Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

I disagree with his assessment.

[Husar]

I disagree with his assessment.

Well, so far no article 50 has been evoked, what are you waiting for?

[Greyblades]

We're waiting for Theresa May to figure out how to do Brexit without destroying her career. She has 3 years before the consequences of not activating it becomes significant, until then she's free to drag it out and see if she can make the EU blink first and get the negociations to begin while we have the upper hand. She knows that if she can get this to work well she'll secure her position as the best prime minister in 40 years minimum, and if she fails her career's over.

[Brenus]

"while we have the upper hand." Have we?

[I of the Storm]

Doubtful. From your point of view it may seem so, but the rest of the EU "disagrees with that assessment" (Greyblades 2016).

[Greyblades]

I take their disagreement with a grain of salt, there's plenty left over after thier assessment of a sure remain vote fell through.


"while we have the upper hand." Have we?

Who's we?

As long as the EU, for whatever reason, is hollering at us to activate article 50 as soon as possible we hold a small degree of leverage, a chip on the table that isnt reliant on the possibility of the EU members' desire to make money off us being able to overpower Brussel's desire to punish us, though one with an expiration date.

[Pannonian]

Doubtful. From your point of view it may seem so, but the rest of the EU "disagrees with that assessment" (Greyblades 2016).

"If you don't give us what we want then we'll leave."
"You've already left."
"Err...then we'll...err..."

The logic of Brexiters surpasseth understanding.

[Greyblades]

Shouldnt that be: "If you dont give us what we want then we wont leave."?

[Pannonian]

Shouldnt that be: "If you dont give us what we want then we wont leave."

Frankfurt, Paris and other cities will be chipping away at London's financial services while all this is going on. The financial services that is the backbone of Britain's economy. They don't need us to leave pronto, although it would be more convenient. The uncertainty hurts both sides, but it hurts us more as we're the smaller economy. The EU also has the advantage in that investors know the position they will finish with: no common market access without free movement of labour. Whatever happens, investors in the EU will know there will still be a common market with free movement of capital and labour. Investors have no idea what kind of deal the UK will end up with, particularly as the voters were insistent that controlling immigration is the key part of their decision. Even if they don't pull out immediately, I expect investment in the UK to stop pending any future deal, especially if the UK government takes the same view as you do.

[Greyblades]

I do not share your faith in the stability of the EU, I dont think the EU does either.

[Pannonian]

I do not share your faith in the stability of the EU, I dont think the EU does either.

I trust that the EU will be reasonably stable. However, I know that the UK will not be stable.

[I of the Storm]

"If you don't give us what we want then we'll leave."
"You've already left."
"Err...then we'll...err..."

The logic of Brexiters surpasseth understanding.

Brussels' indoctrination made us become feeble-minded, is all.



Shouldnt that be: "If you dont give us what we want then we wont leave."?

Good! I'm glad we could sort this out.

I don't see how May can win this. If she thinks she must drive a hard line on the free movement issue, the market access deal won't live up to expectations in the UK and vice versa.
I can't see any leverage. I see a child that is asked to let go of a toy that it announced to not want it anymore because silly and now only wants to let go of the toy if it can keep it at the same time.

[Beskar]

Is it time to accept that Brexit will not happen? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/why-its-time-to-accept-the-fact-that-brexit-may-never-actually-happen-a7148816.html)

[Greyblades]

Under May? Maybe, I can wait 3 years.


I don't see how May can win this. If she thinks she must drive a hard line on the free movement issue, the market access deal won't live up to expectations in the UK and vice versa.
I can't see any leverage. I see a child that is asked to let go of a toy that it announced to not want it anymore because silly and now only wants to let go of the toy if it can keep it at the same time.
A matter of perspective I see a child in a playground who has grabbed all the toys and demanding the other children eat a handful of mud every hour if they want to play with the toys.

May has to hold and hope the EU cracks before 2020, whether in patience or reality. Going by the upcoming Deutsche bank bailout, the continuing strain of the southern EU nations, the migrant crisis, the Swiss referendum, the memory of the dutch and Irish referendums and the rather unstable trend the world has been taking recently my money's on the EU getting sufficiently shaken up within two years.

[Brenus]

"Swiss referendum" Swiss is not part of EU. You can add the French referendum. I think you have a point.
Don't know for other countries, but in France there is a feeling of rejection of EU. The continual imposed by EU laws to break all the social net won by workers in the past, the perpetual refusal of democracy and the disdain from EU's "elites" started to make a dent in the "EU dream". EU s not any more symbol of peace, as EU imposes "liberal" economical agenda, even against the will of the voters, people against people, competing for the few jobs that imposed austerity created.
The next crack in EU might by France.
If Merkel doesn't abandon the race to east in order to get cheap labour, if Germany is seen again by the French as hegemonic, it might be heading for big trouble. And unlike UK, France is a pillar of EU.

[Greyblades]

Switzerland is not part of the EU but it is part of the single market and had a referendum a few years ago that voted against the freedom of movement. Obviously the EU hasnt been cooperative.

[Brenus]

"Switzerland is not part of the EU but it is part of the single market and had a referendum a few years ago that voted against the freedom of movement." And they didn't implemented it because in doing so, they didn't follow the EU rules so they would have lost the access to the common market. So, still freedom of movement in Swiss...

[Greyblades]

Yes, thus far they havent been capable of getting the EU to consider one without the other, we'll see how long that lasts.

[Furunculus]

"while we have the upper hand." Have we?

as long as the italian banking system teeters on the brink of oblivion, yes. yes we do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Is it time to accept that Brexit will not happen? (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/why-its-time-to-accept-the-fact-that-brexit-may-never-actually-happen-a7148816.html)

This is wishful thinking.

"Triggering Article 50 is reversible! Not many people know this. But the UK can formally trigger its Article 50 request and then withdraw the request before Brexit actually takes place, if the country wants to."

I see no evidence of this - here is the text:

http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/wcm/the-lisbon-treaty/treaty-on-European-union-and-comments/title-6-final-provisions/137-article-50.html

There is no provision for withdrawing from negotiations for withdrawal. I suppose you could apply to join under Article 49 whilst negotiating an exit that stipulated you would immediately rejoin the moment you formally left but I see no evidence you can actually cancel withdrawal.

As much as Brexit might be toxic for the sitting government not triggering Brexit would be lethal, there's no way to defend ignoring a Referendum without inflaming the sentiment that voted to leave the "anti-democratic" EU.

A majority voted to leave, unless there is a substantive change, like a war or a financial crash, there's no way out of the trap. Parliament serves the people, and the people have voted to leave. Nowr is it apparent that a vote in Parliament is required to trigger Article 50, only that one is required to ratify the exit agreement.

[Sarmatian]

As much as Brexit might be toxic for the sitting government not triggering Brexit would be lethal, there's no way to defend ignoring a Referendum without inflaming the sentiment that voted to leave the "anti-democratic" EU.

A majority voted to leave, unless there is a substantive change, like a war or a financial crash, there's no way out of the trap. Parliament serves the people, and the people have voted to leave. Nowr is it apparent that a vote in Parliament is required to trigger Article 50, only that one is required to ratify the exit agreement.

People change their minds all the time, and what was once a pressing concern might become a non issue later. The politicians could stall for a few years, under the guise of preparation, or supposedly by trying to get EU to negotiate before Article 50 is triggered, or the old "we need another six months before we make our move otherwise X would happen which would be catastrophic".

By that time the world economy might be picking up, the streams of refugees a thing of the past and suddenly EU is not the big baddie anymore. The current lot of MP's are replaced and new ones point out that the referendum was basically a glorified opinion survey from some years back and new opinion polls show that majority of people now don't want to leave and it would be very undemocratic to vote according to what their constituents wanted several years ago rather then what they want now...

I don't see that scenario as impossible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

People change their minds all the time, and what was once a pressing concern might become a non issue later. The politicians could stall for a few years, under the guise of preparation, or supposedly by trying to get EU to negotiate before Article 50 is triggered, or the old "we need another six months before we make our move otherwise X would happen which would be catastrophic".

By that time the world economy might be picking up, the streams of refugees a thing of the past and suddenly EU is not the big baddie anymore. The current lot of MP's are replaced and new ones point out that the referendum was basically a glorified opinion survey from some years back and new opinion polls show that majority of people now don't want to leave and it would be very undemocratic to vote according to what their constituents wanted several years ago rather then what they want now...

I don't see that scenario as impossible.

It's not impossible, but it's unlikely unless there's a major geopolitical shift before the new year.

HOWEVER, what is rather more likely is that we take the "Norway" deal, agreeing to Freedom of Movement in return for access - the sop we get to molify the British public will be a lower contribution to the EU budget than we make now along with the control over fisheries, farming, home affairs and justice.

But then, see, the article Beskar linked was written by someone who doesn't want to leave and I just described my own ideal outcome, so maybe I'm just engaging in wishful thinking too. I think my scenario is more likely though - because it's leaving without really leaving as opposed to just not leaving.

[Greyblades]

I do not want a Norway deal, because I dont want Freedom of immigration, I'd love to be in the single market but I dont think it worth that caveat.

My reason for leaving was rooted in me wanting to stop seeing homeless people sleeping on the streets, I dont see that ever happening if we keep allowing in more people than we can employ and house.

We let in so many people, half the time with the intent of putting a higher cost local out of work. I know it is our politicians fault that 200,000-300,000 are let in each year, but I cannot ignore that even if we were to vote in politicians that would lower immigration they would stopped from dropping it low enough because of the EU's freedom of movmement rule. That was a problem that led me to a bigger problem; that even if we were to get our act together our attempts to make things better could be overruled by european beauracrats who clearly do not cater to my concerns and over who I have no influence.

The referendum was a ill planned mess but that was the nature of the thing, we werent asked how we'd do it, just if we wanted to. I knew we'd likely never be asked again; the EU wasnt listening and it was clear this was an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug by a politician who wanted to get a no vote while we were uncertain and use it as an excuse to never talk about it again. We didnt have the luxury of waiting for a Churchill or a Pitt to arise who could lead us through the trouble it would cause; indeed this was our only chance to get it done that didnt require putting in a less palatable political party in charge for 5 years.

So I and 17 million other people took it, through hell and high water. I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside.

[Beskar]

Don't worry, we are going into the Single Market with China instead.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36877573

[Greyblades]

If ever there was a time for labour to rediscover a desire to defend thier namesake...

[Gilrandir]

My reason for leaving was rooted in me wanting to stop seeing homeless people sleeping on the streets,

That's where the shoe pinches! Now I will know that when I see a hobo in my city I should start a move for Ukrexit... Wait! Ukraine is not in the EU! How there can be homeless people here? ~:confused:

[Greyblades]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

[Sarmatian]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

To be honest, people rarely do that when it comes to your posts.

[Greyblades]

Well that explains a lot, I thought you were shit at debating but it turns out you just dont have the attention span for arguments meatier than single sentance jabs.

I explained my thought process that the EU freedom of movment was a major obsticle in reducing the homelessness problem; I get a jackass mockingly suggesting that I think the EU is the sole cause of homelessness.

[Husar]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?

That sentence was in the fourth line, I even went back and checked because I had previously not read your post at all.
I found his reply funny, that's why I thanked it, I don't see thanking a post as purely showing political agreement.
Then again there is some truth to it, the existance of homeless people does not depend on immigration as far as I know.
If you want to drag me into this just because I thanked someone, why don't you start by proving that homelessness increases with immigration or showing the ways in which people can end up homeless and not get out of it? And by prove I mean please provide links about research or explanations, I'll accept almost anything for a start.

Actually, let me start:
http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/homeless-def-numbers.html


If you don't have dependent children (known as ‘single homelessness') and you are not deemed to be more vulnerable than other homeless people, you probably won't be entitled to housing.
[...]
Homelessness for both men and women is often caused by an accumulation of events. However, the triggers and experiences of women's homelessness tend to be of a distinct nature.

Young people become homeless for a wide range of reasons but the most common is being asked to leave the family home by their parents.

Whilst the vast majority will not become homeless, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable to homelessness.

http://www.homeless.org.uk/facts/understanding-homelessness/causes-of-homelessness


The most common reasons people give for losing their accommodation is that a friend or relatives are no longer able to provide support or because of relationship breakdown.

However, there are often a wide number of factors at play. Individuals can arrive at the point of homelessness after a long chain of other life events.

So why does the government not provide them with free housing? Because the economy would break down? Because everyone would want free housing? Because noone wants to pay for the required budget?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/jun/25/homelessness-crisis-england-perfect-storm


Why? A £7bn cut in housing benefit, welfare reforms and a huge lack of affordable housing
[...]
The turning point, Sacks-Jones says, was 2010. "That's when all forms of homelessness started to rise; when you got this toxic mix of unemployment, underemployment – people struggling on low incomes – and housing unaffordability, plus benefit reforms effectively breaking the housing safety net that has, until now, been a key part of the welfare state."

Can you name an incentive for people in the real estate business to build more houses if the lack of houses makes their existing ones worth more and increases their profit? And when did the EU force Britain to have benefit reforms? So far I see no real connection between the EU and homelessness. Will the dip in economic power after leaving the EU help on that front?

[Greyblades]

That sentence was in the fourth line, I even went back and checked because I had previously not read your post at all.
The sentence he quoted is in the Second line, and only in the edited version because I moved the last line to the first because it was more rhetorically appealing.

Evidently you still havent read it, might I suggest a third attempt:

I do not want a Norway deal, because I dont want Freedom of immigration, I'd love to be in the single market but I dont think it worth that caveat.

My reason for leaving was rooted in me wanting to stop seeing homeless people sleeping on the streets, I dont see that ever happening if we keep allowing in more people than we can employ and house.

We let in so many people, half the time with the intent of putting a higher cost local out of work. I know it is our politicians fault that 200,000-300,000 are let in each year, but I cannot ignore that even if we were to vote in politicians that would lower immigration they would stopped from dropping it low enough because of the EU's freedom of movmement rule. That was a problem that led me to a bigger problem; that even if we were to get our act together our attempts to make things better could be overruled by european beauracrats who clearly do not cater to my concerns and over who I have no influence.

The referendum was a ill planned mess but that was the nature of the thing, we werent asked how we'd do it, just if we wanted to. I knew we'd likely never be asked again; the EU wasnt listening and it was clear this was an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug by a politician who wanted to get a no vote while we were uncertain and use it as an excuse to never talk about it again. We didnt have the luxury of waiting for a Churchill or a Pitt to arise who could lead us through the trouble it would cause; indeed this was our only chance to get it done that didnt require putting in a less palatable political party in charge for 5 years.

So I and 17 million other people took it, through hell and high water. I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside.

Right now we get a yearly net increase (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics) of 184,000 EU citizens and 188,000 non EU members settling into the UK, our government in the EU can only refuse the second number so even if we dropped it to zero we are stuck with 184,000 more people employ and house each year

Solving the homeless problem requires having homes and jobs to maintain them available for these homeless to take, proper jobs not 0 hour contracts and unpaid training courses that the government is using to pad out the numbers. Every one of those 184,000 people coming in is one less job for the 1,680,000 unemployed already here and one less house that could have gone to the 50,000 homeless let alone the million or so young people stuck living with their parents. I've already acknowledged that a lot of our issues with the homeless are semi-self inflicted but it doesnt change the fact that such a large rate of immigration is extremely countrproductive and will stifle any move to fix those problems.

[Husar]

The sentence he quoted is in the Second line, and only in the edited version because I moved the last line to the first because it was more rhetorically appealing.

18746
My selected skin is obviously the only one that can ever be used as a reference. :whip:


Evidently you still havent read it, might I suggest a third attempt:

Of course I didn't, don't you read Sarmatian's posts?


Right now we get a yearly net increase (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics) of 184,000 EU citizens and 188,000 non EU members settling into the UK, our government in the EU can only refuse the second number so even if we dropped it to zero we are stuck with 184,000 more people employ and house each year

Solving the homeless problem requires having homes and jobs to maintain them available for these homeless to take, proper jobs not 0 hour contracts and unpaid training courses that the government is using to pad out the numbers. Every one of those 184,000 people coming in is one less job for the 1,680,000 unemployed already here and one less house that could have gone to the 50,000 homeless let alone the million or so young people stuck living with their parents. I've already acknowledged that a lot of our issues with the homeless are semi-self inflicted but it doesnt change the fact that such a large rate of immigration is extremely countrproductive and will stifle any move to fix those problems.

If 333,000 people come every year that you don't have houses for, why do you have only 50,000 homeless people?
Why can immigrants be given 0 hour contracts if those are part of the issue? There's zero proof in your statement for any of what you say, you merely assume that a) it would be impossible to lower intra-EU migration in any way and b) that nothing can be done about the 50k homeless because too many immigrants are coming. What I want from you is that you explain why that is. Does the UK lack construction companies or does the EU enforce a limit on the number of new houses? Can the UK not use cheap immigrant labor on 0 hour contracts to build a lot of new houses? Why do 333,000 people come to the UK every year anyway and what happens if the population growth stops? Why does the UK let so many non-EU citizens immigrate if it is already overburdeened with EU immigrants and why would cutting the number of immigrants in half not help if you do not currently get >184,000 new homeless people every year?

[Greyblades]

18746My selected skin is obviously the only one that can ever be used as a reference. :whip: And your screen size, I dont count empty spaces when counting line sand teh first paragraph was short enough to only cover one line. Ach whatever.


Of course I didn't, don't you read Sarmatian's posts?And people wonder why this forum is going down hill...


If 333,000 people come every year that you don't have houses for, why do you have only 50,000 homeless people? I dont know, Honestly every source I find are contradictorary, guardan says 184,000 in 2013, (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/13/homeless-numbers-increase-three-years-england) while wikipedia says there were 54,430 homeless households in 2014, but only 498 people sleeping rough each night (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_England), while the guardian says 3,500 each night (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/25/homeless-number-people-sleeping-rough-england-rises-almost-a-third-in-a-year) and that's not counting the increasing number of young adults working from thier parents homes instead of thier own because they cannot afford houses.


Why can immigrants be given 0 hour contracts if those are part of the issue? ...What makes you think they cant? 0 hour contracts and the like add to the problem because they do not provide a stable source of income required to maintain a household, it takes you off the unemployment list but can mean you can be only paid for anywhere as little as one hour of work each 6 months on a minimum wage. It pads the numbers of new jobs the government can tell the public it created without actually providing a proper source of income for the new "employee". (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/15/uk-jobs-soar-real)


There's zero proof in your statement for any of what you say, you merely assume that a) it would be impossible to lower intra-EU migration in any way and b) that nothing can be done about the 50k homeless because too many immigrants are coming. What I want from you is that you explain why that is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union
When we joined the EU we agreed to the policy of freedom of movment for workers in the European Union, and that freedom means we cannot turn away EU migrants who can secure work, so no quota, no limitation, we must let them all in and mr camron could not or would not secure an exemption for the UK, the only option given to legally limit or halt immigration from the EU was to leave it.

Homelessness and unemployment cannot be solved if the need for jobs and houses out paces the supply, every new person in the country means one more person without a job, usually the local he is replacing because the employer is either too lazy to train or too stingy to pay (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/12/uk-unemployment-labour-market-job-losses). It is highly unlikely a good government could grow our economy fast enough to support the demands of such a fast growing population, let alone the lack-wit governments we were stuck choosing between a year ago.


Does the UK lack construction companies or does the EU enforce a limit on the number of new houses? Can the UK not use cheap immigrant labor on 0 hour contracts to build a lot of new houses? Why do 333,000 people come to the UK every year anyway and what happens if the population growth stops? Why does the UK let so many non-EU citizens immigrate if it is already overburdeened with EU immigrants and why would cutting the number of immigrants in half not help if you do not currently get >184,000 new homeless people every year? The simple answer is our government is dominated by uncaring assholes who dont care about the issues of people poorer than themselves, be they champagne socialists or ivory tower conservatives.

[Pannonian]

And your screen size, I dont count empty spaces when counting line sand teh first paragraph was short enough to only cover one line. Ach whatever.

And people wonder why this forum is going down hill...

I dont know, Honestly every source I find are contradictorary, guardan says 184,000 in 2013, (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/13/homeless-numbers-increase-three-years-england) while wikipedia says there were 54,430 homeless households in 2014, but only 498 people sleeping rough each night (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_England), while the guardian says 3,500 each night (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/25/homeless-number-people-sleeping-rough-england-rises-almost-a-third-in-a-year) and that's not counting the increasing number of young adults working from thier parents homes instead of thier own because they cannot afford houses.

