Irish nationals will presumably need to prove their status in order to get this free movement? Does that count as free?
You're right of cause, I've never felt like a free man having to carry a passport when I go to a foreign country...
If you need a passport to cross the border, then you're still going to have to erect a physical barrier to stop people without one passing. You can't automate it using something like ANPR; how would you (a) identify if all of the passengers have free movement and (b) stop the cars with passengers that don't?
Even if you have an "Irish only" lane or queue at any borders, you'd still need a barrier to stop people abusing it.
However you regard it, that's still a border, and that's very much not wanted in Ireland, as well as a total pain in the rear for anyone who crosses the border on a regular basis.
Then you've got the fact that the border is about 300 miles long. Who's going to be responsible for policing the sections of border that don't have check-points on them?
The only way to not have a border is to genuinely leave it open and do all of the border checks when leaving Eire/NI, either on the EU side or the UK side, and cast a blind eye to anything that's made it across the soft/invisible border that shouldn't, since it'll never get any further.
You don't seem to understand what was offered - this doesn't surprise me as you are a remainer and by and large most remainers seem unable to see past what is 'now' and imagine what could be.
The border cross proposed was true 'free movement' (not to be confused with EU 'free movement') in that anyone would have been free to move across the border - in this circumstance there is no need for a hard border at all because what would you be checking? If everyone has the right to enter then why check at all?
What it would stop is the right to live/work/claim benefits in the UK, with only certain citizen of Ireland (likely to be limited to those who already live in Ireland but work on NI) being exempt. This can easily be done using exist rules anyway so nothing need to change.
It strikes me as odd that leavers are often said to be full of nostalgia, when everything I ever read shows that actually it's remainers who seem unable to think beyond the status que.
Now it was rejected by the EU as it was discrimitary towards the Irish, but why didn't the EU negotiate? Maybe we would have offered it to all the EU nationals within 30 miles of the border is part of the exempt clause that allows them to work in the UK? This then isn't discriminatory at all as it's open to everyone in the EU as anyone could chose to live in this area if they wanted.
I don't see how Stranger83's proposal would do anything to keep illegals from crossing from EU territory into British territory, when I thought controlling immigration - legal and illegal - into the UK was one of the big aspects of Brexit? It feels like this idea is shooting yourself in the foot if you're a Brexit supporter.
Witzkatz wrote: I don't see how Stranger83's proposal would do anything to keep illegals from crossing from EU territory into British territory, when I thought controlling immigration - legal and illegal - into the UK was one of the big aspects of Brexit? It feels like this idea is shooting yourself in the foot if you're a Brexit supporter.
Simple really, anyone who crosses into the UK with the I mention to stay without first getting the approval of the UK government would need a massive bank account and be living on the street - as they wouldnt be able to get a job/claim benefits/rent or buy a house.
Again, the UK offered free movement, Not free citizenship.
Now I know that goes against everything you think about leavers, but 99% of the ones I know would all be happy with this, if you want to come and visit our country and spend your money feel free - but you cannot work or stay.
And of cause outside the EU courts we could deport anyone who is staying illegally without spending millions on legal costs and a 4 year wait.
What I'm essentially saying is it depends on your definition of immigration, I don't think I emigrate to Spain when I go on holiday there. To me to emigrate you would need to live in the country you move to - and we can prevent that fairly easy without needing to have a hard border.
Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?
I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?
Witzkatz wrote: Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?
I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?
Crime exists now, crime will exist after we leave the EU. If your going to come to the UK with the intention of commuting crime then do you really think that border checks will keep you out? Why don't you go ask.America how well that has worked against the Mexican drug barons?
I'd love to live in a world where your border checks would stop all criminals from getting into the country - and when(if) that day finally arrives maybe then I'd support a hard border until then I'm a realist and see that the only thing a hard border would do is inflame tensions in an area of the world that until recently was a hotbed of terror.
So yes, I'm 'happy' for the soft border - knowing it will let in some criminals and that we can then use the laws of our country to persecute them criminals without the EU courts interfering.
And, let's not forget that the current system has even fewer checks against people coming into the country - this is still a step up over now
Simple really, anyone who crosses into the UK with the I mention to stay without first getting the approval of the UK government would need a massive bank account and be living on the street - as they wouldnt be able to get a job/claim benefits/rent or buy a house.
I'm not really sure you are thinking this through very well. In this circumstance you will get two groups of people in the country. You will get the richest who will move their money around as they see fit. Instead of renting they will live in 'hotels' on holiday permanently providing little contribution to society. The reality is that such people will have the legal team to get any status they want in the country and the Tories being the Tories will welcome them with open arms because they have money. The second group will be the poorest, the ones with nothing to lose. Where living in an abandoned warehouse or living on the street somewhere is preferable to their current status. You will therefore have an influx of people that will willingly chance living on the streets increasing an already large (and growing) homeless and begging problem on UK streets. If it got out of hand the government would have to do something. With any ID destroyed the UK would not be able to return them home (as they have no identifiable home). Such people would be at the mercy of criminal enterprises as they attempt to earn money simply to afford some basics like food, water etc or they themselves would resort to crime (may be to be deliberately arrested and then be given free food and accommodation).
The people that you will lose however are those that are in the middle ground. They won't come and bring skills and benefits to the UK society as they can't guarantee that their wife, husband, partner, children etc would be able to live here on any permanent basis. As such they just won't come. Those skills then benefit other countries that are much less xenophobic and with an aging population that isn't producing nearly enough children to maintain current levels of output will see the UK fade into mediocrity.
Also I think you are missing the point about why the EU is turning down the offer being provided by the UK. And that is simply it provides some benefits to some citizens of the EU and not others and they will never accept such a proposal as it is part of their constitution for all citizens to be treated equally.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Witzkatz wrote: Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?
This part of the problem with the Leave side of things. Everyone voted for different outcomes, there was never any documents telling people what leaving meant. So people picked different aspects as to what they wanted and voted with the intent this would happen. Hence you got disparate groups all voting for different priorities but without any common (useful) strategy. So I've come across business people that want less red tape, but want continued free movement and trade; those that want an ultra hard border etc etc. This is why there are disparate messages when you talk to different leavers - they all voted for slightly different reasons and ideologies! On the other hand Remainers are reasonably united in comparison simply because they all want the same thing!
Simple really, anyone who crosses into the UK with the I mention to stay without first getting the approval of the UK government would need a massive bank account and be living on the street - as they wouldnt be able to get a job/claim benefits/rent or buy a house.
I'm not really sure you are thinking this through very well. In this circumstance you will get two groups of people in the country. You will get the richest who will move their money around as they see fit. Instead of renting they will live in 'hotels' on holiday permanently providing little contribution to society. The reality is that such people will have the legal team to get any status they want in the country and the Tories being the Tories will welcome them with open arms because they have money. The second group will be the poorest, the ones with nothing to lose. Where living in an abandoned warehouse or living on the street somewhere is preferable to their current status. You will therefore have an influx of people that will willingly chance living on the streets increasing an already large (and growing) homeless and begging problem on UK streets. If it got out of hand the government would have to do something. With any ID destroyed the UK would not be able to return them home (as they have no identifiable home). Such people would be at the mercy of criminal enterprises as they attempt to earn money simply to afford some basics like food, water etc or they themselves would resort to crime (may be to be deliberately arrested and then be given free food and accommodation).
The people that you will lose however are those that are in the middle ground. They won't come and bring skills and benefits to the UK society as they can't guarantee that their wife, husband, partner, children etc would be able to live here on any permanent basis. As such they just won't come. Those skills then benefit other countries that are much less xenophobic and with an aging population that isn't producing nearly enough children to maintain current levels of output will see the UK fade into mediocrity.
Also I think you are missing the point about why the EU is turning down the offer being provided by the UK. And that is simply it provides some benefits to some citizens of the EU and not others and they will never accept such a proposal as it is part of their constitution for all citizens to be treated equally.
Let's deal with this is stages.
The rich - first of all how is this different to the current situation? So all we are really doing here is keeping the status quo - something remainers love.
As for them not contributing, they'll still be spending here in this country and not taking anything out, a net boost to the economy (and as remainers know it's all about the economy)
The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?
The middle - I assume we are not talking about any criminals here? We'll then, the middle can apply for the right to live in the UK if they wish to - we can then make a decision to see if they can support their family and if they can we'll give them the legal right to live and work in the UK, bringing their family with them.
As for the proposal, I've said many times that i know why the EU rejected it, I've even said that I understand that it would be against EU laws, so why not work with is to make it work? There is no law in the EU against giving rights to citizens that live in a certain area - so instead of 'an exception to Irish nationals' why not suggest 'an exception to anyone living within 30 miles of the border'?
Of cause we could always just implement a soft border on our end, we have the right to do so - then its the EU choice if it wants a hard border or not
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Discriminating based on geographical location instead of nationality is still discriminating.
Nostalgia also isn't the same as supporting the status quo.
To be fair, the discrimination against various EU members is the EUs problem. Not ours. Its not up to us to cater to the entire EU. Otherwise they should remove that clause about Spain getting the final say on a Gibraltar deal.
...and because it's the EU's problem, they're not accepting this specific proposal in the negotiations. That's their way of taking care of that problem and shouldn't really be surprising.
Witzkatz wrote: ...and because it's the EU's problem, they're not accepting this specific proposal in the negotiations. That's their way of taking care of that problem and shouldn't really be surprising.
So what is their solution other than a hard border?
If the UK did unilaterally decide to impose the soft border we have suggested (which we are well within our rights to do) what would you like the EU to do? Impose a hard border and risk seeing a return to the troubles of the past?
Howard A Treesong wrote: How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.
It'd work alright if conditions in both Ireland was similar. Plenty of people will be unhappy either way.
And this talk about what-if unilateral decisions and blame-shifting is exactly what I feared after Brexit. As one of the most influential members of the EU, many issues could've surely been solved as a group, as a team. Now that the UK has decided to leave, all the ugly haggling, influencing, blaming and deflecting will come out again. From both sides of course, because that's how international politics work until today.
And by the way I don't think the EU would directly want to unilaterally create a hard border. But before that, I think many Brexiteers and supporters will be unhappy with that soft border on their own.
The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?
You're talking about making it easier for them to get here. They can get a ticket on a ferry rather than having to climb on a truck or row across the chanel. You're only talking about preventing them working legally after they get here so are forcing them to work under the counter or engage in crime.
So if you do that you'll get a huge influx of illegals living I squats and picking pockets or doing what a lot of the legals are doing but for half the money. Just like Mexicans in the southern US.
Plus the Brexit campaign seemed to revolve around keeping illegals out so I cant see many people approving.
We could move our border checks to Eire entry, but we'd be able to do nothing about anyone who was legally allowed in Eire and the EU wouldn't be happy with us interfering in an internal eu border.
Witzkatz wrote: And this talk about what-if unilateral decisions and blame-shifting is exactly what I feared after Brexit. As one of the most influential members of the EU, many issues could've surely been solved as a group, as a team. Now that the UK has decided to leave, all the ugly haggling, influencing, blaming and deflecting will come out again. From both sides of course, because that's how international politics work until today.
And by the way I don't think the EU would directly want to unilaterally create a hard border. But before that, I think many Brexiteers and supporters will be unhappy with that soft border on their own.
Actually the blame is coming from the EU, with the 'negotiators ' trying to push all the effort on to us and not making any suggestions of their own, how many times on the last two pages have you see the words 'it's not the EU problem and the UK needs to sort it' I'm just showing that it's both sides issue and they need to work together.
The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?
You're talking about making it easier for them to get here. They can get a ticket on a ferry rather than having to climb on a truck or row across the chanel. You're only talking about preventing them working legally after they get here so are forcing them to work under the counter or engage in crime.
So if you do that you'll get a huge influx of illegals living I squats and picking pockets or doing what a lot of the legals are doing but for half the money. Just like Mexicans in the southern US.
Plus the Brexit campaign seemed to revolve around keeping illegals out so I cant see many people approving.
We could move our border checks to Eire entry, but we'd be able to do nothing about anyone who was legally allowed in Eire and the EU wouldn't be happy with us interfering in an internal eu border.
We are talking at EU migrants here, they have no need to jump on a ferry - they can just cross the border at will.
With regards to no EU migrants. As for crossing the ferry - how do you expect them to buy tickets? Or are they stowing away on board them too? What's the difference between stowing away aboard a ferry from NI or doing so from France?
And they already come and work under the counter, but outside the EU we can implant sterner laws around this for both the immigrant and the employer.
Again you make a broad sweep that brexit was around keeping illegals out, this wasn't the case at all - it was about restricting who can legally come here - a massive difference, but then that wouldn't fit your narrative around who leavers are would it. Indeed we already have the means to keep illegals out it's right there in the fact they are illegals. What brexit does is mean we can make it easier and not cost as much.
The rich - first of all how is this different to the current situation? So all we are really doing here is keeping the status quo - something remainers love.
As for them not contributing, they'll still be spending here in this country and not taking anything out, a net boost to the economy (and as remainers know it's all about the economy).
Because they can only come here to holiday. They can't work or contribute in any meaningful way from a work perspective without getting the appropriate Visa's (and hence this is not an open border). As noted however they will generally have the legal teams to get what they want.
The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?
This is where the massive difference is. As it stands if you have nothing to lose you can come to the country get a job, find somewhere to live and settle down whilst contributing to the economy. They have something to gain by doing this whether that is by picking fruit, cleaning, train to become an engineer etc. These people then become a net contributor to the UK society. They don't need to resort to crime, or live on the streets. In your scenario such people will not have these opportunities, they will be forced to live on the streets, not get a job and so on. This leads them to becoming a cost to society as the country then has to support the extra homelessness, if they resort to crime simply to get a bed then there is a cost there and so on. You can't 'deport' them because they have no ID to tell you where they originated from and you can't simply put them on a rubber dingy outside UK waters and say on you go. The US has a similar problem and every 20 years or so it effectively puts an amnesty out on those that have entered illegally because there is simply no other way to determine who they are and where they have come from. So hence there is a massive difference; currently you can raise the potential of those that arrive and contribute, in your scenario you limit them to being always being homeless, at risk of exploitation and forcing them to crime as their only option.
The middle - I assume we are not talking about any criminals here? We'll then, the middle can apply for the right to live in the UK if they wish to - we can then make a decision to see if they can support their family and if they can we'll give them the legal right to live and work in the UK, bringing their family with them.
I suppose it's telling that you think middle means criminals? So why would these people entertain such a backwards ideology? One person gets a job, well now can I support my partner, what happens if she isn't allowed to work? What about my children are they sent home when they get to 16? What happens if I am ill, do my family get sent home because I can't support them (thanks for the work but your ill now so "go away"). These are all questions people will ask themselves before they move. It all introduces uncertainty (and that's before they consider am I going to be subjected to racial abuse when I arrive). Now compare this to moving to Germany. No questions I can take my family, work where I want to in a job I enjoy with no restrictions. I can take my family and they can live, work and settle there. If I fall ill I'm not at risk at being thrown out of the country. That is a lot more surety and stability for the family which will favour that move over one to the UK.
As for the proposal, I've said many times that i know why the EU rejected it, I've even said that I understand that it would be against EU laws, so why not work with is to make it work? There is no law in the EU against giving rights to citizens that live in a certain area - so instead of 'an exception to Irish nationals' why not suggest 'an exception to anyone living within 30 miles of the border'?
I think your geography needs to be refined. Ireland is closer to 300 miles across not 30! And what do you mean by living in a certain area? Is that a minute, a day, a month, a year, 20 years? How would you determine this? There are no official guaranteed documents that prove as to which part of a country you are living in? Are you asking every person that might rent a house to someone to be given access to peoples personal details so they can check? What happens if someone fled a home because of violent abuse by a partner - you could be making public information available that tells that person where there friends/family etc may be? Or are you suggesting that the government should keep a database of such information on all citizens significantly compromising our rights to privacy?
Howard A Treesong wrote: How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.
It'd work alright if conditions in both Ireland was similar. Plenty of people will be unhappy either way.
As pointed out DUP are very against this option...How likely do you think the Tories will even consider it. And the reason DUP are opposed to it is because it will quickly shift opinion for NI to becoming part of Ireland as the people in NI would have the worst of both worlds; immigration checks both at the UK/NI border and the Ireland/EU border.
Of course there is the issue that the UK is then going down the line of the discriminating against it's own people simply where they live. Why shouldn't there also be checks on every County boundary as well?
Witzkatz wrote: Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?
I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?
Crime is rampant in the UK. I seem to be the only person on this thread who believes in empirical evidence.
I provided evidence from the local level of criminality blighting the nation, and people dismissed it as anecdotal.
I provided official government figures that showed a clear RISE in crime levels, and again, the naysayers dismissed it.
At all levels, the system is buckling and creaking under the strain:
1. Catching the criminals is a major problem for our over stretched police, so it's open season for criminal gangs.
2. Convicting them is a major problem, as our court system is falling apart at the seams.
3. Imprisoning them is a waste of time, as our prisons are more like holiday camps, with prisoners running the show, and prison guards leaving the profession by the bushel!
4. Releasing them is a problem, because they just re-offend, because we don't have the support system to turn them away from a life of crime when they're outside.
5. Researching them is a problem. University budgets are going down, so criminologists are struggling to gain insights into the criminal mind, thus restricting our ability to nip crime in the bud before it is committed.
At every level, we are under siege from top to bottom, but some people still want to bury their heads in the sand.
We are talking at EU migrants here, they have no need to jump on a ferry - they can just cross the border at will.
With regards to no EU migrants. As for crossing the ferry - how do you expect them to buy tickets? Or are they stowing away on board them too? What's the difference between stowing away aboard a ferry from NI or doing so from France?
And they already come and work under the counter, but outside the EU we can implant sterner laws around this for both the immigrant and the employer.
Again you make a broad sweep that brexit was around keeping illegals out, this wasn't the case at all - it was about restricting who can legally come here - a massive difference, but then that wouldn't fit your narrative around who leavers are would it. Indeed we already have the means to keep illegals out it's right there in the fact they are illegals. What brexit does is mean we can make it easier and not cost as much.
EU nationals can currently just hop on a direct ferry because of freedom of movement. If we're getting rid of that and they don't get a VISA they are just as illegal as anywhere else in the world but with the advantage of free movement into Ireland. From Eire they can then move freely unto NI and then into the UK. Why risk a channel crossing when you can safely go the long way?
The idea that these people have no money is ignorant too. Most of the African/Middle Eastern migrants paid a fortune to be smuggled in.
So again, we don't want foreigners in but we'll just leave the side door open? Mental.
Witzkatz wrote: Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?
I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?
Crime is rampant in the UK. I seem to be the only person on this thread who believes in empirical evidence.
I provided evidence from the local level of criminality blighting the nation, and people dismissed it as anecdotal.
I provided official government figures that showed a clear RISE in crime levels, and again, the naysayers dismissed it.
At all levels, the system is buckling and creaking under the strain:
1. Catching the criminals is a major problem for our over stretched police, so it's open season for criminal gangs.
2. Convicting them is a major problem, as our court system is falling apart at the seams.
3. Imprisoning them is a waste of time, as our prisons are more like holiday camps, with prisoners running the show, and prison guards leaving the profession by the bushel!
4. Releasing them is a problem, because they just re-offend, because we don't have the support system to turn them away from a life of crime when they're outside.
5. Researching them is a problem. University budgets are going down, so criminologists are struggling to gain insights into the criminal mind, thus restricting our ability to nip crime in the bud before it is committed.
At every level, we are under siege from top to bottom, but some people still want to bury their heads in the sand.
I just don't get it.
Indeed; Mays devastation of all of these budgets have completely destroyed morale capacity and ability to deal with these problems. What's Tory policy got to do with the EU?
Witzkatz wrote: Maybe we're talking past each other a bit. Your brother in arms DINLT was worried about crime being rampant in the UK just a few pages before, but you're *fine* with the possibility of desperate illegal foreigners in your land now because they couldn't *legally* stay?
I would be worried that they'd be inclined to live in the cracks of society and slums, making their lives with work under the counter as cheap labor at best, avoiding taxes, and shadier means of income at worst. That also seemed part of the reason for the cry for stricter immigration control in the campaigning before Brexit. But you're not worried about that at all and ate hopeful some soft electronic controls will take care of everything?
Crime is rampant in the UK. I seem to be the only person on this thread who believes in empirical evidence.
I provided evidence from the local level of criminality blighting the nation, and people dismissed it as anecdotal.
I provided official government figures that showed a clear RISE in crime levels, and again, the naysayers dismissed it.
At all levels, the system is buckling and creaking under the strain:
1. Catching the criminals is a major problem for our over stretched police, so it's open season for criminal gangs.
2. Convicting them is a major problem, as our court system is falling apart at the seams.
3. Imprisoning them is a waste of time, as our prisons are more like holiday camps, with prisoners running the show, and prison guards leaving the profession by the bushel!
4. Releasing them is a problem, because they just re-offend, because we don't have the support system to turn them away from a life of crime when they're outside.
5. Researching them is a problem. University budgets are going down, so criminologists are struggling to gain insights into the criminal mind, thus restricting our ability to nip crime in the bud before it is committed.
At every level, we are under siege from top to bottom, but some people still want to bury their heads in the sand.
I just don't get it.
You don't get it because you're misremembering what actually happened. No one shot down the official government figures. We shot down your newspaper examples because they were anecdotal. Further, considering your opposition to "eggheads" and that little deal with "exports never being stronger" it's frankly laughable that you're claiming to be interested in empirical evidence. You clearly aren't.
The combination of "more control over the immigration of people looking for honest work, paying taxes and contributing to society" and "let's have an uncontrolled border with the EU and no more direct input into their refugee / immigration situation anymore" is honestly baffling me a bit here.
Were so many Europeans stealing dem jerbs? Again, the British science and research sector was vastly against Brexit because they need the international exchange and cooperation (and EU research funDing programs), just as an example.
The rich - first of all how is this different to the current situation? So all we are really doing here is keeping the status quo - something remainers love.
As for them not contributing, they'll still be spending here in this country and not taking anything out, a net boost to the economy (and as remainers know it's all about the economy).
Because they can only come here to holiday. They can't work or contribute in any meaningful way from a work perspective without getting the appropriate Visa's (and hence this is not an open border). As noted however they will generally have the legal teams to get what they want.
The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?
This is where the massive difference is. As it stands if you have nothing to lose you can come to the country get a job, find somewhere to live and settle down whilst contributing to the economy. They have something to gain by doing this whether that is by picking fruit, cleaning, train to become an engineer etc. These people then become a net contributor to the UK society. They don't need to resort to crime, or live on the streets. In your scenario such people will not have these opportunities, they will be forced to live on the streets, not get a job and so on. This leads them to becoming a cost to society as the country then has to support the extra homelessness, if they resort to crime simply to get a bed then there is a cost there and so on. You can't 'deport' them because they have no ID to tell you where they originated from and you can't simply put them on a rubber dingy outside UK waters and say on you go. The US has a similar problem and every 20 years or so it effectively puts an amnesty out on those that have entered illegally because there is simply no other way to determine who they are and where they have come from. So hence there is a massive difference; currently you can raise the potential of those that arrive and contribute, in your scenario you limit them to being always being homeless, at risk of exploitation and forcing them to crime as their only option.
The middle - I assume we are not talking about any criminals here? We'll then, the middle can apply for the right to live in the UK if they wish to - we can then make a decision to see if they can support their family and if they can we'll give them the legal right to live and work in the UK, bringing their family with them.
I suppose it's telling that you think middle means criminals? So why would these people entertain such a backwards ideology? One person gets a job, well now can I support my partner, what happens if she isn't allowed to work? What about my children are they sent home when they get to 16? What happens if I am ill, do my family get sent home because I can't support them (thanks for the work but your ill now so "go away"). These are all questions people will ask themselves before they move. It all introduces uncertainty (and that's before they consider am I going to be subjected to racial abuse when I arrive). Now compare this to moving to Germany. No questions I can take my family, work where I want to in a job I enjoy with no restrictions. I can take my family and they can live, work and settle there. If I fall ill I'm not at risk at being thrown out of the country. That is a lot more surety and stability for the family which will favour that move over one to the UK.
As for the proposal, I've said many times that i know why the EU rejected it, I've even said that I understand that it would be against EU laws, so why not work with is to make it work? There is no law in the EU against giving rights to citizens that live in a certain area - so instead of 'an exception to Irish nationals' why not suggest 'an exception to anyone living within 30 miles of the border'?
I think your geography needs to be refined. Ireland is closer to 300 miles across not 30! And what do you mean by living in a certain area? Is that a minute, a day, a month, a year, 20 years? How would you determine this? There are no official guaranteed documents that prove as to which part of a country you are living in? Are you asking every person that might rent a house to someone to be given access to peoples personal details so they can check? What happens if someone fled a home because of violent abuse by a partner - you could be making public information available that tells that person where there friends/family etc may be? Or are you suggesting that the government should keep a database of such information on all citizens significantly compromising our rights to privacy?
Howard A Treesong wrote: How about free movement on the Irish border but passport checks on further movement into the UK mainland? No one commutes across the Irish Sea on a daily basis so the numbers have to be lower.
It'd work alright if conditions in both Ireland was similar. Plenty of people will be unhappy either way.
As pointed out DUP are very against this option...How likely do you think the Tories will even consider it. And the reason DUP are opposed to it is because it will quickly shift opinion for NI to becoming part of Ireland as the people in NI would have the worst of both worlds; immigration checks both at the UK/NI border and the Ireland/EU border.
Of course there is the issue that the UK is then going down the line of the discriminating against it's own people simply where they live. Why shouldn't there also be checks on every County boundary as well?
We'll skip the rich as your argument seems to be that though they make a net contribution to the EU without apply for citizenship they cannot work, as we both agree they would get this citizenship it's a pointless argument.
For the poor you seem to believe they will still come to the UK despite not being able to work here - why do you think they would do so when the EU is right next door where they can work and not need to live on the street
For the middle, I mentioned not criminal as I know how much remainers like to take what you say in one post and use it against you in entirely another -i wanted to distinguish that this comment was not in reply to my posts showing that cri.inals come to the UK now, and there is nothing g to show it will increase after brexit
As for your comments - they are all valid points and can be decided by the UK government in due course - I don't see what bearing it has on if the border is soft or hard?
I know that Ireland is bigger then 30 miles, stop trying to make me out as an idiot - I was proposing an alternative solution to 'Irish natiknalsnonly' based on what seems a reasonable distance a person would travel each day for work - of cause the exact distance covered would be open to negotiation (see there is that important word again)
Something just occurred to me. Shouldn't the U.K. be entitled to a share of the EU's assets, since we helped pay for them? All those buildings they operate out of, like the two parliment buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg (because one's just not good enough)? Shouldn't we be entitled to at least 1/28th of their value?
Witzkatz wrote: So if an eu citizen used his freedom of movement to rent a place 10 miles from the ni border in Ireland, he'd be allowed to work in Northern Ireland?
Any plan like that will have so many paragraphs and inclusions and exclusions that it'll make the EU bureaucracy look tame, I think.
Yes, if that is what it takes to avoid the troubles. A 30 mile zone isn't that many people, certainly less than the 60 million EU citizens currently with the right to move here - it's a compromise, which is what negotiations are supposed to be about. It's not a case of one side getting everything they want.
And with regards to how it works -simple, if you want to live in the 30 mile zone and work in the UK you would be required to submit proof that you live in the zone - this isn't the 41st millennium and the UK is not the Imperium, there is no need for a mass database of who lives where.
I recently applied for a local council grant, I was required as part of that to prove I lived in the area, if I couldn't prove it I couldn't apply, this would work the same.
Witzkatz wrote: If the EU would get a share of all the things funded and built in the UK in the same way, I guess?
That's a big rabbit hole to go down...
Well it does work both ways. If they want to gouge us we should gouge back. We all know the Brexit bill is mostly a mixture of spite and panic at the looming black hole in their finances. It's got no legal basis within the EU's own treaties. I'd say we pay our commitments up to 2020 like we agreed to and that's it.
While it still goes against the equality of citizens inside the EU, if it is really showing that this would be the only way to make that NI/I border work - I'm not completely opposed to it on principle alone. However, the actual details will be very very ugly to work out, something as simple as a fixed distance from the border will satisfy very few people, I think. These would be negotiations taking years and still leaving people behind I think.
What about someone whose house is on the 30 mile line? If they sleep in the front room they are ok, but not in the back? Or perhaps it was runs through their garden? Can they sleep in their shed to get a job? I'm being slightly flippant, but there are already these kind of arguments and issues with school places. With a boarder it would be just insane. But it is about the same level as the UK governments ideas, which is why the EU are not taking it seriously.
Future War Cultist wrote: Something just occurred to me. Shouldn't the U.K. be entitled to a share of the EU's assets, since we helped pay for them? All those buildings they operate out of, like the two parliment buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg (because one's just not good enough)? Shouldn't we be entitled to at least 1/28th of their value?
Steve steveson wrote: What about someone whose house is on the 30 mile line? If they sleep in the front room they are ok, but not in the back? Or perhaps it was runs through their garden? Can they sleep in their shed to get a job? I'm being slightly flippant, but there are already these kind of arguments and issues with school places. With a boarder it would be just insane. But it is about the same level as the UK governments ideas, which is why the EU are not taking it seriously.
What if you just extended it to the whole of Ireland in general, to get around that problem?
2. Cue all eu citizens wanting to work in the UK simply moving to Ireland, undermining the Brexit wish to better control legal immigration (which still makes me wonder why legal immigration is such a bad thing)
2. Cue all eu citizens wanting to work in the UK simply moving to Ireland, undermining the Brexit wish to better control legal immigration (which still makes me wonder why legal immigration is such a bad thing)
They could write it up so that they could work in Northern Ireland but not the rest of the uk. Like I said before, since Northern Ireland is the only part of the uk with a land boarder we should give it special consideration.
And you think that won't look like the mainland UK is leaving a perceived problem to be handled by Northern Ireland? How would you handle people working in NI but having occasional necessary business trips to mainland UK? Do they need to get permits and visas everytime or how would that be set up? For how long could they work on the mainland before needing to return to NI at least?
Just off the top of my hat, without people feeling ostracized there'll be a lot of issues with that proposal.
Witzkatz wrote: And you think that won't look like the mainland UK is leaving a perceived problem to be handled by Northern Ireland? How would you handle people working in NI but having occasional necessary business trips to mainland UK? Do they need to get permits and visas everytime or how would that be set up? For how long could they work on the mainland before needing to return to NI at least?
Just off the top of my hat, without people feeling ostracized there'll be a lot of issues with that proposal.
Steve steveson wrote: What about someone whose house is on the 30 mile line? If they sleep in the front room they are ok, but not in the back? Or perhaps it was runs through their garden? Can they sleep in their shed to get a job? I'm being slightly flippant, but there are already these kind of arguments and issues with school places. With a boarder it would be just insane. But it is about the same level as the UK governments ideas, which is why the EU are not taking it seriously.
If only there was some kind of negotiation process to sort out issues like this.
True, none of us are part of the negotiation committee. Nevertheless, we are discussing it, right? And I think it's worth pointing out whether an idea is easy to implement with the chance to satisfy most participants - and when an idea might be theoretically workable, but only with years of gruelling back and forth and a good chance that trouble still won't be avoided.
Witzkatz wrote: True, none of us are part of the negotiation committee. Nevertheless, we are discussing it, right? And I think it's worth pointing out whether an idea is easy to implement with the chance to satisfy most participants - and when an idea might be theoretically workable, but only with years of gruelling back and forth and a good chance that trouble still won't be avoided.
I never claimed it would 've been easy to implement, hell we are introducing a new border in an area of the world that has had a lot of tension as a result of a border - no solution is going to be easy, just that this is feasible and possible if both sides were prepared to work at it - it's a shame the EU was not and views it as the UK problem to solve.
Out of curiosity, because as a German I certainly didn't see everything done during the Brexit campaign - and this is not meant as a quip or snipe from the sidelines - did any faction, Leave or Remain, actually talk about Northern Ireland and Ireland during the campaign? Posters, slogans, talks? Did anybody make a topic out of this at all before the vote happened...?
