Brexit Referendum Superthread

Tsipras

I've lived in the UK for 2 and a half years, when these tory c**nts came out with this nonsense proposal are they suggesting I won't be a citizen for the next two and a half years, I've paid thousands in tax since I've worked here, if those tory c**ts think they can make me feel like a second class citizen because I'm Irish they can burn in hell. The Tories are dead, and I hope I never have to hear about them again once Corbyn wins, unfortunately they'll be back like FF/Terminator but I'll never forget how they destroyed peoples lives to keep the bankers happy (Tories and FF)

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Profanity isn't acceptable here.

Fratton Fred

Tsipras wrote: »

I've lived in the UK for 2 and a half years, when these tory c**nts came out with this nonsense proposal are they suggesting I won't be a citizen for the next two and a half years, I've paid thousands in tax since I've worked here, if those tory c**ts think they can make me feel like a second class citizen because I'm Irish they can burn in hell. The Tories are dead, and I hope I never have to hear about them again once Corbyn wins, unfortunately they'll be back like FF/Terminator but I'll never forget how they destroyed peoples lives to keep the bankers happy (Tories and FF)

you won't ever be a citizen unless you apply to become a British citizen though

Rjd2

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/878968737533227009

Nail. On. The. Head.

The Tories have been slaughtered over Brexit and rightfully so as they have been useless, but Corbyn has having his cake and eating it and getting away with **** all scrutiny about his position on Brexit. :mad:

An Ciarraioch

Fratton Fred wrote: »

you won't ever be a citizen unless you apply to become a British citizen though

Presently, though, Irish citizens aren't regarded as "aliens" under UK law, unclear how May's offer affects this status.

A Little Pony

Rjd2 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/878968737533227009

Nail. On. The. Head.

The Tories have been slaughtered over Brexit and rightfully so as they have been useless, but Corbyn has having his cake and eating it and getting away with **** all scrutiny about his position on Brexit. :mad:

Corbyn is a revolutionary socialist, why would he support the EU? He hates the EU.

Fratton Fred

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Presently, though, Irish citizens aren't regarded as "aliens" under UK law, unclear how May's offer affects this status.

i know and similarly, British citizens in Ireland are exempt from the Aliens act. I was merely pointing out the error in the post. I guess I hsould have pointed out that it was, in fact, Labour who bailed out the banks as well, not the Tories.

Anyway, I'm not a betting man, but if I were, then I would put a week's wages on there being no change.

Fratton Fred

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Presently, though, Irish citizens aren't regarded as "aliens" under UK law, unclear how May's offer affects this status.

it is clear now

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-in-the-eu/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-the-european-union-safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-living-in-the-eu

5) Our proposals as set out below are without prejudice to Common Travel Area arrangements between the UK and Ireland (and the Crown Dependencies), and the rights of British and Irish citizens in each others’ countries rooted in the Ireland Act 1949. These arrangements reflect the long-standing social and economic ties between the UK and Ireland and pre-date both countries’ membership of the EU. As such, we want to protect the Common Travel Area arrangements, and Irish citizens residing in the UK will not need to apply for settled status to protect their entitlements. We have also been clear that our exit will in no way impact on the terms of the Belfast Agreement. We will continue to uphold in that context the rights of the people of Northern Ireland to be able to identify as British or Irish, or both, and to hold citizenship accordingly.

That's it guys, you can all stay there, I can stay here.

We're good

/thread

murphaph

Let's see if the EU will accept the UK's offer. So far they are a little underwhelmed by it and while the whole "oh yeah, Irish EU can come and go as they please but French EU can't" might just get through if we (Ireland and the UK) say "Peace Process" often enough, it is extremely unlikely to please our EU partners at all that the Irish are going to have Schrödingers passport, that is EU but at the same time allows one to essentially have all the benefits of British citizenship inside the UK.

I think we will also need to look carefully at our own citizenship laws because an Irish passport looks set to be a clear back door into the UK and I expect there to be much focus on this from the British side if we are "too liberal" in doling out passports to EU citizens (or even non-EU citizens who would have no claim to British citizenship, eg the Aussie with 1 Irish grandparent).

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

Let's see if the EU will accept the UK's offer. So far they are a little underwhelmed by it and while the whole "oh yeah, Irish EU can come and go as they please but French EU can't" might just get through if we (Ireland and the UK) say "Peace Process" often enough, it is extremely unlikely to please our EU partners at all that the Irish are going to have Schrödingers passport, that is EU but at the same time allows one to essentially have all the benefits of British citizenship inside the UK.

I think we will also need to look carefully at our own citizenship laws because an Irish passport looks set to be a clear back door into the UK and I expect there to be much focus on this from the British side if we are "too liberal" in doling out passports to EU citizens (or even non-EU citizens who would have no claim to British citizenship, eg the Aussie with 1 Irish grandparent).

the eu have already said this:

(3) Equal treatment amongst EU27 citizens by and in the UK in all matters covered by the Withdrawal Agreement, without prejudice to Common Travel Area arrangements between the UK and Ireland;

so I read it that they are basically saying that the CTA is a completely separate issue and is not part of this negotiation.

joeysoap

We are currently dishing out Irish (EU) passports to U.K. citizens, this effectively confers all the benefits of travelling throughout the EU at customs and passport controls, whilst at the same time they retain the benefits of living in the UK.

This started with UK not joining the euro. I can recall an Irish minister at the time (I think it was Albert Reynolds) saying that if you started with £100 and travelled to France, Holland, Germany Italy etc etc that without spending anything you would have £4 left returning to Ireland and the euro would do away with that. But effectively from then on UK citizens only had to purchase one currency if making the same journey. Almost all the benefits of a single currency without actually being a member. And non of the risks

I think the UK might be envisaging the same this time round.

Sam Russell

joeysoap wrote: »

We are currently dishing out Irish (EU) passports to U.K. citizens, this effectively confers all the benefits of travelling throughout the EU at customs and passport controls, whilst at the same time they retain the benefits of living in the UK.

This started with UK joining the euro. I can recall an Irish minister at the time (I think it was Albert Reynolds) saying that if you started with £100 and travelled to France, Holland, Germany Italy etc etc that without spending anything you would have £4 left returning to Ireland and the euro would do away with that. But effectively from then on UK citizens only had to purchase one currency if making the same journey. Almost all the benefits of a single currency without actually being a member. And non of the risks

I think the UK might be envisaging the same this time round.

In 1967, the GBP was worth 11 DM. The DM was converted to Euro at €1 = 1.95 DM. Today the GBP is worth €1.1288 or thereabouts or 2.2 DM. That is an 80% fall over 50 years. In 1967 Britain was going bankrupt with falling exports and the loss of empire. They joined the EU in 1973, and benefited massively.

They are trying to go back to 1967 when their future looked grim.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

In 1967, the GBP was worth 11 DM. The DM was converted to Euro at €1 = 1.95 DM. Today the GBP is worth €1.1288 or thereabouts or 2.2 DM. That is an 80% fall over 50 years. In 1967 Britain was going bankrupt with falling exports and the loss of empire. They joined the EU in 1973, and benefited massively.

They are trying to go back to 1967 when their future looked grim.

yes, the value of the DM 50 years ago (when West Germany as it was then was still rebuilidng after a bit of a scuffle in the early 40s) is very very relevant :rolleyes:

123shooter

Tsipras wrote: »

I've lived in the UK for 2 and a half years, when these tory c**nts came out with this nonsense proposal are they suggesting I won't be a citizen for the next two and a half years, I've paid thousands in tax since I've worked here, if those tory c**ts think they can make me feel like a second class citizen because I'm Irish they can burn in hell. The Tories are dead, and I hope I never have to hear about them again once Corbyn wins, unfortunately they'll be back like FF/Terminator but I'll never forget how they destroyed peoples lives to keep the bankers happy (Tories and FF)

Yeah them bankers in Germany and the EU why should we pay for there mistakes..........hold on a minute......lets have a referendum and leave em.

Amazing how you go to another country and demand and insult just because you don't like something had to pay tax just like ALL other citizens who worked there.

If a non national came to Ireland they would have to pay far in excess of 1000 euro to become an Irish citizen even if they had paid tax here for 250 years and with the same attitude as you I can only imagine what they would be told:rolleyes:

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

yes, the value of the DM 50 years ago (when West Germany as it was then was still rebuilidng after a bit of a scuffle in the early 40s) is very very relevant :rolleyes:

I think you misunderstand the figures. If you transferred £10,000 into DM in 1967, and transferred the Euros today, you would have £40,000 plus any interest you might have earned. That is huge. The UK economy has over-borrowed, over-spent, and over-inflated over those 50 years.

They hope to do well on their own, but that never happened in the past - despite the pillaging of empire they they did in the past. They do not have an Empire any more, except for the odd island.

Capt'n Midnight

AFAIK at present any EEA citizen can use the 5 year rule - so the UK isn't offering anything new.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-a-uk-residence-card/permanent-residence-card

You can apply for a permanent residence card after you’ve lived in the UK for 5 years. This will prove your right to live in the UK permanently.

Water John

I think it's the way if you are from the EU and living in the UK say, for 3 years, that you are now going backways to being a temp resident for the next 2. That is what is annoying people and the other EU countries.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the figures. If you transferred £10,000 into DM in 1967, and transferred the Euros today, you would have £40,000 plus any interest you might have earned. That is huge. The UK economy has over-borrowed, over-spent, and over-inflated over those 50 years.

They hope to do well on their own, but that never happened in the past - despite the pillaging of empire they they did in the past. They do not have an Empire any more, except for the odd island.

I think you missed the minor fact that in 1967, Germany was still feeling the effects of losing a rather bloody war and being front middle and centre of an ever increasing cold war.

It is pointless comparing the German economy of 1967 with today.

But your little pathetic comment about empire just underlines what your real motives are.

FrancieBrady

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you missed the minor fact that in 1967, Germany was still feeling the effects of losing a rather bloody war and being front middle and centre of an ever increasing cold war.

It is pointless comparing the German economy of 1967 with today.

But your little pathetic comment about empire just underlines what your real motives are.

Why is a comment on empire -pathetic? Britain is what it is only because of 'empire'.
What 'motive' other than explaining his point does he need to have?
We reference history when talking about any other country but you wish to censor any reference to a controversial empire which clearly affects Britain today.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

AFAIK at present any EEA citizen can use the 5 year rule - so the UK isn't offering anything new.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-for-a-uk-residence-card/permanent-residence-card

so you expect the government to offer eu citizens more rights than they have now?

Did you miss the whole Brexit thing?

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so you expect the government to offer eu citizens more rights than they have now?

No. But if the UK wants the offer to be considered "generous" they have to offer EU citizens better terms than they would have as non-EU citizens and, I think it's reasonable to say, they have to offer EU citizens already residing in the UK on Brexit day terms which are no worse than the terms they enjoy under EU law, pre-Brexit. Reducing somebody's existing accrued entitlements is very hard to spin as "generous".

123shooter

Sam Russell wrote: »

I think you misunderstand the figures. If you transferred £10,000 into DM in 1967, and transferred the Euros today, you would have £40,000 plus any interest you might have earned. That is huge. The UK economy has over-borrowed, over-spent, and over-inflated over those 50 years.

They hope to do well on their own, but that never happened in the past - despite the pillaging of empire they they did in the past. They do not have an Empire any more, except for the odd island.

I dunno they didn't do too bad considering they were dragged in to two costly world wars started by mmmm who was it......oh yes Germany.

As regards pillaging their empire........you could argue about that all day long but if you want to talk about pillaging you only have to look at the EU for a prime example........and who runs the EU?

Peregrinus

123shooter wrote: »

I dunno they didn't do too bad considering they were dragged in to two costly world wars started by mmmm who was it......oh yes Germany.

Well, I dunno about "dragged in". In both cases it was the UK who declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Not that I want to defend the German government in either case. But the UK went to war because it thought it was in its own national interest to do so. Both Germany and the UK suffered economically as a result of both wars. The first time round the UK dealt with that better than Germany; the second time it was definitely the other way around.

In both cases we could make an interesting historical enquiry into why the economic consequences of the war panned out as they did. But I don't think we need to, in connection with Brexit. The relevance to Brexit was much simpler; the European project was created and motivated by a recognition that both wars had been disastrous for all European countries, winners and losers alike, and by desire to change realpolitik so that future wars between the European powers would be unthinkable. And in that objective at least it has resoundingly succeeded.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. But if the UK wants the offer to be considered "generous" they have to offer EU citizens better terms than they would have as non-EU citizens and, I think it's reasonable to say, they have to offer EU citizens already residing in the UK on Brexit day terms which are no worse than the terms they enjoy under EU law, pre-Brexit. Reducing somebody's existing accrued entitlements is very hard to spin as "generous".

it is more than non eu citizens get.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

it is more than non eu citizens get.

It's less than the EU citizens concerned currently have. Their position is being altered to their disadvantage. I still say it's very hard to spin that as "generous".

A pretty basic starting point for "generous" is that you respect the accrued rights of EU nationals already in the UK, and guarantee that they will be no worse off after Brexit.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, I dunno about "dragged in". In both cases it was the UK who declared war on Germany, not the other way around.

Not that I want to defend the German government in either case. But the UK went to war because it thought it was in its own national interest to do so. Both Germany and the UK suffered economically as a result of both wars. The first time round the UK dealt with that better than Germany; the second time it was definitely the other way around.

In both cases we could make an interesting historical enquiry into why the economic consequences of the war panned out as they did. But I don't think we need to, in connection with Brexit. The relevance to Brexit was much simpler; the European project was created and motivated by a recognition that both wars had been disastrous for all European countries, winners and losers alike, and by desire to change realpolitik so that future wars between the European powers would be unthinkable. And in that objective at least it has resoundingly succeeded.

Yes they were dragged in. The clue is they were fighting at the beginning in Europe and they have never had any interests there, but if Europe fell then Britain was obviously next.

Whatever good intentions the European project was first set up, that has not been the case for the past 20 or so years and there is the problem. The UK and Ireland and others joined the EU for something very different than is the aim today.

Peregrinus

123shooter wrote: »

Yes they were dragged in. The clue is they were fighting at the beginning in Europe and they have never had any interests there, but if Europe fell then Britain was obviously next..

Britain wasn't obviously next. Neither Imperial Germany nor Nazi Germany had any aspirations at all to invade or occupy the UK.

In both cases the UK fought because they didn't wish Germany to become the dominant power in Europe, because it was their long-standing policy that no one power should dominate Europe, because that would threaten the UK's status as a world power.

123shooter wrote: »

Whatever good intentions the European project was first set up, that has not been the case for the past 20 or so years and there is the problem. The UK and Ireland and others joined the EU for something very different than is the aim today.

The aim today is what it has been since 1957; "an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe". That phrase was in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, and it was still there when the UK acceded to the Treaty in 1973. Since then there have been two proposals to drop the phrase, in 1992 and about ten years later, and on both occasions the UK strongly opposed the suggestion and insisted that the phrase be retained.

The EU's objective hasn't changed at all. It's the UK that has changed it's collective mind about what it wants.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

In both cases we could make an interesting historical enquiry into why the economic consequences of the war panned out as they did. But I don't think we need to, in connection with Brexit. The relevance to Brexit was much simpler; the European project was created and motivated by a recognition that both wars had been disastrous for all European countries, winners and losers alike, and by desire to change realpolitik so that future wars between the European powers would be unthinkable. And in that objective at least it has resoundingly succeeded.

Well lots of money was pumped in to Germany as it had been quite rightly destroyed and that money came in part from?

The EU was also set up in part to stop German expansionism again so they could never attempt what had happened before.

Oh dear failed again.

123shooter

Peregrinus wrote: »

Britain wasn't obviously next. Neither Imperial Germany nor Nazi Germany had any aspirations at all to invade or occupy the UK.

That is hilarious. What are you trying to do rewrite history?

In both cases the UK fought because they didn't wish Germany to become the dominant power in Europe, because it was their long-standing policy that no one power should dominate Europe, because that would threaten the UK's status as a world power.

I think if you conquer other countries you do actually become the dominant power and obviously are a threat to your neighbours. But since when has it been ok to conquer your neighbours and then execute all who disagree or you do not like?

The aim today is what it has been since 1957; "an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe". That phrase was in the Treaty of Rome in 1957, and it was still there when the UK acceded to the Treaty in 1973. Since then there have been two proposals to drop the phrase, in 1992 and about ten years later, and on both occasions the UK strongly opposed the suggestion and insisted that the phrase be retained.

The EU's objective hasn't changed at all. It's the UK that has changed it's collective mind about what it wants.

Yeah right. So an un-elected minority who we cannot remove impose their will over the other 500+ million. Where is that in the treaty of Rome.

You aren't Angela Merkel by any chance are you?

Peregrinus

123shooter wrote: »

Well lots of money was pumped in to Germany as it had been quite rightly destroyed and that money came in part from?

It came from the US. You've heard of the Marshall Plan, surely?