Message from an ex-pat:
"I have lived in France during a period when the exchange rate has fallen from 1.60 down to 1.04 back up to 1.42 and now somewhere in the mid 1.20’s. When it’s high it benefits UK pensioners in Spain and France, when it’s low, it benefits UK exporters.
High house prices benefit my generation, a fall would benefit the next generation, who can’t afford one at the moment.
The fact is, both those scenarios have happened already, whilst in the EU. So what’s to fear from them on an exit?
For me it’s all about keeping a lid on our population growth but yes I do believe the UK will flourish economically, when freed from the EU yoke, as well. Oh and I don’t want TTIP either, where the unelected commission are undertaking talks in total secrecy. That’s about as undemocratic as you can get."
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/br ... -not-fear/
The European Union: We're out...!!!
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
Some of Jean Claude Junker's outrageous quotes:
If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it’s a No we will say ‘we continue’. (On the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty).
I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries.
Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?
Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup […] I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious […] I am for secret, dark debates.
We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.
There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... o-lie.html
If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘on we go’, and if it’s a No we will say ‘we continue’. (On the 2005 French referendum on the Lisbon Treaty).
I am astonished at those who are afraid of the people: one can always explain that what is in the interest of Europe is in the interests of our countries.
Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?
Monetary policy is a serious issue. We should discuss this in secret, in the Eurogroup […] I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious […] I am for secret, dark debates.
We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.
When it becomes serious, you have to lie.
There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... o-lie.html
Last edited by Gullscorer on 22 Jun 2016, 17:48, edited 2 times in total.
-
Alpine Joe
- First Regular
- Posts: 344
- Joined: 31 Oct 2010, 16:01
'If you do decide to vote remain be very clear. You have no right to complain you can't get a doctor's appointment or a place in primary school. In four years' time, all primary schools will be full.
You have no right to a view on the dearth of housing or the strain on the NHS. Because you sided with the people who said unchecked immigration is a positive thing for Britain.
If you are voting remain you have no right to respond to terror with sympathy; your hashtags, your sad faces and your vigils in a public square. The only thing I want to hear from you is 'I was wrong'. Because you voted with the idiots who said we are safer IN.
And if you are voting remain because you are worried about short term pain. Think about the cancer you diagnosed for this country'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -back.html
You have no right to a view on the dearth of housing or the strain on the NHS. Because you sided with the people who said unchecked immigration is a positive thing for Britain.
If you are voting remain you have no right to respond to terror with sympathy; your hashtags, your sad faces and your vigils in a public square. The only thing I want to hear from you is 'I was wrong'. Because you voted with the idiots who said we are safer IN.
And if you are voting remain because you are worried about short term pain. Think about the cancer you diagnosed for this country'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -back.html
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
Some Remain campaigners’ myths exposed:
‘If we left the EU the costs of imports from them would increase by £11 billion.’
This claim rests on the idiotic assumption that, outside the EU, Britain would impose tariffs on the other member states. But no-one is suggesting that. As Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, former UK Ambassador to Brussels, admits: ‘There is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU.’ It would not be in the interests of the EU to do otherwise.
Did you know that Switzerland sells the EU four-and-a-half times as much per head from the outside as the UK does from the inside.!
‘Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to our trade with the EU.’
The dishonesty of this claim is staggering. It is based on the same false idea that Britain would stop trading with the EU if it were a non-member. Why? No-one argues that we have to form a political union with, say, Brazil or Russia in order to do business with those countries. The economist from whose work the figure was taken, Dr Martin Weale, has said: ‘In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts.’
‘Countries that want free (tariff-free) access to Europe’s market of 500 million have to accept free movement of labour.’
Nonsense. To pluck a random example, the EU has signed free trade agreements with Columbia and Peru. No-one suggested that free movement of labour had to be part of the deal. Outside the EU, we would recover the ability to decide whom to admit and in what numbers.
‘Being in the EU means lower prices in our shops.’
Au contraire, being in the EU means being inside the EU’s Common External Tariff, and having to charge duties on imports from non-EU countries, especially on agrculural products, textiles and commodities, precisely the things that the UK sources from outside Europe. Outside the EU we would continue to have tariff-free access for EU goods, but we could extend the same deal to non-EU producers, not least the growing economies of the Commonwealth. As well as helping those countries, it would mean that the price of food, clothes and other goods would fall in the UK.
‘We are an independent nation within the EU.’
Of all the Remain campaign’s claims, this is perhaps the most shameless. The essence of the EU is that its laws take precedence over the laws of its member nations. As senior judge Lord Hoffman put it: ‘The EU treaty is the supreme law of this country, taking precedence over Acts of Parliament.’
The Remain campaign brazenly says that the idea that Eurocrats ‘set our laws’ is a ‘myth’. In fact, on everything from what taxes we pay to what and how much we can fish from our seas (20% of the total alue of fish caught), from employment law to immigration, we must do as Brussels says.
‘The UK gets £66 million of investment every day from EU countries.’
It is hard to see how they came up with this figure. According to the ONS, investment from other EU states in 2014 was £5.3 billion, or $14.4 million a day – only 19% of the total inward investment in Britain, the vast bulk of which now comes from outside the EU. In fact, we have had more inward investment since the referendum was announced than any country in the EU. According to Ernst and Young, 66% of Asian investors and 72% of American investors want Britain to have a looser relationship with the EU.
‘We are safer thanks to the European Arrest Warrant.’
Tell that to Andrew Symeou, a teenage Briton who was whisked away to Greece in what was very obviously a case of mistaken identity, and spent two years in that country – 11 months of them in prison – waiting for his trial. Or to the parents of five-year-old Ashya King, detained in Spain under the European Arrest Warrant because they had taken their child (quite legally) out of Southampton hospital to seek treatment elsewhere. http://www.caef.org.uk/d44corpusjuris.html
‘Why Vote Leave’, Daniel Hannan, 2016.
‘If we left the EU the costs of imports from them would increase by £11 billion.’
This claim rests on the idiotic assumption that, outside the EU, Britain would impose tariffs on the other member states. But no-one is suggesting that. As Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, former UK Ambassador to Brussels, admits: ‘There is no doubt that the UK could secure a free trade agreement with the EU.’ It would not be in the interests of the EU to do otherwise.
Did you know that Switzerland sells the EU four-and-a-half times as much per head from the outside as the UK does from the inside.!
‘Over 3 million UK jobs are linked to our trade with the EU.’
The dishonesty of this claim is staggering. It is based on the same false idea that Britain would stop trading with the EU if it were a non-member. Why? No-one argues that we have to form a political union with, say, Brazil or Russia in order to do business with those countries. The economist from whose work the figure was taken, Dr Martin Weale, has said: ‘In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts.’
‘Countries that want free (tariff-free) access to Europe’s market of 500 million have to accept free movement of labour.’
Nonsense. To pluck a random example, the EU has signed free trade agreements with Columbia and Peru. No-one suggested that free movement of labour had to be part of the deal. Outside the EU, we would recover the ability to decide whom to admit and in what numbers.
‘Being in the EU means lower prices in our shops.’
Au contraire, being in the EU means being inside the EU’s Common External Tariff, and having to charge duties on imports from non-EU countries, especially on agrculural products, textiles and commodities, precisely the things that the UK sources from outside Europe. Outside the EU we would continue to have tariff-free access for EU goods, but we could extend the same deal to non-EU producers, not least the growing economies of the Commonwealth. As well as helping those countries, it would mean that the price of food, clothes and other goods would fall in the UK.
‘We are an independent nation within the EU.’
Of all the Remain campaign’s claims, this is perhaps the most shameless. The essence of the EU is that its laws take precedence over the laws of its member nations. As senior judge Lord Hoffman put it: ‘The EU treaty is the supreme law of this country, taking precedence over Acts of Parliament.’
