Brexit - merged threads

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

parliament vote on a short extension to article 50 - if passed the govt presumably try and renegotiate with the EU,

...well, the catch is that parliament can only ask. The EU countries must vote unanimously to allow any extension, so any single one of them can nix it. 

[Rewulf]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

I might well do something, like go along to the march and heckle Farage

Feel free, it is after all a free country.

 

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

History will expose Farage for exactly what he is (and equally what he is not)! 

As Im sure youll know, that really depends on who gets to write it..

 

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

So, absorbing the events of yesterday and over-night and barring any miracles the process now appears to be:

1. parliament vote on the transition plan by 12th March - if passed we "leave" with a "deal" on 29th March, if not passed step 2 comes into force,

2. parliament vote on "no deal" - if passed we leave on 29th March, if not passed step 3 comes into force,

3. parliament vote on a short extension to article 50 - if passed the govt presumably try and renegotiate with the EU, if not passed then who knows what comes next..

Do we all have a common understanding here, if not please correct me and if so, how do we see this going?

This was never going to end well for a high percentage of the UK population, increasingly looks to me like we are all going to get shafted...

Youve pretty much got it, but at some point the prospect of a peoples vote will come into play, it may be that we are being cornered into this, and lets stop being coy here, its not a peoples vote if it has remain on the ballot paper, its a rerun of the 2016 ref, with an added caveat of splitting the leave vote.
The fact that we are even considering such a move is disgusting.
On QT last night Henning Wehn, a German comedian spelled out the fallacy of a re run 

 

Basically, he quite rightly says what if remain wins by a narrow margin, then what, you have angered the populace and got absolutely no where.

 

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

You're absolutely right but of course the anti-EU lobby spin the reality in their favour and, whilst as far as I'm aware whilst we can't stop free flow of EU people, the government had instruments to make it less attractive.

There you go again with the immigration thing, its not the be all and end all of the argument, it factors in , but its not about stopping the flow of EU migrants, its about having control of who and what.
You state yourself that you have seen the NHS services struggling to cope with the extra millions on their books, and the inherent cost, yet others will tell you that the effect is offset by all the tax they pay !
Then the lefty rent a mob turns up and says its all about tory austerity.
I dont need to talk about the negative equity in the benefits bill again do I ?

All in all, the government can make it as unattractive as it likes, but you cannot stop them from coming, and milking our system, because Brussels said so.

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

One obvious point though is that being in or out of the EU is most likely irrelevant in reducing the issue of non-EU residents trying to get to our shore, except that France are even less likely to try to stop the migrants leaving their shores in the first place. 

You COULD well be right, but leaving does give us other options, and seriously, how hard does France stop them now ?
The only time they start dismantling camps is when we pay them millions to do so.

Question. How come you have non EU illegal tent camps just in France, there doesnt appear to be this problem in any other EU country ?
I think we should send Lilly Allen to find out more, on her own.

[Retsdon]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

there doesnt appear to be this problem in any other EU country ?

That's because they don't have a 20 mile wide moat around them.

[Mice!]

4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

There you go again with the immigration thing, its not the be all and end all of the argument, it factors in , but its not about stopping the flow of EU migrants, its about having control of who and what.
You state yourself that you have seen the NHS services struggling to cope with the extra millions on their books, and the inherent cost, yet others will tell you that the effect is offset by all the tax they pay !
Then the lefty rent a mob turns up and says its all about tory austerity.
I dont need to talk about the negative equity in the benefits bill again do I ?

Quite sure he was replying to my post about migration?

6 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Question. How come you have non EU illegal tent camps just in France, there doesnt appear to be this problem in any other EU country ?
I think we should send Lilly Allen to find out more, on her own.

There certainly not just in France, the program i mentioned earlier showed migrants more or less being shuttled along from border to border so the "problem" moves along, France is obviously the final stop before paradise.

[JohnfromUK]

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

Also jealousy when Brits see migrants hard at work taking the jobs they do not want and making a life for themselves that they are too lazy to get out of bed for.

