Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Irish Praetorian

sondagefaux wrote: »

If having a higher percentage of people of other races in a country's population is an indicator that it's less racist than a country with a smaller share of different races, then apartheid South Africa, with its high share of race minorities, including about 25% white people of mainly European origin, and people of Asian origin, must have been a paradise of racial harmony compared to the UK.

I feel like I should offer some succour to this line of argument, though I would as you all well know, be much more pro-EU in my inclinations. Nevertheless, the counter-argument one might want to make is that purported attitudes of racial tolerance don't really carry much weight if they are merely theoretical exercises in a de-facto segregated or a mono-racial society. It's all well and good to say one is not a racist if one is living in a monochrome rural village or on a well-off estate. But I think the real test of racial tolerance might be living in a more racially diverse area, one where maybe crime isn't so rare and the luxuries or wealth aren't so apparent. A more pertinent example might be the case of our own Traveller community; now people are probably well aware of the attitudes that have built up over the year, but one is forced to ask who is the least racist - the shop keeper who eyes traveller customers warily but generally tries to give people a fair shake or a broadcaster living in Donnybrook who would shriek at the mere notion of that shopkeeper giving two customers remotely different treatment, but who would in all likelihood react frantically if even the possibility of a Halting Site being established near their plush neighbourhood. Obviously these are fairly clean cut theoretical examples for illustrative purposes, but I think the point is fairly made.

Bit cynical

sondagefaux wrote: »

Nothing in EU law ever prevented the British from allowing free movement of people from their former empire or any other country in the world.

Instead of supporting rules that make it more difficult for EU, EEA and Swiss citizens of every race and ethnicity to move to the UK, why not support a 'levelling up' of rights for citizens of other states?

However the question then would be why don't all countries around the world open their borders to the rest of the world. The answer is probably that by controlling immigration so that immigrants have skills that complement those of the existing workforce rather than competing with the existing workforce, living standards improve. I think Enzokk posted a link supporting this view earlier.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the question then would be why don't all countries around the world open their borders to the rest of the world. The answer is probably that by controlling immigration so that immigrants have skills that complement those of the existing workforce rather than competing with the existing workforce, living standards improve.

I think you have a very romantic idea of how much the people in government in the majority of the worlds countries (especially outside of Europe) care about the living standards of anyone other than themselves.

Border controls, since time immemorial, and definitely all through the period for which we have been keeping records, has always been about keeping money and power with those who already have it. And migration has always been about those without it trying to improve their own situation. From a socio-political point of view, there is no difference between an Irish peasant farmer emigrating to Louisiana to escape the famine in Connemara in the 1840s and a Somali farmer trying to get to Kent in the 2020s ... other than the couple of hundred years needed to transform the former into some kind of epic legend, worthy of bronze memorial statues, a movie or two and many a proclamation extolling the cultural richness that such emigration brought to the region.

CelticRambler

Skimming this Guardian article about fish (nothing new in it really) it occurred to me that if (when) Scotland declares independence, it'll have a huge impact on the size of the fishing waters left under British/English control. The agent provocateur in me would be thinking that it'd be in the EU's interest to stall the trade negotiations long enough to create the conditions necessary for an IndyRef2 success, to welcome Scotland back - along with Scottish waters - and leave England with a much weaker hand in this respect. Those North Sea and Atlantic fishing grounds could be more valuable to the Scots than whatever dinosaur juice remains in the oilfields.

ThePanjandrum

fash wrote: »

Actually it takes place under WTO tendering rules.
WTO Public Procurement
So when will the campaign to take back control from the evil WTO start?

T think that you'll find that it was EU procurement rules https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/public-procurement_en

johnnyskeleton

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Yet people claim that the British Empire was actually the Irish or Scottish empire because of the number of people active in the colonies from these countries.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Brendan O'Neill posts one of the few sensible articles about "that woman on Question Time"

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/02/21/why-they-hate-that-question-time-woman/

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

I see (via Wikipedia) that the Irish population is 2.1% Asian, 1.4% Black, the United Kingdom is 4.2% Asian, 3% Black. Perhaps you should look in the mirror before claiming that other countries are racist.

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Google is your friend. When in doubt just look it up.

Mod note:

Trolling is unacceptable. Please read the charter as well regarding link dumps and not just telling people to google it.

Enzokk

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

T think that you'll find that it was EU procurement rules https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/public-procurement_en

Still not sure what your point is, can you elaborate?

sondagefaux

Bit cynical wrote: »

However the question then would be why don't all countries around the world open their borders to the rest of the world. The answer is probably that by controlling immigration so that immigrants have skills that complement those of the existing workforce rather than competing with the existing workforce, living standards improve. I think Enzokk posted a link supporting this view earlier.

For starters, I was replying to a claim you made that EU freedom of movement favours mainly white Europeans, with the implicit claim that the UK was compelled by EU law to favour white European immigration.

Nothing in EU law required the UK to treat non-EU migrants from any non-EU country less favourably than migrants from EU countries. That has been an entirely voluntary choice by the UK.

Was Australia's whites only immigration policy up to the 1970s required by EU law?

Quit shifting the goalposts when you've made a silly claim that's been rebutted.

Secondly, the MAC (Migration Advisory Committee) study found that a small proportion of British workers would have earned an extra 1p per hour in some sectors if it hadn't been for immigration.

The overall net benefits of immigration far outweigh any tiny negative impacts it may have on small fractions of the population.

sondagefaux

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

T think that you'll find that it was EU procurement rules https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/public-procurement_en

I think you'll find that a lot of EU rules implement wider international rules.

So leaving the EU won't mean the UK can avoid implementing those rules, unless it also withdraws from a wide range of international bodies and international treaties.

Like it or not, international rules impinge on national sovereignty to a far greater degree than they did in 1972.

The UK can play by those rules or play alone.

rogue-entity

CelticRambler wrote: »

Border controls, since time immemorial, and definitely all through the period for which we have been keeping records, has always been about keeping money and power with those who already have it. And migration has always been about those without it trying to improve their own situation.

The must succinct explanation for immigration policies as enacted by most countries, there are exceptions here and there but that's about the size of it.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Border controls, since time immemorial, and definitely all through the period for which we have been keeping records, has always been about keeping money and power with those who already have it.

But you will probably also find that the people in most countries are also in favour of some form of control of borders. Very few advocate completely open borders.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

But you will probably also find that the people in most countries are also in favour of some form of control of borders. Very few advocate completely open borders.

You'll find that the vast majority of "people" are hypocrites. They'll demand/vote for a minimum wage, then happily buy stuff made by foreigners in a foreign land who get paid less than a dollar a day. You'll also find that "people" are all in favour of border controls until it suits them to step outside those borders. The vast majority of law-abiding "people" think locking law-breakers in a prison makes them safer, when in reality it puts them at greater risk in the future.

And so far, in twelve iterations of this thread, we are still waiting to hear one coherent argument in favour of Brexit that stands up to factual scrutiny - yet "people" voted for it in their millions.

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

You'll find that the vast majority of "people" are hypocrites. They'll demand/vote for a minimum wage, then happily buy stuff made by foreigners in a foreign land who get paid less than a dollar a day. You'll also find that "people" are all in favour of border controls until it suits them to step outside those borders. The vast majority of law-abiding "people" think locking law-breakers in a prison makes them safer, when in reality it puts them at greater risk in the future.

Sure there's an element of hypocrisy. Some want border controls for their own country but expect to be able to freely enter another country. But the point is that citizens of a given state outside the EU generally expect some form of control on their own border; it is not just those in power. Indeed the Tories in the UK are probably pandering to the electorate with their proposed rules, they themselves privately favouring a more liberal approach to help their friends in business.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure there's an element of hypocrisy. Some want border controls for their own country but expect to be able to freely enter another country. But the point is that citizens of a given state outside the EU generally expect some form of control on their own border; it is not just those in power. Indeed the Tories in the UK are probably pandering to the electorate with their proposed rules, they themselves privately favouring a more liberal approach to help their friends in business.

Every country in Europe has border controls, including Ireland.

Freedom of movement is not some sort of golden pass into a country. UK immigration has full authority to detain any EU citizen coming through a port or airport, search them and their luggage and detain them for many hours if they so desire. They also have the right to deport EU citizens and could deport tens of thousands tomorrow morning if they wanted for various technical breaches of FoM legislation.

briany

With the news that the British are looking at ways to sidestep the Northern Irish protocol, I have to wonder A) is anyone surprised, and could agreements with the current British administration even be considered to be worth the ink they're signed with?

lawred2

briany wrote: »

With the news that the British are looking at ways to sidestep the Northern Irish protocol, I have to wonder A) is anyone surprised, and could agreements with the current British administration even be considered to be worth the ink they're signed with?

Seems to be what they are aiming for. International pariah status.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

Every country in Europe has border controls, including Ireland.

Freedom of movement is not some sort of golden pass into a country. UK immigration has full authority to detain any EU citizen coming through a port or airport, search them and their luggage and detain them for many hours if they so desire. They also have the right to deport EU citizens and could deport tens of thousands tomorrow morning if they wanted for various technical breaches of FoM legislation.

Sure but for practical purposes freedom of movement within the EU area means minimal application of border controls though technically they may exist in some form. Generally if you have an EU passport you get through. No visa required and you can live and work freely once there.

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

No visa required and you can live and work freely once there.

Sounds like you've never tried to "live and work freely" in another EU state. I have, and despite my Freedom of Movement as an EU citizen, there were plenty of checks and controls on my status and qualifications, not least a determined attempt by the State (France - the one you can see from Dover) to ensure that I got nothing in the way of benefits or other advantages until I could prove that I didn't need them.

So as a Brexit supporter, and someone obviously in favour of border controls, can you explain why successive UK governments have chosen not to impose EU-sanctioned controls on EU migrants?

A Dub in Glasgo

CelticRambler wrote: »

Skimming this Guardian article about fish (nothing new in it really) it occurred to me that if (when) Scotland declares independence, it'll have a huge impact on the size of the fishing waters left under British/English control. The agent provocateur in me would be thinking that it'd be in the EU's interest to stall the trade negotiations long enough to create the conditions necessary for an IndyRef2 success, to welcome Scotland back - along with Scottish waters - and leave England with a much weaker hand in this respect. Those North Sea and Atlantic fishing grounds could be more valuable to the Scots than whatever dinosaur juice remains in the oilfields.

A lot of people in Scotland have swallowed the UK juice that England subsidises Scotland

Bit cynical

CelticRambler wrote: »

Sounds like you've never tried to "live and work freely" in another EU state. I have, and despite my Freedom of Movement as an EU citizen, there were plenty of checks and controls on my status and qualifications, not least a determined attempt by the State (France - the one you can see from Dover) to ensure that I got nothing in the way of benefits or other advantages until I could prove that I didn't need them.

So as a Brexit supporter, and someone obviously in favour of border controls, can you explain why successive UK governments have chosen not to impose EU-sanctioned controls on EU migrants?

However I did not say freedom to claim benefits. I said freedom to live and work. Most countries outside the EU don't allow freedom to live and work to a large block of other countries. I think there's an element of nit-picking in your post.

briany

lawred2 wrote: »

Seems to be what they are aiming for. International pariah status.

Although they might become that if they continue being unnecessarily difficult, it obviously can't be their intent. What advantage could be perceived from being an international pariah?

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

Sure but for practical purposes freedom of movement within the EU area means minimal application of border controls though technically they may exist in some form. Generally if you have an EU passport you get through. No visa required and you can live and work freely once there.

You can live 'freely' within the rules but the UK could apply FoM rules far more stringently if they wanted and could deport tens of thousands of EU citizens (and such deportees would have no right to return to Britain).

It was an absolute lie by the crooks and charlatans of Vote Leave that the UK had to leave the EU in order to get around the FoM issue.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

You can live 'freely' within the rules but the UK could apply FoM rules far more stringently if they wanted and could deport tens of thousands of EU citizens (and such deportees would have no right to return to Britain).

It was an absolute lie by the crooks and charlatans of Vote Leave that the UK had to leave the EU in order to get around the FoM issue.

What they can't do however is adjust their immigration policy with respect to EU countries in favour of particular skills for example or require companies to recruit within the UK first before recruiting outside. This is only possible through leaving the EU.

sondagefaux

Fancy retiring to Spain?

From next year, if you're British you'll have to prove you have an annual income of at least €30,078.36 per year for yourself plus at least €7,519.59 for every other person in your family household.

Citizens of non-EEA countries (not Switzerland) have to have at least 400% of the annual IPREM amount for themselves and at least 100% of the annual IPREM amount for every other member of their family household.

These amounts are based on 2020 IPREM figures and could change.

2020 IPREM figures here: http://www.iprem.com.es/2020.html

IPREM stands for Indicador Público de Renta de Efectos Múltiples (Public Indicator of Multiple Effects Income): it is a reference index to assign subsidies for housing, study grants, unemployment benefits, free legal aid, and for calculating the income required by third country immigrant pensioners.

A British pensioner couple will need a combined annual income of at least €37,597.95 per year (based on 2020 IPREM figures, this could change) to meet one of the conditions set out under Spanish immigration law for people who aren't citizens of an EEA member state or Switzerland.

According to a UK government paper (search for Pensioners’ Incomes Series: An analysis of trends
in Pensioner Incomes: 1994/95 to 2017/2018), the average pensioner couple in the UK had a weekly income of £454.00 in 2017/2018, equivalent to £23,608 per year, or €28,215 per year at today's exchange rate.

So only British pensioner couples with pensions about one-third above the UK average will be able to apply to live as retirees in Spain.

They'll also need to show police certificates from every country they've lived in within the previous 5 years to show if they have criminal convictions ( about 22% of people in Britain have a criminal conviction by the age of 50).

