quoonbeatz wrote:absolutely textbook.
Not true. My point was always that it was low skilled immigration that was the problem and the open door policy that allows it. Yes maybe overall it (Total EU immigration) is a slight net positive, but that doesn't change the effect it has at the bottom end and how much more positive it could be if we had controls over it.BabylonClaret wrote:No point as you w9nt listen. The poont was made that migration from EU is broadly positive. Ypu ppinted out that this was old pre 2016 data.
See above.Quoon posted a link to some more recent analysis. You complain its all estimated yet fail spectacularly to provide any evidence to support your argument. And then ask for more evidence.
You want me to give you definitive answers about something that has never happened before? Do you see how ridiculous it is to ask for that? It's easy to find psotives from being in the EU because we have been tear and done it, asking for answers about the future is beyond reasonable.Its pointless arguing- Erasmus asked for some benefits for Brexit and all he got was slogans and ideology. He (or she) said he understood the ideological line although he disagreed with it. Then got slated for not "changing his mind"
You cant have a rational debate about this because its too polarised.
They did exactly the right thing taking it to the people, the problem is now they are too weak to follow through with the decision made.In my opinion the Govt should have simply consulted with key people to understand the big essential eleemnts and then negoriated a deal on that. I expect that might have been some kind of Norway type deal. Instead its been a weak governemnt pandering to a minority of its party and leaving us with neuther one thing or the other.
The problem with that argument is that everyone can see what you actually said. Here it is again.burnleymik wrote:I don't see the problem. My argument was always that low skilled/unskilled EU migration is the problem, you provided me a report that takes into account all EU migration. Brexit was never about stopping skilled migration, only the open door to low and unskilled migration. You still haven't provided me with anything to the contrary.
I still wait..
burnleymik wrote:...if you have any data from 2016+ to say EU migrants are net contributors then I would like to see it...
...which is pretty much dictionary-definition psychological projection.burnleymik wrote:...You opened this thread implying you are open to discussion, but it seems very clear your mind is already made up.
Yes those were my words, but context is everything, I had clearly been talking about low skilled migration all along and had made that clear numerous times throughout the thread. Did you bother to read? I am guessing not.Greenmile wrote:The problem with that argument is that everyone can see what you actually said. Here it is again.
Quoon provided you with exactly what you had asked for, so you had to swiftly move the goalposts.
As for Erasmus, his mind was made up, as is mine, but he opened this thread suggesting he was open to ideas regarding the positives of Brexit, it certainly didn't seem that way to me.And this from someone who had the gall to say this of Erasmus...
I read the bit where you said ...burnleymik wrote:Yes those were my words, but context is everything, I had clearly been talking about low skilled migration all along and had made that clear numerous times throughout the thread. Did you bother to read? I am guessing not.
burnleymik wrote:...if you have any data from 2016+ to say EU migrants are net contributors then I would like to see it...
Of course. Its a capitalist society and guess what - rich powerful people **** over those at the bottom. The thing is anyone voting to leave on the promise of British people being better off at the bottom is most likely going to be hugely disappointed.burnleymik wrote:Babylon, both sides have rich powerful people supporting the cause for their own gain. Soros isn't doing this because he cares about the working class of the UK. Branson spends time suing the NHS, yet he is behind quite a bit of financial support for remain, there are plenty of others too.
A good few musical artists have all recently let the cat out of the bag, they are in it purely for themselves, does that not make them exactly the same?
Greenmile wrote:I read the bit where you said ...
... but I must have missed the context which meant that you actually wanted data showing something else entirely.
Post 36:2. We would have full control of immigration, including the ability to have quality over quantity.
Post 38:These people are suffering as a direct result of having to cope with the open door immigration policy, they are forced to compete for housing, GP appointments, Schooling places etc etc.
You can misrepresent me all you want , but it's quite clear exactly what I have been getting at all along.Controlled immigration would be much more favourable and without Brexit that isn't fully possible. Surely you agree we would be far better off taking workers from anywhere in the world, in the specific areas we need, rather than just anyone because they live within the EU?
How can you know that and state it as a fact? You have absolutely no idea in reality.BabylonClaret wrote:Of course. Its a capitalist society and guess what - rich powerful people **** over those at the bottom. The thing is anyone voting to leave on the promise of British people being better off at the bottom is most likely going to be hugely disappointed.
...but what you just said above....This has largely been an ideological decision because when you look at actual facts the sensible thing is to stay put. Thats not to say that in some years Britain MAY be better off. But noone can say one way or the other.
How can we provide evidence to something yet to happen? People have seen how the EU has affected them and decided they didn;t want anymore of that and voted to leave.Im making a big generalisation here but when people are so unwilling to provide a lot of evidence or refuse to accept anything put up against their point of view it is very difficult to really get a proper view on what motivations were. But thats how it comes across.
How is quoting your exact words (which lacked any ambiguity) misrepresenting you?burnleymik wrote:Read the thread.
Post 4.
Post 36:
Post 38:
You can misrepresent me all you want , but it's quite clear exactly what I have been getting at all along.
burnleymik wrote:...if you have any data from 2016+ to say EU migrants are net contributors then I would like to see it...
Poor form from you GM. I have always had the same stance on EU immigration and I showed you examples of posts before that one that prove it. Why do you think I was talking about the tax contributions of the minimum wage workers in the other thread yesterday? There are many examples and I am pretty sure you already knew my stance, but if you want to be petty, then so be it.Greenmile wrote:How is quoting your exact words (which lacked any ambiguity) misrepresenting you?
Here it is again
You’re allowed to admit you asked the wrong question, you know. Nobody’s forcing you to double down by accusing me of not reading the thread or misrepresenting you.
If you just said, “I didn’t realise EU migrants were net contributors. Now I do. Thanks for the info but on the whole I’m still pro-Brexit.” you would come across as being a lot more honest, imo.
Here’s a simple question for you. We’re you aware, before Quoon posted his link, that EU migrants are net contributors to the UK economy?burnleymik wrote:Poor form from you GM. I have always had the same stance on EU immigration and I showed you examples of posts before that one that prove it. Why do you think I was talking about the tax contributions of the minimum wage workers in the other thread yesterday? There are many examples and I am pretty sure you already knew my stance, but if you want to be petty, then so be it.
burnleymik wrote:...if you have any data from 2016+ to say EU migrants are net contributors then I would like to see it...
It was really a “yes” or “no” question that I asked you.burnleymik wrote:It's quite simple. See my comments in this thread regarding immigration, if you could keep my comments within that context then it's quite simple, instead you have picked out a quote of a few words, taken it literally and decided to tell me I am being dishonest. Also, I read that report and commented on it and you will see what I said about overall contributions from Eu migrants, but again you have chosen to ignore that (or missed it whilst trying to point score).
You are right. I don't. But i didn't. Read back what i wrote.burnleymik wrote:How can you know that and state it as a fact? You have absolutely no idea in reality.
But... i didn't....but what you just said above....
How convenient. But that doesn't make what I said wrong. Its hard to avoid coming to the xonclusion that what drives the average Leave voter is antagonism to Europe, foreigners and a desire for Britain to stand on its own as though that will miraculously make all the badness go away when 90% of the posts on here take that line.How can we provide evidence to something yet to happen? People have seen how the EU has affected them and decided they didn;t want anymore of that and voted to leave.
Antagonism? Not really. Do you think people voted for Brexit to just annoy the EU? (look how I didn't try and confuse the EU and Europe, which are clearly different things)? I think that is a very narrow minded viewpoint on why people voted for Brexit. There were lots of reasons for voting for Brexit, but one clear reason, we do not like the Political Union that is the EU.BabylonClaret wrote: How convenient. But that doesn't make what I said wrong. Its hard to avoid coming to the xonclusion that what drives the average Leave voter is antagonism to Europe
There is a vision, is it clear no, but it's obvious that we want to be independent of the EU. By all means have some kind of FTA with them and work with them, but no longer to be ruled by them. I think in principle the EU, as a trading bloc, is a great thing, the problem for me is that it comes with the policitcal ideologies and need for power.Where's the vision? There isn't one. Not one with any substance.
And when the going gets tough its all somebody else's fault.
That is the problem though isn't it? Not everything can be in the interest of every member. Look at Greece for example....I find it ridiculous when the EU is criticised for standing up fir ut's rights and members' interest as though it's just not cricket and they're being deliberately punitive. Like its fine for us to negotiate our interests but not for anyone else.
FWIW it seems to me it's always been the UK who are the ones trying to negotiate, whilst the EU have simply not budged on much at all. It seems there are many countries ready to do deals with us, but we can sign nothing whilst in the EU.Every deal we make in future is going to be pretty much the same - we want a deal on our terms, the other side will want their terms but sometimes it sounds like once we leave other countries are going to be queuing up to let us do wahtever we like
......not even sure what to say to this or why you would use words I haven't seen any Brexiteer on here say or imply. This one is on you alone.- not like these completely unreasonable frogs wops and krauts.
But the EU isn't standing up for its members rights. It is a no-brainer for the EU that the EU members would be better if there was free trade with the UK. They export £320bn to us, we export £240bn to them. They are net gainers, their members are net gainers, if free trade is allowed. And yet the UK wants free trade; they don't.BabylonClaret wrote:Where's the vision? There isn't one. Not one with any substance. And when the going gets tough its all somebody else's fault. I find it ridiculous when the EU is criticised for standing up fir ut's rights and members' interest as though it's just not cricket and they're being deliberately punitive. Like its fine for us to negotiate our interests but not for anyone else.
I don't recall any suggestion in the Scottish independence referendum that we wouldn't allow free trade with Scotland. So yes, we would.BabylonClaret wrote:Yes its a no brainer if you are sat on our side. Why on earth is the EU going to simply allow the same benefits to another country as any member state and at the same time let that country set up potential deals with others in direct competition?
Would we? Of course not.
But somehow this line (which has been fairly consistent from the start) is viewed as disrespectful by many pro Leave. Like i say, i expect a deal is there if we want to move that way but it will mean compromise if we want it. Anything else is complete pie in the sky fantasy.
The difference is so tiny as to be irrelevant IMO, but for the sake of scrupulous accuracy I concede that you didn't call Europeans that, you only referred to them as that. So I will say that it is not helpful to refer to Europeans in those terms.BabylonClaret wrote:Yes its a no brainer if you are sat on our side. Why on earth is the EU going to simply allow the same benefits to another country as any member state and at the same time let that country set up potential deals with others in direct competition?
Would we? Of course not.
But somehow this line (which has been fairly consistent from the start) is viewed as disrespectful by many pro Leave. Like i say, i expect a deal is there if we want to move that way but it will mean compromise if we want it. Anything else is complete pie in the sky fantasy.
Edit.. just edited my post earlier to make it clear that i didnt actually call Europeans those things. But of course you knew that already.
Similarly there wasnt any reference to any future free trade with Scotland. There was specific talk about them not adopting Sterling though so plenty of scope for UK bullying there. And seeing as Scotland was seeking EU entry really quickly post independence then we would be in a free trade agreenent with them as EU members anyway.dsr wrote:I don't recall any suggestion in the Scottish independence referendum that we wouldn't allow free trade with Scotland. So yes, we would.
And you (and many other Remain supporters) are still missing the point about free trade. Allowing free trade between the UK and the EU is not conferring a benefit on the UK. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement which currently favours the EU.
Surely all they were saying was that Sterling was the currency of England and overseen by the Bank of England; Scotland could use it but wouldn't have any fiscal input into it. Scotland could use the English pound, they could use the Scottish pound but tie it to the English pound, they could use the Scottish pound but let it float, they could use the Euro, they could use a completely new currency. Three of those five options have been used by Ireland in recent times; they aren't controversial. I don't see how bullying comes into any of that. It's possibly the lack of bullying by England/UK when the Scottish independence referendum was going on that led people to believe that the EU would be similarly reasonable.BabylonClaret wrote:Similarly there wasnt any reference to any future free trade with Scotland. There was specific talk about them not adopting Sterling though so plenty of scope for UK bullying there. And seeing as Scotland was seeking EU entry really quickly post independence then we would be in a free trade agreenent with them as EU members anyway.
Im not sure why yoi think Renainers think free trade is a benefit that is one way. Thats not what I or other Remainers have said. But if FTAs were so simple then we would all be doing it already with everyone. Seeing as we dont do that there is clearly a balance to be struck. In the EU that's about the conditions set for the free trade area. You can't have one without the other or that would make the UK a special case. How many of the other 27 will agree that?
Are you surprised?Greenmile wrote:After all this time and evidence to the contrary dsr still thinks that they need us more than we need them.
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
This is a pretty ridiculous comment. The EU does want free trade. They'd prefer us to stay in the EU. We've decided to walk away. But even though we've decided to leave the EU, there are still some different arrangements on offer which could still facilitate frictionless free trade, such as the Norway arrangement. This, however, has been ruled out by the hard right of the Conservative party. As a result, May has backed herself into a corner by inventing ridiculously unrealistic 'red lines' when we started this process.dsr wrote:The EU doesn't want free trade because some of its members might see what a free trade organisation without political union looks like, and decide they want it too. The principle of ever-closer union outweighs the principle of financial prosperity for the EU members.
And there's none so pig ignorant as those who are so smugly entrenched in their own views that they can't be bothered to read anyone else's.Greenmile wrote:After all this time and evidence to the contrary dsr still thinks that they need us more than we need them.
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
I don’t know a single person who thought the EU would bend over in this way - they have a long history of not doing. This is no different. If their intransigence causes is all economic pain we have to grin and bear it - we sure as hell don’t buckle and go “ok then, we’d better stay”. The pain would be temporary, the joy of having our own country again would remain, having politicians who begin to say “let’s do this” rather than saying “we cannot do that because it is against EU rules”.JohnMcGreal wrote:This is why it's so difficult for some leavers to accept, because they've firmly believed for years that the EU will bend over backwards to gives us whatever we want. But we can't have our cake and eat it. That was never going to be possible. You should have listened to the people who have been telling you that for the last 2.5+ years.
I haven't heard anything to convince me people's live would be BETTER if we remain and that is exactly the point, we already know what life is like under EU rule and it's not great, hence why people are happy to give change a try.Erasmus wrote: I haven't heard anything convincing that would suggest that people's lives will be better after Brexit.
EU rule. Ha.burnleymik wrote:I haven't heard anything to convince me people's live would be BETTER if we remain and that is exactly the point, we already know what life is like under EU rule and it's not great, hence why people are happy to give change a try.
Exactly thisQuickenthetempo wrote:I read the first 10 posts or so and came to the conclusion Erasmus doesn't want to open another Brexit discussion to learn but to put over his views as why to remain.
I skipped the rest as I presume there's nothing new been added from the other million Brexit threads where nobody has budged an inch?
How do you know?Bacchus wrote:EU rule. Ha.
Anyway, change is great - you have to change the right thing though. People are forever listing things on here that they aren't happy about which is fair enough - the problem is that leaving the EU won't do a damn thing about them because the EU isn't the cause of those problems.
How do I know what, exactly?RocketLawnChair wrote:How do you know?
Certainly feels that way if we cannot change the rules to suit the needs of our own citizens.Bacchus wrote:EU rule. Ha.
How exactly do you know this?Bacchus wrote:
People are forever listing things on here that they aren't happy about which is fair enough - the problem is that leaving the EU won't do a damn thing about them because the EU isn't the cause of those problems.