Brexit...

[johnh]

On 26/09/2019 at 18:27, MikeO said:

Well you would say that wouldn't you

As an aside were you aware that two of eleven "remainer" judges sided with the government in the 2017 in the article 50 case, arguing that the government could trigger it without parliamentary consent? That would (if you won't accept that they are impartial) suggest that they were Brexiteers who've had a change of heart in the last couple of years.

Neither is the case of course, they are apoloitical when sat on those benches, unlike many around the World, the US being the most obvious example, and the rule of law is their only concern. Long may it continue that way.

Mike, don't see what relevance that has?  Parliament voted overwhelmingly to invoke Article 50 -  how did that go?

[MikeO]

39 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike, don't see what relevance that has?

It only has relevance in relation to you describing the eleven judges as remainers and me pointing out that that argument doesn't hold water. 

[Bailey]

3 hours ago, Palfy said:

If Johnstone had made that statement would you have believed him, after all Rees-Mogg and himself voted against every opportunity to leave May put before them so they were as guilty as anyone for stifling parliament, but decided to lie to stop people stifling them, to lie to the country is not democracy it is treason so he should step down after being found guilty. 

They had it easy because it was blatantly obvious why it was done, the government or should I say Johnstone didn’t supply anything because that would have meant they would have lied further to justify the first lie, even they new they had been caught and couldn’t defend it. 

Yes I would have because that is what Parliament has done. Don't quote me on it but I think the two mentioned did actually vote for the WA in the end. There is no workable majority in Parliament for anything.

I agree with the last part though, if they had put a statement in it would have been to say its not about a no-deal Brexit when the reality was that was BS.

[Palfy]

Once again Macron left with egg on his face over Brexit, obviously the Germans have pulled rank again. 

It must be highly embarrassing for him that every time he try’s to lay the law down when it comes to us, he constantly gets shot down by Merkel and the wishes of the Germans. 

His small man syndrome must be raging, the little twat. 

[Matt]

11 hours ago, Palfy said:

Once again Macron left with egg on his face over Brexit, obviously the Germans have pulled rank again. 

It must be highly embarrassing for him that every time he try’s to lay the law down when it comes to us, he constantly gets shot down by Merkel and the wishes of the Germans. 

His small man syndrome must be raging, the little twat. 

Poor choice of phrase there Palfy  

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

Poor choice of phrase there Palfy  

 

[Formby]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

Poor choice of phrase there Palfy  

I think the comma saves him! 

[johnh]

On 29/09/2019 at 15:52, MikeO said:

It only has relevance in relation to you describing the eleven judges as remainers and me pointing out that that argument doesn't hold water. 

And my point was that people are capable, as we see on almost a daily basis, of saying one thing and doing another.  Even lawyers.

[Matt]

Met up with a bunch of friends yesterday, all GB nationals, around 20 of them. All but one was denied a vote on Brexit, even though they’ve grown up in the EU for extended periods. How do the leave voters feel about that?

[Palfy]

11 minutes ago, RPG said:

Technically, I don't qualify as a leave voter as I, too, was denied a vote. I am sure it all evens itself out and doesn't detract from the legitimacy of the democratic decision to leave EU.

It wasn’t democratic I thought the Supreme Court had shown that lying doesn’t have any place in a democracy

[MikeO]

47 minutes ago, RPG said:

Technically, I don't qualify as a leave voter as I, too, was denied a vote. I am sure it all evens itself out and doesn't detract from the legitimacy of the democratic decision to leave EU.

But is there not a difference in that you live outside the EU and have no intention of ever doing so in the future, let alone the UK itself (obviously I don't know the circumstances of Matt's friends)?

You may well have a counter argument for that, just throwing it out there.

[Matt]

2 hours ago, RPG said:

Technically, I don't qualify as a leave voter as I, too, was denied a vote. I am sure it all evens itself out and doesn't detract from the legitimacy of the democratic decision to leave EU.

You didn’t get a say but maintain, as a British citizen not qualified to vote, it was democratic? 

[johnh]

On 26/09/2019 at 16:23, johnh said:

The Attorney General has stated that no prorogation in the last 50 to 100 years (and there have been several) would have survived the ruling of the Supreme Court.  Moved the goalposts?  

I see Lord Sumption,  previously a member of the Supreme Court has stated 'What has happened is that in the face of a particularly disgraceful constitutional abuse the courts have now moved the boundaries.'

There is a growing concern in Legal circles about the judgement of the Supreme Court.  One QC stating that the judgement has the appearance of reasoning backwards from a desired outcome.  Another QC states 'If Lord Sumption is right, the implications are disturbing. The Supreme Court would, in reality, have changed the law with retrospective effect - having 'moved the boundaries'.

I think this will run and run.

[Matt]

49 minutes ago, RPG said:

Under current democratic rules, yes. I have been disenfranchised because I have been an expat for more than 15 years. I don't like it but I knew the rules when I became an expat and I therefore accept the ruling. It is not unreasonable to expect the same democratic respect from those that lost the referendum imho.

For the running of the country I agree with you. But as it affects our citizenship everyone of voting age with a passport should’ve been asked which is part of the reason I’ve been banging on about it being undemocratic (aside from the obvious contradiction to representative democracy)

[Matt]

22 minutes ago, RPG said:

How does brexit affect your citizenship? If you are British you remain British. EU is not a nation. It is an organisation. We are leaving an organisation, not losing our nationality. If anything, we are making sure we do not lose our nationality later.

If you are British but living in current EU but outside UK then there is no reason to believe that reciprocal rights for existing 'expat' citizens within EU will not be respected. They already would be if EU would negotiate as an equal and not try to be a bully.

Worst case scenario is that in future you might need a visa whereas today you may not. That is a small price to pay for controlling our borders and is a large part of the rationale behind the leave vote.

Because being in the European Union gives me more chance for work, simple as that. I’ve built my life over the last 15 years because I’ve been able to live and work in the EU. I get preferential treatment when looking for work in Switzerland too over non-EU nationals. Worst case scenario for me will be I don’t get a job because an EU national has priority over an non-EU national and I have to leave the country even though I have the permit to stay indefinitely now. if I can’t get work I can’t afford to live here and I have to move back to the UK. So for me and many others it is losing a lot.

oh, and we always had control over our borders. That bullshit lie has been disproven repeatedly 

[Matt]

Oh, and my nationality is English. Great Britain is not a country, it’s a collaboration of 3 countries. The irony of that when it comes to Brexit is so bittersweet 

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

oh, and we always had control over our borders. That bullshit lie has been disproven repeatedly

Also any failure to exercise "efficient" controls is down to our government, not the EU. 

https://brexit853.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/powers-that-the-uk-has-failed-to-use-to-control-eu-freedom-of-movement-directive/

[Matt]

5 minutes ago, RPG said:

I would like to think reciprocal rights will extend to cover your situation. I know what you're getting at, and I appreciate that  so apologies for being blunt here, but "I would like to think" doesn't come close to acceptable. Especially as I was refused a voice. Besides, I'm not just thinking about me, I'm thinking of my daughter and family back near Liverpool, the generations that will have to live with the decision.  what we in the aviation industry call Grandfather rights, but of course there is no guarantee as it takes 2 (or, in this case 28) to tango. The sooner this and other matters can be agreed post brexit, the better. But, since when was Switzerland in EU? I do understand the relationship Switzerland has with EU but it is not an EU member. I know it's not a member, but as I explained being an EU citizen gives me preferential treatment in Switzerland for employment and visas, just as it does in the UK.

Your riposte over border control is not really true though Matt. We admit into UK with no real checks everyone with an EU passport. That is not border control as referred to in the discussion. That is companies hiring who they want, nothing to do with "taking control of the borders". If a company wants someone, they'll always find an excuse to get around the immigration laws, EU or no EU membership - I've experienced it myself. The other part of borders control is being non-Schengen. So I fail to see how Great Britain doesn't already have extremely good control over the immigration? The only way to improve it would be to undo what May did during her time as Home Secretary(?) so that companies adhere to the immigration and hiring policies.

Pleased to see you are so proud of being English. I too am first and foremost English but when it comes to things such as Olympics we have a British team do we not? We are a United Kingdom of 4 countries (no, we are not. GB is 3 countries, UK is 4 countries)  with, largely, a common (yet still diverse) culture.  This is very different to the 27 countries that may (or may not) choose to remain in EU. I'm not at all proud to be English, I'm not patriotic, it's nothing something I see the point of. I was just pointing out that I'm not British. You wrote as though you think nationality and citizenship are the same, and they're simply not. 

I still haven't heard anything to persuade me that Brexit is anything but good for the country.   I hope you are not disadvantaged in an individual way and I think and hope that reciprocal arrangements will be put in place to cover people such as yourself . I do understand the stress and frustration that not knowing future arrangements can cause. That is yet another reason why no delay to brexit can be allowed. Apologies again, but that's because you don't seem to want to see it any other way. Although, that said, I've seen nothing to show me how it could be good for the country, largely because there's no evidence or plan.

 

[Matt]

6 minutes ago, RPG said:

The UK is 4 countries, England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. Great Britain is the 3 countries you refer to. In the Olympics we compete as Great Britain, In Eurovision (if we still choose to compete) we compete as UK.

Your answer over border control is not really full or accurate. A very small proportion is companies hiring who they want. But in future they will be able to do it, likely on a points based system, using the entire world as an equal opportunities employee reservoir rather than practicing the discrimination which takes place under current EU rules. Surely you want the best man or woman to get the job don't you and not have someone excluded because they are of non EU nationality?

If you are not proud of being English then that is your right and your personal choice but I find it very sad and it really renders further brexit conversation meaningless as the crux of brexit is trying to regain something that you clearly do not value.

I value a goal of diversity and integration, something that both Great Britain and EU have done very well. Now I see GB wanting to just be on its own and that’s what I find very sad. 

Yup, my mistake correcting the UK statement, trying to do too many things at once. 

[MikeO]

11 minutes ago, RPG said:

The UK is 4 countries, England, Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. Great Britain is the 3 countries you refer to. In the Olympics we compete as Great Britain...

Pedantic but to be accurate we compete in the Olympics as as GB and NI.

[Matt]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

I disagree.

We are happy to continue to cooperate on areas of mutual interest. We are happy to embrace immigration.

But, we want control over it. We do not want to be told what currency we will use, what our interest rates will be, what our internal trading regulations will be etc etc.

Diversity and integration does not have to come with the price tag of loss of sovereignty, but that is the path the EU is going down and why it is the right decision for UK to leave this organisation.

And we have control over it, or at the very least the potential. That we do not enforce it as it should be largely, I'm guessing, down to massive cuts to the funding of border control (see Mike's link), another feather in May's hat.  

[johnh]

3 hours ago, Matt said:

Because being in the European Union gives me more chance for work, simple as that. I’ve built my life over the last 15 years because I’ve been able to live and work in the EU. I get preferential treatment when looking for work in Switzerland too over non-EU nationals. Worst case scenario for me will be I don’t get a job because an EU national has priority over an non-EU national and I have to leave the country even though I have the permit to stay indefinitely now. if I can’t get work I can’t afford to live here and I have to move back to the UK. So for me and many others it is losing a lot.

oh, and we always had control over our borders. That bullshit lie has been disproven repeatedly 

Matt, admittedly an area I am not familiar with, but why would EU nationals get preference?  Switzerland are not in the EU.

[Matt]

36 minutes ago, johnh said:

Matt, admittedly an area I am not familiar with, but why would EU nationals get preference?  Switzerland are not in the EU.

But they are codependent in so many other ways, and to facilitate and maintain this collaboration, they give and get perks. 

[MikeO]

10 minutes ago, RPG said:

I have to disagree. If we imposed border controls for EU nationals in the form of full passport checks, visa requirement prior to arrival etc it would be totally contrary to the EU free movement protocol.

A visa requirement is a long way from a passport check so I don't see how you can couple the two under the same umbrella (essential if you want to visit the UK). The fact remains that we've potentially had control on immigration from within the EU all along, we've just not bothered to exercise it.

[Palfy]

7 hours ago, RPG said:

How does brexit affect your citizenship? If you are British you remain British. EU is not a nation. It is an organisation. We are leaving an organisation, not losing our nationality. If anything, we are making sure we do not lose our nationality later.

If you are British but living in current EU but outside UK then there is no reason to believe that reciprocal rights for existing 'expat' citizens within EU will not be respected. They already would be if EU would negotiate as an equal and not try to be a bully.

Worst case scenario is that in future you might need a visa whereas today you may not. That is a small price to pay for controlling our borders and is a large part of the rationale behind the leave vote.

All the leave vote has done for controlling our borders and immigration is slow down the amount of EU citizens coming into the country, who now don’t want to come of their own free will, and a huge increase of migrants from other countries out of the EU mainly from South America have filled the gap left from those that have left and those that now won’t come. 

Your not living this and have no intention to live it, trust me it doesn’t bode well for this country that we are letting so many people in from fairly lawless countries that we can’t check out, at least when they were coming from the EU checks and information could be shared on people.

So imho all we have achieved is to put ourselves at more risk from immigration from people we have no idea about. 

[Matt]

9 hours ago, MikeO said:

A visa requirement is a long way from a passport check so I don't see how you can couple the two under the same umbrella (essential if you want to visit the UK). The fact remains that we've potentially had control on immigration from within the EU all along, we've just not bothered to exercise it.

Exactly, not to mention all the passport checks that are done to everyone (British nationals too) when entering the UK because we’re not part of Schengen.

Plus, when the Leaver campaigns were going around with their propaganda, their main focus on immigration was not that of EU citizens / foreigners coming for work it’s was about immigration referring to being overrun because we had no control of our borders (physically). In both cases they categorically lied to scare and panic people 

[Matt]

Side note on the actual border control, we were surprised to see that my wife (American) no longer needs to sign a landing card when entering the UK. Previously there was a form to fill out, like when I go to the US, stating how long I’ll be there, what my intentions were, what goods we were bringing into the country (and value) the home address of where we’d be staying, flight number we’d come in on, home addresses were we live, birthday, passport number....

now it’s not needed. No stamp in the passport either. US citizens don’t need any checks, and they weren’t the only nation this applied too. I saw Japan, South Korea and some former colonies too (I think China too but might be mistaken there). 

Its a relief to us, as my wife was stopped twice at the border because we’d made 2 weekend trips in less than 3 months, which she apparently wasn’t allowed to do despite travelling with me and our daughter (who has dual nationality). 

But all that’s to say, if we’ve no control over our immigration laws, how did we change them to scrap immigration checks? 

[MikeO]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/01/nissan-uk-qashqai-no-deal-brexit-sunderland-plant

[Matt]

10 minutes ago, RPG said:

Hopefully its because we have realised who our friends are.

For the next couple or three weeks we are still in EU so we are, or should be, still operating to EU rules. Post Brexit would be the time to criticise or applaud any new measures.

You’ve missed the entire point. We’ve changed our immigration procedures, ergo we have control of them already. 

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

I disagree. We may or may not change our immigration rules within EU defined limits but they are still bounded by EU policy. The amount that we may tweak our rules has limits while we are in EU. Once free of EU we are not bound by freedom of movement protocol etc.

Disagree all you like. Fact is we changed our immigration laws and I can’t find anywhere that it’s limited by the EU. Feel free to provide your evidence