They'll also need to get health insurance from an insurance entity authorised by the Spanish state.

They'll need to provide medical test results showing they have no communicable diseases or health problems that could impact on public health in Spain.

http://extranjeros.mitramiss.gob.es/es/informacioninteres/informacionprocedimientos/ciudadanosnocomunitarios/hoja010/index.html

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

What they can't do however is adjust their immigration policy with respect to EU countries in favour of particular skills for example or require companies to recruit within the UK first before recruiting outside. This is only possible through leaving the EU.

That part is certainly true but you could argue it's like using a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut i.e. leaving the EU to get around a relatively unimportant EU law (unimportant in the general scheme of things, including the vastness of UK-EU trade).

sondagefaux

Strazdas wrote: »

That part is certainly true but you could argue it's like using a sledgehammer to crack open a peanut i.e. leaving the EU to get around a relatively unimportant EU law (unimportant in the general scheme of things, including the vastness of UK-EU trade).

It's going to be fun watching the Home Office trying to predict the migrant labour needs of every sector of the UK economy in every part of the UK, failing miserably every time, and pissing off businesses left, right and centre.

timetogo1

Strazdas wrote: »

You can live 'freely' within the rules but the UK could apply FoM rules far more stringently if they wanted and could deport tens of thousands of EU citizens (and such deportees would have no right to return to Britain).

It was an absolute lie by the crooks and charlatans of Vote Leave that the UK had to leave the EU in order to get around the FoM issue.

I don't think the number would be in the 10s of 1000s. I think you can only remove an EU citizen if they can't support themselves. Would the number be that high considering the UK is meant to have record low unemployment.

Peregrinus

As of February 2015, there were something like 113,000 working-age benefit claimants in the UK who were nationals of another Member State when they first entered the UK national insurance system.

Points to note:

Not all of these were out of work; some would have been claiming in-work benefits like Housing Benefit and Disablity Living Allowance. But the majority were claiming out-of-work benefits.

Not all of them were necessarily "EU migrants" as conventionally understood. Some, for example, might have been the children of migrants, who grew up in the UK, entered the National Insurance system in the usual way, and only years later became benefit claimants. Others might have been the spouses of British citizens. Etc, etc.

Plus - and this is quite significant - there has been a change in the rules since 2015. To claim a benefit in the UK, you have to satisfy a "right to reside" requirement. The requirement differs from benefit to benefit but, as of 2015, so far as jobseekers allowance, child benefit and child tax credit were concerned, an EU national could satisfy the "right to reside" test simply by being a jobseeker - i.e. by being available for work.

But these benefits are being replaced with Universal Credit. And an EU national doesn't pass the habitual residence test for universal credit if their only their only right to reside is as a jobseeker, or a family member of a jobseeker. So, even without brexit, a lot of unemployed EU benefit claimants would have lost their benefits anyway.

Brexit changes the rules again. As boardies will know, EU citizens currently resident in the UK can apply for "settled status". If their application is successful, and they have been living in the UK for more than 5 years already, they will get "settled status". This will satisfy the habitual residence test for universal credit. But if they have been living in the UK for less than five years, they only get "pre-settled status", which does not satisfy the habitual residence test, and they will be denied universal credit.

listermint

timetogo1 wrote: »

I don't think the number would be in the 10s of 1000s. I think you can only remove an EU citizen if they can't support themselves. Would the number be that high considering the UK is meant to have record low unemployment.

It's always record low unemployment if you change the definition of what unemployed is.

It's always unusual that people with access to the internet believe the term record low unemployment

CelticRambler

Bit cynical wrote: »

However I did not say freedom to claim benefits. I said freedom to live and work. Most countries outside the EU don't allow freedom to live and work to a large block of other countries. I think there's an element of nit-picking in your post.

Migration control is all about nit-picking. The whole "points-based" system works on the basis of candidates having the right kind of nits.

Once again, the Leaver argument on this topic seems to be based entirely on a gut feeling that EU foreigners in Britain are a bad lot, even if they're working-age adults making a useful contribution to the British economy; while ignoring the tens of thousands of old-age British emigrants who have taken advantage of exactly the same freedoms to cash in their UK chips to buy cheap property in France and Spain and Italy.

And if you're a European business, you are not just entitled to offer a job to a European first, you're required to do so.

If you were born and raised in the state of California, you can move to New York to live and work; if you were born and raised in Perth, you can move to Sydney to live and work. There are moves afoot in East Africa to allow people from Kenya to move to Tanzania to live and work, or Uganda or Rwanda. These are territories far larger than any European country; larger than the EU, in fact. The only thing you're complaining about is where the line is drawn. Should English jobs be for the English only?