Brexit Referendum Superthread

Burty330

Scofflaw wrote: »

The Irish should go on being able to go to work in the UK, since our status is covered by separate legislation that has nothing to do with the EU.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Understood , thanks.

There's a lot of grey area and un-certainty around all this.

Lemming

It was nice to watch Davis take a bit of a roasting in the commons today; Emily Thornberry had it right on the button. Sadly, he got too much of an easy pass although it would appear that the idiotic refrain 'Brexit means Brexit' has run its course domestically and is receiving even shorter shrift internationally as has been apparent by the rough ride that May has received at the G20.

ancapailldorcha

Burty330 wrote: »

Understood , thanks.

There's a lot of grey area and un-certainty around all this.

True but the UK is still a member and will remain so until it actually formally withdraws, something which is at least a few years away.

ancapailldorcha

Here is Davis' speech from earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahqwtWuMpE

embraer170

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Here is Davis' speech from earlier:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ahqwtWuMpE

Thanks, I was looking for that.

Scofflaw

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

True but the UK is still a member and will remain so until it actually formally withdraws, something which is at least a few years away.

It's not just that, though. Unless it's repealed, Irish citizens are free to live and work in the UK by virtue of the Ireland Act, which states that they're not considered foreign in the UK. That will be unaffected by Brexit - well, at least directly - because it means that Irish people don't require EU free movement to live or work in the UK. They're quite simply not treated as being foreign at all...just as if we were still part of the UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Pro Hoc Vice

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not just that, though. Unless it's repealed, Irish citizens are free to live and work in the UK by virtue of the Ireland Act, which states that they're not considered foreign in the UK. That will be unaffected by Brexit - well, at least directly - because it means that Irish people don't require EU free movement to live or work in the UK. They're quite simply not treated as being foreign at all...just as if we were still part of the UK.

cordially,
Scofflaw

While that is correct and assuming the 49 act remains one change could for example for an Irish citizen be that persons spouse. Currently in the UK a Briyish citizens non national spouse is required to pass a English test and a type of culture test. The removal of EU status for an Irish citizen could in the future cause issue if spouse is not uk or Irish.

Leonard Hofstadter

embraer170 wrote: »

Thanks, I was looking for that.

It was awful horse****.

He said that there will be no problem with the common travel area between ROI and NI because we had it before the EU existed - well dumbass that was because BOTH countries were not in the EU then.

We've never had a situation where Ireland is in and the UK is not. There is no guarantee despite all the BS promises by the leave campaign that the current situation can continue.

The warning signs from Japan were very clear, it's actually provided the rest of the EU with a lot of ammunition - I certainly see no reason whatsoever for Ireland or any other EU country to allow passporting of financial services, those jobs are worth huge amounts of money and if Dublin could get some of them, then all the better for Ireland.

Ultimately the problem is that Britain still has the colonial mindset; they really do believe they are superior to us lesser beings in the rest of the EU, which of course they insist on calling 'Europe'.... last time I checked Britain IS in Europe. Well, I suppose it's an improvement on calling it 'the continent'.

The ironic thing is that for all this talk of 'democracy' and 'taking control' is that Scotland and NI are being dragged out of the EU against their will (and their views will be completely ignored if they run contrary to what the three Brexiteers want mark my words, and then they'll wonder why the SNP won't shut up about Scotland 'taking control' of their own affairs), there is no PR so the SNP can get fewer votes than the Greens or UKIP yet still win far more seats than either, the House of Lords is unelected, and more besides, but sure as long as we've got democracy when it gives us the 'right' answer, then everything's fine, right?

Bob24

captainspeed wrote: »

The ironic thing is that for all this talk of 'democracy' and 'taking control' is that Scotland and NI are being dragged out of the EU against their will

It was a national referendum though, not a collection of local referendums. Democracy in that case means taking the opinion of the majority of the national population.

What you are saying is that same as someone in Ireland saying "my county voted in majority against gay marriage, implementing it here against our will is anti-democratic". Nice story but unless their country becomes independent it has to follow national policies voted by a majority of the country they a part of.

If Scotish people disagree with the national majority so much that they think their will to belong to the EU is stronger than the one to belong to the UK they can pursue independence to make their own national decision (and seeing this happen might or might not get English people to think again about their choice). But as it is, democracy means going with the majority of the UK.

Pro Hoc Vice

http://m.independent.ie/world-news/europe/g20-summit-italy-tells-uk-to-hurry-up-and-leave-eu-as-theresa-may-warned-of-brexit-cost-35025118.html

The more they are going to regulate and limit the presence of EU citizens in the UK the more we are going to limit the presence of UK goods into Europe.

Clearlier

captainspeed wrote: »

there is no PR so the SNP can get fewer votes than the Greens or UKIP yet still win far more seats than either, the House of Lords is unelected, and more besides, but sure as long as we've got democracy when it gives us the 'right' answer, then everything's fine, right?

While the vagaries of the FPTP system have a lot to answer for the reason that the SNP has got lots more seats in Westminster than the Greens or UKIP is because their vote (and candidates) is concentrated in Scotland whereas UKIP and the Greens receive support across the UK. Incidentally the Scottish parliament is elected by PR where the SNP do particularly well.

I think you're also forgetting that a very large majority of politicians wanted to remain, said as much and campaigned to remain.

It's a huge stretch but in a small way I see the Brexit vote as a success for ISIS. They want to spread fear and disunity and to different extents in different places they have succeeded. They may only have had a small peripheral impact but the vote was close enough that it may well have been important. That's not to credit ISIS with Brexit at all, that would be grossly overstating the impact but it's something that they will have been happy to see and may well have given them a little succour them to continue their campaign of terror.

BoJack Horseman

Clearlier wrote: »

I see the Brexit vote as a success for ISIS

And people said that we had passed peak-hysteria!

Don't forget Putin, or North Korea or that bullying 10-year old down the road..... essentially all bad-eggs love Brexit.

Is the above slice-of-bizarre part of the 'end of western political civilisation' our leader promised?

Clearlier

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

And people said that we had passed peak-hysteria!

Don't forget Putin, or North Korea or that bullying 10-year old down the road..... essentially all bad-eggs love Brexit.

Is the above slice-of-bizarre part of the 'end of western political civilisation' our leader promised?

Nah, you've also got to read everything that I said around it. Quoting a little bit out of that context makes it look stupidly hysterical as you just proved.

BoJack Horseman

Clearlier wrote: »

you've also got to read everything that I said around it

Oh, I did friend.

Would you prefer this insanity be quoted instead?

Clearlier wrote: »

I see the Brexit vote as a success for ISIS. it's something that they will have been happy to see and may well have given them a little succour them to continue their campaign of terror.

So, to surmise this "argument" (I know I'm stretching the definition there).

• The British people voting to leave the EU was a success for ISIS.
• This vote might be an inspiration to them on the battlefield.

Is this what the Remainiac argument has come to?

Could you answer this aswell:
Did the vote to leave the EU inspire the North Korea navy in their first successful SLBM launch last week?

K-9

I don't see how Irish people would be affected, we've always had a special relationship and had free immigration, EU or not. Because we actually had no restrictions and enjoyed special status the EU didn't care and we are free to decide on our own, non EU immigration policy. Brexit doesn't change that.

Border checks might be needed but the will is there on both sides of the border to make them as convenient as possible.

K-9

@Bojack, calm it down a bit please. Less of the remainiac stuff please.

BoJack Horseman

K-9 wrote: »

@Bojack, calm it down a bit please. Less of the remainiac stuff please.

OK.

What moniker for this nutso "Brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument is acceptable to the mods?

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

OK.

What moniker for this nutso "Brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument is acceptable to the mods?

Not selectively quoting would lessen your rage:

It's a huge stretch but in a small way I see the Brexit vote as a success for ISIS.

is not

I see the Brexit vote as a success for ISIS

BoJack Horseman

K-9 wrote: »

Not selectively quoting would lessen your rage:

I'm calm as a hindu cow.

You didn't answer the question though.
What moniker is appropriate to describe the above "brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument (whether the poster considers it a stretch or not).

If a label is inappropriate (as you specifically deem), what is acceptable to you?
How would you label a proponent of a "Brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument?

Pro Hoc Vice

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm calm as a hindu cow.

You didn't answer the question though.
What moniker is appropriate to describe the above "brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument (whether the poster considers it a stretch or not).

If a label is inappropriate (as you specifically deem), what is acceptable to you?
How would you label a proponent of a "Brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument?

Did you read the full sentence, the whole sentence as has been pointed puts the final part into context.

The "It's a huge stretch"

BoJack Horseman

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

the whole sentence as has been pointed puts the final part into context.

Defend it if you want, however couching it in that way doesn't change.

it's something that they will have been happy to see and may well have given them a little succour them to continue their campaign of terror.

It is not a stretch to see this as being grossly offensive.
Of course, that doesn't mean that I am right.

I am willing to accept if people want to make an argument that the vote inspired ISIS.... that is fine.

You will probably know that in the last week ISIS managed to recapture several villages around Abu-Hayj in Aleppo provience from the YPG.
Who am I to say this victory wasn't inspired by Nige & Bo-Jo!

K-9

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I'm calm as a hindu cow.

You didn't answer the question though.
What moniker is appropriate to describe the above "brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument (whether the poster considers it a stretch or not).

If a label is inappropriate (as you specifically deem), what is acceptable to you?
How would you label a proponent of a "Brexit-inspires-ISIS" argument?

You either see you selectively edited that post to suit your Remainiac line or you don't.

We can discuss labels when somebody actually says Brexit inspired ISIS, not when you selectively edit a post to say so. The irony of you complaining about OTT reactions by replying in an OTT way is funny though.

Any more questions pm the mods for clarification.

djpbarry

Lemming wrote: »

Sadly, he got too much of an easy pass although it would appear that the idiotic refrain 'Brexit means Brexit' has run its course domestically and is receiving even shorter shrift internationally as has been apparent by the rough ride that May has received at the G20.

With May now ruling out a points-based immigration system, I’m increasingly of the opinion that “Brexit means business as usual, pretty much”. The latest PMI survey results may suggest that business leaders are of a similar view, although admittedly, it’s very early days and I think media outlets are placing far too much significance on the so-called “rebound” in sentiment.

If a “hard Brexit” was the plan, in which the UK puts clear distance between itself and the EU, there would appear to be little reason for the buying of time that is taking place at present. I suspect much of the dithering and lack of clarity stems from the unanswered “how do we sell this ‘soft Brexit’ to UKIP supporters and the like” question.

It will be interesting to see how this final act in the Conservative Party internal dispute plays out.

djpbarry

captainspeed wrote: »

Ultimately the problem is that Britain still has the colonial mindset; they really do believe they are superior to us lesser beings in the rest of the EU...

I wouldn’t put it quite like that. You’re right in saying that Britain is stuck in the past to some extent, but I think it’s the rest of the world, the Commonwealth, that it views itself as somewhat superior to – apparently the colonies can’t wait to welcome back their overlords to strike up free trade deals.

The likes of France and Germany are viewed more as rivals than inferior entities – they’re still viewed with suspicion. While the rest of Europe has, for the most part, moved on from early-mid 20th century hostilities, the UK stubbornly refuses to do so.

There was quite a good documentary on BBC earlier this year about the recent history of the UK’s relationship with “Europe”. No longer available unfortunately, but it may be re-run at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b077nrb1

BoatMad

djpbarry wrote: »

With May now ruling out a points-based immigration system, I’m increasingly of the opinion that “Brexit means business as usual, pretty much”. The latest PMI survey results may suggest that business leaders are of a similar view, although admittedly, it’s very early days and I think media outlets are placing far too much significance on the so-called “rebound” in sentiment.

If a “hard Brexit” was the plan, in which the UK puts clear distance between itself and the EU, there would appear to be little reason for the buying of time that is taking place at present. I suspect much of the dithering and lack of clarity stems from the unanswered “how do we sell this ‘soft Brexit’ to UKIP supporters and the like” question.

It will be interesting to see how this final act in the Conservative Party internal dispute plays out.

I would agree with this , article 50 will be delayed for a long time as the UK tries to establish a position with the EU . The result will look an awful like what the UK has today !!

K-9

djpbarry wrote: »

I wouldn’t put it quite like that. You’re right in saying that Britain is stuck in the past to some extent, but I think it’s the rest of the world, the Commonwealth, that it views itself as somewhat superior to – apparently the colonies can’t wait to welcome back their overlords to strike up free trade deals.

The likes of France and Germany are viewed more as rivals than inferior entities – they’re still viewed with suspicion. While the rest of Europe has, for the most part, moved on from early-mid 20th century hostilities, the UK stubbornly refuses to do so.

There was quite a good documentary on BBC earlier this year about the recent history of the UK’s relationship with “Europe”. No longer available unfortunately, but it may be re-run at some point:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b077nrb1

Listened to that one, there was another after the vote focusing on the Commonwealth countries. An Indian guy felt it was great for them because more could immigrate there. I kind of thought to myself you clearly didn't follow the campaign much!

djpbarry

K-9 wrote: »

Listened to that one, there was another after the vote focusing on the Commonwealth countries. An Indian guy felt it was great for them because more could immigrate there. I kind of thought to myself you clearly didn't follow the campaign much!

Anecdotally, this is supposedly why Birmingham voted to leave.

It was incredible to listen to Farage’s double-speak on this issue. He argued that non-EU migrants would have greater opportunities if EU migration to the UK was reduced. Simultaneously, he was arguing that, outside the EU, the UK could reduce net immigration to the tens of thousands. This completely ignored the fact that non-EU migration would have to be substantially reduced to bring total net migration down to such a level.

Pro Hoc Vice

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/swiss-eu-standoff-striking-similarities-uk-predicament

While its Switzerland its an interesting movement.

Suryavarman

Post-Brexit vote uncertainty continues in the UK as manufacturing output posts biggest fall in a year.

Bob24

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/06/swiss-eu-standoff-striking-similarities-uk-predicament

While its Switzerland its an interesting movement.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Post-Brexit vote uncertainty continues in the UK as manufacturing output posts biggest fall in a year.

Is it me or th article doesn't actually say much at all?

A "plan to give preference to local people in job hires" could really mean anything. Without the details of what the plan means in practise, not sure an judgement call can be made ...