Will Britain piss off and get on with Brexit II (mod warning in OP)

mdudy

theological wrote: »

One example of how policy is going to change is that all new immigrants to the UK will be subject to a points based system and there will be no preference given to EU nationals.

They already had the means to do this.

fash wrote: »

Why won't you answer my questions on that? Are you able?

They're clearly not. I've directly refuted the above point and they just ignore it. People like him are the reason the UK is the way it is today.

First Up

theological wrote:

Therefore comparing these two types of immigration is like comparing apples with oranges.

Those EU citizens coming and going as they please must really upset you, if you are ready to gamble the UK's economic future to put limits on them.

I assume it doesn't matter to you that they make a significant contribution to the economy (a higher employment rate than British nationals) and only stay a few years (whereas non EU immigrants stay forever).

Taking more than half of the UK's trade out of the world's 2nd biggest single market and taking the rest of it out from the protection of the EU's international trade agreements is a small price to pay to escape from the tyranny of ......of.....of....

Whatever it is.

Leroy42

Not to mention that all uk citizens have lost the right to work and live and travel freely in the EU.

It really is a hell of a lot to give up on an idea.

Of course they never really thought of it like that. Many Brexiteers don't see there being any costs. They will continue as before, travel, work, roaming charges, healthcare, pensions, it will be others that lose out.

When you look at it from that POV it is easier to see why pointing this out makes so little impact. They simply don't believe it will happen or even if it does it won't impact them.

Seth Brundle

theological wrote: »

One example of how policy is going to change is that all new immigrants to the UK will be subject to a points based system and there will be no preference given to EU nationals.

So how will that improve what’s currently happening?
In terms of EU immigrants, they tend AFAIK to be more educated than other immigrants so are in general of more value to the UK economy. If it turns out that they are no good and not contributing members of society, there are existing yet unused mechanisms to remove them from the UK.
In terms of immigrants from outside the UK, there’s no change there.
So I’m at a loss as to how things will improve through this example of yours?

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

Not to mention that all uk citizens have lost the right to work and live and travel freely in the EU.

It really is a hell of a lot to give up on an idea.

Of course they never really thought of it like that. Many Brexiteers don't see there being any costs. They will continue as before, travel, work, roaming charges, healthcare, pensions, it will be others that lose out.

When you look at it from that POV it is easier to see why pointing this out makes so little impact. They simply don't believe it will happen or even if it does it won't impact them.

It is and it isn't. A lot of the people who voted to be stripped of those rights were never going to make much use of them to begin with. The narrative on freedom of movement has always been one of xenophobia of varying shades.

It'll be younger people who will be expected to pay for the older generation, the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic and whatever else may lie in store in the coming years. Their rewards will be extortionate rents and being called snowflakes by people who gorge themselves on tabloids headquartered in the Bahamas and Belize.

J Mysterio

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It is and it isn't. A lot of the people who voted to be stripped of those rights were never going to make much use of them to begin with. The narrative on freedom of movement has always been one of xenophobia of varying shades.

It'll be younger people who will be expected to pay for the older generation, the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic and whatever else may lie in store in the coming years. Their rewards will be extortionate rents and being called snowflakes by people who gorge themselves on tabloids headquartered in the Bahamas and Belize.

I agree for the most part, except you can guarantee all these people will complain about non EU national airport queues on their trip to Malaga etc. etc

Whatever about myself,I'm worried about the younger generation generally though. My younger sister had the whole world ahead of her, and now has seemingly very little prospects. It's a very sad time. We have had the rug pulled from under us, whereas others have willingly and (arguably) knowingly screwed thesmelves (Brexit).

theological

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It is and it isn't. A lot of the people who voted to be stripped of those rights were never going to make much use of them to begin with. The narrative on freedom of movement has always been one of xenophobia of varying shades.

It'll be younger people who will be expected to pay for the older generation, the fallout from the Covid-19 pandemic and whatever else may lie in store in the coming years. Their rewards will be extortionate rents and being called snowflakes by people who gorge themselves on tabloids headquartered in the Bahamas and Belize.

Except I've provided several reasons as to why it is sensible to control migration over the last few pages. The name calling is a bit tiresome.

Also - if it is so xenophobic to insist on controlling migration, why don't we have freedom of movement from the entire globe?

First Up

theological wrote: »

Except I've provided several reasons as to why it is sensible to control migration over the last few pages. The name calling is a bit tiresome.

Also - if it is so xenophobic to insist on controlling migration, why don't we have freedom of movement from the entire globe?

Because the entire globe is not part of a single market with common standards and a shared regulatory system.

You might be able to make better contributions to this discussion if you bothered to learn what the EU actually is.

theological

First Up wrote: »

Because the entire globe is not part of a single market with common standards and a shared regulatory system.

You might be able to make better contributions to this discussion if you bothered to learn what the EU actually is.

I know what the EU is, that's why I think it's better that the UK steps outside of it. Snarky comments aside - if the argument is that it is xenophobic to require that someone from Bulgaria requests a visa to move to the UK on a permanent basis after December 31st, then it must also be xenophobic to require that someone from the Democratic Republic of Congo requires a visa.

Or it is sensible for both to apply to determine if there is a labour need in the sector that they are applying for and that there are adequate public services to ensure that the country is prepared for that amount of arrivals.

There are obvious problems with a carte blanche privilege to move into a country without controls, both for the receiving and sending countries. One can rationally express that opinion without any element of xenophobia. I'm largely of the mind that immigration can be beneficial when it is controlled.

Edit: given that the UK will be outside of the EU regulatory remit and outside of the single market after December 31st then your argument is also compatible with the idea that there should be border controls for EU migrants after Brexit also.

First Up

theological wrote: »

I know what the EU is, that's why I think it's better that the UK steps outside of it. Snarky comments aside - if the argument is that it is xenophobic to require that someone from Bulgaria requests a visa to move to the UK on a permanent basis after December 31st, then it must also be xenophobic to require that someone from the Democratic Republic of Congo requires a visa.

Or it is sensible for both to apply to determine if there is a labour need in the sector that they are applying for and that there are adequate public services to ensure that the country is prepared for that amount of arrivals.

There are obvious problems with a carte blanche privilege to move into a country without controls, both for the receiving and sending countries. One can rationally express that opinion without any element of xenophobia. I'm largely of the mind that immigration can be beneficial when it is controlled.

Edit: given that the UK will be outside of the EU regulatory remit and outside of the single market after December 31st then your argument is also compatible with the idea that there should be border controls for EU migrants after Brexit also.

You clearly don't, as this comment (and many others) demonstrates.

theological

First Up wrote: »

You clearly don't, as this comment (and many others) demonstrates.

Are you actually going to offer anything of substance to the thread?

Or reply and engage with some of the counter-arguments I've offered to you. That'd be more conducive to discussion.

First Up

theological wrote:

Are you actually going to offer anything of substance to the thread?

You mean in addition to telling you what the EU Single Market is, pointing out that EU immigrants benefit the UK economy (while non EU immigrants don't), that half of the UK's trade is within the EU and the rest of it benefits from the EU's trade agreements?

All that seems to have sailed over your head and you have not answered my questions about how the UK will benefit from designing a tariff regime with the EU and 3rd countries.

There's a bit of substance there if you can bring yourself to address it.

theological

Repeating yourself on about the Single Market when it is not relevant to the topic you mean? The UK is not going to be a part of the single market after the transition period. Therefore it has zero relevance to its immigration policy.

Please respond to the points I've made.

First Up

theological wrote: »

Repeating yourself on about the Single Market when it is not relevant to the topic you mean? The UK is not going to be a part of the single market after the transition period. Therefore it has zero relevance to its immigration policy.

Please respond to the points I've made.

Movement between members is an integral part of the Single Market. I repeated it because you criticism of EU immigration into the UK doesn't seem to understand the connection. I have previously shown the similarities (and benefits) between the EU Single Market and the USA (the world's largest and second largest economic blocs.) But you don't get that either.

The only other point you have made is that you hope the UK gets a trade deal. Hope is not a strategy.

Your support for Brexit seems to be based on a deficient understanding of what the EU is, unawareness that EU immigrants are a net benefit to the UK (non EU immigrants are not) and a heady combination of wishful thinking and delusion about how the UK's trade will fare outside the Single Market.

You have a bit of work to do to catch up.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

I know what the EU is, that's why I think it's better that the UK steps outside of it. Snarky comments aside - if the argument is that it is xenophobic to require that someone from Bulgaria requests a visa to move to the UK on a permanent basis after December 31st, then it must also be xenophobic to require that someone from the Democratic Republic of Congo requires a visa.

Or it is sensible for both to apply to determine if there is a labour need in the sector that they are applying for and that there are adequate public services to ensure that the country is prepared for that amount of arrivals.

There are obvious problems with a carte blanche privilege to move into a country without controls, both for the receiving and sending countries. One can rationally express that opinion without any element of xenophobia. I'm largely of the mind that immigration can be beneficial when it is controlled.

Edit: given that the UK will be outside of the EU regulatory remit and outside of the single market after December 31st then your argument is also compatible with the idea that there should be border controls for EU migrants after Brexit also.

Hi Theo,


The UK already has different visas for allowing people from other countries to live there. For example, if you are from a Commonwealth country and you had a UK-born grandparent, then you are automatically entitled to a 5-year visa. Yet your buddy in the DRC is not allowed that!!! Must be xenophobic, right? (Especially given that we know what "UK-born grandparent" will mean in terms of race for the vast majority of cases!)





And Scottish people can move to and work in London. Yet DRC buddy can't....must be xenophobic then right? But Scotland and UK are in a union you say? Well so were UK and Bulgaria....but there seemed to be a lot more people giving out about not being able to control the Bulgarians than there were about not being able to control the Scots!



You see, you cannot always prove or disprove an argument by taking it to a stupid conclusion. It is not a linear process.



The UK should just go and stop wasting time looking for a deal if they don't want to agree to anything reasonable. They are the only ones keeping themselves at the table. If they want "full control" then they should just fuck off and have it and deal with the consequences later. We've already seen the start of how things will look in the future with the unelected and unaccountable Mr Cummings giving his press conference yesterday (against the UKs own rules) and it just being allowed. The UK needs to be careful what it wishes for in case it gets it! But that is their own look out. They can do what they like within their own borders. They will have relatively little influence outside of them

theological

Donald Trump wrote: »

The UK should just go and stop wasting time looking for a deal if they don't want to agree to anything reasonable. They are the only ones keeping themselves at the table. If they want "full control" then they should just fuck off and have it and deal with the consequences later. We've already seen the start of how things will look in the future with the unelected and unaccountable Mr Cummings giving his press conference yesterday (against the UKs own rules) and it just being allowed. The UK needs to be careful what it wishes for in case it gets it! But that is their own look out. They can do what they like within their own borders. They will have relatively little influence outside of them

The unreasonable party are the EU. The UK's proposed arrangement is generous for both sides. The EU wants to constrain the UK to the rules that emerge from Brussels. My simple response is that if they are not going to do this for Canada, the UK should say a simple no.

Donald Trump

theological wrote: »

The unreasonable party are the EU. The UK's proposed arrangement is generous for both sides. The EU wants to constrain the UK to the rules that emerge from Brussels. My simple response is that if they are not going to do this for Canada, the UK should say a simple no.

The UK is outside the club.


They want access to some of the clubs facilities.



It is irrelevant whether or not you think the club are begin reasonable or not. It is their club. They set the rules. They are under no obligation to provide anything and the UK have no entitlement to anything.



UK should just leave now and then come back to the table in a couple of years (albeit they will likely be in a weaker position) when it is more politically acceptable for them.



(Although, FWIW, contrary to yourself, I see the EU's position as being wholly reasonable!)

fash

theological wrote: »

The unreasonable party are the EU. The UK's proposed arrangement is generous for both sides. The EU wants to constrain the UK to the rules that emerge from Brussels. My simple response is that if they are not going to do this for Canada, the UK should say a simple no.

The UK sells 10 times as much into the EU as Canada. The rules therefore need to be 10 times stricter.

First Up

Donald Trump wrote: »

The UK is outside the club.


They want access to some of the clubs facilities.



It is irrelevant whether or not you think the club are begin reasonable or not. It is their club. They set the rules. They are under no obligation to provide anything and the UK have no entitlement to anything.



UK should just leave now and then come back to the table in a couple of years (albeit they will likely be in a weaker position) when it is more politically acceptable for them.



(Although, FWIW, contrary to yourself, I see the EU's position as being wholly reasonable!)

The EU is being very reasonable. This is how I explained it to Theo after one of his flights of fantasy last week:


The EU will be reasonable too. It will look to protect businesses in the 27 from disruption to their markets or supply chains. That's reasonable.

It will also be reasonable about ensuring that a country that has chosen to leave the union does not retain any advantages over the countries that remain.

Another area of reasonableness will be that the former member will get no preferential treatment over other third countries in its terms of trade with the EU.

It is also normal (and reasonable) for the larger partner in such negotiations to use their superior bargaining power to their advantage.

That's the real template for a deal.

eagle eye

First Up wrote:

Another area of reasonableness will be that the former member will get no preferential treatment over other third countries in its terms of trade with the EU.

Don't agree with this one. Bigger markets should get better deals.

Donald Trump

eagle eye wrote: »

Don't agree with this one. Bigger markets should get better deals.

Well then, the EU, as the UK's biggest market, should get a deal with the UK with far better terms than any other market will!


EU is a massive market for the UK. The reverse is not quite as pronounced

Guy:Incognito

https://twitter.com/donaldtusk/status/1265266635650347013

Insert Ashton Kutcher gif here ->

eagle eye

Donald Trump wrote:

Well then, the EU, as the UK's biggest market, should get a deal with the UK with far better terms than any other market will!
EU is a massive market for the UK. The reverse is not quite as pronounced

I was responding to somebody saying the UK shouldn't get a better deal than other countries outside the EU. My response was that bigger markets should get better deals.
Your response is not in line with what we were discussing. Get on the right page.

First Up

eagle eye wrote:

Don't agree with this one. Bigger markets should get better deals.

It's not that simple.

Size helps but everyone with a trade agreement with the EU (about 140 in place or at some stage in the process) will look to take advantage of the UK leaving.

Plus there are thousands of companies across the EU licking their chops at the prospect of replacing UK suppliers in EU markets.

Nobody will be doing them any favours.

Donald Trump

eagle eye wrote: »

I was responding to somebody saying the UK shouldn't get a better deal than other countries outside the EU. My response was that bigger markets should get better deals.
Your response is not in line with what we were discussing. Get on the right page.

The biggest markets should not get "better" deals.



Nor do they. In fact, most of the "best" deals for trading with the EU are with poorer countries.

fash

eagle eye wrote: »

I was responding to somebody saying the UK shouldn't get a better deal than other countries outside the EU. My response was that bigger markets should get better deals.
Your response is not in line with what we were discussing. Get on the right page.

Not"should" in the sense of "morally right" - rather bigger countries"can" - because they potentially offer more. This is only potentially the case that they offer more: they may already be so open that their offer of a deal is little better than the status quo (hence why with the UK's originally proposed no deal tariffs, Canada refused to talk to them). It will also depend on how desperate they are for a deal - if say they don't have the logistics capacity not to accept a deal -any deal- because of its impact on their ports, if they don't have other trade arrangements in place so no deal will be particularly painful, if proximity means they will remain in your orbit anyway (for example Mexico and Canada to the US), then you are freer to offer less favourable terms

eagle eye

Donald Trump wrote:

Nor do they. In fact, most of the "best" deals for trading with the EU are with poorer countries.

Well that's just stupid.

First Up wrote:

Size helps but everyone with a trade agreement with the EU (about 140 in place or at some stage in the process) will look to take advantage of the UK leaving.

Do you want a more affluent market? Or does that not matter to you? Are you not considering Ireland in this?

First Up wrote:

Plus there are thousands of companies across the EU licking their chops at the prospect of replacing UK suppliers in EU markets.

From an Irish perspective this is not a good thing. Take transport costs for instance which grow significantly if we are travelling across Europe instead of to the UK. Think about companies being able to set up in Europe and not needing Ireland as transport costs are lower for them in central Europe.

fash

eagle eye wrote: »

Well that's just stupid.

The EU wants to encourage/help developing African countries to be not corrupt and to develop their economies.

Donald Trump

eagle eye wrote: »

Well that's just stupid.

Most African countries can export tariff free into the EU.
Here you go



https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/november/tradoc_156399.pdf#page=2

eagle eye

Donald Trump wrote:

Instead of your advice about "getting on the right page" how about taking the earlier stage and open a book before calling other posters stupid for telling you facts.

I didn't say you were stupid, I said that's stupid. Bigger economies should be getting better deals.