Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Da Boss wrote:
Aye, they're not my favourite people, but I can't see the angle here. They're just saying it'll be bad for trade and business. Surely if it would be better, they'd be for it? They only care about money, after all.

Clearly they prefer to remain in the EU for their own businesses and current arrangements, but people are suspicious that they exaggerate 'trade and business' concerns and downplay alternatives that exist for other companies with other countries and possible benefits to the British public. If a company currently has EU trade deals and subsidies, they aren't going to want out the EU, it doesn't mean our entire country is worse off.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is one supposed to verify the age of asylum seekers (and I'm genuinely curious, not trying to snark for once)? X-raying of wrists are inaccurate at best, and IDs can be forged.

You're asking the wrong person. I'm just pointing out a self evident fact: by enacting a blanket policy to take in"orphan children", you are creating an incentive for people to misrepresent their age. There have been many accounts of this happening at asylum centres already.

You will get this. But the policy is based on taking orphans from refugee camps, not people turning up at Calais and claiming to be 13.
Also it helps to take obvious children as cases, five and ten year olds are harder to fake.

A sixteen year old is effectively an adult, and probably is in African and middle eastern culture and comes with the full baggage. They can also to a large extent look after themselves. There will be plenty of pre-teens who need attention, fill the government quota from there.

As for verifying their age, just take their word for it. It doesnt matter so much really. So long as you take people evidently too young to be adult. You want to take on vulnerable young people to maximise humanitarian effort for the numbers you take while getting people young enough to place in good homes and raise in a non-radicalised environment once over here.

There aren't any actual down sides to this.

Why should we give you any benefits when you don't pay in to the club?

I am not, because I am not assuming you'll be going with a Norwegian model. If you are paying in, significantly, then I guess you can take part in trade.

But you'd lose any exceptions and protections to your trade if I was the decision maker.

 Orlanth wrote:
You will get this. But the policy is based on taking orphans from refugee camps, not people turning up at Calais and claiming to be 13.
Also it helps to take obvious children as cases, five and ten year olds are harder to fake.

This I can agree with. I don't anyone here is against accepting genuine refugees. Its the horde of people massing on European borders and at Calais that I don't want to let in, because they're breaking the law, forcing their way across borders without permission, causing severe social issues and crises in certain areas (Calais, Cologne etc). But people who obey the law, go through the proper process and apply for asylum, and are accepted because we believe their claims, those people I am happy to accept.

Regarding the Syrian conflict, Syrian refugees should be claiming asylum in Turkey according to international law, because that is the closest safe haven. I think we should be supporting Turkey by funding safe and well administrated asylum centres in Turkey to house refugees and process asylum claims so they can be distributed fairly across Europe. People who flee to Turkey, then hop on a boat and try to illegally sneak into the EU via Greece are no longer refugees, they're migrants. Refugees don't cross entire continents bypassing perfectly safe countries trying to get to the richest countries in Europe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I am not, because I am not assuming you'll be going with a Norwegian model. If you are paying in, significantly, then I guess you can take part in trade.

I'm not demanding any special treatment, If Norway and other non-EU european nations pay financial contributions to be a member of the free trade zone, I will happily agree to that.

But you'd lose any exceptions and protections to your trade if I was the decision maker.

Again. If you deliberately try to punish us, expect us to respond in kind.

The camps in Turkey are hellish, I don't blame people for leaving them.

I've got to say, most of Da Boss's comments are probably having the opposite of his intent, they're certainly making me contemplate leaning in a direction.

 Compel wrote:
I've got to say, most of Da Boss's comments are probably having the opposite of his intent, they're certainly making me contemplate leaning in a direction.

Yep...telling people "Feth you, we'll screw you over if you try to leave" isn't a particularly effective way to persuade people to come round to your point of view.

I have no particular intent - I have mixed feelings on Britain leaving the EU. On the one hand, it'd be bad for Ireland, which makes me sorta want a Remain vote. But on the other, I believe Britain is a negative influence on the EU, so I'd like to see them gone so we can work on further integration without obstruction.


