E.U: Leave or Stay? Your thoughts.

Yes seriously, even though you say both sides lied it's obvious you're treating some lies as worse than others, what with your inability to see how the predictions of economic doom and gloom were predicted on what Mr Cameron said he'd do in the event of a vote to leave, that is that he'd trigger article 50 the next day and stay on as PM.

And while you've failed to see that there's still a possibility of those predictions coming to pass because despite the outcome of the vote and despite what you were promised we're still a member of the EU, and while failing to acknowledge that you're also downplaying the lies told by the other side when you say things like they never promised the £350m would be spent on the NHS, it was UKIP that said it not the official vote leave campaign, like that made any difference in voters minds.

So yes IMO you're downplaying the lies told by one side while overstating those told by the other, you're still fighting the good fight in an attempt to prove who was right or wrong instead of realising that you've been had.

Probably because most of those who voted to leave haven't come up with a single good reason on why they did so, that every time someone who voted to leave give their reasons we find out it has nothing to do with the EU, that like the Question Time audience on Thursday they say how they can't get an appointment at the doctors, or how they're the only English speaking parent at their child's school gates so they want to control the amount of immigrants coming into the country, they say things like that while totally ignoring that only 5% of the population where they live weren't born in the UK, that the number of EU immigrants are lower than non-EU immigrants, that EU immigrants contribute more to this country than non-EU migrants, etc, etc.

Well it would as their the ones who voted for a change, their the ones that should've know the details of what they were voting for, their the ones that should've got cast iron, legally binding promises, their the ones that wanted a change of course without knowing what the destination would be, whereas the remain side just had to decide if they wanted more of the same.

I hate to tell you but when people make a choice without knowing what the implications or result of that choice is then yes they do come across as rather 'simple' as you put it, it doesn't take a genius to know that you're better of keeping what you've got unless you're damn sure the alternative is going to be better, you don't jump of a cliff without knowing what's going to happen on the way down, and you don't sell your house without knowing if your next home is going to be better.

That you're equating general elections and plebiscite is sort of reinforcing my opinion that you don't understand what democracy and being given a choice really means, democracy requires a well informed and educated electorate and I'd say 3 months isn't enough time for that electorate to become well informed and educated on the choice they're being asked to make, heck going on what MPs said during and after the campaign I'm not sure most of them are even well informed and educated on matters relating to the EU and most of them have been doing the job all their lives.

That you're parroting what you've heard about MEPs and council members not being accountable, that you think somehow handing power from one group of 'political elite' to another group of 'political elite' is somehow going to allow you to decide your future, that you think that the UK 'political elite' are going to show more interest in what's best for you just reinforces peoples thinking that leave voters are 'simple' to use your own words.

That just wouldn't happen as unlike the UK privacy actually means something to them, unlike the UK they're actually fighting back against state sponsored spying, they actually have first hand knowledge of what the effects are of spying on the public.

Renamed to council Tax.

And you think they'll never come back? Because judging on how the snoopers charter had been dropped many, many times and it's now becoming law I'd say the chances are pretty good that mandatory ID cards will make a return in one form or another.

So four protests that changed government policy outweighs all those other protests that didn't, like when thousands protested against the war with Iraq.

 

So whilst the govt is in court, they've quietly tried to slip this out under the radar...

Source

 

That seems sensible preparation to me --if negotiations go bad and the UK ends up dropping into the WTO it better have its tariff schedule sorted. Took them long enough to realise this, though.

 

fantastic case today - Eadie was very pushed at times , and did concede on a number of occasions!

 

Where have i heard this before, Amber Rudd told MPs she would not yet set out the details for any new EU ID card, but said:

 

I'm sure many were driven by fear, however I'm sure just as many people where happy with living in the EU.

Myself included, its great being able to whizz around are different European offices, try getting in to the Florida office is an absolute paperwork nightmare.
I will probably be well into retirement before I see any "benefits" from brexit, the whole thing is a hassle I could do without.

“Wise men are instructed by reason; men of less understanding, by experience; the most ignorant, by necessity; the beasts, by nature.”

 

Require some people to have ID but not others with no way to verify which group someone belongs to?

All that achieves is to expose that Rudd has no clue how ID works.

Either keep the current system or make carrying ID a universal requirement, but an in-between mish mash just can't work for practical reasons.

 

She'll probably just settle on a yellow star, clearly displayed on one's clothes.

 

nah the dutch get a special orange star

 

It'd need to be green so it stands out against the red of the dress...

 

Whatever the colour, I'll make it look fabulous, baby!

 

Will you make it look this fabulous?

 

Really? Oh well, if you say so.

I mean, there was me silly old me listing nineteen previous statements from myself saying the complete and total opposite of that, but apparently I didn't mean what I said nineteen times - I actually meant something else entirely, because that's how you choose to interpret what I said.

It's obvious now you've pointed it out.

I'm so glad I met you, because apparently not only do I know bugger all about Europe, I also know bugger all about what I actually think as well. It's so good to have met someone who can finally decipher my confused thoughts for me, and understands that me saying one thing, clearly and repeatedly, over and over and over, actually means I was thinking the complete opposite.

I think I'm going to do a Bill Clinton here and revert to my former statement:

You know, here's a really strange and bizarre thought: Maybe if you and others had actually taken a bit of time and effort to listen to what people think, instead of just forcefully telling them what they think, maybe the debate would have gone a bit differently.

Being willing to talk at someone is not the same as actually talking to them is it.

Maybe if people like Nexxo weren't so quick to throw cheap, mindless - and for the most part baseless insults at people:

...then maybe those 'uninformed and unthinking' people would have been willing to listen a bit more. But then that would involve lowering yourselves to talk to the underlings, (which cross all political, geographical and socio-economic divides) so maybe that was too much of an ask after all.

I mean, I'd say that applied to both sides, but then you know I wouldn't mean it, so what's the point?

Should I counter your other points? Is it worth it, when what I say is up for 180 degree interpretation at your discretion anyway?

There was someone silly on Question Time was there? Oh, right, because that only happens to one side. Actually, lets look at that Question Time one shall we?

You say: "only 5% of the population where they live weren't born in the UK"

Right, well for London that number (according to the 2011 census) is 36.7%, and will have risen significantly since then, so you've plucked the number 5% out of your arse. And that's not foreigners in the sense of British 'brown people' as Nexxo puts it, but people actually born abroad.

In boroughs like Westminster, Kensington & Chelsea, Harrow and Brent that number was already above 50% five years ago. Going by the official figures that even the government acknowledges are too low, and have since risen further still.

Now, in boroughs like Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea I've no doubt it's absolutely not an issue, but if you live in somewhere like Brent or Harrow it is a big deal. Not being able to get your kid into a local school matters. Pressures on housing matters. Not being able to get an appointment for 3 or 4 weeks to see a GP matters - because it's not like they've got the option to go private is it.

But yes, how dare some people be upset at vast and rapid change in their neighbourhood. At an inability to gets their kids into a half decent, nearby school, to see a doctor, to find affordable housing, to see their real wages pushed down because they work in low or medium skilled jobs and there's suddenly a massive influx of competition in their job market.

How dare they also maybe get a bit flustered talking in a studio in front of hundreds of people, (which they may never have done before) knowing that millions will be watching them at home. How dare they maybe fumble their words a bit, or maybe not be as articulate as a defence barrister summing up his court case. Fluffing their words or blurting out the wrong thing when a hot flush of panic comes over them which they weren't expecting - villains the lot of them.

When people tell you they have a problem, by and large, they just want to talk about it, be taken seriously, and find a solution - when people sneer at them and tell them their problems aren't real, or they should shut up and stop being racist or bigoted, you're not exactly going to win them over to your side of the argument are you. You push them further away.

Even if people are 'uninformed and unthinking', they still don't like being patronised and dismissed - and dismissed and insulted in many cases by people who don't face the same issues. This is why Farage became so popular, because he actually made a point of listening to them instead of telling them to shut and stop moaning. Maybe if more people on the remain side had tried to find or offer solutions instead of just sneering contemptuously at them the result would have been different.

Now I'm sure at this point Nexxo will jump in again to label me a racist. Yes, whatever. My deceased fiancée was black, large chunks of my family are mixed race, and I'd tell you about some of my best mates, but then we all know that's a cliché don't we? (My Indian best mate is vociferous about coming out of the EU, but then he's probably a 'coconut' and a bigot too, so probably best not to trust him really).

Do I think immigration has been a bad thing for this country? I actually think much of it has been very positive, just not all of it. I don't want to stop it, I don't really even want it to come down into the 'tens of thousands' as Cameron kept saying. But I do think it's fair to say we should be able to decide for ourselves. I don't think that's a particularly unreasonable request.

There are approximately 3.3m EU nationals living in the UK, and about 1.2m UK nationals living in the EU - so it's not like the reciprocal arrangement has been particularly equal. Do I want them all to 'go home'? No, absolutely not. Those already here should absolutely have the right to stay.

The Prime Minister said as much when she tried to make a deal with the rest of the EU - so that, negotiations of trade and other agreements aside, why don't we just be civilised and settle the issue on existing migrants right now, so that everyone settled here can have the permanent right to stay here and the EU will offer the same to our citizens there.

The EU's response? "She's not living in the real world." So who's the bad guy now?

Likewise, I don't particularly like the fact the Merkel, unilaterally, invited over a million non-Europeans into her own country, and then started demanding all the other members should 'take their fair share'. Their fair share of her decision, which she apparently couldn't even be bothered to run past her own government first, never mind all the other member states of the EU.

I understand that we aren't obligated in the UK, but she is still threatening 'consequences' for many of the smaller EU countries that don't want to take part in her personal decision. Despite the fact that it doesn't affect me directly, I don't like the fact that smaller countries are being bullied by her like that. And that is far from the first issue where bigger countries have shoved smaller ones around when it suits them.

 

Ok, let's get off that for a second shall we. How about:

Right, well for some people the above does have a direct impact on their lives - whether or not you choose to believe it is entirely irrelevant to those affected.

As I said, I think we should be able to decide who comes here as a matter of principal. Every other country in the world outside the EU is able to make that decision, even those in trade blocks, there's simply no need to equate free trade and free movement of people unless you're trying to build a federal superstate. Note that that doesn't mean not letting anyone in, it just means having the right to decide.

I don't like the way larger countries, particularly Germany, get to bully and browbeat smaller countries into submission over various issues.

I don't like the Euro. Even though we're not a member of it, it's creation has been nothing but detrimental to Southern Europe who need to devalue their currencies to become competitive but can't, and beneficial to Northern Europe, particularly Germany, whose currency is kept artificially low, thus allowing their exports to boom. If Germany had the Deutsche Mark it would be FAR stronger than their Euro, which has effectively acted like a rocket under the German economy, burning Southern and Eastern European fuel to power it.

Talking of which, I don't like the fact that countries like Greece were allowed to join the Euro in the first place, when everyone involved in finance knew they were cooking the books, but for different reasons it suited everyone to turn a blind eye to it. This is not being wise after the event, it was much discussed beforehand.

I don't like the fact that the single market comes with so many caveats and exclusions, most usually in areas like finance where the UK would most benefit.

I don't like Qualified Majority Voting, which again, tends to punish the UK more than other members of the EU by hitting the areas and services where we excel.

I don't like that only approximately 15% of our business, that's domestic and foreign trade, is actually done with the EU, yet we have to abide by EU laws for the whole 100% of it.

That we should abide by EU regulations on issues where we trade with them is obvious - just as we have to meet US standards when dealing with the US, Indian standards when dealing with India, Chinese standards when dealing with China, etc, etc. I just feel that the other 85% of non-EU business should be our business.

I don't like the fact that we are not free to make our own arrangements with nations outside of the EU. Again, there's simply no need for that unless you are trying to build a federal superstate.

I don't like the fact that the EU accounts for 47% of our foreign trade, (and shrinking) yet they govern all the rules, regulations and tariffs for the other 53%. That to me feels like the tail wagging the dog.

Going with the above, I don't like the fact that we have to apply fees and tariffs to countries and goods that we would rather not apply them to - for example, unlike countries like France, Spain and Italy, we are unable to grow anywhere near the amount of food we need, so we have to import it. We can't make our own arrangements to bring in cheaper non-EU food because it is not permitted. And the tariffs for those non-EU things are high, in order to protect the industries in countries like those I just mentioned.

In exchange for the tariffs we are forced to apply, those countries then apply tariffs to us on our goods and services - so it's a lose-lose situation for us, where we the consumer pay more for things we would like to buy, and then don't export as much as we could because our own goods and services are priced artificially high in retaliation.

Talking earlier about the blind eye turned to members joining the Euro who were palpably not ready or suitable, I don't like that much of the EU is either corrupt or simply inept, often both.

Like how no-one is ever willing to sign off on the audit of the accounts, for god knows how long.

Like how they ask for ever more money, even when most of the member states are frantically trying to cut expenditure and save money and are going through real, damaging, genuine, painful austerity.

I don't like the ever increasing burden of bureaucracy, where 'harmony' constantly means regulating upwards, (see QMV too). This may be fine and straightforward for a large multi-national, but it is an ever increasing burden for small business - stifling growth and prosperity, (as attested by the fact that the EU has long been one of the slowest growing regions in the world, with it's global share of trade and wealth continually shrinking).

The general extravagance and self-regard of the EU: From building vast new, wildly expensive and completely unnecessary new super-structure buildings for themselves. Or how they move twice a year, at vast expense and waste of time because, well, why not?

From their general inability to perform even the most basic of functions or respond to the most basic of events without such sclerotic inability that everything they touch becomes a crisis. A crises which they then proceed to not deal with, but at the last moment just manage to kick it down the street a bit, so they can deal with it when it becomes a crises again at a later date.

I don't like their march ever Eastward, attempting to push up right against Russia's borders, when all previous agreements were explicitly that they wouldn't do that. Far from spreading harmony and unity, I think it's making the world in general, and Europe in particular, a more dangerous place.

Talking of Russia, I also don't like the fact that while most of the EU are also NATO members, most of them don't pay anywhere near their NATO membership fee. So while on the one hand they want to break promises and push right up to Russia's borders, on the other hand they spend less and less on defence. So basically making Europe an ever more dangerous place, not a less dangerous one.

Likewise, an EU army which seems to attract so many would be underfunded, provocative, (to both Russia and the US, in terms of rivalling NATO) and exactly who would control it overall? It's bad enough when our own stupid politicians send our men and women to get involved in stupid wars, I don't want to see our service personal sent to kill and die on the whim of someone else's stupid politicians.

What else don't I like? How about how the rules are not always applied evenly.

For years after the BSE crises, and by which point British beef was the safest in Europe, the French point blank refused to allow it into their country - despite the fact that the ban had long been lifted, (itself lifted years late). Even when the eventual threat of the European Courts made them relent, they explicitly labelled it 'produce of the UK' in stead of 'produce of the EU', which was also directly against EU law. That lasted for ages as well. Consequences? Not really.

Oh, and that Europe also saw fit to ban us from exporting not just to the EU themselves, but worldwide, again, for years after it was scientifically declared safe. Still, not to worry, lots of our friends were able to step in and fill the gap for us by selling their produce in our place, so all was good in the end.

Free movement of people? Well, not between Gibraltar and Spain, obviously, not when they're setting up roadblocks. It was amazing how the whole world could watch it happen on TV, yet the EU couldn't see anything. They did of course eventually manage to send a delegation down to the border, which they of course booked in advance - funnily enough it was clear that day and there was no problem, so the report said it was fine. We probably just imagined those mile long queues we all saw on the TV.

And not just roadblocks either, but prolonged and sustained harassment, encroachments and general threats, including gunshots into our waters. And remember earlier in the year when the Spanish boat tried to ram a US nuclear submarine because they thought it was ours? Our coastguard physically stopped them by putting our boat in between and ramming them away. We should have just let them do it and face the consequences.

Any consequences for any of that from the EU, all of which is strictly against EU law? No, don't be silly.

And if anyone says tough, we shouldn't be there in the first place: Ceuta. Which is what, about seven miles away across the straight? That'll be mainland Morocco I'm talking about.

Oh, and how about Schengen? Again, I know we're not in it, but it still affects us. In what way has that improved the safety of Europe? As soon as someone sets foot in Europe through any of its many and varied weak links, they have unimpeded access to anywhere. I travelled through Europe before Schengen, (it was possible) you know what? Not really that hard.

How about the UK's rebate, which we gave up a large part of? Actually, let me do it in the style some of you seem to like:

France: We want you to give up your rebate.
UK: Only if you agree to reform the CAP (Common Agriculture Policy) which you make a massive amount of money from.
France: OK, we'll promise to do that if you give up the rebate first.
UK: OK, [signs it away, gives billions more each year to the EU]. Job done. We'll discuss the CAP now, right?
France: No, don't be stupid, we had our fingers crossed. Go away.

That's not an exhaustive list by the way, it's not even in any particular order, it's just the selection that pops into my head as I type here and now.

I appreciate you probably won't think a single one of them is a good reason, (and I'm sure you'll being able to pick a hole or two as I haven't re-checked all my facts) but hey, there's a few to be getting on with.

 

Life doesn't come with a cast iron guarantee, most people understand that. It's impossible to get legally binding promises for something you haven't done yet.

Are you going to get married to the person you love? Do you have a cast-iron guarantee that he/she won't, at any point, cheat on you? Leave you? Die on you? No.

Are you going to change jobs? Do you have a cast-iron guarantee it will turn out better / more rewarding / better career prospects / better boss / better colleagues than your current job? No.

Are you going to move house? Do you get a cast iron guarantee that your new neighbours will be nice, or that the area will stay nice or improve over time? No.

Just because you want change it doesn't mean you can only do it with cast iron guarantees, and that doing it without cast iron, legally binding guarantees is somehow stupid. People change aspects of their lives all the time without any such guarantees. It's called living life.

Sometimes you want change because, although the future is not guaranteed, you know you don't like where you are now.

That's your personal perspective that many people don't share. See the above.

Yeah, it's called an analogy. You know, where you take two separate, different things, and then you draw a comparison to illustrate your point.

If I jump up and down on a trampoline and someone asks me what it feels like, and I say it feels like I'm flying - I don't actually think I'm flying, I'm just equating it to the closest thing I can think of to make them understand.

A mass vote in a referendum which doesn't go your way, a mass vote in a general election which doesn't go your way. I know they're not the same thing, but for the sake of analogy, they're not a million miles apart either are they. It's not like I compared it to a cheese and tomato pizza is it. You keep telling me I don't understand things, yet here I am explaining this.

I thought I was supposed to be the unthinking one?

OK, another stab at being conciliatory, (as all my previous attempts apparently came to nought). Yes, I agree with you, we have many, many bad MP's. I've long thought there should be some MP-specific qualification you have to pass in order to represent the public. Nothing too onerous like a degree, but a course covering things like basic finance & economics, basic law, basic social theory, basic British, European & world history - just enough to stop them looking like complete morons. Wherever possible.

I'm not parroting anyone, why do you find it so hard to understand that someone can come to a conclusion that you don't like on their own? I didn't say there was no accountability, I said:

There is a difference. I appreciate that Westminster care little for me, my family, neighbours and friends in general - I'm just pointing out that living in the same country it will still be more than someone would in a different country. A mass rally held in London will be cared about more by politicians in Westminster than it would by people living in Brussels or Berlin.

I know they may not always change policy, but they will be noticed and addressed more than someone in an entirely different country. Again, how much care have the EU really shown to people suffering in Greece? The Greek government cared a lot, because it was the Greek parliament they were rioting outside. It tends to focus the mind when it's own your own doorstep, and be a bit easier to dismiss when it's a thousand miles away.

Again, not the point I was making. I was talking about the principal and used that as a current example to illustrate my point. Many countries have very different ideas as to what constitutes good law and good practice. Convergence, as well as change in general, bring these matters to the fore.

Again, examples to illustrate a point. I wasn't suggesting it was an exhaustive list, or that it always works - just making the point that sometimes it works.

Right, now let's see what names I get called...

 

Pot calling kettle, you know, here's a really strange and bizarre thought: Maybe if you had actually taken a bit of time and effort to read what i said you wouldn't have wasted your time on a thousand word essay, like when i said it was obvious you're treating some lies as worse than others, that you were downplaying the lies told by one side while overstating those told by the other, but hey if ad hominem attacks make you feel better who am i to argue.

In case you haven't noticed i am talking to you, that's what having a conversation is all about, although it seems you're happier to talk at me rather than enter into a conversation as your further posts highlight all to plainly.

Again with the ad hominem attacks?
Maybe when you've calmed down a bit we can have a grownup discussion.

Oh there was me thinking you had calmed down a bit and you were attempting to discuss one of the issues raised instead of resulting to insults but then you end up telling me how i plucked the number out of my arse, FYI it wasn't out of my arse it was what one of the panelists said.

I said nothing about London, who voted overwhelmingly to remain, i specifically said "only 5% of the population where they live weren't born in the UK" and seeing as Question Time was filmed in Wakefield last Thursday then that would have been the area that the 5% refers to.

Although having since checked what the panelist said it seems non-UK born immigrants make up 9% of the population in Wakefield, so when the guy who was so irate, like you, at the level of immigration he can rest assured that when he's in the doctors waiting room with 10 other people only one of those wouldn't have been born in the UK.

So none of that has to do with the Government who people have just handed over more power too.

And you wonder why people keep saying the things they do about Brexiteers.

Seriously you expect me to read the rest of your diatribe when all you've been doing so far is throwing insults and baseless accusations, perhaps when you've calmed down enough to have a grownup conversation you could edit what you've posted so it's a little more succinct, less abusive, less confrontational, and so it doesn't come across as the rantings of what appears to an extremely rude and angry person.

 

We're a pretty dab hand at it though over our much smaller neighbours.

 

I'm sorry, but who am I insulting on these here forums (except maybe Amber Rudd, who I'm sure is not a frequent visitor, although with the new Investigatory Powers Bill you never know...) and what is the insult?

Perhaps those people could reflect on government policies that over the last decade have been making drastic cuts in health and social services and in education (which prepared them poorly for a changing labour market) and selling off council housing and reducing the construction of new social housing. Perhaps they could reflect on ever increasing university fees making good education unaccessible, successive governments' free market policies that have destroyed British manufacturing and concentrated all efforts on financial services in London and a low-wage service economy everywhere else. You know, policied by governments that they voted for. Nothing to do with immigrants.

In any case, that narrative does not appear reflected by the reality. The reality is that most UKIP supporters and most Leave voters come from areas with the lowest immigration. Your long-suffering Brent constituents voted to remain with a majority of 59.6%; Harrow had 54.6% in favour of remaining. Turns out that those people most exposed to EU immigrants feel the most mellow about them.

Please. Yesterday four Leave voters were interviewed in a café. None of them knew about the Supreme Court case, let alone why it matters. One did not even know what Article 50 was. They just felt that the people had spoken and couldn't understand why the government wasn't getting on with it. Because it's all that simple, no? And I hear the same story on Radio 4 Any Answers (where people call in because they have opinions, so no shy wall flowers there) --a total lack of understanding of what EU membership entailed, what leaving the EU means, how it works, what the problems are. You may be informed, but most people are not.

No, Farage became popular because he offered them a simple explanation for their complex problems and a convenient scapegoat, and therefore a simple solution and one that exonerated people's own part in the situation at that. He played on tribalism and he played on people's narcissistic ideation* of entitlement and neglect, which he does well because he is a narcissist.

* No, not an insult. We all have such ideation bubbling away in our subconscious; we all want to believe that we're special somehow. The trick is not to get carried away by it once you're a grown-up.

Of course MPs on the Remain side should have listened and offered solutions, but since people had been voting for them screwing them over for the last n decades they did not see a problem. The electorate has a part in the situation that they complain about; they voted for these governments and their policies for years.

You really have to stop putting words in my mouth. First I didn't know what parliament meant. Then I was calling people thick for disagreeing with me. Now, apparently, I am calling you a racist.

What was it again that you said about telling people what they think instead of listening to them?

3.3m young, healthy EU nationals who keep your argiculture, health and social services and service industry going, contribute £2 billion to the UK economy --which incidentally has the lowest unemployment for a decade, so whose jobs are they actually stealing? They are also half as likely to access NHS services as the locals. Whereas the EU gets 1.2m of mainly pensioners.

Since it is the UK that created the problem in the first place by deciding to leave, the UK could have solved the problem by simply recognising the rights of EU citizens already in the UK. It would have been very difficult for the EU to not reciprocate and keep the moral high ground. Instead the British government decided to make it one of their "main negotiating cards" (as Liam Fox put it at the Conservative Party Conference). The EU is simply reciprocating: if you are deciding to make this an issue for negotiation, fine, then we'll treat it as an issue for negotiation. And no negotiation before notification.

This is the consequence of choices that Britain has been making. The EU is fed up with the UK making the choice to leave but then not wanting to accept the consequences of what that means. But what do you expect from a government that did not expect the referendum to turn out as it did and does not actually want to leave (not even the Brexiteers)?

Contrast this with Germany, which is considering giving UK immigrants automatic German citizenship, and the recent EU parliamentary proposal to offer all British citizens the option of associated EU citizenship.

 

Just to pickup on some of the less abusive points you've raised,

We do decide who comes here, and seeing as how non-EU migration is higher than EU migration I'd say we're doing a pretty bad job of things if your intention is to reduce migration to the tens of thousands.

And seeing as how EU migrants pay approximately £1.34 in taxes for every £1 they receive in state assistance versus the £1.01 of non EU migrants I'd say we could probably do with more migration from the EU, not less.

That's far from the truth, in fact the UK were the most likely to be at the forefront of bullying and browbeating smaller nations, smaller nations that have a disproportionate representation with the EU.

On that we can agree, however I'm left wondering why you care as it seems you don't like Europe anyhow.

Citation needed please as AFAIK the cooking of the books didn't come to light until after they joined.

Such as?

Only for some reason we find ourselves on the winning side of those votes 95% of the time, as much as the press and MPs like to tell you how hard done by the UK was in Europe we were actually the ones bullying and browbeating the EU, it's only in more recent years that they've started to get the ump with this petulant little child.

Citation needed on that 15% claim please as the figures I've looked at say about 44% of UK exports in goods and services went to other countries in the EU in 2015.

So you're suggesting that companies make two or more of the same product for each market?

I hate to tell you but that's not how business works, it's works to the highest international standard so it can sell the same product across the world because it cost less to only be dealing with one product.

So the argument that numbers count in trade negotiations is lost on you?

Sorry didn't you say approximately 15% of our business, that's domestic and foreign trade, is actually done with the EU.

Now you seem to be saying it's 47%

And that's highly unlikely to change as by all accounts we'll be depending on WTO rules that are exactly the same, if not worse, than those we currently have with the WTO from being part of a large block of trading nations.

It all boils down to numbers and you're dealing with a market as small as the UK's you're in no position to dictate terms to markets the size of Asia, America, and other trading blocks like the EU that are 10x large than ours, the best we can probably hope for is an accelerated selling off of the UK to foreign interests.

Paying more for things we'd like to buy is the price you pay for protecting UK workers, that's what protectionism is and trade deals are nothing more than that, those tariffs that made things more expensive for consumers helped to protect British Steel workers jobs that were put at risk from China dumping cheap steel on the international markets.

They would have helped more if the UK hadn't vetoed the introduction of the higher rate tariff, something that goes to show the sort of influence the UK used to have within the EU, and also goes to show how our government is happy to sell UK workers down the river.

Yes because Europe is the only place that's happening isn't it, try replacing Europe with the UK and see how it reads.

If you don't like it now wait until we're out of Europe, selling within the single market needs a single sheet of paper, selling into it needs 5-6 sheets of paperwork to be completed.

Not why not, there's actually a reason for it but i won't go into it, however they are attempting to change that, which is more than can be said of the UK's executive body who employes something like 10X the amount of staff than the EU while dealing with 10X less population.

If you want an example of general extravagances and self-regard you really need to look into the UK's executive body, i.e the civil service.

I get you don't like the EU and how it's not perfect but here's the thing, when compared to the UK it's by far and away better in almost every aspect, and we've now decided to hand more power to a system that's so much worse it's laughable.

IMO the whole EU is bad idea stems from the UK political class wanting a scapegoat for what's their fault, for not wanting to admit that most of the problems within the UK are 95% their doing, and what's worst is how the majority of the electorate bought it hook line and sinker and pointed the finger at the EU instead of our inept politicians.

You and i know that would never have happened, MPs would never have stood up and said: hey guys sorry we've been screwing you over for the last few decades and we know all the problems in the UK are our doing but we promise to do better.

It's much easier like you say to use the EU and immigrants as a scapegoat for all that ills the UK.

 

Most people understand what you've just said is rubbish, getting married, buying a house, and changing jobs is nowhere near the scale of leaving the EU, and all of those can or do come with cast iron legal guarantees.

And no wanting change doesn't mean you can only do it with cast iron guarantees, however making life changing decisions without some sort of guarantee would be hubris of the highest order.

I thought you said people should reply to what you'd said, not what you meant.

If you say so.

Don't you mean your fist attempt at being conciliatory as everything you've said so far seem to be a long way from conciliatory.

Anyhow if you feel that way about our MPs, and i assume you mean UK politicians as otherwise you would have said MEPs, if you feel that way about them then why do you think it's a good idea to give them cache blanche over your future with absolutely no accountability, no transparency, and with nothing preventing them from rewriting rules, regulations, and laws without any oversight.

Because despite the title of the "great" repeal bill, it repeals nothing and there's nothing great about it as it contains the Henry VIII clause that allows the executive body, you know those people that Brexiteers pointed to when they claimed laws were being made undemocratically, it allows them and MPs to use statutory instruments to make wide ranging changes to all those laws that are going to be copied into UK law without parliamentary oversight.

You are parroting others, that's unless you can tell me what you consider the term "political elite" to mean, or why you think MEPs give you absolutely no accountability while MPs do.

And yes you did say there was no accountability, in fact you said and i quote...
"I for one don't want to live in a world where only our political elite ever get to decide our future - especially if it's a far removed political elite who live in an entirely different country to me and don't show even the most vague interests in what's best for me, my neighbours or my family and, more importantly, have absolutely no accountability to me - in anything but the most vague and tenuous sense of the word."

So please feel free to explain how MPs are more accountable to you than MEPs.

You see comments like this just demonstrate how it seems you have a tenuous grasp on how Europe works, you do know the head of each state, in the UK our PM, sit on the council and their voting power reflects that counties population, and you do know we elect MEPs who represent the UK in the European parliament right?

So please do explain how our PM and our MEPs don't represent the UK, please tell me how we, the public, have held our PM to account for the decisions they've made on the council, tell me how the 24 UKIP, 20 Labour, 19 Conservative and 6 other MEPs have been held to account on the decisions they made in the European parliament, tell me why holding those people to account is any different than holding your local MP to account.

I thought you said people should reply to what you'd said, not what you meant.

So far the only name calling seems to come from you.