Obama, concern for the UK or US?

[ProfessorPreciseaBug]

Listening to Obama, I was struck that his language seemed to be about what is good for the US not what is good for the UK. Certainly the former US treasury secretary interviewed on the Today program was very US centric.

His comment about us going to the back of the queue, (and he did say queue instead of line because he was told to) seemed to be a bit of a threat. Is he out of order?

It really is all about immigration and I'm afraid I share bigchoc's cynicism on this point. The same people who feign concern about Africans when it comes to making the brexit argument can be found elsewhere militating against refugees.

I have my reservations about TTIP but I think it is now being used as a bogeyman by the leave campaign - they know that almost no one understands it and that people won't bother to wade through the legalese to find out more. How many posters here have read the article in the link I posted earlier?

eulawanalysis.blogspot.fr/2016/04/the-nhs-ttip-and-eu-referendum.html

It's not just Africa.

Eastern Europa has big problems with depopulation. Whole towns are dying out, everybody from the nurse to the cleaners have left or are leaving, houses are falling in disrepair and at the same time the pressure on the housing market here is growing.

Chardonnay that's a phenomenon that is occurring all over the EU including, believe it or not, in the UK. There are towns in England, like the one my nephew lives in, with a housing surplus (the council famously sold houses for £1). I'm not personally familiar with the NE of England but I understand that a failure of regional policy has left whole areas blighted. And where I live in France whole villages have been abandoned as younger generations move to cities. None of this is anything to do with the EU - in fact, EU migration has been positive where I live, by bringing immigrants with young children into the area.

EU migration has been positive where I live, by bringing immigrants with young children into the area.

That's what I'm saying. Their home countries are slowly dying.

The same people who feign concern about Africans when it comes to making the brexit argument can be found elsewhere militating against refugees

I'm half African, voting Brexit, have concerns about immigration (its the numbers you know). and I find your comment really offensive.

If you cant play nicely, I'm not interested in engaging with you.

Has anyone else noticed it's the Remainers who are rude and aggressive

No, Brexit isn't "all about immigration".

For many people it's about democracy, sovereignty, trade deals with countries outside the EU, retaining the UK's money and deciding here how to spend it, supporting British small businesses instead of international big business, and much more.

My Tony Benn quote seems to have gone pfft. Here it is:

“The House will forgive me for quoting five democratic questions that I have developed during my life. If one meets a powerful personRupert Murdoch, perhaps, or Joe Stalin or Hitlerone can ask five questions:

what power do you have;
where did you get it
in whose interests do you exercise it;
to whom are you accountable
and, how can we get rid of you?
Anyone who cannot answer the last of those questions does not live in a democratic system.”

My point for quoting this is we cannot get rid of the EU Commission and that i find a huge worry.

I do object to scare tactics about "mass immigration" because I find that offensive and not helpful in getting on together in a multicultural society.

What are to you on about?

There is mass uncontrolled immigration into the UK because the Government has open borders to 500million EU cutizens who have the right to come to live in the UK and the Government cannot prevent them from doing so.

Last year 220,000 EU citizens exercised their right to more here, despite the Governments protestations that it wanted to reduce EU migration into the UK and despite the fact that Cameron called this level of immigration "unsustainable". Those are not "scare tactics". They are facts.

Deal with them instead of trying to conflate this into an issue about whether you chose to take offence at simple statistically proven facts .

Offence used to be a good way of trying to close down debate about inconvenient facts that made you uncomfortable. It doesn't work any more. The opposite of your offence is my free speech.

As for the multicultural nonsense. Give over

We are wonderfully multicultural in this country. What the Remainers cant seem to accept is that we have a limit on the sheer numbers of people we can accept and accommodate.

Bronze illustrated brilliantly on another thread, why immigration costs even if the immigrants work (which many of them do of course).

I get really hacked off with the lazy assertion that to be concerned about immigration = xenophobia. Its not true and it is disingenuous to suggest it.

If we left the EU it would make it simpler for people from non-EU countries to move here.

As far as trade is concerned it's a fact of life that large countries & trading blocks like the EU with a population/market of 435m (if UK leaves) will be prioritised over the UK with a population/market of 65m.

It is perfectly legitimate to have concerns about immigration, as long as you avail yourself of the facts first. There are positives and negatives to immigration, and opinions are going to differ as to where the right balance lies.

Anna my issue is with double standards - you (not you personally, but any individual) can't legitimately argue that brexit is a good thing because it will enable the UK to open its arms to Africans, while simultaneously propagating scare stories about refugees (many of whom are Africans) in the EU.

Last year 220,000 EU citizens exercised their right to more here

Net EU migration was estimated at around 180k in the last government update - it's actually lower than net non-EU migration, so the idea that swarms of Poles are crowding out hard-working people from the Southern Hemisphere doesn't really stand up.

It's difficult to make an accurate estimate of Britons living in Europe because most countries no longer require registration, but some estimates put the number at well over 2 million. So it's not clear to me that net migration would fall in the event of brexit, as there would certainly be some forced returns to the UK (not forced by deportation, at least not initially, but by changed financial circumstances - a collapse in sterling or the removal of healthcare rights would for eg make life difficult for many pensioners living in the EU).

'that brexit is a good thing because it will enable the UK to open its arms to Africans'

What are you on about? She didn't say that, she said it allows for the trade from Africa which will be affected by the abolition of the sugar beet cap.

