Imploding Charlie

[Imploding Turtle]

Pretty much everybody has now dropped support for "multiculturalism", indicating as it does parallel cultures.

But you're right, all old people are racist.

Maybe one of the reasons idiots think that liberals are calling everyone and everything "racism" is in part because people like you are saying that someone else is calling people racists when that is clearly not true.

And what happened to your lot protesting that being opposed to multiculturalism is not racism? You appear here to be equating the two.

[Imploding Turtle]

The right.

[Imploding Turtle]

To be opposed to "multiculturalism" is not to be racist. To be accused of being opposed to multiculturalism is often to be "nudge nudge wink wink" accused of being racist.

Just like racist comments are sometimes made with a cloak of perceived credible deniability.

Lefty: "You're a racist for opposing multiculturalism!"
Righty: "Opposing multiculturalism isn't racism. Stop calling everything racism."
Lefty: "OK. You're opposed to multiculturalism!"
Righty: "OMG, stop calling me racist!"

[Imploding Turtle]

Yep. Pretty much.

And you don't see how it is hilariously stupid?

[fidelcastro]

Have you ever voted BNP, Tom?

Just wondering.

[fidelcastro]

Ah, so I am racist, then.

Indeed.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm sure it is to you. But that's because you sympathise with the equivalence of the two accusations unlike Fidel, who at least is straight enough to still say it without camouflage but who does rather make my point.

Excuse me? Projection much? Out of the two of us you're the only one to have equated being opposed to multiculturalism with being racist. You did it accidentally, but you did it.

If you think I sympathise with the equivalence of the two "accusations" then you'll have no problem being able to quote me expressing such an opinion.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I haven't had time to read the whole thread but have read the OP and the link.

I find it amusing that many (not just on here) refer to us "not having left yet" whilst ignoring that the Bank Of England's Chief Economist is of course well aware of that fact but has still chosen to suggest that there is a good chance their forecast model will prove to be far too pessimistic. Clearly if the model were to be redone with new assumptions it would look very different.

In other words, exactly what some of us on this board said in the run up to the vote. The vote that would probably have been 40:60 if the Remain camp had pushed the kind of economic forecasts that the economists are beginning to lean towards now.

[Damo]

idiots

[ClaretMoffitt]

It really is sh!t how a thread about a BoE economic forecast has turned into a generic "hes racist, no I'm not" thread.

This is why all brexit debate is futile, because it always just turns into this.

[Imploding Turtle]

No. I'll repeat again because you're in one of your dim phases; it's the accusation of one that is often a thinly-veiled accusation of the other. Your repeated "confusion" is the evidence. I notice you ignore the evidence from another poster as well.

Perhaps if I was racist in $, you'd find me 17% less racist.

I think you're seeing accussations of racism where there are none. If i say that you're opposed to multiculturalism it's because my understanding is that you're opposed to multiculturalism. You're looking desperately for a reason to be offended, and that's not at all different to when someone is looking desperately for a reason to call you racist.

You seem to think that you can hold the opinion that the left are on a hair-trigger when it comes to calling people racist, while at the same time believe that when they're not calling people racist it's because they're doing it through some kind of dog-whistle language. You're paranoid.

And now you're accusing me of ignoring evidence. Evidence of what? About what? Why are you so quick to jump to accusing me of ****? You've called me dishonest already, a liar implicitely, and now you're accusing me of ignoring evidence out of no where.

At least when i call someone stupid i have the decency to explain why i've drawn that conclusion, that doesn't stop hyenas screaming about the use of insults but i believe it's important to be able to back such statements up. But you toss around the insults without explanation and those hyenas are silent when the insults are directed towards me. Funny that, isn't it? Not in a 'haha' way, but in an ironic, hypocritical way. I don't expect the likes of Damo to be intellectually consistent, but I do expect that of you.

[Imploding Turtle]

It really is sh!t how a thread about a BoE economic forecast has turned into a generic "hes racist, no I'm not" thread.

This is why all brexit debate is futile, because it always just turns into this.

That's not what this thread was about. It was about shitposting or did you miss the opening post?

[ClaretMoffitt]

That's not what this thread was about. It was about shitposting or did you miss the opening post?

It was shitposting with point though. It had a theme and an area to debate, economics, the motives and trustworthiness of the BoE, etc etc. The word racism had no need to be even mentioned what so ever, but because it's a brexit thread, it inevitably has been.

[Imploding Turtle]

It was shitposting with point though. It had a theme and an area to debate, economics, the motives and trustworthiness of the BoE, etc etc. The word racism had no need to be even mentioned what so ever, but because it's a brexit thread, it inevitably has been.

Your face will be so red when you realise which way the person who brought racism into the discussion voted.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Your face will be so red when you realise which way the person who brought racism into the discussion voted.

I ha no angle to my words, I wasn't trying to pin that on anyone in particular, was just saying it in general, the theme of threads like this has become so tiresomely predictable.

[Damo]

Your face will be so red when you realise which way the person who brought racism into the discussion voted.

I don't know why you assumed anyone blamed you, or remain voters for making a brexit discussion into a debate about wether or not somebody is racist.

[Lancasterclaret]

I do think the next generation of Britons will have the same opportunities or better.

Cheers for the reply Tom.

But I can't see that (irrespective of our relationship to the EU). House prices, lack of job security, costs of just about everything that we've come to expect are going to continue to go upwards, not the other way.

If you've got some cash and assets, you'll be fine, but if you haven't, I just can't see it

[USC]

Hi USC, I've worked in the Netherlands - and loved it. I did this before the creation of the single market - and before the euro. I've also worked in New York - again, no problem and we didn't need to be a member of any supranational group for me to get permission...

You will have to "get permission" to live/work in EU countries when we leave (unless we go for the "soft" option and retain free movement, in which case why bother with all the expense of leaving?!). It will just like trying to work in US now (need a visa to do it and that is only temporary). So post Brexit, assuming we have opted against freedom of movement, it will be much more difficult to live/work in other EU countries - I didn't say impossible - but fewer opportunities for our grandchildren.

As I've said above, the euro is a "political project" and a mistake. It is harming the EU countries that have adopted the euro. It's both a "dumb" economic idea and, more importantly, a "dumb" political idea. The populations of Europe weren't ready for it and aren't ready for it.

Remember when other countries had votes and voted against various new EU treaties - and the EU asked them to vote again. It is these type of actions that I see as demonstrating the similarities between France in pre-1789 and EU/Brussels today.

The "princes" have forgotten that they exist to serve the population(s) of the EU - rather than that the populations exist to feed "riches" to the princes.

Difference between now and pre-1789 is we have an elected government, including elected EU members of parliament and commissioners. They make laws on our behalf. Most people think Europe is "ready for it" (hence the EU's existence).

Your argument here is analogous to stating that Lancashire or Yorkshire is not being served by those "princes" in Westminster so they should be self-governed. And then it will be those "princes" in Manchester don't understand the people of Burnley so they should break away.

The principles of the EU is based on freedom for people to move and free trade between a block of countries (making them collectively just about the world's largest economy). And of course this needs laws for it to operate, which is why we elect people to govern us at a national and EU level! I think our grandchildren are better living in a world where they are free to move around countries and where people/countries support each other for the collective good. have a strong world voice, protect the environment, etc. You seem to suggest you are in favor of this too, but voted to leave rather than reform what we have now. Unfortunately, we are now moving towards a more nationalistic, isolationist future where is is all "me, me, me".

[nil_desperandum]

USC. I think you highlight the reason why the vast majority of young people are so worried about leaving the EU.
They aren't especially interested in the value of the pound or other economic factors, nor do they care much - if at all - about the ethnicity or race of their neighbour, or about whether they are "ruled" by remote Brussels or remote Westminster, but what they fear is that the freedoms and opportunities that we have enjoyed for the past 40 years will be denied them.
The right to travel freely throughout Europe wherever and whenever they want, the right to study there, to work there, to live there, and to make lasting friendships with people from other countries, often resulting in long term relationships, marriage and children.

[RocketLawnChair]

USC. I think you highlight the reason why the vast majority of young people are so worried about leaving the EU.
They aren't especially interested in the value of the pound or other economic factors, nor do they care much - if at all - about the ethnicity or race of their neighbour, or about whether they are "ruled" by remote Brussels or remote Westminster, but what they fear is that the freedoms and opportunities that we have enjoyed for the past 40 years will be denied them.
The right to travel freely throughout Europe wherever and whenever they want, the right to study there, to work there, to live there, and to make lasting friendships with people from other countries, often resulting in long term relationships, marriage and children.

I'm really sorry nil you will be beginning to think I'm following you around this forum!

The reality is we haven't really enjoyed that much freedom of movement around Europe over the last 40 years. What we joined 40 years ago is remarkably different today..The EUs major expansion of countries as happened more recently. And I believe that to be the major part of the EUs problem, it's got too big with too many noses in the trough with individual interests..,

[nil_desperandum]

I'm really sorry nil you will be beginning to think I'm following you around this forum!

The reality is we haven't really enjoyed that much freedom of movement around Europe over the last 40 years. What we joined 40 years ago is remarkably different today..The EUs major expansion of countries as happened more recently. And I believe that to be the major part of the EUs problem, it's got too big with too many noses in the trough with individual interests..,

Hi RLC.
I am in general agreement with much of what you write, and I celebrate the fact that you engage in mature debate of the various issues, unlike some whose minds are completely closed to the many complexities of the issue, and who despite winning the referendum debate still seem angry about it.
I am however rather mystified that you say we haven't enjoyed that much freedom of movement around Europe over the past 40 years. I'm not aware of any obstacles that have been put in my way or that of my family. Can you please expand on what you mean?

[nil_desperandum]

If the argument ends up being dewy-eyed schmaltz about the Dutch/Polish/Spanish/Croatian person you'll now never get the chance to fall in love with, it's not much of an argument, I'd say.

I don't think that that will ever be put forward as a major reason for remaining, though it has been significant for tens of thousands. I don't think that young people would regard "falling in love" as a reason for wanting free access to the EU, it's more the opportunity to engage in research projects, travel, study and work. The fact that many people have then made the choice to remain in Europe with partners or return to the UK with them is just a minor "benefit".

[RocketLawnChair]

Hi RLC.
I am in general agreement with much of what you write, and I celebrate the fact that you engage in mature debate of the various issues, unlike some whose minds are completely closed to the many complexities of the issue, and who despite winning the referendum debate still seem angry about it.
I am however rather mystified that you say we haven't enjoyed that much freedom of movement around Europe over the past 40 years. I'm not aware of any obstacles that have been put in my way or that of my family. Can you please expand on what you mean?

Absolutely nil you could move around Europe freely as a tourist and you still will be able too,

Until recently (haven't done IT style research cos I'm not that indulged or bothered enough!) you would have to acquire a work permit to seek employment in other European which is no longer the case.. This could be a positive but this also leads to other issues of mass immigration into the more affluent countries...

[USC]

I think one of the issues with the referendum is it wasn't about the fundamentals - do we want to be part of a trade-block, allowing freedom of movement between member countries or not?

For example, USA, China, Japan and soon-to-be India are the big players in the world economy. Does it make sense for the next tier (Germany, France, UK, etc) to be part of a trading block so we can compete (founding principles of EU), noting that the UK is dropping down the "largest economy" league table and most of our trading partners are in the block!

Then the next fundamental principle (which really goes hand-in-hand with the above) is do we believe the concept of freedom of movement among EU members is a good idea or a bad idea.

Remainers generally believe it is in our economic interest to have free trade with other EU members (our major trading partners) and have a stronger "world voice" through this coalition. Leavers would rather lose this free-trade arrangement, believing the cost in doing so will be more than offset by savings elsewhere (e.g. by excluding EU nationals from our country and rescind some EU-wide laws).

Unfortunately for many it was not about these two principles. It was about a belief that their interests were not being considered by politicians (and many of these concerns were not really an EU issue, but a national issue). Leavers think the EU is wasting all our money which could be spent on improving their lives; "the EU is introducing all these environmental and human right laws we don't need" or "the EU is a gravy train for unelected princes" or "Poles and Romanians are flooding in, stealing our benefits and jobs". There was a mistaken belief that if we "stop giving EU all our money" we will be better off, without really thinking about the fundamentals and the implications.

[nil_desperandum]

Until recently (haven't done IT style research cos I'm not that indulged or bothered enough!) you would have to acquire a work permit to seek employment in other European which is no longer the case.. This could be a positive but this also leads to other issues of mass immigration into the more affluent countries...

I haven't got time to research the detail of this either, but it's a long time since you needed a work permit to work in the EU, unless you were from outside the EU, and added to this there have been many "funded" opportunities for young people to work in the EU, or be involved in research and technology projects.

[USC]

I haven't got time to research the detail of this either, but it's a long time since you needed a work permit to work in the EU, unless you were from outside the EU, and added to this there have been many "funded" opportunities for young people to work in the EU, or be involved in research and technology projects.

Correct - I have lived in France, studied in France (with grant provided by EU) and worked on a project with other major EU companies 50% funded by the EU! None of which required me to get a visa or permit.

[Lancasterclaret]

So you are banking on the UK being able to deal with the more rapidly changes in technology quicker than the EU will?

Okay, time will tell of course, but cheers

It looks like May is banking on the argument that seems weirdly a lot more important than it actually is of "who else are the Germans going to sell their cars too" which is asking for trouble.

But again, time will tell.

One thing for sure, this isn't going to go away anytime soon

[HatfieldClaret]

There are people on this message board who are british and work and live all over the world, outside of the EU, who don't seem to have a problem.

50% of all scientific patents in Europe are British, the EU will still want to share research with us.

We all travelled around the EU easily enough before the EU. We still will, they want our holiday money....

The only people who will force a 'hard Brexit' are the EU mandarins, who are in danger of cutting off their noses to spite their faces in order to frighten others into not leaving.

As you say though Lancaster, only time will tell.

[Paul Waine]

I haven't got time to research the detail of this either, but it's a long time since you needed a work permit to work in the EU, unless you were from outside the EU, and added to this there have been many "funded" opportunities for young people to work in the EU, or be involved in research and technology projects.

The rules on freedom of movement and single market were introduced with Maastricht Treaty which was signed Feb-1992. I moved to live and work in Netherlands a little later in 1992 - but Maastricht only entered into force in Nov-1993. My employer sorted my work permit (which is always the case for work permits) and visa. I remember the personal effects and car I took with me to Netherlands had to go through customs inspection. No "big deal" though it did take a day or so. There were also "alien registration" requirements in Netherlands. Custom's inspection wasn't required when I returned.

So, we haven't enjoyed the EU "freedoms" for 40 years - just 23 years. Of course, for all youngsters this is all their lifetime. But, isn't this the same generation that likes to travel "beyond Europe?"

As I've said. It is not hard to move to other countries - and this applies to most countries in the world. Yes, visas and work permits are often required, but this can be no more onerous than sorting out UK passport, travel insurance, health insurance, driving license and similar things.

The biggest challenge when moving from the UK to another country is learning how the other country operates a lot of things differently to the way we operate in the UK. Health care may be the biggest "learning curve" for many UK citizens. If you live in another EU country (i.e. not just visiting) you need to get health insurance in their system - the NHS and EHIC does not cover you. First question I was asked when I took my child to A&E in Netherlands was "how are you going to pay" only after did they ask "what's the problem."

One of posters mentions studying at EU universities. Aren't a number of UK students now also being offered uni places in USA? And many UK unis offer "study year abroad" - including USA, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia - and I assume elsewhere.

[Paul Waine]

Difference between now and pre-1789 is we have an elected government, including elected EU members of parliament and commissioners. They make laws on our behalf. Most people think Europe is "ready for it" (hence the EU's existence).

Your argument here is analogous to stating that Lancashire or Yorkshire is not being served by those "princes" in Westminster so they should be self-governed. And then it will be those "princes" in Manchester don't understand the people of Burnley so they should break away.

You seem to suggest you are in favor of this too, but voted to leave rather than reform what we have now. Unfortunately, we are now moving towards a more nationalistic, isolationist future where is is all "me, me, me".

Hi USC, rather than Lancs/Yorks v Westminster shouldn't it be Scotland v Westminster? Isn't this what Nicola Sturgeon and SNP believe?

I'm not convinced the EU is the democratic model you suggest. Yes, we elect EU MEPs, but how many of us can name our MEPs? And, the MEPs are all nationally focused. We don't elect across all the EU - i.e. there are no "EU wide" political parties.

We don't elect the commissioners - and we cannot express displeasure (or support) for the actions of Junckers etc.

Some things individual national governments have vetoes to block (trade also extends to regional assemblies in some countries), on others there is majority voting among the 28 member states (27 post-Brexit).

My point about the French revolution is the over-throwing of a ruling elite that is only ruling in it's own interest. The "tragedy" of the EU is that the governments in most countries have forgotten to consult their own electorates often enough on key EU decisions thus leading to the sense of separation. There should have been a UK referendum on Maastricht. This referendum should have debated freedom of movement and access to local country welfare benefits for people moving from other EU countries. There should have been a referendum on the euro - both for the countries joining the euro and for those few, including the UK that chose not to join. This referendum should have debated all the economic issues related to the creation of a single currency area - and the implications for those countries that were EU members but chose not to join the euro.

I'm not saying what the results of either of these referendums would have been in the UK (or elsewhere in EU). I've got a sense that if they'd taken place and the policies that were implemented from early 1990s through to 2016 had followed we wouldn't have needed last year's referendum - and if there had been one we'd have all voted "status quo."

I believe David Cameron gave the EU the chance to at least present an image that it could be reformed - but the "deal" he was offered was strong evidence that the EU was not going to reform.

There's no reason why we should be nationalistic and isolationist - I intend to be neither. I don't believe the current UK gov't is either of these. Yes, there are groups in all nations that follow this approach - but we demonstrate a better way.