OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Trickytreesreds]

What a load of cock you talk! I'm seriously worried there is a dangerously unhinged person living in Nottinghamshire who manages to ascribe all ills to a Grand Plan! Heck you'll be claiming your the son of God next and claiming the Royal family are actually lizards!!!

To think Anag and I took you seriously at first and tried to debate seriously with you, may as well have labelled you the fantasist you really were from the start.

Oh and repeating crap time after time does not make it true, just makes the person repeating it look rather silly.

are you denying that the Tories overspent and have to answer for it?

[swaledale]

I'll sit on it Swale, it'll get a lot worse before it gets anywhere near better. It's here and it's happening.
I suggest you two apologists read the German papers. It's getting blue touch paper time over there.

Funnily enough I've just got back from Germany, was there during the shopping mall killings and whilst there is certainly disquiet over the number of refugees that have been accepted, apart from those well known bastions of the measured truth tabloid press which in germany as the UK like to peddle fiction and hyperbole as facts, most Germans do not suscribe to what you have just described as one said to me I remember the Red Army faction, the munich olympic massacres.

You really need to calm down and stop reading conspiracy theories, its not good for your mental state - mind you following Forest must be stressful.

[Trickytreesreds]

'Has Farage lied? No he hasn't.' LOL...I suppose Gove and Johnson are the epitome of integrity and Forest are going to win the League too. Please...do behave.

Well at least prove that.

Cameron /Osborn your saviours

WW3/Pensioners penniless/each house hold 5.5k worse off/3 million lose their jobs/i could go on, but you two lovers have heard it and never explained it.

[Andy_Faber]

Its all getting a bit terracy so can I ask a serious question to do with brexit that hasn't been addressed in the previous 453 replies, and I won't support it with anecdotes or opinions:

Why do UK (or for that matter ANY sovereign nation) actually need free movement of people, when labour needs could be managed by the CONTROLLED movement of people?

[swaledale]

Well at least prove that.

Cameron /Osborn your saviours

WW3/Pensioners penniless/each house hold 5.5k worse off/3 million lose their jobs/i could go on, but you two lovers have heard it and never explained it.

As well as being an unhinged xenophobic, believer in conspiracies you are obviously ****ing blind, because you dont read what Anagram and I said, which was that firstly we have no love for Cameron and secondly we never held that upas reasons why we should remain in the EU.

Jeez you really do demonstrate an inability to understand whats been said (most likley because your so eager to spew out some more xenophobic bile) and rather worryingly a distinctly loose grip on reality!l

[swaledale]

Its all getting a bit terracy so can I ask a serious question to do with brexit that hasn't been addressed in the previous 453 replies, and I won't support it with anecdotes or opinions:

Why do UK (or for that matter ANY sovereign nation) actually need free movement of people, when labour needs could be managed by the CONTROLLED movement of people?

Two reasons really, one the idea was that if people could move freely for economic reasons, i.e.e to work, then people would see each other as fellow citizens and reduce the likely hood of a future war between european nations, seems odd now maybe, but remember this was after WW2 when there had been two european conflicts within decades.

Secondly the freedom of people to move within the EU, was about removing the barriers to trade and employment, increasing flexibility and enhancing that sense of community - if a country was able to block this through controls, then humans being humans all sorts of reasons would be used to gain an unfair advantage by each country, able to access the single market but pick and choose which conditions they observed. Bit like joining a club and being able to only sign up those rules which you like and ignore the ones you dont. Now of course there can be negotiations to chnage these rules but as nay club membe rknows there has to be a consensus.

On the terrorism issue, anyone who thinks that stopping free movement will stop those determined to stop attacks is living in la la land, after all the USA has some of the strictest border controls of any country yet that didn't stop 9/11.

[Andy_Faber]

That's great but you didn't answer the question. Most people don't.

[swaledale]

Yes i did - if you have controls on movement, then people dont have the freedom to move across the EU, controlled movement would mean that each country would use those controls according to how they thought it would benefit them, thought I'd explained that clearly really, if you dont want to play by the rules dont join the club, if you dont join the club then dont expect to benefit from being a club member, we have decided we dont want to be in the club, but we'd kind of like to still get the benefits we like, will that happen? We shall see - by the way we retained the right to have border controls, just not the right to refuse entry to people who had a legitimate reason to enter the country.

[Andy_Faber]

if you have controls on movement, then people dont have the freedom to move across the EU, controlled movement would mean that each country would use those controls according to how they thought it would benefit them,

That's an argument in favour (of individual nation states) having controlled immigration

[swaledale]

That's an argument in favour (of individual nation states) having controlled immigration

No its an explanation as to why the EU is in favour of free movement, so we all play to the same rules. you seem to be obsessed with individual nation states as if the idea of economic and political cooperation is necessarily a bad thing when actually its largely a good thing, even if its been rather badly handled in some ways - immigration controls are a red herring and wont resolve the issues which it seems those who voted Brexit are concerned about.

[Andy_Faber]

No its an explanation as to why the EU is in favour of free movement, so we all play to the same rules. you seem to be obsessed with individual nation states as if the idea of economic and political cooperation is necessarily a bad thing when actually its largely a good thing, even if its been rather badly handled in some ways - immigration controls are a red herring and wont resolve the issues which it seems those who voted Brexit are concerned about.

I'm not trying to make a spat out of this and maybe I didn't phrase it right but I didn't ask why its a good thing for EU, I asked why (or I MEANT to ask why) its a good thing for UK or any other INDEPENDENT nation state. I'm not playing games and thanks for trying, I genuinely have never heard a convincing answer. And remember I voted Remain

[ramAnag]

Well at least prove that.

Cameron /Osborn your saviours

WW3/Pensioners penniless/each house hold 5.5k worse off/3 million lose their jobs/i could go on, but you two lovers have heard it and never explained it.

Well here's just a few examples of Farage's 'flexibility' with the truth that come to mind.
1. The infamous 'Breaking Point' poster...complete misinformation and totally misleading, not to mention...racist.
2. Suggesting Turkey was about to join the EU. Absolute scaremongering tripe.
3. Claiming that the 'majority of our laws are made in the EU'...again complete rubbish.
4. Telling us that 'staying in the EU makes us more vulnerable to terrorism'. Really? How?
5. Our courts can be overruled by the ECJ. Not where national laws, i.e. the majority of our laws, are concerned they can't.
6. His great big £350m pledge. Almost fell over himself running away from that one on the morning of the Brexit 'victory'.

Why do you think I'd ever support Cameron and Osborn on anything except the referendum? Glad to see the back of both of them, just prefer it to have been in different circumstances.

I have no idea what your last sentence rant is going on about, think you've lost the plot.

[ramAnag]

I'm not trying to make a spat out of this and maybe I didn't phrase it right but I didn't ask why its a good thing for EU, I asked why (or I MEANT to ask why) its a good thing for UK or any other INDEPENDENT nation state. I'm not playing games and thanks for trying, I genuinely have never heard a convincing answer. And remember I voted Remain

Surely Swale's point is that, what is (or was) a good thing for the EU would also be a good thing for the the people of the UK and the other independent nation states that make up the EU. How is it not a good thing for people to have their horizons extended by feeling able to work in other countries knowing that their employment conditions will be protected by EU law and that they will be entitled to free health care?

[Ram59]

Trouble is, everyone is able to extend their horizons including convicted rapists, *** offenders and other non desirables. Remember, you are relying on other eu states granting eu citizenship to the right illegal immigrants.

Us leaving does not mean that we cannot access the single market, that we cannot have a certain amount of freedom of movement and that the eu states may not go to war with each other!

[roger_ramjet]

I suspect free movement of labour isnt the problem. Its free movement of "non labour" thats the issue. The free movement of people designed to take advantage of superior benefits available in one country over another is the core of the problem.

In the same way that the Euro cannot work where there is not a common tax/fiscal policy, then mobility of labour cannot work unless there are common policies on public spending and tax, social security, healthcare, free education and so on.

In order for a fully integrated workplace to work there needs to be common rules on all these issues otherwise there will be tidal waves of people moving towards the better conditions which they have not contributed towards. Naturally the local workforce will object to this - as we have seen in this referendum. No matter that the local workforce might be too bone idle to do that work for the same wage.

Hence free movement of labour morphs into being "them bloody foreigners taking our jobs and over-burdening the NHS and NES and our other social services...."

In principle free mobility of labour is a fine objective but it has to be between countries of equal economic activity and with level playing fields. In the original 6 or 9 member EU that we signed up for this could have worked but in the very uneven EU we are now leaving, the expansion into less developed economies has bent labour mobility out of shape.

Monile labour is drawn to those countries providing the better conditions and the workforce in those attractive countries object as market forces then react to the oversupply of labour by evening up / reducing the advantage. Xenophobia, never far under the surface, readily emerges as individuals see their personal conditions eroding