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

[Poopadoop]

Watch the glory of Brexit unfold here!

[Poopadoop]

Hey Oskar, I bet all you liberal Eurotards are shitting your pants about not having a deal with the UK yet. Right? Right?

https://twitter.com/AndySpreadbury6/...41357485547526

[Poopadoop]

If anyone wants 7 hours of various people being unable to provide a single good reason to Brexit, check this out. (and it's only part 1!!)

[oskar]

I would follow Brexit more closely, and by that I mean closer than not at all, if I thought it would lead to any significant changes that impact me. I am eying London a little bit... the UK is the most convenient english speaking country for me to move to work atm. But that's more like a 2025 plan, and I'm really not worried that Brexit will be more than a slight inconvenience there.

[oskar]

If anyone wants 7 hours of various people being unable to provide a single good reason to Brexit, check this out. (and it's only part 1!!)

neat-o!

[Poopadoop]

neat-o!

Ong calls in at 4hr 56min

[oskar]

What I don't really get is that it seems that for most people brexit is about stopping immigration somehow, but that to me - based on no information at all I should reiterate, seems like the least likely thing to happen after brexit. Do they want a hermit kingdom? It wasn't that before the EU, so they basically want to get back to something that never was, and on top of that, nobody's going back with you.

To the few sensible criticisms I've heard from brexiters about the EU I'm like: ok, you got a point, but sometimes when you don't like something about the ship you're on, jumping off is rarely your best option.

[OngBonga]

The problem with the EU for me is that it is no longer just a trade bloc, like it was when we joined. It's a political and economic union and not under the democratic control of the British people. Just like Scotland don't approve of effectively being under the democratic control of the English, I don't want to be under the faux-democratic control of German and French people.


Very few people want to stop immigration. People want to control immigration. Not many people have a problem with Hongkongers coming to the UK, and most people don't have problems with the Polish, Indians, or anyone else that comes here and works, and abides by local law, which includes Islamic people. People do have a problem with cities becoming saturated with unskilled immigrants who rely on state handouts, and yes, people do have a problem with people fleeing France on a boat. Why are they coming to the UK instead of staying in France? Because we're softer, they have more financial incentive. Also, the French aren't quite as friendly to immigrants as we are. The irony, eh? We're painted as the racist guys of Europe, yet immigrants are so desperate to leave France for the UK that they'll risk their lives. We're not nearly as intolerant as most of Europe.

[Poopadoop]

The problem with the EU for me is that it is no longer just a trade bloc, like it was when we joined. It's a political and economic union and not under the democratic control of the British people. Just like Scotland don't approve of effectively being under the democratic control of the English, I don't want to be under the faux-democratic control of German and French people.

Maybe you should call in to James O'Brien.

What laws has the EU imposed on you that you feel you'd be better off without? Can you name one?

And I don't mean imaginary dystopian futures that you envisage, where we somehow get forced to join an Imperial EU Army that rampages over Asia. I mean right now, something that is currently being imposed on us by the French and Germans.

Very few people want to stop immigration. People want to control immigration. Not many people have a problem with Hongkongers coming to the UK, and most people don't have problems with the Polish, Indians, or anyone else that comes here and works, and abides by local law, which includes Islamic people. People do have a problem with cities becoming saturated with unskilled immigrants who rely on state handouts, and yes, people do have a problem with people fleeing France on a boat. Why are they coming to the UK instead of staying in France? Because we're softer, they have more financial incentive. Also, the French aren't quite as friendly to immigrants as we are. The irony, eh? We're painted as the racist guys of Europe, yet immigrants are so desperate to leave France for the UK that they'll risk their lives. We're not nearly as intolerant as most of Europe.

Did you know the UK makes it own immigration law? The EU does not force us to take unemployed immigrants, that's our choice to make. How does leaving the EU make any difference here?



And here's a more general question: How is leaving the EU going to make your life any better?

[OngBonga]

What laws has the EU imposed on you that you feel you'd be better off without?

The caveat "that I'd be better off without" is both subjective and irrelevant. I mean, the enforced VAT on tampons doesn't affect me directly, but it's still unwelcome meddling. Tax is not the concern of an outside body which is not subject to the democratic will of the people.

Did you know the UK makes it own immigration law? The EU does not force us to take unemployed immigrants, that's our choice to make. How does leaving the EU make any difference here?

By 9 June 2017, 22,504 people were resettled through the quota system, with over 2000 of them being resettled in May alone.[222] All relevant countries participated in the relocation scheme except Austria, Denmark, Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary,[223] against whom the European commission had consequentially launched sanctions against the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary.[224]

Yeah, I remember them sanctioning Hungary for refusing to submit to the EU immigration policy.

And here's a more general question: How is leaving the EU going to make your life any better?

Why does this matter? I don't make democratic decisions based on what makes me better off. If I did, I'd vote Labour because they'd make life easier for lazy fuckers like myself. I make them based on what I think is best for the country. If that's an alien concept to you, I can't help that. I think it's better for us to be in charge of our own affairs. You can sneer about bendy bananas all you like but the regulations imposed by the EU overwhelm small businesses and favour big businesses that can outsource the legal and administrative workload. Regulation stifles competition. Obviously, some sectors require regulation, for example banking. It's the government's job, not an outside body, to find the right balance when it comes to just how free the market is. If they fuck it up, we can vote them out quickly instead of having a long drawn out process that might or might not result in a referendum. This is what I mean about democratic control. What we do with that control is another matter. But it's essential we have it, and with the EU, we don't.

[Poopadoop]

So VAT on tampons is the first thing that comes to mind as a valid reason to leave the world's largest trading bloc. Good to see you have things in clear perspective.

And since you're so worried about a foreign influence on your countrymen's well-being (not your own, obviously, you're completely unselfish), how happy are you about the economic hit that's coming to your fellow countrymen? Do you think the average Brit will be able to make it up by all the money they save on tampons (presumably the females will be sharing their savings with their male partners where possible)?

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, I remember them sanctioning Hungary for refusing to submit to the EU immigration policy.

If we ever come to a place where we want to emulate Hungary's treatment of refugees, that might become an issue. Thankfully we won't have to worry about that now, as no-one will want to come here! It's a win-win!

[Poopadoop]

...the regulations imposed by the EU overwhelm small businesses and favour big businesses that can outsource the legal and administrative workload.

Which regulations are those, specifically?

And more generally, what makes you think we're more competent at regulating banks than the EU is?

[Poopadoop]

People do have a problem with cities becoming saturated with unskilled immigrants who rely on state handouts,

Presumably by "people" here you're referring to yourself. I guess the irony of a guy relying on state handouts complaining about other people relying on state handouts is lost on you.

[Poopadoop]

So VAT on tampons is the first thing that comes to mind as a valid reason to leave the world's largest trading bloc. Good to see you have things in clear perspective.

Had to look that up 'cause no-one thought to mention that vital point before. Turns out we could have ended the VAT on tampons without leaving the EU. Oh snap!

http://infacts.org/we-dont-need-to-l...he-tampon-tax/

[Poopadoop]

Ong calls in at to complain about the tampon tax at 12 min. Surprising such a critical issue was one that O'Brien had to go and look up.

[oskar]

Why are they coming to the UK instead of staying in France? Because we're softer, they have more financial incentive. Also, the French aren't quite as friendly to immigrants as we are. The irony, eh? We're painted as the racist guys of Europe, yet immigrants are so desperate to leave France for the UK that they'll risk their lives. We're not nearly as intolerant as most of Europe.

Or because some may have come from a french speaking african countries, whereas others may have come from english speaking african countries and they don't enjoy the prospect of communicating in pantomime...
It's a possibility.

[oskar]

Ong calls in at to complain about the tampon tax at 12 min. Surprising such a critical issue was one that O'Brien had to go and look up.

HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE THERE???

[OngBonga]

Or because some may have come from a french speaking african countries, whereas others may have come from english speaking african countries and they don't enjoy the prospect of communicating in pantomime...
It's a possibility.

Ok, that's fine, I'll accept that maybe it's worth risking the lives of you and your family to live in a safe English-speaking country rather than a safe French-speaking country. So the Nigerians, Ethiopians and Kenyans. So why are Somalians coming here? They speak French. How about Iranians? Syrians? I can understand if it's legal migration, where you have a viable choice, but when you're risking your life on a dinghy, why take that risk when it's between France and the UK?

[OngBonga]

Thankfully we won't have to worry about that now, as no-one will want to come here! It's a win-win!

If no one wants to come here, why are graffiti artists sending boats out to pick up migrants? They seem pretty desperate to come here, regardless of the EU.

Which regulations are those, specifically?

I mean, it quickly became apparent you had no intention of discussing this in good faith due to your tone. Your plan is to expose the fact that I don't have a fucking clue what regulations a business has to tie itself up in, it will differ from sector to sector and from market to market. Not only that, but I have no vested interest in spending time perusing the various regulations. I'm not selling tomatoes to France, I don't need to know that shit. If I want to sell them at a local market, I can.

I mean, I actually just tried to see what regulations I need to read to sell tomatoes to France.
Basic regulation is 24 pdf files. That's fucking basic regulation.

Best I can tell, I've got a further 72 files to read through.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farmi...-vegetables_en
section - legal basis

I can't be bothered to sell tomatoes to France.

Presumably by "people" here you're referring to yourself. I guess the irony of a guy relying on state handouts complaining about other people relying on state handouts is lost on you.

I mean most people you wrongly assume are racist, ie right wingers. And there's no irony in me being on benefits, since I didn't come here from another country with the sole intention of living off benefits. And the fact you mock me for this exposes a great deal of hypocrisy. I mean, you're clearly fine with your tax going to people from other countries, so stop pretending you have a moral issue with me being on benefits. You can't have it both ways. You're in favour of a soft benefit system.

Had to look that up 'cause no-one thought to mention that vital point before. Turns out we could have ended the VAT on tampons without leaving the EU. Oh snap!

Fuck, can I vote again please?

[oskar]

Even by your own narrow reasoning for why certain people shouldn't have freedom of movement, your argument stops holding up once you look at the bottom line of how much immigrants pay into the system vs how much they take out.
I can't quickly find a statistic that filters for scary brown people countries, but as a whole immigrants contribute massively more than they take out: https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-...9-00144feabdc0

You're basically saying: I don't care that they pay x billions into the system if they then have the audacity to benefit from the service they pay for with their taxes!

[Poopadoop]

If no one wants to come here, why are graffiti artists sending boats out to pick up migrants? They seem pretty desperate to come here, regardless of the EU.

They probably know it's their last chance before we are free from the shackles of the liberal Eurotards and we can start treating refugees like dirt. #MEGA

I mean, it quickly became apparent you had no intention of discussing this in good faith due to your tone.

And yet I keep asking questions and giving you the chance to explain yourself.

Your plan is to expose the fact that I don't have a fucking clue what regulations a business has to tie itself up in, it will differ from sector to sector and from market to market.

The point was to show that you only have the vaguest reasons for supporting Brexit, reasons that you don't fully understand yourself. You bring up talking points like regulation, immigration, and sovereignty without actually knowing any of the details that would show those talking points to be spurious.

Not only that, but I have no vested interest in spending time perusing the various regulations. I'm not selling tomatoes to France, I don't need to know that shit. If I want to sell them at a local market, I can.

The National Farmer's Union, who arguably has a bigger stake in this than you, considers the ability to trade unhindered with the EU as vital to its interests, and has expressed a deep concern over the prospect of a no-deal Brexit.

https://www.nfuonline.com/news/brexi...itish-farming/

Given how much you care about your countrymen, I'm surprised you're not aware of that.

I mean, I actually just tried to see what regulations I need to read to sell tomatoes to France.
Basic regulation is 24 pdf files. That's fucking basic regulation.

The funny thing about this is you choose a country that's in the EU to export your tomatoes to. So, when we leave the EU, do you think those regulations would no longer apply to someone trying to export tomatoes to France?

I'll give you a hint: The answer is the regulations for export to the EU post-Brexit will be those 24 pages plus whatever else gets added after Brexit.

So yeah, Brexit definitely won't make it easier to export tomatoes, or anything else, to the EU.

I can't be bothered to sell tomatoes to France.

Thank God your livelihood doesn't depend on it then.

I mean most people you wrongly assume are racist, ie right wingers. And there's no irony in me being on benefits, since I didn't come here from another country with the sole intention of living off benefits. And the fact you mock me for this exposes a great deal of hypocrisy. I mean, you're clearly fine with your tax going to people from other countries, so stop pretending you have a moral issue with me being on benefits. You can't have it both ways. You're in favour of a soft benefit system.

I don't have a moral issue with you being on benefits. I've never argued to cut the benefit system. I have a moral issue with one's country of birth being a criteria for their receiving benefits or not receiving benefits.

I'm starting to think that the reason this worries you is because you think they'll someday cut out benefits even for you, and that that movement will gain traction the more people there are receiving benefits.

Fuck, can I vote again please?

Yeah, in about 5 years when it becomes crystal clear even to the most stubborn Brexiter that this was a huge mistake.

[Poopadoop]

HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE THERE???

I think that's the last one. But a lot of the clips are from 1-2 years ago, so it's possible the person compiling them ended up killing themselves.

[Poopadoop]

Q: What could be even better than Brexit?

A: Brexit plus a trade war with the EU plus no trade deal with the US!

[OngBonga]

Even by your own narrow reasoning for why certain people shouldn't have freedom of movement, your argument stops holding up once you look at the bottom line of how much immigrants pay into the system vs how much they take out.
I can't quickly find a statistic that filters for scary brown people countries, but as a whole immigrants contribute massively more than they take out: https://www.ft.com/content/c49043a8-...9-00144feabdc0

You're basically saying: I don't care that they pay x billions into the system if they then have the audacity to benefit from the service they pay for with their taxes!

So you're arguing that because immigrant #1 comes here, works, pays taxes and contributes to society, that immigrants #2 and #3 can come here and do nothing.

My problem is not with people who emigrate legally and with good intent, and then fall on hard times. I'm not saying these people should not have access to the welfare system. I'm saying we should not encourage people to come here for the sole reason of accessing our welfare system. I don't know why you pretend that's such a difficult concept to understand. You deliberately use language like "scary brown people countries" to imply that this is about racism, when that isn't true at all. I don't even think you're being insincere, I think your brain is just hard wired to believe that any opposition to immigration is racism, whether overt or covert.

I know immigrants as a whole contribute to society. That's why I don't oppose immigration. I oppose illegal immigration and the importing of large numbers of unskilled people.

[OngBonga]

They probably know it's their last chance before we are free from the shackles of the liberal Eurotards and we can start treating refugees like dirt. #MEGA

I mean, you don't even believe this yourself. I can't be arsed to discuss this with you. It wasn't long ago that I thought oskar was more "deranged left" than you. I was wrong about that. Oskar at least debates in good faith. You don't.

[OngBonga]

The point was to show that you only have the vaguest reasons for supporting Brexit, reasons that you don't fully understand yourself. You bring up talking points like regulation, immigration, and sovereignty without actually knowing any of the details that would show those talking points to be spurious.

I don't know if you actually believe that those who oppose the EU need to be experts in the intricacies of regulations. My "vague" reasons for wanting to leave the EU are based on sovereignty and democracy. You don't like to talk about the democratic aspect of the EU because that isn't vague. Instead you focus on shit like regulations, and then gotcha me when I admit I don't give a fuck about researching regulations.

The National Farmer's Union, who arguably has a bigger stake in this than you, considers the ability to trade unhindered with the EU as vital to its interests, and has expressed a deep concern over the prospect of a no-deal Brexit.

No politics there, of course. The same farmers voted to leave. Rural areas of England voted overwhelming to leave.

The funny thing about this is you choose a country that's in the EU to export your tomatoes to. So, when we leave the EU, do you think those regulations would no longer apply to someone trying to export tomatoes to France?

Later on I'll try to sell tomatoes to Canada.

I'll give you a hint: The answer is the regulations for export to the EU post-Brexit will be those 24 pages plus whatever else gets added after Brexit.

Um no, EU regulations do not apply to exports to Canada.

I have a moral issue with one's country of birth being a criteria for their receiving benefits or not receiving benefits

Well I have a moral issue with emigrating for the sole reason of accessing benefits. Do you think I have the moral right to move to Japan and access their benefits? I'd like to.

I'm starting to think that the reason this worries you is because you think they'll someday cut out benefits even for you, and that that movement will gain traction the more people there are receiving benefits.

Swing and a miss.

Yeah, in about 5 years when it becomes crystal clear even to the most stubborn Brexiter that this was a huge mistake.

I doubt that very much. Give it another ten years and the EU will have lost more members.

[Poopadoop]

I don't know if you actually believe that those who oppose the EU need to be experts in the intricacies of regulations.

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.

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.

My "vague" reasons for wanting to leave the EU are based on sovereignty and democracy.

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?

You don't like to talk about the democratic aspect of the EU because that isn't vague. Instead you focus on shit like regulations, and then gotcha me when I admit I don't give a fuck about researching regulations.

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.

No politics there, of course.

The Farmer's Union is left-wing?

The same farmers voted to leave. Rural areas of England voted overwhelming to leave.

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

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.

Later on I'll try to sell tomatoes to Canada.

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.

Um no, EU regulations do not apply to exports to Canada.

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.

Well I have a moral issue with emigrating for the sole reason of accessing benefits. Do you think I have the moral right to move to Japan and access their benefits? I'd like to.

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

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

Swing and a miss.

Ok then.

I doubt that very much. Give it another ten years and the EU will have lost more members.

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

[Poopadoop]

Also worth pointing out here that Canada is a long ways away, and it costs more money to ship things further, and there's more spoilage.

I'm speculating here, but I suspect the average Canadian is unlikely to want to buy your expensive, two-week old tomatoes instead of the tariff-free 3 day old tomatoes that come from the US.

Think you need a Plan B or C or whatever we're up to now for selling your tomatoes.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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. As if that's someone's life ambition lol. I mean, I know that appeals to you, but it really doesn't appeal to most people.

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.

[Poopadoop]

I mean, you don't even believe this yourself.

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

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.

[oskar]

So you're arguing that because immigrant #1 comes here, works, pays taxes and contributes to society, that immigrants #2 and #3 can come here and do nothing.

My problem is not with people who emigrate legally and with good intent, and then fall on hard times. I'm not saying these people should not have access to the welfare system. I'm saying we should not encourage people to come here for the sole reason of accessing our welfare system. I don't know why you pretend that's such a difficult concept to understand. You deliberately use language like "scary brown people countries" to imply that this is about racism, when that isn't true at all. I don't even think you're being insincere, I think your brain is just hard wired to believe that any opposition to immigration is racism, whether overt or covert.

I know immigrants as a whole contribute to society. That's why I don't oppose immigration. I oppose illegal immigration and the importing of large numbers of unskilled people.

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 feel dirty even arguing this because I think people shouldn't be bound to serve capital interests at all. Everyone should get some form of UBI and be free to do whatever they want, because what they want to do is much more likely going to improve their standard of living and the standard of living of their community than if they were to serve the interests of a company that serves its own capital interests and not the people's interests.
So I don't give a shit if immigrants are good for the fiscal bottom line, but it happens that they are.

[oskar]

https://www.gofundme.com/f/racist-pe...copy_link_more

This is brilliant

[Poopadoop]

https://www.gofundme.com/f/racist-pe...copy_link_more

This is brilliant

Oh look, she got a donation!

Steve Getdafckou donated £20
Listen mate I ain’t racist I got black friends but please leave this country!

[Poopadoop]

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 feel dirty even arguing this because I think people shouldn't be bound to serve capital interests at all. Everyone should get some form of UBI and be free to do whatever they want, because what they want to do is much more likely going to improve their standard of living and the standard of living of their community than if they were to serve the interests of a company that serves its own capital interests and not the people's interests.
So I don't give a shit if immigrants are good for the fiscal bottom line, but it happens that they are.

Over and above all this is the fact that he hasn't explained how leaving the EU will solve the problem he perceives to exist with all these lazy immigrants. I think he believes that currently anyone in the EU can just show up in the UK and stay as long as they want and not work and the EU forces us to not only accept that, but pay them to do nothing as well.

[Poopadoop]

A further irony is that I'm a contributing taxpayer who is happy to share his wealth with down and outters, whereas he doesn't pay taxes and doesn't want MY taxes going to down and outters if it happens they were born somewhere else. Fuck me.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I love the idea that people with the initiative to upend their entire lives and face the terrifying unknowns of moving countries with no money against the threat to their life and their families' lives... those people are lazy moochers who just want to live off the state.
The argument that people with such undeniable initiative only want to be lazy doesn't make sense to me.

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.

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.

[Poopadoop]

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.

A lot of such arguments strike me as thinly-disguised racism and/or nativism. These same people would have no problem at all using taxpayer money to bail their countrymen out after a natural disaster. But God forbid someone who wasn't born here fleeing an equally intolerable situation asks for help.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Jack Sawyer]

Why does this matter? I don't make democratic decisions based on what makes me better off. If I did, I'd vote Labour because they'd make life easier for lazy fuckers like myself. I make them based on what I think is best for the country. If that's an alien concept to you, I can't help that. I think it's better for us to be in charge of our own affairs. You can sneer about bendy bananas all you like but the regulations imposed by the EU overwhelm small businesses and favour big businesses that can outsource the legal and administrative workload. Regulation stifles competition. Obviously, some sectors require regulation, for example banking. It's the government's job, not an outside body, to find the right balance when it comes to just how free the market is. If they fuck it up, we can vote them out quickly instead of having a long drawn out process that might or might not result in a referendum. This is what I mean about democratic control. What we do with that control is another matter. But it's essential we have it, and with the EU, we don't.

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.

Also in a democracy; what you THINK is the best for the country does not necessarily mean it actually factually IS the best for the country. But you do have YOUR OWN lot in your hands, and can directly make A DECISION THAT DOES BENEFIT YOU the easiest, right?

[Jack Sawyer]

Also in a democracy: isn't what is best for most in a country also literally what is best for said country?

[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.

[Poopadoop]

And about what people were voting for: It's not true that everyone who voted Leave knew it would be an economic kick in the balls. Fact is, no-one campaigning on the Leave side was saying "it'll be an economic kick in the balls, but at least we won't have to deal with a lot of regulations." No-one.

Instead they were saying things like "easiest deal in history", "sunlit uplands", "we'll still have all the trade arrangements" and "£350m a week for the NHS". And you can argue that anyone who believed those lies is an idiot, but that doesn't change the fact that some of them did believe the lies and some of them made their voting decision based on those beliefs. So to say it was presented as a choice between Remain and No Deal is complete bullshit.

[OngBonga]

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!'

Well ok. So we agree there's rules. So my sovereignty and democracy argument is another way of saying "I don't want to play by their rules because they are not subject to the will of the British people". It's tenuous as fuck to say they are subject to the will of the European people, but their sham of a democracy at least tries to pretend that much. It's a sham because there's no alternative (other than to leave outright of course). It's a one-party system.

Explain to me how following rules costs us our sovereignty or democratic control.

The ability to opt out without a shitshow, referendum, then more shitshow. We can abandon a trade agreement with the stroke of a pen, and instantly deal on WTO terms. Leaving the EU is a lot, lot messier, and not something that can also be undone with the stroke of a pen.

Membership of the EU and a bilateral trade agreement are very, very different things. A trade deal is not a challenge to sovereignty. You can say "fuck you" at a moment's notice if the rules are unacceptable. We did not have that power as an EU member, we still can't actually have trade deals with other countries until 1st Jan. A trade agreement between us and USA, for example, does not mean we can't then have a nice deal with NZ. We retain sovereignty. We are in control of our economy.

This really shouldn't need to be said. The difference between a trade deal, and membership of a political and economic union, in terms of sovereignty, is monumental. I can only assume you don't know what "sovereign" means. To you, it seems to mean "doing what you want". That's not what sovereign means. It means "absolute authority". It means no other country is an authority to the UK. You can argue maybe USA are an authority, but geopolitics is another matter.

Is that your answer to how we're losing out on sovereignty and democracy?

You're just refusing to hear me.

[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.

[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]

Well ok. So we agree there's rules. So my sovereignty and democracy argument is another way of saying "I don't want to play by their rules because they are not subject to the will of the British people".

Did you get to vote on the rules for the trading agreement we just signed with Japan? And since you didn't, how are they subject to the will of the British people?

It's tenuous as fuck to say they are subject to the will of the European people, but their sham of a democracy at least tries to pretend that much. It's a sham because there's no alternative (other than to leave outright of course). It's a one-party system.

Did we not send elected representatives to the EU? I seem to recall we did. We also had veto power over any important legislation. Now we have no power at all in Europe.

The ability to opt out without a shitshow, referendum, then more shitshow. We can abandon a trade agreement with the stroke of a pen, and instantly deal on WTO terms.

You might think that we can opt out with a stroke of a pen, but most trade agreements are binding for some period of time, they don't just end when one side feels like it.

WTO terms are basically the worst trading arrangements that exist outside of outright anarchy. They are for countries who can't agree in any way not to fuck each other in the ass over trade.

Leaving the EU is a lot, lot messier, and not something that can also be undone with the stroke of a pen.

So a reason to leave the EU is that leaving it is a giant hassle. Gotcha.

Membership of the EU and a bilateral trade agreement are very, very different things. A trade deal is not a challenge to sovereignty. You can say "fuck you" at a moment's notice if the rules are unacceptable.

Well, again, you can't just break an international deal any old time and suffer no consequences. I think that's the moral Boris is being taught here lately if you've been paying attention.

We did not have that power as an EU member,

...and we still don't. I mean technically we could have told the EU to fuck you while we were still a part of it and take the consequences the way we seem ready to do now.

we still can't actually have trade deals with other countries until 1st Jan. A trade agreement between us and USA, for example, does not mean we can't then have a nice deal with NZ. We retain sovereignty. We are in control of our economy.

I guess the problem I have with this is that this 'sovereignty' is so expensive. It's not like we were wallowing in poverty as part of the world's largest trading bloc. So not clear why it's so important to people to be independent in our trade when it's going to be a giant kick in the balls economically.

This really shouldn't need to be said. The difference between a trade deal, and membership of a political and economic union, in terms of sovereignty, is monumental. I can only assume you don't know what "sovereign" means. To you, it seems to mean "doing what you want". That's not what sovereign means. It means "absolute authority". It means no other country is an authority to the UK. You can argue maybe USA are an authority, but geopolitics is another matter.


You're just refusing to hear me.

No, you're just not explaining anything that I don't already know. And you're not giving any details about sovereignty and democracy.

Tell me now how the EU exerts political control over the UK. Maybe I'll learn something.

[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

[OngBonga]

Did you get to vote on the rules for the trading agreement we just signed with Japan? And since you didn't, how are they subject to the will of the British people?

This is one aspect of what we vote every five years for. Come on poop, at least try to think about it for longer than it takes to read.

Did we not send elected representatives to the EU? I seem to recall we did. We also had veto power over any important legislation. Now we have no power at all in Europe.

So you think choosing the lower members of a single-party system is democratic? Imagine if at the next election, you had a choice between Bob (Tories), Mary (Tories) and Ahmed (Tories). Hey, you're voting for it, it's democracy.

Another problem with this system is the only people who actually vote in Euro elections are those who support the EU. People like me didn't give a flying fuck. So you're not necessarily getting a fair representative that reflects the true will of the people. It means pro-Euro politicians are more likely to be involved. Of course, sometimes an anti-EU politician goes for it to gob off in their silly little Hague or whatever. Funny that Farage is the most famous of our European politicians. I can't name a single other one. Did Anne Widdecombe have a go at that?

You might think that we can opt out with a stroke of a pen, but most trade agreements are binding for some period of time, they don't just end when one side feels like it.

You generally don't just rip up a deal, because it's not a very good negotiating tactic, and therefore not in your best interests, but you can. and trade wars happen all the time. One is happening right now between USA and China. Different circumstances, of course, but all of these tariffs that are being slapped about, they can disappear overnight.

Both China and USA retain their sovereignty during this battle, since China is China's only authority, and USA is USA's only authority. That's what sovereignty means.

WTO terms are basically the worst trading arrangements that exist outside of outright anarchy. They are for countries who can't agree in any way not to fuck each other in the ass over trade.

And so provide a mutual incentive for good faith negotiation.

So a reason to leave the EU is that leaving it is a giant hassle. Gotcha.

Yes. Such a political integration is unacceptable. Leave as quickly as possible, problem solved.

Well, again, you can't just break an international deal any old time and suffer no consequences. I think that's the moral Boris is being taught here lately if you've been paying attention.

Of course there are consequences. Consequences are not a challenge to sovereignty.

...and we still don't. I mean technically we could have told the EU to fuck you while we were still a part of it and take the consequences the way we seem ready to do now.

Perhaps, but then again perhaps such an option was prohibitively expensive. The last serious challenge to our sovereignty before the EU was the Suez Crisis. We invaded Egypt with France, USA said "oi, don't do that", we said "what you gonna do about it", they said "economically fuck you up, bitches", we say "sorry our PM has had a nervous breakdown". The economic consequences of disobeying USA were so severe that it's fair to say we lacked true sovereignty. USA was our authority, in the literal sense. They were telling us what to do. Perhaps that is still the case, if so, and there's anything I can ever reasonably do about that challenge to our sovereignty, such as vote, then I'll do it. In the EU, I saw a challenge to our sovereignty, was given the opportunity to do something about it, and acted accordingly.

I guess the problem I have with this is that this 'sovereignty' is so expensive. It's not like we were wallowing in poverty as part of the world's largest trading bloc. So not clear why it's so important to people to be independent in our trade when it's going to be a giant kick in the balls economically.

It's not prohibitively expensive though. And, for all either of us know, it could be beneficial in the long run.

Tell me now how the EU exerts political control over the UK. Maybe I'll learn something.

How about you just read literally the first line of the wikipedia page for the EU. Something something "political and economic union".

I'll give you an example of political control from the EU in the UK... human rights. They are our authority on that matter. Even though their human rights is one of the few things worth praising the EU for, and a bill we should look to replicate post-Brexit (I think we intend to), it's an example of political control, and a challenge to sovereignty. There is also the illusion of international law, which you might argue is a challenge to sovereignty, but of course we ignore international law when it suits us, with no consequences. SO, hardly an authority.

[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]

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.

Of course. More customers is better. But there doesn't seem to be any sense of crisis among the farming community here in Shropshire. Brexit isn't foot and mouth. They've been more worried about who's going to pick the strawberries.

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:

I don't give a fuck what lies were said by politicians. They're all liars. Welcome to politics.

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

This is one of the great flaws of democracy. Politicians are professional liars, and people are dumb. What makes you think you haven't naively been influenced somewhere along the line? How would you even know? It's not all bare faced lies, it can be much more subtle. That goes for me too. I can't be certain. But sovereignty and democracy are not something I'm going to be influenced about by someone else, I do not accept the authority of people from outside of this country. I begrudgingly accept the authority of the state in the UK because it's a better life than being in prison.

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.

Yeah, fuck selling to Canada too. A trade deal might change that, they'll use the word "streamline".

[Poopadoop]

This is one aspect of what we vote every five years for. Come on poop, at least try to think about it for longer than it takes to read.

How often are the EU elections held?

So you think choosing the lower members of a single-party system is democratic? Imagine if at the next election, you had a choice between Bob (Tories), Mary (Tories) and Ahmed (Tories). Hey, you're voting for it, it's democracy.

Oh yes, I forgot Nigel Farage belonged to the EU Imperium Party.

Another problem with this system is the only people who actually vote in Euro elections are those who support the EU.

Which also explains why Farage was an MEP.

People like me didn't give a flying fuck. So you're not necessarily getting a fair representative that reflects the true will of the people.

I agree that Farage did not represent us very well. Perhaps if we'd elected more people who took the job seriously rather than just acting like xenophobic dicks we could have pushed thru some changes that benefitted us.

It means pro-Euro politicians are more likely to be involved. Of course, sometimes an anti-EU politician goes for it to gob off in their silly little Hague or whatever. Funny that Farage is the most famous of our European politicians. I can't name a single other one. Did Anne Widdecombe have a go at that?

The fact you don't pay attention doesn't mean you didn't have the right to vote, even if just to draw a cock and balls on the ballot or whatever you usually do with your sacred democratic right.

You generally don't just rip up a deal, because it's not a very good negotiating tactic, and therefore not in your best interests, but you can. and trade wars happen all the time. One is happening right now between USA and China. Different circumstances, of course, but all of these tariffs that are being slapped about, they can disappear overnight.

It's like you think intn'l trade is simple and only EU beaurucrats make it complicated. Have you ever seen how many stacks of volumes an intn'l trade agreement is? You could fill an elevator car with some of them. It's not like selling a tomato at your local market mate.

Both China and USA retain their sovereignty during this battle, since China is China's only authority, and USA is USA's only authority. That's what sovereignty means.

We also had the sovereign choice to stay in the world's largest trading bloc. But instead, we chose to exercise our absolute right to shoot ourselves in the face economically.

And so provide a mutual incentive for good faith negotiation.

Right, but it's a default arrangement that suggests that your good faith negotiations failed.

Yes. Such a political integration is unacceptable. Leave as quickly as possible, problem solved.

We are going to look pretty funny in 10 years trying to worm our way back in.

Perhaps, but then again perhaps such an option was prohibitively expensive. The last serious challenge to our sovereignty before the EU was the Suez Crisis. We invaded Egypt with France, USA said "oi, don't do that", we said "what you gonna do about it", they said "economically fuck you up, bitches", we say "sorry our PM has had a nervous breakdown". The economic consequences of disobeying USA were so severe that it's fair to say we lacked true sovereignty. USA was our authority, in the literal sense. They were telling us what to do. Perhaps that is still the case, if so, and there's anything I can ever reasonably do about that challenge to our sovereignty, such as vote, then I'll do it. In the EU, I saw a challenge to our sovereignty, was given the opportunity to do something about it, and acted accordingly.

I think you'll find the EU can not only threaten to fuck us up economically but are willing to do it if pushed to the wall.

How about you just read literally the first line of the wikipedia page for the EU. Something something "political and economic union".

Because the question is what YOU think there is about our membership in the EU that is so damaging, not how Wiki defines the EU.

I'll give you an example of political control from the EU in the UK... human rights. They are our authority on that matter. Even though their human rights is one of the few things worth praising the EU for, and a bill we should look to replicate post-Brexit (I think we intend to), it's an example of political control, and a challenge to sovereignty.

I mean that's the lamest example possible. "They make us respect human rights." Fuck me.

Am I giving you too much credit here? I really thought you'd at least come up with something that was prima facie a reasonable argument.

There is also the illusion of international law, which you might argue is a challenge to sovereignty, but of course we ignore international law when it suits us, with no consequences. SO, hardly an authority.

Did you seriously not hear about the Withdrawal Agreement copout bill Boris just introduced the other day, and what we're being threatened with by the EU and US if we enact it?

[Poopadoop]

It's like you think intn'l trade is simple and only EU beaurucrats make it complicated. Have you ever seen how many stacks of volumes an intn'l trade agreement is? You could fill an elevator car with some of them. It's not like selling a tomato at your local market mate.

Here's the main NAFTA agreement between the US/Canada/Mexico. It's 309 pages long, and makes reference to numerous other documents, and a bunch of annexes that would probably crash your PC if you tried to load them all at once.

http://idatd.cepal.org/Normativas/TL...ment-NAFTA.pdf

I don't know how many years it took to negotiate, probably not more than a few since it was basically an extension of an existing FTA between the US and Canada, but if you think we're just going to hop out of the EU and start signing deals with other countries left and right in 2021 you're in for a big disappointment.

[OngBonga]

How often are the EU elections held?

The one-party "election"? A lot more often than "in-out" referendums.

Right, but it's a default arrangement that suggests that your good faith negotiations failed.

Indeed. That might be our fault. It might be theirs. It might be both. I'm inclined to go with the latter on this one.

We are going to look pretty funny in 10 years trying to worm our way back in.

Is that a prediction? 9/11 2030, as easy a random date to remember as any. I'll meet you here.

I think you'll find the EU can not only threaten to fuck us up economically but are willing to do it if pushed to the wall.

I think your idea of a fucked up economy differs vastly to USA during the Suez Crisis.

Am I giving you too much credit here? I really thought you'd at least come up with something that was prima facie a reasonable argument.

I went for something that I knew you'd bite me for, an example that would allow you to completely miss the point. Expert trolling mode activated.

Did you seriously not hear about the Withdrawal Agreement copout bill Boris just introduced the other day, and what we're being threatened with by the EU and US if we enact it?

I saw something about "international law" and I laughed. I mean, if USA are saying "um, no", then it's a dumb ass negotiating tactic. I have no idea how it goes against international law, and have no desire to educate myself on that, unless, perhaps, we actually go through with it.

[Poopadoop]

Is that a prediction? 9/11 2030, as easy a random date to remember as any. I'll meet you here.

I reckon the negotiations will start before that, probably the day after Starmer becomes PM. But I'll add a margin of error 'cause it'll take time to for it to sink in to people that Brexit fucked them over.

I think your idea of a fucked up economy differs vastly to USA during the Suez Crisis.

I think you're just making things up 'cause you don't have a proper argument. How unusual for you.

I went for something that I knew you'd bite me for, an example that would allow you to completely miss the point. Expert trolling mode activated.

If being an expert troll involves making yourself look stupid, you certainly accomplished that.

I saw something about "international law" and I laughed. I mean, if USA are saying "um, no", then it's a dumb ass negotiating tactic. I have no idea how it goes against international law, and have no desire to educate myself on that, unless, perhaps, we actually go through with it.

You might not take it seriously, but the EU and the US both do.

And if you think Brexit alone won't fuck us enough, wait till we try to arrange new intn'l agreements after showing we can't be trusted to keep to the one we just signed.

[Poopadoop]

Do you know anything about the Good Friday Agreement and the Irish Border question? 'Cause that's another one the Leave campaign said would be a piece of cake and is the reason why Boris made his expert troll move to break the Withdrawal Agreement.

[Poopadoop]

While parliament debates over the Brexit bill to break intn'l law today, there are no CV tests available in any of the top 10 hotspots in the UK.

#MEGA

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/statu...98910249676801

[Poopadoop]

The world is laughing at us.

https://twitter.com/MarieAnnUK/statu...20462824542210

[MadMojoMonkey]

I mean.... the world has been laughing for a good, long while now.

[Poopadoop]

https://twitter.com/STVNews/status/1306148903855755264

Instead of funding the NHS properly, let's spend the money on flying old planes around to thank them!

#MEGA

[Poopadoop]

Bazinga!

"Keir" is Keir Starmer, leader of the opposition.

#MEGA

[Poopadoop]

The British media is starting to ask if Boris is playing 3D chess with the EU over Brexit, of if he's just a fucking idiot.

Remind anyone of the US media and Trump about 3-4 years ago?

[Poopadoop]

Good thing no-one believed his lies and we voted Leave anyways.

https://twitter.com/PropertySpot/sta...52943764013056

[Poopadoop]

To move this over to the appropriate thread:

We'll have to see. Not sure brinksmanship's gonna work here. Wouldn't be surprised if they tried it though.

Honestly, I think the gov'ts plan is to scare us all with the prospect of a no deal, including their little threat of breaking intn'l law, so that ANY deal they do manage to pull out with at the last minute, even if it's limited to lower tariffs on toothpicks from Croatia or whatever, can be trumpeted as a "victory."

And if they end up with no deal, Plan B is to blame the EU.

[Poopadoop]

Turns out asylum seekers coming from FRA to the UK aren't breaking the law after all, at least according to this immigration lawyer.

https://twitter.com/ImIncorrigible/s...57943273902082

#MEGA

[OngBonga]

I find it very hard to believe that crossing a maritime border on a boat without proper authorisation is not illegal. I can't swim the channel without permission from France.

[oskar]

I find it hard not to be amused by brits being annoyed at people coming to their country uninvited.