BREXIT Mega Thread (The Saga Begins?)

[Souseiseki]

just imagine this playing out with any other proposal

"this will be great"
"actually it'll be ok"
"actually it'll be bad, but worth it for X, Y and Z"
"actually it'll be bad, X won't actually help, Y will make it worse and we're pretty much guaranteed to not get Z"

how fast would you have told that guy to get out of your sight

edit: UK will clearly lose financial passports if it quits the single market, says European commissioner

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-chancellor-philip-hammond-economic-investment-suffering-bbc-radio-4-interview-nick-a7802141.html

Brexit: Philip Hammond admits UK's planned withdrawal already hitting economic investment

Chancellor says a transitional deal with the EU is needed to ‘start seeing businesses investing again’

Businesses are already pulling investment because of Brexit, the Chancellor has admitted – as he again urged Theresa May to agree a “transitional arrangement”.

Philip Hammond said a temporary deal with the EU was badly needed to get “businesses investing again”, appearing to acknowledge that companies are currently putting their plans on hold.

“The thing that is causing concern in the business community is the risk of a cliff edge,” Mr Hammond said.

well, that's interesting. and by interesting i mean the exact opposite of what we've been told for the past year.

In his Mansion House speech in the City of London this week, he dropped any pretence that he sees economic benefits to EU withdrawal – while insisting Britain will leave.

The Chancellor urged Ms May to abandon her red line that securing immigration controls is the first priority, in favour of a deal to protect jobs.

lol

Philip Hammond is a hard line Remainer who never wanted to leave the EU, the single market, or anything else.

[Vassenor]

Philip Hammond is a hard line Remainer who never wanted to leave the EU, the single market, or anything else.

And this means what, exactly?

Or are we still playing the "they have to be biased because they're not saying what I want them to" card?

[Proctopeo]

Philip Hammond is a hard line Remainer who never wanted to leave the EU, the single market, or anything else.

And this means what, exactly?

Or are we still playing the "they have to be biased because they're not saying what I want them to" card?

I assume the idea is that he may not be unbiased in his assessment. Which is a completely logical thing to think.

[Bressen]

And this means what, exactly?

Or are we still playing the "they have to be biased because they're not saying what I want them to" card?

I assume the idea is that he may not be unbiased in his assessment. Which is a completely logical thing to think.

How absurd to propose that political bias may impact one's assessment. Hammond is obviously a voice of objectivity.

[Vassenor]

And this means what, exactly?

Or are we still playing the "they have to be biased because they're not saying what I want them to" card?

I assume the idea is that he may not be unbiased in his assessment. Which is a completely logical thing to think.

So why does no-one ever apply that same assessment to pro-Leave people?

[Bressen]

I assume the idea is that he may not be unbiased in his assessment. Which is a completely logical thing to think.

So why does no-one ever apply that same assessment to pro-Leave people?

Probably because most pro-Leave people are too busy responding to accusations of xenophobia, racism and 'Little Britain' syndrome to get a word in edge-wise about the economic side of the Brexit process.
Though, I have no doubt in my mind that if pro-Leave people were more prominent on the media platform, they'd be met by the same accusations of bias.

[Vassenor]

So why does no-one ever apply that same assessment to pro-Leave people?

Probably because most pro-Leave people are too busy responding to accusations of xenophobia, racism and 'Little Britain' syndrome to get a word in edge-wise about the economic side of the Brexit process.
Though, I have no doubt in my mind that if pro-Leave people were more prominent on the media platform, they'd be met by the same accusations of bias.

I haven't seen a whole lot of accusations of xenophobia since the vote. And even before then it was only when people were actually spouting the whole "it's not about the economy, it's about keeping the Muslims out" crap Nigel started.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

The point is sous was presenting this as a concession by the Leave side. Hammond is just saying what he was saying all along. That's fine, and it doesn't make him wrong, it just isn't particularly novel or important.

[Proctopeo]

I assume the idea is that he may not be unbiased in his assessment. Which is a completely logical thing to think.

So why does no-one ever apply that same assessment to pro-Leave people?

"no-one"

[Bressen]

Probably because most pro-Leave people are too busy responding to accusations of xenophobia, racism and 'Little Britain' syndrome to get a word in edge-wise about the economic side of the Brexit process.
Though, I have no doubt in my mind that if pro-Leave people were more prominent on the media platform, they'd be met by the same accusations of bias.

I haven't seen a whole lot of accusations of xenophobia since the vote. And even before then it was only when people were actually spouting the whole "it's not about the economy, it's about keeping the Muslims out" crap Nigel started.

The accusations are still present in political discourse, both small-scale and large-scale. I know for a fact I still get looks of contempt when I merely throw my hat in support of Leaving, and many spokespeople for the pro-Leave movement are faced with this kind of mutually-agreed upon contempt, where-in other panel members roll their eyes in the face of their arguments, only to respond with accusations of -isms and -phobias.
I don't think Nigel Farage started the ''keeping the Muslims out'' argument. He was principally focused on the argument of parliamentary sovereignty, which so happens to include immigration controls.

[Vassenor]

I haven't seen a whole lot of accusations of xenophobia since the vote. And even before then it was only when people were actually spouting the whole "it's not about the economy, it's about keeping the Muslims out" crap Nigel started.

The accusations are still present in political discourse, both small-scale and large-scale. I know for a fact I still get looks of contempt when I merely throw my hat in support of Leaving, and many spokespeople for the pro-Leave movement are faced with this kind of mutually-agreed upon contempt, where-in other panel members roll their eyes in the face of their arguments, only to respond with accusations of -isms and -phobias.
I don't think Nigel Farage started the ''keeping the Muslims out'' argument. He was principally focused on the argument of parliamentary sovereignty, which so happens to include immigration controls.

Right, which is why it all dialled up after Orlando with calls of "this is why we need to leave". And his whole "breaking point" campaign totally wasn't xenophobic at all.

[Bressen]

The accusations are still present in political discourse, both small-scale and large-scale. I know for a fact I still get looks of contempt when I merely throw my hat in support of Leaving, and many spokespeople for the pro-Leave movement are faced with this kind of mutually-agreed upon contempt, where-in other panel members roll their eyes in the face of their arguments, only to respond with accusations of -isms and -phobias.
I don't think Nigel Farage started the ''keeping the Muslims out'' argument. He was principally focused on the argument of parliamentary sovereignty, which so happens to include immigration controls.

Right, which is why it all dialled up after Orlando with calls of "this is why we need to leave". And his whole "breaking point" campaign totally wasn't xenophobic at all.

What was xenophobic about the Breaking Point campaign? It was about border controls, and the problem of a huge influx of refugees and migrants being a strain on Britain. It seems like it became xenophobic because people reported it as xenophobic.

[Vassenor]

Right, which is why it all dialled up after Orlando with calls of "this is why we need to leave". And his whole "breaking point" campaign totally wasn't xenophobic at all.

What was xenophobic about the Breaking Point campaign? It was about border controls, and the problem of a huge influx of refugees and migrants being a strain on Britain. It seems like it became xenophobic because people reported it as xenophobic.

Did anyone actually demonstrate how migrants are a strain on the country?

[Bressen]

What was xenophobic about the Breaking Point campaign? It was about border controls, and the problem of a huge influx of refugees and migrants being a strain on Britain. It seems like it became xenophobic because people reported it as xenophobic.

Did anyone actually demonstrate how migrants are a strain on the country?

That was the point of the campaign. Cultural/integration incompatibility, increased public spending, housing shortages, and the infiltration of ISIS fighters.
It seems as if all this was played as xenophobic on the basis that it involved people who weren't British.

[Vassenor]

Did anyone actually demonstrate how migrants are a strain on the country?

That was the point of the campaign. Cultural/integration incompatibility, increased public spending, housing shortages, and the infiltration of ISIS fighters.
It seems as if all this was played as xenophobic on the basis that it involved people who weren't British.

So we're playing the "plural of anecdote is data" card. I presume you have actual evidence to back up all of those points.

[Bressen]

That was the point of the campaign. Cultural/integration incompatibility, increased public spending, housing shortages, and the infiltration of ISIS fighters.
It seems as if all this was played as xenophobic on the basis that it involved people who weren't British.

So we're playing the "plural of anecdote is data" card. I presume you have actual evidence to back up all of those points.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'plural of anecdote is data'. I just stated points and arguments that were associated with the Breaking Point campaign.
I'm not here to argue for or against any of these points, I'm just talking about the campaign itself and how it's not xenophobic.

[Vassenor]

So we're playing the "plural of anecdote is data" card. I presume you have actual evidence to back up all of those points.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'plural of anecdote is data'. I just stated points and arguments that were associated with the Breaking Point campaign.
I'm not here to argue for or against any of these points, I'm just talking about the campaign itself and how it's not xenophobic.

So "these foreigners are destroying this country" isn't xenophobia?

[Bressen]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'plural of anecdote is data'. I just stated points and arguments that were associated with the Breaking Point campaign.
I'm not here to argue for or against any of these points, I'm just talking about the campaign itself and how it's not xenophobic.

So "these foreigners are destroying this country" isn't xenophobia?

If it has its basis in fact, then no. If it has its basis in fiction, then yes.

[Vassenor]

So "these foreigners are destroying this country" isn't xenophobia?

If it has its basis in fact, then no. If it has its basis in fiction, then yes.

So maybe you should demonstrate that it has basis in fact then if you're trying to argue that.

[Bressen]

If it has its basis in fact, then no. If it has its basis in fiction, then yes.

So maybe you should demonstrate that it has basis in fact then if you're trying to argue that.

Well, I'd like to think the cultural incompatibility is pretty self-evident to not require some form of study to back it up. Taking a bunch of predominantly Islamic, Middle Eastern people and putting them into a predominantly Christian, Western country is going to result in the clash of values and belief systems. This isn't anyone's fault, it's just a byproduct of having two different societies trying to integrate with one another, especially when one society is so heavily based around a religious-political doctrine and one isn't.

Increased public spending is also a self-evident problem; if you have large amounts of refugees entering the country who aren't going to work (or begin working immediately), that's going to result in increased government spending for welfare programmes to support them until they return home (or start working).

The housing crisis is also well-documented, and adding more people to the country who need houses isn't going to help alleviate the problem.

And we also know that ISIS is using the refugee crisis as a method of transporting their radicalised fighters across into Western nations.

Feel free to dismiss these statements because I didn't throw in a link to a source. I made a passing comment and haven't entered this dialogue to demonstrate anything beyond the fact that people who support Leave are unfairly labelled as racists and xenophobes, despite having legitimate concerns about topics such as the migrant crisis.

[Vassenor]

So maybe you should demonstrate that it has basis in fact then if you're trying to argue that.

Well, I'd like to think the cultural incompatibility is pretty self-evident to not require some form of study to back it up. Taking a bunch of predominantly Islamic, Middle Eastern people and putting them into a predominantly Christian, Western country is going to result in the clash of values and belief systems. This isn't anyone's fault, it's just a byproduct of having two different societies trying to integrate with one another, especially when one society is so heavily based around a religious-political doctrine and one isn't.

Increased public spending is also a self-evident problem; if you have large amounts of refugees entering the country who aren't going to work (or begin working immediately), that's going to result in increased government spending for welfare programmes to support them until they return home (or start working).

The housing crisis is also well-documented, and adding more people to the country who need houses isn't going to help alleviate the problem.

And we also know that ISIS is using the refugee crisis as a method of transporting their radicalised fighters across into Western nations.

Feel free to dismiss these statements because I didn't throw in a link to a source. I made a passing comment and haven't entered this dialogue to demonstrate anything beyond the fact that people who support Leave are unfairly labelled as racists and xenophobes, despite having legitimate concerns about topics such as the migrant crisis.

If ISIS is so able to use the refugee wave to get terrorists into Europe, why have all the incidents this year all involved people born in the countries being attacked?

[Bressen]

Well, I'd like to think the cultural incompatibility is pretty self-evident to not require some form of study to back it up. Taking a bunch of predominantly Islamic, Middle Eastern people and putting them into a predominantly Christian, Western country is going to result in the clash of values and belief systems. This isn't anyone's fault, it's just a byproduct of having two different societies trying to integrate with one another, especially when one society is so heavily based around a religious-political doctrine and one isn't.

Increased public spending is also a self-evident problem; if you have large amounts of refugees entering the country who aren't going to work (or begin working immediately), that's going to result in increased government spending for welfare programmes to support them until they return home (or start working).

The housing crisis is also well-documented, and adding more people to the country who need houses isn't going to help alleviate the problem.

And we also know that ISIS is using the refugee crisis as a method of transporting their radicalised fighters across into Western nations.

Feel free to dismiss these statements because I didn't throw in a link to a source. I made a passing comment and haven't entered this dialogue to demonstrate anything beyond the fact that people who support Leave are unfairly labelled as racists and xenophobes, despite having legitimate concerns about topics such as the migrant crisis.

If ISIS is so able to use the refugee wave to get terrorists into Europe, why have all the incidents this year all involved people born in the countries being attacked?

This year doesn't cover the scope of the refugee crisis, as there are plenty other terrorist attacks that have happened last year and the year before across Europe, when the refugee crisis was in full throttle.
Even with that said, ISIS is also using the refugee crisis to funnel in extremist preachers, who are radicalising members of local populations. That explains why many terrorist attackers were British-born, and noticeably have changed their names to Middle Eastern variants. Regardless of birth-place, the problem of radicalisation is still occurring as a result of the migrant crisis and ISIS exploiting it.
Many of the terrorists (e.g. the most recent London Bridge attacker) go to the Middle East as well, where they are radicalised by ISIS cells there.

[Vassenor]

If ISIS is so able to use the refugee wave to get terrorists into Europe, why have all the incidents this year all involved people born in the countries being attacked?

This year doesn't cover the scope of the refugee crisis, as there are plenty other terrorist attacks that have happened last year and the year before across Europe, when the refugee crisis was in full throttle.
Even with that said, ISIS is also using the refugee crisis to funnel in extremist preachers, who are radicalising members of local populations. That explains why many terrorist attackers were British-born, and noticeably have changed their names to Middle Eastern variants. Regardless of birth-place, the problem of radicalisation is still occurring as a result of the migrant crisis and ISIS exploiting it.
Many of the terrorists (e.g. the most recent London Bridge attacker) go to the Middle East as well, where they are radicalised by ISIS cells there.

And I can only think of one incident in the last five years that might have involved a refugee. And I am still waiting for actual evidence and not just anecdotes.

[Olerand]

This year doesn't cover the scope of the refugee crisis, as there are plenty other terrorist attacks that have happened last year and the year before across Europe, when the refugee crisis was in full throttle.
Even with that said, ISIS is also using the refugee crisis to funnel in extremist preachers, who are radicalising members of local populations. That explains why many terrorist attackers were British-born, and noticeably have changed their names to Middle Eastern variants. Regardless of birth-place, the problem of radicalisation is still occurring as a result of the migrant crisis and ISIS exploiting it.
Many of the terrorists (e.g. the most recent London Bridge attacker) go to the Middle East as well, where they are radicalised by ISIS cells there.

And I can only think of one incident in the last five years that might have involved a refugee. And I am still waiting for actual evidence and not just anecdotes.

All of the attacks in Germany have been my migrants. And 2 of the 9 terrorists of the November 2015 attacks, and more were French or Belgian citizens who returned to Europe with the migrants.