Together, they at least have a chance. European countries are always debating and don't speak with a single voice yet. But at least there is a chance for survival.
Just look at my country, Holland. Pretty much all important decisions are made by
the EU. An example: we cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many
immigrants we want to allow. The EU wants to force quotas on countries and if they
don't accept the quotas, they want to give the countries fines.
The Netherlands have a higher GDP than Turkey, what coolaid have you drank that you think that all of a sudden the Netherlands which is still a maritime superpower as far as trading goes cannot some how negotiate a trading agreement with the US? What enemy is encroaching on European borders that some how countries in the top 20 most developed nations can no longer stand on their own? Some how Canada, South Korea, Turkey and Israel can manage their economies, borders, and trade just fine but France or the Netherlands can't?
P.S. While not trying to stir anything no international law actually compels the EU to take in anything close to those numbers of refugees, those who come from N. Africa, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan et al. are considered "economic migrants", those who actually come from war zones like Syria are not protected by international law since they've went through multiple countries mainly Turkey before they've reached the EU. And while the EU can and should help the resettlement of refugees it's also untrue to say that some how international law mandates it, international law does not allow a refugees to pick and choose where they want to be settled, if they want the protection they must register and ask for asylum in the first country outside of the conflict zone that they've been assigned too.
However the refugees currently don't even want to settle in any EU country, they specifically refused registration until they reach the UK, Germany, or Sweden, they constantly fight the police in Greece, Italy, France and other locations when they attempt to register them.
This breaks the HN guidelines, which ask you not to call names in arguments. It's particularly important not to do so on divisive topics like this one.
I'd imagine having one of the largest ports in the world, which is Rotterdam, is a big leverage.
Yes, but there is no correlation between the size of a country and the standard of living of its inhabitants. The people of India, Brazil or Nigeria is not better off than the people of Norway, Singapore or Switzerland.
- It's barely in the top 40 military world powers: http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-det...
- It's 17th on GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nomi... (actually below India and Brazil and not so far from Nigeria)
As part of the EU, Dutch people live in the (arguably) world's biggest economy. Outside the EU, they're just 17th and far from most of their neighbours.
You punch above your weight in football though :)
The EU is far from perfect, but we're the ones building it.
Edit: I'm not Dutch by the way
India and Brazil have very low GDP per capita, but they're absolute weight is so big that they're world players (more India than Brazil if you ask me), at least compared to rich countries like Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, etc
In your example you've said the EU "wants to" impose immigration quotas and "fine the countries that don't accept". How is that different from e.g. Germany imposing an immigration quota on your country? In exchange of e.g. not leaving you out of a trade agreement.
What's stopping your politicians from negotiating those quotas? Nothing, because that's what they're actually doing, but they know part of their voters are xenophobic, so they have to save face by saying "the EU told me to do it". It's politics 101.
Finally, please point me to where the EU is not a democratic entity, because I think I've missed the memo.
The EU is not a democratic entity by any stretch of the imagination, it is anti-democratic, over-ruling elected members and overriding the wishes of the people.
Don't get me wrong: I would prefer for the EU commission to be elected more directly by the European citizens. And I certainly wish that the European parliament had more power. But keep in mind that the only reason it's not happening is because the various EU governments don't want to give up too much power: they have full control of the EU commission, but not of the EU parliament / EU citizens...
TL;DR: power in the EU is held by the European Council, that is to say by the head of states.
EDIT: typo
And how exactly are we going to hold the head of states accountable, so one could say we control him/her?
(Brexit - the movie). Sure, it's supporting Leave but the factual evidence is, well, just fact.
Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
> We cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow.
Seems to me much of this sentiment about leaving the EU is merely fear for being overrun by non-natives.
Talking about 'This fear mongering has got to stop'...
Blaming a lacking in public services on migrants is not fair, while it's true to say that we have experienced a rise in immigration levels over the last decade, we are talking about a rise from 4 million in 1993 to 8 million in 2014, out of a population of 64 million, well under 10%.
To blame all the failings of our state on that small section of society, migrants who are more likely to be of working age than our recumbent ageing population, and hence more likely to be adding to our GDP over the long term, is not only unfair, it's bad economic policy too, without immigration our country will fall to it's knees supporting legions of pensioners...
Seems like the rest of Europe 'copes' with going up, as the other poster pointed out, it's not really about land, for example, take Surrey, an area with very high demand for housing, 2.6% of the total land area is golf course...
People don't want more buildings near them (nimby) ... what do you do then? They are the ones you need to convince to vote IN, not me.
Basingstoke golf course is being replaced with houses.
The problem is not immigrants.
The UK is not and has never been in Schengen, so it has borders and has control of it. They just happen to have agreed to a deal with the rest of the EU to give EU citizens almost the same rights as UK citizens.
In other words, people voting LEAVE can't have a problem with border control as it is now, because the borders are controlled. The problem is of a very different (and sad) nature.
I've yet to hear any pro-exit talking point that isn't xenophobic, jingoistic, or at BEST just hopelessly misinformed economically.
The fact that the BNP and UKIP are solidly behind an exit should be a good indication that it's terrible. They are like a bellwether for awful ideas.
Well... yes. The rest of it is a bunch of "well, we'd likely have had a bunch of the good ideas we were forced into by EU membership anyway" which is shockingly optimistic when looking at 80s Thatcherite Britain, verging on naive.
Throw in a couple more rather unconnected points that pretend to show significance (while just showing that the less-developed world is growing faster than the developed one. Which is... yeah, obvious, but also expected)
The rest of it then swerves into dodgy anti-immigration territory. Which is odd for a "liberal" case.
I agree with it that the Brexit plan is optimistic - but I think the article demonstrates exactly why that's a bad thing: because it's stupidly optimistic and convinces itself that everything will be perfectly awesome because they want it to be.
Whereas the reality is that this is rarely the case.
It's massive risk for little upside vs no real risk for a slightly reduced short-to-medium upside.
While I'm absolutely not a supporter of the BNP or UKIP in any way, their endorsement of something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.
If it does, then what does it mean when both the Conservative party, as well as many high level US officials (the President, military generals, intelligence chiefs) all come out in favour of the UK staying in the EU? Does that not ring any alarm bells?
EDIT: note, I am deliberately cherry picking the supporters to make the point. I'm aware they're not the only people in support of staying in the EU. Much like I'm sure the person I'm replying to is aware that the BNP and UKIP aren't the only people in favour of leaving, and has chosen them to make his point.
True, but it does heavily cast a massive amount of doubt upon it. At least adds evidence that a lot of the Pro reasons may be based on... less than sensible ideas.
The "good" reasons so far have been basically shown to be mostly wishful thinking with very little actual upside and a LOT of risk.
Personally I'd not like to play roulette with a country, I'll take slightly slower growth and stability, thanks.
Are customs and border control not useful any longer? Have we decided they aren't something countries should have control over?
Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress. In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
What makes "Holland" so special that it should have the ability to bar people from settling instead of "European Union", "Utrecht" or old grandma from the house across the street?
It's like wanting to dictate to China to abolish the Hukou system. I see it as unfair, but that's their own internal problem to solve.
The question is not whether the people of Holland should be stripped of that decision, but whether they should partially delegate it. And why shouldn't they?
I can delegate my finances, or I can make my own choices and maybe I feel like I'll get better served doing things myself.
I would, actually. Why should the accidents of birth determine something like that?
> Wanting to be able to control ingress is not the same as blocking all ingress.
Realistically that's the only reason people who talk about controlling ingress want to control it though.
> In this case I believe some in the UK, more than anything, resent having their migration policies promulgated in Brussels.
Shrug. I've lived in the UK all my life, but I feel like I have more connection to Brussels than (say) Leeds. (Indeed it would take me less long to get a train there).
> Pure assumption on your side or can you support this with sources ?
That's the point. It is all speculation.
Minimum wage in Poland is 410 EUR, in the UK it is 1,378 EUR
... I could keep going but you get the point. The UK is a desirable place to live. The UK is small. The UK has a housing crisis. The NHS is at breaking point (our local hospital is in crisis)... Not much of this is due to immigration, but it doesn't help that 500,000 (or so) new people turn up each year.
Our government doesn't really care what the people think though. The Euro project must go on, no matter the cost.
The same thing happened just a few months ago when the Dutch people voted against the EU association treaty with Ukraine [0].
The government will still push through with the treaty. The EU project is holy and must go on. Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission said the following on the Lisbon treaty:
"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and
if it's a No we will say 'we continue'."
"There can be no democratic choice against
the European treaties."
Just look at my country, Holland. Pretty much all important decisions are made by the EU. An example: we cannot control our own borders. We cannot decide how many immigrants we want to allow. The EU wants to force quotas on countries and if they don't accept the quotas, they want to give the countries fines.
The EU is undemocratic and if one values freedom, one should stay as far away from the EU as possible, even if it would be at some cost of the economy (though I'd say this is speculation).