Immigrant in London slams immigrants

The_Kew_Tour

I don't really mind of they stay or go as pluses on both sides

It's that if they do leave then its not end of world including Ireland.

I can see them staying in anyway so no need for people to be "scared"

beach_walker

I really think the Remain campaign are doing a terrible job. Most of the leaflets we're getting through the door are nothing but fear mongering. Sure a lot of it is based in facts, but it just doesn't come across as positive in any way.

ohnonotgmail

beach_walker wrote: »

I really think the Remain campaign are doing a terrible job. Most of the leaflets we're getting through the door are nothing but fear mongering. Sure a lot of it is based in facts, but it just doesn't come across as positive in any way.

If it is based on facts then how is it fear-mongering? Or do you just find the facts uncomfortable and prefer that the remain side didnt bring them up?

beach_walker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If it is based on facts then how is it fear-mongering? Or do you just find the facts uncomfortable and prefer that the remain side didnt bring them up?

If you want to engage people and have them enthusiastically back something, "the end of the world" scenarios aren't the way to achieve it imo. I haven't seen one leaflet actually outlining the pro's of EU membership (workers/human rights etc etc, c'mon this should be child's play).

I'll be voting Remain but please continue with your lazy assertions. It's exactly that condescending attitude that is driving people toward the Leave.

tipptom

First Up wrote: »

They didn't sit and watch. They were at the table and gave him enough to save face but a lot less than he wanted. The rest of the EU (and most of the world) is keen that they remain because they understand the consequences of a Brexit a lot better than those who are pushing for it. They know that Brexit would not be good for anyone but it would be catastrophic for Britain.



Adults like me appreciate that a union of twenty seven diverse economies and cultures involves give and take and raises complex issues for which perfect solutions are rare. But if you want to demonstrate how the EU has been a bad thing for Ireland or Europe as a whole, I'm all ears.


I'm referring mostly to the idiotic and blatantly wrong claims from the Brexit side and the glaring gaps in their understanding of the topic. But if you want to take offence too, I won't try to stop you.



The EU could certainly be improved and your specific recommendations will be welcome. How you see Britain leaving contributing to this would be interesting too.

I am not advocating that Britain leaves the EU or that it would be a good thing for us anyway if they did.
There are obviously a lot of people in Britain who think that the EU has gone to far in their overarching naked ambition to take over all countries laws and finances and have them run by unelected nonentities in Brussels.


People recognise that this is going to be painful if they leave but obviously think that is going to be worth it in the end to be able to take control of their own affairs and avoid the the increasing controls that are coming down the line.


Britain is not the only country in the EU who have a lot of their population who have this attitude towards Brussels and they need to seriously take stock of that.


In my opinion if Britain goes it will lead to big questions being asked in other countries about the ever increasing control from Brussels and they will have no option but to back of and for this we should be grateful to Britain for shouting stop.


You go to try to explain the arrogant statement that at some stage "the topic needs to be taken over by adults"to the blatantly wrong claims from the brexit side", but then to personally start the previous paragraph with the same arrogant condescending bull of "Adults like me"which ironically is more the speech of a young child who is angry that things are not going your way.


These type of statements are dream quotes for the PR on the Exit side and further enhance their view of the type of unelected arrogant faceless shower in Brussels who are looking for more controls over the member country's.


I salute Britain for taking this stand no matter what way they vote and I think Leaders should go to their own country's now and find out what their people really think and try to find a happy medium for the EU,not the unsavoury power grab that has taken over.

tipptom

beach_walker wrote: »

If you want to engage people and have them enthusiastically back something, "the end of the world" scenarios aren't the way to achieve it imo. I haven't seen one leaflet actually outlining the pro's of EU membership (workers/human rights etc etc, c'mon this should be child's play).

I'll be voting Remain but please continue with your lazy assertions. It's exactly that condescending attitude that is driving people toward the Leave.

+++1

ohnonotgmail

beach_walker wrote: »

If you want to engage people and have them enthusiastically back something, "the end of the world" scenarios aren't the way to achieve it imo. I haven't seen one leaflet actually outlining the pro's of EU membership (workers/human rights etc etc, c'mon this should be child's play).

I'll be voting Remain but please continue with your lazy assertions. It's exactly that condescending attitude that is driving people toward the Leave.

so they shouldn't bring them up as a counterpoint to the rubbish spouted by the leave side?

beach_walker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so they shouldn't bring them up as a counterpoint to the rubbish spouted by the leave side?

They should probably try and sell a positive version of the EU if they actually want to win imo.

And then we can avoid mainland Europe descending into war as per Dave Cameron's opinion on what Brexit will lead to

mansize

It reminds me of the Marref a lot of self professed "Yes" voters said the Yes attitude drove them to a "No"- simply because when their arguments were debunked they said it was because Yes weren't "respecting" No's bs

ohnonotgmail

beach_walker wrote: »

They should probably try and sell a positive version of the EU if they actually want to win imo.

And then we can avoid mainland Europe descending into war as per Dave Cameron's opinion on what Brexit will lead to

yeah but people have a much stronger reaction to fear than to positivity.

beach_walker

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

yeah but people have a much stronger reaction to fear than to positivity.

We'll see.

I must say, I'm personally a bit shocked at the general apathy towards it on the ground.

mansize wrote:

It reminds me of the Marref a lot of self professed "Yes" voters said the Yes attitude drove them to a "No"- simply because when their arguments were debunked they said it was because Yes weren't "respecting" No's bs

Err sure it is buddy, the exact same... *cough*

mansize

beach_walker wrote: »

We'll see.

I must say, I'm personally a bit shocked at the general apathy towards it on the ground.




Err sure it is buddy, the exact same... *cough*

The argument re people being "driven" to the No side...

Beefy78

First Up wrote: »

If Britain votes out they will get diddly squat. They will have to re-write a pile of laws, negotiate a trade deal with the EU as well as re-negotiate the sixty external trade deals that the EU has around the world of which they will no longer be part. The stock market and currency will plunge, there will be political upheaval and a flight of capital. The financial sector will up stocks and move elsewhere; that sector alone will lose a million jobs. (The good news is that those lucky enough to still have work will be faced with lower house prices because the commercial and private property markets will collapse too.)

The EU is a collection of member states that proceeds by agreement, not a juggernaut. The remaining members will take turns rubbing the UK's nose in the crap of their own making. The best they will get will be a deal like those of Norway or Switzerland, where they still have to comply with the majority of EU laws including competition and state aid and would still have to make a significant contribution to the EU budget.

Ireland did not vote to leave; we voted down two treaty amendments which were subsequently revised and approved. If you think Britain will be given the opportunity to "re-negotiate" from the outside, you are in cloud-cuckoo land and such tragic naivety is at the core of much of the Brexit campaign.

It will be a very very expensive lesson. They will have no seat at the table and as someone said "if you are not at the table, you are on it."

Jesus Christ, it is exactly this sort of nonsense that makes people want to vote Brexit. The sky will not fall down if the UK leaves. There will undoubtedly be a short-term economic downturn but hardly the apocalypse that you're stating as fact - one assumes because it suits your agenda and ideology to do so.

mansize

Beefy78 wrote: »

Jesus Christ, it is exactly this sort of nonsense that makes people want to vote Brexit. The sky will not fall down if the UK leaves. There will undoubtedly be a short-term economic downturn but hardly the apocalypse that you're stating as fact - one assumes because it suits your agenda and ideology to do so.

Why would be only short term?

seamus

Beefy78 wrote: »

Jesus Christ, it is exactly this sort of nonsense that makes people want to vote Brexit. The sky will not fall down if the UK leaves. There will undoubtedly be a short-term economic downturn but hardly the apocalypse that you're stating as fact

No, because the UK government will have a self-interest in not letting is happen.

Most likely what will happen is as most commentators have been pointing out - the UK will get a trade agreement similar to what Norway and Switzerland have.
This means that the UK will still be subject to EU law, but without any say in making it.

It's literally cutting your nose off to spite your face to have an illusion of gaining sovereignty even though you've actually done the exact opposite.

Beefy78

First Up wrote: »

It also happens to be true. The minimum needed for any decision is Qualified Majority voting which requires at least 55% of member states representing 65% of the EU population. Some other decisions require unanimity.

The "scare tactics" include matters of simple fact. The "Withdrawal" mechanism is clearly set out in Article 50 of the Treaty. Britain would have two years to extract itself from the EU legal, financial, energy, IPR, litigation and employment laws among others. It means unraveling and replacing large parts of the 1972 European Communities Act involving literally thousands of pieces of legislation. You think that a post-Brexit Europhobe government - comprising inexperienced (and incredibly naive) politicians will have the time, inclination or ability to "re-negotiate" a better deal at the same time?

As well as its internal legal code, Britain would have to re-negotiate its terms of trade with the entire world. The rules of WTO, EEA, EFTA and EU are clear and the Norwegian, Swiss precedents are there to be seen. The EU has arrangements in place with other countries such as Turkey and, Iceland that offer easily understood illustrations of what is possible - and what isn't.

As for the financial sector, do you seriously think that international financial institutions will continue to service EU markets from outside the EU? Do you think that the EU would allow it? This topic has been exhaustively analysed and there is unanimity that it is the most exposed and vulnerable part of the UK economy - and one that is heavily populated by Tories.

Simplistic nonsense about "re-negotiating" a better deal after Brexit (while the other member states sit and watch?) is grand for Boards but at some point this topic needs to be taken over by adults.

This is completely different to the earlier post and is why I'll be voting to Remain. Leaving is a huge gamble because until the negotiations above happen it is impossible to know what people are actually voting for.

But it is hardly a leap into fiction to suggest that the EU would attempt a further renegotiation. It would hardly take a huge amount of time out of that two years based on David Cameron's recent attempts at one. No one wins from a UK Exit and there's no way that the EU are likely to want to accept that result without at least trying to salvage UK membership.

Beefy78

seamus wrote: »

No, because the UK government will have a self-interest in not letting is happen.

Most likely what will happen is as most commentators have been pointing out - the UK will get a trade agreement similar to what Norway and Switzerland have.
This means that the UK will still be subject to EU law, but without any say in making it.

It's literally cutting your nose off to spite your face to have an illusion of gaining sovereignty even though you've actually done the exact opposite.

That's definitely a very possible outcome, although I suspect that they may cut more of the nose off simply because a settlement where EU immigration is allowed to continue simply won't be acceptable to the British public. Given the choice of the two I think a lot of people likely to vote to leave would be more amenable to simply not accessing the common market than they would to keeping up the current levels of immigration.

It really is the key issue.

Beefy78

mansize wrote: »

Why would be only short term?

There will have to be a downturn during the two year negotiation. The markets hate uncertainty and that whole process will be the very definition of uncertainty. Whatever the outcome of the negotiation there will be a reduction in inbound investment but when it all shakes itself out the UK is still a huge economy with a lot going for it and it is unhelpful to predict as fact a cataclysmic destruction of their economy because they happen to leave the EU.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

No, because the UK government will have a self-interest in not letting is happen.

Most likely what will happen is as most commentators have been pointing out - the UK will get a trade agreement similar to what Norway and Switzerland have.
This means that the UK will still be subject to EU law, but without any say in making it.

It's literally cutting your nose off to spite your face to have an illusion of gaining sovereignty even though you've actually done the exact opposite.

If this deal would be such a bad outcome for them, then why aren't Norway and Switzerland clamouring to get full membership?

ancapailldorcha

Beefy78 wrote: »

That's definitely a very possible outcome, although I suspect that they may cut more of the nose off simply because a settlement where EU immigration is allowed to continue simply won't be acceptable to the British public. Given the choice of the two I think a lot of people likely to vote to leave would be more amenable to simply not accessing the common market than they would to keeping up the current levels of immigration.

It really is the key issue.

Beefy78 wrote: »

There will have to be a downturn during the two year negotiation. The markets hate uncertainty and that whole process will be the very definition of uncertainty. Whatever the outcome of the negotiation there will be a reduction in inbound investment but when it all shakes itself out the UK is still a huge economy with a lot going for it and it is unhelpful to predict as fact a cataclysmic destruction of their economy because they happen to leave the EU.

Good points. Ultimately, an EU-UK trade agreement will require ratification form the member parliaments of all 27 EU states if the UK leaves. The Brexit crowd seem to think German car makers make the rules but no Eastern European government will ratify a deal unless it includes free movement. Switzerland can't access the single market for financial services so it has to do this through London. Leaving might risk such access which is 80% of the UK's GDP. In short, we'd be trading a good deal with a rebate and subsidies for a worse deal with no rebate, subsidies or influence.

seamus

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

If this deal would be such a bad outcome for them, then why aren't Norway and Switzerland clamouring to get full membership?

They have very specific income streams (oil/fishing and questionable banking respectively) that would be hurt if they were to ask for EU membership. In short, it suits them to not be members.

The UK is different because its economy has already been structured to conform to EU law. So unless those on the leave side have some very specific ideas of industries that are being stifled by EU law and will flourish outside of it, they're backing a loser.

Perhaps the UK will fire up the old coal mines and build a whole new world-beating fishing fleet. But they still need to trade with the EU.

ancapailldorcha

I think many Swiss would like to join and not have to route their services exports via London but they've a longstanding tradition of direct democracy and the people have unfortunately voted no.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

They have very specific income streams (oil/fishing and questionable banking respectively) that would be hurt if they were to ask for EU membership. In short, it suits them to not be members.

The UK is different because its economy has already been structured to conform to EU law. So unless those on the leave side have some very specific ideas of industries that are being stifled by EU law and will flourish outside of it, they're backing a loser.

Perhaps the UK will fire up the old coal mines and build a whole new world-beating fishing fleet. But they still need to trade with the EU.

Yes, I mean it's not like London is one of the financial centers of the world. Better get those coal mines fired up. Yeah.

seamus

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Yes, I mean it's not like London is one of the financial centers of the world.

It's actually the largest.

Do you think that restricting their access to the joint-largest economic entity on the planet will help or hinder financial trade?

Especially if one or another of the EU/US trade agreements come into place, the two economies combined will make up nearly half of the entire world economy.

How would being outside that loop make the UK a more attractive place for financial services?

I would like to point out for the record that I'm not saying it will definitely hurt the UK. But it's a massive gamble to take, when the only thing you're really voting on is the outdated and nonsensical notion of nationality.

The entire Brexit campaign hangs on the notion of protecting Britishness. It literally has nothing else going for it.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

It's actually the largest.

Do you think that restricting their access to the joint-largest economic entity on the planet will help or hinder financial trade?

Especially if one or another of the EU/US trade agreements come into place, the two economies combined will make up nearly half of the entire world economy.

How would being outside that loop make the UK a more attractive place for financial services?

I would like to point out for the record that I'm not saying it will definitely hurt the UK. But it's a massive gamble to take, when the only thing you're really voting on is the outdated and nonsensical notion of nationality.

The entire Brexit campaign hangs on the notion of protecting Britishness. It literally has nothing else going for it.

But you also said that trade agreements would bring the UK back into the loop. So what you meant was that you expect some trade to continue but for them to be frozen out of financial markets?

seamus

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

But you also said that trade agreements would bring the UK back into the loop. So what you meant was that you expect some trade to continue but for them to be frozen out of financial markets?

Back into the loop to a certain extent. The trade agreement would be with the EU only. They'd have to re-negotiate with lots of other countries who may not be willing to give more favourable terms to a relative small fry like the UK than they give to larger trading partners like the EU.

And that trade agreement with the EU would likely include specific provisions which stifles the UK's ability to compete with EU elsewhere in the world.

In simple terms, this is like Tesco Dundrum breaking away from Tesco, rebranding itself and claiming that it can do better on its own.

Like I say, maybe it can, it's a gamble. But think about the scale of what's required to achieve that. Not to mention the fact that Tesco can now open a brand new shop in the unit next door.

ancapailldorcha

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

But you also said that trade agreements would bring the UK back into the loop. So what you meant was that you expect some trade to continue but for them to be frozen out of financial markets?

Trade will likely continue but financial service providers in Europe, including Dublin will spot an opportunity to gain a competitive edge over their London counterparts by lobbying the EU to impose tariffs. A trade deal would circumvent this but would need to be ratified by all 27 post-Brexit EU states.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

Back into the loop to a certain extent. The trade agreement would be with the EU only. They'd have to re-negotiate with lots of other countries who may not be willing to give more favourable terms to a relative small fry like the UK than they give to larger trading partners like the EU.

And that trade agreement with the EU would likely include specific provisions which stifles the UK's ability to compete with EU elsewhere in the world.

In simple terms, this is like Tesco Dundrum breaking away from Tesco, rebranding itself and claiming that it can do better on its own.

Like I say, maybe it can, it's a gamble. But think about the scale of what's required to achieve that. Not to mention the fact that Tesco can now open a brand new shop in the unit next door.

It would be more like Tesco Ireland breaking away from Tesco UK because they feel like they would do better by keeping their own profits rather than using them to support lagging UK Tesco sales. Now, of course they may lose out in some ways, i.e. through losing existing agreements with suppliers, but you would be wrong to argue that Tesco Ireland wouldn't still be in a position of great strength to renegotiate with suppliers. And in the same breath, they would win in other ways, i.e. by keeping all of their profits.

I believe the UK will vote to stay. We saw it with the Scottish referendum - most people simply won't want to change the status quo because most people are heavily invested in the status quo. But to put it simply, very little would change. The man on the street, were he to be hidden away for the whole duration of the referendum, and taken out of hiding a year after the referendum, would see very little difference in any facet of life. Everything will continue on as normal, despite the yes-side acting as if this would be cataclysmic and the no-side acting as if there will be major life-changing benefits.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Trade will likely continue but financial service providers in Europe, including Dublin will spot an opportunity to gain a competitive edge over their London counterparts by lobbying the EU to impose tariffs. A trade deal would circumvent this but would need to be ratified by all 27 post-Brexit EU states.

Ehm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax

ancapailldorcha

Sergio Georgini wrote: »

Ehm... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax

What's your point? That's a pan-EU tax.