What misinformation? Was the correction aimed at someone else? There's 'europe' and there's 'europe', one big, one small, one being the core of european countries that one would describe as 'europe' surrounded by 'wider europe' and the really obvious easy to read bit about Britain being outside also suggests that 'europe' in some contexts does not necessarily presume Britain's inclusion in the description.



I wasn't putting forward any effing argument, I was diplomatically suggesting that Churchill's remarks belonged in a context that was rather different from today's, which you then absurdly took as being some kind of counter-argument to whatever it is that you are trying to make his words say.

And very hypocritical to accuse others of trying to twist words to fit their agenda.

I just didn't see that Churchill's words should really be dictating our policy.


Happens every sodding time around here, try to make an effort at some halfway non-partisan or vaguely uncontentious non-revolutionary remark, and people just presume that not being in total agreement makes you the enemy.

Actually I'm not claiming anything re. the UK, except I think it has always been relatively outward looking and I expect it to remain so. Rather I'm questioning your limited view what Brexit is about. If you read people like Dan Hannon, Digby Jones and others it's about adopting a more global outlook, embracing free trade where that can be obtained, attracting the best from all over the world and not just those from our continent. Governments control everything else so why not the numbers and quality of those who come here? It's seems to me that there is a huge resource of people out there for us to tap into, not just from the EU. Secondly where there is high demand for something, in this case lots of people want to come here, then we should charge a high price for it. The "price" being the right for the country to demand people with suitable skills, of people being allowed to work here but not permenant residence I.e. work permits. We might even tax migrants at a higher rate. Why not? Let's be imaginative. We have something people want, we should take advantage of it.

Skim off the cream of poorer countries skills base for the UK's benefit and tax them at a higher rate than Britons while they're there - that's what you call outward looking and global?? Its one of the most selfish, anglocentric and exploitative suggestions I've ever heard. The average BNP member who just wants to keep them all out is more moral than you with that suggestion.

Isn't that what already happens? People go to other countries to get more money? And find it easier to do so when they are free to move e.g. within a certain trade/treaty bloc? The question is whether we already have enough degree-qualified plasterers and window-cleaners or if we need more.

Its what happens to a certain extent within the EU, but its matched by fiscal transfers from richer countries to poorer countries and universal access to the single market which are designed to level the playing field. They don't work to level it but they do stop it from becoming completely one sided and exploitative. Andrew's suggestion would strip countries far poorer and underdeveloped than any in Europe of their young, well educated people - ie, the very people they need to develop their own economies, without giving them any equivalent to CAP or ESF funding to soften the blow, and just to put the boot in altogether, he wants to charge the immigrants themselves a punitive level of taxes for being in Britain!

An atrocious suggestion.

Again, though, isn't this already the situation for qualified non-EU professionals? They come here for higher wages, get taxed accordingly, and without the state-level financial 'compensation' (for want of a better word) going to their home* country?



* +/- meanings of 'home', one would hope the meaning here is reasonably clear!

They don't get taxed at a higher rate than Britons earning the same salary and the openings available to them are limited by the fact that they're in competition with people from 30 European countries who can freely move to Britain to live and work. And yet many of those countries still suffer from brain drain which holds their own economies back.

Andrew's suggestion would get rid of the limiting factor by putting them on a level playing field with Europeans and then add an extra layer of exploitation on top. It would make a bad situation worse.

In 1930. All the pro Europe sentiment largely came during and after ww2.

Now that's just plain silly! So you're in favour of stopping immigration from all countries that don't have economic parity with the UK, including those in the EU? No, I didn't think so.

Yet Edward Heath who also served in WWII took us in.

I'd be in favour of limiting it, especially when it comes to skilled people in occupations that their home country is short of.

And "anti nationalist" sentiment - nationalism laid waste to the continent twice in the space of 30 years.

And I consider Heath to be a traitor. I wish he was still alive to witness his cherished dream in tatters.

Agree-a despicable,traiterous PM who well knew exactly what he was signing us up to and whose officials bragged it would take years before the British public realised just what the implications were of us joining the then,Common Market.
The main problems we face regarding Brexit are not from Brussels but from within our own boundaries!
You have only to read the many whining,hand wringing apologists on this blog predicting complete disaster when we finaly leave the Social State of Brussels.
Yes,there will be many problems on the way but at least we will be safe as we watch the awful EU in its current form,slowly start to slide beneath the waves!
Before our apologist remainers jump in and say 'rubbish' let me remind them that there is no doubt in the minds of many Constitunional and Financial experts that thier beloved EU is heading for one almighty crash and hard realignment in the near future!

You can consider him to be a Martian for all the reasoning you put forward.

Heath was one MP in over six hundred so it is ridiculous to blame him unless you believe one MP constitutes a majority in the HoC.

The blunt reality is that your father's generation - having experienced af first hand the trauma of war - were perfectly happy to vote for politicians and parties who supported us joining the European Communities from roughly the late 50s onwards though to the mid 90s (when they started dying off). They were also perfectly happy to vote to ensure we remained in the ECs in the 75 referendum.

It is profoundly disrespectful to people of that generation to sneer at the decisions they made when they, not you, had to endure the war.

And leaving won't help us avoid the consequences one iota, it just loses us any control or influence.

Heath took us into the Common Market, that's enough for me. And then there's his famous lie:

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”

Over eight million people voted to leave the Common Market in 1975, how do you know they weren't the wartime generation?

What a ridiculous post.

Care to expand?

Do you know nothing of the centuries of war in Europe? Even what we call 'world wars' were actually wars between European powers.

The Greeks who made the picture of Merkel in a nazi uniform don't feel well disposed toward her, or her country. And this just the beginning.

Not really - sometimes it's rather pointless.

Yet the Greeks show no appetite whatsoever to leave the EU or EZ.

Bond holders weren't responsible for 'everything', but that they were protected from any sacrifice by the EU shows clearly that the EU stance is ordinary people will pay the full price, while rich investors, be they individuals or institutions, will pay no price.