Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Jack by the hedge]

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?

British culture isn't one thing, though they're all recognisably British. But that doesn't really matter because what people experienced was what happened to their own town. Or what they imagined was happening to towns all over, based on stuff they read in the Mail and Express. And it wasn't about Hebrideans coming to London and living on welfare while taking all the livestock jobs.

People voted to leave because the level of immigration was too high for too long and there's a threshold above which people get the gut feeling that their high street doesn't feel like home any more and they don't like it. You can dismiss that as racism but... oh, wait, that's exactly what happened, and it did the opposite of helping. People who were upset about their own area changing (or were upset about all the stories they read about other areas changing) and read over and over that there was nothing the government could do about it because of EU rules, wanted a way to change it. And if they complained they were dismissed as racists.


We sleepwalked into this catastrophe by dealing with people's concerns by telling them only horrible evil people have concerns like those then asking them to vote on it and expecting them to be all nice and reasonable.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

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.

Well, if you don't want to explain why you brought up cultures, that's fine.

As regards your points towards fagin: It is appalling anyone should think it was reasonable. There is nothing reasonable about a police state.

Curtailing someone's freedom requires a reasonable justification. Calling someone "shady" is not.
Also, the rule of law requires that such a decision be subject to judicial review.

 

[Belz...]

Well, if you don't want to explain why you brought up cultures, that's fine.

I did in the very next post. It was to explain differences between the multi-national EU and the er... solo-national US.

As regards your points towards fagin: It is appalling anyone should think it was reasonable. There is nothing reasonable about a police state.

...what are you talking about? What is it about what I discussed that has anything to do with a police state?

This all really sounds like ANY disagreement with your own position on immigration must, by definition, be racist and fascistic. Again this is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Curtailing someone's freedom requires a reasonable justification.

I don't think anyone here has disagreed.

Calling someone "shady" is not.

Who did I call shady? Let's see if you can get the answer right.

 

[Tolls]

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.

However, as has been mentioned, we do have the ability to control immigration.
The reason there are lots of Eastern Europeans(and others, though it's the Poles etc that are the ones that caused a Leave vote around me) in the country is because we need them.

That is not going to change, no matter what certain elements of the Tory Party might say. Unles they fancy bankrupting some of our agricultural sectors, of course.

That's why "control of immigration" is a nonsense argument.

It's much the same as "regain our sovereignity".

 

[Belz...]

However, as has been mentioned, we do have the ability to control immigration.

So I've been told here, though the nature of this ability has yet to be explained.

Regardless, one can have a reasonable opinion based on incorrect information, and my task was to provide a reasonable opinion in favour of Brexit. If it turns out the opinion was wrong, it doesn't make it unreasonable.

In my reasonable opinion, that is.

It's much the same as "regain our sovereignity".

Assuming the goal isn't to make Europe a country.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

I did in the very next post. It was to explain differences between the multi-national EU and the er... solo-national US.

What is the relationship between culture and nation?
What does either have to do with controlling imigration?
All I'm looking for is a rational argument.

...what are you talking about? What is it about what I discussed that has anything to do with a police state?

If the government can curtail someone's freedom because some official thinks he looks shady, that's a police state.

If you say that, of course, you meant to imply respect for human rights, the rule of law and all that, then I will believe you.

This all really sounds like ANY disagreement with your own position on immigration must, by definition, be racist and fascistic. Again this is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Oh poor you. Are you being persecuted?

Who did I call shady? Let's see if you can get the answer right.

Seriously?

As stated above I should have made myself clearer about EU citizenship. But yeah, the businessman could be a shady character and the Greek government, in need of dough, could ease his way through the process in exchange for money, leaving the UK with the broken vase.

Is that not a reasonable objection?

...and no. It is not a reasonable objection.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

However, as has been mentioned, we do have the ability to control immigration...

And Cameron promised to do so, but despite the impetus of his party shedding damaging numbers of voters to UKIP, he never came close to his declared target, which reinforced the Leaver message that he couldn't because of the EU.

I frankly don't understand why that was. Perhaps he really didn't believe people would be daft enough to vote to leave.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

So I've been told here, though the nature of this ability has yet to be explained.

Regardless, one can have a reasonable opinion based on incorrect information, and my task was to provide a reasonable opinion in favour of Brexit. If it turns out the opinion was wrong, it doesn't make it unreasonable.

In my reasonable opinion, that is.

Have you considered that you can make a reasonable argument for anything, provided you make up the right "facts"?

 

[Belz...]

What is the relationship between culture and nation?

Wait, seriously? A nation is defined partly by shared culture.

"A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." (wiki)

What does either have to do with controlling imigration?

Again, nothing. I brought it to compare the US to the EU. This is at least the third time that I point this out.

If the government can curtail someone's freedom because some official thinks he looks shady, that's a police state.

No. That's not what a police state is. Also, "looking" shady is not at all what I was talking about, remember?

Oh poor you. Are you being persecuted?

See, now you are being completely unreasonable. You turned my comment about intolerence of differences of opinion on this forum, which has nothing to do with me, into a personal slugging match rather than address the content of my post. Is your position so weak that you can't discuss it without resorting to personal comments?

Seriously?

Yes, seriously. You identified the sentence but you missed an important detail. You said I called a person shady. I didn't. I created a hypothetical person who IS shady. It's pretty amazing that even hypothetical people specifically designed with a particular trait can't be called that for fear of being offensive.

...and no. It is not a reasonable objection.

Why not? Can you explain that without defining "reasonable" as "agrees with me"?

 

[Belz...]

Have you considered that you can make a reasonable argument for anything, provided you make up the right "facts"?

I have. In fact that's partly my point.

 

[Degeneve]

People who were upset about their own area changing (or were upset about all the stories they read about other areas changing) and read over and over that there was nothing the government could do about it because of EU rules, wanted a way to change it.

EU rules have always been a very convenient scapegoat, and not only in the UK.

It's very common to hear Government responsible explain that if thinks go wrong or bad "it's because Brussels has decided that..." (as if they weren't taking part to the decision process) while when something goes well "it's because our Government has decided".

 

[uke2se]

People afraid of change caused Brexit?

Well, to a degree, certainly. Particularly a change from mostly white to still mostly but not as large a majority white. The problem now is, how do you reverse the unfolding catastrophy based on a moment of irrationality?

 

[Belz...]

People afraid of change caused Brexit?

Well, to a degree, certainly. The problem now is, how do you reverse the unfolding catastrophy based on a moment of irrationality?

Unless you go through a second referendum, which might cause problems to say the least, I don't see how you could.

I would've prefered the UK stay in the EU although there are things I wish the EU changed as well, especially the way its democratic institutions are set up. That said, I think both sides of the brexit issue had good points AND bad points. There was also plenty of misdirection, and now we know the Russians had a hand in it. The very fact that they wanted to destabilise the EU is reason enough to be against brexit.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Wait, seriously? A nation is defined partly by shared culture.

"A nation is a stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture." (wiki)

Again, nothing. I brought it to compare the US to the EU. This is at least the third time that I point this out.

Ok. Culture has nothing to do with controlling immigration. Do we agree on this then?

No. That's not what a police state is. Also, "looking" shady is not at all what I was talking about, remember?

Ok, you were talking about a hypothetical shady person. Not about someone looking shady.

See, now you are being completely unreasonable. You turned my comment about intolerence of differences of opinion on this forum, which has nothing to do with me, into a personal slugging match rather than address the content of my post. Is your position so weak that you can't discuss it without resorting to personal comments?

Write more about how this is turning into a slugging match without content. The more paragraphs you write, the more credible it becomes.

Yes, seriously. You identified the sentence but you missed an important detail. You said I called a person shady. I didn't. I created a hypothetical person who IS shady. It's pretty amazing that even hypothetical people specifically designed with a particular trait can't be called that for fear of being offensive.

Ok. There is no shady person but only a hypothetical person who IS shady...

Aha! Surely it is unreasonable to control the immigration of hypothetical persons as only actual, real persons immigrate! Check-mate!

I have. In fact that's partly my point.

Can you spell out that point?

 

[Belz...]

Ok. Culture has nothing to do with controlling immigration. Do we agree on this then?

Largely, yes.

Ok, you were talking about a hypothetical shady person. Not about someone looking shady.

Right. The person is actually shady in the example. But take any other situation you want. The point in the scenario is that the UK would not vet him for immigration while another EU country would. It was an example to make the point that a UK resident could, in that scenario, find that staying in the EU was a negative because of this issue. I don't find that unreasonable, regardless of whether I agree with it.

Write more about how this is turning into a slugging match without content. The more paragraphs you write, the more credible it becomes.

You're the one who asked me if I was persecuted, something I never said or hinted at. You also failed to address the point I was making there, which is exactly what I said in the post you just replied to.

Aha! Surely it is unreasonable to control the immigration of hypothetical persons as only actual, real persons immigrate! Check-mate!

I'm starting to think that you're not engaging in this discussion in good faith. Help me out, here.

Can you spell out that point?

Ok: it is possible to have a reasonable opinion based on incorrect information.

 

[Greebo]

Meanwhile in downing Street


May: EU must respect UK in Brexit talks - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45603192

Ironic note, there was a problem with the electrical supply before the announcement, leading to comments by radio announcers of "there seems to be no power in downing Street".

 

[ceptimus]

However, as has been mentioned, we do have the ability to control immigration.

Wrong! EU member countries do NOT have the ability to control immigration from other EU member countries.

 

[ceptimus]

People afraid of change caused Brexit?

What? People afraid of change voted for what many see as the biggest change in many years? It's a change that remainers are scared of, and are attempting to reverse.

 

[Belz...]

Wrong! EU member countries do NOT have the ability to control immigration from other EU member countries.

Ok, who's right here? Can someone post the relevant information or are we all just speculating here?

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Largely, yes.

Ok, that's cleared then.

Right. The person is actually shady in the example. But take any other situation you want. The point in the scenario is that the UK would not vet him for immigration while another EU country would. It was an example to make the point that a UK resident could, in that scenario, find that staying in the EU was a negative because of this issue. I don't find that unreasonable, regardless of whether I agree with it.

This is article 45 of the Lisbon treaty (bolding by me):

1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union.

2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.

3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:

(a) to accept offers of employment actually made;

(b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose;

(c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action;

(d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.

Would you please comment?

Ok: it is possible to have a reasonable opinion based on incorrect information.

I am sure those calling brexiteers gullible fools and idiots would agreee, in a sense.