Baldseagull
Well-known member
We don't do that? Now I know you are kidding.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
We don't do that? Now I know you are kidding.
Sorry? Thousands of people being kicked out daily? Jumbo jets flying people off to God knows where. OK, fine, whatever. Probably due to the influence of Martians in the government, eh?
Remind me, just how long did it take us to get shot of the c**t calling himself Abu Hamzah?
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Regardless of what 17M people want, Rees-Mogg is saying he would prefer No Deal to any deal that tied us to the EU, and he is saying, and I believe he is correct, that there would not be any legal basis for any special dispensation for EU migrants.
He manages to say something against the idea that Planes won't fly, medicines won't get through, food went get through and even the Irish Border being an issue, but he can't bring himself to say that those EU citizens already here will be fine.
Whilst it is unlikely that they will be rounded up and put on boats, employers are legally obliged to ensure that their employees have permission to work in the UK, so very many could find themselves out of their job on March 30th, if there is no legal right for them to work.
pastafarian
Well-known member
Lets go with that message then, spread the word,March 30th you are all out of a job and there wont be anything we will be doing about it.........jeez.
The EU citizens here dont need enemies with friends like you lot on their side.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
What legal basis did we start detaining the Windrush generation children? Who started destroying disembarkation papers? Why did Amber Rudd have to resign? Who was Home Office minister at the time?
I wouldn't trust Theresa May one inch.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Sorry? Changing the proposition to operating thousands of deportations on a daily basis?
What you said we didn't do, was kick out thousands of perfectly decent people - EU citizens or otherwise and that there wasn't even a legal basis for doing so. We deport tens of thousands of people a year, some will be criminals, but many will just be illegal immigrants and visa overstayers. Most people refused a visa, or visa extension leave of their own volition. Some people who have been here 50 years have been deported, despite the fact they arrived legally and were told they had the right to remain permanently previously.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Ok, so what is going to protect me from a £10,000 pound fine for employing someone illegally? Your man Rees-Mogg is saying they will have no legal basis for being treated differently to any other migrant, if he is talking bollocks then fine, say he is talking bollocks, I would be happy to agree with you, but you didn't, you were pretending he didn't say what he said.
We've despatched thousands, have we? No, I don't think so, although obviously the Home Office got it horribly wrong with regard to the Windrush people. There again, the Home Office is pretty crap - some idiot gave them 'targets' to achieve in regards to getting rid of illegal Immigrants (something which I can't imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with) and to keep their jobs and their pensions they went for easy targets. Wrongly. But I do have experience of being a civil servant and I know what it's like when someone who has no idea of real life, or being in the front line, hands you down targets which have to be met if you want to keep your job. No reason though to expect thousands of Dutch, French, German, etc. people suddenly being shoved out after March 2019. Nobody wants that (including the vast majority of leavers). But somehow it serves remainers' needs to try and pretend that all leavers are racist xenophobes.
Sorry, is that meant to be a sentence? In English? What proposition is operating anything? Answers (if any cogent ones are available) tomorrow please. I've had enough of this crap for one evening and am off to bed!
pastafarian
Well-known member
He is not saying what you desperately hope he is saying.he is not talking bollocks either. Do you really think, in the event of a no deal the government will simply sit back and do nothing to address the status of EU citizens already here working and living,and will simply let their status resort to illegal immigrant overnight?
You are being utterly ridiculous and over dramatic.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
What I think the government will do is besides the point, it is what Rees-Mogg said their status would be in a No Deal situation, the fact that you and the other bellend GT49er have trouble with English comprehension doesn't change that.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Your proposition was one thing, and then another, I propose you understand that but it is easier to pretend otherwise.
pastafarian
Well-known member
You have simply misunderstood, confused yourself and are now being ridiculous.
Goodbye.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 22389
Guest
I've seen some crap headines written about Brexit over the last couple of years, but never in my life have I seen anything like this. That headline is completely irresponsible.
All JRM said is that EU residents will have no rights after Brexit, which is correct. What that will mean is people like my mum will probably have to re confirm their status, what's the big friggin deal here.
Disgusted, absolutely disgusted, not at what JRM said but the headline.
4,865 hours
I had been forgetting the time change in October and March. Right now they cancel each other out but in October that will change.
I had been forgetting the time change in October and March. Right now they cancel each other out but in October that will change.
portslade seagull
Well-known member
The whole thing is a farce from both sides now. Be glad when it's all done and dusted whichever way it ends up.
Hampster Gull
Well-known member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,465
Indeed, it appears he is a man with no moral compass. Corbyn and his Trots will be a disaster for this country but I would vote for him over those two.
larus
Well-known member
Article from paywalled newspaper, but copied here as the comments on WTO are interesting, especially as they are attributed to WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo.
Trading with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules “isn’t the end of the world” said Theresa May, during Prime Minister’s Questions. She was quoting the WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo, the world’s leading trade diplomat.
