Quote (Black XistenZ @ 28 Jul 2017 16:21)
the great economic success story that is the EU, oh come on. look up the economic development in the EU you say?
you mean the years of anaemic growth? the sky-high youth unemployment rates in southern europe that persist to this day? or do you mean the moderate growth we are experiencing now, but which is still far below what one would expect under a monetary policy which is as expansive as the ecb's?
you mean eastern europe bleeding out while countries like germany and the UK are flooded with workers from esatern europe? this, by the way, is a phenomenom that affects half of all EU member states. and this workforce migration has risen to the extent that it is making housing unaffordable in some places, is causing severe cultural stress for the local population and even was a significant factor for the brexit vote. and you call those circumstances effectively "something that has to be misrepresented to be portrayable as a problem"? and you are the guy who constantly tells me that I'm oh so wrong, take a one-sdied view of things and dont think my own arguments through? u serious?
I didnt say that, I said that the EU allowing moderate restrictions on inner migration would cause a paradigm shift that forces the EU to transform and adapt.
the pro EU parties performed better than post-brexit polls with inflated numbers for the nationalist parties/movement suggested. yes, the nationalist movement was stopped from taking over europe. nonetheless, in all those elections like the netherlands, france or the austrian presidential elections, the nationalist parties and candidates won record percentages. they underperformed their polls from a couple of months earlier, but they still achieved record results; despite falling short of taking over power.
the reality is far right candidates and parties like wilders' PvV becoming the second strongest party in the netherlands and expanding their previous result by 33%, le pen becoming the runner-up candidate for french presidency and receiving a vote share of 34%, and hofer receiving 48% of the votes and losing the race by a tiny 4% margin. if you consider this to be "the nationalist movement on a downhill path", it is you who hasnt been paying attention or didnt think his own arguments through. moreover, note that almost all parliamentary elections since brexit have led to sizable shift to the right and to a dramatic decline of social democratic parties. in the netherlands and france, they got all but annihilated. also not a good sign for the current EU and those dreaming of united states of europe, since social democrats have always been more keen on "international solidarity" than conservative parties.
yes, a nationalist takeover has been averted for now, but the threat is very clearly still out there.
I never suggested disregarding the priorities of the remainers or those 58%. I am in favour of a compromise that makes concessions to both sides. what you propose, on the other hand, is a one-sided solution that gives the rather large 42% minority nothing.
and just for the record: the UK snap election this year showed how much of a difference even percentages as small as 13% can make in the british political system: in 2015, the UKIP received almost 13% of the popular vote, but many of their voters were closer to labour than tories on economic topics. in 2017, the UKIP received only 1.8% of the popular vote. the result? despite gaining votes compared to the previous election and winning the highest percentage and absolute number of tory votes since the days of maggie thatcher, theresa may lost a ton of seats and a majority of her political power. this dramatic shift in outcome and power balance was mainly the result of a shift of those 11% of voters who left the UKIP behind. now imagine the potential disruption that can be caused in british politics if just half of those 42% are disregarded in the brexit negotiations and get so pissed that it makes them vote a different party than they would otherwise...
that's such a stupid argument. the poll question (hopefully correctly) assumes that free access STAYS directly tied to free movement, which logically means the only two results IN THIS POLL are that you get both or neither. bitching about the 42% getting "nothing" in the latter case while ignoring that the 58% (the majority!) get "nothing" in the first case is yet again just your biased take on the situation.
it's just a poll asking what's more important to the majority, something the british delegation could and maybe should consider in their negotiations. and it's not that there aren't other possible models in between: canada for example has negotiated a deal without free movement but low tariff access, this would be a possible scenario that could work for both sides (maybe low tariff access and an EU budget contribution in exchange for limited movement).
it's just that free access without free movement can't happen, the EU would basically abolish itself that way. i really don't know why your personal preference has such a big influence on your understanding of the topic, the basics of it are really not that complicated to be honest...