Hard Brexit

[AuldReekie444]

6 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Poorer. And did the UK's poor vote for that? Like hell they did. Many voted for the first time ever because they thought that at last, someone was listening to them. 

 

So what happens when they conclude that every single political party and Brexit just makes their lives ever worse? 

they stop voting?

I dont see it being like the walking dead like

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

There endeth the lesson.   

 

And eight minutes after I posted it, proof that not everyone readeth the lesson. 

 

You might as well try to plait the rain.

 

 

[Francis Albert]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Poorer. And did the UK's poor vote for that? Like hell they did. Many voted for the first time ever because they thought that at last, someone was listening to them. 

 

So what happens when they conclude that every single political party and Brexit just makes their lives ever worse? 

"Ever worse"? Forever and ever?

I think it quite possible, maybe even probable, that many people will be poorer than they would have been without Brexit.  However they will never really know. A lot of other factors  (eg will Jeremy Corbyn bring us socialism in one country with more progressive taxation and a wealth tax?

And I also think it is possible, even perhaps probable, that many people will be poorer if Scotland becomes independent. If you are a nationalist that to me would be a bad reason for foregoing independence.

[shaun.lawson]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Thanks for the acknowledgement in your first paragraph that customs controls on the border between Northern Ireland and the ROI would not constitute a "hard border".

 

Moving on, how do you define "free movement"? Is it as between Switzerland and its EU neighbours the lack of passport controls? (50,000 Germans commute to work in Switzerland every day - movement of people and goods are distinguished)

 

 Or is it a right for any EU citizen to move to Switzerland to live and work on a permanent basis?

 

At present (despite the mantra of no cherry picking and no cake having and eating which has to date represented the "nuanced" EU negotiating position ) the relationship between the UK and ROI is already special. Other EU citizens have passport control on entering the UK. ROI citizens (and others travelling between the UK and the ROI) don't. Why should that change?  

 

 

My first paragraph acknowledged nothing of the sort. Switzerland does not have a hard border with the EU because Switzerland is signed up to freedom of movement, on both counts that you set out. It's signed up to freedom of movement because of the tariff-free access it enjoys to the single market.

 

As Uly explains above, that's the only way the Northern Ireland situation is resolved positively - but we refuse to do that, very largely because of how many people voted Leave due to immigration concerns. What we're doing instead - the legal backstop - is a faintly ridiculous, unworkable solution which will enrage EU-supporting Scotland and which the DUP will be unable to support. 

 

Meanwhile, the relationship between the UK and ROI is, in terms of goods and services (but not people), only possible nowadays because of the single market. Which we're, ahem, leaving. 

[shaun.lawson]

4 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

And I also think it is possible, even perhaps probable, that many people will be poorer if Scotland becomes independent. If you are a nationalist that to me would be a bad reason for foregoing independence.

 

I agree entirely with point 1 above; I disagree entirely with point 2. Still, an independent Scotland joining the free market and customs union and hence, having freedom of movement too, would be fun.  

[AuldReekie444]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

My first paragraph acknowledged nothing of the sort. Switzerland does not have a hard border with the EU because Switzerland is signed up to freedom of movement, on both counts that you set out. It's signed up to freedom of movement because of the tariff-free access it enjoys to the single market.

 

As Uly explains above, that's the only way the Northern Ireland situation is resolved positively - but we refuse to do that, very largely because of how many people voted Leave due to immigration concerns. What we're doing instead - the legal backstop - is a faintly ridiculous, unworkable solution which will enrage EU-supporting Scotland and which the DUP will be unable to support. 

 

Meanwhile, the relationship between the UK and ROI is, in terms of goods and services (but not people), only possible nowadays because of the single market. Which we're, ahem, leaving. 

Uly, is not the expert that is guiding this process. 

 

 

 

[AuldReekie444]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

I agree entirely with point 1 above; I disagree entirely with point 2. Still, an independent Scotland joining the free market and customs union and hence, having freedom of movement too, would be fun.  

Scottish independence is dead in the water, imo.

 

[Ulysses]

Just now, AuldReekie444 said:

Uly, is not the expert that is guiding this process. 

 

 

 

 

 

Read the news, would ya? 

[AuldReekie444]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Read the news, would ya? 

 

away you go

edit- seriously though,  are you paying attention to the news? I certainly am.

and this whole brexit piffle, is like a tiny pebble in an ocean.

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by AuldReekie444
clarification

[Ulysses]

7 minutes ago, AuldReekie444 said:

 

away you go

edit- seriously though,  are you paying attention to the news? I certainly am.

and this whole brexit piffle, is like a tiny pebble in an ocean.

 

 

Seriously though?

 

If you were reading the news, you'd realise that the reason why the legal backstop is required for the land frontier in the absence of success in the other two agreed alternatives is because that's what the British government signed up to do.

 

If you want to dive in to the debate while remaining entirely uninformed of the issues involved, you carry on to your heart's content.  But your government doesn't have that luxury, and it needs to get its act together and start representing its people and their interests properly.

[AuldReekie444]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Seriously though?

 

If you were reading the news, you'd realise that the reason why the legal backstop is required for the land frontier in the absence of success in the other two agreed alternatives is because that's what the British government signed up to do.

 

If you want to dive in to the debate while remaining entirely uninformed of the issues involved, you carry on to your heart's content.  But your government doesn't have that luxury, and it needs to get its act together and start representing its people and their interests properly.

Uly, all over the world, people seperate themselves.  Within China and India, for instance, there are massive cultural differences. Also in Spain.

 

All of these places live within a political compromise. 

The same is true in Europe, and in the UK, and in the British Isles. 

The EU might act like it is a "thing" but it really isn't a "thing" and I hope a compromise will be found. 

Do you not want a compromise? Would you rather something else

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

9 minutes ago, AuldReekie444 said:

Do you not want a compromise?

 

Uly's already set out precisely where there is room for compromise: a compromise which would benefit everyone. The British government is, according to everything it's publicly stated and as a direct result of the mendacity of the Leave campaign, not interested.

 

And before you say: "Only the British government? Why not the EU?", the answer is because, as a serious organisation, the EU cannot magic things up out of thin air. 

[shaun.lawson]

36 minutes ago, AuldReekie444 said:

this whole brexit piffle, is like a tiny pebble in an ocean.

 

You might think that. I'd suggest it's because most of the UK media, like most UK politicians, are no longer interested in reporting the truth - above all, the nitty gritty and detail - about almost anything.

Edited April 8, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Ulysses]

57 minutes ago, AuldReekie444 said:

Do you not want a compromise?

 

 

 

If you'd read the news, you'd know that what I posted IS the compromise.  It's not my compromise. It's what the British government and the EU agreed to do.

 

If you want to understand how well or badly your government is representing your interests in negotiating the terms of the UK's future relationship with the EU, you need to keep yourself informed of the facts.

[JamboX2]

15 hours ago, jake said:

He voted remain .

 

Perhaps we should all bow to your snobbish coffee sipping socialism.

After all what a bunch of ignorant racist thickos we are.

 

 

I'm away to look at Ulys pictures because your posts are fekin annoying .

 

What's wrong with a coffee and the Observer - or for that any decent paper? Should I opt for the Telegraph I could learn more about why Brexit is great, why the Commonwealth has been waiting for us since '73 and how evil wanting equality is.

[JamboX2]

12 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

The campaign was a total joke from both sides. Any discussion of nuance or detail just wasn't cricket, apparently.

 

Agreed.

 

12 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

350m a week for the NHS.

 

"Absolutely no-one is talking about us leaving the single market".

 

"We can reach a deal with the EU in an afternoon".

 

"Turkey will be joining the EU".

 

And no mention - at all - of Northern Ireland: which you seem to display zero awareness of even now.

 

Disgraceful, fraudulent, mendacious... and in terms of its funding, quite likely criminal too. 

 

You forgot Farage standing in front of the poster showing refugees streaming across the Greek border and the blatant anti-immigrant rhetoric from many cheerleaders of Brexit Shaun.

 

Despicable stuff to be honest. And all this started to gain a very legitimate bent when May as Home Sec had vans about illegal immigrants bobbing around. 

 

Astounding this bile has been allowed to seep into our dialogue.

 

11 hours ago, jake said:

So no politicians warned us about the dangers of leaving.

No political heavyweights campaigned for remain.

Only those from the right campaigned for leave.

 

Please don't slag of Sound bite politics then use them as your argument.

 

You use racism as much as racists do to further your argument.

 

I like many voted leave despite shitty arguments from both sides.

 

As for Ireland.

There I think is a political certainty about it's future.

Your scaremongering is just that.

 

Your argument that it's all just bad because you say it is hasn't any basis.

 

And your snobbish attitudes about Northern England as if they do not understand politics is typical.

 

Away and sip yer coffee .

 

They did warn us. You rejected their fears as lacking any firm footing.

 

There were big beasts in the campaign - Blair, Major and Brown as ex-PMs. Former foreign secretaries and europe ministers. Former UK Commissioners to the EU. Foreign ambassadors and politicians all said things. Ignored by you clearly.

 

What is Ireland's settled future? This certainty? 

 

Scaremongering - is a term used by those shutting down debate to what they do not want to hear. Perhaps banning it and facing the hard points in an argument would be wise for all of us. Otherwise we don't learn to form our own views but parrot others - eg Build The Wall and Make Mexico Pay / Scotland's a fairer nation in spirit.

[jake]

12 hours ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

You need to keep in mind that given his comments about Dublin, jake may not actually realise what role the British government has to play in Northern Ireland.  That's certainly true of a lot of Brexiteers.

 

 

Here's a piece written by Tommie Gorman, RTÉ's Northern Editor, and published today.  It's about the unique role played by John Hume in Northern Ireland's political process, but it also demonstrates how the European dimension was so important.

 

RTÉ News - Hume: The key influence in the Good Friday Agreement

 

Not going to pretend when I voted Brexit that I considered Ireland.

Why would or should I?

 

The framework of the good Friday agreement should see the politicians in the North along with Dublin find their own solutions.

That's the beauty of having individual governments because it actually proves the case against the EU.

One size does not fit all.

Anyway I think we all know that eventually the reunification of Ireland is the end goal.

And that although the UK perhaps plays a part in that it's really for the Irish to take responsibility.

 

 

[jake]

1 hour ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Agreed.

 

 

You forgot Farage standing in front of the poster showing refugees streaming across the Greek border and the blatant anti-immigrant rhetoric from many cheerleaders of Brexit Shaun.

 

Despicable stuff to be honest. And all this started to gain a very legitimate bent when May as Home Sec had vans about illegal immigrants bobbing around. 

 

Astounding this bile has been allowed to seep into our dialogue.

 

 

They did warn us. You rejected their fears as lacking any firm footing.

 

There were big beasts in the campaign - Blair, Major and Brown as ex-PMs. Former foreign secretaries and europe ministers. Former UK Commissioners to the EU. Foreign ambassadors and politicians all said things. Ignored by you clearly.

 

What is Ireland's settled future? This certainty? 

 

Scaremongering - is a term used by those shutting down debate to what they do not want to hear. Perhaps banning it and facing the hard points in an argument would be wise for all of us. Otherwise we don't learn to form our own views but parrot others - eg Build The Wall and Make Mexico Pay / Scotland's a fairer nation in spirit.

The reunification which kind of makes that border obsolete.

 

As for scaremongering.

Come on Jambo I love arguing .

It's the constant stream of pish about the effects of Brexit that has never born fruit. 

 

As for Farage.

And as for the dragging down of debate.

It always is brought to this by those who cannot argue immigration without using the racist card.

 

In fact I find the arguments for pro to actually be racist.

Who will clean our toilets they cry.

 

For many migrants they come here because their economy is weakened and unviable because of the euro and EU .

 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by jake

[jake]

When the founding father of the single currency describes it as a house of cards ready to collapse you have to wonder.

When he describes the federalism by stealth as a betrayal you have to wonder why it is we do not read or hear of this in any main stream media.

 

[shaun.lawson]

16 minutes ago, jake said:

 

Not going to pretend when I voted Brexit that I considered Ireland.

Why would or should I?

 

So in voting for something you thought was good for the UK, its impact on part of the UK and your fellow Britons didn't even occur to you. Thanks for confirming that.

 

Thanks also for confirming that you're not even reading Ulysses' posts, let alone attempting to understand them.

 

 

[jake]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

So in voting for something you thought was good for the UK, its impact on part of the UK and your fellow Britons didn't even occur to you. Thanks for confirming that.

 

Thanks also for confirming that you're not even reading Ulysses' posts, let alone attempting to understand them.

 

 

Why should I worry when I believe that the break up of the UK and the EU is a good thing.

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

Why should I worry when I believe that the break up of the UK and the EU is a good thing.

 

 

 

So your post earlier in the thread about the beauty of individual governments was, in fact, nonsense? Thanks for clarifying. 

[jake]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

So your post earlier in the thread about the beauty of individual governments was, in fact, nonsense? Thanks for clarifying. 

Why is it nonsense?

 

The good Friday agreement was a victory for politics without violence.

The post you accuse me of not reading and understanding from Uly I think illustrates that Ireland and it's people no longer use that to work out problems.

 

You don't have to keep thanking me by the way.

 

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, jake said:

Why is it nonsense?

 

 

Because you just confirmed you don't actually believe in national sovereignty. As well as the sum total of your knowledge of Northern Ireland being: "Good Friday Agreement". Which Brexit has done/is doing more to undermine than anything since its being signed. 

[jake]

Shaun cares so much about his fellow Europeans that it's remain at all costs.

 

Meanwhile 30% of young Europeans live in poverty.

 

An EU where conservatives demonize the poor(or in the UK where the left also describe them as thick racists)

And socialists tax the middle class.

 

Where growth has fallen 5% compared to Canada and Australia growth of over 20% in the last 5 years.

 

A one size fits all currency that benefits few of the member states.

And his failure to be honest about immigration not just to the UK but to Europe.

Instead merely to call out racist.

 

 

[JamboX2]

44 minutes ago, jake said:

The reunification which kind of makes that border obsolete.

 

Woah woah woah. So Brexit is now a means of breaking up the UK as it stands?

 

Do the North want that? I don't think that is Ulster's settled will Jakey.

 

Quote

 

As for scaremongering.

Come on Jambo I love arguing .

It's the constant stream of pish about the effects of Brexit that has never born fruit. 

 

Except that which has. I.e. Irish Border, single market access, funding, paying our dues , access to EU bodies...

 

Quote

 

As for Farage.

And as for the dragging down of debate.

It always is brought to this by those who cannot argue immigration without using the racist card.

 

Tell me what was legitimate about the Farage poster? It was a lie. It claimed that those people were EU migrants on the way to Britain.

 

Race? Why are Turks in the EU bad? What's bad about Poles working in the EU? Or having vans buzz about saying "out the illegals"? 

 

Quote

 

In fact I find the arguments for pro to actually be racist.

Who will clean our toilets they cry.

 

No. We're arguing about rights for people who've moved here to live and work and had the rug removed from under them. Where are their legal protections?

 

Quote

 

For many migrants they come here because their economy is weakened and unviable because of the euro and EU .

 

 

People come here because it's a rich nation with work to offer. Why do people from outwith europe come here? Nations made "unviable" by the EU?

 

How have we made a go of it in the EU then and not crushed by it? 

 

Our economy is wealthy but stagnant. Our domestic industry is dying because our governments have made a choice since 1979 not to protect them from hostile takeovers - predominantly from out with the EU. What does leaving do to change these economic issues? We need new thinking in the UK to solve our woes Jake. Not blaming others.

[Francis Albert]

13 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Yes, immigration should be planned. And here's the thing: it could've been planned at any point since freedom of movement began. Many other EU members have ID cards, which renders it extremely difficult for anyone to stay there beyond 90 days. We don't. Our approach to freedom of movement has been crazy - but why have we taken such a liberal approach? Because our chronically under-invested services demand it. No mass immigration = much worse NHS and unaffordable pensions.

 

Unfortunately, the result of us curtailing freedom of movement is, as well as ****ing up Northern Ireland good and proper, it necessitates our departure from the single market: making everyone poorer, with the poorest most heavily hit. The poorest have already been hit so heavily not because of the EU (since 2007, wages have risen more in every other EU country except Greece, with which we are joint bottom), but because of the political choices we have taken: cuts, cuts, and more cuts. 

 

Housing? I couldn't agree more. So do we vote for investment in housing, to build more houses, for rent controls, for land value taxes? Nope. So much easier to blame the EU instead. The public are putty in the Tories' hands. 

 

We already control our economy in a way eurozone members cannot because we are not part of the single currency. Yet what Brexit means is we've given our sovereignty up. Yes, you read that right: we've given it up. Because the moment we want to sign trade deals with the US, India or whoever, they'll demand preferential treatment by us. Meaning mass visa-free Indian immigration; meaning private US companies exporting chlorinated chicken and taking over much of the NHS. Meaning much lower standards which only benefit the very richest. 

 

Naturally, given all the above, no other EU member wants anything to do with leaving. It's not "finished"; it's getting stronger. As even a medium-sized power, it's Britain which is finished. Finished by its own generally well-intentioned but horrendously misguided public.

Interesting. Elsewhere you have argued (or rather asserted) that access to the free market necessarily involves free movement of people including for example the right for any EU citizen to move to and settle permanently in Switzerland. Here you seem to suggest that by issuing identity cards stays can easily be limited  to 90 days. Presumably this means there is some sort of other control or qualification for granting permanent residence status.

If so it is strange that the Remain campaign didn't succeed in killing the immigration argument stone dead by pointing it out. Perhaps many Remainers did not want to admit that despite frequent promises to control immigration they did nothing about it, and others actually favoured unplanned open immigration from the EU. I can understand why Leavers didn't make the point - they or at least their leading proponents - want to leave the UEU for reasons extending (despite the smears) to issues wider than immigration.

[jake]

9 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Because you just confirmed you don't actually believe in national sovereignty. As well as the sum total of your knowledge of Northern Ireland being: "Good Friday Agreement". Which Brexit has done/is doing more to undermine than anything since its being signed. 

How have I confirmed I don't believe in national sovereignty?

 

You are the one claiming the Good Friday agreement is undermined by Brexit.

What other areas of Northern Irish politics would you like to discuss.

 

I've already stated that I think given that the Irish have this framework that the brexit question is answerable .

And that the best people to answer that question is the Irish.

 

 

[JamboX2]

38 minutes ago, jake said:

When the founding father of the single currency describes it as a house of cards ready to collapse you have to wonder.

When he describes the federalism by stealth as a betrayal you have to wonder why it is we do not read or hear of this in any main stream media.

 

You do. The Guardian, Times, Telegraph and Independent have all run stories about how Germany is rejecting French insistence for ever greater union. The Observer last week ran a story on Varofoukis leading a new party in Greece opposed to closer union and for reform of the Eurozone. Politico.com has ran great pieces on politics in the EU's Mediterranean nations - Portugal, Spain, Cyprus, Malta and Italy. There's been coverage of the rising populist right in Poland and Hungary and euroskeptic and anti-immigration parties in Sweden and Denmark.

 

It's all there if you look for it. But you need to allow yourself not to be spoonfed by social media or tv and go and look for it.

[shaun.lawson]

6 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Interesting. Elsewhere you have argued (or rather asserted) that access to the free market necessarily involves free movement of people including for example the right for any EU citizen to move to and settle permanently in Switzerland. Here you seem to suggest that by issuing identity cards stays can easily be limited  to 90 days. Presumably this means there is some sort of other control or qualification for granting permanent residence status.

If so it is strange that the Remain campaign didn't succeed in killing the immigration argument stone dead by pointing it out. Perhaps many Remainers did not want to admit that despite frequent promises to control immigration they did nothing about it, and others actually favoured unplanned open immigration from the EU. I can understand why Leavers didn't make the point - they or at least their leading proponents - want to leave the UEU for reasons extending (despite the smears) to issues wider than immigration.

 

Many Leavers really do only want to leave because of immigration. But when the Remain campaign is such a joke, it doesn't even point out the above; when Cameron is such a joke, he doesn't even explain to the British people that freedom of movement as they understand it can be stopped with ID cards; and when British society since Thatcher has become so unequal, it is horribly dependent on immigration, then well...

 

ID cards are not compulsory, incidentally. But where they're used (such as where I live now, but Spain is another example), it's almost impossible to live any kind of decent life without them. Can't get healthcare without them. Can't get residency without them. Can't get a passport without them. Can't work legally without them. Etc etc. 

[shaun.lawson]

9 minutes ago, jake said:

How have I confirmed I don't believe in national sovereignty?

 

You are the one claiming the Good Friday agreement is undermined by Brexit.

What other areas of Northern Irish politics would you like to discuss.

 

I've already stated that I think given that the Irish have this framework that the brexit question is answerable .

And that the best people to answer that question is the Irish.

 

 

 

 

Good grief. 

[JamboX2]

3 minutes ago, jake said:

How have I confirmed I don't believe in national sovereignty?

 

You are the one claiming the Good Friday agreement is undermined by Brexit.

What other areas of Northern Irish politics would you like to discuss.

 

I've already stated that I think given that the Irish have this framework that the brexit question is answerable .

And that the best people to answer that question is the Irish.

 

None of that makes sense. It's a circle with no end. The government of the Irish Republic have proposed a number of things to resolve this issue. As yes, they are massively impacted here too. The Northern Irish have no government at present because SF and DUP can't agree a deal on governing together. Therefore it falls to the UK government to lead the charge... and well... frankly they have offered little but platitudes and rhetoric.

 

They want an open border. But one that respects the UK's overall deal. They want no infrastructure on the border but don't want in the bodies which allow that to happen.  They want a Norway/Sweden border but not a Norway/EU deal. They want no interruption to free movement but a Canada/US style border...

 

You do realise that none of that adds up or makes sense. Accordingly your post on leave it to the Irish also makes bugger all sense because what can be agreed is down to what the UK government wants it's relationship with the EU to be. And still there we aren't totally sure on what's wanted there.

 

How you cannot see this blatant black hole in the middle of all this is amazing to me. We have a government with little idea of what it wants to achieve in it's relationship with the EU.

 

I quoted earlier a comment made by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg on the UK position:

 

"When they were in, they wanted a lot of opt puts.  Now they're leaving they want a lot of opt ins. What do they actually want?"

 

We are a nation which looks increasingly (both from within and without) broken.

[JamboX2]

15 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Interesting. Elsewhere you have argued (or rather asserted) that access to the free market necessarily involves free movement of people including for example the right for any EU citizen to move to and settle permanently in Switzerland. Here you seem to suggest that by issuing identity cards stays can easily be limited  to 90 days. Presumably this means there is some sort of other control or qualification for granting permanent residence status.

If so it is strange that the Remain campaign didn't succeed in killing the immigration argument stone dead by pointing it out. Perhaps many Remainers did not want to admit that despite frequent promises to control immigration they did nothing about it, and others actually favoured unplanned open immigration from the EU. I can understand why Leavers didn't make the point - they or at least their leading proponents - want to leave the UEU for reasons extending (despite the smears) to issues wider than immigration.

 

In many EU nations - especially Eastern EU nations - you are required on arrival at your place of residence to fill out information to be logged with the local police noting your stay as leisure or business and it's duration. Staying beyond without notification can result in a fine. Many hotels, hostels and air bnb hosts do this for you. But it's not impossible to do.

 

Obviously this costs money to run. And money for services in the UK (and Scotland) is bad so doesn't happen.

[jake]

3 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Woah woah woah. So Brexit is now a means of breaking up the UK as it stands?

 

Do the North want that? I don't think that is Ulster's settled will Jakey.

 

 

Except that which has. I.e. Irish Border, single market access, funding, paying our dues , access to EU bodies...

 

 

Tell me what was legitimate about the Farage poster? It was a lie. It claimed that those people were EU migrants on the way to Britain.

 

Race? Why are Turks in the EU bad? What's bad about Poles working in the EU? Or having vans buzz about saying "out the illegals"? 

 

 

No. We're arguing about rights for people who've moved here to live and work and had the rug removed from under them. Where are their legal protections?

 

 

People come here because it's a rich nation with work to offer. Why do people from outwith europe come here? Nations made "unviable" by the EU?

 

How have we made a go of it in the EU then and not crushed by it? 

 

Our economy is wealthy but stagnant. Our domestic industry is dying because our governments have made a choice since 1979 not to protect them from hostile takeovers - predominantly from out with the EU. What does leaving do to change these economic issues? We need new thinking in the UK to solve our woes Jake. Not blaming others.

No Brexit was not a tactical vote by me .

But if I believe that an independent Scotland is good and that the EU is not a good thing why should I worry. 

 

No not all want that but it will happen.

Demography apart from anything else means it will.

 

I'm not going to defend Farage.

You talk of polish people working across the EU.

I have absolutely no axe to grind with anyone because of where they come from.

I could cherry pick arguments from the remain side.

I've done this to death and with you.

I am not a bigot or racist but immigration has to be addressed not just for the UK but especially for Europe.

Because if it isn't then draconian measures will eventually be as in the case of Australia. 

 

People who have moved here were offered rights of stay I think you will find the EU did not respond likewise. 

 

That's a difficult one to explain fully.

Control over our own currency for starters.

I could try and explain that but would probably leave myself open to ridicule.

I think the UK is stifled by the EU.

And we could explore this later.

I'm going out soon.

Haha jambo for some drink so could be interesting .

 

I agree we do need some new thinking.

Less big government would be a start.

 

[jake]

10 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

None of that makes sense. It's a circle with no end. The government of the Irish Republic have proposed a number of things to resolve this issue. As yes, they are massively impacted here too. The Northern Irish have no government at present because SF and DUP can't agree a deal on governing together. Therefore it falls to the UK government to lead the charge... and well... frankly they have offered little but platitudes and rhetoric.

 

They want an open border. But one that respects the UK's overall deal. They want no infrastructure on the border but don't want in the bodies which allow that to happen.  They want a Norway/Sweden border but not a Norway/EU deal. They want no interruption to free movement but a Canada/US style border...

 

You do realise that none of that adds up or makes sense. Accordingly your post on leave it to the Irish also makes bugger all sense because what can be agreed is down to what the UK government wants it's relationship with the EU to be. And still there we aren't totally sure on what's wanted there.

 

How you cannot see this blatant black hole in the middle of all this is amazing to me. We have a government with little idea of what it wants to achieve in it's relationship with the EU.

 

I quoted earlier a comment made by the Prime Minister of Luxembourg on the UK position:

 

"When they were in, they wanted a lot of opt puts.  Now they're leaving they want a lot of opt ins. What do they actually want?"

 

We are a nation which looks increasingly (both from within and without) broken.

That's a failure of politicians jambo not the wishes if people to leave the EU.

[shaun.lawson]

4 minutes ago, jake said:

I agree we do need some new thinking.

Less big government would be a start.

 

And so you voted for something which required us to employ many thousands more civil servants  

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43372084

[jake]

12 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

 

Good grief. 

You can good grief all you want.

 

Some Irish politicians are also saying the same.

 

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, jake said:

You can good grief all you want.

 

Some Irish politicians are also saying the same.

 

 

JamboX2, who has the patience of a saint, has put into words why I "good griefed" that post. Because it was a pile of complete babble from start to finish. 

 

That you continue to try and discuss this despite not having the first clue what you're talking about is quite the spectacle.

[jake]

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

And so you voted for something which required us to employ many thousands more civil servants  

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43372084

I will just ignore the irony of a remainer talking about civil servants.

 

Yes I do want less government.

 

You pulling up articles about increases in civil servants as if it's my fault to try and mock me is interesting.

 

Try just sticking to the arguments Shaun you are clever enough.

 

[jake]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

JamboX2, who has the patience of a saint, has put into words why I "good griefed" that post. Because it was a pile of complete babble from start to finish. 

 

That you continue to try and discuss this despite not having the first clue what you're talking about is quite the spectacle.

Well now I'm sorry my views are typed as I think .

And yes I've enjoyed over time arguing with jambo .

It's good to exchange views and ideas with people.

Some of whom are no doubt better informed than me.

 

I shall try to better explain what I mean on Northern Ireland with some links from Irish politicians who say similar.

 

Meanwhile I'm off out .

I shall leave you to it with your conceited posts.

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, jake said:

You pulling up articles about increases in civil servants as if it's my fault

 

It is your fault. It's anyone who voted Brexit's fault. Suck it up. You won; get over it.

 

With regard to the new Brexit department, incidentally: a good friend of mine worked there for a week only a few weeks ago. He's been working as a project manager for a decade. He has never seen an environment to compare with it. Nobody had a clue what they were doing; staff were being laid off all over the place; there was no communication, nothing. He walked after a week because it was impossible. That's what Brexit campaigners and Brexit voters have done to British government.

 

More broadly: it seems to me what you wish for is localism, "people back in charge of their own lives" and all that. Which is a worthy aspiration, certainly. But it ignores entirely how interdependent the whole world is, in a way that can never be reversed; and it also ignores that the only people who benefit from Brexit will be the very vested interests you're opposed to. 

 

The great tragedy of Brexit is simple. The people who voted for a fairer Britain will get the very opposite. And cause all manner of chaos into the bargain. 

[Francis Albert]

52 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Many Leavers really do only want to leave because of immigration. But when the Remain campaign is such a joke, it doesn't even point out the above; when Cameron is such a joke, he doesn't even explain to the British people that freedom of movement as they understand it can be stopped with ID cards; and when British society since Thatcher has become so unequal, it is horribly dependent on immigration, then well...

 

ID cards are not compulsory, incidentally. But where they're used (such as where I live now, but Spain is another example), it's almost impossible to live any kind of decent life without them. Can't get healthcare without them. Can't get residency without them. Can't get a passport without them. Can't work legally without them. Etc etc. 

Good so your previous assertion that access to the tariff-free market was conditional on an open borders policy that allowed any EU citizen to move to and settle permanently in any member of that tariff free market, (say Switzerland) was misleading, as have been the many portrayals of "free movement of people") to mean that.

 That makes your second point in the post quoted (that we had to have such an open doors policy because otherwise the NHS and other social services would be even more understaffed) ...  well, wrong .If you can control immigration by a 90 day maximum stay policy why can'tyou combine that with provisions for long term or permanent residence for doctors, nurses, cleaners, orderlies etc which the NHS needs to or wants to employ.

Your third point - that any other trade agreement, say with India - would mean unlimited access for "waves" of  Indians to come to the UK also falls to the ground (India hasn't remotely suggested this).

It would help your arguments if you could try to separate out more your contempt for the Tories (which I largely share) from the issue of Brexit (where like you I was a Remainer ... but I accept that we lost).

Edited April 8, 2018 by Francis Albert

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

Good so your previous assertion that access to the tariff-free market was conditional on an open borders policy that allowed any EU citizen to move to and settle permanently in any member of that tariff  free market, (say) Switzerland was misleading, as have been the many portrayals of "free movement of people") to mean that.

 That makes your second point in the post quoted (that we had to have such an open doors policy because otherwise the NHS and other social services would be even more understaffed. But if you can control immigration by a 90 day maximum stay policy why can't

you combine that with provisions for long term or permanent residence for doctors, nurses, cleaners, orderlies etc which the NHS needs to or wants to employ.

Your third point - that any other trade agreement say with India - would mean unlimited access for "waves" of  Indians to the UK also falls to the ground (India hasn't remotely suggested this).

It would help your arguments if you could try to separate out more your contempt for the Tories (which I largely share) from the issue of Brexit.

 

Freedom of movement has never meant what the UK (and hence, the British people) have always interpreted it to mean. Had we interpreted it correctly, in my view, there's no chance that Brexit would ever have happened. My strong suspicion is that somehow, many people in British government and many prominent Brexiteers still don't understand it even now.

 

But the problem with all of the above is simple. Instead of doing what Uly suggested - the common sense solution, and it's the only one - we're leaving the single market. Weakening ourselves, undermining our own hand in any free trade negotiations with anyone else. 

 

And unfortunately, British government (specifically, the Home Office) is so useless that it hasn't got a clue what it's doing re: residency permits and so on. Not surprising given we didn't even try to start counting people in and out of the UK until very recently (meaning net immigration stats have pretty much always been wrong), and the current system is completely inadequate. ID cards would solve this too - but they're not "British" apparently, so there's no chance of them being brought in. Blue passports will do the trick instead.  

[Darren]

35 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

That's what Brexit campaigners and Brexit voters have done to British government. 

 

 

You can't blame the electorate for the government not doing its properly.

 

There didn't even need to be a vote. It was a Cameron vanity project. 

[Unknown user]

It's a conversation I don't care to get too deeply into and arguments get too convoluted and long to follow, so apologies if already covered - the EU guarantees freedom of movement for workers, not people.

If I hadn't started working within 90 days (IIRC) of arriving in Holland they could legally have sent me home, and that goes for EU citizens coming to the UK too.

We didn't have to leave the EU to get rid of non contributing EU citizens, and of course, why would we want rid of the contributing ones?

[shaun.lawson]

23 minutes ago, Darren said:

 

 

You can't blame the electorate for the government not doing its properly.

 

There didn't even need to be a vote. It was a Cameron vanity project. 

 

Obviously agree on point 2. But on point 1: people who didn't understand the complexities (most? All?) involved in such an enormous change shouldn't have voted. With power comes responsibility - and voters saying "you can't blame us" as well as saying "how dare you call us stupid?" doesn't really wash I'm afraid. 

Edited April 8, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Obviously agree on point 2. But on point 1: people who didn't understand the complexities (most? All?) involved in such an enormous change shouldn't have voted. With power comes responsibility - and voters saying "you can't blame us" as well as saying "how dare you call us stupid?" doesn't really wash I'm afraid. 

What, they should have kept their heads down and trusted their betters?

That's patronising as ****, everyone had a say whether you deem them smart enough or not. 

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, Smithee said:

What, they should have kept their heads down and trusted their betters?

That's patronising as ****, everyone had a say whether you deem them smart enough or not. 

 

Everyone has a say, yes. This means that everyone has the responsibility to educate themselves in advance (you know, like any professional does for any brief, project, you name it) and especially, take responsibility for their decision afterwards.

 

Above, you've just explained what freedom of movement is and isn't. Despite a campaign lasting goodness knows how long, next to nobody in the UK even knows what you explained. And in the age of the internet, I find that laughable. 

 

Remember that stuff about people googling "what is the EU?" and suchlike in the hours after the polling stations closed? Sums the whole thing up tbh. 

 

Democracy only survives and prospers through education, and through people bothering their backsides to inform themselves. Everyone has a stake in doing so. When they abandon that responsibility, we get Brexit, and we get Trump.

Edited April 8, 2018 by shaun.lawson

[Unknown user]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Everyone has a say, yes. This means that everyone has the responsibility to educate themselves in advance (you know, like any professional does for any brief, project, you name it) and especially, take responsibility for their decision afterwards.

 

Above, you've just explained what freedom of movement is and isn't. Despite a campaign lasting goodness knows how long, next to nobody in the UK even knows what you explained. And in the age of the internet, I find that laughable. 

 

Remember that stuff about people googling "what is the EU?" and suchlike in the hours after the polling stations closed? Sums the whole thing up tbh. 

 

Democracy only survives and prospers through education, and through people bothering their backsides to inform themselves. Everyone has a stake in doing so. When they abandon that responsibility, we get Brexit, and we get Trump.

Yeah, something so complicated should never have gone to a referendum the way it did, but it's still patronising as **** to say people shouldn't have voted if they didn't understand the complexities. They had a right to make a decision for whatever reason they wanted - that's democracy.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Freedom of movement has never meant what the UK (and hence, the British people) have always interpreted it to mean. Had we interpreted it correctly, in my view, there's no chance that Brexit would ever have happened. My strong suspicion is that somehow, many people in British government and many prominent Brexiteers still don't understand it even now.

 

But the problem with all of the above is simple. Instead of doing what Uly suggested - the common sense solution, and it's the only one - we're leaving the single market. Weakening ourselves, undermining our own hand in any free trade negotiations with anyone else. 

 

And unfortunately, British government (specifically, the Home Office) is so useless that it hasn't got a clue what it's doing re: residency permits and so on. Not surprising given we didn't even try to start counting people in and out of the UK until very recently (meaning net immigration stats have pretty much always been wrong), and the current system is completely inadequate. ID cards would solve this too - but they're not "British" apparently, so there's no chance of them being brought in. Blue passports will do the trick instead.  

This may be a cheap shot Shaun, but hey ... you are not averse to those. Just a couple of pages ago you were telling me that to gain access to the tariff free EU market Switzerland had accepted that anyone from the the EU had the right to move to and permanently settle in Switzerland.