters in 2010 intend to vote UKIP than labour voters in 2014.
The other issue is that Fargage has moved UKIP from a single issue lobby party (leave the EU) which was there to force the tories to hold a referendum on membership to a wider issue right of centre party.
Farage has publicly praised the SDPs break away from the Labour Party in the 1980s and it seems to me that he is now on course to try and do the same with the conservatives. He wants a lot more than just UK out of the EU, he wants a go at being in government and he may just get that by splitting the Tory party after a labour win in 2015 or even a coalition if the tories win.
That is far from certain but so far he has played his hand very well. He knows there are/where too many loose cannons such as Geoffrey Bloom behind him so is taking steps to oust them (as he has done with "bongo bongo Bloom") and replace them with safe, experienced tory MPs such as Cresswell and Reckless. Even Arron Banks, the former Tory who donated £1m to UKIP has been fast tracked to fight a general election seat as Farage knows he can't trust the old guard of UKIP and a lot of them no longer trust him (see Bloom's exit speech).
Interesting times.