RM> 12 Jul 2016 16:30, from David Rance -> Richard Menedetter:
RM>>> When dealing with the EU I got always the impression that the RM>>> sole purpose is to get the best deal for the UK, no matter what. RM>>> From my point of view there are also european values that are RM>>> important. And only pushing for exemptions without also looking RM>>> at the greater picture is not a good idea.
DR>> And just how do you think the government can sell that idea to the UK DR>> people? This is why just over half the population want out!
RM> By the greater picture. RM> By the fact that it is a peace project, by the fact that a single RM> country can hardly stand in todays globalized world.
You are never going to get the people in poverty to see that picture when they don't have a job or anywhere to live. Even here in Reading we have beggars on our streets which just didn't happen thirty, forty, fifty years ago. And why? Because we cannot stem the flow of migrants to this country who are as entitled to government allowances as those who have lived here all their lives, which is why we need not just more money to go to the NHS, we need more schools, more teachers, more affordable housing, and so on. Do you honestly think that we can see the "greater picture" when the EU is preventing us from reducing the flow of immigrants? And why do we have this flow? Because they think that the UK is a soft touch when it comes to free handouts.
RM> It was successfully "sold" to other countries.
Are you telling me that everyone else in the EU is happy with their lot? That's not what I've heard. It's only idealists who have simple answers like you and Michiel that believe that.
RM> If the price to keep the UK is too high, it is better to let them go.
Do you know, I'm beginning to think that myself!
RM>>> If the UK wants to pay more to have less impact on the politics, RM>>> it is their right to have it their way ... I do not understand RM>>> it, but I honor that they can do it.
RM>>> They should just be quick about it, and not meander around the RM>>> way they did before.
DR>> "meander around the way they did before."? What are you referring to?
RM> "We send the EU 350 million pounds a week - let's fund our NHS instead"
Sorry, that doesn't answer my question. When have we "meandered around" in the past?
RM> One would assume that after a campaign advertised itself with that RM> "fact", that the government would push to have the money as fast as RM> possible to themeselves.
No, sir, it was *not* advertised as a fact. Some people who wanted us to leave said that that 350 million pounds *could* be spent on the NHS but it was pretty soon contradicted. It was a sound byte which had about as much truth in what it claimed as Michiel's often quoted comment about the rats leaving the sinking ship. Unfortunately sound bytes are usually simplistic, get a lot of people believing them, but don't stand up to examination.
RM> Also the NHS claim was retracted the day after the referendum.
It was shown to be false long before that.
RM> But it was the reason why many people voted the way they did.
No, it wasn't. It was to do with immigration. The Brexit argument was that, if we leave, then we could control the numbers whereas, because of the EU's policy of free movement, we can't do that. Do you realise that immigration results in a population increase each year equivalent to a middle-sized city? And in a country that is already one of the most densely populated in the EU, possibly with the exception of Holl... er, the Netherlands. But does the Netherlands have an immigration problem like ours. I don't think so.
David
-- David Rance writing from Caversham, Reading, UK
