Brexit Referendum Superthread

Fratton Fred

Nody wrote: »

Which part? That Brexit was about limiting immigration or that British people want to travel freely and move to the EU but not vice versa? Second you can find for example on this thread recently about the B&B owner who wanted to move to Spain but was for Brexit; the first you can find a ton of articles going through in detail and how it was one of the key reasons for Brexit.

so basically, you have a B&B owner and that's it. You claimed that "Except UK does not want pragmatic; they want to have the right to emigrate to Europe but be able to set limits to the Europeans coming to the UK."

some voted to reduce immigration, others for their own reasons, who knows. If you make wide, sweeping statements, then you will get called to back them up.

This is an extract from the Government White Paper on Brexit:

“We are considering very carefully the options that are open to us to gain control of the numbers of people coming to the UK from the EU. As part of that, it is important that we understand the impacts on the different sectors of the economy and the labour market.
“We will, therefore, ensure that businesses and communities have the opportunity to contribute their views. Equally, we will need to understand the potential impacts of any proposed changes in all the parts of the UK.
“Implementing any new immigration arrangements for EU nationals and the support they receive will be complex and parliament will have an important role in considering these matters further.
“There may be a phased process of implementation to prepare for the new arrangements. This would give businesses and individuals enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.”

where does it say the UK wants one way immigration policy?

ancapailldorcha

Catbear banned for two days.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I believe talk of going "Insular" is just scare mongering.

This Tory government is no different to any other, whatever is best for London will be given priority and going insular is not best for London

http://londonisopen.com/

There is no scaremongering in my post whatsoever, "insular" was just used as an expedient turn of phrase in context.

There is simply the two choices available to the UK government.

'Protect' the UK IP profession by reverting to national preference (such as it is practiced most everywhere else, including the EFTA, but not in the EU due to harmonisation insofar as EU28 <for now> are concerned). What I called "insular", which somehow seems to offend you.

Or, and with apologies to the serious context of a proper Politics thread in the proper Politics forum, finish the UK IP profession off by cutting its head (leaving it open to domestic competition from the EU27 for UK matters) after chopping its balls (removing its ability to compete in the EU27 and at the EU itself, which is unavoidable and non-negotiable). What I called the "global" option, which seems to have your preference?

Odd, for someone with a marked preference for the UK in the UK-vs-EU debate.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

There is no scaremongering in my post whatsoever, "insular" was just used as an expedient turn of phrase in context.

There is simply the two choices available to the UK government.

'Protect' the UK IP profession by reverting to national preference (such as it is practiced most everywhere else, including the EFTA, but not in the EU due to harmonisation insofar as EU28 <for now> are concerned). What I called "insular", which somehow seems to offend you.

Or, and with apologies to the serious context of a proper Politics thread in the proper Politics forum, finish the UK IP profession off by cutting its head (leaving it open to domestic competition from the EU27 for UK matters) after chopping its balls (removing its ability to compete in the EU27 and at the EU itself, which is unavoidable and non-negotiable). What I called the "global" option, which seems to have your preference?

Odd, for someone with a marked preference for the UK in the UK-vs-EU debate.

You were being specific. I wasn't. I have no idea what the UK is going to do about IP so it isn't something I can comment on any more than I know what is going to happen to Protected Designation of Origin.

I wasn't accusing you per se of scaremongering, but it is something I hear regularly, that the UK will become insular after Brexit, which I do not believe to be the case. it is one of, if not the, most culturally diverse and integrated countries in the world, something which will always mean the UK is outward looking and the link I provided earlier shows that London at least does no intend this to change.

Maybe if the politicians had done a bit more inward looking, there might not be a Brexit, but that a different discussion.

murphaph

Personally I do believe the UK is becoming more insular already.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

Personally I do believe the UK is becoming more insular already.

it has had a shock which has divided the nation. It needs to be a bit insular at the moment to fix itself. Longer term though, I don't think the Uk will ever be anything other than an outwardly looking country.

First Up

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it has had a shock which has divided the nation. It needs to be a bit insular at the moment to fix itself. Longer term though, I don't think the Uk will ever be anything other than an outwardly looking country.

The problem isn't where they are looking Fred. Its what they see.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it has had a shock which has divided the nation. It needs to be a bit insular at the moment to fix itself. Longer term though, I don't think the Uk will ever be anything other than an outwardly looking country.

I hope you're right. It's very sad to me to see the UK withdraw from the EU.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

I hope you're right. It's very sad to me to see the UK withdraw from the EU.

it is.

When i look at my kids, half Irish/half English, nationality to them is little more than the team they support at the euros. Flags are something to be waved on special occasions and the flag changes depending on what the occasion is.

The next generation is far more global than us and Brexit is almost denying this positive future.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This Tory government is no different to any other, whatever is best for London will be given priority and going insular is not best for London

http://londonisopen.com/

The voters in London decided Remain was best. The Tory government is acting directly against that, so clearly London is not being given priority.

Fratton Fred

View wrote: »

The voters in London decided Remain was best. The Tory government is acting directly against that, so clearly London is not being given priority.

The Tory government is doing what they are obliged to do after Westminster decided to hold a referendum. There is still a long way to go though.

steddyeddy

I'm really annoyed that Theresa has decided to call an election now. It's eating into our two year deadline to leave with a deal. Guy Verhoffstadt thinks it's a Tory power grab. I'm in agrrement.

First Up

steddyeddy wrote:

I'm really annoyed that Theresa has decided to call an election now. It's eating into our two year deadline to leave with a deal. Guy Verhoffstadt thinks it's a Tory power grab. I'm in agrrement.

Of course it is. Five years guaranteed in office no matter what happens.

What happens after that is another question of course. What the political landscape will look like in 2022 is anyone's guess.

steddyeddy

First Up wrote: »

Of course it is. Five years guaranteed in office no matter what happens.

What happens after that is another question of course. What the political landscape will look like in 2022 is anyone's guess.

There was literally no one that could oppose any Brexit plans she had. Now she wants to eradicate any oppisition there is. She's power mad.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm really annoyed that Theresa has decided to call an election now. It's eating into our two year deadline to leave with a deal. Guy Verhoffstadt thinks it's a Tory power grab. I'm in agrrement.

well, there seem to be two schools of thought on this, one that it is a simple Tory power grab, the other that it gives May the capital to completely change her stance and go for a soft Brexit (i would believe it is the latter).

We will only know for sure after the election I guess.

Nate--IRL--

steddyeddy wrote: »

There was literally no one that could oppose any Brexit plans she had. Now she wants to eradicate any oppisition there is. She's power mad.

She's a politician? They are all power mad. To be honest I thought it a master-stroke on her part.

Nate

Water John

Tory party will win the election but will be very fractured within 2 years.
Some side within the party will be very disillusioned.

Leonard Hofstadter

Fratton Fred wrote: »

well, there seem to be two schools of thought on this, one that it is a simple Tory power grab, the other that it gives May the capital to completely change her stance and go for a soft Brexit (i would believe it is the latter).

We will only know for sure after the election I guess.

I want to believe this is true, sadly I don't.

When it comes to Brexit Mrs May is like someone who's discovered religion later on in their lives and needs to make up for all that 'lost time', there will be a hard Brexit because Mrs May is determined to prove that she really does believe in a Red, White and Blue Brexit and a Global Britain and all that bolderdash.

Fratton Fred

captainspeed wrote: »

I want to believe this is true, sadly I don't.

When it comes to Brexit Mrs May is like someone who's discovered religion later on in their lives and needs to make up for all that 'lost time', there will be a hard Brexit because Mrs May is determined to prove that she really does believe in a Red, White and Blue Brexit and a Global Britain and all that bolderdash.

if you're a CEO and you have to report bad news, you save it all up so that you can get it all out in one go. It may knock 20% off your share price, but three bits of bad news in succession could knock 20% off each time. From that point onwards, all you have to share is good news.

I kind of think that is what she has done, painted the worst possible picture and after that, anything seems like a good idea.

Lemming

Fratton Fred wrote: »

well, there seem to be two schools of thought on this, one that it is a simple Tory power grab, the other that it gives May the capital to completely change her stance and go for a soft Brexit (i would believe it is the latter).

We will only know for sure after the election I guess.

The shape of internal British politics will have very little bearing on Brexit negotiations as matters currently stand, short of a miracle happening (such as the 18-25s scaring the living f*ck out of the government by voting in numbers), or the British electorate coming to their senses.

She has stopped short of saying it'll be a blue white & red election.

It's one of three things: a power-grab and/or a distraction from impending criminal prosecution doom for up to 30 Tory MPs, of which May only has a 12 seat majority. Or it's a cynical attempt to not face a GE so soon after Brexit negotiations have concluded, knowing the sh1t storm that's coming down the pipeline.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

well, there seem to be two schools of thought on this, one that it is a simple Tory power grab, the other that it gives May the capital to completely change her stance and go for a soft Brexit (i would believe it is the latter).

We will only know for sure after the election I guess.

How does she change her position with a election? Surely she will need to lay out her plans and position for the coming election and she cannot just change her mind after the election. I am sure Brexit voters that want a total divorce from the EU will still hold her to what they thought they voted for.

It will all depend on what the voters of the new Tories want. If they want a hard Brexit to throw the Polish plumber out of the country then it doesn't matter if she has a majority of 2 or 102, the people will speak again in the coming election.

Sam Russell

Enzokk wrote: »

How does she change her position with a election? Surely she will need to lay out her plans and position for the coming election and she cannot just change her mind after the election. I am sure Brexit voters that want a total divorce from the EU will still hold her to what they thought they voted for.

It will all depend on what the voters of the new Tories want. If they want a hard Brexit to throw the Polish plumber out of the country then it doesn't matter if she has a majority of 2 or 102, the people will speak again in the coming election.

But she cannot disclose her hand in the EU negotiations as it would weaken it. So no disclosure - Berxit means Brexit - and it will be a red white and blue brexit - etc etc etc.

Mrs May wants to be the Iron Lady - slogan - 'Now is not the time!' So, an election power grab that should give a huge majority means no opposition. She was crap as Home Secretary, and intends to correct her failings - by being a tough no nonsense PM. All foreigners had better have their bags packed.

It is back to the Nasty Party.

Leonard Hofstadter

Lemming wrote: »

It's one of three things: a power-grab and/or a distraction from impending criminal prosecution doom for up to 30 Tory MPs, of which May only has a 12 seat majority. Or it's a cynical attempt to not face a GE so soon after Brexit negotiations have concluded, knowing the sh1t storm that's coming down the pipeline.

Or, it's all three.

In all fairness if I were in her position I would have done the same thing. The only surprise is that she waited so long really.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

You were being specific. I wasn't. I have no idea what the UK is going to do about IP so it isn't something I can comment on any more than I know what is going to happen to Protected Designation of Origin.

I wasn't accusing you per se of scaremongering, but it is something I hear regularly, that the UK will become insular after Brexit, which I do not believe to be the case. it is one of, if not the, most culturally diverse and integrated countries in the world, something which will always mean the UK is outward looking and the link I provided earlier shows that London at least does no intend this to change.

Maybe if the politicians had done a bit more inward looking, there might not be a Brexit, but that a different discussion.

The problem, Fred, is that Brexit as a whole, will be the sum total of a myriad such specific situations.

Collectively, they all may make the UK insular against and regardless of the UK's beliefs and wishes about the matter.

For instance, it's because of similar such specific situations that passporting rights for Eurotrades are for the bin, that the EMA and the EBA are relocating, that the UK's accession to the UPC is moot, <etc.> : standard operation of law cueing jurisdictional incompatibility and effective isolation of the UK (-resulting in eventual loss of activity/wealth creation for the UK, if not effective yet then unavoidable anyway).

I daresay little of it is negotiable at all. It certainly isn't in the IP field, until/unless the EU27 make some fairly fundamental and drastic changes to EU legislation in that field. For the avoidance of doubt, the UK isn't in any position to demand or obtain that they do that: there's less than nothing in it for them.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

How does she change her position with a election? Surely she will need to lay out her plans and position for the coming election and she cannot just change her mind after the election. I am sure Brexit voters that want a total divorce from the EU will still hold her to what they thought they voted for.

It will all depend on what the voters of the new Tories want. If they want a hard Brexit to throw the Polish plumber out of the country then it doesn't matter if she has a majority of 2 or 102, the people will speak again in the coming election.

she will breathing space to piss people off. She can change course, piss off the UKIPers or whoever and by the time the next election comes around, it will be forgotten.

ambro25 wrote: »

The problem, Fred, is that Brexit as a whole, will be the sum total of a myriad such specific situations.

Collectively, they all may make the UK insular against and regardless of the UK's beliefs and wishes about the matter.

For instance, it's because of similar such specific situations that passporting rights for Eurotrades are for the bin, that the EMA and the EBA are relocating, that the UK's accession to the UPC is moot, <etc.> : standard operation of law cueing jurisdictional incompatibility and effective isolation of the UK (-resulting in eventual loss of activity/wealth creation for the UK, if not effective yet then unavoidable anyway).

I daresay little of it is negotiable at all. It certainly isn't in the IP field, until/unless the EU27 make some fairly fundamental and drastic changes to EU legislation in that field. For the avoidance of doubt, the UK isn't in any position to demand or obtain that they do that: there's less than nothing in it for them.

Thanks Ambro, I'm not sure what point you are making here. All the above seems fairly obvious to me.

What you seem to miss though, is that the majority of people who voted to leave couldn't give a flying monkey's about any of this. Does someone in Bradford who is suffering the effects of austerity really care about some over paid bankers in London losing passporting rights, or a few lawyers concerns over Intellectual property?

Calina

They might not care now Fred but the longer they don't care the worse it will pan out for them. They may think austerity hurts now...

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What you seem to miss though, is that the majority of people who voted to leave couldn't give a flying monkey's about any of this. Does someone in Bradford who is suffering the effects of austerity really care about some over paid bankers in London losing passporting rights, or a few lawyers concerns over Intellectual property?

That someone in Bradford should give a monkey's: their benefits, access to and level of public services, working tax credits <etc.> ultimately all depend on it.

I don't miss it at all, I'm all too aware of it, and your Bradford analogy was one (on the moral conscience side of things) of my core reasons for advocating remain, besides the self-interested reasons (EU immigrant, scope of effects on my professional occupation, likelihood of tax rises to offset Brexit after-effects, <etc.>)

But when I or anyone else tried telling them that, it was shouted down and/or rebadged for the intellectually-lazy as Project Fear.

I'm not banging my head against the brick wall here, just explaining and reminding some inescapable effects of Brexit, in case there's any need for the readership. As to the Bradford leave voter, my moral conscience has been wiped clinically-clean over the past 10 months: they're welcome to the consequences, however positive and/or negative as they turn out to be.

I'm alright now, Jack Fred :pac:

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

she will breathing space to piss people off. She can change course, piss off the UKIPers or whoever and by the time the next election comes around, it will be forgotten.

She will have to hope that more pro-EU MP's gets elected. That way she will not need anti-EU Tory votes in government for any other votes and have them oppose her because they are pissed off. That is risky, very risky and the last election based on a risk didn't work out for the previous PM. This is all speculation that she is at heart pro-EU, which she hasn't showed other than some slogans while campaigning in support of the government she was part of.

I am more of the view she is trying to get more MP's so she can go hard Brexit. She wants to ensure that pro-EU Tories cannot side with the SNP and Labour to curtail her plans when it is clear she is all out Brexiting. Why else would she appoint pro-Brexit MP's to run the negotiations?

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The Tory government is doing what they are obliged to do after Westminster decided to hold a referendum. There is still a long way to go though.

No they are not.

The referendum was advisory and, hence, results in advice. There is no obligation on any MP to follow any advice they receive from anybody. Rather, the MPs who are voting to Leave are choosing to do so of their own free will.

Therefore the Conservatives are clearly choosing to act directly against the wishes of London even though the vast majority of those MPs almost certainly believe doing so will be detrimental to both London and the wider UK.

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

They might not care now Fred but the longer they don't care the worse it will pan out for them. They may think austerity hurts now...

The UK, as pretty muvh every other country in Europe, still views the bankers as being the ones who are responsible for austerity measures. It will take some time for that perception to change.

View wrote: »

No they are not.

The referendum was advisory and, hence, results in advice. There is no obligation on any MP to follow any advice they receive from anybody. Rather, the MPs who are voting to Leave are choosing to do so of their own free will.

Therefore the Conservatives are clearly choosing to act directly against the wishes of London even though the vast majority of those MPs almost certainly believe doing so will be detrimental to both London and the wider UK.

oh please, stop with the advisory referendum.

Westminster took a vote to hold the referendum in the first place, it wasn't just some arbitrary "Ohh, what do people think". It was Westminster deciding that the issue required a referendum. Westminster asked the people, the people gave their answer.

The only votes against holding a referendum came from the SNP, therefore Westminster is obliged to honour that. To do otherwise is an afront to democracy, no matter how unsavoury that is.