EU referendum - Stay or Leave?

[barney]

Kent County Council took 1,400 unaccompanied children from Calais last year. and pretty much the same number the year before

I would add that some of these 'children' looked pretty big to me.

So, it is and has been happening already, with no publicity.

Once here, the authority is obliged to supply services until they are eighteen.
And then what?
Kick them out?
It doesn't seem very well thought through in my opinion.

I wonder how they cannot be considered safe in a first world European country?

[towny44]

I have to wonder how these vulnerable children come to be in the camps in Europe, what happened to their parents, or did they travel all the way from Syria or Africa on their own, if so why.
I have firmly supported David Cameron's policy on trying to provide adequate aid in the camps surrounding Syria, to persuade refugees to seek asylum from there rather than run the risk of the people traffickers and the perilous sea crossings and long treks from Southern Europe.
Regardless of the pleas of the bleeding heart liberal elite I would have preferred that he stuck to that policy, rather than fall in line behind that idiot Merkel.

[Quizzical Bob]

Kent County Council took 1,400 unaccompanied children from Calais last year. and pretty much the same number the year before

I would add that some of these 'children' looked pretty big to me.

So, it is and has been happening already, with no publicity.

Once here, the authority is obliged to supply services until they are eighteen.
And then what?
Kick them out?
It doesn't seem very well thought through in my opinion.

I wonder how they cannot be considered safe in a first world European country?

Most of them were accompanied by and adult when entering but were abandoned at the earliest opportunity.

[Silver_Shiney]

In other words, these "adults" used the kids

[Quizzical Bob]

Some interesting statistics taken from Wikipedia on population density:
UK 262 sq km
Germany 228 sq km
France 118 sq km
Italy 202 sq km
Spain 92 sq km
Ireland 65 sq km

It seems to me there is plenty of capacity there to look after these vulnerable children. Harsh though it may sound but considering the social problems we have in this country, plus the problems we have with housing, schools, health others are better placed than ourselves to offer sanctuary. Some countries could take in all the refugees and still have a population density less than ours.
I'm afraid the likes of Shami and the 'although we live in the same house together we will claim individual allowances', hand wringing Cooper woman make my blood boil. Let's take them in where the resources are minimal, put them in the most deprived areas of the country where accommodation is cheapest and then wonder why, in years to come, we have problems. Politicians such as these? No time for them!!
(And I'm in a good mood cos of the football!!!)

And don't forget that the UK figure includes Scotland with all the empty highland areas. In 2013 it was 413 per sq km. If you consider that the density is much higher in the South East then you will appreciate how crowded we all are.

Health warning! Don't read this if you are of a nervous disposition:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article52118.html

[Silver_Shiney]

Why are you giving us more arguments for leaving the EU? I thought you wanted to stay?

[oldbluefox]

I received this email the other day. I haven't checked the figures but presume they won't be too far wrong:

"European leaders, Merkel and Hollande, have demanded that all European countries take their "fair share" of the (mainly Muslim) hordes of migrants over-running Europe's ineffective unguarded borders.
But how do you decide what a "fair share" is?
Merkel and Hollande try to link the number of migrants to each country's GDP as that will ensure Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human beings pouring into Europe.
But why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population density?
Here is how it works out.
Europe's most densely populated country is England.
England's population density is 413 people per square kilometre (413 ppl/km2).
Now, how many refugees would the main European countries need to take for them to reach the ​same population density as Europe's most densely populated country – England?
To reach the same population density as England (413 ppl/km2), Germany could take 67 million migrants,
France could accommodate a whopping 160 million and Spain an even larger 161 million.
And our close neighbours in Scotland have room for over 25 million!
That should please Socialist Sturgeon.
In all, just thirteen European countries could accommodate more than 680 million migrants before reaching the same population density as England.
Well. That seems to solve the problem of deciding how countries should take their "fair share" of the migrant swarm.
So, using my calculations, there's no need for Europe's most densely populated country - England - to take any migrants at all and our friends in these thirteen countries can comfortably absorb over 680 million migrants.
That seems to me to be giving each country the "fair share" that Merkel and Hollande demand!
It is very fair and politically correct to argue that England is full up for now".

