Democratic control. That was it. I knew that it would have a negative effect on the economy short term but I wanted the control to be in the hands of the people I elected.
It's the argument that was put at the front of the queue during the build-up to the referendum itself and makes for very polarizing headlines but it played almost no part in my decision.
I wanted sovereignty over everything: Border control is just one part of the whole argument.
> Unfortunately the most discussed argument is to have sovereignty over who can come into the country and who cannot. That is racism to me.
I don't, however, agree with your stance that having a say who can and cannot come into the country is racism. How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
You may call it discrimination but that takes many forms, not all of them bad.
> It's the argument that was put at the front of the queue during the build-up to the referendum itself and makes for very polarizing headlines
Agreed.
> How can you say that it's ok to let anyone in but by saying we need checks and balances is racism?
Discrimination and racism sound like the same to me. I read people saying they would like to choose based on peoples skills, which is a complete nonsense. Why not let the market decide? People would be able to come in as they like, if they wouldn't get a job nor benefits, I'm sure they would go away. Otherwise, it would mean they have a place in here. Wouldn't that be a wiser decision?