...What makes you think they cant? 0 hour contracts and the like add to the problem because they do not provide a stable source of income required to maintain a household, it takes you off the unemployment list but can mean you can be only paid for anywhere as little as one hour of work each 6 months on a minimum wage. It pads the numbers of new jobs the government can tell the public it created without actually providing a proper source of income for the new "employee". (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/15/uk-jobs-soar-real)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union
When we joined the EU we agreed to the policy of freedom of movment for workers in the European Union, and that freedom means we cannot turn away EU migrants who can secure work, so no quota, no limitation, we must let them all in and mr camron could not or would not secure an exemption for the UK, the only option given to legally limit or halt immigration from the EU was to leave it.

Homelessness and unemployment cannot be solved if the need for jobs and houses out paces the supply, every new person in the country means one more person without a job, usually the local he is replacing because the employer is either too lazy to train or too stingy to pay (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/12/uk-unemployment-labour-market-job-losses). It is highly unlikely a good government could grow our economy fast enough to support the demands of such a fast growing population, let alone the lack-wit governments we were stuck choosing between a year ago.

The simple answer is our government is dominated by uncaring assholes who dont care about the issues of people poorer than themselves, be they champagne socialists or ivory tower conservatives.

Are you aware that one of the gripes the right has with the EU is that it imposes regulations on employers? The EU, in common with most of the constituent countries, is socialist in nature (at least in comparison with the UK), working towards a tendency to regulate and enforce rights of the individual. The right wants rid of the EU to remove all these regulations and rights. Andrea Leadsom, one of the leading Brexiters, suggested removing all regulations for employers of small businesses, leaving their employees with no rights whatsoever. No minimum wage, unlimited hours, no environmental or H&S regulations, no nothing. That's the Brexit dream.

If your gripe is that the government doesn't care about people poorer than themselves, it's a bit ironic that you live in the UK and voted for Brexit.

[Greyblades]

What makes you think the EU care about people poorer than themselves? When they aid and abett a mass migration of foriegn young men with lower wage expectations and a tendency to molest rape and murder those who do not share thier belief system, without consulting the people they pretend to serve, they seem less caring as the worst of the Tories

One flavour of bastard over another, but the one I chose at least has a potential of change and a degree of control.

[Pannonian]

What makes you think the EU care about people poorer than themselves? When they aid and abett a mass migration of foriegn young men with lower wage expectations and a tendency to molest rape and murder those who do not share thier belief system, without consulting the people they pretend to serve, they seem less caring as the worst of the Tories

One flavour of bastard over another, but the one I chose at least has a potential of change and a degree of control.

When Andrea Leadsom says one way for small companies to cope with Brexit is to remove all regulations and employees' rights, it would suggest that the EU has a part in making sure these regulations and rights are there.

[Gilrandir]

Be honest, you and husar didn't read further than the first line, did you?


18746
My selected skin is obviously the only one that can ever be used as a reference. :whip:


Yo, line-counters, would you like to hear me out?

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

[Husar]

And people wonder why this forum is going down hill...


When they aid and abett a mass migration of foriegn young men with lower wage expectations and a tendency to molest rape and murder those who do not share thier belief system[...]

Hmm, yes...


I dont know, Honestly every source I find are contradictorary, guardan says 184,000 in 2013, (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/dec/13/homeless-numbers-increase-three-years-england) while wikipedia says there were 54,430 homeless households in 2014, but only 498 people sleeping rough each night (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness_in_England), while the guardian says 3,500 each night (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/25/homeless-number-people-sleeping-rough-england-rises-almost-a-third-in-a-year) and that's not counting the increasing number of young adults working from thier parents homes instead of thier own because they cannot afford houses.

So because you can't find data you can trust, you know it is the fault of the EU?
Even with the data we used earlier, you couldn't really explain the math that would imply it is the fault of the EU.
Yet you know it is the fault of the EU?


...What makes you think they cant? 0 hour contracts and the like add to the problem because they do not provide a stable source of income required to maintain a household, it takes you off the unemployment list but can mean you can be only paid for anywhere as little as one hour of work each 6 months on a minimum wage. It pads the numbers of new jobs the government can tell the public it created without actually providing a proper source of income for the new "employee". (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/15/uk-jobs-soar-real)

Obviously the fault of the EU?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union
When we joined the EU we agreed to the policy of freedom of movment for workers in the European Union, and that freedom means we cannot turn away EU migrants who can secure work, so no quota, no limitation, we must let them all in and mr camron could not or would not secure an exemption for the UK, the only option given to legally limit or halt immigration from the EU was to leave it.

And why can so many of them secure work in your country?
Because of the EU? Again, does the EU enforce cheap contracts for cheap foreign workers? Why do the non-EU immigrants come? Are their cheap jobs also mandated by the EU?


Homelessness and unemployment cannot be solved if the need for jobs and houses out paces the supply, every new person in the country means one more person without a job, usually the local he is replacing because the employer is either too lazy to train or too stingy to pay (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/12/uk-unemployment-labour-market-job-losses). It is highly unlikely a good government could grow our economy fast enough to support the demands of such a fast growing population, let alone the lack-wit governments we were stuck choosing between a year ago.

Probably overlooked this part:


However, research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown that a cut in the number of migrants would have a negative impact on the economy.

Well, first of all, your article does not prove what you say right before it, it does not say every immigrant puts a UK citizen out of a job, it merely says a lot of the new jhobs go to immigrants, but that could just as well be due to a stagnating or slowly growing native population.
That the economic growth cannot keep pace with the population growth is something you did not show. And what about all the non-EU immigrants? Are they all allowed in and slip straight into unemployment?


The simple answer is our government is dominated by uncaring assholes who dont care about the issues of people poorer than themselves, be they champagne socialists or ivory tower conservatives.

Makes you wonder who let them rise through the party ranks and continuously elected them into higher and higher offices or how does one become a politician in the UK?


Yo, line-counters, would you like to hear me out?

Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.

There will always be those who want to live in the streets, yes. For everyone else it should be possible to provide them with a home at least.

[Greyblades]

When Andrea Leadsom says one way for small companies to cope with Brexit is to remove all regulations and employees' rights, it would suggest that the EU has a part in making sure these regulations and rights are there.
Actually it suggests that andrea leadsome is an idiot and that's why she lost to may.


Greyblades brought up the homeless problem as one of the reasons the UK should get out of the EU.
BUT: homeless were there before the UK joined the EU and even before there was any UK (I don't mean those were the same people, though) and will be there anyway. Blaming societal ulcers onto someONE is ridiculous. They were always there rising and ebbing depending on many factors. Even if you subtract one of those it doesn't mean the situation will improve. What if by exiting the EU Great Britain (or Lesser Britain) will provoke a downhill tendency in economy thus increasing the number of local (not imported) hobos?

Conclusion: don't expect that Brexit will heal all sores of your country since they were not begotten by EU membership.
Econimic downturns can reverse, EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving and meant that the economic prosperity we were capable of creating in the EU would never be enough to eliminate unemployment, AKA the leading cause of sleeping rough.


Hmm, yes...
Better a truth you dont like than no real response at all.


So because you can't find data you can trust, you know it is the fault of the EU?
Even with the data we used earlier, you couldn't really explain the math that would imply it is the fault of the EU.
Yet you know it is the fault of the EU?I know that the 184,000 immigrants a year is uncontrollable because of EU. I know that the homeless problem is increasing because I can see it on my streets and both sides of the political spectrum confirm it. I know that rough sleeping is largely a result of unemployment from both common sense (you cant afford to rent a house if you are broke) and said political consensus. I can find data I can trust, I just cant find data that can answer your question. Where are immigrants getting houses? Who knows, I suspect a lowered definition of housing on the part of the immigrant and a reliance on voluntary application on the part of the surveys.


Obviously the fault of the EU? You brought it up. I only exploited it to pre-empt an appeal to dropping unemployment rates.


And why can so many of them secure work in your country?
Because of the EU? Again, does the EU enforce cheap contracts for cheap foreign workers? Why do the non-EU immigrants come? Are their cheap jobs also mandated by the EU?
The government doesnt control the private sector and cant put controls on who we take in thanks to the EU, meaning that if I voted in a government that wanted to it couldnt, hence my problem with the EU.



Probably overlooked this part: I didnt: you overlooked this part: "I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside."


Well, first of all, your article does not prove what you say right before it, it does not say every immigrant puts a UK citizen out of a job, it merely says a lot of the new jhobs go to immigrants, but that could just as well be due to a stagnating or slowly growing native population. Nitpicking, every job going to an immigrant is one not going to a local and there is only so much that could be explained by lack of qualification on the part of the local in such an educated population. If it was down to a stagnating or slowly growing native population: unemployment would be near zero.


That the economic growth cannot keep pace with the population growth is something you did not show. And what about all the non-EU immigrants? Are they all allowed in and slip straight into unemployment? Immigration of 330000 a year, mostly employed before arrival job creation of about 400,000 a year (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-055890_QID_66742080_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;SEX,L,Z,0;AGE,L,Z,1;CITIZEN,L,Z,2;UNIT,L,Z,3;INDICATORS,C,Z,4;&zSelection=DS-055890INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-055890SEX,T;DS-055890CITIZEN,TOTAL;DS-055890UNIT,THS;DS-055890AGE,Y_GE15;&rankName1=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=AGE_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=CITIZEN_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName5=SEX_1_2_-1_2&rankName6=TIME_1_0_0_0&rankName7=GEO_1_0_0_1&sortR=ASC_-1_FIRST&sortC=ASC_-1_FIRST&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&time_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23) of which, lets be generous and say 350,000 are worth anything (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/15/uk-jobs-soar-real), gives a net growth of jobs of around 20,000 a year. Unemployment is at 1.67 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_Kingdom) so we can say that at this rate UK in the EU would beat unemployment in 83 &1/2 years.

Assuming of course the numbers stays static and that the European economy could stay stable for 83 years, I somewhat doubt it considering Deuschbank just asked for a bailout, the mediteranian is going down the drain and Germany is putting 90 billion into a project of self harm, I give odds that it doesnt last 2 years before another crisis.

As you mentioned lowering immigration would damage the economy, diminishing returns, we need to lower it gradually but we cannot do that well if half a continent of poor people is utterly at liberty to undercut every job seeker in the country for a taste of a good life. Immigration shot up 100,000 in 2013 there's nothing stopping the EU immigrants from making up for any reduction in non EU immigration


Makes you wonder who let them rise through the party ranks and continuously elected them into higher and higher offices or how does one become a politician in the UK? Makes you wonder if they can keep it up forever.

[Husar]

Econimic downturns can reverse, EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving and meant that the economic prosperity we were capable of creating in the EU would never be enough to eliminate unemployment, AKA the leading cause of sleeping rough.

I know that the 184,000 immigrants a year is uncontrollable because of EU. I know that the homeless problem is increasing because I can see it on my streets and both sides of the political spectrum confirm it. I know that rough sleeping is largely a result of unemployment from both common sense (you cant afford to rent a house if you are broke) and said political consensus. I can find data I can trust, I just cant find data that can answer your question. Where are immigrants getting houses? Who knows, I suspect a lowered definition of housing on the part of the immigrant and a reliance on voluntary application on the part of the surveys.

The government doesnt control the private sector and cant put controls on who we take in thanks to the EU, meaning that if I voted in a government that wanted to it couldnt, hence my problem with the EU.

I didnt: you overlooked this part: "I'm fine with an economic depression when the alternative is having to witness hopeless stagnation every time I leave my home, the comfort and luxury of a first world country doesnt seem worth it if so many of my fellow britons are stuck outside."

Nitpicking, every job going to an immigrant is one not going to a local and there is only so much that could be explained by lack of qualification on the part of the local in such an educated population. If it was down to a stagnating or slowly growing native population: unemployment would be near zero.

Immigration of 330000 a year, mostly employed before arrival job creation of about 400,000 a year (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-055890_QID_66742080_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;SEX,L,Z,0;AGE,L,Z,1;CITIZEN,L,Z,2;UNIT,L,Z,3;INDICATORS,C,Z,4;&zSelection=DS-055890INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-055890SEX,T;DS-055890CITIZEN,TOTAL;DS-055890UNIT,THS;DS-055890AGE,Y_GE15;&rankName1=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=AGE_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=CITIZEN_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName5=SEX_1_2_-1_2&rankName6=TIME_1_0_0_0&rankName7=GEO_1_0_0_1&sortR=ASC_-1_FIRST&sortC=ASC_-1_FIRST&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&time_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23) of which, lets be generous and say 350,000 are worth anything (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/15/uk-jobs-soar-real), gives a net growth of jobs of around 20,000 a year. Unemployment is at 1.67 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_in_the_United_Kingdom) so we can say that at this rate UK in the EU would beat unemployment in 83 &1/2 years.

Assuming of course the numbers stays static and that the European economy could stay stable for 83 years, I somewhat doubt it considering Deuschbank just asked for a bailout, the mediteranian is going down the drain and Germany is putting 90 billion into a project of self harm, I give odds that it doesnt last 2 years before another crisis.

As you mentioned lowering immigration would damage the economy, diminishing returns, we need to lower it gradually but we cannot do that well if half a continent of poor people is utterly at liberty to undercut every job seeker in the country for a taste of a good life. Immigration shot up 100,000 in 2013 there's nothing stopping the EU immigrants from making up for any reduction in non EU immigration

Makes you wonder if they can keep it up forever.

Cut out a few parts to keep only the relevant ones, but there seem to be a series of assumptions that I would heavily doubt.

1) Your calculations are way too simple, so first of all, you won't realistically reach a point of having 0 unemployed people, simply because some people always switch jobs. An unemployment rate of around 4% is usually considered full employment for that reason.

2) You seem to think population and number of jobs are completely decoupled, but the population also affects consumption and consumption influences the number of available jobs... If your population stops growing, the number of jobs may stagnate or even go down. Or growth can become very slow. A counterbalance could come through export/trade, but given that you left the EU, you also gave up the common market, making that harder to achieve.

3) You complain about the inability of your government to control immigration within the EU and say it can't control the private sector. There are two issues here:
3A) The government could control non-EU migration, if it agreed with you that migration is such a problem, why does it not lower that type of migration to at least mitigate the problem? After all you say all parties admit the problem exists and apparently want to do something about it.
3B) That the government can't control the private sector is just laughable. Even the USA have a minimum wage and here you talk about zero-hour contracts as though nothing can be done about them. The EU does not forbid minimum wages, Germany only recently introduced some.

4) "Every job going to an immigrant is not going to a local": Again, a lot of these jobs wouldn't even exist if it weren't for population growth. Can you show me where on the following graph the unemployment rate is affected by EU immigration?
https://www.google.de/publicdata/explore?ds=z8o7pt6rd5uqa6_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:uk:de&hl=en&dl=en
Your country must have had a lot of EU immigration in the late 80s and early 90s and then threw all the immigrants out until 2008? Why is the rate dropping since July 2013? And didn't you just say homelessness has gone up between 2013 and now? Why?

5) The US had "full employment" for a while and still had homeless people. How does that fit your idea that employment and homelessness are directly linked?

6) Why is the number of houses not growing fast enough? Apparently this was never a big issue in the past, but now after the housing bubble burst it is? Couldn't have something to do with capitalism and the bubble having destroyed the confidence of investors in real estate and a shortage giving owners higher profits?

[Greyblades]

1. Of course it is simplistic, it's illustrating that job growth is being rendered largely useless for tackling unemployment by population growth. And as previously illustrated here (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/15/uk-jobs-soar-real) the UK's employment figures are padded with zero hour contracts and various unpaid "training" jobs.

2. I adressed this by acknowledging diminishing returns and expressing the desire for control not complete halt. Control the EU prevents being effective.

3.
a) Because they dont give a shit about the people detrimentally affected by it.

Less flippantly because the Conservative government is trying to make the national numbers to go the way they want; unemployment, gdp, FTSE etc and they are not very interested in how it is done or how it actually affects the population because thus far the numbers are all they have needed to prove that they are better than the alternatives which they technicaly are because Labour tried to do the same thing for 15 years but even less effectively. For example in a practical terms Zero hour contracts wouldnt count as full employment and thus the number of unemployed would go up by 800,000. The job growth is at 400,000 a year, who cares if any of those jobs actually goes to anyone who didnt move in from europe.

b) As stipulated in the freedom of movment policy we agreed to who's second line clearly states "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" we cannot get them to stop hiring from the EU as forcing the private sector to only hire britons is in direct violation of that.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

The majority of immigrants coming from the EU is coming to take a job that existed before the immigrant arrived and could have gone to a local but didn't, and it is extremely safe to say that a lack of skill does not account for the majority.

5) America has never had full employment. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment)

6) Does it matter? It isnt growing fast enough, it will never grow fast enough to accomodate such a population growth, it never did even in the days of massive council housing development. The government might be willing to ignore that uncontrolled immigration is countering the benefits it brings but I am not.

[Husar]

1. Of course it is simplistic, it's illustrating that job growth is being rendered largely useless for tackling unemployment by population growth. And as previously illustrated here (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jan/15/uk-jobs-soar-real) the UK's employment figures are padded with zero hour contracts and various unpaid "training" jobs.

2. I adressed this by acknowledging diminishing returns and expressing the desire for control not complete halt. Control the EU prevents being effective.

3.
a) Because they dont give a shit about the people detrimentally affected by it.

Less flippantly because the Conservative government is trying to make the national numbers to go the way they want; unemployment, gdp, FTSE etc and they are not very interested in how it is done or how it actually affects the population because thus far the numbers are all they have needed to prove that they are better than the alternatives which they technicaly are because Labour tried to do the same thing for 15 years but even less effectively. For example in a practical terms Zero hour contracts wouldnt count as full employment and thus the number of unemployed would go up by 800,000. The job growth is at 400,000 a year, who cares if any of those jobs actually goes to anyone who didnt move in from europe.

b) As stipulated in the freedom of movment policy we agreed to who's second line clearly states "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" we cannot get them to stop hiring from the EU as forcing the private sector to only hire britons is in direct violation of that.

4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.

The majority of immigrants coming from the EU is coming to take a job that existed before the immigrant arrived and could have gone to a local but didn't, and it is extremely safe to say that a lack of skill does not account for the majority.

5) America has never had full employment. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_employment)

6) Does it matter? It isnt growing fast enough, it will never grow fast enough to accomodate such a population growth, it never did even in the days of massive council housing development. The government might be willing to ignore that uncontrolled immigration is countering the benefits it brings but I am not.

1) Yes, but stopping population growth is just as useless and can also limit market growth. If the population growth has no effect on unemployment, why did you bring it up as a reason for unemployment?

2) You mean control your government does not even attempt. Who tells you that a decrease in EU immigration will not lead to a corresponding increase in general immigration? Would you rather have more Pakistani immigrants than Polish ones? Is that your point?

3A) Yes, leads us right back to point two. Except that here you basically seem to say that none of the parties with a shot at getting elected will change anything...
As for zero-hour contracts, how can you say they won't exist anymore once you stop or limit EU immigration? The US and Germany have similar wage problems and at least the US is not in the EU. Even New Zealand:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5824465/New-Zealanders-get-low-wages

In New Zealand, wage and salary earners lost about a quarter of their share of the income the economy generated between the early 1980s and 2002. The fall wasn't because employers had invested aggressively to make their firms more productive. Growth in capital intensity was weak, and weaker than Australia. It began to rise again, but by 2010 was still well below 30 years earlier.

This is a problem pretty much everywhere but in developing countries as far as I can tell. The borders are opened more by corporate lobbies than the EU and just leaving the EU will probably not help you a lot unless you elect a communist government afterwards.

3B) Are you deliberately trying not to get my point? I talked about other government tools such as minimum wages, which can make hiring locals for the same wage more attractive (no language barriers, etc.) and you counter by saying they can't limit immigration?

4) That's just hilarious, especially when you say it's insulting. :laugh4:
You're the one who over-simplifies, that two people disagree doesn't even bother you, you just call us insulting...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/20/reality-check-are-eu-migrants-really-taking-british-jobs


As the economist Jonathan Portes has pointed out, it is not a zero-sum game in which there are only a fixed number of jobs to go round: “It’s true that, if an immigrant takes a job, then a British worker can’t take that job – but it doesn’t mean he or she won’t find another one that may have been created, directly or indirectly, as a result of immigration.”

HMRC figures also show that EU migrants more than pay their way. Those who arrived in Britain in the last four years paid £2.54bn more in income tax and national insurance than they received in tax credits or child benefit in 2013-14. The Office of Budget Responsibility has estimated that their labour contribution is helping to grow the economy by an additional 0.6% a year.

How about you extend your benefit of the doubt to what this article says or find any kind of proof that this is not true?

5) Yeah, just change the definition and only look at a certain timeframe...
https://www.google.de/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en

I mentioned 4% as the ideal figure, their law defines a mix of 3% and 4%, in 1953 they even got below the 3% but in a few years they were somewhere around 4%, which is why I made that comment. You have so far not shown anything that suggests homelessness is tied to the unemployment rate. There is surely a connection, I won't deny that, but it's not a direct correlation and full employment alone does not fix all homelessness.

6) Yes it does matter, because an abundance of homes lower the rent but also the profit of the owners. Whether someone can afford a home does not just depend on how much they earn, but also how much the rent costs, no? And whether investors build enough new homes depends on the profits they can expect. Building more homes would also create more jobs.

[Gilrandir]

Econimic downturns can reverse,


And again they may not. You can never tell.



EU immigration could not be stopped or controlled without leaving


Let's see how those that stayed in the EU will handle it. I'm sure they will come up with a solution. Leaving the EU before you tried to address the challenges together is like divorcing the husband the day after he had lost his job on the pretext he can't support the family any more.




4) You're doing the same thing as Gilrandir, taking it to the most simplistic conclusion, ignoring pre established context and giving no benefit of doubt. It is strawmanning to the highest degree and is highly aggrivating, even insulting.


I'm just parroting your approach - presenting the EU as a strawman and making a simplistic conclusion that all problems will vanish into the thin air once you leave it.

[Greyblades]

I have in no form ever said or even implied that leaving the EU would cause all problems to vanish and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

[Gilrandir]

I have in no form ever said or even implied that leaving the EU would cause all problems to vanish and I challenge you to prove otherwise.
You blame the EU in the grievous present state of the UK and believe that Brexit is the solution.

[Greyblades]

:inquisitive: Am I being trolled here?

[Husar]

:inquisitive: Am I being trolled here?

Or maybe that is just how you come across to others?
Perhaps you would like to clearly state what you blame on the EU then, because to me it looked like you were saying the EU forces you to accept migrants and is therefore partially responsible for your unemployment situation, which again leads to homelessness. Therefore, or so I understand your argument, unemployment, and therewith homelessness, in Britain, can only be truly solved by leaving the EU, so the British can vote for politicians who lower immigration to a level that job groth is bigger than immigration.

That was the basis of our argument, wasn't it? My argument being, that the correlations or lack thereof that you assume, are not necessarily correct.

If your argument is that only a Brexit can fix all the problems elected British officials caused or tolerated for years, then I'd be REALLY interested in learning why you'd think that.

[Greyblades]

Are you mixing me up with lizardo or something?

My argument is that controling immigration is an essential factor to reduce unemployment, and through it: homelessness. We can produce jobs but if our companies are free to import foreigners willing do the jobs for wages the locals would not accept then the locals are just going to stay unemployed. The only way to solve that is to restrict the immigration rate so the compaines have to hire at least some local workers but the EU's open borders policy means we are legally incapable of blocking immigrants from the EU.

As long as we are under the EU's policys and the EU contains populations with lower wage expectations than Britons it makes the "solving" of unemployment a sysphean task.

[Husar]

Are you mixing me up with lizardo or something?

My argument is that controling immigration is an essential factor to reduce unemployment, and through it: homelessness.

That's what I said you said, where is the mixup?
Are you mixing up a correct interpretation of your posts with a false representation of your posts? :dizzy2:



We can produce jobs but if our companies are free to import foreigners willing do the jobs for wages the locals would not accept then the locals are just going to stay unemployed. The only way to solve that is to restrict the immigration rate so the compaines have to hire at least some local workers but the EU's open borders policy means we are legally incapable of blocking immigrants from the EU.

As long as we are under the EU's policys and the EU contains populations with lower wage expectations than Britons it makes the "solving" of unemployment a sysphean task.

And that this view is not entirely correct was the subject of our debate, yes. Where is the problem other than that you seem to be running out of arguments and then accuse people of trolling or misunderstanding you? Or am I misunderstanding something here? :dizzy2:

[Gilrandir]

We can produce jobs but if our companies are free to import foreigners willing do the jobs for wages the locals would not accept then the locals are just going to stay unemployed. The only way to solve that is to restrict the immigration rate so the compaines have to hire at least some local workers but the EU's open borders policy means we are legally incapable of blocking immigrants from the EU.


Unfortunately for you, any good thing that may come after Brexit is accompanied by an adverse one. For example, you get out of the EU, curb immigration, get more jobs for locals, but... severing ties with the EU will lead to shrinking job market for those who work in cooperation with the EU or in producing goods for them. Things don't work in a simple linear way, it's all intertwined and taking out a seemingly useless brick from the bottom layer may cause the whole construction to collapse.

[Greyblades]

Or am I misunderstanding something here? :dizzy2:

What's happening here is I'm getting sidetracked by Gilrandir being an antagonistic ass.


1) Yes, but stopping population growth is just as useless and can also limit market growth. If the population growth has no effect on unemployment, why did you bring it up as a reason for unemployment?

2) You mean control your government does not even attempt. Who tells you that a decrease in EU immigration will not lead to a corresponding increase in general immigration? Would you rather have more Pakistani immigrants than Polish ones? Is that your point?

3A) Yes, leads us right back to point two. Except that here you basically seem to say that none of the parties with a shot at getting elected will change anything...
As for zero-hour contracts, how can you say they won't exist anymore once you stop or limit EU immigration? The US and Germany have similar wage problems and at least the US is not in the EU. Even New Zealand:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/5824465/New-Zealanders-get-low-wages


This is a problem pretty much everywhere but in developing countries as far as I can tell. The borders are opened more by corporate lobbies than the EU and just leaving the EU will probably not help you a lot unless you elect a communist government afterwards.

3B) Are you deliberately trying not to get my point? I talked about other government tools such as minimum wages, which can make hiring locals for the same wage more attractive (no language barriers, etc.) and you counter by saying they can't limit immigration?

4) That's just hilarious, especially when you say it's insulting. :laugh4:
You're the one who over-simplifies, that two people disagree doesn't even bother you, you just call us insulting...
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/20/reality-check-are-eu-migrants-really-taking-british-jobs



How about you extend your benefit of the doubt to what this article says or find any kind of proof that this is not true?

5) Yeah, just change the definition and only look at a certain timeframe...
https://www.google.de/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=country:US&fdim_y=seasonality:S&hl=en&dl=en

I mentioned 4% as the ideal figure, their law defines a mix of 3% and 4%, in 1953 they even got below the 3% but in a few years they were somewhere around 4%, which is why I made that comment. You have so far not shown anything that suggests homelessness is tied to the unemployment rate. There is surely a connection, I won't deny that, but it's not a direct correlation and full employment alone does not fix all homelessness.

6) Yes it does matter, because an abundance of homes lower the rent but also the profit of the owners. Whether someone can afford a home does not just depend on how much they earn, but also how much the rent costs, no? And whether investors build enough new homes depends on the profits they can expect. Building more homes would also create more jobs.



1) I disagree that our population growth is entirely reliant on the immigration, but I argue that the population growth being uncontrolled is not causing the majoirty of the job growth but cancelling out it's effects on unemployment. We began growing a lot of jobs in 2012 (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-055890_QID_66742080_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;SEX,L,Z,0;AGE,L,Z,1;CITIZEN,L,Z,2;UNIT,L,Z,3;INDICATORS,C,Z,4;&zSelection=DS-055890INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-055890SEX,T;DS-055890CITIZEN,TOTAL;DS-055890UNIT,THS;DS-055890AGE,Y_GE15;&rankName1=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=AGE_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=CITIZEN_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName5=SEX_1_2_-1_2&rankName6=TIME_1_0_0_0&rankName7=GEO_1_0_0_1&sortR=ASC_-1_FIRST&sortC=ASC_-1_FIRST&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&time_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23) and the immigration rate jumped in 2013 (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics) in response to it as immigrants were brought into take the jobs.

The jobs being grown werent caused by the immigration, as they started increasing before the spike, but because of open borders the companies imported cheap labour instead of hiring locals with greater expectations in wages and thus cancelled out most of the benefit.

I understand that the growth likely wouldnt have been as great if the companies were forced to hire locals, as the more fragile companies would have gone to cheaper pastures, but a halved or even quartered job growth without an immigration spike would be of greater benefit to my countrymen than having a huge deluge of jobs that near all of them will never benefit from.

2) That they do not even attempt it is a reason why I do not blame the EU for all my problems, despite Gilrandir's protestations otherwise. I am hopeful with the effect of the brexit vote and the rise of corbyn that will change and proper immigration controls are resumed, we are unlikely to see it happen before 2020 but the possibility is there; it could never resume while we are in the EU.

3A) I never said they wont exist once we stop or limit EU immigration, that is a problem we will have to solve internally. That you and gilrandiir claim I did say it was because of the EU is what I find insulting. Though I will admit my sensitivity to misrepresentation may be a tad hightened compared to the average person.

3B) My understanding is that a Briton is undesirable because they expect wage increases with time whereas an immigrant from a poor country is going to be happy they just have a job in a rich country and not agitate for raises. A Briton cannot compete with that and a minimum wage increase wont change that and will have the side effect of making everyone else's jobs worth less.

4) I quote the highest voted comment on that :


Are EU migrants really taking British jobs


There's no such thing as a British job.

They are, however, taking jobs. By increasing the supply of labour, they are inevitably putting downward pressure on wages. To deny that is to deny a basic law of economics.

I also quote Mr Worthlessdollar1 who interjects:

More British workers are in work than ever - that's true. But what the Guardian fails to highlight is the number of British people forced into part time jobs and zero hour, dead end contracts.

5) Fair enough, when there is not enough housing there will be those in a proper full employment who cannot afford housing, however full employment would go a long way to eliminating the worst of the conditions the homeless endure and all but remove the need for street sleeping/begging.

6) True but my issue is that we were importing more households than we could account for if we were building houses at full tilt, the homeless numbers would still climb. Building mass housing at a great rate is a somewhat undesireable solution anyway considering we are rather attached to our somewhat shrinking countryside here and are running out of brown land(land that was previously built upon).

[Gilrandir]

What's happening here is I'm getting sidetracked by Gilrandir being an antagonistic ass.


I don't argue for the sake of arguing (if that's what antagonistic ass amounts to). I express my attitude to your stance. Isn't this what this forum is about?

As for getting sidetracked - is it now my turn to call you a tunnel-visioned Brit?





2) That they do not even attempt it is a reason why I do not blame the EU for all my problems, despite Gilrandir's protestations otherwise.


I didn't say "all the problems", I said "the grievous present state of the UK".



I am hopeful with the effect of the brexit vote and the rise of corbyn that will change and proper immigration controls are resumed, we are unlikely to see it happen before 2020 but the possibility is there; it could never resume while we are in the EU.


Once again: beheading a man to help him fight headache is not the solution. I'm sure immigration problem could be approached without leaving the EU. And Bexit may trigger lots of other problems which will may make immigration look like a minute nuisance.

[Kralizec]

Some have suggested that the UK will not leave at all, that May will stall indefinitely. I don’t think so, although it’s certainly plausible. Instead I think the most likely scenario is that the UK will accept the EFTA route. Meaning: like Switzerland or Norway, with no meaningful exceptions. Four freedoms in full force.

Some have suggested that the UK is so important that the EU will bend over and give the UK a privileged position, such as single market acces without freedom of movement. Let’s call this “three freedom access”. The EU will not.

A couple of reasons for that:
1) It would be manifestly unfair to Norway, Switzerland and any other EFTA country – present or future.

2) It would set a bad precedent. In fact, it would mean an existential threat to the single market. The single market has been a net benefit to all countries involved (this is virtually uncontested), yet some nations like some freedoms more than others. The UK’s gripe is freedom of movement. France might be more concerned about foreign goods. Spain might be more worried about foreign legal entities establishing themselves. If the EU would accept a customised, made-on-demand position for the UK, what would prevent every single other government from haggling to get the best deal for their specific nation? The disintegration of the single market would be inevitable.

3) Expanding on the previous point: the single market is a core achievement of the EU. Member states are expected to accept the four freedoms, even if one of them might not be entirely to their liking. They do so, because the single market is a net benefit for everyone.
The EU is also a club of nations, and as such should look out for the interests of its members. Why should it offer even better terms to a country that's going out?

4) There’s no reliable way to quantify what the 52% who voted leave actually wants. Immigration was an important motivator, but there are others – the abstract idea of sovereignty, or specific issues like fishery and agriculture. For some, the bureaucracy or the remoteness of EU politicians might be paramount – even though dissatisfaction is generally shared even with the pro-EU camp.
---> In contrast, the 48% who voted for Remain might also be a diverse bunch, but their desires are much easier to generalize. They think the current status, with the concessions Cameron extracted but which are now void, is preferable to an exit.
---> EFTA membership counts as a Brexit, but also maintains most of the advantages of EU membership. It’s not something I would recommend, but it would be something that most Remainers and a good share of the Brexit camp could live with. Meaning a comfortable majority, although you can’t quantify that precisely without another, more detailed referendum.

5) Some people would say that the EFTA option is dumb and pointless, like Schauble’s comments which I mentioned earlier. I would agree, but to that I would say that leaving the EU fold entirely would be even dumber. Something that the majority of MP’s, economists and other -experts- agree on.


There’s a another scenario, in which Britain accepts the loss of single market access but remains a member of the custom union – an even looser appendage than the EFTA. Turkey has such a status for instance, being nominally a “candidate”, although the construction is not necessarily limited for candidate states. Turkey is not required to accept foreign workers, but then again, does not reap the full benefits of the single market either.

The most extreme scenario is “total Brexit” in which the UK does not become an EFTA member and also leaves the customs union. That would have two effects:

- Britain regains the ability to negotiate free trade agreements with other parts of the world. I’m writing this in this particular section, because the UK has to leave the customs union to do this.
- The corpus of free trade agreements that the EU has with other parts of the world cease to apply to the UK.

Now, I’m of the opinion that the EU would be willing to simultaneously work for a “total Brexit” while concurrently negotiating a free trade agreement with the UK. One commissioner said that it wouldn’t, but she’s one person, and Merkel has said that she’s amenable to the idea. Doesn’t change the fact that negotiating trade agreements is a lengthy process and that the UK can’t realistically accomplish this with India, China, the US and so on in five years….or even ten years. In effect, the UK would become even more dependent on Europe in the short and middle term.

[Greyblades]

I didn't say "all the problems", I said "the grievous present state of the UK".


I'm just parroting your approach - presenting the EU as a strawman and making a simplistic conclusion that all problems will vanish into the thin air once you leave it.
~:rolleyes:

[Gilrandir]

~:rolleyes:

I meant "all the problems of your country" not "all the problems caused by the EU". Evidently, the first category is much wider. You seem to regard Brexit as ultimate solution.

[Greyblades]

I see it step two for a ultimate solution, step one was to make sure the government was actually for resticted immigration, but cameron's victory bid forced the issue and we were forced to leave before my coronation as emperor.

Jokes aside, I could have hoped for ideal conditions but life doesnt generally wait for you to get ready, I never saw brexit as a solution but necissary to reach a solution.

[Husar]

1) I disagree that our population growth is entirely reliant on the immigration, but I argue that the population growth being uncontrolled is not causing the majoirty of the job growth but cancelling out it's effects on unemployment. We began growing a lot of jobs in 2012 (http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-055890_QID_66742080_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=TIME,C,X,0;GEO,L,Y,0;SEX,L,Z,0;AGE,L,Z,1;CITIZEN,L,Z,2;UNIT,L,Z,3;INDICATORS,C,Z,4;&zSelection=DS-055890INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;DS-055890SEX,T;DS-055890CITIZEN,TOTAL;DS-055890UNIT,THS;DS-055890AGE,Y_GE15;&rankName1=UNIT_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=AGE_1_2_-1_2&rankName3=CITIZEN_1_2_-1_2&rankName4=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName5=SEX_1_2_-1_2&rankName6=TIME_1_0_0_0&rankName7=GEO_1_0_0_1&sortR=ASC_-1_FIRST&sortC=ASC_-1_FIRST&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=NONE&time_most_recent=false&lang=EN&cfo=%23%23%23%2C%23%23%23.%23%23%23) and the immigration rate jumped in 2013 (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics) in response to it as immigrants were brought into take the jobs.

The jobs being grown werent caused by the immigration, as they started increasing before the spike, but because of open borders the companies imported cheap labour instead of hiring locals with greater expectations in wages and thus cancelled out most of the benefit.

I understand that the growth likely wouldnt have been as great if the companies were forced to hire locals, as the more fragile companies would have gone to cheaper pastures, but a halved or even quartered job growth without an immigration spike would be of greater benefit to my countrymen than having a huge deluge of jobs that near all of them will never benefit from.

2) That they do not even attempt it is a reason why I do not blame the EU for all my problems, despite Gilrandir's protestations otherwise. I am hopeful with the effect of the brexit vote and the rise of corbyn that will change and proper immigration controls are resumed, we are unlikely to see it happen before 2020 but the possibility is there; it could never resume while we are in the EU.

3A) I never said they wont exist once we stop or limit EU immigration, that is a problem we will have to solve internally. That you and gilrandiir claim I did say it was because of the EU is what I find insulting. Though I will admit my sensitivity to misrepresentation may be a tad hightened compared to the average person.

3B) My understanding is that a Briton is undesirable because they expect wage increases with time whereas an immigrant from a poor country is going to be happy they just have a job in a rich country and not agitate for raises. A Briton cannot compete with that and a minimum wage increase wont change that and will have the side effect of making everyone else's jobs worth less.

4) I quote the highest voted comment on that :


Are EU migrants really taking British jobs


There's no such thing as a British job.

They are, however, taking jobs. By increasing the supply of labour, they are inevitably putting downward pressure on wages. To deny that is to deny a basic law of economics.

I also quote Mr Worthlessdollar1 who interjects:

More British workers are in work than ever - that's true. But what the Guardian fails to highlight is the number of British people forced into part time jobs and zero hour, dead end contracts.

5) Fair enough, when there is not enough housing there will be those in a proper full employment who cannot afford housing, however full employment would go a long way to eliminating the worst of the conditions the homeless endure and all but remove the need for street sleeping/begging.

6) True but my issue is that we were importing more households than we could account for if we were building houses at full tilt, the homeless numbers would still climb. Building mass housing at a great rate is a somewhat undesireable solution anyway considering we are rather attached to our somewhat shrinking countryside here and are running out of brown land(land that was previously built upon).

1) But none of that is the fault of the EU, your country did apparently not even lower non-EU immigration, so either way that would not have been stopped. Without the common market, you may not even have seen any of that job growth, how is Brexit a solution? Changing your politicians as a next step makes little sense because that could also be done without a Brexit.

2) Again, you could also about cut your immigration in half or even further without leaving the EU.

3A) Of course it's misrepresentation and not miscommunication or misunderstanding because non-British people always have evil intentions, right?

3B) So if companies cannot afford to pay more, they will hire a more expensive British worker anyway and give him raises until the company goes bankrupt? And that helps British people get more jobs? What about a minimum wage that is adjusted for inflation every year?

4) Again, your government allows that downward pressure and zero hour contracts as viable business practices, why would this stop if the British unemployed were to compete amongst eachother? Would they just refuse these jobs and rather become homeless? If so, why are they supposedly accepting them now? You cannot guarantee at all that you will get full employment without immigration and can give them a better negotiating position.

5) So Britain has completely abandoned the safety net or does the safety net pay so little that people can't even afford a home? There was so much talk about welfare queens who shouldn't get benefits anymore a few years ago and now that that issue seems to be out of the media, it's all the homeless who apparently get no help from anyone and should just wait until someone gives them a job? How would you rate the chances of an unwashed homeless guy with unwashed clothes he wore for about a year during a job interview anyway? Or are we talking about a scenario where he is the only one who applies for a job?

6) How do you know how many houses you can build at "full tilt"? What's the exact number and would it help to lower immigration below that? As for your countryside, how about you discourage hiring immigrants by, e.g. having a minimum wage that immigrants can't undercut and that incentivizes hiring locals?

[Greyblades]

1) If we didnt brexit but changed our politicians we'd be unable to affect EU immigration, we need both.

