Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Nigel Farage MEP

1…2526283031

Comments

  • #812
    dlouth15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dlouth15


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    One could argue that it's not xenophobic, since the principle is one of EU membership rather than some idea about who counts as 'foreign'. Free movement isn't an immigration policy as such, it's a free market in jobs (not welfare). The right of free movement to another EU country is dependent on being able to support oneself economically, and on the reciprocity of the arrangement.
    The reciprocity of the arrangement isn't wholly relevant in situations where there's disparity of standards of living, rates of unemployment &c. Like I said earlier, Australia's "White Australia" policy could have been conducted using a reciprocal arrangement with predominantly white but poor European countries, Australia knowing that in practice the movement would have been one way even though technically movement in both directions was permitted.


  • #813
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The EU's free movement is two-way: the number of UK citizens living in other EU countries is almost exactly the same as the number of non-UK EU citizens living in the UK, at 2.2m and 2.3m respectively.

    Yes, it is two way. However how many people from the UK are currently looking to move to Bulgaria or Romania? The main issue with the recent accession states is the disparity of wealth from the poorer eastern european countries with the west where there is a massive incentive for those in the east to come to work in the west.

    Just to prove the point, if Ireland were to tomorrow state that their were going to have an open door reciprocal agreement with a poor Africa or Asian country do you think that it would be of benefit to Ireland?

    Hence, the recent swing to parties like UKIP and FNF. Saying after the fact 'well its done and dusted now, nothing we can do,wasn't the best of ideas but them are the rules we have to play by' smacks of ivory tower EU politics that people resent.


  • #814
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    I see the "reciprocity" red herring is being clung to firmly, but neither of you have actually addressed the equality of movement in the case of the EU and the UK. Again, I'll point out the figures - 2.2m Brits live in other EU countries, 2.3m people from other EU countries living in the UK.

    If there's more Bulgarians and Romanians living in the UK than Brits living in Bulgaria and Romania, then clearly there are some other EU countries which are disproportionately favoured by British ex-pats.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #815
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    sin_city wrote: »
    Both my girlfriend and my brother’s girlfriend are from non-EU countries. Both have Masters Degrees and many years’ experience but it is easier for a non-skilled worker from Romania or Bulgaria to come and work in Ireland than it is for them.

    Everyone against UKIP…do you support this type of discrimination?

    All citizens of EU member states share a common EU citizenship.

    Most places tend to have policies that favour their fellow citizens rather than have legal restrictions on them in favour of non-citizens.


  • #816
    dlouth15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dlouth15


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I see the "reciprocity" red herring is being clung to firmly, but neither of you have actually addressed the equality of movement in the case of the EU and the UK. Again, I'll point out the figures - 2.2m Brits live in other EU countries, 2.3m people from other EU countries living in the UK.

    If there's more Bulgarians and Romanians living in the UK than Brits living in Bulgaria and Romania, then clearly there are some other EU countries which are disproportionately favoured by British ex-pats.
    However Brits living abroad may not be doing so for the same reasons as typical economic migrants.

    These figures are from 2006:

    Spain 761000 Ireland 291000 France 200000 Germany 115000 Netherlands 44000 Portugal 38000 Belgium 28000 Italy 26000 Greece 26000 Sweden 18000 Denmark 11000 Malta 9000 Austria 8500 Czech Republic 6800 Poland 5600 Luxembourg 5500 Hungary 5200 Romania 4500 Gibraltar 3600 Finland 2800 Iceland 940 Croatia 890 Bulgaria 800 Estonia 750 Slovakia 740 Latvia 370 Slovenia 330 Monaco 320 Lithuania 290 Andorra 210 Cyprus 59000

    Note the large figure for Spain. Over 40% of Brits living abroad in the EU, live in Spain, not a country even back in 2006 you would associate with people emigrating in search of work. Looks more like a lot of people retiring to Spain which of course they did before Spain joined the EU. A large number of them are probably not displacing local Spaniards from work and indeed may be creating employment there for locals. I would expect the figure of 200,000 for France to also contain a fairly high proportion of of retirees also.

    Though it is not central to the argument, it is interesting to look at some other figures from the same table.

     USA 678,000 Canada 603,000 New Zealand 215,000 Australia 1,300,000 Total 2,796,000

    So it looks like the Brits (a bit like ourselves) are big emigrators to English speaking countries. Of course, not particularly surprising.


  • Advertisement
  • #817
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    dlouth15 wrote: »
    However Brits living abroad may not be doing so for the same reasons as typical economic migrants.

    So what?

    They are happy to avail of the benefits of freedom of movement so should be in no way surprised if others wish to avail of it also.


  • #818
    opo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    View wrote: »
    So what?

    They are happy to avail of the benefits of freedom of movement so should be in no way surprised if others wish to avail of it also.

    Really?

    Should the families in the sink estates celebrate "reciprocity" as immigration radically changes their environment, secure in the knowledge that their recently retired dentist is enjoying his golden years in sunny Spain as a most welcome guest?

    Because, guess where UKIP is canvassing AND winning?

    I wonder what that smell is?

    Could be a red herring, but maybe it's the coffee.


  • #819
    comongethappy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,756 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    opo wrote: »
    Really?

    Should the families in the sink estates celebrate "reciprocity" as immigration radically changes their environment, secure in the knowledge that their recently retired dentist is enjoying his golden years in sunny Spain as a most welcome guest?

    Because, guess where UKIP is canvassing AND winning?

    I wonder what that smell is?

    Could be a red herring, but maybe it's the coffee.

    Great last line.
    You should change coffee brand!

    Still not an argument to close the UK border considering earlier in the year there was another report showing that immigrants more than pay their way in British society.

    When immigrants from eastern europe contribute more to the British economy than they receive, the issue lies with the ruling parties in what have they spent all that extra tax revenue on if not to reduce service burden?


  • #820
    opo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    comongethappy wrote: »
    Great last line.
    You should change coffee brand!

    Still not an argument to close the UK border considering earlyvin the tear was another report showing that immigrants more than pay their way in British society.

    When immigrants from eastern europe contribute more to the British economy than they receive, the issue lies with the ruling parties in what have they spent all that extra tax revenue on if not to reduce service burden?

    UKIP is winning votes where there is a disproportionate effect of immigration and in particular that of low (or no) skilled immigration. It's setting the poor against the poor.

    It's not an argument to close the border. It's an argument to regulate and manage it to quell resentment and discontent.

    ETA, contrary to what has also been said here, it's equally an argument to abolish welfare to new arrivals on a far greater level than this belated effort in January:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/accelerating-action-to-stop-rogue-eu-benefit-claims


  • #821
    View
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    opo wrote: »
    Really?

    Should the families in the sink estates celebrate "reciprocity" as immigration radically changes their environment, secure in the knowledge that their recently retired dentist is enjoying his golden years in sunny Spain as a most welcome guest?

    Because, guess where UKIP is canvassing AND winning?

    I wonder what that smell is?

    Could be a red herring, but maybe it's the coffee.

    The UK decided to accept the principle of free movement within the EU. No one forced it to do so.

    It is up to the UK to make decisions for the benefit of all its citizens not just one of the many minorities that make up its society.

    "Families in the sink estates" do not constitute a majority of the UK electorate. They are one of many minorities.

    Should the UK decide to base its economic and political decisions solely on the wishes of "Families in the sink estates", that is its decision but that may well prove not to be to the benefit of the very many other "ordinary" (non-sink estate) families in the UK.


  • Advertisement
  • #822
    opo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    View wrote: »
    The UK decided to accept the principle of free movement within the EU. No one forced it to do so.

    And the UKIP argument is that no-one was told this would happen and no-one explicitly voted for it. Hence their calls for referendums.
    View wrote: »
    It is up to the UK to make decisions for the benefit of all its citizens not just one of the many minorities that make up its society.

    "Families in the sink estates" do not constitute a majority of the UK electorate. They are one of many minorities.

    The working class is a pretty substantial minority. Substantial enough to win elections for example.
    View wrote: »
    Should the UK decide to base its economic and political decisions solely on the wishes of "Families in the sink estates", that is its decision but that may well prove not to be to the benefit of the very many other "ordinary" (non-sink estate) families in the UK.

    How is regulating immigration not to anyones benefit - including those immigrating?


  • #823
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    opo wrote: »
    And the UKIP argument is that no-one was told this would happen and no-one explicitly voted for it. Hence their calls for referendums.

    Free movement has always been a feature of the EU, right back to when the UK joined - and held a referendum. So it has in fact been explicitly voted on. I have no issue with them wanting to revisit the vote, but it's not true that it wasn't explicitly voted on - it was.
    How is regulating immigration not to anyones benefit - including those immigrating?

    Even the EU freedom of movement is a qualified right, so presumably you mean regulating in the sense of case by case decision-making. But what exactly does reducing (presumably) immigration to the UK actually solve?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #824
    opo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Free movement has always been a feature of the EU, right back to when the UK joined - and held a referendum. So it has in fact been explicitly voted on. I have no issue with them wanting to revisit the vote, but it's not true that it wasn't explicitly voted on - it was.

    They had a one off referendum in the early seventies on this rather vague question: Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?

    Hardly a clear indicator of what was to come a few decades down the road. Goodbye borders, hello Eu citizenship, EU president, EU Courts, EU Superstate etc etc
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Even the EU freedom of movement is a qualified right, so presumably you mean regulating in the sense of case by case decision-making. But what exactly does reducing (presumably) immigration to the UK actually solve?

    The antipathy towards it.


  • #825
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    opo wrote: »
    They had a referendum in the early seventies on this rather vague question: Do you think that the United Kingdom should remain part of the European Community (the Common Market)?

    Hardly a clear indicator of what was to come. Goodbye borders, hello Eu citizenship, EU president, EU Courts, EU Superstate etc etc

    That's why I can understand revisiting the question, but it doesn't change the fact that free movement was explicitly part of what was being voted on.
    opo wrote: »
    The antipathy towards it.

    Restricting immigration solves the antipathy to unrestricted immigration? Is that really the best defence of it?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #826
    opo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's why I can understand revisiting the question, but it doesn't change the fact that free movement was explicitly part of what was being voted on.



    Restricting immigration solves the antipathy to unrestricted immigration? Is that really the best defence of it?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    I don't accept there was even the remotest feel for the volume of immigration that free movement would entail into the UK by any side of the debate in 1975 nor was it an explicit issue in the referendum.

    It's interesting to perhaps note, that no-one under the current age of 56 in the UK voted for it either way.

    Nor did they explicitly vote for EU citizenship, an EU President, EU Courts, EU Superstate etc etc as I mentioned.


  • #827
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    opo wrote: »
    I don't accept there was even the remotest feel for the volume of immigration that free movement would entail into the UK by any side of the debate in 1975 nor was it an explicit issue in the referendum.

    Nor was there an explicit push for Eu citizenship, EU president, EU Courts, EU Superstate etc etc as I mentioned.

    Again, that's kind of irrelevant, because as I said I don't have any problem with a new vote - I'm just pointing out that claiming it was never voted on is untrue. If people didn't grasp that they were voting on it, I'm afraid that's often the nature of referendums - it's up to the No side to make the arguments, and if they didn't make those arguments, it's presumably because they felt they weren't important arguments. The post hoc claim that "if only people had understood (..insert personal preferred evil here..) they clearly never would have voted the way they did" is no less bunkum for being well-worn.

    In addition, the argument about "they'll take our jobs" seems to have been a key plank of trade union opposition to the EC, at least according to the Daily Mail:
    It was strongly opposed by the trade unions, who warned that British jobs would be lost if labour markets were opened up, and urged the UK to seek alternative trading partners outside Europe.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2266844/EU-referendum-How-PMs-promise-turns-clock-1975-Brits-given-voice-EU.html

    Also, Enoch Powell was one of the leading figures on the No side, and I can't imagine he didn't raise the issue, what with one river of blood and another.

    I'm more interested, I have to say, in your defence of restricted immigration as a cure for the dislike of unrestricted immigration, because I've yet to hear what UK problem the restricted immigration UKIP is calling for actually solves.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #828
    opo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 746 ✭✭✭opo


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Again, that's kind of irrelevant, because as I said I don't have any problem with a new vote - I'm just pointing out that claiming it was never voted on is untrue. If people didn't grasp that they were voting on it, I'm afraid that's often the nature of referendums - it's up to the No side to make the arguments, and if they didn't make those arguments, it's presumably because they felt they weren't important arguments.

    I'm more interested, I have to say, in your defence of restricted immigration as a cure for the dislike of unrestricted immigration, because I've yet to hear what UK problem the restricted immigration UKIP is calling for actually solves.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Why don't you put it to the people voting for the UKIP in droves or do a little search on the internet. The thread is about Nigel Farage. No-one in the UK is voting for me. And I still dont accept your arguments on the nature of what was voted on in 1975. It was sold as a common market - not a Federal union.


  • #829
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I see the "reciprocity" red herring is being clung to firmly,


    Hold on, reciprocity was first mentioned by you Scofflaw in this post.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90604886&postcount=788
    Now when it is addressed, discussed and opined on you then turn around and say that it a red herring.

    Again, many people wanting to have their cake and eat it.


  • #830
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Free movement has always been a feature of the EU, right back to when the UK joined - and held a referendum. So it has in fact been explicitly voted on. I have no issue with them wanting to revisit the vote, but it's not true that it wasn't explicitly voted on - it was.

    I am glad to hear but I wonder will the scare mongering and the comparisons to Adolf Hitler subside regardless if the above basic fact is accepted in the mainstream media. Also, I wonder will the EU make them vote numerous times if they don't like the first decision.


