There was some ground-clearing first. Both agree not all nationalism is bad. Scottish Nationalism is inclusive, welcoming, open. GF thinks England needs a similarly positive nationalism. Both agree there’s a problem with English nationalism at present.

GF thinks EU power to distant from those who can vote to change it. Fair but BCS thinks Scotland feels the same about UK Gov and trusts EU more, on e.g. workers’ rights, food standards.

BCS and GF have opposing views of what EU means for global corporations. GF thinks it enables them, where BCS thinks it can help to constrain them. Probably agree this is an empirical question.

Both believe we cannot return to status quo ante. Both think we need political action to reduce poverty and improve equality. BCS thinks that will be more achievable if we are in the EU, GF thinks it is more achievable outside. Neither of us know for sure.

Neither of us think immigration is a bad thing or should be severely curbed. Refugees need our help. Other migrants are subject to immigration controls.

GF wants us to have control of our immigration so that non-EU citizens from Syria, or Somalia, or Ghana have equal opportunities to be part of the immigration numbers we need as people from the EU. BCS sees the force of this argument.

Conceivably, a Lab Gov under Corbyn would have such an immigration policy as Diane Abbott’s recent speech shows. BCS not confident we’ll elect a Corbyn Gov. GF things it’s likely after Tories mess up on Brexit

In the end, differences remain on these points, many of them based on uncertainties about which we can have informed opinions but no definitive answers yet. GF more willing to roll the dice than BCS who flavours broader cooperation re climate and economy

It was worth patiently working through these fundamental points of difference, identifying shared values but recognizing different views of how to promote them. Both of us prone to visceral reactions but care and willingness led to better understanding

@smithbarryc Barry, I think we also talked about my suspicions concerning empire building. cf @yhazony

@giles_fraser @yhazony Yes, thanks. Good to have this in too. Let me know if I got it just about right. One sided remembering may be too partial

@smithbarryc @giles_fraser Brilliant, refreshing and informative. Thank you for a moment of sanity and civility.

@williamjdavid70 @giles_fraser Thank you for this response!

@smithbarryc @giles_fraser I am interested to know whether you decided before beginning to impose the above structure on the discussion, or did this emerge organically?

@DrCherryCanovan @giles_fraser We did a lot of ground clearing, deciding how we could structure the discussion. Important thing was shared motivation of trying to get clear about principled differences, avoiding counter accusations

@smithbarryc @giles_fraser Interesting thread, but nothing about about economics? The EU is primarily a single market. If you’re worried about poverty then why would we leave a successful trading bloc with the result that everyone is much poorer (with the poorest hit hardest, as always)?

@Philosophy_Law @giles_fraser We did discuss this and disagreed about whether issues of poverty as best addressed inside or outside EU. GF is also less concerned about lower GDP than I am

@smithbarryc @giles_fraser The suggestion by GF early in this string, that we were ever ruled by EU rather than Parliament is a misunderstanding. The trading bloc that is EU is governed by treaties which generally have a beneficial economic and social effect. Parliament can always reject the rules, QED.

@mwhmwhmwh @giles_fraser The details matter here. Courts jurisdiction is often cited but like you I feel no pinch of the shoe over Sovereignty but I see the point and know that Scotland feels the same democratic deficit with respect to certain UK legislation

@smithbarryc @giles_fraser This is a refreshing dose of cool headed rational discussion that is sadly all too rare in this debate. Thanks so much for sharing the summary.

@sharpcomposer @giles_fraser Thank you!