[SamT]

The whole umbrella sketch  -   

I couldn't bear much more after that.   The whole issue is making me more and more angry, and I'm dismayed at some folks I know who are voting out to the point that I'm questioning our friendship.

[tregiffian]

At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.

[Fultonius]

At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.

That's quite the crystal ball you have....fancy betting your pension on that? 

[SA Chris]

Saying it's definitely going down the pan sounds like those massive oil reserves in West of Shetland that were subject to secretive deals and any information about them would not be released until after the Scottish Referendum. (we still wait).

[Oldmanmatt]

At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.

Even should the Euro Zone crumble, how does that constitute a collapse of the union? The common market is a larger entity than the Euro Zone. Babies and bath water etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[SamT]

At risk of repeating myself, the EU is going to implode soon anyway - uniform monetary policy for an increasingly diverse Eurozone, migrant crisis, increasing scepticism across the 27 states ..... We need OUT before the S..t hits the fan even if we are accused of instigating that event; being the first domino or however they choose to see it.

Can you clearly define what you mean by 'implode' ?     what form does this implosion take.

Could it just be that it means there's a bit of a shake up of the EU and the "big 3" (DE FR GB) get to knockheads and sort out some of the major issues it faces.

In your vision, following brexit, will the boats of people coming over from war torn middle east just U turn, thinking oh well, thats blown it, back to the shelling and sniper fire. 
Great Britain will still be expected, and should, on humanitarian grounds, accept more refugees than we do now, or would you rather just watch the kids being shot,  or drowing in the med on Murdoch News inc.

[Oldmanmatt]

The interesting thing is, at the moment, "migrants" are stopped at the French side of the channel; under a by lateral agreement, independent of the EU. This means those migrants are processed by the British authorities on French soil and (mostly) prevented from entering the UK France has (understandably) intimated it would withdraw from this agreement in the event of Brexit, leaving us to deal with those people. Something we should be doing anyway imo.

So, Brexit will likely mean a flood of refugees, a dam break; not a reduction.

And, what is the refugee crisis to do with Europe anyway?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tregiffian]

One factor contributing to the putative implosion would be the loss of our net input to Brussel's income which would need to be replaced from other members. Elections soon in D and F I think. That would be hard to sell to the electorates.

[tommytwotone]

On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.


One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".


So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:


1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work


So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?


I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".

[Oldmanmatt]

One factor contributing to the putative implosion would be the loss of our net input to Brussel's income which would need to be replaced from other members. Elections soon in D and F I think. That would be hard to sell to the electorates.

I watched a German information clip about this, where they stated Germany's increase would be just under 3% from current (or less than €100 per person, per year) and this would be the largest increase of any EU country.
Might have been glossing over, but it seemed reasonable in their explanations.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[fried]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/20/brexit-fake-revolt-eu-working-class-culture-hijacked-help-elite

This sums up my thoughts on the matter.

[Three Nine]

On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.


One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".


So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:


1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work


So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?


I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".

That's not how it works. You try to get a doctor's appointment and you cant for a few weeks. Then, when you eventually get your appointment, you meet some Poles in the surgery. You put those two things together.

[Wood FT]

On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.


One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".


So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:


1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work


So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?


I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".

That's not how it works. You try to get a doctor's appointment and you cant for a few weeks. Then, when you eventually get your appointment, you meet some Poles in the surgery. You put those two things together.

that's putting 2 + 2 together and getting 39, what's to say they haven't waited a few weeks too?

[highrepute]

On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.


One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".


So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:


1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work


So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?


I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".

An asylum seeker becomes a refugee when they are told they can stay in a country. A refugee will have all the rights of a regular citizen an asylum seeker had very close to none.

[highrepute]

On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.


One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".


So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:


1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work


So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?


I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".

You've raised the subject of something I've talked about with my friends. We've given it the name Schroedinger's immigrant.

[Oldmanmatt]

Raised the subject of something I've talked about with my friends. We've given it the name Schroedinger's immigrant.

Simultaneously stealing your job, whilst lazing around on benefits.

The Doctors surgery thing happened to me, except it was one Pole and a pretty Chinese lady. The first was the Nurse and the second my GP...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Nigel]

On the immigration thing. I'm trying to get into the mind of the Vote Leave side and look at the issue in more detail.


One thing I think is being skimmed over is the conscious (on the Leave side I assume) heaping together of many classifications of what's probably best described as "people wanting to enter the UK".