Witzkatz wrote: Out of curiosity, because as a German I certainly didn't see everything done during the Brexit campaign - and this is not meant as a quip or snipe from the sidelines - did any faction, Leave or Remain, actually talk about Northern Ireland and Ireland during the campaign? Posters, slogans, talks? Did anybody make a topic out of this at all before the vote happened...?
There was much talk in NI itself (for obvious reasons)
It was touched upon in the televised shows. Project fear said a vote to leave was a vote back to a hard border and the bombings of the past, leave said that nobody wanted that and they would work very hard to prevent a hard border in NI (which they are no doing).
No solutions were offered - which remainers take as a sign that leavers had no plans, but given how much the EU seems to want to delay and not negotiate (maybe in the hopes that if we get no deal we'll stay I'm not sure) then anything that was put forward at the time would have been pointless as we need to agree anything with the EU first anyway.
Witzkatz wrote: Out of curiosity, because as a German I certainly didn't see everything done during the Brexit campaign - and this is not meant as a quip or snipe from the sidelines - did any faction, Leave or Remain, actually talk about Northern Ireland and Ireland during the campaign? Posters, slogans, talks? Did anybody make a topic out of this at all before the vote happened...?
There was much talk in NI itself (for obvious reasons)
It was touched upon in the televised shows. Project fear said a vote to leave was a vote back to a hard border and the bombings of the past, leave said that nobody wanted that and they would work very hard to prevent a hard border in NI (which they are no doing).
No solutions were offered - which remainers take as a sign that leavers had no plans, but given how much the EU seems to want to delay and not negotiate (maybe in the hopes that if we get no deal we'll stay I'm not sure) then anything that was put forward at the time would have been pointless as we need to agree anything with the EU first anyway.
This might be going back to the problem mentioned earlier - factions blaming each other - but honestly, if the Brexit campaign had a list of goals they wanted to achieve, positive changes that come out of Brexit for the United Kingdom, wouldn't you agree it would have ALSO been their job to simultaneously analyze possible negative changes and problems directly connected to their goals and at least propose possible solutions from the get go? Because this is not a 6th grade debate club but global politics, downsides and problems can't be just downplayed until the debate is won, they will come up sooner or later.
As an exaggerated metaphor, if someone proposed to heat up a cold mountain cabin by lighting a fire, but failed to address the issue of a missing chimney, doesn't it seem reasonable to find an issue for that before starting the fire? Rather then starting the fire, and then, now that it's everybody's problem with a cabin filling with toxic smoke, demand the other people in the cabin find solutions NOW?
And yet here we are and the government still have no plans. Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas.
What workable alternative is there to a hard boarder then if we were so wrong about it? Because all I am seeing is that leave didn't and still doesn't have realistic plans for most things other than continuing to blame the EU and anyone who disagrees.
Witzkatz wrote: True, none of us are part of the negotiation committee. Nevertheless, we are discussing it, right? And I think it's worth pointing out whether an idea is easy to implement with the chance to satisfy most participants - and when an idea might be theoretically workable, but only with years of gruelling back and forth and a good chance that trouble still won't be avoided.
I never claimed it would 've been easy to implement, hell we are introducing a new border in an area of the world that has had a lot of tension as a result of a border - no solution is going to be easy, just that this is feasible and possible if both sides were prepared to work at it - it's a shame the EU was not and views it as the UK problem to solve.
We're back at the creative and flexible motto I mentioned before.
The onus is on the UK to prove exactly what do they mean by frictionless and seamless. What good does it do to have a license plate-reading camera if you don't know who's in the car. Remember all the talk about refugees flooding the EU? Would you let them in the UK through an unchecked NI border?
And that's without touching the issue of goods. The UK proposal seems to hinge on everyone just playing nice. Because no one is going to abuse an unchecked border if there's money to be made right?
Steve steveson wrote: Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...Because all I am seeing is that leave didn't and still doesn't have realistic plans for most things other than continuing to blame the EU and anyone who disagrees
Well, when We developed the Hive Mind, We were more or less committed to only thinking about one thing at a time. Don't complain though, it's what makes comments like yours accurate instead of just grotesque generalisations.
Steve steveson wrote: And yet here we are and the government still have no plans. Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas.
What workable alternative is there to a hard boarder then if we were so wrong about it? Because all I am seeing is that leave didn't and still doesn't have realistic plans for most things other than continuing to blame the EU and anyone who disagrees.
Except we just spent two pages discussing a workable solution, if we can do it why can't the EU?
And again we can have all the plans in the world -indeed we have provided one, but we need EU input cause we can't make the choice for them
Witzkatz wrote: True, none of us are part of the negotiation committee. Nevertheless, we are discussing it, right? And I think it's worth pointing out whether an idea is easy to implement with the chance to satisfy most participants - and when an idea might be theoretically workable, but only with years of gruelling back and forth and a good chance that trouble still won't be avoided.
I never claimed it would 've been easy to implement, hell we are introducing a new border in an area of the world that has had a lot of tension as a result of a border - no solution is going to be easy, just that this is feasible and possible if both sides were prepared to work at it - it's a shame the EU was not and views it as the UK problem to solve.
We're back at the creative and flexible motto I mentioned before.
The onus is on the UK to prove exactly what do they mean by frictionless and seamless. What good does it do to have a license plate-reading camera if you don't know who's in the car. Remember all the talk about refugees flooding the EU? Would you let them in the UK through an unchecked NI border?
And that's without touching the issue of goods. The UK proposal seems to hinge on everyone just playing nice. Because no one is going to abuse an unchecked border if there's money to be made right?
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.
To be a bit flippant, "Why don't you give Northern Ireland to the EU, border problem solves, now the UK has NO land border anymore! What, you think the unionists would be unhappy? Well, that's a problem on YOUR side, right?" could, under some circumstances, also be called a "plan". Just because it's a plan doesn't mean it's a good plan, or even worth discussing on the big stage, necessarily.
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.
Uh, a bunch of changing fake number plates for the truck full of drugs/guns/trafficked Eastern European women? Don't tell me the system will be perfect and easily recognize a good attempt at a fake, cause it won't, not for long.
Witzkatz wrote: To be a bit flippant, "Why don't you give Northern Ireland to the EU, border problem solves, now the UK has NO land border anymore! What, you think the unionists would be unhappy? Well, that's a problem on YOUR side, right?" could, under some circumstances, also be called a "plan". Just because it's a plan doesn't mean it's a good plan, or even worth discussing on the big stage, necessarily.
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.
Uh, a bunch of changing fake number plates for the truck full of drugs/guns/trafficked Eastern European women? Don't tell me the system will be perfect and easily recognize a good attempt at a fake, cause it won't, not for long.
Because the people of NI don't want that. I know the idea of following the will of the people is an alien concept to the EU and remainers, but there you have it.
Yes you are right fake.numberplates can be used -these are of cause illegal - are you seriously saying the the EU/UK border needs to be the only border in the world where people don't break the law to.cross it? If that's the case what are we even bothering to discuss it for because there will always be someone willing to break the law to cross a border.
Because the people of NI don't want that. I know the idea of following the will of the people is an alien concept to the EU and remainers, but there you have it.
Like I said, it can't be really called a plan, can it? Because it's easily picked apart by basic arguments as yours. It was never meant to be more than a deliberately bad example, don't think I'd actually suggest such a plan! It was just meant to show that "We gave them a plan of ours, but they didn't want it, so now they have to come up with something better!" doesn't really work when the plans you hand in have too many holes to be properly considered.
If a few people in this forum can show glaring problems with a plan, I'm pretty sure both government officials in the UK and in the EU can find quite a few more. However, just one last thing about that open border thing - I'm still baffled that the whole "open backdoor" thing seems to bother you so little, Stranger83. Because I'm pretty sure there's more criminal organizations and smugglers in the EU wanting to make a profit out of a soft open land border with the UK than thugs in the UK wanting to exploit it from your side, if I'm being honest. And I thought Leave wanted to curb this as a part of their campaign rhetoric, too.
Because the people of NI don't want that. I know the idea of following the will of the people is an alien concept to the EU and remainers, but there you have it.
Like I said, it can't be really called a plan, can it? Because it's easily picked apart by basic arguments as yours. It was never meant to be more than a deliberately bad example, don't think I'd actually suggest such a plan! It was just meant to show that "We gave them a plan of ours, but they didn't want it, so now they have to come up with something better!" doesn't really work when the plans you hand in have too many holes to be properly considered.
If a few people in this forum can show glaring problems with a plan, I'm pretty sure both government officials in the UK and in the EU can find quite a few more. However, just one last thing about that open border thing - I'm still baffled that the whole "open backdoor" thing seems to bother you so little, Stranger83. Because I'm pretty sure there's more criminal organizations and smugglers in the EU wanting to make a profit out of a soft open land border with the UK than thugs in the UK wanting to exploit it from your side, if I'm being honest. And I thought Leave wanted to curb this as a part of their campaign rhetoric, too.
We have a soft open border now, and we are the ones wanting to keep free trade the same as now, so honestly if smugglers want to break EU law.and avoid tariffs that would not bother me at all. What I find odd is that I'm having to convince remainers of the benefit of keeping the border open.
And ok, I accept that you were trying to come up with a bad example, but if we have a problem that effects both of us don't you think we should both be working on a solution? The EU seems to currently be doing nothing other than waiting for our ideas.
Brexit never once has said they want to restrict trade, not sure where you are getting that from, We want to stop people wondering in and having the right to live/work and claim benefits, all of which we can do without a hard border.
Anyway, sadly this is the end of the time I have to discuss this - I'll leave you all to go back to your soapboxes that all brexiteers are bad, with no plans and nothing but the EU will ever work for anyone.
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
Hold on, apply for what? So let's say I rent a car in Dublin and drive to Belfast.
If the car is registered for border crossings you have a problem. If the car isn't registered you have an entirely different sort. Then again, what happens if I just walk or cycle through the border? Can the magic eye border scan the passport on my pocket? What if I don't carry any ID? AFAIK the UK doesn't have any ID laws so I wouldn't be forced to identify myself.
So you mean the system would only be geared to catch people who regularly cross for work? Because a terrorist or illegal job seeker would only have to cross once.
Witzkatz wrote: To be a bit flippant, "Why don't you give Northern Ireland to the EU, border problem solves, now the UK has NO land border anymore! What, you think the unionists would be unhappy? Well, that's a problem on YOUR side, right?" could, under some circumstances, also be called a "plan". Just because it's a plan doesn't mean it's a good plan, or even worth discussing on the big stage, necessarily.
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.
Uh, a bunch of changing fake number plates for the truck full of drugs/guns/trafficked Eastern European women? Don't tell me the system will be perfect and easily recognize a good attempt at a fake, cause it won't, not for long.
Because the people of NI don't want that. I know the idea of following the will of the people is an alien concept to the EU and remainers, but there you have it.
They also didn't want to leave the EU in the first place. Rah rah Wrexit rah rah.
At first I also didn't want to participate in this thread very much, to be honest - it seems a bit as if we're not making progress one way or the other.
@Stranger83, of course I see the benefit of an open border and free trade. I see even more benefits of just staying in the Union and not having to go through all this hassle, though. And I'm still a bit flabbergasted that your primary point of contention with the EU seems to be legal immigrants wanting to work in the UK - because, if the biggest problem is that some of them claim benefits inside the UK, holy crap, that's something that should either be solved on a UK law level or in conjunction with the EU! This one item wouldn't be worth creating a fissure of this size in Europe's political structure, in my opinion.
From my admittedly subjective point of view, it seems that during the Brexit campaigning much of it was more based on the worry of illegal immigrants - not legal - coming into the UK, and anger at the fact that Germany and other EU countries allowed so many unchecked refugees inside EU borders. I can at least understand the sentiment behind that, but less about *legal* immigrants.
And with that, I'll excuse myself from the thread for now. Stranger83, we have different viewpoints and opinions, but I enjoyed our discussion and the fact that it stayed polite!
Steve steveson wrote: Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...Because all I am seeing is that leave didn't and still doesn't have realistic plans for most things other than continuing to blame the EU and anyone who disagrees
Well, when We developed the Hive Mind, We were more or less committed to only thinking about one thing at a time. Don't complain though, it's what makes comments like yours accurate instead of just grotesque generalisations.
To be fair, Steve has a point. There doesn't appear to be any game plan or coherent strategy here on the part of "leave" aside from just "we don't want to be roomies with the EU anymore". It's hard to negotiate when one side doesn't know what it wants or how it wants it, and it's unfair to blame the EU when negotiations go poorly in such a case.
That's really something that should have been settled before the referrendum so people had an actual idea of what they were voting for, and certainly before any negotiations began.
Steve steveson wrote: Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...
To be fair, Steve has a point.
Oh, totally. Hardly a fifteen minute period can go by before I jerk and the screams of 'NASTY EU' are dragged from my lips as the Brexit Overmind stimulates the appropriate part of my nervous system. Here's an actual recording of another Brexiter I made when someone asked him for a workable idea.
Except we just spent two pages discussing a workable solution, if we can do it why can't the EU?
We've spent thelast 2 pages pointing out how your idea doesn't work and that it's an impossible problem to solve whilst everyone is happy.
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.
There are so many holes in this I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone register to cross? How do you account for taxis, busses, rental cars? What's to stop people crossing in stolen cats? Or someone hiring a minivan, driving to Eire and coming home with 6 illegals?
It'd sort of work if there was either a high percentage of random stops or some sort of occupancy monitoring and passenger registration but you're essentially at a hard border again.
Honestly the only 3 options are:
1. Just keep free movement and leave it open.
2. Unify Eire/NI and put a hard border at the UK border.
3. Unify UK/NI and put a hard border at the Eure/NI border.
2 or 3 brings the paramilitaries back to life so you'd need a huge police & army presence for maybe another generation.
Steve steveson wrote: Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...
To be fair, Steve has a point.
Oh, totally. Hardly a fifteen minute period can go by before I jerk and the screams of 'NASTY EU' are dragged from my lips as the Brexit Overmind stimulates the appropriate part of my nervous system. Here's an actual recording of another Brexiter I made when someone asked him for a workable idea.
I noticed you cut out the rest of my comment there...
Steve was a bit hyperbolic about it, however, the fundamental problem remains, like it or not, the UK is the one that initiated the action in question here, and at the same time the UK is the one that doesn't know what it wants or how it wants it. I don't think that's an unfair statement by any means. The blame that gets put on the EU by some for negotiations going poorly as a result is, well, misplaced when such is the case.
That's not the say that the EU can and will probably do some dumb stuff, but when one side unilaterally jumps off a cliff but has no game plan or a clear vision of what they actually want, how they want it, or why they want it, it's going to complicate negotiations...and it's not the other side's fault.
I noticed you cut out the rest of my comment there...
Steve was a bit hyperbolic about it...
A bit? If I began a statement about certain political factions in Brussels with something like 'Everyone in Europe hates democracy and wails about the fact we had a referendum whenever asked for workable ideas', I'd be about as accurate. Sure, there might be a grain of truth in the rest of the comment somewhere if you squint hard enough, but when you begin what you're saying with something that generalised and facetious, you don't really deserve to be taken seriously.
Accordingly, I'm not really going to be drawn into a discussion on that basis.
Except we just spent two pages discussing a workable solution, if we can do it why can't the EU?
We've spent thelast 2 pages pointing out how your idea doesn't work and that it's an impossible problem to solve whilst everyone is happy.
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.
There are so many holes in this I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone register to cross? How do you account for taxis, busses, rental cars? What's to stop people crossing in stolen cats? Or someone hiring a minivan, driving to Eire and coming home with 6 illegals?
It'd sort of work if there was either a high percentage of random stops or some sort of occupancy monitoring and passenger registration but you're essentially at a hard border again.
Honestly the only 3 options are:
1. Just keep free movement and leave it open.
2. Unify Eire/NI and put a hard border at the UK border.
3. Unify UK/NI and put a hard border at the Eure/NI border.
2 or 3 brings the paramilitaries back to life so you'd need a huge police & army presence for maybe another generation.
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, kudos for at least trying to figure out a solution to this. Maybe there is some workable approach, possibly using Israeli style monitoring /intelligence rather than an actual border. Maybe it'll be sufficient to leave the border open and boost the police and immigration services to deal with criminals and illegals however they get in.
Except we just spent two pages discussing a workable solution, if we can do it why can't the EU?
We've spent thelast 2 pages pointing out how your idea doesn't work and that it's an impossible problem to solve whilst everyone is happy.
Numberplate recognition would give you a record of the cars that regularly cross the border, this could then be cross referenced against those who have applied to have this right and if a car is regularly making the crossing but isn't registered you can send a call out to the police to stop and search it.
But of cause you know this, your just trying to make a point even though your argument doesn't hold up very well.
There are so many holes in this I'm not sure where to start. Can anyone register to cross?
How do you account for taxis, busses, rental cars? What's to stop people crossing in stolen cats? Or someone hiring a minivan, driving to Eire and coming home with 6 illegals?
It'd sort of work if there was either a high percentage of random stops or some sort of occupancy monitoring and passenger registration but you're essentially at a hard border again.
Honestly the only 3 options are:
1. Just keep free movement and leave it open.
2. Unify Eire/NI and put a hard border at the UK border.
3. Unify UK/NI and put a hard border at the Eure/NI border.
2 or 3 brings the paramilitaries back to life so you'd need a huge police & army presence for maybe another generation.
Maybe I'm being a bit harsh here, kudos for at least trying to figure out a solution to this. Maybe there is some workable approach, possibly using Israeli style monitoring /intelligence rather than an actual border. Maybe it'll be sufficient to leave the border open and boost the police and immigration services to deal with criminals and illegals however they get in.
I assume you finally read the last comments of the last two pages rather than just assuming I was saying what you wanted me to say, well done.
Yes, this is exactly what I've been saying for 2 pages - you don't need a hard border if you want to keep the free movement of goods (which we do - it's the EU who want to introduce barriers) and you have effective controls on who can live and work in the country then a hard border simply isn't needed.
Anyway, in answer to your questions (most of which have already been answered but I'll cover it again anyway)
Can anyone register to cross? - no only those who wish to work in NI and live in the exclusion zone. This doesn't mean that nobody else is allowed to cross, but if you do so on a regular basis you can expect to have regular checks on you because we suspect you are working in NI illegally
How do you account for taxis, busses, rental cars?
Taxis can register on the system (as they'll be working in NI) busses are run by the council so will already be cleared, rental cars can also be registered if they are in the exclusion zone - simple.
Now, how do you stop people using these as a way to get to work? We'll - first of all I'm going to ignore rental cars because the cost to rent a car is likely to be far higher than a wage and simply wouldn't be worth the effort to try break the law and illegally work in NI.
On taxis and busses you obviously cannot track everyone. This is where greater checks on employment and bigger fines (maybe even a prison sentence to employers who hire illegal employees) comes into play. If I ran a business I wouldn't risk a massive fine or a prison sentence just to hire someone illegally - maybe some would but again I'm going to point out that if we are looking for a system that is 100% crime proof then we might as well pack the negotiations in now.
What's to stop people crossing in stolen cats? - absolutely nothing, but as I've said multiple times, please name one border in the world that is 100% secure. If we were to say that the current border is 5% secure (as it's fully open with very little rules on who isn't allowed in) and our new automated soft border is 25% secure it's still better. Hell, when we had armed soldiers manning the border people still found a way to smuggle in, if we say any deal that isn't 100% secure must be rejected then we need to cancel the whole thing because that's impossible.
Would I like a stronger border, yes I Would, but this is an acceptable compromise and that is what a negotiation is supposed to be.
Or someone hiring a minivan, driving to Eire and coming home with 6 illegals? - nothing, but what's to stop people doing that now? What we do is make it much harder for people to find a job or a house if they do so, removing the pull factors to want to move.
I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.
I wonder if we're talking at cross purposes; I'm talking about illegals using the completely open Irish border to travel 1 way into the UK.
These people won't be crossing the border regularly. These people are presumably a bit deal for brexiteers.
How do we stop them without impacting people who currently have a right to cross the border(s) without wing harassed?
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are also 200 roads in the Irish border; so who's going to be paying for all of this new infrastructure? At minimum you're talking about 400 ANPR cameras with network connections, and a few back end severs. Probably constant maintenance too (especially if the locals keep cutting them down).
I wouldn't be surprised if had well over £1m/year to run.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We're also not talking about going from 5 to 25% security, we're going from not-an-issue to maybe 1 or 2% secure; primary school kids will be able to defeat this system.
Herzlos wrote: I wonder if we're talking at cross purposes; I'm talking about illegals using the completely open Irish border to travel 1 way into the UK.
These people won't be crossing the border regularly. These people are presumably a bit deal for brexiteers.
How do we stop them without impacting people who currently have a right to cross the border(s) without wing harassed?
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are also 200 roads in the Irish border; so who's going to be paying for all of this new infrastructure? At minimum you're talking about 400 ANPR cameras with network connections, and a few back end severs. Probably constant maintenance too (especially if the locals keep cutting them down).
I wouldn't be surprised if had well over £1m/year to run.
Automatically Appended Next Post: We're also not talking about going from 5 to 25% security, we're going from not-an-issue to maybe 1 or 2% secure; primary school kids will be able to defeat this system.
A million a year? A small fraction of our EU annual bill so we could take it out of that, but in reality the first few years would probably be paid for in fines. We could also potentially charge a fee for those who what to apply for regular travel - seriously, finding £1m out of the UK budget is a tiny cost.
This system does nothing to stop illegals who are currently illegal from being able to cross, that's not the point of it, it is to clarify who is/isnt allowed to legally cross any more - so yes we are at cross purposes.
You say that a primary school child can beat the border - the open border Yes, but show me a primary school child who knows how to forge a National Insurance number and get it onto the government's database, or forge documents to prove they live in the exception zone.
As I've said multiple times, the object isn't to stop people crossing the border, it's to stop people from having the right to live and work in the UK without applying and being granted permission first - which is what this system does. (If you read the UK government's proposal this is stated loud and clear) people could break the law and get around it - but then again the same could be said about anything.
Honestly your insistence that we need to stop people from crossing the border shows more about your lack of understanding of what people didn't like about so called 'free movement' (actually free citizenship) than anything else.
I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.
You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).
To me, this article hits the nail on the head. This isn't about Leavers vs Remainers anymore, it's about fantasists vs realists.
[Theresa May] made the horrendous mistake of endorsing every false promise the Leave campaign made when she took power. She might have said she would respect the referendum result but had to warn the public that leaving the EU would be hard and that there would have to be compromises if Britain was to avoid needless suffering. Instead, she made the propaganda of Farage, Johnson and Gove her own. Our hapless diplomats were instructed to work on the assumption that there would be little cost in leaving the EU – no restrictions on access to the single market or customs checks at the border – because it was in the EU’s interests to let us have our cake and eat it.
The conversation of the last few pages is an example of this very problem.
£1million increase in budget to cover border controls for 300 miles in one of the most volatile places in the UK? Pure, naive, unrealistic fantasy.
I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.
You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).
No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .
100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.
Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.
To me, this article hits the nail on the head. This isn't about Leavers vs Remainers anymore, it's about fantasists vs realists.
[Theresa May] made the horrendous mistake of endorsing every false promise the Leave campaign made when she took power. She might have said she would respect the referendum result but had to warn the public that leaving the EU would be hard and that there would have to be compromises if Britain was to avoid needless suffering. Instead, she made the propaganda of Farage, Johnson and Gove her own. Our hapless diplomats were instructed to work on the assumption that there would be little cost in leaving the EU – no restrictions on access to the single market or customs checks at the border – because it was in the EU’s interests to let us have our cake and eat it.
The conversation of the last few pages is an example of this very problem.
£1million increase in budget to cover border controls for 300 miles in one of the most volatile places in the UK? Pure, naive, unrealistic fantasy.
Have you even read the last couple of pages or the government paper on the border? We don't want border controls - that's the whole point. I know it goes against your "all brexiteers are racisist" mindset but there it is.
But then when has a remainer ever let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their argument.
I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.
You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).
No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .
100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.
Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.
So, we have this system in place to cover it already because we're in the EU. Even EU nationals must have a NI number to work legally already. However, NI numbers are not going to solve, or even address the issues of migration and employment. As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, people will still come here and work, but now it will be illegal, we will get no tax, and less benefit, and it's likely that overall crime will increase as a result.
To me, this article hits the nail on the head. This isn't about Leavers vs Remainers anymore, it's about fantasists vs realists.
[Theresa May] made the horrendous mistake of endorsing every false promise the Leave campaign made when she took power. She might have said she would respect the referendum result but had to warn the public that leaving the EU would be hard and that there would have to be compromises if Britain was to avoid needless suffering. Instead, she made the propaganda of Farage, Johnson and Gove her own. Our hapless diplomats were instructed to work on the assumption that there would be little cost in leaving the EU – no restrictions on access to the single market or customs checks at the border – because it was in the EU’s interests to let us have our cake and eat it.
The conversation of the last few pages is an example of this very problem.
£1million increase in budget to cover border controls for 300 miles in one of the most volatile places in the UK? Pure, naive, unrealistic fantasy.
Have you even read the last couple of pages or the government paper on the border? We don't want border controls - that's the whole point. I know it goes against your "all brexiteers are racisist" mindset but there it is.
But then when has a remainer ever let a little thing like the facts get in the way of their argument.
Because, whether you like it or not, it's an almost certainty that there are going to be increased border controls in Northern Ireland. That is the bit about fantasists and realists I was trying to point out. Your proposals, ideas and arguments are all pure fantasy, and rooted in this idea that we can make this work really easily if only we could all just get along.
That is fantasy.
Your comment about Remainers and facts also made me chuckle.
But its nice to see the leave side reduced to weak "hivemind/gollum" memes and insults as their arguments, and reality are stripped away.
I find it interesting that the UK government and leavers have stopped talking about access to the free market, which all along they said was 100% possible and easy, where the EU said that it was linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms.
This might be going back to the problem mentioned earlier - factions blaming each other - but honestly, if the Brexit campaign had a list of goals they wanted to achieve, positive changes that come out of Brexit for the United Kingdom, wouldn't you agree it would have ALSO been their job to simultaneously analyze possible negative changes and problems directly connected to their goals and at least propose possible solutions from the get go? Because this is not a 6th grade debate club but global politics, downsides and problems can't be just downplayed until the debate is won, they will come up sooner or later.
The problem is that the Brexit campaign had no goals. It arose because of internal politics fight between the Tories most of which were (and still are secretly) pro-EU and a third which would are completely anti-EU. The PM at the time (David Cameron) thought he could end the argument in his own party for good by calling a referendum which he expected to win but in the end narrowly lost.
There was no plan in the Brexit camp however. They spent the campaign promoting a blinkered here are all the bad bits with no solutions as to how leaving would solve any of it. So we end up with pointless soundbites targeting different sections of the populace to try and persuade enough people to vote against remaining. Hence some people voted on immigration, some voted because they were just bigots and racists and didn't like anyone foreign in the UK, some voted because they though the EU generated too much red tape, some voted because we should make our own rules and so on. There was no overall plan. This came to a head on the day after the election when those on the Leave side came out and said "we've done out part, there's no plan, we expected those on the Remain side to know that" and comments that the things said by the Brexit campaign were "possible promises". Basically the Leave campaign said what they did to get a enough people to vote their way without considering any of the consequences of how it would all be implemented (leaving us in the mess we are now). The disappointing thing is that the Remain camp was so poor that they never even thought of asking what the Leaves implementation plan was (and I think that if this had been highlighted it would have persuaded enough people not to vote for Leave). Instead the remain camp tried to play the 'fear' game as well by telling everyone leaving would start WWIII in Europe and so on. There was no rational debate during the Brexit referendum campaign...
So now we have a lot of disparate groups in the Leave side that want different things:-
Some want a hard border and minimal immigration and to hell with the trade
Some want freedom of movement and trade but less red tape
etc etc
The only camp that still is united is the Remain camp because they know exactly what they want. So it's not a particular surprise that the UK negotiations are in a mess. The Tories are trying to keep on side with a lot of these disparate groups and hence there are a lot of loose open statements to try and appease everyone. They know that if for example the anti-immigration brigade element aren't happy they will move back to UKIP which would had Labour the next election.
Steve steveson wrote: I find it interesting that the UK government and leavers have stopped talking about access to the free market, which all along they said was 100% possible and easy, where the EU said that it was linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms.
Well, we'll always have access to the single market. It's just a case of either paying direct contributions to it or paying tariffs for it. Some Remainers were giving the impression that the EU would literally stop trading with the UK after the fact.
I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.
You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).
No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .
100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.
Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.
So, we have this system in place to cover it already because we're in the EU. Even EU nationals must have a NI number to work legally already. However, NI numbers are not going to solve, or even address the issues of migration and employment. As has been pointed out to you, ad nauseum, people will still come here and work, but now it will be illegal, we will get no tax, and less benefit, and it's likely that overall crime will increase as a result.
It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.
I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.
Stranger83 wrote: [
The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?
I think you massively overestimate the cost to the "benefits system" from the few EU citizens that use it. It's a massively over exaggerated problem. Go and look at the actual figures. People come the UK because it has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries. We also had a decent exchange rate (a lot worse now) that meant that relative to their home country even doing basic jobs such as cleaning etc they were getting much more than they would earn elsewhere. These pulls will remain to an extent for the poorest. The only difference is that once they arrive they will destroy all documents associated with who they are. Then they live on the streets or find people that are likely to turn a blind eye to having no NI number. My concern would be that illegal recruitment business fronts would spring up leaving such people vulnerable to exploitation and criminal groups. As noted before our police are already over stretched so as long as they keep under the radar then they are likely to be missed and grow.
Of cause we could always just implement a soft border on our end, we have the right to do so - then its the EU choice if it wants a hard border or not
The EU would prefer no border and freedom of movement and trade as that is what we already have. The EU could decide to implement the same, as you could comfortably say they probably don't mind UK citizens coming to work in the EU. Then that just passes all border controls on to the UK government (which is the one paranoid about immigration figures).
Stranger83 wrote: [
The poor - Again, if you could enlighten me how this is different to what we currently have I'd appreciate it.
Indeed the only difference I can see here is that you remove the 'pull' of what is perceived to be a generous benefits system (it's actually the case that other EU countries are more generous, but ask most immigrants and they will say the UK is best) so if anything you'll reduce the number of homeless on the streets because what have they got to come to the UK for?
I think you massively overestimate the cost to the "benefits system" from the few EU citizens that use it. It's a massively over exaggerated problem. Go and look at the actual figures. People come the UK because it has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries. We also had a decent exchange rate (a lot worse now) that meant that relative to their home country even doing basic jobs such as cleaning etc they were getting much more than they would earn elsewhere. These pulls will remain to an extent for the poorest. The only difference is that once they arrive they will destroy all documents associated with who they are. Then they live on the streets or find people that are likely to turn a blind eye to having no NI number. My concern would be that illegal recruitment business fronts would spring up leaving such people vulnerable to exploitation and criminal groups. As noted before our police are already over stretched so as long as they keep under the radar then they are likely to be missed and grow.
Of cause we could always just implement a soft border on our end, we have the right to do so - then its the EU choice if it wants a hard border or not
The EU would prefer no border and freedom of movement and trade as that is what we already have. The EU could decide to implement the same, as you could comfortably say they probably don't mind UK citizens coming to work in the EU. Then that just passes all border controls on to the UK government (which is the one paranoid about immigration figures).
Considering ive never put a cost on it I find it hard for you to think I've overestimated it.
I disagree with the idea that people who haven't paid into the system are allowed to take out of it, weather they take out 1p or £1bn is irrelevant.
It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.
I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.
You are just trying to twist the conversation now. If someone said "all citizens of the EU are criminals" then that is bigotry (not really racism, but more from interpretation). To discuss the consequences if you implement a system that encourages exploitation of the poorest regardless of where they are coming from is not bigotry or racism. There actions are only 'illegal' because of the some rather arbitrary rules about whether you were born on this or that rock that are being suggested.. That it is highlighting that rules proposed discriminate against people and are likely to hit the poorest the worst as they are both desperate enough to try and get out of that cycle. To have concerns that this will then place much greater pressures on the UK system as a whole as they will no longer contribute tot he system and potentially need more support. What we should be asking you is why you are so keen to have a system that discriminates as to whether someone can work/live/rent simply on what rock they were born on?
