Europe

[ShinySideUp]

Well, I think the general consensus is that given a vote on 'in' or 'out' of Europe, the 'outs' have it with a large majority in this little straw poll.
 
Up until a few months ago I would have definitely voted to stay in even if I disagreed with the way the Euro government is run but now I think the damage has been done with the closing of borders and the lack of support for Greece and Italy in managing the influx of migrants. We have been overrun by economic and opportunist migrants masquerading as legitimate refugees. I am quite willing to aid refugees but many of these people came to Europe from Turkey and were therefore already in a safe country and yet on they came, trying to get to a country they fancied and then metaphorically trashing it (viz. Cologne on New Years Eve for example). Our services cannot cope and our apparent 'tolerance' of foreign faiths and cultures has led to many British people being strangers in their own country.
 
I am genuinely not racist but I am 'culturist'. If I went to Abu Dhabi (and I have) I am expected to observe the tenets of their culture, our 'tolerance' has meant that we observe other cultures over our own in our own country lest we be seen to be racist and/or cause 'offence' to anyone except our own people. I am not Christian (or any other faith) but I respect that this is -- or was -- a Christian society with Christian values, values that I really want to preserve and not at the expense of our own sovereignty.
 
It seems to me that regardless of what David Cameron achieves regarding negotiations with Europe we are finished with it as a full member and we might as well get on and vote on it this year.
 
Thank you all for your arguments both for and against (arguments as in points for discussion).
 
PS. One thing about the migrants that has me puzzled: Why do some of them want to get to Finland? Do they like the dark and the cold?
 
 

 

[PepperjacksMama]

Thank you, Mr. Shiny. One point often overlooked or even whitewashed about immigration is the assimilation aspect.

Finland? Maybe there's something about reindeer.

 

[Chad]

 (what are the US States after all apart from former small countries).

This is absolutely true. Each state has its own constitution operating under the broader national one and it's own bicameral legislation and court system as well as law enforcement. 
If the EU were a similar system it certainly could work and be quite economically sound. 
 
The major difference I see is that Europe (at least to me) seems much more culturally divergent than the United States. As much as we have in the way of the so called "great melting pot" America was formed of states that were already composed of similar people with only  minor regional differences. Europe seems like it has much more to overcome. Americans all considered themselves Americans at the formation of the country but from what I can discern Germans think of themselves as Germans, French as French and so on. I'm not sure how interested they are in being a big melting pot and the EU seems to necessitate giving up their current level of nationalism (which people are rightfully fond of being proud of) in order to be a union. This is a problem America did not have to face at it's founding. 

 

[Munroco]

Immigration is a big deal. We are a small island with limited resources. We havn't got the infastructure to cope with this influx of people. Hospitals are buckling under the strain, as are Dr's, dentists and schools, housing ... the list goes on.
 
I'm not one for reading papers, nor believing what I read on the rare occasion that I do, but recently The Sun did some digging and the E.U lot have said that 'They will decide if we are allowed to keep our Queen and our currency'
 
If that statement isn't enough to get the sphincter twitching I don't know what is

If we could refrain from bombing and interfering in other countries, if we could decide not to spend £170billion in a useless weapon that we need permission from the US to use, if we could get everyone (including businesses) to pay their fair share of tax, our resources wouldn't be so limited.

 

[PepperjacksMama]

 (what are the US States after all apart from former small countries).

This is absolutely true. Each state has its own constitution operating under the broader national one and it's own bicameral legislation and court system as well as law enforcement. 
If the EU were a similar system it certainly could work and be quite economically sound. 
 
The major difference I see is that Europe (at least to me) seems much more culturally divergent than the United States. As much as we have in the way of the so called "great melting pot" America was formed of states that were already composed of similar people with only  minor regional differences. Europe seems like it has much more to overcome. Americans all considered themselves Americans at the formation of the country but from what I can discern Germans think of themselves as Germans, French as French and so on. I'm not sure how interested they are in being a big melting pot and the EU seems to necessitate giving up their current level of nationalism (which people are rightfully fond of being proud of) in order to be a union. This is a problem America did not have to face at it's founding. 

