Yes I am of course refering to Winston Leonard (Spencer) Chrurchill (though he is by no means the only ginsoaked cagarr smoking Brit that ever lived).
In the light of the Uk referendum on the European Union I thought I would remaind any Brits who are thinking to vote to leave the union of the words of the man who is commonly cosndiered the greatest British Prime Minister thus with no further ado from Churchill's Speech on BBC radio, the 15th of November 1934:
"There are those who say: Let us ignore the Continent of Europe. Let us leave it with its hatreds and
armaments to stew in its own juice, to fight out its own quarrels. Let us turn our backs upon this alarming
scene. Let us fix our gaze across the ocean and lead our own life in the midst of our peace-loving dominions
and empire. There is much to be said for this plan if only we could unfasten the British islands from their
rock foundations and could tow them 3,000 miles across the Atlantic Ocean and anchor them safely upon the
smiling coasts of Canada. I have not heard of any way in which this could be done. No engineer has come
forward with any scheme; even our best scientists are dumb. It would certainly in any case take a long time.
Have we got a long time? At present we lie within a few minutes’ striking distance of the French, Dutch and
Belgian coasts, and within a few hours of the great aerodromes of Central Europe. We are even within
cannon shot of the Continent. Is it prudent? Is it possible, however we might desire it, to turn our backs
upon Europe and ignore whatever may happen there. Everyone can judge this question for himself. And
everyone ought to make up his mind, or her mind, about it, without delay. It lies at the heart of our problem."
Churchill knew full well that the UK could not stand aside from the issues of Europe and that the only way to ensure that Europe did what he belived they ought to do were to get involved in european politics directly. Had Churchill been in charge at the onset of the german expansion before WW2 we might not have seen a war at all. He may have dealt with Hitler before he got a chance to gain momentum, the generals and soldiers who were so willing to follow Hitler to war in 1939 may have been much less inclined to do so in 1936. But Chamberlain thought that the affairs of europe did not matter to the British. Once again right wing extremism is rising in europe, granted it is much inclined to tear the Union apart rather than infectign it, but should these elements not be contained one may well give rise to another Hitler. If nothing else the warmingering of the Kreml may well result in war on the european continent again. If Britain stands aside then it loses all it's ability to affect the outcome of these events, granted there are others to fight the good fight, but can you rely on that others will fight this battle before it reaches you shores. If you let these forces in europe sow the wind do you not risk to reap te whirlwind?
Churchill was also one of the first to suggest the formation of a United States of Europe:
"I wish to speak about the tragedy of Europe, this noble continent, the home of all the great parent races of the Western world, the foundation of Christian faith and ethics, the origin of most of the culture, arts, philosophy and science both of ancient and modern times. If Europe were once united in the sharing of its common inheritance there would be no limit to the happiness, prosperity and glory which its 300 million or 400 million people would enjoy. Yet it is from Europe that has sprung that series of frightful nationalistic quarrels, originated by the Teutonic nations in their rise to power, which we have seen in this 20th century and in our own lifetime wreck the peace and mar the prospects of all mankind.
What is this plight to which Europe has been reduced? Some of the smaller states have indeed made a good recovery, but over wide areas are a vast, quivering mass of tormented, hungry, careworn and bewildered human beings, who wait in the ruins of their cities and homes and scan the dark horizons for the approach of some new form of tyranny or terror. Among the victors there is a Babel of voices, among the vanquished the sullen silence of despair. That is all that Europeans, grouped in so many ancient states and nations, and that is all that the Germanic races have got by tearing each other to pieces and spreading havoc far and wide. Indeed, but for the fact that the great republic across the Atlantic realised that the ruin or enslavement of Europe would involve her own fate as well, and stretched out hands of succour and guidance, the Dark Ages would have returned in all their cruelty and squalor. They may still return.
Yet all the while there is a remedy which, if it were generally and spontaneously adopted by the great majority of people in many lands, would as by a miracle transform the whole scene and would in a few years make all Europe, or the greater part of it, as free and happy as Switzerland is today. What is this sovereign remedy? It is to recreate the European fabric, or as much of it as we can, and to provide it with a structure under which it can dwell in peace, safety and freedom. We must build a kind of United States of Europe. In this way only will hundreds of millions of toilers be able to regain the simple joys and hopes which make life worth living. The process is simple. All that is needed is the resolve of hundreds of millions of men and women to do right instead of wrong and to gain as their reward blessing instead of cursing.
Much work has been done upon this task by the exertions of the Pan-European Union, which owes so much to the famous French patriot and statesman Aristide Briand. There is also that immense body which was brought into being amidst high hopes after the First World War - the League of Nations. The League did not fail because of its principles or conceptions. It failed because those principles were deserted by those states which brought it into being, because the governments of those states feared to face the facts and act while time remained. This disaster must not be repeated. There is, therefore, much knowledge and material with which to build and also bitter, dearly bought experience to spur.
There is no reason why a regional organisation of Europe should in any way conflict with the world organisation of the United Nations. On the contrary, I believe that the larger synthesis can only survive if it is founded upon broad natural groupings. There is already a natural grouping in the Western Hemisphere. We British have our own Commonwealth of Nations. These do not weaken, on the contrary they strengthen, the world organisation. They are in fact its main support. And why should there not be a European group which could give a sense of enlarged patriotism and common citizenship to the distracted peoples of this mighty continent? And why should it not take its rightful place with other great groupings and help to shape the honourable destiny of man? In order that this may be accomplished there must be an act of faith in which the millions of families speaking many languages must consciously take part.
We all know that the two World Wars through which we have passed arose out of the vain passion of Germany to play a dominating part in the world. In this last struggle crimes and massacres have been committed for which there is no parallel since the Mongol invasion of the 13th century, no equal at any time in human history. The guilty must be punished. Germany must be deprived of the power to rearm and make another aggressive war. But when all this has been done, as it will be done, as it is being done, there must be an end to retribution. There must be what Mr Gladstone many years ago called a “blessed act of oblivion”. We must all turn our backs upon the horrors of the past and look to the future. We cannot afford to drag forward across the years to come hatreds and revenges which have sprung from the injuries of the past. If Europe is to be saved from infinite misery, and indeed from final doom, there must be this act of faith in the European family, this act of oblivion against all crimes and follies of the past. Can the peoples of Europe rise to the heights of the soul and of the instinct and spirit of man? If they could, the wrongs and injuries which have been inflicted would have been washed away on all sides by the miseries which have been endured. Is there any need for further floods of agony? Is the only lesson of history to be that mankind is unteachable? Let there be justice, mercy and freedom. The peoples have only to will it and all will achieve their heart's desire.
I am now going to say something that will astonish you. The first step in the re-creation of the European family must be a partnership between France and Germany. In this way only can France recover the moral and cultural leadership of Europe. There can be no revival of Europe without a spiritually great France and a spiritually great Germany. The structure of the United States of Europe will be such as to make the material strength of a single State less important. Small nations will count as much as large ones and gain their honour by a contribution to the common cause. The ancient States and principalities of Germany, freely joined for mutual convenience in a federal system, might take their individual places among the United States of Europe.
But I must give you warning, time may be short. At present there is a breathing space. The cannons have ceased firing. The fighting has stopped. But the dangers have not stopped. If we are to form a United States of Europe, or whatever name it may take, we must begin now. In these present days we dwell strangely and precariously under the shield, and I even say protection, of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb is still only in the hands of a nation which, we know, will never use it except in the cause of right and freedom, but it may well be that in a few years this awful agency of destruction will be widespread and that the catastrophe following from its use by several warring nations will not only bring to an end all that we call civilisation but may possibly disintegrate the globe itself.