It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.
I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.
You are just trying to twist the conversation now. If someone said "all citizens of the EU are criminals" then that is bigotry (not really racism, but more from interpretation). To discuss the consequences if you implement a system that encourages exploitation of the poorest regardless of where they are coming from is not bigotry or racism. There actions are only 'illegal' because of the some rather arbitrary rules about whether you were born on this or that rock that are being suggested.. That it is highlighting that rules proposed discriminate against people and are likely to hit the poorest the worst as they are both desperate enough to try and get out of that cycle. To have concerns that this will then place much greater pressures on the UK system as a whole as they will no longer contribute tot he system and potentially need more support. What we should be asking you is why you are so keen to have a system that discriminates as to whether someone can work/live/rent simply on what rock they were born on?
I'm not twisting the conversation at all - I'm pointing out that in my opinion the vast majority of people try to live within the rule of law - r-squared seems to think that this isn't the case and that if people don't like the law they will just outright ignore it, I massively disagree with this assertion. Particularly when the EU still exists and they would be free to go legally work in France or Germany if they so choose.
Whirlwind wrote: People come the UK because it has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries. We also had a decent exchange rate (a lot worse now) that meant that relative to their home country even doing basic jobs such as cleaning etc they were getting much more than they would earn elsewhere. These pulls will remain to an extent for the poorest. The only difference is that once they arrive they will destroy all documents associated with who they are. Then they live on the streets or find people that are likely to turn a blind eye to having no NI number. My concern would be that illegal recruitment business fronts would spring up leaving such people vulnerable to exploitation and criminal groups. As noted before our police are already over stretched so as long as they keep under the radar then they are likely to be missed and grow.
But you've said before that "Wrexit" is going to destroy our economy and the EU is going to go to strength after strength after we're gone. If that's true, why would the immigrants still come here then? Which is it? Are we going to sink and they'll go elsewhere or our we going to do well enough to attract illegal workers?
Oh, and the "UK...has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries"? Why might that be? Maybe because we aren't in the Eurozone? And here I was getting a lot of gak in this thread for not wanting to be a part of that and wanting our own currency.
Considering ive never put a cost on it I find it hard for you to think I've overestimated it.
I disagree with the idea that people who haven't paid into the system are allowed to take out of it, weather they take out 1p or £1bn is irrelevant.
Although I dislike quoting the Fail Online, as they tend to exaggerate things I'll use this as it would the highest they could possibly calculate, this is their quoted cost:-
So that's £0.9billion per annum. Our total expenses are about £800 billion pa. That's 0.1% of our expenses. It is a negligible amount overall. It is easily within the fluctuations the country will see year on year just from economic variations. To put it into context the reduction in the value in the £ has increased our interest payments by about £16bn a year.
The point of having a social system is that society supports those to help them improve and get out of being at the bottom. That benefits society overall as they then contribute to society. If you stop all payments to anyone then that leads to poverty of the poorest and overall costs society more to manage the implications.
On your thinking, babies should not be allowed to be born in hospitals
Children shouldn't be allowed to go to schools or be treated if they have cancer
People with degenerative defects should be thrown onto the streets
there should be no money spent on wildlife preservation
and so on as none of these examples will have put any money into the system.
Considering ive never put a cost on it I find it hard for you to think I've overestimated it.
I disagree with the idea that people who haven't paid into the system are allowed to take out of it, weather they take out 1p or £1bn is irrelevant.
Although I dislike quoting the Fail Online, as they tend to exaggerate things I'll use this as it would the highest they could possibly calculate, this is their quoted cost:-
So that's £0.9billion per annum. Our total expenses are about £800 billion pa. That's 0.1% of our expenses. It is a negligible amount overall. It is easily within the fluctuations the country will see year on year just from economic variations. To put it into context the reduction in the value in the £ has increased our interest payments by about £16bn a year.
The point of having a social system is that society supports those to help them improve and get out of being at the bottom. That benefits society overall as they then contribute to society. If you stop all payments to anyone then that leads to poverty of the poorest and overall costs society more to manage the implications.
On your thinking, babies should not be allowed to be born in hospitals
Children shouldn't be allowed to go to schools or be treated if they have cancer
People with degenerative defects should be thrown onto the streets
there should be no money spent on wildlife preservation
and so on as none of these examples will have put any money into the system.
£0.9bn, I'll accept that number. So we could easily pay for the cost of the technology on the border and hire a whole more police to uphold the new laws for the cost of what we save on the benefits, that seems ok to me.
As for people who are born here claiming without paying I to the system, it is true that the theory is their parents paid in, however personally I'd also like to stop these people claiming benefits too -sadly we haven't been given a referendum on that so there isn't much I can do about it at the moment. Your claims about children not getting hospital care will be treat with the contempt it deserves - and to think you tried to accuse me of twisting the conversation.
But you've said before that "Wrexit" is going to destroy our economy and the EU is going to go to strength after strength after we're gone. If that's true, why would the immigrants still come here then? Which is it? Are we going to sink and they'll go elsewhere or our we going to do well enough to attract illegal workers?
Oh, and the "UK...has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries"? Why might that be? Maybe because we aren't in the Eurozone? And here I was getting a lot of gak in this thread for not wanting to be a part of that and wanting our own currency.
I never said that Wrexit would destroy the economy. I've always been quite clear on this. I think it will drive the UK to being a mediocre country with little overall impact on the world. It may still grow but will be less than the EU, US, China, India etc. We'll gently slide backwards compared to these economys. Investment for high tech industries will slowly move to other countries as we struggle to provide high quality education and those that are will look elsewhere to find such jobs. If this does come to pass then there may be more demand as we move to a more low tech economy. The early impacts are likely to be more of high impact employees and businesses working (such as scientists) as the EU provides a lot of money into these areas and the UK has dried up its funding as the EU's funding took over. Long term it may indeed eventually result in a reduction in low earner migration as the UK becomes seen as a less well off place to be, however that message is not likely to happen overnight. The decline will happen over the next 20-50 years; what we are talking about here are the impacts/changes from the Wrexit negotiations now.
£0.9bn, I'll accept that number. So we could easily pay for the cost of the technology on the border and hire a whole more police to uphold the new laws for the cost of what we save on the benefits, that seems ok to me.
As for people who are born here claiming without paying I to the system, it is true that the theory is their parents paid in, however personally I'd also like to stop these people claiming benefits too -sadly we haven't been given a referendum on that so there isn't much I can do about it at the moment. Your claims about children not getting hospital care will be treat with the contempt it deserves - and to think you tried to accuse me of twisting the conversation.
Not really it was your statement that people that have not paid into the system should get nothing out, that was your words. I was taking that to the logical conclusion that no benefits should be received before you've paid into the system. Effectively you are promoting a UK where we pay for everything, there is no 'free' NHS (where you would need medical insurance) - of course this being something out of a Tories wet dream...The last thing you ever want to do is drive people into poverty just for the sake of ideology. Supporting people to get them into better jobs and move them out of poverty is always more worthwhile long term even if there are up front costs.
Also to point out £0.9 bn would be nowhere near enough to manage the overall system. And you are failing to grasp that these people also pay into the system as well. £0.9bn is likely the gross figure not the net figure.
But you've said before that "Wrexit" is going to destroy our economy and the EU is going to go to strength after strength after we're gone. If that's true, why would the immigrants still come here then? Which is it? Are we going to sink and they'll go elsewhere or our we going to do well enough to attract illegal workers?
Oh, and the "UK...has good job prospects and low unemployment compared to other EU countries"? Why might that be? Maybe because we aren't in the Eurozone? And here I was getting a lot of gak in this thread for not wanting to be a part of that and wanting our own currency.
I never said that Wrexit would destroy the economy. I've always been quite clear on this. I think it will drive the UK to being a mediocre country with little overall impact on the world. It may still grow but will be less than the EU, US, China, India etc. We'll gently slide backwards compared to these economys. Investment for high tech industries will slowly move to other countries as we struggle to provide high quality education and those that are will look elsewhere to find such jobs. If this does come to pass then there may be more demand as we move to a more low tech economy. The early impacts are likely to be more of high impact employees and businesses working (such as scientists) as the EU provides a lot of money into these areas and the UK has dried up its funding as the EU's funding took over. Long term it may indeed eventually result in a reduction in low earner migration as the UK becomes seen as a less well off place to be, however that message is not likely to happen overnight. The decline will happen over the next 20-50 years; what we are talking about here are the impacts/changes from the Wrexit negotiations now.
£0.9bn, I'll accept that number. So we could easily pay for the cost of the technology on the border and hire a whole more police to uphold the new laws for the cost of what we save on the benefits, that seems ok to me.
As for people who are born here claiming without paying I to the system, it is true that the theory is their parents paid in, however personally I'd also like to stop these people claiming benefits too -sadly we haven't been given a referendum on that so there isn't much I can do about it at the moment. Your claims about children not getting hospital care will be treat with the contempt it deserves - and to think you tried to accuse me of twisting the conversation.
Not really it was your statement that people that have not paid into the system should get nothing out, that was your words. I was taking that to the logical conclusion that no benefits should be received before you've paid into the system. Effectively you are promoting a UK where we pay for everything, there is no 'free' NHS (where you would need medical insurance) - of course this being something out of a Tories wet dream...The last thing you ever want to do is drive people into poverty just for the sake of ideology. Supporting people to get them into better jobs and move them out of poverty is always more worthwhile long term even if there are up front costs.
Also to point out £0.9 bn would be nowhere near enough to manage the overall system. And you are failing to grasp that these people also pay into the system as well. £0.9bn is likely the gross figure not the net figure.
Sadly I'm not going to continue to debate you, you've made it very clear that you intend to twist whatever anyone says into what you want them to say - whilst at the same time trying to claim that pulling someone up for directly saying that if you make it illegal for people from the EU to work here they will do so anyway isn't saying that you believe that people in the EU have no respect for the law.
Saying that you should pay into the system before you take out is not the same as saying kids shouldn't get health care, for the simple fact that we don't ask kids to pay into the system, the fact that you would even say this says far more about yourself than it does about leavers.
As far as making people pay before they should claim and that this is like 'an insurance ' maybe the fact it is called National INSURANCE has been lost upon you, I've bolded the key word there for you.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A: We shouldn't let people who don't pay into the system take out from the system.
B: Children do not pay into the system.
If premises A and B are both true, children should not be allowed to take out of the system.
This is your own argument taken to its logical conclusion. If you don't want this result, make an argument that doesn't have blatant holes in it.
Except this is a forum - not a legal document, the fact that whirlwind immediately jumped to stopping care for kids whilst such a thing never even entered my head as it's just outright stupid says a lot more about him than it does me.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: A: We shouldn't let people who don't pay into the system take out from the system.
B: Children do not pay into the system.
If premises A and B are both true, children should not be allowed to take out of the system.
This is your own argument taken to its logical conclusion. If you don't want this result, make an argument that doesn't have blatant holes in it.
Except this is a forum - not a legal document, the fact that whirlwind immediately jumped to stopping care for kids whilst such a thing never even entered my head as it's just outright stupid says a lot more about him than it does me.
I disagree. It tells us that you didn't bother to think through the practical effects of your argument at all.
I love the UK, but I'm surprised by the number of people here who seem to think it's so good that people will flock here to beg on the streets rather than live in a house in the EU and hold down a job.
You underestimate the volume of the informal economy. Especially in agriculture, construction and home services (cleaning, gardening, care for the elderly, etc).
No I don't, but as I've said you make UK law such that you need a National Insurance number to legally work (already the case) then you stop giving all EU nationals national insurance numbers without first applying for one before they enter the UK (pretty easy) and fine/imprison people who employ people without a National Insurance number (which is an internal UK law and wouldn't even need to be part of the EU negotiations) .
100% fool proof, no. Will some people still try to break the law and work/employ people illegally, yes. Does it matter, no.
Again, If you are saying that the solution needs to stop 100% of illegal activity then you are doomed to failure, Nobody anywhere has ever achieved that.
It does matter if you got a mandate to control migration the migration flux.
The caption is very eloquent. "We must break free of the EU and take back control". Except when it comes to Ireland? I don't really see that flying. Not the #saferbritain people that's for sure.
I'll probably get shot down in flames for this, but the whole Irish border situation could probably be solved in five minutes.
Ireland is an island, and that should be taken advantage off.
Free movement across the whole island for all citizens be they from the North or the Republic.
Free movement for all Irish citizens for within the UK as well. It would be the easiest thing in the world to produce a valid passport or driving licence if you were travelling from Dublin to Wales, as an example.
All goods entering or leaving the island of Ireland to be checked before they continue onward.
EU inspectors or standards to be put on anything made in the North that could go to the Republic, in case the EU is worried about dodgy food standards violating EU standards or something.
It's not perfect, but it's a very workable solution and it would continue the free movement and ally fears about Britain being a backdoor into the EU through the Republic for cut price goods.
It doesn't help though that they can't form any agreement in Northern Ireland after the last one fell apart over that heating payments scandal. Sin Fein wanted to remain and now would prefer some sort of whole irelend entity whereas DUP flat refuse to be separated from the rest of the UK, say if a hard border was implemented upon crossing the Irish Sea.
What's made everyone feel much more trusting towards each other is that May made a deal with the DUP in Westminster to secure power so obviously needs their support for an Irish border solution during Brexit or they'll pull the rug out from under her government. Marvellous. If the DUP get it mostly their way because they have leverage in Westminster, THAT will likely lead to troubles.
Howard A Treesong wrote: It doesn't help though that they can't form any agreement in Northern Ireland after the last one fell apart over that heating payments scandal. Sin Fein wanted to remain and now would prefer some sort of whole irelend entity whereas DUP flat refuse to be separated from the rest of the UK, say if a hard border was implemented upon crossing the Irish Sea.
What's made everyone feel much more trusting towards each other is that May made a deal with the DUP in Westminster to secure power so obviously needs their support for an Irish border solution during Brexit or they'll pull the rug out from under her government. Marvellous. If the DUP get it mostly their way because they have leverage in Westminster, THAT will likely lead to troubles.
That's what I don't get about the DUP - they're not being separated from the UK, unless they can't be bothered to produce a driving licence from their pocket before hopping onto a ferry.
Another billion pounds would probably bring the DUP back on board. They need to be reminded that they won't hold the whip hand for ever, and are they seriously going to bring down May for Corbyn?
Steve steveson wrote: I find it interesting that the UK government and leavers have stopped talking about access to the free market, which all along they said was 100% possible and easy, where the EU said that it was linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms.
Which is a fair and valid point. But it also fair to say that it could have been achieved through negotiation and a little bit of give and take. And I think that this is one point on which both side agree, though from different viewpoints. All the proposals put forward to the EU, whether you think that they are wishful thinking or not, could have been developed via dialogue and negotiation. However it seems apparent that the EU has flat out refused to budge on any form of compromise or dialogue, so where does that leave the UK
Now you could argue that the EU is quite entitled to pursue that position as they are the ones, in your opinion, holding the whip hand. They control the market we wish to access and so "he who pays the piper names the tune". And I see no reason to argue against that. However, to say that the UK has no plan is disingenuous because the UK is pursuing a plan. Its just not acceptable to the EU.
Access to the free market is not directly linked to the 4 fundamental freedoms, it's only linked in our case for whatever reason. So the initial position of access was accurate, the EU has just linked it to another condition which the UK wasn't prepared to accept.
Do I think the talks will fail? Yes. Do I think that that is the UKs fault? No, both sides should equally take the blame for that. So where does that leave us? Heading for WTO rules and regs and an uncertain future for us all. And that then leads us to having to decide whether we are pessimists or optimists for the future and that will drive our country onwards. So do you see the dark cloud or the silver lining?
Personally I think that this will present us with opportunities to create trade deals without having to sift through the bureaucracy of 28 nations.
Having lived in an area which was gutted by the single market and common fisheries policies I see nothing good about the present day EU.
It's odd isn't it - if I'd have said so many people in the EU were prepared to come over here and break our laws I'd be considered a racist, but when you do it it's ok and I'm a fantasist for believing it won t happen.
I don't know what has happened to you in your life that makes you think people from the EU have such disregard for the rule of law - I've always found that as a general rule respect for the law of the land is pretty high amounts people from Europe, I therefore choose yo believe that if you tell them that working here would be illegal then they simply wouldn't come and instead choose to go to a country where they are allowed to work.
You are just trying to twist the conversation now. If someone said "all citizens of the EU are criminals" then that is bigotry (not really racism, but more from interpretation). To discuss the consequences if you implement a system that encourages exploitation of the poorest regardless of where they are coming from is not bigotry or racism. There actions are only 'illegal' because of the some rather arbitrary rules about whether you were born on this or that rock that are being suggested.. That it is highlighting that rules proposed discriminate against people and are likely to hit the poorest the worst as they are both desperate enough to try and get out of that cycle. To have concerns that this will then place much greater pressures on the UK system as a whole as they will no longer contribute tot he system and potentially need more support. What we should be asking you is why you are so keen to have a system that discriminates as to whether someone can work/live/rent simply on what rock they were born on?
I'm not twisting the conversation at all - I'm pointing out that in my opinion the vast majority of people try to live within the rule of law - r-squared seems to think that this isn't the case and that if people don't like the law they will just outright ignore it, I massively disagree with this assertion.
As Whirlwind points out, if working in the UK, whether legally or illegally is attractive, people will come. If we set the system up so that it becomes illegal for migrants to work, then many will still come, but work illegally.
We then lose taxation, and the net effect of having a larger illegal working populace is that other crime will also be commited. We also have to commit greater resources to tackle illegal working etc.
However, and this is the crux of the problem with the Irish border, Whether it suits the UK or not to have a soft border, the EU would then have to rely on the UK to protect this entrance way to rest of the 27.
Whilst our current setup is aligned, once we're out of the Eu, then it could be a point of concern for those other nations.
Which is a fair and valid point. But it also fair to say that it could have been achieved through negotiation and a little bit of give and take. And I think that this is one point on which both side agree, though from different viewpoints. All the proposals put forward to the EU, whether you think that they are wishful thinking or not, could have been developed via dialogue and negotiation. However it seems apparent that the EU has flat out refused to budge on any form of compromise or dialogue, so where does that leave the UK
Now you could argue that the EU is quite entitled to pursue that position as they are the ones, in your opinion, holding the whip hand. They control the market we wish to access and so "he who pays the piper names the tune". And I see no reason to argue against that. However, to say that the UK has no plan is disingenuous because the UK is pursuing a plan. Its just not acceptable to the EU.
The problem is that every solution the UK are submitting means that the EU has to break one of its central constitutional rights which is that people in one EU country are given different movement rights than someone else in another EU country. The EU will *never* agree to this, as I've pointed out before it would be like the UK asking the US to not allow Texans to be covered by part of US constitution whereas those in Oregon are. It simply wouldn't happen. We should see the EU rights in the same way and proposals would need to ensure that they approach all EU citizens in the same way.
Having lived in an area which was gutted by the single market and common fisheries policies I see nothing good about the present day EU.
There is a misconception that it was the EU that resulted in the issues with regards fishing as has been pointed out many times. The EU set quotas (and the UK had a very favourable one) based on scientific research as to how much fishing was sustainable. The UK government decided how to split those quotas up. In the end approx. 5 large multinational companies ended up with approx 85% of the fishing rights - these companies employed global fishing fleets. The reality is that the UK governments at the time could easily have reduced the big 5 to having 70% of the fishing rights and that would have easily resolved the problem and small one ship fishing vessels could have carried on. Why do you think the UK government didn't pursue this option?
Sadly I'm not going to continue to debate you, you've made it very clear that you intend to twist whatever anyone says into what you want them to say - whilst at the same time trying to claim that pulling someone up for directly saying that if you make it illegal for people from the EU to work here they will do so anyway isn't saying that you believe that people in the EU have no respect for the law.
Saying that you should pay into the system before you take out is not the same as saying kids shouldn't get health care, for the simple fact that we don't ask kids to pay into the system, the fact that you would even say this says far more about yourself than it does about leavers.
As far as making people pay before they should claim and that this is like 'an insurance ' maybe the fact it is called National INSURANCE has been lost upon you, I've bolded the key word there for you.
It was your wording not mine, your the one that stated that people shouldn't get anything until they have paid in. The concepts I introduced are just the extension of what you were saying (and lets not forget that some people do advocate that this is how the UK should work). If the extensions make you feel uncomfortable (from my perspective they should) then maybe the debate has placed a different window on your own internal views and I would suggest that rather than dismiss them as twisting what you are saying maybe you should challenge yourself and what you are saying by following these paths. You balk at the idea of a child being prevented treatment, but what about an 'illegal' migrants child, which side of the line do they fall on? You are happy to spend £0.9bn on protecting borders to prevent spending the same £0.9bn on benefits for the EU migrants (so an economic argument is invalid). The cost is the same for managing these such people; one option holds back the potential of human being just like me or you; the other provides an opportunity for them to develop and contribute to society. Yet you prefer the first, why is that?
And I am well aware of the term NI, however as you are probably well aware it is just a tax. All the monies get placed in one pot and then resplit out. NI is not ring fenced for certain aspects in the same way car tax isn't ring fenced to maintain roads. We could get rid of a lot of red tape and just remove NI completely, however it does give governments 'wriggle' room when they talk about 'tax' because a lot of people perceive it as different to what it is.
Which is a fair and valid point. But it also fair to say that it could have been achieved through negotiation and a little bit of give and take. And I think that this is one point on which both side agree, though from different viewpoints. All the proposals put forward to the EU, whether you think that they are wishful thinking or not, could have been developed via dialogue and negotiation. However it seems apparent that the EU has flat out refused to budge on any form of compromise or dialogue, so where does that leave the UK
Now you could argue that the EU is quite entitled to pursue that position as they are the ones, in your opinion, holding the whip hand. They control the market we wish to access and so "he who pays the piper names the tune". And I see no reason to argue against that. However, to say that the UK has no plan is disingenuous because the UK is pursuing a plan. Its just not acceptable to the EU.
The problem is that every solution the UK are submitting means that the EU has to break one of its central constitutional rights which is that people in one EU country are given different movement rights than someone else in another EU country. The EU will *never* agree to this, as I've pointed out before it would be like the UK asking the US to not allow Texans to be covered by part of US constitution whereas those in Oregon are. It simply wouldn't happen. We should see the EU rights in the same way and proposals would need to ensure that they approach all EU citizens in the same way.
Having lived in an area which was gutted by the single market and common fisheries policies I see nothing good about the present day EU.
There is a misconception that it was the EU that resulted in the issues with regards fishing as has been pointed out many times. The EU set quotas (and the UK had a very favourable one) based on scientific research as to how much fishing was sustainable. The UK government decided how to split those quotas up. In the end approx. 5 large multinational companies ended up with approx 85% of the fishing rights - these companies employed global fishing fleets. The reality is that the UK governments at the time could easily have reduced the big 5 to having 70% of the fishing rights and that would have easily resolved the problem and small one ship fishing vessels could have carried on. Why do you think the UK government didn't pursue this option?
Which is why I pointed out the route to agreement is via dialogue and not the present stalemate. As you have used American laws, do you think that it is fair that an American with a concealed carry permit be allowed to shoot a person in Spain using stand your ground defence be allowed to escape prosecution because he's allowed to do so under US law? Because that's what the EU are telling us. Each option seems as ludicrous to both parties viewpoint.
And I don't accept your assertion that the UK could have reduced the quotas of the big five, because the five as you put it leveraged the countries from which they operated to ensure that the UK proposals were consistently overruled and ignored so that they maintained their monopolies on the fishing industry. If you get a chance look up the margin by which Moray voted in the referendum. That should illustrate just how dissatisfied they were with the EU, the SNP and remember that their MP was the one directly representing Scotland at the Fisheries for a long time.
It's a perception. The EU won't compromise on some of it's constitution which allows its populaces to have the same movement rights (think of it as applying the US constitution differently in different states). However the UK proposals are suggesting just this and hence the EU are (justifiably) saying no. The implication is that unless the UK/EU agree something that there will hard borders all round. Some people are viewing this as the EU wants a hard border (they don't) because they are unwilling to amend their constitution as the EU sees that as more important than the border controls with the UK.
Which is why I pointed out the route to agreement is via dialogue and not the present stalemate. As you have used American laws, do you think that it is fair that an American with a concealed carry permit be allowed to shoot a person in Spain using stand your ground defence be allowed to escape prosecution because he's allowed to do so under US law? Because that's what the EU are telling us. Each option seems as ludicrous to both parties viewpoint.
The simple solution to this one is that we remain covered by the ECJ. We already are, and it rarely has a major bearing on day to day lives. TM doesn't like it because every time she wants to introduce draconian spying laws it gets knocked back. She wants to remove that thorn so you can monitor us as much as she wishes etc. I think if the EU saw us as some champions of personal freedoms it would have less of an issue but they know what the current government is like...
Except shooting someone either in the US or Spain is illegal (excusing self defence etc). What the UK is proposing is to allow some people to allow concealed weapons and some not to simply due to what piece of rock they come from.
And I don't accept your assertion that the UK could have reduced the quotas of the big five, because the five as you put it leveraged the countries from which they operated to ensure that the UK proposals were consistently overruled and ignored so that they maintained their monopolies on the fishing industry. If you get a chance look up the margin by which Moray voted in the referendum. That should illustrate just how dissatisfied they were with the EU, the SNP and remember that their MP was the one directly representing Scotland at the Fisheries for a long time.
But if those proposals were just to increase fishing unsustainably then it's not really justified, especially if the UK got a big increase because of it when it already has a very favourable allocation. The UK is the one that determines how the fishing quota is divided. The government issues the majority of the quotas to umbrella Producer Organisations (POs). This allocation has nothing to do with the EU, it is solely a UK decision how it allocates the allowance. These POs then distribute the allowances throughout their fleet. A lot gets landed at foreign ports because these POs have (or are associated with) large multinational fishing fleets. The Government never had to allocate the exceedingly high level of allowances to these POs. It was perfectly within their power to reduce them and allow more for smaller one ship fleets that would then land the catch on UK shores. The government however went the big business route. The EU is being blamed here for not increasing allowances, however are you so sure those allowances would have helped at all or just gone to the big POs again leaving places in exactly the same place?
The simple solution to this one is that we remain covered by the ECJ. We already are, and it rarely has a major bearing on day to day lives. TM doesn't like it because every time she wants to introduce draconian spying laws it gets knocked back. She wants to remove that thorn so you can monitor us as much as she wishes etc. I think if the EU saw us as some champions of personal freedoms it would have less of an issue but they know what the current government is like...
Except shooting someone either in the US or Spain is illegal (excusing self defence etc). What the UK is proposing is to allow some people to allow concealed weapons and some not to simply due to what piece of rock they come from.
Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands. And I don't know what the answer is to Ireland. The EU is right that it is unfair to treat one part differently to another, but is putting no effort into resolving the situation, creating the very imminent situation of forcing a hard brexit, which is in no ones best interest.
But if those proposals were just to increase fishing unsustainably then it's not really justified, especially if the UK got a big increase because of it when it already has a very favourable allocation. The UK is the one that determines how the fishing quota is divided. The government issues the majority of the quotas to umbrella Producer Organisations (POs). This allocation has nothing to do with the EU, it is solely a UK decision how it allocates the allowance. These POs then distribute the allowances throughout their fleet. A lot gets landed at foreign ports because these POs have (or are associated with) large multinational fishing fleets. The Government never had to allocate the exceedingly high level of allowances to these POs. It was perfectly within their power to reduce them and allow more for smaller one ship fleets that would then land the catch on UK shores. The government however went the big business route. The EU is being blamed here for not increasing allowances, however are you so sure those allowances would have helped at all or just gone to the big POs again leaving places in exactly the same place?
Before I comment on this, can you point me to any documentation relating to these POs, before attempting to refute first research!!
Cheers
Andrew
Found some reading on the POs and no I do not agree that the UK Govt is primarily responsible for the lions share going to foreign POs. A lot of the problem goes back to the original decisions which gutted the fishing fleet of smaller vessels, due to regulation and cost effectiveness which saw the UK fleets halved in size. However subsidies supporting the smaller vessels continued unchecked overseas which allowed other countries to maintain their fleet. When the EU came out with directives that the smaller ships be allocated a greater proportion of the quota, british vessels simply didn't exist to take advantage of it, but other EU countries were and so a lot of the stock then went to overseas POs. And the ability of those fleets to monopolise the industry while withholding quota from smaller operators isn't fair or right. And as far as I can see, ensuring that quotas are only given to UK fishing POs runs foul of EU rules on state aid. So as a direct result of EU rules the Government had to go the big business route. Now I am not denying that the governments at the various times may have went the same route, but the rules guided them in that direction.
Whether the withdrawl from the common fisheries would have achieved the same result as brexit, we will never know as that decision was superceded by the referendum.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Free movement for all Irish citizens for within the UK as well. It would be the easiest thing in the world to produce a valid passport or driving licence if you were travelling from Dublin to Wales, as an example.
If you need a passport or driving license to enter then it's not free movement according to how the EU defines it. If you really implemented free movement from Ireland to the UK then technically any EU citizen could hop from Ireland into the UK (or the other way around: UK <-> Ireland <-> mainland EU). But then the question would be why only tough Ireland and not any other country?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Free movement for all Irish citizens for within the UK as well. It would be the easiest thing in the world to produce a valid passport or driving licence if you were travelling from Dublin to Wales, as an example.
If you need a passport or driving license to enter then it's not free movement according to how the EU defines it. If you really implemented free movement from Ireland to the UK then technically any EU citizen could hop from Ireland into the UK (or the other way around: UK <-> Ireland <-> mainland EU). But then the question would be why only tough Ireland and not any other country?
Well in that case we've never had proper free movement with the EU then, so what's changing?
I haven't read the last lot of posts, as frankly I'm fed up of the bile and hatred – I didn't believe nasty remainers really existed anymore, who just bleieve that anyone who voted leave is evil but thank you for proving me wrong. I could do without you in my life so I'll leave you to wollow in your pit of nastiness and believe that you are the pillar of goodness and virtue.
I am however going to tell you a story – every element of this story is true, although it's actually an amalgamation of what happened to three different people I personally know.
This story will explain to you why we leavers are opposed to the concept of 'free movement' and show that it has nothing at all to do with "RACIST", that none of you know anyone who has been affected this way by free movement says a lot about the social circles that you move in, you spend a lot of time talking about the poor and working class but I wonder if any of you have ever spoken to one of them?
Anyway, I'm going to post this then walk away – you can make up your own mind if I'm evil and a racist for not liking free movement afterwards, but I'm done with the nasty politics you try promote here.
I'm going to introduce you to Dave. Dave is a good guy, always tries to do the right thing and has no ill will to anyone. Dave was never very good at school, leaving after his GCSEs and failing to get a single subject higher than a D grade. Dave however had a single redeem skill that he know he could use to support himself – Dave was a magician with a piece of wood, he could take a plank of wood and turn it into anything you could imagine.
So, doing what was done at the time Dave left school at 16 and took an apprenticeship as a joiner. After a couple of years Dave was taken on as a full time work and over the next 10 years gradually branched out to be self employed.
Over the same 10 years Dave met his wife, had a couple of kids and everything was going smoothly, he was happy, business was doing well and he was supporting his family.
Now Dave didn't want a fancy life, but to live and support his family in the UK he needed to earn a minimum of £10 per hour, but being that humans like to do more than just live he used to charge £12 per hour – which was a reasonable rate and fairly average for the area he lived in.
Then the EU opened up membership to economies that were significantly less developed than the UK.
What then proceeded to happen is this, Dave suddenly noticed that Paul, George and Bob had all moved to the area from Eastern Europe. Paul was an electrician, George was a plumber and Bob was a joiner. They immediately started to do work at £8 per hour.
How could they charge £8 per hour? Well here is how it works. Their families stay in Eastern Europe and Paul, George and Bob send the money home. As the cost of living in Easter Europe is significantly cheaper than the UK they only need to earn £3 per hour to cover this. "Ah but Paul, George and Bob are all living in the UK" I hear you say, and this is true, but they pool their resources, rent together and can survive in the UK for £2 per hour each. This means that they only need £5 per hour to support themselves, and they are saving the remaining £3 for when they go home – which they plan to do after 1 or 2 years.
Now Dave has a problem, he is being massively undercut on his trade, he could charge the same as Bob, but then he wouldn't earn enough to support his family? What is he supposed to do?
Dave make a tough choice, he knows that Bob isn't planning to be away from his family forever, so he decided to lower his rates to the minimum he can afford and support his family. He charges £10 per hour, and just accepts that until Bob goes home he'll be unable to have a family holiday or but his kids the latest games console – it's not an idea situation but it'll do. He's fairly confident that his reputation in the area will mean he can still get enough work at £10 per hour.
Now Dave faces trouble on all counts, if he tries to explain why his rates are higher than Bobs he's simply told to 'lower his rates then' – people just don't understand why Bob can offer this cheaper than Dave. If he complains he is branded a "RACIST" and told that these people are just trying to work and they are good for the economy. Dave has no ill will towards Bob, he's just trying to provide for his family and he cannot do that on £8 per hour
Lowering his rate to £10 works a little for Dave, he loses some work but he is able to scrape by and has a miserable couple of years, but then he begins to hear the Paul, George and Bob are going home. This is good news because the cost of living in the UK is rising faster than the cost of living in Eastern Europe and the disparity between what he can charge and what Bob can charge is only going to get larger – but this isn't the end of his nightmare, because as Paul, George and Bob leave then Peter, Shane and Trevor all come over from Eastern Europe and the cycle starts again, except now people are more accepting of accepting the work from the Eastern Europeans as Bob has set their expectations that the work can be just as well as he can.
Dave clings on as best he can, but ultimately he has no choice to close his business, he is now unemployed and without any qualification is unlikely to find work again.
So what has happened to my three friends who would recognise this story immediately? Well, one of them in an ironic twist now works in Poland, where finacially he does fairly well as all the electricians have left to Western Europe. He's miserable however as he has only picked up a little bit of Polish and has constant arguments with hos wife who is desperate to return to her friends and family in the UK, but he simply cannot support them there.
One friend has managed to find work stacking shelves in a supermarket – but he earns a fraction of what he used to earn, his wife has had no choice but to also seek work, despite the fact that it had been her wish to be a stay at home mum. Both hate their jobs.
One is still unemployed and on benefits, whilst he finds temporary work when he can his lack of qualifications and advancing age (he's older than 40) means it's unlikely he'll ever find work again – he is massively depressed and ended up splitting up from his wife.
Do any of them have ill will to the people who came over and forced them out of work, not really. They understand that these people are just trying to support their family in the same way they tried to support theirs. What they hate is the system that allows this to happen, it's why I hate the system that allows this to happen and why I do not like EU style free movement.
I'd have no problem with Paul, George or Bob coming to this country, they can come sight see and travel all they want (this is free movement in the truest sense of the word). I even wouldn't mind them coming to work in the UK if it was a level playing field - which would mean them bringing their family with them (and something we could control and make a condition of any visas we choose to issue), but the current system is unfair and I think it needs to end.
I think if you actually stopped yelling "RACIST" at leavers and assuming they are the devil incarnate you would find that the vast majority would be able to tell you a very similar story.
Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands.
That is misrepresenting the position quite a bit. ECJ would only would have to rule on cases of pre-acquired rights. That is those who are already living in the UK pre-Brexit so it would be relative to rights acquired under the ECJ jurisdiction.
So it's not a case of transfering laws to another country, it's not taking away rights from those who had them at some point.
Stranger83 wrote:*angry rant competing for Strawman of the Year followed by an interesting subject*
You know, I don't think I've seen a single person call Ketara or DINLT racists. We disagree profusely on the issue of Brexit, sure, but that's where it stops. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
You came into the thread swinging from the get-go and couldn't handle making proper arguments. As far as I've seen no one's called you a racist either, for that matter, so you're sticking to your strawmen and unfounded generalizations to the end. Didn't you say that you cared about facts, as opposed to us "nasty remainers"? We haven't even called for the creation of concentration camps or the drowning of people in the Aegean yet, the "bile" and "hate" is positively tame in comparison to some stuff that gets posted on Dakka.
As for the problem of cheaper labour undercutting the domestic one, there are ways around it but it involves more powerful unions than I think you'd accept. There's an ongoing process in the EU already to stop this problem. In 2014 reforms regarding the rules regulating the purchase of public services in order to allow governments to place stricter demands on companies competing for government contracts, for instance. Reform is happening, but a minimum wage-system is not very good at combatting wage dumping. That, however, is once again a domestic problem being blamed on the EU. I've said it before, but at least Brexit is going to end passing the buck onto the EU for your own mistakes.
On the subject of the fisheries, you had the chairman post of the fisheries commission and elected Nigel Farage, who promptly never showed up. You didn't even try, you just threw your hands in the air and expected someone else to work it out, just like you're now throwing your hands in the air and expecting the EU to work Brexit out when you don't even know what you want yourselves.
This is one of those rare occasions when I'm in complete agreement with AlmightyWalrus.
I've never been called a racist on these threads, and at any rate, the mods would have done something about it had it been the case, which it's not.
A lot of people strongly support the EU, and though I disagree with them, I respect that view.
As I've said before, dakka is one of the few places where we can have reasoned debate on Brexit. Some newspaper forums are pure poison (by both sides) and are best avoided.
The thing you seem to be missing, the core argument of most Remainers AFAIK, is that none of those things are going to be solved by leaving the EU.
Our government(s) chose not to introduce decent minimum wage requirements. Nothing to do with the EU.
Our government(s) chose not to use the full means, allowable under EU regulations, to protect local industries. Nothing to do with the EU.
Our government(s) chose not to invest in local industry and infrastructure, assuming that "the free market" would do it for them. Nothing to do with the EU.
All leaving is doing is massively pissing off our closest allies and trading partners and shooting our economy in the foot. And when there is less money to go around, how can you expect there to be higher wages for your friend Dave?
Exactly; I have every sympathy for your friends and want a solution, but I don't believe leaving the EU and giving the Tories free reign is the way to do it.
We're still going to have economic migrants, but also a government that wants to reduce standards, safety nets and wages in order to blue competitive, with no supervision.
What if the foreigners all leave and dave clean go back to charging £12 an hour, but now needs to pay £200 a month for health insurance? Or the government drops the minimum wage so he's competing with locals who live at home and don't pay rent?
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's very hard for established tradesmen to stay afloat now since so many are out of work (poor economy) and/or willing to work cash in hand and not pay tax. I'm sure with minimal effort I could get any domestic work done without having to pay VAT. Not that I would though.
What your friends need is a genuinely strong and stable economy which is being managed by competent leaders, and Brexit is likely to only do the opposite?
Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands.
That is misrepresenting the position quite a bit. ECJ would only would have to rule on cases of pre-acquired rights. That is those who are already living in the UK pre-Brexit so it would be relative to rights acquired under the ECJ jurisdiction.
So it's not a case of transfering laws to another country, it's not taking away rights from those who had them at some point.
I don't think its that far a stretch. And you haven't actually refuted the point, whether its one person or a thousand, The EU is demanding (this may be too strong a word but,) that persons living in the UK be subject to the rights granted under the ECJ and not UK law. And that is a case of imposing your laws onto another country. Every time you visit a foreign country you divest yourself of any rights given to you and subject yourself to the host countries laws until such time as you return home.
I don't see that as a problem. ECJ should have no remit in the UK after the cut-off date in 2019.
Firstly I misunderstood your earlier post as to the discrimination, you were talking about the Irish situation when I was referring to the ECJ. But shooting someone in the US is justifiable under SYG, the assertion that ECJ has primacy over the UK laws is the assertion that a US citizen could shoot a Spaniard (I'm not picking on the Spanish honestly!) and claim that he is subject only to US laws and so walk free. I cannot accept the primacy of a foreign court over our own laws. Which is one of the EUs demands.
That is misrepresenting the position quite a bit. ECJ would only would have to rule on cases of pre-acquired rights. That is those who are already living in the UK pre-Brexit so it would be relative to rights acquired under the ECJ jurisdiction.
So it's not a case of transfering laws to another country, it's not taking away rights from those who had them at some point.
I don't think its that far a stretch. And you haven't actually refuted the point, whether its one person or a thousand, The EU is demanding (this may be too strong a word but,) that persons living in the UK be subject to the rights granted under the ECJ and not UK law. And that is a case of imposing your laws onto another country. Every time you visit a foreign country you divest yourself of any rights given to you and subject yourself to the host countries laws until such time as you return home.
Except by the time those people moved there it wasn't a foreign legal jurisdiction. It was part of the EU, bound by EU laws, of which the highest court was the ECJ.
Ex post facto is frowned upon in Western law for a reason. That's why there's usually grandfathering clauses to cover them and would just be a relatively straightforward example.
Post Facto has nothing to do with it as the removal of the ECJ isnt making anyone a criminal, nor is it being back dated. From X day forward those laws simply dont apply unless ratified by the UK court system.
AndrewC wrote: Post Facto has nothing to do with it as the removal of the ECJ isnt making anyone a criminal, nor is it being back dated.
Post Facto is not limited to criminal cases. Right now an EU citizen has legal recourse for labour and residency matters up to the highest legal court in the UK, then finally the ECJ.
After Brexit, they will lose that last rung of appeal, so it is indeed a loss of rights ex post facto.
And another thing, I'm glad my tax money, and billions more, is getting spent on Trident. That'll deter the North Koreans from trying to get their hands on nukes
Seriously, that line of justification was one of the arguments that was sold to the British public ahead of Trident renewal.
Like most other things in the UK, it turned out to be a steaming pile of horsegak.
Logically, if nuclear weapons deter aggression, then everybody should have them, including the North Koreans...
And post facto only refers to laws enacted now that take effect from a date in the past. (Sorry about the crime reference, I blame the source material).
The effective date of this change is in the future.
So the assertion your making, ie loss of previous rights isnt a post facto decision.
The way I understood the suggestion it was that any disputes that arise based on something that happened while the UK was still an EU member would be covered by the ECJ even if the complaint is made after the UK leaves the EU. As such it'd be an ex post facto situation since it'd remove legal protection that someone had when the crime occured. I've not paid too much attention to this particular issue though, so I could be mistaken.
As I understood it the application of ECJ applies to any EU citizen working or living in the UK in perpertuity. However quite willing to be shown otherwise.
Stranger83 wrote: I haven't read the last lot of posts, as frankly I'm fed up of the bile and hatred – I didn't believe nasty remainers really existed anymore, who just bleieve that anyone who voted leave is evil but thank you for proving me wrong. I could do without you in my life so I'll leave you to wollow in your pit of nastiness and believe that you are the pillar of goodness and virtue.
I am however going to tell you a story – every element of this story is true, although it's actually an amalgamation of what happened to three different people I personally know.
This story will explain to you why we leavers are opposed to the concept of 'free movement' and show that it has nothing at all to do with "RACIST", that none of you know anyone who has been affected this way by free movement says a lot about the social circles that you move in, you spend a lot of time talking about the poor and working class but I wonder if any of you have ever spoken to one of them?
Spoiler:
Anyway, I'm going to post this then walk away – you can make up your own mind if I'm evil and a racist for not liking free movement afterwards, but I'm done with the nasty politics you try promote here.
I'm going to introduce you to Dave. Dave is a good guy, always tries to do the right thing and has no ill will to anyone. Dave was never very good at school, leaving after his GCSEs and failing to get a single subject higher than a D grade. Dave however had a single redeem skill that he know he could use to support himself – Dave was a magician with a piece of wood, he could take a plank of wood and turn it into anything you could imagine.
So, doing what was done at the time Dave left school at 16 and took an apprenticeship as a joiner. After a couple of years Dave was taken on as a full time work and over the next 10 years gradually branched out to be self employed.
Over the same 10 years Dave met his wife, had a couple of kids and everything was going smoothly, he was happy, business was doing well and he was supporting his family.
Now Dave didn't want a fancy life, but to live and support his family in the UK he needed to earn a minimum of £10 per hour, but being that humans like to do more than just live he used to charge £12 per hour – which was a reasonable rate and fairly average for the area he lived in.
Then the EU opened up membership to economies that were significantly less developed than the UK.
What then proceeded to happen is this, Dave suddenly noticed that Paul, George and Bob had all moved to the area from Eastern Europe. Paul was an electrician, George was a plumber and Bob was a joiner. They immediately started to do work at £8 per hour.
How could they charge £8 per hour? Well here is how it works. Their families stay in Eastern Europe and Paul, George and Bob send the money home. As the cost of living in Easter Europe is significantly cheaper than the UK they only need to earn £3 per hour to cover this. "Ah but Paul, George and Bob are all living in the UK" I hear you say, and this is true, but they pool their resources, rent together and can survive in the UK for £2 per hour each. This means that they only need £5 per hour to support themselves, and they are saving the remaining £3 for when they go home – which they plan to do after 1 or 2 years.
Now Dave has a problem, he is being massively undercut on his trade, he could charge the same as Bob, but then he wouldn't earn enough to support his family? What is he supposed to do?
Dave make a tough choice, he knows that Bob isn't planning to be away from his family forever, so he decided to lower his rates to the minimum he can afford and support his family. He charges £10 per hour, and just accepts that until Bob goes home he'll be unable to have a family holiday or but his kids the latest games console – it's not an idea situation but it'll do. He's fairly confident that his reputation in the area will mean he can still get enough work at £10 per hour.
Now Dave faces trouble on all counts, if he tries to explain why his rates are higher than Bobs he's simply told to 'lower his rates then' – people just don't understand why Bob can offer this cheaper than Dave. If he complains he is branded a "RACIST" and told that these people are just trying to work and they are good for the economy. Dave has no ill will towards Bob, he's just trying to provide for his family and he cannot do that on £8 per hour
Lowering his rate to £10 works a little for Dave, he loses some work but he is able to scrape by and has a miserable couple of years, but then he begins to hear the Paul, George and Bob are going home. This is good news because the cost of living in the UK is rising faster than the cost of living in Eastern Europe and the disparity between what he can charge and what Bob can charge is only going to get larger – but this isn't the end of his nightmare, because as Paul, George and Bob leave then Peter, Shane and Trevor all come over from Eastern Europe and the cycle starts again, except now people are more accepting of accepting the work from the Eastern Europeans as Bob has set their expectations that the work can be just as well as he can.
Dave clings on as best he can, but ultimately he has no choice to close his business, he is now unemployed and without any qualification is unlikely to find work again.
So what has happened to my three friends who would recognise this story immediately? Well, one of them in an ironic twist now works in Poland, where finacially he does fairly well as all the electricians have left to Western Europe. He's miserable however as he has only picked up a little bit of Polish and has constant arguments with hos wife who is desperate to return to her friends and family in the UK, but he simply cannot support them there.
One friend has managed to find work stacking shelves in a supermarket – but he earns a fraction of what he used to earn, his wife has had no choice but to also seek work, despite the fact that it had been her wish to be a stay at home mum. Both hate their jobs.
One is still unemployed and on benefits, whilst he finds temporary work when he can his lack of qualifications and advancing age (he's older than 40) means it's unlikely he'll ever find work again – he is massively depressed and ended up splitting up from his wife.
Do any of them have ill will to the people who came over and forced them out of work, not really. They understand that these people are just trying to support their family in the same way they tried to support theirs. What they hate is the system that allows this to happen, it's why I hate the system that allows this to happen and why I do not like EU style free movement.
I'd have no problem with Paul, George or Bob coming to this country, they can come sight see and travel all they want (this is free movement in the truest sense of the word). I even wouldn't mind them coming to work in the UK if it was a level playing field - which would mean them bringing their family with them (and something we could control and make a condition of any visas we choose to issue), but the current system is unfair and I think it needs to end.
I think if you actually stopped yelling "RACIST" at leavers and assuming they are the devil incarnate you would find that the vast majority would be able to tell you a very similar story.
feth sake, you don't half make a lot of assumptions. I'm working class and have grafted my whole life, and had to compete for my pennies, as does my brother who is also a chippy, and do you know what, he's still in work despite immigration. He travels all over the country from Newcastle to Wales to stay in work, and does quite well. He's even had work in Spain and France, no problem.
As to hate and bile, have a real look through the last 5 or so pages and you'll see that the insults and haranguing have been coming from one direction to the other, and it isn't from the remain side. The problem is, you got yourself so worked up about having your arguments taken apart, because, quite frankly you don't seem to have a clue what you're saying, that you believe that it's all these nasty remainers spitting bile and hatred at you. No one did, it's a just your interpretation in your head on being called out. No one called you racist, Get a grip.
Before I comment on this, can you point me to any documentation relating to these POs, before attempting to refute first research!!
Cheers
Andrew
Found some reading on the POs and no I do not agree that the UK Govt is primarily responsible for the lions share going to foreign POs. A lot of the problem goes back to the original decisions which gutted the fishing fleet of smaller vessels, due to regulation and cost effectiveness which saw the UK fleets halved in size. However subsidies supporting the smaller vessels continued unchecked overseas which allowed other countries to maintain their fleet. When the EU came out with directives that the smaller ships be allocated a greater proportion of the quota, british vessels simply didn't exist to take advantage of it, but other EU countries were and so a lot of the stock then went to overseas POs. And the ability of those fleets to monopolise the industry while withholding quota from smaller operators isn't fair or right. And as far as I can see, ensuring that quotas are only given to UK fishing POs runs foul of EU rules on state aid. So as a direct result of EU rules the Government had to go the big business route. Now I am not denying that the governments at the various times may have went the same route, but the rules guided them in that direction.
Whether the withdrawl from the common fisheries would have achieved the same result as brexit, we will never know as that decision was superceded by the referendum.
This seems quite comprehensive but I can't argue for how it stacks up against other research, though to be fair it's a fair few years old now (2001).
I do acknowledge the issue with regards fishing subsidies. However that in itself was not an EU issue. Unlike the Common Agricultural Policy (which I whole heartedly oppose) it was up to the individual member states in the EU to determine whether they provided subsidies or not. The UK decided not to, other countries decided to. The EU started stepping in when it realised that it is was skewing fishing in Europe and making things anti-competitive between countries. Hence it was solely a UK decision not to subsidise individual vessels and favour POs as a way to make UK fish more competitive. So who is to blame the UK for not supporting the small fleets or the EU for not legislating against subsidies. Ironically if the EU had stepped in at the beginning people might now have been accusing the EU of too much red tape and blocking governments making their own decisions. For some people in the Brexit argument it would be an example of Brussels taking over, on the other hand by stopping subsidies it would have made the whole fishing issue more balanced across countries.
My personal view is that there should be no subsidies. Not only in some cases they have been shown to be illegal, but they also hold back third world countries. It is not lost on me that one of the reasons that there are large numbers of people that want to come to western, rich, nations is because the rock they were born on is poor (with places where you have to walk 10 miles just for clean water). These same countries however deliberately try and protect their own place in the world and hence keep those countries that are poor, to remain so. Hence our own western monopolies on wealth in fact to an extent drives immigration. If the western world took a different view that being less protective of its position of wealth might reduce their overall influence relatively but provide better wealthier partners to do business with. Basically as it stands western countries take a large piece of a small pie. The alternative, better solution would be to take a smaller piece of a much larger pie. Not only do all humans benefit (in the long term) but the immigration drivers that a lot of people oppose would be vastly reduced.
As to hate and bile, have a real look through the last 5 or so pages and you'll see that the insults and haranguing have been coming from one direction to the other,
Soo....
steve steveson wrote:Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...
wasn't even vaguely insulting at all? And when I attempted to point that out in a somewhat droll nerd-culture related fashion(you know being on a site about toy soldiers and all), your only thoughts were:-
r_squared wrote:But its nice to see the leave side reduced to weak "hivemind/gollum" memes and insults as their arguments, and reality are stripped away.
I mean, come on guv. 'One direction' indeed.
The funny thing is, I'd argue more with people who post crap arguments for leaving the EU in here (there are plenty), but the thing is, the 'Remain' team tend to have that stitched it up. Which is great, because I'd be here all day if I was trying to debunk both sides of the field. From where I sit, the 'Leavers' tend to have far more subjective and anecdotal arguments as compared to the better grasp on the statistics and facts on the 'Remainers'. When it comes to less than subtle derogatory and condescending quips though, the weighting is very much the other way around.
I do really hate the split into Team 'Leave' and Team 'Remain' though, because it leads to crap generalisations, and an 'us' and 'them' mentality that really isn't justified. I'm in the same camp as many people who bat for 'Remain' on many issues, I only voted differently because I have a mildly different opinion on some specific points. But because they see me occasionally pull down a bad 'Remain' argument or point out something crap the EU did, I'm automatically slotted into the 'enemy' camp to be fought to the death on everything. Worst of all, I end up mentally starting to draw those lines too despite doing my best not to, because that's how human psychology works.
I mean, crikey, take that daft attempt by the EU to impose the ECJ post-Brexit. I know it's way beyond the norm, every international news agency who covered it points out the unprecedented degree to which is does infringe upon an independent state, factually, it's pretty clear that there's little justification for it. But when I point that out, I'm immediately confronted by people contorting into knots trying to devise a way in which it is. That's because it's just devolved into this thing where whenever a 'Leaver' tries to point out anything remotely negative about the EU or its actions, it's perceived as the battlefield being set up and the knights have to move into position on both sides.
It goes the other way too, but the fact that 'Team Remain' has a better grasp of the facts and figures means that the quantity of holes in arguments is smaller, and you need to vaguely know your stuff to argue with it. Which unfortunately, a lot of 'Leavers' can't do. So they just end up feeling browbeaten and condescended to, which isn't helped by the somewhat patronising tone 'Team Remain' tends to adopt (usually exacerbated by several pithy generalisations about Leavers such as that demonstrated by Mr Steveson above).
So I tend to weigh in far more on the 'Leave' side of arguments, because there's no need to add the twenty sixth shot to an animal(or argument) long since dying, but someone should probably point out when the EU and co. are up to no good. Which they frequently are, on account of the fact that they're a bunch of smegging politicians, half of which are always up to something.
I don't know. I guess I'm a little bit sick of both sides, and above all, feeling like I'm being forced into a 'side'. Now that I'm done making everyone on both sides of the fence hacked off at me, I think I might just call it a day altogether on discussing anything to do with Brexit until negotiations are done. Every argument just goes the same way, and it's long since gotten old.
'Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Britain, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.'
I get the feeling here Whirlwind that you should be mad at the world governments rather than aiming solely at the UK.
I get disillusioned at the amount of spite directed at the UK Govt for failing at this entire process when tbh its a cockup of gigantic proportions orchestrated by both parties. The EU is a monolithic organisation where it often working at cross purpose. Afaicr there has not been a set of audited accounts for the last 15 to 20 years, and asking for an unspecified sum based on cigarette packet calculations was never going to fly. And yes for many years successive governments here have passed the buck and quietly signed away our sovereignty without consulting the electorate.
In fact it may be a sign of that disillusionment that the last politician I truly respected was Maggie Thatcher. I'm Scottish and you know what a reputation she had up here. Like her or loath her she did exactly what was said on the tin.
Globalisation (if that's the word) will never work until such time an external force threatens us all. To much nationalism exists, and you will never get rid of it, so deriding someone for that trait...well you may as well spit in the rain for all the good it will do.
AndrewC wrote: As I understood it the application of ECJ applies to any EU citizen working or living in the UK in perpertuity. However quite willing to be shown otherwise.
II. Personal scope:
The Withdrawal Agreement should apply to the following persons as covered by the Treaty and
secondary Union law:
(a) EU27 citizens who reside or have resided in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement;
(b) UK nationals who reside or have resided in EU27 at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement;
(c) The family members of the persons referred to in points (a) and (b), regardless of their
nationality, as covered by Directive 2004/38, who have joined or will join the holder of
the right at any point in time after the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal
Agreement [i.e. current and future family members];
(d) EU27 citizens who work or have worked in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement, whilst residing in EU 27, and UK nationals who work or have
3
worked in EU27 at that date, whilst residing in the UK or in another EU27 Member State
than that of employment, and their family members regardless of place of residence [e.g.
frontier workers];
(e) EU27 citizens and UK nationals and their family members covered by Regulation
883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems who, at the date of entry into
force of the Withdrawal Agreement, are or have been subject to the legislation of an
EU27 Member State for UK nationals, or UK legislation for EU27 citizens [i.e. who have (i)
left the UK or EU27 at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement, but have
aggregated periods for the calculation of future income replacing benefits (old age
benefits, cash sickness benefits, invalidity benefits, survivor benefits and benefits in
respect of accidents and work and occupational diseases), or (ii) who have left the UK or
EU27 at the date of entry into force of the Withdrawal Agreement and currently already
enjoy export of income replacing benefits (for example pensioners)]
It's clear that ECJ jurisdiction (the last part on the position paper) refers solely to people who had acquired rights during UKEU membership, and their families.
But sovereignty apparently trumps common sense, and some people are keen to make a mountain of this particular molehill.
(d) EU27 citizens who work or have worked in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement, whilst residing in EU 27, and UK nationals who work or have
3
worked in EU27 at that date, whilst residing in the UK or in another EU27 Member State
than that of employment, and their family members regardless of place of residence [e.g.
frontier workers];
So if at any time in the past if you worked in the UK you will be subject to the laws of the ECJ, and please note that it includes family members with a large loophole which means that you can include unborn children.
(2) The rights of the right holders set out in paragraph 1, and the derived rights of their family members, should be protected for life, provided that conditions of Union law are met [for example, where the right holder dies, in the event of divorce or if the right holder leaves the host State before the divorce, the family member will continue to have derived rights under the conditions set out in Directive 2004/38].
So there we have the EU insisting that the ECJ has primacy for the natural lives which obviously will extend beyond the brexit date.
(1) The Commission should have full powers for the monitoring and the Court of Justice of the European Union should have full jurisdiction corresponding to the duration of the protection of citizen's rights in the Withdrawal agreement.
And here we have the EU stating plainly that they have jurisdiction over the relevant people, extending beyond brexit.
Thank you for the horses mouth, it seems that I did understand it right.
And here we have the EU stating plainly that they have jurisdiction over the relevant people, extending beyond brexit.
Thank you for the horses mouth, it seems that I did understand it right.
It was me who misread you then
But then again how can you claim that it is not ex post facto. An act of government (Brexit) removes a right (appeal to a higher court) from a group of citizens. Again, it's just a simple grandfathering clause.
As to hate and bile, have a real look through the last 5 or so pages and you'll see that the insults and haranguing have been coming from one direction to the other,
Soo....
steve steveson wrote:Leave campaigners are still screaming "nasty EU!" over anyone who questions them or asks for workable ideas...
wasn't even vaguely insulting at all? And when I attempted to point that out in a somewhat droll nerd-culture related fashion(you know being on a site about toy soldiers and all), your only thoughts were:-
r_squared wrote:But its nice to see the leave side reduced to weak "hivemind/gollum" memes and insults as their arguments, and reality are stripped away.
I mean, come on guv. 'One direction' indeed...
Really? That's "hate and bile"? If thats the case, then I think sensitivity to criticism is really far too high.
However, I share your tired resignation about the partisanship over this subject. It's completely distracting everyone from the horrendous job Davis and the Govt are making of negotiations. I absolutely do not share their belief that this is the best for the country and our trading partners, but if we do have to commit to this bloody stupid idea, then at least start by having a coherent and realistic idea of what we want. Coherent and realistic does not include expecting our opponent to accept a position which is in absolute opposition to the core constructs of their beurocracy.
Unfortunately for the Govt, because one part of the population wants to tear us away from the EU as quickly and completely as possible, and the other half want to salvage as much as possible, and because it may cost them votes, they're in full on pander mode.
From the Guardian live politics feed, so forgive the fragmented nature.
Iceland would welcome the UK in EFTA, says Icelandic foreign minister:
Efta would benefit from having UK as a member, says Icelandic foreign minister
In the UK one of the many arguments about Brexit is about whether we should seek to remain in the single market after we leave through membership of the European Economic Area (EEA) or the European Free Trade Association (Efta). But what do Efta members think? On the Today programme this morning the Icelandic foreign minister, Gudlaugur Thor Thordarson, said Iceland would like Britain to join. That was because it would give Efta more clout in trade negotiations, he said. He told the programme:
They [the UK] could definitely join Efta, and I think it would strengthen Efta at least to have a cooperation with Britain. It is quite clear that when Britain starts to negotiate their own free trade deal, then everyone wants to make a free trade deal with Britain. You are the fifth largest economy in the world. Everyone wants to sell you goods and services. It’s as simple as that.
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but as a possible short term transition solution, it's not bad.
It makes a change to have a foreign politician who doesn't think the 7 plagues of Egypt will hit the UK because of Brexit.
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
Yeah, I know what you're saying, but as a possible short term transition solution, it's not bad.
It makes a change to have a foreign politician who doesn't think the 7 plagues of Egypt will hit the UK because of Brexit.
That is true.
As a transitional solution though, it could work for the first few years.
That is great, but it would still require us to be in the single market and thus swallow the ECJ's rulings. Plus I read that Norway is reluctant to have us on board due to the possible baggage.
Not just ECJ. Full freedom of movement and paying into the EU budget too.
AndrewC wrote: I get the feeling here Whirlwind that you should be mad at the world governments rather than aiming solely at the UK.
Not really mad, just wry amusement that many people look at events in isolation and not as a wider whole. In the end we as the populace (in the democratic world at least) vote in the parties and to some extent is ours to change (although Governments do try and manipulate circumstances). As I noted before there are many people opposed to 'large scale migration' but also have nationalistic and protectionist ideological thinking. However by having the latter effectively you encourage the former because the latter protects and enriches the existing wealthy countries relative to poorer countries. That therefore generates a greater driver for the poorest to migrate. If you have a less protectionist ideology then the country may be poorer relatively but then the poorest countries are also more wealthy which then discourages migration. if there is one thing nature always works against is a gradient.
I get disillusioned at the amount of spite directed at the UK Govt for failing at this entire process when tbh its a cockup of gigantic proportions orchestrated by both parties.
That's not really the point of the conversation. The EU is 'blamed' for the fishing crisis which implemented quotas based on what scientifically is sustainable. The UK made a choice how to implement these limits. The UK government chose how to implement this (and whether to issue subsidies for example). That it didn't was a UK government choice and by extension what the populace chose in their governments. That in this issue was never the responsibility of the EU, yet there was plenty of 'blame' that is was there fault. If anything it was us as a populace that are at fault for choosing the government that we did. However it is always easier to blame a 'faceless' organisation rather than look inwards and as whether it was our actions. The reality is if you want to blame anyone for the collapse of fishing in the UK you need to blame the electorate as they were the ones that chose the governments that implemented it. I can point to plenty of other examples, even from my own family. Family members hate what is happening to the NHS (noting the Tories are letting another target quietly slip before the winter... http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/the-government-has-quietly-shelved-nhs-18-week-waiting-time-target_uk_59ae82eee4b0dfaafcf2668b?ir=UK+Politics&utm_hp_ref=uk-politics, the increased waiting times, undertstaffed over worked nurses etc, yet when you ask how they voted they voted Tory because "it makes us better off". Highlighting this discrepancy in that if we as a populace paid a bit more (especially those on higher incomes) generally gets a grunt and a quick change in conversation as they don't want to look introspectively at the choices they made.
The EU is a monolithic organisation where it often working at cross purpose. Afaicr there has not been a set of audited accounts for the last 15 to 20 years, and asking for an unspecified sum based on cigarette packet calculations was never going to fly.
As for the back of cigarette packet calculations it is amusing that this keeps getting bandied about. The four page document was almost certainly a summary. However to quote D. Davis he is going through the figures "line by line" (his own words). Now either he is very slow at numeracy as most people could look at 4 pages in a few hours or that there is more information but that it is easier to trot out the "4 page garbage" as a political tool (to get lapped up by some in the media).
