BREXIT - Why?

uk1

jimjames wrote: »

If Boris is lying about something as easily checked and obvious as the number of bananas in a bunch it makes you wonder what less obvious information he's touting isn't correct. Not suggesting that all the predictions and forecasts from either side are correct either but at least they are forecasts not claimed to be facts. If you can't even get a fact straight then it doesn't exactly help the debate.
Funnily enough I was able to buy a bunch of 5 bananas yesterday despite what Boris claimed.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-claims-eu-stops-bananas-being-sold-in-bunches-of-more-than-three-that-is-not-true_uk_573b2445e4b0f0f53e36c968

I think you will find that most people who favour brexit think so in spite of Boris rather than because of him.

Jeff

Mr_Costcutter

I should imagine this country is the laughing stock of the world. The whole matter of 'should we stay or should we go' has become an absolute farce. Like many people I will be glad when the whole business is settled.

typistretired

And many people originally thought we were only joining for trade. Somehow we were blind sided into joining all the other stuff.

PenguinJim

uk1 wrote: »

They want you to vote to stay in and they do not want to provide you with any reassurance that many of these issues will mostly (not completely) be resolved. Most of the issues are mirrored both ways so there is an incentive to find ways through for both sides.

I think you've got it the wrong way around - it's the French, German, Italian et al governments that are offering proper living rights for all EU citizens. Britain is not.

Whether Britain is part of the EU or not, my wife and I don't have the same right to live in Britain that we currently enjoy in every other flipping EU country - and that's despite my being British-born and a British passport holder.

I haven't seen any mention of this in the IN campaign, probably because of how embarrassing it is for the British government to be treating its own nationals worse than the other EU governments (in this specific case).

There is no "mirroring". Britain has a very strangely uneven advantage in this particular aspect, and I'm surprised more isn't being made of it. Then again, perhaps it is - perhaps it's discussed with regularity in the EU media about how we Brits are having our cake and eating it with regards to mixed-nationality partnership migration.

Take a look at how easy it is for a Brit to move to Canada right now. If you're a skilled worker in a profession that is on their list this year, and you have had the good fortune to be working continuously in that field for 5+ years, and your English is excellent, you've got a good chance of being accepted within a couple of years. (Alternatively, you can invest CA$2,000,000.)

It's easier than most places, in other words.

Except an EU country, because we can decide to move there this morning and be there by lunchtime if we want.

Now, take those Canada requirements, and optimistically apply them to the EU countries post-Brexit. Except, of course, with fluency in their first languages. Are you starting to get the picture?

Of course, relatively few people emigrate, but it's still worth pointing out that we lose significant emigration options if we leave. Sure, you don't want to move to France today (even though you literally could, later today, after reading this post!), but what about in ten years' time? 20? 40?

France is wasted on the French, after all.

Linton

typistretired wrote: »

And many people originally thought we were only joining for trade. Somehow we were blind sided into joining all the other stuff.

I dont know what "other stuff" you had in mind, but I think that you will find that much of it is ultimately to do with trade. For example the UK public has for a long time been keen on animal welfare on farms. In continental europe this has been much less of an issue. By being in the EU the UK has been able to negotiate common welfare standards. Without this commonality UK food exporters would have found it more difficult to be competitive. Perhaps foreign farmers saw this as unnecessary EU interence and an attack on their nation's sovereignty.

As well as ensuring that cost competition within the EU doesnt reduce all standards to the lowest level, this commonality of standards enables the EU to enforce similar standards on other countries who wish to enter agreements to trade with us without fighting large tariffs. The size of the EU market gives it far greater power to do this than the UK could on its own.

uk1

PenguinJim wrote: »

I think you've got it the wrong way around - it's the French, German, Italian et al governments that are offering proper living rights for all EU citizens. Britain is not.

Whether Britain is part of the EU or not, my wife and I don't have the same right to live in Britain that we currently enjoy in every other flipping EU country - and that's despite my being British-born and a British passport holder.

I haven't seen any mention of this in the IN campaign, probably because of how embarrassing it is for the British government to be treating its own nationals worse than the other EU governments (in this specific case).

There is no "mirroring". Britain has a very strangely uneven advantage in this particular aspect, and I'm surprised more isn't being made of it. Then again, perhaps it is - perhaps it's discussed with regularity in the EU media about how we Brits are having our cake and eating it with regards to mixed-nationality partnership migration.

Take a look at how easy it is for a Brit to move to Canada right now. If you're a skilled worker in a profession that is on their list this year, and you have had the good fortune to be working continuously in that field for 5+ years, and your English is excellent, you've got a good chance of being accepted within a couple of years. (Alternatively, you can invest CA$2,000,000.)

It's easier than most places, in other words.

Except an EU country, because we can decide to move there this morning and be there by lunchtime if we want.

Now, take those Canada requirements, and optimistically apply them to the EU countries post-Brexit. Except, of course, with fluency in their first languages. Are you starting to get the picture?

Of course, relatively few people emigrate, but it's still worth pointing out that we lose significant emigration options if we leave. Sure, you don't want to move to France today (even though you literally could, later today, after reading this post!), but what about in ten years' time? 20? 40?

France is wasted on the French, after all.

We use to move around Europe before we joined the EU and will continue to be able to do so afterwards. I'm happy for countries deciding who they will offer hospitality to. It will just involve a bit of paperwork and not a right. I'm happy to sacrifice other people's rights who want to leave the UK and go off to Europe to better their lives if it means making life nicer for those that actually live in the UK by allowing our government to decide who can come here. After all, whilst they exercise their rights and are abroad and paying their taxes in whatever countries they choose and enjoying the sun, it is those that remain in the UK that pick up the tab for those that arrive here to fill their boots with our NHS, the living wage and emergency housing at their will rather than ours. Worrying about those that decide to go off rather than those that remain and are picking up the tabe for the the rights of those that want the flexibility to go where they want doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me.

I think we should be more bothered for those Brits that choose to remain living here than the rights of those people who want to live abroad. They can look after themselves.

Selfish aren't I.

uk1

Linton wrote: »

I dont know what "other stuff" you had in mind, but I think that you will find that much of it is ultimately to do with trade. For example the UK public has for a long time been keen on animal welfare on farms. In continental europe this has been much less of an issue. By being in the EU the UK has been able to negotiate common welfare standards. Without this commonality UK food exporters would have found it more difficult to be competitive. Perhaps foreign farmers saw this as unnecessary EU interence and an attack on their nation's sovereignty.

As well as ensuring that cost competition within the EU doesnt reduce all standards to the lowest level, this commonality of standards enables the EU to enforce similar standards on other countries who wish to enter agreements to trade with us without fighting large tariffs. The size of the EU market gives it far greater power to do this than the UK could on its own.

There is a world of difference of having EU regulations about animal welfare than it actually being imposed, monitored and policed. All animal rights regulations has done is basically impose on the UK a set of rules that we follow and pay for (quite rightly) because we respect animal rights, but that therefore makes our products more expensive to export, whilst much of the rest of the EU simply ignores the regulations because their own governments can't be bothered to regulate compliance.

You have highlighted an aspect of EU regulations and interference that gives no real benefit to animals, but makes our exports more expensive. Better out, don't you think?


Jeff

Linton

uk1 wrote: »

We use to move around Europe before we joined the EU and will continue to be able to do so afterwards. I'm happy for countries deciding who they will offer hospitality to. It will just involve a bit of paperwork and not a right. I'm happy to sacrifice other people's rights who want to leave the UK and go off to Europe to better their lives if it means making life nicer for those that actually live in the UK by allowing our government to decide who can come here. After all, whilst they exercise their rights and are abroad and paying their taxes in whatever countries they choose and enjoying the sun, it is those that remain in the UK that pick up the tab for those that arrive here to fill their boots with our NHS, the living wage and emergency housing at their will rather than ours. Worrying about those that decide to go off rather than those that remain and are picking up the tabe for the the rights of those that want the flexibility to go where they want doesn't seem like a difficult choice to me.

I think we should be more bothered for those Brits that choose to remain living here than the rights of those people who want to live abroad. They can look after themselves.

Selfish aren't I.

Who is "we"? Personally I am no more or less concerned about the problems of say FTBers trying to buy a house in London than Brits living abroad or Syrian refugees They are all at much the same level of "usness" for me. What I dont want is to live in a narrow minded society where anyone who isnt "one of us" is treated with suspicion, where I cant meet people from all over the world, and where a choice of goods from all over the world is unobtainable at prices I can afford. My focus is the world in which I want to live, so I guess I am more selfish than you:D

PenguinJim

uk1 wrote: »

I think we should be more bothered for those Brits that choose to remain living here than the rights of those people who want to live abroad. They can look after themselves.

Selfish aren't I.

Unfortunately, you're missing the bigger picture (sorry - I know you've been told that a lot).

The UK provided money for my education and my healthcare. I have two degrees from the UK. The UK has invested in people like me heavily - honest, law-abiding, educated, qualified, skilled tax-payers (and let's not forget young, tall and handsome! :cool:). And despite that, they're driving us away.

Staying in the EU would be a reason for us to remain in the UK, not to leave. It would provide us with freer travel and work rights. It would make leaving the UK a heavier and more-likely-permanent move.

If the UK wants to keep people like me, with our skills and our taxes, it will need to stay in the EU. Otherwise it will just be left with people like you.

Let's not forget, last week you mistook the EU's plans for requiring complementary olive oil in restaurants to be correctly labelled and in tamper-proof packaging for some sort of ban on olive oil in restaurants. It's because of these uninformed knee-jerk reactions to directives that we still have those dusty bowls of x-years-old allegedly-olive oil.

I've seen similar comments from people complaining about the EU wanting to ban the name "sausage", to replace it with "emulsified high-fat offal tubes" - yes, even recently (although I suppose it makes more sense that it was recently, considering the age of Yes, Minister).

I wonder how many of these you still believe to be true? :A

Linton

uk1 wrote: »

There is a world of difference of having EU regulations about animal welfare than it actually being imposed, monitored and policed. All animal rights regulations has done is basically impose on the UK a set of rules that we follow and pay for (quite rightly) because we respect animal rights, but that therefore makes our products more expensive to export, whilst much of the rest of the EU simply ignores the regulations because their own governments can't be bothered to regulate compliance.

...../QUOTE]

It seems what you really want is an EU with stronger enforcement powers. There I would agree with you.But politics is the art of the possible, one step at a time.

Without international ageement of standards we are forced into a fight to the bottom. Within the EU progess can be made, outside it we are at the mercy of the multinationals and the large unified markets of the US, the remaining EU and at some stage China.