EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[AlterEgo]

But that's upbringing, and to be honest a lot of what it apparently means to be British is starting to feel more and more alien to me.

Does it mean anything to you?

Exactly, it’s upbringing - you’re brought up differently here than you are in the rainforests of Guinea.

I personally feel that the intersection in the Venn diagram of 'people willing to buy British citizenship' and 'the world's worst people' would be so infinitesimally small that it's not worth worrying about.

But in principle it’s okay to sell them?

It is, but it's a sheer fluke that we are. As I said, a coincidence of billions of fortuitous circumstances.

The fact you were born is a fluke but the fact Britain is a prosperous nation certainly is not. It could equally be a dump, were it not for a number of factors.

But we do just admit anyone into our families. Is there no-one married into your family that you don't 100% approve of? There certainly is in mine and I had no choice in them joining.

No you don’t just admit anyone into your family, that ridiculous.

Can I join? I’ll buy my way in for £25.

Honestly? Because they want to guard what they have and keep it for themselves. Selfishness, basically.

Selfishness is not always a negative trait. Citizenship is not about resources so much as ensuring that, by and large, the people that are members of the nation ask to uphold and cherish it. A nation is not a physical thing nor a collection of money and resources. It’s an intangible thing.

You're right, I don't. Land was here a long time before people. It is really nonsensical that one group of people can say 'this is your bit and you can't come in'.

My house was built before I was around. Should I leave the door unlocked?

Can you really not fathom the reasons nations exist? I’m not asking if you think they should. I am asking you to tell me why you think they developed. This is a very elementary question you could ask a primary school class.

No, I believe that I should act selflessly towards everyone, if I can.

That is neither sensible nor realistic. You cannot act selflessly towards the entire world. If that were possible, nations wouldn’t exist.

It’s fine to have that as an ideal but I expect that in practice you, like the rest of us, are not selfless.

 

[radamfi]

Paying to be a citizen of the EU? Which country in the EU would your passport be from then?

How would you feel if you discovered people could pay to be British citizens -without actually being British at all - and avail of all the luxuries and freedoms that comes with?

Only banana republics and desperate states allow citizenship by investment in that way. Citizenship is more than just joining a club and paying a membership fee.

Just in case people here don't remember, AlterEgo has the luxury of being able to get an Irish passport should he so wish. So consider this when he argues against people being able to retain their free movement!

 

[furnessvale]

Why is it? Surely you don't assume that if all borders were open, that everyone would want to come here?

At least 3 billion people in the world would be financially better off moving to the UK.

If only 1% of those people availed themselves of the chance to enter a UK free of border restrictions, do you believe the country could handle the shock to its infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc?

 

[EM2]

Does it mean anything to you?

Not really, no. I didn't get any choice in the matter, it's just what I am.

But in principle it’s okay to sell them?

I have no issue with it.

The fact you were born is a fluke but the fact Britain is a prosperous nation certainly is not. It could equally be a dump, were it not for a number of factors.

Factors like it being an island, having abundant coal, gas, oil, and wood reserves, rivers and lakes, having a temperate climate being neither too cold or hot, being invaded by Vikings, Angles, Normans, and Saxons and gaining everything they brought with them. Without all of this and more, it would be a dump.

No you don’t just admit anyone into your family, that ridiculous.

Of course we do. I had no say in my Mum marrying my stepdad, but he's now been admitted into my family. My brother has a son, he's a member of my family, I had no say in that either.

Can I join? I’ll buy my way in for £25.

You don't need to pay, but you can marry your way in. Although I don't think that there are any opportunities at the moment.

Can you really not fathom the reasons nations exist? I’m not asking if you think they should. I am asking you to tell me why you think they developed. This is a very elementary question you could ask a primary school class.

Maybe you can educate me then, because it was never mentioned at any school I attended.

That is neither sensible nor realistic. You cannot act selflessly towards the entire world. If that were possible, nations wouldn’t exist.
It’s fine to have that as an ideal but I expect that in practice you, like the rest of us, are not selfless.

Why can't I? Why can I not treat everyone equally?

 

[EM2]

At least 3 billion people in the world would be financially better off moving to the UK.

If only 1% of those people availed themselves of the chance to enter a UK free of border restrictions, do you believe the country could handle the shock to its infrastructure, schools, hospitals etc?

Why do you assume that a) they would be able to get here and b) they would want to, and not go to the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and numerous other countries?

 

[radamfi]

The vast majority of people don't even take advantage of free movement even when presented to them on a plate. Most people want to stay near their friends and family. Most people in the UK still haven't moved to London or even the wider South East. Taking this argument to the logical conclusion, the whole of the EEA should now be living in Luxembourg!

 

[furnessvale]

Why do you assume that a) they would be able to get here and b) they would want to, and not go to the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and numerous other countries?

As far as I am aware, none of those listed countries has thrown its borders open to all comers.

 

[EM2]

As far as I am aware, none of those listed countries has thrown its borders open to all comers.

No country has. I'm talking about this being adopted universally, not unilaterally.

 

[furnessvale]

No country has. I'm talking about this being adopted universally, not unilaterally.

Fair enough. So it will never happen and you agree that the UK can keep its borders, at least until all other countries agree to open their borders as well.

 

[EM2]

Fair enough. So it will never happen and you agree that the UK can keep its borders, at least until all other countries agree to open their borders as well.

I never said otherwise.
In fact, when Bromley Boy asked:

Unless you’re saying there should be no concept of nation state at all and that the world should be completely borderless!?

I replied:

That's what I would want in an ideal world, but it will never happen.

But who is saying that the UK should be borderless?

 

[AlterEgo]

Just in case people here don't remember, AlterEgo has the luxury of being able to get an Irish passport should he so wish. So consider this when he argues against people being able to retain their free movement!

If it helps, I disagree with freedom of movement, and as I’ve argued, see no reason why I should have a birthright to settle in a country I’m not a citizen of. I haven’t ever exercised that right and have no wish to in the future.

The main reason I have an Irish passport is because it’s part of my identity and it’s useful to have as an alternate passport to travel to certain parts of the world.

 

[radamfi]

I haven’t ever exercised that right and have no wish to in the future.

It is nevertheless still available to you. It means you can't empathise with other people who might be losing that right. Some people have been devastated by this and have been driven to despair.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have no issue with it.

I’m no little Englander but I think that is a disgraceful thing to say, and shame on you to believe our privileges and protections could be sold like that to just anyone. Or even given it for free.

Factors like it being an island, having abundant coal, gas, oil, and wood reserves, rivers and lakes, having a temperate climate being neither too cold or hot, being invaded by Vikings, Angles, Normans, and Saxons and gaining everything they brought with them. Without all of this and more, it would be a dump.

And having the Roman influence, Christianity, a monarchy, exporting a language to the world, inventing a massive tranche of things in the industrial revolution, etc etc. Britain has a number of things going for it but it remains the successful nation it has become due to the industry of the people who inhabit it.

And all of those things, and our geography, make us the people we are. We’re fundamentally an island nation and it’s clear from the Brexit debate that a great many of us derive our identity from that.

A small number of people claim not to really identify with it, and a smaller number still claim not to even understand why countries exist.

My brother has a son, he's a member of my family, I had no say in that either.

People are born in the U.K. all the time and we don’t have a say in it, but the same principles apply - you’ll be broadly familiar with the culture, etc etc. They’re not total aliens.

You don't need to pay, but you can marry your way in. Although I don't think that there are any opportunities at the moment.

But that’s not the same as just allowing anyone in en masse, is it?

Would you allow the entire world population into your family? If you’re so selfless...

Maybe you can educate me then, because it was never mentioned at any school I attended.

I don’t think it is a terribly difficult concept to understand why nations form and I don’t intend on giving one on one tuition to someone with an education.

Why can't I? Why can I not treat everyone equally?

Because not everyone treats you equally in return. Some people would like to kill you. Therefore it makes no sense to treat everyone equally, and that is why the UK doesnt have six billion citizens.[/quote][/quote]

 

[AlterEgo]

It is nevertheless still available to you. It means you can't empathise with other people who might be losing that right. Some people have been devastated by this and have been driven to despair.

And the fact you’re in despair about the fact your countrymen (not me btw) voted to perhaps abandon that right, means you cannot empathise with people like me who may be somewhat detached from the issue and provide a different perspective. I’m a Remainer who can understand the Leave perspective because I have the capacity to listen. Like many Remainers, I didn’t listen very much before the referendum. You only need to look back at the start of this thread to see how intemperate and arrogant some of the posts were.

I thought the referendum was, despite its negative outcome (in my opinion), a good learning opportunity. I was surprised British people voted for fundamental change and I was surprised at how polarised the voting was by demographic. It offered a good insight into the state of our society, which largely voted based on culture, identity and ideology rather than informed debate or facts. It was fascinating to watch.

It has been entertaining and depressing in equal measure watching some posters on here play the victim over the past two years.

I’m sorry you feel devastated, but you set your whole life up around the premise that you would be able to move away from this country you dislike, and now the sands have shifted. For that I can offer very limited sympathy.

 

[radamfi]

I’m sorry you feel devastated, but you set your whole life up around the premise that you would be able to move away from this country you dislike, and now the sands have shifted. For that I can offer very limited sympathy.

Why do you have to go on such an offensive when people are so obviously upset? What kind of person does that? What if it leads to some people killing themselves?

 

[EM2]

Would you allow the entire world population into your family? If you’re so selfless...

If they want to. There's not much for them to gain though, so I can't see why anyone would. Unless it's to read my years of back copies of Railway Modeller?

I don’t think it is a terribly difficult concept to understand why nations form and I don’t intend on giving one on one tuition to someone with an education.

This is the first result ( a question on Quora) from a search for 'Why do nations form?'

Why do states, countries and nations form?
Mutual defense against others who would plunder.
Mutual defense against plunder is the sine qua non of nationhood, of all communities. Everything else happens to serve that primary goal.
Further, consider what happens to nations in which one group plunders another? One of three things:

1. the plunder is stopped by government force (the government having been initially formed by the mutual agreement of those who wish to defend themselves against plunder); or
2. the plundered group emigrates because the nation has broken its primary covenant with it (these people are commonly known as Refugees); or
3. the nation breaks up as the plundered group takes up arms to defend itself.

So in other words, it is selfishness. A group wants to keep all the resources within its arbitrarily-drawn borders to itself.

Because not everyone treats you equally in return. Some people would like to kill you. Therefore it makes no sense to treat everyone equally, and that is why the UK doesnt have six billion citizens.

And that's a good reason not to treat people properly? I'll treat everyone with respect, and honesty, until they give me reason not to.

 

[Bromley boy]

No country has. I'm talking about this being adopted universally, not unilaterally.

But earlier when I said:

Opening the borders and allowing millions/billions of poorer people to move here, potentially with nothing to contribute and perhaps with very different values, is completely unworkable and will diminish standards for those of us already here.

You replied:

Or, will enrich the lives of us already here, expand our culture and cuisine, introduce new music, theatre, literature, and dance.
Without immigration, there'd be no chicken tikka masala or Ken Hom or Madhur Jaffrey, no 2-Tone or grime or drum'n'bass, no Monica Ali or Kazuo Ishiguro, no Diversity.

Which on my reading strongly suggests you are in favour of the U.K. unilaterally opening its borders. Either that or you are having a conversation of your own about some mythical, borderless world (which will never ever exist)?

I know people from a great many backgrounds, including first and second generation immigrants and I don’t know a single person in favour of completely open borders.

I suppose when the NHS is treating tens of millions of overseas health tourists with unfettered access you’ll be fine with being told there’s no money left to treat you or your loved ones?!

I’m sorry but advocating completely open borders is madness.

Why do you have to go on such an offensive when people are so obviously upset? What kind of person does that? What if it leads to some people killing themselves?

What?!

That poster has made a number of reasoned comments, none of which have been remotely offensive. It was you who made mention of his own passport, which in itself is making a rather personal attack on that individual.

As for the loss of unfettered (as opposed to conditional) access to live/work in the EU leading to people killing themselves, that is emotive nonsense of the highest order.

If you’re so worried about losing the automatic right to live and work in EU and wish to leave the U.K., can I ask why you have not done so already? There must be something keeping you here...

 

[AlterEgo]

Why do you have to go on such an offensive when people are so obviously upset? What kind of person does that? What if it leads to some people killing themselves?

It wasn’t an offensive - I was merely stating my point of view. As I’ve said, it has been interesting watching people claim victimhood.

I note that it is only you that cast aspersions on “what sort of person I am”, whereas I merely have questioned why you would set up your entire life based on a right that could have been voted away overnight. That’s hardly “an offensive” and you are wrong to claim that me questioning your circumstances is unfair when I responded to your own aside (which added almost nothing to the debate) suggesting my personal circumstances precluded me from having a worthwhile opinion to share. If you think that I have somehow metaphorically assaulted you then I suggest you grow a thicker skin.

I think I was fairly matter-of-fact in my reply and I am only being honest in saying I have little sympathy for people who put all their eggs in one basket in any normal situation.

This is a debating forum for us to explore the issues around Brexit, and some people will get offended, upset, or narked by things some posters say. It is a controversial topic.

If you find yourself getting upset by a poster responding to you, you can either report the post (if it broke the rules), or simply stop looking at the thread.

 

[EM2]

Which on my reading strongly suggests you are in favour of the U.K. unilaterally opening its borders.

Then your reading is wrong.

Either that or you are having a conversation of your own about some mythical, borderless world (which will never ever exist)?

Because, as I replied to furnessvale, I had earlier said (as a reply to you):

That's what I would want in an ideal world, but it will never happen.

 

[Bromley boy]

Then your reading is wrong.

Because, as I replied to furnessvale, I had earlier said (as a reply to you):

Ok.

Most of us on this thread are discussing Brexit and related issues - all of which centre around accepting the existence of the U.K. as a nation state and its relationship with surrounding nation states (all of which have borders).

Discussing a desire for nation states to no longer exist at all, or to be completely borderless, is a different conversation entirely.

 

[AlterEgo]

If they want to.

I genuinely can’t detect if you’re being serious I’m afraid.

This is the first result ( a question on Quora) from a search for 'Why do nations form?'

So in other words, it is selfishness. A group wants to keep all the resources within its arbitrarily-drawn borders to itself.

Quora is even less useful than Wikipedia - broadly it’s right there, but doesn’t examine exactly why the nation might want to define itself or keep resources. The “nation” may be selfish but the millions of people who live there, who build it and defend it, are being selfless towards the nation, by the very act of participating in its creation or defence. Everyone who lives in Britain is part of the British nation and contributes something to it, directly or indirectly. The nation is the sum of all of us.

For that reason, I contend the nation-state - a collection of loosely bound (culturally, geographically) individuals - a proper “demos” - is the highest level at which a human can be selfless.

And that's a good reason not to treat people properly? I'll treat everyone with respect, and honesty, until they give me reason not to.

That is not the same as being selfless. Don’t move the goalposts! Tut.

 

[EM2]

I genuinely can’t detect if you’re being serious I’m afraid.

You don't need to. I am.

That is not the same as being selfless. Don’t move the goalposts! Tut.

Sigh...
OK, dictionary definition:

having little or no concern for oneself, especially with regard to fame,position, money, etc.; unselfish.

That's me. I have very little concern for myself, except at the very basic level of health, food, and shelter. If I have money spare, I will donate to charities to help others.

 

[EM2]

Discussing a desire for nation states to no longer exist at all, or to be completely borderless, is a different conversation entirely.

Well, it was only a reply to your question:

Unless you’re saying there should be no concept of nation state at all and that the world should be completely borderless!?

 

[Bromley boy]

That's me. I have very little concern for myself, except at the very basic level of health, food, and shelter. If I have money spare, I will donate to charities to help others.

But basic levels of food, health and shelter are integral to living (and participating) in a prosperous and successful nation state (as a huge portion of the world’s population knows the hard way, sadly) - a concept you appear to reject.

 

[Bromley boy]

Well, it was only a reply to your question:

So what level of border control are you actually in favour of? I can’t tell from your postings whether you want no borders at all, open borders or controlled borders.

You seem to be talking about what you want in an ideal world rather than what we have at the moment or could possibly have in the future.

 

[EM2]

But basic levels of food, health and shelter are integral to living (and participating) in a prosperous and successful nation state (as a huge portion of the world’s population knows the hard way, sadly) - a concept you appear to reject.

No they aren't. I could quite easily live 'off grid' (maybe on a small island), like people did for millions of years. It's only because of a need for money that I'd have to 'trade', and even that is not a given, seeing as many people in the world still barter.

 

[EM2]

So what level of border control are you actually in favour of?

The status quo works absolutely fine.

 

[Bromley boy]

No they aren't. I could quite easily live 'off grid' (maybe on a small island), like people did for millions of years. It's only because of a need for money that I'd have to 'trade', and even that is not a given, seeing as many people in the world still barter.

Yes, they are!

Even assuming you could grow your own food.

For one thing, would you own this island yourself? If so you’d need a legal system to establish what ownership meant, what rights it gave you against others and an ability to exercise them.

What about healthcare if you became too ill to work and for your loved ones?

What about education for your children (unless you’re saying you’d live in splendid isolation)?

What if a boat load of nasty looking people turned up, decided they want to live on your small island instead of you and told you if you didn’t leave they would throw you into the sea themselves - wouldn’t you want rule of law (and security services) to protect you?

Interesting thought experiment but I fear we are going off topic.

 

[EM2]

Yes, they are!

Even assuming you could grow your own food.

For one thing, would you own this island yourself? If so you’d need a legal system to establish what ownership meant, what rights it gave you against others and an ability to exercise them.

What about healthcare if you became too ill to work?

What about education for yourself and loved ones (unless you’re saying you’d live in splendid isolation).

What if a boat load of nasty looking people turned up, decided they want to live on your small island instead of you and told you if you didn’t leave they would throw you into the sea themselves - wouldn’t you want rule of law (and security services) to protect you?

All of these are only issues because of modern nationhood, and the fact that somehow, all the land belongs to someone. I know there are 'micro-nations' such as Sealand, but even they are not truly independent.

Interesting thought experiment but I fear we are going off topic.

Indeed we are, so I will leave it there.

 

[mmh]

The status quo works absolutely fine.

It blatantly doesn't, otherwise this whole conversation tonight wouldn't have happened.