Brexit Referendum Superthread

Sam Russell

kaymin wrote: »

Works at what? I'd judge the success of an economy by measuring the change in GDP per capita - though I suspect most economies will compare unfavourably to the US on that score.

The devaluations were not the result of a thrusting economy trying to increase its reach, it was in the face of deepening crisis and seen as a last resort. The IMF were not brought in to measure for new carpets in the Bank of England but because the country was bust.

The civil servants aren't appointed by the populace but then they don't make the laws either so your point is irrelevant.

The Civil Servants ARE the populace. They are the ones who implement the laws.

EU Commissioners are mandated to act in the best interests of the EU, not the nation that they come from. So, in what sense is there any democratic connection between the UK and it's EU commissioner?

While that is true, it is also impossible to believe commissioners do not know more about their own countries problems and interests than those of any other member state.

ArthurDayne

Kaymin,

The fact that people feel that the EU is causing them to lose what makes them nations is based on the precise point I alluded to previously --- that they have been sold a flimsy argument on the idea of national sovereignty. Firstly, the EU is nothing more than a network of Treaties, and the concept of treaty has been around for centuries. These involve trade-offs in sovereignty in that they compel a state to honour their treaty obligations. The "unelected Brussels bureaucrats bossing us around" was the infuriatingly simplistic cry of the Brexiters. The UK's membership of NATO, which compels it to send its soldiers off to die if needs be for the mutual defence of the other members was ignored. Membership of the World Trade Organisation which subjects the UK to regulatory rules etc was ignored. The whole host of other treaties which impinge on the State's ability to do whatever it likes were ignored. The EU became a scapegoat in a world where sovereignty in its purest form is a relic, replaced by a necessary but complex myriad of treaties and agreements.



"Realistically how can you expect her to articulate what it actually means in practice and what the timelines will be when negotiations haven't even begun?"

This is precisely what I've been getting at. Brexit has no structure, no plan, no element of contingency. Any sensible well-reasoned arguments in favour of Brexit are rendered completely meaningless by this point. It's akin to living in a decent house in a middle-class neighbourhood; couple of little issues and gripes now and then with the dishwasher, you think your phone bill is a bit extortionate and whatnot, but aside from those first world problems you've got it reasonably good in life. A man comes to your door and says 'right if you let me in right now I'll either absolutely wreck the place costing you a fortune, make it better, or leave it more or less the way I found it but I still charge a fee'. He gives you no further information and you have to decide there and then. That was the Brexit referendum and the Brexiters said 'come on in'. The risk being run from this Brexit mystery box is that it may well damage the UK's economy and global standing (particularly in financial services which is the bedrock of London). Or maybe, just maybe, it will be a great success and the risk was worth it. Or, it won't really change anything about the life of Farage's "little people" at all but they've paid the fee; all the complexity and expense of divorcing from the EU and all the good things about membership, with no tangible gain whatsoever for the ordinary people in whose name Brexit was won.

oscarBravo

kaymin wrote: »

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94

What's the problem with that regulation?

Nody

Remember how Brexit was all about no immigration and how people could not see why immigration and free trade should somehow be connected, indeed some claimed on this thread there were no connection? Well Australia (one of those countries Brexisters love to point to as a new trading partner) has joined the list of countries demanding easier immigration in return for a trade deal to be signed.

Alexander Downer, a former Australian Liberal Party politician and now high commissioner in London, said Canberra would seek “greater access” for businesspeople before reaching a post-Brexit trade agreement with the UK.

He also suggested that the UK should establish an “easier” system for Australian workers to obtain visas.

They of course join on the back of India demanding the same thing.

However the Indian government spokesman, Vikas Swarup, told the Observer that May faced tough questions when she arrived in Delhi on immigration and mobility for Indian students and workers in the UK.

“Indian students and people-to-people relations are important pillars of India-UK ties,” he said. “In the last five years or so, the number of Indian students enrolling in UK universities has gone down by almost 50%; from around 40,000 to about 20,000 now. This has happened because of restrictions on post-study stay in the UK.

“We will continue to raise our concerns regarding mobility with the UK. Mobility of people is closely linked to free flow of finance, goods and services.”

So congratulation on leaving the largest trading block on your doorstep due to they insisting on free movement of people only to have every other country out there demanding more immigration in return for that FTA and an overall worse deal; I guess having EU negotiating those FTAs without those counter demands had some use after all...

KingBrian2

kaymin wrote: »

I think people are feeling the EU is causing them to lose what makes them nations - in my view, it is predominantly this concern that has driven British people to vote Brexit and what is driving the success of the National Front in France and similar parties elsewhere.



Realistically how can you expect her to articulate what it actually means in practice and what the timelines will be when negotiations haven't even begun? The only thing she can be certain of achieving is a hard Brexit - everything else is up to the EU and how it approaches negotiations.




Not sure I can respond sensibly to that.



I disagree that there is integrity of a Union of nations when Germany / France dominate the decision-making - e.g. Merkel's overriding of the Dublin rule without discussing / agreeing with the rest of the EU; Apple tax ruling; Ireland prevented from burning subordinated bondholders (would hate to have to rely on the EU preventing the fatcats triumphing!)

The burning of the bondholders is tricky since it would have undermined the whole European economy. People keep going on about that but forgets that it was Irish bankers not European bankers that caused that mess and they were pulverized by the markets. Also Britain leaving the EU has not lead directly to the destruction of wealth that was feared. Rest assured the British banks are still very profitable.

youreadthat

Nody wrote: »

Remember how Brexit was all about no immigration and how people could not see why immigration and free trade should somehow be connected, indeed some claimed on this thread there were no connection? Well Australia (one of those countries Brexisters love to point to as a new trading partner) has joined the list of countries demanding easier immigration in return for a trade deal to be signed.


They of course join on the back of India demanding the same thing.


So congratulation on leaving the largest trading block on your doorstep due to they insisting on free movement of people only to have every other country out there demanding more immigration in return for that FTA and an overall worse deal; I guess having EU negotiating those FTAs without those counter demands had some use after all...

None of these countries are asking for freedom of movement though are they.......

Sam Russell

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Britain leaving the EU has not lead directly to the destruction of wealth that was feared.

Britain has not left the EU yet.

The destruction of wealth has not happened yet.

Allow the first to happen before expecting the second.

Foghladh

Nody wrote: »

Remember how Brexit was all about no immigration and how people could not see why immigration and free trade should somehow be connected, indeed some claimed on this thread there were no connection? Well Australia (one of those countries Brexisters love to point to as a new trading partner) has joined the list of countries demanding easier immigration in return for a trade deal to be signed.

Alexander Downer, a former Australian Liberal Party politician and now high commissioner in London, said Canberra would seek “greater access” for businesspeople before reaching a post-Brexit trade agreement with the UK.

He also suggested that the UK should establish an “easier” system for Australian workers to obtain visas.

They of course join on the back of India demanding the same thing.

However the Indian government spokesman, Vikas Swarup, told the Observer that May faced tough questions when she arrived in Delhi on immigration and mobility for Indian students and workers in the UK.

“Indian students and people-to-people relations are important pillars of India-UK ties,” he said. “In the last five years or so, the number of Indian students enrolling in UK universities has gone down by almost 50%; from around 40,000 to about 20,000 now. This has happened because of restrictions on post-study stay in the UK.

“We will continue to raise our concerns regarding mobility with the UK. Mobility of people is closely linked to free flow of finance, goods and services.”

So congratulation on leaving the largest trading block on your doorstep due to they insisting on free movement of people only to have every other country out there demanding more immigration in return for that FTA and an overall worse deal; I guess having EU negotiating those FTAs without those counter demands had some use after all...

No, I don't remember that Brexit was all about no immigration. I do recall a lot of calls for controls to be put in place to limit the process however. And I don't see that the Australians are asking for free movement as a condition of trade. What they are proposing is a relaxation of the visa requirements currently in place.

Enzokk

Foghladh wrote: »

No, I don't remember that Brexit was all about no immigration. I do recall a lot of calls for controls to be put in place to limit the process however. And I don't see that the Australians are asking for free movement as a condition of trade. What they are proposing is a relaxation of the visa requirements currently in place.

And if the UK wanted to impose control they could have done so by limiting the immigration they actually had control over, non-EU immigration. But the UK government allowed that to be more than EU immigration. The shocking statistic is that EU immigration is almost the same as non-EU immigration.

I am guessing that due to Brexit immigration will drop to the UK, because you will stop EU immigration and added to that you will most likely have less work due to economic slowdown. If there is no slowing economy the jobs will be there that will need to be filled. So the only way people will have their "control" over immigration is when they accept a worse financial status where immigration isn't needed. But people aren't willing to accept having less money it seems so what are you left with? The economy will need workers to make it tick so I don't see a lot less immigration to be honest.

KingBrian2

Enzokk wrote: »

And if the UK wanted to impose control they could have done so by limiting the immigration they actually had control over, non-EU immigration. But the UK government allowed that to be more than EU immigration. The shocking statistic is that EU immigration is almost the same as non-EU immigration.

I am guessing that due to Brexit immigration will drop to the UK, because you will stop EU immigration and added to that you will most likely have less work due to economic slowdown. If there is no slowing economy the jobs will be there that will need to be filled. So the only way people will have their "control" over immigration is when they accept a worse financial status where immigration isn't needed. But people aren't willing to accept having less money it seems so what are you left with? The economy will need workers to make it tick so I don't see a lot less immigration to be honest.

The single biggest immigration issue that is facing Britain is Calais and all those refugees wanting to enter the UK. France has every interest in the world to ensure the UK gets a good deal as we see France is angry at the refugee crisis in their own country. I am talking specifically about the refugee crisis and not the European Union. It was this humanitarian disaster that made such an impact on the British electorate and made them want to leave the EU. When all their getting is mass migration and the perception that the UK is being flooded with foreigners we are going to get average English and British people wanting to pull up the drawbridge.

Jim2007

Enzokk wrote: »

Foghladh wrote: »

No, I don't remember that Brexit was all about no immigration. I do recall a lot of calls for controls to be put in place to limit the process however. And I don't see that the Australians are asking for free movement as a condition of trade. What they are proposing is a relaxation of the visa requirements currently in place.

And if the UK wanted to impose control they could have done so by limiting the immigration they actually had control over, non-EU immigration. But the UK government allowed that to be more than EU immigration. The shocking statistic is that EU immigration is almost the same as non-EU immigration.

Actually the UK could have controlled EU immigration too.  EU citizens to not have an absolute right to FMOP, the directive clearly includes provisions to ensure that people do not engage in social welfare tourism.  A citizen has a right to  go to another EU country to seek work for up to 3 months, they can request an extension for a further three months but at the end of that period if they have not found work they can be required to leave.  Furthermore the right to permanent residence status after five years is subject to the requirement that the citizen has established economic viability.
Along a similar line, those who choose to retire to another EU state are required to have sufficient pension and health coverage. If you have multiple pensions the rule is that the state from which you receive the bulk of your pension is also responsible for your healthcare.  That is for instance why the NHS must cover the costs of retirees in Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and else where.
The UK (and Ireland) choose to ignore those provisions.

Jaggo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The single biggest immigration issue that is facing Britain is Calais and all those refugees wanting to enter the UK. France has every interest in the world to ensure the UK gets a good deal as we see France is angry at the refugee crisis in their own country. I am talking specifically about the refugee crisis and not the European Union. It was this humanitarian disaster that made such an impact on the British electorate and made them want to leave the EU. When all their getting is mass migration and the perception that the UK is being flooded with foreigners we are going to get average English and British people wanting to pull up the drawbridge.

But surely the solution for France's Calais Camp problem is to let the refugees across the border to the UK.
The camp was only set up under an EU agreement to deal with the refugees crossing Europe and help the destination countries. These refugees are fleeing Syria going to a now non-EU country. Why should France get involved in a foreign countries domestic refugee issues?

Foghladh

Jaggo wrote: »

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The single biggest immigration issue that is facing Britain is Calais and all those refugees wanting to enter the UK. France has every interest in the world to ensure the UK gets a good deal as we see France is angry at the refugee crisis in their own country. I am talking specifically about the refugee crisis and not the European Union. It was this humanitarian disaster that made such an impact on the British electorate and made them want to leave the EU. When all their getting is mass migration and the perception that the UK is being flooded with foreigners we are going to get average English and British people wanting to pull up the drawbridge.

But surely the solution for France's Calais Camp problem is to let the refugees across the border to the UK.
The camp was only set up under an EU agreement to deal with the refugees crossing Europe and help the destination countries. These refugees are fleeing Syria going to a now non-EU country. Why should France get involved in a foreign countries domestic refugee issues?

I think you need to do a bit of research into the Calais camps if you think they were set up under EU agreement or contain many Syrian refugees

KingBrian2

Jaggo wrote: »

But surely the solution for France's Calais Camp problem is to let the refugees across the border to the UK.
The camp was only set up under an EU agreement to deal with the refugees crossing Europe and help the destination countries. These refugees are fleeing Syria going to a now non-EU country. Why should France get involved in a foreign countries domestic refugee issues?

The Calais camp consists of African, Arab, Kurd & other Asian ethnic groups all looking for admission to the UK. Under current EU law nothing prevents these migrants from entering the UK in fact England has a duty to take in refugees otherwise they are in breach of international law.

The problem for me is that the refugees should not be this far in Europe in the first place adding to the destabilization of the EU. The problem does not become far away as in Turkey it become right next to you. When Brussels ignores the elephant in the room you improve the electoral performance of UKIP and pro Brexit groups.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Do not mistake your ignorance for my obtuseness.

First Up wrote: »

If you are a citizen of a country that needs a visa to enter the UK, then you need a UK visa to be legally in the UK.

No, you don't.

If you turn up at the border without a visa, you may be turned away. But it's not illegal to turn up and apply for entry without a visa. And if you turn up and are not turned way (because they don't inspect you, or they make a mistake, or whatever) it is not illegal to enter. No crime has been committed. No change can be laid. No sentence can be imposed.

The downside is that, if detected, you may be required to leave the UK, or you may be detained and deported to make sure that you leave the UK. But you have done nothing illegal.

If you still maintain that it is illegal under UK law to enter without a visa link, please, to the UK law which make it illegal. UK legislation can be found at this website. Or, you could link to a court judgment in which somebody is charged with, and convicted of (or indeed acquitted of) entering the UK without a visa. UK court judgements are here. Or you can google freely in search of evidence that what you assume to be true is actually true.

Over to you!

Peregrinus

Sam Russell wrote: »

Exactly.

By saying you can enter the UK (without a required UK visa) because you hold a valid Irish visa would suggest that the Irish authorities issue visas for the UK which is arrant nonsense.

Nobody has said anything like that.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

The downside is that, if detected, you may be required to leave the UK, or you may be detained and deported to make sure that you leave the UK.

Glad to see it has finally sunk in.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

The Calais camp consists of African, Arab, Kurd & other Asian ethnic groups all looking for admission to the UK. Under current EU law nothing prevents these migrants from entering the UK in fact England has a duty to take in refugees otherwise they are in breach of international law.

You are confusing EU laws with UN protocols on refugees.

KingBrian2 wrote:

The problem for me is that the refugees should not be this far in Europe in the first place adding to the destabilization of the EU. The problem does not become far away as in Turkey it become right next to you. When Brussels ignores the elephant in the room you improve the electoral performance of UKIP and pro Brexit groups.

The refugees can move throughout Schengen. The UK is not part of Schengen. The UK leaving the EU will make not a whit of difference to Schengen.

Classic Brexit ignorance and confusion.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Glad to see it has finally sunk in.

What do you mean, "finally"? I made that exact point in my very first reply to you on this topic, when I said (emphasis added) that poeple who are in the UK without the necessary visa . . .

Peregrinus wrote: »

. . . are in the UK perfectly legally. They don't have the right to stay there; they can be asked to leave at any time. But they have not acted in any way illegallly.

The issue is not whether people can be refused entry to the UK, or deported from the UK. The issue is whether they are acting illegally, or breaking any law, by being in the UK in the first place. You told your visitors that if they crossed into Northern Ireland they would be illegally in the UK, and you have asserted the same several time in this thread, but you have never offered anything to substantiate this claim, and indeed are pointedly ignoring suggestions that you should do so. If your suggestion that my last post represent a change in my position is an attempt to distract attention from this, it hasn't worked.

First Up

Get back to me when you have reconciled people being deported with people doing nothing illegal.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

You are confusing EU laws with UN protocols on refugees.

It's not a "UN protocol" which requires the UK to afford protection to refugees; it's an international treaty - the Refugee Convention - which the UK has freely negotiated, signed and ratified, and which is binding on the UK because the UK parliament decided that the UK should be bound by it.

But "afford protection" to refugees doesn't necessarily mean "take in refugees". Taking in refugees and allowing them to settle is one way in which a country can afford them protection, but not necessarily the only way.

And this is where the EU comes in. The Refugee Convention is intentionally flexible here, to leave open the possiblity of (among other things) regional or multilateral approaches so that states can, e.g., co-operate to share the burden of refugee protection. So, for example, the EU members can make arrangements among themselves about how protection is to be afforded tor refugees. As long as refugees receive protection, the obligations of the Refugee Convention have been satisfied; it doesn't matter if the refugees apply in (say) Greece but are transferred to (say) Germany, as long as they're effectively protected in Germany.

Nothing in the Refugee Conventions obliges France to stop refugees from transitting through France for the purpose of seeking protection in the UK. France and the UK are at liberty to make whatever arrangements they want about this, provided that in the end those entitled to protection under the Refugee Convention do get protection. Whatever arrangements the UK participates in as an EU-member state it will drop out of when Brexit happens, unless some other agreement is made. That's unlikely, on the face of it, to improve the UK's situation. If refugees or those seeking refugee status want to pass through France to seek protection in the UK France has no reason to stop them (and no interest in stopping them); all other things being equal France would probably prefer them to apply in the UK rather than in France. That's why the UK probably does want some kind of multilateral agreement with the EU or its members states; but what exactly that agreement will be will be up for grabs.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

It's not a "UN protocol" which requires the UK to afford protection to refugees; it's an international treaty - the Refugee Convention - which the UK has freely negotiated, signed and ratified, and which is binding on the UK because the UK parliament decided that the UK should be bound by it.

The point is that refugees from outside Europe trying to enter the UK is not a problem that is caused by the UK's EU membership or that will be solved by it ending.

FreudianSlippers

oscarBravo wrote: »

What's the problem with that regulation?

There's a common misconception that it applies to retailers, as opposed to growers/wholesalers. Either that or that poster just loves rotten bananas? :pac:

View

KingBrian2 wrote: »

The problem for me is that the refugees should not be this far in Europe in the first place adding to the destabilization of the EU.

The would be refugees are free to seek refuge in any country they want. There is no obligation on either the EU (as a collective) or the member states (as individuals) to act as gatekeeper for another member state or to process that member state's would be refugees.

The UK is and has been perfectly free to do any or all of the following:
A) admit all these would be refugees and process them,
to seek agreement with France so they can instead be processed in France by U.K. officials (in an effective UK exclave much like the UK passport controls are operated in France at the Channel Tunnel),
C) to join Schengen and throw their voting & political weight behind better external Schengen frontiers so the would be refugees don't make it that far in the first place,
D) to propose and support an EU Common Border System/Fund to manage (and pay for) increased security on the EU's external borders,
E) to propose and support a EU Common Refugee Processing system so that irrespective of where a person applies they receive the same chance of success or failure AND where they end up subsequently is decided by either by lottery or objective criteria. That would eliminate the point of treking to country X to apply (as doing so would make no difference to a successful/failed applicant nor would it guarantee that a person remains in country X if successful).

Instead the issue has been allowed to fester creating a "problem" where none need be.

djpbarry

kaymin wrote: »

Under the EU's qualified-majority-voting, a law passes if it is backed by 16 out of 28 countries that make up at least 65% of the EU population. Even if the British Government doesn't vote in favour of the law it is obliged to enact it regardless.

Wrong. You are referring to proposals from the commission, not “laws”. Once passed by the council, such proposals still have to be approved by the European Parliament. Then they have to be passed into law (if need be) by national parliaments in a manner that they see fit.

kaymin wrote: »

No, but then I didn't say that.

You said that Brexit would allow the UK to regain control over its own foreign policy. I was simply pointing out that the UK already has substantial control over its own foreign policy.

kaymin wrote: »

You're missing the point - the UK wants to decide for itself who should be allowed into its country.

I’m not missing the point at all. In fact, this point has been put to pro-Brexiters numerous times and it is consistently ignored. The UK already has substantial control over immigration, but it chooses not to exercise that control - immigration could literally be cut in half overnight. But it hasn't happened - why?

kaymin wrote: »

Obviously there's not evidence since it's way to early- business is business though and I think big German businesses will have a significant say on negotiations - the same as they always do.

There is absolutely no appetite among German business leaders to give the UK a beneficial deal. It’s just more Brexiteer fantasy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38707997

kaymin wrote: »

Okay - over the past 3 years - the point is the euro has suffered a huge depreciation over the past few years which was my response to your concern that a depreciated GBP will hit the UK population badly. My point is that EU citizens have suffered due to the weak euro - the euro is no safe haven / safe store of wealth.

First of all, the UK trades far more with the EU than the EU does with the US.

Secondly, you’re saying that a weak pound is good for the UK economy, but a weak Euro is bad for the Eurozone? That doesn’t make any sense?

kaymin wrote: »

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94

Why do you take issue with this particular regulation?

kaymin wrote: »

No, since the UK decides whether it wants to introduce equivalent laws or not. The key point is its UK's decision.

But they won’t have much of a choice if they want to trade with the EU, since anything they export to the EU must comply with EU regulations, right?

kaymin wrote: »

EU Commissioners are mandated to act in the best interests of the EU, not the nation that they come from. So, yes the UK is more democratic than the EU.

But the Commission doesn’t pass legislation, the council, consisting of representatives from directly-elected national governments, and the directly-elected parliament do. Meanwhile, in the UK, laws are proposed and passed in a parliament dominated by a party that secured just 37% of the popular vote. So your argument makes no sense.

kaymin wrote: »

If currency devaluation was always detrimental then why would any country ever do it.

It’s generally seen as a last resort - the benefits of quantitative easing are debatable.

But let’s flip your question around - if currency devaluation is beneficial, then why isn’t every country doing it all the time?

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Get back to me when you have reconciled people being deported with people doing nothing illegal.

If you think there's a law in the UK which says you can't be deported if you have done nothing illegal, now would be a really good time to point to that law.

If you can't point to that law, people might think you're just making stuff up and proclaiming it to be true, and you wouldn't want that, would you?

The fact is that you can be deported from the UK (and many other countries, including Ireland) despite having broken no laws. This is a deliberate stance by the countries concerned; the want to be able to deport you without having to show that you have broken the law, which would require court proceedings, and which would give potential deportees the same rights that those accused of a crime have,

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

The point is that refugees from outside Europe trying to enter the UK is not a problem that is caused by the UK's EU membership or that will be solved by it ending.

I agree. It's more likely to be made worse by UK membership ending.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

If you think there's a law in the UK which says you can't be deported if you have done nothing illegal, now would be a really good time to point to that law.

You seem very confused about this.

First Up

Peregrinus wrote:

I agree. It's more likely to be made worse by UK membership ending.

I agree.

djpbarry

The Supreme Court has ruled that parliament must vote before article 50 is triggered.