As far as trade is concerned it's a fact of life that large countries & trading blocks like the EU with a population/market of 435m (if UK leaves) will be prioritised over the UK with a population/market of 65m.

Obviously in a queue, those of the most benefit to you will be prioritised accordingly.

But don't forget that many of the 435m in the post-BREXIT EU will be the populations of the poorer countries and areas within the EU. Size is not everything if many of your population are too poor to buy the nice stuff.

Mistrigirl,

I understand why people want to come here. I would do the same. But (and I am talking about the migrants coming into the EU form North Africa and other poor regions of the world) we cannot house the world's poor in the EU and at the same time I dont think we should sign trade agreements which will make their lives even harder. Its a lose-lose situation.

I would hope that by trying to address life chances in the developing world, we will have less of the world's poor desperate to escape and come here for a better life. We need to make the developing world good because that is the right thing to do both pragmatically and morally. That's a win-win situation.

It is a Brexit issue because these people are coming into EU countries and those that are successful in claiming asylum are entitled to move here.

SpringingIntoAction Sun 24-Apr-16 17:57:34 wrote;

We will not be obliged to give the EU £350million a week.

We don't give the EU £350m a week. £350m is our contribution but the rebate (discount) is taken off that figure before the money is sent to the EU. In 2015 the UK actually paid just under £250m a week according to the Treasury. That's why the UK Statistics Authority says £350m EU membership is misleading.

The UK's annual contribution last year was £18bn & the rebate was £5bn so we actually paid £13bn. But we got over £4bn coming back, mostly in the form of payments to farmers & poorer regions of the UK. Therefore our net contribution was around £9bn.

Chipstick10 Sun 24-Apr-16 17:16:39 wrote;

Absolutely terrified with the prospect of Turkey becoming members

Won't happen for years, if ever. To join the EU countries must meet criteria set out in the Copenhagen Agreement. That means completing 33 of 35 policy "chapters" & meeting standards on democracy & justice. After that every existing EU member state must agree. Turkey applied to join in 1987 & only one chapter has provisionally been completed.

We will not be obliged to give the EU £350million a week.

Yes we are. The rebate is taken off at source however that does not reduce our legal obligation to pay £350million membership fees to the EU each week.

That's why the UK Statistics Authority says £350m EU membership is misleading.

They would say that, wouldn't they. Anything to make it seem smaller.

The UK's annual contribution last year was £18bn & the rebate was £5bn so we actually paid £13bn. But we got over £4bn coming back, mostly in the form of payments to farmers & poorer regions of the UK. Therefore our net contribution was around £9bn.

I think that paying our own farmers and poorer regions in the UK directly from UK tax payers funds is much more efficient than handing our money over to the EU and waiting for them to take their cut before sending it back to us, rebadged as EU money and with instructions on what we should spend it on.

Try doing that with your family's budget one month - hand it to a neighbour and let them take their cut before handing it back to you detailing what and where you're allowed to spend it.

And one day we may find that the magnamaous EU no longer gives us such a big rebate or decides to hand our money to somebody else - because once you give people power over your money there is always the chance that they will abusevthat power.

The EU could use that money (our money that we gave them) to punish us if we disagree with them in future, by reducing subsidies it our farmers. As for our poorer areas - there are many even poorer areas in the countries that are lined up to join the EU, like Albania, Montenegro, Bosnia. Perhaps the EU will think their poorer areas are in greater need if our money than our poorer areas are. Perhaps we will end up subsidising those poorer areas and our framers will just have to try to get by.

Trusting the EU with large amounts of your money and hoping that they continue to give some back to you is a very stupid idea. It does not make you safer, or stronger or better.

It makes you very vulnerable and very reluctant to upset your EU masters.

at the same time I dont think we should sign trade agreements which will make their lives even harder. Its a lose-lose situation.

By their very nature, all trade agreements disadvantage countries outside free trade zones. So while I agree with you that there are moral issues at stake with regards to how we trade with the developing world, I struggle to believe that a post-brexit UK would do any better than the EU in this respect. What evidence do you have to support the belief that a post-Brexit UK would trade more considerately or ethically with developing economies? Or is this just wishful thinking?

Absolutely terrified with the prospect of Turkey becoming members

Won't happen for years, if ever. To join the EU countries must meet criteria set out in the Copenhagen Agreement. That means completing 33 of 35 policy "chapters" & meeting standards on democracy & justice. After that ever existing EU member state must agree. Turkey applied to join in 1987 & only one chapter has provisionally been completed.

Well that's the theory.

In practise the EU has this habit of changing the rules, fudging the issue and being somewhat economical with the economic figures, as it was when Greece was allowed to join the Euro based on meeting all the specified criteria, only to find that it had actually lied.

Do not ever make the mistake if thinking the EU will not find a way of achieving what the EU wants to achieve.

Turkey has the EU over a barrel. It will get whatever it wants.

STIDW, I think Turkey's accession is most definitely on the cards. We have the visa-free travel from June, German comedian Jan Böhmermann's arrest, and Turkish being acknowledged as an official EU language.

I truly hope you are right but I think if the elites want Turkey in the EU as part of their agenda, then Turkey will join.

Springing beat me to it

Kate Hoey is still here. She spoke at a meeting I attended last week. She is passionately for Brexit and a brilliant speaker. I shook her hand at the end and thanked her for her tireless campaigning.