If we vote for Brexit what happens

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

I can easily see why you think that discriminating against the entire world except for the 28 countries of the EU fits your principles.

My principles say it's wrong to discriminate, and the principle of freedom of movement within the EU is an important step towards eliminating discrimination globally. I've never said that I want the EU to have an outer discriminatory border (nice try at a smear though), and I certainly don't want to re-introduce internal borders like you do, reinstating the discrimination that has been so far eliminated, and attempting to justify that racism with fallacious claims of pragmatism. It's so telling about you as a person that you try to justify your desire to do greater wrong to the world by criticising the progress towards undoing the existing wrong as incomplete.

Thrugelmir

DollarSaver wrote: »

Not to mention loss of freedom of movement for U.K. migrants in E.U. countries. Imagine the burden of all those pensioners coming back to the U.K. on our services.

They do anyway when they get older and require more specialist treatments. :cool:

Perhaps if 7 out of 10 people didn't spend money everyday on take away food and drink. £16 billion a year, £5 billion of which is on takeaway coffee. . Then personal debt would be lower, people wouldn't be heading towards retirement with a mortgage still to pay and people could afford to save a decent amount towards a pension.

danothy

DollarSaver wrote: »

Yodel and Hermes

Both of these companies deserve to go out of business as far as I am concerned, as every single time either of them have been used by a company I have ordered something from they have entirely failed in their obligations.

DollarSaver

danothy wrote: »

Both of these companies deserve to go out of business as far as I am concerned, as every single time either of them have been used by a company I have ordered something from they have entirely failed in their obligations.

I suspect if it was not for Eastern European drivers, they would and your delivery would not be £3.99 or free it would be £12.00

We have all that to look forwards to.

TrickyTree83

danothy wrote: »

My principles say it's wrong to discriminate, and the principle of freedom of movement within the EU is an important step towards eliminating discrimination globally. I've never said that I want the EU to have an outer discriminatory border (nice try at a smear though), and I certainly don't want to re-introduce internal borders like you do, reinstating the discrimination that has been so far eliminated, and attempting to justify that racism with fallacious claims of pragmatism. It's so telling about you as a person that you try to justify your desire to do greater wrong to the world by criticising the progress towards undoing the existing wrong as incomplete.

Do you not find it ironic that in one moment you say you are against discrimination. In the next moment say that freedom of movement for EU citizens is an important step towards that. Yet my wife of non-EU origin was subjected to huge financial cost, time cost and regulatory burden because she comes from a country outside the EU. Where does the discrimination start and end? Either everyone is treated equally or they are not, is that not the view of people against discrimination?

You don't want to re-introduce internal borders in the Schengen area? So drug traffickers, child traffickers, counterfeit goods, guns, sex traffickers only have one hurdle to get over, the corruptible external EU borders and they can they move wherever they please. Why are you denying increased measures against the vile perpetrators of these crimes?

The ideal of no internal borders alone doesn't combat these problems, perhaps you think it will in a leftist paradise but shocker - not everyone thinks like you do in the wider world. Not everyone thinks along lines of right, left, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, libertarianism or any other political leanings. So at what cost to freedom and liberty is a 30 minute queue and an ID check? And what benefits do no borders give you that borders with checks don't?

Conrad

DollarSaver wrote: »

I suspect if it was not for Eastern European drivers, they would and your delivery would not be £3.99 or free it would be £12.00

We have all that to look forwards to.

Another that wants fellow citizens to earn as little as possible. Nice.

I guess you will also have trouble with African farmers able to sell their foods more readily to is once we are out of the EU customs union?

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

My principles say it's wrong to discriminate, and the principle of freedom of movement within the EU is an important step towards eliminating discrimination globally. I've never said that I want the EU to have an outer discriminatory border (nice try at a smear though), and I certainly don't want to re-introduce internal borders like you do, reinstating the discrimination that has been so far eliminated, and attempting to justify that racism with fallacious claims of pragmatism. It's so telling about you as a person that you try to justify your desire to do greater wrong to the world by criticising the progress towards undoing the existing wrong as incomplete.

I believe one has to take a holistic view of siituations.
Sometime non-discriminatory policies are desireable and sometime they would cause huge damage.

Some peoples 'principles' have caused the deaths of untold millions and so I have no respect whatsoever for people would like to shout about impractical 'principles'.

I wish to treat the people, that happen to live in the UK differently from the rest of the world. I wish to treat the people within the UK equally irrespective of race , religion, creed, ethnic backgound, lgbt subject to them conforming to our curtural values.

The reason I wish to make this distinguish is simply pragmatic. To be non discriminatory and allow the poor and unskilled of the world to come would make us emormously poorer. (and rather crowded).

Both you and I are happy to benefit from the accident of our own birth.

danothy

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Do you not find it ironic that in one moment you say you are against discrimination. In the next moment say that freedom of movement for EU citizens is an important step towards that.

No, I don't think it's "ironic" that I say I am against discrimination and that removing some discrimination is a step towards removing all discrimination.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Yet my wife of non-EU origin was subjected to huge financial cost, time cost and regulatory burden because she comes from a country outside the EU. Where does the discrimination start and end? Either everyone is treated equally or they are not, is that not the view of people against discrimination?

Currently the discrimination based on where people are born starts at the outer EU border. Global freedom of movement removing this discrimination is an important ideal to move towards. Do you think I don't want that? Is that why you asked if I thought what I said "ironic"?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

You don't want to re-introduce internal borders in the Schengen area? So drug traffickers, child traffickers, counterfeit goods, guns, sex traffickers only have one hurdle to get over, the corruptible external EU borders and they can they move wherever they please. Why are you denying increased measures against the vile perpetrators of these crimes?

I don't want to remove the principle of freedom of movement. How we deal with combating crime of that nature isn't predicated on the need for a certain number of "check points", and if it was they could be implemented without restricting the right to move. Alternatives also include a combined enforcement jurisdiction, meaning the ability to move is no more advantageous than moving freely within one country.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

The ideal of no internal borders alone doesn't combat these problems, perhaps you think it will in a leftist paradise but shocker - not everyone thinks like you do in the wider world. Not everyone thinks along lines of right, left, conservatism, liberalism, socialism, libertarianism or any other political leanings. So at what cost to freedom and liberty is a 30 minute queue and an ID check? And what benefits do no borders give you that borders with checks don't?

Another person pontificating to me about I think/believe. How is removing someone's right to move based on where they were born the same thing as security measures to check people for criminal activity? And what is the distinction between doing that at an arbitrary line on a map compared to say, at random in the street, unless of course you conflate security checks at borders with the right to cross those borders?

TrickyTree83

danothy wrote: »

No, I don't think it's "ironic" that I say I am against discrimination and that removing some discrimination is a step towards removing all discrimination.



Currently the discrimination based on where people are born starts at the outer EU border. Global freedom of movement removing this discrimination is an important ideal to move towards. Do you think I don't want that? Is that why you asked if I thought what I said "ironic"?



I don't want to remove the principle of freedom of movement. How we deal with combating crime of that nature isn't predicated on the need for a certain number of "check points", and if it was they could be implemented without restricting the right to move. Alternatives also include a combined enforcement jurisdiction, meaning the ability to move is no more advantageous than moving freely within one country.



Another person pontificating to me about I think/believe. How is removing someone's right to move based on where they were born the same thing as security measures to check people for criminal activity? And what is the distinction between doing that at an arbitrary line on a map compared to say, at random in the street, unless of course you conflate security checks at borders with the right to cross those borders?

I never said anything about removing the right to move.

I did say that it was ironic to pontificate about discrimination being removed by the EU's freedom of movement rules when my wife is a living example of that discrimination. A little dose of reality for you, it's not all ponies, fairies and small fluffy bunnies. People are discriminated against in the EU freedom of movement system. Even though she's got indefinite leave to remain in the UK, she still cannot travel freely throughout the EU. Despite living in the EU, being married to an EU citizen and paying taxes in the EU.

I agree that internal borders and checks would be a good way to combat these criminals as a security measure, the EU thinks otherwise as set out by the Schengen agreement.

Regarding the location of the checks, you'll generally find that the border crossings are still major roads, airports, sea ports, rail hubs, etc... rather than tiny country roads although some probably would exist like this. So it would be cost effective to place the checks at these locations than to try to enforce it on a random street.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

I wish to treat the people, that happen to live in the UK differently from the rest of the world.

To be non discriminatory and allow the poor and unskilled of the world to come would make us emormously poorer. (and rather crowded).

You justify your discrimination using incorrect underlying assumptions - that Bad Things™ would necessarily happen, and even if they weren't incorrect, being pragmatic does not justify the immorality of what you want.