Brexit Thread

[Greyblades]

How or why is it unreasonable? Is it not working for the EU so far?
You're just being unreasonable because the EU can demand what it want, you're free to not accept it, but if you say it's unreasonable you have to explain why exactly. So far you just repeat the claim that it were unreasonable without giving a good reason, that's unreasonable.

Is it working so far? There's a camp in calais, a multitude of ghettos and an ongoing terrorist campaign that indicate otherwise. That's not even getting into the issue of employment and housing. Christ we've been going on about this topic for months any reasonable person would think it would have sunk in that freedom of movment wasnt such a cool idea when you started to include poor nations and any random migrant that managed to cross the border.

Also I dont get why you and pannonian keep going on about it being their right to do so, as if that has an automatic "reasonable" stamp.

You have the right to burn your larder in a famine but it is still unreasonable for you to do so.

[Pannonian]

Is it working so far? There's a camp in calais, a multitude of ghettos and an ongoing terrorist campaign that indicate otherwise. That's not even getting into the issue of employment and housing. Christ we've been going on about this topic for months any reasonable person would think it would have sunk in that freedom of movment wasnt such a cool idea when you started to include poor nations and any random migrant that managed to cross the border.

Also I dont get why you and pannonian keep going on about it being their right to do so, as if that has an automatic "reasonable" stamp.

You have the right to burn your larder in a famine but it is still unreasonable for you to do so.

How is all that the EU's responsibility? All that you talk about has been within the UK government's power to do something about it, even inside the EU.

And AFAIK, it's free movement of labour, not free movement of individuals. The UK never signed up to the Schengen zone which allows free movement of individuals. The UK has rules in place to ensure that EU citizens in the UK are indeed labour, or else self-sufficient. Otherwise they lose residency rights.

[Husar]

Is it working so far? There's a camp in calais, a multitude of ghettos and an ongoing terrorist campaign that indicate otherwise. That's not even getting into the issue of employment and housing. Christ we've been going on about this topic for months any reasonable person would think it would have sunk in that freedom of movment wasnt such a cool idea when you started to include poor nations and any random migrant that managed to cross the border.

So then if London wants to wall itself off from the poor areas around it, that is perfectly reasonable, too. After all that would help London fight its unemployment and homelessness. Obviously a homeless Londoner is more important to a fellow Londoner than a homeless guy from Leeds for example. Opening London up to all the unemployed and homeless poor people from Leeds is not gonna help London solve its problems.

Having nations instead of tribes really wasn't such a cool idea when they began to include poor tribes, was it?

Also I dont get why you and pannonian keep going on about it being their right to do so, as if that has an automatic "reasonable" stamp.

You have the right to burn your larder in a famine but it is still unreasonable for you to do so.

The issue is that you still haven't explained what you mean by reasonable. As I've shown above, making up arbitrary borders and saying that it is only reasonable to help the people within one, is not reasonable because one can make up other arbitrary borders until Kingdom come. Even within your country the rich may build walled houses and ask why they should help the poor people who live outside the walls of their house. This happens every day and you still don't see that this wouldn't somehow magically not be so if you just had a glorious nation state.

Why do you think tax evasion exists? Because your fellow British nationals who are rich are so much more eager to help your homeless and unemployed than the EU bureaucrats? What is the major reason tax evasion is possible? The existence of other nation states and the non-cooperation between them.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Bank of England is trying to stay ahead of events:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-36712040

I guess whether it acts as a cushion or stimulus will depend on what the government actually does.

[Greyblades]

I have to say it is reassuring that the Bank of England is trying to mitigate the damage, it was the only thing that came out of the referendum actually looking competent.

How is all that the EU's responsibility? All that you talk about has been within the UK government's power to do something about it, even inside the EU.

I was unaware that the UK was capable of making merkel shut up about all the free stuff europe was willing to give those who wanted a handout, nor was I aware that the UK was responsible for the entire continent's counter terrorism effort or had sole control over it's immigration controls.

And AFAIK, it's free movement of labour, not free movement of individuals. The UK never signed up to the Schengen zone which allows free movement of individuals. The UK has rules in place to ensure that EU citizens in the UK are indeed labour, or else self-sufficient. Otherwise they lose residency rights.

Free movment of labour means that instead of training the locals companies can just import skilled labour into the nation from elsewhere, great for the immigrant not so great for the local who is having a hard enough time getting a job as it is.

So then if London wants to wall itself off from the poor areas around it, that is perfectly reasonable, too. After all that would help London fight its unemployment and homelessness. Obviously a homeless Londoner is more important to a fellow Londoner than a homeless guy from Leeds for example. Opening London up to all the unemployed and homeless poor people from Leeds is not gonna help London solve its problems.

Having nations instead of tribes really wasn't such a cool idea when they began to include poor tribes, was it?

Nations are tribes, just expanded to larger size, a tribe has a resposibility to help its own before it helps others, that London has 2.2 out of 5.4 million of it's electorate that has voted in a way that indicates at least some of them have forgotten or never learned what tribe they are gives a rather depressing commentary on the effects of propagating the idea of multiculturalism.

The issue is that you still haven't explained what you mean by reasonable. As I've shown above, making up arbitrary borders and saying that it is only reasonable to help the people within one, is not reasonable because one can make up other arbitrary borders until Kingdom come. Even within your country the rich may build walled houses and ask why they should help the poor people who live outside the walls of their house. This happens every day and you still don't see that this wouldn't somehow magically not be so if you just had a glorious nation state.

Why do you think tax evasion exists? Because your fellow British nationals who are rich are so much more eager to help your homeless and unemployed than the EU bureaucrats? What is the major reason tax evasion is possible? The existence of other nation states and the non-cooperation between them.

The borders are not arbitrary to those who actually value a culture, that's the point.

It is detrimental for the EU to push hard on a major issue that previous pushes resulted in it's weakening.
Continuing to allow freedom of movment will increased unemployment of the swiss people, not to mention the increased risk of terrorism that comes with some of the immigrants.
Free trade agreements do not require freedom of movement aside from those operating the mode of goods delivery, it is an arbitrary addition added for the sake of ideals.

The EU expects a country to keep hurting itself for the sake of the ideals of the people running the EU commission, knowing that it is an arbitrary ideal and that pushing it likely to further weaken itself.

Coercing a nation into a path of mutual damage for an ideal of a minority detached from reality: that is what I mean by unreasonable.

[Husar]

Nations are tribes, just expanded to larger size, a tribe has a resposibility to help its own before it helps others, that London has 2.2 out of 5.4 million of it's electorate that has voted in a way that indicates at least some of them have forgotten or never learned what tribe they are gives a rather depressing commentary on the effects of propagating the idea of multiculturalism.

The EU is a tribe, just expanded to a larger size. Just look at the EC as the village elders and everything is fine.
And who says that this is the responsibility of a tribe?

The borders are not arbitrary to those who actually value a culture, that's the point.

So you agree that Scotland should secede because it has a different culture?
Or are you saying that the people in Lemiers for example, should be separated by a border wall due to their completely different culture?

It is detrimental for the EU to push hard on a major issue that previous pushes resulted in it's weakening.

So you're saying that people other than the British think just like the British right after you said that cultures are too different across borders?

Continuing to allow freedom of movment will increased unemployment of the swiss people, not to mention the increased risk of terrorism that comes with some of the immigrants.
Free trade agreements do not require freedom of movement aside from those operating the mode of goods delivery, it is an arbitrary addition added for the sake of ideals.

The EU expects a country to keep hurting itself for the sake of the ideals of the people running the EU commission, knowing that it is an arbitrary ideal and that pushing it likely to further weaken itself.

Coercing a nation into a path of mutual damage for an ideal of a minority detached from reality: that is what I mean by unreasonable.

But noone forces the Swiss to take the deal, they can also have no deal. That it actually hurts nations if they do take the deal is something you have to prove first. And why should a trade partner not be allowed to add things for the sake of idealism? Is the only ideal worth having to earn more money?
Is it then not logical for Polish people to demand freedom of movement so they can earn more money? Is it not Poland's first task to look after the well-being of its people, which requires freedom of movement? Why should Poland give up what it needs just so Switzerland can be better off?
The whole path of mutual damage is something you need to prove, too. How were the EU countries damaged since they made these deals?
As for "pushes" leading to a weakening of the EU, that's also not very concrete, the Brexit was one event, not several, so why plural? And how do you know that the Brexit weakens the EU? Maybe the EU will emerge stronger from it than it ever was, how can you know after two weeks and before anything actually happened?

What I see is a load of assumptions but no proof for anything. Everything you say is merely your opinion so far that you state as though it were a fact.

[Pannonian]

I have to say it is reassuring that the Bank of England is trying to mitigate the damage, it was the only thing that came out of the referendum actually looking competent.

I was unaware that the UK was capable of making merkel shut up about all the free stuff europe was willing to give those who wanted a handout, nor was I aware that the UK was responsible for the entire continent's counter terrorism effort or had sole control over it's immigration controls.

Free movment of labour means that instead of training the locals companies can just import skilled labour into the nation from elsewhere, great for the immigrant not so great for the local who is having a hard enough time getting a job as it is.

Presumably you're not a fan of the proposed points system then. Since it allows skilled labour to enter this country, even after exiting the EU. It sounds like you're a hardliner, even by the Tory party's standards. No immigration at all, even if they're skilled and highly qualified workers that this country lacks.

[Beskar]

Presumably you're not a fan of the proposed points system then. Since it allows skilled labour to enter this country, even after exiting the EU. It sounds like you're a hardliner, even by the Tory party's standards. No immigration at all, even if they're skilled and highly qualified workers that this country lacks.

Clearly that industry is better in another country.

What about the jobs the locals refuse to do? Cleaning, Farmwork, and so on. Should we go without cleaners and farmhands?

Even then, upping those wages... it would be even cheaper to buy food from another country, for example. So those jobs are gone.

Ultimately, the best policy is to have no jobs at all.

[Pannonian]

Clearly that industry is better in another country.

What about the jobs the locals refuse to do? Cleaning, Farmwork, and so on. Should we go without cleaners and farmhands?

Even then, upping those wages... it would be even cheaper to buy food from another country, for example. So those jobs are gone.

Ultimately, the best policy is to have no jobs at all.

And Leadsom's been pulled up for her ideas on making Brexit work for small businesses. Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing. Lloyd George and Churchill would be weeping at the rolling back of their social reforms.

[Beskar]

And Leadsom's been pulled up for her ideas on making Brexit work for small businesses. Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing. Lloyd George and Churchill would be weeping at the rolling back of their social reforms.

Yup, referred to that in the selection for Arch-Villain thread.

[Husar]

And Leadsom's been pulled up for her ideas on making Brexit work for small businesses. Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing. Lloyd George and Churchill would be weeping at the rolling back of their social reforms.

You need to be competitive and take care of your own first.

[CrossLOPER]

Zero employment regulations. No minimum wage, no notice of termination, no limits on working hours, no employee rights, no nothing.

That's pretty much the US.