Hogwash! If such were the case the Armies would have been national and not comprised of state malitia units. At the time of the founding they were not Americans per say, but members of the States, such as many States Rights advocates believe now. I am an American, but first and foremost I am a Georgian. Not a problem? We still have that same problem today, else all our laws and customs would be uniform.
As well have a gander at the years 1783-1792 during the Articles of Confederacy. Not such a happy we're all Americans union.
As well last I checked Nebraska still has a Unicameral legislative body.
As for the melting pot, that returns to immigration and assimilation. You adopt the best we offer, we adopt the best you offer. Not is happening throughout Europe as well as America, you will change for us. We will not change for you.

 

[Far_King]

Well, I think the general consensus is that given a vote on 'in' or 'out' of Europe, the 'outs' have it with a large majority in this little straw poll.
 
Up until a few months ago I would have definitely voted to stay in even if I disagreed with the way the Euro government is run but now I think the damage has been done with the closing of borders and the lack of support for Greece and Italy in managing the influx of migrants. We have been overrun by economic and opportunist migrants masquerading as legitimate refugees. I am quite willing to aid refugees but many of these people came to Europe from Turkey and were therefore already in a safe country and yet on they came, trying to get to a country they fancied and then metaphorically trashing it (viz. Cologne on New Years Eve for example). Our services cannot cope and our apparent 'tolerance' of foreign faiths and cultures has led to many British people being strangers in their own country.
 
I am genuinely not racist but I am 'culturist'. If I went to Abu Dhabi (and I have) I am expected to observe the tenets of their culture, our 'tolerance' has meant that we observe other cultures over our own in our own country lest we be seen to be racist and/or cause 'offence' to anyone except our own people. I am not Christian (or any other faith) but I respect that this is -- or was -- a Christian society with Christian values, values that I really want to preserve and not at the expense of our own sovereignty.
 
It seems to me that regardless of what David Cameron achieves regarding negotiations with Europe we are finished with it as a full member and we might as well get on and vote on it this year.
 
Thank you all for your arguments both for and against (arguments as in points for discussion).
 
PS. One thing about the migrants that has me puzzled: Why do some of them want to get to Finland? Do they like the dark and the cold?
 
 

 
The cultural thing is something that does bug me.  I was raised to be accepting and have tolerance of others.  Friends of my family were from other cultures and it was fascinating to know more about them.  The food was good too.  But they made every effort to integrate and learn about our culture too and become a part of it.  That I can accept.  
 
I went to Italy a couple of years back.  Only for a week.  I learnt Italian before I went and managed to negotiate my way round almost exclusively in Italian.  When people spoke to me in English obviously I used that
 
I once travelled around Europe.  I spoke French in France, French in Belgium, Holland I relied on English lol, German in Germany and Polish in Poland - yes I learnt Polish and it's a swine of a language to learn.  I believe in learning about where I'm going and accepting the culture that's there - otherwise why go?
I've never lived abroad, this is my attitude to visiting these countries.  If emigrated to another country I wouldn't expect them to adapt to me, I would adapt to them.

As a non Briton. I find the arguments fascinating. To a certain degree what we face here in the U.S. not just with our fights with Washington D.C., but also wit trying to cede our sovereignty to the United Nations.

On a side note Far_King, Hawaii was a kingdom, and Texas was an independent country.The rest of us were colonies and territory.

 
Yes, sorry, I was just attempting to make the comparison as simple as possible without over-complication.  Although, as you have stated, being from Georgia you have your own sense of identity. 

 

[Akasha72]

some fantastic points well made over night. Mr Shiny you put far more eloquently than I can and I completely agree with all you say. Far_King, I also agree. Here in Harrogate we might aswell change our name to Poland. They will only speak English if you speak to them and I've taken to wandering the streets muttering "if you can't speak English pack your bags and do one"
 
I'm turning into a mad old woman ...  I just need to surround myself with several cats

 

[ShinySideUp]

Hogwash!

 
I won't have this. You made your points firmly and eloquently and that is sufficient. The topic so far has been even-tempered and well-argued.
 
I thank you for your future restraint.

 

[PepperjacksMama]

Apologies, Mr. Shiny.
I did allow myself to become bent out of shape. I should have countered the point rather than raise my voice.
Poor choice on my part, and a surefire way to lose a debate.
I shall endeavor to behave in a civil manner henceforth.

