I'd specifically like to highlight these ads in this document: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/cultu....
2924.jpg
2966.jpg
2968.jpg
Not every judgment regarding other countries is "xenophobic." Imagine if Alabama or Mississippi were trying to join the U.S. today. Would it be "xenophobic" of Californians to be skeptical of the impact that would have on shared democratic institutions?
* the UK was one of the biggest proponents for Eastern EU expansion
* the UK did not impose any restriction on labor from the new EU members, which every EU member could do, up to 10 years from the date of the new members joining
* then, surprise-surprise!, when a lot of Poles, especially, moved to the major English speaking country in the EU, the UK decided all of a sudden they're against immigration :)
* the UK, even post-Brexit, but before Erdogan purges, through the voice of Boris Johnson, was pushing for Turkey becoming an EU members
And these ads are from 2016, when public perception of Erdogan wasn't what it was now. The angle was purely: "the Turks are going to swarm us". While the same government was pushing for Turkey in the EU.
Furthermore, the UK could just veto Turkey indefinitely. Absolutely every EU member must agree to accession of a new members.
Which didn’t happen in any country so far nor in UK with the “invasion of the Polish”
Albania, Macedonia and Montenegro population is negligible. Turkey will never get in EU.
I respect the choice of the English people but the ads were pure scaremongering
So whilst you may believe nobody felt under wage pressure, that would be a rather odd belief given the basics of supply and demand, and it wouldn't match the beliefs of quite a few voters.
People with very different beliefs and attitudes exist in the same voting blocs everywhere. Should people in Portland Oregon complain that people in Jon Day get to vote in the same elections? Rural people tend to be far more religious and have very different beliefs and attitudes.
But 2949 is also there. 2963. 2966-68. 2990. 2991-94. 3018-19. etc...
2926 followed by 2927 is pretty funny.
It wouldn't, and that's why claiming "turkey is joining the EU" is highly misleading. Turkey is far from becoming an EU member, a process which was started in "brighter times", and the UK has control over that status ever changing.
You have to remember that a key part of the reason Leave won is that British people don't trust their leaders to be honest or consistent on the topic of the EU.
Politicians across Europe, not just the UK, have a long established track record of promising voters they'll reject further integration or power transfers to Brussels and then turning around and doing exactly that. As the Brexit referendum has helpfully revealed this is because the civil service and many MPs don't actually believe anyone should be allowed to vote against the EU and are busy trying to block implementation of leaving.
Given that, the fact that the UK could theoretically veto Turkey's membership is irrelevant. Politicians can't be trusted to use it. Leaving completely is the only sure way to stop them doing whatever Brussels asks for.
I mean, in the US, the Mexican border is a rather scary place. For a long time, some of the American border towns were the kidnapping capitals of the world mainly due to their proximity to the border. Who you border certainly matters to your country's security.
2924 makes sense to me in the context of the other statistics. It does seem strange to include two countries with such large wage and economic disparities in the same 'federal' system (which is effectively what the EU is).
EDIT: I find your claims of xenophobia even less compelling after I viewed what the British have to say about Spain (bullfighting), Norway (whale hunting), France (unemployment), Portugal (unemployment), etc. Unless you claim that any kind of criticism of an outside country is xenophobia, the Leave campaign seems quite comprehensive in its criticisms of EU member countries (and potential members).
http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/eu-citizens-working-uk.htm...
> Despite the vote to exit the EU, the UK will still remain a member of the EU until Article 50 negotiations have concluded. This means most citizens of countries in the European Union (EU), the European Economic Area (EEA) and Switzerland have the right to live and work in the UK under European law. European nationals may also bring their family with them to live in the UK. However, to exercise the right to live in the UK nationals of these countries must be able to support themselves and their families without having to rely on public funds.
> European nationals with the right to live in the UK are, with certain exceptions, are still entitled to work in the UK and do not need to obtain a visa or work permit in order to do so. European nationals have the same rights as UK citizens in this respect, and employers must treat them equally. An employer who treats an EEA or Swiss worker differently purely because he is not from the UK is guilty of discrimination.
It sounds like if turkey were to enter the EU, Turkish nationals would have some kind of right to enter the United Kingdom.
You were clearly talking about the Turkish border in your previous comment. Entering Turkey doesn't make you an EU citizen, and the UK, not being part of Schengen and having no land border to the mainland, has lots of freedom to police it's own borders against non-EU nationals trying to enter from other EU countries.
Turkish (then EU) citizens would have the right to enter and work in the UK, yes.
The other countries tend to check residence before allowing a job, healthcare or similar.
> I mean... britain wouldn't be the ones policing the border, it would be turkey.
Legally entering an EU country doesn't grant you the right to visit others, and the UK is in a geographically fairly unique position to really make sure people don't slip through.
Stereotype-based criticism of other countries is xenophobia.
You may be confusing the EU with the Schengen area, which is indeed (relatively) physical border less.
While most EU countries are in the Schengen area (including the non-EU members Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland) the UK was never part of the Schengen accord and manages its own borders.
While you're never asked for identification when you fly from Dusseldorf to Zurich, border controls are quite strict (on both sides) if you fly from Prague to Manchester (or to Manila for that matter).
Taking back control of the borders was always pretty much a bullshit argument, if not an outright lie by the Brexiteers, since britain never gave that up.
When you see ad after ad structured in this way, it really drives home what the playbook is.
I wonder how much similar content I've ingested without noticing.
The European Commission is not directly elected.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission
> There is one member per member state, but members are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state.[3] One of the 28 is the Commission President (currently Jean-Claude Juncker) proposed by the European Council[5] and elected by the European Parliament.[6] The Council of the European Union then nominates the other 27 members of the Commission in agreement with the nominated President, and the 28 members as a single body are then subject to a vote of approval by the European Parliament.[7] The current Commission is the Juncker Commission, which took office in late 2014, following the elections for the European Parliament in May of the same year.
Generally that type seems very weak on actual arguments instead of what I suppose is intended to be a general feeling of uneasiness, and projecting powerlessness despite UK governments being part of the processes. (Although the latter sadly isn't unique to the UK when it comes to dealing with the EU, governments love to play the victim of decisions they helped decide the way they were decided)
Actually, you do - because otherwise what is your objection to them?
Compare with free movement within countries; it would be obviously prejudiced to say e.g. "I don't want Scousers moving to London", and that's not a position which anyone is going to take seriously.
Well we've listed many arguments counter your claim in this thread already, so I guess if you haven't been convinced yet, you won't be...