Brexit discussion thread II

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The director of the IFS has weighed in on Boris' £350 million a week for the NHS claim:

Does that "net loss" means what I think it means, i.e. if it is realised, then there is not even the first penny of that fabled extra £350m, to give to the NHS?

:pac:

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Does that "net loss" means what I think it means, i.e. if it is realised, then there is not even the first penny of that fabled extra £350m, to give to the NHS?

:pac:

This is how I understand it, yes. And that's before you have the farmers and other beneficiaries of EU subsidies and investment up in arms.

The £350 million is Johnson's wall that Mexico the EU will pay for.

An Ciarraioch

I can't imagine our government will have any regrets if Boris does decide to quit:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-resign-theresa-may-brexit-strategy-foreign-secretary-prime-ministet-tory-party-a7955256.html

demfad

demfad wrote: »

https://waitingfortax.com/2017/09/18/16188/

Excellent blog post by Jocelyn Maugham QC, one of the top Barristers in the UK, who people may remember from the Dublin case about reversibility of A50.....The background to this is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/07/the-great-british-brexit-robbery-hijacked-democracy

From the background article above:

Who are AggregateIQ?

"AggregateIQ, an obscure web analytics company based in an office above a shop in Victoria, British Columbia."

Anything else?

It was with AggregateIQ that Vote Leave (the official Leave campaign) chose to spend £3.9m, more than half its official £7m campaign budget. As did three other affiliated Leave campaigns: BeLeave, Veterans for Britain and the Democratic Unionist party, spending a further £757,750.

So what?

“Coordination” between campaigns is prohibited under UK electoral law, unless campaign expenditure is declared, jointly. It wasn’t.

Ok, But Official Leave spent most of their dough on these guys. Who are they really?

"Almost all of their contracts came from Cambridge Analytica or Mercer. They wouldn’t exist without them.....AggregateIQ built and ran Cambridge Analytica’s database platforms"

Who are Cambridge Analytica again?

Big Data company: worked on Ted Cruz in the primaries, and for Donald Trump. Owned by Robert Mercer who jointly owns Breitbart news. Steve Bannon (ex Chief Stategist for DJT) was VP of Cambridge Analytica and was/is CEO of Breitbart. They also helped the UKIP campaign leave.EU to the tune of a big sum but nothing was paid apparently as Farage and Mercer are 'old friends'.

Maybe AggregateIQ were working independently of Cambridge?

Unlikely: "Aggregate IQ signed away its intellectual property (IP). It didn’t own its IP: Robert Mercer did. For AggregateIQ to work with another campaign in Britain, the firm would have to have had the express permission of Mercer"

Wow, anything else on this Mercer guy?

Yes. He seems to be pretty big into the propganda. As well as being one of the richest men in the world, he is one of its cleverest computer scientists. He controls a pretty vast network for amplifying and disseminating 'information'. This is how it works. https://scout.ai/story/the-rise-of-the-weaponized-ai-propaganda-machine

Has he used this in any way?

Cambridge Analytica are now a central part of Muellers Trump-Russia probe.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/jared-kushner-data-operation-russia-facebook.
Mueller also got a search warrant for Facebook . The silent and not so silent implication is that Cambridge Analytica coordinated with Russia to microtarget voters via Facebook in swing States.


But, but..what about Brexit?

It looks like Vote Leave set up extra mini campaigns to bypass electoral rules on spending. This is a criminal offence. That is bad enough, extremely bad. How the money was spent amazingly could be worse.
All leave campaigns paid monies to AggregateIQ, the official leave campaign 'Vote Leave' paid them £3.9m out of its £7m allowance. This looks like a back payment for Cambridge Analytica who have denied all involvement in Brexit. We can assume Cambridge Analytica put the Brexit lies into the microtargetted Facebook posts that needed to see them. But what about the Russian connection? We know they were about Brexit: Here is just one Russian agent with 100,000 followers retweetd by many Brexiters including Farage: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/thousands-of-twitter-users-deceived-by-russian-agent-david-jones-bv0c2ssj5
Did Cambridge coordinate with Russian operatives to put fake news/disinformation/information in Voters social media accounts, voters who were micro targetted by Cambridge for specific messaging.

This sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory though? Could it be possible?
After a long US FBI investigation Cambridge Analytica, Facebook, twitter etc are being looked into for exactly this. The exact same actors were very much in play in Brexit. It warrants investigating I would say.

Is it being investigated?

The UK electoral commission seem to have reprehensibly accepted Vote Leave's excuses about campaign coordination.
There doesn't seem to be ANY UK investigation into Russian meddling even though Brexit was Russian foreign policy and Russia is in the midst of a hybrid war against the west including election subversion. There has been some comment from UK Intelligence:

This article is the subject of legal complaints on behalf of Cambridge Analytica LLC and SCL Elections Limited.
“The connectivity that is the heart of globalisation can be exploited by states with hostile intent to further their aims.[…] The risks at stake are profound and represent a fundamental threat to our sovereignty.”
Alex Younger, head of MI6, December, 2016

“It’s not MI6’s job to warn of internal threats. It was a very strange speech. Was it one branch of the intelligence services sending a shot across the bows of another? Or was it pointed at Theresa May’s government? Does she know something she’s not telling us?”
Senior intelligence analyst, April 2017

breatheme

solodeogloria wrote: »

I'm skipping the border enforcement bit as I've been crystal clear on this.

You have consistently a lot of questions asked:
- Will EU Citizens be able to travel to the UK just on their ID card, without the need of a passport?
- If that is the case, will they be able to remain in the UK indefinitely?
- If not, will it be mandatory to fly from NI to the UK with a passport?

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

They have no interest in allowing an exit on favourable terms. But, if an exit is to happen at all, they do have an interest in it happening quickly, and with minimal disruption or cost to the EU and the EU-27. Since a cliff-edge Brexit would be disruptive, they'll prefer to avoid that, and since a trade deal which includes a little bit of sugar for the UK can be negotiated more quickly than one which doesn't, they won't push their bargaining advantage over the UK to the limit. They'll give a little bit more than they need to, strictly speaking, in order to remain on friendly terms with the UK and to conclude a deal sooner rather than later, both of which are in the EU's interests.

The thing is the FTA is a great diversion but ultimately irrelevant. You see the real deal is the certification of the product as Canadian companies found out. Day 1 of Brexit every single product certified by a UK entity will no longer meet EU standards! That means full control to be redone by a certified EU company again on EVERYTHING! Take for example veterinary checks, this has a minimum 6 months review period before they can be accepted as per EU law even if UK law matches 100% and since UK is a third party any leeway would now apply to the rest of the world.

That is where the real pain will hit the UK, they can lower standards on imports but EU has very strict requirements which has to apply equally to all third party countries. Day 1 those standards now need a EU seal of approval and UK seals are useless. Say hello to border sample checks on every truck from UK for months...

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

In any case, take any trade deal that the EU has at the moment, if the UK gets a trade deal with a country that already has a EU trade deal, but the terms leave them slightly worse off than before, is that the price to pay for control?

What I am asking, are you happy that people will be worse off just to have a illusion of control.

Good evening!

You've asked me a loaded question. Kind of like "are you still beating your wife?". The assumption is that you're beating your wife in the first place!

The assumption in yours is that the UK can't negotiate and maintain existing trading arrangements. Can you please explain why you believe that with evidence? What we've seen the last few weeks is that Canada isn't just happy to discuss continuing trade with the UK on the same basis but on improving that. Japan is equally keen to see it's arrangements apply to the UK. There's no evidence at all to suggest that existing trade partners aren't keen to continue trading on the same basis.

My position still stands. The challenge is about ensuring that as much trade is maintained between the EU and existing trade partners while liberalising trade terms with other countries. It's two sided.

In theory if terms were tightened in respect to the EU and other countries it wouldn't be an issue if trade was expanded with other major trading partners to compensate for it.

Now, do I believe the UK can't maintain third country deals after Brexit? Of course I don't. The assumption needs to be backed up. The fans of Euro-federalism consistently and repeatedly underestimate the UK's standing in the world. We'll see that the UK doesn't need the EU to be a successful country. I'm certain of it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You've asked me a loaded question. Kind of like "are you still beating your wife?". The assumption is that you're beating your wife in the first place!

The assumption in yours is that the UK can't negotiate and maintain existing trading arrangements. Can you please explain why you believe that with evidence? What we've seen the last few weeks is that Canada isn't just happy to discuss continuing trade with the UK on the same basis but on improving that. Japan is equally keen to see it's arrangements apply to the UK. There's no evidence at all to suggest that existing trade partners aren't keen to continue trading on the same basis.

My position still stands. The challenge is about ensuring that as much trade is maintained between the EU and existing trade partners while liberalising trade terms with other countries. It's two sided.

In theory if terms were tightened in respect to the EU and other countries it wouldn't be an issue if trade was expanded with other major trading partners to compensate for it.

Now, do I believe the UK can't maintain third country deals after Brexit? Of course I don't. The assumption needs to be backed up. The fans of Euro-federalism consistently and repeatedly underestimate the UK's standing in the world. We'll see that the UK doesn't need the EU to succeed. I'm certain of it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I suppose the evidence would be the failure of the UK to negotiate trading terms. They've been unable to get past the divorce bill and/or the border problem. Ireland will likely block progression onto trade terms.

mountaintop

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

You've asked me a loaded question. Kind of like "are you still beating your wife?". The assumption is that you're beating your wife in the first place!

The assumption in yours is that the UK can't negotiate and maintain existing trading arrangements. Can you please explain why you believe that with evidence? What we've seen the last few weeks is that Canada isn't just happy to discuss continuing trade with the UK on the same basis but on improving that. Japan is equally keen to see it's arrangements apply to the UK. There's no evidence at all to suggest that existing trade partners aren't keen to continue trading on the same basis.

My position still stands. The challenge is about ensuring that as much trade is maintained between the EU and existing trade partners while liberalising trade terms with other countries. It's two sided.

In theory if terms were tightened in respect to the EU and other countries it wouldn't be an issue if trade was expanded with other major trading partners to compensate for it.

Now, do I believe the UK can't maintain third country deals after Brexit? Of course I don't. The assumption needs to be backed up. The fans of Euro-federalism consistently and repeatedly underestimate the UK's standing in the world. We'll see that the UK doesn't need the EU to succeed. I'm certain of it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I can't get over what I believe to be nonsense wrapped up in jargon. It really is simple: the vote to leave was because of immigration and the leave voters pinned all their frustrations and angst on this. It is a guarantee, when Britain cuts great deals with the rest of the world, when they have control of their borders again, when the rain only falls at night, nothing will have changed. Their problems will remain, but only worse. Why can't they forget their narrow view of nationalism and embrace a union of nations that has brought peace and prosperity to the entire continent? Viva l'Europe

Igotadose

mountaintop wrote: »

Why can't they forget their narrow view of nationalism and embrace a union of nations that has brought peace and prosperity to the entire continent? Viva l'Europe

Racism. Fear of different - people speaking different languages. White supremacy as described well here talking about Trump, but the Brexit phenomena has a lot in common with it (non-UK EU nationals moving in and taking over, etc.): https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-first-white-president-ta-nehisi-coates/537909/

This quote could apply to Farage and the other Leave ringleaders: "Trump’s Brexit's legacy will be exposing the patina of decency for what it is and revealing just how much a demagogue can get away with"

solodeogloria

mountaintop wrote: »

I can't get over what I believe to be nonsense wrapped up in jargon. It really is simple: the vote to leave was because of immigration and the leave voters pinned all their frustrations and angst on this. It is a guarantee, when Britain cuts great deals with the rest of the world, when they have control of their borders again, when the rain only falls at night, nothing will have changed. Their problems will remain, but only worse. Why can't they forget their narrow view of nationalism and embrace a union of nations that has brought peace and prosperity to the entire continent? Viva l'Europe

Good evening!

I think your last question is a very rose tinted view.

There's no need to rehash the referendum. The British people clearly voted to leave by a margin of 1,269,501 votes. The task at hand is implementing this referendum result in the best way possible.

Rejoining the EU is off the cards - at least at the time of asking. Any campaign that would take place would have to convince the people that there are genuine positive reasons for rejoining.

Most people don't want to be in a bloc which seems to have an ever increasing and dangerous ambition to be a United States of Europe. The British people voted for taking back control and that's what's going to happen.

