Quote from: Mordo on May 18, 2016, 10:05:25 AM

Quote from: Flee on May 18, 2016, 08:16:28 AM

C'mon, now Flee, this is a pretty shameful mischaracterization of the arguments being espoused here.

You could've saved yourself a whole lot of effort if you stopped writing right there. My previous reply was in no way a characterization of the entire Brexit movement or its supporters. It was nothing but a response to the newspaper headlines Psy cited in order to reveal how biased, misleading and populist such fearmongering articles really are. Despite thinking they're wrong, I'm well aware that some have better arguments in favor of the Brexit.

I know, it's just the snide, sort of condescending approach towards Brexiters that I always take umbrage with.

Everybody knows migration is necessary. Not sure why you felt a compulsion to construct a post explaining that and then apply it to the opposition as if anyone is even positing it.

Voting to stay in, can't see any reason why I'd leave.

Which are two countries choosing to let in more refugees because they so wish, not because they're forced to do so by the EU.

The one where a single German city (not even the German federal government, let alone the EU) gave a women almost a year forewarning and ample aid in finding a new residence when they legally ended her renting contract to live in a city-owned complex that was to be converted into a center?

Because the above just screams that the EU will order British citizens to leave their homes and make way for refugees tomorrow. Also, you are aware that the EU is probably the best thing we have against "mass immigration" and that the UK has been entirely free not to take part in the main relocation scheme, right?

So the EU pushing for more open immigration is just a boogeyman made by Brexitors? I know people like to wrongly paint UKIP and Nigel as racists but come on.

Or you know, maybe there actually exists good reason to assume that leaving the EU will be detrimental for the UK and its citizens.

Clearly whatever good comes from the EU is vastly overshadowed by what the citizens who want out are complaining about and with a 50/50 split on the issue it's not as black and white as "Brexit is going to ruin this country!". There clearly isn't a "light at the end of the tunnel" in the EU with how dysfunctional it is, at least not any time soon. And to say it's not dysfunctional would be silly, especially when just having a vote to leave had to go through so much bureaucratic bullshit, being a part of the EU shouldn't be a gunpoint decision.

It kind of is, yeah.

So open borders with hardly any regulation is not bad? 

Or maybe a lot people are just largely ignorant, uneducated and easily swayed by poor news reporting.

From what I recall two years ago when UKIP was winning seats left and right, you would think that the sky is falling and that Hitler has been resurrected from the grave to conquer Europe once and for all with how the news lashed out so violently against them. I think now that the dust over that election has settled people are a bit more calm and collected than before, and with that said the news hasn't been as deranged as it was. Nor do I believe that people wanting out as fast as human possible are ignorant or uneducated about their decisions.

That is your opinion and you're obviously free to have it.

And it's not your opinion that the people who are voting in favor of leaving are doing so because they're uneducated and ignorant from misinformation coming from news sources that demonized the Hell out of them for voting in such a way two years ago? If the EU is as dysfunctional as everyone admits, why bother staying? You could say it will get better but nothing in the last several years has shown any promises of the EU changing for the better.

I as well hope my UK friends vote for what they themselves believe is their best interest and not the interest of others that want to keep them there so the pot isn't riled. You yourself mentioned that leaving would instill agreements with the council on the relations with the UK and the EU nations afterward, if they can make the process as seamless as possible and still keep agreements that will benefit both parties and allow the UK's independence, I'm failing to see the downsides other than other nations being butthurt that the UK gets freedom and they don't.

Whether I think that or not is irrelevant. I agree with a lot of the criticism against the EU but still believe that a lot of the arguments in favor of leaving the Union are misguided and based on misinformation.

Picking up on only one of these arguments: One such argument is the increasing worry about losing a national identity and become "The United States of Europe" with how much overreach the EU has over everything in a country does, would that be considered misguided?

Because it being flawed or dysfunction does not mean it has to go. It's all about the net worth of the Union. Do the benefits outweigh the cons or is it the other way around? I personally still believe the pros are greater than the cons.

I never said it has to go, I believe it should be extremely reformed. The US is part of a union as well, the Pan-American union. No one here bitches about it because it doesn't have as much control as the EU does yet still has enough power to remain important. However, getting reformation in the EU seems about as difficult as running a nation without it so it looks more like a "Choose your poison" kind of deal with the cons being the exact same on both turnouts.

But that is a very big if, though. I don't see anyone being butthurt about the UK getting freedom while the rest doesn't, as it's likely that the UK citizens will actually end up with less freedom than they would under the EU. What I do see is a lot of people worrying about how leaving will harm both the UK and the rest of the EU. Problem is that for things like this you can't always pick and choose. Many people supporting a Brexit believe that the UK will leave and simply be able to opt in for all the good stuff while choosing not to deal with any of the responsibilities or burdens that come with it. Betting on the remaining EU countries to simply smile and go "you want to not carry any of the burdens, not pay membership fees, not be subject to judicial control or EU legislation, not open your borders to EU citizens and not be subject to the same standards as the other countries but still retain the same privileges and profit from the EU's market? Sure thing friend!" is a pretty long shot.

Different avenues of control in the EU shouldn't be intertwined that way to begin with. What I mean is that the UK's policy on EU citizens attempting to come into the UK shouldn't be weighed in with EU legislation in general. These are all different issues that while not exclusive to themselves, shouldn't affect each other to a huge degree if the UK were to leave. And I'm sure that leaving negotiations would sort out these problems before the country is formerly out the door.

Quote from: Mordo on May 18, 2016, 03:11:15 PM

A few things about Norway, though.

- Norway obtained its relationship with the EU back in the 90's. What it didn't do was join for decades, become one of the Union's 3 largest actors and then leave in the middle of one of the biggest crises the Union has ever seen. It's unlikely that the UK would get the same deal as Norway did.

- Norway is still a member of the EEA (European Economic Area). The membership fees it pays for this are almost identical to what a full EU member pays.

- As a mere member of the EEA and not the EU, Norway gets absolutely no say or vote in what goes on in the EU (compared to the current British input which is quite significant) while still being subject to almost everything the EU decides.

- As such, Norway has still implemented over 75% of all EU legislation incorporated in the EEA without having any say in it at all.

- Norway is bound by the free movement of people, goods, services and capital (the four EU freedoms) just the same, has no say in how it is further implemented and can not deviate from it without leaving the EEA.

- Norway is part of the Schengen agreement which removes borders and allows for a complete freedom of movement for all citizens of any EEA country, meaning its borders are even more open than those of the UK and that it is more closely aligned with the fundamental EU principles than many actual EU member states. This plays a major role in its economic growth and success, as Norway depends on the EU for 60pc of the goods it imports and 80pc of exports which it would not be able to obtain withou following a myriad of EU rules.

- Norway has higher per capita immigration of EU citizens than the UK does.

- Norway has to still abide by all of the EU’s product standards, financial regulations, employment regulations, and substantial contributions to the EU budget without having any say in it whatsoever. The only economic activities Norway is excluded from are agriculture, fishing and customs where they make their own policy.

It's true that Norway is obviously not the UK, but don't think of the country as a success story caused by a heroic refusal to join the EU. Norway is still a full member of the Council of Europe and owes a lot of its economic growth to being a member of the EEA, meaning it still pays millions of dollars a year in fees and is subject to most of the EU's economic legislation without having any say in it whatsoever. Norway is extremely dependent on the European single market and the benefits the EU brings, and it's unlikely the UK would get the same deal if it chose to leave.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/27/norway-eu-reality-uk-voters-seduced-by-norwegian-model
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/03/06/what-if-britain-left-the-eu-and-could-be-more-like-norway/
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/might-britain-vote-to-leave-the-eu-only-to-find-out-that-theres-no-real-exit/

Yes, thank you for pointlessly explaining to me that which I already know. I guess you could've "saved yourself a whole lot of effort" and stopped at the first paragraph.

The point being that the tactics project fear employs rarely ever pans out accurately. Like Ian said, it isn't a crystal clear black and white "the UK will drift off into the Atlantic if we leave, but it'll remain a utopia if we stay" kind of outcome here. I'm well aware of the economic benefits of the EU, just like I'm aware of the potential cultural and democratic benefits of leaving. You're whole argument seems to be primarily pinned on economic security, and there's much more facets to this debate than you're leading on.

Do you believe there should be a limit on how much the EU controls in a country? From everything you said they pass it seems they have sway in every point of life from something as important as medical records to something not quite as important as grandma in Germany shipping her grandson a birthday present in France.

Very informative, but in regards to this situation. If the UK leaves the EU couldn't situations like shipping packages be something the UK could make a negotiation with the EU on the leaving table? And would anything stop the UK from continuing the uniform practice of handling medical records?

For the birthday present, there are no border checks in Europe. No additional taxes, fees, custom declarations, unnecessary delays or transit protocols. Sending the package to Germany will be subject to the same rules and it wouldn't be any different from it being sent from one state in the US to another.