Another new Brexit thread

[Saddleworth2]

I take it you are suggesting controlling immigration is the same as anti-immigration?It isn't - just the same as controlling your spending doesn't mean not spending.

No I’m not suggesting that at all. Maybe I’m mistaken but I thought you were suggesting that control Of immigration wasn’t a theme of Brexit. I was simply reminding that it was and it was weaponised. Remember the Farage poster.

 

[BobKowalski]

I take it you are suggesting controlling immigration is the same as anti-immigration?It isn't - just the same as controlling your spending doesn't mean not spending.

Narrator: It is the same.

 

[Vic]

Totally and typically smartarse comment from that knob - will please his followers but is a pretty stupid observation/question

The UK has/is leaving the EU - where it enjoyed all the trading benefits of the SM and CU - so of course the replacement arrangements are/were always going to be less that previously.

Reducing trading terms (which is all Remainers seem to talk about) is a small price to pay for the benefit is getting out of the EU

So the answer to the question is "yes", the only trade deal to negotiate a worse deal than the existing. It's the answer that's stupid, not the question.

And now it appears our walkway option is "Because I worry that one day you might punch me in the face, I'm going to punch myself in the face now" (courtesy of Freedland in the Guardian). Is that really what you call "viable"? If it helps your ego, I think we can see why the EU might move - rather like I might move to stop my semi-detached neighbour blowing up his house. Just like you would keep talking to someone on a ledge with your car parked underneath. The EU is currently the Samaritans.

Britain faces a no-deal crash-out: even ultra-Brexiters said this would be a disaster | Jonathan Freedland

Since the referendum the sovereignty fetish has devoured the Tory party, says Guardian columnist Jonathan Freedland

www.theguardian.com

 

[BobKowalski]

This is the original proposition from Leave. You will see that control of immigration was at the heart of the proposition

A summary

• We end the supremacy of EU law and the European Court. We will be able to kick out those who make our laws.
• Europe yes, EU no. We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it. We will take back the power to negotiate our own trade deals.
• We spend our money on our priorities. Instead of sending £350 million per week to Brussels, we will spend it on our priorities like the NHS and schools.
• We take back control of migration policy, including the 1951 UN Convention on refugees, so we have a fairer and more humane policy, and we decide who comes into our country, on what terms, and who is removed.
• We will regain our seat on international bodies where Brussels represents us, and use our greater international influence to push for greater international cooperation.
• We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way.
• We will negotiate a new UK-EU Treaty and end the legal supremacy of EU law and the European Court before the 2020 election.
• We do not necessarily have to use Article 50 - we may agree with the EU another path that is in both our interests.

• We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way.

This is one of my faves. It is dribbling lunacy. EU member states do trade freely with each other. It’s called the Single Market. Which we don’t want to be part of it, so we will build a new one? I mean we pretty much built the first one! :)

 

[BobKowalski]

...I think we can see why the EU might move - rather like I might move to stop my semi-detached neighbour blowing up his house. Just like you would keep talking to someone on a ledge with your car park underneath. The EU is currently the Samaritans.

Okay, that made me laugh...

 

[west didsblue]

• We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way.

This is one of my faves. It is dribbling lunacy. EU member states do trade freely with each other. It’s called the Single Market. Which we don’t want to be part of it, so we will build a new one? I mean we pretty much built the first one! :)

Ironically one of the main architects of the Single Market was many Brexiteers' wet dream - Margaret Thatcher. You have to laugh.

"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers - visible or invisible - giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it. It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real."

Margaret Thatcher 1988

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Narrator: It is the same.

In your head maybe.

 

[Metal Biker]

Why is it 'pretty stupid' is it not true?
If its true then by definition, its hardly stupid.

Funny how all leavers now freely admit to voting for trade arrangements that are significantly inferior to those they previously enjoyed.

At what cost were we 'enjoying' them though?

That was kind of the whole point. Again, it's the Scotland/Westminster, UK/Brussels comparison. When a trade arrangement is just that, a trade arrangement, it is significantly better than one which has rules, regulations, payments to budgets, ever increasing federalism etc etc attached to it.

Had it stayed the EEC nobody would have thought about leaving, but the EU is now a much different monster to what we initially agreed to join and it was costing us more and more. Our relationship with Europe was always meant to be about trade, not cohesion, power-sharing, federalism, European identitarianism, border initiatives. It might have for some, but not all, and those people voiced their concerns and here we are.

You know how you're not happy Scotland is being dragged away from Europe against it's will? Why is that 'wrong' but forcing those of us who do not agree with the direction the EU was heading in and being forced to comply with it perfectly acceptible? What would you have done to assuage those of us with these concerns about EU membership, or would you have just ignored us again? That's why a lot of us consider these new trade agreements are 'better' than the ones we had. They offer us more freedom.

 

[dave_blue12]

Ironically one of the main architects of the Single Market was many Brexiteers' wet dream - Margaret Thatcher. You have to laugh.

"Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers - visible or invisible - giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the world's wealthiest and most prosperous people. Bigger than Japan. Bigger than the United States. On your doorstep. And with the Channel Tunnel to give you direct access to it. It's not a dream. It's not a vision. It's not some bureaucrat's plan. It's for real."

Margaret Thatcher 1988

They really are a confused bunch.

A complete lack of self awareness seems to be a theme.

 

[yerwot?]

• We will build a new European institutional architecture that enables all countries, whether in or out of the EU or euro, to trade freely and cooperate in a friendly way.

This is one of my faves. It is dribbling lunacy. EU member states do trade freely with each other. It’s called the Single Market. Which we don’t want to be part of it, so we will build a new one? I mean we pretty much built the first one! :)

"Using our much greater international influence"...ffs....
A litany of outrageous lies, aimed at the Alf Garnett faction, lauded by the brexit ultras, murdoch and his billionaire gang .

 

[BobKowalski]

In your head maybe.

A Venn diagram of people who bang on about ‘controlling immigration’ and people who hate immigrants would be a perfect circle.

 

[west didsblue]

They really are a confused bunch.

A complete lack of self awareness seems to be a theme.

The whole speech is well worth a read

https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107219

This bit was particularly prescient.

"You might say: weren't we supposed to have a common market already? Wasn't that the reason we joined Europe in the first place? Weren't we promised all this in 1973?

It's a fair question to ask. And the truthful answer is: Europe wasn't open for business. Underneath the rhetoric, the old barriers remained. Not just against the outside world, but between the European countries.

Not the classic barriers of tariffs, but the insidious ones of differing national standards, various restrictions on the provision of services, exclusion of foreign firms from public contracts."

The Remain campaign missed a trick by not using this more in 2016.

 

[Metal Biker]

No I’m not suggesting that at all. Maybe I’m mistaken but I thought you were suggesting that control Of immigration wasn’t a theme of Brexit. I was simply reminding that it was and it was weaponised. Remember the Farage poster.

Immigration was a theme of Leave.EU campaign (you know, the one Farage fronted and was rejected as the official 'Leave' Campaign, alongside Grassroots.UK and Labour Leave in favour of Vote Leave)

Immigration was A theme of brexit, but not one everyone considered relevant or the most concern. Many different people had many different concerns about EU membership, but the Immigration angle became the beating stick used by remainers to try and suggest that a vote to leave was 'racist' to influence people not to vote that way. THAT is where the public backlash towards remain came from.

People were incensed that the remain campaigners were trying to suggest a vote for leave was a vote for something heinous as a way of 'winning the argument' and the public were angered by their shameful tactics. Immigration was more the theme of remain; it was their number one persuasion tactic and they made every discussion and public debate about concerns about EU membership overshadowed by it and it backfired massively.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

No I’m not suggesting that at all. Maybe I’m mistaken but I thought you were suggesting that control Of immigration wasn’t a theme of Brexit. I was simply reminding that it was and it was weaponised. Remember the Farage poster.

That's like saying the remain vote was influenced by the fear of the promised 'emergency budget' etc etc. Of course immigration is weaponised by some fruitcakes when they have nothing else to offer - the last few days on this thread being a case in point. The whole debate on immigration has been reduced to a polarised slanging match by two equally thoughtless sets of loons. It's the equivalent of arguing how best to drive a car based on two options - leave it in the garage or drive at 100mph all the time and nothing in-between. We need immigration, but we also need to monitor and control it. Not only do we need to keep out the people who blow themselves up at pop concerts, but also the gangsters that invest a couple of million in Cypriot property, get a shiny purple passport for their trouble and arrive in London in a sharp suit on a private jet. At the same time we need to let in the people we need, and also have the humanity to provide refuge to those in need, and even allow for some decent folk who would just like to live here.
Wether it's a RW anti-immigrant loon, or an open door policy loon, both damage and polarise the debate to the detriment of all. To constantly drag brexit down into this sort of ideological gutter does intelligent discussion (or immigrants) no favours and is every bit as bad as what Farage and Yaxley Lennon do.

 

[Blue Maverick]

At the time of the referendum all you ever saw on tv was the Calais camps etc, this more than anything fuelled the leave vote, people are fickle they just go with what they are bombarded with in the media. Had remain ramped up all the grants etc that built things in the country, played on how you can travel to Benidorm with no visa etc, they may have won. Cameron just took for granted Remain would win and then it would be put to bed forever, the Remainers are maybe more to blame for all this, their complacency brought this about, the public just see big banners etc £350 million a week and the camps letting people in almost unfettered by the French.

 

[Metal Biker]

At the time of the referendum all you ever saw on tv was the Calais camps etc, this more than anything fuelled the leave vote, people are fickle they just go with what they are bombarded with in the media. Had remain ramped up all the grants etc that built things in the country, played on how you can travel to Benidorm with no visa etc, they may have won. Cameron just took for granted Remain would win and then it would be put to bed forever, the Remainers are maybe more to blame for all this, their complacency brought this about, the public just see big banners etc £350 million a week and the camps letting people in almost unfettered by the French.

Yeah but they didn't.

Instead they went down the route of saying that legitimate concerns about EU membership, namely the ever increasing shift towards a federal Europe that a lot of us were concerned about as it meant more power being removed from the electorate and placed in the hands of politicians, was mere "nonsense" and that a vote to leave was stooped in racism, and the public hated that notion and were turned off.

If that's how manipulative remainers could be, how manipulative were the EU to make people think that way? seemed to be the thought. It was almost as if they were suggesting criticism of the EU was in itself a racist notion to have. EVERY poll showed a clear remain victory, don't forget. It wasn't banners or buses that led to leave gaining votes, it was the actions and rhetoric of the remainers themselves that persuaded the most people (and still does; 2019 being a prime example that they hadn't learned their lesson)

 

[Vic]

Oh good grief. 20% of voters said immigration was their main issue in the referendum, and the vast majority of that 20% voted Leave.

"According to the British Election Study, the vast majority who said immigration (88%) or sovereignty (90%) was the most important issue voted Leave, compared to a small minority (15%) who said it was the economy.

"The NatCen Panel found that people’s views on the likely impact of leaving the EU ahead of the Referendum were significantly associated with how they eventually voted. Those that felt that leaving the EU would give Britain more influence in the world, reduce unemployment, lower immigration, make the economy better off, and strengthen Britain’s security were all significantly more likely to vote Leave."

 

[Vic]

They really are a confused bunch.

A complete lack of self awareness seems to be a theme.

And another day of distraction to avoid talking about the damage.

 

[Saddleworth2]

That's like saying the remain vote was influenced by the fear of the promised 'emergency budget' etc etc. Of course immigration is weaponised by some fruitcakes when they have nothing else to offer - the last few days on this thread being a case in point. The whole debate on immigration has been reduced to a polarised slanging match by two equally thoughtless sets of loons. It's the equivalent of arguing how best to drive a car based on two options - leave it in the garage or drive at 100mph all the time and nothing in-between. We need immigration, but we also need to monitor and control it. Not only do we need to keep out the people who blow themselves up at pop concerts, but also the gangsters that invest a couple of million in Cypriot property, get a shiny purple passport for their trouble and arrive in London in a sharp suit on a private jet. At the same time we need to let in the people we need, and also have the humanity to provide refuge to those in need, and even allow for some decent folk who would just like to live here.
Wether it's a RW anti-immigrant loon, or an open door policy loon, both damage and polarise the debate to the detriment of all. To constantly drag brexit down into this sort of ideological gutter does intelligent discussion (or immigrants) no favours and is every bit as bad as what Farage and Yaxley Lennon do.

Thats a long rant for you. Not sure how it relates to my post though. I was simply stating a fact.

That the UK always had the means to 'control immigration' and chose not to do so was just another....

 

[Saddleworth2]

People were incensed that the remain campaigners were trying to suggest a vote for leave was a vote for something heinous as a way of 'winning the argument' and the public were angered by their shameful tactics. Immigration was more the theme of remain; it was their number one persuasion tactic and they made every discussion and public debate about concerns about EU membership overshadowed by it and it backfired massively.

I agreed with your post completely until this bit which is completely overegged. Not every remain campaigner fell into this category. A few did for sure.