Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
fagin said:
After mulling this over, thinking long and hard, giving it all due care and consideration and applying as much cerebral process as possible, no.
Click to expand...

Really? Why not?

I'm not saying that Brexit was the right choice, but you don't think there's ANY possible reason for someone to genuinely think that it was the best choice for reasons that might be defensible?

Sounds pretty biased to me.
 
fagin said:
I can't think of one. Can you?
Click to expand...

That rather misses the point. You're hardly going to win over anyone with such an attitude. And right now, we need to win over anyone who will listen.


Meanwhile, the BBC have posted this into their sports section for some reason:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/45588997
"EU leaders are "almost unanimous" about wanting the UK to hold another referendum, the prime minister of Malta has said."
 
wobs said:
That rather misses the point. You're hardly going to win over anyone with such an attitude. And right now, we need to win over anyone who will listen.
Click to expand...

Apart from ceptimus, I don't think there's anyone on the forum who needs winning over.

And it's a reasonable question. Since the idea was mooted, I still haven't heard a sensible reason.

And doubt I will.
 
fagin said:
I can't think of one. Can you?
Click to expand...

I can think of at least two, regardless of whether I agree with them, and even ignoring the racism and Russian interference in the proceedings.

Apart from ceptimus, I don't think there's anyone on the forum who needs winning over.
Click to expand...

In that case we should put _more_ effort into questioning the conclusion, not less.
 
fagin said:
Apart from ceptimus, I don't think there's anyone on the forum who needs winning over.

And it's a reasonable question. Since the idea was mooted, I still haven't heard a sensible reason.

And doubt I will.
Click to expand...

This is a public forum, where a wide variety of people read it. Anyone who voted leave who may be wavering about whether they should have will hardly be convinced by such comments.
 
wobs said:
This is a public forum, where a wide variety of people read it. Anyone who voted leave who may be wavering about whether they should have will hardly be convinced by such comments.
Click to expand...

And besides, it's not just rude and counter-productive to say that no one could ever possibly reasonably disagree with you (general you), it's also arrogant and usually wrong.
 
Belz... said:
I can think of at least two, regardless of whether I agree with them, and even ignoring the racism and Russian interference in the proceedings.



In that case we should put _more_ effort into questioning the conclusion, not less.
Click to expand...

wobs said:
This is a public forum, where a wide variety of people read it. Anyone who voted leave who may be wavering about whether they should have will hardly be convinced by such comments.
Click to expand...

Belz... said:
And besides, it's not just rude and counter-productive to say that no one could ever possibly reasonably disagree with you (general you), it's also arrogant and usually wrong.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't really give a ****. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me. Just as I am at liberty to express my thoughts, within the confines of the rules.

So I would like to hear your two defensible reasons.

IMHO a bunch of morons have plunged us into what I consider a disaster. Anyone who has not realised that is unlikely to be swayed by sensible arguments.
 
Last edited:
fagin said:
To be honest, I don't really give a ****. Anyone is welcome to disagree with me. Just as I am at liberty to express my thoughts, within the confines of the rules.

So I would like to hear your two defensible reasons.

IMHO a bunch of morons have plunged us into what I consider a disaster. Anyone who has not realised that is unlikely to be swayed by sensible arguments.
Click to expand...

It seems to me like you're not likely to be swayed by sensible arguments, given that you've flat out stated that they don't exist.
 
Belz... said:
It seems to me like you're not likely to be swayed by sensible arguments, given that you've flat out stated that they don't exist.
Click to expand...

I probably won't. I think it verges on insanity and don't believe that there are any sensible arguments, and if there are, that they would outweigh the sensible arguments to stay.

But I am interested in what you think might be two defensible reasons.

Which you seem somewhat reticent to share.
 
fagin said:
I probably won't. I think it verges on insanity and don't believe that there are any sensible arguments, and if there are, that they would outweigh the sensible arguments to stay.

But I am interested in what you think might be two defensible reasons.

Which you seem somewhat reticent to share.
Click to expand...

I'm reticent to share because you have now more than once hinted to the fact that you wouldn't listen. What's the point of making a lengthy argument if the listener is telling you in advance that he'll chant 'la la la' while you're doing so?

But fine. I'll try to make it short to reduce the inevitable frustration.

Let's take the pretty central, known and well-publicised issue of immigration. Let's pick some random Belarus businessman who wants to move to the UK. Now, absent the EU this bloke'd have to go through UK immigration and, for some reason we won't get into here, he'd be rejected and would have to find some other place to move to. Now, with the EU, he could go to a different EU country -- say Greece --, and perhaps get a more lenient treatment that allows him to get a EU passport and therefore move to the UK despite the fact that they would've otherwise rejected him. So far that's just the situation, not the argument.

Now, given that, and unless I'm mistaken about that process, I would find that some UK resident saying they'd like to have control over their immigration process, for any reason, to be rational. After all, every country has their own rules and standards, and even if you or I disagree with those of the UK outside of the EU, I think it's completely reasonable to expect a citizens to want their country to be able to apply those rules. Now, if we take some of that to extremes it leads to abuse, as usual, but it doesn't change the basic concept that a sovereign state, and a specific culture, would be quite reasonable in wanting control over who can come and live on their territory.

Would you not agree? And please don't make this about racism, because it's entirely irrelevant to the argument above.
 
Belz... said:
I'm reticent to share because you have now more than once hinted to the fact that you wouldn't listen. What's the point of making a lengthy argument if the listener is telling you in advance that he'll chant 'la la la' while you're doing so?

But fine. I'll try to make it short to reduce the inevitable frustration.

Let's take the pretty central, known and well-publicised issue of immigration. Let's pick some random Belarus businessman who wants to move to the UK. Now, absent the EU this bloke'd have to go through UK immigration and, for some reason we won't get into here, he'd be rejected and would have to find some other place to move to. Now, with the EU, he could go to a different EU country -- say Greece --, and perhaps get a more lenient treatment that allows him to get a EU passport and therefore move to the UK despite the fact that they would've otherwise rejected him. So far that's just the situation, not the argument.

Now, given that, and unless I'm mistaken about that process, I would find that some UK resident saying they'd like to have control over their immigration process, for any reason, to be rational. After all, every country has their own rules and standards, and even if you or I disagree with those of the UK outside of the EU, I think it's completely reasonable to expect a citizens to want their country to be able to apply those rules. Now, if we take some of that to extremes it leads to abuse, as usual, but it doesn't change the basic concept that a sovereign state, and a specific culture, would be quite reasonable in wanting control over who can come and live on their territory.

Would you not agree? And please don't make this about racism, because it's entirely irrelevant to the argument above.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works. If Greece wants to give residency rights to a Belarusian that wouldn't entitle him to freedom of movement across the EU. For that he would need Greek citizenship, which isn't something that's given out like confetti.
 
It doesn't need to be someone from Belarus. You can apply exactly the same argument for people who already are EU citizens: they could come from Poland, Romania, France, Germany, ...

The fact that many posters here are unable to understand why over 7.8% more Brits voted to leave than to remain demonstrates the woeful lack of critical thinking of posters - a shame in a forum devoted to promoting same.

Calling all those leave voters morons, racists, or some other derogatory term just doesn't wash - there are simply too many of them for that to be a reasonable explanation. Posters here should instead wonder why the popularity of the EC/EU fell so much from the 1975 referendum (67:33 in favor of remaining) to the 2016 referendum (52:48 in favor or leaving). It seems that forty years of membership convinced a majority of voters that they no longer wanted to be part of the club.
 
Strawberry said:
That's not how it works. If Greece wants to give residency rights to a Belarusian that wouldn't entitle him to freedom of movement across the EU. For that he would need Greek citizenship, which isn't something that's given out like confetti.
Click to expand...

Not confetti perhaps but some countries have been criticised for selling citizenship (and therefore an EU passport) to those that can afford it. Malta is probably the most high profile culprit with the scheme making up over 2% of it's GDP.

As regards immigration, the UK never took advantage of the existing EU rules to limit migration so it's really out own bloody fault.

https://brexit853.wordpress.com/201...-to-control-eu-freedom-of-movement-directive/
 
ohms said:
Not confetti perhaps but some countries have been criticised for selling citizenship (and therefore an EU passport) to those that can afford it. Malta is probably the most high profile culprit with the scheme making up over 2% of it's GDP.

As regards immigration, the UK never took advantage of the existing EU rules to limit migration so it's really out own bloody fault.

https://brexit853.wordpress.com/201...-to-control-eu-freedom-of-movement-directive/
Click to expand...

Malta is in the commonwealth, so leaving the EU isn't going to make a great deal of difference to the ability of Maltese citizens to move to the UK.
 
Belz... said:
I'm reticent to share because you have now more than once hinted to the fact that you wouldn't listen. What's the point of making a lengthy argument if the listener is telling you in advance that he'll chant 'la la la' while you're doing so?

But fine. I'll try to make it short to reduce the inevitable frustration.

Let's take the pretty central, known and well-publicised issue of immigration. Let's pick some random Belarus businessman who wants to move to the UK. Now, absent the EU this bloke'd have to go through UK immigration and, for some reason we won't get into here, he'd be rejected and would have to find some other place to move to. Now, with the EU, he could go to a different EU country -- say Greece --, and perhaps get a more lenient treatment that allows him to get a EU passport and therefore move to the UK despite the fact that they would've otherwise rejected him. So far that's just the situation, not the argument.

Now, given that, and unless I'm mistaken about that process, I would find that some UK resident saying they'd like to have control over their immigration process, for any reason, to be rational. After all, every country has their own rules and standards, and even if you or I disagree with those of the UK outside of the EU, I think it's completely reasonable to expect a citizens to want their country to be able to apply those rules. Now, if we take some of that to extremes it leads to abuse, as usual, but it doesn't change the basic concept that a sovereign state, and a specific culture, would be quite reasonable in wanting control over who can come and live on their territory.

Would you not agree? And please don't make this about racism, because it's entirely irrelevant to the argument above.
Click to expand...

I wonder how Americans would react if someone said it was reasonable to have to request government permission to move to a different state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom