*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[MadMojoMonkey]

I get that. I appreciate the quote, "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained with ignorance." or however it went that I'm butchering. It's not necessarily the case that others are racist when they could just be uninformed about any number of things.

You're not arguing for unregulated, open borders are you, though?

What criteria would you find more palatable to determine who gets in and who doesn't?

[Poopadoop]

I get that. I appreciate the quote, "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained with ignorance." or however it went that I'm butchering. It's not necessarily the case that others are racist when they could just be uninformed about any number of things.

You're not arguing for unregulated, open borders are you, though?

What criteria would you find more palatable to determine who gets in and who doesn't?

I didn't raise the refugee issue, Ong did. My question was how this would be handled any differently if we were out of the EU. He seems to think membership in the EU forces us to accept refugees that we could otherwise turn away. But we're turning them away already, so that argument is already off-target.

The EU really has nothing to do with what criteria we apply to immigration from outside the EU. You can see here that the EU's actions against Hungary were motivated by it not upholding basic human and democratic rights (the EU does not want its member states to be assholes, for obvious prestige reasons). It was not because they expect each member state to accept some number of migrants from outside the EU.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45498514

The UK currently deals with extra-EU migrants on its own terms and nothing about this will change after Brexit.

As for migration within the EU, the right to live and work in any member EU country applies to UK citizens (for now) as well as those from other countries. Further, anyone from the EU currently living in the UK will not be asked to leave after Brexit, and I assume the reverse is true. The only difference is it will be harder for EU citizens currently outside the UK to move to the UK (and vice-versa). There will be more regulations in place, and more hoops to jump through if you want to go EU <-> UK to live and work or just to visit.

Anyways, to answer your question, I think we should accept our share of refugees and possibly a few more, given we're one of the more wealthy countries in the world. I don't know how many we've accepted in the last decade, but if Germany can take 1m Syrians, I think we can take a few hundred Somalis. I think people who make a big stink every time a dinghy tries to cross the channel are a bit cold, and frankly it's embarrassing.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...fugee-arrivals

[Poopadoop]

As for EU citizens coming here to mooch off the UK's benefit system:

This website shows that's it not trivial for someone from the EU to come over here and start claiming benefits while sitting around on their ass. They have to have been here for five years already (after which they can apply for 'settled' status) or otherwise show they have the 'right to reside'

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/be...-for-benefits/

If you don’t have settled status you’ll need to show you have a right to reside to claim benefits.

You can have a right to reside for different reasons - for example, because of things like your work or your family.

[OngBonga]

I just think if you're going to give "regulations bad!" as a valid reason for leaving you should have a basic (not intricate, just basic) understanding of how those regulations affect us.

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-ma...EU%20countries.

Regulations are legal acts that apply automatically and uniformly to all EU countries as soon as they enter into force, without needing to be transposed into national law. They are binding in their entirety on all EU countries.

That's all I need to know. That last sentence is extremely important, and demonstrates that we are not sovereign as an EU member state. If your plan is to convince me that even in the EU, we have full sovereignty, you're fighting a lost cause, even in debate with me, who can only be bothered with quick dirty googling. It takes seconds to learn that we are bound by their rules, which once again brings us to democratic control.

There's lots of laws in this country that I have to follow. I don't use that as a reason to pack up and go live in the woods.

Not a reasonable analogy. We don't have to accept outside laws and regulations, we can instead opt out, which we have done.

I hate to get philosophical here, but just saying words like "sovereignty" and "democracy" is not a valid form of argument. What is it we're losing out on here as a member of the EU in terms of sovereignty and democracy?

It's like you don't know what these words mean. Do you understand how the EU elections work? Do you understand how the president is selected? Do you know what "sovereign" means? It means "possessing supreme power". As a member state of the EU, we don't have that. Pointing out we have some power isn't cutting it, we don't have supreme power, as in total. A the democracy thing is not even worth me getting into. You are a Europhile, you should already understand how their idea of democracy works. If you don't, you're a complete mug.

You're the one who brought up regulations. And the tampon tax. I can only respond to things you say, not things you didn't say. I'm not banana.

You and banana aren't so different. You seize on "tampons" because it's easy to mock, rather than focussing on the more important aspect of tax interference. You aren't interested in a serious debate, you just want to slap me down while feeling smug. So don't pretend banana is your polar opposite.

The Farmer's Union is left-wing?

Fuck knows, probably not, but they are subject to infiltration, and they like money like everyone does. They are corruptible. I don't trust unions at all.

Well first, not everyone in a rural area is a farmer. And second, not everyone who voted to Leave wanted a no deal Brexit.

First, most people in rural areas are influenced by farming in the sense their neighbours (and friends and family) are often farmers.

Second, we've talked about this, but you're conveniently forgetting what the ballot said. The talk about a "deal" only happened after the referendum. The choice was between leaving and remaining. There was no third option, no in between, so anyone who voted to leave and then claims they didn't vote for a "no deal" is either being willfully dishonest or stupid. I voted to leave. When we started to talk about a deal, I preferred a mutually beneficial trade deal, but was not afraid of a no deal because it's precisely what I expected when I voted.

And third, the Farmer's Union as a whole very likely has a better understanding of the economic impact of Brexit than any given individual farmer.

For the most part, sure. Irrelevant. You have to assume they're acting in the best interests of the farmers, rather than serving their own interests or those of financial backers. Unions don't give a fuck about the people they represent. I know someone who got pay rise after pay rise because of his union, to the point he asked his employer if they could actually afford these pay rises. They went bust three months after he asked. The union did not give a fuck about people losing their jobs, all they cared about was their existence and their own pay packets.

If you trust the integrity of unions, more fool you.

Well it's too bad we don't have a trade deal with Canada then. So, why would Canada buy your English tomatoes when they already get all the tomatoes that they need from the US? Are you gonna undercut the US growers as well as the WTO tariffs? You might want to discuss that with the Famers Union.

You kinda missed my point. I only wanted to see if the regulations were as ludicrous as EU regs.

Also, we're in negotiations with Canada regarding a post-Brexit deal.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that Canada has its own set of regulations on food items it imports. Not sure if you thought regulations were strictly an EU thing. They're not.

You suggested if I want to sell to Canada, I'd have to comply with both EU and Canada regs. Of course regulations are not an EU thing only, it's just they are notorious for overregulating. Maybe Canada are too, they're pretty left wing, I might have walked into a bad example. Let's try USA instead, with their ravenous capitalism.

How is being in the EU forcing us to take large numbers of benefit-seekers? We won't even take refugees on a dinghy.

It's not. We're kind of having two discussions at the same time, one about the EU and another about immigration. And we are taking refugees on a dinghy. What do you think is happening to those who arrive? They're not being deported, at least not that I'm aware of. They should be, back to France, because France is a safe country.

You're blaming the EU for an imaginary immigration policy that welcomes benefit-seekers (which we don't).

I don't even know how much interference the EU have when it comes to immigration. I am aware of the sanctions they imposed on the Hungarians and the Czechs, but immigration was never a relevance to me when it comes to the EU. That's a myth that you are sucked in to, which is why you think we're having one conversation here.

Haha, I doubt very much we will be setting the kind of precedent that other countries currently in the EU will want to follow.

I think a lot of nations are waiting to see how this works out for the UK. Leaving is seen as a massive economic risk. We're the first to take that risk. People are watching.

Oh, I know! Sell them here in the UK! Can you guess what's wrong with that plan, or should I explain it to you? I'll give you a hint: supply and demand.

I could sell my tomatoes piece of piss in the UK if I wanted to. There's a pub half a mile from me that might want them. There's a village shop that sells fresh local eggs a mile away. There's a street market in town. I have friends and family who like chutney. Or maybe I can't be arsed for pocket money and they'll end up as compost. But I can assure you that there is high demand for British tomatoes for two reasons... British people like tomatoes, and British tomatoes are fresher than non-British tomatoes. You mock my "two week old" tomatoes... they're still on the vine. They're as fresh as they get.

[Poopadoop]

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-ma...EU%20countries.



That's all I need to know. That last sentence is extremely important, and demonstrates that we are not sovereign as an EU member state. If your plan is to convince me that even in the EU, we have full sovereignty, you're fighting a lost cause, even in debate with me, who can only be bothered with quick dirty googling. It takes seconds to learn that we are bound by their rules, which once again brings us to democratic control.

Well, no shit we're bound by their rules. Let's not pretend it's some kind of revelation where I'm gonna smack my forehead and say 'zomg I had no idea!'

So we follow EU rules for trade, and when we leave the EU we either follow EU rules (to trade with the EU), or we follow WTO rules (for non-EU countries where we have no trade agreement), or we make new trade agreements with their own rules.

Explain to me how following rules costs us our sovereignty or democratic control. You think we should be able to make all the rules and other countries have to follow them? Wtf are you even talking about here?

Not a reasonable analogy. We don't have to accept outside laws and regulations, we can instead opt out, which we have done.

That's right and I can follow my gov'ts rules that I didn't get to vote on (goddamn undemocratic rules), or I can go live in the woods like a hermit and make my own rules. It's my only way to self-sovereignty!

It's like you don't know what these words mean. Do you understand how the EU elections work? Do you understand how the president is selected? Do you know what "sovereign" means? It means "possessing supreme power". As a member state of the EU, we don't have that. Pointing out we have some power isn't cutting it, we don't have supreme power, as in total. A the democracy thing is not even worth me getting into. You are a Europhile, you should already understand how their idea of democracy works. If you don't, you're a complete mug.

You and banana aren't so different. You seize on "tampons" because it's easy to mock, rather than focussing on the more important aspect of tax interference. You aren't interested in a serious debate, you just want to slap me down while feeling smug. So don't pretend banana is your polar opposite.

Is that your answer to how we're losing out on sovereignty and democracy? 'Cause it looks like a lot of "you already know" and ad hominens to me. Just answer the question please.

[OngBonga]

So, rather than accept the purely logical conclusion that farmers want to be able to sell their goods to the EU, you argue the Farmer's Union is corrupt. Ok.

Nearly all unions are corrupt.

And even if you can find campaigners who pushed for a no deal before the referendum, you then have to convince me that everyone who voted Leave did it because they agreed with those campaigners and not the ones who promised we'd get a great deal.

I can remember that the question was very clear, and it was a direct choice between leaving and remaining. If you have any apprehension about leaving without a deal, then you should not vote to leave, because it was clearly on the table, it was the default if no agreement was made. I can't precisely remember the timeline, and have no inclination to research. But it was very clear that no deal was the default, whether or not it was actually called "no deal" at the time. When asked that question, you do not vote "leave" and then say under your breath "with caveats". That isn't how referendums work.

You didn't show me one regulation that falls under the category of ludricrous. So that argument fails right there.

24 pdf files seemed ludicrous to me. But whatever.

Here's the bendy banana regulation... happy reading.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ...0060217:EN:PDF

Your turn. Find me the regs for selling bananas to Canada.

[Poopadoop]

Nearly all unions are corrupt.

Apart from that, do you find it plausible at least that farmers would like to sell their produce in the EU, and that a no deal makes that harder? Yes or no.

I can remember that the question was very clear, and it was a direct choice between leaving and remaining. If you have any apprehension about leaving without a deal, then you should not vote to leave, because it was clearly on the table, it was the default if no agreement was made. I can't precisely remember the timeline, and have no inclination to research. But it was very clear that no deal was the default, whether or not it was actually called "no deal" at the time. When asked that question, you do not vote "leave" and then say under your breath "with caveats". That isn't how referendums work.