2) Only for as long as it takes for the companies who had to stop importing pakistanis to start importing Poles.

3A) I also admit visiting the TWC Mudpit might have diminished my ability to tell between mistake and asshole. The likes of Snuggans and Mongrel do a lot to chip away at your optimism.

3B) I feel that the companies who literally cant afford britons arent worth keeping in the country. Minimum wage adjusting for inflation wouldnt stop the average briton from wanting to make more money the longer he works. Few brought up to desire to better themselves want to spend thier entire lives on the same wage.

4) Not sure what you mean by "were to compete amongst eachother", we already compete with eachother. We also have to compete with immigrants who will work for peanuts and like it, who are picked first for the jobs that arent zero hour contract dead ends. Were those immigrants to become more scarce the companies that arent courting bankruptcy and actually want to do buisness in britain would have to hire more locals, meaning that more people who would have been forced to settle for bad contracts have actual alternatives. Relying on zero hour contracts become a lot less viable a buisness strategy when you are no longer the only one still hiring, though I do think the contracts will end up being banned sooner or later.

5) A hobo has an easier time improving his hygene than improving the job market.

6) Legally they arent undercutting the minimum wage they are settling for it; demand no raises, expect no bonuses and not eager to move on to better things, the ideal employee, and thanks to the EU policy we cannot incentivise our locals over european migrants.

[InsaneApache]

The rejection of democracy is, in the end, a rejection of the masses and our capacity to shape and remake our world. In the wake of the referendum, we may not be on the brink of mass sterilisation, a rescinding of the franchise or a pogrom. But we can be sure that the elite disdain for democracy – its disdain, that is, for us – is alive and well. Fighting against this, and demanding that the democratic will of the people be respected and in fact expanded into more areas of political life, should form the basis of any vision of a new Europe.

http://www.spiked-online.com/spiked-review/article/in-defence-of-the-masses-brexit/18593#.V6CQGuVG8y5

[Fragony]

There is a reason why populism is a bad word for the elite, we aren't invited.

[Pannonian]

There is a reason why populism is a bad word for the elite, we aren't invited.

The reason why you're not invited is because you're Dutch. This was a UK referendum, as reflected in the thread title: "UK referendum". It's a bit of a clue.

[Gilrandir]

And here comes Norway:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/09/norway-may-block-uk-return-to-european-free-trade-association

[Greyblades]

Cant exactly fault them for having doubts about reinviting a big fish into thier little pond.

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshklFb84zI#t=69

[Husar]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-applying-german-citizenship-8643832#ICID=sharebar_twitter


After two decades gunning for Brexit - Mr Farage has been spotted queueing up at the German Embassy and refuses to deny applying for dual citizenship

[InsaneApache]

He's grown a mustache as well. :creep:

[Pannonian]

He's grown a mustache as well. :creep:

He needs a bit off the sides, leaving an inch in the middle, and he'd be handsome as heck (http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com/cgi-bin/seigany.pl?faq.html).

[Furunculus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BshklFb84zI#t=69

it feels like i've spent the last decade saying exactly that!

[Fragony]

In the meantime, the German National Bank is *cough* not doing all that well. A landslide of the DNB is much worse than a Brexit, put your money where somebody can't see it because the EU -will- come for it, that was already sneaked in

[Pannonian]

In the meantime, the German National Bank is *cough* not doing all that well. A landslide of the DNB is much worse than a Brexit, put your money where somebody can't see it because the EU -will- come for it, that was already sneaked in

How close is Nexit by the way? You were sitting safely in Dutchland, assuring us that Brexit will be followed by enthusiastic anti-Europeans like yourself. How close are you to declaring solidarity with us, or are you going to leave us to be screwed alone?

[Fragony]

Very very unlikely, we are not in a position that we can. The EU is extremily unpopular with some, but so is the monarchy and we won't get rid of that either. Merchants be merchanrs

What I hope (and think) is that the UK will come out stronger as it would really weaken the EU's credibility

[InsaneApache]

Well you'd better stay in because if you don't then the disasters visited on the UK will fall on you lot too.

You know, WW III, plague of frogs, death of the first born. All kinds of shit.

It's a hell on Earth in the UK atm.

:laugh4:

[Fragony]

Heh have one on me, I'll pay you later. Really. After the doom of total death. Was it the other wayaround could be

[Pannonian]

Very very unlikely, we are not in a position that we can. The EU is extremily unpopular with some, but so is the monarchy and we won't get rid of that either. Merchants be merchanrs

What I hope (and think) is that the UK will come out stronger as it would really weaken the EU's credibility

Just like the neolibs had their fun with post-Communist Russia, so the europhobes have their fun with the UK. Spouting off their theory whilst sitting somewhere where they won't have to face the consequences.

[Greyblades]

Just like the neolibs had their fun with post-Communist Russia, so the europhobes have their fun with the UK. Spouting off their theory whilst sitting somewhere where they won't have to face the consequences.

You seem to have the same impression of what the europhobes will be doing as we saw the europhiles doing over the last 40 years.

I cant see the EU allowing Deutsche bank to fail, it's too important to not bail out, the question is what will happen next once the Germans see the bill.

[Husar]

In the meantime, the German National Bank is *cough* not doing all that well. A landslide of the DNB is much worse than a Brexit, put your money where somebody can't see it because the EU -will- come for it, that was already sneaked in

I know that statement comes from an expert because the DNB is the German national library (Deutsche National Bibliothek).

[Pannonian]

You seem to have the same impression of what the europhobes will be doing as we saw the europhiles doing over the last 40 years.


You seem to have missed the bit about sitting where he won't have to face the consequences. Frag is just the same as the neolibs who played out their economic theories in Yeltsin's Russia whilst sitting in New York. Spouting off every so often about how things will be better if the targeted do as they're told, while they're a continent away and not having to face the reality of what they're advocating.

[Fragony]

Just like the neolibs had their fun with post-Communist Russia, so the europhobes have their fun with the UK. Spouting off their theory whilst sitting somewhere where they won't have to face the consequences.

What's in a word, a phobia is an irrational fear. There are perfectly reasonable reasons to dispise the ultra-undemocratic EU, basicly a government looking for a country. All they know is that there should be more EU

[Pannonian]

What's in a word, a phobia is an irrational fear. There are perfectly reasonable reasons to dispise the ultra-undemocratic EU, basicly a government looking for a country. All they know is that there should be more EU

A Dutchman urging the Brits to do what he doesn't have to face the consequences for, with the argument that the EU is undemocratic. What irons do you have in this particular fire, pray?

[Fragony]

If I had to chose a very big axe and a lot of spikes

[Pannonian]

If I had to chose a very big axe and a lot of spikes

"If" you had to choose? You don't understand my question.

[Fragony]

"If" you had to choose? You don't understand my question.

i don't have an answer, if people who are experts in explaining why they were wrong don't have one why should I. Wait and see it looks pretty good at the moment.

[Greyblades]

You seem to have missed the bit about sitting where he won't have to face the consequences. Frag is just the same as the neolibs who played out their economic theories in Yeltsin's Russia whilst sitting in New York. Spouting off every so often about how things will be better if the targeted do as they're told, while they're a continent away and not having to face the reality of what they're advocating.

No, I havent missed it, The distance from thier actions' consequences are merely shorter in this case, particulalry the distance from the brussels gated community to the local slum.

[Sarmatian]

It is funny to see how Brexit camp gloats because there was no economic disaster after the vote.

It is sad, on the other hand, to see them not even remotely understanding the consequences of their choice.

[Fragony]

No, I havent missed it, that is an exactly what eu-philes have been doing for 40 years.

Yeah. Eurocrats think the are the finger that makes the Mona Lisa smile

[Pannonian]

i don't have an answer, if people who are experts in explaining why they were wrong don't have one why should I. Wait and see it looks pretty good at the moment.

I'm an expert at explaining why, whether the choice is wrong or not, you don't have to face the consequences. I can explain this by pointing to the fact that the UK has exited the EU, as you've urged them to. The other part of my explanation is the fact that you live in Dutchland, not the UK. Your explanations of why things are good hold absolutely no water for me. Once again, you remind me of the neoliberals living in New York/Washington DC, urging Yeltsin's Russia to ever more extreme implementations of their economic theories, while they themselves were safely away from the consequences of the realisation of their ideas.

[Pannonian]

No, I havent missed it, The distance from thier actions' consequences are merely shorter in this case, particulalry the distance from the brussels gated community to the local slum.

You're stretching it. Europhiles lived in the Europe they loved, following all the rules that they subscribed to. Whatever consequences Europhiles subscribed to, they themselves faced in full. Unlike Frag urging Brexit.

[Fragony]

I'm an expert at explaining why, whether the choice is wrong or not, you don't have to face the consequences. I can explain this by pointing to the fact that the UK has exited the EU, as you've urged them to. The other part of my explanation is the fact that you live in Dutchland, not the UK. Your explanations of why things are good hold absolutely no water for me. Once again, you remind me of the neoliberals living in New York/Washington DC, urging Yeltsin's Russia to ever more extreme implementations of their economic theories, while they themselves were safely away from the consequences of the realisation of their ideas.

OK I will give an honest answer, I will applaud anything that weakens the EU as I see it as a very big threat to nation-states and everything good it brought us. It's a senseless project that's only interested in it's own existance. I wonder how long it takes because it gets it's true form. You are free to laugh at me.

Ascendence of europe vs the route to serfdom

[Greyblades]

You're stretching it. Europhiles lived in the Europe they loved, following all the rules that they subscribed to. Whatever consequences Europhiles subscribed to, they themselves faced in full. Unlike Frag urging Brexit. No, they are shielded by not being poor.

By living in high income neighbourhoods in the prosperous EU nations with no possibility of seeing an immigrant save for across a supermarket counter. Moving in closed circles and reading news articles filtered to tell them what they want to hear they are completely oblivious to the problems being in the EU has caused the working classes.

It is sad, on the other hand, to see them not even remotely understanding the consequences of their choice.
Considering the chief complaints the remainers have is not being able to move around without a visa, It's easy to say they dont understand much of the consequences either.

[Gilrandir]

It is funny to see how Brexit camp gloats because there was no economic disaster after the vote.



There was no disater because there was no Brexit yet. Proclamation of exit is not the exit.

[Pannonian]

There was no disater because there was no Brexit yet. Proclamation of exit is not the exit.

We're currently in the uncertainty period. That period will begin to end with the triggering of article 50. The certainty period begins when the deadline invoked by article 50 ends.

[Pannonian]

OK I will give an honest answer, I will applaud anything that weakens the EU as I see it as a very big threat to nation-states and everything good it brought us. It's a senseless project that's only interested in it's own existance. I wonder how long it takes because it gets it's true form. You are free to laugh at me.

Ascendence of europe vs the route to serfdom

I'd prefer it if you'd put your money where your mouth is and move to live in the UK, where the post-EU conditions will apply. You'll be able to experience all the good points and all the bad points of living outside the EU. Only then will your optimism about Brexit hold any authority.

[Pannonian]

No, they are shielded by not being poor.

By living in high income neighbourhoods in the prosperous EU nations with no possibility of seeing an immigrant save for across a supermarket counter. Moving in closed circles and reading news articles filtered to tell them what they want to hear they are completely oblivious to the problems being in the EU has caused the working classes.

Considering the chief complaints the remainers have is not being able to move around without a visa, It's easy to say they dont understand much of the consequences either.

You do know, don't you, that the most multi-ethnic area of Britain, London, was strongly pro-Remain. Around 60% Remain.

[Fragony]

If I buy a nice cottage in the UK you are going to kill me in my sleep. But I'm optimistic yes, it are the Germans and Italians who really have a problem right now

[Pannonian]

If I buy a nice cottage in the UK you are going to kill me in my sleep. But I'm optimistic yes, it are the Germans and Italians who really have a problem right now

And whatever your feelings about it, you're still an outsider who won't have to face the consequences of that which you're talking about. Just like the neolibs who kept spouting off about post-Communist Russia.

[Fragony]

You keep saying neolibs, neoliberalism is pretty broad word, just like populism it has become a shouting word, who's shouting. It's actually a milder form of libertarism but an evolved word. Can I call the EU facist then since it's also the third way

[Legs]

If I buy a nice cottage in the UK you are going to kill me in my sleep. But I'm optimistic yes, it are the Germans and Italians who really have a problem right now
If you buy a nice cottage in the UK you will be an immigrant with an unknown legal status, only a fool would make an investment where they don't know their legal rights.

[Pannonian]

You keep saying neolibs, neoliberalism is pretty broad word, just like populism it has become a shouting word, who's shouting. It's actually a milder form of libertarism but an evolved word. Can I call the EU facist then since it's also the third way

Neoliberalism is often used as an insult, especially by followers of Jeremy Corbyn. However, in political theory, it also describes a school of thinking. When used as a broad term, it is misleading, as supposed neoliberal politicians are, on examination, anything but. However, the term is accurate when used to describe a narrow range of political theory and theorists. They don't usually get the chance to practice power as anyone who is actually in power has to get to grips with the reality of policies put into practice. However, neoliberals got to play out their theories in post-Communist Russia, without the troubling need to deal with the social details of their fantasies. You see, they got to preach about what was right for Russia, without the bother of actually having to live in Russia and see what their sermons result in. Does that sound like anyone you know?

[Greyblades]

You do know, don't you, that the most multi-ethnic area of Britain, London, was strongly pro-Remain. Around 60% Remain.

Who knew the pro immigrant choice would ge the immigrant votes? I refer to the Europhiles who buy into the ideology and supported letting the immigrants in with no regard for effect in the first place, the ones who are inhabiting the conspicuously non multi ethnic areas of britain.

[Pannonian]

Because the EU is how they got there, duh, same reason mexican immigrants vote democrat in the states. I refer to the Europhiles who buy into the ideology and supported inviting the immigrants in in the first place.

Bwahaha. First you criticise the Europhiles for only being pro-EU because they don't have to come face to face with immigrants, Then you explain away the multi-ethnic London by saying that, of course immigrants would vote for the EU because that's why they're here. I'm not quite sure how the EU made it easier for Caribbeans and Asians to enter the UK, but no doubt you can enlighten me.

[Fragony]

Neoliberalism is often used as an insult, especially by followers of Jeremy Corbyn. However, in political theory, it also describes a school of thinking. When used as a broad term, it is misleading, as supposed neoliberal politicians are, on examination, anything but. However, the term is accurate when used to describe a narrow range of political theory and theorists. They don't usually get the chance to practice power as anyone who is actually in power has to get to grips with the reality of policies put into practice. However, neoliberals got to play out their theories in post-Communist Russia, without the troubling need to deal with the social details of their fantasies. You see, they got to preach about what was right for Russia, without the bother of actually having to live in Russia and see what their sermons result in. Does that sound like anyone you know?

I'll take that as a snap and I don't mind that, I don't know anything about Corbyn really I only know that Labour doesn't really like him themselve and would rather be rid of him because he's too radical.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well you'd better stay in because if you don't then the disasters visited on the UK will fall on you lot too.

You know, WW III, plague of frogs, death of the first born. All kinds of shit.

It's a hell on Earth in the UK atm.

:laugh4:

Isn't Corbyn evidence of complete societal collapse? Or did I miss something.

[Sarmatian]

Isn't Corbyn evidence of complete societal collapse? Or did I miss something.

Why would Corbyn be a sign of that?

[Pannonian]

Isn't Corbyn evidence of complete societal collapse? Or did I miss something.

Corbyn is a sign that the British school system hasn't done its job properly.

[Greyblades]

Bwahaha. First you criticise the Europhiles for only being pro-EU because they don't have to come face to face with immigrants, Then you explain away the multi-ethnic London by saying that, of course immigrants would vote for the EU because that's why they're here. I'm not quite sure how the EU made it easier for Caribbeans and Asians to enter the UK, but no doubt you can enlighten me.

Multi ethnic being 60% white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London#Ethnicity). How many carribbean and pakistanis do you think actually live or even visit the rich neigbourhoods?

[Legs]

Multi ethnic being 60% white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London#Ethnicity). How many carribbean and pakistanis do you think actually live or even visit the rich neigbourhoods?
What is the rich part of town?

[Greyblades]

Kensington, Chelsea, Knightsbridge, places immigrants rarely can afford, basically. That's the crux of the issue; Europhillia is the fad of the upper and middle class who are insulated from the downsides of immigration; it's not thier jobs being taken by unskilled labour nor thier neighbourhoods being degraded and ruined by new unassimilating tenants

That lack of perspective detaches them from the mood of the working class who do have to witness a downside they didnt ask for.

[Legs]

Kensington, Chelsea, Knightsbridge, places immigrants rarely can afford, basically. That's the crux of the issue; Europhillia is the fad of the upper and middle class who are insulated from the downsides of immigration; it's not thier jobs being taken by unskilled labour nor thier neighbourhoods being degraded and ruined by new unassimilating tenants

That lack of perspective detaches them from the mood of the working class who do have to witness a downside they didnt ask for.
Have you ever been to those boroughs do you know many people living there?
Come to think of it, have you ever been to London???????

[Pannonian]

Multi ethnic being 60% white (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_London#Ethnicity). How many carribbean and pakistanis do you think actually live or even visit the rich neigbourhoods?

Among the less white boroughs that I know of, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Redbridge and Waltham Forest all voted Remain. But then you've already got your argument ready: the EU is where the immigrants come from, so naturally they voted Remain. Actually, checking the figures further, the 10 least white boroughs all voted Remain. The least white borough that voted Leave was Barking and Dagenham, which is 14th on the list. The whitest borough in London also voted Leave, as did the 4th whitest borough. So the actual figures, as opposed to your imagined theory, suggests that the more multi-ethnic a borough is, the more Europhilic it is.

BTW, you must be one of the very few who reckons that 40% non-white is not multi-ethnic. The national figure is 12.8%.

[Legs]

Among the less white boroughs that I know of, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Redbridge and Waltham Forest all voted Remain. But then you've already got your argument ready: the EU is where the immigrants come from, so naturally they voted Remain. Actually, checking the figures further, the 10 least white boroughs all voted Remain. The least white borough that voted Leave was Barking and Dagenham, which is 14th on the list. The whitest borough in London also voted Leave, as did the 4th whitest borough. So the actual figures, as opposed to your imagined theory, suggests that the more multi-ethnic a borough is, the more Europhilic it is.

BTW, you must be one of the very few who reckons that 40% non-white is not multi-ethnic. The national figure is 12.8%.
When more than 20% of the "whites" are not British where does that leave his multi ethnic theory?

[InsaneApache]

It is funny to see how Brexit camp gloats because there was no economic disaster after the vote.

It is sad, on the other hand, to see them not even remotely understanding the consequences of their choice.

Oh we understand alright. That's why we voted to leave.

[InsaneApache]

Isn't Corbyn evidence of complete societal collapse? Or did I miss something.

Bugger you got me there mate :laugh4:

[Greyblades]

Among the less white boroughs that I know of, Newham, Tower Hamlets, Redbridge and Waltham Forest all voted Remain. But then you've already got your argument ready: the EU is where the immigrants come from, so naturally they voted Remain. Actually, checking the figures further, the 10 least white boroughs all voted Remain. The least white borough that voted Leave was Barking and Dagenham, which is 14th on the list. The whitest borough in London also voted Leave, as did the 4th whitest borough. So the actual figures, as opposed to your imagined theory, suggests that the more multi-ethnic a borough is, the more Europhilic it is. 1st whitest borough is havering, which is one of the cheapest to live in, (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lewisham-leads-londons-relentless-house-prices-bubble-1558443) IE poorest, same with 4th, bexely. Newham Tower Hamlets, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, also poor but with a non white majority voted remain (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information).
Third whitest, bromley, is as poor as redbridge and voted remain by a very narrow margin, 6th largest sutton, poor, voted leave, Greenwich Poor 68% white, remain won by <10%, Hounslow same as greenwich with 51.4% white, Hillingdon, poor, white, voted leave, Barking and Dagenham, poor, white, voted leave,

Second whitest richmond on thames was pricier to live in than the previous examples by a half and voted remain, Wandsworth, Waltham Forest, was same as richmond, Kensington a very rich, very white neighbourhood voted remain by large degree, same with Islington, Hammersmith & Fulham, Camden, Hackney, Merton, Lambeth, Barnet, Westminster, Southwark, Lewisham, Ealing, Haringey and Tower Hamlets.

The trend is clear, prices high vote remain wins, prices low, vote leave gains ground and the outliers to this include all the poor minorty white boroughs.


