Future of the European Union

[Gilrandir]

Immigrants pay taxes like everyone else. Even undocumented immigrants who get paid under the table still end up paying sales tax.

So those guys from Honduras that are heading for the US have already paid taxes to the IRS?

[Fragony]

I'll ask again: if there is plentiful, indisputable evidence that a group of immigrants pays much more in taxes than they cost in state services, and they do not appreciably cause more problems than other immigrants groups, would you be in favour of them? You're probably talking about another group than I'm referring to. Read my question rather than answer the question of your choosing.

I suppose, if you put it like that yes

[Pannonian]

I suppose, if you put it like that yes

So what do you think of immigration to the UK from within the EU? The relevant government departments say that these intra-EU immigrants pay several billion more in taxes than they take out, various job markets rely heavily on them as UK-born people don't tend to take these jobs (eg. social care), and they don't tend to cause more problems than your average immigrant group. Would it be a good idea to encourage this group, and a bad idea to block it?

[Fragony]

So what do you think of immigration to the UK from within the EU? The relevant government departments say that these intra-EU immigrants pay several billion more in taxes than they take out, various job markets rely heavily on them as UK-born people don't tend to take these jobs (eg. social care), and they don't tend to cause more problems than your average immigrant group. Would it be a good idea to encourage this group, and a bad idea to block it?

Why should I have any problems with that, and why do you make it an issue

[Pannonian]

Why should I have any problems with that, and why do you make it an issue

Because that is by some distance the most given reason given for Brexit: immigration. If intra-EU immigration is, by your measures, far more beneficial than harmful, does that make that reason less valid?

[Husar]

So inscriptions are used instead of laws?

Citizens of a country (via taxes) finance the needs of their own country.

If the laws are suppsed to reflect a country's culture and art (I count a landmark statue as art) is an expression of that culture, then how do you explain the difference between the culture and the laws? Or has the US simply had a change in culture? Is the statue not representative at all? Is it normal for you to have inscriptions that suggest unlawful behavior on publically funded and maintained landmarks?

You also didn't answer how you arrive at that conclusion, that was the most important question. How does foreign aid figure into your description and why do so many countries accept and care for refugees if that is not what their citizens pay for? Your explanation is insufficient.

Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here

The US and the Netherlands probably don't exactly treat immigrants the same way in every aspect. He also said undocumented immigrants, since when do those live in immigrant centres? Or do you mean predominantly immigrant neighborhoods?

[Fragony]

Because that is by some distance the most given reason given for Brexit: immigration. If intra-EU immigration is, by your measures, far more beneficial than harmful, does that make that reason less valid?

The most important thing about the brexit is that the Brits can't be governed from Berlin, they do not like that. The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future, Brussel is highly disliked by everyone but those who want to go there

[Pannonian]

The most important thing about the brexit is that the Brits can't be governed from Berlin, they do not like that. The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future, Brussel is highly disliked by everyone but those who want to go there

Do you have any evidence that "The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future"? Or is it part of your general pattern of unsubstantiated BS?

But back to the previous point. Should the UK remain within the single market? After all, it does not necessitate being part of the EU polity. But it does require acceptance of the four pillars, which the UK leavers object to, with the most important pillar, according to said leavers, being freedom of movement of labour. Are the UK leavers wrong to point to immigration as the biggest problem? After all, according to your metrics, said labour net contributes to the UK, going by the things that you complain about immigrants. Should arguments for Brexit discount intra-EU immigration as a problem? I'd like you to answer this last question, rather than go on your usual unsubstantiated BS rhetoric as you usually do (see the above promise about imminent Nexit for an example).

[rory_20_uk]

The most important thing about the brexit is that the Brits can't be governed from Berlin, they do not like that. The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future, Brussel is highly disliked by everyone but those who want to go there

I'd probably be happier about being ruled from Berlin than Brussels...

It seems Brexit is turning into a side-show compared to the Italian Question (i.e. which idiot let them into the Euro?) and the AfD resurgence.

[Fragony]

Do you have any evidence that "The Nerherlands will also probably leave the EU and team up with the UK in the future"? Or is it part of your general pattern of unsubstantiated BS?

But back to the previous point. Should the UK remain within the single market? After all, it does not necessitate being part of the EU polity. But it does require acceptance of the four pillars, which the UK leavers object to, with the most important pillar, according to said leavers, being freedom of movement of labour. Are the UK leavers wrong to point to immigration as the biggest problem? After all, according to your metrics, said labour net contributes to the UK, going by the things that you complain about immigrants. Should arguments for Brexit discount intra-EU immigration as a problem? I'd like you to answer this last question, rather than go on your usual unsubstantiated BS rhetoric as you usually do (see the above promise about imminent Nexit for an example).

Nexit is not imminent, but hiiiiiiighly eusceptic parties (PVV and FvD) are steadily climbing.

For the lols, leader of FvD is a bit of a dandy https://www.ad.nl/show/thierry-baude...ram~a79ce9027/ I find it hilarious really, it isn't excacrly diginified but lololol. Really smart guy who does illy things

bonuspic https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&t...47mmcsW_ySUJM:

All in all, a brexit and a nexit would make us more poweful than the whole EU combined, and we have very good reasons to have a bromance

[Pannonian]

Nexit is not imminent, but hiiiiiiighly eusceptic parties (PVV and FvD) are steadily climbing.

For the lols, leader of FvD is a bit of a dandy https://www.ad.nl/show/thierry-baude...ram~a79ce9027/ I find it hilarious really, it isn't excacrly diginified but lololol. Really smart guy who does illy things

bonuspic https://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&t...47mmcsW_ySUJM:

All in all, a brexit and a nexit would make us more poweful than the whole EU combined, and we have very good reasons to have a bromance

Once again, I'll ask you about the issue of intra-EU immigration as the primary reason for Brexit. You complained about how immigrants cause trouble and how they cost the state in services. Since intra-EU immigrants do not cause appreciably more trouble than other groups of immigrants within the UK, and they contribute more in taxes than they cost in state services, does this mean that, by your metrics, intra-EU immigration should be invalid as an argument for Brexit? Do you agree with Leavers that intra-EU immigration is the most important reason for Brexit, given the above facts, and your above complaints about immigrants?

BTW, I don't want your views on Dutch politics; I don't care. I'd like your view on Brexit, given your views above as I've highlighted. Are you going to answer my question on Brexit and immigration?

[Furunculus]

Because that is by some distance the most given reason given for Brexit: immigration. If intra-EU immigration is, by your measures, far more beneficial than harmful, does that make that reason less valid?

Not according to ashcroft exit poll.

And even then the distant second place was immigration [and] security.

Lots of studies since have concluded even then that much of the angst over immigration was due to a perceived lack of control.

[Fragony]

Once again, I'll ask you about the issue of intra-EU immigration as the primary reason for Brexit. You complained about how immigrants cause trouble and how they cost the state in services. Since intra-EU immigrants do not cause appreciably more trouble than other groups of immigrants within the UK, and they contribute more in taxes than they cost in state services, does this mean that, by your metrics, intra-EU immigration should be invalid as an argument for Brexit? Do you agree with Leavers that intra-EU immigration is the most important reason for Brexit, given the above facts, and your above complaints about immigrants?

BTW, I don't want your views on Dutch politics; I don't care. I'd like your view on Brexit, given your views above as I've highlighted. Are you going to answer my question on Brexit and immigration?

Thanks for not caring we will get alng fine. As for Brexit, brits just dislike meddling, so do we

[Pannonian]

Thanks for not caring we will get alng fine. As for Brexit, brits just dislike meddling, so do we

Are you going to answer the question about Brexit and immigration? You stated your rules for assessing whether immigrants are harmful or not, and you agreed that my description of an immigrant group does not sound harmful. Yet when I reveal that I'm talking about intra-EU immigrants and Brexit, you refuse to confirm that the Brexit argument against intra-EU immigrants is wrong. Can you confirm how you judge the positive and negative impact of immigrants, as stated in post 204?

Sales tax? Local shops near immigrant centres wouldn agree with that. Food and healthcare is free, it is we who pay that. But there is A LOT just getting stolen, they come in packs so the shopkeeper is helpless. They have little acces to the market because it isn't apreciated here if you come when you please, we Dutch do not care if it rains or have a cough, we just go to work. Having said that, there are also really motivated ones they are more than welcome here

You then agreed that you'd be in favour of the immigrant group I described.

I'll ask again: if there is plentiful, indisputable evidence that a group of immigrants pays much more in taxes than they cost in state services, and they do not appreciably cause more problems than other immigrants groups, would you be in favour of them? You're probably talking about another group than I'm referring to. Read my question rather than answer the question of your choosing.

I suppose, if you put it like that yes

I was describing intra-EU immigrants in the UK. Are you still in favour of this immigrant group? If so, do you think that UK leavers are wrong in prioritising stopping these immigrants? Is the anti-intra-EU immigrant Brexit argument invalid?

[Tuuvi]

So those guys from Honduras that are heading for the US have already paid taxes to the IRS?

They will pay taxes once they get settled in the US and start working.

[Montmorency]

I agree that most people are decent when it comes to those that they care about, and this quickly drops the further away they get - since Christmas is a time to shower one's children with expensive gifts, not help people starving elsewhere.

Immigration to improve the lives of the multitudes is as short term as giving food to someone and saying "problem solved!" First off, the West is struggling with taking on a minute fraction of the potential numbers; those helped are often the ones most able to travel, not the ones most in need. Secondly, the birth rate in these countries means that all the people leaving creates a temporary reduction in population at best. It solves nothing.

People generally are OK with immigrants that assimilate. It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are. Ethnicity, religion and especially culture create divides. And two out of the three can alter to shift to their new reality - and the third decreases with inter-generational breeding.

What were the improvements of the last century? That the USA finally decided to stop treating people of African descent as third class citizens and upgraded them to second class? The limited immigration allowed to the west? Globally, I think it likely that freedom of movement was theoretically better in the British Empire (no need to curtail it - who could afford it?) Improvements have been mainly about freedom of trade, and increasingly the automation of practically everything making things cheaper and more available to all.

Trump is definitely ignorant about most things, and is probably of average intelligence. But he is very aware that his base (as such a term is rarely as well deserved) can be worried about immigrants whilst in many cases being second or third gen themselves and vote for a man who has twice married one. But for them it seems "foreigners" is no way as near as important as skin colour - I imagine there'd be no concern about thousands if not millions of white Western Europeans - as long as they were wealthy - coming over. If having a very limited amount of immigration allows Americans to delude themselves that this is decent, then so be it.

Wealth disparity is increasing rapidly, and movement of people or no isn't going to alter that.

I didn't offer immigration as a magical solution to a bevy of problems, but as an independently worthwhile practice that has more benefits than costs. The extent to which Western countries have trouble dealing with immigrants is the extent to which (aside from generically, "adjustment pains") Western countries are failing to satisfy the yearnings of natives for their own comfort and stability. Partial aside: it is said that Trump voters in the US and Bolsonaro voters in Brazil were more likely to be higher-income and economically secure. On the other hand, it's only relative because in today's world you can't truly be secure without net worth in the 8-figures. Hence the applicability of the "99%" slogan despite its internal subcategories.

In speaking about the last century, you sound like one of those especially cynical and bitter old-school Marxists, funnily enough. 'There isn't perfect equality yet! Where's the revolution? It's all shite, isn't it? Curse those do-nothing liberal wastrels.' Life really has got better for billions overall in crucial respects, and we do have the means to continue expanding and even guaranteeing a way of life if we're ambitious. Without assigning valence or causality, we also see the moral baseline has at least changed. Casual violence and callousness are on the downswing, and people of different races and genders are increasingly able to share mindsets.

Less tangibly, in our generation for perhaps the very first time in world history there is a global culture that allows almost any two human beings from almost anywhere to communicate and share symbols and practices on at least a basic level. This has never been possible before. Bigger than Hellenistic culture, broader than the Bible or Quran. If the trend towards national fragmentation, insularization, and overwhelming multiplication of media follows, we may also end up being the last generation to participate in this wonderful moment where 6 people, one from every continent, whether all English-proficient or none, can converse in shared pop culture formulas and tropes. I hope it isn't so.

It is difficult to hate people when you have no idea who they are.

Are you sure? That's a salient attribute of racism and xenophobia. Group hatred typically allows special exceptions for "the good ones" that an ingroup member may know and like, while reducing the rest to a monolith. That's just the point I was making to Fragony, trying to get him to reconsider all the refugees he has never met and harshly dismisses in light of those he has personally met and befriended.

They will pay taxes once they get settled in the US and start working.

Heh, how do you pay taxes in a country you're not even in yet? I suppose you could advocate a libertarian-model "entrance fee", but then paid citizenship isn't something I look favorably on.

[Fragony]

That was superbly written Monty, I look different at things but that's ok, well done

[Gilrandir]

If the laws are suppsed to reflect a country's culture and art (I count a landmark statue as art) is an expression of that culture, then how do you explain the difference between the culture and the laws? Or has the US simply had a change in culture? Is the statue not representative at all? Is it normal for you to have inscriptions that suggest unlawful behavior on publically funded and maintained landmarks?

Law and culture don't fit perfectly. Otherwise there wouldn't be any difference and anything that appeared in culture would acquire the status of a law. Consider the Prohibition (the culture of consuming alcohol vs the law that forbids it). Or prostitution, which is culturally tolerated in many countries, but is illegal in some and legal in others.

Incsriptions on monuments are romantic visions from the past, a wishful thinking. Otherwise one wouldn't need any documents for coming and settling in the US. Just the admission of being tempest-tossed, poor and homeless.

You also didn't answer how you arrive at that conclusion, that was the most important question. How does foreign aid figure into your description and why do so many countries accept and care for refugees if that is not what their citizens pay for? Your explanation is insufficient.

Simple logic. If I pay taxes in Country A, they are supposed to improve the life for the citizens of Country A. Of course, the ultimate decision lies with the government of Country A which is apportioned with the authority to direct taxes wherever they think appropriate.

[Husar]

Law and culture don't fit perfectly. Otherwise there wouldn't be any difference and anything that appeared in culture would acquire the status of a law. Consider the Prohibition (the culture of consuming alcohol vs the law that forbids it). Or prostitution, which is culturally tolerated in many countries, but is illegal in some and legal in others.

Incsriptions on monuments are romantic visions from the past, a wishful thinking. Otherwise one wouldn't need any documents for coming and settling in the US. Just the admission of being tempest-tossed, poor and homeless.

The prohibition didn't hold because the culture was too strong. And the statue of liberty was one of the biggest symbols of the US until recently when it was apparently replaced by images of walls and barbed wire fences. The requirement of documents could indeed be the first indicator of a shift in laws reflecting cultural changes, no?

Simple logic. If I pay taxes in Country A, they are supposed to improve the life for the citizens of Country A. Of course, the ultimate decision lies with the government of Country A which is apportioned with the authority to direct taxes wherever they think appropriate.

What if the government in country A is not interested in demanding taxes and nothing is improved as a result? Why do so many citizens complain about taxes if they're supposed to improve their lives?

[Gilrandir]

The prohibition didn't hold because the culture was too strong.

The culture or the financial considerations?

And the statue of liberty was one of the biggest symbols of the US until recently when it was apparently replaced by images of walls and barbed wire fences. The requirement of documents could indeed be the first indicator of a shift in laws reflecting cultural changes, no?

Do you call the inscription on a monument a document? And changing laws may take longer time than changing culture (see the example of prostitution above).

What if the government in country A is not interested in demanding taxes and nothing is improved as a result?

If the government is not intersted in improving the lives of citizens it is likely to be replaced by the one which is (unless it is a totalitarian one which may last indefinitely).

Why do so many citizens complain about taxes if they're supposed to improve their lives?

Perhaps they are not sure the taxes they pay are directed to improvement their lives. And, secondly, people are just fond of complaining. It is especially true about Ukrainians.

[Husar]

It is especially true about Ukrainians.

Nonono, now I got you, it's especially true of Germans!

[Gilrandir]

Nonono, now I got you, it's especially true of Germans!

I have a relative (well, he is my wife's relative) who always complains of low salary, high rent and general shortage of money, and now and then I see him carrying a plazma or a new computer under his arm. Moreover, I hear a lot of people complaining of exorbitant gasoline prices and one simply can't cross a street because of the endless stream of vehicles. Ukrainians are reported to have become much poorer over the last year and at the same time the number of international tourists from Ukraine has increased by 30% over the same period. So no one can beat Ukrainians in the art of complaining.

[Fragony]

I have a relative (well, he is my wife's relative) who always complains of low salary, high rent and general shortage of money, and now and then I see him carrying a plazma or a new computer under his arm. Moreover, I hear a lot of people complaining of exorbitant gasoline prices and one simply can't cross a street because of the endless stream of vehicles. Ukrainians are reported to have become much poorer over the last year and at the same time the number of international tourists from Ukraine has increased by 30% over the same period. So no one can beat Ukrainians in the art of complaining.

Well I think the Dutch have you beaten on the arts of complaining, it is a very fine country but not all complaints are nonsene, a lot are though we are really spoiled life is good here. But we could be better if whe weren't held back and intrused, the EU is holding back our advances in agriculture, fishing and just about everything really. The EU is a burden for a high-tech minded country like the Netherlands, but countries like France who never innovate have a say and they are much more powerful in the EU. We must leave.

[Husar]

I have a relative (well, he is my wife's relative) who always complains of low salary, high rent and general shortage of money, and now and then I see him carrying a plazma or a new computer under his arm. Moreover, I hear a lot of people complaining of exorbitant gasoline prices and one simply can't cross a street because of the endless stream of vehicles. Ukrainians are reported to have become much poorer over the last year and at the same time the number of international tourists from Ukraine has increased by 30% over the same period. So no one can beat Ukrainians in the art of complaining.

Well I think the Dutch have you beaten on the arts of complaining, it is a very fine country but not all complaints are nonsene, a lot are though we are really spoiled life is good here. But we could be better if whe weren't held back and intrused

This leads us tright back to the topic: The future of Europe is complaining about how others claim they were better at complaining.

[Fragony]

This leads us tright back to the topic: The future of Europe is complaining about how others claim they were better at complaining.

Well there is plenty to complain about, Juncker is a notorious drunk, his second Timmermans (who speeidly got promoted after the M17 attack) is so fat that he can barely move. Nice of Timmermans that he can speak 6 languages, so do I but nobody asks me anthing. They are useless, the whole EU is an ambarresement to all, what started as a free trade-zone became a political comfort-zone for idiots. I think it is only a matter of time that the Netherlands leaves as well, that is probably wisfful thinking but the EU isn't really liked by anyone

[Gilrandir]

Well I think the Dutch have you beaten on the arts of complaining, it is a very fine country but not all complaints are nonsene, a lot are though we are really spoiled life is good here. But we could be better if whe weren't held back and intrused, the EU is holding back our advances in agriculture, fishing and just about everything really. The EU is a burden for a high-tech minded country like the Netherlands, but countries like France who never innovate have a say and they are much more powerful in the EU. We must leave.

Is there any topic Fragony can't turn into an anti-EU rant?

[Fragony]

Is there any topic Fragony can't turn into an anti-EU rant?

Well the topic is about the EU, and like a lot of Dutchies I do not apreciate the EU, not in it's current form and certainly not with the people running it, it is a sick lobbycracy

[Husar]

Well the topic is about the EU, and like a lot of Dutchies I do not apreciate the EU, not in it's current form and certainly not with the people running it, it is a sick lobbycracy

The funny part is that it's both a lobbycracy as well as our best chance to avoid a lobbycracy. Look at all the countries turning right wing, they turn even more to corporate interests than the EU. In Germany, the car industry is officially sanctioned to lie to its customers and arms exports cannot be stopped because of the lobby interests, etc.
In Poland the far right government loves their home country so much that they want to chop down one of the oldest forests in Europe for short-term profit. Oh and in Austria they started by removing worker protections so the workers can be forced to work longer for their corporate overlords.

I would take these accusations a lot more seriously if the same people didn't usually overlook the far worse lobbying that goes on on a national level.

[Fragony]

The funny part is that it's both a lobbycracy as well as our best chance to avoid a lobbycracy. Look at all the countries turning right wing, they turn even more to corporate interests than the EU. In Germany, the car industry is officially sanctioned to lie to its customers and arms exports cannot be stopped because of the lobby interests, etc.
In Poland the far right government loves their home country so much that they want to chop down one of the oldest forests in Europe for short-term profit. Oh and in Austria they started by removing worker protections so the workers can be forced to work longer for their corporate overlords.

I would take these accusations a lot more seriously if the same people didn't usually overlook the far worse lobbying that goes on on a national level.

What does that have to do with me. I do not even know people people who call themselve rightist, my buds are leftist or a apolitical, we talk about. What you discribe is a perverion that shouldn be attributed to anyone but those involved, that is true for more things though

[Furunculus]

So, dodging the usual virtue-signalling slogans of eu debate, what do people think of the New Hanseatic League?

Fundamentally, a response to brexit and the loss of the super-sized advocate for a market-liberal driven EU.

Oddly bisecting the usual Franco-German divide of rule of:

1. One is a German driven Europe of rules. It will be business oriented, and Greece will come to be the template of a ‘wide’ Europe with no sense of common solidarity. This fractious stasis will nevertheless require us to integrate to fight for oxygen in a low adaptability / low growth bloc. Member nations might eventually come to engineer out some of the imperfections of Maastricht and Lisbon, but it will be an antagonistic and inward looking bloc.

2. The second is the French/Italian European people. It will result from peripheral Eurozone members choosing to leave monetary union, and accession states simply refusing to join. In doing this, the six founding members will recognise the common solidarity necessary to legitimise a transfer union at the core of Europe. A core able to integrate, a periphery happy to cooperate, this EU would be able to focus on more than zero-sum maneuvering.

In seeking an EU of rules but with some of the elements of solidarity necessary to make the Euro work:


https://spectator.clingendael.org/en...-not-be-enough

Does this fit YOUR vision of how the EU should evolve?