 

[ShinySideUp]

No worries, it's just that I've seen many an interesting debate on many forums degenerate after just a couple of ill-chosen words in the heat of the moment and I always feel a bit responsible for a thread that I start.

 

[Chad]

Hogwash! If such were the case the Armies would have been national and not comprised of state malitia units. At the time of the founding they were not Americans per say, but members of the States, such as many States Rights advocates believe now. I am an American, but first and foremost I am a Georgian. Not a problem? We still have that same problem today, else all our laws and customs would be uniform.
As well have a gander at the years 1783-1792 during the Articles of Confederacy. Not such a happy we're all Americans union.
As well last I checked Nebraska still has a Unicameral legislative body.
As for the melting pot, that returns to immigration and assimilation. You adopt the best we offer, we adopt the best you offer. Not is happening throughout Europe as well as America, you will change for us. We will not change for you.

None of that serves to negate my point. 
 
As for Nebraska, it is the only state to be so legislated. Bringing up the one exception does not disprove the rule. 
 
You are talking about armies and laws. I was talking about the shared culture that existed in the colonies. The 13 colonies consisted of people who were generally from England, generally white, and generally Christian. I brought up the constitutions and legislatures to point out how each state is a small country which is a separate and distinct point from my opinion on the difficulties facing the EU. The US army was formed in 1775. I consider this at the founding which of course was officially declared in 1776. But the war for Independence had already begun and the militias weren't enough. Before the founding they were, but not at the founding. Again, that's a side note and not really my point. 
 
My point was that Americans had more similarities than differences and perhaps Europeans have more differences than similarities which will make become a unified union more difficult than it was for the Americans who were able to band together against a common enemy. Because the European Union was created under different circumstances my opinion is it will be more difficult for them to overcome those differences in order to form their more perfect union. 

 

[Bubbelzzz]

As a non-UK European I have to say that there are some good points made. The EU was not such a bad idea at first, which where especially about trade. For example was the common currency actually not that bad at all (could've been better when better executed though). The whole Idea of free travel in Europe and the common currency is to reduce transaction costs. Which makes trade in the EU less costly and thus enhances trade. So looking from that aspect, we can still profit form the EU.
However, a EU as one country like the US wouldn't work right now and we shouldn't try to do it. As Tcamos said, Europe has too many differences in culture. These differences are a lot larger than within the US. These differences can create tensions and can eventually lead to a collapse of the EU.
 
To come back one one of the arguments that the rules to join the common currency are too harsh, I don't think that it's true. These rules need to become more stringent. As when a country is in the common currency it can't be kicked out of it. Which can create problems such as with Greece. The rules are namely formed in such a way that the economy as a whole becomes more stable. There is less chance of countries getting too much debt. Besides that, complying to these rules won't lead to inflation. It is more likely that it will lead to deflation. Which can also be bad. But generally, if countries truthfully comply to these rules, they can won't face a lot of problems.
 
The ongoing migration debate is a bit more difficult to handle. As the collaboration between countries isn't that good at all. We should be able to sent migrants that come here for pure economic reasons back home immediately. Furthermore, should there be a better border control. However, greece is the main problem. As it barely can defend it's borders.
For those that come here with a legitimate reason should be spread among all EU states based on their ability to take care of them. As UK has a lot more resources than, for example: Poland, it should allow more migrants than the poorer EU countries. But this is what I expect from my own country as well of course.  But as said, this issue has to be handled better. It is currently turning into a chaos. 
I want to note though that even though a lot of migrants are probably here for the wrong reasons or damaging people or their possessions, not all migrants are. There are also a lot of migrants that behave well, try to adapt quickly and help us instead of damaging trucks.
 
Overall, I think you, UK, should determine it for yourself. It is far from perfect, but I think that the EU can be profitable in the long run and enhance economical growth.

 

[Akasha72]

Can I just make another point about migration - and it's something you may or may not know. This is purely based on my own personal circumstances.
 
My flat is a housing association flat (social housing). I can't afford to buy nor to rent privately. Social housing is designed to catch people like me, on a low income, and house them for life if that is what is needed. It's secure - unless you are an ass and create a lot of trouble for your neighbours and then you can still be evicted.
Living in the social housing flat next to me are a Polish family - they are economic migrants. In the social housing flats behind mine (a block of 6 seperate flats) there more Polish economic migrants. 
On the next street there is even more social housing - these are 2 and 3 bedroom houses - about 25% are occupied by Polish economic migrants.
 