BTW, you must be one of the very few who reckons that 40% non-white is not multi-ethnic. The national figure is 12.8%.
Until an area gets below 50% in any one demographic, to say it is multi anything is giving too much credit to the minority's presence.

Have you ever been to those boroughs do you know many people living there?
Come to think of it, have you ever been to London???????
I recently spent 3 years attending university in london whose side course in theatre included visiting areas of the city of varying levels of well-to-do at different hours in the day and night, I have seen my share of london's grime and grandure.


When more than 20% of the "whites" are not British where does that leave his multi ethnic theory?
Non british include american, new zealand, australian and various other anglo offshoots which I count among what can be called the british ethnicity.

[Legs]

1st whitest borough is havering, which is one of the cheapest to live in, (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lewisham-leads-londons-relentless-house-prices-bubble-1558443) IE poorest, same with 4th, bexely. Newham Tower Hamlets, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, also poor but with a non white majority voted remain (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information).
Third whitest, bromley, is as poor as redbridge and voted remain by a very narrow margin, 6th largest sutton, poor, voted leave, Greenwich Poor 68% white, remain won by <10%, Hounslow same as greenwich with 51.4% white, Hillingdon, poor, white, voted leave, Barking and Dagenham, poor, white, voted leave,

Second whitest richmond on thames was pricier to live in than the previous examples by a half and voted remain, Wandsworth, Waltham Forest, was same as richmond, Kensington a very rich, very white neighbourhood voted remain by large degree, same with Islington, Hammersmith & Fulham, Camden, Hackney, Merton, Lambeth, Barnet, Westminster, Southwark, Lewisham, Ealing, Haringey and Tower Hamlets.

The trend is clear, prices high vote remain wins, prices low, vote leave gains ground and the outliers to this include all the poor minorty white boroughs.


Until an area gets below 50% in any one demographic, to say it is multi anything is giving too much credit to the minority's presence.

I recently spent 3 years attending university in london whose side course in theatre included visiting areas of the city of varying levels of well-to-do, I have seen plenty of london's grime and grandure.


Non british include american, new zealand, australian and various other anglo offshoots which I count among what can be called the british ethnicity.
Well where to start with that pile of crap?
You really don't know London at all. you call "the village" the 4th poorest
I find it hilarious that you define "poor" simply by average house price.
Could you tell me why a "white "neighbourhood" has so many ethnic social clubs? Or all the eastern churches, the temple, the mosque and the synagouge?
Until something gets below 50%????are you insane?
You have seen grime and grandure? You know that they exist in London on the same streets you can walk from one world to the next by crossing a road or turning a corner. You must know than that your simplistic attemt at justifying your views just doesn't fly.

Non british includes non british which you count as british? Is that because you are making no sense and feel the need to grasp at straws

[Montmorency]

I recently spent 3 years attending university in london whose side course in theatre included visiting areas of the city of varying levels of well-to-do at different hours in the day and night, I have seen my share of london's grime and grandure.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Pannonian]

1st whitest borough is havering, which is one of the cheapest to live in, (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lewisham-leads-londons-relentless-house-prices-bubble-1558443) IE poorest, same with 4th, bexely. Newham Tower Hamlets, Redbridge and Waltham Forest, also poor but with a non white majority voted remain (http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information).
Third whitest, bromley, is as poor as redbridge and voted remain by a very narrow margin, 6th largest sutton, poor, voted leave, Greenwich Poor 68% white, remain won by <10%, Hounslow same as greenwich with 51.4% white, Hillingdon, poor, white, voted leave, Barking and Dagenham, poor, white, voted leave,

Second whitest richmond on thames was pricier to live in than the previous examples by a half and voted remain, Wandsworth, Waltham Forest, was same as richmond, Kensington a very rich, very white neighbourhood voted remain by large degree, same with Islington, Hammersmith & Fulham, Camden, Hackney, Merton, Lambeth, Barnet, Westminster, Southwark, Lewisham, Ealing, Haringey and Tower Hamlets.

The trend is clear, prices high vote remain wins, prices low, vote leave gains ground and the outliers to this include all the poor minorty white boroughs.


Until an area gets below 50% in any one demographic, to say it is multi anything is giving too much credit to the minority's presence.

I recently spent 3 years attending university in london whose side course in theatre included visiting areas of the city of varying levels of well-to-do at different hours in the day and night, I have seen my share of london's grime and grandure.


Non british include american, new zealand, australian and various other anglo offshoots which I count among what can be called the british ethnicity.

You really don't know anything if you think Havering is poor.

[Gilrandir]

We're currently in the uncertainty period. That period will begin to end with the triggering of article 50. The certainty period begins when the deadline invoked by article 50 ends.

I have an impression that the current government are trying to procrastinate and prevaricate hoping that somehow people will forget about the referendum and everything will be as it used to.

[Husar]

I have an impression that the current government are trying to procrastinate and prevaricate hoping that somehow people will forget about the referendum and everything will be as it used to.

They now have a ministry for the Brexit.
People work there in cozy jobs which they will probably lose if they do them well.
I mean according to every stereotype, they will try their best to stall and fail, no?

If the job were in private hands, they could hire an adventurous Pakistani manager to find the best way to stop immigration without losing EU benefits. But due to it being a ministry, they can obviously not choose people based on merit but have to go with a British national who can't get a job in the superior private sector... :sweatdrop:

[Brenus]

Once is no habit, I agree with Gilrandir.
The problem UK got is to get out of EU without getting out. Sun newspapers and affiliates are printing optimistic titles about Brexit and access to EU market but stopping freedom of movement whereas all European leaders coming here told the BBC it won't happen and UK will have to eat its cake. So May is in hurry not to go too fast in this, and choose the perfect trio to do so as they hate each others wit a vengeance...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Guys, could we try to maintain a level of decorum here?

Also, why am I asking for this and not a mod?

Play the ball not the man.

Greyblades, to his credit, has at least dug up some statistics, and whilst house-price is not the be-all and end-all it IS an indicator of both the desirability of an area and it's average disposable income.

It should also be noted that a Commonwealth Citizen within the UK is functionally the same as a British Citizen. that relationship has become strained in the opposite direction, which is another reason why people voted leave.

Fun fact - about 58% of Britons polled are in favour of the lifting of tariffs and Freedom of Movement restrictions with the other "White Dominions", which are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and we are by far the least enthusiastic Dominion. White Commonwealth Citizen have a vested personal interest in Brexit because it means better access to the UK for them - Britain will inevitably enter into a Freedom of Labour and Movement Pact with the other three. In fact, if you ask the average Briton who isn't politically knowledgeable they'll assume we already have one.

You see, the EU isn't our natural club. It's sort of like we joined with our wife, then got divorced and now we've finally decided we'd much rather go back to spending Sunday afternoon at the pub.

[Montmorency]

we are by far the least enthusiastic Dominion. White Commonwealth Citizen have a vested personal interest in Brexit because it means better access to the UK for them

I think you have this the other way around. Likely the Commonwealth will not be so taken by this wishful thinking.

[Pannonian]

Guys, could we try to maintain a level of decorum here?

Also, why am I asking for this and not a mod?

Play the ball not the man.

Greyblades, to his credit, has at least dug up some statistics, and whilst house-price is not the be-all and end-all it IS an indicator of both the desirability of an area and it's average disposable income.

It should also be noted that a Commonwealth Citizen within the UK is functionally the same as a British Citizen. that relationship has become strained in the opposite direction, which is another reason why people voted leave.

Fun fact - about 58% of Britons polled are in favour of the lifting of tariffs and Freedom of Movement restrictions with the other "White Dominions", which are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and we are by far the least enthusiastic Dominion. White Commonwealth Citizen have a vested personal interest in Brexit because it means better access to the UK for them - Britain will inevitably enter into a Freedom of Labour and Movement Pact with the other three. In fact, if you ask the average Briton who isn't politically knowledgeable they'll assume we already have one.

You see, the EU isn't our natural club. It's sort of like we joined with our wife, then got divorced and now we've finally decided we'd much rather go back to spending Sunday afternoon at the pub.

And house price around London is most directly determined by proximity to London city centre, proximity to convenient rail travel, plus various factors deemed to be desirable for quality living, such as good schools in the post code. Being somewhat better acquainted with Havering than Greyblades evidently is, it makes me laugh that he includes it as an example of a poor borough. No it's not. It's a borough that's at the end of the Tube network, such as you may wake up in if you fall asleep on the District line.

Anyone who knows a bit about London's history knows that the least desirable area to choose to live in is the east end, or what remained of it after the Germans had done with it. The former native population have to a large extent scattered to the suburbs, such as Havering (which was urbanised post-war from previously rural Essex land). That's why there is such a large non-white population in Cockney land.

[Legs]

Greyblades, to his credit, has at least dug up some statistics, and whilst house-price is not the be-all and end-all it IS an indicator of both the desirability of an area and it's average disposable income.

Average house prices are an indication of neither. If you added a whole raft of other statistics they could form a very small part, but otherwise they are meaningless.


It should also be noted that a Commonwealth Citizen within the UK is functionally the same as a British Citizen. that relationship has become strained in the opposite direction, which is another reason why people voted leave.


That is simply not true.


Fun fact - about 58% of Britons polled are in favour of the lifting of tariffs and Freedom of Movement restrictions with the other "White Dominions", which are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand and we are by far the least enthusiastic Dominion.
And what do each of those countries and their citizens think about abolition of tarriffs and introduction of uncontrolled immigration.
Australians already complain about swarms of kiwis stealing their jobs and sheep under the Tasman scheme.
Also what about the "not quite white" populations of those countries, or in the case of Canada the Quebecois, how would they feel about uncontrolled immigration from the "mother country" that isn't theirs?
As for tarrifs how would the US deal with the abolition of tarriffs in Canada and how would it affect UK-US trade?
Also concerning the US how would the presence of US immigration at Canadian points of entry work out?


White Commonwealth Citizen have a vested personal interest in Brexit because it means better access to the UK for them - Britain will inevitably enter into a Freedom of Labour and Movement Pact with the other three. In fact, if you ask the average Briton who isn't politically knowledgeable they'll assume we already have one.

That makes no sense.

All I see in your post is the typical pie in the sky thinking like throughout the Brexit process and no thought on actual plans or consequences.

[Fragony]

There aren't going to be consequences, financially at least. After a sudden nosedive of the pound (yay For me thanks) everything is pretty stable again. The trust in the UK's economy is as good as it has always been, weary, but not bad. I wish I had a way of looking how this actually develops, only doomists predicted hell, some said everything would stay the same, some say the burden cast off would be the best thing ever. Economists are always wrong they are only usefull for explaining why they were. From what I can look at things look moderatily good for the UK, and pretty damn bad for others *cough* Italy. Everything is unholdable it's a total faillure. Even a nation-state like Italy is unholdable, the very developed north doesn't want the south to suck on it's tit, if you ask them they will reply. Such is the same for the whole faillure on a greater scale, being the EU. It isn't even in the interest of countries poorer to be part of it, all the 'free' money they get flows back to northern banks who made silly investments. The Greek bailout isn't a bailout, it's a bailout of banks who made stupid desicions, Greece must pay it back with interest. Why are they corrupt there I would be. The UK is totally right in short, out of this, go away, get something that hurts long and a lot and die.

I hope but don't expect that the Netherlands will follow, we don't need Brussels. What the UK basicly aims for is a return to the EEG, tradedeals fuck straight cuccumbers and fixing Merkel's messias-complex and Swedish stephard wives who mistake equal rights with being a flaggalant Yes please, enough idiocy

[Gilrandir]

There aren't going to be consequences, financially at least. After a sudden nosedive of the pound (yay For me thanks) everything is pretty stable again. The trust in the UK's economy is as good as it has always been, weary, but not bad. I wish I had a way of looking how this actually develops, only doomists predicted hell, some said everything would stay the same, some say the burden cast off would be the best thing ever. Economists are always wrong they are only usefull for explaining why they were. From what I can look at things look moderatily good for the UK, and pretty damn bad for others *cough* Italy. Everything is unholdable it's a total faillure. Even a nation-state like Italy is unholdable, the very developed north doesn't want the south to suck on it's tit, if you ask them they will reply. Such is the same for the whole faillure on a greater scale, being the EU. It isn't even in the interest of countries poorer to be part of it, all the 'free' money they get flows back to northern banks who made silly investments. The Greek bailout isn't a bailout, it's a bailout of banks who made stupid desicions, Greece must pay it back with interest. Why are they corrupt there I would be. The UK is totally right in short, out of this, go away, get something that hurts long and a lot and die.

Let's see how it will pan out (for the UK) after some practical steps for Brexit have been taken.

[Husar]

There aren't going to be consequences, financially at least. After a sudden nosedive of the pound (yay For me thanks) everything is pretty stable again. The trust in the UK's economy is as good as it has always been, weary, but not bad. I wish I had a way of looking how this actually develops, only doomists predicted hell, some said everything would stay the same, some say the burden cast off would be the best thing ever. Economists are always wrong they are only usefull for explaining why they were. From what I can look at things look moderatily good for the UK, and pretty damn bad for others *cough* Italy. Everything is unholdable it's a total faillure. Even a nation-state like Italy is unholdable, the very developed north doesn't want the south to suck on it's tit, if you ask them they will reply. Such is the same for the whole faillure on a greater scale, being the EU. It isn't even in the interest of countries poorer to be part of it, all the 'free' money they get flows back to northern banks who made silly investments. The Greek bailout isn't a bailout, it's a bailout of banks who made stupid desicions, Greece must pay it back with interest. Why are they corrupt there I would be. The UK is totally right in short, out of this, go away, get something that hurts long and a lot and die.

I hope but don't expect that the Netherlands will follow, we don't need Brussels. What the UK basicly aims for is a return to the EEG, tradedeals fuck straight cuccumbers and fixing Merkel's messias-complex and Swedish stephard wives who mistake equal rights with being a flaggalant Yes please, enough idiocy

This from the expert who thinks the German national library is a bank.
You may want to change the "things you can look at" or wherever you get your info from.

[Fragony]

Do I have be an expert, I thought it was DNB yes, Deutsche Nationale Bank my bad, never looked at German libraries, why would I the books were burned

[Montmorency]

they wrote new ones

[Fragony]

Yeah apoligies Husar that was kinda cheap of me

[Husar]

Do I have be an expert, I thought it was DNB yes, Deutsche Nationale Bank my bad, never looked at German libraries, why would I the books were burned

Yeah, well, I also can't find anything about the actual national bank being in trouble, so why believe the report from someone who doesn't even know what it is called? If someone had some insider info that the mainstream media are hiding from us, surely he'd at least know the name of the bank?

[Montmorency]

Husar (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-deutsche-bank-idUSKCN1213D5)

[Husar]

Husar (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-deutsche-bank-idUSKCN1213D5)

Wonderful.
It was either nothing or a trap and you just fell into it. ~;)
Our national bank is the "Deutsche Bundesbank", "Deutsche Bank" is a private bank like HSBC or BNP Paribas.
And quite frankly, they should just let them fail.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think you have this the other way around. Likely the Commonwealth will not be so taken by this wishful thinking.


"In March 2016, research conducted by the Royal Commonwealth Society indicated that 58% of the British public supported free movement between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, compared to 75% of Canadians, 70% of Australians and 90% of New Zealanders.[10] In an interview with Global News Canada, Skinner indicated that allowing free movement between these four countries would provide Canadians with similar economic benefits as seen with the Trans-Tasman Travel Arrangement between Australia and New Zealand:


"We are not only exposing Canada to a greater pool of labour resources to expand the economy, but giving Canadians the choice of relocating to select Commonwealth countries (if they choose) to find employment opportunities not available for them in Canada."[11]


However, in response to the CFMO's online petition and proposals, critics have voiced concerns over the logistics of introducing free movement legislation across international borders. Emily Gilbert, an associate professor of Canadian Studies and Geography at the University of Toronto stated: "I think it’s an intriguing proposal, but I think chances are it will be some years in the making if it’s ever to be realized", while Jeffrey Reitz from the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs stated: "it's unclear why Canada would pursue a proposal with New Zealand, Australia and U.K. instead of the U.S. and Mexico, countries that are already part of a free trade agreement"[12]"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_Freedom_of_Movement_Organisation


For the UK it may be more about a desire to return to a pre-EU statw where we looked across oceans for opportunities instead of across the Channel, but it seems faily clear there's broad support amongst the general public.


That is simply not true.

Commonwealth Citizen resident in the UK have all the political and social rights as British Citizens, including the right to vote and stand for election. The difference is their limited right to abide here to begin with, but my original statement was referring to those already abiding here.


And what do each of those countries and their citizens think about abolition of tarriffs and introduction of uncontrolled immigration.
Australians already complain about swarms of kiwis stealing their jobs and sheep under the Tasman scheme.
Also what about the "not quite white" populations of those countries, or in the case of Canada the Quebecois, how would they feel about uncontrolled immigration from the "mother country" that isn't theirs?
As for tarrifs how would the US deal with the abolition of tarriffs in Canada and how would it affect UK-US trade?
Also concerning the US how would the presence of US immigration at Canadian points of entry work out?

I just said it was generally more popular than Freedom of Movement with the EU - I was referring to public sentiment, not practicalities. To be sure, there are a number of practical issues that needs to be worked out but even allowing for that the four countries in question share the same language (including spelling), the same legal and political system and a very similar culture. Re-integrating Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK is a much less daunting task than trying to -reintegrate the Roman Empire (which is what the EU is attempting).

Oh, you forgot to point out the problems with the metric/Imperial System. Mustn't forget us backward Brits and our adherence to the Imperial Mile and the Fluid Ounce, that'll be tricky. I imagine we'll so what we did a hundred years ago though and grudgingly agree with the other three, like when we originally went metric by accepting the Canadian metric-derived Yard.


That makes no sense.

Well, I should say Commonwealth Citizens generally have a vested interest in Freedom of Movement with the UK, white or otherwise, but the citizens of the countries traditionally known as the "White Dominions" have even more incentive. Aside from the obvious economic benefit to an Austrlain of being able to seek work in the UK there are the strong familial links. Many people in Australia, Canada and New Zealand are first or second-generation British immigrants. Many have grandparents here who they can't bring to their home country, or easily visit without a lot of paperwork. On the other hand, absent being part of the EU Britain will want to form stronger political and economic links with the Commonwealth so as to be "part of a club" as well as for sentimental reasons. Up to now the EU has prohibited this sort of integration.


All I see in your post is the typical pie in the sky thinking like throughout the Brexit process and no thought on actual plans or consequences.

Yeah, well, based on the other thread you probably think I'm a Creationist too, so I'd say your opinions are off the mark.

I'm not addressing practicalities, I'm addressing sentiments. It's going to be very hard to address practical concerns until we actually leave the EU and can begin negotiating with other countries.

[Fragony]

Yeah, well, I also can't find anything about the actual national bank being in trouble, so why believe the report from someone who doesn't even know what it is called? If someone had some insider info that the mainstream media are hiding from us, surely he'd at least know the name of the bank?

I misread it happens, Germany just isn't all that special to keep attention to anymore, my misreading I can blame on that. My attention is on the Visegrad-countries and the UK, both very reluctant to listen to the neo-aristocracy and who can blame them. The visograd countries don't want to take the burden of Merkel's birdcall and the UK just wants to trade without a constantly drunk hugger trying to lick their face off. Juncker's behaviour gets really painfull, he cannot even walk he's too drunk for that, and licking faces is just ditastefull, our unelected overlord has a hugproblem. Besides the facelicker there are many more unelected freaks that belong in an asylum because they are inssane. Verhofstad an Timmermans come to mind, Verhostad is a pschopath,look at his eyes, Timmermans would shame narcissus in being narcistic That wouldn't be a problem if we could provide a proper room with padded walls, but the EU building doesn't have them, instead they have seats. And there are many more useless people there, they check out before a debate even starts and grab the hours anyway. The EU is a total faillure. Europe isn't, despite eurocrats who are having a party there Europe is doing fine, but absolutily not because. There also isn't any peace because, quite the contrary, if the tensions with Russia escalate I am not going to blame Russia for it, who likes being surrounded. In an ideological way the EU also fails, even in a country as small as the Netherlands the differences between the north and south, the east and the west are huge, completily differend attitude. Good luck with a continent. Especially now that we have some newcommers fron the Islamic world who are generally aren't exactly an enrichment although most are really nice, it's still a problem. To who? Europhiles

[Legs]

For the UK it may be more about a desire to return to a pre-EU statw where we looked across oceans for opportunities instead of across the Channel, but it seems faily clear there's broad support amongst the general public.




It seemed fairly clear there was a broad consensus for a remain vote until the count was in.
But hey, dreams of empire eh


Commonwealth Citizen resident in the UK have all the political and social rights as British Citizens, including the right to vote and stand for election. The difference is their limited right to abide here to begin with, but my original statement was referring to those already abiding here.


Rubbish. Take healthcare as an example. Do Australians get the same free access to the NHS as British citizens do.


I just said it was generally more popular than Freedom of Movement with the EU - I was referring to public sentiment, not practicalities.
Practicalities is what matters


To be sure, there are a number of practical issues that needs to be worked out but even allowing for that the four countries in question share the same language (including spelling), the same legal and political system and a very similar culture.
No they don't. Britain doesn't have napoleonic law, Btritain doesn't have an elected upper house, neither is its upper house based on regional issues. And New Zealand doesn't even have one.


Re-integrating Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK is a much less daunting task than trying to -reintegrate the Roman Empire (which is what the EU is attempting).

Pie in the sky with a side order of conspiracy theory?


Well, I should say Commonwealth Citizens generally have a vested interest in Freedom of Movement with the UK, white or otherwise, but the citizens of the countries traditionally known as the "White Dominions" have even more incentive.
But since it would be a matter of governments what are these governments interests.
All of them are very tight on immigration aren't they.


Aside from the obvious economic benefit to an Austrlain of being able to seek work in the UK there are the strong familial links. Many people in Australia, Canada and New Zealand are first or second-generation British immigrants. Many have grandparents here who they can't bring to their home country, or easily visit without a lot of paperwork.
How does that work with relation to other commonwealth countries? Are you going to make two seperate commonwealths?
Besides which, given these nations concerns over importing burdens onto their health service how is that going to work?


On the other hand, absent being part of the EU Britain will want to form stronger political and economic links with the Commonwealth so as to be "part of a club" as well as for sentimental reasons. Up to now the EU has prohibited this sort of integration.

Rubbish, immigration or emigration from outside the EU has always been under the remit of Westminster.


Yeah, well, based on the other thread you probably think I'm a Creationist too, so I'd say your opinions are off the mark.

Any luck finding your imaginary scripture which you need to support your claim in that topic?


I'm not addressing practicalities, I'm addressing sentiments. It's going to be very hard to address practical concerns until we actually leave the EU and can begin negotiating with other countries
Pie in the sky it is then. fanciful notions based on ilusory sentiments not reality.
Well done you manage to do a textbook confirmation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seemed fairly clear there was a broad consensus for a remain vote until the count was in.
But hey, dreams of empire eh

Dreams of Empire? No, just a more expansive worldview. That's not the only reason people voted out, but it's one.


Rubbish. Take healthcare as an example. Do Australians get the same free access to the NHS as British citizens do.

If you are a resident in the UK you receive access to the NHS.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/healthcare/help-with-health-costs/nhs-charges-for-people-from-abroad/

Conversely, you do not receive the right to vote, even as a permanent resident. My father is denied the right to vote, for example. On the other hand, Commonwealth citizens in the UK even on students visas are entitled to vote in all elections AND referendums.


Practicalities is what matters

While this may be true in terms of making agreements work the reality is that, in democracies, sentiment decides policies at least as much as practicalities.

I assume you agree there are more short-term benefits to remaining in the EU and more long-term uncertainty? A lot of people who voted OUT agree with that.


No they don't. Britain doesn't have napoleonic law, Btritain doesn't have an elected upper house, neither is its upper house based on regional issues. And New Zealand doesn't even have one.

Which of these countries uses Napoleonic Law? You are referring to the Province of Quebec? You are suggesting that Scotland and Wales don't operate the Westminster System because they are unicameral? It's patently obvious Britain has more politically in common with Austrlaia, New Zealand and Canada (probably in that order) than with most EU countries - such as France, or Italy, or Greece.


Pie in the sky with a side order of conspiracy theory?

No - it's generally accepted that the EU is a project all about rebuilding the Pax Romana - it was a big thing when Greece joined because it was the first time the EU expanded out of Charlemagne's realm into the "East". It's also why Turkey's joining is a long term goal. I'm not talking about Legions, Eagles and an Emperor, I'm talking about peace, prosperity, one currency, one government, one military.

All of that's written into EU treaties or being actively discussed right now (especially the military aspect). Above all the EU is a dream of the restoration of the Pax Romana.

It's a noble dream, to be sure.



But since it would be a matter of governments what are these governments interests.
All of them are very tight on immigration aren't they.

After the Brexit resul the Australian Prime Minister pretty much straight away said Australia wanted a trade deal with the UK - you can bet that includes freedom of movement. The Canadian Trade Minister was straight out with "do you want to know about out Trade Deal with the EU, see if you want it as a model?".

Such a pact would be an easy sell in the UK and, as noted above, is popular in the other three countries. Democratically elected governments are concerned with the practicalities of getting elected.


How does that work with relation to other commonwealth countries? Are you going to make two seperate commonwealths?
Besides which, given these nations concerns over importing burdens onto their health service how is that going to work?

There are already multiple levels to the Commonwealth and interest groups. a Trade/Movement deal between four of the biggest economies isn't going to change that.


Rubbish, immigration or emigration from outside the EU has always been under the remit of Westminster.

Trade is not, Freedom of Movement (the elimination of a Visa System) is part of trade, it cannot be negotiated in isolation, that would be very impractical.


Any luck finding your imaginary scripture which you need to support your claim in that topic?

Nice dodge. If you wanted to know you would have cited the passages to support your argument so I could pull them apart.


Pie in the sky it is then. fanciful notions based on ilusory sentiments not reality.
Well done you manage to do a textbook confirmation.

Maybe you need to be, you know, nicer to people?

I posted statistics showing that the idea of freedom of movement within the Commonwealth is becoming increasingly popular, and is much more popular that the EU is in the UK. Nothing you have written refutes that. My Thesis is that, given the popularity of this idea it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. Probably in less than 20 years, possibly in less than five.

One thing the Referendum proved is that, no matter how loudly they like to demonstrate young people don't actually vote. That means their opinions aren't important in a democracy, because they'rte opting out of the decision-making process. I rather hope that, now, they will understand that "democracy" means YOU go out and vote and not assume that other people agree with you.

[Fragony]

ffs make it snappy, have a little bit consideration for my short attention span. Anything that can't be said in a single sentence shouldn't exist. Unless it takes several of course, but the aim should be there. Peeling apart posts doesn't make it very comfortable to read even if it's worth reading regardless. Nails need hammers.

[Legs]

Dreams of Empire? No, just a more expansive worldview. That's not the only reason people voted out, but it's one.


You are missing a word. a rather important one as it costs them £200.

Dreams of Empire? No, just a more expansive worldview. That's not the only reason people voted out, but it's one.

So how do the little englanders have a more expansive worldview?

While this may be true in terms of making agreements work the reality is that, in democracies, sentiment decides policies at least as much as practicalities.
Not really as a sentimetal policy cannot be enacted if it has too many practical issues.


Which of these countries uses Napoleonic Law? You are referring to the Province of Quebec? You are suggesting that Scotland and Wales don't operate the Westminster System because they are unicameral? It's patently obvious Britain has more politically in common with Austrlaia, New Zealand and Canada (probably in that order) than with most EU countries - such as France, or Italy, or Greece.

Are they the same? that was your claim.


No - it's generally accepted that the EU is a project all about rebuilding the Pax Romana - it was a big thing when Greece joined because it was the first time the EU expanded out of Charlemagne's realm into the "East". It's also why Turkey's joining is a long term goal. I'm not talking about Legions, Eagles and an Emperor, I'm talking about peace, prosperity, one currency, one government, one military.

Make your mind up, pax romana included greece charlamagnes didn't . neither of them included other western EU countries.


After the Brexit resul the Australian Prime Minister pretty much straight away said Australia wanted a trade deal with the UK
Yes because Brexit instantly screws up the trade deal he is already negotiating, I am sure he is happy you screwed up his deal.

- you can bet that includes freedom of movement.
Wow. is blind optimism a habit of yours?



The Canadian Trade Minister was straight out with "do you want to know about out Trade Deal with the EU, see if you want it as a model?".


Really rubbed your nose in it didn't he.
So the model 4 years of setting up then 5 years of talking, now they wait 2 years already for implimentation.
So 11 years or is it 12 now.
Do you want it as a model?:laugh4:


There are already multiple levels to the Commonwealth and interest groups. a Trade/Movement deal between four of the biggest economies isn't going to change that.


Yeah right.


Such a pact would be an easy sell in the UK and, as noted above, is popular in the other three countries. Democratically elected governments are concerned with the practicalities of getting elected.

Blind optimism.
Go to Australia House tommorrow and see how welcoming they are to the notion of uncontrolled immigration:dizzy2:


Freedom of Movement (the elimination of a Visa System) is part of trade, it cannot be negotiated in isolation, that would be very impractical.

Now you are just being silly.
How many trade deals have nothing to do with immigration and how many immigration/visa schemes have nothing to do with trade deals


Nice dodge. If you wanted to know you would have cited the passages to support your argument so I could pull them apart.

All the required passages are in the Westminster theology paper already posted, so either you havn't readthem or you have read them and are just trying to avoid it.
But you still have to find the imaginary passages to support your two bowls "theory", if you can find the imaginary scripture that supports your claim feel free to post them as i am fascinated by this imaginary bit of scripture you need.


I posted statistics showing that the idea of freedom of movement within the Commonwealth is becoming increasingly popular, and is much more popular that the EU is in the UK. Nothing you have written refutes that.
You posted a poll by a group pushing a specific agenda.


My Thesis is that, given the popularity of this idea it's pretty much guaranteed to happen. Probably in less than 20 years, possibly in less than five.
Yes dear.

[Legs]

ffs make it snappy, have a little bit consideration for my short attention span. Anything that can't be said in a single sentence shouldn't exist. Unless it takes several of course, but the aim should be there. Peeling apart posts doesn't make it very comfortable to read even if it's worth reading regardless. Nails need hammers.
OK , lets make it simple and snappy for you, something you can grasp mentally ...
Blame it on the Muslims, its always them.

[Fragony]

Solong and thanks for the predictabilities, if you don't mind I'm going to curl up somewhere and silently cry, beating such cleverness is beyond my reach

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Legs, I'm giving up because you hurt my feelings.

Not because I think you're right, or because I couldn't marshal any more arguments, because you hurt my feelings.

Just so everyone else is clear on that.

[Brenus]

"Blame it on the Muslims, its always them" Or Putin

[Legs]

Legs, I'm giving up because you hurt my feelings.

Not because I think you're right, or because I couldn't marshal any more arguments, because you hurt my feelings.

Just so everyone else is clear on that.
Hurt feelings?
Sorry 'bout that,
However given your posts about sentimental over practical isn't it rather telling.
Not of course saying that sentimental notions cannot bring policies, just that reality and practicality are the deciding factors.
To take a MRLparty policy as an example
Ban the hunting of polar bears in the Lake district.
Polar bears are "white" and look nice , the Lake Disrict is British and looks nice, shooting nice bears for sport in pleasant British scenery is not nice and is un-British.
From a sentimental viewpoint the policy is good and should be passed without parliamentary objections and to resounding public support.
From a practical viewpoint it is complete nonsense.

[Legs]

"Blame it on the Muslims, its always them" Or Putin
Or the media, or the global elite, or maybe even the reptilians.

[Legs]

Solong and thanks for the predictabilities, if you don't mind I'm going to curl up somewhere and silently cry, beating such cleverness is beyond my reach
Hey its predictable because you believe actually the EU is a secret conspiracy to make europe a muslim state:laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hurt feelings?
Sorry 'bout that,
However given your posts about sentimental over practical isn't it rather telling.
Not of course saying that sentimental notions cannot bring policies, just that reality and practicality are the deciding factors.
To take a MRLparty policy as an example
Ban the hunting of polar bears in the Lake district.
Polar bears are "white" and look nice , the Lake Disrict is British and looks nice, shooting nice bears for sport in pleasant British scenery is not nice and is un-British.
From a sentimental viewpoint the policy is good and should be passed without parliamentary objections and to resounding public support.
From a practical viewpoint it is complete nonsense.

Based on the tone and content of your posts I don't believe you're sorry - I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.

[Legs]

Based on the tone and content of your posts I don't believe you're sorry - I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.
Hold on, you stepped in to support some dodgy statistics which someone used to represent something they didn't represent. You then went off on a flight of fancy with sentimental notions about a "white" commonwealth and imaginary trade/immigration deals.
So who exactly is going with preconceptions and making no effort to try to understand?
Because as far as I can see that fits your approach entirely.

[Montmorency]

He's not wrong there, Legs.

PVC, even assuming a general popularity for the thought of lower restrictions on intra-Commonwealth movement, there seems to be no actual political impetus for such a thing, and indeed while the benefit would be largely sentimental, the actual political process would bring differences to the fore very quickly. To address popularity in other terms, expressing agreement with a given proposition is the furthest thing from commitment and advocacy. It's a very rare politician who grabs an under-the-radar topic from polling and tries to spin it into a platform. That's why I called the notion "the other way around" - while freely extending such privileges to Commonwealth citizens in the UK without reciprocal obligations would go great abroad, it won't do to think of it as much more than a subsidized museum membership.

[Fragony]

Hey its predictable because you believe actually the EU is a secret conspiracy to make europe a muslim state:laugh4:

and and and youknow and and and

[Legs]

He's not wrong there, Legs.

But he is, look....
Have you ever been to those boroughs do you know many people living there?
Come to think of it, have you ever been to London???????

Application of knowledge to claims that were being made and understanding that they do not make sense, no preconceptions.

Average house prices are an indication of neither. If you added a whole raft of other statistics they could form a very small part, but otherwise they are meaningless.

Viewing the data provided and understanding that they cannot be used in the manner in which someone is using them and as such are meaningless. No preconceprtions.

Same with....If you are a resident in the UK you receive access to the NHS.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/he...e-from-abroad/

Turn to the page covering foriegn residents and find the £200 yearly fee for residents who are not extra word residents. No preconceptions.

[Montmorency]

I referred to this:


I think you attack people with your pre-conceptions and make no effort to actually try to understand what they mean. For you it's just about point scoring.

Also, that link seems to be malformed.

[Legs]

I referred to this:



Also, that link seems to be malformed.
Yet I look at what they write, follow their links and then form an opinion on the data provided, where is the preconception?

[Montmorency]

Maybe your preconception on how to approach a discussion. Obviously a less rancorous demeanor would generate more positive responses in turn.

But the greatest concern may be that whatever preconceptions you may hold are what encourage you to lash out, i.e. you can't find a way to respect anything you encounter from many of the Orgahs here and so feel comfortable in treating them callously.

The advice that tends to be passed on is that, when faced with someone who has no redeeming characteristics in your mind, simply don't engage them. Save yourself and others the pain. If you feel that way about most participants here, then maybe this isn't a good forum to stimulate your passions and ideas. :shrug:

[Husar]

But he is, look....

He is not, at least not entirely.
It's just funny because when I get similar feelings about people whose opinions he shares, he never understands and treats me as though I were bullying them or something. :creep:
But anyway, I think I told you before that your tone is very aggressive and I can see why he feels that way.
I don't think you have bad intentions or even that you're wrong, you just have a way of talking to people that is aggressive and sometimes condescending. Not that it can't happen to anyone here, but there are some extremes. :sweatdrop:

By the way, I have to say when a "conservative" talks about hurt feelings, it's always very ironic, they're usually the ones who tell others to "man up" etc. :sweatdrop:
I hope you don't take it the wrong way PVC, I think you're a good man, even though you're often wrong. :2thumbsup: ~;)

[Gilrandir]

Our national bank is the "Deutsche Bundesbank", "Deutsche Bank" is a private bank like HSBC or BNP Paribas.


Oh, come on. German has too many B-words for naming important things (Bundesbank, Deutsche Bank, Bibliothek) it's no wonder people can confuse them. Next thing you will be saying is that there is some kind of Bücherei among those. :wall:

[Legs]

He is not, at least not entirely.
It's just funny because when I get similar feelings about people whose opinions he shares, he never understands and treats me as though I were bullying them or something. :creep:
But anyway, I think I told you before that your tone is very aggressive and I can see why he feels that way.
I don't think you have bad intentions or even that you're wrong, you just have a way of talking to people that is aggressive and sometimes condescending. Not that it can't happen to anyone here, but there are some extremes. :sweatdrop:

By the way, I have to say when a "conservative" talks about hurt feelings, it's always very ironic, they're usually the ones who tell others to "man up" etc. :sweatdrop:
I hope you don't take it the wrong way PVC, I think you're a good man, even though you're often wrong. :2thumbsup: ~;)
Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

Humans are NOT exclusively rational actors. Sentimentality, Agendas based on organizational politics, tradition... ALL of these influence decisions and should not be dismissed.

There is an old, but rather good book talking about some of these things Essence of Decision, an interesting analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis by Allison that takes on the non-rational aspects of decisions.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

Humans are NOT exclusively rational actors. Sentimentality, Agendas based on organizational politics, tradition... ALL of these influence decisions and should not be dismissed.

There is an old, but rather good book talking about some of these things Essence of Decision, an interesting analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis by Allison that takes on the non-rational aspects of decisions.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hold on, you stepped in to support some dodgy statistics which someone used to represent something they didn't represent. You then went off on a flight of fancy with sentimental notions about a "white" commonwealth and imaginary trade/immigration deals.
So who exactly is going with preconceptions and making no effort to try to understand?
Because as far as I can see that fits your approach entirely.

See - this is what I mean. I didn't defend Greyblades' point - I merely called for decorum and pointed out that'd at least tried to use some statistics. You completely dismissed any suggestion that house prices might even be an indicator of the wealth of an area when in fact it is widely recognised that they are, albeit hardly a definitive one.

I then made my own, completely seperate points. This was indicated by paragraph breaks.


He is not, at least not entirely.
It's just funny because when I get similar feelings about people whose opinions he shares, he never understands and treats me as though I were bullying them or something. :creep:
But anyway, I think I told you before that your tone is very aggressive and I can see why he feels that way.
I don't think you have bad intentions or even that you're wrong, you just have a way of talking to people that is aggressive and sometimes condescending. Not that it can't happen to anyone here, but there are some extremes. :sweatdrop:

By the way, I have to say when a "conservative" talks about hurt feelings, it's always very ironic, they're usually the ones who tell others to "man up" etc. :sweatdrop:
I hope you don't take it the wrong way PVC, I think you're a good man, even though you're often wrong. :2thumbsup: ~;)

If you are suggesting that you sometimes find me as difficult to converse with as I find Legs then then I'd have to say I'm something just short of mortified, and ashamed.

For the record, I don't think I've ever told anyone to "Man up", I'm not that sort of conservative or that sort of Christian.


Perhaps the problem is notions based on sentimentality rather than fact and reason. Emotions are not a good basis for a discussion and they bring a personal attachment and preconceptions with them. Hence the "hurting my feelings" line.
An example would be to look at conference, or some of the comments here on how Brexit is a success. Pure emoptional drivel with no foundation in reality.
conference was rapturous with the announcement of a possible date and declarations that negotiations would start now. The reality , re stated agin by the EU that there can be no negotiations till article 50 is put in. Same with the emotional "Brexit is a success all that bad stuff didn't happen" nonsense, when the reality is that Brexit simply hasn't happened yet.

Everything I highlighted here is offensive, it's all also at least partially redundant to your argument. Your tone is, at best, scornful. I realise that may be perceived as a cruel thing to say and I am genuinely sorry for that but in my view if you participate in debate in this way it is harmful to others.

A foundation of the Backroom's debating style is that we try to treat each other online in the same way as we would face to face. That means trying to avoid saying anything that's going to make someone else either storm out or want to throw something at you.

[Husar]

If you are suggesting that you sometimes find me as difficult to converse with as I find Legs then then I'd have to say I'm something just short of mortified, and ashamed.

For the record, I don't think I've ever told anyone to "Man up", I'm not that sort of conservative or that sort of Christian.

No worries, I was suggesting nothing of the sort. :bow:

[Legs]

See - this is what I mean. I didn't defend Greyblades' point - I merely called for decorum and pointed out that'd at least tried to use some statistics. You completely dismissed any suggestion that house prices might even be an indicator of the wealth of an area when in fact it is widely recognised that they are, albeit hardly a definitive one.

House prices may in some part be an indicator of wealth, but they are not an indicator of a residents disposable income, in fact if you look at the link the price fluctuation highlighted for the period is driven by people who may not even be residents of the area, as it notes its people seeking to avoid the upcoming tax on property they don't live in.
Remember the highlighted words, they are yours.
The key factor in assessing disposable income is income, without that you can't do anything with the statistics on house price, then you would need to factor in owner occupation, with and without outstanding mortgage, then the rental sector, then social rental sector then local charges, then transport costs and on and on and on.



The statistic provided means nothing in relation to local wealth or local disposable income, indeed with the article used it doesn't even mean local people.


Everything I highlighted here is offensive
How is it offensive?


A foundation of the Backroom's debating style is that we try to treat each other online in the same way as we would face to face. That means trying to avoid saying anything that's going to make someone else either storm out or want to throw something at you.
Try real life face to face. For example I had an interesting discussion with an archtiect and two engineers today, words you describe as offensive were used plus some actually offensive ones, no one stormed out or wanted to throw things, an agreement was reached on the contended issues based on practicality and facts.

[Legs]

Humans are NOT exclusively rational actors. Sentimentality, Agendas based on organizational politics, tradition... ALL of these influence decisions and should not be dismissed.

There is an old, but rather good book talking about some of these things Essence of Decision, an interesting analysis of the Cuban Missile Crisis by Allison that takes on the non-rational aspects of decisions.
Yes but emotional sentimental notions are harder to defend in the face of reality, and due to their nature will often be more strongly held despite them sometiomes making no sense so there is an emotional desire to still defend the indefensible long after it is a hopeless case.
That is the problem and it is that approach which people set themselves up to be able to claim they are being offended.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No worries, I was suggesting nothing of the sort. :bow:

~:grouphug:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

House prices may in some part be an indicator of wealth, but they are not an indicator of a residents disposable income, in fact if you look at the link the price fluctuation highlighted for the period is driven by people who may not even be residents of the area, as it notes its people seeking to avoid the upcoming tax on property they don't live in.
Remember the highlighted words, they are yours.
The key factor in assessing disposable income is income, without that you can't do anything with the statistics on house price, then you would need to factor in owner occupation, with and without outstanding mortgage, then the rental sector, then social rental sector then local charges, then transport costs and on and on and on.

The statistic provided means nothing in relation to local wealth or local disposable income, indeed with the article used it doesn't even mean local people.

House price indicates rental price, rental price indicates disposable income, as do the cost of mortgage re-payments, actually. Greyblades' argument was flawed in its simplicity, not its logic.


How is it offensive?

I was tempted to refuse to dignify this with a response but that would be pointless.

It was offensive because you dismissed the feelings of others as irrelevant, then described their opinion as drivel and nonsense, which are both insults.


Try real life face to face. For example I had an interesting discussion with an archtiect and two engineers today, words you describe as offensive were used plus some actually offensive ones, no one stormed out or wanted to throw things, an agreement was reached on the contended issues based on practicality and facts.

I try to be nice to people in real life - I get more hugs and free drinks that way.

[Pannonian]

House price indicates rental price, rental price indicates disposable income, as do the cost of mortgage re-payments, actually. Greyblades' argument was flawed in its simplicity, not its logic.


It's ironic that his simplicity breaks down where he tried to introduce complexity into the equation. Complexity of the sort Greyblades tried to introduce only makes sense when one understands the context of the data. In this case, he missed out the history of London and why certain areas are heavily non-white, and the nature of house prices in Greater London. In short, he tried to explain to a Londoner why certain things are in London, without himself understanding what he's talking about. Or my original point, which is that his assertion that Europhilism is the preserve of the white upper middle class who never have to face an immigrant, is contradicted by the fact that the most immigrant-heavy region in the UK was heavily pro-EU. And one of the reasons I have little respect for Greyblades is this argument of his.


Because the EU is how they got there, duh, same reason mexican immigrants vote democrat in the states. I refer to the Europhiles who buy into the ideology and supported inviting the immigrants in in the first place.

I don't have much beef with you, as you start with your own preconceptions, and your arguments, within these parameters, are broadly consistent. Contrast with Greyblades's circular argument, which starts from a wrong presumption (his assertion about the white upper middle class and Europhilism), then proceeds with easily disprovable further assertions to dismiss concrete evidence. This circle of wrongness is typical of post-truth politics, seen here in his argument for Brexit, but seen even more clearly in arguments for Corbyn (see Brenus dismissing all evidence against Corbyn as by nature biased). Concretely disprovable presumptions that serve to reinforce each other and shut out all evidence that may contradict them. Ironically, this mode of thinking was what led Blair towards Iraq in the first place. Even back then, I thought that form of argument was self-evidently stupid, so unsurprisingly I have a similarly low opinion of anyone who goes down the same line of thinking.

[Legs]

House price indicates rental price, ,





I try to be nice to people in real life - I get more hugs and free drinks that way.
No it doesn't. Rental price indicates rental price.
The two can be entirely unrelated


rental price indicates disposable income
No it doesn't, rental price is a factor in disposable income with additional information on net income and other expenses.


as do the cost of mortgage re-payments, actually.
Yes, and?
Are they presented at all?
Did anyone mention mortages in relation to housing and disposable income before the person you are quoting?


Greyblades' argument was flawed in its simplicity, not its logic.

That is not correct, it was flawed in both its simplicity and its logic. As has been demonstrated.


It was offensive because you dismissed the feelings of others as irrelevant, then described their opinion as drivel and nonsense, which are both insults.

Feelings can be irrelevant if they don't support the viewpoint. Drivel and nonsense are words used to describe notions that make no sense. If you take no sense you can see where the word nonsense fits exactly.
How are they insulting?


I try to be nice to people in real life - I get more hugs and free drinks that way.
And if you take the example I put up, there was no animosity, language which you would condider extremely insulting was used, a practical solution was agreed, I make more money, they make more money, which means we all get free drinks.
Thats real life.

[Gilrandir]

For example I had an interesting discussion with an archtiect and two engineers today, words you describe as offensive were used plus some actually offensive ones, no one stormed out or wanted to throw things, an agreement was reached on the contended issues based on practicality and facts.

Were they tied to a chair?

[Montmorency]

Were they tied to a chair?

Crowbars may have been involved. Their empirical, uh, force, is undeniable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, even assuming a general popularity for the thought of lower restrictions on intra-Commonwealth movement, there seems to be no actual political impetus for such a thing, and indeed while the benefit would be largely sentimental, the actual political process would bring differences to the fore very quickly. To address popularity in other terms, expressing agreement with a given proposition is the furthest thing from commitment and advocacy. It's a very rare politician who grabs an under-the-radar topic from polling and tries to spin it into a platform. That's why I called the notion "the other way around" - while freely extending such privileges to Commonwealth citizens in the UK without reciprocal obligations would go great abroad, it won't do to think of it as much more than a subsidized museum membership.

You may wish to review which benefits we already extend to all Commonwealth Citizens. In essence, if you come here and are granted indefinite leave to remain you can end up running the country. Conversely, of the four most recent Australian Prime Ministers two were British-born, and the Governor of the banks of England is a Canadian.

You are correct that up to now a Trade Deal between the four has not been a political platform, but it has also not been possible. Instead of confederating with the Commonwealth after WWII a succession of British Prime Ministers supported confederation with Europe. However, this policy has never been popular among the electorate. Eventually the electorate voiced this lack of support in a Referendum and here we are.

In a democracy sentiment is important, it is taking us out of the EU even as said EU circles an economic whole due to a refusal to amend treaties drafted with more sentiment than economic sense.

Trade deals are always good - trade deals with countries with similar cultures who are already your close allies are much easier to negotiate than trade deals with the US or China.

[Montmorency]

In a democracy sentiment is important

I recall a couple of years ago we discussed - at least for the United States - that research on polls, lobbying, and legislative measures pushed, discussed, and passed in Congress, that general population sentiment has minimal correlation to legislative activities. In other words, if you're optimistic about such a deal, you have to assume that significant corporate interests can reconcile with each other to lobby for it.

[Gilrandir]

Crowbars may have been involved. Their empirical, uh, force, is undeniable.

I would wager it was baseball bats.

[Fragony]

Congratulations UK, you are the #1 best performers in the G7 according to the IMF, the doomsday europhiles crave so much will have to wait for a while all is going just, even better since you don't get to have a notorious drunkard licking your face

[Legs]

Trade deals are always good
Yet you vote to abandon one.


trade deals with countries with similar cultures who are already your close allies are much easier to negotiate than trade deals with the US or China.
Will a trade deal with the "white" countries mean they insist you get rid of agricultural subsidies?
How will that sit with the rural tory heartland?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yet you vote to abandon one....

Actually, when they voted on membership in the EEC a while back (almost completely an economic/trade arrangement) they voted to stay.

From what I read, the large measure of opposition to the EU and the reason for the exit vote centered on the non-economic influences/requirements. I do not believe it was the trade deal portion that motivated the exit vote.

[Legs]

Congratulations UK, you are the #1 best performers in the G7 according to the IMF, the doomsday europhiles crave so much will have to wait for a while all is going just, even better since you don't get to have a notorious drunkard licking your face
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
What did the IMF actually say.
But look on the bright side, it's a bargain, it only cost £170 billion to do it...well until november when they have to pump more money into the system again to stop it tanking

[Legs]

Actually, when they voted on membership in the EEC a while back (almost completely an economic/trade arrangement) they voted to stay.

From what I read, the large measure of opposition to the EU and the reason for the exit vote centered on the non-economic influences/requirements. I do not believe it was the trade deal portion that motivated the exit vote.
I think most of the people voting didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against.
Some people probably thought they were voting to give millions of pounds to the NHS, I wonder how they felt when they were told the money was going to farmers instead?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think most of the people voting didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against.
Some people probably thought they were voting to give millions of pounds to the NHS, I wonder how they felt when they were told the money was going to farmers instead?

While your example seems a bit over the top, I have already noted my belief in the surprising degree of ignorance among most electorates, so I cannot deny that possibility here.

[Husar]

Congratulations UK, you are the #1 best performers in the G7 according to the IMF, the doomsday europhiles crave so much will have to wait for a while all is going just, even better since you don't get to have a notorious drunkard licking your face

Are you by any chance a speechwriter for Trump?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJCpjc4_h78

[Legs]

While your example seems a bit over the top, I have already noted my belief in the surprising degree of ignorance among most electorates, so I cannot deny that possibility here.
What's over the top? It was what the Brexit campaign were claiming they would do with the money sent to the EU. As soon as the vote was in they said it was not happening, then they said the money not going to the EU would have to go to the farmers because the agriculture sector was going to lose all its EU subsidies.
I suppose they said they was going to fund the NHS with the money purely for the sentimental and emotional draw it would have on some voters.
Is that a case of sentiment hitting reality and coming off a poor second as usual when it comes to actual policy?

[Legs]

Are you by any chance a speechwriter for Trump?

i think you have a point there.
What he wrote does make about as much sense as a typical deranged rant Trump spews.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Actually, when they voted on membership in the EEC a while back (almost completely an economic/trade arrangement) they voted to stay.

From what I read, the large measure of opposition to the EU and the reason for the exit vote centered on the non-economic influences/requirements. I do not believe it was the trade deal portion that motivated the exit vote.

As with any political debate this one operated on multiple levels depending on who you asked.

At the bottom level you had the "Immigration Debate" that boiled down to the Out people saying "Throw them all out" and the In group saying "that's Racist". Then you had the "Confidence" Debate just above that where people who voted out believed Britain could stand on its own feet, and people who voted in believed it couldn't. Then there's the "Economic" debate that functioned on several levels, the bottom most just wanting more money for the NHS (anyone who believed that figure deserves to be fleeced).

Right at the top you have the "Demographic" and "Democratic" debate about how we control immigration and how it affects our society on one hand and who decides our laws on the other hand.

The theme running through the whole thing was the lack of enthusiasm on both sides. The people voting to saty didn't really like the EU and the people voting leave didn't really want to leave.

[InsaneApache]

I think most of the people voting didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against.
Some people probably thought they were voting to give millions of pounds to the NHS, I wonder how they felt when they were told the money was going to farmers instead?

There you have it in a nutshell once again. The sneering contempt for the working classes.

Then again that's why they're against Grammar Schools, one can't have the hoi polloi thinking for themselves can one?

[Husar]

There you have it in a nutshell once again. The sneering contempt for the working classes.

Then again that's why they're against Grammar Schools, one can't have the hoi polloi thinking for themselves can one?

The assumption was that if they did think for themselves (and didn't just believe the false promises), they'd have voted remain.
But nice try.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The assumption was that if they did think for themselves (and didn't just believe the false promises), they'd have voted remain.
But nice try.

Not necessarily - after all, those right-wing types are discouraged from doing anything academic. I'm not really all that right wing, in the grand scheme of things, and I'm hardly welcomed in academic circles.

[Legs]

There you have it in a nutshell once again. The sneering contempt for the working classes.



Yes, its a tory trait isn't it.
They must have held the people reliant on the NHS in lots of contempt to peddle such a lie to them.

[InsaneApache]

No idea, I'm not a tory. I am working class though, albeit an educated one.

[Husar]

Not necessarily - after all, those right-wing types are discouraged from doing anything academic. I'm not really all that right wing, in the grand scheme of things, and I'm hardly welcomed in academic circles.

That is at best tangential to what I said.
Let me repeat in my words:

Legs: Said that people fell for false promises and that is why they voted leave. It is implied that if they thought for themselves instead of following false promises, they would have voted remain.

IA: Said Legs only has contempt for the people he was talking about and that people on the left like Legs don't want these people to be educated.

Husar: Said that IA's post made no sense since Legs obviously implied that he would prefer them to be educated and think for themselves instead of following political propaganda.

PVC: Said that right-wing types are discouraged from academics.

Now let me explain why that is not a good point to make.

First of all, education does not necessarily require one to have an academic degree. My highschool put a lot of effort into teaching us critical thinking skills. And while this continues at the university, a lot of what I do there is memorize things. There is some critical thinking and analysis left, but a lot of exams are about taking two or three weeks to memorize models and the language of the trade and so on.

The second problem is, why does someone arrive at academics as a right-wing type? That somehow implies immovable object and a closed mind, not a good starting point to acquire knowledge, or is it? And the same would be true if someone arrived there as an antifa or similarly closed-minded leftists. In academia, at least in my experience, it is more a requirement to be open to new ideas than to come there and expect to find more evidence for one's existing views. If a right-winger comes there with these expectations, it is their own fault that they don't fit in, again, I would tell a left-winger the same.
One cannot go to a place of learning with all of one's views already nicely laid out and fixed in place and then expect there to be no friction.

[Pannonian]

That is at best tangential to what I said.
Let me repeat in my words:

Legs: Said that people fell for false promises and that is why they voted leave. It is implied that if they thought for themselves instead of following false promises, they would have voted remain.

IA: Said Legs only has contempt for the people he was talking about and that people on the left like Legs don't want these people to be educated.

Husar: Said that IA's post made no sense since Legs obviously implied that he would prefer them to be educated and think for themselves instead of following political propaganda.

PVC: Said that right-wing types are discouraged from academics.

Now let me explain why that is not a good point to make.

First of all, education does not necessarily require one to have an academic degree. My highschool put a lot of effort into teaching us critical thinking skills. And while this continues at the university, a lot of what I do there is memorize things. There is some critical thinking and analysis left, but a lot of exams are about taking two or three weeks to memorize models and the language of the trade and so on.

The second problem is, why does someone arrive at academics as a right-wing type? That somehow implies immovable object and a closed mind, not a good starting point to acquire knowledge, or is it? And the same would be true if someone arrived there as an antifa or similarly closed-minded leftists. In academia, at least in my experience, it is more a requirement to be open to new ideas than to come there and expect to find more evidence for one's existing views. If a right-winger comes there with these expectations, it is their own fault that they don't fit in, again, I would tell a left-winger the same.
One cannot go to a place of learning with all of one's views already nicely laid out and fixed in place and then expect there to be no friction.

Perhaps the most relevant political education that I've received was at sub-university level, namely distinguishing between different levels of evidence, weighing their usefulness, and plumping for the closest possible sources to the subject being considered. Anyone who has had to consider evidence in a substantial way will see this as just a basic requirement, common sense for anyone with half a brain. Yet in the Labour thread, I saw Corbyn supporters dismiss contrary opinions of his (in)competence as unacceptably biased, because they came from sources close to the subject. That's the circle of wrongness in post-truth politics that I talk about. Part of the scientific method requires that a concrete assertion must be made, that can be tested and verified independently, and that therefore there can be something to be tested against, and the possibly that it can be proved wrong. Post-truth politics closes the circle in on itself, so that all contrary evidence is by its nature to be dismissed. Nothing from the outside is admissible.

[Husar]

Post-truth politics closes the circle in on itself, so that all contrary evidence is by its nature to be dismissed. Nothing from the outside is admissible.

That reminds me of some discussions I recently broke off with our resident alt right representative. :sweatdrop:
It seems to me that the entire "western world" is currently seeing a rise in extremism of all kinds.
While I and other lefties long for communism without wanting to admit it... I mean, while I want social justice, others want a Hitler to lead them to the promised land while they try to bend their demands so that it looks like they don't want a Hitler because they can't even justify to themselves that they long for a Hitler. :dizzy2:

The only conclusion can be that humanity triggered its own self destruction. :end:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No idea, I'm not a tory. I am working class though, albeit an educated one.

I shake my head when I read things like this. I know you mean them and I understand the context....but on a deep level I just don't "get" it.

Our "class system," such as it is, is far more malleable and almost purely economic.

[Gilrandir]

There is some critical thinking and analysis left, but a lot of exams are about taking two or three weeks to memorize models and the language of the trade and so on.



Don't you think it is the way it should be? I mean you can't become a pro without knowing basics. What will the use of, say, an automechanic be, if he can critically think looking at the engine, but doesn't know what it consists of?

[Montmorency]

Our "class system," such as it is, is far more malleable and almost purely economic.

On one hand, this is just something the new rich tell themselves at night to get to sleep.

On the other hand, it does demand more than just a couple of classes. It's interesting to note that the American rich have relatively poor income-retention across generations (i.e. rich children often fall out of that bracket in adulthood, or downward mobility for short); I wonder how this varies as a function of generational retrenchment.

[Pannonian]

On one hand, this is just something the new rich tell themselves at night to get to sleep.

On the other hand, it does demand more than just a couple of classes. It's interesting to note that the American rich have relatively poor income-retention across generations (i.e. rich children often fall out of that bracket in adulthood, or downward mobility for short); I wonder how this varies as a function of generational retrenchment.

Americans like to think that they can move up. British don't like to think that they have moved up. Both are delusional.

[Legs]

Let me repeat in my words:

Legs: Said that people fell for false promises and that is why they voted leave. It is implied that if they thought for themselves instead of following false promises, they would have voted remain.

IA: Said Legs only has contempt for the people he was talking about and that people on the left like Legs don't want these people to be educated.

Husar: Said that IA's post made no sense since Legs obviously implied that he would prefer them to be educated and think for themselves instead of following political propaganda.



Oh I thought he was agreeing with the long established fact that tories despise the working class and enjoy playing them as mugs.

So he claims to be educated and managed to take a simple statement and get it completely backwards, must be a very special education he has.

[Husar]

Don't you think it is the way it should be? I mean you can't become a pro without knowing basics. What will the use of, say, an automechanic be, if he can critically think looking at the engine, but doesn't know what it consists of?

I hate memorizing things sitting somewhere with a book or other reading material instead of a more interesting "learning by doing" approach, but you won't get an argument from me there.


Oh I thought he was agreeing with the long established fact that tories despise the working class and enjoy playing them as mugs.

So he claims to be educated and managed to take a simple statement and get it completely backwards, must be a very special education he has.

Your diverting from your fact-based approach into insults again.
You call someone stupid or badly educated based on anecdotal evidence.
Should I call you stupid now because you made an obvious mistake and didn't follow scientific procedure? :dizzy2:

:thumbsdown:

[Legs]

Your diverting from your fact-based approach into insults again.
You call someone stupid or badly educated based on anecdotal evidence.
Should I call you stupid now because you made an obvious mistake and didn't follow scientific procedure? :dizzy2:

:thumbsdown:
The only "evidence" present was an unverified claim about being educated and a statement which implied a lack of education.

