Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sounds like you ideally wanna do away with nations and have a new world order of one-world-one-state.

For if national identity, pride and indeed privilege are negative things then why would the people even want nation states?


I'm sure you're only too well aware of rhetoric of Orban and his delightful tactic of peppering the border with pigs heads.

sauce please, mate
 
There's absolutely no reason why free movement and free trade have to be intertwined in an abstract sense. However what we know is that the EU have publically said they won't grant one without the other. In fairness this has not been an idle threat and both Norway & Switzerland have had to sign up to both to have access to the single market. Maybe May/Johnson/Fox can pull off an amazing deal for us by securing one without the other but it would be reasonable to accept that presently in terms of what the EU are offering they are closely intertwined?

As for the second question I'm not sure why they would want to punish the UK at the WTO particularly if we were in a trading bloc with them. It would go against their interests. They may wan to do so to be vindictive, but once you get past the rhetoric it's rare decisions of such nature are motivated centrally by vindictiveness but rather self interest.

The reality is that the it is not in the EU's interests to allow one without the other. Their aim is to make the EU the strongest trading bloc possible. Put simply free movement of capital and goods will benefit the wealthier countries while free movement of labour the poorer country's.

As a slight aside I do understand people's concerns about immigration. In many ways I agree with aspects of it but probably think people are putting short term needs ahead of a longer term picture. I am also not a member of the metropolitan elite (how I wish I was!). I have lost a job to a migrant and have worked for companies that were founded by migrants. I have also taught children from a variety of immigrant backgrounds (one class I taught had 7 languages spoken, so there was never a dull day in that job!)

My overall impression is that while there are negatives and lots of people lose out and have lost out there are also positives. Those benefits have not been spread out evenly and have re-enforced already uneven development across the country. What I do regret is that a sensible debate hasn't been had, but rather a caricature of one side only presenting the negatives and attacking anyone who tries to add some balance. Unfortunately politicians increasingly across the spectrum have joined in with this. Overall I do think this has not helped resolve the issue, as it's become a polarised debate with one side giving just the negatives and another not engaging with those negatives and focussing on the distorted picture that goes on.

For me I am happy to keep migration, but we need to think about how we share out those benefits from it. Currently the benefits are enjoyed overwhelmingly by wealthier people and I'd like to see firms who use migrant labour not have to list them, but have to ringfence money that could then be used to help support young people from all backgrounds with apprenticeships. Currently such a policy is not being developed because it goes against the internationalism of the left and the more knuckle dragging and laissez faire elements of the right who dominate the debate.

That's an excellent response btw. I think we will end up with some compromise that all the politicians can claim to be in their nations interest. Selective movement or whatever will probably do it. Like you I totally believe that the EU will not be stupid over WTO. I like the point about who makes from current immigration regarding apprenticeships but fear that ways would just be found to get around it, nice idea though.......
 
Sounds like you ideally wanna do away with nations and have a new world order of one-world-one-state.

For if national identity, pride and indeed privilege are negative things then why would the people even want nation states?




sauce please, mate

Fab question. Why do people get so uptight about an imagined political community that they had no part in choosing to have been born into?

I wish I knew.
 
Sounds like you ideally wanna do away with nations and have a new world order of one-world-one-state.

For if national identity, pride and indeed privilege are negative things then why would the people even want nation states?




sauce please, mate

I've mentioned the work of Harvard's Dani Rodrick a few times, and he suggests that globalisation can only continue if people accept two of the following:

- economic integration
- democratic politics
- the nation state

I'd quite happily do away with the latter.

As for Hungary - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37158330 (a lot of other sources covered the story if the BBC isn't your poison)
 
Yes, I think so. People are human beings first and foremost. What are wars if not conflicts between people who think their nation/religion/race are better than another? Are you telling me you had some hand in where you were born?



Pete asked what link there was between free movement and free trade. Allowing people to move and work where they want is a key part of that. I'm not really sure where the controversy is?



Ok, I'm discounting the Daily Mail because it's the Daily Mail. The second one is a consultation (has it had a result?), and one that I don't personally agree with. There are rules in this country around pay and conditions. The nationality of the worker is irrelevant, just as where a job was advertised is. As it is, the article you link to uses exactly the same kind of rhetoric, it doesn't say anything about the scale of this issue, what industries it occurs in. Nothing. It's tabloid stuff.

Likewise with the Guardian piece. It's one person. Are we to decide policy on the anecdote of one person? The following post by @tsubaki at least shows an attempt to properly study an issue.

It's perhaps worth noting that most developed economies have what's known as a globalisation fund to support people and communities that have seen jobs lost as a result of globalisation. Whilst members of the EU we had access to the sizeable fund but have deliberately chosen not to use it in preference to our own fund (taking back control innit). Great, except a recent freedom of information request revealed that fund had £2.5 million in it last year. Just goes to show how seriously the government give a damn. Dem foreigners though.



That is interesting, but I feel it does conflate correlation with causation. There are many things that have happened since 2008 that have influenced wages. How did they determine that it was the result of migration? Indeed, another LSE study shows that despite migration rising, the wages (and employment levels) of British workers has been rising at the same time - http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit05.pdf

This same study even finds that towns with a high influx of migrant workers does not see any growth in unemployment for native workers, even in low skilled areas. There is some evidence that migrants often accept lower wages than natives, but this is often in areas such as health and social care where costs are incredibly tight, so it's by no means guaranteed that a migrant leaving will mean a job for a native person. If it does, then we'll probably see costlier care homes and so on as a result, that's assuming that it doesn't result in higher automation.