So, (and I'm not sure of the delineations here - perhaps someone could help me) if I'm right there are:


1) Refugees - displaced people from war zones who would likely be dead if they stayed in their original country of residence
2) Asylum Seekers - not sure how this differs from above - do those in this classification looking for permanent residence?
3) Economic migrants - people moving to country to come and fill jobs where there is a UK skills / supply and demand gap
4) Migrants - people voluntarily moving from one country to another, I'm assuming for reasons other than reasons of finding work


So, unless I'm missing something, apart from people who are fleeing death or horrendous regimes in their home state (i.e. 1 and maybe 2, who I'm sure most would say are OK to come in), those coming in to fill positions those in the UK either can't or won't do (i.e. 3)...is it seriously just category 4 that the Little England Brexiteers have a problem with?


I'd be interested to know - I think the whole issue is more nuanced than the Vote Leave side are making it appear, as their stance seems to be "we are full".

That's not how it works. You try to get a doctor's appointment and you cant for a few weeks. Then, when you eventually get your appointment, you meet some Poles in the surgery. You put those two things together.

Sadly, and I know it doesn't sit well, Three Nine is probably right about this - that is exactly how some people perceive the situation. The echo chamber of the rightwing press doesn’t help either. Possibly what a lot of us middle class climber types (of which I am one) miss is that quite often they aren’t making this situation up – especially in the South East. I worked for 6 months in Swaffham (Norfolk) about 10 years ago, it was then (and probably still is) a down at heel old market town whose main square had a couple of crap pubs, a coffee shop, a charity shop, a job centre, and a Polish shop. A local guy we had labouring for us said that “all” of the fruit / veg picking was now done by Poles. As such he struggled to find work. I strongly suspect that was not the only reason as he fulfilled a lot of negative stereotypes of the feckless Brit (!), but fact is that he put the blame on them. I doubt the situation has changed much in the intervening 10 years. He would no doubt vote to leave.

Now, I know all the arguments in favour of immigration and I agree with them. For instance I would say that if you’re struggling to get a doctor’s appointment then we need more doctors (we do), and that this is a problem which originates with UK government policy. However many people in certain areas will look at the anecdotal evidence around them, such as the man in my anecdote above, and draw their own conclusions from that. That I think is Three Nine's point. Paul Mason did a good Guardian article yesterday which made the point that small towns, like Swaffham, don’t have the “social capital” to absorb influxes of migrants in the same way that say London does. Maybe the UK government should recognise this and maybe provide some kind of subsidy to support local services in areas of high net migration, and thus make the positive case for migration?

The above doesn’t account for how nationwide we overestimate migrant numbers massively in terms of public perception – the gatekeepers of the press and Brexit politicians must take the cop for that bit of propaganda.

[a dense loner]

All I've seen on this thread is a lot of people who think they're clever/right laughing and making out that others who don't share their opinion are racists and/or idiots. This is why I don't really get involved with these type of threads, politics, religion etc. A lot of people have been saying I haven't heard anything from the leave camp that's changed my mind to leave, well? I didn't know the issue was to get each other to change sides?

All I can say to you SamT is that if you're questioning your friendship with people because they have a different social view than you is that you obvious don't deserve them as friends, take that how you want although it's meant as an insult to you.

And omm that's really funny, had me laughing for ages. No, wait..

[a dense loner]

I wrote that before I read Nigel's post, who hasn't been saying everyone who votes leave is thick as fuck, so I'm obviously not replying to his post but the ones above.

[petejh]

What do we make of this;

It's been shared by a few people on my facebook feed. For the record, I'm voting to remain but I was intrigued to watch some of the remain propaganda out of curiosity...

I thought it was good, and made a nice companion to watching little Wales put mighty Russia to the sword, cunts. 

Vote out 

I couldn't bear to watch such a long segment of propaganda (I find the misinformation filled campaign broadcasts on the telly bad enough) so skipped ahead to a random section. If you watch from about the 36 minute mark you're treated to a charming sketch that plays on every stereotype going and completely misrepresents the issue. Worth watching it to see the subnormal level of intelligence that much of the Leave campaign has pitched at.

No doubt Will that there's factual inaccuracies in that film, like every other piece of propaganda surrounding this referendum.. Show me anyone campaigning hard on either side of the debate who's delivering a 100% accurate account of the facts surrounding the EU or who's able to give an unbiased entirely accurate representation of what will happen in an unknowable future. It isn't possible.
That the film is propaganda isn't the point - that's politics, it revolves around trying to sway people's hearts through propaganda and rhetoric.. It isn't lab research - i.e. the subject matter is something people feel passionate about and there isn't a correct or incorrect answer. People will vote according to their feelings as much as by being convinced by any ream of knockout factual statistics that settle it once and for all.
 
At the film's heart is a very simple message: people don't like living with the feeling of being under the authority of a distant unaccountable labyrinthine institution which doesn't have their interests at heart; run by anonymous un-elected technocrats who aren't answerable to any electorate. It's a simple message that resonates with a lot of people it seems.
Comments like your 'the subnormal level of intelligence that much of the Leave campaign has pitched at' make you come across (even if you're not) as the sort of patronising sneering intellectual portrayed in the film, contemptible of the silly people who he thinks he knows better than how their lives should be run. In my eyes it puts you on a level with the blinkered 'little-englander nimby' types on the brexit side who are unable to digest any argument that conflicts with their view of how they think the world should be.

I'm curious to try to understand how the UK could do well outside the institution of the EU and so be responsible to a greater degree for our own direction. I'm interested in how other European countries outside the EU (and countries further afield) get on and what systems/concessions they have in place. I'm open to the possibility that trade will continue, free movement deals will be struck - with probably very similar concessions to free movement as we currently have. Is it possible we can have many of the benefits we currently have of trading and living in a large local market, still make many of the same concessions we currently make, but without being a member of an undemocratic, massively bureaucratic and expensive club? There are successful precedents.
I'm also open to the possibility that it might be bad news for the economy. Any worse than we might already suffer as part of the EU in the next inevitable economic shock? My gut feeling is the country wouldn't do any worse out of the EU as it has done in the EU.

[seankenny]

I'm curious to try to understand how the UK could do well outside the institution of the EU and so be responsible to a greater degree for our own direction.

What could we be doing that we currently aren't doing, if only we could be responsible for our own direction? The fact that the UK is very different from France, Germany, the Netherlands, etc suggest that we are responsible for our own direction, but clearly this is a far from uncontroversial statement.

Is it possible we can have many of the benefits we currently have of trading and living in a large local market, still make many of the same concessions we currently make, but without being a member of an undemocratic, massively bureaucratic and expensive club?

Politically, nope. Because getting all the advantages of membership without paying for them is not something clubs tend to go for.

There are successful precedents.

Who? Greenland?

My gut feeling is the country wouldn't do any worse out of the EU as it has done in the EU.

That sort of statement is perfectly of its time. It might not age well, however.

[Johnny Brown]

I'm pretty sure having negotiated being in the EU, without being in either Euro or Schengen, that we've already got the best of both worlds.

The only part I've had (indirect) involvement in in is EN standards for rope access. Without the UK on the standards committee I know we would have much worse standards. Redrafting them all as BS standards would take forever, cost an absolute fortune, and be pointless as all the big manufacturers are on the continent.

If the EU is considered undemocratic what is your model of a proper democracy?

[a dense loner]

Eh? Without the uk on the standards comittee the standards would be a lot worse? To me that says the uk have pushed the standards not the rest of the eu. So without the eu our standards would be better

[tomtom]

Eh? Without the uk on the standards comittee the standards would be a lot worse? To me that says the uk have pushed the standards not the rest of the eu. So without the eu our standards would be better

The whole point of having standards across the EU - for rope access to what types of foam you can put in pillows, it means a manufacturer or operator can work or sell their wares in any Eu country rather than having to comply and be ratified by the different standards different countries have.

Furthermore, if we leave the EU - if we want to do any work or any business in the EU then we'll have to comply with their standards anyway! Watch the prof from Liverpool speak on the video I posted (about half way through) it's very informative.

[Stu Littlefair]

What you're missing dense is that if you want to sell to the EU you have to meet "their" standards. Whilst we're in the EU we get a say in what that means.

Outside the EU we have no say in those standards and if you want to sell goods, or services, to the EU you still have to meet them.

Since each trading block has their own standards, this means that selling to >1 block can mean separate production lines for each country you sell to. usually this means small manufacturers only sell to one or two countries, but inside the EU they can sell to >20.

Since it's the done thing to post links on this thread, this post is from a good mate, climber and lecturer in economics and policy, so he knows his onions. Most importantly he is by instinct a leaver, and for sound reasons. His blog post is about why he's voting to remain anyway...

https://nealhockley.com/2016/06/21/the-short-uncertain-and-unenthusiastic-case-for-remain/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk