Initially TTIP.
Also the unsustainable imbalance between the member country's economies and what the EU did to address that. Namely they used UK contributions the EU budget to incentivise manufacturers to move out of the UK to weaker member countries.
A few other reasons I'll explain later cos I'm heading out for a few hours.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
That it would have a better outcome for the UK if we didn't have a succession of incompetent governments.For example
They created an entirely new department of government specifically briefed to do the exit negotiations with the European Union. It was the Department for exiting the European Union headed initially by David Davis. He turned up at the first round of negotiations literally with no written notes of any description other than an empty pad for his deputy to write things down. He eventually quit after realising that everything he negotiated was then thrown out and renegotiated by Theresa May.
Then we got Dominic Raab who didn't know that the majority of trade to and from the UK went through the port of Dover. He then spent a lot of the negotiating a deal which after it was finalised he described as fatally flawed and damaging to the UK economy and trust in democracy. (He's now foreign secretary which is one of the 4 main offices of state)
The entire thing has been one long soundbite. Droning repetition of "Brexit means Brexit" and "jobs first Brexit" and "get Brexit done"
None of it has any substance at all.Thats how we ended up with a withdrawal bill passed that is actually worse than May's deal which got voted down numerous times.
3 1/2 years and literally no further forward with any substance regarding future relationships with the EU or with any of the great deals we could supposedly do with rest of the world
For me, as an American, it's very hard to use Google to find any coverage of Brexit that is not packaged up by liberal media sources who opposed Brexit.
It's far worse for the UK for some odd reason.
Regardless, with some biased language in the google search, you can turn up results.
May negotiated a deal with the EU that resulted in a 585 page deal.
Of the document:
"Brexiteers said it would keep Britain forever shackled to the EU, in vassalage, as Johnson put it. Remainers complained that it would introduce too much economic risk with too little reward."
What happened after May resigned was a Boris popping up and then, later, there was a pretty interesting election that saw the largest ousting of your liberal government since many ages past - a clear message being sent by the people to get Brexit done.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
There are various levels of relationship with the EU that are possible that less than membership. Something between Norway's and Switzerland's would be ideal.
Which would basically make them beholden to the EU regulations all over again which kind of flies in the face of the Brexit vote which is also why Farage backpedaled his position on this.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
The independence and rejoining the EU "whining" is primarily from the Scottish National Party who have dominated Scottish politics for over a decade winning every Westminster, Holyrood, European and local council election since 2009. I don't particularly like them but have to vote for them in some elections depending on the voting system which is different for each parliament (we like making things awkward)
Scottish are not known for whining. They are known for getting shit done, drinking, and beating the shit out of each other. uhuh
Originally posted by dadudemonAlso the Scots are known for some of the greatest minds in history.
For me, as an American, it's very hard to use Google to find any coverage of Brexit that is not packaged up by liberal media sources who opposed Brexit.It's far worse for the UK for some odd reason.
Regardless, with some biased language in the google search, you can turn up results.
May negotiated a deal with the EU that resulted in a 585 page deal.
Of the document:
What happened after May resigned was a Boris popping up and then, later, there was a pretty interesting election that saw the largest ousting of your liberal government since many ages past - a clear message being sent by the people to get Brexit done.
Which would basically make them beholden to the EU regulations all over again which kind of flies in the face of the Brexit vote which is also why Farage backpedaled his position on this.
Scottish are not known for whining. They are known for getting shit done, drinking, and beating the shit out of each other. uhuh
Originally posted by dadudemon
For me, as an American, it's very hard to use Google to find any coverage of Brexit that is not packaged up by liberal media sources who opposed Brexit.It's far worse for the UK for some odd reason.
Regardless, with some biased language in the google search, you can turn up results.
May negotiated a deal with the EU that resulted in a 585 page deal.
Of the document:
What happened after May resigned was a Boris popping up and then, later, there was a pretty interesting election that saw the largest ousting of your liberal government since many ages past - a clear message being sent by the people to get Brexit done.
Which would basically make them beholden to the EU regulations all over again which kind of flies in the face of the Brexit vote which is also why Farage backpedaled his position on this.
Scottish are not known for whining. They are known for getting shit done, drinking, and beating the shit out of each other. uhuh
It's not hard to find in the UK. Most of the big print news outlets are pro Brexit and by extension so are their online equivalents.
The Daily Mail
The Sun
The Daily Express
The Telegraph
The Times
They are all Pro Brexit
By comparison their Remain competitors have much smaller print circulation and much less online traffic
The Daily Mirror
The Guardian
The Independent
The National
Broadcast media is a different kettle of fish as there is more stringent controls for them to be unbiased so they go down a different route. They lie by omission by simply only broadcasting the facts the support their side and not running stories on the facts which damage their narrative.
I don't know what you're trying to get at with your second point. May's 585 page deal was almost exactly the same as Johnson's. He used it as the starting point for his negotiations and only make a handful of changes.
There was no liberal government before Johnson. Him and May are both from the same party. If anything, Johnson has already enacted more liberal policies than May ever did. Increased spending on public services, renationalising a rail franchise out of private ownership into public hands
Third point
My personal preference only flies in the face of the Brexit vote regarding Scotland because Scotland voted to remain by 62:38 with every single region in Scotland voting to remain. Therefore me wanting to not rejoin is a minority opinion in Scotland.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Initially TTIP.
Also the unsustainable imbalance between the member country's economies and what the EU did to address that. Namely they used UK contributions the EU budget to incentivise manufacturers to move out of the UK to weaker member countries.
A few other reasons I'll explain later cos I'm heading out for a few hours.
Interesting. Do you think the remainers fears when it comes to freedom of movement are well founded?
Also in the past if the EU did something you guys didn't like...what way did you voters have to hold them accountable?
Originally posted by Surtur
Interesting. Do you think the remainers fears when it comes to freedom of movement are well founded?Also in the past if the EU did something you guys didn't like...what way did you voters have to hold them accountable?
Depends where you live although that's not the only reason as London has a higher proportion of EU immigration than anywhere else and London voted to remain. Some areas voted to leave despite the fact that their areas don't have high numbers of EU immigrants but do have high numbers of non EU immigrants. So some people may have legitimate reasons to be opposed to freedom of movement and others not so much
As for holding the EU to account. They have an oddly convoluted system of voting blocks where parties from different member states loosely align and vote on proposed legislation. Their votes can even reflect different policies from their party's national policy so you need to research a bit to find out which party to vote for. This can result in voters choosing a different party to vote for at the EU level than they would at a national level. Unfortunately this takes more work to look into than most people are willing to do so most people just vote for the same party in any election.
Originally posted by Surtur
Is it really going to block movement all that much or is it merely going to make it perhaps require more paperwork, etc. ? Similar to what I would have to do were I to decide to fly to one of these countries.
It'll depend on the deal which they now have 11 months to do. If the UK doesn't accept free movement of people then immigration from the EU will reduce. Immigration from outside the EU won't change though. This is the most likely outcome.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
It's not hard to find in the UK. Most of the big print news outlets are pro Brexit and by extension so are their online equivalents.The Daily Mail
The Sun
The Daily Express
The Telegraph
The Times
I'm referring to google search results, not print media because that's for old people who cannot keep up with The Times (damn, I'm hilarious).
Anyway, only The Times is worth anything from your list:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sun/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-express/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-times-of-london/
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
They are all Pro BrexitBy comparison their Remain competitors have much smaller print circulation and much less online traffic
The Daily Mirror
The Guardian
The Independent
The National
Actually, I do pay more attention to The Guardian and The Independent and it is nice to get my confirmation bias massaged knowing they both have a high factual rating:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mirror/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-memo/
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Broadcast media is a different kettle of fish as there is more stringent controls for them to be unbiased so they go down a different route. They lie by omission by simply only broadcasting the facts the support their side and not running stories on the facts which damage their narrative.
When viewing your broadcast news, it comes off far too SJW-ish and libtarded. They throw in the occasional right-winger and racist for good measure, though. It feels like a less shitty version of CNN, really. BBC News, in general, is better than most of our US media.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
My personal preference only flies in the face of the Brexit vote regarding Scotland because Scotland voted to remain by 62:38 with every single region in Scotland voting to remain. Therefore me wanting to not rejoin is a minority opinion in Scotland.
This is good information to know about your position.
So what do you think should happen with the following (specifically, as it applies to Brexit and the UK):
Tariffs/Trade Deals
Foreign Relations with EU Member nations
Travel agreements
Travel Bans
Refugees from other nations
Taxes
Regulations that are relevant and specific to EU member nations (see the first item for a related topic)
Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm referring to google search results, not print media because that's for old people who cannot keep up with The Times (damn, I'm hilarious).Anyway, only The Times is worth anything from your list:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-sun/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-express/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-telegraph/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-times-of-london/
Actually, I do pay more attention to The Guardian and The Independent and it is nice to get my confirmation bias massaged knowing they both have a high factual rating:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mirror/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-independent/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-national-memo/
When viewing your broadcast news, it comes off far too SJW-ish and libtarded. They throw in the occasional right-winger and racist for good measure, though. It feels like a less shitty version of CNN, really. BBC News, in general, is better than most of our US media.
This is good information to know about your position.
So what do you think should happen with the following (specifically, as it applies to Brexit and the UK):
Tariffs/Trade Deals
Foreign Relations with EU Member nations
Travel agreements
Travel Bans
Refugees from other nations
Taxes
Regulations that are relevant and specific to EU member nations (see the first item for a related topic)
Not sure what the US Google results will throw up with regards to UK news sites when searching but here you're most likely to just get the online versions of the print media. The broadsheets like the telegraph, times and independent are usually behind paywalls at least for new articles and tabloids like the sun, mirror, mail and express are free.
So for example if I search "Brexit news" in the "news" tab in Google the first page of articles Google gives me are in this order
BBC news
Independent
BBC news
BBC news
Express
Mirror
Times
Sun
Mail
Independent
So that's 3 BBC which is mostly impartial for news content (BBC news is not like the BBC opinion and entertainment)
3 left wing
4 right wing
For broadcast news there's essentially 4 main outlets
The BBC which is state subsidised and license funded and is supposed to be impartial yet lately has come under fire for not being.
ITV which is private and advertiser funded and is relatively impartial but ignored
Sky news which is owned by Rupert Murdoch (who owns fox news) and leans right. Murdoch tried to rebrand it as fox news UK and make it much more like the US fox news but was prevented by the news regulatory agency. This was after Fox news stopped broadcasting in the UK after breaking Ofcom rules.
Channel 4 news which is much more left wing and has, comically Jon Snow as its chief reporter.
As for what I think should happen. Trade and tariffs aren't set in a vacuum, unfortunately. The EU is very protectionist and requires countries to align closely with them on things like safety standards for food and consumer goods. That seems fine but they will also insist on tariff free trade being linked to the other free movements (capital, services and people) and it's the people one that the UK won't accept so the other 3 won't be allowed to be implemented by the EU. There may be some extremely specific compromised to help get around that such as a total stop of promoting job opportunities in the UK around the other EU countries (I have friends who work in Hungary and Romania specifically recruiting people there to move to the UK for work, often with no English language skills whatsoever and who end up replacing the entire workforce in individual factories usually in food processing)
I personally don't have a problem with the free movement of people as my home city is mostly unaffected. The town where I work, however, has a massive proportion of its population from Romania, Poland and Latvia and there is a lot of animosity between the local population and the migrants.
For foreign relations I'd rather the UK dealt with the individual member countries one on one rather than through the EU as they seem more a barrier to good relations on anything other than trade.
Travel agreements. There's no valid reason not to continue to allow visa free travel for short and medium term trips between the UK and EU. Restrictions will be entirely borne out of petty vindictiveness and butthurtery from not getting something else from the negotiations.
Refugees. The EU and UK should be free to have whatever policies they want. The EU evidently doesn't have the authority to implement their own policies to their own member states anyway as Poland have told them to ram it when the EU tried to make them take Syrian and Iraqi refugees.
Taxes. Each EU state is able to set its own tax rates anyway. It's part of the problem why it doesn't work. Coupled with the massive imbalance between the big EU economies like Germany, France and the UK Vs the smaller economies. To put it into perspective. There's 27 EU countries and the smallest 10 economies combined have less than 3% of the EU's GDP. London, just the city alone, has a GDP bigger than most entire EU countries. The economic imbalances are going to wreck the EU. It should simply never have expanded to encompass former Soviet bloc countries.
Regulations need a thread all unto their own. Particularly food production. The common fisheries policy was a joke from the start. It allowed non UK countries to fish in UK waters to prop up their shitty economies like spain and Portugal. Fishing communities voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU in the belief that doing so will allow them to flourish again because only UK boats will be allowed to land fish in UK waters. Much like the coal miners and truckers in the US, they're going to find out very quickly how little their communities mean to the UK government when it comes to negotiating market access for bigger industries like finance, car production and energy.
They'll be the first to be compromised away in any deal.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0Spot on re the media! 👆
Not sure what the US Google results will throw up with regards to UK news sites when searching but here you're most likely to just get the online versions of the print media. The broadsheets like the telegraph, times and independent are usually behind paywalls at least for new articles and tabloids like the sun, mirror, mail and express are free.So for example if I search "Brexit news" in the "news" tab in Google the first page of articles Google gives me are in this order
BBC news
Independent
BBC news
BBC news
Express
Mirror
Times
Sun
IndependentSo that's 3 BBC which is mostly impartial for news content (BBC news is not like the BBC opinion and entertainment)
3 left wing
4 right wingFor broadcast news there's essentially 4 main outlets
The BBC which is state subsidised and license funded and is supposed to be impartial yet lately has come under fire for not being.
ITV which is private and advertiser funded and is relatively impartial but ignored
Sky news which is owned by Rupert Murdoch (who owns fox news) and leans right. Murdoch tried to rebrand it as fox news UK and make it much more like the US fox news but was prevented by the news regulatory agency. This was after Fox news stopped broadcasting in the UK after breaking Ofcom rules.
Channel 4 news which is much more left wing and has, comically Jon Snow as its chief reporter.
As for what I think should happen. Trade and tariffs aren't set in a vacuum, unfortunately. The EU is very protectionist and requires countries to align closely with them on things like safety standards for food and consumer goods. That seems fine but they will also insist on tariff free trade being linked to the other free movements (capital, services and people) and it's the people one that the UK won't accept so the other 3 won't be allowed to be implemented by the EU. There may be some extremely specific compromised to help get around that such as a total stop of promoting job opportunities in the UK around the other EU countries (I have friends who work in Hungary and Romania specifically recruiting people there to move to the UK for work, often with no English language skills whatsoever and who end up replacing the entire workforce in individual factories usually in food processing)
I personally don't have a problem with the free movement of people as my home city is mostly unaffected. The town where I work, however, has a massive proportion of its population from Romania, Poland and Latvia and there is a lot of animosity between the local population and the migrants.For foreign relations I'd rather the UK dealt with the individual member countries one on one rather than through the EU as they seem more a barrier to good relations on anything other than trade.
Travel agreements. There's no valid reason not to continue to allow visa free travel for short and medium term trips between the UK and EU. Restrictions will be entirely borne out of petty vindictiveness and butthurtery from not getting something else from the negotiations.
Refugees. The EU and UK should be free to have whatever policies they want. The EU evidently doesn't have the authority to implement their own policies to their own member states anyway as Poland have told them to ram it when the EU tried to make them take Syrian and Iraqi refugees.
Taxes. Each EU state is able to set its own tax rates anyway. It's part of the problem why it doesn't work. Coupled with the massive imbalance between the big EU economies like Germany, France and the UK Vs the smaller economies. To put it into perspective. There's 27 EU countries and the smallest 10 economies combined have less than 3% of the EU's GDP. London, just the city alone, has a GDP bigger than most entire EU countries. The economic imbalances are going to wreck the EU. It should simply never have expanded to encompass former Soviet bloc countries.
Regulations need a thread all unto their own. Particularly food production. The common fisheries policy was a joke from the start. It allowed non UK countries to fish in UK waters to prop up their shitty economies like spain and Portugal. Fishing communities voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU in the belief that doing so will allow them to flourish again because only UK boats will be allowed to land fish in UK waters. Much like the coal miners and truckers in the US, they're going to find out very quickly how little their communities mean to the UK government when it comes to negotiating market access for bigger industries like finance, car production and energy.
They'll be the first to be compromised away in any deal.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Not sure what the US Google results will throw up with regards to UK news sites when searching but here you're most likely to just get the online versions of the print media. The broadsheets like the telegraph, times and independent are usually behind paywalls at least for new articles and tabloids like the sun, mirror, mail and express are free.So for example if I search "Brexit news" in the "news" tab in Google the first page of articles Google gives me are in this order
BBC news
Independent
BBC news
BBC news
Express
Mirror
Times
Sun
IndependentSo that's 3 BBC which is mostly impartial for news content (BBC news is not like the BBC opinion and entertainment)
3 left wing
4 right wingFor broadcast news there's essentially 4 main outlets
The BBC which is state subsidised and license funded and is supposed to be impartial yet lately has come under fire for not being.
ITV which is private and advertiser funded and is relatively impartial but ignored
Sky news which is owned by Rupert Murdoch (who owns fox news) and leans right. Murdoch tried to rebrand it as fox news UK and make it much more like the US fox news but was prevented by the news regulatory agency. This was after Fox news stopped broadcasting in the UK after breaking Ofcom rules.
Channel 4 news which is much more left wing and has, comically Jon Snow as its chief reporter.
I forgot what my original search terms were but almost all were left-leaning results that were opposed to Brexit. If I type just "brexit" it comes up with much more neutral stuff. I adjust my search terms to "brexit good and bad" and got more neutral stuff, yesterday. I was just whining about the bias google likes to throw out there.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
As for what I think should happen. Trade and tariffs aren't set in a vacuum, unfortunately. The EU is very protectionist and requires countries to align closely with them on things like safety standards for food and consumer goods. That seems fine but they will also insist on tariff free trade being linked to the other free movements (capital, services and people) and it's the people one that the UK won't accept so the other 3 won't be allowed to be implemented by the EU. There may be some extremely specific compromised to help get around that such as a total stop of promoting job opportunities in the UK around the other EU countries (I have friends who work in Hungary and Romania specifically recruiting people there to move to the UK for work, often with no English language skills whatsoever and who end up replacing the entire workforce in individual factories usually in food processing)
I personally don't have a problem with the free movement of people as my home city is mostly unaffected. The town where I work, however, has a massive proportion of its population from Romania, Poland and Latvia and there is a lot of animosity between the local population and the migrants.
Well, in the US, I'd be okay with taking in female immigrants from those 3 countries. We could use a ton more of those types of immigrants.
😍 😍 😍
But I think the larger issue (and what people don't like to talk about, not necessarily you) is the brown male immigration from other countries.
I was hoping you'd talk more about that. Don't be shy: you won't offend me supporting or opposing brown men immigrating to Scotland.
On the tariffs: the play of the day is to negotiate trade deals piece by piece by company. That's...okay-ish I guess? That's a bit too capitalistic, IMO. But perhaps it is just fine and companies who are not good at negotiating should fail. But, in reality, what this does is it favors existing large corporations and disfavors the small guys. That's part of why trade agreements exist. And those megacorps are not necessarily domestically owned and controlled. Knowing this, that defeats some of the purpose of Brexit. I sure hope the UK does negotiate their own deals.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
For foreign relations I'd rather the UK dealt with the individual member countries one on one rather than through the EU as they seem more a barrier to good relations on anything other than trade.
That's fair. The UK literally has the most experience and history with Foreign Relations. They should be well equipped to handle it. They do not need the EU for this, for sure.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Travel agreements. There's no valid reason not to continue to allow visa free travel for short and medium term trips between the UK and EU. Restrictions will be entirely borne out of petty vindictiveness and butthurtery from not getting something else from the negotiations.
IMO, saying that free-travel within Europe will be banned was senseless fear-mongering by remainers. So, yeah, we agree here, as well. In order for those hysterics to work, you'd have to pretend the UK is incapable of negotiating any terms with any other nation.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Refugees. The EU and UK should be free to have whatever policies they want. The EU evidently doesn't have the authority to implement their own policies to their own member states anyway as Poland have told them to ram it when the EU tried to make them take Syrian and Iraqi refugees.
This topic is particularly contentious. Despite what people like Surtur will have you believe, it's just not as bad as the EU had it with the refugees (crimes, unemployment, etc.). Our illegal immigrants are refugees cost as a net negative of ~$250 million a year: if we simply implemented the Fair Tax Plan, we'd have a massive influx of tax dollars, greatly outweighing the loss of tax revenue from illegals (but our status quo establishment do not want to amend our tax policy to make sense).
I honestly think the UK should tell all the Refugees to eff off. You have too many tax and spending problems right now to take on more problems.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Taxes. Each EU state is able to set its own tax rates anyway. It's part of the problem why it doesn't work. Coupled with the massive imbalance between the big EU economies like Germany, France and the UK Vs the smaller economies. To put it into perspective. There's 27 EU countries and the smallest 10 economies combined have less than 3% of the EU's GDP. London, just the city alone, has a GDP bigger than most entire EU countries. The economic imbalances are going to wreck the EU. It should simply never have expanded to encompass former Soviet bloc countries.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Regulations need a thread all unto their own. Particularly food production. The common fisheries policy was a joke from the start. It allowed non UK countries to fish in UK waters to prop up their shitty economies like spain and Portugal. Fishing communities voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU in the belief that doing so will allow them to flourish again because only UK boats will be allowed to land fish in UK waters. Much like the coal miners and truckers in the US, they're going to find out very quickly how little their communities mean to the UK government when it comes to negotiating market access for bigger industries like finance, car production and energy.They'll be the first to be compromised away in any deal.
Then let's do it. We have to take some of the EU trash regulations such as GDPR and any food regulations for exporting (your imports). Not all regulations are bad, obviously.
And the fishing example you brought up is very similar to forcing expensive subway passes on the people just for the people to hope over the expensive anti-sneaking-in turnstiles when the police aren't looking. When your regulations can be circumvented by simply not playing the game, the regulations are terrible.
We could use a thread for regulations but hardly anyone will talk in it.
Originally posted by dadudemoninteresting, how many times has the UK come in conflict with the EU? I'm fascinated.
I forgot what my original search terms were but almost all were left-leaning results that were opposed to Brexit. If I type just "brexit" it comes up with much more neutral stuff. I adjust my search terms to "brexit good and bad" and got more neutral stuff, yesterday. I was just whining about the bias google likes to throw out there.Well, in the US, I'd be okay with taking in female immigrants from those 3 countries. We could use a ton more of those types of immigrants.
😍 😍 😍But I think the larger issue (and what people don't like to talk about, not necessarily you) is the brown male immigration from other countries.
I was hoping you'd talk more about that. Don't be shy: you won't offend me supporting or opposing brown men immigrating to Scotland.
On the tariffs: the play of the day is to negotiate trade deals piece by piece by company. That's...okay-ish I guess? That's a bit too capitalistic, IMO. But perhaps it is just fine and companies who are not good at negotiating should fail. But, in reality, what this does is it favors existing large corporations and disfavors the small guys. That's part of why trade agreements exist. And those megacorps are not necessarily domestically owned and controlled. Knowing this, that defeats some of the purpose of Brexit. I sure hope the UK does negotiate their own deals.
That's fair. The UK literally has the most experience and history with Foreign Relations. They should be well equipped to handle it. They do not need the EU for this, for sure.
IMO, saying that free-travel within Europe will be banned was senseless fear-mongering by remainers. So, yeah, we agree here, as well. In order for those hysterics to work, you'd have to pretend the UK is incapable of negotiating any terms with any other nation.
This topic is particularly contentious. Despite what people like Surtur will have you believe, it's just not as bad as the EU had it with the refugees (crimes, unemployment, etc.). Our illegal immigrants are refugees cost as a net negative of ~$250 million a year: if we simply implemented the Fair Tax Plan, we'd have a massive influx of tax dollars, greatly outweighing the loss of tax revenue from illegals (but our status quo establishment do not want to amend our tax policy to make sense).
I honestly think the UK should tell all the Refugees to eff off. You have too many tax and spending problems right now to take on more problems.
Then let's do it. We have to take some of the EU trash regulations such as GDPR and any food regulations for exporting (your imports). Not all regulations are bad, obviously.
And the fishing example you brought up is very similar to forcing expensive subway passes on the people just for the people to hope over the expensive anti-sneaking-in turnstiles when the police aren't looking. When your regulations can be circumvented by simply not playing the game, the regulations are terrible.
We could use a thread for regulations but hardly anyone will talk in it.
But I think the larger issue (and what people don't like to talk about, not necessarily you) is the brown male immigration from other countries.
I was hoping you'd talk more about that. Don't be shy: you won't offend me supporting or opposing brown men immigrating to Scotland.
I replied briefly to Surt about immigration from outwith the EU. It's a bit irrelevant when speaking about Brexit as the "brown" countries aren't in the EU anyway. The closest being Romania and Bulgaria.
I don't think being out of the EU will change those levels because once they're in the EU either via crossing the Agean sea, via Turkey or across the Mediterranean sea from North Africa, once they're in the EU they can make it to France relatively unhindered at which point they'd still have the same obstacles in making it to the UK that they did when the UK was in the EU. There's a lot of crazy videos of them chasing after cargo trucks near Calais when the infamous "jungle" refugee camp in France still existed but that was emptied and bulldozed and they've since put large security fences on the roads leading to the port at Calais which has forced migrants into finding small boats to cross the channel instead.
I do think there's a lot of hysteria around who these people are though. There's a narrative that Iraqi and Syrian refugees are all wannabe jihads or people scrambling for handouts and free houses and money from the UK government. Many people seem to think Syria was a shithole before the war. It was like any other country. Full of people who owned businesses or worked in jobs you see anywhere else in the world. And that's who the vast majority of these people are. In fact I'd be more concerned about the returning UK citizens among them than the Syrian and Iraqis themselves because they're the ones that chose to go and fight for terrorist groups.
As for me personally. I went to a school with about a 25% "brown" student body. Mostly Pakistani and Indian 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from when their parents and grandparents were encouraged to come and get citizenship after WW2 and for helping staff the NHS. Mostly because they were former UK colonies and their citizens fought in quite large numbers for the allies in the war.
I go to the gym with an Iraqi Kurd who owns a security company. I go to the cinema with a Pakistani food business owner. I worked with a guy from Latvia who speaks 6 languages and has 3 masters degrees who could only get a job as a security guard and taxi driver when he first came here and is now a director of a large construction company. So personally it's never been an issue.
We're also a considerably more welcoming country in Scotland than in England. Here's an example.
There are still areas that suffer from the same ghettoisation that happens in places particularly in northern England where immigrants are housed in the cheapest possible areas initially instead of being spread across cities. If you want immigrants to integrate you have to house them in a way that the only people they interact with everyday aren't just other immigrants.
If you want a broader view about policy to prevent migration from "brown" countries then here's a few
1. Don't enact a geopolitical agenda of waging war and destabilising those countries. Iraq, for example. If the EU, and specifically the UK, had actually helped strengthen Iraq after the downfall the Saddam Hussein regime rather than deliberately keeping their government and military ineffectual then they would have been easily capable of stopping ISIS themselves. Instead we kept then in a perpetually weak state in order to pump their oil tax free as "reparations" for the war.
We colluded with Saudi Arabia to destabilise Syria and Iraq because they were on the cusp of forming a Shia country alliance with Iran and forming the Iran, Iraq, Syria gas pipeline which would have rivalled Saudi Arabia and hit their economy hard...
Everything that has happened since has been a direct consequence of those decisions.