  • #831
    ArielAtom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭ArielAtom


    Lovely old photo of Nigel


  • Advertisement
  • #832
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Above is a fake
    http://michaelrawlins.co.uk/2014/04/nigel-farage-punk-picture/


  • #833
    dlouth15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dlouth15


    View wrote: »
    All citizens of EU member states share a common EU citizenship.

    Most places tend to have policies that favour their fellow citizens rather than have legal restrictions on them in favour of non-citizens.

    I'm not sure the concept of EU citizenship is particularly relevant here. After all, it is a comparatively recent invention. The right of free movement predates it and does not depend on it. In addition, the right of free movement extends to certain countries whose members are not EU citizens.
    View wrote: »
    So what?

    They are happy to avail of the benefits of freedom of movement so should be in no way surprised if others wish to avail of it also.
    Nevertheless if the figures are as they seem, it does require Britain to discriminate in favour of certain countries simply on the basis that they are European and discriminate against other countries on the basis that they are non-European when it comes to economic migrant workers.

    The context of this is that it is alleged that if Britain were to leave the EU and conduct its migration policy in the way that countries such as Canada do, that this would in itself be xenophobic.

    My argument is that it would only be xenophobic if, when it came to deciding who to allow in, they favoured certain ethnic groups, or certain nationalities over others. Australia operated in this way in the past (the "White Australia" policy), allowing fairly free entry to citizens of certain European countries yet blocking Asians and others.

    Yet something like this is occurring in Britain. They are required to favour immigrants from poor European countries over immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America and so on.

    The argument that the arrangement is reciprocal breaks down in cases where there's a large income or some other disparity. Then the migration will be predominantly one way in practice.

    If we want to call having control of your own borders xenophobic in principle, we also have to call Canada and any number of other countries xenophobic. We also have to recognize that a policy of favouring citizens of poor but European countries over citizens of non-European countries for immigration purposes such as is required of members of the EU is xenophobic.

    In short, less of the hypocrisy.


  • #834
    comongethappy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,756 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    ArielAtom wrote: »
    Lovely old photo of Nigel

    Gollum?


  • #835
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    dlouth15 wrote: »
    I'm not sure the concept of EU citizenship is particularly relevant here. After all, it is a comparatively recent invention. The right of free movement predates it and does not depend on it. In addition, the right of free movement extends to certain countries whose members are not EU citizens.

    Nevertheless if the figures are as they seem, it does require Britain to discriminate in favour of certain countries simply on the basis that they are European and discriminate against other countries on the basis that they are non-European when it comes to economic migrant workers.

    The context of this is that it is alleged that if Britain were to leave the EU and conduct its migration policy in the way that countries such as Canada do, that this would in itself be xenophobic.

    My argument is that it would only be xenophobic if, when it came to deciding who to allow in, they favoured certain ethnic groups, or certain nationalities over others. Australia operated in this way in the past (the "White Australia" policy), allowing fairly free entry to citizens of certain European countries yet blocking Asians and others.

    Yet something like this is occurring in Britain. They are required to favour immigrants from poor European countries over immigrants from Asia, Africa, Latin America and so on.

    The argument that the arrangement is reciprocal breaks down in cases where there's a large income or some other disparity. Then the migration will be predominantly one way in practice.

    If we want to call having control of your own borders xenophobic in principle, we also have to call Canada and any number of other countries xenophobic. We also have to recognize that a policy of favouring citizens of poor but European countries over citizens of non-European countries for immigration purposes such as is required of members of the EU is xenophobic.

    In short, less of the hypocrisy.

    I don't think you really get this EU thing tbh. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist, we are all citizens of a European Union of 500 million people. It's home.
    You can't really call the right to move about your own region 'discrimination', can you? Where do you draw the line, would you object to people from the poor North of England migrating to the wealthier South in search of employment?


  • #836
    ewan whose army
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 484 ✭✭ewan whose army


    DubVelo wrote: »
    I don't think you really get this EU thing tbh. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist, we are all citizens of a European Union of 500 million people. It's home.
    You can't really call the right to move about your own region 'discrimination', can you? Where do you draw the line, would you object to people from the poor North of England migrating to the wealthier South in search of employment?

    There are people like him though, you can buy a stick on cover for a passport that omits the European Union from the front of it, they do things like saw off the EU flag if its one of their reg plates etc. and a lot of them don't want to validate the European parliament with a vote either.

    As a Northerner I feel out of place in the south now you mention it, it is like a different country I feel much more at home in Dublin than I ever would in London.


    Just wondering, do many people actually identify as a European Citizen, I mean I am one but I don't feel like it means anything, since most people don't really use the rights at all in this part of the EU, apart from holidaying.

    I am even on a European Union project and I still don't feel that European


  • #837
    dlouth15
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,169 ✭✭✭dlouth15


    DubVelo wrote: »
    I don't think you really get this EU thing tbh. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist, we are all citizens of a European Union of 500 million people. It's home.
    Sure. There's various legally binding treaties between certain European countries. There's the legal concept of EU citizenship. There are several institutions operating at an EU level and so on.

    As for "home", I'm not sure. I'm not sure I would regard say Norway as less "home" than Finland even though Norway is in not in the EU but Finland is. Where I regard home would depend on a lot more things than membership of the EU; that would be fairly far down the list.

    For that matter, merely being European, i.e. located on the continent of Europe (again a rather arbitrary geographical distinction) may not feature that highly.

    For you, of course, it may well be the primary consideration of what constitutes "home". That is fine. The point is that it is a subjective thing. But I don't think you tell everyone that they must conform to your conception of home.


  • #838
    DubVelo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 543 ✭✭✭DubVelo


    ewan whose army wrote: »
    There are people like him though, you can buy a stick on cover for a passport that omits the European Union from the front of it, they do things like saw off the EU flag if its one of their reg plates etc. and a lot of them don't want to validate the European parliament with a vote either.

    As a Northerner I feel out of place in the south now you mention it, it is like a different country I feel much more at home in Dublin than I ever would in London.


    Just wondering, do many people actually identify as a European Citizen, I mean I am one but I don't feel like it means anything, since most people don't really use the rights at all in this part of the EU, apart from holidaying.

    I am even on a European Union project and I still don't feel that European

    I get what you mean alright, I'd feel the same way about the North over there.

    It's an interesting question that, personally I identify strongly as both European and Irish and am proud of both to the extent that I'd get pretty pissed if I was living in one of the French towns that the FN now control where they've taken down all the EU flags.

    ...Oh my god... I'VE TURNED INTO A FLEGGER!!! :eek:


  • #839
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    jank wrote: »
    I am glad to hear but I wonder will the scare mongering and the comparisons to Adolf Hitler subside regardless if the above basic fact is accepted in the mainstream media. Also, I wonder will the EU make them vote numerous times if they don't like the first decision.

    And we're off into fantasy again. "The EU" can't make anyone vote on anything, never mind referendums.

    There's a very very basic hole in most eurosceptics' comprehension of the EU. It's not something separate from the Member States. It is the Member States. Sure, it has a couple of internal mechanisms which are quasi-independent, but the EU exists for the Member States, and is their thing.

    When you say "the EU made Ireland vote again", you are holding the wrong end of an imaginary stick. The Irish government chose to re-run the vote, because the Irish government negotiated what it wanted into the Lisbon Treaty, and therefore wanted the Irish people to say yes.

    There is no separate and independent EU imposing things on Member States from the outside, there are only the Member States jointly deciding things. One can object to the idea of jointly deciding things, which is a rational form of euroscepticism, or one can have no idea of how things are actually arranged, which is just silly. Unfortunately, very few eurosceptics are of the former type - Farage is, but most of his fans aren't.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #840
    A Dub in Glasgo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,538 ✭✭✭✭A Dub in Glasgo


    dlouth15 wrote: »

    If we want to call having control of your own borders xenophobic in principle, we also have to call Canada and any number of other countries xenophobic. We also have to recognize that a policy of favouring citizens of poor but European countries over citizens of non-European countries for immigration purposes such as is required of members of the EU is xenophobic.

    In short, less of the hypocrisy.

    Is this as close we are going to get to an answer to a previous question?

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90608111&postcount=801

    It looks like the latter even they you are pleading for the former


  • Advertisement
  • #841
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    dlouth15 wrote: »
    Sure. There's various legally binding treaties between certain European countries. There's the legal concept of EU citizenship. There are several institutions operating at an EU level and so on.

    As for "home", I'm not sure. I'm not sure I would regard say Norway as less "home" than Finland even though Norway is in not in the EU but Finland is. Where I regard home would depend on a lot more things than membership of the EU; that would be fairly far down the list.

    For that matter, merely being European, i.e. located on the continent of Europe (again a rather arbitrary geographical distinction) may not feature that highly.

    For you, of course, it may well be the primary consideration of what constitutes "home". That is fine. The point is that it is a subjective thing.

    But I don't think you tell everyone that they must conform to your conception of home.

    ...as opposed to UKIP and other nationalist parties, who do exactly that. Only one identity allowed.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement