Editha

Sorry, I'm taking the thread even more off topic, but the history nerd in me is niggled by the suggestion that the last compulsory military service before WW1 was 'feudal'.

There was compulsory conscription to the county militias between 1808 and 1816. And, I should add, the press-gangs for the navy operated another kind of compulsory military service between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries.

Novocastrian

I plead guilty to having taken the thread down this cul-de-sac, but my point was that there hasn't been a war between major European powers for 61 years and counting and that this at least in part is due to the existence of the EU.

As originally pointed out by rebeccajo.

Editha

I agree with the point you are making.

Lion in Winter

I tried sharing this on the EU thread in TIO, but serious responses were not really there.

This is an interesting analysis of why the US wants the UK to remain in the EU.

It also contains one additional question that I have not seen raised here - why is Russia so keen on having the UK leave the EU? Does Mr. Putin have our best interests at heart then? I suspect not. If the UK leaving the EU does put the whole of the EU at risk, who will move into the void and what will the outcome of that be if it is Russia? Or any other country?


Why Washington is worried about Brexit - BBC News

rebeccajo

I believe, in a roundabout way, this goes to my point about internal conflict in Europe and the foundation of the EU.

And as an aside, America would do well to remember those conflicts during this years Presidential race. Demagoguery is not unique to Europe, after all.

DaveLovesDee

Conservative MEPs welcome Prime Minister’s commitment on TTIP

I suspect the EU with it's wider range of political-spectrum parties will be able to slow down TTIP more effectively than a post-Brexit Tory-majority Westminster.

It's the UK

The size of the British opt-outs

The UK has opt-outs from the Eurozone, the Schengen border-free travel area (and made it's own Common Travel Area giving exactly the same rules as Schengen but only between the UK and Ireland, which is also non-Schengen), and many other aspects of the EU. Including an opt-out of any closer political union.

No other EU country has as many opt-outs.

Commonwealth nationals already have the right to enter the UK as visitors for up to six months without a visa, and that right usually also extends to UK nationals going to other Commonwealth countries.

Immigration is a much tougher sell. I attended a Parliamentary meeting a couple of years ago where the Home Office rep gave figures on the nationalities of the most common overstayers and illegal workers. Commonwealth nationals (Australians, New Zealanders and Indians accounted for 3 of the top 5 nationalities.

Would wherever you're living waive the visa fees for Brits wanting to move there?

I wonder how the natives felt in Australia, New Zealand, India, the US and Canada felt when the British empire came into their countries to claim their lands and a share of their valuables as 'common wealth' between them and the UK?

Immigrants? When the descendants of the UK settlers all leave those countries, then Brits can start to claim the moral high ground on immigration.

I'm confused as to what sovereignty we've handed to France and Germany.

Can you give me examples please (with links).

This one?

The Commonwealth Free Movement Organisation

CANZUK: Why Just "The Big 4"?

In general, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more than likely to succeed (and prosper) under free movement principles due to their similar socio-economic statuses. The CANZUK area shares the same majority language, the same Head of State (Queen Elizabeth II), the same Westminster style parliamentary system, the same common-law legal system, the same respect for democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and the same westernised culture. As I have said in countless radio and TV interviews, we are virtually the same people with “the only thing dividing us being the cover of our passports”. If the European Union can embrace (and implement) the idea of free movement with over 500 million citizens living in over 30 different member states, all of whom speaking different languages, encompassing different legal systems and embracing different cultures, there is no reason why the CANZUK area could not also embrace freedom of movement for its citizens considering our shared history and socio-economic similarities.

So, like the EU would be without the poorer East European countries. It must be a class thing.

See my reply above this.

As is mentioned in the article, the UK is the USA's bridge into the EU, especially now that the US and UK have withdrawn pretty much all military forces from Europe because of the end of the Cold War. The US still has a number of bases in the UK and needs that to continue, hence the 'special relationship'.

Regarding the EU, the US needs the UK to be it's eyes, ears and voice on American interests in the EU. A Brexit would mean that the US loses it's proxy influence in the EU.

Bipat

[QUOTE=DaveLovesDee;11945354

Commonwealth nationals already have the right to enter the UK as visitors for up to six months without a visa, and that right usually also extends to UK nationals going to other Commonwealth countries.

I wonder how the natives felt in Australia, New Zealand, India, the US and Canada felt when the British empire came into their countries to claim their lands and a share of their valuables as 'common wealth' between them and the UK?
.[/QUOTE]



Just spotted the title when looking at 'today's posts' and looked at the posts for interest.

Just to correct --I don't know about other Commonwealth countries but Visitors to UK from India certainly need a visa and also a sponsorship letter.
British need visa for India also.

'Common wealth' happened after independence. There was no "sharing" of wealth during Empire rule, just 'taking'!

MartynK

South African nationals have also required visas to visit the UK for several years now, and the SA government largely brought this on themselves, but that's another discussion. They raise the prospect of imposing reciprocal restrictions on British nationals visiting SA from time to time.

BritInParis

Very few Commonwealth citizens can come to the UK without a visitor visa. Most are 'visa nationals'.

Out of the other 52 Commonwealth nations 29 countries' citizens can visit the UK visa-free, the bulk of which are small island nations.

The only visa-free Commonwealth countries with a population above three million are, in descending order, Canada, Malaysia, Australia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and New Zealand. All are rich, stable countries (with the notable exception of PNG, probably because so few can afford to travel).

The big ones, all with a population of 40 million and up, India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, South Africa, Tanzania and Kenya, are all visa national countries.

rebeccajo

[QUOTE=DaveLovesDee;11945354

Regarding the EU, the US needs the UK to be it's eyes, ears and voice on American interests in the EU. A Brexit would mean that the US loses it's proxy influence in the EU.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm. That is no doubt part of it. But many US service men and women paid the ultimate sacrifice in conflicts that originated in Europe.

I remember when I first saw the chapel in the back of St. Paul's that is dedicated to those US service people that lost their lives aiding in the defense of Britain in WWII. I doubt many Americans even know it is there. But the UK wanted to honor those sacrifices. It is such a lovely place to visit.

DaveLovesDee

Thanks for that. Most appreciated.

Novocastrian

Yea, well they're all darkies innit?

BritInParis

And poor.

DaveLovesDee

And therein lies the rub.

Many Brexiters were happy enough until the Eastern European countries were allowed to join.

Some of the proposals on free movement within the Commonwealth only include the richest members.

I suspect it's a case of keeping the rich in power and screwing the poorer countries. Again.

BritInParis

It's a matter of market forces. Citizens of poor and unstable countries are more likely to want to come to and remain in a rich and stable country because it is more safer and more prosperous than their homeland.

Likewise a freedom of movement scheme only works when there is movement in both directions which only happens when all the countries involved are comparatively wealthy. No-one cared about EU/EEA freedom of movement when it was just Western Europe as relatively similar numbers of people moved between the countries involved. It was only when Poland and the other A8 countries joined in 2004 that you had a disproportionally large number of people moving from East to West. This was compounded by the fact that only the UK, Ireland and Sweden didn't put transitional measures in place meaning that, rather than also going to Germany and France, the vast majority moved to the UK. There are currently only 4500 Britons living in Poland but 800,000 Poles living in the UK.

Similarly a 'Commonwealth' scheme would work if it was the Five Eyes countries minus the USA but not if you added in the Indian subcontinent and Nigeria.