First off, I'm like to say thanks for actually trying to address the points I raised in that essay. I've shown that to various people over the last 3 years, and for most its just too long to be bothered with (or too well argued I think
..jokes....anyway...here goes on my responses to your responses.....
> > 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What’s That? How
> > I vote Leave when ‘9 out of 10 economists’ say
> > would be worse off under a Brexit scenario?
> All the economic forecasts (even if they are short
> term) state we'll be worse off but "you think"
> that longer term (ie after we've been through
> another recession, had stagnant / zero growth,
> lost huge amounts of tax revenue and
> investment...) we'll be better off? Righto.
I think that response is more than a little disingenuous, and misrepresenting what I originally wrote, particularly given my comments in the lines you deleted for the sake of brevity..…where I specifically talk about the long term forecasts within those reports. But in anycase, yes, at some point we all have to ‘think’….there’s no expert, document, or Guardian article which has all the answers on either outcome….
> > 2. Immigration: Finally, a controlled
> > immigration system is not just about attracting
> > doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if
> > need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for
> > example, then a sensible Home Office will
> > visas are issued to the people the UK requires
> > do this.
> Have you seen the Home Office systems? Some of the
> most badly designed, badly implemented "systems"
> ever, courtesy of one Theresa May (and various
> other Home Secretaries before her) all of who
> played the "immigrants are bad, we'll cut down on
> immigration" becasue they knew it played well to
> the Daily Wail brigade.
> Couple that with various scandals like Windrush
> and the overall tone of the campaign (especially
> the Farage poster of all the dirty foreigners
> queuing to get in) and you can't deny that the
> whole campaign was overtly rascist. Immigration
> rules are set by the country although there are
> overarching protocols from the EU around Freedom
> of Movement. You can read a simple guide of it
> here: [www.bbc.co.uk
> Free movement is a reciprocal arrangement that
> allows people to decide for themselves where they
> want to live, that enriches our communities with
> different culture, perspectives and food – and
> that supports our economy and public services. But
> free movement is supposed to come with conditions.
> According to EU law, after three months of living
> in another member state, citizens must be in work,
> looking for work with a genuine chance of
> employment or have their own health insurance and
> be able to prove they won’t be dependent on public
> funds. No UK Government has ever implemented these
> rules – yet ministers have blamed EU immigration
> for decades of failures to build enough houses,
> fund our health service and support our schools.
> The policy was there all along but never
> implemented by the British Government.
Did you actually read the lines that you deleted? I dont deny for a second that parts of the campaign were rascist. Again, i think I made that pretty clear in the lines that you deleted. I state at the start that farage’s distasteful banner and poor campaigning were pretty much the entire reason I wrote the whole bloody thing 3 years ago - to show that there non-racist reasons to vote Leave, because it was hard to see them given the campaigns (both of them) were so poor….. again…..I basically said exactly that. So again, a little diengenous on your behalf.
However, your point on the lack of home office government co-ordination is fair. But if your starting point is always an unknown/state of flux; its just going to make it harder to ever see any improvement in the area right? Furthermore, if you’re saying that ministers have blamed EU immigration “for decades”, then its high time we forced them to face up to the improvements the system needs. If ministers can no longer blame EU immigration for their lack of organisation and action with regards to housing, schools, health etc, then its pretty obvious where the problems are and the voting public (over time) will act accordingly until improvements are made.
> > 3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling
> > bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the
> > European Council, the Council of the European
> > Union, the European Parliament, the European
> > Commission, the Court of Justice of the
> > Union, the European Central Bank, and the
> > Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies
> > elected by the people. The rest are appointed.
> > European Council and the European Commission
> > most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are
> > elected bodies. So for example, if you think
> > British government should support British steel
> > works or that the railways should be
> > again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally
> > bans countries from nationalising certain
> > industries.
> How many bodies, committees, commissions of UK
> Parliament / Government are there? How many civil
> servants running things behind the scenes? None of
> them are elected. Frankly the British public have
> shown themselves to be incapable of choosing a
> name for a boat, never mind electing officials to
> run every little detail. You don't elect the
> manager of your local supermarket or bank or GP,
> you assume that the people in charge know the
> general processes and skillset and you leave them
> to employ the best people to do that particular
> The European Council sets EU Policy Agenda and
> it's comprised of all the Heads of State - the
> British Prime Minister literally sits on this
> council. You voted for a governing party
> (historically either Conservative or Labour); the
> governing party selects the Prime Minister and the
> PM sits on the European Council! That's hardly
> "unelected". And you can read about the European
> Commission here:
] because there's
> way too much info for me to type out. Again, the
> UK sits on this Commission and has a defining role
> in how those rules and regulations are defined and
> implemented (and can veto or opt out like the UK
> has opted out of Schengen).
> And EU Law does NOT ban nationalisation:
> alisation-is-not-against-eu-law/ and
Yes, there’s lots of beureacrcay in the UK too. Overall I’d prefer less than more though (sorry, there’s me ‘thinking’ again). Thanks for the first two results of your google search about “EU law banning nationalisation” (I checked, your two links are literally the first two results of that search – but ‘copy and paste’ instead of ‘thinking’ is your preference, right?). In anycase, now im just being mean – the fact is that certain industries CANNOT be nationalised under EU law, just as I said. There are of course ways around the laws in how certain industries (and parts of industries) are treated – your links do not invalidate what I said. But I’ll concede that’s it’s a much more nuanced discussion that what has been laid out by either of us here…..
> > 4. One size does not fit all:
> No but by working together, everyone benefits.
> It's not one-sided, you can negotiate trade deals
> in exchange for debt relief for example. It's like
> having 27 neighbours, some very rich, some very
> poor but the poor ones will do all the work the
> rich ones don't want (like coming round and
> picking your fruit and veg, doing the DIY and
> washing the car) and the rich ones will give a few
> handouts in exchange for having a nice place to go
> on holiday rather than a third world shithole!
> (basic analogy but it kind of works)
So you agree with the premise that one size doesn’t fit all. Tehn you make a point about pooled resources which I argued in moe lines that you deleted would normally involve the UK being the giver rather than receiver of those pooled resources. But to be fair, I did forget in exchange for ‘a few handouts’ we get a nice place to go on holiday apparently?!!!! Because no one from outside the EU ever holidays in, Europe right??
> > 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal
> > Spain all voted-in governments in the last few
> > years who’s plans/election promises have been
> > over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a
> > government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but
> > EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and
> > onerous austerity.
> As mentioned, the public don't have a clue. And if
> someone said to you, do you vote to live on £50 or
> a week or just keep spending willy-nilly, you'll
> go with option 2 - except that Mastercard won't
> let you do that. The politicians can promise tax
> cuts and end to austerity but they can't actually
> make it happen, they've just promised whatever
> random bollocks sounds good to the voters.
> We are a sovereign nation, recognised by all other
> nations, with our own flag and currency and
> monarchy. AND, we have a pooled sovereignty with
> the European Union (Scotland and England have a
> pooled sovereignty as well). There are numerous
> different types of sovereignty but take your pick,
> we were sovereign before any Brexit vote came
> long. Just that people had no idea what it meant
> and many still don't.
“There are numerous different types of sovereignty but take your pick” – Ummmmm….I did....thanks. It is different to yours, no one has all the answers as I said above. You made your choice based on what you think (see…..its not just ,me who ‘thinks’)
> > 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of
> > comments I’ve read from the Remain camp warn us
> > that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off
> > the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are
> > they seriously saying that if we are not in the
> > EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will
> > trade with EU countries, we’ll still cooperate
> > things like security (do we not share
> > with the USA because they’re not in the EU?),
> > we’ll still welcome folk from all over the
> > to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself
> > is it that other developed economies like
> > Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all
> > manage to play their part on the world stage
> > without being part of the club?
> By taking YEARS (decades sometimes) to come to
> trade deals, visa requirements, tariffs and by
> having it simplified for them by the existence of
> the EU, negotiating on behalf of 28 countries
> using common standards and imports. It costs the
> same to bring your produce into Germany as it does
> to Greece as it does to the UK in terms of tariffs
> and standards. If you as an individual try and
> negotaite a deal on something, you've got a lot
> less clout than if you're negotiating on behalf of
> 28 people. Try buying one car and getting a deal
> vs saying "right I own a business and we want 28
> cars, what sort of deal can we agree on?"
Change takes time. As I said, the transition will have its challenges. I believe in the longer term case of some of things I’ve have listed above. I’ve cleary said the short term friction is a price I judged to be worth paying. Your opinion no doubt differs. But again…its still your opinion…..
> > 7. Losing workers’ rights:
> That's Government. Free from all those pesky
> things about maternity leave, sick leave, parental
> rights, overtime, etc
> They can basically just overturn it and we'll be
> back to a low-wage economy with no safeguards or
> checks. Or do you think the Tories will just be
> like "oh yes, we'll be nice to you little
Because only the EU has those pesky things right……? No other developed country in the world has them do they? IM sorry, I hate to use the phrase, but this line or argument is ‘project fear’ at its worst…..
> > 8. Its not about the individuals:
> Fair point, at least you're not hanging on
> Farage's every word so credit for that!
> > Either way I just hope the majority
> > of people are considering all the issues and
> > getting caught up in the mud-slinging and
> > of this terrible campaign.
> Well the problem is that (as shown above by the
> rebuttal of pretty much all your points)
Serioulsy????…..you use the word ‘rebuttal’ as if you think you’ve ‘refuted’ all my points. Far from it my friend, as my counter-rebuttal will attest...neither of us are going to 'win' this debate, because there is no 'answer'...... This remains a complicated issue, and believing that you can wrap everything up in a nice little unambiguous package, with 100% clarity is the height of non-thinking dogma. My reasons are my reasons, they are not perfect, and they are not certain. Just the same as your reasons are neither perfect or certain. We discuss and debate and maybe we all learn something new. Unfort it seems that people’s willingness to learn something new on either side is about 3.5 years in the rearview mirror…..
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was 2019:09:17:18:59:07 by TheCat.