Yeah you're completely ignoring what I said. I assume you already are familiar with the £350m for the NHS and the sunlit uplands quotes, but here's some of the others:

"Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market"– Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan

"The easiest trade deal in human history" - Liam Fox

"There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind [between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK" - Boris Johnson

"Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market" - David Davis

"I think most of the work has already been done. We already start from a position where the EU and the UK is aligned, we’re agreed on all the key principles" -Sajid Javid

"We will negotiate a trade deal In 11 Months" - Boris Johnson


But none of these rosy promises were meant to be taken seriously in your eyes. Funny, I don't remember any of these gentleman winking at the camera when they said these things.

Can you see how a naive person might have bought some of these stories, and had their vote influenced by them?

Your turn. Find me the regs for selling bananas to Canada.

They're buried somewhere in here I imagine. Lots of links there, you can probably even find the pages relevant to selling your tomatoes. See how easy it is.

https://www.inspection.gc.ca/importi.../1523979840095

[Poopadoop]

Some more rosy quotes by Leave campaigners:

"We’re very well placed, and mutual self-interest suggests we’d cut a very good deal" - Dominic Raab

"Our relationship with the EU is already very well developed. It doesn’t seem to me to be very hard … to do a free trade deal very rapidly indeed" - Boris Johnson

"Outside the EU, we would still benefit from the free trade zone which stretches from Iceland to the Russian border,” he said. “But we wouldn’t have all the EU regulations which cost our economy £600m every week" - Michael Gove


Now find me ONE pre-referendum quote from a Leave campaigner that mentions no-deal as a possibility.

[OngBonga]

In a democracy; if everyone votes in accordance with what is best for them and those that directly depend on them, would the results of said election not be the absolute best outcome for most? Literally. I think this is the most correct use of "Literally" possible.

No. Imagine if a majority thought the best outcome was a life on benefits. So everyone votes for the "let's do fuck all" party and they win. Suddenly there isn't enough tax to pay the benefits for everyone who's doing fuck all.

An extreme event, but it demonstrates that people acting in their own interests does not necessarily result in a society that is better for the majority.

I mean, you can argue I did act in my own best interests. I didn't vote Labour because I think their economic model increases the chance that the country can no longer afford to give me a pittance of an income. I didn't vote Tory either, but I trust them with the economy more than Labour because they're self serving capitalist pigs, they want a strong economy so they get more money. I might be made to feel like a "scrounger" by the Tories, but they at least have succeeded in sustaining an economy capable of paying its scroungers. Labour would likely increase tax and stifle the economy until they get voted out, giving the Tories another excuse to rob people by means of austerity.

Our politics is a choice between thieves and idiots. With a gun to my head, I'd choose the thieves. There's no gun to my head, so I can draw a cock on my ballot instead for a moment of personal satisfaction that might or might not offend a dear old lady in the counting office. All hail democracy.

[Poopadoop]

Fuck knows, probably not, but they are subject to infiltration, and they like money like everyone does. They are corruptible. I don't trust unions at all.

So, rather than accept the purely logical conclusion that farmers want to be able to sell their goods to the EU, you argue the Farmer's Union is corrupt. Ok.

There was no third option, no in between, so anyone who voted to leave and then claims they didn't vote for a "no deal" is either being willfully dishonest or stupid.

Au contraire, many of the proponents of the Leave campaign argued we'd either be able to keep full trade agreements with the EU, or hold a trading status similar to Norway or Switzerland. In fact, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one who argued we would even possibly leave with no deal. If you want to challenge me to find quotes from the former types of campaigner I will. But then you have to find me the latter ones.

And even if you can find campaigners who pushed for a no deal before the referendum, you then have to convince me that everyone who voted Leave did it because they agreed with those campaigners and not the ones who promised we'd get a great deal.

You kinda missed my point. I only wanted to see if the regulations were as ludicrous as EU regs.

You didn't show me one regulation that falls under the category of ludricrous. So that argument fails right there.

Also, we're in negotiations with Canada regarding a post-Brexit deal.

And do you imagine that if such a deal comes to fruition, it will be a no-regulation deal of some kind? They'll just buy any old moldy tomatoes we have that we want to dump somewhere?

[Poopadoop]

You suggested if I want to sell to Canada, I'd have to comply with both EU and Canada regs. Of course regulations are not an EU thing only, it's just they are notorious for overregulating. Maybe Canada are too, they're pretty left wing, I might have walked into a bad example. Let's try USA instead, with their ravenous capitalism.

I'm sure the US is keen to sell us all their unhealthy products that they can't sell to other countries because of "regulations". And we're desperate for trade partners, so there you go, problem solved.

I don't even know how much interference the EU have when it comes to immigration. I am aware of the sanctions they imposed on the Hungarians and the Czechs, but immigration was never a relevance to me when it comes to the EU. That's a myth that you are sucked in to, which is why you think we're having one conversation here.

You're the one who brought up these sanctions and the dinghies when I asked how we'd be better off outside the EU, so the onus is on you to make the case. If you don't have a case and just wanted to change the topic, then I suggest you drop it.

I think a lot of nations are waiting to see how this works out for the UK. Leaving is seen as a massive economic risk. We're the first to take that risk. People are laughing.

fyp

I could sell my tomatoes piece of piss in the UK if I wanted to. There's a pub half a mile from me that might want them. There's a village shop that sells fresh local eggs a mile away. There's a street market in town. I have friends and family who like chutney. Or maybe I can't be arsed for pocket money and they'll end up as compost. But I can assure you that there is high demand for British tomatoes for two reasons... British people like tomatoes, and British tomatoes are fresher than non-British tomatoes. You mock my "two week old" tomatoes... they're still on the vine. They're as fresh as they get.

I guess you missed the part where we talking about the entire country and not just you. But ok, let's discuss something you can at least get your head around.

UK leaves EU with no deal. That means WTO rules, which means they can slap tariffs on UK tomatoes, which they will because their very protectionist when it comes to agriculture. So, now not just you but everyone in the UK is looking for a place to sell their tomatoes. They don't stay fresh long, so shipping them across the ocean to Canada isn't really an option. So that leaves selling them in the UK. What do you think happens to the price of your tomatoes when your local farmer's market has not just three tomato stands, but six or ten? Prices go down.

Ok, but you don't care you'll give them away 'cause money's not important to you. Unfortunately, money is important to the tomato farmer who relies on foreign markets to sell his tomatoes in. He can't just sell them here at half price and hope to keep his farm going.

That's the problem.

[OngBonga]

Also I don't know where you get this idea that people are lining up to emigrate to the UK just so they can live off of £500 a month or whatever you get and do nothing.

Can you tell me why someone will risk their life, and their family's lives, to travel from France to England? Oskar touched on language, but that doesn't cut it because the people who are turning up are not exclusively English speakers, they speak French, Persian, whatever Somalis speak, and do Syrians speak Arabic? The UK is the intended destination of a lot of illegal immigrants, and with good reason. Economics.

And even if there are a few people like that, you haven't explained how us being in the EU forces us to allow them to immigrate here.

Let me know when you finally understand that immigration is not an EU issue.

EU immigration was never a problem. I don't give a fuck about Polish people coming here. They work, learn English, and respect English culture. Like you do, even if you pretend to find our culture laughable.

You're right I don't. We're already treating refugees like dirt and we're still in the EU.

We're not though. This is a complete fabrication that you've invented. I can only imagine France treats immigrants like dirt, because there's so many people risking their lives to come here instead. We don't treat migrants like dirt. You're a fine example, and so is the Big Issue seller in town. You have a job and, I presume, the respect of your friends and family, a place in the community, while the BI seller has benefits, child credits, a place to live, and extra income from her job selling a left wing poverty magazine. And I don't have a problem with that, assuming she's here legally, which she must be to work for the BI. My problem is with illegal immigration, and with soft policy which makes the UK a particularly appealing destination. We can't have unlimited immigration, it overwhelms local services like schools and hospitals. It has to be carefully managed.

Maybe it's something to do with being able to speak English like Oskar said, or having relatives or other contacts here that they don't have in France. Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure they're not being drawn to us because we're in the EU.

Ok so you already answered this. See above. I don't think an Iranian migrant gives a fuck if we're in the EU or not.

[OngBonga]

Sometimes you pay into a system, sometimes you take out of it. Unless you can figure out some kind of Minority Report Precog system, you're not going to know who's going to be profitable and who's not, but the bottom line is: immigrants are a net positive to the economy. The bureaucracy required to sort the maximally profitable is likely completely uneconomical even if you ignore the ethical problems.

I'm not claiming that immigration is bad or that it doesn't benefit us. I want the right kind of immigration precisely because it does benefit us. This is why I'd really like to see 3m Hongkongers come here. That would be a fantastic boost to our economy in the long run. In the short term it would be expensive as hell, because we'd have to carefully manage where they go to not overwhelm local services, increasing local budgets where appropriate. But no question, once they had settled, the majority would find work, pay tax, and repay their host. Those who didn't, well that's inevitable, there will be some. But the key here is that we're importing people from a civilised society. It's a numbers game. At the other end of the scale, there's Somalia, a lawless hellhole. I know it's cold and harsh, but we have to be careful bringing Somalians to the UK, they are not educated to a high enough standard to succeed in the UK and are accustomed to a dangerous environment. The chances of a Somalian succeeding in the UK is far, far lower than that of an Indian. That isn't racism, it's environmental and social factors. Indians are better educated and somewhat more socially civilised.

We can only allow so many people to come here. For every Somalian, that's one less Hongkonger or Indian. Why is that fair on the HK or Indian migrant? If I were well educated and spoke Japanese, but Japan said to me "sorry mate, but we've chosen an illiterate guy from Conga instead of you, despite knowing nothing about his criminal history", I'd be a bit miffed. Wouldn't you be? Wouldn't you prefer an immigration policy based on merit? Or is merit a dirty word to the left?

I feel dirty even arguing this because I think people shouldn't be bound to serve capital interests at all.

Your next sentence answers that for me. I mean, I actually respect this position. I've said it before, deep down I'm an anarchist, not a capitalist. I just think humanity is not ready for anarchy, and capitalism is the next best thing.

Everyone should get some form of UBI and be free to do whatever they want

Agreed, regarding UBI, but I can't agree that anyone should have the right to live anywhere in the world that they choose. Imagine if all of China wanted to live on Malta. Obviously, that's an extreme event, but sudden and unexpected population growth is a serious problem for local services. If you want a hospital to be able to treat you in an emergency, then you also want a stable and predictable population, so the hospital can offer optimal service.

Borders are necessary, like it or not.

So I don't give a shit if immigrants are good for the fiscal bottom line, but it happens that they are.

People aged 27 are good for the fiscal bottom line. Should we accept anyone aged 27, regardless of any other factor?

[OngBonga]

I can hear the arguments that desperate people tend to have less respect for laws. I still believe the presumption of innocence is a human right, and that it is strictly immoral to deny someone rights based on the suspicion that they will commit a crime.

Crossing the border by dinghy is committing a crime.

I respect a nation's right (and responsibility) to control its borders. I'm not arguing otherwise. Just the whole, "the people who risked their lives in a dinghy to get here are all lazy loafers" argument doesn't feel very accurate to me.

It's not that they're lazy. But I'm struggling to think why else these people are risking their lives to flee France, other than economics. Nobody has answered this question sufficiently yet. It's not a language thing. Somalians speak French. Iranians speak Persian. Indians speak English and come here legally.

France is a safe country, at least as safe as the UK anyway. Nowhere is perfect, but France is no more lawless than the UK. What's the difference between the two? Why is it so important for them to come to England that they won't even try going through the proper channels? What's the difference between the UK and France if you're fleeing a war zone? If it's not economics, then what is it? It could be that the French are more racist than the British. But that doesn't fit the narrative that people like oskar and poop promote.