If we vote for Brexit what happens

Conrad

CLAPTON wrote: »

I am a pragmatic person and so am concerned more with how things work in practice that about any philosophy or ideology.

If free movement of all peoples of the world resulted in modest movement of people with similar cultural values, then I would support that. However, given the difference in wealth, religions, commitment to democracy, relative size of the country etc I think this is not in the best interest of the UK.

You wont persuade them Clappers.


The 'liberal' left 'One Worlders' and the rest of us have never been further apart - watch this video by the brilliant Academic Jordan Peterson, an absolute authority on the 'liberal' left mind-set and how they've divided us. He forensically breaks down what drives the compassion warrior class;

Ignore first 3 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPxofHfffS8&t=5429s

CLAPTON

Herzlos wrote: »

We do. But it's got sod all to do with whether or not we leave the EU.

You've found a point you think makes you look like it's not a selfish anti-immigrant gesture and you're going to stick to it no matter what, but it doesn't actually hold any water.

perhaps you don't understand that the UK can't decide its tariff or non tariff rules and regulations, as they are decidedd by the EU.
So we are NOT free to decide trade or non trade barriers with any non EU country including the countries of Africa

wotsthat

CLAPTON wrote: »

What I have talked about is the benefit to both the businesses and/or individuals in the UK and businesses and/or individuals in non eu countries from trading together (I use Africans as an example as they are near by and poor): why is that hypocricy?

Although the words on the screen clearly state you have deep concerns for the welfare of Africans perhaps you're not believed?

Maybe it's the writing style or how you constantly highlight the damage the non-native born do once they become resident in the UK or something.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't believe in unlimited immigration for pragmatic reasons too.

Neither do I approve of tariffs whether applied by the UK as part of the EU or the UK outside the EU. I'm doubtful we'll see much in the way of meaningful change due to Brexit.

The main difference is your sense of 'us' is limited by the UK coastline (and maybe even Hadrian's wall) whilst my sense of 'us' managed to encompass much of Europe. For some reason you think that qualifies you to reside upon the moral high ground.

what moral high ground is that?

do you mean by my belief that the people of the Uk will be better off if there were less barriers to trade with the non EU world.
Surely you belueve that too?

gfplux

Conrad wrote: »

Remaoners insisted we'd have recession by Xmas, said AFTER the vote, and in full knowledge A 50 triggering was a long way off.


All they ever have is fantasy crystal ball end is nigh nonsense.


Trade will not be hampered, the EU won’t want to take a trade hit for the sake of political posturing.

Absolutely correct Conrad. The Remainers got it wrong. Many more people should now understand that while we remain in the EU the good news will continue to come.
In June Britain voted to leave the EU but DID NOT LEAVE
In a strange way many Brexiteers have not yet recognised that all the good news YOU and others have mentioned reflect Britains presence as a MEMBER of the EU.
In an almost stranger way many remainers have not yet recognised this fact.
Ok this might be difficult to swallow but every piece of good news you and others mention is an endorsement of the EU and the fact that Britain IS A MEMBER.

Just to repeat as of today's date Britain is a member of the EU.

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

Although the words on the screen clearly state you have deep concerns for the welfare of Africans perhaps you're not believed?

Maybe it's the writing style or how you constantly highlight the damage the non-native born do once they become resident in the UK or something.

which words on the screen show my concern for the people of Africa?
I have written hundreds maybe thousand of time about MUTUAL benefits : i.e. about how the people of the UK will be better off and about how the peoople of Africa and other non eu countries will be better off too.

It is true that it does offend my sense of reasonable fair play that the EU deliberately and knowingly damages the economies of poor countries with no economic gain to themselves.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

I think you're too isolated in England. Largely on the continent, people are still pro-EU and the project is "working".
...

You are right that my focus has shifted. Twenty years ago I spent more time working in mainland Europe than most English I should imagine.

However, today the reality is I spend more time dealing with others outside the EU, mainly India/China/USA/Canada.

This isn't some pre-ordained plan I had. This is because the world has moved on, and the capabilities you can acquire from the developing world have increased tremendously, but Europe hasn't.

Youth unemployment is 50% in parts of Southern Europe. The project is clearly not working for all.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

What if you genuinely think that this club is doomed to failure?

If you think this, then you try to extricate yourself don't you?

No, the sensible and pragmatic thing is to try and remain an active key member and manage the decline or try and steer it away from failure. If it does fail, then you're still in a good position to lead whatever comes next.

Running away will give us precisely zero control over how the EU will behave and what happens when it fails, and burns a lot of good will that we had, whilst marginalizing us when it comes to moving forward in a post-EU world.

But if it doesn't fail, and actually goes on to succeed further, we're going to look a bit silly?

mwpt

Conrad wrote: »

Remaoners insisted we'd have recession by Xmas, said AFTER the vote, and in full knowledge A 50 triggering was a long way off.

I'm often called a remoaner and I'm pretty sure I never insisted that.

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

Since you're asking....it's a crock of sh*t.

Sorry, what is a crock of sh*t?

My question was intentionally quite direct. I can repeat it here:
"What are your thoughts on free movement of people within towns, counties, countries, continents, trading blocks?"

So, for you, where do you draw the line of free movement of people? Is it at the country border? What about the fact that we have united countries in the UK that allow free movement of people? It seems to work ok for NZ and Australia.

Just so you don't think I'm doing all the asking, I can explain my view:

I believe that the concept of free movement of people is a good one. The reason is that I think the earth should ultimately belong to all people. This isn't a wishy washy idea where I don't believe in property. Rather it is a pragmatic idea that I think ultimately, in the very long run, borders should cease to exist so that people have the freedom to move where they want, for their own and others betterment.

But in an ironic twist, I am like Clapton in that I am also pragmatic. I don't think freedom of movement is possible to work currently across much of the planet. I will even go so far as to admit that in hindsight I would have preferred the introduction of the Eastern European countries into the FOM zone should have been a bit more gradual. The reason I think this is because I can now see that it has caused a right wing backlash which has ultimately proved more detrimental than if a more cautious approach had been taken in the first place.

Those are my views, but I'm sensing that you take a more hardline approach and you believe in some ultimately more restrictive policy and don't buy into FOM at all.

So my question is, at what level do you think it breaks down and why?