Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Deleted User wrote: »

The same as what Norway does, Iceland does, and other coastal countries for whom fishing industries remain important.

and what is that?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Care to answer the question about what you want to do with all the fish that is caught?

The same as what Norway does, Iceland does, and other coastal countries for whom fishing industries remain important.

If you believe they'll catch the fish and just take selfies, you're welcome to that somewhat unusual belief.

Deleted User wrote: »

Fishing industry is important. Whilst there are large players, let's not look down on small coastal communities for whom fishing industries can make an enormous local impact.

Care to answer the question about what you want to do with all the fish that is caught?

Infini

First Up wrote: »

Brexit is about not liking foreigners. It all comes back to that - and only that.

All the other nonsensical arguments are just an attempt to disguise that its all just about not liking foreigners.

To be fair Brexit isnt just about foriegners its the conservatives taking credit for EU wide initiatives as well as blaming the EU for British shortcomings. The Brexiteers are also only deserve to be ridiculed and ignored as their opinions are devoid of reason or fact.

I honestly will wait and see what happens but if the conservatives get reelected then ultimately its the British who pay the price as Boris and co will screw the whole country ober for their oen benefit and plenty of them are probably decent folk who dont deserve to be put through this even though many of their own countrymen are too ignorant to reconise the blatent scam in front of them.

CelticRambler wrote: »

Can you please stop posting lists of random countries without explaining (with links to the appropriate documents) exactly what it is about these countries that you're citing as examples relevant to a post-Brexit GB.

Otherwise, it makes no more sense than me seeing your list above and raising you:
Ukraine
Cambodia
Afghanistan
Niger
Swaziland
Jordan
Sumatra

(I've matched the initial letters, in case that's somehow relevant ... :rolleyes: )

I think I've made the point; that the idea independent countries return to fascism, division and war - merely because they control migration - is an absurdity.

The countries I list are indicative of that. It also demonstrates my ancillary point that what leads to war is states that jettison democracy in favour of some mad imperialistic goal.

Not sure what you want to do with all the fish that will be caught, care to enlighten us?

Fishing is such a smalltime industry that is in the hands of the large companies... it gets so much exposure

Fishing industry is important. Whilst there are large players, let's not look down on small coastal communities for whom fishing industries can make an enormous local impact.

Again, it's not all about big money. Small things matter, too, however insigificant those jobs may feel to you.

Deleted User wrote: »

Furthermore, a fourth benefit of Leaving the EU is departing from the Common Fisheries Policy and restoring our coastal fishing communities.

Nigel Farage tweeted about this yesterday. Worth a watch, it's only a minute or so.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1195326978225844224

Not sure what you want to do with all the fish that will be caught, care to enlighten us?

Fishing is such a smalltime industry that is in the hands of the large companies... it gets so much exposure

Furthermore, a fourth benefit of Leaving the EU is departing from the Common Fisheries Policy and restoring our coastal fishing communities.

Nigel Farage tweeted about this yesterday. Worth a watch, it's only a minute or so.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1195326978225844224

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

United States.
Canada.
Australia.
New Zealand.
Singapore.
Japan.
South Korea.

Can you please stop posting lists of random countries without explaining (with links to the appropriate documents) exactly what it is about these countries that you're citing as examples relevant to a post-Brexit GB.

Otherwise, it makes no more sense than me seeing your list above and raising you:
Ukraine
Cambodia
Afghanistan
Niger
Swaziland
Jordan
Sumatra

(I've matched the initial letters, in case that's somehow relevant ... :rolleyes: )

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

They are entirely unreasonable positions to hold actually. The 1930’s wants its politics back. The above positions are those of division, racism and war. They are entirely small minded and destructive and will not offer any tangible improvements to the everyday lives of the UK populace soon to be trapped within them.

United States.
Canada.
Australia.
New Zealand.
Singapore.
Japan.
South Korea.

All returned to the 1930s - fascism, racism, and the cause of world wars?

New Zealand is replete with division, racism and a future war-mongerer, if your analysis held weight.

I don't think so.

Placing a value on culture and managed migration is more than a reasonable policy; it's a preferential one.

What matters is that nation-states remain democratic.

Your analysis is narrow-minded, hyperbolic, and apocalyptic.

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge.

1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage. This doesn't mean "anti-immigration", because immigration can and is a good thing, but the quality and quantity of people entering a country must be controlled.

2 - I believe it's better to have de-centralised power. In fact, the more decentralised, the better. Given the European Union is about a centralised power structure (not just of power, but of nation-states), with a parliament and a council and a president, and all the trappings of a State, it is the opposite of the type of political structure I would like to see. The more that power exists with the individual nation parliaments and filtered down through to local constituencies, the better. The more centralisation, the more corruption. Every successful communist and fascist arrangement will attest to that proposition.

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities. And with the added complexity of Merkel's request that as many migrants from Africa and the Middle East should come, the problem as only amplified further.

These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.

They are entirely unreasonable positions to hold actually. The 1930’s wants its politics back. The above positions are those of division, racism and war. They are entirely small minded and destructive and will not offer any tangible improvements to the everyday lives of the UK populace soon to be trapped within them.

LuckyLloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge.

1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage. This doesn't mean "anti-immigration", because immigration can and is a good thing, but the quality and quantity of people entering a country must be controlled.

2 - I believe it's better to have de-centralised power. In fact, the more decentralised, the better. Given the European Union is about a centralised power structure (not just of power, but of nation-states), with a parliament and a council and a president, and all the trappings of a State, it is the opposite of the type of political structure I would like to see. The more that power exists with the individual nation parliaments and filtered down through to local constituencies, the better. The more centralisation, the more corruption. Every successful communist and fascist arrangement will attest to that proposition.

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities. And with the added complexity of Merkel's request that as many migrants from Africa and the Middle East should come, the problem as only amplified further.

These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.

gooch2k9 wrote: »

You think they'd try to close down Holyrood? That would be counterproductive to their goals, and absurd at this point!

If they thought they would get away with it, Yes. The electoral system for Holyrood was specifically chosen to avoid one party (SNP) getting a majority and the SNP have been the largest party in Holyrood since 2007 (first term minority, second term - majority, current term minority). The current parliament has a pro-independence majority and the Tories (and Lib Dems & Labour) just do not accept that this is the case

The Tories constantly bleat on about how the SNP have failed Scotland when the metrics of the devolved powers tell a different story - they are itching to take those powers away. Look at the 'power grab' for the powers returning from the EU

I read this fascinating blog the other day about the origins of the Brexit Party and how they can drive the Tories to go down the road of 'rejecting the idea of an extra layer of government in the form of regional assemblies'

https://macalbasite.wordpress.com/2019/04/15/scottish-independence-and-the-brexit-party-trojan-horse-read-to-the-end/

endacl

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The only change moving forward in a post Brexit UK will be that the HMGOV and the British press will no longer be able to blame their ineptitude and disfunction on the EU.

Wanna bet? I predict an awful lot of ‘They punished us for leaving, and that’s why things are a bit sh1t. It’s all the mean old EU’s fault’ nonsense for years to come.

MadYaker wrote: »

It’s more complicated. If they hated foreigners that much they wouldn’t have spent the last 50 years filling their country with them.

The government has been perfectly happy to allow people in- and the economy and state finances have benefited massively from allowing early access to the accession states. However it also suited the various political parties to blame migration for running down public services etc. So there was a significant difference in opinion between the rulers and the ruled in the matter.
It should also be noted that a significant majority of the UK now wants FOM - there was only a short window of time when the issue got confused with the other issue of the refugee crisis which itself has partly/mostly subsided as a pressing issue and which is also no longer a primary concern of the UK electorate.

The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK

First Up wrote: »

Brexit is about not liking foreigners. It all comes back to that - and only that.

All the other nonsensical arguments are just an attempt to disguise that its all just about not liking foreigners.

MadYaker wrote: »

It’s more complicated. If they hated foreigners that much they wouldn’t have spent the last 50 years filling their country with them.

First Up wrote: »

They've been filling it with foreigners for a lot longer than that. That doesn't stop them hating them. They just need them.

No country actually "needs" to import foreigners, it is really down to the demand for infinite growth that is required to maintain the interest payments on the debt based money that the financial world has developed.
If money was not "lent into existence" like it is ,then a country (any country) could happily succeed with zero growth and inflation, with a stable economy where the only growth that happens is relative to the increases in the native populations.
All developed countries (except Japan) are actively importing people to keep the growth going, nothing to do with the EU or Brexit, just an economic fact.

lawred2

First Up wrote: »

Brexit is about not liking foreigners. It all comes back to that - and only that.

All the other nonsensical arguments are just an attempt to disguise that its all just about not liking foreigners.

Well I think it's more that 'foreigners' have become the go to reason to explain away everyone's own ills.

First Up

MadYaker wrote:

Itâ€™s more complicated. If they hated foreigners that much they wouldnâ€™t have spent the last 50 years filling their country with them.

They've been filling it with foreigners for a lot longer than that. That doesn't stop them hating them. They just need them.

MadYaker

First Up wrote: »

Brexit is about not liking foreigners. It all comes back to that - and only that.

All the other nonsensical arguments are just an attempt to disguise that its all just about not liking foreigners.

It’s more complicated. If they hated foreigners that much they wouldn’t have spent the last 50 years filling their country with them.

First Up

Brexit is about not liking foreigners. It all comes back to that - and only that.

All the other nonsensical arguments are just an attempt to disguise that its all just about not liking foreigners.

Leroy42

Even we one was to accept the 3 benefits listed as real, which I don't as they are nothing more than feelings and Hope's, but even on that there are very clearly costs that will be suffered, and already have been, due to Brexit.

Even before we get onto to the economic impact, we already have seen the clear acceptance of the separation of NI. No matter how any side dresses it up, the UK is less of a union that it was before.

To any person that claims to have the interests of the UK at heart that is a pretty significant cost to pay.

But then we have the economic costs. Who should pay that? Services, profits, social care, NHS, schools? Because someone is going to lose out in order to deliver these benefits.

briany

Danzy wrote: »

Which is why you couldn't fill a minibus with Mps who would back a No Deal Brexit.

I think you could fill a minibus with no-deal MPs, although you wouldn't because they'd invariably try to drive it off a cliff.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge.

1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage. This doesn't mean "anti-immigration", because immigration can and is a good thing, but the quality and quantity of people entering a country must be controlled.

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities. And with the added complexity of Merkel's request that as many migrants from Africa and the Middle East should come, the problem as only amplified further.

These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.

Point 1 and 3 are related here. You seem to feel that because there has been uncontrollable FOM it has led to a dilution of culture and controlling immigration will help with 'better quality' people coming to the UK and will help strengthen the culture as there will be less people not willing to integrate. Is that about right?

I have a couple of questions though, how will ending FOM help when immigration that the UK controls is higher than EU immigration? It seems to me the problem isn't EU immigration and FOM, the problem is that the UK needs immigration. Now how you do this is up for debate, but when you see that EU migrants pays into the finances whereas non-EU immigration costs the exchequer, it seems to me to be an expensive cost to taxpayers to try and retain what is only a belief.

UK migration: Rise in net migration from outside EU

Net migration to the UK from countries outside the European Union has hit its highest level for 15 years, the Office for National Statistics says.

Figures show 261,000 more non-EU citizens came to the UK than left in the year ending September 2018 - the highest since 2004.

In contrast, net migration from EU countries has continued to fall to a level last seen in 2009.

There are two points on which studies consistently agree. First, that the fiscal impact of EEA migrants is more positive than that of non-EEA migrants; and second, that the impact of recent migrants is more positive than the impact of migrants overall. Table 1 summarises the results of the most recent studies on the net fiscal impact of migrants in the UK.

For example, a study by Oxford Economics (2018), commissioned by the Migration Advisory Committee, estimated the net fiscal contribution of EEA migrants in FY2016/17 at £4.7bn, compared to a net cost of £9bn for non-EEA migrants. During this period, the UK was running a budget deficit, so the UK born were also estimated to have made a negative net fiscal contribution (of -£41.4bn). By contrast, using a similar methodology but slightly different assumptions, Migration Watch (2016) found that in FY2014/15 both EEA and non-EEA migrants represented a net fiscal cost (of £1.2bn and £15.6bn respectively). A large part of difference between these studies arises from the choice of how much of the taxes paid by businesses to attribute to migrants.

So we see there are fewer EU migrants in the UK and those migrants are a net benefit to the UK financially. So if we follow that through it means less money for the government to be spent on services where you are also more likely to be treated by an immigrant, and something which is lost in the immigration discussion is what impact it has on UK nationals in the EU. Take the below article as an example.

'CVs at bottom of pile': Britons in EU say Brexit is taking its toll

Uncertainty over UK citizens’ future status is prompting some European employers to steer clear

So the argument that you put forward seems to be that a positive for Brexit will be controlled immigration but the evidence points that this will not be a positive and if anything it may just turn out to be a negative in the long term.

As for culture, that cannot be measured in a scientific way as it is about you feel. So unless you feel more British because there are fewer non British people in the country there is no way to measure how this could be a benefit.

On Brexit, Johnson has made another pledge that will either turn out very badly for the country or he will break again.

https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1195257191009263616?s=20

He is saying he will not ask for an extension to the transition period so if a deal cannot be agreed in less than a year it will be a hard Brexit again. I will contain my surprise on how he persuaded the ERG to vote for his deal when it is worse than May's deal for the UK, and cannot wait to see their surprise when he asks for an extension instead of the over the cliff option.

I doubt I will change your mind on Johnson, but another lie from him that people will eat up,

https://twitter.com/danbloom1/status/1195254745222582272?s=20

He is saying that the increases proposed by him for the election, 3.2%, is the 'biggest in modern memory in the NHS', but the spending in the last 10 years according to the IFS has been 3.6%. Let us not forget this period was the austerity years, so to lie about figures like this is staggering and for me, anyone even thinking he is anywhere close to a fit and proper person to led the country is staggering. That said I thought the same about Trump and he was elected, although the fallout is just beginning to play out it seems in the US. The same will happen to the UK if they elect Johnson with a majority and Brexit will be the most visible policy where we will see the negative impact.

Deleted User wrote: »

3 - Culture. I believe in the existence of nation-state culture and that culture is something we should value. The more uncontrolled migration, the more diluted that culture becomes; it also makes it impossible for proper integration to exist. I for one am in favour of integration, but integration between communities can only exist if that integration happens with a reasonable number of people over a more reasonable given time. Otherwise, culture becomes diluted, destroyed and wrecked - with communities living side by side - all for the sake of meeting the needs of "diversity", which on the face of it, sounds inclusive, but by the end of it, destroys communities. And with the added complexity of Merkel's request that as many migrants from Africa and the Middle East should come, the problem as only amplified further.

These are three benefits of Brexit. You may not agree with them, but they are reasonable positions to hold.

if you believe in this, then why do you think leaving the EU so that instead of having French, Spanish and Polish immigrants,the UK will start importing vast hordes of Afghan, Pakistani and Somali migrants ( places most badly affected by backwards, exceptionally problematic and very, very deeply rooted religious beliefs) etc. will be a good thing?
Surely the type of migrant is important. Ireland has had a significant amount of EU migration in the last 10-15 years which from a cultural/social perspective has been remarkably smooth. The reason for the smoothness of this is the cultural affinity of importing educated secular human rights inclined people.
Furthermore, the UK leaving the EU will have no impact on the number of "Merkel migrants" - since this is not an EU competence. In fact it is likely that more of such will be sent to the UK as a result of brexit (fewer links and hence fewer consequences for the French if they turn a blind eye etc.)

Deleted User wrote: »

It's a fair question, and I arise to the challenge.

1 - I believe it's better to eliminate all controls of freedom of movement. I don't mean "reducing" freedom of movement, but "eliminating" freedom of movement. I would rather see an immigration system controlled thoroughly - from migration both outside and inside the EU - developed before migrants decide where to go and settle. For example, according to free movement, an individual from Europe can decide to live in the UK and hope to secure a job; I would rather stop that from happening. So complete and utter control of borders is one advantage. This doesn't mean "anti-immigration", because immigration can and is a good thing, but the quality and quantity of people entering a country must be controlled.

1. Do you believe Ireland should get rid of the CTA- to be able to kick out the pesky Brits stealing our jobs?
2. Are you proposing the UK adopt a Australian style" points" system? If so, how is that weighted?
3. Are you proposing an overall increase or decrease in the annual level of immigration?
4. Do you accept that vast majority of migration into the UK is non EU migration- and if so, why are you not so exercised about controlling that?

Deleted User wrote: »

For example: South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Australia, United States, Canada, Switzerland - all of which are outside the confines of the European Union,

Wait a minute: you just said that May's deal was "a form of remain"- yet now you say Switzerland is outside the EU. Both statements cannot be true.

Secondly as regards your examples of "successful" countries, all of these countries seek increased integration into regional trade groups to increase their prosperity. The only place erecting trade barriers is the UK.(and arguably trump's US at the moment- but at significant cost to the US economy, farmers etc.)