Don't shoot the messenger!!!!

[Silver_Shiney]

"European leaders, Merkel and Hollande, have demanded that all European countries take their "fair share" of the (mainly Muslim) hordes of migrants over-running Europe's ineffective unguarded borders.

All part of the master plan?

[Mervyn and Trish]

I received this email the other day. I haven't checked the figures but presume they won't be too far wrong:

"European leaders, Merkel and Hollande, have demanded that all European countries take their "fair share" of the (mainly Muslim) hordes of migrants over-running Europe's ineffective unguarded borders.
But how do you decide what a "fair share" is?
Merkel and Hollande try to link the number of migrants to each country's GDP as that will ensure Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human beings pouring into Europe.
But why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population density?
Here is how it works out.
Europe's most densely populated country is England.
England's population density is 413 people per square kilometre (413 ppl/km2).
Now, how many refugees would the main European countries need to take for them to reach the ​same population density as Europe's most densely populated country – England?
To reach the same population density as England (413 ppl/km2), Germany could take 67 million migrants,
France could accommodate a whopping 160 million and Spain an even larger 161 million.
And our close neighbours in Scotland have room for over 25 million!
That should please Socialist Sturgeon.
In all, just thirteen European countries could accommodate more than 680 million migrants before reaching the same population density as England.
Well. That seems to solve the problem of deciding how countries should take their "fair share" of the migrant swarm.
So, using my calculations, there's no need for Europe's most densely populated country - England - to take any migrants at all and our friends in these thirteen countries can comfortably absorb over 680 million migrants.
That seems to me to be giving each country the "fair share" that Merkel and Hollande demand!
It is very fair and politically correct to argue that England is full up for now".

Don't shoot the messenger!!!!

Seems fair to me Foxy. Even if the numbers aren't precise (and someone will argue the detail) the principle is sound

[qbman1]

I received this email the other day. I haven't checked the figures but presume they won't be too far wrong:

"European leaders, Merkel and Hollande, have demanded that all European countries take their "fair share" of the (mainly Muslim) hordes of migrants over-running Europe's ineffective unguarded borders.
But how do you decide what a "fair share" is?
Merkel and Hollande try to link the number of migrants to each country's GDP as that will ensure Britain gets landed with most of the flood of human beings pouring into Europe.
But why not link the number of refugees each country takes to its population density?
Here is how it works out.
Europe's most densely populated country is England.
England's population density is 413 people per square kilometre (413 ppl/km2).
Now, how many refugees would the main European countries need to take for them to reach the ​same population density as Europe's most densely populated country – England?
To reach the same population density as England (413 ppl/km2), Germany could take 67 million migrants,
France could accommodate a whopping 160 million and Spain an even larger 161 million.
And our close neighbours in Scotland have room for over 25 million!
That should please Socialist Sturgeon.
In all, just thirteen European countries could accommodate more than 680 million migrants before reaching the same population density as England.
Well. That seems to solve the problem of deciding how countries should take their "fair share" of the migrant swarm.
So, using my calculations, there's no need for Europe's most densely populated country - England - to take any migrants at all and our friends in these thirteen countries can comfortably absorb over 680 million migrants.
That seems to me to be giving each country the "fair share" that Merkel and Hollande demand!
It is very fair and politically correct to argue that England is full up for now".

Don't shoot the messenger!!!!

Seems fair to me Foxy. Even if the numbers aren't precise (and someone will argue the detail) the principle is sound

I'm sure DK will find a way to call you "racist" for that one !!

[Dark Knight]

No he won't
There is a difference between closing our borders coz we are full and closing our borders to certain races, creeds and colours

[gfwgfw]

The Giant is sitting on the fence on this one

[anniec]

The Giant is sitting on the fence on this one

Is that because your chairs are all full of migrants?

