371–380 of 409 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with trying to threaten the EU with a no deal exit is it's like a bank robber threatening to blow his own head off - messy, undesirable, but ultimately not very persuasive.
It's mutually assured destruction. The EU doesn't want to lose billions of dollars in trade either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people have been trying "good write-ups" and "high quality statistics" for a long time, it turns out they don't actually change people's minds - people make up their mind before reading the article. The production of "high quality statistics" hasn't been the turning point in any civil rights movement I'm aware of.
Yeah - and i'm just saying that it should be, instead of an emotional response etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The explanation is the obvious one. The UK has a treaty with China intended to prevent what is happening from happening. China is in breach of the treaty and, in light of that, the UK is acting to protect people to whom it believes it has an obligation. It has nothing to do with either racism or nationalism.
No one is arguing that point. What is being debated is why very conservative racists in the UK culture are overwhelmingly supportive of Asians over Syrians and North Africans. ...and differential racism is my belief as to why.
No country can invite everyone to immigrate. They have to be selective, and that doesn’t make them racist. No one has the right to immigrate to another country: it’s a privilege granted by the government and people of that country who make decisions about who to accept according to their own interests and perceived obligations - again, not racism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In East Asian countries and China especially, collectivism and Confucianism are pervasive, with deep cultural roots. In East Asian countries and China especially, nobody gives a flying .... about collectivism and Confucianism, and cultural roots. It's by far the most egoistic, conflict driven, cut throat society I've ever been.
So you are basically saying that the cohesion of China is because they are doing better economically these past few decades... and thus people's egos are at an all-time high. Thus they support the regime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be honest I think that the Chinese government would not care or actually be quite OK with it. Indeed, who would leave HK? Arguably the anti-CCP, the "troublemakers". So that'd mean less 'trouble' in HK and there is a large supply of mainlanders happy to move to HK. Obviously the Chinese government will officially be outraged but privately they may think good riddance.
Talking to a Chinese friend who is quite pro-CCP, they are pissed that UK is offering this and say that mass emigration of HKers would be a major loss of face for the CCP.
This offer of residency is political and possibly symbolically negative for China, but in practical terms it does not hurt China at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's mutually assured destruction. The EU doesn't want to lose billions of dollars in trade either.
I don't think the EU will be moved by this. They can easily wait till the UK exits without a deal then be in an even stronger negotiating position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is regressive when you consider the position of the buyer. People need to buy large items, and low income people are disproportionately hurt by taxes on those items.
That doesn't mean it's regressive. It's just a demagogy. Low income people buy less things and pay lower sales tax proportionally. Wealthy people spend more on luxurious goods and pay way higher tax in absolute numbers. Everyone is hurt the same. On top of that, necessities (food, medication, books) are usually exempt from the sales tax.
Agree that this isn't a great way to look at things. And that (as you say) there are often different rates of sales tax on potatoes vs yachts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So then by this logic, we should be attempting to have every person on earth living in the UK, since all migration is positive, right? Or is there an upper limit to the desirable population of the UK before life becomes intolerable?
The UK is physically large enough that everyone on Earth actually could live there with a reasonable amount of space to themselves. The issue would be feeding everyone, since even now the UK needs to import its food, and it's not clear who would grow it if literally everyone lived in Britain. But because of how markets work, as more people moved to the UK, prices would go up and people would have more incentive to st…
Clearly we have different ideas about reasonableness.
> if it's population you're concerned about, shouldn't you also worry about people having babies?
I do, especially in those parts of the world in which fertility is particularly high yet ability to actually look after those children is particularly low
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there's no reason that an independent UK and the EU cannot work together where their interests align, is there? The idea that it's all or nothing is nothing more than yet another canard put about by anti-Brexit protagonists.
If their interests aligned. Without the UK having a seat at the table, they ‘ain’t going to align. That is literally the point of Brexit in the first place, for the UK to diverge from the EU, because without that the members of the current U.K. government would not have campaigned for it in the first place. And that big flashing neon “if” is still true with a competent government, let alone the current lot which (as…
1a : a false or unfounded report or story especially : a fabricated report The report about a conspiracy proved to be a canard. b : a groundless rumor or belief the widespread canard that every lawyer is dishonest
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But there's no reason that an independent UK and the EU cannot work together where their interests align, is there? The idea that it's all or nothing is nothing more than yet another canard put about by anti-Brexit protagonists.
> there's no reason that an independent UK and the EU cannot work together where their interests align But there is also no reason why they should even try, whereas before there was.
This makes no sense. There's countless examples of independent nations/supra-national bodies etc. with wildly diverging goals across many areas also managing to work together on shared goals.
You seem to be pushing the same false dichotomy again, that is, that it's either the UK within the EU, else a cold war type situation, and there is no possibility whatsoever of a third situation. I'd suggest that's very obviously bogus.
What I find revealing is that years on from the referendum it's the same crude, tired and spurious anti-Brexit arguments being trotted out. If after all this time the only tactic is Project Fear mk. infinity, what can one conclude about the supposed benefits of EU membership?