[Montmorency]

a statement which implied a lack of education.

Offer a syllogism.

[Legs]

Offer a syllogism.
Two pints of cream with 1 pint of white wine, 1 lemon and 5 spoons of sugar, whisk until frothy.

[Montmorency]

:inquisitive:

Were you imitating Fragony there? If so, that's quite a good impression.

[Legs]

:inquisitive:

Were you imitating Fragony there? If so, that's quite a good impression.
Oh sorry, thats a syllabub, not a syllogism. I must have read it arseways, but hey I got skoolin as you can tell because I can understand what is written.

[Husar]

The only "evidence" present was an unverified claim about being educated and a statement which implied a lack of education.

First you draw a conclusion and then try to weasel out by saying you had not enough evidence for any proper conclusion. :rolleyes:
Simple solution, don't make hasty conclusions if you lack "evidence", people might think you're a nasty person.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is at best tangential to what I said.
Let me repeat in my words:

Legs: Said that people fell for false promises and that is why they voted leave. It is implied that if they thought for themselves instead of following false promises, they would have voted remain.

IA: Said Legs only has contempt for the people he was talking about and that people on the left like Legs don't want these people to be educated.

Husar: Said that IA's post made no sense since Legs obviously implied that he would prefer them to be educated and think for themselves instead of following political propaganda.

PVC: Said that right-wing types are discouraged from academics.

Now let me explain why that is not a good point to make.

First of all, education does not necessarily require one to have an academic degree. My highschool put a lot of effort into teaching us critical thinking skills. And while this continues at the university, a lot of what I do there is memorize things. There is some critical thinking and analysis left, but a lot of exams are about taking two or three weeks to memorize models and the language of the trade and so on.

The second problem is, why does someone arrive at academics as a right-wing type? That somehow implies immovable object and a closed mind, not a good starting point to acquire knowledge, or is it? And the same would be true if someone arrived there as an antifa or similarly closed-minded leftists. In academia, at least in my experience, it is more a requirement to be open to new ideas than to come there and expect to find more evidence for one's existing views. If a right-winger comes there with these expectations, it is their own fault that they don't fit in, again, I would tell a left-winger the same.
One cannot go to a place of learning with all of one's views already nicely laid out and fixed in place and then expect there to be no friction.

OK, I accept I could have explained that better.

Education is not only factual, it's also social and moral. This is part of what Pannonian meant when head said Brits don't like to think they have "moved up". The implication is that an education elevates you socially. Going to university moves you from the Working Class to the Middle Class.

IA would counter that whilst his education might make his kids Middle Class it doesn't change his social class.

The truth - I think - is somewhere in between.

Now on to what I said.

Implicit in Legs' comments is the belief that if the right-wing working class were better educated they would be more left-wing and therefore would have voted In because all the right-wing out campaign had going for it was false promises.

However, the higher up the educational ladder they go the more Left-wing it becomes because it's a clique. I'm not sure how far you got but as you know I'm trying to finish my PhD and I've had a problem. My department has refused to give me teaching experience, despite the number of years I've been doing the PhD (I'm part time) I've been given a total of about 6 hours teaching to do - and that was from one academic who is a friend in the department. Aside from that I was frozen out, and that prevented me from getting my AHEA certification because you have to do a minimum of something like six sessions, and I only did four.

That pretty much locks me out of teaching once I finish the PhD, certainly at a university of comparable stature to Exeter.

It's a bit depressing, if I'm honest, and part of it is that, I don't quite "fit", my opinions don't fit with the rest of the College, a few years ago at a dinner I pointed out to the rest of the table that drugs are not exclusively a problem of the Urban poor, they afflict the rural poor just as much. I was taken seriously because I grew up on a small-holding and I have direct experience of this in the local town. I rather exposed the ignorance of the other diners though.

This is a problem both of my class and my political outlook - that would be landed middle class btw (as opposed to educated middle class).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The only "evidence" present was an unverified claim about being educated and a statement which implied a lack of education.

Oh, well we all know IA is educated, we can tell - having known him for a decade or more on average

[Montmorency]

What is your PhD, still Medieval Studies? I'm surprised, as across the board the professorship (if not the doctoral base) should be representative of the general population in terms of those leanings, plus a relative rightward-lean in that sort of discipline.

[Legs]

First you draw a conclusion and then try to weasel out by saying you had not enough evidence for any proper conclusion. :rolleyes:
Simple solution, don't make hasty conclusions if you lack "evidence", people might think you're a nasty person.
Errrr no.
I draw a conclusion from the available evidence.
Additional evidence to support the conclusion is present in the first part of post #936
Since I stand by what I said and the conclusion I reached from the statements made where on earth are you getting the notion about weaseling out?
The last tory effort at concern for the working calss was the Big Society project...which was soon dropped and its final audit showed that the bulk of th funding went to the wealthiest ares rather than the poorer areas which were stated as the main focus of the project.
And you don't have to be a tory to know that , which raises further questions about Apaches claim.

[Legs]

Implicit in Legs' comments is the belief that if the right-wing working class were better educated they would be more left-wing and therefore would have voted In because all the right-wing out campaign had going for it was false promises.


And where do you reach that conclusion from? obviously it was not garnered from what was written.
Are you working off preconceptions and just basing your assesment on that and trying to make your point fit what you want it to fit ?


Oh, well we all know IA is educated, we can tell - having known him for a decade or more on average
Well I don't know that , in fact going by what was written by apache it seems the opposite is true.
So are you just going on preconceptions again young man?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What is your PhD, still Medieval Studies? I'm surprised, as across the board the professorship (if not the doctoral base) should be representative of the general population in terms of those leanings, plus a relative rightward-lean in that sort of discipline.

You think because we study medieval Christianity we're all medieval Christians?

[Montmorency]

Nah. You're not Catholic.

[InsaneApache]

Oi it's InsaneApache not Apache! :stare:

[Gilrandir]

I hate memorizing things sitting somewhere with a book or other reading material

You lie down. Learning will become more bearable (unless you go to sleep).

[Husar]

You lie down. Learning will become more bearable (unless you go to sleep).

Usually that leads to said sleep mode... ~D

[Legs]

Oi it's InsaneApache not Apache! :stare:

OK Insane, you claim to be educated so work this one out , its very simple.
How can you claim that as you are not a tory you don't know about the widely held view that they have a sneering contempt for the working class, yet you describe sneeering contempt for the working class as a traditional tory trait?

[Husar]

yet you describe sneeering contempt for the working class as a traditional tory trait?

Didn't he say that in reply to you (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151784-UK-referendum-Out&p=2053717432&viewfull=1#post2053717432)?

As I understood his post, he said you have sneering contempt for the working class because you basically said they believe everything the politicians told them. That's even what I said in my reiteration that you quoted without correcting that part. So unless you're a Tory, we have now entered full misunderstanding mode. :dizzy2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Didn't he say that in reply to you (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151784-UK-referendum-Out&p=2053717432&viewfull=1#post2053717432)?

As I understood his post, he said you have sneering contempt for the working class because you basically said they believe everything the politicians told them. That's even what I said in my reiteration that you quoted without correcting that part. So unless you're a Tory, we have now entered full misunderstanding mode. :dizzy2:

He's projecting.

IA referred to what he sees at Legs' disdain for the working class, but because in Legs' mind this is a fault evidenced exclusively by the Right (and Tories) IA must be referring to himself, because IA is a Tory. IA has said he is not a Tory but because he's to the Right of Legs politically in Legs' mind he must be a Tory.

Basically, Legs is being closed minded and prejudiced.

[Legs]

Didn't he say that in reply to you (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151784-UK-referendum-Out&p=2053717432&viewfull=1#post2053717432)?

As I understood his post, he said you have sneering contempt for the working class because you basically said they believe everything the politicians told them. That's even what I said in my reiteration that you quoted without correcting that part. So unless you're a Tory, we have now entered full misunderstanding mode. :dizzy2:
I can see why you are lost.
"sneering contempt for the working class" is the key.
You are only looking at one example of that phrase.
To exit misunderstanding mode find that phrase alluded to as a tory trait, identify Insane as the person who described it as such and then proceed normally.
Its quite easy, you don't even have to leave this referendum topic

[Legs]

He's projecting.

IA referred to what he sees at Legs' disdain for the working class, but because in Legs' mind this is a fault evidenced exclusively by the Right (and Tories) IA must be referring to himself, because IA is a Tory. IA has said he is not a Tory but because he's to the Right of Legs politically in Legs' mind he must be a Tory.

Basically, Legs is being closed minded and prejudiced.
Young man stop making yourself look like that.
When you are so completely lost it is perhaps better to stay quiet.

[Sarmatian]

Oi it's InsaneApache not Apache! :stare:

How rude of him to presume you're not insane :).

[Pannonian]

Do the Brexiters here support the idea of making companies list their foreign workers?

[Fragony]

Not if it is what it sounds like if you say it like that, Want to know some more

[Husar]

I can see why you are lost.
"sneering contempt for the working class" is the key.
You are only looking at one example of that phrase.
To exit misunderstanding mode find that phrase alluded to as a tory trait, identify Insane as the person who described it as such and then proceed normally.
Its quite easy, you don't even have to leave this referendum topic

I assume you are talking about this then?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151784-UK-referendum-Out&p=2053705276&highlight=contempt#post2053705276

In which case I may have completely misinterpreted IA's last statement of the sort and noone bothered to correct me.
I shall go cry in a corner over the time wasted and then consider whether a return to this topic is worth even more of my limited lifetime. :sweatdrop:

[Pannonian]

Not if it is what it sounds like if you say it like that, Want to know some more

Businesses react to Conservative plans for listing foreign workers (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37563064)

[Fragony]

That's simply wrong. I know that there is more hostility towards foreign workers since the referendum but the resentment was probably already there and smoldered. Sounds to me someone likes to freeride on the brexit to haul in disgrunted voters with a rather pathetic proposal that is frankly inexcusable to be making. It's probably more nuanced it always is but I don't like it, looks really opertunistic. Can't shake the feeling that the bbc sneaked the word in without a purpose though as it doesn't really has anything to do with this that's really opertunistic as well

[Legs]

I assume you are talking about this then?
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?151784-UK-referendum-Out&p=2053705276&highlight=contempt#post2053705276

In which case I may have completely misinterpreted IA's last statement of the sort and noone bothered to correct me.
I shall go cry in a corner over the time wasted and then consider whether a return to this topic is worth even more of my limited lifetime. :sweatdrop:
So, is he saying I am a tory?

But what do you make of this.....
I think most of the people voting didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against.
Some people probably thought they were voting to give millions of pounds to the NHS, I wonder how they felt when they were told the money was going to farmers instead?

Could you read that and come up with a response like....
He's projecting.

IA referred to what he sees at Legs' disdain for the working class, but because in Legs' mind this is a fault evidenced exclusively by the Right (and Tories) IA must be referring to himself, because IA is a Tory. IA has said he is not a Tory but because he's to the Right of Legs politically in Legs' mind he must be a Tory.

Basically, Legs is being closed minded and prejudiced.
Or is that just too crazy to imagine.

[Fragony]

What I just don't understand is that you insist on being unpleasant here when just having one coukd pay the rent. It's perfectly clear what was said.

[Husar]

So, is he saying I am a tory?

I have no idea what he was saying, it's like the entire forum is slowly turning into Fragonies. I think he just said he wants to be the only asshole here, but I'm really not sure. :dizzy2:


But what do you make of this.....
I think most of the people voting didn't have the faintest idea what they were voting for or against.
Some people probably thought they were voting to give millions of pounds to the NHS, I wonder how they felt when they were told the money was going to farmers instead?

Could you read that and come up with a response like....
He's projecting.

IA referred to what he sees at Legs' disdain for the working class, but because in Legs' mind this is a fault evidenced exclusively by the Right (and Tories) IA must be referring to himself, because IA is a Tory. IA has said he is not a Tory but because he's to the Right of Legs politically in Legs' mind he must be a Tory.

Basically, Legs is being closed minded and prejudiced.
Or is that just too crazy to imagine.

PVC went with my apparently wrong interpretation of what IA said or interpreted it in the same way I did and tried to somehow make sense of it and what you said later. I'm going to guess that he also didn't remember what IA said three months ago, maybe IA himself didn't even remember. :dizzy2:

His statement is also not directed at the part you quoted but at your later accusations against IA. It's not crazy, a bit mistaken perhaps, depending on who meant what.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think Legs should go and read IA on "Champagne Socialists" before he concludes that contempt for the Working Class is seen by our esteemed Lancastrian as a preserve of the Tories.

[Legs]

His statement is also not directed at the part you quoted but at your later accusations against IA. It's not crazy, a bit mistaken perhaps, depending on who meant what.
If that were true it would relate to later posts, can you find any relation to later posts at all?
Is any of the content of the posts in any way related to what he wrote?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Do we need someone to shout "to the barricades!" or have somebody post a link to a good rendition of the "internationale?"

[Pannonian]

Do we need someone to shout "to the barricades!" or have somebody post a link to a good rendition of the "internationale?"

Do you hear the people sing
Singing the song of angry men
It is the music of a people
Who can barely count to ten
When the beating of your arse
Echoes the beating of your bum
All that hard flagellation
Will make you numb

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have no idea what he was saying, it's like the entire forum is slowly turning into Fragonies. I think he just said he wants to be the only asshole here, but I'm really not sure. :dizzy2:



PVC went with my apparently wrong interpretation of what IA said or interpreted it in the same way I did and tried to somehow make sense of it and what you said later. I'm going to guess that he also didn't remember what IA said three months ago, maybe IA himself didn't even remember. :dizzy2:

His statement is also not directed at the part you quoted but at your later accusations against IA. It's not crazy, a bit mistaken perhaps, depending on who meant what.

I think it's fairly clear IA was referring to the Left, or the rich part of it at any rate, when he said:


There you have it in a nutshell once again. The sneering contempt for the working classes.


Then again that's why they're against Grammar Schools, one can't have the hoi polloi thinking for themselves can one?

If his observation about 19th Century Tories has any bearing on the above it is to ironically observe that the roles of Left and Right have become inverted.

What I struggle to understand is why Legs is contorting himself trying to come up with another explanation other than what IA clearly meant. Given how he's resorted to responding to my points with nothing but abuse I fail to see why he can't just accept that IA meant what he did and hurl abuse at him too.

Unless asking him to quote primary sources in an argument over scripture has just engendered an irrational hatred of me specifically.

[Husar]

If that were true it would relate to later posts, can you find any relation to later posts at all?
Is any of the content of the posts in any way related to what he wrote?

Yes.

[InsaneApache]

OK Insane, you claim to be educated so work this one out , its very simple.
How can you claim that as you are not a tory you don't know about the widely held view that they have a sneering contempt for the working class, yet you describe sneeering contempt for the working class as a traditional tory trait?

Emily Thornberry? aka Lady Nugee, Baroness Shami Chakrabarti?

Just to be clear, I was pointing out the contempt that the 'elites' have towards the ordinary guy in the street. I used the term 'tory squire' as an epiphet. The Labour Party has more than enough bigots to be going on with.

I seem to remember that we had a resident socialist here a few years ago that just couldn't get his head around the fact that any working class person not inclined to vote Labour must be a tory.

Sad.

[Brenus]

"Unless asking him to quote primary sources in an argument over scripture has just engendered an irrational hatred of me specifically." I sympathise.

"Do we need someone to shout "to the barricades!" or have somebody post a link to a good rendition of the "internationale?" I heard that initially, the Internationale (Eugène Pottier being the author) was meant to be on the lyric of the Marseillaise. Then Pierre Degeyter wrote the lyrics...
One of the families (I think Pottier) tried to get the copy rights paid at the time of USSR, but failed to get the monies. Now, I can't guarantee/veracity the reality of all this. :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

..."Do we need someone to shout "to the barricades!" or have somebody post a link to a good rendition of the "internationale?" I heard that initially, the Internationale (Eugène Pottier being the author) was meant to be on the lyric of the Marseillaise. Then Pierre Degeyter wrote the lyrics...
One of the families (I think Pottier) tried to get the copy rights paid at the time of USSR, but failed to get the monies. Now, I can't guarantee/veracity the reality of all this. :laugh4:

Seeking royalties for the Communard "anthem!?!!" LOVE it.

[Pannonian]

Seeking royalties for the Communard "anthem!?!!" LOVE it.

A Communards anthem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ha5HrQryLk)

The Parisians had really squeaky voices.

[InsaneApache]

He sounds like he's singing 'lick my arsehole', sounds about right! :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

He sounds like he's singing 'lick my arsehole', sounds about right! :laugh4:

It harks back to an honourable classical tradition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78HBp-Youk).

[Pannonian]

No comments from Brexiters apart from Frag on the Home Secretary's proposal?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No comments from Brexiters apart from Frag on the Home Secretary's proposal?

Which sort of bigot would you like me to pretend to be?

[HopAlongBunny]

Just keep those filthy foreigners (from the LSE ~;) ) away from the Brexit:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/10/uk-lse-academics-barred-advising-brexit-161008175421672.html

[Pannonian]

Which sort of bigot would you like me to pretend to be?

Allison Pearson said that this wasn't what she voted for when she voted Leave. I pointed out that the sentiments of the Leave voters, straight after the referendum, focused on immigration as the biggest issue, and that there was markedly increased hostility towards foreigners immediately after the referendum. The Tory government has taken the referendum result and the reasons for the result to mean a mandate for things like the Rudd proposal. And polls indicate that she's right. The referendum result, polls about the result, and polls specifically about the measure indicate that she has the support of he British people. But what do individual Brexiters think?

[Fragony]

Which sort of bigot would you like me to pretend to be?

It's one of the consequences you should have seen comming really, Brexit dug a hole and it's filled with nothing. That was to be expected no? I fully believe it was for the best for you brittish and I hope whe get rid of that hissing in our necks here in the the Netherlands soon as well, back of go away. I am not going to pretend I am not a bigot because I'll have someone riding against my Legs in no time

[Pannonian]

One question for Brexiters to answer is, does Rudd have the mandate for this?

[Fragony]

I have absolutly no idea, never even heard of him/her

[Pannonian]

I have absolutly no idea, never even heard of him/her

She's the Home Secretary, ie. the person the heads the department dealing with domestic affairs. The position may be called Interior Minister in some countries. Anything to do with UK residents is her area. Another way of wording the question is, since Rudd is the official spokesperson for the government in this area, does the UK government have the mandate to make companies list their foreign employees?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One question for Brexiters to answer is, does Rudd have the mandate for this?

According to you it has the support of the British people - so I suppose the answer is "yes".

Whether it's a morally defensible measure would be a separate question because democracies are effectively amoral when it comes to foreigners.

[rory_20_uk]

It is "funny" how everything regarding Brexit has to have a mandate whereas almost all other activities the government does can just sail along; Often when the MPs vote, even if they all unanimously voted for a motion they would still represent less than 50% of the UK populace due to first past the post.

If the relationship between the UK and EU was between two people, the EU would be locked up for aggressive and threatening behaviour. The best argument to remain continues to appear to be that if we leave the other European countries will be as unpleasant as possible - no upside whatsoever.

An economic union such as South Korea has with the EU is clearly possible, so their attitude is intentional.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

If the relationship between the UK and EU was between two people

This metaphor is rhetorically inert unless you wish to reorganize your conception of international relations according to it.

[Pannonian]

It is "funny" how everything regarding Brexit has to have a mandate whereas almost all other activities the government does can just sail along; Often when the MPs vote, even if they all unanimously voted for a motion they would still represent less than 50% of the UK populace due to first past the post.

If the relationship between the UK and EU was between two people, the EU would be locked up for aggressive and threatening behaviour. The best argument to remain continues to appear to be that if we leave the other European countries will be as unpleasant as possible - no upside whatsoever.

An economic union such as South Korea has with the EU is clearly possible, so their attitude is intentional.

~:smoking:

The mandate bit is important, because the government accepts that it has to do something. What is that something? Does it include the Rudd proposal? Does it include other measures to further clamp down on foreigners? Should the government do these things, if they have popular approval?

[rory_20_uk]

The mandate was to do something.

The government is often elected and then proceeds to undertake acts that it never so much as mentioned on the election platform, including wars.

The mandate was to get out. The details of what "out" looked like is for the government and civil service to work out.

Popular approval is a two edged sword: what about deporting all minorities / homeless / non-straight people? So the government is there to do what is best for the country (which itself is a woolly concept) rather than pander to the flavour of the moment.

~:smoking: