EU referendum

[Metal Biker]

That doesn't mean that they don't care about free movement of labour.

Which wasn't the context of the post, if you re-read it and understand I was making a statement about most outers wish to continue a relationship with European states and would be happy to overlook a few aspects of trading, just as the aformentioned nations do that do not have to apply freedom of movement in order to continue trading with the EU.

 

[Metal Biker]

He completely changed his tune mate. He said "The UK may have to agree to continuing free movement of labour, but nobody really cares about that".

He's now doing a rapid backpedal.

Really.

You're quite mistaken, bucko. Not my fault if you fail to understand context and focus solely on nitpicking points to fuel your own agenda of wanting to be seen as correct on what is essentially an 'opinion'. We have differing opinions on the EU. Deal with it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Well that's rather defeatist and it also relies on believing a set of figures that are so far in the future as to be without point.

No it doesn't - I haven't even read the report. Honestly if people were to think clearly and carefully about this without getting all emotional (I am not suggest you are, by the way), I think it would be pretty clear to them how damaging leaving the EU would be. In time, of course we'd get over it and as I have said a number of times, in the long run we may be better off for it.

But there's no realistic scenario where we wouldn't be worse off in the short term, or even the medium term. At the very very least, we'd have several years of uncertainty hanging over our economy and if there's one thing business doesn't like, it's uncertainty.

I've spelled out in crystal clear terms why the EU could not and would not agree to us having un-restricted, no-strings, free trade terms. People who choose to ignore these arguments do so I think, because *emotionally* they want to leave and they are doing a metaphorical "I'm not listening, I'm not listening, I'm not listening" when faced with a cogent argument as to why it's a very bad idea.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Really.

You're quite mistaken, bucko. Not my fault if you fail to understand context and focus solely on nitpicking points to fuel your own agenda of wanting to be seen as correct on what is essentially an 'opinion'. We have differing opinions on the EU. Deal with it.

You really are a tool aren't you.

You said, and I quote "The UK may have to agree to continuing free movement of labour, but nobody really cares about that".

I said, "I think you'll find they do".

And you replied, "I think you'll find they don't".

This isn't a question of my misinterpretation you moron. It's a question of you fucking up your argument and being shown up. Deal with it.

 

[purplenose]

Voters care about immigration alot.....but are scared to bring the subject up for fear of being branded racist, unsympathetic, and so on, hence many will simply keep their powder dry and vote accordingly. The reason they care is infact because they see that our housing health education is at breaking point if not already broken. We cannot support the people already here regardless of nationality religion or race. To the in voters and supporters that is not important because in the main they will be in a position to benefit financially from these people by offering them low paid jobs that both big business and government make from or they live in nice middle class areas where these people will never be seen. Anyone who doesnt see this must not use an NHS GP for example, or have to use the hospitals....the list goes on. Vote in and this country and many of those in it will be royally fucked.

 

[kippax4ever]

So the Germans will say yes and the other 26 - the vast majority of whom would be damaged by such an agreement - will just say OK then? Seems like one hell of a risky strategy relying on that, doesn't it.

Like we haven't been damaged(but that,s down to a certain previous government here)open borders(where as germany put restrictions on eastern countries joining up)
But i agree they wont like it(but tough)poland & the rest off that eastern block,all didn't like what Cameroon was after recently(in work benefits for those over-here,as that helped their economy.
The jobs that,s been lost to cheap eastern labour(here)
The jobs that have gone to eastern europe.from here..
The EU rules/red tape where theirs no transparency.its the most corrupt system on the planet,
I could go on & on..Its been said we have a net trade compared to the import/export & they keep the status quo..
So no its not a risky strategy its only risky for those who stay who are bound to the EU were as we can trade with the world/EU.

 

[coleridge]

I am sure there will be a general election in about 4 years regardless, however it is difficult to see how Cameron and Osbourne would be able to stay at the head of the Tory party, so a change of leadership surely must be inevitable. This in turn may well be the best way to ensure Labour under Corbyn do not get in and finally finish the job of destroying our country that the current government has started. Infact a vote out may be about the only way to avoid such a catastrophy by forcing the Tories into changing direction and becoming fit to govern.

It's the law of unintended consequences.

How unedifying the whole debate is as the NHS falls apart and housing becomes ever more unaffordable for the generations to follow.

 

[jimbopm]

It's a shame that we can't have a reasonable debate about migration without resorting to accusations of 'racism' and name-calling.

I personally would sympathise with anyone who wants to vote 'out' based upon a direct experience of their employment or wages being affected by immigration. To have a proper debate however we must look at the evidence, and the most recent available evidence tells us that that neither employment or wages are affected by immigration. Moreover, immigration is shown to have helped pay for public services, the idea that immigrants are a drain is a myth. Until any new studies come to light to support the contrary then I will continue in my view that immigration is not the problem that the right-wing media would have you believe it is.

Housing on the other hand is a very real problem and I can understand the concerns of people who worry about the impact of a growing population as a result of growing net migration. This is a very real issue, however it is a domestic one to be sorted out by our governments. Suddenly restricting or even closing our borders will not result in a surge in the number of social houses being built, certainly not with this government because it is not in their interests to do so. They want to pursue a policy of private ownership, which is where their voters are. Unfortunately applying increased border controls will just drain us of the labour supply that contributes to the economy and tax receipts, tax receipts which should be going into housebuilding.

So whilst it might make people more comfortable to vote 'out' in order to try and solve a housing problem, think of who an out vote actually benefits. It's not the left, who would pursue investment in social housing and support services. The beneficiaries would be the right, the property owners and investors who will scoop up property and charge the earth for the lower classes to rent them.

 

[Metal Biker]

You really are a tool aren't you.

You said, and I quote "The UK may have to agree to continuing free movement of labour, but nobody really cares about that".

I said, "I think you'll find they do".

And you replied, "I think you'll find they don't".

This isn't a question of my misinterpretation you moron. It's a question of you fucking up your argument and being shown up. Deal with it.

"he who swears first..." Calm down dear. I sense your blood beginning to boil.

I notice you've edited my post without putting it in full. So to your benefit, i'll put it up again here and dissect it for you and point out where you've misunderstood (the bits in italic are the bits you ommitted which changes the context of my post).

"No, it doesn't, but as myself and many others have stated, that hasn't stopped the EU trading with China, Canada, the US, Mexico, South Korea, the UAE, Russia, Japan, India, Brazil, South Africa, to name but a few. The UK may have to agree to continuing free movement of labour, but nobody really cares about that, nor is it a sticking point as an argument to leave. It might be for some, but not all and from what i've seen its a minor complaint. But the fact remains that the EU MUST reach an agreement with any former member state."

THAT is the full sentence. Note that i'm referring to non-EU nations abiding by trading laws that do not conform to FoM in order to do so, and that for many (aside from those who want it to stay/removed) there are plenty of other more important points (from what I have seen, so again my own experience i'm citing here) in regards to influencing their vote, which was the context of the discussion I was having with you as well as correcting you that the EU aren't under any obligations to trade with the UK upon an exit, which is false.

So what you disagree with here is my own experience....? Which you cannot comment on, because you're not me, neither can I comment on your experiences on the EU, because i'm not you, hence my reply being a mirror of yours, a "tongue in cheek" reply as it were that you've taken to heart.

Understand now? No? Well, I tried.

 

[Chippy_boy]

So every outer has the same mindset do they? My 'credibility' is undermined because you personally disagree with it? Have you heard yourself?

You've completely misunderstood the context of the post. People aren't bothered about continuing a relationship with EUROPE. Is every post I put going to have to be dumbed down to you?

I've no interest in changing your mind, you are an irrelevance to me. But when you state things that are nonsense - like claiming people don't care about immigration being an issue - it's not inappropriate to say "rubbish".