Support NeoGAF

[1.21Gigawatts]

To...? Come on, don't leave us hanging here. XD

Lol, I couldn't come up with anything and forgot to delete the sentence
Kinda fitting.

 

[KingSnake]

But that idea is in itself undemocratic. Much as one hates the Tory government it is the case that a new government should be free to change the policy of a previous government as it pleases. The EU gives the government of the day a pretty massive amount of power to fuck things up for everyone for generations to come.

My point wasn't that a government shouldn't be free to fuck up a country if that's what the said government wants. My point is that some of the left wing positions towards the EU are just misguided. And not just in UK. At least EU provides some minimum common sense rules. Of course that's not enough, but you have to think about what happens also when the others are in power.

 

[CyclopsRock]

So almost literally every argument is immigration then.

Your arguments contradict themselves in all kinds of ways.

The tradesman in Barnsley is probably very far from the large amounts of immigration that could affect his rates.

The people who voted for less immigration in the referendum, are those LEAST affected by it. Even those who have basically ZERO net migration.

The people who voted to leave the EU are from some of the areas who got THE MOST, DIRECT funding from the EU. Farmers, poorer rural areas.

Also, what in the wotld is with this assumption that remain voters are all well to do, with amazing prospects, who can afford things leavers can't and that's why they wanted to remain?

Could it not be that we decided we WERE going to listen to experts and thought it would be damaging for the economy? Or the fact that the xenophobia and racism the leave campaign was absolutely fraught with didn't sway us? Because as it turns out, if you actually live near brown and Eastern European people, you're less likely to be susceptible to Farage standing in front of a poster of a large amount of brown people, with he message of "leave the EU or they'll get in".

It's basically the anti-London bullshit that was being pushed during the referendum. I wonder if people who believe that have ever visited the outer areas of a city centre.

Also, once we leave the EU, these "polish" taking all the jobs and outpricing every tradesman apparently, aren't going to disappear......they aren't getting deported......they're STILL going to be here after we leave the EU.........so what is the gain?


If We're very honest here, the biggest problem was not how people from different areas are affected by the EU differently, because facts show that people who were least affected due to immigration, voted to leave on a grand scale compared to those areas that are most affected by it.

The real issue imo was the ways different people in different areas of the UK reacted to propaganda.



Areas where lots of brown people actually live, weren't scared off by Farages poster of brown people.

Areas where the most Eastern Europeans live and work, weren't scared off by all the jobs disappearing when we don't even have the numbers needed to build houses fast enough to keep up with demand.

Areas where there was literally no immigration and received direct funding from the zeal we're scared shitless if immigration and thought that London gets all the benefits.

People FEELING like the EU is shit for them is NOT the cogent argument that we are asking for, it's just a symptom of a reaction to propaganda in most cases.

And we haven't even talked about prominent leave figures just lying constantly. Boris and his NHS bus. Farage and his "nobody is saying we'all need to leave the single market" bullshit. The entire leave campaign calling every remain argument "project fear" and selling the idea that it'll be a walk in the park.

I mean, you mean to tell me that these desperate and struggling people knew that they were going to devalue the pound by 20% just by VOTING to leave and making basically everything they buy in the shops more expensive?

You mean to tell me that all these fishers/farmers pissed off with EU KNEW that we'd be marching into the negotiations where no deal is much more likely than the deal they want, which means they'll pay huge tarrifs on selling their produce to their largest customers, the EU?

Aaaaaahhhhhhhhh.

The point of my post has flown totally over your head. My point wasn't "this is why everyone's voted for Brexit." I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of anyone. The request was for coherent arguments in favour of Brexit and that's what I did. There absolutely are people who are negatively affected by the EU in the way I've outlined there. Do they make up 52% of the population. Absolutely not. I didn't claim they did. That wasn't my point.

 

[Theonik]

My point wasn't that a government shouldn't be free to fuck up a country if that's what the said government wants. My point is that some of the left wing positions towards the EU are just misguided. And not just in UK. At least EU provides some minimum common sense rules. Of course that's not enough, but you have to think about what happens also when the others are in power.

