If we vote for Brexit what happens

Herzlos

Conrad wrote: »

There will be no loss of overall trade, Remoaner hysteria is based on a total misunderstanding of the imperative for core EU nations not to disrupt trade - it's the last thing these NATIONS (forget Brussels) can afford

By that you mean that any reduction in trade (which may have already happened) will be compensated for with an increase in new trade? Or do you mean that no trade will suffer?

How long will you hold out for the balancing of trade before admitting you were wrong?

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

T

he tired diatribe of a tired old remainer living in the past, utterly clueless old fashioned diplomatic trough feeder.

Bit harsh there mate...I'm not that old!

Straight talking, entrepreneurial pragmatism is the new diplomacy. The UK - US prosperity boom will leave the EU for dust

I would have thought 'straight talking entrepreneurial pragmatism' would have ensured we stay in the worlds largest market....especially as it's on our doorstep!

Never before has a trade deal been so easy. We're starting off as fully aligned trading partners with existing free trade in full flow. Immigration is not up for negotiation.


We hold so many aces, we'll need an Octopus at the negotiating table

Saying this doesn't make it so. Day after day after day you persist with this delusion, despite all the evidence you are pointed to. You can't provide any real evidence of how the EU has stifled our economic development. You have no evidence to show how we will be better off outside the EU. You cannot point to any laws imposed by the EU which are bad and/or impact on your freedom or choices.

It's all about immigration isn't it!....the tragedy of this is that apart from the obvious nasty xenophobia this exposes....... it's likely that leaving the EU will actually have very little impact on immigration.

CKhalvashi

Conrad wrote: »

The tired diatribe of a tired old remainer living in the past, utterly clueless old fashioned diplomatic trough feeder. Straight talking, entrepreneurial pragmatism is the new diplomacy. The UK - US prosperity boom will leave the EU for dust

And what about those of us that don't want to trade with the US or its citizens?

Or do our views not count?

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

...
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.
...

I don't want to turn the human race into a bunch of 7 billion nomadic people.

History is littered with countless cases of conflict caused by some bunch of people moving in to other places.

We have to find ways to make individual regions sustainable, in a manner which works for that community.

This does not mean homogenising the entire globe.

I know Hamish thinks that the entire population of Redcar or Middlesborough should just up sticks and move to London for work.

I just think that shows we have failed those communities.

If you believe in FoM why don't you invite the whole of India or Africa to join the EU? Seems obviously in line with that ideology to me.

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

My friend and neighbour shares this exact view - our friendship is under strain (not from my side tho). This was his primary argument the other night.


Where he got all dissonant was when I asked how this 'running away' from building up your own society benefits the many vulnerable left behind such as orphans? He seems completely unconcerned with the de-skilling of acutely vulnerable societies, happy to leave them to get on with it, denuded of young people and vital skills

Seriously Conrad....do you really believe an entrepreneurial, free market society looks after the vulnerable in society? That's the main thing such a society doesn't do. There are arguments for free markets, competition etc....but protecting the vulnerable is not one of them............. and you accuse your friend of cognitive dissonance!

Moby

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't want to turn the human race into a bunch of 7 billion nomadic people.

History is littered with countless cases of conflict caused by some bunch of people moving in to other places.

We have to find ways to make individual regions sustainable, in a manner which works for that community.

This does not mean homogenising the entire globe.

I know Hamish thinks that the entire population of Redcar or Middlesborough should just up sticks and move to London for work.

I just think that shows we have failed those communities.

If you believe in FoM why don't you invite the whole of India or Africa to join the EU? Seems obviously in line with that ideology to me.

You are taking things a bit far there. Of course there need to be checks and balances and I agree that we don't have these right but turning us into a protectionist society in which we build walls instead of find solutions will just slow the inevitable move to the breaking down of borders. Technology will see that it happens anyway....meanwhile our best protection and security lies in co-operation with our neighbours. That's what the EU was! people forget the peoples of Eastern Europe have only recently escaped the harsh world of communism. The EU was a mechanism for bringing them to our level without having more war, conflict. It has been a problem granted but without the EU we would have had a much bigger problem!

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't want to turn the human race into a bunch of 7 billion nomadic people.

That's not how it works. Most people prefer to stay in the areas they were born and are familiar with. But others seek to improve their lot and move to where they can find work or mix with other cultures (I am one of those).

If you believe in FoM why don't you invite the whole of India or Africa to join the EU? Seems obviously in line with that ideology to me.

May I ask if you read my post entirely? Because I answered this very question in the post that you're replying to. Repeated:
"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 think you also missed a quite direct question in my post about where in your view freedom of movement of people breaks down. It seems to work in Australia and NZ. It seems to work across countries in the United Kingdom for example. It seems to work within regions inside England. I think it worked when FOM in Europe excluded the Eastern European countries. But the Eastern European countries joining seems to have set off a wave of nationalism in England.

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

CLAPTON

Moby wrote: »

Why bother using so many words. ..............'I agree with free movement for people who look and think like me'......... would have done Clappers.

your bigotry is getting rather tiresome.

I've explained that I think a stable population sizes best meets the needs of the UK :
ok you are too cowardly to say many hyndreds of millions you want to live here.

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

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

You know AI so let's discuss it as goal focussed.

Why don't we have some attempt to work out what kind of society we want; what we value; and then determine what resources will best deliver that?

After all, people who choose to live in Canada probably value space and fresh air more than those who live in Hong Kong. Different strokes for different folks.

The idea of people moving from anywhere, without notice, without a plan, and still having some idea of a planned society, seems inconsistent.

Less than a decade ago a certain Gordon Brown promised to build a knowledge-based economy. Today we have more hand car washes than ever, and a twenty fold increase in coffee shops.

So where was the plan Stan?

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

You know AI so let's discuss it as goal focussed.

Why don't we have some attempt to work out what kind of society we want; what we value; and then determine what resources will best deliver that?

After all, people who choose to live in Canada probably value space and fresh air more than those who live in Hong Kong. Different strokes for different folks.

The idea of people moving from anywhere, without notice, without a plan, and still having some idea of a planned society, seems inconsistent.

Less than a decade ago a certain Gordon Brown promised to build a knowledge-based economy. Today we have more hand car washes than ever, and a twenty fold increase in coffee shops.

So where was the plan Stan?

I think I see some of what you're saying and I could address it (I have other reasons for believing we have hand car washers etc than immigration).

But I still don't think you answered the rather direct question, at what level do you think it (FOM) breaks down and why?

(I gave examples of it working across countries, regions, etc).