Swiss offer EU solution for Britain

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

I didn't say that.

Ok , so do you believe in national borders?

I didn't say that.

I asked you a question. You can see that by the use of the symbol '?'
I didn't suggest that you *do* believe in full political and fiscal Union, so your response is typically non-committal.

If you believe in full political and fiscal Union for the EU then say so. No need to be shy.

I didn't say that.

Your arguments are so void that you have to try to make up things instead of just sticking to what I actually did say?

You stated -
'I'd strive toward allowing people to move where they want to move.'

You did not place any proviso or restriction on that comment. Therefore my comment is the logical extension of yours.
If you would like to clarify what you actually mean then that would be delightful.

I will if you explain your ideals on the exact same question but change the word country for region. Let us ask, how do you feel about people moving from Sunderland to London to pursue their career?

Should we fence people in to the areas where they were born? Why are the people of Sunderland allowed to move to London leaving the area of Sunderland supposedly poor and making life supposedly harder for existing Londoners?

Ok, as per usual you refuse to answer a straightforward question. Why are you so unable to defend your position?
Why do you feel the need to use such language as 'fenced-in'?
Can you not understand that opposition to unlimited, free movement of people does not mean that the alternative is zero movement of people? Do you live your entire life in binary?
Why do you persist in this drivel of comparing regions within a country to national countries within the EU? It is a false argument and just demonstrates your lack of knowledge. However, If you wish to state that you believe in the full political and fiscal Union of the EU then your logic makes more sense.

i would like the people of Sunderland to have the opportunity to move to London to pursue their careers. I would also like them to have opportunities to pursue their careers in Sunderland, or Manchester, or Leeds, or jersey.
I would also like people in London to have opportunities in Sunderland and I would like to see Sunderland become as prosperous an area as London.
I do not want to see all the talent in Sunderland be transferred because they have no other option. I would like businesses in Sunderland to have a pool of resources available to them in their local area because a. It is cheaper, b. It supports the economic and social development of the local area. I would support policies that incentivise Sunderland businesses to employ from within the local community.

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

Ok , so do you believe in national borders?

National borders exist. I suspect what you're asking here is should we have national borders. My answer is the same as before, which you should surely be able to figure out. Ultimately, no, we should aspire not to have them. In the short to medium term they exist to prevent chaos and worse. I feel the EU is a step in the correct direction and I'd hope that as countries continue to become wealthier, this concept expands. Is that sufficiently clear for you such that you don't have to ask again?

I asked you a question. You can see that by the use of the symbol '?'

You said presumably, so you're trying to imply something. Just state what you're trying to imply.

If you believe in full political and fiscal Union for the EU then say so. No need to be shy.

I don't at this stage due to practical reasons and I also doubt it will ever become either fully feasible or necessary to do so.

You stated -
'I'd strive toward allowing people to move where they want to move.'

You did not place any proviso or restriction on that comment. Therefore my comment is the logical extension of yours.
If you would like to clarify what you actually mean then that would be delightful.

You implied that I was saying that there is no limit to how dense people can live. I didn't say that, you made that part up by extrapolating stupidly and not thinking further.

Ok, as per usual you refuse to answer a straightforward question. Why are you so unable to defend your position?

The answer to your question is that I would vote for policies that encouraged distribution of business and wealth to more areas. But I would allow people to move where they want to move.

Why do you feel the need to use such language as 'fenced-in'?


Can you not understand that opposition to unlimited, free movement of people does not mean that the alternative is zero movement of people? Do you live your entire life in binary?
Why do you persist in this drivel of comparing regions within a country to national countries within the EU?

Because you oppose free movement of people into the UK from the EU but you don't oppose free movement of people into London from the UK. I'm trying to show you that your views on what are acceptable boundaries are essentially arbitrary, chosen because of your sense of nationalism, rather than some universal truth that can't change. Boundaries have changed throughout time and will continue to change.

Conrad

Some evidence;
From July 20th 2016 – EU PASSPORTING INTENTION FOR NON EU (let alone the more important UK)!!


The Alternative Investment Management Association, the global representative of the alternative investment industry, said in a statement that it welcomed Esma’s positive assessment of Canada, Guernsey, Japan, Jersey and Switzerland and notes that Hong Kong, Singapore, United States and Australia have also received a positive assessment albeit with some reservations and conditionality.

“We are hopeful that the European Commission will proceed to the introduction of the passport to all of these countries given that the remaining cited obstacles appear to be minor are capable of being successfully addressed or mitigated,” added the AIMA. “We remain optimistic that Esma will be in a position in the not too distant future to provide a full and positive assessment for the Cayman Islands and Bermuda in the same manner it took a second look the initial set of six non-EU jurisdictions.”

http://marketsmedia.com/hedge-funds-push-eu-passport-cayman-islands-bermuda/

Conrad

mwpt wrote: »

National borders exist. I suspect what you're asking here is should we have national borders. My answer is the same as before, which you should surely be able to figure out. Ultimately, no, we should aspire not to have them.

Underlying assumption here is that big is beautiful. Personally I liked the days when Banks were local and attuned as opposed to the global HSBC which is now remote and unresponsive.


Just as the EU is dysfunctional (see IMF report citing 20 years of decline for Italy) as national economies are not aligned, a global administration would be appallingly calibrated.


To follow your logic on free movement, if a billion people want to live in the UK, so be it, regardless of all the downsides, not least the environmental degradation. Not sure I'd class this as a compassionate and fair stance. Seems predicated on nothing more than the desires of individuals regardless of the impacts.


A compassionate person worries about the skills drain form very vulnerable societies. Some may celebrate the NHS having thousands of African Docs, but others of us wonder how this helps the truly desperate people in the lands they left. What of the neglected, abused children in those societies, left with few professionals to safe guard / repair them?

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

Because you oppose free movement of people into the UK from the EU but you don't oppose free movement of people into London from the UK. I'm trying to show you that your views on what are acceptable boundaries are essentially arbitrary, chosen because of your sense of nationalism, rather than some universal truth that can't change. Boundaries have changed throughout time and will continue to change.

Your thinking is flawed, so all you are showing me is that you don't really understand.
I do not oppose free movement of people between the nations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Conrad

Reeves added: “Immigration controls and ending free movement has to be a red line post-Brexit – otherwise we will be holding the voters in contempt. Subject to that, we need the greatest possible access that we can get to the single market without free movement.”


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/19/labour-urged-to-make-immigration-controls-a-key-brexit-demand

buglawton

Conrad wrote: »

Underlying assumption here is that big is beautiful. Personally I liked the days when Banks were local and attuned as opposed to the global HSBC which is now remote and unresponsive.

Michael Eavis, founder of the Glastonbury Festival recounted in Desert Island Discs how he saved his farm at the age of 18 after his father had died, by sitting down face to face with the local bank manager. That manager gave him a kind of in-depth job interview along the lines of 'are you sure you want to be a farmer, it's a hard life'. He got the loan and I believe subsequent ones that tided over Glasto when the project would otherwise have collapsed.

Nowadays I guess the answer would be 'computer says no'.

mwpt

Conrad wrote: »

Underlying assumption here is that big is beautiful.

No, just that I would hope one day for a world where we are not tied down by borders. You can extrapolate out of that what you want I suppose.

Conrad

buglawton wrote: »

Michael Eavis, founder of the Glastonbury Festival recounted in Desert Island Discs how he saved his farm at the age of 18 after his father had died, by sitting down face to face with the local bank manager. That manager gave him a kind of in-depth job interview along the lines of 'are you sure you want to be a farmer, it's a hard life'. He got the loan and I believe subsequent ones that tided over Glasto when the project would otherwise have collapsed.

Nowadays I guess the answer would be 'computer says no'.

For me the far away global call centre Bank experience is analogous to being in the EU. I'm a localist as far as is practicable, it just works better.

Malthusian

buglawton wrote: »

Michael Eavis, founder of the Glastonbury Festival recounted in Desert Island Discs how he saved his farm at the age of 18 after his father had died, by sitting down face to face with the local bank manager. That manager gave him a kind of in-depth job interview along the lines of 'are you sure you want to be a farmer, it's a hard life'. He got the loan and I believe subsequent ones that tided over Glasto when the project would otherwise have collapsed.

Nowadays I guess the answer would be 'computer says no'.

Probably. The Glastonbury Festival would have been financed by crowdfunding instead.