Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[moneyfornothing]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

IIRC the pre-expanded EU didn't cause significant flows in any particular direction. If conditions remain roughly equivalent there's no reason for those flows to occur, and if conditions start diverging too much the EU has failed anyway. Freedom of movement is a nice idea and worked well before some idiots broke it by expanding the EU in to countries with rather different economies (and then the cretins here leapt on the short termist opportunities that provided to those at the top, to hell with the consequences).

Dont forget the agenda of some to rub the 'Tories noses in diversity' ..

[zugzwang]

5 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Do you think the Home Office is better able to make decisions about that than the free choices of individuals?

Nobody ever raised free movement as an issue until EU enlargement, so any concern is only a temporary phenomenon while the economies of the new members catch up.

We've always had the right to repatriate any EU national after three months who doesn't have a job or is unable to support himself under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC.

Who knew in 2016? Certainly not me.

Quote

But the biggest deception is this: we could easily have taken back control of our borders already under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC, which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves. In this month’s debate on the House of Lords EU subcommittee report on EU migration, I challenged the government on why we were not availing ourselves of this directive – and I got no response.

Other countries, such as Belgium, regularly repatriate thousands of individuals based on this directive. If the public knew we had this ability, perhaps the fear that exists would dissipate. Why is the government not using it, and why is the British public not aware of it?

Anti-immigration messages and perceptions have been driven by the prime minister and former home secretary Theresa May, as well as the present home secretary, Amber Rudd, who are both economically illiterate when it comes to the necessities of the movement of people, quite apart from being negligent over the security of our country. We could take back control of our borders and re-implement exit checks within months, if the government was determined to do it.

If the British public were aware of the reality of immigration – be it control of our borders, be it potential labour shortages, or be it the ability to repatriate EU citizens – then they would soon realise that the Brexit emperor has no clothes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/31/britain-take-back-control-immigration-eu-directive-brexit

 

[moneyfornothing]

3 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

We've always had the right to repatriate any EU national after three months who doesn't have a job or is unable to support himself under European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC.

Who knew in 2016? Certainly not me.

 

And how does that square with

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44093868

 

[crouch]

10 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

IIRC the pre-expanded EU didn't cause significant flows in any particular direction. If conditions remain roughly equivalent there's no reason for those flows to occur, and if conditions start diverging too much the EU has failed anyway. Freedom of movement is a nice idea and worked well before some idiots broke it by expanding the EU in to countries with rather different economies (and then the cretins here leapt on the short termist opportunities that provided to those at the top, to hell with the consequences).

You may well be right but you are talking about circumstances. Circumstances may be temporary; rights are not and FOM is a largely unqualified right.

There are also a couple of other points. Firstly FOM has not done countries like Poland much of a favour anyway as they have severe demographic problems and can ill afford to lose young talented workers to the West. This is Divergence Mechanism 1 helping to create divergence in EU economies.

Divergence Mechanism 2 is within the EZ. The EZ, far from exhibiting convergence has exhibited divergence and this must have exacerbated FOM flows from the South to the North. Again this does nothing for countries like Italy and Greece who, like Poland, have severe demographic problems. In the EZ this is potentially worse because emigration could reduce the tax base and create problems under the Growth and Stability Pact by having knock on adverse effects on the fiscal position.

[Traktion]

2 hours ago, yelims said:

Your government allowed more than a quarter of a million non eu people in, they could have stopped migration as they have the power, yet they didnt

Migration concerns was one of the cornerstore lies about brexit

Your government has the power to do something yet doesnt

What has that got to do with the NI/RoI border?

[Traktion]

2 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's not really true for the simple reason that the UK will need a deal, and the EU will make the first condition of a deal to agree to something equivalent to the backstop.  The UK cannot sustain 'no deal'.

If the EU wants a hard border and to go against the Good Friday Agreement, that is their call. The UK has said it doesn't want a hard border and neither does NI or RoI.

If the EU is unhappy with that, then they are going to have to suggest something else.

[crouch]

18 minutes ago, moneyfornothing said:

And how does that square with

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44093868

 

The government are being fined for abuse of process; most of these people did have a job and the expulsions were unlawful.

[moneyfornothing]

Just now, crouch said:

The government are being fined for abuse of process; most of these people did have a job and the expulsions were unlawful.

So you agree with the concept of people in the labour market having the freedom to compete with the rest of us - while they choose not to have the overheads of a house to live in ?

[crouch]

1 minute ago, moneyfornothing said:

So you agree with the concept of people in the labour market having the freedom to compete with the rest of us - while they choose not to have the overheads of a house to live in ?

That appears to be the law. 

[moneyfornothing]

1 minute ago, crouch said:

That appears to be the law. 

Which is why we are voting to change it ... thats why people voted out ?

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, moneyfornothing said:

Which is why we are voting to change it ... thats why people voted out ?

They voted out because they wanted control over immigration.

[thecrashingisles]

42 minutes ago, crouch said:

How do you know it is temporary? Population flows might be temporary; rights are not.

Why was it never an issue before, despite the EU having a population north of 300 million?

Why is it not an issue that 5 million Irish people have the right to go and live in Plymouth?

[thecrashingisles]

11 minutes ago, Traktion said:

If the EU wants a hard border and to go against the Good Friday Agreement, that is their call. The UK has said it doesn't want a hard border and neither does NI or RoI.

If the EU is unhappy with that, then they are going to have to suggest something else.

They will just stand firm and wait for the UK to come begging for a deal.  The UK will need one in order to deal with all the other issues it will face apart from the Irish border.

[crouch]

1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

Why was it never an issue before, despite the EU having a population north of 300 million?

Why is it not an issue that 5 million Irish people have the right to go and live in Plymouth?

Presumably because the numbers were too small. Again this is circumstance not rights; it is rights that are important.

What 5 million Irish?

[Riedquat]

27 minutes ago, crouch said:

You may well be right but you are talking about circumstances. Circumstances may be temporary; rights are not and FOM is a largely unqualified right.

There are also a couple of other points. Firstly FOM has not done countries like Poland much of a favour anyway as they have severe demographic problems and can ill afford to lose young talented workers to the West. This is Divergence Mechanism 1 helping to create divergence in EU economies.

Circumstances can vary - you can never predict the future with 100% accuracy - but if you've managed to get things looking stable and there's no sign of that stability being significantly threatened then it makes sense to operate on the assumption that that'll continue, and be able to change your behaviour if the circumstances change.

On the Poland issue that's exactly my point about why the EU's expansion was such a disaster, why including countries that were too dissimilar broke freedom of movement. It's exactly that sort of situation you need to avoid for it to work.

Quote

Divergence Mechanism 2 is within the EZ. The EZ, far from exhibiting convergence has exhibited divergence and this must have exacerbated FOM flows from the South to the North. Again this does nothing for countries like Italy and Greece who, like Poland, have severe demographic problems. In the EZ this is potentially worse because emigration could reduce the tax base and create problems under the Growth and Stability Pact by having knock on adverse effects on the fiscal position.

That's why you shouldn't do anything to deliberately worsen the situation for short term gains, and be able to adjust if that does happen. The inability of the EU to deal with either of those are a couple of its issues that make me feel it's not currently fit for purpose - the inability to reform and react. But it doesn't change my view that the circumstances can sometimes be right for FoM to be a success, that it should be an option when those conditions exist, and that they mostly did exist (albeit not perfectly) pre-expansion. Taken alone working towards a situation where FoM is practical (i.e. without considering whether the ends justify the means and putting aside any other baggage) is a desirable goal, and not something that I want to throw away at all out of general principle - quite the opposite.

[Riedquat]

21 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Why was it never an issue before, despite the EU having a population north of 300 million?

Why is it not an issue that 5 million Irish people have the right to go and live in Plymouth?

Before when? It was never an issue - indeed it was a big plus of the EU - before it created any pressure for significant unbalanced flows.

[IMHAL]

1 hour ago, crouch said:

If you vote for the status quo you don't have to think do you, because well, it's the status quo?

If you do not vote for the status quo then you must have a reason and that involves thinking at least a little bit about the issues.

This is blindingly obvious but of course it would not occur to Remainers because they don't think; they prefer the life of the sheep. 

If you thought more about what you said (instead of deliberating about what others think)... then maybe you would stop making so many stupid comments.

Now you are sounding unsure.... and so you should. There is absolutely no sense in what you have said.

It does not follow that Leavers have to think any more or less than remainers about the options.

You are desperate to paitn remainers as lazy... yet the reality is Leavers can't really be that bright if they voted for something that over three years on, no one can decide what the hell they really voted for in actuality. Duh!!! That really takes some tremendous thinking that does.

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by IMHAL

[crouch]

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

That's why you shouldn't do anything to deliberately worsen the situation for short term gains, and be able to adjust if that does happen. The inability of the EU to deal with either of those are a couple of its issues that make me feel it's not currently fit for purpose - the inability to reform and react. But it doesn't change my view that the circumstances can sometimes be right for FoM to be a success, that it should be an option when those conditions exist, and that they mostly did exist (albeit not perfectly) pre-expansion. Taken alone working towards a situation where FoM is practical (i.e. without considering whether the ends justify the means and putting aside any other baggage) is a desirable goal, and not something that I want to throw away at all out of general principle - quite the opposite.

That's one of the main problems with the EU: it is too dirigiste in this as in other areas.

But you again rely on benign circumstances for this to work but at the back of this are rights conferred under FOM so you cannot ultimately control the situation. Of course there are circumtances where FOM can succeed. 

You are relying on circumstance but what is inconsistent between immigration control and large numbers coming from the EU? IMV none. We should be delighted to receive people who are broadly the same culture as us and who will assimilate relatively easily and I take it that this will continue. But it should be in a context where we have control. 

Edited March 18, 2019 by crouch

[crouch]

2 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Now you are sounding unsure.... and so you should. There is absolutely no sense in what you have said.

It does not follow that Leavers have to think any more or less than remainers about the options.

You are desperate to pain remainers as lazy... yet the reality is Leavers can't really be that bright if they voted for something that over three years on, no one can decide what the hell they really voted for in actuality. Duh!!! That really takes some tremendous thinking that does.

 

I'm only unsure when I'm unsure. This is not one of those occasions.

I am never desperate; it's against my nature.

Different Leavers certainly have different views and, as you say "no one can decide what the hell they really voted for in actuality". Of course what you fail to see is the obvious - as usual - people with different views must have thought about it otherwise their views would probably be broadly similar. The very fact that they have different views proves the point.

Very good you've proved my point for me!

[Bruce Banner]

What is it with the Brexiteers who say that it is undemocratic to have a second referendum whilst saying the opposite about a third and fourth Meaningful vote? When asked on the news channels they come out with a load of gobbledegook. 

The picture below, Boris' red bus, is probably the main reason that leave won the 2016 referendum, except it was a lie. On that basis alone there should be a 2nd referendum, the voters were misled. 

 

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, Bruce Banner said:

What is it with the Brexiteers who say that it is undemocratic to have a second referendum whilst saying the opposite about a third and fourth Meaningful vote? When asked on the news channels they come out with a load of gobbledegook.

A second referendum with the only goal to overturn the result of the first because Remainers didn't like the answer is undemocratic. One that offered a choice of Leave options alone wouldn't be undemocratic. Whether or not what's going on in Parliament is or not depends on whether you view the changes each time as substantially different or not. It's also about the how rather than the what. What has been decided with the referendum. How still hasn't been (which is pretty pathetic by this stage but there we are). They aren't really comparable questions.

Quote

The picture below, Boris' red bus, is probably the main reason that leave won the 2016 referendum, except it was a lie. On that basis alone there should be a 2nd referendum, the voters were misled. 

Despite the vastly greater level of backing to the Remain campaign and all the nonsense they told? The net pressure from campaigning leant in the Remain direction.

[Sheeple Splinter]

On ‎16‎/‎03‎/‎2019 at 00:40, rollover said:

You never know if you get kiss or he will slap you

 

… or if he can manage the stairs...

… 

[IMHAL]

31 minutes ago, crouch said:

I'm only unsure when I'm unsure. This is not one of those occasions.

I am never desperate; it's against my nature.

Different Leavers certainly have different views and, as you say "no one can decide what the hell they really voted for in actuality". Of course what you fail to see is the obvious - as usual - people with different views must have thought about it otherwise their views would probably be broadly similar. The very fact that they have different views proves the point.

Very good you've proved my point for me!

 What you have failed to understand is that remainers also considered the leave option, as I assume leavers did the remain option.

Lets not fall out over it... for the sake of argument lets say that Leavers did have to think harder.........but only because they find it harder to think 

Edited March 18, 2019 by IMHAL

[rollover]

26 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

What is it with the Brexiteers who say that it is undemocratic to have a second referendum whilst saying the opposite about a third and fourth Meaningful vote? When asked on the news channels they come out with a load of gobbledegook. 

The picture below, Boris' red bus, is probably the main reason that leave won the 2016 referendum, except it was a lie. On that basis alone there should be a 2nd referendum, the voters were misled. 

 

Did someone found the Brexit bus?

[Traktion]

1 hour ago, thecrashingisles said:

They will just stand firm and wait for the UK to come begging for a deal.  The UK will need one in order to deal with all the other issues it will face apart from the Irish border.

We shall see. I'm sure the EU has plenty of reasons for getting a deal, least of all through pressure from big UK trade partners within the EU.

Furthermore, I doubt the EU wants to see the UK drifting closer to the US.

What we do know is that the UK proposes to have a soft border until something else is agreed. If the EU doesn't want that, then they will need to do something about it on the RoI side. I doubt it will be popular.