Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Bruce Banner]

3 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

No I don't, and I didn't say that. I was referring to dugsbody's view that we, and I assume he means the EU also, should have uncontrolled immigration.

Ah, so it was an "ad homiem" aimed at one poster only. 

[thecrashingisles]

11 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

That is already handled by article 15 of the human rights act, which I agree with:

We all have the right to be a citizen of a country and nobody should prevent us, without good reason, from being a citizen of another country if we wish.

Notice, 'without good reason'.

So the Chinese person wanting a job in the NHS should become a citizen before getting the right to work?

[Captain Kirk]

1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

Ah, so it was an "ad homiem" aimed at one poster only. 

No, that was actually his argument. He actually wrote it.

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, Captain Kirk said:

No, that was actually his argument. He actually wrote it.

Link?

[winkie]

23 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

Uh-oh. The Tangerine Ape is publicly endorsing Bozzie. That's another 30 seats lost at the GE.

But they're both very, very clear that the NHS is 'off limits'.

Got plenty of money $ to spend, Greenland, Scotland?....NHS....lots of goodies to give away.....no such thing as a free lunch, I am sure we were all taught that at school...weren't we?

[Captain Kirk]

2 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

So the Chinese person wanting a job in the NHS should become a citizen before getting the right to work?

No, sorry, I was thinking of a friend that is trying to get citizenship. In terms of just work, as I said, there are no actual rights on working in other countries, but I agree with fair system that doesn't discriminate.

[Confusion of VIs]

On ‎23‎/‎08‎/‎2019 at 08:34, crouch said:

Indeed but the original post was about choosing between the EU and the US with the implication that:

- we have to make that choice,

- whatever the choice the implication is that trade with the "excluded" will be severely impaired at the very least.

This seems to put the UK in a singularly, indeed perhaps unique, position of disadvantage compared with many other countries who seem to trade with both blocs and China and.... quite easily.

Being disadvantaged compared to before is one thing; being hugely crippled is another. The first may be fair, indeed probably realistic to some degree, but the latter seems to me somewhat fanciful.

If you have a Times subscription Matthew Paris sums up my view of why Brexit cannot have a good outcome. 

Soon we must choose between the US and Europe. it’s not a matter of whether we bend the knee, but to whom. Other options are not available.

We will move from being a leading power, a rule maker, in the worlds most powerful trade block, to a closely aligned and rule taking adjunct to either the EU or US. Basic incompatibilities between their systems make being up in any other position unsustainable.      

The idea that Brexit will enhance British sovereignty doesn't bare any scrutiny, Leavers who think so and support Brexit on this basis really are denying the pretty obvious reality that, as Paris says, there is no third option.   

 

 

[winkie]

Vision on.

 

[dugsbody]

51 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

No, that was actually his argument. He actually wrote it.

Then you can quote it. Otherwise it's another one of your many lies.

[dugsbody]

22 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

We will move from being a leading power, a rule maker, in the worlds most powerful trade block, to a closely aligned and rule taking adjunct to either the EU or US. Basic incompatibilities between their systems make being up in any other position unsustainable.      

The idea that Brexit will enhance British sovereignty doesn't bare any scrutiny, Leavers who think so and support Brexit on this basis really are denying the pretty obvious reality that, as Paris says, there is no third option.   

Brexiters hate the EU with an irrational burning hatred. No amount of rational debate will change that. That's why the arguments have shifted at every step and now bear almost no resemblance to the original arguments. The explanation for that is the arguments are mostly just smokescreens on top of a deep emotional decision. That is also why there is such an overlap of brexiters with climate change sceptics, anti-vaxxers and so on. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/

[crouch]

24 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

If you have a Times subscription Matthew Paris sums up my view of why Brexit cannot have a good outcome. 

Soon we must choose between the US and Europe. it’s not a matter of whether we bend the knee, but to whom. Other options are not available.

We will move from being a leading power, a rule maker, in the worlds most powerful trade block, to a closely aligned and rule taking adjunct to either the EU or US. Basic incompatibilities between their systems make being up in any other position unsustainable.      

The idea that Brexit will enhance British sovereignty doesn't bare any scrutiny, Leavers who think so and support Brexit on this basis really are denying the pretty obvious reality that, as Paris says, there is no third option.   

 

 

For  start MP muses himself on whether the EU project will itself stay the course and his tone is less than confident. My view is that it will not and the Euro project will result in one of two major shifts in the EU: you will either get some form of political and economic union, a more or less federal state or the structure will gradually disintegrate. The first I believe very unlikely but, if it were to come to pass, would simply bolster the case for leaving because the vast majority here would not have that.

But the whole thing is unconvincing. Most countries in the World don't have to align themselves wholeheartedly with either the US, EU or China; they trade happily with all. Why shouldn't the UK be more like Switzerland or Scandinavia? Why do we have to choose?

The idea that the World is resolving itself into blocs is contentious. We are arguably in the early stages of de-globalisation where folk in the West wake up to the fact that most of our industry has been transferred to the East and that we should be looking at looking after the home nation first and not pandering to ideas peddled by the wealthy.. This process is the opposite of what Parris is arguing. 

Your last para confuses sovereignty with power. The mere fact of being outside the remit of the EU legal structure will repatriate internal sovereignty; external sovereignty is always ceded with an international agreement on the basis of national interest.

[Captain Kirk]

17 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Then you can quote it. Otherwise it's another one of your many lies.

I do apologise, it was Dorkins who posted that. I got you mixed up because you were both posting to me about it at the same time, and I thought you were both in agreement.

So, just to be clear, you are for controlled immigration then?

[Peter Hun]

16 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/

Quote

If corrective facts only make matters worse, what can we do to convince people of the error of their beliefs? From my experience, 1 keep emotions out of the exchange, 2 discuss, don't attack (no ad hominem and no ad Hitlerum), 3 listen carefully and try to articulate the other position accurately, 4 show respect, 5 acknowledge that you understand why someone might hold that opinion, and 6 try to show how changing facts does not necessarily mean changing worldviews. These strategies may not always work to change people's minds, but now that the nation has just been put through a political fact-check wringer, they may help reduce unnecessary divisiveness.

Its great advice, but its pointless - it won't work and why bother? Just walk away and leave them to deal with reality..

[dugsbody]

5 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

I do apologise, it was Dorkins who posted that. I got you mixed up because you were both posting to me about it at the same time, and I thought you were both in agreement.

So, just to be clear, you are for controlled immigration then?

How long have you been around here? I've posted several times my belief that FOM with the entire globe is completely impractical, will probably never happen, but might if we end up with a stable global population and some form of virtually free energy source. People don't typically want to really leave their friends and family to start all over again, it is the exception rather than the rule. People do it because opportunities are better elsewhere or some are simply adventurous. I was the latter category when young and worked on the continent for a few years and plan to use FOM to find a country in Europe that suits my family again in a few years time. So "MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION" is a dogwhistle tactic used by certain people to scare others into voting a certain way. It simply isn't reality. In roughly equal economies, people will just prefer to stay put in general.

Having said that, Europe has had no borders or obstacles to humans moving between countries for many decades now. And it should continue like that because most people in Europe want it like that. And I believe it is completely feasible and sustainable.

The error was introducing FOM for the less equal economies of the EE nations in too much of a rush. This created a backlash in the UK that led to brexit. A more gradual approach would not have created the backlash, the EE economies would be growing as they are now and reached a point where outward migration wouldn't have been such a big deal.

So, to be clear, you believe in FOM the same as me. You just choose to define the limit as the four countries in the UK plus Ireland as part of the CTA. I believe it has, and can continue to work across a wider area. 

Please drop the nonsense about discrimination. It is nonsense, wastes our time and we both know you just use it to try make your argument appear a little more liberal.

[zugzwang]

11 minutes ago, crouch said:

The idea that the World is resolving itself into blocs is contentious. We are arguably in the early stages of de-globalisation where folk in the West wake up to the fact that most of our industry has been transferred to the East and that we should be looking at looking after the home nation first and not pandering to ideas peddled by the wealthy.. This process is the opposite of what Parris is arguing. 

Your last para confuses sovereignty with power. The mere fact of being outside the remit of the EU legal structure will repatriate internal sovereignty; external sovereignty is always ceded with an international agreement on the basis of national interest.

The significant flaw in your argument is that Bozo and co. only ever talk about 'Global Britain' and never, ever about deglobalisation! Johnson has just been interviewed on the lunchtime news; the one hindrance to the UK economy he could identify was 'regulation'.

What he wants from Brexit, evidently, is more of the same dismal, failed neoliberal ******** that's bankrupted the UK already.

[winkie]

6 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

How long have you been around here? I've posted several times my belief that FOM with the entire globe is completely impractical, will probably never happen, but might if we end up with a stable global population and some form of virtually free energy source. People don't typically want to really leave their friends and family to start all over again, it is the exception rather than the rule. People do it because opportunities are better elsewhere or some are simply adventurous. I was the latter category when young and worked on the continent for a few years and plan to use FOM to find a country in Europe that suits my family again in a few years time. So "MASS UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION" is a dogwhistle tactic used by certain people to scare others into voting a certain way. It simply isn't reality. In roughly equal economies, people will just prefer to stay put in general.

Having said that, Europe has had no borders or obstacles to humans moving between countries for many decades now. And it should continue like that because most people in Europe want it like that. And I believe it is completely feasible and sustainable.

The error was introducing FOM for the less equal economies of the EE nations in too much of a rush. This created a backlash in the UK that led to brexit. A more gradual approach would not have created the backlash, the EE economies would be growing as they are now and reached a point where outward migration wouldn't have been such a big deal.

So, to be clear, you believe in FOM the same as me. You just choose to define the limit as the four countries in the UK plus Ireland as part of the CTA. I believe it has, and can continue to work across a wider area. 

Please drop the nonsense about discrimination. It is nonsense, wastes our time and we both know you just use it to try make your argument appear a little more liberal.

.....we had tight restrictions on countries such as Romania for a period of time...no recourse to public funds.....have enough to support yourself and family from savings or your own business....that was later was relaxed by us our choice.

[crouch]

16 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

The significant flaw in your argument is that Bozo and co. only ever talk about 'Global Britain' and never, ever about deglobalisation! Johnson has just been interviewed on the lunchtime news; the one hindrance to the UK economy he could identify was 'regulation'.

What he wants from Brexit, evidently, is more of the same dismal, failed neoliberal ******** that's bankrupted the UK already.

BJ is passing trade. The effects of Brexit will emerge over the next thirty or forty years and are informed less from grandiose slogans by temporary office holders than by events and the unfolding of secular trends.

In any case BJ is only stating the obvious; trade with the EU  has been declining for years and we've been heading in the direction of "Global Britain" for some time.

In any case there is no inconsistency between one country extending its overseas trade in the context of de-globalisation; the two things are not mutually exclusive.

Edited August 25, 2019 by crouch

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Not a huge fan of Johnson, but he does appear to be growing into the role.

So far the meetings with the EU leaders and the G7 look to be moving forward positively. Of course the hard bit in renegotiating the deal is yet to be done, but it at least looks hopeful at the moment.

In the meantime, Johnson is starting to look stronger right at the time the opposition need him to look weaker. If a vote to depose him to stop no deal is going to happen it needs to happen quickly when parliament returns. But my bet is that Johnson will still be looking strong, at least up until the 30 day deadline for the new deal presentation. That is going to make deposing him much more difficult.

[Captain Kirk]

32 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Please drop the nonsense about discrimination. It is nonsense, wastes our time and we both know you just use it to try make your argument appear a little more liberal.

According to you, I am an anti-immigrant right wing nationalist. I think I'm allowed to defend myself.

 

[Bruce Banner]

1 minute ago, Captain Kirk said:

According to you, I am an anti-immigrant right wing nationalist. I think I'm allowed to defend myself.

 

It looked like you were attacking rather than defending, a bit like that buffoon BJ with his attacks against the EU leaders.

[thecrashingisles]

2 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

No, sorry, I was thinking of a friend that is trying to get citizenship. In terms of just work, as I said, there are no actual rights on working in other countries, but I agree with fair system that doesn't discriminate.

But you want discrimination between citizens and non-citizens?

[Captain Kirk]

6 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

It looked like you were attacking rather than defending, a bit like that buffoon BJ with his attacks against the EU leaders.

Attacking the anti-immigrant argument, yes, attacking the person, no.

[Bruce Banner]

Just now, Captain Kirk said:

Attacking the anti-immigrant argument, yes, attacking the person, no.

It looks to me like you were attacking both the argument and the person, albeit the wrong person.

 

 

[Captain Kirk]

2 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

But you want discrimination between citizens and non-citizens?

No, I wouldn't want that. I would want the best person for the job. I believe you should employ a talented Indian computer scientist over a less talented Brit computer scientist, for example.

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, Captain Kirk said:

No, I wouldn't want that. I would want the best person for the job. I believe you should employ a talented Indian computer scientist over a less talented Brit computer scientist, for example.

So the Indian should have access to the UK labour market on the same terms as a UK citizen, with no need for permission from the Home Office to work?