Very good lol As Oscar Wilde once said, selfishness isn't living how one wishes to live, it's asking others to live how you wish to live. If someone wishes to be a racist simpleton in their own time then frankly that's their choice entirely. When those people dictate government policy for everyone else however...

As for failure, a country can't fail because it's a legal entity, no more. If you're of Hungarian descent then you're only too well aware of how borders have changed so frequently in the past 100 years. Yes, I wish this notion of Brexit and the awful, populist undercurrent that is sweeping the western world at the moment fails and fails miserably. Again, I'm sure you're only too well aware of rhetoric of Orban and his delightful tactic of peppering the border with pigs heads. I think he is rather fond of what Brexit represents too. Charming man.
Ah, head banging against brick wall. My favourite pass-time. Not.
I promise to remain (loosely intimated) a racist simpleton, but only on the over-riding condition that you remain steadfastly in belief of the fact as being in possession of THE only correct opinion, and also that the entire western world should fail.

End of having my wrist slapped and decide it is better to leave this particular craft before it disappears down this ever widening eddy.
Catt now swims off into the sunset and looks for debate with persons who have experienced the delights of changing borders. And morals. And governance. And religious interference. And hardship.

And no, I don't mean life after the EU.
Frankie says........no more.
 
Fab question. Why do people get so uptight about an imagined political community that they had no part in choosing to have been born into?

I wish I knew.

In pre-historic times, identity was crucial to our social and intellectual development. Today, feeling part of something is still a hugely important facet of the human experience. Nation states are ready-made for this.

It's part of our nature to feel tied to our nationality, for it's the earliest identity we know.

In todays' globalised world, there are interesting developments like those with dual-nationalities (like myself) or migrant parents, but for most of the world people have a foundation mono-identity from birth and you can't expect to just do away with the concept so easily.

I've nothing against people feeling patriotic, privilege, pride and identity based on their nation of birth. As long as they're not hurting anyone it should be a non-issue. Should in fact be celebrated as it's because of such things that our world can boast so many fascinatingly-different cultures.

Imagine if the whole world was like London?
 
Ok, I'm discounting the Daily Mail because it's the Daily Mail.

See? You'll freely trill on about the 'abuse' of foreigners - but when I post a link to the mail that shows the other side of the coin (Let's not forget the mail's anti-immigrant stance here Bruce) where they've called the natives 'workshy, feckless, scroungers et al, you 'discount' it.

Not one for double standards, are you?


Likewise with the Guardian piece. It's one person. Are we to decide policy on the anecdote of one person? The following post by @tsubaki at least shows an attempt to properly study an issue.

Wrong. It's one person (In the article - in actuality it was two people) who took the Govt to court over a policy that applies to tens (if not hundreds) of thousands, Bruce. It still does. If you'd done the courtesy of reading it, you'd have seen that.

But nevermind. We'll send our own unemployed to work for feck all, call them all the layabouts under the sun if they have the temerity to question the wisdom of the idealogy, and instead employ EU nationals for a fraction of the wage those same jobs would've paid (Inflation adjusted) had there been a restriction on the numbers coming in/ types of jobs available for them, leaving the companies & corporatocracy you idolise free to further demonise those (UK or otherwise) on any benefit for simply being on that benefit....In, or out of work.

But no. Abuse is only telling someone to go home, innit? And it only started on June 24th, too.
 
See? You'll freely trill on about the 'abuse' of foreigners - but when I post a link to the mail that shows the other side of the coin (Let's not forget the mail's anti-immigrant stance here Bruce) where they've called the natives 'workshy, feckless, scroungers et al, you 'discount' it.

I discounted the Mail because it's a trashy rag regardless of the stance it takes on any topic. Their angle on welfare is no more palatable than their angle on migrants.
 
They, like you, are ignorant of the details. These may affect other areas of industry, and over-burden the taxpayer/divert other funds.

Are you going to praise them for still having oxygen next?

Do not assume that the taxpayer is picking up any bill. I would suggest you wait to hear the details......
 
I've mentioned the work of Harvard's Dani Rodrick a few times, and he suggests that globalisation can only continue if people accept two of the following:

- economic integration
- democratic politics
- the nation state

I'd quite happily do away with the latter.

As for Hungary - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37158330 (a lot of other sources covered the story if the BBC isn't your poison)

I disagree with Rodrick, I think his suggestion is planted to further an agenda against the nation state concept.


Regarding Hungary, you said:

I'm sure you're only too well aware of rhetoric of Orban and his delightful tactic of peppering the border with pigs heads. .

In reality it was a joke Twitter reply in response to a critical comment...from a little-known MEP called Schopflin, not even Orban. There's no indication that Orban supports this comment or that such a thing has ever happened.

This is from your own BBC link.

So-called Twitter Storms are catnip to lazy journos. This same story is in every Western paper.


Exaggerating the negatives one sees to help bolster one's own argument is a common debating tactic, which is a shame as in your case there's no need. Standing by your principles is fine until those principles get artifically bolstered by hyperbole. The principles look cheaper then, at least to the neutral observer.
 
I discounted the Mail because it's a trashy rag regardless of the stance it takes on any topic. Their angle on welfare is no more palatable than their angle on migrants.

Whereas your stance on the British national is one of complete contrast to those of EU nationals. Your stance on corporates is a complete contrast to those of the working man.

And your stance on what constitutes 'abuse' is very narrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top