It doesn't though, on most of the things people are thinking about the UK has higher standard implemented in its domestic legislation. Tories might wish to fix this but still.

Using a super-national organisation as a replacement for a written constitution is pretty dumb. Hell, a lot of the things the Tories had gone and renegotiated, and Thatcher's single market policies that the left disagreed with at the time, we'll have to carry for eternity.

 

[KingSnake]

It doesn't though, on most of the things people are thinking about the UK has higher standard implemented in its domestic legislation. Tories might wish to fix this but still.

Using a super-national organisation as a replacement for a written constitution is pretty dumb. Hell, a lot of the things the Tories had gone and renegotiated, and Thatcher's single market policies that the left disagreed with at the time, we'll have to carry for eternity.

EU didn't stopped UK from writing a Constitution. Like EU didn't stop UK from applying at least immigration control measures that other countries in EU use. Or from building more houses. Or from having higher fire protection standards in buildings. Both right and left in UK blamed too much on EU for too long. Especially when it comes to left wing measures and protecting the poor.

 

[CrunchyB]

The whole thing [Irish passport] cost me less than £100, I think. I believe that's because it was a direct parent. If you have to go the grandparent route I think it's more complicated and a lot more expensive.

That's probably the best £100 you will ever spend, good job.

Being able travel and work freely in Europe for the rest of your life for you and your children is easily worth hundreds of times that amount.

 

[Theonik]

EU didn't stopped UK from writing a Constitution. Like EU didn't stop UK from applying at least immigration control measures that other countries in EU use. Or from building more houses. Both right and left in UK blamed too much on EU for too long. Especially when it comes to left wing measures and protecting the poor.

I never said it did? What you are describing is a constitution.
The UK could always get a written constitution if it wanted. That's not really an EU benefit.

 

[Camp Freddie]

I'm on my phone, I'll post properly later. But one thing that's important to remember is that the EU impacts different people in markedly different ways. I'm a 29 year old, middle class university graduate working in the Creative Industries in London. I benefit overwhelmingly from the EU, which is why I voted to remain. I get to travel very easily, I have a diverse set of colleagues from all over Europe (and the world, actually), I have skills that are in demand all over Europe and I'm mobile enough to make good on that possibility if I were so inclined, and I speak decent French. When my pipes burst the plumber costs far less than they used to and if I need to move house I can pay a bunch of Romanians a quarter of the price I'd have had to have paid a removals company ten years ago. Great!

But if I'm a 23 year old from Barnsley that's just spent three years doing an apprenticeship in electrics where I got paid about 20p an hour and now find myself in a market place that's got significantly more supply of labour without significantly more demand from customers, I'm very likely to see my future prospects negatively impacted. In fact, we know this is true because I listed above one of the benefits to me is that this kind of stuff is cheaper for me. Maybe this hypothetical kid from Barnsley's dad was a plumber, and he's seen his work slow down, or he's had to take a pay cut to maintain his customer base. Their quality of life has diminished, because "the trades" have always been a way for working class people to earn a decent wage with a skill who's demand is steady - and now that's being challenged. This guy from Barnsley's unlikely to speak a European language fluently, doesn't have a university degree, after several years of an apprenticeship is unlikely to be mobile and able to benefit from opportunities across the single market (all whilst that same opportunity to others is diluting his client base at home).

[snipped for brevity].

This is a good post. Among my friends, the leaver/remainer split is just like asking "Do you work in a trade?"
But, these people are usually ALSO rather racist (and some are now ex-friends). Having a legitiate grievance against the EU tends to make them buy-in to all the other jingoistic nonsense. I think they are afraid to say they want to leave the EU for purely selfish reasons (fewer Polish plasterers means more job security and higher wages for me), so they buy into all the shit about EU red tape and how we'll dominate world trade when the EU aren't holding us back - plus the more incoherent racist arguments (turkish muslims, etc.)

I think us remainers also have to look at whether we're just being selfish and ignoring the real problems the EU causes for people who aren't us. I generally think we are not, since "the trades" require the EU almost as much as professionals do. And most of the arguments about pressures on employment or services just don't hold water unless you live in a few areas with very high immigration. I've had to point out to some of my friends that hearing a Polish guy in Tesco's or knowing a Romanian gardener doesn't change the fact that he lives in a town that's 97% white-British. No-one's coming to take his job.

And despite living in an area with a lot of Poles, almost every bit of trade work I've had done was by an Englishman (and a few from Barnsley too!) In fact, EU immigrants are (well, were - they're all leaving for nicer countries now!) much more common in my profession, and an Estonian regulatory adviser is a lot cheaper to employ than a British one (and the EU means we advise about the same regulations so I have no special local knowledge).
My kid's school is over 10% Polish but I think that 'pressures' argument is overblown. The Polish kids are bilingual and speak as good English as my children - sometimes better since their parents tend to be very keen on language skills, knowing that languages are a very important and useful skill rather than something you just learn by osmosis. I don't think many Poles arrive with older children who speak no English, for much the same reason that I'd never move to France with my kids (which I would be seriously considering if I was 10-20 years younger and single).

 

[CyclopsRock]

EU didn't stopped UK from writing a Constitution. Like EU didn't stop UK from applying at least immigration control measures that other countries in EU use. Or from building more houses. Or from having higher fire protection standards in buildings. Both right and left in UK blamed too much on EU for too long. Especially when it comes to left wing measures and protecting the poor.

I don't really see how this is actually an argument against anything though. Obviously the government of the day didn't feel the need to implement the controls. What's that got to do with a person who has a problem with that decision? It's not like we can retroactively apply it.

 

[ClosingADoor]

I don't really see how this is actually an argument against anything though. Obviously the government of the day didn't feel the need to implement the controls. What's that got to do with a person who has a problem with that decision? It's not like we can retroactively apply it.

It shows that the EU is the wrong party to blame. People who voted Leave place their trust in the UK government, that before had options to do better for them, but refused to do so. And instead of getting mad at the government, they get mad at the EU.

 

[StayDead]

I don't really see how this is actually an argument against anything though. Obviously the government of the day didn't feel the need to implement the controls. What's that got to do with a person who has a problem with that decision? It's not like we can retroactively apply it.

Yes, yes you can.

 

[Theonik]

Yes, yes you can.

You can apply it going forward but you can't apply it in the past. You won't be asking the ones that took advantage of it to re-apply under new rules retroactively.

Similarly, Blair's push to extend the EU in 2004 is something future government will be bound to abide with. Or think of the Lisbon Treaty that the UK government thought was not worth consulting the public over. Now I personally have little qualms with all of these but you can see how the EU complicates things when it comes to future governments overturning decisions of governments of the past.

 

[KingSnake]

I don't really see how this is actually an argument against anything though. Obviously the government of the day didn't feel the need to implement the controls. What's that got to do with a person who has a problem with that decision? It's not like we can retroactively apply it.

A person who has a problem with that decision misdirects his or her unhappiness. That should be addressed first with the local parties and government. Practically you are leaving EU because of many fails of UK governments.

You can apply it going forward but you can't apply it in the past. You won't be asking the ones that took advantage of it to re-apply under new rules retroactively.

Similarly, Blair's push to extend the EU in 2004 is something future government will be bound to abide with.

Arguably you won't apply it retroactively even after the Brexit unless you plan to deport EU citizens.

 

[Theonik]

A person who has a problem with that decision misdirects his or her unhappiness. That should be addressed first with the local parties and government. Practically you are leaving EU because of many fails of UK governments.

Of course that is the case. It is also the case that future governments should be allowed to tackle the status quo and attempt to fix the bad policies of governments of the past. You can say that 'But this way we force future governments to keep some good stuff against their wishes!' but that goes both ways. You are essentially putting future generations at the mercy of the ones that came prior.

And I mean it then makes sense. A person that disagrees with the UK government can punish the UK government. But to roll back their actions one has to leave the EU. Or erm reform it from within. (good luck with that one)

Arguably you won't apply it retroactively even after the Brexit unless you plan to deport EU citizens.

Don't give May ideas.

 

[Bananajama]

A person who has a problem with that decision misdirects his or her unhappiness. That should be addressed first with the local parties and government. Practically you are leaving EU because of many fails of UK governments.



Arguably you won't apply it retroactively even after the Brexit unless you plan to deport EU citizens.

Problem is for 20+ years the Government made a scapegoat for the EU for problems they couldn't solve

When realistically they could solve it

So all of a sudden when you had the Government saying the EU was a good thing
They were fighting 20+ years of there own self imposed negative imagery of the EU

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't want to be married anymore but I'd still have the sex, please? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

[Bananajama]

I don't want to be married anymore but I'd still have the sex, please? 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Wait...
I thought the sex went downhill after you got married 😂

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Wait...
I thought the sex went downhill after you got married 😂

Silly Britons 😂😂

 

[azyless]

Well, they could have thought about that before.

 

[Theonik]

Wait...
I thought the sex went downhill after you got married 😂

You laugh but that's part of why some brittons decided to leave the EU for that Australian girl they met at a bar once.

 

[Jackpot]

I don't really see how this is actually an argument against anything though.

Because it's nothing to do with the EU...?

 

[GrizzleBoy]

The point of my post has flown totally over your head. My point wasn't "this is why everyone's voted for Brexit." I'm not claiming to speak on behalf of anyone. The request was for coherent arguments in favour of Brexit and that's what I did. There absolutely are people who are negatively affected by the EU in the way I've outlined there. Do they make up 52% of the population. Absolutely not. I didn't claim they did. That wasn't my point.

Well:

A plumber from Barnsley being affected by a polish plumber 150 miles away is not a cogent argument for wanting to leave. And as I said, that polish plumber will still be here after Brexit.

"You Londoners with your fancy jobs and houses only want to stay in the EU because it benefits you, we don't get anything from the EU " is not a cogent argument for leaving.

Stressing public services is a more valid argument, until you factor in that the government is closing A&Es, closing down police/fire stations, laying off staff and since we voted to leave, applications to work as a nurse in the UK has decreased by 90%. Stressed services sounds more like a reason to stop voting for cuts to services than throwing the country into chaos.

People are asking for cogent reasons for leaving. The reasons you're giving are mostly reasons why people don't like immigrants or immigration. Ironically as a retort to people asserting that xenophobia and racism were major factors for why people voted to leave.

You present your argument as "people need to understand that the EU affects people differently, but what you're really explaining is that people FEEL that the EU affects them differently. Because again as facts show, constituencies with the least immigration were the most upset about immigration. When asked for a cogent argument, you can't present an argument that represents feelings regardless of reality, instead of reality. That's literally ther opposite of what a cogent argument is.

I guess my argument is that those reasons when scrutinised by either common sense or Google don't conclude with being cogent arguments for leaving the EU.

Which again I feel is the problem.

 

[cromofo]

bye UK

 

[CyclopsRock]

It shows that the EU is the wrong party to blame. People who voted Leave place their trust in the UK government, that before had options to do better for them, but refused to do so. And instead of getting mad at the government, they get mad at the EU.

A person who has a problem with that decision misdirects his or her unhappiness. That should be addressed first with the local parties and government. Practically you are leaving EU because of many fails of UK governments.

Because it's nothing to do with the EU...?

If a person thinks "Gee, I don't like this level of immigration, I wish we had imposed controls" doesn't have to be "blaming" the EU in order to come to the decision that leaving the EU will get them what they want. They can't fly back in time to change a decision made a decade ago, so what are they supposed to do now, in 2016, if they remain of the view that not enacted controls was the wrong decision? Immigration from the EU remains immigration from the EU.

(I said 2016 because that's when the referendum was, obviously. I do know it's currently 2017).

 

[Skellig Gra]

That's probably the best £100 you will ever spend, good job.

Being able travel and work freely in Europe for the rest of your life for you and your children is easily worth hundreds of times that amount.

Damn right. My wife was on the fence about it. I convinced her when I told her any kids we'd have would get it but only if the paperwork was sorted before they were born. My son got his EU passport about 3 months after being born.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

A lot of good points made so far.

From my experience of chatting to multiple Leavers, including some family members, a lot of their reasoning is just pure misinformation or ignorance.

- One voted leave because they felt the NHS was under strain from so many immigrants. The problem I have with that is that the NHS has always been under strain. It would be under less strain without EU immigrants. My counter is that a good chunk of the NHS nurses and doctors are immigrants from the EU. What about the money we would save? Most of that would go to just paying the cost of doing trade in the EU.

- A former friend of mine:
All I see in the restaurant business is Illegals taking all of the jobs. That's not the EU's fault and if the government were doing it's jobs, that business would be shut down.
What about the EU migrants taking all the housing? Well currently the EU migrants only make up around 5% of the population. Out of that population only a small % claim benefits. The housing problem was caused by Thatcher selling the council housing and not enough money being invested into transport links outside of the cities.

- Other:
A lot of them are criminals:
Only 5.4% of the current prisoner population are EU migrants.


All this stuff is just a google away, but so much of this is just misinformation spread by the Leaver campaign. Despite all this, I've not been able to convince more than a few they were, at the very least, wrong in their reasons as to why. The others and I hate to say this, because I like being a Proud Brit and this makes me ashamed, are just racists. Even one who is married to a Portuguese Woman.

asdamsn;fas;fba;bgajsdbfp;asfaosh

 

[CyclopsRock]

Well:

A plumber from Barnsley being affected by a polish plumber 150 miles away is not a cogent argument for wanting to leave. And as I said, that polish plumber will still be here after Brexit.

Another person being deliberately obtuse. Replace "Barnsley" with anywhere else you like, it doesn't meaningfully change the arguments.

"You Londoners with your fancy jobs and houses only want to stay in the EU because it benefits you, we don't get anything from the EU " is not a cogent argument for leaving.

Stressing public services is a more valid argument, until you factor in that the government is closing A&Es, closing down police/fire stations, laying off staff and since we voted to leave, applications to work as a nurse in the UK has decreased by 90%.

People are asking for cogent reasons for leaving. The reasons you're giving are mostly reasons why people don't like immigrants or immigration. Ironically as a retort to people asserting that xenophobia and racism were major factors for why people voted to leave.

I guess my argument is that those reasons when scrutinised by either common sense or Google don't conclude with being cogent arguments for leaving the EU.

Which again I feel is the problem.

Well you're the person associating "anything to do with immigration" with "xenophobia", as demonstrated by your use of the word "ironically". My arguments are almost exclusively economic in nature.

It's honestly not difficult to imagine how a large increase in the number of people in Area X with Skill Y will negatively impact the lives of people who already live in Area X and rely on Skill Y for their income. You can replace those two variables with a whole bunch of different skills and places and you'll find people negatively affected.

 

[KingSnake]

Of course that is the case. It is also the case that future governments should be allowed to tackle the status quo and attempt to fix the bad policies of governments of the past. You can say that 'But this way we force future governments to keep some good stuff against their wishes!' but that goes both ways. You are essentially putting future generations at the mercy of the ones that came prior.

And I mean it then makes sense. A person that disagrees with the UK government can punish the UK government. But to roll back their actions one has to leave the EU. Or erm reform it from within. (good luck with that one)

Is this really the case that a government couldn't fix things while still in EU? I just gave some examples earlier of things that could be fixed without leaving: a constitution, building houses, have proper fire prevention rules etc.

Sure, you can't stop EU workers from getting jobs in UK, but I haven't seen a big push in handling non-EU immigration either. Plus stopping EU immigration will come actually at a cost and as a strain of both the social expenditures of the future and British companies competitiveness on the global market.

My point being, why aren't you asking the government to fix what can be fixed first and then jump together over the edge. Jumping first and expecting the government to behave better after seems like a story with unicorns for me.

 

[ClosingADoor]

If a person thinks "Gee, I don't like this level of immigration, I wish we had imposed controls" doesn't have to be "blaming" the EU in order to come to the decision that leaving the EU will get them what they want. They can't fly back in time to change a decision made a decade ago, so what are they supposed to do now, in 2016, if they remain of the view that not enacted controls was the wrong decision? Immigration from the EU remains immigration from the EU.

(I said 2016 because that's when the referendum was, obviously. I do know it's currently 2017).

But the reasons they don't like immigration mostly has little to do with the EU, but with their own government. Stopping EU immigration will do nothing for their troubles.

- It is not going to fix services
- It is not going to bring jobs back to rural areas
- It is not going to limit immigration from other areas

Those things are the job of the UK government, not the EU. EU immigration has been made this big thing by the UK tabloids and politicians, while the problems are with other areas.

 

[KarneeKarnay]

Just a comment on immigration control. There is an argument to be made that as an Island, immigration cannot be treated the same way as other countries in the EU. However any chance of having a reasonable debate about that went out the window with leave.

Good luck dealing with that.

 

[Audioboxer]

Brexit is a black mirror, if you support it, it means exactly what you want it to mean at the moment. That will change as the parameters set by the negotiation start to properly define it.

Which is undoubtedly going to lead to some "I've made a huge mistake". The campaigning still shouldn't have been what it was with lies that no one was held accountable for.

 

[GrizzleBoy]

Another person being deliberately obtuse. Replace "Barnsley" with anywhere else you like, it doesn't meaningfully change the arguments.



Well you're the person associating "anything to do with immigration" with "xenophobia", as demonstrated by your use of the word "ironically". My arguments are almost exclusively economic in nature.

It's honestly not difficult to imagine how a large increase in the number of people in Area X with Skill Y will negatively impact the lives of people who already live in Area X and rely on Skill Y for their income. You can replace those two variables with a whole bunch of different skills and places and you'll find people negatively affected.

Yet the people most likely to be affected by this kind of problem, didn't vote to leave in the numbers that people likely never to be affected by this problem did.

Which is my whole point.

Your point about plumbers is kind of irrelevant anyway since the bigger issues regarding workforce and immigration tend to be from lower skilled Labour and large companies paying low wages to whoever will take them.

But again, that isn't a cogent issue for leaving the EU. We leave the EU, Radek, Piotr and Marchin ar ent getting deported tomorrow. They're still going to be there getting paid what they're getting paid. This is an argument for increasing minimum wages or imposingstatutory lower limits for immigrant pay more than it is a reason for chucking us all out of the flipping EU. Even if every migrant was chucked off every site, they would be replaced by people paid the same money, because that's what the companies want to pay.

 

[Herr Schwarz]

This is what happens when free speech is perverted over time by nationalistic dogma and irrational idealogy.

It just doesn't mesh in with reality.

Same in American politics. Now that you got what you always wanted, it's awful difficult to proceed without saying "everyone is about to get fucked over, it turns out Brexit advocates didn't know what in the fuck they were talking about"

Same with the Obamacare.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

Just a comment on immigration control. There is an argument to be made that as an Island, immigration cannot be treated the same way as other countries in the EU. However any chance of having a reasonable debate about that went out the window with leave.

Good luck dealing with that.

The UK isn't an island, it shares borders with Spain and Ireland. The UK and Ireland are both EU members but neither are in the Schengen zone, instead they share a separate common travel area.

Malta and Cyprus are both islands who are members of the EU with freedom of movement.

 

[TimmmV]

A lot of good points made so far.

From my experience of chatting to multiple Leavers, including some family members, a lot of their reasoning is just pure misinformation or ignorance.

- One voted leave because they felt the NHS was under strain from so many immigrants. The problem I have with that is that the NHS has always been under strain. It would be under less strain without EU immigrants. My counter is that a good chunk of the NHS nurses and doctors are immigrants from the EU. What about the money we would save? Most of that would go to just paying the cost of doing trade in the EU.