I flip and flop back and forth on this pretty much daily to be honest! So I'm mostly just saying what I think, not trying to convince anyone at all. I think there are valid reasons for the UK to vote for Brexit - most importantly that you want no part of a federal Europe.

I just think most of the economic and "anti Europe" arguments are complete bollocks.

And equally guys, saying "Your organisation is rotten and corrupt, and we're leaving because it's so terrible!" doesn't exactly win supporters of that organization over to YOUR side, either. It's the diplomatic fallout of breaking an alliance.

 Da Boss wrote:
The camps in Turkey are hellish, I don't blame people for leaving them.

Which is why I said we should be financially supporting Turkey to improve those camps and establishing a safe environment to process asylum claims.

Incentivizing people to make dangerous sea crossings in the middle of winter is not an effective or moral response to this crisis.

If disincentivising them means letting them drown in the Med as Cameron was suggesting during the summer, I hardly think that's moral either.

 Da Boss wrote:
If disincentivising them means letting them drown in the Med as Cameron was suggesting during the summer, I hardly think that's moral either.

I don't know nor care about what Cameron said.

My point is that they shouldn't be allowed to make the crossing in the first place.

First of all, its illegal.
Second, its tantamount to suicide.
Third, accepting people who have already made the crossing is just going to encourage more people to risk their lives making the crossing. Its not a solution to the crisis, its a counter productive band aid.

It is basically the same argument than there was with the Scottish independence.

Yes, you can make deals with the bigger partner after you leave, but you will be negotiating from the position of weakness. It is not particularly about anyone being a petty donkey-cave, it is just that in such a situation each side will look for their own interest, and it is the bigger player who has the power to push a deal favourable to them.

Leaving EU will absolutely hurt UK economically. How much, that I don't know, but pretending that it wouldn't at all is denying the reality. As noted, the Pound is already suffering.

Dude, we fundamentally disagree about this (as in, how the hell are we going to stop people attempting it when most of them leave from Libya which is now an ungovernable mess due to French and British intervention, and piles of people were making the crossing before Merkel said anything anyhow).

I'm sorry for dragging the thread OT by sniping about it.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Compel wrote:
I've got to say, most of Da Boss's comments are probably having the opposite of his intent, they're certainly making me contemplate leaning in a direction.

Yep...telling people "Feth you, we'll screw you over if you try to leave" isn't a particularly effective way to persuade people to come round to your point of view.

Quite.

 Da Boss wrote:
I have no particular intent - I have mixed feelings on Britain leaving the EU. On the one hand, it'd be bad for Ireland, which makes me sorta want a Remain vote. But on the other, I believe Britain is a negative influence on the EU, so I'd like to see them gone so we can work on further integration without obstruction.

Your intent is loud and clear. You love Ireland, hate the UK, and want whatever doesn't work for us because you want to see the UK get hammered over this, so long as Ireland isnt adversely effected.
You also blame the UK for the EU's ills and believe that with us gone everyone will be happy in a sunny federal Europe, because when those evil Brits are gone nothing will stop everyone else from just getting along.

I don't hate the UK, though I do despair at the state of it's politics. It's a very interesting country with a lot of positives about it. I am frustrated by what I see as the sabotaging of what makes the country good due to a right wing ideology.



I do get annoyed with British foreign policy though, because it tends to be disastrous. But I feel the same way about French foreign policy (and the state of French politics!)

Also, I think Ireland is far more poorly governed than the UK and mostly inhabited by conservative morons.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
How is one supposed to verify the age of asylum seekers (and I'm genuinely curious, not trying to snark for once)? X-raying of wrists are inaccurate at best, and IDs can be forged.

You're asking the wrong person. I'm just pointing out a self evident fact: by enacting a blanket policy to take in"orphan children", you are creating an incentive for people to misrepresent their age. There have been many accounts of this happening at asylum centres already.

You will get this. But the policy is based on taking orphans from refugee camps, not people turning up at Calais and claiming to be 13.
Also it helps to take obvious children as cases, five and ten year olds are harder to fake.

A sixteen year old is effectively an adult, and probably is in African and middle eastern culture and comes with the full baggage. They can also to a large extent look after themselves. There will be plenty of pre-teens who need attention, fill the government quota from there.

As for verifying their age, just take their word for it. It doesnt matter so much really. So long as you take people evidently too young to be adult. You want to take on vulnerable young people to maximise humanitarian effort for the numbers you take while getting people young enough to place in good homes and raise in a non-radicalised environment once over here.

There aren't any actual down sides to this.

No down sides apart from potentially cutting families off from their children. If there's currently an incentive for young adults to lie and say they're children, would your proposal not create a situation where there would be an incentive for the parents of young children to pass them off as orphans to get them out of Syria to somewhere they're less likely to get blown to tiny bits?

Oh, one thing I'd like to point out as the rape statistics were bandied about here. One big reason why immigrants statistically commit more sex crimes, is that most of them are young men, and young men commit overwhelming majority of sex crimes. Not saying that the culture has nothing to do with it, but it is not nearly as big factor as it may seem.

And of course, (approximately) 99,8% of immigrants do not commit any sex crimes, so it is rather questionable to let those 0.2% to define the rest.

It could happen, no system is without flaw, especially ones drawn up on the back of a cigarette packet, on the Internet, by anonymous and completely unqualified people, in the middle of a discussion about something completely different, like a nation's decision to leave a pan-national union, for example.
Hint hint.

 Crimson wrote:
Oh, one thing I'd like to point out as the rape statistics were bandied about here. One big reason why immigrants statistically commit more sex crimes, is that most of them are young men, and young men commit overwhelming majority of sex crimes. Not saying that the culture has nothing to do with it, but it is not nearly as big factor as it may seem.

And of course, (approximately) 99,8% of immigrants do not commit any sex crimes, so it is rather questionable to let those 0.2% to define the rest.

It's also worth noting that Sweden's rape count is so high because they include all reported cases in their figures, most countries only put down convicted cases. Now consider that only 1/28 reported cases get a conviction in the UK.

Actually UK rape crime statistics are tallied by reported cases.

The UK still has a hopelessly narrow definition of rape. The English Sexual Offences Act of 2003, for example:

Sexual Offences Act 2003 wrote:(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

So only penetration with penis counts, meaning penetration with other objects are right out, as are non-penetrative acts. Women can't even be rapists.

Compare this to the Swedish definition (my translation):

Brottsbalken 6 kap. 1§ wrote:
Whosoever through assault or
otherwise through force or through threat of illegal deed forces intercourse upon another person
or forces that person to perform or suffer another sexual act
that in respect to the violation's seriousness is comparable to intercourse,
shall be sentenced for rape to imprisonment for at least two and at most six years.

The same is true of anyone who performs intercourse
or a sexual act that according to the first section is
comparable to intercourse through inappropriately abusing that
the person because of unconciousness, sleep, serious fear,
intoxication or the influence of other drugs, illness, bodily injury
or mental disability or is otherwise in an according to circumstances vulnerable position.

Are we starting to understand why comparisons across nations are tricky yet, or do I have to go on?

This doesn't take away from the volume of reported cases of immigrant males raping Swedish women.

Pointing out that female rape is not formally listed in the UK statistics is clutching at straws. You cant write off Swedens rape stats as due to an influx of lesbians. Evidence doesn't support that,

 Orlanth wrote:
Pointing out that female rape is not formally listed in the UK statistics is clutching at straws. You cant write off Swedens rape stats as due to an influx of lesbians. Evidence doesn't support that,

The way I see it, the only way to honestly make the argument you just did is that you're not even willing to entertain the notion that a woman could rape a man. I agree that male-on-female rape is almost certainly overwhelmingly in majority, but the fact that you just ignored the possibility of men being raped by women without even reflecting over it is rather disturbing.