Voting remain wasn't voting for the status quo. I was wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

mountaintop wrote: »

I can't get over what I believe to be nonsense wrapped up in jargon. It really is simple: the vote to leave was because of immigration and the leave voters pinned all their frustrations and angst on this. It is a guarantee, when Britain cuts great deals with the rest of the world, when they have control of their borders again, when the rain only falls at night, nothing will have changed. Their problems will remain, but only worse. Why can't they forget their narrow view of nationalism and embrace a union of nations that has brought peace and prosperity to the entire continent? Viva l'Europe

From the Lord Ashcroft polls:

Lord Ashcroft wrote:

Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”

mountaintop

Bye bye to all in Britain. I hope you enjoy your holidays in Skegness, your warm beer, your never ending reminiscing about the Empire and the Battle of Britain. I'm sure you will get on fine without the EU. Why you ever joined in the first place I'll never know. I believe there is a possibility for a trade deal with New Guinea for frozen Hake. The world is your's to conquer again! Sally ho....

Capt'n Midnight

Gerry T wrote: »

Agh but the UK will write their own laws, so might bring one in to deport a person "just because" one of the perks of brexit.

So far the UK hasn't offered any concessions to EU nationals.

Until they do the rules for staying are the same as for any third party UK resident. And they have loopholes to get rid of undesirables. Or deny passports to former UK citizens who have to take , for example , a Dutch passport to stay in the EU.

Sand

mountaintop wrote: »

I can't get over what I believe to be nonsense wrapped up in jargon. It really is simple: the vote to leave was because of immigration and the leave voters pinned all their frustrations and angst on this. It is a guarantee, when Britain cuts great deals with the rest of the world, when they have control of their borders again, when the rain only falls at night, nothing will have changed. Their problems will remain, but only worse. Why can't they forget their narrow view of nationalism and embrace a union of nations that has brought peace and prosperity to the entire continent? Viva l'Europe

In fairness, its a perfectly valid objective to opt out of that union and prioritise sovereignty within the boundaries of the nation-state. I don't agree with that objective, but its hardly incredible that people value a closer accountability of government over and beyond simple prosperity. Especially in an era when that prosperity is largely accrued by less and less people. Especially when the wider EU is seen to hinder or undermine broader security - the 2015 breakdown of EU borders and security was not reassuring to anyone concerned about pooling sovereignty with leaders like Merkel.

Of course, I sincerely doubt we will see democratic reform within the UK itself. Nor do I expect the UK to seriously address any of the causes of frustration with immigration within the UK itself.

And the UK's attempt to have its cake and eat it is risible. They established their priorities, and there is consequences.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

So far the UK hasn't offered any concessions to EU nationals.

Until they do the rules for staying are the same as for any third party UK resident. And they have loopholes to get rid of undesirables. Or deny passports to former UK citizens who have to take , for example , a Dutch passport to stay in the EU.

Good evening!

If this was true, it might be helpful, but it isn't true.

The UK's proposals for "settled status" for EU citizens is significantly better than the visa regime for third countries. It is disingenuous to say otherwise.

The UK and the EU have together agreed that EU citizens who remain under the settled status criteria can have access to public funds, welfare, and healthcare. This isn't true of third country nationals. The EU and UK have been clear that they will continue to recognise the EHIC of British or EU citizens who live in their respective countries. This was one of the lesser shouted about pieces of progress from the August discussions.

The UK has made a lot of concessions to the EU on the status of those who are already there. To claim otherwise is being dishonest.

You know the thing about Dutch passports is because of the law in the Netherlands about dual nationality and not the law in the UK right? UK citizenship won't be required to accept "settled status" in any case.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

mountaintop

Sand wrote: »

In fairness, its a perfectly valid objective to opt out of that union and prioritise sovereignty within the boundaries of the nation-state. I don't agree with that objective, but its hardly incredible that people value a closer accountability of government over and beyond simple prosperity. Especially in an era when that prosperity is largely accrued by less and less people. Especially when the wider EU is seen to hinder or undermine broader security - the 2015 breakdown of EU borders and security was not reassuring to anyone concerned about pooling sovereignty with leaders like Merkel.

Of course, I sincerely doubt we will see democratic reform within the UK itself. Nor do I expect the UK to seriously address any of the causes of frustration with immigration within the UK itself.

And the UK's attempt to have its cake and eat it is risible. They established their priorities, and there is consequences.

What is Britain anyway but a collection of states ruled by London (devolution besides). The benefits of EU membership far outweigh the negatives. Any negatives can be replicated in the U.K. political arena,i.e. lack of accountability, faceless bureaucrats, etc etc. The poll tax was imposed by a Tory government, not Europe. There are many such examples. Europe they say is the problem. It's not.

Sand

mountaintop wrote: »

What is Britain anyway but a collection of states ruled by London (devolution besides). The benefits of EU membership far outweigh the negatives. Any negatives can be replicated in the U.K. political arena,i.e. lack of accountability, faceless bureaucrats, etc etc. The poll tax was imposed by a Tory government, not Europe. There are many such examples. Europe they say is the problem. It's not.

I agree, but you're making it sound like the natural inclination for people's loyalties and common identity is to extend to the largest possible space. Its not. It takes centuries of manipulation and propaganda to instill a common sense of purpose and even so people today largely wont fight for their country, despise their governments and resent paying taxes to better their fellow citizen. Its entirely natural for people not to sign up to the EU vision, because they don't feel a common cause with someone living in Sweden or Romania or Portugal and haven't benefited from centuries of indoctrination yet. On the reverse the UK has so its not inexplicable they can accept the UK identity, but reject the European identity.

Common interests are one thing, but the goal of the EU is more than common interests. The EU's strong adherence to the four freedoms is a clear sign of this.

Junkyard Tom

I'd like to see the EU relocate a big institution like the European Medicines Agency, with its 900 staff, to Ireland to help offset any potential harm that we may feel from a cliff-edge Brexit.

breatheme

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK and the EU have together agreed that EU citizens who remain under the settled status criteria can have access to public funds, welfare, and healthcare. This isn't true of third country nationals. The EU and UK have been clear that they will continue to recognise the EHIC of British or EU citizens who live in their respective countries. This was one of the lesser shouted about pieces of progress from the August discussions.

The UK has made a lot of concessions to the EU on the status of those who are already there. To claim otherwise is being dishonest.

There's also the fact that the UK has to make concessions to EU citizens in the UK, because whatever they do will be mirrored towards the UK citizens in the EU. I'm not impressed, Britain.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

If this was true, it might be helpful, but it isn't true.

The UK's proposals for "settled status" for EU citizens is significantly better than the visa regime for third countries. It is disingenuous to say otherwise . . .

Well, no. It’s significantly better than the visa regime for some third countries. On the other hand, it’s significantly worse than the regime EU citizens already enjoy.

“Settled status” isn’t a novel concept in UK immigration law; it has been around for decades. Basically, you have settled status if you are resident in the UK and either (a) you are an Irish citizen, or (b) you have a “right of abode” (another long-established concept in the UK immigration regime; among other groups, all British citizens and many Commonwealth citizens have the right of abode) OR (c) you have indefinite leave to remain.

The proposal is that EU citizens can apply for indefinite leave to remain (and therefore settled status) after five years continuous residence in the UK. But there’s already a wide range of people who are entitled to apply for ILR after five years residence, and indeed there are various categories of people who can apply after 4 years residence, after 2 years residence or with no residence requirement at all, so it’s not as though the suggested treatment for EU citizens is uniquely generous.

In particular, it’s not that generous to EU citizens who arrive in the UK after Brexit. Those already in the UK at B-day will be allowed to stay to complete their five year’s residence period, and then apply for ILR. But those arriving after B-day don’t have a right to stay and complete five years’ residence; within two years they must either obtain for a work permit (which they won’t necessarily get) or leave the UK. There's nothing "uniquely generous" about this.

prinzeugen

mountaintop wrote: »

What is Britain anyway but a collection of states ruled by London (devolution besides). The benefits of EU membership far outweigh the negatives. Any negatives can be replicated in the U.K. political arena,i.e. lack of accountability, faceless bureaucrats, etc etc. The poll tax was imposed by a Tory government, not Europe. There are many such examples. Europe they say is the problem. It's not.

The UK is a group of territories with a common government. London does not "rule".

And the poll tax?? Everyone is paying it now. Its called council tax. How else is stuff going to be paid for.

The EU has done more harm than good. Coming up to Halloween take this example.

Kids wearing costumes that are highly flammable. Would never have been allowed on sale under the old British Kitemark but shops are forced to sell them as the are " safe" under EU law and EU law says they can not refuse to sell them.

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

The UK is a group of territories with a common government. London does not "rule".

And the poll tax?? Everyone is paying it now. Its called council tax. How else is stuff going to be paid for.

The poll tax was a tax per head. Council tax is a tax on properties, based on property values. Big, big difference.

prinzeugen wrote: »

The EU has done more harm than good. Coming up to Halloween take this example.

Kids wearing costumes that are highly flammable. Would never have been allowed on sale under the old British Kitemark but shops are forced to sell them as the are " safe" under EU law and EU law says they can not refuse to sell them.

Nonsense on a stick. EU law does not require shops to sell anything at all, and certainly does not require them to sell goods which they do not wish to sell.

You also appear to misunderstand the Kitemark system. The "old British Kitemark" is still around; it has not been at all affected by EU law. The claim that in the past costumes like these "would never have been allowed on sale under the old British Kitemark" is false; UK law never required products to carry the Kitemark, or prohibited the sale of products not carrying it.

The actual facts of the case are the complete opposite of what you think. The Kitemark system does not, and never did, involve any mandatory safety standards at all. Manufacturers could, and still can, have their products kitemarked if they comply with BSI standards, but this has never been a reqruirement for sale. It's only EU law which has introduced actual mandatory safety standards.

I don't know what Brexity website you're getting your information from, Eugen, but you probably should stop reading it. They're not being honest with you.

Samaris

When you even think about that allegation for a moment - especially combined with all the giving out about EU 'elf and safety laws - that whole proposition makes very little sense.

Roundabouts can't go faster than 15kmph (or whatever it is), but children MUST WEAR FLAMMABLE COSTUMES AT HALLOWEEN.

Zubeneschamali

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

From the Lord Ashcroft polls:

I think this reflects reality a lot better than some of the posters here who are now defending Brexit.

Virtually nobody voted Brexit because of the economic benefits. This makes sense, because there aren't any - it is going to cost the UK an Imperial Ton of money, between barriers to trade, loss of inward investment, devaluation and inflation.

Sovereignty, control and boo-sucks to the EU superstate are the real reasons for Brexit, and there is very little point in us explaining to Solo that Brexit will cost the UK 6% of GDP or whatever. The actual Brexit voters think the price will be worth paying.

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

In particular, it’s not that generous to EU citizens who arrive in the UK after Brexit. Those already in the UK at B-day will be allowed to stay to complete their five year’s residence period, and then apply for ILR. But those arriving after B-day don’t have a right to stay and complete five years’ residence; within two years they must either obtain for a work permit (which they won’t necessarily get) or leave the UK. There's nothing "uniquely generous" about this.

Good morning!

I agree. It isn't intended to be easier for those arriving after Brexit because the Government wants to control immigration from the EU. However, offering those here the permanent right to stay is generous when one thinks about what they could have proposed.

As for the Lord Ashcroft poll. I voted remain for the top reason on the remain side. I now support leaving for all three reasons on the leave side plus trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I agree. It isn't intended to be easier for those arriving after Brexit because the Government wants to control immigration from the EU. However, offering those here the permanent right to stay is generous when one thinks about what they could have proposed.

Well, not really, since to stay the five years they'll first of all have to get a work visa, and as far as I see third country nationals who get a work visa and stay for five years can already apply for ILR.

What you're saying is that it's "generous" to treat EU nationals in the same way as third country nationals, given that the UK could have proposed to treat them worse.

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the Lord Ashcroft poll. I voted remain for the top reason on the remain side. I now support leaving for all three reasons on the leave side plus trade policy.

I wouldn't be admitting this if I were you, solo. The point about Lord Ashcroft's third reason on the leave side is that it's flat-out wrong. Enlargement of the EU and/or the expansion of its powers can only be effected by treaty, and as a member the UK has a veto over treaties. (As a non-member, of course, it has no say at all, so if it's desirable for the UK to have a say about this then the rational choice is remain, not leave.)

As for trade policy, I have asked you many times to point me towards an analysis suggesting that the UK can acheive a more prosperous trading relationship with the world on its own than it can as an EU member, and you've never responded. This looks like the purest wishful thinking on your part.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, not really, since to stay the five years they'll first of all have to get a work visa, and as far as I see third country nationals who get a work visa and stay for five years can already apply for ILR.

What you're saying is that it's "generous" to treat EU nationals in the same way as third country nationals, given that the UK could have proposed to treat them worse.

Pretty much everyone who came before Brexit day will have the right to settled status. To those who don't have five years accrued there will be a grace period. In and of itself that is better than Tier 2 General criteria. There is no restriction on earnings. There is no restriction in respect to accessing the NHS or recourse to public funds.

It isn't true to suggest that EU citizens here today will not have a significant advantage to those who have Tier 2 visas. For the latter there is always the risk that their visas will not be continued before they leave. The vast majority of those I know who work as IT Consultants in India are sent back to India before they reach 5 years.

It isn't true to say that the terms given under "settled status" are not preferential. EU citizens living in the UK today (others will have to comply to the same rules as everyone else because free movement will end) will be able to get indefinite leave to remain far more easily (without the risk of not being able to renew a visa) than their non-EU counterparts with continued recourse to public funds whilst waiting for it (Tier 2 General prohibits this).

Peregrinus wrote: »

I wouldn't be admitting this if I were you, solo. The point about Lord Ashcroft's third reason on the leave side is that it's flat-out wrong. Enlargement of the EU and/or the expansion of its powers can only be effected by treaty, and as a member the UK has a veto over treaties. (As a non-member, of course, it has no say at all, so if it's desirable for the UK to have a say about this then the rational choice is remain, not leave.)

The point is that the British public didn't want to be a part of a union which has a dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Voting out is the best way to ensure that you won't be a part of that.

Peregrinus wrote: »

As for trade policy, I have asked you many times to point me towards an analysis suggesting that the UK can acheive a more prosperous trading relationship with the world on its own than it can as an EU member, and you've never responded. This looks like the purest wishful thinking on your part.

I've responded to this thread many times explaining why I believe more liberal trade terms with other countries could benefit the UK. I linked to an article in The Telegraph with an excerpt of a book by two economists explaining the economic benefits of taking control of trade policy amongst other things.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've responded to this thread many times explaining why I believe more liberal trade terms with other countries could benefit the UK. I linked to an article in The Telegraph with an excerpt of a book by two economists explaining the economic benefits of taking control of trade policy amongst other things.

No, you've responded by asserting that you believe that the UK will be "more nimble" and can negotiate better trade terms, but you haven't offered - that I saw -
any coherent reasons for believing that. You evidently didn't believe it 15 months ago, and I still don't know why you have changed your mind.

I must have missed your post linking to the Telegraph article about the economists, for which I apologise; can you link to it again? I tried googling, but all I found was this article urging that we should ignore everything the economists have to say.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you've responded by asserting that you believe that the UK will be "more nimble" and can negotiate better trade terms, but you haven't offered - that I saw -
any coherent reasons for believing that. You evidently didn't believe it 15 months ago, and I still don't know why you have changed your mind.

I must have missed your post linking to the Telegraph article about the economists, for which I apologise; can you link to it again? I tried googling, but all I found was this article urging that we should ignore everything the economists have to say.

Here is the article,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/16/biggest-problem-soft-brexit-not-attainable/

Its just a re-hash of why the UK should leave the EU, easier trade deals and the UK is at the front of the queue for trade deals. How trade has gone from 60% with the EU to around 40%. A factor that trade has lessened with the EU to other countries because of the EU trade deals is not looked at (is that a factor at all). But this is playing with figures, trade has increased with the EU in money terms, but in terms of overall trade it is down. So the UK has more trade in money terms with the EU than before, but they are trading more with other countries outside of the EU at the same time.

Seems a good thing to me, and I wait in anticipation for anyone to show me how trade would have been better if the UK wasn't in the EU in that same time period.

mountaintop

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the article,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/16/biggest-problem-soft-brexit-not-attainable/

Its just a re-hash of why the UK should leave the EU, easier trade deals and the UK is at the front of the queue for trade deals. How trade has gone from 60% with the EU to around 40%. A factor that trade has lessened with the EU to other countries because of the EU trade deals is not looked at (is that a factor at all). But this is playing with figures, trade has increased with the EU in money terms, but in terms of overall trade it is down. So the UK has more trade in money terms with the EU than before, but they are trading more with other countries outside of the EU at the same time.

Seems a good thing to me, and I wait in anticipation for anyone to show me how trade would have been better if the UK wasn't in the EU in that same time period.

I agree fully with this. And in reply, can the illusionists please stop using the fallacy that 90% of world trade within fifteen years will be outside the EU. It's 90% of the increase in world trade, about 90% of 4%, and that's a figure which could change. Also, another fallacy that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, because 27 nations combined (naturally) will have a trade surplus with any one nation: that's because they're a combined 27 economies of course. But break it down and when you do, you will see that Ireland, for example, is Britain's fifth biggest EXPORT market. Yes, that's EXPORT, not IMPORT.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I agree. It isn't intended to be easier for those arriving after Brexit because the Government wants to control immigration from the EU. However, offering those here the permanent right to stay is generous when one thinks about what they could have proposed.

As for the Lord Ashcroft poll. I voted remain for the top reason on the remain side. I now support leaving for all three reasons on the leave side plus trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not generous at all. The EU is home to a million Brits, many of whom are retired elderly people who have higher dependency on medical services. The NHS is already stretched. The UK needs to be generous to EU nationals in the UK or their own expats will be coming home in droves.

Anyway... the UK needs the labour, for now.

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Pretty much everyone who came before Brexit day will have the right to settled status. To those who don't have five years accrued there will be a grace period. In and of itself that is better than Tier 2 General criteria. There is no restriction on earnings. There is no restriction in respect to accessing the NHS or recourse to public funds.

It isn't true to suggest that EU citizens here today will not have a significant advantage to those who have Tier 2 visas. For the latter there is always the risk that their visas will not be continued before they leave. The vast majority of those I know who work as IT Consultants in India are sent back to India before they reach 5 years.

It isn't true to say that the terms given under "settled status" are not preferential. EU citizens living in the UK today (others will have to comply to the same rules as everyone else because free movement will end) will be able to get indefinite leave to remain far more easily (without the risk of not being able to renew a visa) than their non-EU counterparts with continued recourse to public funds whilst waiting for it (Tier 2 General prohibits this).

Well, since all of this is still only at the proposal stage...then I can equally claim that this is all well and good, until Ms Rudd -or her replacement- bows to MSM-whipped popular sentiment in the same usual way as the past 18+ months, and does an about-turn about any and all of this under Henri VIII powers post-March 2019.

In that context, I don't think you've acquainted yourself with the UK's leaked immigration policy post-Brexit. I doubt that they reflect Ms May's political wishes. Equally however, I don't doubt that they reflect the political wishes of the harder Tory line looking to replace her with Davis or Johnson before too long.

Nor do I think that, as an Irish living in the UK (if I'm not mistaken?) and benefitting from all advantages under the UK-IE bilateral freedom of movement as a given, you've given much thought about how such policy changes could impact the lives of long-settled non-Irish EU immigrants. So much in terms of balance of power in employment contexts, as continuing access to credit/mortgages, continuing access to healthcare and other public services (what will be left of them), continuing this-that-the other, each and every one of which has the potential to upend someone's life overnight at the stroke of a decree'ing pen.

Political debate and lofty ideals are all well and good, until you stop every now and then to take stock of what effects others' ongoing choices can have on your own situation in Real Life: what if the HO refuses me IRL? I]as they have repeatedly done, and still are, to EU immigrants longer-settled than me[/I

Then we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, because I'm the EU immigrant bringing in 6 figures, but my British wife 'only' brings in a lot of love, so under third-party national rules, she can't support me and therefore I'm out.

Personally, I've given it a good year from the referendum, now. But the way things still are, and looking like -generally, professionally and personally- it's not a risk I'm willing to run anymore. I'm currently interviewing to GTFO. Stat. I'm fresh out of f**** to give, and I'm not re-stocking anymore.

This is playing out at the micro-economical level, exactly like the macro level: accidentally or purposefully, the UK has been making all the wrong noises to get rid of me [ND: most EU immigrants, by the regular reading of expatriates' forums...and we're not talking fruit pickers here], instead of looking after its goodwill and resources to maintain activity levels post-Brexit.

So now the UK can do without my economical activity and support my secretary when they make her redundant. I've just finished conducting performance reviews and more recently signed off on the 2016 accounts, so I know that my departure will put the business into the red, unless they shed another one or two loss-making fee earners (and their secretaries) whom my co-Director and I have been carrying all along.

See, EU immigrants can vote about this whole Brexit thing after all: with their feet.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the article,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/16/biggest-problem-soft-brexit-not-attainable/

Mmm. I'm unimpressed. They note that the EU has no trade deal with the US, China, India or Japan, while not discussing why this might be so, or what the trade policies of those countries are, or their attitudes to trade agreements. They also omit to mention (and are perhaps unaware?) that the EU is currently negotiating agreements with the US and India. And they assert or assume that the UK will be able to negotiate trade agreements where the EU has so far failed, without any exploration of why this is taken to be so.

And they rhetorically ask "If the single market is so good for the UK, why do we trade less with the EU than with the rest of the world? Why is our EU trade shrinking and our non-EU trade expanding?" without offering the correct and obvious answer; because developing economies develop faster than developed economies. If they think that this is going to be in any way altered, for good or ill, by Brexit, they do not say why.

This is not really the kind of analysis I had in mind; I was hoping for something a bit more robust. If solodeogloria finds this persuasive, I don't see why.

A bit of googling tells me that Liam Halligan is a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph and Gerard Lyons is an adviser to Boris Johnson. So, maybe not entirely dispassionate in their approach, then.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

It's not generous at all. The EU is home to a million Brits, many of whom are retired elderly people who have higher dependency on medical services. The NHS is already stretched. The UK needs to be generous to EU nationals in the UK or their own expats will be coming home in droves.

Anyway... the UK needs the labour, for now.

This is a misconception in the case of pensioners, the rule on medical services is as follows: unless you are a citizen of the member state you are resident in, the member state paying the bulk of your pension is also responsible for the cost of your medical services.

For instance if I were to retire to Ireland I could avail of the public health services, but if I retire to any other EU/EEA/CH country I must continue to pay Swiss health insurance as Switzerland has no public health services.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think this reflects reality a lot better than some of the posters here who are now defending Brexit.

Virtually nobody voted Brexit because of the economic benefits. This makes sense, because there aren't any - it is going to cost the UK an Imperial Ton of money, between barriers to trade, loss of inward investment, devaluation and inflation.

Sovereignty, control and boo-sucks to the EU superstate are the real reasons for Brexit, and there is very little point in us explaining to Solo that Brexit will cost the UK 6% of GDP or whatever. The actual Brexit voters think the price will be worth paying.

Obviously in the modern world resources and rules have to be pooled, air traffic being an obvious example but many abound, trade obviously. That's modernity.
It is tempting for local politicians (particularly acute in UK) to blame the EU for its own failings. After decades of this amplified by the media there was a base for a serious Brexit campaign.
Genuine thoughtful Brexiters (although still influenced by nationalism IMO) want to remove the political influence of Brussels while minimising economic impact. EFTA clearly their preference.
The hard Brexiters paint Brexit as some kind of a liberation against foreign tyranny. The pushers of this, millionaire posh educated Tories, hardly believe it but its populism is useful.
A responsible UK govt taking advice from its people to Brexit could not go harder than EFTA.

Jim2007

mountaintop wrote: »

I agree fully with this. And in reply, can the illusionists please stop using the fallacy that 90% of world trade within fifteen years will be outside the EU. It's 90% of the increase in world trade, about 90% of 4%, and that's a figure which could change. Also, another fallacy that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, because 27 nations combined (naturally) will have a trade surplus with any one nation: that's because they're a combined 27 economies of course. But break it down and when you do, you will see that Ireland, for example, is Britain's fifth biggest EXPORT market. Yes, that's EXPORT, not IMPORT.

I don't think it matters where the growth is or isn't the fact is that the U.K. has failed to produce a positive balance of trade in over 25 years and this despite having preferential treatment to a large relatively wealthy market.

There is nothing there to suggest U.K. firms have the skills or the attitude required to open up and develop new markets after BREXIT. Even the simple argument that EU red tape is holding them back pales in comparison to dealing with the red tape involved in trading via multiple agreements.

solodeogloria

ambro25 wrote: »

Well, since all of this is still only at the proposal stage...then I can equally claim that this is all well and good, until Ms Rudd -or her replacement- bows to MSM-whipped popular sentiment in the same usual way as the past 18+ months, and does an about-turn about any and all of this under Henri VIII powers post-March 2019.

In that context, I don't think you've acquainted yourself with the UK's leaked immigration policy post-Brexit. I doubt that they reflect Ms May's political wishes. Equally however, I don't doubt that they reflect the political wishes of the harder Tory line looking to replace her with Davis or Johnson before too long.

Nor do I think that, as an Irish living in the UK (if I'm not mistaken?) and benefitting from all advantages under the UK-IE bilateral freedom of movement as a given, you've given much thought about how such policy changes could impact the lives of long-settled non-Irish EU immigrants. So much in terms of balance of power in employment contexts, as continuing access to credit/mortgages, continuing access to healthcare and other public services (what will be left of them), continuing this-that-the other, each and every one of which has the potential to upend someone's life overnight at the stroke of a decree'ing pen.

Political debate and lofty ideals are all well and good, until you stop every now and then to take stock of what effects others' ongoing choices can have on your own situation in Real Life: what if the HO refuses me IRL? I]as they have repeatedly done, and still are, to EU immigrants longer-settled than me[/I

Then we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, because I'm the EU immigrant bringing in 6 figures, but my British wife 'only' brings in a lot of love, so under third-party national rules, she can't support me and therefore I'm out.

Personally, I've given it a good year from the referendum, now. But the way things still are, and looking like -generally, professionally and personally- it's not a risk I'm willing to run anymore. I'm currently interviewing to GTFO. Stat. I'm fresh out of f**** to give, and I'm not re-stocking anymore.

This is playing out at the micro-economical level, exactly like the macro level: accidentally or purposefully, the UK has been making all the wrong noises to get rid of me [ND: most EU immigrants, by the regular reading of expatriates' forums...and we're not talking fruit pickers here], instead of looking after its goodwill and resources to maintain activity levels post-Brexit.

So now the UK can do without my economical activity and support my secretary when they make her redundant. I've just finished conducting performance reviews and more recently signed off on the 2016 accounts, so I know that my departure will put the business into the red, unless they shed another one or two loss-making fee earners (and their secretaries) whom my co-Director and I have been carrying all along.

See, EU immigrants can vote about this whole Brexit thing after all: with their feet.

Good morning!

Obviously I agree people can decide with their feet. But I think most of your fears are unfounded.

Firstly - settled status grants continued access to employment. It provides eligibility to work.

Secondly - access to credit is ensured provided you can provide proof of continued residence in the country. Non-EU colleagues I know have applied for mortgages on this basis, and on the basis of EU citizenship I applied for a mortgage post-Brexit last year. All lenders care about is continued residency rights if you're seeking a residential mortgage.

Thirdly - continued access to healthcare and public services has been agreed.

Fourthly - the comments about your right to stay being contingent on your wife is also wrong.

The fact that so many people have liked this baseless fearmongering is also a worrying sign. It shows that people aren't committed to an honest debate on the basis of what Britain has actually proposed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

But I think most of your fears are unfounded.

There's a surprise.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - settled status grants continued access to employment. It provides eligibility to work.

And reciprocally, not having it means no right to work, short of a working visa with an expiry date.

So what have you got with either of the above? Free and enormous leverage for the employer to name their terms for renewing an employment contract, which is required to maintain that settled status or renewing a working visa with an expiry date.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - access to credit is ensured provided you can provide proof of continued residence in the country. Non-EU colleagues I know have applied for mortgages on this basis, and on the basis of EU citizenship I applied for a mortgage post-Brexit last year. All lenders care about is continued residency rights if you're seeking a residential mortgage.

and earnings, perchance? See reply to your first point in that respect.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - continued access to healthcare and public services has been agreed.

Has it?

I must have missed the memo, as there was me thinking the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" approach of the UK is still in force?

In any case, none of the above even begins to consider the malleability of whatever is 'agreed' pre-Brexit, in a post-Brexit context wherein the domestic electorate endures economical hardship...the same sort of hardship last seen around 2008-2010 on the basis of which nationalistic passions were stoked to where-we-are.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Fourthly - the comments about your right to stay being contingent on your wife is also wrong.

Are they now...care to explain how?

2 years ago, I walked my wife's stepsister (British, NHS theatre nurse) through the UK visa system to get her US husband (-of 3 years at the time) into the UK.

That was her 3rd go (which this time was successful, I'm happy to say).

The 1st time, refused on an imbecilic technicality (one or two forms filed out of time - I'm talking a day or two, not weeks). The 2nd time, refused for the sake of earnings insufficient by £13 per annum relative to the threshold (I s**t you not).

So -if I may say so myself- I have a fairly in-depth understanding of and familiarity with UK immigration rules and procedures as they apply, and are applied, to third party nationals, including from 'friendly countries' such as the US. Including salary thresholds and more.

But don't take my word for it. You might want to point your browser at e.g. Mumsnet, before you reply: there's a whole sub-forum dedicated to the matter of the MIR and its application by the UK, which has been around for many years indeed. It's merely symptomatic of longstanding practice by the UK (the Brit tabloids' haranguing and dog-whistling notwithstanding).

And then, there's this and this.

Ah, but the UK would not exercise restrictive prerogatives retroactively, you say? Well, it looks like powers-that-be at the HO didn't get the memo either.

You might come to wish that the UK doesn't bin its longstanding bilateral agreements with Ireland in the wake of Brexit.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The fact that so many people have liked this baseless fearmongering is also a worrying sign. It shows that people aren't committed to an honest debate on the basis of what Britain has actually proposed.

Nice strawman. I'll let you face the post-likers' challenges about it in due course because, personally, I don't have the temerity or the arrogance to claim to know their motivations or debating honesty. Case in point, your own, which makes not the least bit of sense to me, for a remain voter immigrated into the UK.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

You need to read the Government's proposals.

Your right to remain in the UK is based on your personal status. Not your wife's. If you've been living in the UK for 5 years you've got indefinite leave to remain.

You also don't need a work permit if you've got indefinite leave to remain which you will be definitely eligible for provided you're not a criminal.

Sure - mortgages are issued at a maximum of 4.5 times your earnings but your salary won't be based on issuing a visa you don't need.

There is really no need for unfounded fearmongering.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Where are you?

solodeogloria wrote: »

You need to read the Government's proposals.

Would it surprise you greatly to learn that I have? Both the official and the other ones?

They are just that, solodeogloria: proposals.

No different in scope, relevance and likelihood of implementation, to the government's other proposals about every other aspect of Brexit.

I.e. at this point in time, pie-in-the-sky stuff.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Your right to remain in the UK is based on your personal status. Not your wife's. If you've been living in the UK for 5 years you've got indefinite leave to remain.

The wholly conditional nature of the government's proposals notwithstanding, tell that to the 18,300 EU nationals already refused permanent residency since Brexit.

The point you are completely missing -still- is that if my "right to remain" cannot be enforced for whatever reason post-Brexit (be it the absence of any deal by March 2019 or sooner, immigration rules yardstick-shifting by the government, admin f**ups by the HO, <etc.> all of which are eminently possible still), my only option would be by reference to my wife's nationality and status. Wherein the MIR provisions would kick in.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is really no need for unfounded fearmongering.

You can perfectly well believe, and argue, that none of the above will happen, that the UK government will not allow it to happen, that <...> and so that it's unfounded. Your prerogative and suit yourself.

But you have no firmer basis for your beliefs, than I have for mine - and I run my life on certainties and quasi-certainties over timescales. The certainties currently are that-

• Brexit (or not, as the case may be) has started to damage the British economy and this damage will take along time to repair,
• there is a large popular sentiment against the EU and EU immigrants,
• the government is letting itself be guided by that ideology more than by the economic interests of the UK,
• the Article 50 period ends on 29 March 2017.

and the historical evidence is that economic downturns always result in increased animosity against immigrants.

Everything else is conjecture. So I have taken a decision not to wait to find out the factuality or otherwise of that 'fearmongering'.

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Pretty much everyone who came before Brexit day will have the right to settled status. To those who don't have five years accrued there will be a grace period. In and of itself that is better than Tier 2 General criteria. There is no restriction on earnings. There is no restriction in respect to accessing the NHS or recourse to public funds.

You are naive.

The UK is already turning down permanent residency for EU citizens who are applying.

blanch152

solodeogloria wrote: »

The point is that the British public didn't want to be a part of a union which has a dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Voting out is the best way to ensure that you won't be a part of that.



Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Imagine that you are right about the EU's dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Let us roll on thirty or forty years. The EU has now expanded to include Russia, Turkey and the Northern countries of Africa. It dominates world trade and is the most prosperous trading bloc. The UK is still on the outside looking in.

It is ironic that if the worst predictions of the EU superstate come true, the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU superstate because it will have no other choice.

Sam Russell

prinzeugen wrote: »

The UK is a group of territories with a common government. London does not "rule".

And the poll tax?? Everyone is paying it now. Its called council tax. How else is stuff going to be paid for.

Poll tax was introduced as a 'per head' tax (hence poll tax). Its intention was to raise property tax on a per head basis to cause poorer (hence Labour) voters to not pay it and therefore be knocked off the voting register (voter suppression). It was also set so that poorer councils had to raise more with the tax than richer councils, again to suppress voter registration. Tower Hamlets had a higher tax rate than Westminster or Chelsea and Kensington.

Council tax is charged per property, with a reduction for single occupancy.

murphaph

blanch152 wrote: »

Imagine that you are right about the EU's dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Let us roll on thirty or forty years. The EU has now expanded to include Russia, Turkey and the Northern countries of Africa. It dominates world trade and is the most prosperous trading bloc. The UK is still on the outside looking in.

It is ironic that if the worst predictions of the EU superstate come true, the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU superstate because it will have no other choice.

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

Professor Moriarty

blanch152 wrote: »

Imagine that you are right about the EU's dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Let us roll on thirty or forty years. The EU has now expanded to include Russia, Turkey and the Northern countries of Africa. It dominates world trade and is the most prosperous trading bloc. The UK is still on the outside looking in.

It is ironic that if the worst predictions of the EU superstate come true, the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU superstate because it will have no other choice.

I think that the UK will become a vassal state of the US who will want a presence on the border of a competing world power. In many ways, an Israel Lite.

mountaintop

murphaph wrote: »

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

Excellent. Fully agree!

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

You are presuming it will be European. The Russians, Chinese and Americans may disagree on this.

demfad

murphaph wrote: »

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

Globalisation is a precursor to this. I guess at this point you can either shelter against its affects by protectionism or by agreeing world standards for employmen, environmental protection, production etc. or both in phases.
It will take a body like the EU to withstand the powers of big data and corporations so that these rules can be created fairly and reproduced etc.. Nation States cannot do this clearly, neither can empires.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

ambro25 wrote: »

They are just that, solodeogloria: proposals.

No different in scope, relevance and likelihood of implementation, to the government's other proposals about every other aspect of Brexit.

I.e. at this point in time, pie-in-the-sky stuff.
The wholly conditional nature of the government's proposals notwithstanding, tell that to the 18,300 EU nationals already refused permanent residency since Brexit.

It's not really pie in the sky. The EU are hardly going to object to such arrangements and the UK are making plans to implement them.

It's worth pointing out that "settled status" is a different thing to the "permanent residence" that existed previously. All EU citizens will need to apply for "settled status" irrespective.

Confusing both isn't accurate.

ambro25 wrote: »

The point you are completely missing -still- is that if my "right to remain" cannot be enforced for whatever reason post-Brexit (be it the absence of any deal by March 2019 or sooner, immigration rules yardstick-shifting by the government, admin f**ups by the HO, <etc.> all of which are eminently possible still), my only option would be by reference to my wife's nationality and status. Wherein the MIR provisions would kick in.

Why wouldn't it be implemented?

The UK are keen to implement a deal. If the EU aren't this isn't something you can blame the UK for.

ambro25 wrote: »

You can perfectly well believe, and argue, that none of the above will happen, that the UK government will not allow it to happen, that <...> and so that it's unfounded. Your prerogative and suit yourself.

I believe it won't because there is no evidence that it will. If anything the evidence points to the contrary.

ambro25 wrote: »

But you have no firmer basis for your beliefs, than I have for mine - and I run my life on certainties and quasi-certainties over timescales.

Yes I do. I make clear reference to what the British government are planning to do and what they have offered to date.

ambro25 wrote: »

The certainties currently are that-

• Brexit (or not, as the case may be) has started to damage the British economy and this damage will take along time to repair,
• there is a large popular sentiment against the EU and EU immigrants,
• the government is letting itself be guided by that ideology more than by the economic interests of the UK,
• the Article 50 period ends on 29 March 2017.

and the historical evidence is that economic downturns always result in increased animosity against immigrants.

The only "certainty" in this list is the Article 50 end date.

ambro25 wrote: »

Everything else is conjecture. So I have taken a decision not to wait to find out the factuality or otherwise of that 'fearmongering'.

I wish you the best. I'm staying put because I don't believe the fearmongering and the UK is actually quite a good country to live in.

Each to their own!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria