Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DazzlaJ

EU Referendum

EU Referendum  

327 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

No, of course it wasn’t. My point was about why the argument resonated. As ever, Leave campaigners had put more effort into working out where they needed to win, unlike the stupid, complacent t***s behind the Remain campaign.

Indeed.

 

Not sure what the Remain lot could have done differently as I've not taken time to properly walk it through, but it was very poor.

 

It certainly never said why being a member was good and how we've each benefitted. That would have been a start I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed.

 

Not sure what the Remain lot could have done differently as I've not taken time to properly walk it through, but it was very poor.

 

It certainly never said why being a member was good and how we've each benefitted. That would have been a start I guess.

Maybe those desperately hoping for a 2nd Referendum might want to spend a little time walk through what they'd do differently just in case they get their wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe those desperately hoping for a 2nd Referendum might want to spend a little time walk through what they'd do differently just in case they get their wish.

Haha, yes. I'm sure Chukka is on it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe those desperately hoping for a 2nd Referendum might want to spend a little time walk through what they'd do differently just in case they get their wish.

they've obviously thought about that and decided not to do so in case they jinx it. It's exactly like when I'm imaging celebrating winning the league when I'm on the treadmill at the gym (feck of Pipnasty) but then I stop myself

 

if someone hands them the opportunity, I'm sure it won't be too hard to learn from their myriad of mistakes and they'll saunter home in the next Ref. 

 

the first step would be to hire Roger Stone and pay him whatever he wants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, yes. I'm sure Chukka is on it :)

 

If people who want a 2nd ref get their wish but leave the actual campaigning for any campaign to official groups, politicians and business leaders then more fool them when they lose again. If you want to win you might have to do a bit more yourselves than sharing a few memes on FB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What do you think is more likely - that the nations under FoM were closer by virtue of culture, law and history and therefore the lengthy integration process was easier compared to say, Turkey - or that its racist by design?

 

 

You see, that assertion that "integration" through FOM is easier because European nations are "closer by virtue of culture" is racist.

 

Racist as f***, my man.

 

 

On this policy, Corbyn has shifted Labour very far to the right of where it should be as a pro-immigrant, internationalist party. It's a great shame. 

 

You're talking pure s***e, fella.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-32941558/yvette-cooper-labour-squeamish-talking-about-immigration

 

https://labourlist.org/2016/11/ian-austin-people-are-concerned-about-immigration-labour-must-come-up-with-fair-answers-rather-than-hiding-from-it/

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/europe/eu-policy-agenda/brexit/news/79194/chuka-umunna-britain-should-quit-single-market-if

 

fwiw Paul Embery is not an advocate for open borders

 

:lol: No he isn't, alright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting rid of FoM is clearly regressive. Trying to justify by arguing that FoM is actually racist is requires some pretty tortured reasoning at the best of times, and is nonsensical in the current scenario and how that right is probably about about to be taken away. 

 

On this policy, Corbyn has shifted Labour very far to the right of where it should be as a pro-immigrant, internationalist party. It's a great shame. 

 

Firstly the people calling it racist here aren't justifying getting rid of it they are justifying it's extension to include people not EU citizens. Secondly have you forgotten British Jobs for British Workers c/o Gordon Brown or the racist immigration control mugs c/o Cooper and Miliband or f***ing Yarls Wood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You see, that assertion that "integration" through FOM is easier because European nations are "closer by virtue of culture" is racist.

 

t.

Setting up institutions to x-functionally oversee FoM is a lot easier with geographical proximity, legal institution harmonisation and a political will to do so.

 

That’s common sense.

 

But yeah, racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting up institutions to x-functionally oversee FoM is a lot easier with geographical proximity, legal institution harmonisation and a political will to do so.

 

That’s common sense.

 

But yeah, racism.

 

You don't need to do that, you just need to eliminate border enforcement and the idea that there are specific cultural enablers required is a problem. The point of opening borders is to reduce oversight not increase it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting up institutions to x-functionally oversee FoM is a lot easier with geographical proximity, legal institution harmonisation and a political will to do so.

 

That’s common sense.

 

But yeah, racism.

 

Which is why white people from Australia, Canada, South Africa and NZ seem to be able to travel here and live here with impunity, because of "geographical proximity".

And you also used the example of Turkey as a country whose migrants would find it more difficult to "integrate" than say Poles or Latvians. Why would that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why white people from Australia, Canada, South Africa and NZ seem to be able to travel here and live here with impunity, because of "geographical proximity".

 

And you also used the example of Turkey as a country whose migrants would find it more difficult to "integrate" than say Poles or Latvians. Why would that be?

It’s not hard to enter the UK for six months plus extension under visa free or visa waiver schemes and it certainly isn’t only restricted to ‘majority white’ or ‘Christian’ nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not hard to enter the UK for six months plus extension under visa free or visa waiver schemes and it certainly isn’t only restricted to ‘majority white’ or ‘Christian’ nations.

That's patently not true, the UK is one of the hardest places to get a visa to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's patently not true, the UK is one of the hardest places to get a visa to

Depends on the visa class of course you’re right Hass, I was referring to the general ability to travel there.

Edited by ChrisC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setting up institutions to x-functionally oversee FoM is a lot easier with geographical proximity, legal institution harmonisation and a political will to do so.

That’s common sense.

But yeah, racism.

Is it about the proximity and legal institutions, or about cultures being closer? Because you keep changing post to post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this highlights the one of the problems facing remainers, they are unable, even in relatively friendly environments to acknowledge the problems of the EU and the implications of EU rules. I get it because once you admit that aspects of the EU are problematic it becomes a weapon to be wielded by leavers who have no interest in engaging in good faith. This is also one of the problems remain will have in a second referendum, they either have to argue for a better EU acknowledging its weaknesses or sell it on it's strengths while ignoring said weaknesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is why white people from Australia, Canada, South Africa and NZ seem to be able to travel here and live here with impunity, because of "geographical proximity".

 

And you also used the example of Turkey as a country whose migrants would find it more difficult to "integrate" than say Poles or Latvians. Why would that be?

There are reciprocal agreements in place for different countries. You don’t need any form of Visa to enter the UK for a huge number of countries covering about 1.5bn people. Their rights once through determined by specific agreements.

 

Australians can’t live here with impunity. Anymore than you can there.

 

But sure, racism.

Is it about the proximity and legal institutions, or about cultures being closer? Because you keep changing post to post.

I didn’t cherry pick in the first place.

Is it about the proximity and legal institutions, or about cultures being closer? Because you keep changing post to post.

I didn’t cherry pick in the first place.

 

And you also used the example of Turkey as a country whose migrants would find it more difficult to "integrate" than say Poles or Latvians. Why would that be?

Looks like you’ve misunderstood the point made.

I think this highlights the one of the problems facing remainers, they are unable, even in relatively friendly environments to acknowledge the problems of the EU and the implications of EU rules. I get it because once you admit that aspects of the EU are problematic it becomes a weapon to be wielded by leavers who have no interest in engaging in good faith. This is also one of the problems remain will have in a second referendum, they either have to argue for a better EU acknowledging its weaknesses or sell it on it's strengths while ignoring said weaknesses.

Don’t see that at all. No system is perfect and the relatively rapid evolution of EU systems points to something which acknowledges the need to reform and iterate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are reciprocal agreements in place for different countries. You don’t need any form of Visa to enter the UK for a huge number of countries covering about 1.5bn people. Their rights once through determined by specific agreements.

 

Can reciprocal agreements reinforce racist outcomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool so the existence of reciprocal outcomes doesn't really do anything about the exclusion of large parts of the world from having the right to live here.

 

Just to be clear I think all the people disagreeing with you here are critical of Labour's stance on FoM and have argued for maintaining it, what we differ in is our analysis of the implications for selective FoM which I for one consider problematic when implemented across exclusively European countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, you’re going to have to do some work to convince me that there is more natural or easier legal alignment between the UK and the other nations within the EU than there is with countries such as those on the Indian subcontinent who based their modern legal systems on the UK’s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, you’re going to have to do some work to convince me that there is more natural or easier legal alignment between the UK and the other nations within the EU than there is with countries such as those on the Indian subcontinent who based their modern legal systems on the UK’s.

FoM as a function of the EEA means that a number of required insifutuons and agreements already exist.

 

If India and the EEA has the socio-political will to form another pillar (or somehow integrate into an existing one) then that’s a massive block cleared.

 

A block the UK didn’t have to overcome...

 

Indian courts and legal practices are masssively different to the UKs btw. What’s key are the supranational Courts (CJEU, EFTA ect) and the conventions the respective nations sign up too.

Cool so the existence of reciprocal outcomes doesn't really do anything about the exclusion of large parts of the world from having the right to live here.

 

Just to be clear I think all the people disagreeing with you here are critical of Labour's stance on FoM and have argued for maintaining it, what we differ in is our analysis of the implications for selective FoM which I for one consider problematic when implemented across exclusively European countries.

I mention reciprocal agreements simply as they’re a bi-lateral national competence - so when you compare those agreements to FoM within the EEA there’s a recognition of their nature and origin.

 

FoM by nature right now is selective given the path to enabling it is far from simple. Gilps’ Indian example being a case in point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FoM by nature right now is selective given the path to enabling it is far from simple. Gilps’ Indian example being a case in point.

 

No it's only complex if you wish to make it so, countries can and do unilaterally waive visa requirements and have total control over who can live and work in their territory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it's only complex if you wish to make it so, countries can and do unilaterally waive visa requirements and have total control over who can live and work in their territory

That’s still not freedom of movement as it’s currently defined - it offers more than a visa.

 

Unilaterally waiving all entry requirements is one way to go - who has successfully done that without needing massive inward migration?

Edited by StevieC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s still not freedom of movement as it’s currently defined - it offers more than a visa.

 

Unilaterally waiving all entry requirements is one way to go - who has successfully done that without needing massive inward migration?

 

It's about taking small steps towards the end goal and that requires we change the narrative about FoM which entails defending FoM within EU but as a starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...