I think this is a lesser issue than those coming in and expecting a 'work free' life under our (very generous to immigrants) benefits system.

8 minutes ago, oowee said:

All of which is totally avoidable but we just do not get a grip of these things and as always blame everyone else

The issue is that the benefits system is badly targeted, badly administered and still (despite recent improvements) rewards the idle and feckless.  In my view, (and I have stated this on various threads before benefits (and decent living standard ones) should be available to;

• The genuinely disabled (whether by accident, injury, illness or birth, and both physical and mental) both short and long term
• Those who have fallen on hard times (redundancy etc.)
• Those who have to care for relatives where state care cannot surfice

The above should receive benefits that give them a 'reasonable and comfortable' lifestyle - i.e. well fed, warm, suitable accommodation, but should not extend to funding a 'life of luxury'.  These have to be paid for by others who have to work hard and pay their taxes to support this.

Benefits (other than minimal subsistence in the form of some non cash exchangeable payments) should NOT be available to;

• The bone idle who have never bothered to contribute
• Those who choose a 'self unemployed' lifestyle
• Those with 'substance issues' who won't comply with state provided programmes
• Those who won't make some effort to 'help themselves'
• Those who have only come to the UK recently and have never contributed

Virtually everyone in the UK who works would wish to support the genuinely disabled, the sick and elderly ........ but get very disenchanted when they see the bone idle benefits scroungers having a better lifestyle than they themselves can afford - paid for by their taxes.  The British working population is not here to fund free-loading lifestyles for anyone (and that includes politicians!).

[Raja Clavata]

17 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

...well, the catch is that parliament can only ask. The EU countries must vote unanimously to allow any extension, so any single one of them can nix it. 

yes, and then what?

[panoma1]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

yes, and then what?

Leave without a deal on 29th March! Unless the government withdraws article 50 at the eleventh hour!

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

yes, and then what?

That depends what them and the EU would rather see.
A 2nd referendum (peoples vote) would be good for them, or no extension and we either A. Forget all about it and revoke article 50.
Or B. Leave without a deal/WTO 
Or C. Take Mays deal that previously garnered very little support ?

If a 2nd ref was in the offing, they would gamble on giving us a 3 month extension, anything else and its either no good to them, or irrelevant anyway.
Re negotiation with them is utterly pointless.

 

[Raja Clavata]

16 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Youve pretty much got it, but at some point the prospect of a peoples vote will come into play, it may be that we are being cornered into this, and lets stop being coy here, its not a peoples vote if it has remain on the ballot paper, its a rerun of the 2016 ref, with an added caveat of splitting the leave vote.
The fact that we are even considering such a move is disgusting.

There you go again with the immigration thing, its not the be all and end all of the argument, it factors in , but its not about stopping the flow of EU migrants, its about having control of who and what.

You COULD well be right, but leaving does give us other options, and seriously, how hard does France stop them now ?

Question. How come you have non EU illegal tent camps just in France, there doesnt appear to be this problem in any other EU country ?

I'm not sure where a peoples vote comes into that process, if parliament vote down the transition plan then in that form it's dead. If parliament vote down no deal then that's dead. What does that leave us left to vote on? I would suggest having remain forced upon us without us having any further say - yes the end goal suits me but the process we arrive at it by stinks!

So the very real danger is that parliament will abide by the implications on democracy of a second vote by avoiding it all together but then over-ruling democracy for none of us having any further say. In this scenario we would have been better off never having the original vote in the future - the fallout will be massive and the damage already done irrecoverable.

I'm not hung up on immigration at all.

France does next to nothing and it won't get better irrespective of in or out.

Surely it's obvious why the camps are in France!?

Just now, Rewulf said:

That depends what them and the EU would rather see.
A 2nd referendum (peoples vote) would be good for them, or no extension and we either A. Forget all about it and revoke article 50.
Or B. Leave without a deal/WTO 
Or C. Take Mays deal that previously garnered very little support ?

If a 2nd ref was in the offing, they would gamble on giving us a 3 month extension, anything else and its either no good to them, or irrelevant anyway.
Re negotiation with them is utterly pointless.

