TheCat

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > i agree with many parts of this comment. > > Particualrly after stating that i voted Leave > on > > this thread, then was the subject of relatively > > aggressive (but polite for the most part) > > questioning,accusations and some ridicule from > > various posters (with a few balanced > exceptions) > > then finaly i post 2000 words above with a > > relatively detailed explanation of my > > rationale....and apart from maybe 1 or two > > comments which dont really specifically > reference > > anything i've said, no one has had any > meaningful > > pushback or disagreement with the specific > points > > i've raised. Now this could be that 2000 words > was > > a bit too long of a read, or it could be that > > everyone is tired of arguing, or (and i want to > be > > clear, im not in anyway saying im 'right' or > have > > all the answers) could it be that perhaps I made > a > > little bit of sense (even if people dont agree > > with the conclusion) and its much more > difficult > > to mock reasoned thought, than to mock strawman > > arguements about the bigoted, brexiteer > bogeyman > > hiding under the bed? > > I didn't reply for a few reasons: > 1. It was far too long > 2. It didn't in any way answer my question which > wasn't "why don't you like the EU" but "what > specific form of arrangement with the EU and other > countries do you think we could get that would be > better". > 3. The arguments over those points have been done > to death. I think they're mostly untrue, > misleading or irrelevant but nobody's going to > change their mind on these now. > > If you want to suggest what your preferred outcome > is (and what you thought it might be) I'm happy to > discuss it, but I'm not going to bother arguing > over which is more democratic the UK or the EU. Blimey. And they reckon leavers like to bang on about the same thing over and over again. I've ackowledged and explained to you that at the time of the vote I didn't have a clear, detailed map in my mind, and ive also outlined the reasons why I thougt that was okay AT THE TIME. I've said that if you feel I should have had a more detailed map, then that's fine, but I disagree, and posted again suggesting why I felt it was not practical at the time. So, once again, at the time of he vote, I DID NOT have a clear, detailed plan. That's the answer to your question, you might not like it. You can keep asking it. The answer doesn't change. Also, above is the first time you've asked me what my plan is NOW. Previously your questions were what idea DID I have in mind at the time of the vote. I've said I didn't have one at the time. I assume you wanted to understand a leaver shtought process that lead to voting to leave. Im also mildly bemused that you demand I give you a detailed plan of what I wanted. But yet, you complain that my earlier post is 'far too long' and you cite arguements that have been 'done to death', without actualy making any arguements yourself. You don't want to talk aabout democratic process?, fine there's at least 5-6 points I made rhat have nothing to do with 'democracy'....you could even choose to ackowledge that one or two points might be reasonable, or that might be asking too much. I've contributed plenty to this thread on my views. You seem like a sensible person, but you've largely just poked holes in other people's ideas or questioned their motives. Time for some positive contributions alex_b

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In response to your comment that people can't be > bother to reply to your post, I will try and do it > bit by bit. Thanks for the good faith reponse alan. I'll have a read of the link later today and make comment accordingly. I might indeed learn somewthing new! Which I will admit if I do (even if begrudgingly so:)). But right now....its saturday morning, so the kids are about to be ferried to all manner of activities......

Hemingway Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > A fairly subjective and slightly typical and > delusional remainer assessment. > > From the start of this post can I say I voted > Remain and would do if we get another referendum, > but the false narratives, contempt for people of a > different viewpoints and delusional group think > that many remainers have, (manifested in much of > this thread) really makes me fairly sceptical. > i agree with many parts of this comment. Particualrly after stating that i voted Leave on this thread, then was the subject of relatively aggressive (but polite for the most part) questioning,accusations and some ridicule from various posters (with a few balanced exceptions) then finaly i post 2000 words above with a relatively detailed explanation of my rationale....and apart from maybe 1 or two comments which dont really specifically reference anything i've said, no one has had any meaningful pushback or disagreement with the specific points i've raised. Now this could be that 2000 words was a bit too long of a read, or it could be that everyone is tired of arguing, or (and i want to be clear, im not in anyway saying im 'right' or have all the answers) could it be that perhaps I made a little bit of sense (even if people dont agree with the conclusion) and its much more difficult to mock reasoned thought, than to mock strawman arguements about the bigoted, brexiteer bogeyman hiding under the bed?

No...meanness is hoping she gets towed....

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So essentially you had no view of where you wanted > to get to, the vote was simply a negative vote > about not liking the status quo (or the direction > the status quo was heading)? That's fine (if in my > opinion incorrect), but it's hardly surprising > that Brexit is such a mess when the vote was > purely about "not being here" rather than "being > over there". The fundamental problem with > everything I've read by all of the leavers I've > seen is that they cannot state what they actually > want and certainly can't paint a vision that would > be remotely acceptable to our trading partners. > > At least in a general election that manifesto has > a series of policy proposals that will form a > future government's legislative agenda, they won't > all occur or be 100% honest but at least you are > voting for a destination. At some point I need to do some work, to keep this economy humming:) SO you'll excuse me if I exit this debate for a bit. Anyway, I've given all I can give in my 2000 words above! but just quickly.... Sure, I get your point. But I think that perhaps you're asking for too much granularity - on what is an already complicated issue - at the time of the vote. SO agree to disagree on that I suppose. As mentioned, if the reaction to the vote on both sides wasn't so extreme, then we could have had a decent public debate to focus on these specifics that you're after. But yes, at the time my future thinking was 'conceptual' Playing devil's advocate..you say a vote for remain is for the 'status quo'...but do you have a detailed map as to exactly how the EU will evolve over the next 50 years? Do you just like what you see right now, but have no destination in mind? Of course I'll concede that the changes and risks are likely to be significantly lower for the 'status quo'...but just making the point that I think you are perhaps being somewhat over-expectant in your requirements for how people thought about things at the time of the vote. I agree with you that over the past 3 years this should have been sorted out by good government and constructive public debate...but unfortunately it has not...and we are where we are.... Anyway. TheCat. Out.

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I?ve asked you on a few occasions on what end > state model you favour, what you expect the > benefits to be and what the costs of that are > likely to be. Can you answer that please or are > you just anti EU without having a destination in > mind? Okay Alex_b. Let me give you the most detailed answer you're going to get from me...if its not enough for you then we'll just have to call it a day:) I dont think I'm going to give you exactly what you're after...as I've mentioned briefly earlier in this thread, lets remember that the vote was nearly 3 years ago now, and I'll be frank that I did not have a detailed map in my mind of the exact deal that I would have wanted - I really don't think that was practical or possible at the time. Yes, I voted on a number of issues (more on that later), and (just like you would vote for most things) placed trusts in the elected officials to work out many of the key details in the right spirit (you can reasonably accuse me of misplaced faith in Government, and the past 3 years have shown I was perhaps wrong to take that stance). but I consdier it similar to voting in a general election - most voters will have their broad brush idea of the policies or politicians which they like, but wont have a detailed map of the full legislation agenda for the term of the government. Again if you want to say I should have had a clear, exact vision in my head of the Brexit agreement, then that's your view, but I had perhaps naively hoped that there would be a constructive public debate on the exact roadmap following the referendum - instead of this ridiculous division and 'shouting on both sides that we've seen since June 2016. So all in all, I think that at the time of the vote, that level of detail was enough. So...for completeness...let me re-hash a post (below) I made on a social media site in the days leading up to the vote which i think pretty comprehensively outlined my thought process. Of course many people on here will disagree and pick holes in certain things, but at least it offers people the opportunity to understand that there was a little thought that went into my decision! So....from 2016... 8 REASONS I'M VOTING TO LEAVE So this EU debate has been a shambles on both sides. One of the worst public campaigns I?m old enough to remember. Poor presentation of facts, and mud-slinging all round. The Leave camp in particular is tarred with the brush of Farage?s banner of brown immigrant faces, and accusations of bigotry, which are frustrating for those of us that try to look at this from a more informed viewpoint. I will be voting to Leave. And shock, horror, I?m not racist/bigot/xenophobe/little Englander just pining for the ?way things used to be? (I actually don?t even know how things used to be here, because I?m an immigrant myself), and I don?t think a foreigner has stolen my job. There?s no doubt that there are those sort of people supporting the Leave campaign, but to tar all those considering Leaving with the same brush is displaying almost as much ignorance of the issues as the racists themselves. As the campaigning started, I was in a genuinely neutral position, and wanted to find out more before coming down on either side. Please vote whichever way you like, but at least understand that there are real reasons for voting to Leave other than bigotry. So, for those that are perhaps interested in how I reached my decision, a few comments on the debate as I see it?. 1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How can I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say we would be worse off under a Brexit scenario? Well, having had some time on my hands of late, I?ve taken it upon myself to read a number of the economic reports published on the issue from cover to cover (e.g. PwC report, IMF report) and yes, they all basically say we would be ?worse off? under Brexit. However, digging a little deeper, most economists are referring to the next 3-4 years, when the uncertainty generated by Brexit would likely cause a slowdown, perhaps even a recession. But as we look out further, towards 2025-2030 most forecasts have a Brexit scenario seeing the UK GDP/Capita somewhere between 0.5% and 4% lower than under a Remain scenario. Now for me, I?m making the decision for the long term, not the next 3-4 years, and as far as I?m concerned a differential of a few percent on a 15 year forecast is well within rounding error. So the simple conclusion for me is that 15 years out, there is very little to separate the economic outlooks under each scenario. Of course, if you?re not prepared to wear a slowdown for the next few years then vote the other way, but for the benefits in other areas, I think it?s a price worth paying. As an aside, I would flag that most economists? forecasts for Brexit assume we would lose trade with the EU, and not gain at all outside the EU, which is probably an overly pessimist assumption, so I think there is some upside to many Brexit economic forecasts. All that being said, to be clear, the economic argument is the weakest that Brexit has, and I wont deny that, but I think that longer term Brexit will actually be beneficial for the UK overall, as discussed below. 2. Immigration: Aha! You cry. This is where you catch me out as the racist I really am!!! Well, my thoughts here are simple, I hope the UK will still continue to welcome people from all over the world, of all races and religions. But the ability to control these numbers for the sake of being able to PLAN public infrastructure surely is crucial. With an aging population, having more migrants strengthens our economy, so I?m all for immigration. But being able to plan the numbers and communicate this information to those departments that invest in our schools, hospitals, roads, housing etc etc so the appropriate forward planning can be done surely makes sense. Also, going back to the economic reports which I mentioned earlier, how is it actually possible for economists to accurately make longer term GDP forecasts when there is very little visibility on the size of the population? Finally, a controlled immigration system is not just about attracting doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if we need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for example, then a sensible Home Office will ensure visas are issued to the people the UK requires to do this. 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 European Union, the European Central Bank, and the European Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The European Council and the European Commission make most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not elected bodies. So for example, if you think the British government should support British steel works or that the railways should be nationalised again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally bans countries from nationalising certain industries. 4. One size does not fit all: The German economy and the Greek economy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. For years, the Germans saved their money, balanced their books, and grew their economy. And for years, the Greeks borrowed money, ran deficits, and their economy has shrunk. Now the Germans must extend the Greeks credit to keep the country functioning, and the Greeks have to go on paying that debt forever unless they want to leave. If the Greeks were independent, their problems would be none of Germany's business. You can see why they're enraged by each other. But the two economies are yoked together, despite their mismatched sizes and fiscal policies. The UK as a large, strong economy is more toward the German end of the spectrum. 5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal and 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 the EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and imposed onerous austerity. Doesn?t sound democratic to me. Furthermore, while there is uncertainty of Leaving, I think there is also uncertainty of staying in. Who knows what the EU will decide to impose next. Say, Italy defaults, then the EU ask for another few billion in contributions, there is very little the UK can do about it, other than comply. At least by Leaving, our uncertainty is our own, not the uncertainty of 27 other countries as well. The counter argument to this would be the strength in combining resources, well, I take the view that the UK is one of the stronger parties in the EU, so will more often than not be the giver, rather than the receiver of the benefits of the pooled resources of the EU. 6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of the comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off from 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 still trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate on things like security (do we not share intelligence with the USA because they?re not in the EU?), we?ll still welcome folk from all over the world to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself how 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? 7. Losing workers? rights: So apparently if we leave the EU all those workers rights which we cherish (like annual leave, paid maternity leave, unions etc) are at risk. Yes, many of the workers rights in UK law were originally driven by the adherence to the Social Chapter of the EU Maastricht treaty, but they are now written into UK law, the law will not disappear if we Leave. I personally just can?t see any reasonable government trying to repeal these sorts of basic rights without risking a huge backlash at the following election. It just seems rather far fetched to me that any government could get voted in again after repealing paid maternity leave, for example. The question I ask to people who may be worried about this issue, is ?Would you be less worried if left-wing Jeremy Corbyn was the Prime Minister today?? If the answer is ?yes? then I think you might be conflating two separate issues of long term EU membership with who?s in government right now. 8. Its not about the individuals: My decision has absolutely nothing to do with liking or disliking Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else. It?s got nothing to do with whether I like this Tory Government or think they?re Tory scum. Because this decision has very little to do with the politicians of the moment, and much more to do with the next 20-30+ years for the UK. Farage will be a humorous footnote in Wikipedia by the time we reflect on this decision in 30 years, no matter which way we vote. So to quote from an article I?ve read. ?Yes, leaving the EU might hurt economically in the short term. But in the long term, something more important is at stake: whether our democracy should be real. The UK recently devolved power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and it continues to devolve power to its larger cities and regions. There is broad agreement that this has been a good thing. This is the best argument for Brexit: We should extend that devolution of power to our entire nation, too? And by devolving power, this doesn?t mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland no longer ?talk? to each other, just as the UK would still be an active member of the European continent, even if not in the European Union. Neither Leave nor Remain are perfect. Each has its respective positives and negatives. Leaving is not the ?silver bullet?, but on balance it?s where I?m leaning. If you want to Remain, that?s cool, I respect that view and see how that makes sense to some people. Either way I just hope the majority of people are considering all the issues and not getting caught up in the mud-slinging and insults of this terrible campaign.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Believe me, I've looked very hard indeed, almost > constantly since the referendum was announced, yet > still no good reasons that I've seen. I have > however seen many similar posts to yours. Angry > and defensive. nice deflection there, painting me as the bad guy for calling attention to your narrow focus, rather than actually attempting to debate the numerous 'good reasons' which i've posted across the pages of this very thread. If you disagree with those reasons, then that's your opinion. But most reasonable remain voters who I have spoken to would acknowledge there are at least a couple of rational and reasonable reasons to Leave the EU, even if on balance they are strongly against it overall. And frankly, I refuse to believe that you cant see even one good reason, unless you really just would prefer not to.

edcam Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I have yet to come across anyone who voted leave > who has a good reason for doing so. > I'd suggest you haven't really looked very hard then. Sure, on balance you might be of the view that Remaining is the clear and obvious choice, I respect that...there are many, very good reasons to remain. But if you cant read and listen widely enough (and look past utter crap like potatoes or red bus slogans) to think of just one good reason that might be supportive of leaving the EU, then you might perhaps be as ignorant of the broader issues issues as those people who im guessing you would purport to be 'better' than....

DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > JoeLeg Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jesus Foxy...potatoes by the pound? Trivial? > > Seriously? > > > > > > I?d genuinely like to know some of the other > rules > > and regulations you objected to. > > I was being facetious.. > > I have no real desire to enter into debate on the > matter. > > > Fox I think what you call being facetious, the kiddies might call 'trolling' a debate....

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat > > I use the phrase ?some Leave voters? because I?m > aware not every Leave voter thinks the same, and > immigration is a hugely divisive issue. Some > people voted Leave for racist reasons, though we > have no way of knowing how many. It was likely a > small minority, although I suspect the number who > voted to stop FOM for legitimate reasons is far > higher. > > I would say you?re different from the perception > of the immigration issue that the Leave campaign > was happy to propagate in order to win votes > (Remain was just as bad in its own ways, ergo my > oft-repeated view that both sides behaves > abysmally). > > Hardly anyone on the Leave side put the argument > about economic low-skilled migrants in the terms > you just did - there was an awful lot of commment > about how British firms didn?t pay enough for > Brits to take the jobs, or that these migrants > were taking up school places and welfare payments > that should be for Brits. Very little was spoken > about the benefits of migration - Leave literally > ONLY had ?points-based system, Like Australia?, > which they spouted loudly and was the FIRST thing > shot down by May when she took office. > > I agree with you that a sensible govt would speak > plain truth to it?s citizens about what we need > and how we will manage it, but know govt has done > it thus far. People on both sides of the debate > need to wake up to certain realities, and it > concerns me because there?s a lot of hostile > feeling regarding foreigners, which is > historically something this country has been good > at, going all the way back to the Hugeonots. > > Remain screwed up by painting all immigration > discussion as racist, and Leave openly lied about > Turkey. Immigration is so central to many people?s > vision of what we should be post-Brexit, and I?m > personally worried that the govt is hoping no one > notices that it?s basically not doing anything > about it. A lot of sense in this post mate. I agree the public discourse from both sides tries to appeal to some of the most divisive elements associated with each campaign. Which is a shame - as a rational and less emotive driven populace (on both sides) might actually be able to make this whole thing manageable!

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Since the referendum non-EU immigration, which > incidentally was more than EU immigration pre-ref, > has increased further, while EU immigration has > dropped. The UK economy relies heavily on > immigration and the reality of ''taking back > control of our borders'' will actually be > replacing an EU immigrant with a non-EU immigrant, > yet Leave voters were led to believe it meant > lowering immigration per se. As I've mentioned > before, for Brexiters immigration 'control' was > simply a convenient stick with which to beat the > EU... "try telling that to the windrush generation" I would hope that with computers and other such technology, as well as learning lessons of the past, that this wont be an issue. Call me an optimist. Also, I genuinely think if we're being balanced, criticism of the governments plan for EU settled status applications is just kicking for the sake of kicking. Surely most would agree it seems a relatively straightforward and easy to use process, which should remove any concern/uncertainty for those EU citizens who currently reside here. There's so many other things you can legitimately kick regarding this government's very poor brexit negotiations, this is one area (particularly after making it free) that they've probably got reasonably right in my mind. JoeLeg.....I know you are referring to 'some Leave' voters. But I will say again that for 'this' leave voter, I genuinely dont think that 'control' means 'less'. If low-skilled immigrants are needed to fill various roles, then by all means the government should increase the number of low skilled working visas it issues and let them in. Control shouldn't mean the labour market is hurt by putting the brakes on. Again, perhaps I have too much misplaced faith in agood government to be able to recongise what and where skills (or low skills in this case) are needed and act in a relatively friction-less fashion. Again, using my Australian experience...fruit gets picked and houses get cleaned in Australia...because the government allows an appropriate amount of low skilled migration as required. Also...to Diable's point....im not a subscriber the the view that migrants are a drain or generally layabouts, so im not interested in the repatriation provision....I'm just interested in better coordination with other government departments on immigrant number so as to provide a better experience for those new immigrants, older immigrants and natives alike in how public funds are spent and allocated (i.e.e funds go where they are most needed based on expected population and deomgraphic shifts). Some might say im being naive that a government can actually do all this well - well I would agree - this government cant - but I think a good one can. If all this makes me differentiated from 'some leave voters' then so be it. I cant speak for them or their reasons

diable rouge Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair Cat, as you yourself posted earlier, > you do have 'other options' to remain here should > FOM end, with those safety nets you weren't really > voting against your own self-interest... Fair enough, I'll concede, that is true But...2 points.... 1) Anyone from any EU country who has been living here for a few years will also have other options available to them as well to stay. 2) This is all moot now anyway, as no one who has moved here as an EU citizen whether 15 years ago or 2 years ago should have any problem anyway other than filling out a few forms. Anyway, as much as I love to talk about myself, my own situation and nationalities have probably been discussed enough:)

> > All of which is currently available (if not > applied by the UK Govt) under our EU membership. The key emphasis being on the word 'planning'. Sure the Govt can currently measure. But cant control (at least the Eu component), and thus has more limited ability to forward plan.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This isn't meant as a dig, but do you not see a > contradiction in your position that you're voting > to end FOM (I acknowledge that wasn't your only > reason for voting Leave), while you yourself were > able to take advantage of the same FOM beforehand > to enter the country without needing a visa? If > you'd been 100% Ozzie it would get more > complicated for you. > > It seems slightly like bolting the stable door > behind you. You can call it a contradiction if you like. I call it voting against my own self-interest because I felt more strongly about other issues than just the ease with which I can move around Europe, including the ease with which I am able to live here legally. As I've said in an earlier post, I don't want to reduce immigration per se, I just would like to see it controlled and measured, which (theoretically) can allow for better planning of schools, hospitals, roads and other public infrastructure. Also, I think some posters are getting slightly confused because I also have Australian citizenship. My residency here is purely and solely based on my Italian citizenship. Being an Australian as well doesn't allow me any residency rights at all, and doesn't make me any less of an Italian, as compared with someone who might be "100% Italian" to use your wording.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat wrote > > I > > still came here based on 'Freedom of movement' > > using my EU citizenship > > > Did you come to the UK from Australia using EU FOM > rules? Yes. When I arrive at the UK border I pull out my Italian passport to enter the country. Doesn't matter what country I've flown from.

Sephiroth Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cat > > You are an immigrant and faced all of the > challenges that that entails > > Some of us moved around countries which had > freedom of movement. That has been taken away from > us. That is a material change To me, "moved around countries" = migration. I still came here based on 'Freedom of movement' using my EU citizenship, so the rules I came here by are no different to you, it doesnt matter whether I moved from Dublin, Dubrovnik or Dubbo. My situation has changed just the same as it has for any other EU migrant. But different strokes and all that, so agree to disagree on that one then I guess.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat, is it not easier for you to stay here as > an Aussie? You would have had a vote in the > referendum unlike EU citizens. A while back I > heard an Aussie on the radio saying he voted to > Leave as he thought it would make staying in the > UK easier for him. No, easier to use the EU path Alan, and I guess this goes to my point about not being annoyed about 'applying' for settled status as an EU citizen. That process is now free, and appears to involve relatively little admin, with a relatively quick turnaround. If I want to stay here by other means I can apply for 'indefinite leave to remain' in my Aussie passport, but many other Aussies tell me is a soul destroying and onerous process, or I can apply for my British Citizenship and passport (either on the basis of marriage, or my own British ancestry - yes, im a real mix!), but this is of course also a more involved process with a longer turnaround, and I would also have to choose which of my other passports to give up, as you cant have three nationalities as I understand. So all in all, the relatively quick and painless EU settled status process is fine with me. Hence why I dont really understand why people are moaning about it, particularly now that its free. All this chat about "I've lived here for X years and I've paid my taxes, so how dare they make me apply to stay here"...what a load of cr@p ....So what if you've paid your taxes???!! (if you hadn't of you'd be breaking the law...so do you deserve special treatment for abiding by the rule of law?). At the end of the day, you're an immigrant, just like me, so a small bit of admin doesn't seem like an unreasonable ask to me.

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is TheCat confused with Australia?s participation > in the European Song Contest? > > That?s a point, will we be banned from the contest > if we leave? If anyone does actually care (I'm sure you don't!), TheCat is a dual Italian and Australian citizen. Who has resided on these grey and drizzly shores for nearly 15 years. I will need to apply to stay here as a settled EU immigrant despite having a very British wife and two very British kids, and an Australian accent. As an aside, its very tough when I choose to read 'progressive' papers like the Guardian or hang out with my wife's 'right-on' friends...as I'm both an EU immigrant, but also a white colonial...so am never quite sure if I can claim to be the oppressor or the oppressed....

keano77 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dropping the fee was welcomed but what our EU > friends are still annoyed about is that they have > to apply not register. Applications could be > refused. > > Post Windrush, you?d think the powers that be > would know better. Im one of your EU friends. And I'm not annoyed in the slightest. Of course, I don't speak for the whole EU....so just consider me a case study.

I use the Linksys VELOP mesh with my virgin hub. The only time I ever have problems with the Internet is from virgin, not the mesh. Just looked it up and there seems to be sets for 400 quid and sets for 170...not sure what the difernce is on a quick scan, but the one I have was about 400 quid for 3 nodes.

http://theblacklock.com/soho/

Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But who in their right mind is prepared to wear > recession Well...rather than suggesting im 'not of right mind' you could perhaps just ask politely why I did? Becuase, a recession is a temporary hardship, and this was a vote which I viewed through a 50+ year lens. I could equally ask who in their right mind would yolk together completely disparate economies under one central bank for ever and ever amen..and think that situation won't result in recession and hardship for various countries at various points in the future. And then assume that even with a different currency, that the UK would be immune to being affected by that. You may argue that this situation is more tolerable for you than the short term recession which I reluctantly accept might be a risk....well that's personal preferences, personal risk tolerance, and perhaps agree to disagree. But if you haven't considered some of the drawbacks of the EU project as well as the benefits, then perhaps you share some of that 'confusion' you so willingly ascribe to leave voters....

alex_b Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > TheCat Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Its funny you know, we may be two sides of the > > same coin. I voted to Leave, and feel > similarity > > as you do that whenever I have tried to voice > what > > I perceive as my valid reasons at the time, that > I > > have been 'drowned out'. You have bemoaned in > > previous comments the lack of reasonable > debate, > > and the deeply held emotive nature of how > people > > feel on this issue; which has actually made > > meaningful, constructive discussion impossible - > I > > feel exactly the same. > > > > My few attempts to engage on this thread > > specifically have been made in good faith to > try > > to gain an understanding of differing > viewpoints, > > and while there are a few posters who i have > > learnt something from, the general boorishness > and > > judgement applied by the majority of the crowd > in > > painting someone as either a Brexiteer or a > > Remoaner makes it largely pointless to try. I > am > > not a 'Leaver' - I am a person who happened to > > vote Leave - I happen to be many other > things,many > > of which probably make me different from other > > people who also voted to leave - and being > > ascribed every trait often associated with > Leavers > > again makes sensible discussion almost > impossible. > > So in that sense I share your despair. > > > > Thanks for your detailed post and I do think > (particularly on immigration) you are in a > minority of those who voted leave. Could you > explain what you think a good exit deal would look > like then, what were you expecting to be the > outcome to be when you voted leave? Lets remember that the vote was nearly 3 years ago now. And I'll be frank that I did not have a detailed map in my mind of the exact deal that I would have wanted - I really don't think that was practical or possible at the time. What I did have was a number of (what I saw as) well-founded reasons that in the longer term (after some initial disruption) would possibly mean a better life in the UK out of the EU than perhaps within the EU. Crucially, I also had faith (perhaps misplaced) that some of the more obvious risks would be managed by a competent and sensible government. I also took what I perceive as a very long term view of leaving the EU, thus in the shorter term I was prepared to wear recession/transition challenges for longer term benefits. I think that at the time of the vote, that level of detail was enough. Sure, now we need to discuss the detail given we're staring at a poorly managed negotiation and possible no-deal scenario.....

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Promises about how easy it would be to negotiate a > deal were made by the Leave campaign. Those > promises are not being fulfilled, and it not up to > those who voted otherwise to try and help - > particularly when it's been made very clear for > some time now that we should "shut up and accept > it" - language which I think you would agree is > only divisive (I concede that cuts both ways, and > do not excuse either side in that respect). I also > think it's credulous to blame the EU for playing > hardball. Credulous and naive. Of course they > would stick up fore themselves. > > I have no idea what's going to happen. Its funny you know, we may be two sides of the same coin. I voted to Leave, and feel similarity as you do that whenever I have tried to voice what I perceive as my valid reasons at the time, that I have been 'drowned out'. You have bemoaned in previous comments the lack of reasonable debate, and the deeply held emotive nature of how people feel on this issue; which has actually made meaningful, constructive discussion impossible - I feel exactly the same. My few attempts to engage on this thread specifically have been made in good faith to try to gain an understanding of differing viewpoints, and while there are a few posters who i have learnt something from, the general boorishness and judgement applied by the majority of the crowd in painting someone as either a Brexiteer or a Remoaner makes it largely pointless to try. I am not a 'Leaver' - I am a person who happened to vote Leave - I happen to be many other things,many of which probably make me different from other people who also voted to leave - and being ascribed every trait often associated with Leavers again makes sensible discussion almost impossible. So in that sense I share your despair. In an vain attempt to pre-empt some of the criticisms from the crowd after clearly outing myself as a 'Leaver'.... - It was not an automatic/dogmatic choice for me. I am not 'blind to reason'. There are many positives and negatives on both sides. Which way soemeone voted is not necessarily always a matter of them being 'ill-informed', but is a measure of the relative importance one places on various likely outcomes, and also the level of risk tolerance one is comfortable with. - I dont feel I was 'lied to', as campaign slogans didnt impact my decision at all. I read about 3-4 economic reports (IMF, PwC, Treasury) cover to cover, and more broadly tried to base my decisions on my own 'research' - such as it was. - I don't want to see a decrease in migration at all. I just feel control over it is beneficial. - I am resident in this country by virtue of my EU passport (I also have a commonwealth passport, which gave me the right to vote - but doesnt keep me here as a resident). So I certainly didn't vote out of any overwhelming self-interest. - I would consider myself educated, and work in a job which requires detailed and comprehensive analysis of facts/figures/forecasts - this of course doesn't mean I 'know better', just to say that i don't feel I am ill-informed or ignorant person - I will clearly say that this government has made a right hash of negotiations, and it is embarrassing - No matter what you thought of Cameron and Osbourne, their Government seemed mildly competent, and this was the government I thought would manage this transition (even if Cameron was not there), but muppets now running the show have proven me wrong on that front. - I stand by the reasons I voted the way I did at the time - even if you disagree with them, I feel they were well formed and rational. - I dont know if I would change my vote if there was another vote today, I'd have to conduct a similar examination of what 'no deal' really means; and determine if I think the risks are worth any rewards that may come.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > How do you answer problems I raised? > > Medicine shortages - that's not a trip to the > inlaws > Families having to fine several hundred quid to > APPLY (not register) but to APPLY to stay in the > country, even if they have lived here for decades > - not a trip to the inlaws > Return of border in Ireland - not a trip to the > inlaws You clearly haven't met my in-laws.