Brexit Encore

[jeremyrh]

Why is not willing to let non-compatible cultures in equated with racism?

Hah Slobo - there are some topics I'm not going to waste time discussing. Climate change, flat earth, and your views on race.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hah Slobo - there are some topics I'm not going to waste time discussing. Climate change, flat earth, and your views on race.

Mine and how many millions of Brits, again?

[jeremyrh]

OK, but how is using Remoaners worse than using Brexiteers and is it really seen as derogatory unless intended as such?
Do you think that being accused of racism incorrectly and unfairly can be justified in spite of evidence to the contrary?

I didn't say it was better or worse. Just that it's derogatory.

As for racism, I don't know if you're a racist or not, I'm happy to believe not. But there's no doubt that racism is a key plank of UKIP's platform.

[Rhossydd]

Your implication that it not possible to have reasoned discussion with a pro-Brexit supporter = derogatory

Not anything I've actually written. It's just difficult to have a reasoned discussion about brexit without people starting to use derogatory language as you're just demonstrated.
Not impossible, just tediously rare.

Your belief that you can just call those that do not share your views gullible = derogatory

It's not an insult or derogatory, just a simple description of some people who are "easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gullible

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... But there's no doubt that racism is a key plank of UKIP's platform.

Especially when you hijack the definition of racism.

[TonyW]

Not anything I've actually written. It's just difficult to have a reasoned discussion about brexit without people starting to use derogatory language as you're just demonstrated.
Not impossible, just tediously rare.
It's not an insult or derogatory, just a simple description of some people who are "easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gullible

Wrong again and comments just as derogatory as the first instance!

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...It's not an insult or derogatory, just a simple description of some people who are "easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say"...

The term itself may or may not be derogatory. It is not when it is factual for certain individuals. When you apply it to tens of millions who voted one way, it certainly is.

[jeremyrh]

The term itself may or may not be derogatory. It is not when it is factual for certain individuals. When you apply it to tens of millions who voted one way, it certainly is.

Hmm. It would be a good argument if you could point out the tangible benefits  of Brexit that non-gullible folk had voted for.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Hmm. It would be a good argument if you could point out the tangible benefits  of Brexit that non-gullible folk had voted for.

It doesn't have to do much with tangible benefits, not everything people vote for has to do with money or similar.

[Jeremy Roussak]

The childish bickering needs to stop. There has been nearly two pages of it.

Jeremy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

^^ Apologies for my contribution, Jeremy.

Back to being serious. There is not much we can do at this point, especially we outsiders, other than debate it endlessly, an exercise in futility in itself. It has been an unfortunate historical spectacle or debacle, however one wants to look at it. There is probably no other way to describe what is happening but admitting that democracy can be real messy sometimes.

My sympathies are with Rob, and everyone else caught in it at a personal level. I do not have a horse in this race, and can certainly see the validity in opinions on both sides.

I can only wish the British people luck, whatever the future brings.

[athegn]

Have the British got a handle on things? A very enthusiastic leaver, of my acquantance, could not  understand what the fuss over the Irish border is. He said why don't we just leave the border as it is at present. When told that that could only happen if we continued to obey the same rules as the rest of the EU. He, nor a couple of others present, had not realised that fact.

So they voted leave without understanding a fundamental point about being part of the EU!

[Rob C]

Hmm. It would be a good argument if you could point out the tangible benefits  of Brexit that non-gullible folk had voted for.

Can't be done. There is no benefit that begins to compare with those currently enjoyed. There's an easy way perhaps to demonstrate a point to Slobodan: Slobodan lives in the USA and as far as I know, finance and desire permitting, he is free to travel to any of its states; from Atlantic to Pacific, from northern Caribbean/Mexican Gulf to Canadian borders. Curently, I and the 66 million (?) Brits have our similar vast range of territorial prospects to enjoy. As Slobodan's pleasure of working anywhere in that vast land, so ours with Europe at the moment. We have our European version of the Rockies, our side of that Atlantic and in the Mediterranean our version of the Gulf of Mexico. As can Slobodan in the States, if we want to, we can work and/or live and love anywhere at all within that vast European zone at will.

Does Slobodan see an advantage in us confining ourselves to little England? And I mean England. I never felt Scotland breaking away and becoming a tiny, under resourced nation was a sound idea, but I honestly think that this time, it is going to happen. It has been ignored in this debacle, passed over as if of no consequence. If Scotland has one thing in abundance, that's national pride. The almost mocking and patronising manner in which its MPs have been treated in debates in Parliament over the Brexit thing is shameful. Life does not forgive your sins, as we all find out, one way or the other.

Those vague ideas of finding brand new, far greater markets outwith Europe are based on wishful thinking. The truth is that our luck is in being members of this club we are presently in: it's why we have the few car companies we do have - for now - and that is the double-sided sword that quitting Europe will draw right across our throats if we leave. Our unique, also historical supremacy in banking and insurance is entirely due to our language and savoir faire in those fields, and has depended on the seamless operational function we currently enjoy with the larger blocks of financial power, our ability to be the most truly international intermediary there is. We cannot retain that if we leave, as every vaguely similar European city has been racing to attempt to show.

At the risk of being boring, when did being tiny mean being stong? The previous US president stood in London and told them that the US likes, is obliged to deal first with the big players; that we would discover ourselves at the end of the queue on any trade negotiations. This latest one, mutually playing games with  Farage, tells it otherwise. If he is actually telling what he believes to be a truth, then that is bad news for the USA.

In earlier posts I've been patronised too, my pro-remain beliefs being narrowed to my personal status quo, and gently patted on the head with never mind, old boy, we understand. No, you don't. I have family living and working in Britain, folks who have worked hard and achieved top degrees in law and medicine. I may have a couple of years of life left if lucky, they have their careers ahead of them. Of course I want them to live in a land of opportunity, a continent of opportunity, not a miserable post-Victorian backwater.

[Rhossydd]

So they voted leave without understanding a fundamental point about being part of the EU!

It's not surprising at all that a lot of the general public don't understand the EU; what it does, how it works and how we fit in. There's no real attempt at economic and political education in the UK. Unless people take an interest they only discover issues when they directly impact their lives.

What was shocking were reports that the government minister, David Davies, responsible for brexit arrived in Brussels to start negotiations to leave and expected to make a deal with Germany first.

[Chris Kern]

The previous US president stood in London and told them that the US likes, is obliged to deal first with the big players; that we would discover ourselves at the end of the queue on any trade negotiations.

Indeed, he did.  And it was controversial not only in the U.K. but also here in the States because there is a longstanding U.S. government policy of avoiding official comment favoring one side in another democratic country's elections.  (And many here equated the Brexit referendum with an election for the purpose of the application of that policy.)

My understanding is that Obama always consulted the career professionals in the State Department and other relevant agencies before making pronouncements on international policy.  I think it's likely his rather unorthodox statements in favor of Britain staying in the EU were approved by the diplomatic, military, and intelligence bureaucracies as being in interest of the United States, rather than simply as a gratuitous expression of personal opinion.  My impression is that U.S. foreign policy professionals were (and probably remain) leery of a Europe entirely dominated by Germany and France, and that they saw (and probably continue to see) the British perspective as being more consistent with U.S. diplomatic and military objectives that the perspectives of many of the governments in continental Europe.  I think it's significant that there have been echoes of that attitude in the Trump Administration: although Trump has gone out of his way to disassociate himself with many other Obama foreign policies, and while his dog-eat-dog attitudes toward trade and migration inclined him to side with the Brexiters, he has continued Obama's practice of urging our European partners in NATO to invest more in their respective military forces—which no doubt reflects the longstanding recommendations of the bureaucracy.

Seen from this perspective, Obama's comment about trading partners probably should be interpreted as an argument made with a strategic purpose.  Of course, as Henry Kissenger was fond of quoting in other contexts, it has the added benefit of being true.  The EU, with or without the U.K., will surely be a more important trading partner for the United States than the U.K. as a standalone entity.   Regardless of what Trump may say in his forthcoming visit to London, I'd be surprised if his trade representatives act differently in that respect than their predecessors.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Of course I want them to live in a land of opportunity, a continent of opportunity, not a miserable post-Victorian backwater.

Have them come to America then. Free movement, lots of opportunity, one language. How many English-speaking countries in Europe?

[Rob C]

Have them come to America then. Free movement, lots of opportunity, one language. How many English-speaking countries in Europe?

Not everyone with career mobility chooses to go to the States; there are all sorts of cultural differences they might not like, casual approach to guns being one that springs instantly to mind. Many people with the aforementioned qualities/skills do have command of languages other than English. That ability kinda fits yourself, too, doesn't it? And many people in Europe, especially the better educated, speak English as well as - if not far better - than many Brits, something we note here on LuLa itself.

Don't forget, either, that not everyone born in England - sorry, the effect of it being their Brexit! - Britain has blood totally disassociated from Europe and an affection for, say, French, Spanish or Italian ways, something from which sometimes staid and stolid Brits could learn a positive thing or two. It's not only weather drives many to retire to Spain etc.

But anyhow, as you were clearly aware when you wrote the quotation above, having an American choice, itself not that easy to fulfil, is not something that was denied by us being members of the European set-up; it just means we shall now probably have a far narrower number of formerly unquestioned options from which to choose. Giving up a bunch of freely granted location rights can never be an advantage.

Rob

[Robert Roaldi]

Not everyone with career mobility chooses to go to the States; there are all sorts of cultural differences they might not like, casual approach to guns being one that springs instantly to mind. Many people with the aforementioned qualities/skills do have command of languages other than English. That ability kinda fits yourself, too, doesn't it? And many people in Europe, especially the better educated, speak English as well as - if not far better - than many Brits, something we note here on LuLa itself.

Don't forget, either, that not everyone born in England - sorry, the effect of it being their Brexit! - Britain has blood totally disassociated from Europe and an affection for, say, French, Spanish or Italian ways, something from which sometimes staid and stolid Brits could learn a positive thing or two. It's not only weather drives many to retire to Spain etc.

But anyhow, as you were clearly aware when you wrote the quotation above, having an American choice, itself not that easy to fulfil, is not something that was denied by us being members of the European set-up; it just means we shall now probably have a far narrower number of formerly unquestioned options from which to choose. Giving up a bunch of freely granted location rights can never be an advantage.

Rob

In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be? Living in Canada I was never really exposed to the origins of the movement, I only heard the usual pre-vote emotional nonsense. I assume that there were schools of thought who tried to make the case in some reasonable (maybe even fact-based) way. Is there a published position paper on the web somewhere by a "leave" think tank, for example?

As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.

[Rob C]

Well Robert, it was an easy choice (leaving) for me because the way of the business in Scotland meant that I was doing very little day-to-day work, most being trips somewhere and calendars. I also had live contacts in the travel business and that meant airlines were not a problem expense-wise going back and forth from Spain to Scotland. The practical reason for coming was the locations I could use here. Also, the cost of living here in those days - early 80s - was advantageous to us.

That was a personal reason for leaving Britain.

Quite why anyone today would choose to leave the European concept and deny themselves all the holiday travel benefits of free health care, for example, that they, as Brits, currently enjoy, is beyond me. One granddaughter had to go to hospital once, and my daughter has repeatedly had to use the local clinics because of ear problems caused by pool water. Health services are very important when you travel. Calling out a private doctor can be very expensive indeed. Far better to be able to call the local PAC station who will send somebody to see you in emergencies.

Travel health is, of course, just one consideration.

I know of no official, clinically neutral and factual publication that was doing the rounds at the time of the referendum, only about the daily news reports and street interviews and slanted political posturings. In retrospect, it seems to me that the only people moving heaven and earth were the Brexit bunch. I can only assume the remain side felt it was obvious enough that remaining was the best economic bet; I have no doubt Cameron based his rash call on that clearly misplaced judgement about his countrymen. What was it Barnum said, again?

If your wonderings about US healthcare are correct regarding consequences of crossing state lines, then it would seem like an added reason why folks from the UK (see Slobodan's point about moving there instead of to Europe) would find it less than attractive. The European version is clearly far advanced and available to all citizens within that union of countries.

Regarding private insurance: for years we paid into the Spanish MAPFRE company and they were excellent during both my heart attacks and most of my wife's cancer treatment. We only stopped paying because her last admission was an emergency and precluded the longer ambulance trip to the big smoke, and so she went to the local state hospital. She found it excellent. Considering the cost had risen greatly, we decided we couldn't really afford the luxury(?) of going private anymore.

Rob

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

In the daily cut and thrust of argumentation, it's sometimes helpful to go back to basics. Does anyone remember the reason they wanted to "leave" in the first place and what the benefits of that would be? Living in Canada I was never really exposed to the origins of the movement, I only heard the usual pre-vote emotional nonsense. I assume that there were schools of thought who tried to make the case in some reasonable (maybe even fact-based) way. Is there a published position paper on the web somewhere by a "leave" think tank, for example?

As an aside, I'm curious about mobility in the US. Is it an easy thing to cross state lines from a health care point of view in a country with no universal health coverage? Are there insurance penalties when doing that? I remember hearing a talk by Republican (but anti-Trump) David Frum who said that the health care limitation was a real roadblock for many people who would otherwise like to migrate to different areas of the US for jobs, but he didn't go into detail so I don't know how that plays out. Does it mean, in general, that you have to cancel one policy and try to buy for another in the new state? Knowing the insurance business, I can see where they would use this as an opportunity.

As another outsider, I am not aware of any position paper either. I doubt they exist. Again, as an outsider, my take is that it is a purely emotional decision of wishing to preserve the national identity, for better or worse. If economics would play any major role, nobody would ever divorce.

As for US medical insurance, I moved from Illinois to Indiana to Florida without the need to change policies. I can not guarantee that is the case for every other state and other individual cases. One potential difference might be in-network (cheaper) availability of doctors and hospitals, depending on how well spread an insurer is nationally.