EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Howardh]

If I'm honest with you, it seems unlikely I'll be getting the kind of deal that I originally hoped for when I voted. If we're going to stay in the single market or customs union, then we might as well stay. There is just no point at all in going for a deal when nothing leave voters cared about will be dealt with. Free movement will be there, we'll still have to follow some EU laws, and all without any representation through MEPs. So what's the point in leaving really? If you can ever get your EU citizenship, I advise you to get it urgently. Not only will it please and allow you to get away from the more intolerant group of leavers (ie. ultranationalist groups) but you can still do what you always wanted.

I'm glad to see something so well balanced written!
Withe the news that the EU are in FTA talks with Australia; it strikes me that there is very little left to be gained by leaving. All the countries that we have been told we can trade with have been covered by the EU; one glaring gap is Venezuala - but how many £b's are they in debt?
Also - we seem to trade happily with the world as it is - look at how much stuff in your house is from China, India, Taiwan, Hong Kong etc? And we seem to sell enough arms to Saudia Arabia?
Nope, I think trade is just a smokescreen for the likes of Mogg/Fox/Gove to use Brexit as a power-grab. Throughtout the campaign it was always "take back control (over Brussels)". Aren't alarm bells ringing when a politician wants more power? What will happen is our last and final block against a corrupt government, the ECJ, will be taken away from us.
Lose our citizenship, lose our rights - given to people who want to control us.
So in return, what exactly are we getting back? A saving in the money we give net to the EU? Yes, possibly; but we would get that if we remained in the single market and custom's union (EEA). Limits on immigration? Possible - although only with a secure Irish Border. Work permits and residents visas are the only way to go (passing on the buck of immigration officers to managers and landlords - a hell of a saving there!) if the (all) borders remain open.
It's difficult to fathom out what leavers want; and whether they all want the same thing. And what happens when they all don't get what they thought they were gonna get how much is good enough?
And if it isn't, will they demand another referendum we can't have?
To me it's either an all-out Brexit (and enjoy/suffer the concequences) or we remain. Would half-in half-out be acceptable to the majority though??
Would have been better if remain had won narrowly - and we went back to the EU and told them how close it was and they'd better give us something.
"What do you want then?"
"More control, please"
"Control over what?"
"Er, got me there, guv."

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

What will happen is our last and final block against a corrupt government, the ECJ, will be taken away from us.

Now that I would argue against. The European Court of Justice obviously holds up EU laws, many of which were either derived from or brought in through the influence of the UK, but I think the workers of Viking Line ABP would disagree with you about the ECJ and view it in a much more negative light. After all, when said company changed it's flag from Finland to Estonia so it could operate with workers on lower Estonian wages rather than that of the higher Finnish wages, the ECJ ruled that...

though it was for the national court to ultimately answer the question, it was possible that collective action taken by workers to protect their interests could be unlawful because it infringed the employer's interests under TFEU article 56. It could not be the case, in this situation that the workers' interests were sufficiently threatened, because the ECJ felt that the jobs and conditions of the workers' employment were not 'jeopardised or under serious threat'. It was the case that 'the right to take collective action, including the right to strike, must... be recognised as a fundamental right which forms an integral part of the general principles of Community law', but 'the exercise of that right may nonetheless be subject to certain restrictions... in accordance with Community law and national law and practices.

Honestly, given some of the things that have happened while we've been under jurisdiction of the ECJ that could be considered acts of a corrupt government, I'd argue the ECJ has acted very little if at all in terms of being a safeguard against corruption. If it has been then I truly dread just what might in store for people of this country.

EDIT: For a full case of the Viking Line ABP case you can check it out on the respective Wiki article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Transport_Workers_Federation_v_Viking_Line_ABP

 

[northwichcat]

Now that I would argue against. The European Court of Justice obviously holds up EU laws, many of which were either derived from or brought in through the influence of the UK, but I think the workers of Viking Line ABP would disagree with you about the ECJ and view it in a much more negative light. After all, when said company changed it's flag from Finland to Estonia so it could operate with workers on lower Estonian wages rather than that of the higher Finnish wages, the ECJ ruled that...


Honestly, given some of the things that have happened while we've been under jurisdiction of the ECJ that could be considered acts of a corrupt government, I'd argue the ECJ has acted very little if at all in terms of being a safeguard against corruption. If it has been then I truly dread just what might in store for people of this country.

EDIT: For a full case of the Viking Line ABP case you can check it out on the respective Wiki article here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Transport_Workers_Federation_v_Viking_Line_ABP

Yet they did something when the Irish government let Apple off paying its' taxes in exchange for basing itself in Ireland ahead of other countries. Unfair to both small Irish businesses and other European countries (whether in the EU or not.) Or was that 'EU red tape' and the kind of thing we'll be doing post-Brexit?

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Yet they did something when the Irish government let Apple off paying its' taxes in exchange for basing itself in Ireland ahead of other countries. Unfair to both small Irish businesses and other European countries (whether in the EU or not.) Or was that 'EU red tape' and the kind of thing we'll be doing post-Brexit?

Sounds like an upholding of it's competition laws. But then on the other I've not heard much in regards to Amazon, Google and Starbucks failing to pay UK tax. Indeed it's something we should deal because it is a domestic issue, but by the same logic of Ireland with Apple then surely there must be some kind of intervention? I mean If you're hoping that I'll be able to answer the last part of "EU red tape" and that then I'll have to disappoint. I simply haven't got a clue, and such is my own personal cynicism that I do not care. At this point I've lost faith in the whole process and just wish we'd all (UK and EU) try something else from this point.

 

[greyman42]

https://news.sky.com/story/carney-sees-a-900-brexit-cost-to-household-incomes-11381658
Brexit has cost each UK household £900, Bank of England governor Mark Carney says

Well it has not cost me £900. I am doing rather well on the back of it so far.

 

[SteveP29]

There IS something I'd go for; and something similar's been raised by Guy Verhofstadt so it's not totally a fantasy suggestion; let Brexit do it's own thing, but allow those of us that wish to keep our EU citizenship to pay to do just that; for an one-off price we get an E-passport on top of our ordinary one which allows us to keep the four freedoms (meaning we breeze through the EU channel at airports rather than have to queue and have Visa's checked etc) including IHIC entitlement and even the use of EU embassies outside the EU should ours not be available; and the biggest plus is we retain the absolute right to work/live in the EU.

That is the most sensible and appealing proposal I've heard in the last how many years of campaigning since the referendum was announced and the negotiations that have taken place since. Unfortunately, it sounds like a lot of common sense, so don't expect it to ever make it onto the statute books of the UK.

 

[AlterEgo]

That is the most sensible and appealing proposal I've heard in the last how many years of campaigning since the referendum was announced and the negotiations that have taken place since. Unfortunately, it sounds like a lot of common sense, so don't expect it to ever make it onto the statute books of the UK.

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.

 

[Howardh]

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?

This is at odds with people keeping telling me "there's no such thing as EU citizenship".
As there isn't, then this additional passport would be in addition to (not instead of) your own; so - for example - when UK's have to join the rest of the world queue at airports, holders of the UK passport and EU pass would breeze through the EU lanes. When settling it would entitle us to their version of an NI number, entitle us to a resident's number/permit; could open bank accounts etc (none of which has currently been negotiated) and health care rights. Just like now with our UK passport.
But we'd be guaranteed to be able to have access just as before, and those that absolutely hate the idea of the EU and it's institutions and privileges don't have to have this hated pass.
But if it comes to be, don't be so darned selfish and prevent us having one!!

 

[AlterEgo]

This is at odds with people keeping telling me "there's no such thing as EU citizenship".

You can be a citizen of the EU, but the EU is not a country and does not issue passports. Therefore, you need a passport of an EU country to be afforded the privileges you want (and which we currently have, through having British passports, as the UK is a member of the EU).

Should the EU begin issuing passports - especially to citizens from countries not in the EU if they pay the right amount of money - then it will merely confirm many people's suspicions that it has suffered from enormous mission creep.

When settling it would entitle us to their version of an NI number, entitle us to a resident's number/permit; could open bank accounts etc (none of which has currently been negotiated) and health care rights. Just like now with our UK passport.

Just out of interest, why do people feel it is their absolute right (as opposed to a negotiated right) to settle in a foreign country and immediately access everything their society has to offer? For example, in principle only, what is the difference between an economic migrant from Guatemala believing he should have the right to settle in Britain and have immediate access to an NI number, employment, healthcare, benefits, freedom of movement and residency, and a British economic migrant wishing to settle down in Italy and work for a bank?

I am sure we can agree there are material differences between the two examples, but in principle they are in fact the same. To support the argument for the British economic migrant you'll need to start looking at individual circumstances and justifying why you, a British person, should have that right while the same right is denied to someone else who happens not to be European. That's a good question to wrangle with.

But we'd be guaranteed to be able to have access just as before, and those that absolutely hate the idea of the EU and it's institutions and privileges don't have to have this hated pass.

But if it comes to be, don't be so darned selfish and prevent us having one!!

There are a number of good reasons why it might not be a good idea. The UK Government will probably have to make concessions to afford British people that right, for a start. Alternatively, it might be totally harmless. As for me, I'm ambivalent about the scheme, but I think it's worthwhile to highlight the conceit behind some indigenous Britons' belief that they cannot accept their countrymen have given up that negotiated - not absolute - right to reside, work etc in other EU countries.

For the record, I voted Remain despite not liking the EU very much, because Brexit is overall a destructive process. I think it's like being on a minibus full of a smorgasbord of very different people, with an unclear destination, and a faceless driver who doesn't talk much. We are not sure whether we are going to Disneyland or into a ravine with sharks at the bottom, and instead of working with other countries to find out what the hell is going on, we smash the emergency exit and hurl ourselves from the moving vehicle into the brambles by the side of the road. I think that's a bit mad, but I've grown to respect the people who voted Leave and I think the process was a good lesson in how much the white working class has been forgotten (though I don't agree they've been screwed over like other minorities) by the political class within my lifetime.

 

[Bromley boy]

For the record, I voted Remain despite not liking the EU very much, because Brexit is overall a destructive process. I think it's like being on a minibus full of a smorgasbord of very different people, with an unclear destination, and a faceless driver who doesn't talk much. We are not sure whether we are going to Disneyland or into a ravine with sharks at the bottom, and instead of working with other countries to find out what the hell is going on, we smash the emergency exit and hurl ourselves from the moving vehicle into the brambles by the side of the road. I think that's a bit mad, but I've grown to respect the people who voted Leave and I think the process was a good lesson in how much the white working class has been forgotten (though I don't agree they've been screwed over like other minorities) by the political class within my lifetime.

As a leave voter I think that’s an excellent analogy and I share your concerns.

For me the risk of leaving (and I mean properly leaving, not a fudge where we remain in all but name) was the least worst option when the alternative was remaining in an undemocratic, unaccountable EU which has mushroomed way beyond its original purpose.

“Mission creep” perfectly sums up the EU’s trajectory over the past 30 years. It has gone from economic trading bloc to bloated, inherently self interested political project with no respect for national sovereignty and I’d rather pull the U.K. out of that even if it means some short term pain.

In the end it comes down to a philosophical viewpoint around how much you value national sovereignty over (short term) economic certainty, which is why many participants on this thread will never agree with each other.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Just out of interest, why do people feel it is their absolute right (as opposed to a negotiated right) to settle in a foreign country and immediately access everything their society has to offer? For example, in principle only, what is the difference between an economic migrant from Guatemala believing he should have the right to settle in Britain and have immediate access to an NI number, employment, healthcare, benefits, freedom of movement and residency, and a British economic migrant wishing to settle down in Italy and work for a bank?

I am sure we can agree there are material differences between the two examples, but in principle they are in fact the same. To support the argument for the British economic migrant you'll need to start looking at individual circumstances and justifying why you, a British person, should have that right while the same right is denied to someone else who happens not to be European. That's a good question to wrangle with.

Despite being in favour of the EU, philosophically I probably agree with that.
The difference is I guess, we currently do have that right. It is something you, or I, could go do right now.
That right is being taken away from us. And because of the demographics involved, largely, it is being taken away by people who would never have even used that right to begin with, hence why there may be a degree of bitterness involved.

 

[EM2]

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?

Personally, I really couldn't care less.

For example, in principle only, what is the difference between an economic migrant from Guatemala believing he should have the right to settle in Britain and have immediate access to an NI number, employment, healthcare, benefits, freedom of movement and residency, and a British economic migrant wishing to settle down in Italy and work for a bank?

Absolutely no difference at all. In principle only, why should I benefit from an NI number, employment, healthcare, benefits, freedom of movement and residency and an economic migrant from Guatemala not, simply because I happen to have been on this bit of rock and not another?

 

[Bromley boy]

In principle only, why should I benefit from an NI number, employment, healthcare, benefits, freedom of movement and residency and an economic migrant from Guatemala not, simply because I happen to have been on this bit of rock and not another?

Presumably you avail yourself of those rights because you are a british citizen either by virtue of being born here of subsequently gaining citizenship through some other method. That is why you benefit from those entitlements over and above someone who is an overseas alien. This is hardly unusual: most, of not all, countries around the world take a similar approach.

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

 

[EM2]

Presumably you avail yourself of those rights because you are a british citizen either by virtue of being born here of subsequently gaining citizenship through some other method.

Exactly. It's an accident of birth.
That's before you get to the sheer chance of me even being born at all, with my father's ancestors moving to London via Stoke from Scotland and my mother's family settling in London from France and the Netherlands, and then then my father and mother actually meeting, and finding each other tolerable, and falling in love, and all the possible complications of pregnancy and childbirth.
Without all of that (and that's before we even get on to the sheer fluke of life existing at all on this planet), then I'd have no rights at all, because I wouldn't be here.
So as I say, I happen to have been born on this bit of rock, through the culmination of billions of fortuitous circumstances. That makes me entitled to a load of stuff, but someone who is the result of billions of other circumstances isn't. It's daft, really.

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

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

 

[Bromley boy]

That right is being taken away from us. And because of the demographics involved, largely, it is being taken away by people who would never have even used that right to begin with, hence why there may be a degree of bitterness involved.

If you are someone who is well educated and does a job which is in demand internationally I would suggest you are unlikely to have any problem securing employment abroad, post brexit, should you wish to.

This is the situation for Antipodeans and Americans working in Europe, and for Europeans working in the the US, Australia or the Far East, of whom there are a great many.

 

[NSEFAN]

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

One would hope that this is something humanity achieves in the long term, but given our differences it's certainly not likely to happen in our lifetimes (indeed pushing too hard for it only results in pushback!)

In the case of an economic migrant, if they are here legally and paying tax like any native worker, then the only reason I can think of to deny them benefits and access to the NHS is for cost reasons.

 

[AlterEgo]

Personally, I really couldn't care less.

So it wouldn't bother you if someone could purchase the same freedoms that you enjoy by dint of citizenship law? Do you view your Britishness as entirely incidental? Would it not concern you that people who shared none of your values, had never lived here, and to whom no test of loyalty was applied could claim the same citizenship, just by buying it? The King of Saudi Arabia could purchase citizenship, Trump could, Kim Jong-Un could, members of ISIS.

Do you really feel so completely un-British that it wouldn't bother you at all to see our hard-earned privileges literally for sale?

Absolutely no difference at all. In principle only, why should I benefit from an NI number, employment, healthcare, benefits, freedom of movement and residency and an economic migrant from Guatemala not, simply because I happen to have been on this bit of rock and not another?

Because the values and standards of peoples across the world vary wildly. This is a fundamental principle in my view.

The nation-state is the highest level at which it is possible to assume selflessness. It is why nations become countries, defend themselves, and seek to expand their own interests.

Taking Irish citizenship law as an example, my father is an Irish citizen by dint of being born on the island of Ireland. I am also one by default, because I am his son. The law assumes therefore that I am closely bound enough by custom, culture and my values and standard that I qualify for citizenship. For my children, if they are born in Britain, they will not be Irish citizens from birth but must instead "claim" it by going through a process. And *their* children cannot be Irish citizens at all, because that's then the fourth generation and the law assumes they may not be, in any real sense of the word, Irish at all. All countries define citizenship in this way, but may vary the number of generations that are entitled to be citizens. Have you ever wondered why that is, and why you, as, I assume, an indigenous Briton, can't just walk into Japan and buy one of their passports?

British people - like any other successful nation - happen to be bound together by at least some common fabric, a shared sense of identity, culture, and mutual trust.

If we look at Ireland, the principal reason it is not a unified country is because of the sharp differences in culture between Orange and Green. Ireland will only be a unified country when Irish people of various flavours agree to work selflessly towards building a new Irish nation.

On a macro - not individual - level, we can assume that the vast majority of people born here in the UK share common values and approaches to life, and will often act selflessly to make our nation function.

The same cannot be said for a supranational body like the EU, as such as its present size, peoples from Finland, Romania, Spain, and Ireland for example are all being asked to share common goals. The EU is not, and must not ever try to be, a country.

This is why citizenship is important. You cannot go around selling them and expect your country to not come to some sort of harm. For this reason, I cannot think of an economically developed and successful country that sells citizenships. All the adverts I see for purchasing citizenship off the shelf are from shady tax havens and banana republics - and it's expensive - in the realm of five and six figures.

I am in no way a British nationalist, nor am I especially proud to be one - but I find it baffling that people deny the concept of Britishness in the way you have indirectly done, and think it is a harmful trend.

 

[AlterEgo]

In the case of an economic migrant, if they are here legally and paying tax like any native worker, then the only reason I can think of to deny them benefits and access to the NHS is for cost reasons.

I agree.

But they wouldn't be citizens, with right to remain, call themselves British, avail of the protection of our embassies, or be able to pass on their "Britishness" through marriage or offspring.

 

[EM2]

So it wouldn't bother you if someone could purchase the same freedoms that you enjoy by dint of citizenship law? Do you view your Britishness as entirely incidental?

It is entirely incidental. See my reply to Bromley Boy above.

Would it not concern you that people who shared none of your values, had never lived here, and to whom no test of loyalty was applied could claim the same citizenship, just by buying it? The King of Saudi Arabia could purchase citizenship, Trump could, Kim Jong-Un could, members of ISIS.

Not really, no.

Do you really feel so completely un-British that it wouldn't bother you at all to see our hard-earned privileges literally for sale?

Hard-earned in what way?

Because the values and standards of peoples across the world vary wildly. This is a fundamental principle in my view.

Only because of how they have been brought up in different religions and cultures. However, at the very basic level, pretty much everyone in the world just wants the best life for their family and friends that they can manage and to be safe.

The nation-state is the highest level at which it is possible to assume selflessness. It is why nations become countries, defend themselves, and seek to expand their own interests.

How does my country expanding its own interests influence my selflessness?

Have you ever wondered why that is, and why you, as, I assume, an indigenous Briton, can't just walk into Japan and buy one of their passports?

Because the Japanese have decided that I can't. That's the only reason.

British people - like any other successful nation - happen to be bound together by at least some common fabric, a shared sense of identity, culture, and mutual trust.

All because we all happen to have been born on the same island. And you can't tell me that I have the same identity, culture and mutual trust as every other Englishman, or of Scots, or the Welsh.

If we look at Ireland, the principal reason it is not a unified country is because of the sharp differences in culture between Orange and Green. Ireland will only be a unified country when Irish people of various flavours agree to work selflessly towards building a new Irish nation.

But where did that Orange culture come from? It certainly isn't from the Gaelic language and the Gaelic folklore that is the bedrock of the Irish culture.

On a macro - not individual - level, we can assume that the vast majority of people born here in the UK share common values and approaches to life, and will often act selflessly to make our nation function.

The same cannot be said for a supranational body like the EU, as such as its present size, peoples from Finland, Romania, Spain, and Ireland for example are all being asked to share common goals.

Why can't they? Why can't they share common goals, like, for example, not killing each other in bloody conflicts, like has happened twice in just over a hundred years? Like working right across the EU without hindrance? Like medically treating citizens who are visitors in their country? Isn't that acting selflessly to make our continent function?

I am in no way a British nationalist, nor am I especially proud to be one - but I find it baffling that people deny the concept of Britishness in the way you have indirectly done, and think it is a harmful trend.

I'm not denying anything. But to proclaim that because I'm British I must share an outlook on life exactly like every other Briton is patently absurd.

 

[EM2]

I agree.

But they wouldn't be citizens, with right to remain, call themselves British, avail of the protection of our embassies, or be able to pass on their "Britishness" through marriage or offspring.

Why do we have citizenship tests and citizenship ceremonies then?

 

[WelshBluebird]

If you are someone who is well educated and does a job which is in demand internationally I would suggest you are unlikely to have any problem securing employment abroad, post brexit, should you wish to.

This is the situation for Antipodeans and Americans working in Europe, and for Europeans working in the the US, Australia or the Far East, of whom there are a great many.

Sure you will still be able to in the right circumstances, but my point was right now we have a right to. We won't after Brexit.

Do you view your Britishness as entirely incidental?

But it is. I am only British because my parents were both British and I was born here. Literally nothing to do with values or culture. If my parents happened to be on holiday at the time I was born (I was born early so they easily could have been), then it would have potentially been a different story and I'd not be British (or well technically I could be but also potentially have dual citizenship elsewhere too).

British people - like any other successful nation - happen to be bound together by at least some common fabric, a shared sense of identity, culture, and mutual trust.

Are we? Really?

Because the values and standards of peoples across the world vary wildly. This is a fundamental principle in my view.

The values and standards of peoples across the UK vary wildly too! Since when does a chav in a council estate have anything in common with say the royal family?

The same cannot be said for a supranational body like the EU, as such as its present size, peoples from Finland, Romania, Spain, and Ireland for example are all being asked to share common goals. The EU is not, and must not ever try to be, a country.

Why not? The idea of the EU as a country is not really an different than the USA being a country.

 

[Bromley boy]

So as I say, I happen to have been born on this bit of rock, through the culmination of billions of fortuitous circumstances. That makes me entitled to a load of stuff, but someone who is the result of billions of other circumstances isn't. It's daft, really.

It’s an accident of birth, yes, but that’s just life I’m afraid.

The concept of a bordered society is not “daft” at all, far from it. By and large the benefits we enjoy in this country both enjoyed and paid for (by us) at different times over our lifetimes. That system only works where the people living within it share some sense of identity/commonality - buying into a kind of social contract to contribute, obey the law, respect the norms of this country etc.

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.

I actually can’t believe that point needs explaining!

I’m not anti immigration - far from it - but I would like this country to carefully scrutinise those who come here from elsewhere to ensure that they at least:

- speak English well enough to get by (ie able to do a job, access services etc.);
- have a skill which is useful to this country and a job to come to;
- are willing and able to assimilate to the values of this country (a secular, liberal democracy).

I’m afraid, absent the “ideal world” to which you aspire, borders (and effective ones at that!) are necessary to achieve the above.

 

[Bromley boy]

But it is. I am only British because my parents were both British and I was born here. Literally nothing to do with values or culture. If my parents happened to be on holiday at the time I was born (I was born early so they easily could have been), then it would have potentially been a different story and I'd not be British (or well technically I could be but also potentially have dual citizenship elsewhere too).

I assume you are someone who exercises freedom of discussion as we do on this forum, freedom of expression, freedom to choose their own religion (and not have one forced upon them), marry who you wish, be gay or straight, drink alcohol etc.

Go and live in China/Pakistan/Saudi for a while and you’ll soon see the differences between the society/values we (by and large) subscribe to in the U.K. and those prevalent elsewhere.

 

[EM2]

It’s an accident of birth, yes, but that’s just life I’m afraid.

The concept of a bordered society is not “daft” at all, far from it. By and large the benefits we enjoy in this country both enjoyed and paid for (by us) at different times over our lifetimes. That system only works where the people living within it share some sense of identity/commonality - buying into a kind of social contract to contribute, obey the law, respect the norms of this country etc.

Why should we all have 'some sense of identity/commonality' because we're all born on the same group of islands?
See what I said above regarding the Welsh and the Scots (and add in the Cornish as well). We don't even share the same languages!
Going back, what did Wessex have in common with Northumbria, or Mercia with Essex?

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.

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.

I’m not anti immigration - far from it - but I would like this country to carefully scrutinise those who come here from elsewhere to ensure that they at least:

- speak English well enough to get by (ie able to do a job, access services etc.);
- have a skill which is useful to this country and a job to come to;
- are willing and able to assimilate to the values of this country (a secular, liberal democracy).

Everyone I know that is an immigrant fulfills all those criteria.

 

[Bromley boy]

Why not? The idea of the EU as a country is not really an different than the USA being a country.

It’s completely different. The US as a country has a history of a couple of hundred years. European countries have very different histories, cultures and have millennia of differences. You are comparing apples with origins.

Furthermore your comment above is precisely the kind of viewpoint that motivated me to vote leave.

The EU (and likely many remain voters) have absolutely no respect for sovereignty, democracy and would quite happily see the U.K. subsumed into a “United States of Europe”.

 

[Bromley boy]

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.

And all those benefits come from controlled immigration which I am fully in favour of (although I don’t think diversity should necessarily be seen as an end in itself).

You appear to be advocating completely open borders which is complete and utter madness.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is entirely incidental. See my reply to Bromley Boy above.

No, you have said it is accidental, not incidental. It is accidental on your part, but the fact you were born in Britain is a key part of who you are. It has enormous influence on your outlook, your values and standards. Had you been born in Papua New Guinea to a lost tribe I expect you would agree that while that would be an accident of birth, it would make you a profoundly different person.[/quote]

Not really, no.

Someone who would not care about whether the world's worst people from diametrically opposed, and even anti-British cultures - even people who who hate you and think Britons should be exterminated - could purchase, for a nominal fee and nothing else, the protection, privileges, and rights of our country, is not worth listening to.

Either that or you're being dismissive and obtuse because you don't want to explore the issue as deeply as I do.

Hard-earned in what way?

Britain is one of the world's leading nations. The industry of the people who live here over the last thousand years has been instrumental in ensuring our island is prosperous. And I'm not talking about Empire, which was largely negative (and something I wish some Leavers would erase from their rose-tinted visions), but rather the very many good things Britain has given itself and the world. It is, for all its faults, a very good place to live and be born into.

Only because of how they have been brought up in different religions and cultures. However, at the very basic level, pretty much everyone in the world just wants the best life for their family and friends that they can manage and to be safe.

That is only at the very basic level - like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but humans do not stop there. Humans need a sense of belonging, culture, kinship and common purpose. That is how families, and then tribes, and now nations have evolved into what they are. In the same way you wouldn't admit just anyone into your family for £25, with all the privileges that brings, nations don't, and shouldn't, admit people to the level of citizenship without a very good reason, like knowing they'll belong and contribute to all the things I just listed above. I would have thought this is a fairly fundamental thing to understand about human nature, but I appreciate the obtuse question.

How does my country expanding its own interests influence my selflessness?

Imagine I start a nation by myself. Who would join me and why? What does it offer?

Now imagine a very successful and prosperous nation with a welfare state, a democratic assembly, a shared culture, armed forces to keep you safe, a good economy to keep you fed and clothed, etc etc. There's a lot of reasons why a citizen of the second nation would act more selflessly in the nation's interests. Incidentally, we have a couple of significant separatist movements in the UK. Looking at Northern Ireland, some people are not selfless at all towards Britain and the UK, because they feel it to be an alien structure without a shared culture, which doesn't act in their interests and from which they derive little benefit.

Because the Japanese have decided that I can't. That's the only reason.

That was not the question I asked, but I suspect you know that.

Let's start with a very basic question.

Why do you think all countries have citizenship laws - effectively a law saying who can and cannot be a member of their club?

All because we all happen to have been born on the same island. And you can't tell me that I have the same identity, culture and mutual trust as every other Englishman, or of Scots, or the Welsh.

I didn't suggest you have the same identity as every other person born here; I recommend you read what I wrote again. I am talking about the British people (and in fact any other nation of people) in general. You don't seem to appreciate why nations exist, which I'm genuinely puzzled by.

But where did that Orange culture come from? It certainly isn't from the Gaelic language and the Gaelic folklore that is the bedrock of the Irish culture.

Largely from Britain and Scotland, but the Orange Order is fundamentally Irish, having originated in...Ireland (the people who founded the Order were all there because of an accident of birth, btw). Now - people in the Orange Order believe they are British (though some do identify as secondarily Irish too). Their Britishness is based on what they feel to be common values, standards, religion, and so on. Yet British people from the "mainland" UK frequently deny Orangemen any legitimacy of Britishness, because, well, they don't think they do share the same values!

Why can't they? Why can't they share common goals, like, for example, not killing each other in bloody conflicts, like has happened twice in just over a hundred years? Like working right across the EU without hindrance? Like medically treating citizens who are visitors in their country? Isn't that acting selflessly to make our continent function?

Since you have questioned why a person would be selfless to a nation state, I will assume from this question that:

- You believe you should act selflessly towards your own family
- You don't understand why you might act selflessly towards the country you were accidentally born in
- You believe people should act selflessly towards a supranational body like the EU, which after all, you're a citizen of because of an accident of birth.

I don't get it.

I'm not denying anything. But to proclaim that because I'm British I must share an outlook on life exactly like every other Briton is patently absurd.

At no point have I suggested that you must have exactly the same outlook as every single other person born here, but I'd challenge you again, if you were born to a lost tribe in Papua New Guinea, you'd be a fundamentally different person. That doesn't mean every tribesman from PNG is identical, but the culture you were brought up in is utterly fundamental to your identity, and who you are.

Why do we have citizenship tests and citizenship ceremonies then?

Because, as I keep saying, a nation requires people who will share and uphold its values to sustain itself. A citizenship test is a crude way of testing Britishness. I don't necessarily agree with the content or format of the tests.

 

[EM2]

And all those benefits come from controlled immigration which I am fully in favour of (although I don’t think diversity should necessarily be an end in itself).

Diversity the dance troupe, not diversity the concept

You appear to be advocating completely open borders which is complete and utter madness.

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

 

[AlterEgo]

But it is. I am only British because my parents were both British and I was born here. Literally nothing to do with values or culture. If my parents happened to be on holiday at the time I was born (I was born early so they easily could have been), then it would have potentially been a different story and I'd not be British (or well technically I could be but also potentially have dual citizenship elsewhere too).

You are conflating incidental and accidental. Your birth in this country is an accident but is by no means incidental to who you are.

The values and standards of peoples across the UK vary wildly too! Since when does a chav in a council estate have anything in common with say the royal family?

The royal family aren't a "people", but I get your drift.

That's a different issue - one of social equality. Social equality and internal conflict eat away at national cohesion. I think we are not a particularly equal country in terms of income equality or education and I do think that's a problem which alienates us from one another. Hello Brexit!

Why not? The idea of the EU as a country is not really an different than the USA being a country.

The USA is finding it difficult to remain a cohesive nation, and the people there have never really trusted the Government. the USA is a wonderful place but as a country it has significant problems, largely due to its massively diverse values and standards by geography.

 

[EM2]

No, you have said it is accidental, not incidental. It is accidental on your part, but the fact you were born in Britain is a key part of who you are. It has enormous influence on your outlook, your values and standards. Had you been born in Papua New Guinea to a lost tribe I expect you would agree that while that would be an accident of birth, it would make you a profoundly different person.

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.

Someone who would not care about whether the world's worst people from diametrically opposed, and even anti-British cultures - even people who who hate you and think Britons should be exterminated - could purchase, for a nominal fee and nothing else, the protection, privileges, and rights of our country, is not worth listening to.

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.

It is, for all its faults, a very good place to live and be born into.

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

That is only at the very basic level - like Maslow's hierarchy of needs, but humans do not stop there. Humans need a sense of belonging, culture, kinship and common purpose. That is how families, and then tribes, and now nations have evolved into what they are. In the same way you wouldn't admit just anyone into your family for £25, with all the privileges that brings, nations don't, and shouldn't, admit people to the level of citizenship without a very good reason, like knowing they'll belong and contribute to all the things I just listed above. I would have thought this is a fairly fundamental thing to understand about human nature, but I appreciate the obtuse question.

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.
And the same goes for countries. There are already millions of people in this country that I'm pretty sure I don't like, and a few more isn't really going to make any difference.

Imagine I start a nation by myself. Who would join me and why? What does it offer?

Now imagine a very successful and prosperous nation with a welfare state, a democratic assembly, a shared culture, armed forces to keep you safe, a good economy to keep you fed and clothed, etc etc. There's a lot of reasons why a citizen of the second nation would act more selflessly in the nation's interests. Incidentally, we have a couple of significant separatist movements in the UK. Looking at Northern Ireland, some people are not selfless at all towards Britain and the UK, because they feel it to be an alien structure without a shared culture, which doesn't act in their interests and from which they derive little benefit.

I wouldn't say in the nation's interests, but in the population's interest. That's why I would, for example, be happy to pay a few pence more in Income Tax to pay for improvements in health and social care, and education (even though I have no children).

Why do you think all countries have citizenship laws - effectively a law saying who can and cannot be a member of their club?

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

I didn't suggest you have the same identity as every other person born here; I recommend you read what I wrote again. I am talking about the British people (and in fact any other nation of people) in general. You don't seem to appreciate why nations exist, which I'm genuinely puzzled by.

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'.

Since you have questioned why a person would be selfless to a nation state, I will assume from this question that:

- You believe you should act selflessly towards your own family
- You don't understand why you might act selflessly towards the country you were accidentally born in
- You believe people should act selflessly towards a supranational body like the EU, which after all, you're a citizen of because of an accident of birth.

I don't get it.

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