Quantcast
Brexiters OUTRAGED after discovering that voting to abolish free movement means movement will no longer be free

Forums - Politics Discussion - Brexiters OUTRAGED after discovering that voting to abolish free movement means movement will no longer be free

I'm an American, so I'm not informed on the subject matter. But is the problem that they are going to charge six euro to people in Britain every time they leave Britain to re-enter the EU (whether it be for business or pleasure)?

That doesn't seem like a whole lot of money, assuming that was the only repercussions to leaving the EU in the first place. So what's the deal?



Around the Network
RaptorChrist said:
I'm an American, so I'm not informed on the subject matter. But is the problem that they are going to charge six euro to people in Britain every time they leave Britain to re-enter the EU (whether it be for business or pleasure)?

That doesn't seem like a whole lot of money, assuming that was the only repercussions to leaving the EU in the first place. So what's the deal?

You are quite right. It is not a huge amount of money, if anything it is quite reasonable indeed. However, certain populist right-wing media in the country have went ahead and attempted to present this as yet another sign of EU being 'evil' and 'corrupt' and wanting to 'punish' Britain for leaving. A short term visa to the UK from outside the EU right now is set at £97, to give you a little bit of perspective.

Britain right now, as a member of the EU, 'enjoys' freedom of movement. This means one can travel to and from the UK and the EU, with minimal obstacles along the way. The UK is not however a member of the Schengen Treaty, which gives them certain additional rights in terms of denying entry, custom controls, etc. British people travelling to the EU right now face no checks, no custom controls, and no visa or other entry fees. The proposed change will cover administrative costs and the cost is kept at a minimum, which is a good gesture. But it doesn't mean that a British citizen will be able to travel as freely into the EU as before. For the most part, very little will change, but they will have to declare goods in customs checks, and they could also be denied entry as the principle of the freedom of movement will no longer apply.

Of course, this is only pertinent from 2021 and afterwards. Until then, the UK is most likely to stay in the Union through an agreed extension to the timeline of leaving, what is described as a 'transition period'. 

Of course, that is not the only repercussion of leaving. In fact I am surprised this has even made it to the news. This is a non-issue as far as BREXIT goes, really. 



KrspaceT said:
Do Brexit voters not understand what 'leaving the European Union' implies?

Also I swear the Brexit voters sound a bit like what I've heard about the way Quebec separatists handle such things. 'Divorce with bedroom rights' I've heard it called.

True story.  Quebec nationalists invented the term "sovereignty association" whereby they somehow magically believe they will have sovereignty over their own affairs, while still being associated with Canada (as Quebecers generally support Canada's international trade agreements, treaties Canada has signed, don't want to have to get a visa to enter Canada, want to keep the Canadian dollar, etc.).  It's fantasy of course, as Quebec nationalists envision a future where they get to pick and choose what they have control over, and what Canada gets stuck having to do for them.  That's not how these things work, as Brexiteers are starting to find out.



Errorist76 said:
kowenicki said:
I find it funny that someone from Germany cares about Brexit. I find it disturbing that someone from Germany doesn't care about one person one vote and democracy.

Mind your own business.... and we will mind ours soon.. Good luck filling that void of our contribution, either some of the poorer nation will get less or some of the richer nations will need to pay more.

I voted remain, but the longer this has gone on the happier I am with getting out of Dodge. I'm getting tired of the left sulking every time it loses. The EU is a bullying cesspit of unelected self serving scumbags trying to keep the status quo for certain nations. I want none of it.

...and 6 quid... who cares!? I pay almost that every time I use the M6 toll road to save myself an hour when I'm driving south.


Why shouldn’t he care? Why shouldn’t every other European care? The EU is a great thing, even though things need to be reformed for certain and because of some old, scared fuckers and xenophobe assholes now everybody in the UK has to suffer. I feel sorry for all those people, all my friends who voted against it..and most of all I feel sorry for the fact, that a proud nation like the UK plays the coward of the continent.

The UK was always refusing to take responsibility, when they were in the EU. Maybe it’s better when they’re out...they always seemed to prefer their lonely island anyway. It’s still very sad and every European has the right to have an opinion about it. Period.

the irony...

Fuck me some people in Europe are bitter over this.  You feel sorry for those that voted against it and everyone who voted for it is a racist xenophobe ass hole?? (not sure how you didn't get a ban for that kind of racist bullshit)

I apologise on behalf of my fellow citizens for damaging the German plan for economic domination over smaller European nations.  I'm really, really sorry.



I'm not really here!

Link: Shipment History Since 1995


Yes because economic domination is exactly what the EU is doing... how exactly?

The EU is a byzantine institutional mess, but at its heart it has always been reluctant to become an imposition. If you even paid close attention to the history of EU summits, you would have seen that any attempts at further integration were shot down by various EU members (UK included).

Yes the EU does seek further integration. But as things stand, they are bound to respect the wishes of all their members as well. Of course, in practice they end up dictating fiscal policy to such smaller nations as you said, for example Greece -- but this is mostly because they have to keep the books in order and also because Greek fiscal and economic policy was a literal black hole for public funds and bonds. They are also responsible to those who give this money, e.g. UK which was very much against the idea of funding Greece.

The true problem with EU is that it has to appease both the poorer weaker members, as well as cuddle the more powerful and obnoxious members like the UK.

The EU *is* in trouble. There is no way around this. It will either have to integrate further (the German/France side) or become more minimal (the UK), or the impossible (what the weaker countries want, which is a mixture of greater integration in terms of lending, etc whilst at the same time seeking more independence - "lend us money, but don't tell us what to do with it fiscally")



Around the Network
Helloplite said:

 

I am not asking you to see me as an 'academic equal' -- whatever that means. It is true that political theory, including international relations as a whole, is not a science. This is basic stuff, really. Science proceeds to operate through observation, testable experimentation, proof by repetition, and independent verification of findings. The arts, whether that is philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, economics, or literary critique, is by definition not a science. One cannot 'prove' Plato, or Marx, or Nietzsche. You can only contemplate their views, weigh them up, and produce a substantive but ultimately subjective perspective of the topic/concept/idea you are studying.

That does not however mean that to study politics is in its entirety an 'art' in the strict sense. Studying politics and IR is by nature the study of an amalgamation of other arts, which is why a student of politics must be well versed in philosophy, as well as in sociology, economics, and even history. My second bachelor's degree was actually in international history, rather than politics. History is an entirely different beast. It is not a science, either, but it does entail weighing up proofs, information, and points-of-view in order to distill the truth of an event. You cannot 'argue' that colonialism didn't happen. What you can do is demonstrate why narratives that portray it as a negative event were incorrect, based on other historical data and information.

Do you endure far more ordeals? Quite possibly. Since my first bachelor's was in computer games development, I know full well that studying a science topic requires a far more rigorous mode of study, far more learning of formulae, calculus, and so forth. My experience studying in the field of computing gave me both an appreciation of scientific study, and was at the same time a process that resulted in me accepting that I needed to study something else, as I wouldn't have been a good game developer. That does not in any way however mean that studying politics all the way to doctorate level was a trivial or routine task. I assure you that it did not involve just coming up with stuff. I had to study everything from Marxist economics, to Criminal and International Law, including arduous and nebulous topics such as the British Politcal System, and the EU, its laws and its complex institutions. If your point is to merely underestimate then I will let others judge as to who between the two of us knows better what things they are talking about.

So you blatantly admit that study of politics in itself can't hold up to scrutiny by it's own content ... 

FWIW, "proofs" are literally a concept that can only exist in logic/mathematics. The word you are looking for is "evidence" and performing science is just another method for a systematic collection of information but unlike history which is nearly a method of recollection of information. Science has the benefit of having a far more elegant and higher standard verification process like having testable hypothesis however, history on the other hand has no such luxury so you're nearly left with just many unverifiable past accounts when studying further back in time so it'll be extremely difficult to verify evidence for many cases including potentially your example of colonization ... (as if the subject was relevant to this topic at hand)

Not saying that what you studied was trivial but you if you're going to denigrate a stranger's background then expect the same retaliation in kind ... 

That being said you can't deny that there's a far lower barrier to entry with political science than there is with the natural sciences. It must be very nice being able to read or examine many old texts and documents that are at least dozens decades old then maybe give your own interpretation/analysis frequently once in a while ... 

Helloplite said: 


I am teaching inconsistency? What does that even mean? I know this is your modus operanti, to try to get people so annoyed that they lose an argument by virtue of losing their ****, but I do not fall for this stuff. We do not start picking up political concepts and make-up interpretations on the go. That is not what political theory, or studying International Relations is about. To say this only reveals your own ignorance of the vast difference between the layman's use of political concepts and their implementation in an academic context. Furthermore, I do not merely come up with ideas from my own head. I wish I had thought of these ideas. On the contrary, I can provide a citation for everything I am saying here. This is stuff I learned by explicitly studying, for example, Nationalism; Balkan History; and Colonial History respectively.

Since this has become a ridiculous litany of assaults and ad hominems, I am happy to give you my name and full academic profile so you can judge for yourself, on the proviso that you do the same. As I said earlier, I am happy to allow others to pass on judgment as to whether I am making things up here, or not.

It's as you yourself mentioned, "The arts, whether that is philosophy, sociology, psychology, politics, economics, or literary critique, is by definition not a science. One cannot 'prove' Plato, or Marx, or Nietzsche. You can only contemplate their views, weigh them up, and produce a substantive but ultimately subjective perspective of the topic/concept/idea you are studying." which means just about everything you've studied up to this point has being entirely conceptually arbitrary. I don't blame you one bit for it since you've subsequently denoted paradoxical thoughts like I've shown to you in many of your proceeding posts but that's what happens when many of the leaders in your field don't actually want to advance the framework itself and many are left without a bloody consensus of the definitions of many concepts involved ... 

It's probably the reason why you feel threatened that any layman can compete against you in your own field when not a lot of details are built upon each other. Many of the ideas in your field can be competently grasped in less than a season which makes it very hard to paint an ordinary Joe who informally dabbles with the subject from time to time as incorrect than those with a similar educational background like yours but if they tried discussing a somewhat advanced topic in depth about the natural sciences, our progressive curriculum equipped with learning heavy-handed tools such as differential equations or organic chemistry means that they will serve as our best bullshit detectors while those with a specialty in the arts can hardly afford a similar solution ... 

"Since this has become a ridiculous litany of assaults and ad hominems", LOL like you should be the one to talk when you were the first one who came headstrong at me along with some others so how very hypocritical of you ... 

Helloplite said: 


No you couldn't. There is no rigorous scientific study of race and genetics that demonstrates a close link. For example, studies comparing the genomes of Bosnian Muslims, versus Bosnian Serbs (Christians), showed several consistencies across chromosome haplogroups (43.5% and 30.9%, respectively), which in the authors' words "shows that different ethnic groups in Bosnia [...] share a large subset of their paternal lineages" (1), despite these groups believing they have different ethnicity. The whole concept of 'race' is tenuous and political in itself (2). The use of biological concepts of race in human genetic research has been described as "problematic at best, and harmful at worst" -- not by political theorists but by geneticists (3). Of course, I am not trying to simplify a vastly complex topic here, nor to assert that there is no scientific research into how aspects of the concept of 'race' could indeed turn out to reflect actual different genetic characteristics between populations (4). Such research, like Reich's (professor of genetics at Harvard) article below, does exist but even there the author is careful to avoid completely denying the socially constructed aspects of the concept of race. This does not mean that there are no genomic differences between a group of people living in Mozambique and a group of people living in Iceland, but it does mean that at the individual level most of us have probably very little idea of 'where we come from', genetically speaking. 'Race' as we commonly understand it is mostly wishful-thinking. Dr Foeman, professor of intercultural communication, has focused her research on individuals whose sense of 'race' differs from what genetic studies about them reveal (5). She has come across 'biracial' people who were entirely of European descent. Christians of Jewish descent.  I really could go on and on, but this is neither my field of study, nor do I think it is productive to do so. You, and anyone else interested, can have a look at the resources below. The National Geographic article, in particular, is the most useful for this discussion. But for a counter-point, I'd take a look at Reich's position as well.

I am not pressing the +1 to "enforce a confirmation bias". The button is there. I don't know what makes you so sensitive about this, but let me clear this up for you, once and for all:

I don't seek your validation, nor do I want you to treat me as an intellectual equal. Nothing about this conversation is about validation for me. This is a forum, with a topic, and we are discussants. This is the extent and context of this debate. My attitude is what it is, and if and when it gets too offensive or aggressive I know when to back down and apologize. This, however, has nothing to do with any of this. I am simply making my points and defending them. This is entirely within the intended function and behaviour of a forum. If you can provide an actual substantiation of your positions other than ad hominems, go ahead. That is all I expect from you. Whether you, or I, or anyone else is an intellectual equal or not is really not the point of this conversation. The point is BREXIT and I will stand by my opinion that those who voted to leave the EU based on nationalist and racist propaganda have no idea what they are doing, or what they even believe in (6). By that, I literally mean that they have no knowledge of history, or politics. There you go. Enjoy.

Yes, I absolutely could otherwise and it's because you only demonstrated a socially constructed understanding of race rather than a biologically grounded one. I know you and left wing "race" deniers want to disconfirm the extent of natural selection as much as possible but if we take the biological definition of race to be genetically clustered subpopulations of a species then their perception of race is probably real and it's not some coincidence that these lineages are structurally lined up along the geographical continental boundaries either ... (here's your problem, you made a straw man that you thought that they thought that religion was equivalent to race so let me tell you now that it's not how most would view as "race")

@Underlined What you just wrote is not supported by current evidence which extended upon another previous work ... (the people of Mozambique is nearly devoid of neanderthal DNA while people in Iceland still have some of the neanderthal DNA left, an individual's ancestral origins can definitely be tracked down)

@Bold I don't care about the damn button but every time that you encourage users with a post saying "they know what their talking about", it seems in quite a few instances that you seek justification from others for your position. Don't seek validation with me, eh ? You realize that got protective over your credentials in your previous paragraphs ... 



kowenicki said:
Errorist76 said:

Why shouldn’t he care? Why shouldn’t every other European care? The EU is a great thing, even though things need to be reformed for certain and because of some old, scared fuckers and xenophobe assholes now everybody in the UK has to suffer. I feel sorry for all those people, all my friends who voted against it..and most of all I feel sorry for the fact, that a proud nation like the UK plays the coward of the continent.

The UK was always refusing to take responsibility, when they were in the EU. Maybe it’s better when they’re out...they always seemed to prefer their lonely island anyway. It’s still very sad and every European has the right to have an opinion about it. Period.

the irony...

Fuck me some people in Europe are bitter over this.  You feel sorry for those that voted against it and everyone who voted for it is a racist xenophobe ass hole?? (not sure how you didn't get a ban for that kind of racist bullshit)

I apologise on behalf of my fellow citizens for damaging the German plan for economic domination over smaller European nations.  I'm really, really sorry.

Please elaborate where my comment was racist? You should really take off your tin-foil hat. So you really think you can fight German dominance from outside with a much weaker stance now? Your statement would be funny wouldn’t it be so sad.



celador said:
ah, you're German, this post and your anger makes sense now. third time you've tried to control the UK in the last century and failed, no wonder you are bitter.

Please identify what century you are talking about. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Maybe that fee isn't a childish retaliation, but it looks a lot like it.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")

A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.

TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!

        

Helloplite said:
contestgamer said:

oh ok, so Nazi's and Hitler aren't racist, only vgchart posters you don't agree with are. Gotcha. Sounds pretty racist to me. 

In fact lets use your logic here:

"On a similar note, let us not forget the cultural openings of Hitler to muslims, which he thought could be friends and allies to the Reich. "The peoples of Islam will always be closer to us than, for example, France", he said, which is probably the closest thing to a racist and a nationalist calling someone of another identity as a "friend"."

A Hitler apologist.... Like every racist ever.

A Hitler apologist? That's amusing. I am not calling those who disagree with me racist. I am calling racist those who are. I even said that comparing VGChartz posters to Nazism is a very low standard indeed, as no one deserves such denigrating comparison.

 

Reading comprehension. Master it for your own good.

 

And to clarify, not for you as you are a lost cause, but to others: Hitler's openings to Muslims, and Carl Schmitt's student being a Jew is the very equivalent of someone saying "I cannot be a racist, my gf/friends are mixed race". 

 

Denial is the first step to ignorance.

Muslim isn't a race though. Should've said Turkish to make more sense since a Muslim can be an Englishman, a German, a French, a Canadian, they can be a Baloch from Pakistan or a Rajput from India an arayan a Saxon, an Egyptian, a Japanese, a Chinese, an aboriginal from austrAust or native of America, a Spanish, a Mexican, an Italian or a person from a race and country you've never heard of. I don't know when but Jews somehow became a race though. Also I can't wait for this narrative of scary Muslims to die down so we can be aeesas people with varying levels of decency from scum to the best of the best just like any other population instead of being confined in a very specofsp box by those who hate us and fear us and those who say they are with us and supposedly protect us. 



Just a guy who doesn't want to be bored. Also