@ronv
UK imports from EU typically 54% compared to exports at 47%, but in April 2016 imports fell below exports for the first time since 2014.

Read about it for yourself
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ge-with-german-rival-to-create-european-titan
In fairness, as it's a business not political decision it may go ahead anyway.

 

I don’t know why the op started this thread, maybe he is uncertain of which way he is going to vote, or simply wanted to solicit others opinions on the topic.

Either way no one is posting ‘here’ to try to change the situation we are in.

I don’t see any of the posts as whining, but if that’s your interpretation and you find it annoying there is a simple answer – don’t continue reading this thread.

Welcome to the middle of the conversation. See previous posts, in sequence for some references. See countless other posts by a particularly whiny member to understand the rest. After that homework is complete, your informed opinion will be welcome.

 

I have a theory that Brexit will never go through because if the vote says "Leave" the government will rig the election so that we remain.

 

I have a theory that Brexit will never go through because if the vote says "Leave" the government will rig the election so that we remain.

Gee... I didn't know that the brits had adopted a variant of mexican democracy in their system of government...
Seriously now, personally I hope it doesn't go through. Mere speculation about Brexit's results is making our exchange system a bit fidgety right now... I don't even want to imagine how it would affect us if GB decides to leave.

 

@ GopherT – point taken, young and naive comes to mind.

On the topic of stay or leave, consider EU membership as being part of a cooperative, if we leave is it the end of everything as we know it – haha definitely not.

The UK has a lot to offer the EU and leaving may give us the opportunity to renegotiate a future membership on more favorable terms.

The EU mandarins have clearly overstepped the mark by interfering with the governance of member countries.

Leaving the EU would show that the cooperative is not a permanent situation, and member countries will not transfer governing powers to them, because if it continues to develop that is where the end goal is, a pan European government that can not be challenged to rule it’s member countries as it sees fit.

Businesses can only continue if they are competitive and profitable, unfortunately this does not apply to any organisation that is tax payer funded, it becomes a gravy train, where cost implications of running it and the consequences of any dictates they issue are secondary to their egos, and personal wealth.

 

I don't see how an exit will change anything.

- if the UK wants to export any product to EU, all EU rules (REACH) must be followed anyhow.
- if the UK wants to limit immigration, the EU countries can easily "force" compliance by threatening sanctions on imported goods from UK. (UK needs EU market so they will not impose immigration limits).

 

Any country wanting to export to the EU must comply this is not a UK specific issue.

There are three distinct issues regarding immigration.
a) People wanting to live and WORK in the UK, not a problem
b) People wanting to come to the UK to take advantage of our benefit system for a better life than they have in their own country, is a problem as the system is funded by hard working taxpayers and can not support unlimited numbers of this type of immigrant
c) The inability to deport illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and known terrorists, is a problem that will not be resolved by staying part of the EU.

I don't think the EU would want to start a sanctions war with the UK.

Let me give you a scenario for Americans here, imagine you are part of a consortium of countries, and “they” dictated that you have to open the border between you and Mexico and you have no say in it.

On top of that you have to allow as many into your country that want to come.

Also you have to house them, feed them, educate them, look after their health and give them monitory support.

Oh I forgot, you are not allowed to deport any of them, even the extremely undesirable ones.

Get the picture now ?

 

We are a consortium of states, much like the EU.

Over two centuries of growing pains got us to where we are today.

The good or bad of our situation is our own doing. We must own it, just like the EU owns their situation.

 

Any country wanting to export to the EU must comply this is not a UK specific issue.

There are three distinct issues regarding immigration.
a) People wanting to live and WORK in the UK, not a problem
b) People wanting to come to the UK to take advantage of our benefit system for a better life than they have in their own country, is a problem as the system is funded by hard working taxpayers and can not support unlimited numbers of this type of immigrant
c) The inability to deport illegal immigrants, foreign criminals and known terrorists, is a problem that will not be resolved by staying part of the EU.

I don't think the EU would want to start a sanctions war with the UK.

Let me give you a scenario for Americans here, imagine you are part of a consortium of countries, and “they” dictated that you have to open the border between you and Mexico and you have no say in it.

On top of that you have to allow as many into your country that want to come.

Also you have to house them, feed them, educate them, look after their health and give them monitory support.

Oh I forgot, you are not allowed to deport any of them, even the extremely undesirable ones.

Get the picture now ?

Now we are getting to the meat of it.
We pretty much have the system you describe.
Anyway, why can't you limit the immigrants? Is it just because they show up on your doorstep or is there a rule that can't be changed?

 

Now we are getting to the meat of it.
We pretty much have the system you describe.
Anyway, why can't you limit the immigrants? Is it just because they show up on your doorstep or is there a rule that can't be changed?

One of the biggest hurdles is the EU court of human rights, immigrants that manage to get here by any means, once here, even illegally, use tax funded legal aid to resist any deportation attempt by appealing to the EU court, which over rules any national court.

 

One of the biggest hurdles is the EU court of human rights, immigrants that manage to get here by any means, once here, even illegally, use tax funded legal aid to resist any deportation attempt by appealing to the EU court, which over rules any national court.

That's definitely a weakness, and not a strength. All countries should have the right to decide which foreigner is and is not allowed into its territory, regardless of whether said person entered legally or illegally .

 

One of the biggest hurdles is the EU court of human rights, immigrants that manage to get here by any means, once here, even illegally, use tax funded legal aid to resist any deportation attempt by appealing to the EU court, which over rules any national court.

Yea, If it wasn't so serious it would be funny, but at least you guys (Blair) helped Bush break it. Think how mad the French must be.
We could maybe loan you a guy to build a beautiful wall around Greece if that would help.

 

That's definitely a weakness, and not a strength. All countries should have the right to decide which foreigner is and is not allowed into its territory, regardless of whether said person entered legally or illegally .

Couple that with open borders, "fundamental free movement within member states", and anyone getting through a weak border anywhere in the EU can travel here from within the EU via the open border.

 

Couple that with open borders, "fundamental free movement within member states", and anyone getting through a weak border anywhere in the EU can travel here from within the EU via the open border.

Sorry, my last reply wasn't very constructive - but I feel better.
So what you are saying is that you would reinstate your old border system?
If they still get in would you still support them?
Or if you deported them, where would you deport them to?

 

They are very difficult questions to answer, so I won't attempt to, but I am sure we could come up with a solution.

Travelers can not enter the USA unless they have a passport with a bio metric chip in it, if not, I think they are simply turned away, denied entry.

 

Travelers can not enter the USA unless they have a passport with a bio metric chip in it, if not, I think they are simply turned away, denied entry.

Hahahahaa!!!! You're funny. You should post this in the Jokes Thread.

 

Hahahahaa!!!! You're funny. You should post this in the Jokes Thread.

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/united-states-america/passport-visa
Look under "passport note", I think machine readable means bio-metric chip.

This type of passport is refered to as an e-passport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport

More info here
https://www.dhs.gov/e-passports

 

http://www.worldtravelguide.net/united-states-america/passport-visa
Look under "passport note", I think machine readable means bio-metric chip.

This type of passport is refered to as an e-passport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biometric_passport

Like I said, you are an absolute riot. Are you going to be here all night? This is the place to be for entertainment!

 

The United States requires that travelers entering the United States under the Visa Waiver Program have an e-Passport if their passport was issued on or after October 26, 2006.

Glad you find it funny

 

They are very difficult questions to answer, so I won't attempt to, but I am sure we could come up with a solution.

Travelers can not enter the USA unless they have a passport with a bio metric chip in it, if not, I think they are simply turned away, denied entry.

The US has about 200,000 illegal immigrants a year coming into the country each year. This is down by 57% since 2008. Of that 200,000 about 40% overstay their visas. Our current system allows for about 650,000 legal immigrants a year.
We don't have the large refugee problem that you have, but we do take some. I think about 80,000 a year. 1/3 from the Mid-East area, 1/3 from Africa and 1/4 form East Asia.
The illegal immigrants get emergency services if they can't afford it. while the refugees get significant help.