thecrashingisles

I'm not suggesting that there are only upsides, just that the same trade offs are also there when it comes to our trading relationship with the rest of Europe. If you're in favour of protectionism with the rest of the world but uncontrolled free trade with Europe, there's an inconsistency in your argument.

Well the single market is based on the idea that by abolishing all internal trade barriers or 'protections', everyone will be better off in aggregate even if it means that less competitive industries in some countries go to the wall.

I have a feeling we’ve had that debate before and it seems ridiculous.

If you believe this then you should be against the single market on principle.

You have a low opinion of Mette Frederiksen?

It was more about what to do with Germany after its defeat in WW2. He favoured deindustrialisation and breaking it into several states so that it couldn't become a military threat again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan

Perhaps Morgenthau had the right idea all along.

He's consistently promoted a pro-Russian point of view and his analysis lacks credibility. Initially he said Kyiv would fall in the first few days, then he said that Russia would encircle the Ukrainians in the east, then he said that maybe if the Ukrainians can hold Kyiv, they could get a negotiated agreement to divide the country.

Wow, so you're against any trade deal at all with the EU now?

Perhaps you could advocate copying Poland's approach?

What do you think of the theory that the entire Donbass offensive is just another feint for the real target of Odessa?

It's impossible to read it out loud without sounding like you're taking the mickey.

If refugees in general are not on topic then how have you ended up arguing that there's nothing we can do about people trafficking Channel crossings and just have to "lap it up"? Wouldn't you be on stronger ground saying that we should accept more refugees from Ukraine regardless of our general policy, or does that sound too discriminating?

There's a very odd tone to these comments. It's as if your primary concern isn't to argue the merits of your position but to delegitimise any contrary opinion.

So the kind of argument against the EU that you might find morally persuasive would be if you could show that its policies or the structure of the SM/CU skewed global wealth in its favour?

What if it was a choice between a 25% uplift in your home region or the same uplift in a place on the other side of the world that was even poorer? Would you choose purely based on which was poorest?

Let's try another variant of the question. Let's say you come from a deprived area but you yourself have been relatively successful and live in another European country. If you could choose, would you rather your home region become 25% richer, or would you spread an equivalent amount across Europe as a whole in a way that was imperceptible to most individuals?

Yes. And in the UK versus the rest of Europe question then the UK.

Would you prioritise global wealth or the global ecosystem?

If I were forced to choose I'd rather create wealth here.

If increasing the world's consumption by 100% had a disastrous effect on the planet, would you still choose that option?

If you could choose between Europe being 25% richer while the rest of the world on average stayed the same, or Europe and the rest of the world both being 10% richer, which would you choose?

The EU thinks being a "regulatory superpower" is a worthwhile ambition and a substitute for wealth creation.

Answer my question first and I'll tell you.

If you could choose between Britain being 25% richer while continental Europe on average stayed the same, or Britain and continental Europe both being 10% richer, which would you choose?