The EU debate - Part III

Anyone studying cognitive dissonance and selective bias would get a lot of good material from this thread.

Immigrants are not the issue. Border controls are the issue, and it's not racist to say that. Better controls on who we let in enables us to favour those who can bring something to the table, rather than some bizarre lottery. In the longer term, that should benefit those trying to enter this country via the asylum route, as we'd be better placed to help them.

The economy has always fluctuated. It's the nature of the beast. A part of the recent issues would have occurred anyway, but to a degree have been amplified because the financial sectors backed the wrong horse in a two horse race, yet still expect us to trust them.

A fair amount of the plight of the asylum seekers and economy is a consequence of the west protecting its currency and economy against the Arab states. It's no coincidence that the leaders that pushed for their own monetary system to be used, were forcibly and bloodily deposed. It's the same vindictive organisations that initiated that that we're now seeing ourselves negotiating with.

There will always be disagreements in political parties, it's the nature of the beast. It should really be the opposition asking the awkward questions, but labour can't even agree on what their core principles are, and the lib-dems are a non-entity.

The tories at least agree on the basic concepts, even if they differ on to what extent and how to carry that through. Part of the reason for that is that a fair amount is simply not knowable. It's foolish to think that have a declared policy on what you can and can't accept in negotiations as there are simply too many variables involved. You can have a general policy of striving for the best deal within certain parameters.

 

... hmmm what are border controls for?

 

A crazy thought, but I'll chuck it out there..is it to control borders?

 

Stopped reading after this.

The idea that the currency markets are somehow reacting because they 'backed the wrong horse' is absolute tripe, and shows you simply don't understand the basics of why our currency has fallen off a cliff

 

Me and a few financial bods it would seem.

 

Your first sentence directly contradicts the rest of the paragraph.

It's not racist to want to change border control policy or to leave the EU in order to achieve that aim.
I don't think that anyone's claimed that it is.

 

To limit the number of Johnny Foreigners arriving in the UK as confirmed by the PM

 

Explain how your view is mirrored by the experts please

 

Some on here seem intent on mixing the two up and using it to cry 'racist'.

There's nothing contradictory. I don't blame immigrants now, and I wouldn't blame them in the future. The issues are the system that controls entry.

 

please log in to view this image

 

I don't think that's true. Some have pointed out that a large number of racists have hidden behind this sort of thing, though.

I didn't say that you blamed immigrants, but border controls are clearly an immigration issue.
You're not demanding stronger border controls because you're worried about smuggling or something, are you?

 

So you don't blame the immigrants merely the system that allows them to be here?

So you'd rather they weren't?

I see

 

Your comment on racism is meaningless.

I'm not demanding anything. I'm passing comment.

I didn't say stronger border controls either.

In what way do you believe that changing the system so that we can encourage people in that have something to offer, over those that don't would be worse than the current system?

 

please log in to view this image

 

Can you and Pete stop doing this thing where you simply claim something is untrue or meaningless and think that's an answer?
Explain why it's meaningless or you've basically said nothing. You may have just said WRONG and moved on.

You voted to leave the EU because you wanted to change the border controls, according to you.
You don't want to loosen them, you want them tightened up. I've no idea why you're objecting to that characterisation, frankly.
I haven't said that I disagree with it, either. You're merely assuming that I do.

 

You made an unsupported statement, and expect a supported reply? Good luck with that one.

Where did I say border controls were part of my reason for voting. I don't want them loosening or tightening. I think they'd be better changed, which is what I said.

You have tried to change what I wrote, so you are neither agreeing nor disagreeing with me.

 

Brilliant retort

And this from the bloke who was bemoaning the lack of sensible debate on here this morning. Laughable.

Do you not see the issue with what you posted there? You don't blame the immigrants for being here, merely the system that allows them to be.

I don't give a flying **** who comes here as long as they contribute to our economy and don't aim to leach off it. It's a fact that the immigrants from the EU in this country make a net contribution to our economy, so therefore the vast majority are economic migrants, who have come here to forge better lives for themselves and in the process have helped increase our overall wealth.

May's comments about immigration simply meant less arriving, you can't dress that up any other way, and she's based that view on what the electorate supposedly wanted and was the driver for the out vote. Her aim is therefore to change the system to allow less in.

 

The 'retort' was no more than your ****e attempt at twisting my post deserved. Stop trying to build strawmen, and I'll stop highlighting them with a wurzel.

I don't blame the immigrants, no matter how much you tediously try to create that strawman.

please log in to view this image

 

Actually you made an unsupported statement by claiming that people on here were mixing up racism with the immigration debate.
To criticise me in doing the same in response is hypocritical and disingenuous.

You're literally talking about border controls being part of your reason for voting leave on this page. You then do it in this reply.
Are you denying that's part of why you voted leave, because if it isn't, then I don't know why you brought it up?

In what way have I changed what you wrote? I've only quoted you directly and not altered anything.
You keep claiming strawman arguments about things that clearly aren't strawmen.
I what way have I misrepresented you?

 

You misrepresented me in the ways I highlighted in the earlier reply.