Migration Within EU and its Effect to UK and The Referendum

[Himaginn]

If the continental EU is soooooo good,, why are these asylum seekers massing in Calais?

There are now 5,000 migrants in Calais, the French authorities estimate. Many are living in a makeshift camp known as "The Jungle".
(they come from) Countries where there is unrest or civil war. So Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea and Syria.
Many of these people are so desperate to flee the horrific conditions in their countries they pay thousands to people smugglers to get to Europe.
The so-called Arab uprising triggered unrest across the region from 2010 and ensuing conflicts mean more people are leaving their countries - a quarter of the Syrian population (6.5m) is now displaced.
According to the Mayor of Calais, Natacha Bouchart, and members of the French Senate, migrants perceive the UK to be a better destination than France because the British welfare state will give everyone £36 a week.
Ms Bouchart said migrants think the UK is an "El Dorado" of highly paid work and easy benefits.
The French politicians also blame the under-regulated labour market where migrants can easily find cash-in-hand jobs.
In addition, they said there is no system of identity cards so migrants believe they cannot easily be tracked down and deported.

http://news.sky.com/story/1527131/calais-migrant-crisis-what-you-need-to-know
Perception is king.
Additionally, the universality of english as a spoken language must have a great influence.
Part of the blame must rest squarely with the UK government agencies:

The government is responsible for securing the UK’s borders. We will deliver an improved migration system that commands public confidence and serves our economic interests. We believe that improving migration processes to reduce abuse and limiting non-EU economic migrancy will better serve Britain’s interests and deliver a fair system.

https://www.gov.uk/government/topics/borders-and-immigration
So the UK agencies are clearly not doing what they are supposed to do.

Why did they not follow EU law (and why didn't these EU countries follow EU law) and claim asylum (make them claim asylum) in the first EU country they set foot in?

Maybe they did and now they want to settle in UK.

Why do EU country after country, pass them on forever north-westwards? Let's face it, France doesn't want them, Germany didn't want them, Italy didn't want them, Greece didn't want them, Austria didn't want them,,, Talk about passing the buck.

it's more a case of the migrants want to come to UK, not the European counties not wanting the migrants.

But please note, these are not EU migrants, they are non-EU refugees, therefore it is not materially relevant to the issue of being in or out of EU.
If we're out those refugees will still be there, or in Dover, they will still want to come to UK
It we're out of EU it will not change a thing about the non-EU refugees. It could make it more difficult.

Being out of EU will not be a panacea for the failings of the UK border controls and other UK agencies.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I fail to see how anyone can say what would be the state of affairs had things which have happened not happened - and vice versa.
I.e. what it would be like had we not joined the Common Market and fallen into the EU.

I don't see anyone making guesses about what would have been.

No, but they are predicting doom if we leave. No one knows.

How do we know the figures stated are true?
For, or by, which side were they compiled?

The link is provided for you to check the figures as supplied. Of course you can disagree, but it's normal to provide alternative data, rather than to simply cast doubt without any kind of substantiation.

How do we check the figures?
You said yourself - lies, damned lies etc.
What is the truth?

I especially liked these contradictions:

Duke of Edingburgh,
But any list of immigrants does not include the sons and daughters of immigrants who were born in UK and went on to give UK so much. Members of society who would simply not be here or received their education if their parents had not made the sometimes desperate journey to give their children a better chance in life. Parents who may have arrived here penniless but made UK their home, struggling to to provide for their children and in so doing proving that immigration has been, on the whole, beneficial to UK.

I think you're in danger of becoming embroiled in minutiae.

Of course you do.

And, I could use your words:

I fail to see how anyone can say what would be the state of affairs had things which have happened not happened - and vice versa.

I.e. what it would be like had we not joined the Common Market and fallen into the EU.

Then what was the point of quoting a few immigrants who are here?

How could you possibly suggest what UK would be like without D of E?

I am confident that they would have found a different person for the post of DofE to ensure the same outcome.
So, in that respect, the question does not arise.

 

[jockscott]

Part of the blame must rest squarely with the UK government agencies:

Ahhh I see,,, it's all our fault ? That's alright then. We only have ourselves to blame for the Jungle.

 

[Himaginn]

Part of the blame must rest squarely with the UK government agencies:

Ahhh I see,,, it's all our fault ? That's alright then. We only have ourselves to blame for the Jungle.

See the difference?

 

[Himaginn]

I fail to see how anyone can say what would be the state of affairs had things which have happened not happened - and vice versa.
I.e. what it would be like had we not joined the Common Market and fallen into the EU.

I don't see anyone making guesses about what would have been.

No, but they are predicting doom if we leave. No one knows.

Well the position following Brexit cannot be predicted because the Brexit campaigners will not tell us what model they think will be agreed about trade with EU, or lack of it. Until they do, the Remain campaigners can only speculate about the various potential scenarios. None of which look rosy, IMO. They are all 'leaps into the unknown' with no chance of return.

How do we know the figures stated are true?
For, or by, which side were they compiled?

The link is provided for you to check the figures as supplied. Of course you can disagree, but it's normal to provide alternative data, rather than to simply cast doubt without any kind of substantiation.

How do we check the figures?
You said yourself - lies, damned lies etc.
What is the truth?

Did I say that, when?
There is no truth about future scenarios, only best guesses.
Obviously, there is data about historical situations, much of which is bandied about.

And, I could use your words:

I fail to see how anyone can say what would be the state of affairs had things which have happened not happened - and vice versa.

I.e. what it would be like had we not joined the Common Market and fallen into the EU.

Then what was the point of quoting a few immigrants who are here?

It was a precursor to my statement about the beneficial effect that migration has on UK.

How could you possibly suggest what UK would be like without D of E?

I am confident that they would have found a different person for the post of DofE to ensure the same outcome.
So, in that respect, the question does not arise.

But you questioned the observation about D of E having a beneficial effect. Now you're saying the observation was irrelevant?
Apart from that, whoever it was, he would still be D of E. Although his name might not have been Philip. perhaps his (whoever 'his' is) existence would have been less or more beneficial?

 

[Gerrydelasel]

Remain campaigners can only speculate about the various potential scenarios. They are all 'leaps into the unknown' with no chance of return.

A 'leap into the unknown'..? more likely British life will continue much as it has done. Only with less hyperbole.

 

[Himaginn]

But if we didn't have shoes, we'd have cold, sore, dirty feet.
Remain campaigners can only speculate about the various potential scenarios. They are all 'leaps into the unknown' with no chance of return.

A 'leap into the unknown'..? more likely British life will continue much as it has done. Only with less hyperbole.

I'm assuming that you've accidentally mixed up my quotes there, because my two comments that you've included are completely unrelated.
The first sentence in you're quote of my comments refers back to the third or so comment on the first page. You've then superimposed a very recent quote of mine from this page.
The two comments have no connection and it leads to confusion.

 

[EFLImpudence]

IMO.

It was a precursor to my statement about the beneficial effect that migration has on UK.

Exactly. You don't know how it would be without immigration.

How could you possibly suggest what UK would be like without D of E?

I am confident that they would have found a different person for the post of DofE to ensure the same outcome.
So, in that respect, the question does not arise.

But you questioned the observation about D of E having a beneficial effect. Now you're saying the observation was irrelevant?

No, I am saying he has been of no benefit.

Apart from that, whoever it was, he would still be D of E. Although his name might not have been Philip. perhaps his (whoever 'his' is) existence would have been less or more beneficial?

Again, exactly. Idle speculation.

 

[Gerrydelasel]

I'm assuming that you've accidentally mixed up my quotes there,

Wha? I have no idea how the shoes thing got in there :S

 

[jockscott]

I personally believe that because of Cameron's promise to offer us an in/out referendum, the EU is going to make the UK suffer anyway. Someone's already linked to an article stating that the EU isn't going to publish anything about legislation in the pipeline for fear of giving the Brexit supporters ammunition. The Polish MEP, calls it "Pandora's box" Hmmmmmmm Pandora's box,,, Doesn't bode well for anyone.. If it were some sort of sensible legislation, the EU would have no qualms about letting us know,,, would they?

 

[Himaginn]

IMO.

It was a precursor to my statement about the beneficial effect that migration has on UK.

Exactly. You don't know how it would be without immigration.

How could you possibly suggest what UK would be like without D of E?

I am confident that they would have found a different person for the post of DofE to ensure the same outcome.
So, in that respect, the question does not arise.

But you questioned the observation about D of E having a beneficial effect. Now you're saying the observation was irrelevant?

No, I am saying he has been of no benefit.

Apart from that, whoever it was, he would still be D of E. Although his name might not have been Philip. perhaps his (whoever 'his' is) existence would have been less or more beneficial?

Again, exactly. Idle speculation.

You seem to have misinterpreted the reasoning behind my OP. It wasn't to idly speculate about what might or might not have been. That is a pointless and fruitless avenue to explore. It was your first response on this thread that attempted to push the discussion in that direction:

I fail to see how anyone can say what would be the state of affairs had things which have happened not happened - and vice versa.

My point was quite clearly that immigration has been beneficial to UK, not detrimental. It's a completely different comparison.
I'll leave it to you to speculate about what might or might not have been.

 

[Himaginn]

I personally believe that because of Cameron's promise to offer us an in/out referendum, the EU is going to make the UK suffer anyway. Someone's already linked to an article stating that the EU isn't going to publish anything about legislation in the pipeline for fear of giving the Brexit supporters ammunition. The Polish MEP, calls it "Pandora's box" Hmmmmmmm Pandora's box,,, Doesn't bode well for anyone.. If it were some sort of sensible legislation, the EU would have no qualms about letting us know,,, would they?

What, like the lady next door? Or her Aunty's next door neighbour?
Can you recreate this link to this article?

 

[EFLImpudence]

I fail to see how anyone can say what would be the state of affairs had things which have happened not happened - and vice versa.

My point was quite clearly that immigration has been beneficial to UK, not detrimental. It's a completely different comparison.

Yes I realise that but you don't know that, and, therefore, is equally just speculation.


I may agree with you but nobody knows what it would be like here had no immigration happened.
The same applies to the future.

The referendum is going to be an exercise in guesswork and prejudice formed by biased opinions.

 

[Himaginn]

I fail to see how anyone can say what would be the state of affairs had things which have happened not happened - and vice versa.

My point was quite clearly that immigration has been beneficial to UK, not detrimental. It's a completely different comparison.

Yes I realise that but you don't know that, and, therefore, is equally just speculation.

Of course, but I was presenting an argument to support my opinion.

I may agree with you but nobody knows what it would be like here had no immigration happened.
The same applies to the future.

So we agree idle speculation is fruitless and pointless? So it has no place in this discussion?

The referendum is going to be an exercise in guesswork and prejudice formed by biased opinions.

I like to think the words 'calculated assessment' are more appropriate than guesswork.
So, if you don't mind I'd like to rephrase your comment:
"The referendum is going to be an exercise in calculated assessment or prejudice formed by biased opinions."

 

[EFLImpudence]

"The referendum is going to be an exercise in calculated assessment or prejudice formed by biased opinions."

Yes, the British electorate is well known for that.