I am currently on a waiting list to move from this first floor flat to a ground floor as I've got a hip and pelvis injury and I struggle with the stairs. I've been on this emergency transfer list for 2 years plus. Nothing is being offered to me. Why? because they are filling them up with Polish economic migrants.
 
I have family in Australia. If I wanted to be an economic migrant and emmigrate to Australia I would have to apply. I would then have to prove I have enough money saved to support myself for at least 18 months. I would have to prove I had a place to house myself and I would be allowed around 4 months of not working before their authority would say 'get a job or leave'. I know this because my family have been through this process.
That is purely an example. I pretty certain it would be the same if I landed in Poland tomorrow.
 
Here in the U.K we allow these migrants to come, they do not have to prove they can house themselves, and we give them a home in social housing, forcing people like me, born and bred in this country, to slip further down the waiting list. They get the flats and houses because they are classed as homeless, whilst I am not. This is why I feel as strongly as I do about the migrants. I'm fed up of struggling up those stairs into my home, lugging my shopping in absolute agony whilst watching a Polish migrant move into the ground floor flat that's come available.
 
I am not alone in this. All across the country there are people waiting on a never ending list for social housing ... a list that is growing by the hour because migrants can come here, add their names to the list and jump the queue because they are classed as homeless.
Here in Harrogate the housing waiting list is so long that it takes a minimum of 5 years to be housed. It's not right 

 

[Far_King]

As a non-UK European I have to say that there are some good points made. The EU was not such a bad idea at first, which where especially about trade. For example was the common currency actually not that bad at all (could've been better when better executed though). The whole Idea of free travel in Europe and the common currency is to reduce transaction costs. Which makes trade in the EU less costly and thus enhances trade. So looking from that aspect, we can still profit form the EU.
However, a EU as one country like the US wouldn't work right now and we shouldn't try to do it. As Tcamos said, Europe has too many differences in culture. These differences are a lot larger than within the US. These differences can create tensions and can eventually lead to a collapse of the EU.
 
To come back one one of the arguments that the rules to join the common currency are too harsh, I don't think that it's true. These rules need to become more stringent. As when a country is in the common currency it can't be kicked out of it. Which can create problems such as with Greece. The rules are namely formed in such a way that the economy as a whole becomes more stable. There is less chance of countries getting too much debt. Besides that, complying to these rules won't lead to inflation. It is more likely that it will lead to deflation. Which can also be bad. But generally, if countries truthfully comply to these rules, they can won't face a lot of problems.
 
The ongoing migration debate is a bit more difficult to handle. As the collaboration between countries isn't that good at all. We should be able to sent migrants that come here for pure economic reasons back home immediately. Furthermore, should there be a better border control. However, greece is the main problem. As it barely can defend it's borders.
For those that come here with a legitimate reason should be spread among all EU states based on their ability to take care of them. As UK has a lot more resources than, for example: Poland, it should allow more migrants than the poorer EU countries. But this is what I expect from my own country as well of course.  But as said, this issue has to be handled better. It is currently turning into a chaos. 
I want to note though that even though a lot of migrants are probably here for the wrong reasons or damaging people or their possessions, not all migrants are. There are also a lot of migrants that behave well, try to adapt quickly and help us instead of damaging trucks.
 
Overall, I think you, UK, should determine it for yourself. It is far from perfect, but I think that the EU can be profitable in the long run and enhance economical growth.

 
I spent a lot of time in Poland.  The time I spent in Poland was mainly during the period they spend trying to achieve the economic standing to enable them to join the EU.  I spoke to many people there and saw for myself the cost to the people of attempting to fudge the economy to meet those criteria.
 
Prices of everything went through the roof.  Incomes did not rise to match this.  Many people there do not have substantial savings so wouldn't have benefited from the increased interest rates.  Property prices more than doubled in two years.  I'm sure this contributed to the economic migrants to the UK where it paid more to be a cleaner here and send back money than it did to be a teacher in Poland.  Where child benefit in the UK can be claimed for an economic migrant working here and can be sent back to a family in another country because they're part of the EU.
 
I'm not interested in bashing anyone for this by the way, it's what the rules allowed and one reason why Donald Tusk is fighting David Cameron so hard over the benefit payments at the moment.

 

[Bubbelzzz]

 

As a non-UK European I have to say that there are some good points made. The EU was not such a bad idea at first, which where especially about trade. For example was the common currency actually not that bad at all (could've been better when better executed though). The whole Idea of free travel in Europe and the common currency is to reduce transaction costs. Which makes trade in the EU less costly and thus enhances trade. So looking from that aspect, we can still profit form the EU.
However, a EU as one country like the US wouldn't work right now and we shouldn't try to do it. As Tcamos said, Europe has too many differences in culture. These differences are a lot larger than within the US. These differences can create tensions and can eventually lead to a collapse of the EU.
 
To come back one one of the arguments that the rules to join the common currency are too harsh, I don't think that it's true. These rules need to become more stringent. As when a country is in the common currency it can't be kicked out of it. Which can create problems such as with Greece. The rules are namely formed in such a way that the economy as a whole becomes more stable. There is less chance of countries getting too much debt. Besides that, complying to these rules won't lead to inflation. It is more likely that it will lead to deflation. Which can also be bad. But generally, if countries truthfully comply to these rules, they can won't face a lot of problems.
 
The ongoing migration debate is a bit more difficult to handle. As the collaboration between countries isn't that good at all. We should be able to sent migrants that come here for pure economic reasons back home immediately. Furthermore, should there be a better border control. However, greece is the main problem. As it barely can defend it's borders.
For those that come here with a legitimate reason should be spread among all EU states based on their ability to take care of them. As UK has a lot more resources than, for example: Poland, it should allow more migrants than the poorer EU countries. But this is what I expect from my own country as well of course.  But as said, this issue has to be handled better. It is currently turning into a chaos. 
I want to note though that even though a lot of migrants are probably here for the wrong reasons or damaging people or their possessions, not all migrants are. There are also a lot of migrants that behave well, try to adapt quickly and help us instead of damaging trucks.
 
Overall, I think you, UK, should determine it for yourself. It is far from perfect, but I think that the EU can be profitable in the long run and enhance economical growth.

 
I spent a lot of time in Poland.  The time I spent in Poland was mainly during the period they spend trying to achieve the economic standing to enable them to join the EU.  I spoke to many people there and saw for myself the cost to the people of attempting to fudge the economy to meet those criteria.
 
Prices of everything went through the roof.  Incomes did not rise to match this.  Many people there do not have substantial savings so wouldn't have benefited from the increased interest rates.  Property prices more than doubled in two years.  I'm sure this contributed to the economic migrants to the UK where it paid more to be a cleaner here and send back money than it did to be a teacher in Poland.  Where child benefit in the UK can be claimed for an economic migrant working here and can be sent back to a family in another country because they're part of the EU.
 
I'm not interested in bashing anyone for this by the way, it's what the rules allowed and one reason why Donald Tusk is fighting David Cameron so hard over the benefit payments at the moment.
 

 
Looking at the statistics of the world bank the inflation actually dropped tremendously the years before entering the EU. While before the year 2000, an inflation rate of 10% could be considered low. Before the year 1995, it had an inflation rate that often exceeded the 30% and and inflation of 100% isn't uncommon either. So you might have been there before the year 2000 when, inflation was indeed high. However, this had nothing to do with the EU and could be considered normal for Poland.
Furthermore, one of the requirements of entering the European Union is having a low inflation rate. It cannot be higher than 1,5% above the inflation rate of the three best performing countries. So this makes it really unlikely that the inflation was actually that high in order to meet the requirements of the EU.
To add to that, Poland actually gained from joining the EU. They have now a "normal" inflation rate of below the 2%. GDP also increased after the needed economic reforms and after they joined the EU.
Property price increase can, economically, be seen as a gain on your investment. As capital doesn't necessarily be placed in a bank to gain from it. Besides, does this decrease the risks on loans for housing.
 
It is true that there are a lot of economic migrants within the EU. It's a common observation throughout the EU. Which is logical as wages are higher in the richer European countries, as you stated above.