Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

What's going on in Britain is absolutely remarkable to watch - like a car crash in slow motion.

Yes it is truly amazingly, I know a few Brits here who were very pro BREXIT until a couple of weeks ago. They have now woken up to the reality that early next year Switzerland will start rejecting their applications to renew their long term work permits on the basis that they are about to become a third country and are no longer entitled to such permanents.

For some the car crash is closer than for others.

Capt'n Midnight

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Predictions about 200 years time are a valueless currency.

Look at how most of the predictions about UK / US from two years panned out.

Samaris

Jim2007 wrote: »

Yes it is truly amazingly, I know a few Brits here who were very pro BREXIT until a couple of weeks ago. They have now woken up to the reality that early next year Switzerland will start rejecting their applications to renew their long term work permits on the basis that they are about to become a third country and are no longer entitled to such permanents.

For some the car crash is closer than for others.

It is a bit mad how some people voted very much against their own interests. I mean, in my opinion, the Leave vote in general was against the UK's interests, but those specifically and directly impacted, like farmers or your people there. And now it's suddenly "wait, this wasn't supposed to happen, why didn't anyone warn us?"

Regardless of my view on the overall vote, in the case of farmers and fishing and those relying on EU permit renewal, it was turkeys voting for Christmas.

murphaph

Samaris wrote: »

It is a bit mad how some people voted very much against their own interests. I mean, in my opinion, the Leave vote in general was against the UK's interests, but those specifically and directly impacted, like farmers or your people there. And now it's suddenly "wait, this wasn't supposed to happen, why didn't anyone warn us?"

Regardless of my view on the overall vote, in the case of farmers and fishing and those relying on EU permit renewal, it was turkeys voting for Christmas.

For the fishermen there was a logical argument in favour of Brexit, but they are a tiny minority in this regard. Farmers who voted leave are simply mad.

The Rape of Lucretia

murphaph wrote: »

Farmers who voted leave are simply mad.

Or were willing to pay whatever price necessary to take back control, regain their sovrinty, respect what their grandfathers fought for in WW2, stop Polski Skleps opening on every single corner, and to not be told by some gravy train eurocrat in Brussels that they cannot market their turnips as swedes, but must call them turnips.
And no price is too high to pay for that.

Calina

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Farmers who voted leave are simply mad.

Or were willing to pay whatever price necessary to take back control, regain their sovrinty, respect what their grandfathers fought for in WW2, stop Polski Skleps opening on every single corner, and to not be told by some gravy train eurocrat in Brussels that they cannot market their turnips as swedes, but must call them turnips.
And no price is too high to pay for that.

Including bankruptcy and losing their farms? You think that is what their grandparents fought for? And really, The xenophobic comment about Polish shops is tragic and a chronic exaggeration.

Water John

Was watching 'This Farming Life' during the week. A crofter in Northern Scotland was having his subsidy decreased further to one ninth of what farmers with better land were getting per acre.
This is not an EU fault but how the UK implemented EU policy. Rural places like that, will be savaged when EU subsidies stop.

Professor Moriarty

Samaris wrote: »

It is a bit mad how some people voted very much against their own interests. I mean, in my opinion, the Leave vote in general was against the UK's interests, but those specifically and directly impacted, like farmers or your people there. And now it's suddenly "wait, this wasn't supposed to happen, why didn't anyone warn us?"

Regardless of my view on the overall vote, in the case of farmers and fishing and those relying on EU permit renewal, it was turkeys voting for Christmas.

Of Leave voters who expressed a preference, 51% would be happy to see a family member lose their job so that Brexit will happen. 61% of all Leave voters believe that significant damage to the British economy is a price worth paying for Brexit. Self-harm isn't an issue for Leave voters.

It occurs to me that the other 39% of Leave voters, who believe that significant damage to the economy isn't a price worth paying, were either grossly misinformed or very stupid when they voted Leave.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

Farmers who voted leave are simply mad.

Well there was a sort of logic there. You need to remember that in the UK the people who own the land and the people who farm the land are not one and the same thing, as in Ireland. Many land owners collect sizeable subsidies without even undertaking any farming activities.

Pro BREXIT farmers saw it as an opportunity to discourage further landowner investing in the hope that land prices would fall to a level where they could buy their own farms.

Lemming

Jim2007 wrote: »

Yes it is truly amazingly, I know a few Brits here who were very pro BREXIT until a couple of weeks ago. They have now woken up to the reality that early next year Switzerland will start rejecting their applications to renew their long term work permits on the basis that they are about to become a third country and are no longer entitled to such permanents.

For some the car crash is closer than for others.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Of Leave voters who expressed a preference, 51% would be happy to see a family member lose their job so that Brexit will happen. 61% of all Leave voters believe that significant damage to the British economy is a price worth paying for Brexit. Self-harm isn't an issue for Leave voters.

Remember folks: it's a price worth paying/no price is too high/etc. when it's somebody else footing the bill. As Jim's acquaintances in Switzerland are suddenly discovering.

