The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[Hots on 10]

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

 

The point is that the EU didn't stop us, EU rules don't and never stopped us.  We chose not to stop it, and then you fell for it when politicians told you it was the EU's fault.

The basic "free movement of people" is always there though.

5 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Why?

What's the difference between the freedom to move between the UK and France and the freedom to move between Yorkshire and Lancashire?

 

What's the difference between me leaving my living to go to my bathroom, and me leaving my living room to go and use your bathroom??

 

Are you actually for real or what?

Edited January 20, 2019 by Hots on

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, Hots on said:

The basic "free movement of people" is always there though.

It’s labour. Free movement of labour. 

[Cyclone 10]

4 minutes ago, Hots on said:

The basic "free movement of people" is always there though.

What's the difference between me leaving my living to go to my bathroom, and me leaving my living room to go and use your bathroom??

 

Are you actually for real or what?

You can't answer the question can you.

[hauxwell 243]

3 hours ago, woodview said:

Ez8004, do you speak to people like this in real life, or just on the internet?

I think your attitude to other posters stinks.

Why not try to have a sensible discussion, and act like the educated person you make out to be, instead of a petulant spoilt child?

Well said, and I agree with you.

Edited January 20, 2019 by hauxwell

[Cyclone 10]

6 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Different countries rather than movement within the same country. I would have thought you would've known Yorkshire and Lancashire were in the same country?

What's the actual difference.  We all know that they're different countries, but so what.  What's the difference between free movement at different scales.  How does the scale of the unit you define (ie city, county, country, continent) make any difference?  What's the practical problem of allowing free movement between the UK and France that isn't a problem when it's between Hampshire and Berkshire?

[Hots on 10]

3 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

You can't answer the question can you.

To a normal person, moving around within the borders of a country is not the same as moving from one country to another.

 

You may have psychologically done away with national borders, but they haven't gone away in reality...yet.

[Cyclone 10]

Can you explain why though?  What practical problems are created by enabling free movement on a larger scale?

[Vaati 11]

Post(s) have been removed because they could be considered to breach our Terms of Service or Forum Rules.

 

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Groose

[WiseOwl182 10]

22 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

What's the actual difference.  We all know that they're different countries, but so what.  What's the difference between free movement at different scales.  How does the scale of the unit you define (ie city, county, country, continent) make any difference?  What's the practical problem of allowing free movement between the UK and France that isn't a problem when it's between Hampshire and Berkshire?

Because the UK and France, being separate countries, have their own healthcare systems, jobs markets, benefit systems, public expenditure budgets, housing markets, etc etc, whereas Hampshire and Berkshire share the same. Most other countries around the world are allowed to choose how many people they let in, why shouldn't the UK? Exponential population growth on a relatively small island is not a good thing - we need to be able to manage the population.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Hampshire and Berkshire have different local government with different budgets, there are different bye-laws in place and planning restrictions - these are degrees of difference. It's a spectrum, and Cyclone is entirely correct. The only difference is the quantity of bureacracy involved.

The rate of change in UK population growth has fluctuated quite a bit since the mid 60s, dropping to 0 in the 80s. One could hardly describe it as exponential.

 

 

[tzijlstra 11]

30 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Because the UK and France, being separate countries, have their own healthcare systems, jobs markets, benefit systems, public expenditure budgets, housing markets, etc etc, whereas Hampshire and Berkshire share the same. Most other countries around the world are allowed to choose how many people they let in, why shouldn't the UK? Exponential population growth on a relatively small island is not a good thing - we need to be able to manage the population.

The UK can, and should have. You need to proof ability to sustain yourself in most Western EU countries after three months of staying in one. The UK is the odd one out. Nowt to do with the EU, it was the UK that missed the boat on that one.

 

In the mean-time, even the Daily Mail says most people now just want to stay in the EU: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6607317/Poll-finds-half-Brits-want-STAY-EU-Mays-Brexit-plan-defeat.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top

[woodview 10]

55 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

Can you explain why though?  What practical problems are created by enabling free movement on a larger scale?

It depends on the country. Rumania has lots of people willing to work at a lower rate than many UK workers. That has a big impact on people at the low paid end of the spectrum. If they were more in demand their wages would rise.

Big business likes an large pool of available labour. It isn't so good for the workers.

As discussed endlessly previously, we are obviously a net immigration country, so our population has swollen fast and services and housing can't keep up.

This is why it is quandary to me why it is so liked by supposed left wing supporters. There are big negative impacts to the low paid. But the word 'immigration' is a red rag to many on the left.