Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[GlennB]

Meanwhile, May has been humiliated in Saltzburg and faces the Tory conference in about a week's time. Should be interesting (for a certain definition of 'interesting').

I'm amazed she's coping from day to day, however badly.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

It applies at the lowest levels as virtually none of us let people come uninvited and live in our houses. It's at the middle levels where there isn't any control.

That's conceptually different. Your control over your house is rooted in property rights. You can keep people out either because it is your property or because you have a contractual agreement with the owner allowing you to do so(ie 'renting').

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

WHat are your two examples of good reason then?

I can't think of anything apart from xenophobia and stupidity.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Raqcists, xenophobes, gullible fools, greedy bastards and idiots.

 

[fagin]

WHat are your two examples of good reason then?

I can't think of anything apart from xenophobia and stupidity.

You need to go back a page.

Not really enough to justify mass stupidity though.

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.

 

[Lothian]

If there is to be another Brexit referendum in the near future, what do you think the question should be?

Do you accept the **** deal negoiciated by the leave numpties
which will send the country down the pan or would you like to remain in the EU?

Yep. I think that is what I would like the ballot paper to say.

 

[Belz...]

In theory, maybe, but the negatives of leaving the EU kind of significantly outweigh the problem of the odd shady character slipping the net.

I'm not saying that it outweighs anything. You asked me for a legitimate, rational and defensible reason, and I provided you with one. My point is simply that you can't dismiss millions of people just because you disagree with them. Hell, even Trump voters have legitimate grievances.

 

[Belz...]

No, the situations are substantially identical. You have a region in which its citizens can move wherever they like without asking permission.

If it is reasonable that a country should control who settles within its borders, then surely the same arguments apply to states within a country. In fact, why not at even lower levels?

So the fact that one is a country with more-or-less the same culture and the other is not has absolutely no weight in the discussion? You don't think that's, like, being a bit close-minded?

This whole discussion is somewhat undermined by the fact that the UK can and could always prevent any EU or Non-EU citizen entering the country if they had reason to do so.

So what's the deal with open borders, then? Which is it?

Erm the shady Russian businessmen don't need to get Greek citizenship to enter the UK. They already live in/own most of London.

Ha!

Raqcists, xenophobes, gullible fools, greedy bastards and idiots.

Wow, that's just great. You think they're all racists and fools and idiots, and they think you're all weak and stupid and out to destroy western civilisation, and no one listens to the other side and no one even considers that the other might have a point worth discussing. Especially not on a discussion forum, where we all would rather pat each other on the back for agreeing with one another, apparently.

No problem there. No sir.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm not saying that it outweighs anything. You asked me for a legitimate, rational and defensible reason, and I provided you with one. My point is simply that you can't dismiss millions of people just because you disagree with them. Hell, even Trump voters have legitimate grievances.

And they've been getting more ever since Inauguration Day.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

So the fact that one is a country with more-or-less the same culture and the other is not has absolutely no weight in the discussion? You don't think that's, like, being a bit close-minded?

Which country are you talking about that has 'more or less the same culture' - the UK? British culture is a myth. We are a multi-cultural, multi-nation society and have been for 300 years plus.

The idea that we can't accept people from other countries because they are 'not like us' is a more than a bit close minded.

So what's the deal with open borders, then? Which is it?

Well there aren't open borders. First of all the UK isn't in Schengen. And second of all the UK has always had the power to stop people coming in if they choose to. The principle is not open borders but freedom of movement. Which basically means people can travel without a visa and work without a permit. Perhaps a better description is the switch of the burden of proof - you don't need to prove that you have a good reason to be here and deserve to be allowed in. So the starting position is that you have a right to live and work in the UK. But that right can still be denied if there is reason to do so. There are still borders and checks at UK entry ports and you can still be refused entry if the border guards have a reason to.

Ha!

Sadly dodgy businessmen see the UK as the country of choice. So again your argument isn't reasonable.

Wow, that's just great. You think they're all racists and fools and idiots, and they think you're all weak and stupid and out to destroy western civilisation, and no one listens to the other side and no one even considers that the other might have a point worth discussing. Especially not on a discussion forum, where we all would rather pat each other on the back for agreeing with one another, apparently.

No problem there. No sir.

Well seriously... give us the good arguments. We've been asking for 2 and a bit years. When the arguments given can either be destroyed by 2 minutes of Google research or simply amount to 'they are different to us and we shouldn't allow them in' then what are they but racists and/or idiots?

Perhaps ignorant is a better word for most of them. Deliberately kept misinformed, fed propaganda for decades and not able to/willing to educate themselves about the facts.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

So the fact that one is a country with more-or-less the same culture and the other is not has absolutely no weight in the discussion? You don't think that's, like, being a bit close-minded?

1. If cultural differences are important why didn't you mention them straight away?

2.Why is it reasonable that one would need a government permit to move from one culture to another?

3. FWIW I don't see Europe's cultures being more different than America's. We wear the same western fashion, watch the same (American) TV shows, listen to the same pop music...

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

1. If cultural differences are important why didn't you mention them straight away?

2.Why is it reasonable that one would need a government permit to move from one culture to another?

3. FWIW I don't see Europe's cultures being more different than America's. We wear the same western fashion, watch the same (American) TV shows, listen to the same pop music...

The culture thing is a red herring because there is no such thing as British Culture to begin with but its even more ridiculous when the same people who would object from someone moving from Rotterdam to Birmingham to work also insist that, for example, a crop of islands off the coast of Argentina is 'British'. And I am supposed to believe that a London banker has more in common with a sheep herder in the Hebrides than a Frankfurt banker?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Interesting that it has taken months to get to the point that was obvious to anyone with any sense (so that excluded at least 1 or 2 posters here) that Chequers wasn't going to fly.

Its was a neither fish nor fowl fudge that didn't answer any of the difficult questions. As predicted, the Brexiteers wouldn't accept it and the EU couldn't accept it. Even ceptimus could see that at the time.

So that's more time wasted by the Government.

There is no answer to the Northern Ireland question. Time to admit that. There will be no deal. Time to admit that. The options on the table are quite simple.

1. Charge ahead with no deal Brexit and suffer the consequences including quite probably the break up of the United Kingdom.

2. Stop the nonsense, go back to the way things were and (hopefully) throw the Brexiteers in jail for treason.

Just as an aside... given the Northern Ireland situation and the strong links between the two (for good and for bad) I wonder what the Unionists would make of a proposal to remain part of a Union with Scotland inside the EU rather than with England and Wales outside the EU?

You get to keep the Queen, Rangers and rule from anywhere but Dublin.

 

[Andy_Ross]

The UK government insists Theresa May's Brexit proposal is a "workable, credible" deal, despite being rejected by EU leaders at a summit in Salzburg.

Minister James Brokenshire said "tough words" were to be expected near the end of negotiations but the government was "resolute" in its bid to get a deal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45596470

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I'm not saying that it outweighs anything. You asked me for a legitimate, rational and defensible reason, and I provided you with one. My point is simply that you can't dismiss millions of people just because you disagree with them. Hell, even Trump voters have legitimate grievances.

First let me say that I appreciate your attempts to bring in more civility. Kudos for that! I think if reasonable people got together and had a reasonable the whole brexit mess would look different.
I fear that much of the problem results from majority voting and won't be solved by appeals. Majority voting forces people into 2 camps, driving a wedge through the center and giving the extremists and outsize voice within either camp.

Freedom of movement was not on the brexit ballot. There was only EU membership. Many who argued for brexit called for a Norwegian or Swiss model, both of which allow freedom of movement. In fact, despite not being EU members, they both go further in having open borders with the EU.
Take the 48% who voted to stay and add in an unknown number of soft brexit votes and you realize that there is a majority for keeping freedom of movement.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

The culture thing is a red herring because there is no such thing as British Culture to begin with but its even more ridiculous when the same people who would object from someone moving from Rotterdam to Birmingham to work also insist that, for example, a crop of islands off the coast of Argentina is 'British'. And I am supposed to believe that a London banker has more in common with a sheep herder in the Hebrides than a Frankfurt banker?

I assumed it was code for racism but I didn't wanna go there.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

1. Charge ahead with no deal Brexit and suffer the consequences including quite probably the break up of the United Kingdom.

 

[Wudang]

Take the 48% who voted to stay and add in an unknown number of soft brexit votes and you realize that there is a majority for keeping freedom of movement.

There have also been some reports claiming that if you take account of the number of older leave voters who have since died and the number of younger newly-qualified voters who would vote remain into account, remain would now have a majority. I am unsure of the validity of some of those numbers.

 

[Belz...]

Which country are you talking about that has 'more or less the same culture' - the UK?

We were talking about the US vs the EU, remember?

The idea that we can't accept people from other countries because they are 'not like us' is a more than a bit close minded.

Nobody said this. That has nothing to do with my argument. I'm not surprised you said that, however, because ANY argument that is critical of immigration in ANY way is characterised on this forum has being anti-foreigner. This just goes to illustrate what I said earlier: dissent from the ideology is not allowed.

There are still borders and checks at UK entry ports and you can still be refused entry if the border guards have a reason to.

What kind of reasons are we talking about? If you have your EU passport as a Greek citizen, what are the reasons to be denied entry in the UK to live there?

Sadly dodgy businessmen see the UK as the country of choice. So again your argument isn't reasonable.

It was AN EXAMPLE of a general principle re immigration! Did you even understand the point?

Well seriously... give us the good arguments. We've been asking for 2 and a bit years. When the arguments given can either be destroyed by 2 minutes of Google research or simply amount to 'they are different to us and we shouldn't allow them in' then what are they but racists and/or idiots?

Wow. Are you really saying that the argument I gave amounts to that? Are you serious? If you think so, then you didn't read my post. No one 'destroyed' the argument. Disagreeing is not destroying, especially when you show that you didn't understand it.

 

[Belz...]

1. If cultural differences are important why didn't you mention them straight away?[

2.Why is it reasonable that one would need a government permit to move from one culture to another?

None of that has anything to do with what I said. Please go back and read my post carefully. Its point was about whether wanting to allow your country the ability to control immigration is reasonable. Fagin understood it, and he was the one I was responding to.

3. FWIW I don't see Europe's cultures being more different than America's.

Depends on which ones you're comparing, I suppose, but I generally disagree. In any case this discussion isn't about culture. My comment about culture was solely in comparing the US to the EU in response to a specific statment.