I now sum up the propositions which are before you. Our constant aim must be to build and fortify the United Nations Organisation. Under and within that world concept we must re-create the European family in a regional structure called, it may be, the United States of Europe, and the first practical step will be to form a Council of Europe. If at first all the States of Europe are not willing or able to join a union we must nevertheless proceed to assemble and combine those who will and who can. The salvation of the common people of every race and every land from war and servitude must be established on solid foundations, and must be created by the readiness of all men and women to die rather than to submit to tyranny. In this urgent work France and Germany must take the lead together. Great Britain, the British Commonwealth of Nations, mighty America - and, I trust, Soviet Russia, for then indeed all would be well - must be the friends and sponsors of the new Europe and must champion its right to live. Therefore I say to you “Let Europe arise!”"
While I do not nessecerily agree with everything Churchill says in this speech especially as it relates to Germany, he raises some intresting points, some which I on reading the speech am surpised at, in mentioning the german Princedoms it seems that churchill does in fact suggest that subnational institutions be allowed to interact directly with europe, something that that I have myself been thinking a lot about lately. It makes little sense that people in the regions of europe should have to go through their national capitals to interact with europe, especially when they may not see eye to eye with said capitals, Scotland and Catalonia would for an example be perfect examples of regions that would perhaps be intrested in their own representation in the union. But that is a discusison for another day.
The point I wish to raise today is that even Churchill knew that unity on the european continent was the only wau to avoid repeating the endless cycle of bloodshed that has been europe's history since the fall of the western roman empire.
Let us not forget that this is the man, one of the few who foresaw the world wars. When everyone else thought that the Napoleon wars were the last conflcit between cicilised nations that would happen he dimissed that notion. When others said that the first world war was the war to end all wars (Quite how they figured that is beyond me) he once again told them that it would not be the case. And now when his voice reach us through th ages to warn us that if there is not a united states of Europe then the cycle of bloodshed will continue, shall we again dismiss his warnings? I think not.
måndag 29 februari 2016
tisdag 16 februari 2016
A letter From Cameron
I am sorry I could not find any funny headline this time. David Cameron has sent a letter to Dunald Tusk the president of the European Council (That is the assembly containing the head of states that has the executive authority in the EU) regarding what Cameron wants to see change in order for the UK to stay in the EU. Now Some of you will know I am deeply critical of Cameron, and his anti EU policy and thus will be reading the letter with that in mind.
The letter can be foud here.
Go ahead and read it, and then I'll make the points I found when reading it (before descending into sarcasm and cynisism, I am sorry it's just my nature)
Finished? Ok let's go:
"I have been encouraged in many of my conversations with my fellow Heads of Government in recent months that there is wide understanding of the concerns that I have raised, and of the case for reforms that would benefit the European Union as a whole."
The first part is a threat as far as I can tell, It's basically meant to be read as "There are more people on my side than you may know". The second part I expected Cameron is going to try to meddle in the internal functions of the EU even if partly leaving it. The Brittish isles have worked har dot destabilise mainland europe since the fall of the roman empire (Listen to the second verse of god save the Queen, "confuse their politics" allright) they are going to oppose a united European state even if no one asks them to be part of it.
"There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union. There are Euro members and non-Euro members. As set out in Protocol 15, the United Kingdom has a permanent opt-out from the Eurozone. Other countries will in due course join the Euro. But, for now, there are nine of us outside; and it matters to all of us that the Eurozone succeeds."
No there really are not, as he states himself only Britain has been given an opt out, this is flirting with the other countries trying to avoid fulfilling their treaty obligations, namely Sweden and Denmark (Who are required to join as soon as they fulfill the criteria, which they are intentionally failing to do), by saying if they work with Cameron they may be given the opt out too. The last remaining six are simply countries that have yet to fulfill the criteria but as far as I know have every intention of joining the Euro zone (though someone from these countries may correct me here).
"These principles should include recognition that:
The EU has more than one currency."
The policy before has been that being part of the EU means adopting the Euro, this would grant a permanent sanction for the UK version of membership. That said this is not so diffrent from the two lane europe suggested by Guy Verhostadt.
"There should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of the currency of their country."
Notice how it's always about the rights of buinesses never people, that is something the EU themselves always do too. Aside from that nothign important here.
"The integrity of the Single Market must be protected."
We want ensurances that even if we never join the EU we don't get left out. Over thime this will become untennable ofcourse then again there is no permanently binding nature of suhc a treaty. That said the free movement of people which is what the UKIP have been railing against, is part of the single market.
"Any changes the Eurozone decides to make, such as the creation of a banking union, must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never compulsory."
Without giving the euro zone it's own assembly for intenral issues this will pretty mcuh mean that the UK get's to pick whatever parts of being a member it that it likes and disregard all others.
"Taxpayers in non-Euro countries should never be financially liable for operations to support the Eurozone as a currency."
How is this new? They haven't paid a dime to the crisis relief. Neither have Sweden and Denmark by the way. At least not as part of the EU help programme.
"Just as financial stability and supervision has become a key area of competence for Eurozone institutions like the ECB, so financial stability and supervision is a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank of England for non-Euro members."
This is again "I don't want to be part of the bank union, and flirting with sweden and denmark.
"And any issues that affect all Member States must be discussed and decided by all Member States."
All issues to some capacity affects all member states, this is giving himself the rigt to meddle again.
"So the United Kingdom welcomes the current European Commission's focus on supporting economic growth and scaling back unnecessary legislation."
Note how he never says what he considereds "unnecessery legislation". If it's for an example the ban on GMO I'm there with him but I'm guessing that it's more along the lines of the ban on roaming charges. After all expect tories to stand up for the interest of buisnesses not people.
"The United Kingdom also welcomes the new trade strategy published last month, reflecting an agenda we have been advocating for years and including pursumg potentially massive trade deals with America, China, Japan and ASEAN."
Hardly suprising there since Cameron wants the EU to just be a free trade agreement.
"The EU should also do more to fulfil its commitment to the free flow of capital, goods and services."
Note how he leaves out people from the four freedoms of the EU.
"First, I want to end Britain's obligation to work towards an 'ever closer union' as set out in the Treaty. It is very important to make clear that this commitment will no longer apply to the United Kingdom. I want to do this in a formal, legally-binding and irreversible way."
Nothing is irreversiable Davy boy, That said this pretty much is what Guy Verhofstadt said when he suggested a two lane Europe and it it preferable to losing the UK as part of the union. That said security meassures must also be put into place to ensure that their influence in the inner workings of the EU are limited accocrdingly.
"Second,
while the European Parliament plays an important role, I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required will be a matter for the negotiation."
"I'm sorry Dave I can't let you do that" Strenghtening the power of national parliaments and heads of states is exactly the opposite of the transperacy that we have been stricing so hard towards the last decades. It'll lead to more backroom deals and thus more corruption. Only by brinign these proceedings out into the light and allowing people to interact more directly with the European union without having to go through the hassle and beurucracy of national governments can we make the system work again.
"The UK believes in an open economy..."
But?
".. But..."
Called it
"... we have got to be able to cope with all the pressures that free movement can bring -on our schools, our hospitals and our public services."
Except you take less people than Germany does, even per capita. Abd guess what they've concluded that taking people from the poorer countries of the EU and making them productive members of society actually gives a net income.
"Our population is set to reach over 70 million in the next decades and we are forecast to become the most populous country in the EU by 2050."
That's funny I read a report only a few weeks back that said france would be the most popolous country in the EU by 2050. Truth is by cherry picking you reports you can have them give you any conclusion you wish them to have.
"At the same time, our net migration is running at over 300,000 a year. That is not sustainable. We have taken lots of steps to control immigration from outside the EU. But we need to be able to exert greater control on arrivals from inside the EU too."
Or atleast so Nigel Farrange claims and since he's stealing votes from you, you agree. But again sustainable is exactly what it is. May be some pressure in the short perspective but the sustinability is not the problem.
"Britain has always been an open, trading nation, and we do not want to change that."
But? (Also not technically correct)
"But..."
Who would have guessed.
"... we do want to find arrangements to allow a Member State like the UK to restore a sense of fairness to our immigration system and to reduce the current very high level of population flows from within the EU into the UK."
You take less people than germany and fewer people per capita than a huge number of smaller EU members like sweden. But hey you know what we'll take even more, that's fair... oh wait. Jokes aside actually I really don't care since again eu immigration is a gain not a loss, but if germany keeps swallowing them up like they're doing then he can kiss that largest nation in the EU by 2050 goodbye. This is again not really about immigration Cameron was fine with that until the UKIP started taking his voters. The facts on the table haven't changed since then.
"These have been unplanned and are much higher than forecast -far higher than anything the EU' s founding fathers ever envisaged. These very substantial flows of population have, of course, also had a significant impact on a number of Member States, many of whose most highly qualified citizens have departed en masse. So this is a shared challenge."They told you so did they? Because last I heard they predicted this pretty well, the poor go to the rich countries and work and then send money home which helps build the economy of the poorer countries. I think it's called a "market economy", there was one of you countrymen, name of Smith, who talked a lot about it, you may want to read up on that before saying what we knew and did not know would happen. God Dave you make me miss the american electoral race, say what you will of the americans but they do understand capitalism.
"We need to ensure that when new countries are admitted to the EU in the future, free movement will not apply to those new members until their economies have converged much more closely with existing Member States."
So... never then? If you withold the means for wealth to flow to them then they won't catch up... god you are the worst conservative since the menaing of the word changed to mean libertarian.
"We also need to crack down on the abuse of free movement, an issue on which I have found wide support in my discussions with colleagues. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages. It means addressing the fact that it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than it is for a British citizen to do the same. It means stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back, as well as preventing entry in the first place. And it means addressing ECJ judgments that have widened the scope of free movement in a way that has made it more difficult to tackle this kind of abuse."
Pretty sure fraud is a crime, here's an idea why don't you let the police handle crime. But if you want to give them more authority for an example giving Europol actual policing powers I am all for that.
The second part is just emotion invoking rethorics, I know I do it too. Also funny how there was no (ok little) abuse before the UKIP statert convincing people these was.
"But we need to go further to reduce the numbers coming here."I am so glad I'm not an EU immigrant in the UK right now, this is getting nasty. Honestly cristallnacht nasty, time to get the hell out of dodge nasty. This is the moment people will look back on and say why didn't we leave at this point.
"As I have said previously, we can reduce the flow of people coming from within the EU by reducing the draw that our welfare system can exert across Europe. So we have proposed that people coming to Britain from the EU must live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing. And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas."Here's an idea let's segregate society into two groups, but my my Oliver Cromwell would be so poud.
"I understand how difficult some of these issues are for other Member States and I look forward to discussing these proposals further so we can find a solution that deals with this issue."Well of course you do because before you turned your coat you used to argue for immigration. The diffrence is back then you were right, now you're just a populist.
And that's pretty much the last intresting part, after that it's just a bunch of courtesies.
So what do you think, do you read the letter diffrently than me? Comment below.
The letter can be foud here.
Go ahead and read it, and then I'll make the points I found when reading it (before descending into sarcasm and cynisism, I am sorry it's just my nature)
Finished? Ok let's go:
"I have been encouraged in many of my conversations with my fellow Heads of Government in recent months that there is wide understanding of the concerns that I have raised, and of the case for reforms that would benefit the European Union as a whole."
The first part is a threat as far as I can tell, It's basically meant to be read as "There are more people on my side than you may know". The second part I expected Cameron is going to try to meddle in the internal functions of the EU even if partly leaving it. The Brittish isles have worked har dot destabilise mainland europe since the fall of the roman empire (Listen to the second verse of god save the Queen, "confuse their politics" allright) they are going to oppose a united European state even if no one asks them to be part of it.
"There are today effectively two sorts of members of the European Union. There are Euro members and non-Euro members. As set out in Protocol 15, the United Kingdom has a permanent opt-out from the Eurozone. Other countries will in due course join the Euro. But, for now, there are nine of us outside; and it matters to all of us that the Eurozone succeeds."
No there really are not, as he states himself only Britain has been given an opt out, this is flirting with the other countries trying to avoid fulfilling their treaty obligations, namely Sweden and Denmark (Who are required to join as soon as they fulfill the criteria, which they are intentionally failing to do), by saying if they work with Cameron they may be given the opt out too. The last remaining six are simply countries that have yet to fulfill the criteria but as far as I know have every intention of joining the Euro zone (though someone from these countries may correct me here).
"These principles should include recognition that:
The EU has more than one currency."
The policy before has been that being part of the EU means adopting the Euro, this would grant a permanent sanction for the UK version of membership. That said this is not so diffrent from the two lane europe suggested by Guy Verhostadt.
"There should be no discrimination and no disadvantage for any business on the basis of the currency of their country."
Notice how it's always about the rights of buinesses never people, that is something the EU themselves always do too. Aside from that nothign important here.
"The integrity of the Single Market must be protected."
We want ensurances that even if we never join the EU we don't get left out. Over thime this will become untennable ofcourse then again there is no permanently binding nature of suhc a treaty. That said the free movement of people which is what the UKIP have been railing against, is part of the single market.
"Any changes the Eurozone decides to make, such as the creation of a banking union, must be voluntary for non-Euro countries, never compulsory."
Without giving the euro zone it's own assembly for intenral issues this will pretty mcuh mean that the UK get's to pick whatever parts of being a member it that it likes and disregard all others.
"Taxpayers in non-Euro countries should never be financially liable for operations to support the Eurozone as a currency."
How is this new? They haven't paid a dime to the crisis relief. Neither have Sweden and Denmark by the way. At least not as part of the EU help programme.
"Just as financial stability and supervision has become a key area of competence for Eurozone institutions like the ECB, so financial stability and supervision is a key area of competence for national institutions like the Bank of England for non-Euro members."
This is again "I don't want to be part of the bank union, and flirting with sweden and denmark.
"And any issues that affect all Member States must be discussed and decided by all Member States."
All issues to some capacity affects all member states, this is giving himself the rigt to meddle again.
"So the United Kingdom welcomes the current European Commission's focus on supporting economic growth and scaling back unnecessary legislation."
Note how he never says what he considereds "unnecessery legislation". If it's for an example the ban on GMO I'm there with him but I'm guessing that it's more along the lines of the ban on roaming charges. After all expect tories to stand up for the interest of buisnesses not people.
"The United Kingdom also welcomes the new trade strategy published last month, reflecting an agenda we have been advocating for years and including pursumg potentially massive trade deals with America, China, Japan and ASEAN."
Hardly suprising there since Cameron wants the EU to just be a free trade agreement.
"The EU should also do more to fulfil its commitment to the free flow of capital, goods and services."
Note how he leaves out people from the four freedoms of the EU.
"First, I want to end Britain's obligation to work towards an 'ever closer union' as set out in the Treaty. It is very important to make clear that this commitment will no longer apply to the United Kingdom. I want to do this in a formal, legally-binding and irreversible way."
Nothing is irreversiable Davy boy, That said this pretty much is what Guy Verhofstadt said when he suggested a two lane Europe and it it preferable to losing the UK as part of the union. That said security meassures must also be put into place to ensure that their influence in the inner workings of the EU are limited accocrdingly.
"Second,
while the European Parliament plays an important role, I want to enhance the role of national parliaments, by proposing a new arrangement where groups of national parliaments, acting together, can stop unwanted legislative proposals. The precise threshold of national parliaments required will be a matter for the negotiation."
"I'm sorry Dave I can't let you do that" Strenghtening the power of national parliaments and heads of states is exactly the opposite of the transperacy that we have been stricing so hard towards the last decades. It'll lead to more backroom deals and thus more corruption. Only by brinign these proceedings out into the light and allowing people to interact more directly with the European union without having to go through the hassle and beurucracy of national governments can we make the system work again.
"The UK believes in an open economy..."
But?
".. But..."
Called it
"... we have got to be able to cope with all the pressures that free movement can bring -on our schools, our hospitals and our public services."
Except you take less people than Germany does, even per capita. Abd guess what they've concluded that taking people from the poorer countries of the EU and making them productive members of society actually gives a net income.
"Our population is set to reach over 70 million in the next decades and we are forecast to become the most populous country in the EU by 2050."
That's funny I read a report only a few weeks back that said france would be the most popolous country in the EU by 2050. Truth is by cherry picking you reports you can have them give you any conclusion you wish them to have.
"At the same time, our net migration is running at over 300,000 a year. That is not sustainable. We have taken lots of steps to control immigration from outside the EU. But we need to be able to exert greater control on arrivals from inside the EU too."
Or atleast so Nigel Farrange claims and since he's stealing votes from you, you agree. But again sustainable is exactly what it is. May be some pressure in the short perspective but the sustinability is not the problem.
"Britain has always been an open, trading nation, and we do not want to change that."
But? (Also not technically correct)
"But..."
Who would have guessed.
"... we do want to find arrangements to allow a Member State like the UK to restore a sense of fairness to our immigration system and to reduce the current very high level of population flows from within the EU into the UK."
You take less people than germany and fewer people per capita than a huge number of smaller EU members like sweden. But hey you know what we'll take even more, that's fair... oh wait. Jokes aside actually I really don't care since again eu immigration is a gain not a loss, but if germany keeps swallowing them up like they're doing then he can kiss that largest nation in the EU by 2050 goodbye. This is again not really about immigration Cameron was fine with that until the UKIP started taking his voters. The facts on the table haven't changed since then.
"These have been unplanned and are much higher than forecast -far higher than anything the EU' s founding fathers ever envisaged. These very substantial flows of population have, of course, also had a significant impact on a number of Member States, many of whose most highly qualified citizens have departed en masse. So this is a shared challenge."They told you so did they? Because last I heard they predicted this pretty well, the poor go to the rich countries and work and then send money home which helps build the economy of the poorer countries. I think it's called a "market economy", there was one of you countrymen, name of Smith, who talked a lot about it, you may want to read up on that before saying what we knew and did not know would happen. God Dave you make me miss the american electoral race, say what you will of the americans but they do understand capitalism.
"We need to ensure that when new countries are admitted to the EU in the future, free movement will not apply to those new members until their economies have converged much more closely with existing Member States."
So... never then? If you withold the means for wealth to flow to them then they won't catch up... god you are the worst conservative since the menaing of the word changed to mean libertarian.
"We also need to crack down on the abuse of free movement, an issue on which I have found wide support in my discussions with colleagues. This includes tougher and longer re-entry bans for fraudsters and people who collude in sham marriages. It means addressing the fact that it is easier for an EU citizen to bring a non-EU spouse to Britain than it is for a British citizen to do the same. It means stronger powers to deport criminals and stop them coming back, as well as preventing entry in the first place. And it means addressing ECJ judgments that have widened the scope of free movement in a way that has made it more difficult to tackle this kind of abuse."
Pretty sure fraud is a crime, here's an idea why don't you let the police handle crime. But if you want to give them more authority for an example giving Europol actual policing powers I am all for that.
The second part is just emotion invoking rethorics, I know I do it too. Also funny how there was no (ok little) abuse before the UKIP statert convincing people these was.
"But we need to go further to reduce the numbers coming here."I am so glad I'm not an EU immigrant in the UK right now, this is getting nasty. Honestly cristallnacht nasty, time to get the hell out of dodge nasty. This is the moment people will look back on and say why didn't we leave at this point.
"As I have said previously, we can reduce the flow of people coming from within the EU by reducing the draw that our welfare system can exert across Europe. So we have proposed that people coming to Britain from the EU must live here and contribute for four years before they qualify for in-work benefits or social housing. And that we should end the practice of sending child benefit overseas."Here's an idea let's segregate society into two groups, but my my Oliver Cromwell would be so poud.
"I understand how difficult some of these issues are for other Member States and I look forward to discussing these proposals further so we can find a solution that deals with this issue."Well of course you do because before you turned your coat you used to argue for immigration. The diffrence is back then you were right, now you're just a populist.
And that's pretty much the last intresting part, after that it's just a bunch of courtesies.
So what do you think, do you read the letter diffrently than me? Comment below.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)