Why are leavers so angry

Cornucopia

BobQ wrote: »

Well if you do not understand a term why call it meaningless. It is defined in the EU Treaty and relates to voting rights in EU elections, freedom of movement throughout the EU and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of nationality. So it covers all of those things and more.

I didn't say it was meaningless - I said "somewhat meaningless". In the sense that without my British Citizenship, I would be stateless, which would be bad. Without my "EU Citizenship", not so much, especially since several of the "rights" are directly connected to my country's EU membership and don't have force or relevance without it.

I don't really accept the notion of "EU Citizenship" because I don't believe the EU to be a sovereign country.

Since we are leaving why would we want or expect EU Citizenship
but if we did we would surely be expected to reciprocate.

I think that the discussion before got somewhat confused between "EU Citizenship" and freedom of movement, which we will likely lose, and free movement for tourism and the opportunity to apply for a Work or Student Visa, which we will no doubt keep. And, yes, I would be delighted to offer the same to all citizens of EU countries.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

There might be a demographic problem in 30 years or so but I see no point making it worse now by importing people who will be 60is then and part of the problem.
I belive that automation/robots/driverless cars/medical advances etc will become a reality by then .

You make a fair point, but why assume that all of these people will remain in the UK rather than return home? Even if they do remain, if someone has lived in the UK and paid taxes for 30+ years why would you think it unreasonable for them to retire here?

I think that Freedom of Movement in the EU will need to be moderated in any case. If the UK wants to have FoM with the EEA then the negotiations will need to deliver such moderation. So for example, freedom for defined periods, subject to being self-supporting.

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

You make a fair point, but why assume that all of these people will remain in the UK rather than return home? Even if they do remain, if someone has lived in the UK and paid taxes for 30+ years why would you think it unreasonable for them to retire here?

What do you believe in : do you want a world population getting bigger and bigger: do you want the population of the UK getting bigger and bigger simply for some ideology?

If it is solely for greedy practical reason then importing people now, to solve the demographic time bomb doesn't work. They simply add to the issue in 30 years time. Why do we want rubbish housing, lousy transport, overcrowded roads for no gain?

what is your dream ?

I think that Freedom of Movement in the EU will need to be moderated in any case. If the UK wants to have FoM with the EEA then the negotiations will need to deliver such moderation. So for example, freedom for defined periods, subject to being self-supporting.

THERE IS NO PLAN FOR THAT VIEW.

we need to leave with total control of immigration.

zagubov

BobQ wrote: »

You make a fair point, but why assume that all of these people will remain in the UK rather than return home?
.

I would find it very hard to believe that anyone brought up in another, more family-oriented, culture would look at our attitude to the elderly and not realise they could have a much better retirement much more affordably in their own country.

CLAPTON

zagubov wrote: »

I would find it very hard to believe that anyone brought up in another, more family-oriented, culture would look at our attitude to the elderly and not realise they could have a much better retirement much more affordably in their own country.

so you genuinely believe that people who have lived here for 30-40 years, have children here and have grandchildren here, have friends and neighbours, will all go home to what exactly? And all because its cheaper.
you must have very strange values.

AFF8879

Sapphire wrote: »

Some people are, however, getting frustrated by the disgusting attempts by the likes of Bliar, Osborne, Soubry, Kinnock, Faron, Cleg, Branson and many other dubious establishment figures to subvert the democratic vote and attempt to make Britain remain in the corrupt EU. This for purposes that would suit the affluent, self-serving establishment

I find this rhetoric quite frustrating (nothing personal, but I've heard it so many times) - people arguing that certain figures are trying to "subvert democracy" to suit the elite, establishment classes but then reel off names of people who are actually incredibly left-wing / liberal / even socialist - people seem to be confusing left wing with right wing.

Oh and if I hear the phrase "subvert democracy" one more time.....grrr!

Sapphire

AFF8879 wrote: »

I find this rhetoric quite frustrating (nothing personal, but I've heard it so many times) - people arguing that certain figures are trying to "subvert democracy" to suit the elite, establishment classes but then reel off names of people who are actually incredibly left-wing / liberal / even socialist - people seem to be confusing left wing with right wing.

Oh and if I hear the phrase "subvert democracy" one more time.....grrr!

I don't understand your point. There is no confusion for me between left and right wing individuals and their aims. The names I mentioned appear to belong to left- and right-wing parties. They have different reasons for wanting to remain, but are motivated by e.g. their own financial self-interest, or their ideologies (never mind the majority of voters' desires), or their idea that they can take advantage of what they see as an opportunity to grab power.

And you'll continue to hear the term 'subvert democracy' and similar until such efforts cease. It's disgusting that the citizens of European countries were forced into this ill-conceived project called the EU without their permission, and without being informed that it would involve loss of sovereignty. An important matter such as this should have been put to the vote in each country, with the aims of the project being clearly spelled out.

zagubov

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you genuinely believe that people who have lived here for 30-40 years, have children here and have grandchildren here, have friends and neighbours, will all go home to what exactly? And all because its cheaper.
you must have very strange values.

The iron curtain's gone. They say churches in the UK fly in Polish priests to say Sunday mass.

The elderly will have the option to go somewhere where their money will get them better accommodation, care and other facilities than they can get here. Eastern European countries have good infrastructure and security. Their family will visit them.

Fella

BobQ wrote: »

Your comment above rather demonstrates Cohen's point. Why are your posts on this so full of bile towards those of a contrary opinion

If you want a serious answer to that it's pretty simple. Pretty much everybody in the remain camp took great delight (& still does) in calling those who voted to leave every insult under the sun, with Racist & Moron being pretty much top of the list.

People who spend a year or so calling people racist morons shouldn't be that surprised when those people respond the same way.

And of course, that's been compounded by the very many attempts by the Remain camp to try to portray a straightforward in/out referendum as anything other than the straightforward in/out referendum that it clearly was.

HornetSaver

Oh and if I hear the phrase "subvert democracy" one more time.....grrr!

In the real world, people have to try to use language which will at some stage be considered water under the bridge, even if said language does not accurately or sufficiently strongly describe the behavior in question.

So I therefore have no option but to disappoint you, in concluding that those who tell us that all Leave voters had the same vision of what Brexit would entail, are attempting to "subvert democracy".