It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DAZ21
Today a French minister criticised the UK for signing up for football and trying to turn the game into rugby...
Erm...no...we signed up for a common market and the German-French pact have slowly transitioned this common market into a United States of Europe...so who changed the game?
Cameron has already backed out of ditching the criminal...er...I mean human rights act.
The only answer is to leave, there's no reason to stay that can be backed up by a good argument.
originally posted by: ukmicky1980
Also, forgot to add to the above,
If Britain does vote to leave, and we cant agree favourable trade terms, and exports to the EU end up costing more, what is Britains back up plan?
Another issue i know is going to get brought up in this thread is the immigration issue, while I agree that non contributing immigrants shouldnt be drawing off our system, immigrants that have came and are working and contributing to the economy should be allowed to stay, and im in favour of an immigration system similat to Australia, based on skills and the need for that skill.
Mick
originally posted by: stormcell
originally posted by: DAZ21
Today a French minister criticised the UK for signing up for football and trying to turn the game into rugby...
Erm...no...we signed up for a common market and the German-French pact have slowly transitioned this common market into a United States of Europe...so who changed the game?
Cameron has already backed out of ditching the criminal...er...I mean human rights act. And has backed down on the free movement law...so what half-assed changes is he going to get for us? Nothing worthwhile really. If he did manage to Europe would find a way of going back on their word after the referendum anyway.
The only answer is to leave, there's no reason to stay that can be backed up by a good argument. In the end it's just a corrupt state. FIFA is like a microcosm of the EU, full of heinous individuals getting insanely rich and trying to stick to their sinking ship...Blatter comes to mind....so corrupt he knows he's untouchable and these are the same type of people that run the EU machine.
Voting for such an institution is practically handing what's left of the small man's power to untouchable bureaucrats....
The plan was always to have a "United States of Europe" with a federal government. The British public would never have voted for that after fighting World War II. So they were told it was going to be all about having simplifying export regulations to boost exports, and open borders so that we could have cheap holidays.
originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
My opinion is that the EU has to rethink it's core policies on immigration and national restrictions, each nation should have more say about it's own rules. When Cameron initiates the Bill of Rights, it should solve some things and I am sure there is more that can be done within the UK to sort a lot of the issues.
originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
a reply to: moniker
If they all had to leave and reapply that would be a logistical nightmare. I'd imagine a huge contingent would just stay, work cash in hand and go the 20 year naturalisation route. There's no way there would be enough resources to track them all down.
So which country do you intend to emigrate to? One that doesn't accept foreigners and doesn't believe in human rights, perhaps?
originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
a reply to: moniker
It takes 20 years if you're here illegally. 3-5 is if you're still here legally which those people avoiding reapplication wouldn't be.
originally posted by: DAZ21
I don't intend to emigrate, I won't run away from problems like most immigrants do, I'd stay and fight to make my country better if I had to.
originally posted by: theabsolutetruth
a reply to: moniker
So far the talk is creating a Bill of Rights that allows for deportation of criminals that are currently protected under the HRA.
Also for preventing benefits tourism, for example the hordes of immigrants that arrive in Italy, France all intending on the UK for benefits, such as those that also appear from Asia for one day, using false ID and doing paperwork and getting benefits back to where they went to while pretending being in the UK.
For creating a fairer system where immigrants comply with a system that prevents corruption and milking the system.
For creating an ethos in the UK of ethics and fairness where nationals and those that have paid into the system are those that can access it's benefits system.
Also for preventing NHS tourism, where it is known that people from around the world have used the free health service despite not being national to the UK or EU and not being citizens here.
All of those things are available if you look on MSM, I suggest you research it as I am too busy to do that for you.
originally posted by: Anubis259
I'm a definite no, as scraping the human rights act for camorons British constitution is insane. Any Brit with sense would vote to stay, if only to avoid the tory madness.