Off Topic EU deabte. Which way are you voting ?

But the snowflakes blame the younger generation from the 40s, you know the ones that did the fighting

 

Good post.
I had never really considered technology within the freedom of movement argument, but it's a good point.
For me, technology has made the world (figuratively speaking), a smaller place. What once took a visit can now be achieved by various forms of technology, from Interactive meetings through to transfer of funds.
As a result, is freedom of movement a slightly outdated concept. I appreciate that feet on the ground is still needed, but is it needed as a condition of trade?

Like Fez, only a opinion!

 

When we talk about freedom of movement we are not usually talking about short term travel for a meeting. We are talking about the right to live in another country. Surely that should be down to the country's rules (or rules of a group of countries if they wish)? I don't see why freedom of movement (settling in another country) should be linked to trading in goods and services.

 

Who normally gets the bigger discount?A group of 5 or a group of 50. The same applies to trade deals.

 

You see I kind of agree with that... now. Because if we're outside the EU when it does (or are in the process after having voted to leave) then that will rocket our stock market and therefore the economy. Am I wrong to say that for this reason we should all now be hoping the EU (as an entity) disintegrates?

 

WRONG. Some voted remain, because closing EU borders to largely white immigrants would open the borders to areas of the world with darker skins.

The remain position is more racist than the leave.

 

Good post as well. It could be that we have an EU that has both though. The Common Market within, and as you've said the Common Good with everyone outside. Although I am wondering whether it would be better for OUR economy if, as a result of us leaving, the Common Market disintegrated. Don't get me wrong, I think that while we were in it, (and you'll probably disagreee here) it was a good principle that we benefited from, but from a selfish point of view, now we're outside we need it (the Common Market) to fall apart.

 

Have to say that sounds desperately tenuous, at best. In terms of public opinion among Remain voters I've never come across that.

 

I'd agree, Trebs. That's nothing more than join the dots assumptions.

 

What about those that lost jobs, money and communities through being IN the EU?

 

Tenuous or not, it is a fact that the EU policy discriminates, and the consequence limits the entry of people from dark skinned countries. To claim all racist voted out is simply wrong.

 

Only the racist call us outers racist, its all they have left.

 

You may very well be right, but that's different from saying that Remain voters voted for the reasons you stated earlier. There's no evidence for that whatsoever, it's the first time I've heard anyone come up with that theory, publicly or privately.

 

I heard it said by a numbskull in a pub in London. He reckoned he'd stood in elections before too. I wouldn't make the sweeping generalisation that all Londoners or remainers voted as they did because they're racist. That would be as foolish and wrong as claiming all racists voted leave.

 

If the vote was counted on a constituency basis, the vote to leave is even wider.

 

So we buy more from the EU than the EU buys from us so we should get the better trade deal.

 

This is the real issue for me. I think immigration is used an excuse for the problems in lots of sectors, when it's the money being creamed off by the few at the top that creates problems further down. 'Trickle down' wealth is more like a drip every now and again, but most of it stays at the top.

My area was the NHS, which has clearly benefited from immigration in terms of workers and expertise in certain specialisms. The problems in the NHS come from years of underfunding, but it's easier to blame immigrants for creating the pressure on services as that lets the Govt off the hook.

 

It was very difficult to try and word that post of mine without implying that I wanted the referendum on a constituency basis (which is NOT what I was saying). Not sure if you've taken it that way. I'm trying to say that IF a particular MP was already a Remain sympathiser, and it just so happened that a vast majority of his consituency were also Remain, and they put concerted pressure on the MP on any subsequent debate or vote in the Houses of Parliament to vote Remain, would that not be a better use of the Remain campaigners efforts rather than asking for a second referendum. HOWEVER, I don't know if there is going to be a debate or vote in parliament (I'm only supposing there is because I heard someone mention there might be as the referendum was not binding, but classed as advisory). Ofcourse if there isn't going to be a vote in parliament then that option, unfortunately, would be equally as folly on the part of Remain voters. But if there is, that's where I believe there efforts are best served now.

 

There will be a vote as they have to repeal the European Communities Act 1972.
I can't see that putting pressure on MPs will make any difference. The vast majority of MPs believe in the democratic process and respect the referendum result.

 

So if you signed up in 1945 you were born around 1927. That would make you 89 today.

I don't think it's the people who fought in the war who are considered the "older generation" Custard. Did Nigel convince you otherwise?