[Silver_Shiney]

The Giant is sitting on the fence on this one

Watch out for splinters...

[Quizzical Bob]

Why are you giving us more arguments for leaving the EU? I thought you wanted to stay?

I do.

In or out it will make no difference to who gets in here.

(A cynic is an optimist with experience)

[towny44]

This mornings Daily Wail reports that a Brexit vote may trigger an EU collapse, and Donald Tusk and Mervyn King warn about the perils of a European superstate.
Why have these messages, which we could all foresee, not been sounded louder before now?

[Silver_Shiney]

This mornings Daily Wail reports that a Brexit vote may trigger an EU collapse, and Donald Tusk and Mervyn King warn about the perils of a European superstate.
Why have these messages, which we could all foresee, not been sounded louder before now?

Could it be that other countries want out but haven't voiced those concerns (although it may be that such concerns haven't been made know here) and they're waiting for someone else (us) to make the first move?

[oldbluefox]

Maybe it's a case of a net major contributor pulling out will create a big hole in their finances (and a few empty seats in Brussels) which will need to be plugged somehow. Brexit would have major repercussions on other member states and could well lead to others pulling out and the whole notion of a federal Europe go with them.
Perhaps then it could go back to its original roots - a European Common Market for trading purposes. Now I would vote 'in' for that.

[Silver_Shiney]

me too, Foxy

[Frank Manning]

The problem with that, is that we will still have to be a contributor even if we do leave, because those are the rules. Norway is a case in point. If it's good enough for the Swedes to be in, and keeping the SEK, then that's another reason why it's good enough for me. (Having done a lot of business in Sweden between 1975 and 1989).

[qbman1]

Oh dear, Mrs Krankie has lost her overall majority in the Scottish "Parliament"

[towny44]

The problem with that, is that we will still have to be a contributor even if we do leave, because those are the rules. Norway is a case in point. If it's good enough for the Swedes to be in, and keeping the SEK, then that's another reason why it's good enough for me. (Having done a lot of business in Sweden between 1975 and 1989).

If the EU were dimished back down to its EEC roots, then the whole Brussels infra-structure could be downsized, this would reduce the costs significantly and any spending could be targetted on growing the EEC economy.
Wouldn't that be a good idea.

[Silver_Shiney]

Oh dear, Mrs Krankie has lost her overall majority in the Scottish "Parliament"

Oh dear, how sad, what a pity, never mind.

[Silver_Shiney]

The problem with that, is that we will still have to be a contributor even if we do leave, because those are the rules. Norway is a case in point. If it's good enough for the Swedes to be in, and keeping the SEK, then that's another reason why it's good enough for me. (Having done a lot of business in Sweden between 1975 and 1989).

If the EU were dimished back down to its EEC roots, then the whole Brussels infra-structure could be downsized, this would reduce the costs significantly and any spending could be targetted on growing the EEC economy.
Wouldn't that be a good idea.

Nah, too much like common sense.

[barney]

The problem with that, is that we will still have to be a contributor even if we do leave, because those are the rules. Norway is a case in point. If it's good enough for the Swedes to be in, and keeping the SEK, then that's another reason why it's good enough for me. (Having done a lot of business in Sweden between 1975 and 1989).

Frank, we clearly don't have to follow what others have done.

We are big players at the table and could therefore sort out our own unique deal

The USA don't contribute or allow free movement
China don't contribute or allow free movement
and nor do many other countries who trade with the EU

Many are forgetting that any trade is a two way street

An example is BMW, who's largest market is China, followed by the USA, followed by Germany, and then followed by the UK

The next nearest is France & Italy with a tiny 3% each.

So can anyone explain how it is in BMWs or Mercedes interest to get into some trade war?

It clearly wouldn't happen.

IF (and it is quite unlikely) the UK does decide to leave the EU, things would find there own natural level.
Politicians don't dictate market forces, the market does.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urope.html

They won't walk away from easy money