Brexit - merged threads

Rewulf · March 2, 2019

6 minutes ago, oowee said:

Pigeons coming home to roost springs to mind, but you knew that.

Yes we did, which makes the first part of the sentence irrelevant.

Now you know why many people wanted to leave perhaps ?
An organisation, a club, a bloc, call it what you will, that forces you into staying, despite abusing your good nature, is not a marriage you want to be part of.
Day by day it becomes clearer what kind of people we are dealing with, and more and more are waking up to this.
The problem isnt Europe, its the EU , if it were capable of changing for the better (Its not) we wouldnt be where we are.

We have to get away from it, its increasingly important now, economically and socially.
Whilst Mays deal isnt what I hoped for, its a start down the road, maybe we can make it better, less 'EU'
Time to stop arguing about this, lets get it done.

JohnfromUK · March 2, 2019

2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Whilst Mays deal isnt what I hoped for,

The KEY feature of May's deal is that it is only for 21 months (which makes £39 billion seem pretty expensive at nearly £2 billion a month) - but only IF we don't get caught by a 'backstop', which is why the backstop MUST GO.

TIGHTCHOKE · March 2, 2019

8 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The KEY feature of May's deal is that it is only for 21 months (which makes £39 billion seem pretty expensive at nearly £2 billion a month) - but only IF we don't get caught by a 'backstop', which is why the backstop MUST GO.

The BACKSTOP must go and NO DEAL must remain an option!

12gauge82 · March 2, 2019

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The KEY feature of May's deal is that it is only for 21 months (which makes £39 billion seem pretty expensive at nearly £2 billion a month) - but only IF we don't get caught by a 'backstop', which is why the backstop MUST GO.

Its why May, the Conservatives and all the other main stream party's must go, they appear to have all failed to deliver on the largest democratic decision of the people of the UK!

Rewulf · March 2, 2019

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

The KEY feature of May's deal is that it is only for 21 months (which makes £39 billion seem pretty expensive at nearly £2 billion a month) - but only IF we don't get caught by a 'backstop', which is why the backstop MUST GO.

The £39 bn figure is disgusting , Ive yet to hear anyone explain what its actually for.

The EU will fight the removal of the backstop like a cornered rat, because it creates division with the UK , this is to their obvious advantage, and has worked well for them.
The ultimate aim to stop us leaving, using (probably paid) agitators to stir up trouble, and give them a voice in Parliament.

The hope of no deal is still there, if May can let go of the fear of upsetting the remain electorate, with labour tearing itself apart, this is still a possibility.

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

Its why May, the Conservatives and all the other main stream party's must go, they appear to have all failed to deliver on the largest democratic decision of the people of the UK!

Thats not going to happen, unless they do us over with Brexit, and a viable option enters the stage.
Dont hold your breath, but also , dont give up hope.

panoma1 · March 2, 2019

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Because the 'deal' is simply short term for the 'transition period' between 29th March and December 2020. Long term it doesn't matter at all - except that we cannot 'escape it' unilaterally. (the dreaded backstop) - which is why the backstop MUST go. Anything else in the deal is out of date as at December 2020.

We still need to negotiate the actual leave trading terms and conditions post December 2020. They have not even started that. It would have been common sense to have been negotiating those at the same time since it is hard to see how you can get a good smooth transition plan if you don't know what terms you are transitioning to.

The EU has flatly refused to talk about any future trade deal until we sign up to the transition period deal. We SHOULD have flatly refused to talk about any 'deal' in isolation and it should have been linked to the final trade deal (i.e. we are not paying you £39 billion unless we have a GUARANTEED trade deal at the end) ......... and if they wouldn't talk about that - we should have walked away.

However - right at square one - we agreed to their basic terms of no talk on the long term future trade until the transition period is fully signed up. This was a serious mistake.

There are HUGE issues to be surmounted in the actual 'post December 2020' trade deal - like France has already stated it will demand to retain (some) fishing rights in our coastal waters ...... or they may not let us out of the backstop.

Interesting, but you quoted and responded to JRDS's quote!.........not mine! Lol!

12gauge82 · March 2, 2019

26 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Thats not going to happen, unless they do us over with Brexit, and a viable option enters the stage.
Dont hold your breath, but also , dont give up hope.

I agree with you that it won't happen, at the moment anyway, I think we have already been done over, they simply will not truly leave the EU, I've said ever since leave won, the only way out is a clean break and all our main party's will never deliver on that.

JohnfromUK · March 2, 2019

2 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Interesting, but you quoted and responded to JRDS's quote!.........not mine! Lol!

My apologies - as you know it adds the 'source' of the quote automatically, and I must have highlighted something that was already a quote (rather than the original) by mistake.

The content is clear though!

TIGHTCHOKE · March 2, 2019

46 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Its why May, the Conservatives and all the other main stream party's must go, they appear to have all failed to deliver on the largest democratic decision of the people of the UK!

I completely agree with you but cannot see quite how you would motivate enough people to get us out of the Swamp with all of the "Professional Politicians" only in it for themselves.

TriBsa · March 2, 2019

May's deal, backstop or not, is a dangerous road to take. We would still be shackled to the EU until December 2020, with all key EU control mechanisms in place. The next general election is not due until 2022 when those who feel betrayed will have a voice (vote). It doesn't take genius to predict that our current apology for a parliament will say "it's been 4 years now since we had a vote on leaving lets hold another referendum", and the whole merry go round will start again. I don't think in their insulated little bubble that our MP's fully realise the anger that their betrayal has arroused or the wrath that will befall many of them come the next general election. So until then it will be business (betrayal) as usual from them.

If only we expressed our anger better, like the French for example.

Rewulf · March 2, 2019

5 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

May's deal, backstop or not, is a dangerous road to take. We would still be shackled to the EU until December 2020, with all key EU control mechanisms in place.

I know what you mean, its not good by any stretch, but we are going to be most probably faced with this or a second ref.
Do you think that would be a better course of action ?
As much as Id like to see how that pans out, a remain majority, however it was manipulated, probably by splitting the leave vote, would be seized upon as the 'real' result.

JohnfromUK · March 2, 2019

26 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

wrath that will befall many of them come the next general election.

The system means that many MPs will very probably be safe because there is no 'credible acceptable' alternative. For example - where I live we will (probably) have 4 or 5 choices as per the 2017 election;

The current (Tory) MP who is a 'May's deal' supporter - has a considerable majority, but not 100% safe - gets about 60% of the vote
The runner was the Labour candidate (unusually - as Lib Dems have often been runner up) on about 25%. Gained a lot of votes from UKIP whose vote collapsed.
LibDem about 10% of the votes (reflecting the low number of remain supporters in my view)
We had a UKIP candidate who were badly down (by 10%) on 3%. Since Nigel Farage leaving UKIP, I cannot see them getting anywhere. There is no appetite for the likes of Tommy Robinson locally - the taint of EDL lingers.
We usually have a Green candidate who polls about 3%

I have voted for UKIP (when Farage was in charge) - but only in European elections.

IF there is to be a new 'Leave the EU' party of some description, I cannot see my area (which voted 58% leave) returning an MP with no proven "Party record", especially when the sitting MP is supporting Mrs May's 'Leave' deal and so most people consider a 'leaver'.

I think it is only a (relatively few) constituencies where there will be a real 'rebellion' and those are where the MP has gone contrary to the referendum result. Remember most people see both Mrs Mays 'deal' supporters and 'no deal' supporters as being 'leavers'

Edited March 2, 2019 by JohnfromUK

TriBsa · March 2, 2019

19 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I know what you mean, its not good by any stretch, but we are going to be most probably faced with this or a second ref.
Do you think that would be a better course of action ?
As much as Id like to see how that pans out, a remain majority, however it was manipulated, probably by splitting the leave vote, would be seized upon as the 'real' result.

Or this (May's deal) or stay as the options in a second referendum?

That we are discussing such an obvious sellout of our democratic decision as a better option is testimony to the stark reality of our predicament. Most of us have now woken up to the sheer scale of the moral corruption in Westminster and realised that there is precious little we can do about it in the short term, if at all. Like imigration and the Tory pledge to limit it to tens of thousands, they are blatently ignoring all their election promises safe in the knowledge that our broken two party system will sail sweetly on.

TIGHTCHOKE · March 2, 2019

8 minutes ago, TriBsa said:

Or this (May's deal) or stay as the options in a second referendum?

That we are discussing such an obvious sellout of our democratic decision as a better option is testimony to the stark reality of our predicament. Most of us have now woken up to the sheer scale of the moral corruption in Westminster and realised that there is precious little we can do about it in the short term, if at all. Like imigration and the Tory pledge to limit it to tens of thousands, they are blatently ignoring all their election promises safe in the knowledge that our broken two party system will sail sweetly on.

Unfortunately it will NEVER change!

Raja Clavata · March 2, 2019

The backstop has to GO, I agree, but if it's still in place by the time the next meaningful vote takes place how sure are we that ERG won't accept as is rather than face the other alternatives and the TM deal goes through!?

No deal has to stay on the table as a negotiating tool but it was never a real option in the first place - a **** deal was all that was ever really on the table for the leave outcome. All this disgust at parliament and the EU is understandable but when will leavers realise that it was also the architects of Leave with whom they should have at least equal grievance.

The biggest lie of all Brexit was the notion that we were ever going to leave on WTO terms!

Edited March 2, 2019 by Raja Clavata

TIGHTCHOKE · March 2, 2019

1 minute ago, Raja Clavata said:

The backstop has to GO, I agree, but if it's still in place by the time the next meaningful vote takes place how sure are we that ERG won't accept as is rather than face the other alternatives and the TM deal goes through!?

No deal has to stay on the table as a negotiating tool but it was never a real option in the first place - a **** deal was all that was ever really on the table for the leave outcome. All this disgust at parliament and the EU is understandable but when will leavers realise that it was also the architects of Leave with whom they should have at least equal grievance.

The biggest lie of all Brexit was the notion that we were ever going to leave on WTO terms!

I do, I despise most of the i"n it for themselves" politicians

oowee · March 2, 2019

So TM's deal goes through one way or another she resigns having achieved Brexit. Party splits and we get a GE. Corbyn gets in and we go for customs union and can do away with Irish border.

Or May's deal gets postponed and we delay, we then sign deal and above happens.

I agree with Raja the dispute is with the Architect's of leave.

Gordon R · March 2, 2019

When people suggest Corbyn might get in, I worry about substance abuse. :lol:

A party with the slogan "For the many, not the Jew" will never appeal to people with a brain cell.

pinfireman · March 2, 2019

On 01/03/2019 at 15:29, oowee said:

Oxford economics report last year said each worker makes a net contribution of £2300 a year.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

A report in 2013 said migrants arriving since 2000 made a net contribution of £25bn

Recent immigrants were 45% less likely to receive state benefits or tax credits than people native to the UK and 3% less likely to live in social housing, says the report written by Professor Christian Dustmann and Dr Tommaso Frattini.

But going back further to 1995, the study found that non-EEA immigrants arriving between that year and 2011 had claimed more in benefits than they paid in taxes, mainly because they had more children than people already living in Britain.

The academics also found that recent immigrants from the EEA – the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein – participated more in the labour market. Their study was based predominantly on official reports including the British Labour Force Survey as well as tax data and public expenditure statistics. The EEA immigrants were also more likely to have a university degree than British people.

Where is your evidence?

Housing for asylum seekers

Most asylum seekers are destitute upon arrival in the UK, and are entitled to housing while their asylum claim is processed. This housing is separate from mainstream social housing provision and is provided through the Home Office.

An asylum seeker will usually be relocated to accommodation wherever it is available across the UK - this is known as 'dispersal'. They will be in 'Initial Accommodation' for the first few weeks - this is also known as Section 98 accommodation.

After this, housing will usually be provided in the same region until a final decision is made on their asylum claim - this is known as Section 95 accommodation.

If an asylum seeker is allocated Section 95 housing by the Home Office in the Yorkshire and Humber region, it is now provided by G4S Care and Justice Services [UK] Ltd through one of their subcontractors.

Asylum-seeking children who are alone in the UK [known as separated or unaccompanied children] are an exception to this general system. They are instead housed and supported by the local authority under the care of social services as ‘looked after’ children.

Adults who receive a positive asylum decision are classed as refugees and are no longer entitled to Home Office support [see 'Housing for refugees' below].

If an asylum seeker receives a negative asylum decision [a ‘refused asylum seeker’], they are expected to leave the UK. They may leave the UK by making their own arrangements, through the Voluntary Assisted Return and Reintegration Programme [VARRP], or be removed by the Home Office. A refused asylum seeker may be entitled to limited, short term support known as Section 4 if they meet certain criteria. Section 4 accommodation is also allocated according to availability, so it may not be in the same place where the individual was housed while their asylum claim was being processed.

Housing for asylum seekers must always meet Home Office standards.

Housing for refugees

An individual who receives a positive asylum decision and has refugee status is required to leave the accommodation they were allocated as an asylum seeker. Refugees have the same housing rights as UK citizens. A refugee who is homeless is entitled to apply for social housing from the local authority in which they received accommodation as an asylum seeker [this is known as their ‘local connection’ within homelessness legislation]. However, like anyone in the UK who presents themselves to a local authority as homeless, they must fulfil certain criteria to be prioritised for social housing; this may include, for example, those with children or those who have additional needs.

Source Migration Yorkshire. My brother - in law worked for a so-called "charitable trust" dealing with housing for asylum seekers, and refugees (genuine and fake) The trust had access to funds from government, particularly the Home Office. He documented evrything that happened during his 10 years there....the abuses of the system, the ways that the trust got round the rules, how councils housed these people ahead of British people (because, as they presented themselves as "homeless" they were entitled to jump the housing ladder! Could he get anyone in authority to check his findings? No, they all, as one, declared that to do so would "disturb community cohesion" or other such rubbish! The "R" word was used to stop him on several occasions.

The CEO of the trust was a lady, with a huge salary, who also was well conected with the EU (he cannot remember if she was an MEP or not!).

The official line that migrants, asylum seekers etc, do not qualify for housing and benefits is bovine scatorum!

23 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Let me use your language back at you. Total garbage! You asked for a sample list of Farage lies which I replied to and you ignored. I invited a detailed discussion on any of them and you ignored them or cited them as garbage. Give me strength...

I'm getting lost with what you are actually replying to. Maybe the points I'm trying to make are a little too subtle for you...

Then repost the list...it,s as easy as that !

On 01/03/2019 at 16:45, oowee said:

This is just not true.

Oh, but it is! There may be a bit of room in rural Somerset, but we are full up throughout England!

23 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

Let me use your language back at you. Total garbage! You asked for a sample list of Farage lies which I replied to and you ignored. I invited a detailed discussion on any of them and you ignored them or cited them as garbage. Give me strength...

I'm getting lost with what you are actually replying to. Maybe the points I'm trying to make are a little too subtle for you...

I doubt it.....

pinfireman · March 2, 2019

22 hours ago, oowee said:

Have you seen the latest payout to Euro Tunnel? Chris Grayling and more Tory incompetence.

You do have to ask the question could any other party really be this bad?

Perhaps they were taking advice from the holy of holies? The Civil Service? After all, isn,t that what they are supposed to do? Carry through proposals? Efficiently?

pinfireman · March 2, 2019

23 hours ago, Retsdon said:

Hackney? Moss Side? The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury? Belfast? Take your pick.

How far back to do you want to go? Seventy years ago Germany was putting whole sections of her population into death camps, and the Latvians and Lithuanians were killing their own minorities with clubs and shovels. And Northern Ireland?

Why not? The reason that the Balkans has such a bloody history isn't because the people there are a different species, it's because clearly distinguishable groups have found themselves living cheek by jowl, competing for the same resources.

No, not anyone. But history hasn't been kind to multi-ethnic societies. Rather than me naming those that have had problems, perhaps you can suggest some that haven't? And I don't include the totally immigrant ones like America or Austraiila where the original inhabitants were wiped off the map.

You what?

Oowee spouts rubbish! Immigration into the UK was over 2,000 years, in small dribs and drabs...that is the only way integration works! Everywhere else, it,s a no no! Even in the USA, it does not work....there are still ghettos like Harlem, and Watts in Los Angeles...many Americans still identify with the ancestors who came there 150 years ago......For many, you are NOT an American, you are a African American, an Irish American etc etc..........

In recent times, the only people to enter the UK, and fully integrate, were the Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians and Czechs, who were displace by WW2, or by the Soviet Invasions of their home countries! Some of my friends were Poles, who came here to fight, and could not go home thanks to the Commies! They all integrated succesfully, they did not press for changes in our laws, complain about our schools etc...they did not build large places of worship, for a religion that castigates us. They just got on with life.

23 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Of course they can! - all governments have mishaps in 'competence' - principally because they all rely on the same civil service who actually organise these things;

The Department for transport has over 18,000 staff with grayling at the head - so he is in overall 'charge', but all of the negotiation, legwork, advice will be from the civil service workforce of 18,000. Its a poor record, but the 'current Minister' carries the can for all of his Department, but cannot examine every decision personally.

Correct!

22 hours ago, oowee said:

Lack of votes and short term governments,results in short term policy. We could easily house them but the issue is more than housing. Drug use and dependency are part of the issue. No doubt this stuff will get worse as we go forward lurching from left to right as a reaction to the failing of the other.

He has personally over ridden departmental advice.

And you know that...how? A personal line into his Department? Or are you just surmising? I carry no liking for Grayling, but even less of a liking for some in the Civil Service, many of whom would not last 5 minutes in business! And by business, I do NOT mean the City!

pinfireman · March 2, 2019

22 hours ago, oowee said:

? I just did. If you mean this bit 'yet manage to find homes for people almost as soon as they arrive in our country'

We agreed in an earlier post that we have no evidence for this.

I see that the EU fund a refugee crisis rehoming fund although I don't know much about it's use.

I found this for you,