If we vote for Brexit what happens

danothy

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

I never said anything about removing the right to move.

Well that's what I'm suggesting is a discriminatory act.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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.

So you think that the right to freedom of movement within the EU isn't a reduction in discrimination compared to the national border set-up because there isn't freedom of movement globally?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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 don't need dosing with anything, I am aware that we don't have global freedom of movement.

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

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 that to try to enforce it on a random street.

I think if you want to justify the stopping and searching/checking for criminal behaviour of an otherwise free person you need to be able to justify that. I'm not saying it can't be justified, but making it arbitrarily based on some lines on a map probably doesn't do that.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

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.

there is massive immorality is killing millions to satisfied a mad set of 'principles' and it seems to make you feel smug and superior.

There is great credit and no immorality to be gained by helping people in a pragmatic and effective way.

you are content to massively benefit from the accident of your birth.

TrickyTree83

danothy wrote: »

Well that's what I'm suggesting is a discriminatory act.



So you think that the right to freedom of movement within the EU isn't a reduction in discrimination compared to the national border set-up because there isn't freedom of movement globally?



I don't need dosing with anything, I am aware that we don't have global freedom of movement.



I think if you want to justify the stopping and searching/checking for criminal behaviour of an otherwise free person you need to be able to justify that. I'm not saying it can't be justified, but making it arbitrarily based on some lines on a map probably doesn't do that.

Ever since the introduction of the freedom of movement it has been discriminatory based on the country of birth or acquired citizenship. It is a right extended to people within the EU who have an EU passport only. That is discriminatory. Allowing everyone who lives and works inside the EU would be less so, but that's not what it achieves is it.

wotsthat

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Ever since the introduction of the freedom of movement it has been discriminatory based on the country of birth or acquired citizenship. It is a right extended to people within the EU who have an EU passport only. That is discriminatory. Allowing everyone who lives and works inside the EU would be less so, but that's not what it achieves is it.

This started because I suggested treating foreign people with equal contempt wasn't exactly a platform on which to lecture about discrimination.

Yet here we are talking about the EU 's '100% racist' free movement policy. No problem with treating foreigners with contempt as long as it's done in a PC non-discrimatory way.

We've been Claptoned.

wotsthat

Conrad wrote: »

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?

I assume not many of us came to money saving expert because we we wanted to pay more for stuff.

danothy

danothy wrote: »

So you think that the right to freedom of movement within the EU isn't a reduction in discrimination compared to the national border set-up because there isn't freedom of movement globally?

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Ever since the introduction of the freedom of movement it has been discriminatory

I'll take that as a yes then.

CLAPTON wrote: »

there is massive immorality is killing millions to satisfied a mad set of 'principles' and it seems to make you feel smug and superior.

I've not killed anyone for reasons of principle or otherwise. I definitely feel superior to you though, on reasons of rationality and morality regarding our approaches to discrimination.

CLAPTON wrote: »

There is great credit and no immorality to be gained by helping [some] people in a pragmatic and effective way.

And there's great disgrace to doing so at direct cost to others.

CLAPTON wrote: »

you are content to massively benefit from the accident of your birth.

Maybe, but I am discontent for others to not be allowed to benefit from the same things as me because of the accident of their birth, which is something you seek to entrench. Note the difference?

CLAPTON

wotsthat wrote: »

This started because I suggested treating foreign people with equal contempt wasn't exactly a platform on which to lecture about discrimination.

Yet here we are talking about the EU 's '100% racist' free movement policy. No problem with treating foreigners with contempt as long as it's done in a PC non-discrimatory way.

We've been Claptoned.

the EU policy is clearly discriminatory, just as are the policies of the all the 196 countries of the world.

you choose to say they all treat people with comtempt.
rather foolishly in my view.

DollarSaver

Conrad wrote: »

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?

Not sure how you deduced me complaining about high prices for delivery in the future with your choice to restrict E.U. migrants to do low paid work here. So you voted for the benefit of E.U. migrants doing low paid work? Is this what you are saying? A new and may I say very unbelievable altruistic angle you have made up there to justify your misplaced vote.

It is simply a statement of fact, it won't be nice for consumers (who often happen to be workers, employees) when labour costs go up for some sectors of industry because of the potential for sending the E. Europeans home post Brexit vote.

Some E.U. migrants seem to be more than prepared to work at these jobs at a rate significantly higher than they would earn in E.Europe. (as an aside : in Poland wages have gone up 23pct and in the U.K the last 7 years 10pct DOWN.

Was that the E.U's fault as well ? Or maybe, just maybe it might have been to do with the endless billions we paid to bail the banking system out when they screwed our lives up last time.

These are jobs that will need to employ British nationals if/when E.U. migrants are sent packing, a potential consequence of your vote. (if the unemployed are willing) at identical rates if such companies are to survive, otherwise more unemployment and more cost for services such as delivery as 1 example to everyone else.

It is the companies who wish to pay the least possible within the market which they operate to earn the most profit.

How is that myself who wants to push down labour costs ? Or is that yet another quirk of the Brexit "We voted for we don't know what it is." mindset ?

You Brexiters appear to be making it up as you go along. It is understandable it is all you can do in lieu of voting for what something that you don't know the consequence of. It seems incomprehensible reasoning is endemic in the Brexit mindset.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

Maybe, but I am discontent for others to not be allowed to benefit from the same things as me because of the accident of their birth, which is something you seek to entrench. Note the difference?

I note the difference : its called gross hypocrisy

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

I note the difference : its called gross hypocrisy

It might be if I wasn't actually prepared to live with the consequences of allowing everyone who didn't enjoy my accident of birth to have the same opportunities as me while saying they should, but I advocate that they do, and I am prepared to accept those consequences should the discrimination I abhor cease. I'm sure you have some other definition of hypocrisy though ... one that makes no sense but allows you to keep trying to justify the indefensible.