GRcade

For me - the perceived disadvantages of membership were worth it for the obvious advantages.

I voted remain because I thought Leave represented a gamble. One that we just shouldn't take.

Karl wrote:I have still yet to see a good argument for leaving the EU.

Stop being immature

You've brought a certain something to the thread, Glowy.

It needed another remain champion.

I very rarely post here nowadays. I use twitter a lot. Thats why im probably so angry

Which EU laws did you want us to be freed from, Lucien, and which major political party has a plan to replace them with laws you prefer? Genuinely interested.

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:I wouldn't be so harsh. What I would say is that almost every major expert on the matter (not the media) believes Brexit will leave us worse off short and long term. The Vote Leave Campaigner has come out against the Government's Brexit. And the currency is getting worse.

It so happens my beliefs align with the experts, but I will always listen to experts on the other side of the issue. The best I can find suggest a rocky exit at best, a position the government have clearly moved to. The problem is that so few experts even suggest Brexit will work.

At this point it's obvious that any politician who is suggesting Brexit will be a huge success is fake news.

My views don't align with yours but based purely on the evidence we have, tell me I'm being unfair?

The EU is not perfect. No one is pretending it is. But the fantasy of being better off outside may sounds great, but have very little base in the economic reality.

I don't think you were wrong to feel the way you did, but you were misinformed to VOTE the way you did.

To answer your question: I believe staying in the EU was best for the UK's economy (for the foreseeable future) and thought that before voting to leave. It is fair you believe that too, and most economists did argue that. On that issue our views do align; however, on other issues they don't.

Please elaborate.

Lucien wrote:

DML wrote:I wouldn't be so harsh. What I would say is that almost every major expert on the matter (not the media) believes Brexit will leave us worse off short and long term. The Vote Leave Campaigner has come out against the Government's Brexit. And the currency is getting worse.

It so happens my beliefs align with the experts, but I will always listen to experts on the other side of the issue. The best I can find suggest a rocky exit at best, a position the government have clearly moved to. The problem is that so few experts even suggest Brexit will work.

At this point it's obvious that any politician who is suggesting Brexit will be a huge success is fake news.

My views don't align with yours but based purely on the evidence we have, tell me I'm being unfair?

The EU is not perfect. No one is pretending it is. But the fantasy of being better off outside may sounds great, but have very little base in the economic reality.

I don't think you were wrong to feel the way you did, but you were misinformed to VOTE the way you did.

To answer your question: I believe staying in the EU was best for the UK's economy (for the foreseeable future) and thought that before voting to leave. It is fair you believe that too, and most economists did argue that. On that issue our views do align; however, on other issues they don't.

So what views don't they align?

And before you even think of using the word "Immigration" let me just stop you right there.
The UK has always had complete control of immigration from outside of the EU, nothing will change there regardless of our position in or out of the EU. If anything, outside of the EU the UK will have to relax immigration rules for people from outside of the EU as it's almost certainly going to be a condition of any trade deal with countries like India and China. India has long wanted to make it easier for its citizens to come to the UK and trade negotiations are the perfect place for that.
When it comes to immigration from within the EU, the UK (And indeed all EU member states) do have individual powers to put controls on this, it's just that successive governments of the last 30 years have made a conscious decision not to use those powers, most likely because EU immigration is a convenient boogeyman to point at for government failings/ineptitude.
As for Freedom of Movement? It still seems to genuinely shock people to learn that this never actually applied to the UK. The UK is not, and never has been, part of the Schengen Area. Anyone coming into the UK from the EU has to go through passport/border control the same as anyone else.

Glowy69 wrote::lol:

I very rarely post here nowadays. I use twitter a lot. Thats why im probably so angry

It's crazy but I've missed you in the footie thread.
Stick around you crazy bugger.

Thing is. There are arguments for Brexit. There are.
Curiosity - to see how we would fare.
How prosperous could we be? What would happen to our industry? Our small businesses etc etc etc but it's not a convincing argument because it is a change and a gamble.

Would we better off in the long term? A lot of financial experts think not. What if that's ok?

What if it's worth it just for that level of independence.

Brexit is, always was and forever will be a risk. A big risk for some and all degrees of risk from high to low for all of us.

But some people genuinely want to take it.

Hand on heart - I'm genuinely curious as to how it will go. I'm curious how long they'll persist with it if it's disastrous as well.


But I still wish it wasn't happening. There's safety and security in remaining. It's less risky and less anxiety provoking.


I'm not capable of manufacturing a convincing argument. But even if I did - I wouldn't drop it in here. Not with you lot lining up to take pot shots at it.

Curiosity is not a good argument. Sure we are all curious but that’s not a reason to do it.

I’m curious as to what the world today would be like if Germany had won WW2, but it’s not actually an experiment I would like to try out (you know if time travel was possible).

Like I said not a convincing argument.

Moggy wrote:Curiosity is not a good argument. Sure we are all curious but that’s not a reason to do it.

I’m curious as to what the world today would be like if Germany had won WW2, but it’s not actually an experiment I would like to try out (you know if time travel was possible).

Yeah. Exactly. Fatherland and the man in the high tower are fascinating exercises on 'what if' fantasy and speculation.

Incidentally - if you had a time machine what would you do?

Go back and campaign harder or just kill Boris Johnson?


Makes me think. DML blames David Cameron - what if you went back and killed him or intervened in some way?

Think then of another fictional
Time traveling scenario 11/22/63. What if it made things worse?

I do love that Lucien pops in, vaguely defends his position and when pressed for actual detail disappears completely (also the fact he was about half a sentence away from going full Farage 'Breaking Point' in his last post)

Here's some more cheery news from Canada!

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4294708

Breaking free of the EU was supposed to restore a golden age of free trade as countries rushed to renegotiate deals with a Britain free of Eurocratic interference.

The best now on offer, it seems, is to try to hang on to the deals Britain already has under the EU.

Yay!

Denster wrote:

Moggy wrote:Curiosity is not a good argument. Sure we are all curious but that’s not a reason to do it.

I’m curious as to what the world today would be like if Germany had won WW2, but it’s not actually an experiment I would like to try out (you know if time travel was possible).

Yeah. Exactly. Fatherland and the man in the high tower are fascinating exercises on 'what if' fantasy and speculation.

Incidentally - if you had a time machine what would you do?

Go back and campaign harder or just kill Boris Johnson?


Makes me think. DML blames David Cameron - what if you went back and killed him or intervened in some way?

Typical Tory, goes straight for the killing.

You wouldn’t need to kill anyone. Just go back to the run up to the 2015 election (summer 2014 would do) and show Cameron and Boris just what was going to happen. Cameron would then probably feel secure enough to not promise a referendum and even if he didn’t, Boris would realise what a shitty situation he was going to put himself in.

Think then of another fictional
Time traveling scenario 11/22/63. What if it made things worse?

Hello Stephen King.

That's what I mean. How would you tell them?

Tell Cameron he's out of job by July 2016 and May takes over?
That would do it I think!

Denster wrote:That's what I mean. How would you tell them?

Tell Cameron he's out of job by July 2016 and May takes over?
That would do it I think!

Just take a tablet back that was loaded with newspapers and news videos of what was going to happen over the next couple of years. Make him watch it and then problem solved.

If you think he’s wavering after that, tell him there’s a nuclear war in 2027 and it’s all his fault.

I'd just tell him May takes over - we're 20 points up in the polls. She calls an election and loses her majority.
Oh and Corbyn turns out to be an amazing campaigner by comparison.

After he's finished pissing himself - he'll see my face and realise I'm serious.
The he'll blanch, look like he's in physical pain and do what needs to be done.

I'd would stage some kind of elaborate heist to swap the ballet boxes for dummies that I would have created to ensure that remain wins. It would require at least one Chinese acrobat doing in-probable stunts in a lift.

If May has achieved anything it's to make me nostalgic for the good old days of Dave & George.

But the reason why no one posts an actual argument in this thread is because of you guys.

Like piranhas when a drop of blood hits the water.