I've encountered the same with former friends/workmates/etc. who are cheerleading the process farce who don't see what the problem is when I point out to them that the Home Office want to strip me of all rights and in order to get any of them back I must apply for them and still risk being rejected, even though I am entitled to those rights, becaues the H.O. don't know up from down at the best of times. And because it's not happening to them, therefore "what's the problem?", "Why don't you just leave then?" etc.

solodeogloria

Nody wrote: »

Except of course for any exports that includes sugar in any form in the product to EU which now needs to calculate the exact amount of sugar to add the relevant tariffs (and yes I've been involved in that process and to call it painful and complex would be an understatement) which goes from Cadbury chocolate over drinks to cookies to cakes etc. I'm sure Tayte will be happy but I'm willing to bet there's a whole lot bigger market who're not going to be very happy about that idea (well except UK dentists since the sugar content can now be increased cheaply again).

Good afternoon!

I suspect that Tate & Lyle already go through this already in any case. Their raw materials would be cheaper outside the European Union which is why they supported Brexit. There is some merit to their argument. Britain by taking back control of trade and eventually their tariff schedule at the WTO can tailor their tariffs to British needs and not EU27 needs. British free trade deals in addition can be tailored to British needs and not EU27 needs.

This is a powerful argument for many British businesses. This is also why companies like JCB and Dyson who export far more outside of the European Union were advocating Brexit.

Of course the challenge for the Prime Minister is that not all businesses are like Dyson, JCB and Tate & Lyle. There's a lot that depend on European supply chains and European markets. The complex job that Theresa May has to do is open up the wider world for better trade and better sourcing of raw materials for companies like Tate & Lyle whilst providing a good platform for future trade with the EU27.

The point is that whilst the EU27 are hugely valuable trade partners to Britain so are many countries in the wider world. Brexit provides a new opportunity for these businesses that depend far more on the world at large rather than the EU in particular to thrive. This opportunity must be balanced with those firms who largely trade with the EU27 on a majority basis today.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

On a completely separate point but can I ask if there something special in the water in the UK? Labour now agrees they could remain in the single market "that's "reformed". Now they don't want to narrow down the definition of reform to much but it involves limiting the freedom of movement "to avoid salary dumping". Beyond the fact it's already been shown not to be a significant factor in any form through actual scientific studies compared to pub talk. At the same time dear old Nigel "I flip flop on leadership more often than May does on policy" Farage looks to start a new party to ensure Brexit goes as hard as possible; because his successor did not become who he wanted.

I mean seriously; do they feed psychedelics in the water or something? Brexit is THE biggest thing in easily last 25 years if not longer and they all appear to be utterly incompetent in getting even an basic understanding of how EU works, the laws implemented, the treaty texts and how to interpretation of them. It's not like there's a lack of information out there even for utter amateurs such as us to get this yet they all across the board appear to completely fail in this most basic task.

murphaph

Solo, you've named the only 3 well known companies that I am aware of who advocated Brexit. Can you name any more? Would you agree that the majority of British business would have preferred remain?

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

On a completely separate point but can I ask if there something special in the water in the UK? Labour now agrees they could remain in the single market "that's "reformed". Now they don't want to narrow down the definition of reform to much but it involves limiting the freedom of movement "to avoid salary dumping". Beyond the fact it's already been shown not to be a significant factor in any form through actual scientific studies compared to pub talk. At the same time dear old Nigel "I flip flop on leadership more often than May does on policy" Farage looks to start a new party to ensure Brexit goes as hard as possible; because his successor did not become who he wanted.

I mean seriously; do they feed psychedelics in the water or something? Brexit is THE biggest thing in easily last 25 years if not longer and they all appear to be utterly incompetent in getting even an basic understanding of how EU works, the laws implemented, the treaty texts and how to interpretation of them. It's not like there's a lack of information out there even for utter amateurs such as us to get this yet they all across the board appear to completely fail in this most basic task.

But it's the EU's fault for not responding to the detailed position papers put forward by Britain.

Samaris

murphaph wrote: »

For the fishermen there was a logical argument in favour of Brexit, but they are a tiny minority in this regard. Farmers who voted leave are simply mad.

Yes, you're right on that, "fishermen" was a brainfart, as they couldn't know at the time that the deal regarding fishing waters..eh...wasn't going to go how they might have hoped.

Lemming wrote: »

I've encountered the same with former friends/workmates/etc. who are cheerleading the process farce who don't see what the problem is when I point out to them that the Home Office want to strip me of all rights and in order to get any of them back I must apply for them and still risk being rejected, even though I am entitled to those rights, becaues the H.O. don't know up from down at the best of times. And because it's not happening to them, therefore "what's the problem?", "Why don't you just leave then?" etc.

I'm sorry that that's happening. I suppose it's inevitable, there has been a horrible approach taken in the media, even in comments on the topic by presumably-British people, and even the outlook of the UK in the negotiations in general. Doesn't matter if other people are harmed (in the case of other EU countries, apparently it's even a -good- thing)

But on a personal level, that would be hurtful. I don't understand it myself, how someone can say to a co-worker or purported friend in a difficult position not of their making what amounts to "Why should I care about you, -I'm- alright, Jack." God knows where decency, compassion and humanity have gone. Brexited before the vote, I suppose - may as well get out before the rush.

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I suspect that Tate & Lyle already go through this already in any case. Their raw materials would be cheaper outside the European Union which is why they supported Brexit. There is some merit to their argument. Britain by taking back control of trade and eventually their tariff schedule at the WTO can tailor their tariffs to British needs and not EU27 needs. British free trade deals in addition can be tailored to British needs and not EU27 needs.

This is a powerful argument for many British businesses. This is also why companies like JCB and Dyson who export far more outside of the European Union were advocating Brexit.

Of course the challenge for the Prime Minister is that not all businesses are like Dyson, JCB and Tate & Lyle. There's a lot that depend on European supply chains and European markets. The complex job that Theresa May has to do is open up the wider world for better trade and better sourcing of raw materials for companies like Tate & Lyle whilst providing a good platform for future trade with the EU27.

The point is that whilst the EU27 are hugely valuable trade partners to Britain so are many countries in the wider world. Brexit provides a new opportunity for these businesses that depend far more on the world at large rather than the EU in particular to thrive. This opportunity must be balanced with those firms who largely trade with the EU27 on a majority basis today.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The American owned Tate & Lyle will destroy British beet farmers and without access to the EU single market, will be left with one market - the UK. Now that beet quotas are gone, the French in particular are ramping up production so I suspect that Ireland will be buying its sugar from France in future and not Tate & Lyle.

jm08

Samaris wrote: »

Yes, you're right on that, "fishermen" was a brainfart, as they couldn't know at the time that the deal regarding fishing waters..eh...wasn't going to go how they might have hoped.

Over 70% of 'British' fish are exported to the EU. Out of the EU, they lose that market. As well as that, most the fish that British people like to eat are imported!

Some of those fishermen are not that bright - Kilkeel fishermen who fish in Dundalk Bay supported Brexit despite something like 70% of their fleet's prawn fishing grounds are in the Irish Republic!

Zerbini Blewitt

We’re 1/3rd of the way through the time for Article 50 negotiations (that is - leaving 6 months for ratification) and as many could have predicted, the outcome in April 2019 is still completely up in the air as no concrete progress or clarity has been achieved so far on priority issues (let alone many 2nd or 3rd level issues).

May’s Friday transition plea was a small step away from Brexiteer economic fantasy and towards reality - that’s fine and all -but is again skipping around & ahead of the priority issues in the negotiations.

So even now in almost October 2017, the outcome could still be any of

• A year zero type crashing out - not even on WTO / 20% UK GDP slump
• Crash out and get some last minute WTO acceptance (needs EU & other international co-operation) / 12% GDP slump
• staying (temp) in CU/SM / economy stays stable for unknown period
• various other permutations

in addition to other dubious characteristics already noted, Brexiteers also appear to be high stakes gamblers (with millions of their fellow countrymens wealth).

The general air of unreality still coming out of the tory cabinet is unnerving. I expect it will continue upto & beyond any exit deal signing photocall (or exit/no deal scenario).

Strange times!

Alan_P

So the whole point about the disinterest and apathy of most of the EU nations passed you by ?

You seriously think this is a debate between Ireland, France,Germany and the UK ? Hint :- and try and absorb this :- EU27.

Sorry that was addressed to solodeogloria.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is a powerful argument for many British businesses. This is also why companies like JCB and Dyson who export far more outside of the European Union were advocating Brexit.

You're taking liberties with the word "many" there. 80% of the Confederation of British Industry which speaks for over 190,000 businesses supported remain. Dyson objected to the EU's banning of vacuum cleaners more powerful than a certain threshold. I don't know what JCB's reason is but I'm sure there's some sort of grubby self-interest at play.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The point is that whilst the EU27 are hugely valuable trade partners to Britain so are many countries in the wider world. Brexit provides a new opportunity for these businesses that depend far more on the world at large rather than the EU in particular to thrive. This opportunity must be balanced with those firms who largely trade with the EU27 on a majority basis today.

I should really have asked this earlier but have you a shred of evidence that people voted for a global Britain which, unfettered by Brussels could take advantage of these clear trade opportunities that you refuse to detail.

ancapailldorcha

Nody wrote: »

On a completely separate point but can I ask if there something special in the water in the UK? Labour now agrees they could remain in the single market "that's "reformed". Now they don't want to narrow down the definition of reform to much but it involves limiting the freedom of movement "to avoid salary dumping". Beyond the fact it's already been shown not to be a significant factor in any form through actual scientific studies compared to pub talk. At the same time dear old Nigel "I flip flop on leadership more often than May does on policy" Farage looks to start a new party to ensure Brexit goes as hard as possible; because his successor did not become who he wanted.

I mean seriously; do they feed psychedelics in the water or something? Brexit is THE biggest thing in easily last 25 years if not longer and they all appear to be utterly incompetent in getting even an basic understanding of how EU works, the laws implemented, the treaty texts and how to interpretation of them. It's not like there's a lack of information out there even for utter amateurs such as us to get this yet they all across the board appear to completely fail in this most basic task.

On the first point, Corbyn's support comes from younger, socially liberal people who would mostly be in favour of EU membership so it's likely that he's trying to compromise with them the same way he committed to keeping Trident. However, the EU isn't going to allow the UK to pick and choose benefits though I would call immigration and free movement benefits knowing that I am in the minority on that score.

Secondly, haven't you learned anything form this? British politics means that unless you're either red or blue you're never getting into power. If you beat odds, well take a look at the sorry state of the poor Liberal Democrats who've been blamed for pretty much everything the Conservatives have gotten away with during the coalition years. With this in mind, you can make all sorts of outlandish claims and policies knowing that you haven't a chance of gaining any sort of serious clout in Westminster. Farage thinks that if people still want Brexit, he can use a fringe party to influence the Tories if they have a sufficiently weak leader, a box I think most of us would consider well and truly checked. If it turns out badly, his party aren't in government so he's just blame Brussels while wallowing in Youtube and Twitter praise contemplating his next book.

solodeogloria

jm08 wrote: »

The American owned Tate & Lyle will destroy British beet farmers and without access to the EU single market, will be left with one market - the UK. Now that beet quotas are gone, the French in particular are ramping up production so I suspect that Ireland will be buying its sugar from France in future and not Tate & Lyle.

Good evening!

It doesn't really matter who owns it. Tate & Lyle were a business centred on the business in sugar cane trade through the London Docklands. That's why a business in the processing of sugarcane was set up at Silvertown. You can see the refinery as you pass on the DLR on the way to London City Airport. At present there's 800 workers there. That isn't an insignificant number. There was significantly more previously but profits have been hit as a result of external tariffs on the cane.

Yes obviously it's important to encourage trade in British sugar beet but I don't think it warrants the level of protectionism that is currently implemented by the European Union.

It isn't true that EU membership is beneficial for all businesses. So there needs to be a two sided approach as the UK exits. The first would be to ensure that firms like Tate & Lyle can benefit, the second is that businesses not like Tate & Lyle can continue to trade as much as possible with their European partners.

It's simple balanced honesty to admit that EU membership hasn't worked for all British businesses and that there is now an opportunity to redress this balance.

Alan_P wrote: »

So the whole point about the disinterest and apathy of most of the EU nations passed you by ?

You seriously think this is a debate between Ireland, France,Germany and the UK ? Hint :- and try and absorb this :- EU27.

Sorry that was addressed to solodeogloria.

I personally couldn't care less about the European media. I'm interested in getting the right deal for the United Kingdom. I personally don't believe it is the Norwegian model.

I don't particularly care about debate in other countries. Brexit is about the United Kingdom.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It doesn't really matter who owns it. Tate & Lyle were a business centred on the business in sugar cane trade through the London Docklands. That's why a business in the processing of sugarcane was set up at Silvertown. You can see the refinery as you pass on the DLR on the way to London City Airport. At present there's 800 workers there. That isn't an insignificant number. There was significantly more previously but profits have been hit as a result of external tariffs on the cane.

Yes obviously it's important to encourage trade in British sugar beet but I don't think it warrants the level of protectionism that is currently implemented by the European Union.

To bad for the 3.500 UK farmers who grow suger beets who'll be out of a job though; but hey 800 people in a factory close to London sure beats 3.500 farmer jobs (and the supporting people on the farms to farm it during the season which adds up to another 1.400 and 9.500 indirect jobs) out in the rural lands for sure when it comes to priority. After all it's a well known fact rural jobs are easy to find, replace and execute compared to factory workers in plants getting automated more and more close to the capital.

Oh and before you run off quoting the article about how Brexit would be a benefit read the fine print:

Mr Kenward suggests “the challenge is that the global sugar market currently suffers significant competitive distortion by some countries – we need trade agreements in place which will counter this and ensure a level playing field.”

Or in other words UK's sugar beet farmers will be put under the barrel and get run over by cheap imports from countries who don't play fair; exactly why EU had those sugar tariffs in the first place that you don't like.

800 people in a factory in London vs 4.900 direct and 9.500 indirect jobs in rural UK; I know which I'd pick of the two personally as a preference to rescue...

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's simple balanced honesty to admit that EU membership hasn't worked for all British businesses and that there is now an opportunity to redress this balance.

Seems odd that Silver Spoon which is owned by British Sugar seemed to be happy with remaining in the EU:

The reason lies in the EU protection afforded to Tate & Lyle’s company’s arch-rival British Sugar, which uses a very different technique to make a chemically identical product. Its brand of white crystal, Silver Spoon, is made not from imported sugar cane, but from sugar beet grown on farms in the east of England.

Source.

Membership seems to have worked for the vast majority of British businesses as I demonstrated above. I have since decided to boycott Tate & Lyle sugar and switched to the more innovative and less duplicitous Silver Spoon brand.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It doesn't really matter who owns it. Tate & Lyle were a business centred on the business in sugar cane trade through the London Docklands. That's why a business in the processing of sugarcane was set up at Silvertown. You can see the refinery as you pass on the DLR on the way to London City Airport. At present there's 800 workers there. That isn't an insignificant number. There was significantly more previously but profits have been hit as a result of external tariffs on the cane.

Yes obviously it's important to encourage trade in British sugar beet but I don't think it warrants the level of protectionism that is currently implemented by the European Union.

It isn't true that EU membership is beneficial for all businesses. So there needs to be a two sided approach as the UK exits. The first would be to ensure that firms like Tate & Lyle can benefit, the second is that businesses not like Tate & Lyle can continue to trade as much as possible with their European partners.

It's simple balanced honesty to admit that EU membership hasn't worked for all British businesses and that there is now an opportunity to redress this balance.



I personally couldn't care less about the European media. I'm interested in getting the right deal for the United Kingdom. I personally don't believe it is the Norwegian model.

I don't particularly care about debate in other countries. Brexit is about the United Kingdom.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You pass along a fair few skyscrapers full of bankers on the DLR too. If even 1% of London finance jobs are lost it'll dwarf Tate and bloody Lyle.

You may not care about the EU media but HM Government care enough about getting a deal that they have taken to posting in German on Facebook!

solodeogloria

Good evening!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems odd that Silver Spoon which is owned by British Sugar seemed to be happy with remaining in the EU:

Source.

Membership seems to have worked for the vast majority of British businesses as I demonstrated above. I have since decided to boycott Tate & Lyle sugar and switched to the more innovative and less duplicitous Silver Spoon brand.

I don't know why you would "boycott" them for having a different business model. Each to their own though.

I don't think protectionism is the answer. There is no reason why Tate & Lyle should be disadvantaged for their business model as opposed to any other sugar company. I think competition in an open market gives better choice to consumers and I think this is healthy.

There is an obvious reason as to why Tate & Lyle developed how it did, and there's an obvious reason as to why their site is where it is. It is because of the dock infrastructure that existed in and around Silvertown when it was founded. Wanting to continue a business model on the basis of tradition and origins is a respectable reason.

murphaph wrote: »

You pass along a fair few skyscrapers full of bankers on the DLR too. If even 1% of London finance jobs are lost it'll dwarf Tate and bloody Lyle.

You may not care about the EU media but HM Government care enough about getting a deal that they have taken to posting in German on Facebook!

Sure, this is why you should read my posts before replying:

The point is that whilst the EU27 are hugely valuable trade partners to Britain so are many countries in the wider world. Brexit provides a new opportunity for these businesses that depend far more on the world at large rather than the EU in particular to thrive. This opportunity must be balanced with those firms who largely trade with the EU27 on a majority basis today.

It is about striking a better balance for all firms in the United Kingdom.

I think my position is a very reasonable one. A successful Brexit means ensuring that that United Kingdom as a whole can grab new opportunities with both hands whilst ensuring a continuation of as much trade with the EU27 as possible.

This does set me at a slight distance to some Brexiteers who would be harder than me, but I think leaving the European Union and ultimately the single market and the customs union is the best long term decision.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Hi Solo

In response to my claim that the UK wasn't going to offer any rights to EU citizens that weren't already being offered to third party ones you posted a link showing that the current EHIC cards would be recognised on both sides.

Reciprocal health care isn't the same as residence and travel rights.

And the sort of people the UK wants are the least likely to use the health services while the expat pensioners living in Southern Europe...

Also as you well know the NHS is mostly free at point of delivery to anyone physically in the UK so they aren't exactly offering anything that wasn't going to happen anyway.

Actually what's happening is that the NHS is now gearing up to charge foreigners so it's actually a clawback. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38876527

It's stuff like this that is undermining the UK's negotiating position.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Hi Solo

In response to my claim that the UK wasn't going to offer any rights to EU citizens that weren't already being offered to third party ones you posted a link showing that the current EHIC cards would be recognised on both sides.

Reciprocal health care isn't the same as residence and travel rights.

And the sort of people the UK wants are the least likely to use the health services while the expat pensioners living in Southern Europe...

Also as you well know the NHS is mostly free at point of delivery to anyone physically in the UK so they aren't exactly offering anything that wasn't going to happen anyway.

Actually what's happening is that the NHS is now gearing up to charge foreigners so it's actually a clawback. http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38876527

It's stuff like this that is undermining the UK's negotiating position.

Good evening!

This isn't true. Non-EU immigrants are required to contribute in many cases and those on Tier 2 General visas shouldn't be making recourse to public funds. A lot of visas have this restriction. Details on the Government website for accessing healthcare as a part of an immigration application are here. This isn't a universal right.

The UK have been clear to EU citizens that these rights are included automatically when they acquire settled status to remain in the United Kingdom. There are numerous advantages to the UK's current proposal to the process for non-EU nationals. Britain's offer is generous. It grants EU citizens the same rights as British citizens (apart from voting in Westminster elections and referenda).

The only differences seem to be that the UK doesn't want to grant EU citizens the right to bring a non-EU spouse on conditions by which a British person can't do the same and that the UK doesn't want the ECJ to have direct jurisdiction over EU nationals. The UK has said that they are willing to consider ECJ judgements when looking to the rights of EU nationals.

I think there's a lot of misconceptions about the difference between what an EU national can do in Britain and what a non-EU national (on a time restricted category restricted visa) can do.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

Any hopes the UK had of using dissent within the EU to their advantage pretty much ended this weekend.

Merkel is back.

Macron said the issues of EU citizens' rights, the exit bill and the Irish border question must be settled before talks could be held on trade.

And don't forget that there's 37 national and regional assemblies with a say if there isn't a deal finalised on time.

For the rest of the EU apart from us there are few complications. If there is no deal then on the day after the UK leave anyone arriving in the EU will be using the Red or Green channel instead of the Blue one. Same for customs in the ports. So no procedures or forms, just more delays.


For us the border issue is a lot messier.

It'll also mean that EU may have to impose more checks on people and exports coming from here.

murphaph

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Any hopes the UK had of using dissent within the EU to their advantage pretty much ended this weekend.

Merkel is back.

Macron said the issues of EU citizens' rights, the exit bill and the Irish border question must be settled before talks could be held on trade.

And don't forget that there's 37 national and regional assemblies with a say if there isn't a deal finalised on time.

For the rest of the EU apart from us there are few complications. If there is no deal then on the day after the UK leave anyone arriving in the EU will be using the Red or Green channel instead of the Blue one. Same for customs in the ports. So no procedures or forms, just more delays.


For us the border issue is a lot messier.

It'll also mean that EU may have to impose more checks on people and exports coming from here.

Surely in the event of no deal EU visitors to the UK and UK visitors to the EU (excluding Irish and Ireland) would need visas to visit each others countries? I'm not really sure but I'd have thought so anyway.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

This isn't true. Non-EU immigrants are required to contribute in many cases and those on Tier 2 General visas shouldn't be making recourse to public funds. A lot of visas have this restriction. Details on the Government website for accessing healthcare as a part of an immigration application are here. This isn't a universal right.

But the EU citizens in the UK are not new immigrants. They are already present.

Again the message being sent to EU citizens resident in the UK is things are going to change.


If you are telling me that the NHS is currently charging all immigrants for their services in a systematic way I'll take it with a pinch of salt.


BTW most non-EU citizens need €300,000 of health care cover to enter Schengen.

solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But the EU citizens in the UK are not new immigrants. They are already present.

Again the message being sent to EU citizens resident in the UK is things are going to change.


If you are telling me that the NHS is currently charging all immigrants for their services in a systematic way I'll take it with a pinch of salt.


BTW most non-EU citizens need €300,000 of health care cover to enter Schengen.

Good evening!

Your original point was that the UK Government proposals for EU citizens were no better than others from third countries from what I understood.

My response is that this isn't true. The British offer is much much more generous for the reasons I described a couple of pages ago when you first raised it and now. Comparing Tier 2 General terms is to make it clear non-EU citizens don't get these terms.

The bottom line is that EU citizens that are here will be treated exactly the same as British citizens in the UK (bar voting rights) post-Brexit under British plans.

It is categorically wrong to say that EU citizens will be treated the same as non-EU because it isn't true. The terms for non-EU immigration is significantly more difficult.

Non-EU immigrants shouldn't be accessing public funds on the conditions of their visa. That means that they will need to contribute to NHS funds. I've linked you to the Government website for this.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

jm08

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It doesn't really matter who owns it. Tate & Lyle were a business centred on the business in sugar cane trade through the London Docklands. That's why a business in the processing of sugarcane was set up at Silvertown. You can see the refinery as you pass on the DLR on the way to London City Airport. At present there's 800 workers there. That isn't an insignificant number. There was significantly more previously but profits have been hit as a result of external tariffs on the cane.

Nothing stopping Tate & Lyle from importing tariff free sugar cane from the following countries under the “Everything but Arms” EU/WTO regulation: Egypt, Mauritius, Zambia, Sudan, South Africa, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique, Ethiopia and Swaziland, but I suspect that Tate & Lyle want to import sugar cane from their American parent company - you know "America First" - stuff the British beet farmer.

Yes obviously it's important to encourage trade in British sugar beet but I don't think it warrants the level of protectionism that is currently implemented by the European Union.

EU sugar trade is being deregulated at the end of the month. The countries most affected will be those listed above.

It isn't true that EU membership is beneficial for all businesses. So there needs to be a two sided approach as the UK exits. The first would be to ensure that firms like Tate & Lyle can benefit, the second is that businesses not like Tate & Lyle can continue to trade as much as possible with their European partners.

If Tate & Lyle are importing sugar cane from the US, they won't be trading with the EU.

It's simple balanced honesty to admit that EU membership hasn't worked for all British businesses and that there is now an opportunity to redress this balance.

According to this article, Tate & Lyle (a foreign owned company) actually campaigned for Brexit. Interesting article here.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/mar/27/brexit-sugar-beet-cane-tate-lyle-british-sugar

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Any hopes the UK had of using dissent within the EU to their advantage pretty much ended this weekend.

Merkel is back.

Macron said the issues of EU citizens' rights, the exit bill and the Irish border question must be settled before talks could be held on trade.

And don't forget that there's 37 national and regional assemblies with a say if there isn't a deal finalised on time.

For the rest of the EU apart from us there are few complications. If there is no deal then on the day after the UK leave anyone arriving in the EU will be using the Red or Green channel instead of the Blue one. Same for customs in the ports. So no procedures or forms, just more delays.


For us the border issue is a lot messier.

It'll also mean that EU may have to impose more checks on people and exports coming from here.

Surely in the event of no deal EU visitors to the UK and UK visitors to the EU (excluding Irish and Ireland) would need visas to visit each others countries? I'm not really sure but I'd have thought so anyway.

Highly unlikely.  Many countries offer visa free travel to each others' citizens.  Work permits are another matter but going in and out won't be an issue.

Samaris

They would have to actively make that offer though, I would assume. If they crash out, they'd have to negotiate that position again (and fairly quickly). I don't think it could be just assumed that it was okay. Border sovereignty and all that.

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

Highly unlikely.  Many countries offer visa free travel to each others' citizens.  Work permits are another matter but going in and out won't be an issue.

Yeah but for the Schengen zone it's governed by EU law, not national law. The EU as a whole decides which countries need a visa. If no deal is reached the EU will need to amend the legislation to add the UK to the list of visa waiver countries. There will be some delay involved here and until that comes into force, Schengen border guards would be faced with citizens of a third country that are not entitled to visa free access as at present (due to EU membership).

I do not expect that long term this would be the case if course.

First Up

Why would there be a delay?

murphaph

First Up wrote: »

Why would there be a delay?

I'm assuming it takes some time for the laws governing Schengen to be drafted and ratified and that this process will only begin on Brexit day after the UK has formally left the union. Maybe they'll expedite it but I would expect some interruption.

First Up

murphaph wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

Why would there be a delay?

I'm assuming it takes some time for the laws governing Schengen to be drafted and ratified and that this process will only begin on Brexit day after the UK has formally left the union. Maybe they'll expedite it but I would expect some interruption.

The UK isn't in Schengen now and in any case, Schengen and the EU are not synonymous - there's four non-EU countries in Schengen already.  Dozens of countries have visa free access to the EU including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, most of South America - even Albania.  I don't think the UK will be treated worse than them.

ambro25

First Up wrote: »

Why would there be a delay?

Because, to the surprise of some perhaps, the EU is actually not a dictatorship, and exercises checks and balances in its legislative process. So new Directives, Treaty amendments <etc.> take a while

I don't think murpharph has suggested UK would be treated worse than other 3rd party countries with reciprocal immigration agreements/treaties. But that, "immigration agreements/treaties", is the rub: the problem is the period of legal vacuum which the cliff-edge scenario entails.

solodeogloria wrote:

<...>

The UK have been clear to EU citizens that these rights are included automatically when they acquire settled status to remain in the United Kingdom. There are numerous advantages to the UK's current proposal to the process for non-EU nationals. Britain's offer is generous. It grants EU citizens the same rights as British citizens (apart from voting in Westminster elections and referenda). <...>

That's the bit you're still struggling with, solo.

You're taking that "acquisition" as gospel, for reasons best known to you. Without giving any consideration to the facts that it is-

(i) conditional (i.e. not guaranteed-
because the negotiations are still ongoing,
because the HO now has a consistent and proven track record of applying the current (simpler) test wrongly,
because the government keeps airing harsher measures and terms for the after-Brexit relative to what they are proposing,
because both the political majority and the opposition are still riding the anti-immigrant populist wave with no end in sight);

(ii) a downgrade of the current immigration status (we have had "everything like Brits except voting in the GE/referenda" for years - without subjecting that to a conditional test, without the shadow of the MIR (mooted by the government's leaked immigration policy paper), without any of the impediments as regards family reunification (mooted by the government's leaked immigration policy paper) <etc.>); and

(iii) not guaranteed in time by an independent body (the UK Courts could not rule a Henry VIII powers-promulgated 'tell us how many EU immigrants you employ' decree binding on UK employers post-Brexit to be anti-constitutional, and have plenty of form for getting it as consistently wrong in respect of immigration matters as the Home Office, hence the levels of ECtHR-bound cases from the UK over the years).

And I'll not mention the contingent of 1.4m Brits in the EU which all of the above is merrily throwing under a bus, since they barely -if ever- get a mention UK-side in this whole sorry affair.

It's been going on for 15 months and there is no end to it in sight. EU immigrants with some cop-on can only go on what signals the UK government and the body political give, to base future expectations and manage their life project beyond March 2019. So many of them -including yours truly- are reciprocating to the UK all of the consideration, which the UK has shown them of late: the grass here used to be lusciously green...but now it's tinder-dry yellow.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

I'll be very short because I've been through this with you already.

Firstly - it does depend on the negotiations. This is why both parties need to be reasonable and get a deal.

Secondly - the only "downgrade" I can see is that EU citizens will have the same restrictions on non-EU spouses as British citizens. This is fair.

Thirdly - the ECJ isn't an independent body. It is biased to one side of the argument. This is why the UK are proposing a truly impartial arbitration mechanism.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up

ambro25 wrote:

I don't think murpharph has suggested UK would be treated worse than other 3rd party countries with reciprocal immigration agreements/treaties. But that, "immigration agreements/treaties", is the rub: the problem is the period of legal vacuum which the cliff-edge scenario entails.

He was talking about visas to enter EU countries. That won't happen.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

. . . Secondly - the only "downgrade" I can see is that EU citizens will have the same restrictions on non-EU spouses as British citizens. This is fair.

Losing the right of access to the ECJ is obviously a downgrading of your rights, solo.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - the ECJ isn't an independent body. It is biased to one side of the argument. This is why the UK are proposing a truly impartial arbitration mechanism.

You keep saying that the ECJ is biassed. You keep being asked to produce evidence of bias. You keep not producing any. Do you think we don't notice this?

And, to clarify, has the UK proposed that the rights of EU citizens in the UK post-Brexit be guaranteed by, or adjudicated by, a "truly impartial arbitration mechanism"? If so, have they given any detail on what they consider would be "truly impartial" in this context?

solodeogloria

Good morning!

The bias of the ECJ is obvious. There is firstly a numerical bias. All 27 members will be the EU member states. There is also the obvious fact that the ECJ is the court of the European Union. It can't be trusted to rule in the interest of the UK post-Brexit.

This is why an arbitration panel with the UK and third country observers is a better arrangement. Dominic Raab proposed this a few weeks ago.

Any suggestion of direct ECJ oversight is unacceptable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Nody

First Up wrote: »

He was talking about visas to enter EU countries. That won't happen.

No that is very likely to happen; UK is likely to be entered into the visa Schengen agreement as the solution to UK travel. This means they would need to apply for a two year travel visa and submit certain information up front, pay the registration fee etc. for review similar to what the USA uses.

First Up

Nody wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

He was talking about visas to enter EU countries. That won't happen.

No that is very likely to happen; UK is likely to be entered into the visa Schengen agreement as the solution to UK travel. This means they would need to apply for a two year travel visa and submit certain information up front, pay the registration fee etc. for review similar to what the USA uses.

To come is a tourist or for a short business trip?

Nody

First Up wrote: »

To come is a tourist or for a short business trip?

They don't make a difference; it's valid for up to 90 days every 6 months and can be single, double or multiple entry depending on the need of the person. For more details please see here.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The bias of the ECJ is obvious. There is firstly a numerical bias. All 27 members will be the EU member states. There is also the obvious fact that the ECJ is the court of the European Union. It can't be trusted to rule in the interest of the UK post-Brexit.

You have an odd definition of bias. A tribunal which could be trusted to rule in the interests of the UK would biassed by definition. A non-biassed tribunal will not be ruling in the interests of either party; it will be finding the facts, and applying the relevant rules of law to them.

solodeogloria wrote: »

This is why an arbitration panel with the UK and third country observers is a better arrangement. Dominic Raab proposed this a few weeks ago.

He proposes this in relation to disputes between an EU citizen and the Home Office?

listermint

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The bias of the ECJ is obvious. There is firstly a numerical bias. All 27 members will be the EU member states. There is also the obvious fact that the ECJ is the court of the European Union. It can't be trusted to rule in the interest of the UK post-Brexit.

This is why an arbitration panel with the UK and third country observers is a better arrangement. Dominic Raab proposed this a few weeks ago.

Any suggestion of direct ECJ oversight is unacceptable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Its amazing something only has bias when it suits your agenda. But it had not bias for the past number of decades where it helped millions of British citizens.

This protectionist racket is extremely grating particularly when its nationalistic rubbish with little base in reality dressed up as some progressive thinking for the United Kingdom. The whole new opportunity and we will all be better off if not laudable, its laughable guff from the privileged few. Something i think you yourself have bias on as you are one of the privileged few, English speaking educated for free and can jog off back to Ireland should the need take.

Have cake and have others cake too...

solodeogloria

Peregrinus wrote: »

You have an odd definition of bias. A tribunal which could be trusted to rule in the interests of the UK would biassed by definition. A non-biassed tribunal will not be ruling in the interests of either party; it will be finding the facts, and applying the relevant rules of law to them.

He proposes this in relation to disputes between an EU citizen and the Home Office?

Good morning!

The UK Government proposes this for all aspects of the deal from what I understand.

A non-biased tribunal is ideal. The point is that the UK doesn't want to be subject to a body which has an inherent bias towards the EU and a body in which they would have zero representation. This is the ECJ post-Brexit.

This is hardly surprising and the UK have proposed a good alternative model. Being subject to an EU court post-Brexit is completely unacceptable for obvious reasons.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria