Safety that's why we should get out of the EU

[Himaginn]

If a member of your family, or one of your friends got blown up and killed, would you still be such a pee taking tosser?
Is it a joke to you if people want to increase security and take the current situation seriously?

Is this fender trying to take the moral high ground, based on some pretext that there was a joke in there somewhere?

Please explain to us mere mortals, fender, where was the joke, and how does it give you the moral high ground?

Please explain where was your moral compass when you posted:

Yeh, yeh. Desperate refugees...
Some people see it for what it is and them for what they are.

 

[EFLImpudence]

[QUOTE="Himaginn, post: 3616653, member: 234320"Tell me again how you are undecided in the In - Out referendum. [/QUOTE]
...because there are truths and fallacies on both sides.

Even a mad man can be right sometimes and a genius wrong.

 

[Himaginn]

Tell me again how you are undecided in the In - Out referendum.

...because there are truths and fallacies on both sides.

Even a mad man can be right sometimes and a genius wrong.

I think there are far greater number of fallacies from the Brexit campaigners than from Remain-ers.
The great majority of Remain-ers arguments are supported by facts, links, expert analysis, etc.
The great majority of Brexit-ers comments have not been supported by evidence, links, expert analysis, etc. They've been singularly comments and opinions of ill-understood situations and poorly represented scenarios. Occasionally backed up by flight into sexual fantasies. That's done a power of good to their campaign. It demonstrates the mindset of some of the Brexit-ers.

You are correct in your assumption that it is possible for the insane to be right and the genius to be wrong. But on the whole, who would you assume is right? Who would you bet on? On whom would you stake the future prosperity of UK?

 

[JohnD]

I think there are far greater number of fallacies from the Brexit campaigners than from Remain-ers.

It's certainly very noticeable that Boris is particularly prone to making up and circulating lies which he presumably hopes will bring him popularity among the Daily Mail readers.

 

[EFLImpudence]

It depends what you mean by right.
There are no facts for leaving.

Assuming I KNEW all the facts, I could vote to remain for personal reasons while believing it was not the best fot the country (or.vice versa).
This is likely what big business is doing.
Do you think they are being altruistic, either nationally or continentally?
They will argue that their and the country's prosperity go hand in hand but this is not necessarily the case, is it?
Waves of cheap labour with nowhere to live may not be good for Britain.
Who knows? Perhaps a high wage economy would be better.


It's no different than belonging to an expensive professional club; it may seem advantageous to belong but leaving may result in you being personally better off. How do you decide and whom do you believe when it's been like that for so long?

 

[Himaginn]

It depends what you mean by right.
There are no facts for leaving.

I agree. But what one can do is to examine closely the various claims and warnings from both sides. In doing so, it is highly probable that some distortions, myths and misrepresentations will be discovered. Also the lack of what is presented can be a good indicator. Often bland statements without supporting evidence, or sometimes even in the face of contrary evidence, can be a persuasive factor

Assuming I KNEW all the facts, I could vote to remain for personal reasons while believing it was not the best for the country (or.vice versa).

I think it's impossible for any one person to know all the facts. But as alluded to above, some research provides some powerful arguments, whichever way you are inclined, and depending on your own situation, fears, prejudices, hopes, ambitions, etc.

This is likely what big business is doing.
Do you think they are being altruistic, either nationally or continentally?
They will argue that their and the country's prosperity go hand in hand but this is not necessarily the case, is it?.

See how you've just thrown in "big business" as if it's a given. That's a misrepresentation.
Possibly business and individuals are considering their own prosperity. But I'd rather listen to an argument presented on prosperity, even if it is the prosperity of business, rather than listen to an argument from the likes of Farage or BJ, which they are more likely to be presented based on their personal fears or prejudices.
As I said, one can make one's own judgement using the processes, experiences and wishes for the future.
Just as there are some politicians who are obviously spouting nonsense and misrepresentation, not all politicians are hell-bent on personal grandiosement. Some businesses, politicians and scholars genuinely believe that Remain is the better option all round. In addition, some international eminent people, who have nothing to gain, have argued that to Remain is the better option.

Waves of cheap labour with nowhere to live may not be good for Britain.

You see how you've off-handedly connected cheap labour and scarcity of accommodation, as if either were a given. That's misrepresentation. Or, no doubt, you'll argue that it is the truth, the truth according to EFLImpudence?

Who knows? Perhaps a high wage economy would be better.

Again you've misrepresented the situation by presenting an either or scenario. There's every chance that neither of those scenarios will be evident, and the situation will be entirely different.

It's no different than belonging to an expensive professional club; it may seem advantageous to belong but leaving may result in you being personally better off. How do you decide and whom do you believe when it's been like that for so long?

Excuse the repitition:
But as alluded to above, some research provides some powerful arguments, whichever way you are inclined, and depending on your own situation, fears, prejudices, hopes, ambitions, etc.

 

[EFLImpudence]

You are, as usual, not really answering the questions raised but dismissing what I wrote.

I did not 'throw in' anything but raised the fact that the majoriy of big business is in favour of remaining, and asked if this was either altruistic or the same as good for the country.

The same with cheap labour. It is a fact that immigration results in cheap labour and that there is not enough infrastructure to cope. Does this, therefore, result in benefit generally for the country or just those who desire it?

 

[Himaginn]

You are, as usual, not really answering the questions raised but dismissing what I wrote.

I assumed your question about 'big business' was rhetorical, which is why I didn't attempt to answer it.

I did not 'throw in' anything but raised the fact that the majority of big business is in favour of remaining, and asked if this was either altruistic or the same as good for the country.

You're asking me to answer a question based on your supposition. It's your supposition, I suggest you provide the answer.
Other than that, isn't altruistic and 'good for the country' one and the same? Or do you want to draw a distinction?

The same with cheap labour. It is a fact that immigration results in cheap labour and that there is not enough infrastructure to cope. Does this, therefore, result in benefit generally for the country or just those who desire it?

Again, you're posing a question based on a scenario which you think does or will exist, and that the two conditions are not mutually divisible. How do I know what your scenario is supposed to be, who it will benefit, if it does or will exist.

 

[EFLImpudence]

isn't altruistic and 'good for the country' one and the same? Or do you want to draw a distinction?

Yes, I should have used 'and' instead of 'or,
The implied alternative is that they are being selfish and not thinking about the country.

How do I know what your scenario is supposed to be, who it will benefit, if it does or will exist.

No one KNOWS; that is the point I keep making about leaving.

Are you saying immigration does not result in cheap labour and there is adequate infrastructure for it?

 

[Himaginn]

How do I know what your scenario is supposed to be, who it will benefit, if it does or will exist.

No one KNOWS; that is the point I keep making about leaving.

But both sides can make educated projections based on current situations. I prefer the Remain arguments because they make more sense based on pragmatism rather than hopes, fears and prejudices.

Are you saying immigration does not result in cheap labour and there is adequate infrastructure for it?

First of all, I'm not saying anything about that debate, it's you that introduced it, based your supposed scenario on it, and asked me questions about it.
Secondly, you are again making the two cases as though they are indivisible. That is not necessarily the case.
This time try an 'or' instead of the 'and'.
Thirdly, although it's absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of Brexit. Immigration will continue whether we are In or Out. Indeed it will be beneficial to the prosperity of UK and EU. The nature and ease with which that immigration occurs will be affected.

But you are harking back to the old faithful argument of the Brexiters - immigration. This thread was about security or as gasbag labeled it 'safety', I'm sure he really meant security.

 

[EFLImpudence]

I did reintroduce immigration but only because of the 'cheap labour' element.
I have nothing against the people coming here per se.
If there is no room for them then obviously it will not be a good thing.

I am convinced that is the reason certain groups desire it and want to remain in the EU.
It did, after all, allow the U.S. to become so successful.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Plus, you are really difficult to discuss things with sensibly.

How do I know what your scenario is supposed to be, who it will benefit, if it does or will exist.
I prefer the Remain arguments because they make more sense based on pragmatism rather than hopes, fears and prejudices.
First of all, I'm not saying anything about that debate,
Thirdly, although it's absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of Brexit.
Immigration will continue whether we are In or Out. Indeed it will be beneficial to the prosperity of UK and EU. The nature and ease with which that immigration occurs will be affected.
But you are harking back to the old faithful argument of the Brexiters - immigration.
This thread was about security or as gasbag labeled it 'safety', I'm sure he really meant security.

Not many answers or counter arguments.

 

[Himaginn]

Plus, you are really difficult to discuss things with sensibly.

Not many answers or counter arguments.

You quote your supposition that immigration leads to cheap labour. You introduce it as if it's a given fact.
You need to convince me that it is a proven argument before we can discuss it, and in context with the Brexit, and whether it is associated with the lack of accommodation, and whether business is voting to remain due to immigration.

Alternatively, you could suggest that immigration leads to cheap labour, or any other proposition that you wish to make, and we can discuss that. But to demand answers from me about your premise that immigration leads to cheap labour and there's insufficient accommodation is a bit like me demanding answers from you about how come dinosaurs were destroyed by a mighty plague that swept the earth.

So if you want to discuss whether immigration leads to cheap labour, I suggest you start a new thread instead of surreptitiously introducing it into a thread about security in EU.
Similarly, if you want to start a thread about there being sufficient accommodation......
Similarly, if you want to discuss whether the two are intertwined.

It's perverse of you to assume that I accept your perception of the world without question.

Anyway, it's getting late and the puerility of the resident troll, davie et al will begin soon.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Does anyone think immigration DOES NOT lead to cheap labour? The U.S. was founded on it.

Anyway, it's getting late and the puerility of the resident troll, davie et al will begin soon.

OK. I'll leave you to abuse them as I deduce that that is your preferred easier pastime.[/QUOTE]

 

[JohnD]

It's a fact that the NHS, public transport, care for the elderly, airports, night-shift work, and marrying Nigel Farage are dependent on foreign labour. These are all things Brits simply don't want to do.

This is however an entirely different issue from the benefits, if any, of resigning from the EU.