Off Topic UK / EU Future

[Leo]

The Lords cross party committee basically said we owed nothing but obviously making payments would foster better relations. I disagree on sovereignty, we agreed to lose it but now want it back.

You cannot assume other countries that we currently have a trade agreement with will not simply carry on trading with us on the same or similar terms. It makes sense for all parties involved to make trade as smooth as possible. You agree we have no control over EU citizens. This would be no problem unless large scale movement is involved. Merkel had the chance to sort this with Cameron, it must be her biggest regret along with her now reversed 'open door policy'.

OK - interesting if we genuinely do "owe" nothing.
We can disagree on whether our sovereignty was lent or lost - it is not that important. I am not sure it has any real meaning in today's world - nobody seemed to go looking for it over the last 40 years if we had lost it.
I assume that if trade deals need renewing some may be done on similar terms but that others may not be.It makes sense for each country to decide what terms they want.
I do agree we agreed that all EU citizens were welcome here. Apart from the initial influx from very poor East European countries I believe it would eventually have settled down to everybody's best interest. Over time people would migrate to and fro as employment needs determined - it is what a free market is intended to produce. I also agree very large scale migration needs control. I also agree the EU missed a chance to compromise with Cameron but back then they were not in the mood. I also agree her behaviour and words on external migrants were foolhardy.

 

[superhorns]

You really need to attempt a rebuttal at my response to your assertions first.

I took each of your four "advantages" by turn and responded to them rationally, however emotive I may have been in using "BS" for "rhetoric" and in the last two sentences which were separate to and distinct from the four points.

You're using a tactic known as deflection. I often come across this debating young earth creationists and science deniers, invariably when they can no longer argue the issues at hand.

Ignore my emotions and stick to the four points that you raised and I answered: sovereignty; border control; protectionism; dialogue.

Well, they are just my opinions. Fortunately they also resonate with most of those that voted for Brexit. Hopefully many of those benefits I highlighted will start flowing once we leave this straightjacket unnatural union run by fiddling freeloaders.

 

[colognehornet]

OK - interesting if we genuinely do "owe" nothing.
We can disagree on whether our sovereignty was lent or lost - it is not that important. I am not sure it has any real meaning in today's world - nobody seemed to go looking for it over the last 40 years if we had lost it.
I assume that if trade deals need renewing some may be done on similar terms but that others may not be.It makes sense for each country to decide what terms they want.
I do agree we agreed that all EU citizens were welcome here. Apart from the initial influx from very poor East European countries I believe it would eventually have settled down to everybody's best interest. Over time people would migrate to and fro as employment needs determined - it is what a free market is intended to produce. I also agree very large scale migration needs control. I also agree the EU missed a chance to compromise with Cameron but back then they were not in the mood. I also agree her behaviour and words on external migrants were foolhardy.

Why should the EU. have compromised with Cameron and made special conditions for him when other EU. countries have far higher immigration from the rest of the EU ?

 

[colognehornet]

OK - interesting if we genuinely do "owe" nothing.
We can disagree on whether our sovereignty was lent or lost - it is not that important. I am not sure it has any real meaning in today's world - nobody seemed to go looking for it over the last 40 years if we had lost it.
I assume that if trade deals need renewing some may be done on similar terms but that others may not be.It makes sense for each country to decide what terms they want.
I do agree we agreed that all EU citizens were welcome here. Apart from the initial influx from very poor East European countries I believe it would eventually have settled down to everybody's best interest. Over time people would migrate to and fro as employment needs determined - it is what a free market is intended to produce. I also agree very large scale migration needs control. I also agree the EU missed a chance to compromise with Cameron but back then they were not in the mood. I also agree her behaviour and words on external migrants were foolhardy.

You remember of course that the initial influx of immigrants from Eastern European countries had nothing to do with the EU. Rather Britain opened it's doors whereas the rest of the EU. wanted a more phased in approach.

 

[superhorns]

You remember of course that the initial influx of immigrants from Eastern European countries had nothing to do with the EU. Rather Britain opened it's doors whereas the rest of the EU. wanted a more phased in approach.

Correct, the clueless Labour government were warned at the time. Didn't they estimate about 15K would turn up when it was nearer a million. Was Diane Abbott doing the sums for Labour at the time?

 

[superhorns]

Why should the EU. have compromised with Cameron and made special conditions for him when other EU. countries have far higher immigration from the rest of the EU ?

Other leaders, such as Macron, are seeking special conditions to free movement which will be granted. What Cameron was seeking was sensible and fair, I'm glad Merkel turned a blind eye, this helped the Brexiteers no end.

Germany needed imported immigration labour, this should not set the benchmark for every other nation.

 

[oldfrenchhorn]

It always seems like a bit of a puzzle to me that the people who make the most noise about the number of people who have come to the country to seek work, are the same people who remind us that we have full employment. Many of the jobs they take are only just about jobs, zero hours etc. but that is government policy used by the companies from abroad who have set up warehouse distribution centres or call centres etc. That works until the call centre is moved abroad because the labour is cheaper. You cannot boast about the number of people in work, then say there are too many of them.

 

[colognehornet]

I do not overplay it. I simply said we had a hand - as did the Americans - and German unions function in a way that is cooperative to German industry as opposed to our unions where strife and political motivation and money from members is more important to them than either representing their members real long term interests.

This has nothing to do with the law Leo. The relationship between workers and management in Germany has been different in Germany - this is partly due to there being a collective partnership in establishing wages and conditions where the Unions are involved as equal partners from day one - the Unions are more or less part of management in Germany. This does not mean that there are no strikes but when they do happen they are planned and short. The other reason is that working conditions in key industries in Germany - such as mining, have had much more stringent laws governing health and safety at work than their British counterparts did. Also, mining in particular, was a very highly paid job in Germany. The economic miracle of Germany between 1950 and 1970 was only possible because of very high spending power at the base of the pyramid. This has become very much less so since Germany has turned into an exporting nation - proportionally there is more labour friction now than there was eg. in the 70s.

 

[Hornet-Fez]

Well, they are just my opinions. Fortunately they also resonate with most of those that voted for Brexit. Hopefully many of those benefits I highlighted will start flowing once we leave this straightjacket unnatural union run by fiddling freeloaders.

So they have no real basis in fact and it is just your opinion that we will have advantages. Just because an opinion is popular, it doesn't mean it's true. aka Argumentum ad populum. Glad we've cleared that up.

 

[colognehornet]

Other leaders, such as Macron, are seeking special conditions to free movement which will be granted. What Cameron was seeking was sensible and fair, I'm glad Merkel turned a blind eye, this helped the Brexiteers no end.

Germany needed imported immigration labour, this should not set the benchmark for every other nation.

Germany let in around a million homeless people who needed help - you can construe any motive you like for this. How would history have judged countries which had turned a similar blind eye to suffering during World War 2 ? Do you know how many people escaped Europe via Switzerland at that time ? Should all of those other countries that took those fleeing from Europe have said no - Switzerland must take them because they arrived there first ? A dangerous bottleneck had arisen in the Balkans and Germany, and initially Austria helped out - end of story. I would do the same again a hundred times over. Germany does actually have accomodation reserved for twice the number that actually arrived. As for other countries taking their fair share - it is realistic to expect a little solidarity on this, particularly from those countries which are receiving high subsidies from the EU. Returning them to the first land of arrival is unfair - why should countries like Greece and Italy take the whole burden simply because of their geographical position ?

 

[Leo]

Why should the EU. have compromised with Cameron and made special conditions for him when other EU. countries have far higher immigration from the rest of the EU ?

because then there would not have been brexit and the EU would have been better off. If you cannot see that the EU would have been better off I am surprised. You have lived in Germany so long you seem to see everything through German eyes. There are many - most? - countries in the EU who do not share your liberal attitude to freeloaders from outside the EU - economic migrants who pose as asylum seekers. If you seriously think that migration was not a problem for most EU members I am surprised. This was a power play that Merkel won - and lost.

 

[Leo]

You remember of course that the initial influx of immigrants from Eastern European countries had nothing to do with the EU. Rather Britain opened it's doors whereas the rest of the EU. wanted a more phased in approach.

It had everything to do with the EU - it was the accession of those countries that led to it.
I agree that the UK tends not to question rules and bend them but plays by the spirit so Blair did not do what others did and apply quotas. But to suggest it had nothing to do with the EU is ridiculous.

 

[Leo]

This has nothing to do with the law Leo. The relationship between workers and management in Germany has been different in Germany - this is partly due to there being a collective partnership in establishing wages and conditions where the Unions are involved as equal partners from day one - the Unions are more or less part of management in Germany. This does not mean that there are no strikes but when they do happen they are planned and short. The other reason is that working conditions in key industries in Germany - such as mining, have had much more stringent laws governing health and safety at work than their British counterparts did. Also, mining in particular, was a very highly paid job in Germany. The economic miracle of Germany between 1950 and 1970 was only possible because of very high spending power at the base of the pyramid. This has become very much less so since Germany has turned into an exporting nation - proportionally there is more labour friction now than there was eg. in the 70s.

Where did anyone talk about the law? You just say things at random.
We both agree management / worker relations are better in Germany and the unions are more cooperative and sensible there.
Who said there are no strikes? The UK - thanks to Thatcher - is fourth best with 24 days per year per 1,000 employees, Germany is best with 12. Compare France with about 171 days lost. These figures are recent so do not suggest there is more friction now.

 

[colognehornet]

because then there would not have been brexit and the EU would have been better off. If you cannot see that the EU would have been better off I am surprised. You have lived in Germany so lnog you seem to see everything through German eyes. There are many - most? - countries in th eEU who do not ashare your liberal attitude to freeloaders from outside the EU - economic migrants who pose as asylum seekers. If you seriously think that migration was not a problem for most EU members I am surprised. This was a power play that Merkel won - and lost.

There are, I am sure, some economic migrants amongst the asylum seekers. But do you refuse to help a hundred people because a couple of them may be criminals ? Besides which every person claiming asylum has to be processed - that is international law.

 

[Leo]

So they have no real basis in fact and it is just your opinion that we will have advantages. Just because an opinion is popular, it doesn't mean it's true. aka Argumentum ad populum. Glad we've cleared that up.

To be fair all of us are expressing our own opinions. There are very few incontrovertible facts re brexit.

 

[colognehornet]

Where did anyone talk about the law? You just say things at random.
We both agree management / worker relations are better in Germany and the unions are more cooperative and sensible there.
Who said there are no strikes? The UK - thanks to Thatcher - is fourth best with 24 days per year per 1,000 employees, Germany is best with 12. Compare France with about 171 days lost. These figures are recent so do not suggest there is more friction now.

I said that Germany has more friction now than it did in earlier times - I suggest you read texts properly before replying.

 

[Leo]

There are, I am sure, some economic migrants amongst the asylum seekers. But do you refuse to help a hundred people because a couple of them may be criminals ? Besides which every person claiming asylum has to be processed - that is international law.

No - you devise a policy that is not stupid. Economic migrants should be allowed if the receiving country wants them - benefit to both parties. Do you just trot out old arguments that I have seen you use before for effect? Who spoke of criminals?
Asylum seekers need to be treated according to international law - not given free access to wherever they choose. Bogus asylum seekers should be returned home - per international law.

 

[Leo]

I said that Germany has more friction now than it did in earlier times - I suggest you read texts properly before replying.

I read your post but you clearly have not understood mine. Try reading it again and you might get there if you want to be clever and aggressive with me. You are supposed to be one of those who do not like personal comments.

 

[superhorns]

Germany let in around a million homeless people who needed help - you can construe any motive you like for this. How would history have judged countries which had turned a similar blind eye to suffering during World War 2 ? Do you know how many people escaped Europe via Switzerland at that time ? Should all of those other countries that took those fleeing from Europe have said no - Switzerland must take them because they arrived there first ? A dangerous bottleneck had arisen in the Balkans and Germany, and initially Austria helped out - end of story. I would do the same again a hundred times over. Germany does actually have accomodation reserved for twice the number that actually arrived. As for other countries taking their fair share - it is realistic to expect a little solidarity on this, particularly from those countries which are receiving high subsidies from the EU. Returning them to the first land of arrival is unfair - why should countries like Greece and Italy take the whole burden simply because of their geographical position ?

You need to count the number of those that drowned or were killed by smuggling gangs because of Merkel's open invitation. Her arrogance will be her downfall.

 

[superhorns]

So they have no real basis in fact and it is just your opinion that we will have advantages. Just because an opinion is popular, it doesn't mean it's true. aka Argumentum ad populum. Glad we've cleared that up.

As a Brexiteer I was asked for my reasons why I thought there was positives for Brexit. Your opening response regarding my post was bullshit. If you don't want me to post I quite happy not to.

Surely the idea is to respect other opinions but debate with ideas and knowledge not rudeness.