- A former friend of mine:
All I see in the restaurant business is Illegals taking all of the jobs. That's not the EU's fault and if the government were doing it's jobs, that business would be shut down.
What about the EU migrants taking all the housing? Well currently the EU migrants only make up around 5% of the population. Out of that population only a small % claim benefits. The housing problem was caused by Thatcher selling the council housing and not enough money being invested into transport links outside of the cities.

- Other:
A lot of them are criminals:
Only 5.4% of the current prisoner population are EU migrants.


All this stuff is just a google away, but so much of this is just misinformation spread by the Leaver campaign. Despite all this, I've not been able to convince more than a few they were, at the very least, wrong in their reasons as to why. The others and I hate to say this, because I like being a Proud Brit and this makes me ashamed, are just racists. Even one who is married to a Portuguese Woman.

asdamsn;fas;fba;bgajsdbfp;asfaosh

I'm inclined to agree with this

IIRC the statistics showed that the leave vote was mostly outside metropolitan areas, and the older generations. Cases like the one Cyclops used as an example do exist (although I still think the "working class tradesman" would likely be wrong about Poles stealing work, even if they might believe it), but they're not the reason why the majority of leavers voted the way they did.

We'd just had a huge recession and then 6-8 years of cuts of varying severity. And the whole time the press were pushing the idea that immigrants were basically putting a strain on everything, despite the fact that services were all being cut to the bone. People were angrily reacting to years of declines in living standards caused by the recession + austerity but did it the way our shit-tier press told them to

 

[ClosingADoor]

Just a comment on immigration control. There is an argument to be made that as an Island, immigration cannot be treated the same way as other countries in the EU. However any chance of having a reasonable debate about that went out the window with leave.

Good luck dealing with that.

I don't see the difference. If anything, it being an island just makes it easier for the UK to control illegal immigration. There is no reason the UK should have more problem with EU immigration then say Germany or France.

 

[RionaaM]

Why didn't all of them voted to remain, then? I won't pretend to feel bad for the people who voted leave, or didn't vote at all. I do feel bad for those who wished to remain, of course.

 

[The Greek Freak]

Still baffled that such a huge long lasting vote was left to a simple majority.

You'd think something as drastic as leaving the EU should require 60%+

Why didn't all of them voted to remain, then? I won't pretend to feel bad for the people who voted leave, or didn't vote at all. I do feel bad for those who wished to remain, of course.

Alot of people are too busy/don't have the critical thinking skills to understand things like bus ads about billions doing from the EU to NHS was just a blatant lie. (This doesn't make them bad people).

I'm honestly guilty of it in terms of local elections because my state GOP is basically the national DNC in terms of left/right stances on issues, and they never try to pull bible thumping garbage. I have friends who are involved in this shit much deeper than me so I touch base with them right before the election.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

The UK isn't an island, it shares borders with Spain and Ireland. The UK and Ireland are both EU members but neither are in the Schengen zone, instead they share a separate common travel area.

Malta and Cyprus are both islands who are members of the EU with freedom of movement.

The UK doesn't have a land border with Spain. Gibraltar isn't part of the UK.

 

[The Friendly Monster]

The UK doesn't have a land border with Spain. Gibraltar isn't part of the UK.

My mistake, the point stands though. Apparently the UK also has an overseas territory which has a border with Cyprus; Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Really don't care about what those who wanna piss off elsewhere think.

 

[Jackpot]

If a person thinks "Gee, I don't like this level of immigration, I wish we had imposed controls" doesn't have to be "blaming" the EU in order to come to the decision that leaving the EU will get them what they want. They can't fly back in time to change a decision made a decade ago, so what are they supposed to do now, in 2016, if they remain of the view that not enacted controls was the wrong decision? Immigration from the EU remains immigration from the EU.

(I said 2016 because that's when the referendum was, obviously. I do know it's currently 2017).

Enact the domestic laws that would lower immigration and still retain the benefits of being a member of the EU. Duh.

 

[BlazinSkatinAxel]

They should give EU membership to those who voted against Brexit...

 

[norinrad]

I think the UK at some point should learn to forget Thatcher and try to undo some of her policies. It doesn't matter who you speak to whether be it a politician or an ordinary Joe, Thatcher always ends up somewhere in the conversation.

 

[McLovin]

Probably not gonna happen, maybe they can re-apply.

 

[Theonik]

The UK doesn't have a land border with Spain. Gibraltar isn't part of the UK.

Overseas territories are people too!

Is this really the case that a government couldn't fix things while still in EU? I just gave some examples earlier of things that could be fixed without leaving: a constitution, building houses, have proper fire prevention rules etc.

Sure, you can't stop EU workers from getting jobs in UK, but I haven't seen a big push in handling non-EU immigration either. Plus stopping EU immigration will come actually at a cost and as a strain of both the social expenditures of the future and British companies competitiveness on the global market.

I don't see where you're going with this. Your point was about the EU providing protections for UK citizens from their own government. I pointed out that the UK has better working rights than what is required by the EU, and such a suggestion is inherently undemocratic because it binds future governments to bad policy from past governments that were in office when the negotiations happened. Nothing stops the UK from making the same protections in domestic law either if they wanted in the form of a constitution. There is just no will for this.

My point being, why aren't you asking the government to fix what can be fixed first and then jump together over the edge. Jumping first and expecting the government to behave better after seems like a story with unicorns for me.

Don't ask me. I'm no brexiteer. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[pswii60]

Still baffled that such a huge long lasting vote was left to a simple majority.

You'd think something as drastic as leaving the EU should require 60%+

But then if the result had been, say, 56% then there would be an outcry about how the government isn't acting on the majority's wishes.

It would have been easier to not have a referendum at all. That said, Switzerland has referendums on everything, especially with regards to their relations with the EU. So now that we're going the way of Switzerland, maybe we need more referendums, perhaps one a month.

 

[jelly]

I think the UK at some point should learn to forget Thatcher and try to undo some of her policies. It doesn't matter who you speak to whether be it a politician or an ordinary Joe, Thatcher always ends up somewhere in the conversation.

Old people seem to like Thatcher though, crushing those unions is one I've heard a lot.

They don't seem to realise selling off all our assets to private companies, destroying manufacturing, council housing are a problem because those bloody unions needed taking down!

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Overseas territories are people too!

They sure are! Jolly nice people too in my experience!

But we've got to be precise in talking about these things. "The UK" is a specific thing with a clear definition.

Edit:

But then if the result had been, say, 56% then there would be an outcry about how the government isn't acting on the majority's wishes.

It would have been easier to not have a referendum at all. That said, Switzerland has referendums on everything, especially with regards to their relations with the EU. So now that we're going the way of Switzerland, maybe we need more referendums, perhaps one a month.

Sweet jesus, think of all that poll-clerking money. I could buy new garden furniture twelve times a year.

 

[CyclopsRock]

But again, that isn't a cogent issue for leaving the EU. We leave the EU, Radek, Piotr and Marchin ar ent getting deported tomorrow. They're still going to be there getting paid what they're getting paid. This is an argument for increasing minimum wages or imposingstatutory lower limits for immigrant pay more than it is a reason for chucking us all out of the flipping EU. Even if every migrant was chucked off every site, they would be replaced by people paid the same money, because that's what the companies want to pay.

I don't think you understand the issue at all. The people I'm talking about a) don't earn the minimum wage and b) don't earn a wage at all. They're self employed, what they "earn" is defined by what they're able to charge their clients. A greater number of options means this sum they can charge goes down - that's good for us who utilise their services, but it's bad for them, because their income goes down despite doing the same job. It's not "companies paying them".

Enact the domestic laws that would lower immigration and still retain the benefits of being a member of the EU. Duh.

Who could they vote for that was offering to do this in 2016? Or 2015, in fact? The option of leaving the EU was actually something they could vote for.