Globalisation (if that's the word) will never work until such time an external force threatens us all. To much nationalism exists, and you will never get rid of it, so deriding someone for that trait...well you may as well spit in the rain for all the good it will do.
Who's the fool though if the problem is recognised but the person then refuses to challenge it? However I'm also pessimistic about coming together as one species. It will either need some major disaster that forces the few humans left to work together regardless of background (think 2012 despite being a rubbish film) or we will continue down the same line. That means individual countries will horde and stockpile resources as they get rarer and more expensive and as the populace grows. Eventually however nature will even things out, lack of resources either results in plague, famine or fighting (which happens in all animals) that don't know better. That in the end in the inevitable outcome from our current direction whether that be in 10 or 1000 years.
(d) EU27 citizens who work or have worked in the UK at the date of entry into force of the
Withdrawal Agreement, whilst residing in EU 27, and UK nationals who work or have
3
worked in EU27 at that date, whilst residing in the UK or in another EU27 Member State
than that of employment, and their family members regardless of place of residence [e.g.
frontier workers];
So if at any time in the past if you worked in the UK you will be subject to the laws of the ECJ, and please note that it includes family members with a large loophole which means that you can include unborn children.
Not quite the "domino theory" that was being pushed as what would happen.
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective and Brexit is good for the world. It's a positive aspect of Brexit, showing the rest how not to shoot yourself in the foot, hand and head all at the same time...
I think the idea that we should hand wash our clothes was missing from the referendum literature
So the UK post Brexit...
I can see why people are moving out. I'm not sure I want to spend my weekends scrubbing my undies like this though. However I do know some people wanted to return to better times....
My views on Conservative MPs are well known on this forum. They are a bunch of and another for the weekend!
None the less, Rees Mogg is that rare breed - a Conservative MP who is actually a Conservative.
It was pointed out to me the other day, that a hypothetical General election contest between Corbyn and Rees Mogg as Tory leader, would be the first time since 1983 that a Conservative and a Socialist went head to head. i.e the British people would have a genuine choice of ideology to govern them, rather than this middle ground, New Labour bullgak that has infected British politics for the last 20 years.
Like I said earlier, he's a Conservative MP that acts like a Conservative.
I don't agree with most of his politics, but you know where you stand with him. He has convictions, unlike weasels such as Blair, Clegg, Farron, Cameron, May et al.
As for backing a politician, I weigh up their pros and cons like anything else. And if the pros outweigh the cons so be it. Right now, Mogg's cons outweigh his pros. If you bothered to read my post I said I'd like to back Mogg but I can't, because of his opinions and voting records.
As for backing a politician, I weigh up their pros and cons like anything else. And if the pros outweigh the cons so be it. Right now, Mogg's cons outweigh his pros. If you bothered to read my post I said I'd like to back Mogg but I can't, because of his opinions and voting records.
You can like it or lump it as far as I care. Why would you LIKE to back someone whose opinions and voting record you don't agree with? That doesnt make any sense at all.
For me he talks a lot of sense on Brexit, and he actually seems to like this country. That's why I'd like to back him. Then he goes and spoils it all by opposing gay rights and abortion. I can't have that, as I get enough of that gak from the DUP. So I can't back him.
Downing Street is asking Britain’s biggest companies to give public support to the Government’s approach to its Brexit negotiations, a move which has provoked fury in a string of blue-chip boardrooms.
Sky News has obtained a letter being circulated in FTSE 100 and other company boardrooms which praises ministers' commitment to securing a transition period after the UK leaves the European Union (EU).
It also expresses confidence in the future of "a global Britain" and says that the Government's Repeal Bill will "make Britain ready for life outside the EU".
Executives in sectors including financial services, manufacturing and technology are among those approached about signing the letter, which is expected to be published as early as Thursday
Sources at some of the UK's biggest businesses expressed incredulity at the request from No 10, which comes at a time when Theresa May's relationship with the private sector is already under strain.
That tension was reinforced on Wednesday when leaked details of the Government's future immigration policy proposals were criticised by an array of business groups.
One source who has seen the draft said it was reminiscent of the 'Project Fear' campaign that pro-remain supporters were accused of conducting before the EU referendum.
The identity of the officials responsible for circulating the draft letter was unclear on Wednesday, or whether Mrs May was aware of the plan to release it.
Sources said the approach from officials had been accompanied by a request to sign it before the end of the week.
It is possible that a final version of the letter could differ from the draft seen by Sky News, said one source.
The letter reads: "We write as leaders of some of the UK's most dynamic businesses operating in sectors as diverse as technology, financial services and advanced manufacturing.
"Some of us personally supported the remain or leave campaigns at last year's referendum on EU membership, others did not make their positions public.
"But fifteen months later, we all share an understanding that Brexit is happening, a commitment to ensure that we make a success of the outcome for the whole country, and a confidence that a global Britain has the potential to become one of the most productive economies of the 21st century.
"This month the Government's Repeal Bill will initiate a programme of legislation that will make Britain ready for life outside the EU.
"We believe this is a good time for employers to work with Government and Parliament to make a success of Brexit and secure a bright future for our country.
"We welcome the Government's commitment to negotiating an interim period so that firms can ensure they are ready to adapt to the changing relationships and thrive under the new partnership being created with the EU.
"And as the UK makes progress towards establishing stronger trading links with markets like the US, India, Japan and Mexico, British businesses who know these markets well should stand ready to use their expertise and networks to cement future relationships.
"As business leaders, we have a duty to our shareholders and employees to continue to grow our businesses and ensure that they remain strong.
"As part of this we are also determined to see the UK continue to be a prosperous and united force for good in the world and are ready to play our full part to achieve this as Britain leaves the European Union."
Several FTSE 100 executives expressed incredulity at the approach from Downing Street, with one saying: "There is no way we could sign this given the current state of chaos surrounding the (Brexit) talks."
Contact between ministers and the private sector has been intensified since June's general election, with regular meetings now scheduled between various groups involving Philip Hammond, the Chancellor, and Greg Clark, Business Secretary.
Mrs May has also reintroduced a version of the business advisory group which met frequently under David Cameron.
During Mr Cameron's premiership, letters from company bosses were often used during election and referendum campaigns to back the Conservatives or the Government's position.
However, no such letter appeared from Tory-supporting bosses during this year's general election campaign, reflecting Mrs May's perceived disdain for enlisting the support of company bosses.
None of the companies contacted by Sky News would comment, while a Downing Street spokesman declined to comment.
..uh hmmm ..
do you remember .....
is this the control we're taking back then is it ?
-- sections 4.13-4.18 are especially heart warming/makes you wonder what the feth we're doing, mainly as in a Govt commissioned report on Economic Impact of EU Migration in a report on on reducing migration, it can find nothing negative to say about it.
Like I said earlier, he's a Conservative MP that acts like a Conservative.
I don't agree with most of his politics, but you know where you stand with him. He has convictions, unlike weasels such as Blair, Clegg, Farron, Cameron, May et al.
Perhaps a conservative stuck in the 1700s perhaps...still 18 months ago we didn't think Trump had a chance and yet a bigoted, homophobic idiot got voted in. Nothing to say it can't happen here. I'm not sure convictions are very useful if they out of touch with reality and the way the world is.
In other news apparently May has been deliberately suppressing government reports that shows that the immigration has negligible to no impact on peoples wages in the UK, whilst stating the benefits. However she has been deliberately sat on them whilst in the Home Office as it was against her own personal desires to reduce immigration. Always good to the see the PM likes to listen to the scientific evidence if true. It is questionable why Cable sat on this information for so long however as it would have definitely helped in the referendum. I would hypothesise that it might have been deliberately done for political gain unfortunately.
and perhaps most worrying this has been reported coming from Tory MPs
But most wounding of all would be to quote Graham Brady, the chairman of the backbench Tory 1922 Committee, from yesterday’s Daily Politics. Brady effectively put May on probation by saying a PM’s authority is “always subject to the support of colleagues”, adding she had such support “at the moment”. Damian Green told Politico yesterday that May was likely to lead the party into the 2022 election. But asked if he was happy for her to do so, Brady said: “Absolutely - if my colleagues are then I am.” ‘At the moment’, ‘if’, it’s all very conditional, lukewarm, tepid support.
The FT quotes one former cabinet minister: “The Conservative parliamentary party has made two decisions. The first is that we don’t want another election, preferably ever.
Future War Cultist wrote: For me he talks a lot of sense on Brexit, and he actually seems to like this country. That's why I'd like to back him. Then he goes and spoils it all by opposing gay rights and abortion. I can't have that, as I get enough of that gak from the DUP. So I can't back him.
Anyway, onto my ignore list you go.
He seems like like this country, in that he makes a huge amount of money out of it. He doesn't seem to like or respect the bulk of the people in it.
He's probably more dangerous that May, in that he's completely honest and consistent about his position.
-- sections 4.13-4.18 are especially heart warming/makes you wonder what the feth we're doing, mainly as in a Govt commissioned report on Economic Impact of EU Migration in a report on on reducing migration, it can find nothing negative to say about it.
and yet here we are .
because we forget that the Tory party are currently led by and pandering to bigots to ensure they keep UKIP supporters on their side whilst hoping that those that believe anything but Tories would be a disaster will keep voting for them (and perhaps the elderly won't eventually pass away).
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Something about Corbyn being stuck in the 70's, Mogg's stuck in the 19th century at the earliest.
This is a response to you and Whirlwind.
For 20 years, we've had this wishy-washy, centre ground, New Labour horsegak, where both parties have morphed into one party, and the so called policy of Blue Blairites and Red Blairites is almost indentical from everything to EU support, to supporting intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.
David Cameron and Tony Blair are almost the same person from a politics viewpoint.
And people are fed up with it - there is no clear water between the parties. As a result, none of the above has been the fastest growing party for 20 years.
This lack of engagement and the creation of the Westminster bubble probably contributed to Brexit.
When I was a lad growing up in the 1980s
I remember 1983 and the ideological battle between Foot and Thatcher. That was the last time we had it.
I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.
Mozzyfuzzy wrote: Something about Corbyn being stuck in the 70's, Mogg's stuck in the 19th century at the earliest.
This is a response to you and Whirlwind.
For 20 years, we've had this wishy-washy, centre ground, New Labour horsegak, where both parties have morphed into one party, and the so called policy of Blue Blairites and Red Blairites is almost indentical from everything to EU support, to supporting intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.
David Cameron and Tony Blair are almost the same person from a politics viewpoint.
You realise that centre-left and centre-right are just as valid political approaches to world right? Not everything has to be black and white, angels and devils etc etc. The reason you have had a lot of central ground politics is because people wanted a more moderate, reasoned approach to the world. DC started centre right and then moved right. Blair started centre-left and moved right. But that is the choice people made. There were subtleties in the choices though, that people can't or won't see those subtleties doesn't mean there weren't decisions. Hard left means you get a hard socialist agenda (likely at the cost of a viable economy) and the Tories are heading hard right with a protectionist but neo-liberal approach for businesses where we will lose all rights as a populace whilst business is embraced at all costs. Things like the environment however disappear into the background despite being a critical element to our well being. If you want the ultimate difference why don't you just promote a communist vs a fascist and be done with it?
I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.
There's a reason that 3rd way politics became so successful. It's because people aren't generally ideological. They don't want to have to make a choice between Left and Right, socialism and whatever toxicity Mogg is vomiting today. Most people like the comfortable middle ground.
Having choice is great, but if the choice is between two positions that you hate is that really choice? Why celebrate a choice that is no better than picking the poison that kills you?
I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.
There's a reason that 3rd way politics became so successful. It's because people aren't generally ideological. They don't want to have to make a choice between Left and Right, socialism and whatever toxicity Mogg is vomiting today. Most people like the comfortable middle ground.
Having choice is great, but if the choice is between two positions that you hate is that really choice? Why celebrate a choice that is no better than picking the poison that kills you?
We have this wonderful NHS, because long ago, the British people were happy to be ideological and vote for a true party of the Left.
If you build it, they will come. Give the people a genuine choice, and British history shows they will sign up for it.
I don't like Corbyn, and I certainly don't like Mogg, but like I said, if such a contest ever happened, the British public would have a clear ideological choice for the first time in 30 years, instead of this New Labour horsegak, which has poisoned politics in this country.
There's a reason that 3rd way politics became so successful. It's because people aren't generally ideological. They don't want to have to make a choice between Left and Right, socialism and whatever toxicity Mogg is vomiting today. Most people like the comfortable middle ground.
Having choice is great, but if the choice is between two positions that you hate is that really choice? Why celebrate a choice that is no better than picking the poison that kills you?
We have this wonderful NHS, because long ago, the British people were happy to be ideological and vote for a true party of the Left.
If you build it, they will come. Give the people a genuine choice, and British history shows they will sign up for it.
I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?
* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.
Jadenim wrote: I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?
* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.
I remember when Rees-Mogg went on HIGNFY and Hislop turned to him and said, 'So Jacob, do you think your accent has ever held you back?'
I like and respect the fact that Rees-Mogg is honest. In the same way that I can respect a homophobe who actually lives by the full word of Leviticus (avoids shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc). I might disagree intensively with them, I might think they're bloody stupid, I might even think they're total bastards and hate their guts. But I do have a grudging respect for people who consistently follow their beliefs. Too few do.
That being said, I'd take to the streets before I saw Moggy as PM. I'd take Corbyn over Moggy any day. I might respect his integrity, and I like the way he has a habit of making lots of politicians uncomfortable, but the man should never actually be in charge.
Big day today for British politics. Great repeal Bill Debate, and the EU have published its position papers for Brexit.
It would be an understatement to say things are hotting up on social media
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I remember when Rees-Mogg went on HIGNFY and Hislop turned to him and said, 'So Jacob, do you think your accent has ever held you back?'
I like and respect the fact that Rees-Mogg is honest. In the same way that I can respect a homophobe who actually lives by the full word of Leviticus (avoids shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc). I might disagree intensively with them, I might think they're bloody stupid, I might even think they're total bastards and hate their guts. But I do have a grudging respect for people who consistently follow their beliefs. Too few do.
That being said, I'd take to the streets before I saw Moggy as PM. I'd take Corbyn over Moggy any day. I might respect his integrity, and I like the way he has a habit of making lots of politicians uncomfortable, but the man should never actually be in charge.
I don't think Mogg has ambitions beyond a cabinet post. I think he's happy to snipe away from the back benches and make a nuisance of himself from time to time.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't think Mogg has ambitions beyond a cabinet post. I think he's happy to snipe away from the back benches and make a nuisance of himself from time to time.
If that is where he is most effective, I'd help keep him there.
He may have a big mouth, wide enough for the Boris-sized words, and he seems to go after the unpopular MPs and policies when they step out if line.
Jadenim wrote: I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?
* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.
In that example, any negative public reaction would probably be dismissed as Islamophobia. You can also bet the media would hesitate to ask Mr Al-Haraj any awkward questions about it. They save those sorts of questions for people with names like Tim Farron.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't think Mogg has ambitions beyond a cabinet post. I think he's happy to snipe away from the back benches and make a nuisance of himself from time to time.
If that is where he is most effective, I'd help keep him there.
He may have a big mouth, wide enough for the Boris-sized words, and he seems to go after the unpopular MPs and policies when they step out if line.
I think he's a lot smarter than Bojo, but that isn't really saying much!
They need to save all their infighting until after Brexit. They cannot feth this up. Also the last time they started infighting we ended up with new labour in charge. Need I say more?
Jadenim wrote: I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?
* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.
In that example, any negative public reaction would probably be dismissed as Islamophobia. You can also bet the media would hesitate to ask Mr Al-Haraj any awkward questions about it. They save those sorts of questions for people with names like Tim Farron.
In that example they wouldn't be any issue because the muslim sky fairy tells their devout followers that up until 4 months a foetus doesn't have a soul yet so it's ok to terminate.
I expect any muslim politician that says it's his personal belief that it's ok to slap your wife occasionally would very likely have to resign.
Jadenim wrote: I hate to be that guy, but I do wonder that if Jacob Rees-Mogg didn't have a quaint old-fashioned upper class name, but say "Mohammed Al-Haraj" *, whether the public reaction would be quite the same to the exact same public statements?
* made up name is obviously made up, no offence intended.
Would he still be a ruling, snooty tax dodging exploiters with an appalling voting record?
I couldn't give a single gak that he's got a posh name, the guy's a walking example of why the establishment is so hated by anyone who isn't part of it.
Sure, he's honest snout being a bag of gak, but he's still a bag of gak.
It's Maastricht and John Major's "bastards" all over again.
This goes back to the core issue of the Brexit vote, there was no gameplan behind "leave" except "leave". Beyond that, there was no unified plan or coherent concept of where people wanted a post EU Britain to go, and those divisions are in some cases as deep as those between "remain" and "leave", and thats going to entail a large number of issues for both the government and EU negotiations.
Brexit Would Have No Impact On UK Economy, Says Andrea Leadsom
"My best expectation, with my 30 years of financial experience, is that there will not be an economic impact," the Tory minister told BuzzFeed News.
......
She doesn’t believe that either Osborne or David Cameron will have to stand down in the event of Brexit, despite calls from some Tory MPs. "The prime minister has made it clear that in a referendum you are asking for instructions from the people – it’s not like a general election," she says. "And when the people vote Leave, I genuinely believe that the prime minister and the chancellor will then, with all of their energies, fight to deliver what the people have instructed them to do."
That interview aged well eh ?
And yet up she pops in the HoC ..yammering on about Big Ben ...
It's Maastricht and John Major's "bastards" all over again.
This goes back to the core issue of the Brexit vote, there was no gameplan behind "leave" except "leave". Beyond that, there was no unified plan or coherent concept of where people wanted a post EU Britain to go, and those divisions are in some cases as deep as those between "remain" and "leave", and thats going to entail a large number of issues for both the government and EU negotiations.
The Leave camp deserves some blame for not having a plan, but our former Prime Minister, David Cameron, deserves a lot of the blame as well. So convinced was he that Remain would win, he didn't even bother to tell the Civil Service to draw up contingency plans for a Leave victory
David Cameron has to be one of the worst PMs Britain has ever had. Lord North is generally considered the worst for losing America, but in his defence, he was up against a badass called Washington.
Cameron had no such opponent. The man was a disgrace as PM!
Brexit Would Have No Impact On UK Economy, Says Andrea Leadsom
"My best expectation, with my 30 years of financial experience, is that there will not be an economic impact," the Tory minister told BuzzFeed News.
......
She doesn’t believe that either Osborne or David Cameron will have to stand down in the event of Brexit, despite calls from some Tory MPs. "The prime minister has made it clear that in a referendum you are asking for instructions from the people – it’s not like a general election," she says. "And when the people vote Leave, I genuinely believe that the prime minister and the chancellor will then, with all of their energies, fight to deliver what the people have instructed them to do."
That interview aged well eh ?
And yet up she pops in the HoC ..yammering on about Big Ben ...
It's Leadsom. If she said that grass was green, I'd be out on my front lawn having a closer look. Completely out of her depth in any leadership capacity, and it was probably a blessing for the nation the she withdrew from the leadership contest, and that's saying something when you consider how bad Bojo and May are.
It's Maastricht and John Major's "bastards" all over again.
This goes back to the core issue of the Brexit vote, there was no gameplan behind "leave" except "leave". Beyond that, there was no unified plan or coherent concept of where people wanted a post EU Britain to go, and those divisions are in some cases as deep as those between "remain" and "leave", and thats going to entail a large number of issues for both the government and EU negotiations.
The Leave camp deserves some blame for not having a plan, but our former Prime Minister, David Cameron, deserves a lot of the blame as well. So convinced was he that Remain would win, he didn't even bother to tell the Civil Service to draw up contingency plans for a Leave victory
David Cameron has to be one of the worst PMs Britain has ever had. Lord North is generally considered the worst for losing America, but in his defence, he was up against a badass called Washington.
Cameron had no such opponent. The man was a disgrace as PM!
thats also fair, Cameron really was something of a monstrously vacuous idiot playing a brinksmanship game for political reasons and wasnt at all prepared for it not to go his way.
If drawing and quartering were still a thing, that kind of rank idiocy should qualify, no matter what side of the brexit debate you're on
Cameron ought to have his picture in the dictionary under incompetence. He makes Trump look like FDR.
You may or may not know this, but in January 2016, a few months before the referendum, Cameron went to EUHQ to get a deal for the UK, some new powers.
The hope was that these new powers would buy off anti-EU opponents in the UK and end the calls for a referendum.
It was a fething disaster!
Before the talks started, he said he would support the EU in the referendum regardless of what happened in the talks, thus shooting himself in the foot, because the EU knew he didn't have the bluff option of threatning to walk away from the talks if he didn't get some powers.
He arrived on the Thursday, and said he wanted the talks to end on the Sunday, so all the EU had to do was sit it out until Sunday and not offer anything!
Shooting yourself in the foot? He sawed both feet off before the talks even started!
And that was a man who had his finger on the red button.
I like and respect the fact that Rees-Mogg is honest. In the same way that I can respect a homophobe who actually lives by the full word of Leviticus (avoids shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc). I might disagree intensively with them, I might think they're bloody stupid, I might even think they're total bastards and hate their guts. But I do have a grudging respect for people who consistently follow their beliefs. Too few do.
So we are saying that we should respect people because they form an opinion and then never change it, regardless of the research, how the world changes and develops? It's not something to be proud of to hold a belief regardless, if anything if everyone took this approach we would not be far past the stone age. Perhaps though instead of Mogg you should also be highly regarding others, perhaps those that believe that their own wealth is the primary concern and nothing else. Is that not being honest with the world? It might mean they lie and cheat to get there, but strictly speaking they are holding to their belief that they should get all the money?
They need to save all their infighting until after Brexit. They cannot feth this up. Also the last time they started infighting we ended up with new labour in charge. Need I say more?
And most said thank you to whatever higher power is up there....
However I think we are missing the point today about how much power the Wrexit bill is going to give Government. Keir Starmer did a very good job of taking it apart and you can find a summary here:-
Clause 9(1) as to enable regulations to be made by Ministers “for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement”. The agreement is defined by Clause 14 as an agreement “whether or not ratified” agreed with the European Union under Article 50(2) TEU
Schedule 7, paragraph 1(3) provides that any other regulations to correct deficiencies shall, by default, be subject to the negative procedure, unless it has been determined that the affirmative procedure shall apply.
Clause 17(1) contains a power to make consequential provisions “as the minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act”.
clause 8(3) the power cannot be used to modify primary legislation “passed or made” after the end of the Session in which the Bill is passed. Assuming the Bill is passed in this session, which began in June 2017 and is expected to last until May 2019, Acts made after its end could not be amended under clause 17
Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on this is a terrifying thing to behold. In essence it gives Government the power to make any amendments to any legislation it sees fit (apart from taxation, create a criminal offence, change anything to the humans rights act or anything retrospectively) that may have an impact on the UK leaving the EU. No challenge, no parliamentary debate. In effect everyone can just go home and let ministers put into place anything they wish. This is not taking back control at all, it's more akin to losing all control. The MPs we voted for will get minimal voice who are meant to our representatives. If this goes through this isn't really democracy in action it's akin to a soft form of taking over and ignoring the electorate in the same way as Edrogan (but a lot more subtle).
So we are saying that we should respect people because they form an opinion and then never change it, regardless of the research, how the world changes and develops? It's not something to be proud of to hold a belief regardless, if anything if everyone took this approach we would not be far past the stone age. Perhaps though instead of Mogg you should also be highly regarding others, perhaps those that believe that their own wealth is the primary concern and nothing else. Is that not being honest with the world? It might mean they lie and cheat to get there, but strictly speaking they are holding to their belief that they should get all the money?
People hold 'beliefs' about everything. What is admirable in Rees-Mogg's case is a) Courage. Namely being willing to stand up and say something you believe even when you know it will only hurt you, and b) Honesty. It would be easier to simply lie and then hold your beliefs privately, as indeed, most politicians do.
Positive traits like bravery and honesty aren't exclusively the purview of those who sit precisely in a middle center left political place, and they're no less respectable in and of themselves because they become attached to a misguided or abhorrent viewpoint. For example, one could easily respect the intelligence of a very smart Japanese scientist who was a member of Unit 731, or the loyalty of a soldier who held his position outside the Fuhrerbunker to the bitter end.The minute you begin to insist that people who hold different world views to yourself are devoid of all positive traits or somehow 'unworthy' of them is the minute you've effectively become somebody who respects nobody but themselves.
Respect is not an endorsement of a view. Respect does not mean that you like somebody. Respect does not mean that you give credence to what somebody says. It is simply due regard for the manifestation of a positive trait, irregardless of whatever other things it might be located next to.
Herzlos wrote: I always got the impression he was outspoken because he felt untouchable, rather than bravely sticking to opinions that may hurt him.
That may well be the case, a positive trait can often be a negative one in disguise. A hard working person might in actuality be an unhealthy workaholic, a brave person might be reckless, and so forth. All we can ever do is pass a judgement from our own limited empirical perspective.
People hold 'beliefs' about everything. What is admirable in Rees-Mogg's case is a) Courage. Namely being willing to stand up and say something you believe even when you know it will only hurt you, and b) Honesty. It would be easier to simply lie and then hold your beliefs privately, as indeed, most politicians do.
That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc. Those that change their mind are liars, deceiving etc. However no consideration is given to that they may have changed their mind, been presented with new evidence and hence believe something different from what they did before that evidence is presented to them. Which characteristic is better? The inflexible one that maintains the same position regardless of the evidence as suggested here with Moggy or the one that has an open mind to changing their approach to the world as other evidence presents itself? The latter might however be perceived as corrupted in some way?
Are we not also at risk that views of people are biased by are out internal views at the time? Moggy is lauded as holding to his principles, yet how many stated how heinous Gina Miller was when she stuck to her principles? Could people portray Moggy as 'just a rich out of touch person' because they align with views on other issues (e.g. Brexit). Yet when such people hold to their views on issues we disagree with then these should be condemned which has happened even on these boards (not specifically you Ketara). Or perhaps is it more insidious than this, could it be that a white male making such comments is considered in a better light than a non-white female showing deep-rooted, low level sexism and/or racism? If Gina Miller had come out and said the same things as Moggy how likely is that we would be having a debate on how 'fine' that character trait was? Highly unlikely I would suspect.
In a potentially provocative move, he also explained to reporters before a meeting with his EU counterparts in Tallinn, Estonia, that the EU had a legal duty to discuss trade relations.
.... so which court are you going to take them to then.... ?
I’m at Nigel Farage’s speech to Germany’s far-right AfD party. He just seems utterly astounded that Brexit isn’t a German election issue.
He devoted a good chunk of time to this bewilderment. Audience is quite receptive to anti-EU talk, but not so enthusiastic re: helping UK
That'd be the same Farage who railed against foreign types "interfering" by offering opinions, thoughts and so forth with regards to the referendum and so on yes ?
Bloody foreign nationalists, eh It's like they have no solidarity with their foreign brothers!
That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc.
Is there? Far as I can see, people in here who've commented are more mentioning their respect towards someone for publicly and honestly sticking to their beliefs in the face of potential hardship or adversity. Which, in the case of a politician advocating no abortion even for rape victims, is practically guaranteed, it's virtually begging for negative headlines and general disgust (with good reason). If Moggy stood up and said 'I used to think abortion was bad, but now I believe it's intolerable' and explained his reasoning in depth, my respect of him as an openminded moral human being would certainly go up. I wouldn't be able to respect his preaching a (horrible) belief in the face of adversity anymore though, on account of the fact he wouldn't be doing it.
I'm not really seeing anyone in here lauding him on account of the fact that he stamped the ten year box on his Catholic scorecard, or slating people who change their opinions on matters.
Ketara wrote:People hold 'beliefs' about everything. What is admirable in Rees-Mogg's case is a) Courage. Namely being willing to stand up and say something you believe even when you know it will only hurt you, and b) Honesty. It would be easier to simply lie and then hold your beliefs privately, as indeed, most politicians do.
He sounds like those people who say that they always tell the truth but then use this as an excuse to be rude to everyone. It's not courage just because they don't care how what they do or say affects other people. They are just donkey-caves or really, really dumb.
I can't say I've ever heard of Rees-Mogg being particularly rude to anyone. He's smarmy, self-important, and likes to hear himself talk, but as a proper toff, he doesn't really go in much for the whole 'tell it like it is' thing. He'd probably consider it gauche, in that stereotypical upper-class gentleman sort of way. Certainly, he's no George Galloway.
I'd vote Brown back in before Moggy got a chance at my vote, but I have no real issue with him holding personal views consistent with his religion. I'm just amazed his constituents send him in, I could never vote for someone with such publically proclaimed archaic beliefs.
Ketara wrote: I could never vote for someone with such publically proclaimed archaic beliefs.
Could it be a case of 'better the devil you know'? Open and forthcoming; At least his voters will know where their disagreements lie with him before instead of after voting for him. Plus I imagine some might not even disagree or see these opinions as important or relevant.
nareik wrote: Plus I imagine some might not even disagree or see these opinions as important or relevant.
Indeed, theres no realistic chance of his views influencing Government policy, tampering with abortion rights would be electoral suicide and he knows it; so all this moral outrage over his homophobic views (whilst justified and I too disagree with his views) is little more than navel gazing. There are more important issues to nail him on than his outdated views on abortion which he himself admits will never become Government policy.
I’m at Nigel Farage’s speech to Germany’s far-right AfD party. He just seems utterly astounded that Brexit isn’t a German election issue.
He devoted a good chunk of time to this bewilderment. Audience is quite receptive to anti-EU talk, but not so enthusiastic re: helping UK
That'd be the same Farage who railed against foreign types "interfering" by offering opinions, thoughts and so forth with regards to the referendum and so on yes ?
Farage is only interested in attention (and becoming a somebody), so it's hardly surprising that he's upset that Germans don't care about what he's gloating about.
That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc.
Is there? Far as I can see, people in here who've commented are more mentioning their respect towards someone for publicly and honestly sticking to their beliefs in the face of potential hardship or adversity.
This is what I was saying? Anyway this is digressing. If we ever vote Moggy in as PM then the country has gone even further to the dogs than I though possible.
What is more important is the way May is trying to 'undo' the inconvenience of the election result and stack as many cards in her favour as possible (despite there in effect being a hung parliament). Of course May is just saying it is common sense; I wonder if she told that to MPs before the election...
That's not really what I was saying or meant. There's a view here that having a long standing belief is a 'good thing', that it shows character etc.
Is there? Far as I can see, people in here who've commented are more mentioning their respect towards someone for publicly and honestly sticking to their beliefs in the face of potential hardship or adversity.
This is what I was saying? Anyway this is digressing. If we ever vote Moggy in as PM then the country has gone even further to the dogs than I though possible.
What is more important is the way May is trying to 'undo' the inconvenience of the election result and stack as many cards in her favour as possible (despite there in effect being a hung parliament). Of course May is just saying it is common sense; I wonder if she told that to MPs before the election...
A controversial new motion tabled by Commons Leader Andrea Leadsom seeks to ensure that Conservatives have a majority on all standing committees that are the powerhouses of all prospective laws.
If passed, the new move would tear up a long-standing convention that Commons committee strictly reflect the proportion of the parties in a general election result.
As much as I want Brexit, I don't want the Government to feth with our (unwritten) Constitution and set dangerous precedents that could be used by future Governments. If they break this convention, it gives a future Labour Government an excuse not to respect it either.
Never set a double edged precedent that you don't want to be used against you one day.
I heard he made a U Turn and now admits we do need to control immigration, but thinks we don't need to leave the EU to do that. Which strikes me as an oxymoron - if we don't control our borders, how can we control immigration?
I heard he made a U Turn and now admits we do need to control immigration, but thinks we don't need to leave the EU to do that. Which strikes me as an oxymoron - if we don't control our borders, how can we control immigration?
Because, as has been discussed in the thread earlier, there are legal ways to control immigration (or elements of it) within the EU, it's just our government(s) never bothered to apply them.
Just because you have the right to go and work in another EU state doesn't automatically mean you have the right to access their social security systems and if you do not have work / find work (edit; or a means to support yourself) you can be asked to leave.
I heard he made a U Turn and now admits we do need to control immigration, but thinks we don't need to leave the EU to do that. Which strikes me as an oxymoron - if we don't control our borders, how can we control immigration?
Bare faced check isn't it? Especially since he was the one who relaxed the controls so much in the first place.
Blair's actions in government paved the road to Brexit. People didn't want uncontrolled migration and he ignored them. He also eroded a lot of trust people had in government and in the Labour Party meaning cynicism in our government at the moment is quite high.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Blair's actions in government paved the road to Brexit. People didn't want uncontrolled migration and he ignored them. He also eroded a lot of trust people had in government and in the Labour Party meaning cynicism in our government at the moment is quite high.
I really don't see the issue people have with immigration. They bring jobs, wealth to the country and do the jobs less and less of us are willing to do. What they put back into the economy is vastly more than the small amount they take out. All our families were immigrants at some point in the past. I fear that immigration is an easy thing to blame for the countries issues, something that people can latch on to, at first sight being a panacea for them. Yet the reality is that a significant reduction in immigration will only make the country weaker long term, as immigrants look for more accommodating shores. I've said it a lot before but deciding on who should be let on simply because they were born past a certain line is not the way forward.
I'm quite happy with immigration as it is so I'd prefer you say "Some people". I know plenty of immigrants that have worked all their lives in the country adding to it economically, socially and culturally. The more the better to be honest!
Whirlwind wrote: I really don't see the issue people have with immigration.
They bring jobs, wealth to the country
Then you're wilfully ignorant. They also increase pressures on public services, emergency services, housing, education, healthcare; through rapid increases in population. Hence the argument for controlled immigration proportional to our ability to invest in those services to account for the increase in population. Mass Immigration means public spending is forever falling behind the rapid increase in population, we simply can't keep up.
and do the jobs less and less of us are willing to do.
Oh I wonder why...it can't possibly be because the wages for those jobs have been kept down by the oversupply of cheap foreign labour? Its hardly surprising that people don't want to do those jobs when those jobs pay poorly.
All our families were immigrants at some point in the past.
Thats a myth actually. The English gene pool has remained largely unchanged since the Stone Age.
I'm quite happy with immigration as it is so I'd prefer you say "Some people". I know plenty of immigrants that have worked all their lives in the country adding to it economically, socially and culturally. The more the better to be honest!
Right. And plenty of other immigrants don't work and simply add to the drain on the welfare state. You're making a massive sweeping generalisation, pointing only to the productive immigrants and ignoring the unproductive immigrants at the other end of the spectrum.
The more the better my arse - we should be selective in the people we allow in, selecting on merit. That means discriminating based on the skills and education that immigrants have to offer us. To be clear, I am NOT against all immigration. I simply want it to be controlled and planned.
Pressure on infrastructure should easily be covered by the money they provide - that it isn't is 100% the government's fault.
Migrants can't use the benefits system unyil they've paid in for a few years, so that's a myth too.
I'm not sure low wages isn't also a government problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have some concerns about immigratio; mostly in terms of avoiding brain drain from weaker economies. I've no idea how we address that except for having enough trained ______'s across Europe or offering them subsidies for working there.
Then you're wilfully ignorant. They also increase pressures on public services, emergency services, housing, education, healthcare; through rapid increases in population. Hence the argument for controlled immigration proportional to our ability to invest in those services to account for the increase in population. Mass Immigration means public spending is forever falling behind the rapid increase in population, we simply can't keep up.
No I'm not, rather looking at it from a wider perspective and that much larger issues are at play than immigration, but it is 'easy' to blame it on a scapegoat.
Firstly where is your evidence on the impacts relative to the populace at large?
The vast majority of immigrants are working age. Our public services are put under vastly more strain by an aging population than immigration does. You can see that simply from the how much funding gets put into each of the pots of money for different elements. Which emergency services are put under more pressure. Where is the evidence that migration is causing more fires or using more ambulances? How many people from immigrant backgrounds are now working as first responders that we wouldn't have otherwise? How short are we becoming as EU nurses stop coming to support the UK NHS (and lets not forget that UK nationals are abandoning the profession). House building is not going to magically stay the same if there are less people requiring a house. What that results in less houses being built as businesses attempt to maintain profit levels by cutting back the number they build. They aren't going to keep the same number being built - that means less work all along the chain from plasterers, labourers, electricians down to the company making the bricks. Less work means less jobs. Why is there a housing demand - because the number of people per property is reducing, more of us live alone and have our own property. As you have pointed out previously a lot of migrants live together, that reduces the burden on housing per head. It's our own, aging, population again that is the bigger wider issue. The number of school children is lower than it was in the 1970s (as I've posted before) - why is it then that we could manage school children then? If we can't cope now why is it we coped then? Rather that teachers are underpaid and overworked, education budgets are being decreased relatively, schools now have to 'beg' parents for donations simply to make ends meet. And those migrant children will grow up educated and support our society as we all grow into old age, which we need if you want even semblance of the services you take for granted now in the future. We can't keep up with spend because more people are retiring and taking out of the system than are coming into the system and paying into it. The recent immigration flux stabilised this trend - and one of the reasons why in Labour were so keen to open the doors because they saw the long term problems our aging population was bringing.
Oh I wonder why...it can't possibly be because the wages for those jobs have been kept down by the oversupply of cheap foreign labour? Its hardly surprising that people don't want to do those jobs when those jobs pay poorly.
Again this is focusing on one issue rather than looking at it globally. Paying higher wages results in more expensive goods. In a global market that means the strawberry farmer in Norfolk can't compete with the one in Spain. That farmer then goes out of business. When wooden units were all made bespoke or in less numbers are now mass produced in global factories, many in Asian countries where they are lucky to get paid 10p a week. This means the relatively low skilled jobs are less in demand and much more vulnerable to the demands of the market. People spend half a year moving to somewhere where there are no jobs. They come because there are jobs that are vacant. Businesses are paying what they think they can afford to be competitive, if wages go up it means money is spent in less outlets which inevitably means less businesses and more people out of work until you reach a point where the unemployed are driving wages down to the point where businesses become viable again. The real question is why someone in the UK earning £X can't afford to live and the answer to that lies elsewhere.
The Bank of England's own report indicates that in unspecialised areas (e.g. not footballers) at most wages decrease by 1.88% for every 10% of immigration. That *at most* accounts for aabout a 1-2p reduction in wages per year (and we haven't even seen the reports May buried whilst at the Home Office).
Thats a myth actually. The English gene pool has remained largely unchanged since the Stone Age.
And where did we come from before that?
Right. And plenty of other immigrants don't work and simply add to the drain on the welfare state. You're making a massive sweeping generalisation, pointing only to the productive immigrants and ignoring the unproductive immigrants at the other end of the spectrum.
We've had this discussion before, immigrants cost £800m to the welfare state (and that's a Daily Fail figure so assume it's exaggerated). That's pennies compared to our overall budget. Immigrants add vastly more to the economy than what they take out.
The more the better my arse - we should be selective in the people we allow in, selecting on merit. That means discriminating based on the skills and education that immigrants have to offer us. To be clear, I am NOT against all immigration. I simply want it to be controlled and planned.
What do you mean by merit? Why should someone come here if they may be deemed to have merit, but their spouse or children are not? Some of the least educated may add the most to society, some of the most educated might turn out to be psychopaths. Who are we to determine who is right and who is wrong? Perhaps I should suggest that open immigration should be allowed because of the merit that they all bring an improved culture to the UK. Would you accept that as a level of merit?
Herzlos wrote: It's an error to reject it now instead of amending it later? Gakking hell.
It makes sense from a parliamentary tactics point of view.
To pass a bill you don't like in the hopes you can change it later? Or am I missing a stage out between approving it and pushing through ammendments?
I would suggest she is probably one of the few Labour MPs that is pro-Brexit but can't come out and say it. Regardless I'm more worried about the sweeping powers it gives MPs (in conjunction that they are trying the rig the committees that make these decisions). If my interpretation of what Kier Starmer said the other day is correct I believe this Bill would allow ministers to completely change the date of the next election to being when they want to allow it to fit into the Wrexit discussions as it is not one of the areas exempt (as there is a specific bill that it must happen every 5 years).
Brexit: Deportations of EU citizens soar since referendum
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-citizens-deportations-rise-uk-home-office-referendum-a7935266.html
Brexit: Deportations of EU citizens soar since referendum
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-eu-citizens-deportations-rise-uk-home-office-referendum-a7935266.html
I'm afraid our government is just becoming more bigoted and racist as time goes on in an effort to buy over that element of the populace. Empress May looks more like Cruella de Vil (or should that be "the vile") in each passing day. This isn't what a compassionate caring country does, I'm ashamed to be associated with it.
please don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n is a Mulato?
The link is dead so I'm not sure I get the reference or the implication?
Still I hear that Boris the Clown is flying out to the Virgin Islands. The people living there have heard there is another disaster heading their way and are making the appropriate preparations....
Juncker gave his state of the union speech today. And to nobody's surprise, was heckled by Farage. I'm no Juncker fan, but that was plain rude from Farage
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Juncker gave his state of the union speech today. And to nobody's surprise, was heckled by Farage. I'm no Juncker fan, but that was plain rude from Farage
People will probably expect me to say this, but the EU seems to have learned nothing from Brexit. It's full steam ahead as far as they're concerned.
What, in your opinion, should EU have learned from Brexit?
If anything, Brexit has showed the EU, that people are now more aware than ever of the many pitfalls of leaving the union.
Populist parties all over europe are backpedaling on their promises to pull their respective countries out of the EU.
If anything, Brussels has learned that now is the perfect time to push for further european integration.
The EU should have learned the lesson that an EU super state is neither welcome nor desired. But no, it's full steam ahead and to hell with the consequences.
Britain had a narrow escape. Thank God we got on the last plane out of Stalingrad.
Juncker wants:
The President of the EU parliament and the EU commission merged into one
EU army expansion.
A pan-European EU finance minister.
No funding of parties that don't support the EU. It won't just be the extremists affected by this.
A more assertive EU foreign policy.
Juncker:
'"Europe would function better if we were to merge the Presidents of the European Commission and the European Council (…) Europe would be easier to understand if one captain was steering the ship (…) Having a single President would better reflect the true nature of our European Union as both a Union of States and a Union of citizens."'
To be fair to Juncker, and I don't like being fair to him, he was open. They're not hiding it anymore. It's all there for everybody to see: full on EU integration.
Juncker even had the nerve to talk about freedom and the diversity of Europe, only minutes before these proposals!
Never let it be said that Juncker doesn't have a sense of humour.
Thank God Britain voted to leave. Talk about narrow escapes.
No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.
No chance either that the ordinary people will get to vote for this new super president. It'll probably be left up to the M.E.Ps...well, the ones not opposed to the eu in any way, since the ones who are won't have any funding.
So then, the message from Drunker is clear, we're having a full on totally intergraded superstate weither you like it or not. And here's me being told repeatedly that we'd never have to do anything we didn't want to.
Future War Cultist wrote: No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.
No chance either that the ordinary people will get to vote for this new super president. It'll probably be left up to the M.E.Ps...well, the ones not opposed to the eu in any way, since the ones who are won't have any funding.
So then, the message from Drunker is clear, we're having a full on totally intergraded superstate weither you like it or not. And here's me being told repeatedly that we'd never have to do anything we didn't want to.
I'm glad we're leaving.
I'll shed no tears about neo-Nazis being blocked from the EU parliament, but the problem with defining things like extremism is that the definition becomes very narrow.
Legitimate criticism of the EU could end up being defined as extremism. it's a slippery slope.
And there is talk of Britain's vacant seats in the EU parliament being turned into pan-European seats! WTF!
Only EU friendly candidates need apply by the sounds of thing.
Because the people are supposed to decide on these things and not some pen pusher in Brussels.
But they already do? The EU doesn't force people to vote for a party that is against the EU.
Guess I just find it funny (and slightly sad) how people who are against the EU start to cry "unfair" when the EU doesn't give them money so they can more easily get out of the EU.
What's next, neo-nazis filing a formal complaint to the UN when they are barred entry from Israel?
Because the people are supposed to decide on these things and not some pen pusher in Brussels.
But they already do? The EU doesn't force people to vote for a party that is against the EU.
Guess I just find it funny (and slightly sad) how people who are against the EU start to cry "unfair" when the EU doesn't give them money so they can more easily get out of the EU.
What's next, neo-nazis filing a formal complaint to the UN when they are barred entry from Israel?
Who will you vote for if you don't like the direction the EU is taking but all the eurosceptic parties were pushed out?
You can't hobble the opposition so that only like minded parties are financially viable, and then claim to be a democracy when the result is that only you and your allies get all the seats.
I'm not saying that's how it will be, but having a government decide that only parties favourable to them should get any funding is rather dubious democratically..
This ties in with another issue behind the eu. They won't allow people to deviate from "the European consensus". Who gets to decide what this consensus is? A tiny little cabal of euro fanatics at the very top of the organisation. They could decide that anyone who is against any further intergration is an "extremist" and then block their funding. Don't want to join the euro? Trying to fight us on it? We'll block your funding. That's a bad road to be going down. Luckily we won't be.
Who will you vote for if you don't like the direction the EU is taking but all the eurosceptic parties were pushed out?
If all the anti-EU parties have gone extinct because they didn't get money from the EU, those parties have (or rather, had) bigger problems than the actual EU.
If anti-EU parties are dependent on money from the EU for their own survival, then doesn't this mean that they are essentially pushing for their own elimination by trying to leave the EU, and that the only reason they can exist in the first place is because of the EU?
Luckily, anti-EU parties aren't dependent on money from the EU, so the above scenario won't happen.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The EU should have learned the lesson that an EU super state is neither welcome nor desired. But no, it's full steam ahead and to hell with the consequences.
Don't project your own views into the wider European voter base. Countries other than the UK decided some time ago that further integration was the best way to preserve the European values, economy and way of life. Of course at some point there have been local versions of UKIP but they have either faded into irrelevantness or had to backtrack from the worst anti-EU rhetoric (which may give short-term votes among the discontent, but often hides worse things under a very thin crust).
It's been a bumpy ride, with plenty of mistakes and missed oportunities but if anything Brexit has told EU27 that you don't throw the baby with the bathwater.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Britain had a narrow escape. Thank God we got on the last plane out of Stalingrad.
And I thank you for the bottom of my heart. No, I truly do. Without Brexit none of this would have been possible.
With just one single move, you guys not only managed to show mainland europe the danger of following populist parties,
you also effectively removed the single biggest roadblock to a stronger and better integrated EU, by voting to leave the union.
I could kiss you for that, but that would properly be a bit weird.
Future War Cultist wrote: No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.
Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?
It's really quite simple. In a civilised, democratic nation, the method of running for government has to be fair and above board. In order to contest an election, money is required. There's usually a submission fee involved in running for a position, people have to be paid to work full time in devising strategies, workable policies, and so on, and then there's the need to advertise yourself on top. All this costs a fair chunk of moolah.
Now once upon a time, the state wouldn't fund this end of things. Everything had to be done out of your own pocket. The problem with such a policy is that it favours the rich disproportionately. They can spend vast sums of money prepping their candidates and drowning out the opposition, whereas your local smaller party candidate cannot. In other more dictatorial nations, funds are distributed, but only to the dominant/ruling power, so as to ensure that elections are heavily biased towards that party and their political ideology.
Consequently, most democratic states today issue state funds to all competing parties to a greater or lesser degree. This is internationally recognised as a way of maintaining a fairer political playing field, and ensuring that it isn't just rich boys, dictators, and their favoured political stooges who get to to play on it.The EU, as a Western legislative body which holds democratic elections for Parliamentary positions, has always adhered to this. Hopefully, they will continue to do so. Should they not, it will be an item of concern. A democratic organisation's infrastructure should never be biased towards a specific party, race, political creed, or class.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jouso wrote: Of course at some point there have been local versions of UKIP but they have either faded into irrelevantness or had to backtrack from the worst anti-EU rhetoric
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Le Pen win the largest number of seats in the last French EU election? And didn't her party successfully retain their percentage of the general vote in the election earlier this year, and then send their candidate on to scrap with another outsider for the Presidentship whilst the two established parties were knocked out? Making their political success unparalleled in their past to date?
Aren't there also substantial rumblings of discontent from the main political parties of the Visegrad group over attempts by the EU to centrally impose immigration actions?
I think trying to paint a rosy picture of how everyone unhappy with European integration has seen the error of their ways is more than a little disingenuous, eh wot? With regards to Juncker's speech, I am not surprised. The man has a dream, and follows it. If the EU leaves things as they are, discontent will likely gradually ebb, but if they keep up their previous rate of momentum in trying to force a United States of Europe, the opposite will hold true (if previous trends are maintained).
As I have said before, I hope that the EU gets their house in order and goes on to a successful and happy future, of whatever variety. Trying to deny that there are and have been problems though, is only likely to be an impediment to that.
jouso wrote: Of course at some point there have been local versions of UKIP but they have either faded into irrelevantness or had to backtrack from the worst anti-EU rhetoric
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Le Pen win the largest number of seats in the last French EU election? And didn't her party successfully retain their percentage of the general vote in the election earlier this year, and then send their candidate on to scrap with another outsider for the Presidentship whilst the two established parties were knocked out? Making their political success unparalleled in their past to date?
Aren't there also substantial rumblings of discontent from the main political parties of the Visegrad group over attempts by the EU to centrally impose immigration actions?
The Front National has won their biggest results ever by backtracking on their Frexit fantasies and trying to be part of the establishment. She has backtracked in pulling France out of the EU, in pulling France out of the euro, in abolishing French dual nationality (presumably linked to a skin colour grade), from trying to get further controls on imported produce, etc.
The Visegrad group can complain all they want about getting a few refugees, but once there's a serious threat about closing euro funds you can bet they'll all relent and swallow the pill.
...okay, so you're taking what she said to try and win votes in the last stretch of the Presidential runup seriously. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
Juncker has taken an important step it would appear, in laying out the five 'paths' that the EU can take from this point. I look forward with great interest to seeing how he intends to choose which one is to be taken.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The EU should have learned the lesson that an EU super state is neither welcome nor desired. But no, it's full steam ahead and to hell with the consequences.
Britain had a narrow escape. Thank God we got on the last plane out of Stalingrad.
Hmm well, I'm going to bring some more sense than this nonsense to the conversation. So I'll take each apart bit by bit. The argument here is that the EU isn't listening, yet I think they have seen loud and clear what misinformation can achieve if left unchecked and are driving for a more open EU. So onwards:-
The President of the EU parliament and the EU commission merged into one
The proposal is to have democratically elected president. One argument that Leavers put forward was that the President was not democratically elected and just chosen which the populace had no say in. Well the proposal is to change that and have an elected President, it is proposed the populace have a say.
EU army expansion.
This is a null point as you are getting the same whether we leave or not. The UK has already indicated that it will provide the EU will continued military support and allow the central EU command to control their direction. Nothing is proposed to be changed here. We are still going to be part of much (and bizarrely) maligned EU defence force.
Not an unreasonable idea. Someone that is directly responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of the money the EU spends. Part of the Leave argument was that we just sent the EU money and that there was no audits (though that's not correct), however correctly there wasn't someone that was directly responsible for any expenditure. Now there will be someone who is accountable and elected. So hence an increased democratic process.
No funding of parties that don't support the EU. It won't just be the extremists affected by this.
This largely determined how it is undertaken. I can understand the concerns that it could stifle debate. However at the same time MEPs are elected to undertake a job. If we take the idiot Farage and his UKIP cohorts, they deliberately tried to disrupt the EU and its processes, didn't turn up to work for commissions and actively acted to undermine the EU (noting the significant difference in disagreeing but debating an issue). He then took the money and put it into UKIPs coffers to actively lie about the EU. He was elected as an MEP to represent the country in the EU not deliberately sabotage it. Ask yourself if you went to your job, spent the day undermining the boss in everything and then took the pay packet to actively undermine the business/public body how likely is that you would continue to be employed? Is it reasonable to continue funding someone who is both misusing that money and not doing the job that the electorate employed you to do.
So now I'm going to discuss the individual points that Juncker highlighted:-
General views:-
(a) The first point was to continue with the issues set out last year (so not much to say on this). It will also focus heavily on Brexit.
(b) Secondly was to set a path for the future noting that the desire to
Now is the time to build a more united, stronger and more democratic Europe for 2025.
. Hence again the recognition that populace should have a greater say in the EU (again noting that this was what some Leavers continue to whine about).
More specific items:-
1) More free trade deals. That the Canadian one is about to start and opening new discussions with New Zealand and Australia. They have an agreement in place with Japan and upcoming ones with Mexico/South America. He also noted that others were queuing up at the door. This is not particularly good news for the Wrexit free trade supporters as any sign that we might get an edge on these things is diminishing. Additionally they believe that by doing so exports the EU standards ("Trade is about exporting our standards, be they social or environmental standards, data protection or food safety requirements") which is not a bad thing if that then improves the world as a whole (and overall the EU standards are probably close to being the highest). Again it also means that the UK will have to continue to meet those standards as the majority of the exports will go to the EU; the only difference is the 'red tape' and cost at the ports to prove it.
Additionally trade deals will now have to be approved by the EU parliament rather than the commission. This increases the democratic oversight as all members are democratically elected (a complaint by Leavers). The draft mandates will be made public so the process is more transparent to the public. Of course this is probably not what May wants to hear as that means we all get to see what she is trying to push under the carpet. This could also mean that trade deals could be rejected by votes and there is less argument Germany and France are dominating things; the advantage is that a simple majority is likely to see things pass whereas as before one country could block the proposals.
Finally there is proposed an EU framework investment screening. In effect the principles is that any sale of any high value assets (e.g. a Harbour) would need to be scrutinised by an open commission. Again I could imagine May would be opposed to this being in the EU as most sales of these kind are done behind closed doors (anyone remember the embarrassing sale of the chip manufacturer in Cambridge). In effect this protects the EU from foreign investment/countries buying out infrastructure, something many here have said is a bad thing (and bitterly complained about). The EU is about to implement some protection for this; I can't imagine the UK will follow.
2) A new Industrial Strategy. It largely references car makers because of the emission scandal. Although light on details it appears standards will be made tighter (and probably larger fines for breaching them). Nothing really wrong with this
3) Become a world leader in fighting climate change. (Again nothing wrong with this and perfectly sensible given it is a global problem).
4) A new cybercrime agency. Not really a surprise given current hacks and spyware and ransomware. Pooling resources here seems sensible (and I think the UK wants in on this too).
5) Migration. Some on migration, reductions from Turkey (though I'd question whether that given there is no major towns in the Syria conflict zone this is partially the reason). Statement on funding international development (a good thing) to try and help people not have to think that a potentially suicide risk is better than staying where they are.
Additionally a blue card system for skilled migrants. I'm fairly certain there will be plenty of skilled UK workers that will be happy to hear this (even if they would have preferred open borders).
Social Issues:-
1) All of the populace should have access to the same medical treatments and they want to avoid deaths from things like measles (an improvement and for those with immigration 'concerns' a driver to reduce the need for what some perceive as burdens on health care)
2) Equal pay for the same work across the EU. Again a good thing as it distributes fairly to all. Again for those with immigration sensitivities see my above point.
3) Equal products across the EU (i.e. that some countries get a worst deal for the good they buy). Again see above comments. These are all positive steps to equalise qualities across the EU.
Union Issues:-
1) Free Movement to be extended to Bulgaria and Romania (not that in any way effects the UK as it already provided it). Croatia when it meets the criteria
2) Countries to be offered to join the Euro will be given technical and financial assistance.
3) Allow more western Balkans if they wish to join
4) Turkey not to be offered membership any time soon (where's the Leavers that promoted that one?)
5) Tax changes now to be voted on and fall under a parliamentary majority system (Fair enough that is what we have).
6) A Europeans intelligence unit to fight terrorism (Fair enough, at least they are not spying on everyone like the UK does).
7) Encouraging greater debate and discussion at the local level such as through more citizens dialogues and democratic conventions. I think this is a good thing for the EU. Too many people blamed the EU for anything from a leaking sink to the weather and I would agree that they rarely engaged very well with the electorate despite putting £billions into the European economies. Hence allowing them to become more face - to - face with the people can only be a good thing.
---------------------------------
So this is a summary, the whole thing can be read here:-
But I ask those so opposed to the EU, what here is something that you are so opposed to. That shows the EU is carrying on regardless. One of the arguments that the EU isn't democratic (which it is) is being tackled head on etc.
Finally on the point about the pan-EU MEPs being created after the UK leaves has some strategy I believe. When the UK rejoins it will be a lot easier to merge these back to the UK without upsetting the balance across the EU. This makes sense if you expect the UK to come back after it's burnt it's fingers, toes and sensitive bits.
Ask yourself if you went to your job, spent the day undermining the boss in everything and then took the pay packet to actively undermine the business/public body how likely is that you would continue to be employed? Is it reasonable to continue funding someone who is both misusing that money and not doing the job that the electorate employed you to do.
I can't say I entirely agree with this analogy, as indeed, the people who vote for Farage are his boss. Not the EU. At the end of the day, if people want to vote for someone who runs on an election pledge of using public money to swill himself into insensibility upon the finest bourbon whilst suspended over a pair of ivory tiger cubs in a giant jelly mould, they can do just that. It's not the EU's job to tell people who they can and cannot vote for. The minute a legislative body starts trying to influence precisely who is voted for by throttling off equal support based upon their own principles (be it race, gender, political, etc), it's generally a bad thing.
Consequently, whilst you might say 'it depends on how it is undertaken', I would contend it is bad to undertake it in any shape or form.
Ketara wrote: ...okay, so you're taking what she said to try and win votes in the last stretch of the Presidential runup seriously. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
I don't take anything that comes out of Mrs. Le Pen's mouth seriously, but luckily I'm not a French citizen, just like I don't believe former remainer May is a hardcore Brexiteer at heart. At times you just have to ride with the times. Le Pen started the backpedal from hard Frexit to OK, we need the EU but it needs some repairs right after the Brexit vote, and that's what counts.
Even a populist can see that it's one thing to score a few votes among the discontent and another thing to deliver on your promises.
There was this nice piece on the Washington Post a few days back (since I'm stateside for a few days).
It is a rare opportunity. Seldom does the voting public have the chance to watch their elected politicians confront very specific false promises in real time. Usually campaign promises are either too vague to be contrasted with reality (“Make America Great Again”) or too long term. By the time that “guaranteed growth” either arrives or doesn’t, the person who said it would happen is long out of office.
But in Britain right now, something different is unfolding. During the referendum last year, politicians advocating their country’s departure from the European Union gave some specific assurances. Some derived from ignorance; as it turned out, few of them really understood how the E.U. works. Others were lies, which they knew to be lies at the time.
Because they didn’t expect to win that campaign, they didn’t expect either their ignorance or their dishonesty to be revealed. But then they won — and now it’s happening.
Future War Cultist wrote: No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.
Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?
Because in a genuine Democracy you don't play favourites. Either all parties get a fair share of public funding, or none of them do. Discriminating against parties and denying them public funding for Wrong Think is a double standard and not in keeping with the Democratic principles that the EU is supposedly founded on.
Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy reply.
To address your point regarding the election of a new EU 'super' president.
On the surface, giving citizens the vote on who gets the job sounds pretty good, but two key points arise:
1. Can anybody run?
2. Who chooses the candidates that people can elect?
We have seen with Hong Kong that the people get to vote in a free election for the head of the Hong Kong government
BUT the candidates are hand picked by China.
If the EU draw up a short list of 'acceptable' candidates, then it doesn't matter how many people get to vote for them, because the entire process will be a mockery.
Future War Cultist wrote: No funding of parties who don't support the eu...they're not even hiding it anymore.
Why would the EU give money to people who say "feth off EU" in the first place? I'm not sure why this is so controversial?
Because in a genuine Democracy you don't play favourites. Either all parties get a fair share of public funding, or none of them do. Discriminating against parties and denying them public funding for Wrong Think is a double standard and not in keeping with the Democratic principles that the EU is supposedly founded on.
So you would be happy if a neo-nazi group were funded then? What about the 'Real IRA'. What if they then used that money to buy weapons and killed people with them? Extreme but that is the approach you espousing. Let's not forget that the UK already does this, it bans groups if their views are too extreme, however from a perspective they are just an extreme political group. I appreciate that people can express concern over any controls but if we are to do that then we should look closer to home first. A line always has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where that should be and there is not an easy answer to this. However to criticise the EU for doing this is picking silly arguments and being hypocritical if you don't also think that groups in the UK should be unbanned.
Thanks for taking the time to write a lengthy reply.
To address your point regarding the election of a new EU 'super' president.
On the surface, giving citizens the vote on who gets the job sounds pretty good, but two key points arise:
1. Can anybody run?
2. Who chooses the candidates that people can elect?
We have seen with Hong Kong that the people get to vote in a free election for the head of the Hong Kong government
BUT the candidates are hand picked by China.
If the EU draw up a short list of 'acceptable' candidates, then it doesn't matter how many people get to vote for them, because the entire process will be a mockery.
That is the potential danger with this proposal.
I don't think the details have been fleshed out but it appears at the moment the proposals are that if you have been elected to the EU parliament then you can put your name in the hat (let's say Farage for example). So it's not completely open to anyone directly, but strictly speaking anyone can potentially be voted into the EU parliament if you get enough votes so the answer is 'sort of'.
So you would be happy if a neo-nazi group were funded then? What about the 'Real IRA'. What if they then used that money to buy weapons and killed people with them? Extreme but that is the approach you espousing. Let's not forget that the UK already does this, it bans groups if their views are too extreme, however from a perspective they are just an extreme political group. I appreciate that people can express concern over any controls but if we are to do that then we should look closer to home first. A line always has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where that should be and there is not an easy answer to this. However to criticise the EU for doing this is picking silly arguments and being hypocritical if you don't also think that groups in the UK should be unbanned.
As someone who believes in democracy, I am happy with even neo-nazi groups getting the same funding as everyone else. Why? Because the law extends to everyone, equally, and the minute you begin to stop someone from running peacefully for power, you in effect force them into violent means to be heard.If they turned out to be funnelling that state political subsidy into violent activities, they'd be shut down in reasonably short order. Political parties do have to submit accounts, after all, it would be reasonably easy to see where the money was going.
And if they were funnelling money from somewhere else into it? Then they'd be doing that regardless of political funding. Not to mention the fact our if hypothetical group turned out to be sponsoring terrorism, they'd be shut down as a terrorist group committing violence whether they got state funding or not. The police wouldn't call it a day and leave an extremist group alone just because a bomb was paid for with state money, you know? So no, not really picking silly arguments. If the MEP's did vote it through, it would be a sad indictment on their system, and the first serious step on the path to tyranny.
That being said, the EU hasn't done it yet, and this is all purely hypothetical. For all we know, this is just a handful of autocratic crackpots sitting in the EUP saying things to needle Farage. So I wouldn't really regard it as particularly indicative of anything. We (and every other democracy) have fairly daft stuff bandied about the chamber every few months. It's part of the system. I certainly wouldn't jump to condemn the entire EU (a very large organisation) purely off some chatter amongst their backbenches or rush to draw trends out of it. That would be silly.
Whirlwind wrote: So you would be happy if a neo-nazi group were funded then?
Yes. Because thats how a Democracy works.
Would you be happy if a Communist group were funded? Black Lives Matter? Antifa?
Who exactly gets to decide which groups are permitted access to public funding, and which groups are not? Who will this self appointed arbiter of Right Think be?
What about the 'Real IRA'. What if they then used that money to buy weapons and killed people with them?
What if they don't?
Extreme but that is the approach you espousing.
Better than your apporach: "Parties I agree with get the right to access public funding. Parties that I deem to be extremist should be denied access."
Let's not forget that the UK already does this, it bans groups if their views are too extreme, however from a perspective they are just an extreme political group.
I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.
I bet you consider UKIP to be extremist, don't you?
I appreciate that people can express concern over any controls but if we are to do that then we should look closer to home first. A line always has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where that should be and there is not an easy answer to this. However to criticise the EU for doing this is picking silly arguments and being hypocritical if you don't also think that groups in the UK should be unbanned.
My problem is who gets to decide where the line is drawn? It smacks of partisan politics to me. You're effectively arguing that a Gatekeeper should be put in place to selectively filter Democracy to keep out people and parties who Think Wrong...which strikes me as being very anti-Democratic.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Like Free Speech, Democracy has to be UNIVERSAL, or its not true Democracy.
I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.
I would think that would be unlikely seeing as the right of center alliance is the biggest bloc in the EU parliament
I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.
I would think that would be unlikely seeing as the right of center alliance is the biggest bloc in the EU parliament
It's my favourite criticism of the EU. The capitalism-driven bloc with a majority of rightist members representing nations with almost universally rightist governments who nominate rightist commissioners that then nominate a rightist president is the lefty thought police.
Yeah, it's a mistake to think that the eu is a left wing institution. It's really more of a corporate racket. Cheap labour, standardised regulations, protective tariffs and so on.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @whirlwind
To address your point regarding the election of a new EU 'super' president.
On the surface, giving citizens the vote on who gets the job sounds pretty good, but two key points arise:
1. Can anybody run?
2. Who chooses the candidates that people can elect?
We have seen with Hong Kong that the people get to vote in a free election for the head of the Hong Kong government
BUT the candidates are hand picked by China.
If the EU draw up a short list of 'acceptable' candidates, then it doesn't matter how many people get to vote for them, because the entire process will be a mockery.
That is the potential danger with this proposal.
And why would you think a group of democratic countries like the EU members would do a China? As with everything EU, it will be extensively drafted, discussed, massaged and a few years down the line it will end up into something more or less acceptable to everyone.
In any case, if anyone reads what Juncker actually said was to replace two positions (president of the Commission and president of the council, both positions indirectly elected) with a single super-president. No idea how did we reach the debate on that position should be filled.
Just like the whole defund antiEU parties. I don't think any party should be excluded from EU funded solely on their views (as long as they're not openly Nazi/racist/whatever) but I would definitely agree that Euro MEPs should be subject to a participation minimum. If you don't show up in your committees then you don't get paid. Again, this will be thoroughly discussed so it's too early to talk about specifics.
Here's the full speech for anyone with a few minutes to spare. It's not a long read.
Freedom to voice your opinion, as a citizen and as a journalist...Democracy is about compromise. And the right compromise makes winners out of everyone. A more united Union should see compromise, not as something negative, but as the art of bridging differences. Democracy cannot function without compromise. Europe cannot function without compromise. This is what the work between Parliament, Council and Commission should always be about.
His lack of self awareness is staggering.
If they'd been prepared to compromise in the past we might still be in the union. Never forget that Cameron went to them asking for nothing but got even less. They said it would require treaty change. But it's funny how they can bypass treaty change when it suits them.
And he says you should have the freedom to voice your opinion whilst also threatening to deny funding to those who won't toe the euro line. It's laughable.
Freedom to voice your opinion, as a citizen and as a journalist...Democracy is about compromise. And the right compromise makes winners out of everyone. A more united Union should see compromise, not as something negative, but as the art of bridging differences. Democracy cannot function without compromise. Europe cannot function without compromise. This is what the work between Parliament, Council and Commission should always be about.
His lack of self awareness is staggering.
If they'd been prepared to compromise in the past we might still be in the union. Never forget that Cameron went to them asking for nothing but got even less. They said it would require treaty change. But it's funny how they can bypass treaty change when it suits them.
What you mean by compromise is actually appeasement. Cut us a special deal or we walk.
That's not a healthy relationship. Compromise is everyone chips in and goes with the result, even if that's not what you first set out to get.
Future War Cultist wrote: This ties in with another issue behind the eu. They won't allow people to deviate from "the European consensus". Who gets to decide what this consensus is? A tiny little cabal of euro fanatics at the very top of the organisation. They could decide that anyone who is against any further intergration is an "extremist" and then block their funding. Don't want to join the euro? Trying to fight us on it? We'll block your funding. That's a bad road to be going down. Luckily we won't be.
I agree. We should veto it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: Any government that will pay money to those who follow its will compared to those who oppose it is a bad government.
You're literally awarding money for being a yes man, and it will bias a bucket load of views.
Isn't that exactly what the Tories have been doing?
The DUP; only offering contracts to pro brexit companies, etc.
If they'd been prepared to compromise in the past we might still be in the union. .
If only they'd be reasonable and , say, give us a rebate of the money we contribute or allowed some way to opt out of the working time directive or etc etc etc
Eu has bent itself through innumerable compromises with the UK
hell look at what Cameron got with his "failed" EU reform deal
A Ukip-dominated group in the European parliament has been found to have misspent more than half a million euros (£427,000) of taxpayers’ money following an investigation by European parliament officials.
The Alliance for Direct Democracy in Europe, a Ukip-controlled group, was asked to return €172,655 by a committee of senior MEPs on Monday night, after officials found the party had breached EU rules by pouring money into the UK 2015 general election and the EU referendum.
The group will also be denied €248,345 in grants it could have secured if it had followed the rules, a damaging blow to the cash-strapped party. Once misspending by Dutch and Belgian parties was taken into account, the ADDE and an affiliated foundation were found to have misused €500,615 of EU grants.
Senior MEPs endorsed the report of the parliament’s finance team, a document seen by the Guardian last week, which concluded the ADDE had funnelled cash into Nigel Farage’s failed attempt to win a seat at Thanet South, as well as opinion polls to test the public mood in the run-up the EU referendum campaign.
EU rules ban parties from spending European grants on national elections or referendums.
of course this is isn't unique to Farage , the right or indeed politicians of this country of course.
There was something of a to do with regards to Tory -- and to a lesser extent Labour too IIRC -- election expenses , but, handily, that all appears to have been forgotten or swept away to be dealt with when there's a quiet moment.
Not exactly a lot of MPs were punished with regards for their expenses claims either were they really ?
Hell disgraced minister Liam Fox paid Adam bloody Werrity out of tax payer funds
And of course the varying and at times..... interesting... financial shenanigans involving the EU, MEPs, accounts and so forth are all pretty much well known ( to lesser and greater degrees of accuracy and fact but regardless of where one stands I don't think one would hold, say, the EU expense claims system as the golden standard to be aspired to by all institutions across the globe.)
You are confusing what democracy is against how it is funded. To point out the definition of democracy is "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." (Form the Oxford Dictionary). No where does it state how that should be funded or supported. No where in this argument is it stating that the population will be denied choosing their representative to be part of parliament. It is however trying to stop people using EU money (which I note many have argued is not well spent) is then spent on things that actively try and disrupt the EU parliament. Individuals are voted in to represent them, in this case, in the EU. That's the electoral mandate to represent them in the EU parliament. It is not a mandate to try and disrupt proceedings, the funding is not there to be spent on trying to leave, or cast bigoted posters or plain lie as that is not representing the people in EU parliament and what their mandate is. If they want to leave then that is a national issues and should pull those funds from national sponsors. Using, in this example EU money, is not spending that money in a manner that they were mandated to spend it in. Just inn the same way that UK funds should not be supported to help lobby one private company buying another due to personal interests because that is not what the mandate that the person was elected on was.
The EU is not going to turn round and stop funding those parties, whoever they are, that engage and remain in the remit of the MEP position they were voted in to do. I am supportive of measures where people are deliberately trying to be disruptive and 'breakdown' the process because that is not the remit of the position that they were elected into. Despite what is thought getting elected doesn't mean you then have carte blanche. How might be a different question - you could for example require minimum attendance (and positive contribution) before you get paid any funds. If they fail to do this the individual gets kicked out and a 'by-election' is run to find a replacement (noting that the same party can put forward another candidate). In addition the EU could provide a summary to the individual countries of exactly what there MEPs have done (and compared to others) so that it is quite clear that those that are turning up just for the money are clearly pointed out.
What really surprises is me is the hypocritical nature of the conversation. We hear no condemnation of the UK banning National Action (now Scottish Action apparently) which is the same effect, it's barring a voice to a point of view. Yet there are howls of condemnation when the EU propose the same thing. Personally I don't think the EU could ever win with people that are so anti-EU they want to see it fail; if they funded neo-Nazi's they'd be criticised (and we'd probably be told here is evidence they are trying to create the 4th Reich) and by trying to prevent them gain a platform where they can promote a racist and bigoted view with simple messages (that if Wrexit is anything to go buy a lot of people still seem to accept and not question) they are criticised.
So the question is that if you are so supportive of all people being given a voice have you written to Government supporting National Actions 'unbanning'?
Better than your apporach: "Parties I agree with get the right to access public funding. Parties that I deem to be extremist should be denied access."
Can I ask that you don't deliberately put something in quotes I didn't say? Making up arguments for the other side is not reasoned or rational debate. If this is your view of what was said then say it, but *DON'T* quote other people as saying it.
I question the EU's [and by extension, YOUR] motivations. I think it's little more than an attempt to shut down opposition through manipulative language. Anyone who opposes European integration is deemed to be extremist. Anyone Right of Center is deemed to be extremist.
I bet you consider UKIP to be extremist, don't you?
I see the irrational side is coming out again. I could easily counter that you want the EU to fail to prove a point and that you fear that those that actively try and disrupt and dismantle it will have to do that outside the EU parliament at a national level (which is where the debate should be had) but that which the funding they receive is will now have to be found at national level (which it should). When you say manipulative language I assume you just mean through better arguments? I have no issue with someone arguing against European integration in the correct theatre, I do think it is inappropriate to use funds that are meant to be spent on EU issues and the mandate they awarded on being used for purposes that they weren't there to support. I do not support the funding of those determined to be extremists and not come to the table and have a rational debate. I do oppose funding those that actively advertise their appreciation of the murder of an MP or that because they have a different view they are the "enemy of the state". Funding such groups legitimises their appeal, allows them to broadcast a wider more bigoted hate filled message. How many MPs get abused because of certain stance they took rather on a certain issue (especially women MPs). That leads to fear to stand up and be part of the democratic process leading to 'only' people of a certain argument putting their names forward. That leads to a dark place.
My problem is who gets to decide where the line is drawn? It smacks of partisan politics to me. You're effectively arguing that a Gatekeeper should be put in place to selectively filter Democracy to keep out people and parties who Think Wrong...which strikes me as being very anti-Democratic.
Perhaps, but a line does have to be drawn, not everyone will play by the rules and some will actively and physically exploit it to change the world to one where they are in control. If you wanted complete freedom of speech and expression then you would have to accept that you should also be funding ISIS supporters and any other violent groups. If we could trust that every human could have a rational and sensible debate then you wouldn't need a gate keeper. The human race has not got to that position...at least with a gate keeper we do get a staypuft marshmallow man
Brexit: Airships could patrol Irish border, says think tank
A think tank has suggested that drones or airships could be used to monitor the Irish border after Brexit.
The idea is raised in a paper from the Legatum Institute, examining how the UK and EU could resolve the border issue.
It states that "persistent surveillance of the border region" could be achieved through patrols by unmanned aerial vehicles or deployment of aerostats.
But it concedes "that these solutions are subject to a number of limitations, not least weather and cost".
The Legatum Institute is considered to be influential with some government ministers.
Its paper largely echoes the view of Brexit Secretary David Davis that a so-called hard Irish border can be avoided through a combination of technology and a comprehensive trade deal.
'Tightened or relaxed'
It also suggests that the Special EU Programmes Body, which manages cross-border EU funding, should be repurposed after Brexit to deal with cross-border trade.
It says it could "be used to monitor the border, conducting risk assessments and advising when border security should be tightened or relaxed."
It is also supportive of the idea that Northern Ireland and the Irish border counties should become a "special economic zone" (SEZ).
An SEZ is usually an area of a country where business, trade or taxation laws differ from rest of the country, with the aim of boosting growth.
The leader of the Republic of Ireland's main opposition party has made a similar suggestion.
The UK government made some suggestions about customs and the border in a position paper published last month.
However, it appears to have been rejected by the EU, with its chief negotiator Michel Barnier saying: "Creativity and flexibility can't be at the expense of the integrity of the single market and customs union."
But it concedes "that these solutions are subject to a number of limitations, not least weather and cost".
Can Dianne Abbot even have one interview that not hit the papers for all the wrong reasons?
I know she a favorite target because she has a bad run already but she a regular live tv disaster it seems.
Can someone please take her aside and maybe give her abit of coaching and such so this stops happening?
Not giving the Mail clicks - I take it's her, a woman who receives so much abuse that academic studies remove her from figures because she skews everything so drastically, was quoting abuse she received during the GE campaign? There's nothing wrong with that, though I accept lots of people will take exception when it's before the watershed, even in a news context.
I presume the Mail have disabled Comments do it isn't just a stream of people saying 'well that's what she is!'.
She wasn't using the language pejoratively but was quoting. I don't have a problem with that, no one was being abused. Who exactly are all these 'distressed' people watching? They already know what the words mean, if hearing them in the context of a discussion quoting abuse is so upsetting they need a thicker skin.
If we can't have a frank adult discussion about the abuse and threats celebrities and people in the public eye because we're too timid to even repeat saying words we all already know, I think there's problems with facing issues in society.
For example, the 'shock' aspect tone of this reported story isn't that she received this abuse in the first place, but that she had the audacity to repeat it publicly. Is that right? Would these disgusting threats towards her even have been reported in newspapers had she refused to repeat them or mumbled their actual content?
Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.
Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.
Witzkatz wrote: Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.
Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.
Witzkatz wrote: Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.
Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.
At 10am on a mainstream breakfast show?
Maybe true that most kids at school etc and such but still, on live tv, in a morning. Not worst but not thr best idea live on morning tv to millions potentialy.
Witzkatz wrote: Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.
Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.
At 10am on a mainstream breakfast show?
Maybe true that most kids at school etc and such but still, on live tv, in a morning. Not worst but not thr best idea live on morning tv to millions potentialy.
Not optimal, perhaps, yes. But let's not kid ourselves, the amount of kids innocently asking their moms what these weird words mean will be far below the amount of adults complaining on twitter about it.
Witzkatz wrote: Yes, in the video she's just re-telling the threats and hatemail she's getting, which is where she simply quoted those threats literally. I'm also quite astounded by the multiple tweets demanding an apology.
Some people's ears are quite selectively sensitive, I'd presume.
At 10am on a mainstream breakfast show?
Maybe true that most kids at school etc and such but still, on live tv, in a morning. Not worst but not thr best idea live on morning tv to millions potentialy.
Not optimal, perhaps, yes. But let's not kid ourselves, the amount of kids innocently asking their moms what these weird words mean will be far below the amount of adults complaining on twitter about it.
And if the kids ask then so what? It's not like it's hard to explain that people are donkey-caves.
Actually promoting a conversation that gets adults to explicitly tell kids that this language is unacceptable and you should never use it is probably a good thing.
Jadenim wrote: Actually promoting a conversation that gets adults to explicitly tell kids that this language is unacceptable and you should never use it is probably a good thing.
Yeah, I was close to posting something similar. Sometimes I feel like completely omitting the actual slur words from reporting about them makes it easier to ignore, that sometimes it might actually shake some people awake that stuff like this is actually, really, used and some people have to hear or read it everyday addressed at them,
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Plus, I thought FREE SPEECH was really important and an integral part of a democratic society etc etc etc?
It is. As much as I dislike Dianne Abbot she has every right to talk about the abuse and death threats she receives. Anyone who opposes her right to do so is a hypocrite.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Plus, I thought FREE SPEECH was really important and an integral part of a democratic society etc etc etc?
I think it's more to do with the fact that some parents think their children are always angels and should not be exposed to the horrors of the world. I also think some people just don't want to hear and accept that it is happening. The reality is that anyone over the age of 5 knows much worst.
But I would repeat what others have said. It is a quote, we should not fear exposing what people are saying especially when it is abusive like this. Excluding those from National Action most decent UK citizens would find it uncomfortable to have such blatant racism going on and in some ways having someone state "they didn't say very nice things" waters down the racism and risks (some) people thinking that the MP is just exaggerating or being 'soft'. By quoting the actual words those people that would prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la la, I can't hear you" have to face the reality of the situation.
Dianne Abbot has said lots of stupid things, but this is not one of them. I don't get why this is such a controversy. If anything, Good Morning Britain and ITV are at fault for bringing her onto the show to talk about a subject that nots pre-watershed appropriate.
Don't interview a person about the abuse and hatemail they receive if you don't want to hear the gory details of said abuse.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Dianne Abbot has said lots of stupid things, but this is not one of them. I don't get why this is such a controversy.
Because this assumes that peoples motives are simply shock. However some might have a) don't like Labour, b) Don't like DA, c) perhaps partake in talking about her in the same way and don't like to be exposed for it (the best form of defence is attack for example). Or for the Daily Fail all three....
Therefore some that are expressing outrage may be using this as an 'excuse' to attack a vulnerability when in reality most people like here will shrug their shoulders and comment that she is quoting what was said - something specifically asked. On the other hand it could be that the show deliberately asked the question to increase ratings and it was cynical ploy to get people to watch the garbage they put on in the morning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: Children should be in school at the time this goes out so that shouldn't be a problem. I don't think pre-schoolers watch This Morning.
It's not the children that are worried, it's the parents that don't like the idea of it. That their kids are at school or watching Teletubbies (or whatever the 'in' thing is) doesn't cross the though processes.
Obviously I don't like the idea of someone using it as perjoritive, but it's still just a word which has built up such mythical status for being bad that we can only ever refer to it as 'the n-word' like characters in Harry Potter mumbling about 'he who cannot be named'.
It's wrong that the story has become more about Diane Abbott daring to repeat her abuse on TV, than the fact she has this stuff directed at her personally.
a) just how out of the loop he's being kept on Brexit,
b) why he should never be in any position of power, and
c) that he's really not as smart as one might think he is.
a) just how out of the loop he's being kept on Brexit,
b) why he should never be in any position of power, and
c) that he's really not as smart as one might think he is.
Oddly, that announcement made the front page of the Telegraph today, when even papers as rabidly anti-EU as the Express were talking about, you know, the UNDERGROUND BOMB.
a) just how out of the loop he's being kept on Brexit,
b) why he should never be in any position of power, and
c) that he's really not as smart as one might think he is.
As I've said before, the likes of Bojo and Cameron remind me why I despise the class ridden nature of British society.
Mediocrities like Cameron and Bojo would never have attained high office were it not for the old school tie.
Well, May delivered her keynote speech, and it was an utter disgrace!
To see this nation roll up the white flag to Brussels
I often wonder why I bother voting anymore. When the feth are we leaving the EU? Transition period? They will fight tooth and nail to keep it going indefinitely.
As always with the Tories, party before country. This is nothing more than a Tory ploy to win a 2021 general election on a pledge to take us out of the EU, when we should have already left years before.
Is this something that the EU would accept, or will they reject it? I've seen it mooted that May knows they'll reject the offer and so we'll leave anyway on WTO rules and she can pin blame on the EU.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Is this something that the EU would accept, or will they reject it? I've seen it mooted that May knows they'll reject the offer and so we'll leave anyway on WTO rules and she can pin blame on the EU.
Our two strongest cards we could play was money and the threat of walking away from the negotiations. May blinked.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Our two strongest cards we could play was money and the threat of walking away from the negotiations. May blinked.
I don't know what exactly money mean in this context (payments for access of the single market or other benefits?) but walking away is not a threat to the EU. From what I remember overall economic transaction between the UK and EU are highly unbalanced in favour of the EU so walking away would hurt the UKmuch more than the EU. I think the EU is about 50% of the UKs international transaction while the UK is about 10% of the European mainland's transactions. It would be a small but not insignificant problem for the EU but for the UK that would be much harsher situation (especially if some companies also were to relocate their offices/factories from the UK to the EU for the single market access).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.
This could be a shambles
I think you can't sign deals while part of the EU (because the UK is part of the EU). It's the bit Merkel had to explain Trump a dozen times or so. For those deals the EU is the level at which the negotiations happen and non-EU countries can't single out anybody to abuse with some lopsided dead (that's a benefit of being a small country inside the EU). Negotiations, I don't know. Maybe the UK can negotiate for the case of "if Brexit happens" but who knows which country/group (besides the UK) is interested in that. Other things probably have a higher priority than making contingency plans in case the UK leaves the EU. Technically (not realistically) the decision is still reversible, isn't it?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Our two strongest cards we could play was money and the threat of walking away from the negotiations. May blinked.
I don't know what exactly money mean in this context (payments for access of the single market or other benefits?) but walking away is not a threat to the EU. From what I remember overall economic transaction between the UK and EU are highly unbalanced in favour of the EU so walking away would hurt the UKmuch more than the EU. I think the EU is about 50% of the UKs international transaction while the UK is about 10% of the European mainland's transactions. It would be a small but not insignificant problem for the EU but for the UK that would be much harsher situation (especially if some companies also were to relocate their offices/factories from the UK to the EU for the single market access).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.
This could be a shambles
I think you can't sign deals while part of the EU (because the UK is part of the EU). It's the bit Merkel had to explain Trump a dozen times or so. For those deals the EU is the level at which the negotiations happen and non-EU countries can't single out anybody to abuse with some lopsided dead (that's a benefit of being a small country inside the EU). Negotiations, I don't know. Maybe the UK can negotiate for the case of "if Brexit happens" but who knows which country/group (besides the UK) is interested in that. Other things probably have a higher priority than making contingency plans in case the UK leaves the EU. Technically (not realistically) the decision is still reversible, isn't it?
Will May do her damned job and get us out of that giant monolithic octopus of waste, frivolous spending, tinpot junkers and damned merkin run German empire.
Define what constitutes "leaving". As we've been saying all along, you really, REALLY ought to have done that BEFORE you started this mess, but better late than never.
I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.
With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?
There is no "could be", this is a shambles. The whole thing is a shambles, because it's the result of muddied, unclear thinking and hyperbole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...
As always with the Tories, party before country. This is nothing more than a Tory ploy to win a 2021 general election on a pledge to take us out of the EU, ...
Again, this has always been the case. Everyone knows that we only had this fething stupid vote to try and solidify tory power. The timing for this is perfect, we "leave" just before the general election, giving plenty of ammo for a new project fear about how Labour are the party of fiscal irresponsibility in this new era, despite it being proved that it is the Tories who have consistently fethed up the economy, as they are doing right now.
Even if they are voted out, the new Government has to steer the choppy waters of sorting out all the new trade agreements, which means that they will be ripe for an electoral kicking and will eventually restore the conservatives to "fix" things all over again.
This will continue until IQ tests are mandatory for voting, Rupert Murdoch is deported, and the Daily Mail and Express are found guilty of contempt and their entire editorial staff are imprisoned, assets liquidated, burned or melted down for scrap.
...and Farage finally disappears up his own capacious arsehole.
Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.
This could be a shambles
If only all these blatantly obvious truths had been pointed out before !?
The UK's credit rating has been cut over concerns about the UK's public finances and fears Brexit could damage the country's economic growth.
Moody's, one of the major ratings agencies, downgraded the UK to an Aa2 rating from Aa1.
It said leaving the European Union was creating economic uncertainty at a time when the UK's debt reduction plans were already off course.
Downing Street said the firm's Brexit assessments were "outdated".
The other major agencies, Fitch and S&P, changed their ratings in 2016, with S&P cutting it two notches from AAA to AA, and Fitch lowering it from AA+ to AA.
Moody's said the government had "yielded to pressure and raised spending in several areas" including health and social care.
It says revenues were unlikely to compensate for the higher spending.
The agency said because the government had not secured a majority in the snap election it "further obscures the future direction of economic policy".
It also said Brexit would dominate legislative priorities, so there could be limited capacity to address "substantial" challenges.
It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative".
Moody's stripped Britain of its top-notch AAA rating in 2013.
The government said the latest downgrade followed a meeting on 19 September, and did not consider the prime minister's speech on Friday, in which she outlined her vision for Brexit.
"The prime minister has just set out an ambitious vision for the UK's future relationship with the EU, making clear that both sides will benefit from a new and unique partnership," it said.
"The foundations on which we build this partnership are strong."
It said it had a robust economic record and had made substantial progress in reducing the deficit.
"We are not complacent about the challenges ahead, but we are optimistic about our bright future."
Credit rating agencies, in essence, rate a country on the strength of its economy - scoring governments or large companies on how likely they are to pay back their debt.
A rating downgrade can affect how much it costs governments to borrow money in the international financial markets. In theory, a high credit rating means a lower interest rate, and vice versa.
It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative"
... can we feel the control yet ?
...
.'A permanent transition': what a perfectly British fudge.
.. so... we think May will even be in power 2 years or so down the line ?
I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.
With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?
We can always deal with those issues, but getting out of the EU was now or never. There was never going to be an opportune time to do it. You just had to do it before it became impossible. Juncker's speech made it clear that the status quo was never an option, that it was always going to be more integration.
It's also a pity May had to go and feth it all up by blinking first.
May's initiation of a transition period is to be welcomed, not derided. It took Canada seven years to undertake a handcrafted trade agreement with the EU, and whilst it should be easier for us (given we already comply with all existing EU legislation), everyone was beginning to run short of time. Everyone on both sides of the fence here needs a functional set of accords, or everybody gets hurt. Given David Cameron's throwing of toys from the cot, and May's decision to play election instead of getting on with things, a large amount of the preset time for negotiations was lost to no good purpose.
Yet here we are. It has been patently clear for some time now that more time was needed. So May's decision to cast the first stone in establishing a transitory state of affairs is consequently being openly welcomed by all parties involved. Only those with political agendas (be it brexiteering furiously or rock throwing at the Tories) are bemoaning what is ultimately, a very practical and necessary decision.
This is a positive sign for the negotiations ahead. Even the EU has officially recognised that 'six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic' (Guy Verhofstadt yesterday). The European side has also begun to outline what they are after (namely an association agreement) and hinted at their preference potentially being to keep Northern Ireland specifically inside the Customs Union. These are good indications for a starting point for the diplomatic wrangling.
Things are actually beginning to progress. It is a good sign.
I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.
With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?
We can always deal with those issues, but getting out of the EU was now or never. There was never going to be an opportune time to do it. You just had to do it before it became impossible. Juncker's speech made it clear that the status quo was never an option, that it was always going to be more integration.
It's also a pity May had to go and feth it all up by blinking first.
Exactly. After Juncker's speech the other day on the United States of Europe, it amazes me that support for Brexit isn't at the 95% mark.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: May's initiation of a transition period is to be welcomed, not derided. It took Canada seven years to undertake a handcrafted trade agreement with the EU, and whilst it should be easier for us (given we already comply with all existing EU legislation), everyone was beginning to run short of time. Everyone on both sides of the fence here needs a functional set of accords, or everybody gets hurt. Given David Cameron's throwing of toys from the cot, and May's decision to play election instead of getting on with things, a large amount of the preset time for negotiations was lost to no good purpose.
Yet here we are. It has been patently clear for some time now that more time was needed. So May's decision to cast the first stone in establishing a transitory state of affairs is consequently being openly welcomed by all parties involved. Only those with political agendas (be it brexiteering furiously or rock throwing at the Tories) are bemoaning what is ultimately, a very practical and necessary decision.
This is a positive sign for the negotiations ahead. Even the EU has officially recognised that 'six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic' (Guy Verhofstadt yesterday). The European side has also begun to outline what they are after (namely an association agreement) and hinted at their preference potentially being to keep Northern Ireland specifically inside the Customs Union. These are good indications for a starting point for the diplomatic wrangling.
Things are actually beginning to progress. It is a good sign.
Sensible? Even Willy Wonka couldn't come up with as much fudge as May's speech. It's the worst kind of half-way house approach I have ever seen. The transition period is all the drawbacks of EU membership (ECJ, open door borders to EU citizens etc etc ) whilst gaining no advantages. And we're paying for it.
It's like a condemned man having to pay for the hangman's hope.
Will we even be able to sign new trade deals with non-EU countries during the transition? If we can't, we'll be sitting with our thumbs up our rears and valuable time will go down the pan.
This could be a shambles
If only all these blatantly obvious truths had been pointed out before !?
The UK's credit rating has been cut over concerns about the UK's public finances and fears Brexit could damage the country's economic growth.
Moody's, one of the major ratings agencies, downgraded the UK to an Aa2 rating from Aa1.
It said leaving the European Union was creating economic uncertainty at a time when the UK's debt reduction plans were already off course.
Downing Street said the firm's Brexit assessments were "outdated".
The other major agencies, Fitch and S&P, changed their ratings in 2016, with S&P cutting it two notches from AAA to AA, and Fitch lowering it from AA+ to AA.
Moody's said the government had "yielded to pressure and raised spending in several areas" including health and social care.
It says revenues were unlikely to compensate for the higher spending.
The agency said because the government had not secured a majority in the snap election it "further obscures the future direction of economic policy".
It also said Brexit would dominate legislative priorities, so there could be limited capacity to address "substantial" challenges.
It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative".
Moody's stripped Britain of its top-notch AAA rating in 2013.
The government said the latest downgrade followed a meeting on 19 September, and did not consider the prime minister's speech on Friday, in which she outlined her vision for Brexit.
"The prime minister has just set out an ambitious vision for the UK's future relationship with the EU, making clear that both sides will benefit from a new and unique partnership," it said.
"The foundations on which we build this partnership are strong."
It said it had a robust economic record and had made substantial progress in reducing the deficit.
"We are not complacent about the challenges ahead, but we are optimistic about our bright future."
Credit rating agencies, in essence, rate a country on the strength of its economy - scoring governments or large companies on how likely they are to pay back their debt.
A rating downgrade can affect how much it costs governments to borrow money in the international financial markets. In theory, a high credit rating means a lower interest rate, and vice versa.
It added "any free trade agreement will likely take years to negotiate, prolonging the current uncertainty for business".
Moody's has also changed the UK's long-term issuer and debt ratings to "stable" from "negative"
... can we feel the control yet ?
...
.'A permanent transition': what a perfectly British fudge.
.. so... we think May will even be in power 2 years or so down the line ?
I pay no heed to spivs and speculators such as Moody's. At any rate, I thought these bankers were leaving? My offer to drive these to the nearest airport of their choice still stands.
There is no "could be", this is a shambles. The whole thing is a shambles, because it's the result of muddied, unclear thinking and hyperbole.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...
As always with the Tories, party before country. This is nothing more than a Tory ploy to win a 2021 general election on a pledge to take us out of the EU, ...
Again, this has always been the case. Everyone knows that we only had this fething stupid vote to try and solidify tory power. The timing for this is perfect, we "leave" just before the general election, giving plenty of ammo for a new project fear about how Labour are the party of fiscal irresponsibility in this new era, despite it being proved that it is the Tories who have consistently fethed up the economy, as they are doing right now.
Even if they are voted out, the new Government has to steer the choppy waters of sorting out all the new trade agreements, which means that they will be ripe for an electoral kicking and will eventually restore the conservatives to "fix" things all over again.
This will continue until IQ tests are mandatory for voting, Rupert Murdoch is deported, and the Daily Mail and Express are found guilty of contempt and their entire editorial staff are imprisoned, assets liquidated, burned or melted down for scrap.
...and Farage finally disappears up his own capacious arsehole.
Farage sounds as though he may come out of retirement. After yesterday's white flag to Brussels, I wouldn't blame him.
I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.
With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?
The problems you highlight would still exist even if we were in the EU. The only difference is that Cameron and Osborne would still be in charge
Sensible? Even Willy Wonka couldn't come up with as much fudge as May's speech. It's the worst kind of half-way house approach I have ever seen. The transition period is all the drawbacks of EU membership (ECJ, open door borders to EU citizens etc etc ) whilst gaining no advantages. And we're paying for it.
The return is that we don't throw the economy into tilt and everyone (on both sides) acquires the time needed to craft an agreement which works for both sides. Something which was a rapidly diminishing possibility under the current circumstances. Maintaining payments and the existing system for a few extra years is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to do if that is the payoff.
