English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

BUT as to the economic migrants question,,,enough is enough YES ? and now Turkey wish to join, considering they have sectarian fighting that has left over 20,000 murdered do we need any more of them than can man the few thousand kebab houses in the UK.....

2007-08-05 06:27:19 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Immigration

12 answers

European Integration is a great way to avoid any potential conflicts between Europe nations in the future. If all our resources and included in a common market, it would be nearly impossible for one member to go to war with another.

Would it not be better if we referred to ourselves as European as opposed to British, French or German?? It would surely remove the negative conitations they bring and help bridge the divisions between our nations.

Economic Migrants are vital to the UK economy. They are willing to do the jobs our own people consider below themselves. Not to mention that most economic migrants bring a much better work ethic to the country than our own people.

Turkey has been on the membership waiting list for decades, seeing dozens of poorer and less-ready countries join ahead of them. So long as it agrees to the reforms the EU has proposed, such as the end to capital punishment, equal human rights for all and to abide by EU legislation, then there is no reason for it to be rejected. Who knows, it might help the West and Middle East understand each other better.

2007-08-05 10:39:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Yes, its common sense!! Immigration policy is an EU policy, something our government has failed to tell people. The government say....."We have have always been completely open about our case for migration," said Downing Street . That is simply not true. Labour has never formally announced that it is committed to increasing immigration indefinitely: the closest any minister came to it was David Blunkett, who, as Home Secretary, announced that he thought there was "no natural limit" to the number of immigrants Britain could absorb.But that's about it. There was nothing about increasing immigration in Labour's manifesto of 1997, or of 2001, or of 2005.The only justification the Government has ever given for increasing immigration is the economic benefits it alleges immigration has for the existing population. But those benefits are a mirage, and if they are the only justification the Government has, it is following a policy which is based on a fundamental error.We desperately need an honest debate on the issue,the situation is set to get worse!. But if the Government's record is anything to go by, it will do everything it can to prevent one...

2007-08-05 15:22:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

I am anti european. I voted NO and have never met anyone yet who voted YES. Ted Heath was out of order, he was only supposed to negotiate terms, sort of test the waters if you like, but the jolly pufter sailor boy took us in. We've been going down the crapper ever since. I prefer countries to maintain their individuality and have laws and regulations to suit themselves. Sort of like being good neighbours but like a neighbour that doesn't want to come and live in your house cos you've made it better than theirs. One size does NOT fit all. History should teach us that Empires do not work and the EU is nothing but an empire by another name. Each country is out for what's in it for them regardless of how they will affect others. Why do you think they are all falling over one and other to get in. They want to dump there crap on us and were soft enough to accept it. Just look in France and you will see signs in all languages with arrows pointing ENGLAND THIS WAY. Why do you think they built the Songat camp where they did. When you consider the market that exists outside the EU why do we bother kidding ourselves that we are better off trading with member states.
Don't go on about migrant workers cos if your pro european then thats what you'll get.
I'm sick to the back teeth of all of this lovey dovey stuff when you know full well if the sh** hits the fan we'll be on our own. The only difference this time is that they wont need to invade cos their already here.

2007-08-05 14:00:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Churchill supported a common market as a means of avoiding future european conflicts, he never proposed mass migration.
Regarding Turkey they were promised membership by John Major as a reward for their bases being used in the gulf war.
The sectarian war is between turks and kurds the later of which this country gives asylem to and who in fact run the majority of the keebab houses .

2007-08-05 13:49:07 · answer #4 · answered by Casey 2 · 3 0

When Winston proposed to unite Europe things were very different from today,
The main one being the difference in the population of Europe, 3 years after the second world war finished millions of our finest men were dead or badly injured, and to stave of the poss able threat from the Soviet union, I think he hoped that a United Nations of Europe armed forces would hold them off, I'm sure if he was alive and in power today, this country would still be Great Britain, instead of the multicoloured swopshop it is, and much stronger for it
God save the Queen.

2007-08-05 14:08:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

hey let em all in lets face it the generation now care nothing about it anyway, it doesn't affect big brother, or their PC games, so who cares, they don't fight they don't vote and like good stepford wives they do as they are programed too, way to go young ones. I'm sure you will make the world a better place, lets face it with political correctness, the ability to forgive, the lets all be good civilised citizens you already have haven't you?



oh and I'm not pro European i hate the fcucking bsastards big style, lets hope they all burn to death in their heat waves, dago bsastards and hey go for the reported or whatever, il still be here tomorrow so fcuk you foreigners

2007-08-05 17:14:05 · answer #6 · answered by bruce m 5 · 2 0

Churchill proposed a United States of Europe but did not include us in this proposal.

2007-08-05 14:24:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Me too, I think a united Europe can only be a good thing, but it is a question of where we draw our European borders. Turkey is not European, I say this in a cultural sense not a geographic one.
Mind you I think it is only a question of time before the UK becomes part of pakistan.

2007-08-05 17:14:10 · answer #8 · answered by Fax21 2 · 3 1

I have always been against us being in europe.I voted not to go in & to come out.People say we need europe for trade they will still trade if we are out of it.We also had a good trade with New Zealand.I do not want Europe running England.

2007-08-05 13:56:05 · answer #9 · answered by Ollie 7 · 4 0

Surely European integration was proposed by many leaders... Napoleon & Hitler for starters!

2007-08-05 13:30:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4 0

fedest.com, questions and answers