Re: 41 good, 44 bad?
"Here's an article about the concessions Cameron gained"
Sorry, the rejection of Cameron getting concessions is due to them being weak, trimmed down because actual reform would be rejected, they were not agreed to until after we remain to which they must be agreed by the others (probably wouldnt) and finally the EU signed a deal not to use the UK contribution to bail out Greece then did it anyway. So the EU's word is worth spit.
"'leaving on WTO terms' or 'no plan' is not a credible plan."
Actually leaving on WTO terms is a plan, a solid plan, one that the EU has already expressed their concern about the UK having a competitive advantage.
"Mrs May's deal is probably reasonable"
Only to the desperate to remain. It is a perpetual remain deal with no say in the EU for the UK. Described as worse than both remain or leave.
"The leaver polls show that no deal is a minority view amongst leavers so I'm absolutely correct to call it an extreme minority view, especially when you add in the rest of the country."
Thats fine but then remain is a minority view. It was made up of extremist believers to the project and various reformers from socialist/capitalist, authoritarian/libertarian, protectionist/globalist, etc. In fact that is also the power struggle in the EU and one of the reasons Germany wanted the UK to remain (to support them against the socialist countries).
"Trump,the US, and the UK have refused to rule out the NHS in negotations so I will not accept this as a fad excuse"
You will eventually when the facts push through. Again do we care who provides healthcare as long as we actually get healthcare? If the answer is yes then it is an opinion based on politics not health.
"a succession of Tory MPs wanting to weaken food, environment, and labour laws."
You mean laws that are sealing the EU off from the world and reducing their share of global wealth? The Soviet Union looked a wonderful dream until it all fell apart and the truth revealed.
"I don't see the point in discussing this if you're not willing to look at the facts."
I am providing fact. If its inconvenient fact I wont apologise. However I am not sure we are disagreeing as much on fact as opinion. Looking through this comment so far its your opinion things are bad which I see as good. Your a protectionist remainer and I am a globalist leaver, they are very different perspectives even if the facts remain the same. Even our last exchange was on opinion while not seeming to disagree on fact.
"accompanied by a global change in living standards to an average level. In the case of first world countries this means lower standards of living for the same amount of money"
Thats not how averages work. If everyone gets richer but the top few faster then the average gets worse. If everyone gets richer and the bottom do it faster then the average gets better. The actuality is we may see the actual number (not average) of people on this planet in actual poverty reduced to zero within our lifetimes. We dont have lower standards of living for the same amount of money, the government overspent yesterday on tomorrows earnings but our standard of living has been increasing and improving.
"they want insulation from globalisation"
Some people do. And thats their opinion. Opinions are like arseholes, we all have one. But who considers the insular N.Korea a good idea? Some people actually do! Or the insular USSR? Or the insular UK with bad cars, rolling blackouts and generally poor service for high price? Again we can all have opinions, maybe of the right levels but opening up has generally been a good thing.
"The advance of technology is negating the labour force of developing third world countries"
It frees them up to do other things. Africa has benefited from technology as the cheap mobile phone has allowed them to make payments via their phone. That has reduced crime considerably as mugging becomes more difficult.
"The only way it's possible to address huge corporations with 'optimised' tax schemes"
Do we want to? Legal tax schemes which has resulted in a lot of progress. These companies making money because people choose to part with money for the products and services. And that money must go somewhere, which benefits the countries, banks, consumers and people.
"common standards on food, environment, and labour so they don't up sticks and exploit other countries"
But who's standards? Vegan? Anti nuclear? Mud hutters? Gaia worshippers? People who desire a modern standard of living? Co2 theorists? Socialists? Communist? Capitalist? Authoritarian? Libertarian and so many other perspectives I will have missed.
"Leaving aside the fact the UK are unwilling to tighten the tax systems here when it's entirely within our remit, such a trading bloc with common standards exists and is called the EU."
But is it a good idea? And there are some solid reasons to say no. To both the tax systems and the EU.