Swiss offer EU solution for Britain

Money_saving_maniac

mwpt wrote: »

Thank you, you have just described me. I guess that is why we will not see eye to eye on this subject. You do not want me in your country.

I have previously posted about how much I have integrated into UK society. Nevertheless, my experiences have taught me that nationalism is a bad thing and I now consider myself a citizen of the world and will gladly move to new places for new experiences with new people.

I consider your views small minded and harmful.



Your principles don't make any sense.



That is probably because I never said that.

If you believe you are a citizen of the world....breaking news, you're not. There is no such thing. And it shows what a sheltered life you have had. Go to some farthest flung places and tell the dangerous men there that 'you are a citizen of the world' and see how far it gets you.

There have always been 'adventurers' who have been driven to travel and have new experiences, regardless of the danger, but my guess is you are not one of those people.

You believe my views are small minded and harmful because you are completely deracinated and so you have no yardstick to measure anything by.

I offer up your own words in response to your last sentence. You wrote it, not me :

"So it stands to reason that if people had no clue how their life was going to be better outside the EU, they were voting because they perceived their current lot as somehow a bit sh _t (*). So, "my lot is a bit sh _t" and I don't know how to change that, translates into a protest vote, which was quite obviously a vote to LEAVE."

padington

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Is there an alternative model in the air? One without the political baggage. Allowing nation states to remain independent.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37312807

There can not be access to the common market without helping overcome the common problem, immigration.

mwpt

Money_saving_maniac wrote: »

If you believe you are a citizen of the world....breaking news, you're not. There is no such thing. And it shows what a sheltered life you have had. Go to some farthest flung places and tell the dangerous men there that 'you are a citizen of the world' and see how far it gets you.

Indeed, there is no such thing. But I have not had a sheltered life. My guess is I've lived in more countries than you have and come from a lot poorer background than you do. But that is just my guess, because you display an entitled and nationalist attitude.

I have integrated into society in the UK and pay my monetary and social taxes by being a good citizen. But the ideals I live by are different to your ideals. I'd strive toward allowing people to move where they want to move, just like nations have evolved so that people are not tied down to serfdom within a small region but are now free to move around the country and go where the demand for work is, rather than be trapped and left poor. I would like this at the supra-national level eventually, but realise that it will take a long time and we can only approach it in a pragmatic way, slowly. I think the EU was a step in the right direction for this ideal. But of course if your ideal is that for some reason national lines are the superior universal truth, rather than regional, or city or town, or continent, or planet, then I can understand that this goes against your nationalism.

If I said to you that I wanted to stop the people from outside of London moving to London because I only want what is best for the citizens of London, you'd think I was bonkers. Well, I see your views the same way. One day, (a long time still) most people will feel the same.

You believe my views are small minded and harmful because you are completely deracinated and so you have no yardstick to measure anything by.

I offer up your own words in response to your last sentence. You wrote it, not me :

"So it stands to reason that if people had no clue how their life was going to be better outside the EU, they were voting because they perceived their current lot as somehow a bit sh _t (*). So, "my lot is a bit sh _t" and I don't know how to change that, translates into a protest vote, which was quite obviously a vote to LEAVE."

I don't think even you know what you're trying to say here by quoting me.

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Indeed, there is no such thing. But I have not had a sheltered life. My guess is I've lived in more countries than you have and come from a lot poorer background than you do. But that is just my guess, because you display an entitled and nationalist attitude.

I have integrated into society in the UK and pay my monetary and social taxes by being a good citizen. But the ideals I live by are different to your ideals. I'd strive toward allowing people to move where they want to move, just like nations have evolved so that people are not tied down to serfdom within a small region but are now free to move around the country and go where the demand for work is, rather than be trapped and left poor. I would like this at the supra-national level eventually, but realise that it will take a long time and we can only approach it in a pragmatic way, slowly. I think the EU was a step in the right direction for this ideal. But of course if your ideal is that for some reason national lines are the superior universal truth, rather than regional, or city or town, or continent, or planet, then I can understand that this goes against your nationalism.

If I said to you that I wanted to stop the people from outside of London moving to London because I only want what is best for the citizens of London, you'd think I was bonkers. Well, I see your views the same way. One day, (a long time still) most people will feel the same.



I don't think even you know what you're trying to say here by quoting me.

given you are motivated by high moral principles and not at all by greedy self interest, why are you so passionate about discriminating against all black African states (for example) and just love to integrate with white christian europeans ones.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

given you are motivated by high moral principles

Why do you say that my principles are highly moral?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Why do you say that my principles are highly moral?

any thing to avoid answering why your 'ideals' include free movement of people round a group of white christian countries but exclude black african ones.
we both agree that full trade relations with black africa will make both us then them richer but you vote against.

mrginge

mwpt wrote: »

Indeed, there is no such thing. But I have not had a sheltered life. My guess is I've lived in more countries than you have and come from a lot poorer background than you do. But that is just my guess, because you display an entitled and nationalist attitude.

Little bit arrogant, but to be expected I guess.

I have integrated into society in the UK and pay my monetary and social taxes by being a good citizen. But the ideals I live by are different to your ideals. I'd strive toward allowing people to move where they want to move, just like nations have evolved so that people are not tied down to serfdom within a small region but are now free to move around the country and go where the demand for work is, rather than be trapped and left poor. I would like this at the supra-national level eventually, but realise that it will take a long time and we can only approach it in a pragmatic way, slowly. I think the EU was a step in the right direction for this ideal. But of course if your ideal is that for some reason national lines are the superior universal truth, rather than regional, or city or town, or continent, or planet, then I can understand that this goes against your nationalism.

Your lack of belief in national borders is admirable. Presumably you believe in full political and fiscal Union for the EU?
Personally I do not agree with your idea that there is no limit to how densely populated an individual area or town or country can become. I'm also not sure how the lives of people who are left behind are improved after their able and skilled compratriots have left to move to another country. Can you explain your ideals on this?
Should we try to maintain and improve living standards across all areas, so that opportunity exists not just in 'rich' areas?

Voyager2002

Conrad wrote: »

More than anything, it is soft touch Britain that irritates so many of us. By all means co e here, but don't sponge (no need to provide links to niave academic stats on claim rates, they are irrelevant and meaningless, academics do not interview a proper spectrum of immigrants).

So how do you know better than the academics? Do you conduct research that does interview "a proper spectrum of immigrants"?

And I think the work you wanted to use is 'naive' -- which might be a good description of your viewpoint.

mwpt

mrginge wrote: »

Your lack of belief in national borders is admirable.

I didn't say that.

Presumably you believe in full political and fiscal Union for the EU?

I didn't say that.

Personally I do not agree with your idea that there is no limit to how densely populated an individual area or town or country can become.

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?

I'm also not sure how the lives of people who are left behind are improved after their able and skilled compratriots have left to move to another country. Can you explain your ideals on this?

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 try to maintain and improve living standards across all areas, so that opportunity exists not just in 'rich' areas?

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?

Conrad

Voyager2002 wrote: »

So how do you know better than the academics? Do you conduct research that does interview "a proper spectrum of immigrants"?

And I think the work you wanted to use is 'naive' -- which might be a good description of your viewpoint.

We look back on accounts written by Men on the front line in Flanders as these give us forensic accounts of the reality of trench life.


By contrast the far away boffins and Generals were profoundly clueless, day after day making bad decisions based on reports and theories.


The Germans understood the vital importance of feedback from the front line and every soldier was required to write daily reports of needs, incidents and lessons, hence why with far fewer men they ran rings around us for a long time.


Lemon hierarchies result from poor information due to an over-reliance on boffins and detached intellectuals and leaders.


Time and again we rely on officialdom and academia to provide a snap shot, and time and again we get a mis-reading. 25 Towns across Britain suffered 15 years of gang child abuse. PEOPLE ON THE GROUND KNEW THE REALITY, OFFICIALDUM DID NOT


Those conducting surveys into the claim rate of migrants for example, seek out people like themselves, the well embedded easy to access French architect or Polish secretary. They do not go out an find the Bulgarian cash in hand labourer, who claims considerable benefits - why on earth would such a person wish to chance engaging with a semi official authority figure such as an LSE Professor?