The Remain campaign brazenly says that the idea that Eurocrats ‘set our laws’ is a ‘myth’. In fact, on everything from what taxes we pay to what and how much we can fish from our seas (20% of the total alue of fish caught), from employment law to immigration, we must do as Brussels says.
‘The UK gets £66 million of investment every day from EU countries.’
It is hard to see how they came up with this figure. According to the ONS, investment from other EU states in 2014 was £5.3 billion, or $14.4 million a day – only 19% of the total inward investment in Britain, the vast bulk of which now comes from outside the EU. In fact, we have had more inward investment since the referendum was announced than any country in the EU. According to Ernst and Young, 66% of Asian investors and 72% of American investors want Britain to have a looser relationship with the EU.
‘We are safer thanks to the European Arrest Warrant.’
Tell that to Andrew Symeou, a teenage Briton who was whisked away to Greece in what was very obviously a case of mistaken identity, and spent two years in that country – 11 months of them in prison – waiting for his trial. Or to the parents of five-year-old Ashya King, detained in Spain under the European Arrest Warrant because they had taken their child (quite legally) out of Southampton hospital to seek treatment elsewhere. http://www.caef.org.uk/d44corpusjuris.html
‘Why Vote Leave’, Daniel Hannan, 2016.
Last edited by Gullscorer on 23 Jun 2016, 15:36, edited 1 time in total.
What are people's predictions for the result?
I reckon 53.2% Remain, 46.8% Leave
I reckon 53.2% Remain, 46.8% Leave
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
I've no idea, Bob, but I wouldn't bet on it..BobBobBob wrote:What are people's predictions for the result?
I reckon 53.2% Remain, 46.8% Leave
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
I posted this earlier on the Lambada FC thread, but, given its content, I think it's appropriate for the referendum thread:
Imagine you have a family member living for years in, say, South Africa and you wanted to pay them a visit, perhaps for a short holiday or to attend a wedding; and imagine you were, as a matter of course, refused entry. You wouldn’t like the unfairness of it!
Yet the UK, along with unlimited EU migration, makes it much harder for those from the Commonwealth and the rest of the world, who are often being refused entry to the UK to visit family members who are UK citizens. And Remainers accuse Brexiters of racism? Unbelievable!
To the hate-mongers of the Remain campaign, concerns about uncontrolled and unlimited immigration are equivalent to being “racistâ€. They cynically conflate, in the public mind, “anti-EU-immigration†with “anti-immigrantâ€, a confusion created and exploited over decades by the Left.
Contrary to what some Remainers claim, Nigel Farage did not say all migrants are rapists. He rightly pointed out that, if we remain in the EU, women in the UK, like those who were abused in Cologne, could be at risk of attacks because of open door immigration from the EU. This is realism, not racism.
Brexiters are not anti-immigration, nor anti-migrant, but if we cannot control immigration to the UK, how can we plan the levels of public services required, in education, health, transport, housing, the whole national infrastructure, which take years to put into effect? And we don't need free movement of labour, nor a political union, to be part of a free trade area. No other free trade association in the world requires these.
It should be obvious to all objective observers that Brexiters are not isolationists, nor xenophobes, nor racists. They want to engage, not only with Europe, but with the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. But more than that, they want the UK to be able to control its own destiny as an independent nation, just like most other countries in the world, and not be part of an undemocratic superstate (which was always the big EU plan).
Yet those who raise concerns about immigration are offensively labelled as racists and xenophobes?!
The problem is you can't demonise 50% (perhaps more) of the population. I saw a comment from the Remain camp ‘Not everyone that votes Leaves is a racist but every racist will vote Leave’.
Seriously, is this any way to conduct a referendum debate on whether Britain should be part of the EU?
Imagine you have a family member living for years in, say, South Africa and you wanted to pay them a visit, perhaps for a short holiday or to attend a wedding; and imagine you were, as a matter of course, refused entry. You wouldn’t like the unfairness of it!
Yet the UK, along with unlimited EU migration, makes it much harder for those from the Commonwealth and the rest of the world, who are often being refused entry to the UK to visit family members who are UK citizens. And Remainers accuse Brexiters of racism? Unbelievable!
To the hate-mongers of the Remain campaign, concerns about uncontrolled and unlimited immigration are equivalent to being “racistâ€. They cynically conflate, in the public mind, “anti-EU-immigration†with “anti-immigrantâ€, a confusion created and exploited over decades by the Left.
Contrary to what some Remainers claim, Nigel Farage did not say all migrants are rapists. He rightly pointed out that, if we remain in the EU, women in the UK, like those who were abused in Cologne, could be at risk of attacks because of open door immigration from the EU. This is realism, not racism.
Brexiters are not anti-immigration, nor anti-migrant, but if we cannot control immigration to the UK, how can we plan the levels of public services required, in education, health, transport, housing, the whole national infrastructure, which take years to put into effect? And we don't need free movement of labour, nor a political union, to be part of a free trade area. No other free trade association in the world requires these.
It should be obvious to all objective observers that Brexiters are not isolationists, nor xenophobes, nor racists. They want to engage, not only with Europe, but with the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. But more than that, they want the UK to be able to control its own destiny as an independent nation, just like most other countries in the world, and not be part of an undemocratic superstate (which was always the big EU plan).
Yet those who raise concerns about immigration are offensively labelled as racists and xenophobes?!
The problem is you can't demonise 50% (perhaps more) of the population. I saw a comment from the Remain camp ‘Not everyone that votes Leaves is a racist but every racist will vote Leave’.
Seriously, is this any way to conduct a referendum debate on whether Britain should be part of the EU?
Your analogy is bizarre. If a South African wished to travel to the UK for the reasons you listed, they are perfectly entitled to so with a Standard Visitor visa. What's that got to do with the EU?
Something that bothers me about the immigration debate is that too much emphasis is placed on the migrants themselves. The vast majority of migrants to this country are very decent people who are paying our country the ultimate compliment by wishing to live, work and/or study in our borders. We have the fifth biggest economy in the world, so why is it that our public services are incapable of supporting immigration? When you look at the numbers being thrown around with regards to immigration to this country, we're talking about a tiny percentage of our overall population. Thus if there is a strain on our resources, it is not the migrants who are responsible but our government for not providing more. The inflation rate is very low so there is more than enough capacity to spend. In summary, we should demand more robust public services.
To use a footballing analogy, going after the migrants instead of inadequate public services is like playing the man instead of the ball. That is why I think some people perceive racism when the topic comes up as it does. It's a definite free kick and you might even get a yellow card. I can understand that on paper a simple solution would be to limit immigration. But it's not practical. You can't put a straight cap on immigration and you can't understate the flexibility afforded by freedom of movement. Even if we leave the EU, the one guarantee is we will retain freedom of movement. All we'd really be able to do is change our current work visa programme, which we could do regardless of tomorrow's vote. We shouldn't because it already works quite well as it is. But if you really want more South Africans to be able to work here, I've personally got no problem with that!
Something that bothers me about the immigration debate is that too much emphasis is placed on the migrants themselves. The vast majority of migrants to this country are very decent people who are paying our country the ultimate compliment by wishing to live, work and/or study in our borders. We have the fifth biggest economy in the world, so why is it that our public services are incapable of supporting immigration? When you look at the numbers being thrown around with regards to immigration to this country, we're talking about a tiny percentage of our overall population. Thus if there is a strain on our resources, it is not the migrants who are responsible but our government for not providing more. The inflation rate is very low so there is more than enough capacity to spend. In summary, we should demand more robust public services.
To use a footballing analogy, going after the migrants instead of inadequate public services is like playing the man instead of the ball. That is why I think some people perceive racism when the topic comes up as it does. It's a definite free kick and you might even get a yellow card. I can understand that on paper a simple solution would be to limit immigration. But it's not practical. You can't put a straight cap on immigration and you can't understate the flexibility afforded by freedom of movement. Even if we leave the EU, the one guarantee is we will retain freedom of movement. All we'd really be able to do is change our current work visa programme, which we could do regardless of tomorrow's vote. We shouldn't because it already works quite well as it is. But if you really want more South Africans to be able to work here, I've personally got no problem with that!
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
Bob, I've noticed that you sometimes call things 'bizarre' or 'absurd', possibly because you've been unable to acknowledge their import, but more likely because you have not understood them, and this most likely because I have not expressed myself clearly enough!
In the current analogy, for example, I was not talking about South Africans wishing to travel to the UK, rather the reverse. Let me re-phrase it thus: Imagine that you wanted, for some perfectly valid reason, to visit relatives who had settled in another country and had been granted citizenship in that country; and imagine that you had, for some arbitrary reason, been refused permission to enter that country. You would not be best pleased. You might think it quite unfair.
Yet that has been the experience, for some years now, of many citizens of Commonwealth countries (for example, India and Pakistan) wishing to visit relatives in the UK, while the UK is forced by the EU to allow unfettered, unlimited, uncontrolled immigration from EU countries.
Brexiters merely wish to bring a degree of fairness into the mix, both for the host population, and for migrants European and worldwide. We can only do that by leaving the EU and controlling our own borders. Yet for some people that is racist and xenophobic..
As for the strain on public services, you have only to look at the increasing number of immigrants this century compared with the rate of immigration over the previous fifty or so years. With free movement of people and the high rates of net immigration over the past few years, it has been impossible for authorities to plan ahead adequately to ensure the provision of essential services. (In addition, of course, the situation has not been helped due to inadequate funding of these services by successive governments).
And as for the 'flexibility' afforded by freedom of movement, that is complete nonsense. As Daniel Hannan says, the EU has signed free trade agreements with Columbia and Peru, yet no-one suggested that free movement of labour had to be part of the deal. Practically half of Australia's trade is with China and Japan, but nobody is suggesting those countries form a political union.
Every country in the world, free, sovereign and independent, is able to control its own borders and to decide who to admit and on what terms and in what numbers. Every country except for those under the yoke of the EU.
I trust I've explained myself sufficiently. Or do you still not understand..??
In the current analogy, for example, I was not talking about South Africans wishing to travel to the UK, rather the reverse. Let me re-phrase it thus: Imagine that you wanted, for some perfectly valid reason, to visit relatives who had settled in another country and had been granted citizenship in that country; and imagine that you had, for some arbitrary reason, been refused permission to enter that country. You would not be best pleased. You might think it quite unfair.
Yet that has been the experience, for some years now, of many citizens of Commonwealth countries (for example, India and Pakistan) wishing to visit relatives in the UK, while the UK is forced by the EU to allow unfettered, unlimited, uncontrolled immigration from EU countries.
Brexiters merely wish to bring a degree of fairness into the mix, both for the host population, and for migrants European and worldwide. We can only do that by leaving the EU and controlling our own borders. Yet for some people that is racist and xenophobic..
As for the strain on public services, you have only to look at the increasing number of immigrants this century compared with the rate of immigration over the previous fifty or so years. With free movement of people and the high rates of net immigration over the past few years, it has been impossible for authorities to plan ahead adequately to ensure the provision of essential services. (In addition, of course, the situation has not been helped due to inadequate funding of these services by successive governments).
And as for the 'flexibility' afforded by freedom of movement, that is complete nonsense. As Daniel Hannan says, the EU has signed free trade agreements with Columbia and Peru, yet no-one suggested that free movement of labour had to be part of the deal. Practically half of Australia's trade is with China and Japan, but nobody is suggesting those countries form a political union.
Every country in the world, free, sovereign and independent, is able to control its own borders and to decide who to admit and on what terms and in what numbers. Every country except for those under the yoke of the EU.
I trust I've explained myself sufficiently. Or do you still not understand..??
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
[youtube]TJA7yfYRQCI[/youtube]
[youtube]8EzoJAOzcq0[/youtube]
[youtube]8EzoJAOzcq0[/youtube]
Last edited by Gullscorer on 23 Jun 2016, 16:07, edited 1 time in total.
Well I understood, you just haven't made a good argument. The fact is anyone from those countries can come to the UK to do those things the way things are. They need only apply for a visa. In most cases all this requires is they have a valid passport, no previous convictions and where necessary (i.e. if they plan on a longer stay than 30 days) proof that they can support themselves during their stay.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-uk-visa
All of your valid reasons would be covered by "Tourism, including visiting friends or family" which is granted under the Standard Visitor visa. They're not difficult to obtain so long as you have the aforementioned items. I think that's very fair!
https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa
Again, this has squat all to do with the EU. Hence "bizarre".
I thought this was obvious, but it wouldn't be very flexible to have free movement with Peru seeing as it's over 6000 miles away and separated by a very large ocean!
You'll note that countries not even in the EU take full advantage of free movement due to the excellent economic benefit it provides. Examples include Switzerland and Norway. Now, that's weird... I've heard those two countries mentioned a lot during this referendum. Yeah, they've been prominent examples from the leave campaign demonstrating how our economy would not suffer in the event of an exit! Hm I wonder why. Could it be in part down to their full use of freedom of movement within the EU? Why yes, yes I believe it is.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-uk-visa
All of your valid reasons would be covered by "Tourism, including visiting friends or family" which is granted under the Standard Visitor visa. They're not difficult to obtain so long as you have the aforementioned items. I think that's very fair!
https://www.gov.uk/standard-visitor-visa
Again, this has squat all to do with the EU. Hence "bizarre".
I thought this was obvious, but it wouldn't be very flexible to have free movement with Peru seeing as it's over 6000 miles away and separated by a very large ocean!
You'll note that countries not even in the EU take full advantage of free movement due to the excellent economic benefit it provides. Examples include Switzerland and Norway. Now, that's weird... I've heard those two countries mentioned a lot during this referendum. Yeah, they've been prominent examples from the leave campaign demonstrating how our economy would not suffer in the event of an exit! Hm I wonder why. Could it be in part down to their full use of freedom of movement within the EU? Why yes, yes I believe it is.
-
Gullscorer
- Legend
- Posts: 6575
- Joined: 22 Jul 2011, 00:30
- Contact:
Bob, I know all about the official links you provided: I have personal experience of advising and assisting foreign nationals from outside the EU with the difficulties they suffer in obtaining UK visas and I can assure you that for most people it ain't at all easy to obtain such visas.
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/visit-v ... al-review/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver ... rist-visas
I was trying to show the difference between these difficulties and the 'rights' of free entry enjoyed by EU nationals which are more about flexibility for large employers than anything else:
http://www.brugesgroup.com/training/91- ... human-cost
Obviously we're not going to get so much movement from Peru as from EU countries; the whole point is that the UK needs to control the numbers coming into the country from the EU. Seems to me, it has been pro-EU people more than anyone else who have made the argument that if we want to continue with free trade after Brexit we would still have to agree to free movement of labour, which is nonsense, as has already been pointed out.
Anyway, vote 'Leave'.. you know it makes sense..
https://www.freemovement.org.uk/visit-v ... al-review/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver ... rist-visas
I was trying to show the difference between these difficulties and the 'rights' of free entry enjoyed by EU nationals which are more about flexibility for large employers than anything else:
http://www.brugesgroup.com/training/91- ... human-cost
Obviously we're not going to get so much movement from Peru as from EU countries; the whole point is that the UK needs to control the numbers coming into the country from the EU. Seems to me, it has been pro-EU people more than anyone else who have made the argument that if we want to continue with free trade after Brexit we would still have to agree to free movement of labour, which is nonsense, as has already been pointed out.
Anyway, vote 'Leave'.. you know it makes sense..
Nah I voted to remain, I think it's for the best long term.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 248 guests
