|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 25, 2016 8:11:12 GMT
But Britain already had it's own borders, as they were not part of shengen.... And any refugee quota was what your own politicians agreed on. This did not stop the free movement of all european member state people, they had free access without any form of visa to come live & work here etc. I did not say that we paid more than anyone else. What I did say that all the money that is sent to europe as contributions from all the member states, is not being spent wisely. As a sizeable contributor, even middle of the pack, however you want to put it, 350 million a week in, and for what?.. what is it being spent on?.. are we getting value for money? The answer was No we are Not. If Turkey joins the european union, there is absolutely NOTHING to prevent anyone currently living in Turkey to "Visit" UK, and stay. Same as any other country in europe. Except we aint that big, and as we are struggling to find enough housing to go around at the moment, where are we going to put all these extra guests?... If you run a hotel and your booked fully for the next 5 yrs, do you accept new bookings for "Right now, tonight, because we cant find anywhere else"..... Its this simple, 100,000 new people arriving in this country "Tomorrow", we are going to struggle to find the bed space. There are numerous numbers of new migrants sleeping on the streets, because there just ISNT anywhere for them to rent. The "Affordable" housing got filled up years ago, there is now a que. As for the idea "Build more", we are, and there is a queue for the homes before a single pint of concrete foundation is laid. In my own locality, not an overly affluent place that is short on any kind of spare ground at all, I have seen maybe a thousand new homes in the last two years. One thousand new homes in two years, but there is 2,000 new people needing homes every year. Can you see the problem?. When I say "Shut the gates the country is full", that is more than just a flippant way of saying it, its more factual truth, we ARE fully booked everywhere, and we cant keep up with the demand on new homes. For every one thousand new homes we manage to build over the whole of UK, there is one and a half thousand new people wanting those homes. Cant help it if its a popular place to move in can I?.. The local council employs a team of people who's sole job is wander round the streets looking for empty properties and finding out who owns them and when they plan to occupy that property, or encourage them to rent it out. At this time, he housing shortage is that serious. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 25, 2016 8:40:47 GMT
It's not refugees that were the problem but migrants from within existing EU countries such as Poland, Romania etc.
In 2015 the net EU emigration rate into the UK was 184,000 and has been high for several years and with freedom of movement within the EU there was no recourse.
This lead to a situation where employers were able to offer lower wages and terms and condition for jobs, zero hour contracts for example and British workers were told if they did not want the job in those conditions then there were others who would. Some employment agencies were recruiting for jobs in Britain exclusively in Romania which was legal under European rules.
We already have a problem in building enough homes for our existing population it was an issue that the EU was told needed to be addressed by our Government, it was ignored by the Council of Ministers and Brussels and this is one of the major reasons quoted by many people for the result.
There has also been pressure on Schools and Doctors to accommodate the large numbers of new people in their areas.
Personally I voted Remain, but understand why others did not.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Jun 25, 2016 9:43:49 GMT
One thing I never understood is that Britain have a lot of benefits to immigrants that they wouldn't get in Germany or any of the Nordic countries.
