Well, after a long search using this site's horrible search mechanism, I've found what I think is the correspondence Barbara is referring to. This post is going to be very long, for which apologies; if anyone complains about it, I'll reply that they don't have to read it.But before I get into it, I think you'll find it pretty clear that I was neither scathing nor dismissive, and that I definitely did not attempt "to show [my] superior intellectual wisdom by being able to prove [I] was right in [my] analysis of the situation." Quite the opposite: it was a genuinely civilised discussion.I've noticed before with some of the more intemperate Brexiteers on this forum (and I'm not including you in that group, Barbara, despite your reaction here) that they react when arguments are put to them by retreating into a self-pitying whine that they are being insulted, etc. Time for them to grow up and accept that this is a discussion forum and thaAnyway, back to the correspondence you are referring to: I think it’s this from earlier in the year:Under the heading Re:Re:More Brexit OTT, I wrote on 07/08/19 at 13:52:00: "... And still, despite all the requests, not one of the leavers here has even tried to advance reasons why we will be better off after leaving. It almost makes me believe there aren't any..." You replied at 16:12:00 the same day as follows:"I answered this before.1 fishing regs2 regs re air quality which are non applicable here3 proposed eu army4 butter mountains5 wine lakes6 poisoned olive oil7 unregulated immigration8 the overruling of justice systemetc etc I was lied to. I happily accepted Common Market trade agreement. Not that which has emerged. Thank goodness no ERM. No doubt I will be castigated and spoken to with contempt as I was previously" Next, I responded at 18:16:00 as follows "Thank you for this, Barbara, I shall try to answer without castigation or contempt (not that I’m aware that you’ve been subjected to this in any case; perhaps you could enlighten us. Anyway - and with apologies for the length of this post but you did list a lot of issues:1 fishing regs. I guess you mean by this the Common Fisheries Policy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Fisheries_Policy). The FT asked a couple of years ago whether Britain's fishermen would be better off after Brexit (https://www.ft.com/content/84f51c84-5fe2-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895), and concluded that “Given [the] constraints, Britain has little room for manoeuvre in negotiations over post-CFP arrangements. The UK fishing community may emerge from Brexit in a weaker position than it expects.” And although there would be a considerable effect on the fishing industry, it @accounts for only a tiny part of the UK economy.@m So not much joy there.2 regs re air quality which are non applicable here. Lucille has already responded on this point.3 proposed EU army. This really is a complete non-issue: there are no firm plans for such an army and in any case, the UK has a veto on EU military policy so couldn’t be forced to participate in it (https://fullfact.org/online/EU-army-conscription/). And I presume you also object, on the same grounds, to our belonging to NATO?4 butter mountains. This refers to a supply surplus of butter produced in the European Economic Community due to government interventionism, beginning in the 1970s. The size of the surplus changed significantly over time, and had mostly disappeared by 2017 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butter_mountain), so it's an old story, irrelevant now.5 wine lakes. Another old story (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_lake) and similarly irrelevant.6 poisoned olive oil. This is an even older and more irrelevant issue: the tainted oil scandal occurred in Spain as a result of which 1,200 people died (https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-europe-tainted-food-scandals.html). That was terrible, but (a) it dates back to 1981 (1981!!) and (b) it had nothing to do with the EU.7 unregulated immigration. This is an important issue, but it contains another myth: although freedom of movememt is one of the key ‘legs’ of membership of the EU, this does not undermine the UK’s ability to control its borders, for three principal reasons: First, the largest category of migrants to the UK come from outside the EU, and are not entitled to rely on EU laws on freedom of movement. The UK’s ability to restrict entry to this group is unaffected by its membership of the EU. Secondly, whereas many Member States have replaced individual controls with a common policy at their common frontier (known as the Schengen Area), the UK chose to retain its right to independent border control and is entitled to check the identity of every individual entering the country. Thirdly, EU law does not provide nationals from other EU Member States with an unlimited right to enter or remain in the UK. Most importantly, the right to live in the UK without any conditions or formalities only lasts for three months. In addition, the right is subject to limitations “on grounds of public policy, public security or public health”. Specifically, the UK retains the right to restrict the freedom of movement and residence of EU citizens and their family members, where their personal conduct represents “a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society”[8]and the home Member State of any expelled EU nationals must allow those nationals to re-enter their territory. (http://lawyers-inforbritain.uk/b-m-a/can-the-uk-control-its-borders-if-it-remains-in-the-eu/)8 the overruling of justice system. The European Court of Justice exists to oversee the correct application and implementation of EU law; however, the UK rarely ends up in the the Court and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, according to Who’s afraid of the ECJ?, from the independent Institute for Government (https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/brexit-and-the-legal-sector/what-is-the-european-court-of-justice-and-why-does-it-matter/); see also 2 above. Interestingly, one of the few areas where the Court has overruled the UK concerns our long-running failure to deal with atmospheric pollution (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/19/eu-court-rules-uk-government-must-clean-up-dangerous-air-pollution), something you would presumably support!etc etc. I don’t know what this might refer to, but in any case, you’re answering the wrong question. What we really want to know is this: what, in your view, are the benefits of leaving the EU?Over to you."But I added at 20:21:00 this:"Oh, one thing I forgot on #6 (poisoned olive oil): not only did it happen well over 30 years ago, in 1981, but Spain wasn't even in the European Union then (it joined in 1986)! Your list of complaints against the EU gets thinner and thinner!"And you answered at 20:32:00 saying:"Thank you Richard for long detailed reply. To be frank I can't be asked to explain why some of the points you raise I dispute, not necessarily completely but certainly some aspects. I could quite cheerfully sit down in the comfort of my home, or even a pub and discuss ,very lengthily, pros and cons, Actually I don't really think either of us would give an inch! The reason I went back in time so much, was to clarify the insidiousness of the EU taking away things of importance to me.You are correct. Pollution and pollutants trouble me. NATO I agree with,unlike Jeremy who is a Leaver because of that fact.Another fact that I had previously posted was that Sandhurst has an agreement with the EU and I think myself ,as it is a fairly recent one, that it would be very unlikely to be rescinded and military agreements would escalate.There are many things that I do commend the EU for, but wastage of money is not one of them! For someone who is a remainer they would be totally at a loss as to why we Brexiteers think as we do. For once Richard, and I appreciate you will find this difficult ( I'm not being sarcastic ) don't think or rationalise. Just accept.Please."Finally (at last!) was my response at 21:52:00“Thank you for your honest reply, Barbara, I appreciate it, even if I disagree profoundly with your conclusions.One point I didn't understand: you said that "the reason I went back in time so much, was to clarify the insidiousness of the EU taking away things of importance to me." But what are the things the EU has taken away?"But there it ended.
Richard Carter ● 2058d