I'm using the UK as an example because it's what I assume you're the most familiar with. The German definition:

Strafgesetzbuch 177 wrote:Section 177
Sexual assault by use of force or threats; rape

(1) Whosoever coerces another person

1. by force;

2. by threat of imminent danger to life or limb; or

3. by exploiting a situation in which the victim is unprotected and at the mercy of the offender,

to suffer sexual acts by the offender or a third person on their own person or to engage actively in sexual activity with the offender or a third person, shall be liable to imprisonment of not less than one year.

is also less wide than the Swedish, as it does not include anything outsite the realm of force, imminent threats, or exploitation. C.f. the part in the Swedish definition about "other illegal deed".

The French definition is:

Article 222-23 French Penal Code wrote:ARTICLE 222-23'
Any act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed against another person by violence, constraint, threat or surprise, is rape.
Rape is punished by fifteen years' criminal imprisonment.

Again, nothing about non-penetrative acts, nothing about deceit.

We can either draw the conclusion that you seemingly draw, that Sweden has a higher number of reported rapes due to immigration, or we can stop being silly and realize that a wider definition of rape is going to lead to more crimes being reported as rape.

 Orlanth wrote:
This doesn't take away from the volume of reported cases of immigrant males raping Swedish women.

You're right, it doesn't. You conveniently ignored the part where the only thing that counts in the UK is penetration with a penis, whereas the Swedish definition is penetration with anything, plus anything the court feels is comparable to intercourse. You're trying to spin awfully hard for someone who's seen the truth.

Even the UN report that started this whole thing explicitly points out that you really shouldn't be using these figures to try to compare nations to each other. You're trying to link Sweden's high intake of refugees to sexual violence by using data in a manner that just does not work. It's dishonest and disgusting, and I'd ask you to stop it if I thought you'd listen.

EDIT: Link-thingie for the UN report isn't working, it's at www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/crime/CTS2013_SexualViolence.xls

 Crimson wrote:


Leaving EU will absolutely hurt UK economically. How much, that I don't know, but pretending that it wouldn't at all is denying the reality. As noted, the Pound is already suffering.

Speaking as someone who does know something about economics, it's a far more complex issue than is being made out here, and we could end up doing quite well economically. Admittedly, the brexit supporters don't really have much of a clue either, beyond 'we can cut red tape and that will boost business! And make money! Somehow....'

Referring back to Da Bosses point earlier about large business advocating to stay, it is almost always more advantageous for individual businesses to only have to deal with one set of regulations, legislation and standards. Your lorry drivers don't need to pass through customs every time they cross the border. Your have the advantage of being able to draw from a labour pool all across Europe instead of being limited to one country. In terms of total wealth created, it certainly generates more than the alternative, and is why business leaders are keen to press it home as a positive. It has a very direct impact on how much profit they extract.

When you're looking at things from a more general economic level however, the benefits for the nation as a whole are less clear. International companies (which function best in the above environment) can often suck that extra generated wealth out of the country altogether to reinvest in other countries. Just because Clas Ohlsen is making a big profit in the UK does not mean the money stays in the UK. The larger labour pool can drag down wage levels for unskilled labour, meaning more people are paid less, and reducing the circulation of capital within the country. The EU is a massive advocate of free trade and anti-protectionism, which makes it impossible for the government to support industries that have competition within the EU. It also means that we can't raise tariffs on certain imported goods to boost domestic industries we deem in need of that little extra support.

These are just some of the factors that need to need to be considered. There are good general economic factors the EU contributes as well (which I haven't gone through), but we will certainly not be out of options if/as and when we leave, and we will not be negotiating from a position of weakness. The size of our economy guarantees that any measures the EU might try to enact to 'punish' us will hurt them as much as they will us, and such bullying tactics will not look good from anyone's perspective. So no. Whatever is said now, any post-brexit settlement will be made late at night over good brandy in the smoking room by people who understand how these things work, and how to come to the best accommodation for all of us. Nationalism and public face is all well and good, but we all have a good habit of settling things effectively by diplomacy in this part of the world. Leave the flag waving and xenophobic banter to the children.

