[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-11, 10:50, said:

I am pretty sure is is going to happen, and I wouldn't be surprised if it is earlier than 2017. The UK has been told that it must take tens of thousands of migrants crossing the Mediterranean, and presumably cannot simply take them and then send them home. For many British this will be the last straw.

I understand the point. I don't know enough to say whether I agree that your prediction is likely, but I can see how this could be a very serious issue.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on 2015-May-09, 19:19, said:

As far as I can tell the labor union chiefs run the labour party. In other words you need their blessing and full backing to head the party. Makes sense given the name of the party.

Perhaps once Scotland leaves the UK and Parliament the unions can regain their power with the Scottish party out of it.

btw in the UK are teachers and other public employees unionized in the UK? Here in the USA they are a growing power and voting block.

Do your windmills ever fight back?

Unions are not growing.

Quote

In 2014, the union membership rate--the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of unions--was 11.1 percent, down 0.2 percentage point from 2013, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers
belonging to unions, at 14.6 million, was little different from 2013. In 1983, the
first year for which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate
was 20.1 percent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.

[Vampyr]

Winstonm, on 2015-May-11, 13:03, said:

Do your windmills ever fight back?

Unions are not growing.

US unions are not, as far as I know, involved in the Labour Party.

[Winstonm]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-11, 17:21, said:

US unions are not, as far as I know, involved in the Labour Party.

The reply was to this:

Quote

btw in the UK are teachers and other public employees unionized in the UK? Here in the USA they are a growing power and voting block

[PeterAlan]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-11, 10:50, said:

The UK has been told that it must take tens of thousands of migrants crossing the Mediterranean, and presumably cannot simply take them and then send them home. For many British this will be the last straw.

This won't be accepted - it is (at the moment) no more than a controversial proposal, opposed by many states other than the UK, it is covered by one of the UK's opt-outs, and in the current UK climate it has no chance.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-11, 10:50, said:

The UK has been told that it must take tens of thousands of migrants crossing the Mediterranean

Talking about nice use of a passive sentence...

Just out of curiosity: By whom has the UK been told?

By Nigel Farage?

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-12, 04:36, said:

Talking about nice use of a passive sentence...

Just out of curiosity: By whom has the UK been told?

By Nigel Farage?

Rik

By the EU, obviously.

EDIT: Nigel Farage is not even in Parliament; what power do you imagine he has in the UK?

[Vampyr]

PeterAlan, on 2015-May-12, 03:54, said:

This won't be accepted - it is (at the moment) no more than a controversial proposal, opposed by many states other than the UK, it is covered by one of the UK's opt-outs, and in the current UK climate it has no chance.

According to the article, if this measure is passed the EU wiould have ways to potentially circumvent the opt-out, although it seems very unlikely that they would try, given that this would virtually guarantee a UK exit from the union.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-12, 04:44, said:

By the EU, obviously.

Oh, since when can the EU speak? I asked who told the UK this? What person was it? Or was it a majority in European parliament? The council of prime ministers? A European commissioner perhaps? Which one?

Vampyr, on 2015-May-12, 04:44, said:

EDIT: Nigel Farage is not even in Parliament; what power do you imagine he has in the UK?

He has the power to tell the UK a lot of nonsense, e.g. that the UK has to accept tens of thousands of immigrants from across the Mediterranean.

Rik

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-12, 06:36, said:

Oh, since when can the EU speak? I asked who told the UK this? What person was it? Or was it a majority in European parliament? The council of prime ministers? A European commissioner perhaps? Which one?

OK, Jean-Claude Junker is the name. You could have looked this up too.

[Trinidad]

Vampyr, on 2015-May-12, 06:58, said:

OK, Jean-Claude Junker is the name. You could have looked this up too.

Ah. Now, we are getting somewhere...

And Jean-Claude Junker has the power to decide that the UK has to accept tens of thousands immigrants from across the Mediterranean?

Does he?

No, he doesn't. He is allowed to voice his opinion, and his opinion probably matters more than yours or mine. But he has no power whatsoever to determine what the UK must do.

Rik

[blackshoe]

I googled this guy Juncker. He's the President of the European Commission, the Executive of the EU. Apparently, he's written a book called Ruling Europe. Interesting title, that.

Headline in the Times a couple days ago: "Brussels forces Britain to accept Med migrants". According to the underlying article, though, Brussels only plans to do that. I can only say "good luck with that."

[kenberg]

the cited article begins:

Quote

In two days’ time (Wednesday May 13^th), the EU Commission is due to present a communication on a new EU immigration and asylum agenda. I’ll look at this agenda in detail later, but one key issue calls for comment already: will the UK have an opt-out from mandatory refugee quotas?

Watching this from afar, the first sentence rather than the second is the one that gets my attention. For my fellow Americans who, like me, have only a general knowledge of the issue I offer a May 11 article from BBC.

[mike777]

Accepting new immigrants sounds like a win, win for the UK. they will need to replace the Scots in a few years and they will need many many more young people to pay for the HOLY NHS

Hopefully the USA will take in thousands and welcome them with open arms. We need them for many reasons, not the least to pay for my future social security payments

[hrothgar]

mike777, on 2015-May-12, 08:32, said:

We need them for many reasons, not the least to pay for my future social security payments

I would think that you would treat the destruction of your social security payments as a wonderful opportunity for a creative new life as a Walmart greeter.
After all, this is what you preach to everyone else.

[Vampyr]

Trinidad, on 2015-May-12, 07:16, said:

Ah. Now, we are getting somewhere...

And Jean-Claude Junker has the power to decide that the UK has to accept tens of thousands immigrants from across the Mediterranean?

Does he?

No, he doesn't. He is allowed to voice his opinion, and his opinion probably matters more than yours or mine. But he has no power whatsoever to determine what the UK must do.

I said "told" not (yet) forced. God, why do you have to be so boring?

[mike777]

I would certainly view working as a greeter at Walmart a very honorable job to have in my older days esp at our local store.

I was just thinking about that at my local homedepot the other day, that might be a pretty neat job.

I suppose the job I would really enjoy would be as a greeter at my local movie theater, but they have a great guy there now.

In any event I hope we welcome the immigrants into the USA with open arms.

[Trinidad]

blackshoe, on 2015-May-12, 07:31, said:

I googled this guy Juncker. He's the President of the European Commission, the Executive of the EU. Apparently, he's written a book called Ruling Europe. Interesting title, that.

Headline in the Times a couple days ago: "Brussels forces Britain to accept Med migrants". According to the underlying article, though, Brussels only plans to do that. I can only say "good luck with that."

So, more information emerges: It wasn't Junker who said it. It was the Times who wrote that "Brussels said...."

Any European who has been paying attention in school would know that "Brussels" (or the European Commission or the President of the European Commission or the European Parliament) doesn't have the power to decide on such matters.

Since not everybody on BBF went to school in Europe, here are some quick Q&A's:

Who in Europe can then decide on such matters?
The European Council of Ministers can.

Who are these people?
These are the relevant cabinet ministers of each EU country. Each country (that includes the UK) has a veto right. So, "Brussels" can only determine that the UK has to accept some number of migrants (as an aside: the EU is talking about refugees, rather than migrants, which is a big difference) if the UK government agrees on it.

So to put it very straight: Cameron can simply say "NO"?
Indeed, he can just say "NO".

Will saying "NO" have any consequences for the UK?
Well... err... those countries who want Cameron to say "YES" could then decide to say "NO" to things that the UK would like them to say "YES" to. So the UK would loose some credit, goodwill, or bargaining power, but other than that there are no consequences.

Rik

[mike777]

But again why say no....the benefits seem to far outweigh the near term costs and headaches.

the UK like many countries is aging, you need young hard working immigrants to grow the country. a win win for everyone.

[Vampyr]

mike777, on 2015-May-12, 09:43, said:

But again why say no....the benefits seem to far outweigh the near term costs and headaches.

the UK like many countries is aging, you need young hard working immigrants to grow the country. a win win for everyone.

Where did you get the idea that they are young or hard-working?