[Politics] Brexit

[Berty23]

To prevent us leaving?

Quite a big incentive. Having said that, I don't think they ever considered it likely that the UK would vote to leave, which is why they didn't give us much.

As a parent should I give my kids sweets every time they cry even though they have a good life already?

 

[Mtoto]

Have to agree with all of that.

His comments will unfortunately only harden people's attitudes.

If, and it's far too late now of course, the EU had been more flexible to Cameron when he pushed for changes to FOM, then Remain would have walked the referendum.

There's blame on both sides here.

Which FOM? Capital, services, goods or people?

 

[Simster]

As a parent should I give my kids sweets every time they cry even though they have a good life already?

I don't know, how much do they contribute to your household income?

 

[Baker lite]

As a parent should I give my kids sweets every time they cry even though they have a good life already?

Certainly not..




On our way to a special place in Hell.

 

[pb21]

You've spent our entire conversation avoiding the question, and now you're responding to the question with a question, again avoiding the question.

Unless the EU wants to make some concessions, I don't think there is really much to say that can be of benefit. But I can at least say excluding those remarks from his speech altogether would have been more helpful, although to be fair in the long term aren't going to make a difference to anything. They were deliberately confrontational, and the benefits of his remarks are contrary to what he has said his aims are. They're just pointless. Great if he wants to get 'one over' on certain politicians, or to be seen in a good light by some across Europe, but all the same pretty pointless.

I haven't been able to see anything other than a no deal or a second referendum for a while now, with no deal being most likely. And if there's a second referendum, I think the UK will vote to leave again.

He either said it because he thinks, rightly or wrongly, it will help either a deal to come about or Brexit to be reversed, or he said it because he is a bit of a narcissist/nob.

Potentially he thought he would unite the British against the rude EU, that way they may actually get something done.

 

[seagulls4ever]

As a parent should I give my kids sweets every time they cry even though they have a good life already?

That's a pretty poor analogy.

Part the problem was not everyone felt they had a good life, having been left behind by globalisation and undercutting of wages. If your children don't feel they have a good life then you should try to show them some empathy and try and make things better for them, even if you think they are wrong.

Plus, it was the first time that there was a serious possibility of us leaving. So the 'every time' part of the analogy doesn't work either.

 

[A1X]

Really ?? Gone on then, what were these 'immense' concessions ?

Basically the UK had an opt out of pretty much everything outside the four freedoms if it so wanted. It would have made the UK entire;y unique in what concessions it had got out of the EU, and indeed there were misgivings in the EU at the time at the amount of concession given to the UK. Add this to the already mentioned ability to impose restrictions on the freedoms through the existing framework and the UK's veto on any EU policy it didn't much like and you can see that actually the EU gave the UK an awful lot of rope.

Try reading into the detail and not the headlines - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

 

[Dick Head]

Brexiters:
"It's terrible that you say these nasty things about us!"

Also Brexiters:
"You are Hitler!"
"You are Stalin!"
"You are very stupid!"
"The French President is like a Nazi Concentration Camp Guard!"
"Businesses who speak up for the EU will be punished!"
"Belgium is not a real country!"
"Donald Tusk is a devilish, trident-wielding Euro-maniac!"
"Loads of MEPs are basically Nazis!"
"You can't even do blackmail properly!
You're Hitler (again)!"

bump

 

[Murray 17]

They already were flexible, I cannot believe, even now people don't realise we didn't choose to use the controls on offer to us.

European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC allows an EU member state to repatriate EU nationals if they haven't found a job and cannot support themselves after 3 months. Other countries like Belgium enforce this, we never have. The Treaty of Accession also allows old member states to curb immigration rights from new member states; again a right the UK chose not to implement.

The Tories have promised immigration controls for a decade and not delivered. While EU immigration shrinks, not just because of Brexit, but because of native economies improving, our immigration from outside EU is at a 14 year high.

The elephant in the room as far as immigration goes, is that the economy needs it to increase. Anyone thinking post Brexit we suddenly have 'control' over immigration and that numbers will reduce is honestly living in cloud cuckoo land.

I was not aware of this.

Why didn't Remain make more of it?

The point about EU citizens who have not worked for 3 months, being repatriated, I guess is down to us not having a record of who enters the UK?

 

[Berty23]

Basically the UK had an opt out of pretty much everything outside the four freedoms if it so wanted. It would have made the UK entire;y unique in what concessions it had got out of the EU, and indeed there were misgivings in the EU at the time at the amount of concession given to the UK. Add this to the already mentioned ability to impose restrictions on the freedoms through the existing framework and the UK's veto on any EU policy it didn't much like and you can see that actually the EU gave the UK an awful lot of rope.

Try reading into the detail and not the headlines - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35622105

Exactly. This is precisely the issue the pm now has that eurosceptics will never be happy. They will keep looking for a reason to vote against a deal.

 

[Berty23]

I was not aware of this.

Why didn't Remain make more of it?

The point about EU citizens who have not worked for 3 months, being repatriated, I guess is down to us not having a record of who enters the UK?

Because no political party is prepared to say “we have not controlled immigration” because they know it will be electoral suicide. For politicians the party is often more important than country.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I was not aware of this.

Why didn't Remain make more of it?

The point about EU citizens who have not worked for 3 months, being repatriated, I guess is down to us not having a record of who enters the UK?

Because instead of a positive campaign around what was good about the EU the remain campaign decided, to their own detriment, to concentrate on the imagined disaster that would happen if we voted leave.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Not wanting to take sides or anything but Donald Tusk is absolutely spot on.

A line from Robert Burns seems relevant here not sure if was an SNP member)

"O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."

 

[Berty23]

Because instead of a positive campaign around what was good about the EU the remain campaign decided, to their own detriment, to concentrate on the imagined disaster that would happen if we voted leave.

This became politically impossible because the government had been happy to blame immigrants for everything linked to austerity and other government policies. They could not then say “actually we need immigrants and if we leave then we will need more of them from outside the EU”

 

[Westdene Seagull]

This became politically impossible because the government had been happy to blame immigrants for everything linked to austerity and other government policies. They could not then say “actually we need immigrants and if we leave then we will need more of them from outside the EU”

Not everyone that voted leave voted that way because of immigration ..... I didn't for example. There were plenty of other elements that the remain campaign could have concentrated on that would have shown being in the EU as a positive thing.

 

[Baldseagull]

plain talking is good, this goes bit further dont you think? its more of the same point scoring that seems to have replaced amicable politics.

Perhaps he would not have made the comment had Grayling not said yesterday that Brussels will be to blame, not Britain for a No Deal exit if it happens.

 

[pb21]

Because instead of a positive campaign around what was good about the EU the remain campaign decided, to their own detriment, to concentrate on the imagined disaster that would happen if we voted leave.

I suspect this came about because you had to try and encourage people to get out and vote for the status quo, rather than change. At the start, and throughout to be fair, positives of remaining in the EU were talked about by the remain side, but brexiteers just said things would be more positive and better if we left. Easy really.

Given that the change option was massively oversold, the status quo side tried to massively undersell it.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

agree with the sentiment, though im very uncomfortable about someone in that position using language like that. its hardly diplomatic and serves as ammo for the leavers.

Not really worse than the insults thrown by Farage etc.

They are of course outraged by this, poor little snowflakes

 

[Bold Seagull]

Not everyone that voted leave voted that way because of immigration ..... I didn't for example. There were plenty of other elements that the remain campaign could have concentrated on that would have shown being in the EU as a positive thing.

As with the post above, while the Tory raison d'être for campaigning is fear of what will happen if you don't vote for them, I somewhat agree that the referendum was a choice between what we knew to be imperfect, having its flaws but also numerous benefits, vs......well anything you could dream up really. Money for NHS, trade deals, controlled immigration, sovereignty gained (that we never actually lost) and there was no need for reality. As soon as the promise of unicorns were countered, it was 'Project Fear'.

We're at the reality now. Had the leave campaign been about back stops, the implications to the GFA, the potential for a no deal scenario, would have been interesting how that played out. Instead we had false buses and campaign posters straight out of the Nazi handbook.

I'm not saying you were influenced by that, but you'd have to agree campaigning for a utopia you can invent, against a reality was just too much for a fresh inventive positive approach from Cameron et al.

 

[Baldseagull]

We've always had a difficult relationship even when in the EU, but that doesn't mean we don't deserve to have the right to refuse to implement some of this stuff you mention. We're not in Schengen but nor are Ireland. We're not in the Eurozone, but nor is Sweden. We get a rebate, but then we're massive net contributors.

Some of the Brexiteers on here are right to point out the inflexibility of the EU as a major weakness, and it's not like we haven't been proved right over some of it either. The € has been a car crash for some nations, and as for Schengen - how dare Angela Merkel blithely allow one million refugees into her country without consulting the rest of the EU? It was a disgusting vanity project at the cost of skilled and semi skilled labour all over the union. She created an enormous problem because the minute they were in, they could travel anywhere in the EU (and in Schengen, unchecked).

Yes, we've been awkward neighbours, but they are a fact of life everywhere. It's high time the EU realised that in some scenarios, one size doesn't fit all.

I don't think that is quite right, those refugees Merkel took in were given temporary asylum in Germany, that does not confer the same rights as EU citizens to live and work anywhere in the EU, yes they could travel around in the Schengen area because passports are not required, but not everywhere, that is the same for any foreign visitor to anywhere in Schengen.
In five years they could apply for permanent residency if they have not returned home, but even that does not convey on them the same rights as EU citizens.
To become German citizens the requirements that you need to fulfill in order to qualify for naturalization are as follows:

You must have lived in Germany on a residence permit for at least 8 years, or
You must have lived in Germany on a residence permit for 7 years and attended an integration course (this becomes 6 years on special integration circumstances)
You must prove German language proficiency of at least B1
You must be financially able to support yourself and your family without any help from the state
You must be a law-abiding citizen with no criminal record
You must pass a citizenship test
You must renounce any previous citizenships