moonraker

You are so contradictory, you are correct Islam is not a race yet you use it to characterise immigration, the normal convention is by race not religion. What is difficult to deduce from your tediously repetitive question is whether you believe that ‘limited Islamic immigration is acceptable’. I will answer your question on a personal level, my life is much fuller and richer because I live in a tolerant and divers society. Oh and don’t forget, Indian Restaurants and Takeaways have added immensely to our lives and therefore I assert we would be worse of without them, you can add kebab shops, corner shops and Harrods, taxi drivers.

Not sure he can read beyond Janet and John. How would Western Europe be worse of without him and his obviously odious views.

Fair enough, so what is the right proportion of armed police to unarmed, and how will you ensure it is only ever an armed officer in the vicinity of a terrorist?

One thing that is not different is they both kill innocent people indiscriminately. Please can you expand on the differences and why those difference are relevant, they are all scum.

So what do we do about the 90% plus of terrorism attributed deaths in Europe that have been perpetrated by non Islamic home grown terrorists.

Not sure, French and Belgium police are armed, are you saying the death tolls would have been higher? My concern is that selecting and training armed police is very specialised, if we lower the standard, which surly must to train all 130000 + officers, we must accept a greater risk that more innocent civilians will be killed by the police, would these be collateral damage. The critical element in fighting crime of any sort, terrorism included, is intelligence.

We can decide, national parliaments must be consulted before any new legislation can be made. If objections or amendments are raised they must be addressed. It is possible to stop an EU recommendation becoming Law

Well as any one who can be bothered to find out would know that is plain wrong. The power vested in the EU is enshrined in successive treaties agreed between national Governments e.g Maastricht , Lisbon. Whilst I am sure you will dismiss the fact, it is a fact that treaties can be changed, indeed to achieve your vision of hell, the US Europe, would require a treaty change. The principles behind joint EU law-making make a lot of sense, commonality of law makes cross border trading easier. The current system is founded, as I am sure you are aware, on the principle of Subsidiarity, in practice this means that the vast majority of laws are made at national, not EU, level. Making law at EU level makes sense in certain circumstances E.G. due to scale, trans border factors.

But surely this can't be true as the E U make all the laws!

I recognise that Bath is not as imapcted by immigartion as larger cities, however I have lived in Southampton (Well Park Gate) and that other place down the road, I have claose family in Peterborough so I am not ignorant of the different impacts immigration has across the country. Just for the record Bath has an immigrant population (not counting students) of 10%.

I was not aware that your place of residence imposed some sort of superiority on your opinion or made it more informed, I have the exactly the same number of votes as you. What I cannot take seriously is people who bandy about claims and numbers and then continually modify their reasoning. You said soon, not this year, you used 75 million without any context. The one thing you have got right is you are wasting your breath, no amount of scaremongering about immigration, European super states, loss of sovereignty or any off the other negatives you perceive will change my view. Leaving the EU is a regressive step, backward looking that will not improve the quality of life for the vast majority of UK residents. It is the out campaign that cannot or should not be taken seriously I still have not read anything that presents a coherent and believable case for Brexit.

Here we go again, Turkey is no where near meeting the requirements for EU membership, so to say they will join soon is just more scaremongering. And why would the whole population of Turkey come to th UK? The hypocrosy in your statements beggars believe the whole out campaign is founded on fear based on untruths and plain stupid statements.

Well spotted, no more than history shows a United States of Europe is inevitable. You are learning.

History suggests that we are better off in the EU than out.

Read it, i was refreing to the EU super state, I deal with the migration issue in part 2!

Why would one need a strategy to deal with a problem that only exists in the minds of the deluded, a European Super State (project Fear Mk II), this may be the vision of a few Eurocrats and Politicos, but it would require all EU member states and their electorates to approve it. To the best of my knowledge this is not currently a real project, therefore the timeline for such a thing to happen is tens of years at best. The sooner Brexit start dealing with real issues and stop making things up the better. As for immigration how does leaving the EU change anything, and don’t say border control we already have that, and free movement is the most likely outcome of a trade deal.

It is precisely the lack of a strategy of Brexit post a leave vote that means they have had to invent ‘Project Fear’ from what is actually ‘Project Reality’. Multiple campaigns led by the desperate, disparate and dispossessed, supported by the delusional, deprived and dull and incapable of agreeing on and presenting a coherent plan, if that is not the biggest risk to our nations future I do not know what is.

So what did you think of the most famous border control of all The Berlin Wall?

Why is it bizarre, political campaigns have long been dominated by personalities, people vote for a cocktail of reasons; natural political leaning, specific issues, trust in individuals, least worst option, least impact on the individual etc. not bizarre just normal, what I find bizarre is people advocating we should vote to leave based on “We have no idea how it will work but we think most things will stay the same, except something will change in our favour because, erm we have to believe that otherwise, erm……….”.

do you actually read anything or just regurgitate crap. The bulk of net immigration is not from the EU therefore leaving will not solve the problem you perceive. What is your answer?

Yea it would very democratic if the EU had to comply with a Swiss referendum. The Swiss vote is for the Swiss they decided they wanted to change the relationship, ergo they accept the consequences, not undemocratic at all. Likewise if we vote out I hope none of the brexiters start complaining about the EU doing what is best for their voters. Cake and eating it comes to mind.

Use of capital infrastructure is certainly an element in calculating the impact of increasing populations. Historically societies tend to invest in capital infrastructure as the demand grows, therefore all investments to date are essentially sunk costs and only the proportion of the investment required to add, or update the infrastructure should be considered in the benefits model. Even then you are being somewhat creative, over the past 20 years or so we have seen massive investment in Hospitals, Schools and the Rail infrastructure, this was not driven by migration but by lack of investment especially in the 70’s and 80’s, so capital investment is an on-going and necessary thing, the roads, hospitals schools etc. would still be needed with or without net migration. NB. we are not the Government, you an me, we are the electorate who elect a Government, we are not the executive we do not individually or collectively make decisions except at the ballot box.

You cant seriously claim we are subject to a potential 500m people, it is more than stretching a point to claim such a potential just because the fact that the population of the EU is 500m, 99% of people have no desire whatsoever to leave their homeland so their are potentially 5 - 10m who are transient or migratory, they wont all come here. So the true potential for the UK is something less than 10m and in reality of the order of 1 - 2 m. Seems like more brexit scaremongering.

And so they may, they may also loose access to some or many EU markets, a negotiation is a multi sided event, Switzerland is in no postion to dictate to the EU.

The immigration debate is the most emotive aspect of all the EU issues. In reality the movement of people who are citizens of an EEA* signatory is not immigration, it is the free movement of labour. Therefore what is an immigrant? Any person not born here; a person whose parents were not born here, any one who is a citizen of foreign country, or only those form outside the EEA. As a baseline ONS (2014) states there are circa 4.3 million people living in the UK who were not born here. This includes children born to UK citizens outside of the UK, it does not include children of foreign nationals born in the UK. So what is the true impact of EAA free movement of labour on the UK? Of the 4.3m non UK born people 50% are from non EAA countries. With 1.1m UK citizens living in other EU countries the net movement to the UK from within the EAA is circa 1.2 m. or 1.8% of the total population. When compared to other EAA countries we are 4th in terms of inward EAA movement (we are not the first choice destination), in outward EAA Movement terms we are 5th, with Rumania, Poland, Germany and Italy being ahead of us. It is worth noting that the inward movement is primarily of young economically active working people whereas the outward movement (of UK citizens) to EAA countries has a higher proportion of retirees who are less economically active and not working. This has a positive effective on our demographic, redressing some of the imbalance in the UK’s age profile, the opposite of UK migration to the likes of Spain. The bottom line as always is the economy, all credible studies of the impact of EAA free movement of labour on the UK economy are that it has had a positive effect, it does not cost us, we gain. The real problem is the failure of government to invest in the services and infrastructure not just for the inward but for our own citizens, the EU has been used by successive governments to mask their own policy failures and our predominant right wing press has been only to happy to heap oil on the fire. Leaving the EU will not stop immigration, if we remain in the EAA it will not stop free movement of labour, it will not deal with bad UK Government policies, in fact it wont make a blind bit of difference. *EEA = European Economic Area, not just the EU.