Maybe a big part of the British problem is less the EU and more the people ruling England that are only using the EU to get what is best for them?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2016 11:53:25 GMT
One thing I never understood is that Britain have a lot of benefits to immigrants that they wouldn't get in Germany or any of the Nordic countries. Maybe a big part of the British problem is less the EU and more the people ruling England that are only using the EU to get what is best for them? it sounds to me like the root of the problem is that Britain is having problems with people abusing their hospitality, and when they complain they are being told to stop being so selfish. to put it to an american comparison, the conservatives are currently complaining that we have a flood of mexicans sneaking across the border and signing up for welfare. that is a bit misleading, and in fact, in many parts of the US, first generation immigrants are not eligible at all for welfare. but in this case, take it as a given that illegal immigrants are flooding the job market and taking advantages of schools and the like. imagine how an American would feel if Cameron gave an executive order that the US may not deport any of the immigrants. this, in my interpretation, is how the brexit supporters feel. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 25, 2016 12:59:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 25, 2016 13:22:36 GMT
One thing I never understood is that Britain have a lot of benefits to immigrants that they wouldn't get in Germany or any of the Nordic countries. Maybe a big part of the British problem is less the EU and more the people ruling England that are only using the EU to get what is best for them? it sounds to me like the root of the problem is that Britain is having problems with people abusing their hospitality, and when they complain they are being told to stop being so selfish. to put it to an american comparison, the conservatives are currently complaining that we have a flood of mexicans sneaking across the border and signing up for welfare. that is a bit misleading, and in fact, in many parts of the US, first generation immigrants are not eligible at all for welfare. but in this case, take it as a given that illegal immigrants are flooding the job market and taking advantages of schools and the like. imagine how an American would feel if Cameron gave an executive order that the US may not deport any of the immigrants. this, in my interpretation, is how the brexit supporters feel. To be fair it's not that they are illegal immigrants, under EU law the have the right to move here. The problem is more that in 1973 we joined something that was supposed to allow free trade within the nations of Europe, and as time has gone one the Political class has through increments moved closer and closer to forming what would be in effect a United States of Europe. To use an analogy it's more like workers moving from Arkansas to New Jersey. The problem for those that have moved us towards an 'even closer political,union' to use a phrase that many talk of whilst other countries held referendums when these changes came about in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s the UK Government just pushed it through Parliment. This meant that treaty changes were made without a clear mandate of the will of the people behind it, meaning that many felt shanghaied into something they had not agreed to . Possibly in hind sight the EU should have insisted that we did , it may have found that Britain was happy with being a memebers of the E.E.C. But not the EU . |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 25, 2016 14:47:14 GMT
it sounds to me like the root of the problem is that Britain is having problems with people abusing their hospitality, and when they complain they are being told to stop being so selfish. to put it to an american comparison, the conservatives are currently complaining that we have a flood of mexicans sneaking across the border and signing up for welfare. that is a bit misleading, and in fact, in many parts of the US, first generation immigrants are not eligible at all for welfare. but in this case, take it as a given that illegal immigrants are flooding the job market and taking advantages of schools and the like. imagine how an American would feel if Cameron gave an executive order that the US may not deport any of the immigrants. this, in my interpretation, is how the brexit supporters feel. To be fair it's not that they are illegal immigrants, under EU law the have the right to move here. The problem is more that in 1973 we joined something that was supposed to allow free trade within the nations of Europe, and as time has gone one the Political class has through increments moved closer and closer to forming what would be in effect a United States of Europe. To use an analogy it's more like workers moving from Arkansas to New Jersey. The problem for those that have moved us towards an 'even closer political,union' to use a phrase that many talk of whilst other countries held referendums when these changes came about in the 1980s, 90s and 2000s the UK Government just pushed it through Parliment. This meant that treaty changes were made without a clear mandate of the will of the people behind it, meaning that many felt shanghaied into something they had not agreed to . Possibly in hind sight the EU should have insisted that we did , it may have found that Britain was happy with being a memebers of the E.E.C. But not the EU . so because of the laws handed down from brussels, the immigrants flooding your job market and housing market are not illegal. the issue, as I see it from a long distance is that while on the surface the EU looks like the united states of europe, it really isn't. you are still all nations, at heart. your younger generation has less nationalistic identity than your older people, so they are more inclined to think of themselves as EU citizens from Great Britain, like I think of myself as a US citizen from Oregon - but the older generation thinks of themselves as UK citizens saddled with decrees handed down from Brussels. our constitution mandates that federal taxes be spread evenly and applies other standards, which it appears the EU is a little more lax on. however we also have some states that get more federal dollars compared to others. some pay a lot of federal taxes and get little contribution and others pay little in federal taxes, yet receive a lot of federal funding. and pushing it through without involving the people just adds insult to the process. compare it to the process that has been going on with puerto rico - there have been multiple repeated votes levied over whether Puerto Rico is to become a state or not. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 27, 2016 1:42:03 GMT
Long story short, a lot of crap could have been avoided if our elected officials had taken the time over the years to explain to the rest of us what was going on in Brussels and giving their citizens a choise of what to be a part of and what not to. Instead, EU-friendly politicians have time and again taken it upon themselves to "speak for the people" and say yes to stuff that none of us had ever agreed to, or even been asked about.
The more they did it, the more it became SOP and here we are now, in a situation where the EU has suddenly been given so much power that they can legislate on behalf of all of us that pure H2O is no longer allowed to be marketed as an effective means of preventing dehydration.
What the nutcases in Brussels need to understand (and hopefully will after the Brits have decided to leave) is that none of us have anything against the trade agreements and the laws governing them and none of us have anything against all of us being allied against potential common enemies and so on and so forth. What we have something against is a bunch of overreaching bureaucrats in Belgium sitting around passing laws about things they were never supposed to stick their secretion-covered manustupration utensils into to begin with!
Sadly for us Danes, the UK deciding to leave puts us in a situation where we're apparently the only ones left trying to stop the bureaucratic madness. And we don't even have any leverage when we go down there to make those arguments, because our leading politicians - in their infinite wisdom - were quick to dispel any rumors Friday morning of us ever having a similar referendum, because we have half a million jobs directly tied to the free movement of goods and services across EU borders, so they've basically told them up front that we stand to lose more by leaving than we stand to gain by trying to change anything.
That's what we with a military background call "a major strategic error".
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jun 27, 2016 5:24:55 GMT
Will we be able to leave?.
We haver a shotgun at our heads, by the fact the Scots have decided that may "Veto" the result....
Not only is their first minister trying hard to get a re-vote on the Scotland Exit of UK, because they got the wrong result, they are now threatening that unless the whole of UK has a redo on the Brexit thing, she will VETO the results. She being the Ms Sturgeon that took over from Alex Salmon, and no one asked if anything fishy was going on?.
So a small minority is ruling...... without being voted in to do that by any majority...
Yo! Dumb-Chick!, this is why we wanted out of europe anyway.
Another country ruling OUR affairs?..
If she wants to hold the vote for Scotland leaving the UK, let the whole of UK vote, because we will pack you bloody bags for you.
There is now an increasing number of minority-with-a-voice peoples saying "I would have voted different".
Yep, maybe you would.
Dont care.
We voted, we have a result, like it or not, its a bloody result.
You now wish we keep voting until we get "The right result"?.. who for?.. you?...
You are not the only one who voted.
It was "Bloody close"....
If you discount the whole of Scotland who will vote the opposite, it was a majority by a large margin.
Why discount Scotland?.. because they are getting away from the rest of UK, like it or not, because their politicians will lie to them until they get the right result.
Am I sad we are leaving the europe?..
Well yes I am.
It has been good having the common market, good for all of us, I dont want out of that.
What I want is out of the europe super-state control of everything we do.
We have our own "Kite mark" standards for quality control, yet, we are told that unless we use EC quality control, its not valid... this is true of all electrical products.
Despite Kite-Mark standards being HIGHER than EC?...
So their law effectively enforces worse quality.
Go Figure.
Otherwise known as the Greater Spotted Clustered Duck.
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Jun 27, 2016 8:45:37 GMT
I think the UK will never get the same good deal they have now I'd the want to rejoin.
A lot of EU officials and other country governments have had enough of Britains in but out position with no shengen or euro participation.
Silver, not sure were you get your news, but you're starting to sound a lot like Rupert Murdoch and I doubt he has your best interest at heart....
Ps. Not that I think the EU is all that great, but I don't see any better alternative at this time but to stay in and try to change it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jun 27, 2016 19:26:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Jun 27, 2016 19:58:40 GMT
btw, on Turkey joining the EU, since Erdogan became leader there, they actually lost 3 of the 4 chapters they conformed too, so the chances of them actually getting anywhere near the 35 they need to conform to are microscopic.
Turkey won't join the EU for another 70 years if ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by craighudson on Jun 27, 2016 21:07:04 GMT
Looks like we got out in the nick of time. What do you use instead of a kettle or toaster if you haven't got gas? |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jun 27, 2016 21:59:45 GMT
Looks like we got out in the nick of time. What do you use instead of a kettle or toaster if you haven't got gas? My electric fan oven will toast bread pretty well, and boil a kettle on the halogen hob. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 27, 2016 22:10:48 GMT
Looks like we got out in the nick of time. What do you use instead of a kettle or toaster if you haven't got gas? I believe the idea is to force electronics companies into making and marketing appliances that don't suck 2000W out of your outlet every time you turn them on. But wait, here's an idea: How about dangling a carrot in front of the horse instead of threatening it with the whip? Don't ban the ones that use a lot of power. Encourage manufacturers to produce low power alternatives by promising favorable market conditions to those who succeed, allowing them to sell their more energy efficient products cheaper than the power hogs and thereby enticing consumers to buy those instead. What's going to happen if you force this on the manufacturers is they'll make the best product they can with the technology they have available and when that turns out to be pure crap, they'll just shrug their shoulders and go, "Blame the EU. If we could have done things the way we would have liked to, you wouldn't have to get up half an hour earlier each day to have time to make breakfast, but here we are... Not our fault though." Basically, the only competition element in it for the first few years will be to see who can make a slightly less crappy version than their competitors, because everyone's version is crappy to some degree. Turn it around and make it attractive for the manufacturers to come up with the best design of an energy efficient alternative and they'll be scrambling to advance that technology. As that tech gets better and cheaper, the energy hogs will gradually be phased out, because who wants to buy something that not only costs more cash at the store, but also costs you more in the long run on your electric bill? Evolution gets rid of the power hogs, the consumers get better products, the environment takes a little less of a hit and you might even end up creating some additional jobs. If the EU truly wants the inner market to be better and create more jobs along the way, how about stimulating competition instead of stifling it? It's great to level the playing field, but not if what you end up with is "everything sucks equally". |
|
|
|
Post by craighudson on Jun 27, 2016 22:33:55 GMT
I believe the idea is to force electronics companies into making and marketing appliances that don't suck 2000W out of your outlet every time you turn them on. You need a certain amount of energy to boil a certain amount of water. Therefore if your kettle doesn't suck 2000W from your outlet, it will just take longer to boil, not use less energy. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 27, 2016 22:45:19 GMT
At least the UK had a way out of all these stupid over-regulations. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. don't.
Our dishwashers don't wash and our toilets don't flush, but at least they don't use much electricity or water.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jun 27, 2016 23:26:34 GMT
I believe the idea is to force electronics companies into making and marketing appliances that don't suck 2000W out of your outlet every time you turn them on. You need a certain amount of energy to boil a certain amount of water. Therefore if your kettle doesn't suck 2000W from your outlet, it will just take longer to boil, not use less energy. Yes, it takes a certain amount of joules of energy to boil a certain amount of water, but how much time it takes to deliver that amount of energy also depends on the efficiency of your input method. A traditional electric kettle boils the water by heating a coil in the bottom. That means it only heats a little of the water at a time, which then rises to the top, allowing the coil to heat the colder water that falls to the bottom. Meanwhile, the heated water that just rose to the top cools a little and more energy needs to be put in to reheat it, not to mention that most electric kettles have horrible insulation, leading to tremendous heat loss through the top and thin plastic sides. You eventually get all the water in the kettle to the same temperature, but might you have been able to do that faster if the heating element had a bigger surface area that resulted in less energy loss during the process? Remember Adam's take on quick-chilling a beer? He put a coiled metal tube through a container full of dry ice to maximize heat exchange as the beer went through. It got so cold so quickly that it actually froze inside the tube. Take that same basic concept, but instead of it being a single coiled tube the water goes through, you have multiple thin heating rods inside the kettle that go from top to bottom. Now you're heating the water from multiple sides at all possible depths, meaning you have a more efficient heat exchange and the hot water has less time to get to the top and cool off. Top it off by insulating the kettle better than most of what's out there now and you get less heat loss through the sides and top as well. Less energy lost means less energy input needed to do the job. The only reason no one uses this design is because if you don't fill the kettle to the top every time, the parts of the rods that are above water would be wasting energy, but I'm sure someone could come up with a work-around to that problem if there was sufficient need to. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jun 27, 2016 23:56:56 GMT
The point isn't who can build a better kettle. It's who dictates the rules for building kettles.
The UK was tired of Brussels telling them how much electricity a kettle could use and how much toilet paper to use to wipe their rears.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 28, 2016 5:09:39 GMT
I have to say there is something to that. my mother's old vacuum drew under 4 amps. we have vacuums for sale in stores, now that draw over 13.
why make a toaster that ALWAYS heats both slots? as for the electric kettle, yeah, a lot of challenge in making one that maximizes efficiency, and speed, and can heat varying amounts of water.
|
|
