[Bored chemist]

So that we can establish tariffs that reduce our trade deficit with the EU

Do you mean "So we can provoke the EU into raising tariffs against us because we are not big enough to do Jack S*** about it"?

control migration and immigration

As I pointed out before, you don't control immigration or migration by pissing off the folks on the other side of the border.

establish a Norwegian-style fishing  policy in protected waters

Norway currently pays a lot more per capita to the EU to join in some of the benefits that you propose to throw away.

David Cameron's lack of a Plan B

The brexiteers have yet to come up with a workable plan, be it A, B or otherwise.

Meanwhile, how do we go about reducing the human population to a climate-resilient level?

Through international cooperation- which you propose to reduce.

The EU was established after ...

Largely to stop it happening again.

[Bored chemist]

Good for business, bad for Britain

Do you pay these  workers more than you pay yourself?
Do you send your  salary out of the UK?
Are you paying more tax because you make more money?
Are you actually benefiting Britain more by making use of the availability of free movement of labour?

https://archive.org/stream/SixFoolishFishermen-English-ChildrensBook/six-fishermen_djvu.txt

[Petrochemicals]

] I live here, not there. It's my money, and I'd prefer to spend it on cheaper food and goods from the rest of the world, and on staff recruited on merit, not nationality. Unfortunately all the pro-EU arguments I have ever seen, have been about sentiment.  The EU is about business, and there is no room for sentiment in business. If you want sentiment, look back 80 years and ask yourself why the official language of Poland is not German.

The sentiment is a bit john Cleese,  dont mention the war, european posh culture etc. As someone once said to me with reference to Iraq 2, we can win the war, its just the peace we have trouble with. The european union was set up with that in mind, no european war. Unfortunatley its got about the same credibility and believability as the political situation in iraq, window dressing for the lucky few who have access to the vast sums of cash, where in reality the yellow vests in france, the brexit vote in the uk, hungarian descent, greek economic problems etc, make it obvious there is disatisfaction among the majority. If john cleese would goose step actoss the european parliamemt i wonder what the reaction would be.

[alancalverd]

As I pointed out before, you don't control immigration or migration by pissing off the folks on the other side of the border.

I agree. It's an unavoidable effect, not a cause. But reinstating controlled immigration and temporary migration based on ability and demand rather than "nationality" (including nationality purchased by such schemes as the Portuguese back door) will benefit worthy immigrants from the rest of the world and even help raise wages for Irish workers in the UK.

'

Do you pay these  workers more than you pay yourself?

Yes. I take minimum wage and a profit share, which can be zero.

Do you send your  salary out of the UK?

no

Are you paying more tax because you make more money?[

When, not "because"!

Are you actually benefiting Britain more by making use of the availability of free movement of labour?

No. The service remains the same, more money leaves the country, and there's a chance that I get a bigger profit share but the net result is a loss to Britain, including taxes not paid by, and benefits paid to, the qualified British staff I don't employ.

Good for business, bad for Britain.

[alancalverd]

from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 13:13:11Meanwhile, how do we go about reducing the human population to a climate-resilient level?

Through international cooperation- which you propose to reduce.

There is at present no international policy for reducing the population, and if anything the EU is concerned about falling birthrates within Europe which are bad for "the economy" - i.e. business.

I have no intention of reducing international cooperation on anything that matters. But the EU is mostly concerned with establishing rules for international competition.

The UK is well positioned to demonstrate the benefits of a reduced population. Someone has to lead by example, and I don't see the EU as being in any way relevant to this exercise.

[alancalverd]

If john cleese would goose step actoss the european parliamemt i wonder what the reaction would be.

Cheers from a substantial and growing minority, alas.

[Bored chemist]

No. The service remains the same, more money leaves the country, and there's a chance that I get a bigger profit share but the net result is a loss to Britain,

If, and only if, your business doesn't add value.
Yes, some money goes outside the UK, but not all of it.

If I have a business making cakes and I buy sugar from abroad then some money goes out of the country.
But the net added value of cake compared to ingredients is such that it is worth it.

Otherwise I couldn't make a profit.

[Petrochemicals]

If john cleese would goose step actoss the european parliamemt i wonder what the reaction would be.

Cheers from a substantial and growing minority, alas.

Yep, labour supporting corbynite millenials keep making the point that sepratist eurosceptic voters like corbyn are dropping dead at a rate of 1 million per year and thatswhy we should stay in europe, although that demographic also sports the europhile group of teressa mays elk (ilk)

[alancalverd]

Yes, some money goes outside the UK, but not all of it.

Sadly, the UK no longer has any manufacturing capability for capital medical equipment (not even £5000 dental x-ray machines!)  so I have to buy my machines from overseas. 80 - 90% of the cost of health services is in salaries, so most of the money does indeed leave the country.

Interestingly, I can buy European-made x-ray equipment from the USA at half to 2/3 of the EU price, because the world market is competitive and the EU market is corruptly protective.  Way off topic, so I won't pursue it.

[alancalverd]

sepratist eurosceptic voters like corbyn are dropping dead at a rate of 1 million per year

In other words the people who voted to join the EU in 1973 have changed their minds. Why?

[Bored chemist]

sepratist eurosceptic voters like corbyn are dropping dead at a rate of 1 million per year

In other words the people who voted to join the EU in 1973 have changed their minds. Why?

Because they were lied to.
They were, understandably, pissed off wit a government that was increasingly obvious about not caring about them.
So, when someone told them "It's all Europe's fault" the voters were inclined to believe them.
They swallowed balderdash like " Turkey is joining the EU"  and " we can regain our sovereignty (spoiler alert; we never lost it)

Sadly, the UK no longer has any manufacturing capability for capital medical equipment

Interestingly, the hard Right- who are the major players in the lies about Brexit- are  the ones seeking to destroy the NHS as well as manufacturing.
Boris and Rees Mogg are not part of any solution to the NHS's problems, nor to those of the UK manufacturing industry.
Have you noticed how Brexit is hastening the damage to both?

[jeffreyH]

sepratist eurosceptic voters like corbyn are dropping dead at a rate of 1 million per year

In other words the people who voted to join the EU in 1973 have changed their minds. Why?

Because they were lied to.
They were, understandably, pissed off wit a government that was increasingly obvious about not caring about them.
So, when someone told them "It's all Europe's fault" the voters were inclined to believe them.
They swallowed balderdash like " Turkey is joining the EU"  and " we can regain our sovereignty (spoiler alert; we never lost it)

Sadly, the UK no longer has any manufacturing capability for capital medical equipment

Interestingly, the hard Right- who are the major players in the lies about Brexit- are  the ones seeking to destroy the NHS as well as manufacturing.
Boris and Rees Mogg are not part of any solution to the NHS's problems, nor to those of the UK manufacturing industry.
Have you noticed how Brexit is hastening the damage to both?

Borjo and Greasy-Smogg are on borrowed time. Out of touch altogether. Just like Trampo the clown in the US. The tide is turning against them but they don't see it. Give it a few years.

[Bored chemist]

Give it a few years.

Unfortunately, we only have until Halloween.

[alancalverd]

Because they were lied to.

Nobody  lied to me. Nobody even spoke to me about the subject. My mind was made up before we joined, and everything that happened in the intervening years convinced me that I was right. And nobody believes politicians, whatever they say.

They were, understandably, pissed off wit a government that was increasingly obvious about not caring about them.

and had been re-elected with an increased majority. Something illogical here.

So, when someone told them "It's all Europe's fault" the voters were inclined to believe them.

I don't recall anyone blaming the EU for reneging on student fees, cutting local government funding, wasting lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, paying bankers and public service contractors for failure, redisorganising the NHS, or screwing up the benefits system. Indeed HM Govt was very proud if its austerity program, as was the "hard right". 

They swallowed balderdash like " Turkey is joining the EU"

Negotiations for Turkish accession began in 1987 and ran until 2016 - just before the referendum. Fact, not balderdash.

" we can regain our sovereignty (spoiler alert; we never lost it)

you have plainly never read an EU Directive, of which 19,000 are now in force. Having to modify your statute law without debate or dissent, however absurd or burdensome the Directive,  is not a badge of sovereignty. 

[Bored chemist]

And nobody believes politicians, whatever they say.

Why do they spend so much time and money saying it?

My mind was made up before we joined

Then you are not part of the group you asked about.

the people who voted to join the EU in 1973 have changed their minds. Why?

Try to pay attention to what you say.

you have plainly never read an EU Directive, of which 19,000 are now in force

I have read all too many of them.
And, our sovereignty still stands because, if any UK  (or other EU national) government has felt that any of those Directives was " a bridge too far" they could have triggered article 50, left the EU and not implemented it.

That's what article 50 is for.
Its whole purpose is to maintain sovereignty.

Had you not realised that?

Negotiations for Turkish accession began in 1987 and ran until 2016 - just before the referendum. Fact, not balderdash.

And the rate of progress they are making wrt the requirements is such that they will join in about a millennium.
So the claim that they are joining is balderdash.

Putting the word "fact" randomly into a sentence doesn't make it true.

I don't recall anyone blaming the EU for reneging on student fees, cutting local government funding, wasting lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, paying bankers and public service contractors for failure, redisorganising the NHS, or screwing up the benefits system. Indeed HM Govt was very proud if its austerity program, as was the "hard right". 

Well, the last person I saw blaming the EU was you.
You said that the EU was siphoning teh £ out of the country.
Austerity - and all that goes with it- is based on the idea that the government or the country hasn't enough money.

The two go hand in hand.

[alancalverd]

from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 23:55:27
And nobody believes politicians, whatever they say.

Why do they spend so much time and money saying it?

It's their time (most of them are not qualified to do anything else) and your money.

That's what article 50 is for.Its whole purpose is to maintain sovereignty.

Which, inter alia, is why we have invoked it after several attempts to renegotiate various parts of the membership treaties.

from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 17:23:15
the people who voted to join the EU in 1973 have changed their minds. Why?

Try to pay attention to what you say.

I have done so, very carefully. Your argument implies that us old folk have been fed anti-EU propaganda for the last 50 years or so. But successive governments and the EU itself have been trotting out pro-EU propaganda (at your expense) right up to and indeed beyond the announcement of a referendum on the subject, with no significant grumbles from Oppositions of either color. All attempts to renegotiate terms were based on the assumption that we would remain members, regardless of outcome. The only change was Cameron's political decision to fight off the UKIP challenge in Tory seats by offering a referendum that he was confident of winning.  The evidence, particularly the demographic evidence, suggests that the result was a triumph of experience (the exclusive property of old age) over propaganda (the only influence on the young), not the other way around.

You said that the EU was siphoning teh £ out of the country.

. No. I have always said that membership of the EU has increased our trade deficit with Europe. It is true that we pay a fee for the privilege, but that is small compared with its ever-growing effect.

Austerity - and all that goes with it- is based on the idea that the government or the country hasn't enough money.

Surely, after half a century of membership of this benign and benificent trading organisation, bringing wealth and joy to all, UK government coffers must be overflowing with cash? If we can afford to be a net donor to the EU, we must be absolutely flush with the stuff!

[Bored chemist]

Surely, after half a century of membership of this benign and benificent trading organisation, bringing wealth and joy to all, UK government coffers must be overflowing with cash?

Unless the Tories gave it to their rich friends; which, of course, they did.
They gave the money to their cronies and blamed the immigrants (and "scroungers" ) for the lack of cash.
Then they blamed the EU for immigration and scroungers.
Then they called a referendum on leaving the EU  just before it enacted legislation on tax dodging.

I have done so, very carefully.

Good.
Have you worked out that you have not changed your mind?

Now, I didn't actually say that it was only the old folk who changed their minds that influenced the outcome.

Some changed their minds , some didn't
What I said was that those who did so did it because they were lied to.

Your argument implies that us old folk have been fed anti-EU propaganda for the last 50 years or so.

Not really.
Much of the anti EU propaganda is more recent, and it's not specifically targeted at those who are, say, over 60.

It's their time (most of them are not qualified to do anything else) and your money.

That would also apply to "not bothering to make up lies", so it's not actually a valid answer to the question.

Which, inter alia, is why we have invoked it after several attempts to renegotiate various parts of the membership treaties.

Which particular directive  was responsible?

[Bored chemist]

In other words the people who voted to join the EU in 1973 have changed their minds. Why?

was a response to

labour supporting corbynite millenials keep making the point that sepratist eurosceptic voters like corbyn are dropping dead at a rate of 1 million per year

.

Now, I think was born in 49 so, by 1973 he was 24  or so and able to vote.
As far as I can tell he has always been staunchly Eurosceptic.
He still is.
So he's one of the " people who voted to join the EU in 1973 " but not one of those who "have changed their minds.".

Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's utterly unrelated to the fact that there's a strong correlation of age with voting to leave.
And it's unavoidably true that old people tend to die.
So, simple arithmetic shows that , since the new voters are likely to vote Remain and the ones who have died since 2016 are likely to have voted to leave, the overall shift is  towards remain.

How big that shif might be is not easy to work out.
It may well be big enough to swing the 4% majority.

That's why we should have another election.

[alancalverd]

How big that shif might be is not easy to work out. It may well be big enough to swing the 4% majority.That's why we should have another election.

Yes, that 's the way the EU does "democracy". If you don't like the answer, have another vote. It worked in Ireland, after all. And it was the way Parliament was going until the Speaker ruled otherwise.

There is a political equivalent of Hawkeye,  called a recount, and it was in every case definitive. No electoral college gerrymandering or special pressure on marginal seats - a simple majority vote. Time to accept it and get on with the future. Or maybe have another vote every 3 years? Why not? 

[Bored chemist]

Yes, that 's the way the EU does "democracy".

Yes, that's right, having a vote is democracy.
Why the quote marks?

Having several votes is also democracy. If the people actually want one particular outcome then this

If you don't like the answer, have another vote.

can't actually work, can it?
You would just keep getting the same result.

The fact is that, quite often, when there's a second (or third) vote, it emerges that people changed their minds since the first one.

Do you think people should not be allowed to change their minds?
Do you think that learning from past experience is somehow undemocratic?

There is a political equivalent of Hawkeye,  called a recount, and it was in every case definitive.

No electoral college gerrymandering or special pressure on marginal seats

Congratulations on finding particular forms of cheating that were not employed.
Did you know that we don't have an electoral college?
There's an equivalent of a rematch. It's what you do when one side is found to have cheated.
That's what we should have.

Time to accept it and get on with the future.

The leave side unequivocally cheated.
As you say, it's "Time to accept it and get on with the future. "
Have a proper vote this time.
Don't cheat.
See what the democratic outcome is.

Fundamentally, why do you have a problem with asking the people what they want?