I don't think anyone truly knows if being out of the EU will be better for the UK economy than being in.

Norway and Switzerland are not strong because of being outside the EU. Germany is not strong because of being inside. They are strong because they have good quality education, infrastructure, the rule of law and so on. If the UK fails in any of these (I believe we are failing in education) then being in or out won't stop us failing on our own account.

There certainly will be disruption of stock markets and foreign exchange markets that will affect people. This has already begun and would carry on after Brexit as the situation gets adjusted.

Certainly, the "cut through red tape" line is bs. Industry won't be able to abandon compliance with EU trade rules because the EU is too big to be ignored. It's the same as we can't ignore Sarbanes-Oxley.

Some of the red tape is workers' rights, e.g. Working Time Directive that we already have an opt-out from.

A lot of it is stuff the British have done to themselves, for example building planning control laws, introduced to protect the Green Belt and listed buildings, etc. were not inventions of the EU and the Conservative moves to cut them back are not being opposed by the EU.

Exactly, the overwhelming majority of complaints for those wanting an exit are actually pretty petty.
The only thing I can get aboard with for an exit is the ideal of maintaining sovereignty, and avoiding becoming part of a federalised Europe. The UK is simply not ready for federalisation at the moment.
That is the strongest argument for the out campaign, and it makes sense, for now.
I am strongly in favour of the UK adopting a federal system within the UK, allowing us, as national partners, of English, Welsh, Scots and Northern Irish, autonomy in our own affairs but under a broad umbrella of govt, much like the German system.
I believe that it could happen, eventually. At that point, the UK may see the advantage in closer ties with our European allies, however, we won't be there for a good while yet.

I am in favour of staying within the EU, of playing the long game. It is certainly better to be inside, paying for membership with some say and control over what happens, than being on the outside, paying in with no control over what happens.
We will still have to trade with the EU no matter what. Even if we are outside, we would still have to comply with the regulations they demand in order to sell them anything.

Plus, look at those in favour of BREXIT I am comfortable with opposition to any policy that has mashed Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Boris Johnson together.

 r_squared wrote:
Plus, look at those in favour of BREXIT I am comfortable with opposition to any policy that has mashed Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Boris Johnson together.

My exact thoughts. Fortunately for the out campaign they also have Iain Duncan Smith, who was very eloquent on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.

 r_squared wrote:
Exactly, the overwhelming majority of complaints for those wanting an exit are actually pretty petty..

Not necessarily. It is easy to claim that all 'get rid of the foreigners' arguments are just xenophobic rubbish. But if you live in the SouthEast, and do not come from a god socioeconomic background, the large scale migration has substantially impacted upon your of life. All unskilled labour jobs have had their wages dragged down, and it is far harder to get a job as a direct result. Local services are under considerable strain, making it far harder to get a dentist appointment, or a place at a decent school. The worry about bogus foreign claimants has helped to institute further barriers around the welfare estate, making it harder and more complex to claim.

People may not have the education to understand precisely why all these foreigners being around has damaged their way of life, but they know that they have, which leads to a more generalised xenophobia. There is a reason that UKIP's stronghold is located in Thanet.

To dismiss the concerns of the people in the above position as 'petty' is intellectually lazy. All reactions have causes, and this one is no different. It is well and good for those in a more advantageous position who are able to consider the bigger picture. But when you're an unemployed single mum in Hastings who comes from a poor working class background, the 'bigger picture' is irrelevant. And they are not alone. There are many communities spread across Britain whose livelihoods in industry have perished over the last forty years. Whilst the bigger picture for the UK is rosy, often the local scene can be quite dire. Macro and micro, my friend.

 Henry wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
Plus, look at those in favour of BREXIT I am comfortable with opposition to any policy that has mashed Nigel Farage, George Galloway and Boris Johnson together.

My exact thoughts. Fortunately for the out campaign they also have Iain Duncan Smith, who was very eloquent on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.

Well Iain Duncan Smith isn't somebody I would want to be associated with either.