Azevedo first publicly said those words in a Telegraph interview with me in November 2017. He also described UK-EU trade under WTO rules, with no formal free trade agreement, as “perfectly manageable” – discrediting the doom-mongers who claim Britain must bow to Brussels’ every demand as “crashing out” would be “disastrous”.
The real choice isn’t between Chequers and a “no deal disaster”. It’s between “no deal” – “perfectly manageable” – and a free trade agreement with the EU
His words won’t surprise anyone with an open mind and knowledge of global trade. Britain conducts most of its trade outside the EU, largely under WTO rules. Such trade is growing, forms the majority of our exports and generates a surplus. Our EU trade, in contrast, accounts for well under half our exports, is falling and in deficit – despite us making massive annual EU contributions and accepting Brussels-derived rules to gain “single-market access”.
It is vital Britain declares “no deal” a realistic and acceptable outcome – not least as it’s true and, with the clock ticking ahead of March 2019, could well happen. Unless we prepare for “no deal”, we’ll be forced to accept any trade agreement the EU offers, however much it favours Germany, France and other member states.
May has lately played down “no deal”, keen to promote her Chequers proposals. Philip Hammond has pitched in, with yet another blood-curdling Treasury prediction that “no deal” would reduce GDP by 8 per cent over 15 years. The idea is to present Brexit as a choice between Chequers and “no deal” – hence the need to make “no deal” look ghastly. Such a strategy is misguided and, if the Prime Minister is to survive beyond next month’s party conference, she must rapidly change tack. Citing Azevedo across the Commons dispatch box suggests she just might understand.
For the truth is, Chequers is dead. Plans to accept EU rules on goods, a modified customs union and ongoing Brussels diktat, with no say, have been viciously rejected by May’s party. Boris Johnson’s description – “vassalage” and “miserable permanent limbo” – was right. Even arch Remainer Justine Greening, foreseeing a grassroots rebellion, says Chequers is “more hated than the poll tax”.
Michel Barnier, too, has dismissed May’s plan as “insane, illegal, and fraudulent”, seeing as it breaks single market rules. Perhaps the EU’s lead negotiator is bluffing and will suddenly relent if Britain makes even more concessions. All the more reason for the Prime Minister to abandon this Whitehall-contrived nonsense and take Chequers off the table, returning to the coherent vision she outlined in January 2017 at Lancaster House.
For the real choice isn’t between Chequers and a “no deal disaster”. It’s between “no deal” – “perfectly manageable” – and a free trade agreement with the EU. Barnier has long acknowledged that “Canada-plus” is acceptable, a comprehensive trade deal similar to the recent EU-Canada agreement. That could happen quite quickly. Trade deals are normally very complex, as both sides start with conflicting regulatory regimes. Not so here – the UK and EU have been trading freely for decades, so begin “perfectly aligned”.
A formal UK-EU trade agreement may be impossible before next March. I’ve long said the chances are limited, given required ratification by 27 member states and the European Parliament. So, if the EU won’t accept ongoing tariff-free trade, we go to WTO rules. That’s a good platform to strike a trade agreement with the EU once the tensions of Brexit itself have passed, helping Britain secure a better long-term deal.
May must ditch Chequers and reassert, as she did at Lancaster House, that the UK is unequivocally leaving the single market and customs union
As such, May must ditch Chequers and reassert, as she did at Lancaster House, that the UK is unequivocally leaving the single market and customs union. She should publicly stress our preparations for WTO rules, not least the ongoing HMRC upgrade that means required extra “no deal” border checks are possible from January 2019.
May should state the UK won’t put up customs posts across Ireland and that technological solutions are available and adequate – as both British and Irish border authorities have said. And while declaring “no deal” on trade is fine, May must press hard for a basic “withdrawal agreement” on issues such as trade facilitation and airspace – stressing the £39 billion “divorce payment” is contingent on rapid progress.
The EU is legally obliged to extend such non-contentious administrative protocols to the UK, as it has to almost all other non-EU countries. To refuse would break EU treaties, WTO rules and make the eurocrats a global laughing stock.
The world understands trading under WTO rules. It wouldn’t understand the deliberate destruction by Brussels of UK-EU commerce, costing member states billions of euros in profit and countless jobs. And neither would EU voters.
So Chuck Chequers, Theresa! Or be replaced by someone who will.
So, when [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION] wants to keep on that we can't do it, I think the WTO Director General may know just a little bit more than him (and his tea-boy friend who works in some government department or other - supposedly).
Trading with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules “isn’t the end of the world” said Theresa May, during Prime Minister’s Questions. She was quoting the WTO Director General Roberto Azevedo, the world’s leading trade diplomat.
Azevedo first publicly said those words in a Telegraph interview with me in November 2017. He also described UK-EU trade under WTO rules, with no formal free trade agreement, as “perfectly manageable” – discrediting the doom-mongers who claim Britain must bow to Brussels’ every demand as “crashing out” would be “disastrous”.
The real choice isn’t between Chequers and a “no deal disaster”. It’s between “no deal” – “perfectly manageable” – and a free trade agreement with the EU
His words won’t surprise anyone with an open mind and knowledge of global trade. Britain conducts most of its trade outside the EU, largely under WTO rules. Such trade is growing, forms the majority of our exports and generates a surplus. Our EU trade, in contrast, accounts for well under half our exports, is falling and in deficit – despite us making massive annual EU contributions and accepting Brussels-derived rules to gain “single-market access”.
It is vital Britain declares “no deal” a realistic and acceptable outcome – not least as it’s true and, with the clock ticking ahead of March 2019, could well happen. Unless we prepare for “no deal”, we’ll be forced to accept any trade agreement the EU offers, however much it favours Germany, France and other member states.
May has lately played down “no deal”, keen to promote her Chequers proposals. Philip Hammond has pitched in, with yet another blood-curdling Treasury prediction that “no deal” would reduce GDP by 8 per cent over 15 years. The idea is to present Brexit as a choice between Chequers and “no deal” – hence the need to make “no deal” look ghastly. Such a strategy is misguided and, if the Prime Minister is to survive beyond next month’s party conference, she must rapidly change tack. Citing Azevedo across the Commons dispatch box suggests she just might understand.
For the truth is, Chequers is dead. Plans to accept EU rules on goods, a modified customs union and ongoing Brussels diktat, with no say, have been viciously rejected by May’s party. Boris Johnson’s description – “vassalage” and “miserable permanent limbo” – was right. Even arch Remainer Justine Greening, foreseeing a grassroots rebellion, says Chequers is “more hated than the poll tax”.
Michel Barnier, too, has dismissed May’s plan as “insane, illegal, and fraudulent”, seeing as it breaks single market rules. Perhaps the EU’s lead negotiator is bluffing and will suddenly relent if Britain makes even more concessions. All the more reason for the Prime Minister to abandon this Whitehall-contrived nonsense and take Chequers off the table, returning to the coherent vision she outlined in January 2017 at Lancaster House.
For the real choice isn’t between Chequers and a “no deal disaster”. It’s between “no deal” – “perfectly manageable” – and a free trade agreement with the EU. Barnier has long acknowledged that “Canada-plus” is acceptable, a comprehensive trade deal similar to the recent EU-Canada agreement. That could happen quite quickly. Trade deals are normally very complex, as both sides start with conflicting regulatory regimes. Not so here – the UK and EU have been trading freely for decades, so begin “perfectly aligned”.
A formal UK-EU trade agreement may be impossible before next March. I’ve long said the chances are limited, given required ratification by 27 member states and the European Parliament. So, if the EU won’t accept ongoing tariff-free trade, we go to WTO rules. That’s a good platform to strike a trade agreement with the EU once the tensions of Brexit itself have passed, helping Britain secure a better long-term deal.
May must ditch Chequers and reassert, as she did at Lancaster House, that the UK is unequivocally leaving the single market and customs union
As such, May must ditch Chequers and reassert, as she did at Lancaster House, that the UK is unequivocally leaving the single market and customs union. She should publicly stress our preparations for WTO rules, not least the ongoing HMRC upgrade that means required extra “no deal” border checks are possible from January 2019.
May should state the UK won’t put up customs posts across Ireland and that technological solutions are available and adequate – as both British and Irish border authorities have said. And while declaring “no deal” on trade is fine, May must press hard for a basic “withdrawal agreement” on issues such as trade facilitation and airspace – stressing the £39 billion “divorce payment” is contingent on rapid progress.
The EU is legally obliged to extend such non-contentious administrative protocols to the UK, as it has to almost all other non-EU countries. To refuse would break EU treaties, WTO rules and make the eurocrats a global laughing stock.
The world understands trading under WTO rules. It wouldn’t understand the deliberate destruction by Brussels of UK-EU commerce, costing member states billions of euros in profit and countless jobs. And neither would EU voters.
So Chuck Chequers, Theresa! Or be replaced by someone who will.
So, when [MENTION=396]WATFORD zero[/MENTION] wants to keep on that we can't do it, I think the WTO Director General may know just a little bit more than him (and his tea-boy friend who works in some government department or other - supposedly).
ManOfSussex
We wunt be druv
That's a lovely Daily Telegraph article if ever I saw one - No mention in it whatsoever of of the physical customs checks required and the effects on logistics at all though.
Meanwhile in The Republic of Ireland, as elsewhere, The Revenue Commissioners are preparing for full customs checks for next year - https://www.irishtimes.com/business...for-full-customs-checks-post-brexit-1.3619606
In fairness to Ms O’Keeffe nobody in The UK does either.