 

I think we are in agreement but I'm pretty sure B & C are off the table if parliament vote them down.

What parliament are effectively doing is making the choice between their deal or remain without any further public consultation. This is precisely what it means by parliament taking control of the process. 

My opinion is that by March 12th the government withdrawal plan will be passed by a very small majority. We're screwed, end of.

3 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Leave without a deal on 29th March! Unless the government withdraws article 50 at the eleventh hour!

by that point no deal would have been voted down, dead.

[Retsdon]

5 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

In this scenario we would have been better off never having the original vote

The Dutch parliament has been discussing Brexit, and one of the points that was made is that we're in such a mess because the debate we're having now about how to Brexit should have been conducted three years before the vote, and not three years after it! Hard to argue with...

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

I am however quite bitter that I was suddenly told out of a blue sky that in order to live in my own country with my wife and the mother of our native English speaking children that I had to put up a bond of £63,000 cash. When she introduced that law, in one fell swoop Mrs May  rendered myself and several of my colleagues effectively stateless. Not to mention that my British kids are being forced to grow up under military dictatorships. But that's just how it goes I suppose..

 

This is absolute appalling and frankly beggars belief. Surely this is worthy of a separate discussion. 

[panoma1]

14 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I'm not sure where a peoples vote comes into that process, if parliament vote down the transition plan then in that form it's dead. If parliament vote down no deal then that's dead. What does that leave us left to vote on? I would suggest having remain forced upon us without us having any further say - yes the end goal suits me but the process we arrive at it by stinks!

So the very real danger is that parliament will abide by the implications on democracy of a second vote by avoiding it all together but then over-ruling democracy for none of us having any further say. In this scenario we would have been better off never having the original vote in the future - the fallout will be massive and the damage already done irrecoverable.

I'm not hung up on immigration at all.

France does next to nothing and it won't get better irrespective of in or out.

Surely it's obvious why the camps are in France!?

I think we are in agreement but I'm pretty sure B & C are off the table if parliament vote them down.

What parliament are effectively doing is making the choice between their deal or remain without any further public consultation. This is precisely what it means by parliament taking control of the process. 

My opinion is that by March 12th the government withdrawal plan will be passed by a very small majority. We're screwed, end of.

by that point no deal would have been voted down, dead.

Can Westminster vote down "no deal" without legislation overturning what I understand is currently the legal position?

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, panoma1 said:

Can Westminster vote down "no deal" without legislation overturning what I understand is currently the legal position?

good question, no idea but I suspect that they can.

[mick miller]

Look, it's really very simple.

We do not need another level of governance, we already have our Parliament, as does every other country in Europe. The EU is, in it's current guise, a completely unnecessary additional level of governance, it could be stripped back enormously if it wasn't for this ideal of a united Europe with freedom of movement and a homogenisation of culture and currency. All that is required is a smaller legislative organisation that provides oversight over trade and, to a lesser extent movement.

If we stay in the EU, then let's scrap our Parliament. We don't need both.

[Retsdon]

8 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Can Westminster vote down "no deal" without legislation overturning what I understand is currently the legal position?

From my understanding, they can't. Firstly, it doesn't matter what they vote for, under the terms of EU law in the absence of anything else being agreed no deal is the default result of triggering Article 50. Secondly, treaties and agreements fall under the gift of Crown Prerogative. Parliament can only approve or disapprove what's out in front of it.

[old man]

12 hours ago, Mice! said:

Ok question for the remainers who think us leaving is such a bad idea, why do all these people walk across Europe, pay vast sums to be smuggled into Britain or buy some dingy and try to cross the channel, if Europe is working why not stay there? The weather is generally better but other than that??

Fair question Sir.

[Rewulf]

35 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I'm not sure where a peoples vote comes into that process, if parliament vote down the transition plan then in that form it's dead. If parliament vote down no deal then that's dead. What does that leave us left to vote on?

As I said , nothing except scrap the whole thing or vote again.
One takes the vote away from the people completely, which was always suspected as being possible.
The other puts it back before the people in such a way (probably) that its weighted towards remain..then the real fun starts..

 

38 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

yes the end goal suits me but the process we arrive at it by stinks!

Yes it does, but some in parliament dont care about the smell.

 

39 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I think we are in agreement but I'm pretty sure B & C are off the table if parliament vote them down.

Not necessarily 

 

23 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Can Westminster vote down "no deal" without legislation overturning what I understand is currently the legal position?

It can certainly put a motion forward to change the legal position, this WOULD be challenged.
Believe it or not parliament cannot just make things up as they go along, the people are still sovereign, and if public opinion was strong enough, a motion to put it back as the 29th March fallback COULD be instituted.
As much as they have tried to wrest this process away from the people, we ARE still in control.

 

13 minutes ago, Retsdon said:

From my understanding, they can't. Firstly, it doesn't matter what they vote for, under the terms of EU law in the absence of anything else being agreed no deal is the default result of triggering Article 50. Secondly, treaties and agreements fall under the gift of Crown Prerogative. Parliament can only approve or disapprove what's out in front of it.

Beat me to it.

[pinfireman]

3 hours ago, Retsdon said:

...well, the catch is that parliament can only ask. The EU countries must vote unanimously to allow any extension, so any single one of them can nix it. 

and they will !

13 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

The EU will not accept or allow the extension of article 50 without it having purpose, they will not agree to Mrs May requesting an extension as it will do nothing to improve the already poor situation and it will take us in to the European Parliament elections, which will be absolutely pointless!

True, because if we do  still take part in the EU elections, they will once again have the "awkward squad" from the UK disrupting their Parliament, and encouraging others to follow suit!

[pinfireman]

9 hours ago, mick miller said:

All the Polish people I know of, that applied and became British citizens before the referendum, all voted leave. Make of that what you will. 

By the way, as a reminder, my father is German, is still a German citizen, my mother is half Polish, half French, but British by birth.

None of us are particularly in love with the EU, my father arrived before it was created, has worked here all the time without citizenship, no problems at all. The scare mongering is remarkable. 

The company my wife works for employs people from all four corners of the planet, they all work here without an issue, none have had to become British. If industry here requires your skills then you'll have no problems, before or after the parasitic organisation that is the EU. 

Excellent! Our German friend, married to a Brit, is of the same mind! Detests the EU. Travels back to Germany 4 times a year, and says that there is a definite level of unrest over Merkel, her immigration policy, and the probable extra money Germany will have to pump into the EU when we Leave.

9 hours ago, Retsdon said:

In other words what you would like is a time machine that could take you back 50 years. And there's the problem right there. Now that the wheels of the Brexit machine are finally coming in contact with the hard road of reality, the whole fantasy is coming to bits.

Garbage! You know that for a fact because you live here?  Oh, sorry, you don,t!

8 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Now if you can get Time Travel working, can we go back to 1957 for the Treaty of Rome, 1973 for the Common Market or anytime before 1993 and the creation of the European Union?

That way we could stop it becoming the huge White Elephant it turned in to and maybe it may have worked.

It is now a massive, unsteady, top heavy house of cards and is starting to shake as the rumbles echo around Europe!

Correct!

6 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

This is all part of the lies that we are told, some of these people would have you believe that the UK is the only country in the world where illegal immigrants and refugees are an issue.

The people that attempt to get to the UK are a percentage of the total number who leave a certain country or district. All of this information around this is available in the public domain and published by UNHCR (who do not have it in for the UK).

Do you seriously think that the state of the EU is a factor in a refugee or economic migrant deciding where they try to settle? 

Yes!  Refugees and asylum seekers are expected to apply for asylum in the FIRST  safe country they come across, so why do they cross more than a dozen to get here? Fair question

5 hours ago, Mice! said:

No no i know there are refugees all through Europe, what i am saying is if you have travelled through say Turkey into Europe proper so to speak you have to keep going for a long way crossing multiple countries in order to get to Britain.

Correct!

[pinfireman]

5 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

My firm invest in training the unemployed - what with grants from the government, or the EU maybe!? Do you understand the realities of business?

I might well do something, like go along to the march and heckle Farage for the gross negligence he has shown in all this and, in the event of Mays deal passing, how he has let both sides of the Brexit divide down.

History will expose Farage for exactly what he is (and equally what he is not)!  

Farage put his country first...........you might try that?

5 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Okay I get you. Yes it seems like the rest of Europe is increasingly taking the NIMBY attitude which is understandable, I'm sure the "corridors" through which these people travel are saturated.

We might be getting off topic here though as we are now in the topic of non-EU migration / refugees.

Why? They are both linked.....and it is a topic that Remoaners are uncomfortable with?

[pinfireman]

5 hours ago, Mice! said:

sort of, but its a massive part of why many people voted leave, wanting to be in control of who can come in to our country, we don't need or want more people who will just drain the pot, but as Mick says above if you have something to offer to a company you won't have any problems.

Can't think what the program was that was on last year, showing migrants travelling through Europe, pretty much being ushered along, as you say nimbg, its all part of what helped Farage.

Nigel Farage did NOT lead the Leave campaign, as some people infer, that was lead by Dominic Cummings, Johnson and Gove.  Farage, and UKIP,   forced the Referendum, and supported the Leave campaign. For all the snide remarks about him, without him, you would NEVER have had a Referendum!  And whilst Raja speaks of the "lies" Farage is supposed to have said, he cannot list them! The only thing he can come up with is the £360 million slogan on the campaign bus, and that was dreamed up by the Leave team!  He supported it, but did not instigate it.

5 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

You're absolutely right but of course the anti-EU lobby spin the reality in their favour and, whilst as far as I'm aware whilst we can't stop free flow of EU people, the government had instruments to make it less attractive.

One obvious point though is that being in or out of the EU is most likely irrelevant in reducing the issue of non-EU residents trying to get to our shore, except that France are even less likely to try to stop the migrants leaving their shores in the first place. 

One very worrying aspect is the number of EU residents that have rushed to register with UK GPs prior to March 29, I was in my quacks the week before last with the first appointment of the day to see my GP. Two couples went in before me and it was clear what they were there for - when I was called in to see the GP, instead of the usual handshake and warm welcome he just said to me he doesn't know how much more of this "we" can take - 7 more people on his books, all of which are recent arrivals from Eastern Europe. Irrespective of where we end up with Brexit that's seven more people on the NHS books from one GP surgery in a 15 minute Monday morning spell.

Once they become British citizens, they can vote! And they are being urged to do so by the Labour Party! Guess who they will vote for.....

[pinfireman]

5 hours ago, Retsdon said:

On the topic of immigration, I've never understood why European countries in general should feel that it's incumbent on them to offer permanent residence or citizenship to migrant workers. I've worked in quite a few different countries around the world and I've never felt in the least bit hard done by that visas to stay in these countries have been temporary and dependent upon doing a specified job with a specified employer. When the job ends, so does my right of residence. Fair enough if everyone knows the deal, and it saves a lot of social problems.

I am however quite bitter that I was suddenly told out of a blue sky that in order to live in my own country with my wife and the mother of our native English speaking children that I had to put up a bond of £63,000 cash. When she introduced that law, in one fell swoop Mrs May  rendered myself and several of my colleagues effectively stateless. Not to mention that my British kids are being forced to grow up under military dictatorships. But that's just how it goes I suppose..

 

I find the second part of your post quite sad....is the reason for this because your wife is not a British Citizen?

4 hours ago, oowee said:

Exactly this ^^^^^  Sod all to do with the EU. Also jealousy when Brits see migrants hard at work taking the jibs they do not want and making a life for themselves that they are too lazy to get out of bed for. All of which is totally avoidable but we just do not get a grip of these things and as always blame everyone else, EU included, rather than take responsibility. Another example of failing democracy resulting from first past the post. 

and you think a mish mash of committee government would solve this? Dream on!

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Feel free, it is after all a free country.

 

As Im sure youll know, that really depends on who gets to write it..

 

Youve pretty much got it, but at some point the prospect of a peoples vote will come into play, it may be that we are being cornered into this, and lets stop being coy here, its not a peoples vote if it has remain on the ballot paper, its a rerun of the 2016 ref, with an added caveat of splitting the leave vote.
The fact that we are even considering such a move is disgusting.
On QT last night Henning Wehn, a German comedian spelled out the fallacy of a re run 

 

Basically, he quite rightly says what if remain wins by a narrow margin, then what, you have angered the populace and got absolutely no where.

 

There you go again with the immigration thing, its not the be all and end all of the argument, it factors in , but its not about stopping the flow of EU migrants, its about having control of who and what.
You state yourself that you have seen the NHS services struggling to cope with the extra millions on their books, and the inherent cost, yet others will tell you that the effect is offset by all the tax they pay !
Then the lefty rent a mob turns up and says its all about tory austerity.
I dont need to talk about the negative equity in the benefits bill again do I ?

All in all, the government can make it as unattractive as it likes, but you cannot stop them from coming, and milking our system, because Brussels said so.

You COULD well be right, but leaving does give us other options, and seriously, how hard does France stop them now ?
The only time they start dismantling camps is when we pay them millions to do so.

Question. How come you have non EU illegal tent camps just in France, there doesnt appear to be this problem in any other EU country ?
I think we should send Lilly Allen to find out more, on her own.

Very good!

[pinfireman]

3 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I think this is a lesser issue than those coming in and expecting a 'work free' life under our (very generous to immigrants) benefits system.

The issue is that the benefits system is badly targeted, badly administered and still (despite recent improvements) rewards the idle and feckless.  In my view, (and I have stated this on various threads before benefits (and decent living standard ones) should be available to;

• The genuinely disabled (whether by accident, injury, illness or birth, and both physical and mental) both short and long term
• Those who have fallen on hard times (redundancy etc.)
• Those who have to care for relatives where state care cannot surfice

The above should receive benefits that give them a 'reasonable and comfortable' lifestyle - i.e. well fed, warm, suitable accommodation, but should not extend to funding a 'life of luxury'.  These have to be paid for by others who have to work hard and pay their taxes to support this.

Benefits (other than minimal subsistence in the form of some non cash exchangeable payments) should NOT be available to;

• The bone idle who have never bothered to contribute
• Those who choose a 'self unemployed' lifestyle
• Those with 'substance issues' who won't comply with state provided programmes
• Those who won't make some effort to 'help themselves'
• Those who have only come to the UK recently and have never contributed

Virtually everyone in the UK who works would wish to support the genuinely disabled, the sick and elderly ........ but get very disenchanted when they see the bone idle benefits scroungers having a better lifestyle than they themselves can afford - paid for by their taxes.  The British working population is not here to fund free-loading lifestyles for anyone (and that includes politicians!).

Correct!

3 hours ago, Retsdon said:

The Dutch parliament has been discussing Brexit, and one of the points that was made is that we're in such a mess because the debate we're having now about how to Brexit should have been conducted three years before the vote, and not three years after it! Hard to argue with...

The debate on "how to Brexit" is a sham! Merely a device by the Establishment to thwart the peoples vote! Nothing else! 75% of the Commons , regardless of Party, have intended from the start, to stop true democracy...it endangers them!

[pinfireman]

3 hours ago, Rewulf said:

As I said , nothing except scrap the whole thing or vote again.
One takes the vote away from the people completely, which was always suspected as being possible.
The other puts it back before the people in such a way (probably) that its weighted towards remain..then the real fun starts..

 

Yes it does, but some in parliament dont care about the smell.

 

Not necessarily 

 

It can certainly put a motion forward to change the legal position, this WOULD be challenged.
Believe it or not parliament cannot just make things up as they go along, the people are still sovereign, and if public opinion was strong enough, a motion to put it back as the 29th March fallback COULD be instituted.
As much as they have tried to wrest this process away from the people, we ARE still in control.

 

Beat me to it.

Good post!

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Yellow vest sales will rise sharply!