[W:#7426]How will Brexit go?***W:46]***

[Infinite Chaos]

Merkel says EU is ready to proceed with Brexit talks.

Are we heading for a Norway type of agreement?

Essentially, we will have the same position as before the referendum but we will have thrown away any veto on EU treaties / voting on new EU laws / our hard won rebate and any decision making abilities. What a waste of time.

Those billionaires who run the papers that lied repeatedly to the masses about how we would replace the EU market should be forced to explain themselves before a parliamentary committee one day.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Merkel says EU is ready to proceed with Brexit talks.

Are we heading for a Norway type of agreement?

Essentially, we will have the same position as before the referendum but we will have thrown away any veto on EU treaties / voting on new EU laws / our hard won rebate and any decision making abilities. What a waste of time.

Those billionaires who run the papers that lied repeatedly to the masses about how we would replace the EU market should be forced to explain themselves before a parliamentary committee one day.

And these idiots sit around moaning "The little people have no faith in us the elite class anymore, it vanished, what's wrong with them".

Because they are stupid like that.

 

[Celebrity]

I voted for soft Brexit. Good luck, Britons!

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Discussion of options page.

Interesting discussion on BBC2 Jeremy Vine this lunchtime, Chuka Ummuna and John Redwood putting forward the arguments for the different versions they prefer. The discussion starts at 34 minutes 20 seconds.

Interestingly, Ummuna lets slip what PeteEU has been saying for many years here and that is various and all UK Govt chose not to put in the restrictions that are allowable under Free Movement rules which would have alleviated the pressure on wages and jobs here.

 

[Andalublue]

Interestingly, Ummuna lets slip what PeteEU has been saying for many years here and that is various and all UK Govt chose not to put in the restrictions that are allowable under Free Movement rules which would have alleviated the pressure on wages and jobs here.

We knew that. Just one more lie that the Brexiteers managed to sell to a credulous electorate.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

We knew that. Just one more lie that the Brexiteers managed to sell to a credulous electorate.

Yes, but why oh why didn't any Remain or more friendly newspaper ever publicise this? I get that many either in Labour or the Conservatives wanted Brexit at whatever cost or genuinely believe Brexit will work but those credulous people open to honest information would have appreciated knowing this.

I don't get it.

Equally, I don't get why emergency funding available to help with flood and other disaster was never called on from the EU.

 

[Andalublue]

Yes, but why oh why didn't any Remain or more friendly newspaper ever publicise this? I get that many either in Labour or the Conservatives wanted Brexit at whatever cost or genuinely believe Brexit will work but those credulous people open to honest information would have appreciated knowing this.

I don't get it.

Equally, I don't get why emergency funding available to help with flood and other disaster was never called on from the EU.

Go figure. I guess Cameron assumed Remain would win and knew that the available restrictions would damage the economy, as they will when the new-right Tories apply stricter new immigration controls post-Brexit. If they get the chance.

Labour too were actually opposed to stricter immigration controls. How else has the NHS and the agriculture sector been able to stagger along? Britain needs the immigrants. It has been conscious policy that the net migration rate has been as far in the positive as it has been. I'm just sorry that very few people have had the guts and the honesty to say so.

 

[William Rea]

Go figure. I guess Cameron assumed Remain would win and knew that the available restrictions would damage the economy, as they will when the new-right Tories apply stricter new immigration controls post-Brexit. If they get the chance.

Labour too were actually opposed to stricter immigration controls. How else has the NHS and the agriculture sector been able to stagger along? Britain needs the immigrants. It has been conscious policy that the net migration rate has been as far in the positive as it has been. I'm just sorry that very few people have had the guts and the honesty to say so.

It isn't going to end with Brexit, they are deluding themselves and dragging the UK down with it.

The general problem for right leaning parties is the corporate arms of their political party is in conflict with the populist arm over immigration. The only thing keeping the Conservatives together is this destructive appeasement of the populist wing and the fact that they love being in power more than anything else, including doing right by their country.

Actually, I think that Labour nailed this during the election with, 'yes, we will control immigration to stop undercutting of pay and conditions but, we must also train and give our young people an opportunity to do those jobs'; in other words, let's do right by our people and do the hard yards before doing the easy thing of importing skills like they are a commodity that we cannot produce ourselves. In this globalist neo-liberal world, Business views labour as a global commodity that they want to be able to move around the world free of control to suit their fiscal convenience.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ when the new-right Tories apply stricter new immigration controls post-Brexit. If they get the chance ~

Leadsom, Redwood, Rees Mogg, Liam Fox, Duncan Smith, Gove etc have no appeal to the wider electorate. Duncan Smith already had a go and was worse than May.

David Davies has already stated those EU migrant numbers will continue to be needed for many years after Brexit. That's not to say they will come - last week's nurse numbers from the EU shows we may need them but they don't want to come anymore.

Oh and please - just like council underfunding is cross party and not a Conservative only thing; Brexit was cross Party. Stop trying to play party politics with this. Gisela Stuart, Kate Hoey and others came from Labour - and half of the UKIP vote came from Labour ranks which returned for the GE last month.

 

[Andalublue]

David Davies has already stated those EU migrant numbers will continue to be needed for many years after Brexit.

I hadn't heard that. Where and when did he say it? It'll be interesting to see that in context.

 

[Chagos]

I hadn't heard that. Where and when did he say it? It'll be interesting to see that in context.

I recall as early as February and a couple of times ever since.

Brexit Secretary David Davis says UK will stay open to migrants after leaving EU | The Independent

 

[PeteEU]

I recall as early as February and a couple of times ever since.

Brexit Secretary David Davis says UK will stay open to migrants after leaving EU | The Independent

Yea but that is usually followed up a bit later on with "we want to control how many migrants get in", which is the total opposite of open immigration.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I hadn't heard that. Where and when did he say it? It'll be interesting to see that in context.

I posted a link several weeks ago on the Brexit thread, should be an easy enough google.

 

[Andalublue]

I posted a link several weeks ago on the Brexit thread, should be an easy enough google.

Got it. Chagos gave me the link. Interesting. Despite my utter disagreement with his Brexit stance, and his horrible 'small state' rhetoric, I have a bit of time for Davies. He is at least not an authoritarian and takes issues of freedom of information and privacy and such issues seriously. I would very much doubt that he's in a majority in the party in expressing those thoughts however. Despite their inescapable logic.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Got it. Chagos gave me the link. Interesting. Despite my utter disagreement with his Brexit stance, and his horrible 'small state' rhetoric, I have a bit of time for Davies. He is at least not an authoritarian and takes issues of freedom of information and privacy and such issues seriously. I would very much doubt that he's in a majority in the party in expressing those thoughts however. Despite their inescapable logic.

Well, if the headlines are correct, Davies really didn't believe the hard Brexit position either as we apparently caved in to EU demands on the timeline straight away yesterday.

People like Leadsom, Fox and Michael Gove however would have stuck their ground and caused irreparable harm (not that Brexit isn't going to harm us already).

 

[Infinite Chaos]

I recall as early as February and a couple of times ever since.

Brexit Secretary David Davis says UK will stay open to migrants after leaving EU | The Independent

I think this was my story, the takes are all different depending on the paper. :lol:

https://www.ft.com/content/cada5830-1335-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c?mhq5j=e2

 

[Red_Dave]

Yea but that is usually followed up a bit later on with "we want to control how many migrants get in", which is the total opposite of open immigration.

Not that we ever had ´open immigration´ under the EU. It was only ever open to Europeans to the detriment of the rest of the world. Or as George Galloway called it a "Whites first immigration policy"

 

[PeteEU]

Not that we ever had ´open immigration´ under the EU. It was only ever open to Europeans to the detriment of the rest of the world. Or as George Galloway called it a "Whites first immigration policy"

Considering that the "rest of the world" usually outnumbers EU immigration then one could argue that there was open immigration.

 

[Red_Dave]

Considering that the "rest of the world" usually outnumbers EU immigration then one could argue that there was open immigration.

Considering the amount of hoops those trying to get in from outside have to jump through, ´´open´´ is not the word I would use. If those who are married to British citizens or those who come fleeing for their lives have to trouble getting in (often being turned down or having to wait for years for there case to be processed) then ´´open´´ is hardly the word. It´s not so much that about the proportion of immigration from within the EU vs the proportion of immigration from outside as it is about the fact that non EU immigration can be controlled, so thats where a government with an onus to limit immigration will impose limits. If both EU and non-EU migrants where competing for places as equals then the amount of obstacles in their way could be relaxed.

 

[joG]

Got it. Chagos gave me the link. Interesting. Despite my utter disagreement with his Brexit stance, and his horrible 'small state' rhetoric, I have a bit of time for Davies. He is at least not an authoritarian and takes issues of freedom of information and privacy and such issues seriously. I would very much doubt that he's in a majority in the party in expressing those thoughts however. Despite their inescapable logic.

Yes. Greg Davies is rather an act.

 

[PeteEU]

Considering the amount of hoops those trying to get in from outside have to jump through, ´´open´´ is not the word I would use. If those who are married to British citizens or those who come fleeing for their lives have to trouble getting in (often being turned down or having to wait for years for there case to be processed) then ´´open´´ is hardly the word. It´s not so much that about the proportion of immigration from within the EU vs the proportion of immigration from outside as it is about the fact that non EU immigration can be controlled, so thats where a government with an onus to limit immigration will impose limits. If both EU and non-EU migrants where competing for places as equals then the amount of obstacles in their way could be relaxed.

One could ask.. what hoops? I know there are administrative hoops, but it still means out of the 300k net migration, over 160k is usually from "rest of the world". For a government that wants to control immigration, one would think that the Tories would target the 160k and lower it to near zero... since they have full control of the policies relevant to said immigration. Just shows the hypocrisy of the Troy party.

 

[joG]

Re: How will Brexit go?

There will not be a particularly 'hard' Brexit because the EU - read Germany - needs continued low or zero tariffs more than does the UK. Even if trade were to be conducted on WTO terms that would be no disaster. Most of world trade is done under WTO rules, very successfully.

When, eventually, there is another 'independence' referendum in Scotland the Jocks will vote to stay in the UK by an even bigger majority than last time. Partly so that thy can continue to blame öthe results of their own failings on the wicked English. And partly because they know on which side their bread is buttered.

It will be interesting to follow the negotiations and above all the reporting and spin that is given in the various countries and how it develops. The most demanding bit will being to try to understand, what politicians actually want and how they get their parties and voters lined up behind them.

 

[joG]

One could ask.. what hoops? I know there are administrative hoops, but it still means out of the 300k net migration, over 160k is usually from "rest of the world". For a government that wants to control immigration, one would think that the Tories would target the 160k and lower it to near zero... since they have full control of the policies relevant to said immigration. Just shows the hypocrisy of the Troy party.

What shows the "hypocrisy of the Troy party"?

 

[Red_Dave]

One could ask.. what hoops? I know there are administrative hoops, but it still means out of the 300k net migration, over 160k is usually from "rest of the world". For a government that wants to control immigration, one would think that the Tories would target the 160k and lower it to near zero... since they have full control of the policies relevant to said immigration. Just shows the hypocrisy of the Troy party.

Well if peope have to wait for years for asylum claims to be processed , often getting turned down on multiple ocasions then this is a significant obstacle. I had a freind who was turned down twice (regretably never making it to his third and final court case) despite having an actual fatwa against him back in Pakistan. So I can promise you that our asylum system is pretty strict. This should be self evident, or people wouldn´t be killing themselves in their attempts to come here. Furthermore there are examples like this Minimum income rules stopping British citizens bringing foreign spouses to UK are lawful, says Supreme Court not to mention stories you read every week about students being deported because their universities have messed up their papers etc.

I was watching a report on Aljazeera yesterday on a refugee camp in Scilly. One of the men there had a computer science degree, spoke fluent english and had fled violence in Nigeria. Compare this to a case a few years ago were a convicted murderer and rapist from Estonia, came to England on his release and raped and murdered a young girl. How is it just that the Estonian had priority? Or even to look at it from a self-interested perspective how does this system help us?

 

[PeteEU]

Well if peope have to wait for years for asylum claims to be processed , often getting turned down on multiple ocasions then this is a significant obstacle. I had a freind who was turned down twice (regretably never making it to his third and final court case) despite having an actual fatwa against him back in Pakistan. So I can promise you that our asylum system is pretty strict. This should be self evident, or people wouldn´t be killing themselves in their attempts to come here. Furthermore there are examples like this Minimum income rules stopping British citizens bringing foreign spouses to UK are lawful, says Supreme Court not to mention stories you read every week about students being deported because their universities have messed up their papers etc.

What does asylum have to do with legal immigration? Yes your asylum rules are insanely strict, but that has nothing to do with the 160k non EU migrants. Denmark has even more strict rules btw, and it is getting worse. What I am talking about is fully legal immigration.

I was watching a report on Aljazeera yesterday on a refugee camp in Scilly. One of the men there had a computer science degree, spoke fluent english and had fled violence in Nigeria.

Send him back. Nigeria has safe spaces. Sorry zero sympathy for him or any other economic migrants.. which he is.

Compare this to a case a few years ago were a convicted murderer and rapist from Estonia, came to England on his release and raped and murdered a young girl. How is it just that the Estonian had priority? Or even to look at it from a self-interested perspective how does this system help us?

The Estonian is an EU citizen. Call it a flaw or a problem, but there are far more criminal Brits on the continent than this Estonian.

There is no real easy way of dealing with this, unless you want hard borders with visas and full information access. Basically, every person entering the UK needs to give up DNA, fingerprint, financial and social history, provided a document saying they are not criminal, social media access and so on and so on. Notice I say, every person.. that includes UK citizens. Basically you need to become a police state.

Is that what you want?