|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On October 14 2016 02:57 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 21:29 bardtown wrote:
1 and a quarter million people is not a tiny margin. That 52% represents more people than 67% who voted to stay in 1975. And of those who voted to remain, how many dislike the EU but voted to stay solely for economic reasons? From the perspective of a Leave voter, I'm still waiting for the EU and Remain voters to engage with Leave concerns like adults.
Juncker thinks the UK will ignore the referendum result and stay, to avoid the risk of leaving the single market - as do a number of British politicians. I don't think it's gloating to try and pull people into the new reality so we can engage with it in a meaningful way instead of rerunning the referendum in every debate to no avail. The longer people continue to make asinine claims that the UK will never leave the EU/single market, the more likely it is that we sleepwalk into real problems when we do.
I think politicians need to understand that there isn't really an internal argument to be had about the single market. The mandate is there to leave it. The entire parliament should be rallying around the same position, because there is really only one logical position: pushing for reform of the single market with a clear, unanimous red line that if freedom of movement isn't significantly changed then they are all willing to back a full withdrawal. At some point the EU will need to address freedom of movement, because it effectively punishes the countries that make the EU sustainable. We put in a huge amount of money for one positive (free market) and a negative (free movement). Meanwhile, most of the countries in the EU receive money in return for two benefits (free market and free movement), and these beneficiaries get to hold their benefactors hostage. Immigration is an economic positive to the UK
Translation: I take Guardian articles at face value.
What does 'economic positive' mean? Good for GDP? GDP per capita? At what point do you prioritise addressing inequality relative to GDP in your assessment? And, most importantly given what you're responding to, is immigration the same as free movement? I can't trust you to recognise a rhetorical question so I'll tell you the answer: no, it's not the same. So not only is your statement stupid, it's also irrelevant.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Here is a good, in-depth study on immigration and its economic impact by the U.K. Parliament. The conclusion? There is good immigration and bad immigration. Good immigration is good, bad immigration is not.
|
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking?
|
On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking?
Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home.
|
The EU will never accept a free market without freedom of movement. It is a necessary part of the parcel. If you want businesses to be able to move anywhere within the EU as if it were a single market then you need people to be able to move to where the jobs are. It is somewhat perverse to make it easy for jobs to move countries but not people.
(Normally a country can protect jobs in an industry by introducing tariffs. When that is not possible then people must be free to move to the jobs.)
|
On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? [...] The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home.
Is that the obvious reality? Or is it the reality that if you dont want to work together with your neighboors as a team they will all dislike you and you end up alone?
|
On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home.
So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery?
|
On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home.
What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not.
|
On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery?
You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training.
On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not.
Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality).
The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it.
Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many.
|
The UK faces the stark choice of either a hard Brexit or no Brexit, the president of the European council has said – the first time he has taken such a clear line on the likely outcome of the UK’s exit talks.
Just hours after the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, had told a committee of MPs he was confident Britain could strike a better trade deal with the EU after Brexit, Donald Tusk used a speech in Brussels to scotch the idea that Britain can “have its cake and eat it”.
Speaking to an audience of policymakers in Brussels on Thursday, Tusk – who chairs EU leaders’ summits – said it was useless to speculate about a soft Brexit, in which the UK remained a member of the single market. “The only real alternative to a hard Brexit is no Brexit, even if today hardly anyone believes in such a possibility.”
Without naming Johnson, notorious in Brussels for his jokey phrase that Britain could have its cake and eat it, Tusk criticised “the proponents of the cake philosophy” who argued the UK could be part of the EU single market without bearing any of the costs.
“That was pure illusion, that one can have the EU cake and eat it too. To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate.”
Business groups, Labour, and moderate Conservative backbenchers have all urged the government to strike a deal that maintains many of the benefits of the single market.
Johnson had earlier told the cross-party foreign affairs select committee: “We are going to get a deal which is of huge value and possibly of greater value … We are going to get the best possible deal for trade in goods and services.”
But Tusk warned that Brexit would leave both Britain, and the rest of the EU, worse off. “There will be no cakes on the table, for anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar.”
His intervention is likely to heighten anxiety in the City about the potential costs of Brexit after the rapid sell-off of sterling in recent days, which was sparked after Theresa May appeared to signal at the start of the Conservative party conference that she favoured a clean break with the rest of the EU.
Source
|
On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many.
What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured.
If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want.
|
On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want.
Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that.
So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run.
|
On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run.
You're missing the point, maybe because I'm using complex in a technical sense. A complex system arises from many local interactions of many low level parts. I could go into real depth about this but I won't because I doubt anyone is interested, but the general principle is that organic, low-level self organisation results in the most efficient configuration for the emergent entity. In other words, democracy works because each individual is best placed to make an assessment of their local situation, not because they are capable of understanding the entire system. It is this nation-wide collection of localised perspectives that provides the best measure of the system as a whole, because the system is actually nothing more than the collective of these localised parts. Of course the downside is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to each local scenario, but when the decision is necessarily binary, there's no better way to make the judgement. I would be quite happy to have freedom of movement between London and the EU if it was an option, but the one-size-fits-all problem works both ways. Most are unhappy with the EU, and when localised adaptation is not an option we have to go with the majority.
As for the single market, it stands in the way of all the major aims of Brexiteers. Regaining sovereignty, reducing immigration, pursuing trade with emergent economies and closer ties with the Commonwealth, etc. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised.
|
On October 14 2016 18:33 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised.
As long as freedom of movement continues for another 5 years or so, I'm sure that won't be a problem 
|
The 2 year duration of article 50 is there to allow a new trade deal to be negotiated. It can only be extended if all EU member states unanimously vote in favor of extending.
And the idea of a temporary trade deal with single market access (and therefor free movement of people) is unlikely to appeal to the EU. It would cause yet another volatile market moment when this temporary deal ends.
Not worth it.
|
On October 14 2016 18:33 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run. As for the single market, it stands in the way of all the major aims of Brexiteers. Regaining sovereignty, reducing immigration, pursuing trade with emergent economies and closer ties with the Commonwealth, etc. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised.
Let me get this straight.
You want the ideal deal for Britain for 5 years until negotiations bring about a deal Britain wants even more?
I don't see that Happening...
|
On October 13 2016 21:29 Jockmcplop wrote:
Look like Nicola Sturgeon's going to go for a second referendum on Scottish independence.
We've been down this road before. She can't. Any referendum isn't binding without Westminster approval and like hell they're going to grant it.
|
On October 14 2016 20:07 showstealer1829 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2016 21:29 Jockmcplop wrote:
Look like Nicola Sturgeon's going to go for a second referendum on Scottish independence.
We've been down this road before. She can't. Any referendum isn't binding without Westminster approval and like hell they're going to grant it.
She can.
You can go for a referendum without it being binding.
And if there's an overwhelming turnout and a large majority for independence, Westminster will probably have to yield. But that's not gonna happen.
|
On October 14 2016 20:05 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 18:33 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run. As for the single market, it stands in the way of all the major aims of Brexiteers. Regaining sovereignty, reducing immigration, pursuing trade with emergent economies and closer ties with the Commonwealth, etc. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised. Let me get this straight. You want the ideal deal for Britain for 5 years until negotiations bring about a deal Britain wants even more? I don't see that Happening...
What? I'm talking about continuing single market membership (including free movement and payments) for the duration of trade negotiations so that there is no sudden shock. Britain being in the single market benefits the EU, as does avoiding a shock which could seriously undermine already teetering European banks.
|
On October 14 2016 20:30 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2016 20:05 Velr wrote:On October 14 2016 18:33 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 15:38 Rebs wrote:On October 14 2016 15:08 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 06:56 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 05:14 Deleuze wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. So what you're saying is that they'd be out-competing our home grown illiterate thugs in illiterate thuggery? You run the risk of creating home grown thugs when you take away their outlets for self improvement, such as entry level jobs and education/training. On October 14 2016 05:26 RvB wrote:On October 14 2016 03:40 bardtown wrote:On October 14 2016 03:28 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Don't want to restart the whole debate again, but some of your assertations are just ridiculous bardtown.
1) The money UK gives to the EU is comparable with every other rich EU country. UK even has gained net money in regards to health treatments because of the vast amounts of elderly who receive free health treatment within the EU.
2) UK has benefited from immensely free movement of EU country's nationals. Perhaps there are some uneducated losers in UK.
In the end, you asked to be treated like an adult, but when you act like an child who thinks that wishful thinking is the same as reality, when you make untrue statements, how can we talk to you like you are an adult capable of reasoned thinking? Every rich country is getting shafted, yes. We happen to be one of the biggest, and therefore make one of the biggest contributions. And your second statement is, like the last comment I responded to, nothing but hot air. How do you quantify benefit from free movement relative to selective, controlled immigration? The obvious reality is that we are better off selecting who can enter the country based on their skills and history, not having an open border for every illiterate thug who wants to make more money than they would at home. What surprises me about your view on immigration is that you're generally liberal and against government intervention (correct me if I'm wrong here) but when it comes down to immigration you think the government has the ability to accurately assess whether an immigrant is really necessary or not. Labels really don't fit me well, but I'm liberal beyond certain thresholds, I guess. Left to its own devices the market would lay waste to everything of any value, though, so as usual the middle ground needs to be found. The government should protect our heritage/culture, our areas of natural beauty and our people against the market, to a reasonable extent which democracy exists to determine. I think uncontrolled immigration is a significant threat to culture and to people (particularly with regards to addressing inequality). The beautiful thing about a referendum is that it offers a low-level assessment of a complex system. Complex systems are unpredictable. We can talk about whether immigration benefits the country all we like, referencing all sorts of figures and theories, but we're so far abstracted from what's actually happening in these discussions that making a reliable assessment is extremely difficult. An individual's anecdotal evidence is even more useless, but the anecdotal experiences of 35 million people in concert give a fairly reliable idea of the country's perception of a topic. It's something like predicting the weather. The higher resolution your data, the more reliable your prediction. One prediction you might take from the referendum is that the current level of immigration is unsustainable, and that this perception is very strongly held by the more disadvantaged people likely to be negatively impacted by it. Some - many - fall back on blaming the media for this perception, or point to public ignorance of the statistics people throw around about immigration providing a net benefit. To the media point, I would say that the tabloid media sells copies by sensationalising stories in line with the underlying mood of their reader base. In other words, it plays on existing concerns but does not direct them. To the net benefit point, I would just reiterate what I said before about complex systems and the efficacy of direct democracy in a situation like this, where certain groups are disproportionately impacted, whether positively or negatively. If the majority of the wealth that immigration brings goes to big business then it's not in the interests of the poor natives to support immigration. That's the whole point of democracy, right? To prevent the vested interests of the few outweighing those of the many. What you call beautiful is actually the biggest problem with a referendum. You're reducing an incredibly complex problem into a yes or no question. All it tells you is that 52% of voters want to leave the EU. It doesn't tell you why, how and under what circumstances they want to leave. That it's due to immigration is your interpretation not what the referendum actually measured. If we look at Brexit for example. So we know now that 52% of the voters wanted to leave the EU at that particular moment. A hard Brexit looks increasingly likely but we don't know if a hard Brexit would still have a majority. Nobody asked the voters if they want a hard Brexit, a soft Brexit or if staying in the EU is preferrable to a hard Brexit. In the end you're stuck with the same politicians making all the real choices and we don't even know if it's what the people actually want. Yeah I lol'ed complex systems are unpredictable, so lets just over simplify everything to reduce the randomness in the decision making process? I wish everything worked like that. So they actually end up voting to fuck themselves over so that in the new even more complex situation just created by their 'simplistic' decision, your children will grow in a shittier situation, but thats ok because the sacrifice is worth it in the long run. As for the single market, it stands in the way of all the major aims of Brexiteers. Regaining sovereignty, reducing immigration, pursuing trade with emergent economies and closer ties with the Commonwealth, etc. I think hard Brexit or no Brexit is accurate, although I would think that the first stage of negotiations should be to agree membership of the single market for 5 years or so until a trade deal is finalised. Let me get this straight. You want the ideal deal for Britain for 5 years until negotiations bring about a deal Britain wants even more? I don't see that Happening... What? I'm talking about continuing single market membership (including free movement and payments) for the duration of trade negotiations so that there is no sudden shock. Britain being in the single market benefits the EU, as does avoiding a shock which could seriously undermine already teetering European banks.
Are you aware that there is a 2 year wait period after article 50 is invoked for this exact purpose?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
