I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk. (Hope that point is sensible). Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why). Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another. As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Carillion are in liquidation. I've posted this on the EU thread because of the Reuters article linked.
Haven’t we got a fervent brexiter on here who works in the construction industry? Perhaps he can shed some light on the point raised.
I do hope he isn’t unfortunate enough to work for Carillion.
From what I've heard about Carillion employees spending half their paid time being paid to do nothing that would fit the lifestyle of someone who seems to have time obsessively going through the post history of every member he disagrees with in order to LOL each and every one of their posts on an hourly basis.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
OK. Fair enough. You have set out your own issues clearly enough. Are you a lorry driver, BTW? I just wondered how many hours of classes you'd consider acceptable.
Beyond that, a number of people on here have pretty coherent arguments as to why they would not agree with you. Whether a majority of citizens are now moving towards their rather than your POV is an open question, but I fail to see the grounds on which you brand them "not sensible". Maybe you feel alone because the counterpoint posts are usually not arguments but just trolling.
What I find slightly sinister is this suggestion that you place that if Brexit is not executed according to how you define it, there will be public unrest. This public suggestion is becoming more common. "If you don't give us the hard Brexit we voted for, there will be trouble on the streets". We have already seen where that ends, haven't we?
The problem I have with it is this. What are the political issues which have previously caused violent unrest in the UK. It has been awhile, but they are: The Poll Tax, the miners strike, and Wapping. Plus localised issues between communities and the police. In all those cases I could empathise with the very personal issues which affected many of those protesting violently. But Brexit? I mean come on, are you telling me that you feel like smashing up your local town hall because lorry drivers have to do 40 hours of classes?
Wtf are you talking about?
Try reading what I have said, not what you think I have said.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
OK. Fair enough. You have set out your own issues clearly enough. Are you a lorry driver, BTW? I just wondered how many hours of classes you'd consider acceptable.
Beyond that, a number of people on here have pretty coherent arguments as to why they would not agree with you. Whether a majority of citizens are now moving towards their rather than your POV is an open question, but I fail to see the grounds on which you brand them "not sensible". Maybe you feel alone because the counterpoint posts are usually not arguments but just trolling.
What I find slightly sinister is this suggestion that you place that if Brexit is not executed according to how you define it, there will be public unrest. This public suggestion is becoming more common. "If you don't give us the hard Brexit we voted for, there will be trouble on the streets". We have already seen where that ends, haven't we?
The problem I have with it is this. What are the political issues which have previously caused violent unrest in the UK. It has been awhile, but they are: The Poll Tax, the miners strike, and Wapping. Plus localised issues between communities and the police. In all those cases I could empathise with the very personal issues which affected many of those protesting violently. But Brexit? I mean come on, are you telling me that you feel like smashing up your local town hall because lorry drivers have to do 40 hours of classes?
Wtf are you talking about?
Try reading what I have said, not what you think I have said.
I'll let everyone read what you said again
Many brexitiers have been concerned about these type of manoeuvrings since the referendum. Once again, we have our politicians giving the majority voters a big 'up yours'.
I wonder how some will react to this if it comes to pass? This could lead to a significant percentage of the 17.4m looking for more extreme political representation in frustration, which would be bad for everybody
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk. (Hope that point is sensible). Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why). Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another. As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Seth, with regard to not parcelling up the seas or countries etc, do you apply the same to airspace ? I ask having just seen the news about the RAF scrambling jets to ward off Russian planes again. Genuine question.
If you think it is too difficult to become a lorry driver I suggest you attempt the Dartford Tunnel any time between 5am and 7pm, no doubt you'll likely find yourself delayed by half an hour on any given day by the sheer volume of them attempting to fit in at a given time.
I hope any classes include a section suggesting that if you want to go 50mph and the lorry in front of you on the motorway is going 49.5mph you don't attempt an overtake that holds up traffic behind you for 20 minutes.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk. (Hope that point is sensible). Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why). Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another. As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Seth, with regard to not parcelling up the seas or countries etc, do you apply the same to airspace ? I ask having just seen the news about the RAF scrambling jets to ward off Russian planes again. Genuine question.
I think safety in the air, to avoid collision for example, is something that does need international cooperation in air traffic control. The concept of 'warding off' is a whole new debate about friends enemies and threats.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
For the sake of balance, here are some of the reasons I'm sure membership of the EU is a good thing.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
If you think it is too difficult to become a lorry driver I suggest you attempt the Dartford Tunnel any time between 5am and 7pm, no doubt you'll likely find yourself delayed by half an hour on any given day by the sheer volume of them attempting to fit in at a given time.
I hope any classes include a section suggesting that if you want to go 50mph and the lorry in front of you on the motorway is going 49.5mph you don't attempt an overtake that holds up traffic behind you for 20 minutes.
Shouldn't be more than 5....
In a previous existence, I occasionally drove a 7.5t lorry, a bigger problem for other motorway users was caused by car drivers, seeing a lorry overtaking them, speeding up for a number of miles, until you'd give up and pull in behind (because, driving a lorry, you do male use of the mirrors, and are very aware of traffic build up), when they'd promptly slow down again.
If an articulated lorry cannot travel faster than 49.5 mph, it is probably very heavily laden and, as it is travelling some 10 mph slower than the current motorway limit for LGVs, should be passed reasonably easily by anything not similarly heavily laden.
If you want a real menace, try 16 year olds driving tractors on single carriageway A roads....
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
OK. Fair enough. You have set out your own issues clearly enough. Are you a lorry driver, BTW? I just wondered how many hours of classes you'd consider acceptable.
Beyond that, a number of people on here have pretty coherent arguments as to why they would not agree with you. Whether a majority of citizens are now moving towards their rather than your POV is an open question, but I fail to see the grounds on which you brand them "not sensible". Maybe you feel alone because the counterpoint posts are usually not arguments but just trolling.
What I find slightly sinister is this suggestion that you place that if Brexit is not executed according to how you define it, there will be public unrest. This public suggestion is becoming more common. "If you don't give us the hard Brexit we voted for, there will be trouble on the streets". We have already seen where that ends, haven't we?
The problem I have with it is this. What are the political issues which have previously caused violent unrest in the UK. It has been awhile, but they are: The Poll Tax, the miners strike, and Wapping. Plus localised issues between communities and the police. In all those cases I could empathise with the very personal issues which affected many of those protesting violently. But Brexit? I mean come on, are you telling me that you feel like smashing up your local town hall because lorry drivers have to do 40 hours of classes?
Wtf are you talking about?
Try reading what I have said, not what you think I have said.
I'll let everyone read what you said again
Many brexitiers have been concerned about these type of manoeuvrings since the referendum. Once again, we have our politicians giving the majority voters a big 'up yours'.
I wonder how some will react to this if it comes to pass? This could lead to a significant percentage of the 17.4m looking for more extreme political representation in frustration, which would be bad for everybody
OK let me spell it out for you.
I didn't try to tell you that I support violence, I have no idea if a lurch to the right will bring violence. You have highlighted violence the left have turned to in large numbers when things aren't to their liking, brought about by legimate government. Perhaps you think I refer to violence because that is the natural response of the far left that you have empathy with, I don't believe it is natural for the average person who simply dislikes the EU.
If politicians cast Brexit supporters adrift then the arguments we have had will continue. We should try to work together to move forward not further apart in argument and hatred. You have to understand that having a contrary view is not unreasonable even for those who don't think it unreasonable for ex pats to loose their vote.
If you think it is too difficult to become a lorry driver I suggest you attempt the Dartford Tunnel any time between 5am and 7pm, no doubt you'll likely find yourself delayed by half an hour on any given day by the sheer volume of them attempting to fit in at a given time.
I hope any classes include a section suggesting that if you want to go 50mph and the lorry in front of you on the motorway is going 49.5mph you don't attempt an overtake that holds up traffic behind you for 20 minutes.
Shouldn't be more than 5....
In a previous existence, I occasionally drove a 7.5t lorry, a bigger problem for other motorway users was caused by car drivers, seeing a lorry overtaking them, speeding up for a number of miles, until you'd give up and pull in behind (because, driving a lorry, you do male use of the mirrors, and are very aware of traffic build up), when they'd promptly slow down again.
If an articulated lorry cannot travel faster than 49.5 mph, it is probably very heavily laden and, as it is travelling some 10 mph slower than the current motorway limit for LGVs, should be passed reasonably easily by anything not similarly heavily laden.
If you want a real menace, try 16 year olds driving tractors on single carriageway A roads....
Maybe not a single lorry but I had an hour in total added onto my journey home (5 hours instead of 4 hours) where the only disruption was a sequence of racing elephants who think that extra half a mile per hour is really worth causing every driver behind them to be held up whilst they complete their completely unnecessary overtake.
Alternatively, If the lorry maxed out at 49.5mph slowed down to 40 then it would be over much more quickly.
I thought when you said "I wonder how some will react to this if it comes to pass? This could lead to a significant percentage of the 17.4m looking for more extreme political representation in frustration, which would be bad for everybody" you were referring to people voting for the likes of UKIP and people like the BNP. Kind of like they did before the Brexit vote (said vote has now collapsed)? Seems a reasonable inference to me.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk. (Hope that point is sensible). Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why). Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another. As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Seth, with regard to not parcelling up the seas or countries etc, do you apply the same to airspace ? I ask having just seen the news about the RAF scrambling jets to ward off Russian planes again. Genuine question.
I agree with Seth. I think the Russians should be allowed to fly wherever they want. I also think anyone should be allowed to freely move into Seth's home. In fact I'm not sure Seth should be permitted to own a home as he does not believe in parcelling up and claiming ownership of sea and land. Sorry Seth I know I annoy you.
Personally i have no idea whether 40hrs training for a lorry driver is too much or too little or what. However I would sound a note of caution to all those who are expecting the end of these sovereignty eroding diktats from Brussels - when the Henry the VIII powers are granted to all those unelected ministers - who says they'll deem the laws frivolous enough to change? What if the road safety lobby does a better job than the trucking lobby? We can vote them out if we disagree, but what if we are then 1 year into a 5 year term?
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
OK. Fair enough. You have set out your own issues clearly enough. Are you a lorry driver, BTW? I just wondered how many hours of classes you'd consider acceptable.
Beyond that, a number of people on here have pretty coherent arguments as to why they would not agree with you. Whether a majority of citizens are now moving towards their rather than your POV is an open question, but I fail to see the grounds on which you brand them "not sensible". Maybe you feel alone because the counterpoint posts are usually not arguments but just trolling.
What I find slightly sinister is this suggestion that you place that if Brexit is not executed according to how you define it, there will be public unrest. This public suggestion is becoming more common. "If you don't give us the hard Brexit we voted for, there will be trouble on the streets". We have already seen where that ends, haven't we?
The problem I have with it is this. What are the political issues which have previously caused violent unrest in the UK. It has been awhile, but they are: The Poll Tax, the miners strike, and Wapping. Plus localised issues between communities and the police. In all those cases I could empathise with the very personal issues which affected many of those protesting violently. But Brexit? I mean come on, are you telling me that you feel like smashing up your local town hall because lorry drivers have to do 40 hours of classes?
Wtf are you talking about?
Try reading what I have said, not what you think I have said.
I'll let everyone read what you said again
Many brexitiers have been concerned about these type of manoeuvrings since the referendum. Once again, we have our politicians giving the majority voters a big 'up yours'.
I wonder how some will react to this if it comes to pass? This could lead to a significant percentage of the 17.4m looking for more extreme political representation in frustration, which would be bad for everybody
OK let me spell it out for you.
I didn't try to tell you that I support violence, I have no idea if a lurch to the right will bring violence. You have highlighted violence the left have turned to in large numbers when things aren't to their liking, brought about by legimate government. Perhaps you think I refer to violence because that is the natural response of the far left that you have empathy with, I don't believe it is natural for the average person who simply dislikes the EU.
If politicians cast Brexit supporters adrift then the arguments we have had will continue. We should try to work together to move forward not further apart in argument and hatred. You have to understand that having a contrary view is not unreasonable even for those who don't think it unreasonable for ex pats to loose their vote.
Do you think politicians are currently casting Brexit supporters adrift?
Taking a casual glance at the politicians in positions of influence, there does seem to be a significant proportion who are working to the same goals of Brexit supporters, ie trying to engineer leaving the EU.
The Prime Minister is leading the Brexit negotiations. She has set up a Government Department with the sole purpose of Exiting the EU. The Cabinet supports the Prime Minister's stated objective of leaving the EU. Leading politicians inside and outside the Cabinet take every opportunity to reaffirm their intention to leave no matter the cost (e.g. Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg). The Leader of the Opposition supports leaving the EU. The Shadow Cabinet supports leaving the EU. The main opposition party fought the election on a manifesto stating their aim to leave the EU. And the self-proclaimed "leader of Brexit", (the man who has lost more Westminster elections than many and lost his job as party leader more than anyone) has five national radio shows a week for the hard-of-thinking.
Does that really describe a scenario whereby Brexit supporters are cast adrift?
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk. (Hope that point is sensible). Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why). Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another. As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Seth, with regard to not parcelling up the seas or countries etc, do you apply the same to airspace ? I ask having just seen the news about the RAF scrambling jets to ward off Russian planes again. Genuine question.
I agree with Seth. I think the Russians should be allowed to fly wherever they want. I also think anyone should be allowed to freely move into Seth's home. In fact I'm not sure Seth should be permitted to own a home as he does not believe in parcelling up and claiming ownership of sea and land. Sorry Seth I know I annoy you.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
OK. Fair enough. You have set out your own issues clearly enough. Are you a lorry driver, BTW? I just wondered how many hours of classes you'd consider acceptable.
Beyond that, a number of people on here have pretty coherent arguments as to why they would not agree with you. Whether a majority of citizens are now moving towards their rather than your POV is an open question, but I fail to see the grounds on which you brand them "not sensible". Maybe you feel alone because the counterpoint posts are usually not arguments but just trolling.
What I find slightly sinister is this suggestion that you place that if Brexit is not executed according to how you define it, there will be public unrest. This public suggestion is becoming more common. "If you don't give us the hard Brexit we voted for, there will be trouble on the streets". We have already seen where that ends, haven't we?
The problem I have with it is this. What are the political issues which have previously caused violent unrest in the UK. It has been awhile, but they are: The Poll Tax, the miners strike, and Wapping. Plus localised issues between communities and the police. In all those cases I could empathise with the very personal issues which affected many of those protesting violently. But Brexit? I mean come on, are you telling me that you feel like smashing up your local town hall because lorry drivers have to do 40 hours of classes?
Wtf are you talking about?
Try reading what I have said, not what you think I have said.
I'll let everyone read what you said again
Many brexitiers have been concerned about these type of manoeuvrings since the referendum. Once again, we have our politicians giving the majority voters a big 'up yours'.
I wonder how some will react to this if it comes to pass? This could lead to a significant percentage of the 17.4m looking for more extreme political representation in frustration, which would be bad for everybody
OK let me spell it out for you.
I didn't try to tell you that I support violence, I have no idea if a lurch to the right will bring violence. You have highlighted violence the left have turned to in large numbers when things aren't to their liking, brought about by legimate government. Perhaps you think I refer to violence because that is the natural response of the far left that you have empathy with, I don't believe it is natural for the average person who simply dislikes the EU.
If politicians cast Brexit supporters adrift then the arguments we have had will continue. We should try to work together to move forward not further apart in argument and hatred. You have to understand that having a contrary view is not unreasonable even for those who don't think it unreasonable for ex pats to loose their vote.
I don't have any empathy for the 'far left'. I despise them as much as I despise the far right. However, I can well understand that if someone has given their life to working down a coalmine, they will have been deeply upset, traumatised, to realise that the country has literally thrown him on the scrapheap. That would be something worth protesting about. And then when police from the Met are sent up there to give him a good beating when he dares to protest, I can understand how he might then seek to protest in even more militant ways. That is serious shit. (And btw, that serious shit turned my Dad, a lifelong Tory, into a Guardian-reading anti Thatcherist).
By contrast I fail to see what on earth not leaving the EU will do to the lives of ordinary people that they would turn to 'extremist" parties. What kind of extremism are you talking about? Because all the right wing extremist parties in Europe (Golden Dawn, Pegida, the Front National,) plus some Trump supporters, have brought violence onto their streets in their name. Yet none of them had in their main programme anything about leaving the EU (patently, in Trump's case).
I repeat, there is no way we are not leaving the EU unless a second referendum decides that we should stay. In that case it will mean that you are no longer in the majority, and that some previous Brexiteers decided to hold a 'contrary view" to yours. What's unreasonable about that?
There is no justicfication whatsoever for your claim "Once again, we have our politicians giving the majority voters a big 'up yours'. "
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk. (Hope that point is sensible). Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why). Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another. As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Seth, with regard to not parcelling up the seas or countries etc, do you apply the same to airspace ? I ask having just seen the news about the RAF scrambling jets to ward off Russian planes again. Genuine question.
I agree with Seth. I think the Russians should be allowed to fly wherever they want. I also think anyone should be allowed to freely move into Seth's home. In fact I'm not sure Seth should be permitted to own a home as he does not believe in parcelling up and claiming ownership of sea and land. Sorry Seth I know I annoy you.
Not annoy at all.
I am interested in the point where philosophy and belief collide with reality.
For example if a person is theoretically against abortion, but then gets an unwanted pregnancy, and time is of the essence in which to make a decision.
There is certainly a concept that all property is theft, and maybe anybody should come and live in my place, but there is also a concept of reciprocity, so if anybody can live in my place, then it works both ways and I should also be able to move into Windsor Castle, or 10 Downing Street, or the Ritz. Whilst the situation prevails that I am denied the liberty to go where I wish, then I reserve the option to try to preserve some place for myself.
Then again if my neighbour is flooded out or something, then to deny them shelter on the basis of 'I own this' seems to be the wrong thing to do.
Some beliefs one can carry alone, like vegetarianism, but some beliefs can only manifest themselves if everybody goes along with them.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
For the sake of balance, here are some of the reasons I'm sure membership of the EU is a good thing.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
@Chizz Tell me more - we can limit the free movement of EU nationals to the UK if we choose to ? Like.....set an annual ceiling, or a monthly limit ?
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
For the sake of balance, here are some of the reasons I'm sure membership of the EU is a good thing.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
@Chizz Tell me more - we can limit the free movement of EU nationals to the UK if we choose to ? Like.....set an annual ceiling, or a monthly limit ?
I listed various controls at the UK's disposal that the government never bothered to enact a month ago. I distinctly remember you comparing the controls to what the Nazis did.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
For the sake of balance, here are some of the reasons I'm sure membership of the EU is a good thing.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
@Chizz Tell me more - we can limit the free movement of EU nationals to the UK if we choose to ? Like.....set an annual ceiling, or a monthly limit ?
We can send EU migrants back to their own countries if they do not have the means to support themselves.
So, for example, if a Belgian migrant in London merely signs on to claim benefits, the UK Government can send them home.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to, for example, a Belgian scientist who comes to London to work. Although I'm guessing most people would be happy for such a person to stay and to contribute.
We can't set a monthly limit. Although why would we want to set a limit on people coming to London to work hard and contribute? But we can - and do - set a limit on the number coming here just to claim benefits. And I would argue we don't set that particular limit low enough.
Just been to an event at parliament for the association of British healthcare industries... The message from this multibillion pound (about 17bn) industry, that is massive for exporting (this is our manufacturing base...) Is simple. Keep the same regulatory controls and standards as the EU, and allow the flow of labour.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk. (Hope that point is sensible). Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why). Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another. As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Seth, with regard to not parcelling up the seas or countries etc, do you apply the same to airspace ? I ask having just seen the news about the RAF scrambling jets to ward off Russian planes again. Genuine question.
I agree with Seth. I think the Russians should be allowed to fly wherever they want. I also think anyone should be allowed to freely move into Seth's home. In fact I'm not sure Seth should be permitted to own a home as he does not believe in parcelling up and claiming ownership of sea and land. Sorry Seth I know I annoy you.
Not annoy at all.
I am interested in the point where philosophy and belief collide with reality.
For example if a person is theoretically against abortion, but then gets an unwanted pregnancy, and time is of the essence in which to make a decision.
There is certainly a concept that all property is theft, and maybe anybody should come and live in my place, but there is also a concept of reciprocity, so if anybody can live in my place, then it works both ways and I should also be able to move into Windsor Castle, or 10 Downing Street, or the Ritz. Whilst the situation prevails that I am denied the liberty to go where I wish, then I reserve the option to try to preserve some place for myself.
Then again if my neighbour is flooded out or something, then to deny them shelter on the basis of 'I own this' seems to be the wrong thing to do.
Some beliefs one can carry alone, like vegetarianism, but some beliefs can only manifest themselves if everybody goes along with them.
So going back to the original point, you must surely appreciate that not everyone goes along with your, " I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd". As you say some beliefs can only manifest themselves if everybody goes along with them and I respectfully suggest you're probably in the minority on this of perhaps 2% ?
There seems to be a running theme with Brexiters and, when caught in a lie, instead of just admitting they're wrong they double down and insist their lie is true.
Typically, Boris takes this concept and ramps it up to 11.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
Thank you for being prepared to answer. I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'. I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all. There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Seth, with regard to not parcelling up the seas or countries etc, do you apply the same to airspace ? I ask having just seen the news about the RAF scrambling jets to ward off Russian planes again. Genuine question.
I agree with Seth. I think the Russians should be allowed to fly wherever they want. I also think anyone should be allowed to freely move into Seth's home. In fact I'm not sure Seth should be permitted to own a home as he does not believe in parcelling up and claiming ownership of sea and land. Sorry Seth I know I annoy you.
Not annoy at all.
I am interested in the point where philosophy and belief collide with reality.
For example if a person is theoretically against abortion, but then gets an unwanted pregnancy, and time is of the essence in which to make a decision.
There is certainly a concept that all property is theft, and maybe anybody should come and live in my place, but there is also a concept of reciprocity, so if anybody can live in my place, then it works both ways and I should also be able to move into Windsor Castle, or 10 Downing Street, or the Ritz. Whilst the situation prevails that I am denied the liberty to go where I wish, then I reserve the option to try to preserve some place for myself.
Then again if my neighbour is flooded out or something, then to deny them shelter on the basis of 'I own this' seems to be the wrong thing to do.
Some beliefs one can carry alone, like vegetarianism, but some beliefs can only manifest themselves if everybody goes along with them.
So going back to the original point, you must surely appreciate that not everyone goes along with your, " I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd". As you say some beliefs can only manifest themselves if everybody goes along with them and I respectfully suggest you're probably in the minority on this of perhaps 2% ?
You are absolutely right that I am in a minority. No need to respectfully point it out, a message tied to a brick through the window would work as well.
However if we are talking about water, could we get to a situation where in the UK somebody somewhere claims 'ownership' of every drop of fresh water? The general population is obliged to either accept that situation, or collect rainwater in barrels. Isn't that a sorry state of affairs, fresh water which is vital for life being owned, and sold back to the population? Perhaps that's actually where we are now.
Then we have the sea, and territorial waters, and 12 mile limits and all that. Why are such things seemingly arbitrary? North Sea Oil can reasonably be argued that it's control goes to those who engineer it out of the planet, but is it Scottish oil? The UK's? the EU? The Worlds? Are those oilfields in regions that have been arbitrarily extended so some force or another can 'claim ownership?
Then there is fishing. Iceland had a cod war because it said the UK was fishing 'their' cod. Why did the UK even contest this at all if the seas are all owned by somebody, and that bit was owned by Iceland...errrm, because they said so? There were shenanigans in Japan because of Whaling. Happily there has been a degree of cooperation regarding the Oceans and Seas, the EU collectively has played a part in this with dare I say a form of collective ownership, or at least collective husbandry in order to look after the waters on this part of this planet. When the UK leaves the EU maybe there will be a whole series of cod wars and disputes, if that happened it would seem to me so unnecessary and absurd.
My attitude towards the seas is don't fish them out, don't pollute the living beyjaysus out of them, and together we all rein it in when the good of the oceans are threatened. My fear is that forces say 'bugger off, this is our bit of sea and we can do what we like with it. How on earth is that managed? With a Donald Trump wall to stop the tides flowing this way and that?
British sailors hunted the Dodo to extinction, certain folk near me fly tip rubbish, certain nations go their own way when it comes to climate and such like. Working collectively with others seems to be the way to tackle this. For me one of the depressing aspect of brexit is that the UK is formally withdrawing from an opportunity to continue cooperating with it's neighbours on this kind of stuff. You may say new and better stuff will emerge from all this, well given the much repeated no deal scenario, and given the uselessness of the UK negotiators I am not holding my breath that 'better' scenarios will come about.
Baby with the bathwater (water...see what I did there?) kind of stuff.
Just been to an event at parliament for the association of British healthcare industries... The message from this multibillion pound (about 17bn) industry, that is massive for exporting (this is our manufacturing base...) Is simple. Keep the same regulatory controls and standards as the EU, and allow the flow of labour.
Hmmm, I think I can see a bit of a problem with this suggestion.
Unless the UK agrees to free movement then the service industries like healthcare and catering are going to face significant labour shortages, there is simply no doubt about it, which means higher wages and higher prices.
Putting in a strict visa regime for unskilled workers to work in retirement homes or in industrial kitchens is never going to work, someone has to pay for that regime and it will either be the applicant (why would they pay the UK when they can work in 27 other markets for free?), the employers (good luck with that - they will pass the costs on anyway) or the good old British tax-payer.
With a rapidly ageing population the UK needs all the young workers it can get and who are prepared to work hard for not much more than minimum wage in the service sector, that's not going to be possible without free movement unless the UK opens up the labour market to selected Asian/African countries which I am sure would delight that great fan of multiculturalism Nigel Farage.
Just been to an event at parliament for the association of British healthcare industries... The message from this multibillion pound (about 17bn) industry, that is massive for exporting (this is our manufacturing base...) Is simple. Keep the same regulatory controls and standards as the EU, and allow the flow of labour.
Hmmm, I think I can see a bit of a problem with this suggestion.
Unless the UK agrees to free movement then the service industries like healthcare and catering are going to face significant labour shortages, there is simply no doubt about it, which means higher wages and higher prices.
Putting in a strict visa regime for unskilled workers to work in retirement homes or in industrial kitchens is never going to work, someone has to pay for that regime and it will either be the applicant (why would they pay the UK when they can work in 27 other markets for free?), the employers (good luck with that - they will pass the costs on anyway) or the good old British tax-payer.
With a rapidly ageing population the UK needs all the young workers it can get and who are prepared to work hard for not much more than minimum wage in the service sector, that's not going to be possible without free movement unless the UK opens up the labour market to selected Asian/African countries which I am sure would delight that great fan of multiculturalism Nigel Farage.
Well exactly. Free movement would be great. Mind you, we met in equal numbers of people from outside the EU, so I wonder how hard to set up it is?
We are an ageing population, and need some radical suggestions to deal with the Ponzi scheme that is pensions and care in this country - we can't increase numbers coming in indefinitely. Technology can play a big role. Proper joined up and funded care is another.
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
For the sake of balance, here are some of the reasons I'm sure membership of the EU is a good thing.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
@Chizz Tell me more - we can limit the free movement of EU nationals to the UK if we choose to ? Like.....set an annual ceiling, or a monthly limit ?
We can send EU migrants back to their own countries if they do not have the means to support themselves.
So, for example, if a Belgian migrant in London merely signs on to claim benefits, the UK Government can send them home.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to, for example, a Belgian scientist who comes to London to work. Although I'm guessing most people would be happy for such a person to stay and to contribute.
We can't set a monthly limit. Although why would we want to set a limit on people coming to London to work hard and contribute? But we can - and do - set a limit on the number coming here just to claim benefits. And I would argue we don't set that particular limit low enough.
Ah..the old deportation trains solution again. I am generally not in favour of deportations on the grounds of "not economically active", because there are so many variables (like health of the individual, his/her dependents, etc), that in practice it is bordering on inhuman.
Wouldn't a better system be to ask if you "have the means to support yourself/health insurance/place to reside etc", BEFORE someone came to UK ?
I wondered if CL might have moved on to sensible debate. Oh well.
Chrissake man, stop whining and debate, then. What on earth is not "sensible" about these questions @seth plum asked you?
While we're on the subject then. What is the difference between a soft and a hard brexit? What does brexit mean to you in practical terms? Or even in philosophical terms? What will be the benefit of brexit in your eyes?
Go on, answer it. Why do you not do so? And to his last question, I am especially interested in whether you can answer it in the context of your own daily life as a normal and, I perceive, fairly typical British citizen.
ME stop whining? I think most of us can have that accusation put in our direction.
Brexit, amongst other things is being able to decide on who fishes in our waters, not being in the Euro (it's coming), not having to undertake 40 hours of classes to drive a lorry, being free of ever closer political union and more recently being able to control our immigration if we choose to.
I would accept a trading group and certain restrictions this would bring if it was fair and equitable.
The EU influences just about every part of our daily lives. Many are good, some are bad. To continue to trade with the EU block our traders who export to them will still necessarily have to conform to their regulations.
until a deal is struck, we won't know how much will change.
For the sake of balance, here are some of the reasons I'm sure membership of the EU is a good thing.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
@Chizz Tell me more - we can limit the free movement of EU nationals to the UK if we choose to ? Like.....set an annual ceiling, or a monthly limit ?
We can send EU migrants back to their own countries if they do not have the means to support themselves.
So, for example, if a Belgian migrant in London merely signs on to claim benefits, the UK Government can send them home.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to, for example, a Belgian scientist who comes to London to work. Although I'm guessing most people would be happy for such a person to stay and to contribute.
We can't set a monthly limit. Although why would we want to set a limit on people coming to London to work hard and contribute? But we can - and do - set a limit on the number coming here just to claim benefits. And I would argue we don't set that particular limit low enough.
Ah..the old deportation trains solution again. I am generally not in favour of deportations on the grounds of "not economically active", because there are so many variables (like health of the individual, his/her dependents, etc), that in practice it is bordering on inhuman.
Wouldn't a better system be to ask if you "have the means to support yourself/health insurance/place to reside etc", BEFORE someone came to UK ?
...at border crossings? Like on the island of Ireland?
Comments
I take it as a sign of a leaver being prepared to 'sensibly debate'.
To engage with some of your points I firstly disagree that the seas around the UK are 'ours'. Philosophically I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd as parcelling up cubic units of air and saying it is mine. Historically groups have used force to dominate parts of the sea, but I welcomed the EU efforts to try to improve collective husbandry of the seas, which seems to have led to a replenishment of, for example, cod in the North Sea. Mind you as a vegetarian I am ambivalent about the desire of people to kill and eat fish anyway. So you can probably see from that that I regard brexit as a retrograde step in conservation, certainly a risk.
(Hope that point is sensible).
Being in or out of the euro is less of a concern to me, but I would much prefer to be in to avoid changing money going abroad. (I have stated a position here, and given a reason why).
Classes to drive lorries on European roads seem very sensible to me, I would like to eventually move to a system where all countries drive on the same side of the road, and also ever closer political union because I see the EU as more 'democratic' than the UK. Neither system is ideal, but I am in favour of proportional representation, and ever closer union obliges a greater understanding and collaboration with one another.
As for control of immigration, see my point regarding the ownership of the seas, I feel the same about ownership of a country and would like no borders. Indeed the declaration of no border in Ireland seems to be a position in harmony with my personal position, and also means that there will seemingly be no brexit at all.
There you go, no abuse or name calling, but an attempt at 'sensible debate'.
Try reading what I have said, not what you think I have said.
Many brexitiers have been concerned about these type of manoeuvrings since the referendum. Once again, we have our politicians giving the majority voters a big 'up yours'.
I wonder how some will react to this if it comes to pass? This could lead to a significant percentage of the 17.4m looking for more extreme political representation in frustration, which would be bad for everybody
I hope any classes include a section suggesting that if you want to go 50mph and the lorry in front of you on the motorway is going 49.5mph you don't attempt an overtake that holds up traffic behind you for 20 minutes.
The concept of 'warding off' is a whole new debate about friends enemies and threats.
1. Getting to decide who fishes in our waters and having the critical mass to enforce it.
2. Enforcing a minimum requirement on lorry drivers, so we know anyone driving a lorry wherever we are in Europe drives to a safe standard.
3. Being able to influence how close the EU membership is in terms of political union.
4. Being able to (choose whether to) control immigration.
Obviously, there are many more. Including full, tariff-free trade across all sectors and all industries. And to continue to benefit from these, we need to ensure that we - and all other members - have to adhere to regulations that we - and all other members - influence and ratify.
If we did leave, all these advantages would be put at risk.
In a previous existence, I occasionally drove a 7.5t lorry, a bigger problem for other motorway users was caused by car drivers, seeing a lorry overtaking them, speeding up for a number of miles, until you'd give up and pull in behind (because, driving a lorry, you do male use of the mirrors, and are very aware of traffic build up), when they'd promptly slow down again.
If an articulated lorry cannot travel faster than 49.5 mph, it is probably very heavily laden and, as it is travelling some 10 mph slower than the current motorway limit for LGVs, should be passed reasonably easily by anything not similarly heavily laden.
If you want a real menace, try 16 year olds driving tractors on single carriageway A roads....
I didn't try to tell you that I support violence, I have no idea if a lurch to the right will bring violence. You have highlighted violence the left have turned to in large numbers when things aren't to their liking, brought about by legimate government. Perhaps you think I refer to violence because that is the natural response of the far left that you have empathy with, I don't believe it is natural for the average person who simply dislikes the EU.
If politicians cast Brexit supporters adrift then the arguments we have had will continue. We should try to work together to move forward not further apart in argument and hatred. You have to understand that having a contrary view is not unreasonable even for those who don't think it unreasonable for ex pats to loose their vote.
Alternatively, If the lorry maxed out at 49.5mph slowed down to 40 then it would be over much more quickly.
I also think anyone should be allowed to freely move into Seth's home.
In fact I'm not sure Seth should be permitted to own a home as he does not believe in parcelling up and claiming ownership of sea and land.
Sorry Seth I know I annoy you.
Taking a casual glance at the politicians in positions of influence, there does seem to be a significant proportion who are working to the same goals of Brexit supporters, ie trying to engineer leaving the EU.
The Prime Minister is leading the Brexit negotiations. She has set up a Government Department with the sole purpose of Exiting the EU. The Cabinet supports the Prime Minister's stated objective of leaving the EU. Leading politicians inside and outside the Cabinet take every opportunity to reaffirm their intention to leave no matter the cost (e.g. Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg). The Leader of the Opposition supports leaving the EU. The Shadow Cabinet supports leaving the EU. The main opposition party fought the election on a manifesto stating their aim to leave the EU. And the self-proclaimed "leader of Brexit", (the man who has lost more Westminster elections than many and lost his job as party leader more than anyone) has five national radio shows a week for the hard-of-thinking.
Does that really describe a scenario whereby Brexit supporters are cast adrift?
By contrast I fail to see what on earth not leaving the EU will do to the lives of ordinary people that they would turn to 'extremist" parties. What kind of extremism are you talking about? Because all the right wing extremist parties in Europe (Golden Dawn, Pegida, the Front National,) plus some Trump supporters, have brought violence onto their streets in their name. Yet none of them had in their main programme anything about leaving the EU (patently, in Trump's case).
I repeat, there is no way we are not leaving the EU unless a second referendum decides that we should stay. In that case it will mean that you are no longer in the majority, and that some previous Brexiteers decided to hold a 'contrary view" to yours. What's unreasonable about that?
There is no justicfication whatsoever for your claim "Once again, we have our politicians giving the majority voters a big 'up yours'. "
I am interested in the point where philosophy and belief collide with reality.
For example if a person is theoretically against abortion, but then gets an unwanted pregnancy, and time is of the essence in which to make a decision.
There is certainly a concept that all property is theft, and maybe anybody should come and live in my place, but there is also a concept of reciprocity, so if anybody can live in my place, then it works both ways and I should also be able to move into Windsor Castle, or 10 Downing Street, or the Ritz. Whilst the situation prevails that I am denied the liberty to go where I wish, then I reserve the option to try to preserve some place for myself.
Then again if my neighbour is flooded out or something, then to deny them shelter on the basis of 'I own this' seems to be the wrong thing to do.
Some beliefs one can carry alone, like vegetarianism, but some beliefs can only manifest themselves if everybody goes along with them.
Tell me more - we can limit the free movement of EU nationals to the UK if we choose to ?
Like.....set an annual ceiling, or a monthly limit ?
So, for example, if a Belgian migrant in London merely signs on to claim benefits, the UK Government can send them home.
Obviously this wouldn't apply to, for example, a Belgian scientist who comes to London to work. Although I'm guessing most people would be happy for such a person to stay and to contribute.
We can't set a monthly limit. Although why would we want to set a limit on people coming to London to work hard and contribute? But we can - and do - set a limit on the number coming here just to claim benefits. And I would argue we don't set that particular limit low enough.
" I view parcelling up the sea on this planet and claiming ownership as absurd".
As you say some beliefs can only manifest themselves if everybody goes along with them and I respectfully suggest you're probably in the minority on this of perhaps 2% ?
Typically, Boris takes this concept and ramps it up to 11.
However if we are talking about water, could we get to a situation where in the UK somebody somewhere claims 'ownership' of every drop of fresh water? The general population is obliged to either accept that situation, or collect rainwater in barrels. Isn't that a sorry state of affairs, fresh water which is vital for life being owned, and sold back to the population? Perhaps that's actually where we are now.
Then we have the sea, and territorial waters, and 12 mile limits and all that. Why are such things seemingly arbitrary? North Sea Oil can reasonably be argued that it's control goes to those who engineer it out of the planet, but is it Scottish oil? The UK's? the EU? The Worlds? Are those oilfields in regions that have been arbitrarily extended so some force or another can 'claim ownership?
Then there is fishing. Iceland had a cod war because it said the UK was fishing 'their' cod. Why did the UK even contest this at all if the seas are all owned by somebody, and that bit was owned by Iceland...errrm, because they said so? There were shenanigans in Japan because of Whaling. Happily there has been a degree of cooperation regarding the Oceans and Seas, the EU collectively has played a part in this with dare I say a form of collective ownership, or at least collective husbandry in order to look after the waters on this part of this planet. When the UK leaves the EU maybe there will be a whole series of cod wars and disputes, if that happened it would seem to me so unnecessary and absurd.
My attitude towards the seas is don't fish them out, don't pollute the living beyjaysus out of them, and together we all rein it in when the good of the oceans are threatened. My fear is that forces say 'bugger off, this is our bit of sea and we can do what we like with it. How on earth is that managed? With a Donald Trump wall to stop the tides flowing this way and that?
British sailors hunted the Dodo to extinction, certain folk near me fly tip rubbish, certain nations go their own way when it comes to climate and such like. Working collectively with others seems to be the way to tackle this. For me one of the depressing aspect of brexit is that the UK is formally withdrawing from an opportunity to continue cooperating with it's neighbours on this kind of stuff. You may say new and better stuff will emerge from all this, well given the much repeated no deal scenario, and given the uselessness of the UK negotiators I am not holding my breath that 'better' scenarios will come about.
Baby with the bathwater (water...see what I did there?) kind of stuff.
Unless the UK agrees to free movement then the service industries like healthcare and catering are going to face significant labour shortages, there is simply no doubt about it, which means higher wages and higher prices.
Putting in a strict visa regime for unskilled workers to work in retirement homes or in industrial kitchens is never going to work, someone has to pay for that regime and it will either be the applicant (why would they pay the UK when they can work in 27 other markets for free?), the employers (good luck with that - they will pass the costs on anyway) or the good old British tax-payer.
With a rapidly ageing population the UK needs all the young workers it can get and who are prepared to work hard for not much more than minimum wage in the service sector, that's not going to be possible without free movement unless the UK opens up the labour market to selected Asian/African countries which I am sure would delight that great fan of multiculturalism Nigel Farage.
We are an ageing population, and need some radical suggestions to deal with the Ponzi scheme that is pensions and care in this country - we can't increase numbers coming in indefinitely. Technology can play a big role. Proper joined up and funded care is another.
I am generally not in favour of deportations on the grounds of "not economically active", because there are so many variables (like health of the individual, his/her dependents, etc), that in practice it is bordering on inhuman.
Wouldn't a better system be to ask if you "have the means to support yourself/health insurance/place to reside etc", BEFORE someone came to UK ?