Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For centuries there has been no agreement, and plenty of fighting, over what exactly "Europe" is or isn't.
Nowadays the closest thing to an "official" definition is European Union.
Like it or not, that burgeoning entity is "usurping" the name.
Obviously the fight ain't over. It's like a kaleidoscope.
Europe has been a geographic entity for a very long time, and the EU is merely a political and trading organisation it doesn't define what is or is not Europe. There are a number of countries in Europe that are not in the EU.
By your logic if the USA left NAFTA it would therefore no longer be part of North America.
I also note the forummer who suggested the British don't post here, feel free to post on the Canadian subforum.
Border checks are pointless unless you can ban people who are undesirable and I don't subscribe to the view that mass immigration is great or that all immigrants are great.
What has prevented the UK to do this in the last 50 years or so? And why? Because it's impossible to ban people who are undesirables.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Detective Chief Inspector Paul Barnard, then head of the Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit (DCPCU) - a national police unit run in partnership with the Financial Services Sector stated that "92 per cent of all ATM fraud we see in this country is committed by Romanian nationals."
Even the full facts website does not deny the fact or that a very high percentage of Romanians are arrested, often for Credit Card and ATM fraud as well as shoplifing and pickpoketing. Romanian pickpocket gangs are well known to the police in London and some other parts of the UK and indeed across Europe and especially in tourist areas. Bulgarian and other Eastern European gangs are also heavily involved.
This is clearly a criminal problem and not an immigration one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Over 15% of prisoners in our jails are foreign, so that's around one in seven prisoners, and of those the largest nationality is polish followed by Romanians, Bulgarians and other East Europeans who have often been involved in serious organised crime and even murder. Whilst Eat European gangs account for a massive percentage opf pickpocketing, cash machine (ATM) fraud, begging and numerous other forms of unsavoury and criminal activity.
Yes, and? Do you believe that this will change when you leave the EU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
Over the last decade offences have skyrocketed involving these groups, and there is even a massive waiting list to try and deport them, whilst lawyers try to use European Laws at British taxpayers expense to try to halt deportations.
I don't understand what your point is. There is no law that says that "criminal EU citizens should have the right to stay in Britain".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brave New World
You wonder why people voted Brexit then look no further than some of these criminal gangs.
You voted remain yourself, so I think that the majority of Britons didn't have a single clue of what they really were voting about.
european history is too formed by countries that i cant see them giving up that identity, even if the EU generation identifies themselves as "european"
waiting to see how this plays out, the current younger generations are the ones that grew up after EU, so they dont know what it was like before EU.
Young adult vloggers in Scotland and Wales have expressed irritation with such questions as: "What part of England is Scotland?" and "What part of England is Wales?"
except they were not treated fairly and equally, and that's the problem. Which of those colonies were treated just like the white people in the European country? None. Did the UK treat India well? Did France treat Algeria fairly? No. Otherwise I don't see the harm of being governed by a different ethnicity. For example, French Guyana has no interest in being independent. It is treated like a French region now without being opressed, with the same rights.
Plus, you can't have a country of 100% same ethnicity. Even Slovenia with 2M people have a bunch of different ethnicities.
Again it is narrow minded if not stupid to want to have "our own country" based on ethnicity. How many French people are purely French, instead of from neigbouring countries, or mixed? They think they are French because they are made French by the French institutions.
Excellent!
You can't disrupt thousands of years of cultural development by occupying countries with imperialistic motives for 70 years or so and expect people to instantly recover.
except they were not treated fairly and equally, and that's the problem. Which of those colonies were treated just like the white people in the European country? None. Did the UK treat India well? Did France treat Algeria fairly? No. Otherwise I don't see the harm of being governed by a different ethnicity. For example, French Guyana has no interest in being independent. It is treated like a French region now without being opressed, with the same rights.
You illustrate the harm in being government by a foreign ethnicity, and then tell us that you don't see the harm.
Quote:
Plus, you can't have a country of 100% same ethnicity. Even Slovenia with 2M people have a bunch of different ethnicities.
Why can't you? You absolutely can.
Quote:
Again it is narrow minded if not stupid to want to have "our own country" based on ethnicity.
"Narrow minded" is not an argument. It means "does not concede to liberal social or political creeds". The phrase is a thoughtless whine that is meant to stand in place of argument.
Quote:
How many French people are purely French, instead of from neigbouring countries, or mixed? They think they are French because they are made French by the French institutions.
Oh please. There are widely differing qualities of French citizen. Many are French in name only, or in language only. Massing the world into a set of borders does not make them French, institutions or no institutions. You can subdivide them all that you would like and attach "French" to the beginning of their classification, but that does not make them the same quality of the historical French.
The ethnic social and political divides in France are vast and socially and politically destructive not only to France but to the continent.
Ireland is English speaking and still part of the EU, Ireland has its feet in 'both' camps, both in the EU and an Anglo country to boot.
Thanks east home. I was reading this thread and got to the part about the 'eu and not -'English speaking countries' ...truly off base attitude given as far Ireland's concerned they're still an English speaking country as well as a member of the eu.
What has prevented the UK to do this in the last 50 years or so? And why? Because it's impossible to ban people who are undesirables.
Can I get it through to you that Europeans will not have an automatic right to settle here following Brexit, that the UK will have control over who it lets in, and that only those with qualifications and skills which we deem worthy will be allowed in, and not organised gangs of pickpokets or cash machine fraudsters.
You do understand what Brexit means don't you or the current concept of free movement of people throughout the EU - see below and the Treaty of Maastricht and Lisbon Treaty which gave everyone the right to live and work anywhere in the EU, including new member states from Eastern Europe. Which is why we have millions of East European living in the UK.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
This is clearly a criminal problem and not an immigration one.
It's clearly an immigration peroblem if people are being allowed in, in orderv to commit crime or live off the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
Yes, and? Do you believe that this will change when you leave the EU?
It's already changing with net figures for immgration substantially down and a further fall will occurr when the law states you don't have a legal right to live here. Currently everyone in the EU can live and work where they please within the EU and this won't be the case in relation to the UK following Brexit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariete
I don't understand what your point is. There is no law that says that "criminal EU citizens should have the right to stay in Britain".
It's one of the three key pillars of the EU that people can live and work where they like within the EU.
You clearly don't understand the very principles at the heart of the EU if you don't understand the right to free movement of persons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by European Parliament
Free movement of persons
Freedom of movement and residence for persons in the EU is the cornerstone of Union citizenship, established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. The gradual phasing-out of internal borders under the Schengen agreements was followed by the adoption of Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of EU citizens and their family members to move and reside freely within the EU. Notwithstanding the importance of this right, substantial implementation obstacles persist, ten years after the deadline for implementation of the Directive.
Legal basis
Article 3(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU); Titles IV and V TFEU; Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Objectives
The concept of the free movement of persons has changed in meaning since its inception. The first provisions on the subject, in the 1957 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, covered the free movement of workers and freedom of establishment, and thus individuals as employees or service providers. The Treaty of Maastricht introduced the notion of EU citizenship to be enjoyed automatically by every national of a Member State. It is this EU citizenship that underpins the right of persons to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. The Lisbon Treaty confirmed this right, which is also included in the general provisions on the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice.
You voted remain yourself, so I think that the majority of Britons didn't have a single clue of what they really were voting about.
I did vote remain but only because there was talk of a massive reform in relation to the corrupt bureaucracy that the EU has become, however it now seems unlikely that the EU will reform at all and I can see the advatages of trade deals woth other parts of the world which are growing at a faster rate economically, and now that we have committed to leave and come this far we should see through what we started.
Furthermore we leave in May 2019, just over a year away, so this thread in relation to France to pushing for Eurozone integratiom into a single country does not apply to the UK.
Last edited by Brave New World; 01-16-2018 at 05:21 AM..
In that case, the Eurozone will be more competitive in the world and will be the 2nd or 3rd largest economy in the world!
Nominal GDP (Top 10): United States, Eurozone, China, Japan, United Kingdom, India, Brazil, Canada, Russia, South Korea
GDP (PPP) (Top 10): China, United States, Eurozone, India, Japan, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, United Kingdom, Mexico
Good luck with that, France. Dream on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
