Leaving the EU
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
I don't think it matters much, so long as it works in the way I indicated to protect against predatory adults.
However, I see nothing wrong in the younger ages of consent in Mainland Europe, since all those countries with the lower ages suffer far fewer early pregnancies than we do. So it seems the higher age we have isn't protecting the young here against themselves.
.
Interestingly, the above cropped up over Xmas lunch. My wife is Half German, and as it does when German friends and relatives are over, the conversation in a very light hearted way, turned to WWII. Being born in 1966 I'm not old enough to remember any of the hardship that my parents had to face and endure, although as a family we did have it very tough.
The fact being discussed, was how quickly that the German economy recovered after the war, and how we were still having rations, whilst Germany was enjoying products that we could only have dreamed of. This was a statement that came as a complete and unexpected surprise to me.
For once the euro as a currency wasn't mentioned, but every time that it ever has been, the response has been one of regret that Germany has it.
In respect of Switzerland, again we have many friends there, and many of the Swiss engineering companies that they work for, have relocated across border to Germany.
Like the vast percentage of UK citizens, I have a thorough lack of understanding of how the EU works, and what the benefits and negatives are of remaining. I try to broach the subject with respected clients that I work for, and reading this thread has opened my eyes further, although I'm still only mid way through reading it all. Thankfully thus far it hasn't melted down into conflict, which I'm very pleased to see. There is no benefit with that one.
I have very much been sitting on the fence over the issue of staying in or opting out, the sole reason for this was that I don't like politicians from outside of the UK dictating law to us, whilst they seem to ignore them. Reading the thread to date, has helped to re address the balance on this subject.
I feel that by leaving the EU, that business will suffer, as companies fight to import and export, whilst wading through a deluge of paper work, which has to be paid for somewhere along the line. I wonder how many small business would fold, simply because they can't deal with it.
Being selfish, I also don't like the idea of loosing the relative ease and freedom that we have when leaving and entering the country. Okay this aspect is sadly already changing anyway, but as I see it, it could be made a lot worse.
I hope that come referendum day that I am without doubt, but as things stand I'm going to vote to stay in.
Abstaining isn't an option for me, and isn't with any voting system. Whilst I might not always understand things and even feel wronged, I do feel that by not voting, that you loose all right to air grievance, or to have an opinion after the event.
Last edited:
I don't think that age of consent and teenage pregnancies are linked. I believe that the main factor is poor parenting. Stand on any high street and you would be able to pick out the odds-on favourites to be up the duff before they are 20.
Swap the policy of giving them a furnished house or flat, for one of strictly supervised hostels, where support is given in the form of teaching parenting skills to the young mothers and fathers, and we might start to reverse the trend within a generation.
I still think the age of consent, both heterosexual and homosexual should not be any lower than 16. Younger than that and it starts to become uncomfortable (no pun intended).
Education and poverty are your links to teenage pregnancy. Age of consent has nothing to do with that. And really what is wrong with a young mother anyway? Why should they be penalised and patronised in a hostel? Having sex and being a parent is not a crime! You can do education any time you like these days and the next generation from an educated mother will delay or reduce number of kids - same as in developing countries. Dundee has a whole school unit devoted to just that and it has positive results.
Young mothers certainly shouldn't be penalised or patronised but you'd have to recognise that becoming pregnant before you have finished your education and started work can present problems for the woman in later life and often leads to a life on benefits. A woman who commences a career then becomes pregnant, with a partner to support her and their child is more likely to return to work at some point., thereby leading a more rounded life which benefits herself and society as a whole.
They should not be penalised but should not be incentivised to have children for which they are not emotionally or financially capable of supporting . The problem in this country now is that nobody is expected to take responsibility for their own actions, instead somebody else will pick up the piece's
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a young mother, or a young father for that matter. No one is penalising anyone. If the young parents choose to bring a baby into the world, that is their choice, no one has forced them into that decision.
However, people need to learn that with that decision comes great responsibility. Responsibility for providing food, shelter, clothing, guidance, financial security, education, safety and all of the other things. People can not meander into parenting with the expectation that other people will finance the adventure for them. A cold harsh lesson needs to be learnt here and that lesson is that as soon as you become a parent, you are relegated to a position of secondary importance. The overriding priority is the child, that had no choice over which irresponsible pillock blew his beans up the nearest slapper's chuff. The child needs to be given the best start in life and have the maximum of opportunities. For that reason, I believe the parents, if they are unable to finance the essentials listed above, should enter a hostel where the focus is on care, guidance and education for the child. I don't really care if mummy and daddy don't like it and would rather be in a taxpayer funded fully furnished flat.
Yes The Government has incentives for people to have children! That's the whole idea! They are
Free Childcare
Free Education
Free Healthcare
Subsidised housing if required.
You get money/tax breaks if you have children etc
I believe that covers the care, guidance and education of the child?
So how is a hostel going to be cheaper or better to run than a council house? We would still be funding it? Who would run it? Group 4? ahem...How does being in an institution prepare you for real life?
Your idea all seems a little patronising Victorian/Catholic church stylee for me.
Having a child at ANY time penalises a woman. I know plenty of mums that delayed studies until they were older and loads of younger ones. They are all on benefits at some point and all contribute at some point. It's up to them - Their fertility is their business and not ours. They all have fullfilling lives. some are rich and some are poor. Not all of them want a "Career" either.
Fortunately we make life as easy as possible for them all and usually have systems in place for those that struggle. They deserve our help. And with some nudging we can maybe reduce the numbers of those that struggle but there is no need to stigmatise them.
(There was a good Radio 4 Womens hour on this very subject last year)
Free Childcare
Free Education
Free Healthcare
Subsidised housing if required.
You get money/tax breaks if you have children etc
I believe that covers the care, guidance and education of the child?
So how is a hostel going to be cheaper or better to run than a council house? We would still be funding it? Who would run it? Group 4? ahem...How does being in an institution prepare you for real life?
Your idea all seems a little patronising Victorian/Catholic church stylee for me.
Having a child at ANY time penalises a woman. I know plenty of mums that delayed studies until they were older and loads of younger ones. They are all on benefits at some point and all contribute at some point. It's up to them - Their fertility is their business and not ours. They all have fullfilling lives. some are rich and some are poor. Not all of them want a "Career" either.
Fortunately we make life as easy as possible for them all and usually have systems in place for those that struggle. They deserve our help. And with some nudging we can maybe reduce the numbers of those that struggle but there is no need to stigmatise them.
(There was a good Radio 4 Womens hour on this very subject last year)
Perhaps if we rewarded childless couples, the resultant decrease in population growth would mean we don't need to continually build more new homes in what was once charmingly known as countryside.
Tom
Tom
Since not having children is the single most effective measure, that we as individuals can take to help our planet, this actually seems like a good idea.
I have a 10 month old daughter. Having now had her, there's not a monetary value you could suggest that would make me want otherwise. However, who knows what my answer would have been if you'd have asked me before hand?...
Of course China has long had a variant of this with their one child policy which has been very successful. Their population was heading for 2 billions when they introduced it and it would certainly have been well beyond that now if they hadn't acted. Instead it's now 1.4 billions, but as with any successful policy, it's introduced new problems, the main one being that one in three of their population will soon be a pensioner needing to be supported.
.
Not commenting on whether to stay or leave.
But one point raised has caught my eye, No idea if these figures are correct as I got them from the internet, but the last figure I saw said 1.26 million UK citizens in the EU (more in Europe as a whole), obviously using facilities in the respective countries, however I also saw a figure of 3 million EU citizens living in the UK using our facilities, so if correct then in that respect - we lose.
I doubt that many of those 1.26 million will be living in the Eastern Europe countries living on their benefits. They will most probably be a large proportion of highly skilled people working in industries. The remainder will probably be expats who contribute to the local economies in France Spain etc.
On another point I see the EU is now trying to blackmail us into accepting more refugees by removing the need to register in first safe country and refusing us the right of repatriation if we don't agree. This because the rules regarding free movement have turned into a complete farce. European democracy at it's finest
Surely that imbalance is not only to be expected, but is also not in our favour.
The mainland EU has a population of some 400 millions, the UK has a population of 64 millions, that's 6.3 to 1.
With something roughly approximating to a 2 to 1 ratio in fact, the UK doesn't seem very attractive to the mainland EU's citizens. One might have expected as many as 8 million ex mainland EU citizens here if it was so wonderful in the UK, even using your lower internet figure.
.
So are you implying that all those eastern Europeans are living on our benefits? That would be complete nonsense since most of them work hard and contribute to the economy. In fact most of the infrastructure we rely on like the NHS is heavily staffed by immigrants and would collapse without them. Many of our expats are in Spain and relying on their health services of course.
With the ageing population of the UK we need them to pay for the pensions of the retired, as well as wipe the arses of the very old in care homes. Governments like immigration because it contributes to growth and makes up the numbers paying for the retired through taxes. Some governments might pretend they don’t because they want to be popular with their supporters, but they do really.
I usually agree with most of what you say John, but I can't on this occaision.
The number of ex UK residents living in mainland Europe, both east and west and claiming benefits will be virtually non-existent. I suspect that most will be either retired and now supporting themselves from a lifetime of investments, or working and contributing to the economy of their place of residence.
I don't know which way I will vote when deciding whether to stay in withdraw from the EU. My hope is that both sides will have an equal oportunity to make their case honestly and to give us all the information we need to reach the best decision.
On the issue of migration into mainland Europe, the EU seems to be in a state of chaos and confusion which has lead to a catastrophic situation. Under any circumstances, it can never be sane policy to allow a mass influx of people, who we know absolutely nothing about, to pour int Europe without any checks whatsoever. Look what happened in Cologne. Some of the people entering Europe are savages and the terrifying fact is we have no clue as to how many of them are, because no one is screening them. How crazy is that. Germany are rapidly trying to engage reverse gear whilst simultaneously trying to silence anyone who speaks of the attacks in Cologne by smearing them as racist. Unfortunately, for me, this typifies the EU.
I think that immigration over the past 10 years has had a massive negative impact on the UK. Devastating. I don't buy into the tired and totally worn out, "doing the jobs British workers don't want to do" line. That is a failing of the government. Sometimes I don't want to do my job, I'd rather be at home with my family. Faced with the right combination of choices, the idle can be forced into work, so we do not need immigration to boost our workforce.
Then there is illegal immigration. It may as well be legal immigration because the Border Agency is a total farce. A completely failed organisation. The Home Office don't have any clue at all as to how many people have entered the UK or who they are or what they have brought with them. A shambles.
I now wait 2 weeks to see my GP. My local A&E department is overwhelmed. This was not the case before mass immigration. It's a simple numbers game. The more people that are using something, the less there is of it for everyone else. Imigration adds to the numbers, so the two are inextricably linked. These aren't quality people coming into the uk either. You never see a gang neurosurgeons running through the channel tunnel, desperate practice in UK hospitals.
I'm undecided on the in / out vote, but whichever side presents the best case for dealing with immigration will get my vote.
I also worry about the housing situation. I live on the northern outreaches of Bolton. The area is semi rural and we have lots of green belt countryside on our doorstep. I am really anxious that it stays that way. A nimby attitude I know, but I am a country girl at heart and I'd hate to see it built on.
Bolton itself has it's share of immigrants but so far there has been no racial problems at all in the town. As a magistrate here, I get very few Asians before the bench, but quite a few eastern Europeans. Their offences are either driving matters, usually drink related, driving with no insurance/licence or drug related, often serious matters of manufacturing and supplying drugs. I have the impression that there are far more eastern Europeans dealing in drugs in proportion to their numbers in the town than indigenous people. They almost always request a translator which costs us the tax payer, a lot of money, and frustratingly they can sometimes speak adequate English, putting the courts to unnecessary cost.
That's the side of EU immigration that I personally have to deal with and I don't know of a single colleague that doesn't get incredibly annoyed about the situation.
Bolton itself has it's share of immigrants but so far there has been no racial problems at all in the town. As a magistrate here, I get very few Asians before the bench, but quite a few eastern Europeans. Their offences are either driving matters, usually drink related, driving with no insurance/licence or drug related, often serious matters of manufacturing and supplying drugs. I have the impression that there are far more eastern Europeans dealing in drugs in proportion to their numbers in the town than indigenous people. They almost always request a translator which costs us the tax payer, a lot of money, and frustratingly they can sometimes speak adequate English, putting the courts to unnecessary cost.
That's the side of EU immigration that I personally have to deal with and I don't know of a single colleague that doesn't get incredibly annoyed about the situation.
John not implying that at all but I am sure that a large amount of them are. I totally agree with you that without immigrants many public services would be in trouble, and in spite of what I have said I am not against immigration. But I would prefer it to be controlled rather than the shambles that it is at the moment. The other point about such as our NHS is why we need others to fill the posts. I know of nurses who have been trained at great expense and end up leaving because they are treated so badly by the management. There are nurses who want to rejoin after having families etc but have to jump through hoops to do so.At the same time we are importing nurses with dubious qualifications. It is not so much a shortage but more a matter of government incompetence. As an aside who decided that nurses needed a university degree. That must exclude a lot of decent caring people from the profession. Do the imported nurses have degrees to the same standard. As regards people living in Spain etc. Surely they contribute to the economy and I doubt they are living off any state benefits
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to preserve the English countryside from housing development. It's the numbers again. More people means that more housing is required and uncontrolled immigration is adding to the numbers placing a demand on housing (note I used the word adding, it would be wrong to put all the blame on immigration).
The sensible approach would be to put in place measures to reduce the population alongside the house building. Because if not, when do we stop building? Do we continue until there is absolutely no land left at all? Or do we stop at some point before then, and if so what is the point at which we stop? No one will answer these questions. I regularly fly over large parts of the UK and land is being consumed by housing at an alarming rate, and we haven't really started to address the housing shortage yet. Early next century, at historical rates, the population will have doubled again. Where are they going to live?
Returning to population reduction, deportation of immigrant criminals and those here illegally would be a start. The removal process needs to be streamlined too because for each one removed you have to make a lawyer a millionaire and set aside about two years of process. Next, I think the uk needs to become very unattractive to anyone without a contribution to make. I think a 10 year period without access to any form of benefit or free health care provision is fair. If I visit another country I make sure that any medical bill that I may incur whilst there is able to be paid. I don't see why entrants into the uk should not do the same. Switzerland insist on it, so should we.
I think that the removal of child benefits / tax credits should also be instigated. That money could be pumped into education. I support free education and would gladly pay more tax if it was spent in this area. Young people should be given more support and guidance than they currently receive in order to maximise their opportunities.