Not everything is about 'advantage'. This isn't a zero sum game. Everyone loses if that's the way the game is played.
Sensible? Even Willy Wonka couldn't come up with as much fudge as May's speech. It's the worst kind of half-way house approach I have ever seen. The transition period is all the drawbacks of EU membership (ECJ, open door borders to EU citizens etc etc ) whilst gaining no advantages. And we're paying for it.
The return is that we don't throw the economy into tilt and everyone (on both sides) acquires the time needed to craft an agreement which works for both sides. Something which was a rapidly diminishing possibility under the current circumstances. Maintaining payments and the existing system for a few extra years is a perfectly reasonable and sensible thing to do if that is the payoff.
Not everything is about 'advantage'. This isn't a zero sum game. Everyone loses if that's the way the game is played.
The problem with any transition period though is that a presents an opportunity for any future Remain leaning government to keep kicking the issue into the long grass, so we exit the EU in name only, and the transition goes on for years. Even if you gave business 100 years to get ready, they'd still moan about needing more time.
More importantly, if we abide by EU rules during the transition period, that presumably means the rule on not being able to negotiate separate trade deals with the rest of the world still holds...
I would assume that the government was aware of the possibility of that before May's speech, but Tory incompetence knows no bounds, so I wouldn't be surprised if they overlooked that.
We desperately need clarification on that. As much as I loathe Liam Fox, it would be pointless to have his department doing nothing until 2021.
#Greece poll [Metron Analysis/@ta_nea]:
Remain in the Eurozone 75%
Drachma 19%
NA 6%
Now that is, of course, only 1 poll -- sample etc etc usual issues etc etc -- but that's both Frexit and Grexit well and truly gone post Brexit, which is odd as I was told over and over again there was no future in the Eu, it was all falling apart, countries were getting ready to leave and so forth.
Yet, weirdly like the actual facts of the Brexit debate, it seems the opposite is true.
The day before, astonished journalists, who had not applied to accompany Mays to Italy, were informed that they were accredited to Florence, a little reminiscent of winning a lottery in which they had not played. Apparently, the government quarter was concerned that May must hold her hopeful historical speech before empty benches; European politicians of rank had canceled. After all, tourists found the Bohei very exciting.
Well received then.
Extra press passes given out after the European politicians of note didn't bother turning up.
Least the British press pack was there -- it's nice travelling around without visas eh ?
Around 10,000 EU nationals have quit the NHS since the Brexit referendum, it has emerged.
NHS Digital, the agency that collects data on the health service, found that in the 12 months to June, 9,832 EU doctors, nurses and support staff had left, with more believed to have followed in the past three months.
This is an increase of 22% on the previous year and up 42% on two years previously. Among those from the EU who left the NHS between June 2016 and June 2017 were 3,885 nurses and 1,794 doctors.
Hope those blue passports are also anti-bacterial.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The problem with any transition period though is that a presents an opportunity for any future Remain leaning government to keep kicking the issue into the long grass, so we exit the EU in name only, and the transition goes on for years. Even if you gave business 100 years to get ready, they'd still moan about needing more time.
More importantly, if we abide by EU rules during the transition period, that presumably means the rule on not being able to negotiate separate trade deals with the rest of the world still holds...
The world will wait. Time ticks on. We do a sufficiently large amount of business with the EU that it would be foolish to rush things if there is an alternative. Given that Corbyn sitting in the wings has always disliked the EU, May won't change her course, and the Lib dems are down to a handful of seats, fears of some sort of political coup to keep us in the EU are somewhat groundless at this stage.
reds8n wrote:
It's pretty fething sad when a person accepting the inevitable is somehow lauded as being a worthy accomplishment.
Never said it was an accomplishment. Just that it was a statement to be welcomed. Which it is. If things had been conducted properly from the word go, it might have been unnecessary, but the Tories playing leader charades stuffed that one up.
It's more like saying that without any actual coherent plan or idea of what to do or how to improve things, then it's a bad idea to mess up what has been working well enough thus far.
But this has been explained over and over to you so what's the point eh ?
Merkel's conservatives see slim chance of Brexit progress by October
BERLIN (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Theresa May’s speech in Florence has failed to inject much-needed new momentum into talks on Britain’s departure from the European Union, a top politician with German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservatives said on Saturday.
May set out a plan on Friday to retain full access to the EU’s single market for two years after Brexit to try to reassure business and reset the tone of stalled negotiations with Brussels.
Michael Stuebgen, European spokesman for the conservatives in the German parliament, said it remained unclear how Britain would meet its financial obligations under the EU budget, and that London continued to refuse Britons living in Europe access to the European Court of Justice.
“Theresa May’s speech underscores the will of London to move ahead with Brexit negotiations, but unfortunately it will not provide a new dynamism in the talks that is so urgently needed,” Stuebgen said in a statement.
He said May also failed to address the issue of future borders, especially in Ireland.
“On this basis, we can hardly expect the needed progress in the Brexit negotiations before the European Council meeting in October,” he said.
German government spokesman Steffen Seibert declined to comment after May’s speech.
On Friday, before May spoke, Seibert told reporters a new round of negotiations due to start on Monday offered Britain a “fourth opportunity” to discuss specific proposals, reflecting growing impatience with the lack of progress in the talks.
The head of the German Association of Small and Medium-sized Businesses (BVMW) called May’s speech disappointing and said she had wasted an opportunity for a new beginning in the Brexit negotiations.
“What German industry needs above all is planning and investment certainty,” BVMW chief Mario Ohoven said in a statement. “Looming customs duties and bureaucratic trade obstacles are exactly the opposite of that, and are already resulting in significant damage to the investment climate.”
This is a positive sign for the negotiations ahead. Even the EU has officially recognised that 'six months after the triggering of article 50, it appears that the position of the UK is becoming more realistic' (Guy Verhofstadt yesterday). The European side has also begun to outline what they are after (namely an association agreement) and hinted at their preference potentially being to keep Northern Ireland specifically inside the Customs Union. These are good indications for a starting point for the diplomatic wrangling.
Things are actually beginning to progress. It is a good sign.
Although noting that he stated 'more realistic' not 'is realistic'. Perhaps he was just referring to the point that the UK government has conceded that they can't just implement this quickly and easily and an extension for the homework is necessary (of course it doesn't help that May lost 6 months because of her own idiocy). So there is still some way to go before the EU agrees. He has also come out and flatly stated that registering new EU migrants during the approximate two year transitional deal is not acceptable. Of course it depends on what May means - if it is that workers need an NI number well they have to have that anyway. On the other hand if it means taking a blood, semen, boot crack swab and having a mug shot taken (more likely given May's preference) then they just aren't going to go with it.
Generally though the speech was pretty light on details, with little actual substance. She wanted to use this speech to unblock the talks but did not deal with any of the major issues from our side such as the final bill (noting that the money to the EU is just funding to keep existing arrangements). Nor is there anything on the Irish border and freedom of movement. The EU have a position on such things already
However there was some things to note. She is committing now to mirroring EU legislation in UK legislation and rather than have the ECJ have oversight she wants 'another' body to deal with any discrepancies. In effect she wants and Extra - ECJ (EECJ) to take on oversight on any disputes. Our own courts will also have to take into consideration ECJ rulings. This seems rather pointless to be honest. We would be better staying in the ECJ and the EU legislative process to try and influence there. In effect we will comply with EU rules anyway. It also means that any trade deals we make will also have to comply with the EU rules meaning that any new trade deals will effectively be EU trade deals. This all means that she is heading for a direction where we comply but have no influence. In this case the question is why are we leaving in the first place.
And maybe this is where she is moving towards - a transition period could just as easily be used to return to the EU. There is a significant shift now away from leaving the EU. More polls are showing people not wanting to leave. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-majority-uk-british-people-stay-in-eu-not-leave-latest-poll-theresa-may-florence-speech-tory-a7960226.html. Although the change is not huge there is a definitive move away from leaving the EU. It's still not a huge majority, but it does show the general trend. People are starting to realise the full impacts, farmers are questioning where the subsidies are going to come from that will keep them competitive and so on. The young vote has suddenly found its voice (and noting they are trying to attract new voters from that age group and they are hardly going to do that whilst aiming to Wrexit). As such May might be in a position at the next election now when she has just implemented something the majority of people no longer want (as well as recognising that 2-3 million additional people will then be eligible to vote given current proposals who are highly unlikely to want to not rejoin the EU). I think May is highly likely to know this and is trying to find a fine line between keeping the party together and not condemning the Tory party for decades.
The real issue for May is her fascination with the anti-immigration agenda. She can't have both, where she states she is welcoming of all the work they are doing (paraphrased from her own speech) because there is growing recognition that a lot of jobs simply won't be done with out immigration but at the same time trying to pacify those that see people differently simply based on that they are not from the UK.
Take the victories where you can...however I'd note that unfortunately there is a human trait that when presented with absolute evidence that a belief is wrong that they will double down on that belief even harder. It's not entirely clear why we have this trait or stubbornness as it were, but perhaps a general unwillingness of humans to accept they are wrong.
What will be interesting will be whether the EU accepts May's 'generous offer' as by my calculations what the suggested amount is a less than the current payments yet we want to keep all the same things during the transition period. I question whether the EU will actually accept this (or whether they will restrict it to freedom of movement/free trade) and everything else is lost (so research grants etc).
It's like saying you wouldn't abandon a sinking ship because you didn't like the colour of the lifeboats.
The EU is not a sinking ship, if anything this is making them stronger because it shows what happens when you let populists get out of hand. Everyone in the world can see how badly it is going and the damage political decisions can do to a country.
A better analogy would be that we joined a high quality cruise liner but found there were too many tourists that weren't Brits onboard and that it couldn't be a Brit at the helm. Hence we decided that we'd make our own instead knotting together a few bits of rotten flotsam together and trying to push away blindly whilst everyone left on the cruise ship is pointing out the vessel we have designed is hardly sea worthy and is taking on water at a rapid rate. I think we are now at the point when we've travelled a few hundred metres and the crew have realised that we really are shipping a lot of water but the helms people are stating "its fine, it's only a bit of water"!
The EU is not a sinking ship, if anything this is making them stronger because it shows what happens when you let populists get out of hand. Everyone in the world can see how badly it is going and the damage political decisions can do to a country.!
So populist is bad....... oh wait isnt that democracy who ever is the most popular wins...
So your against the people who pay politicos to do a job actually doing as there told.
So ultimately your against democracy no wonder you like the eeeeeuuuuu.
jhe90 wrote:Will May do her damned job and get us out of that giant monolithic octopus of waste, frivolous spending, tinpot junkers and damned merkin run German empire.
We voted to leave.
May. Your job is to leave.
Giant monolithic octopus of waste, really? What's next? Get out of the giant monolithic octopus of waste that's the UK, then England,…, and so on until you arrive at a sufficiently small, direct, and efficient level and method of government like a city, town, or neighbourhood? The EU does good and bad like any other government agency and (in my opinion) it's overall more good than bad. But if you really think they are the big bad who's controlling everything and causing misery in your hometown then lets see who you'll blame for the same problems once the UK is out of the EU.
So populist is bad....... oh wait isnt that democracy who ever is the most popular wins...
So your against the people who pay politicos to do a job actually doing as there told.
So ultimately your against democracy no wonder you like the eeeeeuuuuu.
It can be bad. If you just act reactionary to anything you perceive as being what the people want you might end up offering your voters a non-binging and vague referendum just to claw back a few votes from the far right party and then later resign when things end up more complicated than expected. Of course somebody then May have to deal with a whole mess of uncertainty, vague promises, and lies that were left behind to make things work somehow. It's not like everybody has the competence to make good choices. Trickle down economics have been shown to not work that well but for some reason people can still be convinced to vote against their own interests and put people in power who keep cutting taxes for the rich while apologising that there's no money for better social services but the economic benefits from the tax cuts will totally fix all the problems (I'm not singling out the UK here, that's a pattern in quite a few first world countries).
Just because you don't pay attention to the EU doesn't mean elections don't happen. That's be like me saying that China doesn't exist because I've never been there and that would be an equally absurd statement. Here's a quote about the European Parliament from wikipeida:
The European Parliament (EP) is the directly elected parliamentary institution of the European Union (EU). Together with the Council of the European Union (the Council) and the European Commission, it exercises the legislative function of the EU. The Parliament is composed of 751 members, who represent the second-largest democratic electorate in the world (after the Parliament of India) and the largest trans-national democratic electorate in the world (375 million eligible voters in 2009).
Of course people find things to disagree with the process or with the distribution of power but it's not that undemocratic in my opinion. And if the EU system is such a big problem then voting on the national level must be nearly equally infuriating for you. It's just like one level of abstraction closer to you, after all.
Mario wrote: Giant monolithic octopus of waste, really?
I think it's quite well established that if national governments are leaky buckets when it comes to finance, the EU is a bucket without a bottom. There's very little oversight of spending, and that's generally admitted and known within the EU itself.
I would challenge any Brexiteer to look me in the eye and tell me hand on heart do you really believe that, right now, as we stand our country is better off? Do you really think this vast amount of time, money and effort wouldn't be better spent dealing with the substantial issues in this country.
With problems like wage stagnation, housing shortages, failing public services and a stuttering economy, is this ridiculousness really the top priority for our politicians, civil service and media?
We can always deal with those issues, but getting out of the EU was now or never. There was never going to be an opportune time to do it. You just had to do it before it became impossible. Juncker's speech made it clear that the status quo was never an option, that it was always going to be more integration.
It's also a pity May had to go and feth it all up by blinking first.
Exactly. After Juncker's speech the other day on the United States of Europe, it amazes me that support for Brexit isn't at the 95% mark.
What makes you think that some people in the UK wouldn't welcome being part of a federalised state? Just because a third of the population want globalisation to go away and think the best way to do that is to close borders and shun the outside world, doesn't mean that everyone is closed off to a new approach to the modern world.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ..
I pay no heed to spivs and speculators such as Moody's. At any rate, I thought these bankers were leaving? My offer to drive these to the nearest airport of their choice still stands.
The classy thing for me to do would be to not to point out the correlation between rejection of expert advice and wonky, nationalistic thinking.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news, 10'000 EU nationals have quit the NHS, and Colin Firth has dual Italian citizenship, and the battle between Boris and Philip Hammond heats up.
I tackled my MP on social media last week after he proudly posted an article about 60 nurses recently recruited for Lincolnshire. There are currently vacancies for over 240, so I asked what the plan was to recruit some more. He had no answer.
Following Colin Firth, I have started the process of obtaining an Irish passport for me and my children in order to ensure that there options are still open for them. I think I'm probably not alone.
Finally, isn't it nice to see the Tory party fighting like cats in a sack. It's almost as if the party of individualism has trouble co-operating on almost all issues.
Too many silly analogies, you can't boil down such a complex political-econonic situation into a trite comparison, which only achieves irritating those with a different opinion.
If we're playing silly analogies, how about this one? I'd rather be the master of my own leaking lifeboat than be a passenger on a ship sailing to a destination I don't want to go to.
I see the Blairites are trying to force Corbyn's hand by getting him to sign up to permanent membership of the single market.
To remain in the single market, but have no say on the rules...
And the Sunday Times is reporting a government source who is saying that the EU is looking for a 50 billion Euro divorce bill
This is what happens when your Prime Minister rolls up the white flag and does a Neville Chamberlain impression.
I warned last year that if the British people thought that they were getting stiched up by the Westminster elite, and were being stabbed in the back, there would be trouble...
I don't want trouble, I've never wanted trouble, and I have no doubt that nobody else on dakka would want that either.
But the few of us who comment here don't speak for millions of our fellow countrymen and women.
We've seen Trump, we've seen Farage, but I seriously fear that the backlash could produce something worse
Some sections of British society may wonder why we even bother voting anymore...
So populist is bad....... oh wait isnt that democracy who ever is the most popular wins...
So your against the people who pay politicos to do a job actually doing as there told.
So ultimately your against democracy no wonder you like the eeeeeuuuuu.
It is because populists respond and reinforce the anecdotal beliefs of society as whole rather than look at the real issues. As a populace as a whole humans can pretty stupid. Once a view has become ingrained in the psyche that 'feels right' it can end up with a life of its own. The majority of us at some time act like cattle following the herd as it makes makes us feel comfortable and part of a community. A lot of all these are also based on our fear response which further encourages us not to stray from the herd. The problem is that this can generate urban myths with little (if any) actual scientific evidence to support this. Populists then use these feelings to drive what they want. They reinforce the misconceptions and myths which further reinforces the groups view that it is correct. There are plenty of examples with Wrexit (from both sides).
For example their is a myth that EU immigration has depressed wages. There is little to no evidence that this has actually happened. The Bank of England's report suggests perhaps the lowest paid workers might be 1-2p per *year* worse off (which is negligible when compared to inflation). Other reports indicate, which we have discussed before, show no significant changes, though they do show that some wealthier groups do benefit slightly. If Cable is correct there are even more reports that May has suppressed whilst in the Home Office. It is an easy 'answer' to peoples problems however, it allows blame to be placed to the "its not our fault we are in this position today its because of something I have no control over". As individuals we then find evidence that this is correct and ignore that might challenge it. Bob the Joiner sees the EU citizen doing work cheaper than he is, but it is anecdotal - it ignore that Ahmed from Scotland, Jill from NI, and Jack from Birmingham, all UK citizens are also cheaper.
Populists tap into these misconceptions and then tout easy solutions (e.g. closed borders) whilst the reality is much wider and broader. The lack of provision for training/apprenticeships to provide a wider skill set for the populace, that we are in a globalised world and the rates paid are what has to be to ensure that items can't simply be manufactured abroad and shipped in and so on. MPs are voted in to act on the best interests of our behalf, not to just implement what the populace wants (otherwise we'd have 200mph speed limits). This is why they also don't like to here from people that have actual evidence. You can see this in the Wrexit campaign. There was a deliberate attempt to denigrate people that had actual evidence "we've had enough of expert" for example. They can't argue with the facts so rather than try to, they attempt to make people dismiss the evidence. The same thing happens with climate change, Neonictinoids, Edrogan is trying to silence teachers, academics (anyone that might question factually what he is doing) etc. Populists don't want people to listen to the experts simply because it will make some people start to question what is being said and that will then break the herd up and is less controllable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If we're playing silly analogies, how about this one? I'd rather be the master of my own leaking lifeboat than be a passenger on a ship sailing to a destination I don't want to go to.
I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls. All we can do is make predictions based on the evidence to hand.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Too many silly analogies, you can't boil down such a complex political-econonic situation into a trite comparison, which only achieves irritating those with a different opinion.
It is pretty simple, though, when you think about it.
We voted to leave the EU, so let's leave. All this horsegak about transition periods, cliff edges, single market, customs union, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, is just that: horsegak.
The problems of leaving and the issues to overcome won't be easy, but we know what they are, and they just need to be solved. It's a lack of will and can do attitude. That's the problem.
Our MPs and civil servants have forgotten how to run a country becuase they have been that used to the EU doing everything for them for years.
If we need new trade deals, then go out and get them. If we need more border staff, hire more. If Dover needs new infastructure then build it etc etc
For me, it's as simple as that. The rest is just detail and white noise.
Mario wrote: Giant monolithic octopus of waste, really?
I think it's quite well established that if national governments are leaky buckets when it comes to finance, the EU is a bucket without a bottom. There's very little oversight of spending, and that's generally admitted and known within the EU itself.
That's not entirely correct. The EU do audit there accounts and generally find them to be a fair and accurate representation of their expenditure. They do recognise there are some errors, last time I read approximately 3.8% of expenditure was deemed to have been spent in 'error' (note not as in fraudulently). That amounts to abut £4bn of the budget cannot be correctly accounted for. To put that into context that is about £143m per EU country which is relatively a tiny amount of money (it is less than half of one standard sized County Council's budget for example). The idea that the EU is a leaky bucket is not correct.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Too many silly analogies, you can't boil down such a complex political-econonic situation into a trite comparison, which only achieves irritating those with a different opinion.
It is pretty simple, though, when you think about it.
We voted to leave the EU, so let's leave. All this horsegak about transition periods, cliff edges, single market, customs union, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, is just that: horsegak.
The problems of leaving and the issues to overcome won't be easy, but we know what they are, and they just need to be solved. It's a lack of will and can do attitude. That's the problem.
That's questionable though. The vote was too close and a lot of people were excluded from the vote (for example those demonstrating outside of Florence). It was a non-binding referendum where a significant fraction of the populace of the UK were excluded. The vote was too close to be conclusive either way once you factor into these issues. As I've pointed out May is offering a type of citizenship to 2-3million people that are not UK born but have been living and contributing for many years, these people weren't asked what they wanted. Those mostly affected by Wrexit, the under 18's, were not asked what they wanted (the age limit could easily have been lowered to 16 for example). 30% of the population simply did not vote - however that does not mean they should be ignored. 30% of the population voted to Remain, that does not mean they should be ignored. However this appears to be the view that the whole populace voted for Wrexit which they did not; in fact only a minority actually voted for it when you consider the whole populace.
A can do attitude will only take you so far. I can jump off a building with a 'can do' attitude and willpower that I will float. That doesn't mean the reality is that I end up as a messy puddle at the bottom.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I
I warned last year that if the British people thought that they were getting stiched up by the Westminster elite, and were being stabbed in the back, there would be trouble...
I don't want trouble, I've never wanted trouble, and I have no doubt that nobody else on dakka would want that either.
But the few of us who comment here don't speak for millions of our fellow countrymen and women.
We've seen Trump, we've seen Farage, but I seriously fear that the backlash could produce something worse
Yeah I can see the fear in people's eyes now as the zimmer-frame brigade try and rebel and take over the country using wooden walking sticks as they descend on London. The reality is the vast majority of younger people want to Remain and if any 'backlash' would have to include them to make it active.
For example their is a myth that EU immigration has depressed wages. There is little to no evidence that this has actually happened.
I'd like to step in there actually, and specify that saying immigration hasn't depressed wages is actually as inaccurate as saying it has.
Both are generalisations about vast numbers of people of various social position and different labour markets. It's a bit like how saying 'those immigrants come and put pressure on our services' is inaccurate if you look at the NHS, but accurate if you look at emergency child fostering/adoption services. You're correct that at the macro 'taking everything into account' level, there's relatively little wage depression, but if you break it down further, it's just not that simple. The inclusion of the middle and upper end of the job market in a generalised analysis distorts the data, as well qualified jobs are rarely subject to the same sort of pressures as the unskilled market (which more people are concerned about when it comes to wage depression from immigration).
If you look purely at the statistical data for low paid jobs, a trend of wage depression linked to higher levels of immigration becomes more apparent. At the same time however, that also harms the wages of other immigrants (because they're also competing for jobs primarily in that area). To pull from Oxford University:-
Spoiler:
Focusing on the period 1997-2005 when the UK experienced significant labour immigration (see our briefing ‘Migrants in the UK Labour Market‘), Dustmann, Frattini and Preston (2013) find that an increase in the number of migrants corresponding to 1% of the UK-born working-age population resulted in an increase in average wages of 0.1 to 0.3%. Another study, for the period 2000-2007, found that a 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK’s working-age population lowers the average wage by 0.3% (Reed and Latorre 2009). These studies, which relate to different time periods, thus reach opposing conclusions but they agree that the effects of immigration on averages wages are relatively small.
The effects of immigration on workers within specific wage ranges or in specific occupations are more significant. The greatest wage effects are found for low-waged workers even though those effects can be considered relatively small. Dustmann et al (2013) find that each 1% increase in the share of migrants in the UK-born working age population leads to a 0.6% decline in the wages of the 5% lowest paid workers and to an increase in the wages of higher paid workers. Another study focusing on wage effects at the occupational level during 1992 and 2006, found that, in the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector, a 1% rise in the share of migrants reduced average wages in that occupation by nearly 0.5% (Nickell and Salaheen 2008). They also find the same effect in an updated paper, in which they consider the period from 1992 and 2014, however in this extended period the average wage reduction for the unskilled and semi-skilled service sector is just under 0.2% (Nickell and Salaheen 2015).
The available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for resident workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers. Manacorda, Manning and Wadsworth (2012) analyse data from 1975-2005 and conclude that the main impact of increased immigration is on the wages of migrants already in the UK.
Ultimately, the people who voted for Brexit are those who are most likely to have been hurt by wage depression from immigration (namely, those who work in low skilled/paid jobs). Not those sitting sweet in academic jobs, medicine, or other fields where the immigrants barely dent the average wage (or even increase it), that a more generalised analysis takes into account. The studies mentioned above are looking at immigration figures at a national level to boot, which means that if you focus the lens further upon the areas with a higher proportion of immigrants per head than the national average, the wage depression will only increase further for those specific areas. If those areas have higher living costs also (say, London for example) that only exacerbates the effect, as your money gets you far less.
The great thing about statistics is that they're only as good as the person who pulls them together. If you cast the statistical net too wide, you raise inaccuracy and distort data, but if you narrow it in too far, you miss extraneous factors.
The idea that the EU is a leaky bucket is not correct.
You've misread. The phrases were 'waste' and 'oversight'. That doesn't mean purely expenditure that can't be traced properly in the accounts (although it includes it, and 3.8% is a terrible figure far in excess of what I expected for that). We're talking about pointless expenditure, wasteful expenditure, unnecessary expenditure. Things like the sorts of subsidies high ranking EU officials get, pet projects that achieve little of worth or meaning, and so on. You couldn't find a single government department in Britain that has the degree of lax sanctioning of expenditure that the EU indulges in. Too much pressure to squeeze the value from every penny on this side, and far too little on the other.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Too many silly analogies, you can't boil down such a complex political-econonic situation into a trite comparison, which only achieves irritating those with a different opinion.
It is pretty simple, though, when you think about it.
We voted to leave the EU, so let's leave. All this horsegak about transition periods, cliff edges, single market, customs union, soft Brexit, hard Brexit, is just that: horsegak.
The problems of leaving and the issues to overcome won't be easy, but we know what they are, and they just need to be solved. It's a lack of will and can do attitude. That's the problem.
Our MPs and civil servants have forgotten how to run a country becuase they have been that used to the EU doing everything for them for years.
If we need new trade deals, then go out and get them. If we need more border staff, hire more. If Dover needs new infastructure then build it etc etc
For me, it's as simple as that. The rest is just detail and white noise.
That is one huge attitudinal problem right there, and an example of the blinkerdness of Nationalistic thought process '. The split up of any union is not simple or easy, it cannot possibly be no matter how much you wish it could be. You are dealing with hugely detailed government structures that are not there to just "get in the way" but are essential to the maintenance of society.
Your failure to understand that, or willingness to even try, actually demonstrates that you probably need to take a moment for reflection about your actual beliefs. Because, this demonstrates that you are not thinking rationally about this at all, but are reacting based in opinion, belief and feels.
How on earth do you "just build infrastructure"? If it's that easy, it would have been done, but apart from anything else, money needs to be found and it needs to be planned etc. That takes resources, of which there Is only a finite amount.
You cannot expect to be taken remotely seriously with such a simplistic and naive world view.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If we need new trade deals, then go out and get them. If we need more border staff, hire more. If Dover needs new infastructure then build it etc etc
For me, it's as simple as that. The rest is just detail and white noise.
Ah yes nice to believe how everything is so simple. Money just comes out of thin air, everything is unlimited(eventhough it isn't) and everybody immediately grants UK what they want without wanting anything back so no need for long negotiations...
Sheesh. Attitude like that and no wonders leavers are in for a big shock when reality kicks in and UK finds out how big of a mistake they made in the first place.
My apologies to anybody who is not young, but I'd like to remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we were not in the EU. And we built things. And we passed laws. And the sun rose, and the sun set, and so on and so on...
You build infrastructure by saying you want it built, and then leave the detail for others to sort out. If the Prime Minister wants a new rail line between London and Birmingham, it's their job to provide the political vision and the funding. It's not their job to make sure that Joe the builder has enough concrete for the day's work! Lower level managers see to that. That's the detail I'm on about. David Davis is in Brussels today for round 4 of the talks, but he won't be thrashing out the details. That's for the civil servants. Davis is there to make sure it gets done and not to micro manage.
As for funding, you'll note that there is never a shortage of money in the UK when it comes to bombing Arabs or nuclear submarines or foreign aid, or lobbing the EU £20 billion year and so on. There is plenty of money in the UK.
The problem is a lack of political will a lot of the time. The UK was bankrupt post WW2, but Atlee drove through the construction of a million new homes and of course, the NHS, in the face of bitter opposition.
Our leaders and MPs lack guts and vision. Most of them are careerists anyway.
My apologies to anybody who is not young, but I'd like to remind younger dakka members that there was a time when we were not in the EU. And we built things. And we passed laws. And the sun rose, and the sun set, and so on and so on...
You build infrastructure by saying you want it built, and then leave the detail for others to sort out. If the Prime Minister wants a new rail line between London and Birmingham, it's their job to provide the political vision and the funding. It's not their job to make sure that Joe the builder has enough concrete for the day's work! Lower level managers see to that. That's the detail I'm on about. David Davis is in Brussels today for round 4 of the talks, but he won't be thrashing out the details. That's for the civil servants. Davis is there to make sure it gets done and not to micro manage.
As for funding, you'll note that there is never a shortage of money in the UK when it comes to bombing Arabs or nuclear submarines or foreign aid, or lobbing the EU £20 billion year and so on. There is plenty of money in the UK.
The problem is a lack of political will a lot of the time. The UK was bankrupt post WW2, but Atlee drove through the construction of a million new homes and of course, the NHS, in the face of bitter opposition.
Our leaders and MPs lack guts and vision. Most of them are careerists anyway.
Because, we have Conservatives in power, with May at the head, and she's not Prime Minister material, she's a home counties back bench MP at best. From the papers today it looks like Davis is manoeuvring for the leadership, which will almost certainly be supported by the party. He's expendable, a throwaway PM, and he's also a true believer of Brexit. God help us.
There was a time we weren't in the EU, but we have been a part of that for decades now, and extracting ourselves from there with minimal pain is complicated. Only a simpleton would advocate tearing ourselves away into WTO rules because of the huge damage that is likely to do to the economy and country.
But you know this, and are willing to "take the pain", so discussing this is rather pointless.
Our leaders and MPs lack guts and vision. Most of them are careerists anyway.
Absolutely; we've been in a holding pattern for a long time. We should have been throwing money at infrastructure, renewable energy, transport and technology for decades now. We should be announcing world leading projects. And the most innovative thing we've done is spend an absolute fortune talking about making trains between London and Birmingham a little bit faster.
However, that's got nothing to do with Brexit; the only way you can disengage a political entity we've been an active part of for decades just like that is if you don't give a gak about the consequences. There will be literally thousands of details that need sorting out, and a lot of infrastructure changes. Changes that can't be done just by ensuring Joe builder has a days worth of concrete - you need to get funding for it, plan it, ensure it'll solve the problem, build it correctly, manage it.
Sure stuff worked before the EU and it'll work after, but it's madness to think it can be done just by issuing a few edicts.
And that's once we know what the gak we want. We're still at the "WTF is going on?" stage, never mind the "how do we do this?" stage.
I certainly get the impression your entire focus is on leaving the EU, and aren't really considering the implications or side effects.
Whirlwind wrote: I suppose downwards is a direction, but for me its not preferable as I don't have gills. However I'd question anyone that said they knew where any direction will lead to. None of us have crystal balls.
Nonsense. We DO know what direction the EU is heading in. Ever Closer Union. Its written into the very foundation of the EU, it is the very antithesis of the independent Nation State.
All we can do is make predictions based on the evidence to hand.
Exactly. And the evidence indicates that the EU will never be satisfied, the leaders of the EU (Juncker et al) make no secret about their desire for further integration. In their own words there is no Status Quo. We either continue integrating and allow our national independence and sovereignty to be chipped away, or we leave now before its too late.
It was just meant to show that "We gave them a plan of ours, but they didn't want it, so now they have to come up with something better!" doesn't really work when the plans you hand in have too many holes to be properly considered.
Stranger83, we have different viewpoints and opinions, but I enjoyed our discussion and the fact that it stayed polite! 
bloody hell eh ?