Go Back  British Expats > General > Take it Outside!
Reload this Page >

Post EU Referendum...Part II

Post EU Referendum...Part II

Old Oct 22nd 2018, 6:42 pm
  #3001  
Democracy advocate
 
Cape Blue's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,061
Cape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by Steerpike View Post
(not sure where this quote came from; it was in Cape's post).

I must say, from my vantage point I don't see any fundamental reason not to have a second vote. Yes, a second vote is 'unusual' and presents problems, but - the original vote was an attempt to create a binary choice in a situation with more than 2 likely outcomes, so it was an illogical vote. At this point, one can argue that the original Brexit vote was premature, in that the terms of 'leave' were not known, so how could people meaningfully vote 'leave' if they didn't know what the details would be? They couldn't know what the details would be because the terms of leaving wouldn't be negotiated until the UK stated its intention to do so. So really, the more appropriate approach here may have been:
1) to negotiate the terms of leaving first, then put the result to the vote, or
2) to have the vote be about initiating the process or not - "do you want Britain to begin negotiations on leaving" sort of thing.
Of course, neither of these options are really practical, but in reality, option '2' is where we are today. A majority voted to start the process. Now the process has been started, we are ready for the next logical phase - a vote on the results of the negotiations.

A somewhat rhetorical question - if it's not acceptable to have a second vote 'now', would it be acceptable to have another vote in 10 years? 20 years? Is there a 'statute of limitations' that determines what an acceptable amount of time is between votes?
It was from the "People's Vote" website.

I disagree - it was an easy binary vote - stay in the EU and be a member, coughing up £10B a year net, being subservient to the ECJ and Commission-led laws, accepting FOM as part of SM and CU, etc etc,

OR, leave the EU.

Leaving the EU means leaving the EU, it's not a difficult concept, the terms are whatever the best terms the UK Gov of the day can negotiate.

This is purely an after-the-fact backdoor do-over for remain.
Cape Blue is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 6:48 pm
  #3002  
Reasonable Bitch
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 16,811
amideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by DigitalGhost View Post
Yes because it's undemocratic and completely unnecessary. This isn't like in your country where ballots are repeated until the result goes the way that the EU establishment would like.

A second vote wouldn't do anything to help unify the country either. If anything, it would probably just make matters worse.
I reckon then, that you would be in favour of selling tins of rat meat labelled

Premium Tuna Filet
  • cures cancer and 350 other diseases
  • eliminates foreigners
  • ​​​​​​funds the NHS
  • gives you control
amideislas is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 6:49 pm
  #3003  
Resident Cynic
 
macliam's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: Suffolk,UK; Alentejo, Portugal
Posts: 4,204
macliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by DigitalGhost View Post
Yes because it's undemocratic and completely unnecessary. This isn't like in your country where ballots are repeated until the result goes the way that the EU establishment would like.

A second vote wouldn't do anything to help unify the country either. If anything, it would probably just make matters worse.
Yep - in MY country, we voted narrowly to disallow the ratification of a process because we were concerned at the possible impact on the sovereignty of our state. This led to renegotiation and clarification which dispelled the concerns and the follow-up referendum was passed with a large majority. The impact is that the EU has a 90+% approval rating. No doubt you wish to spin this as being a Machiavellian plot by the EU, or a comment on the Irish, but I see it as a demonstration of the maturity of both parties. At least our government trusted the electorate with the decision on whether or not to accept an agreement.
macliam is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 6:52 pm
  #3004  
Sidecar Falcon
 
DigitalGhost's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,004
DigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond reputeDigitalGhost has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by macliam View Post
At least our government trusted the electorate with the decision on whether or not to accept an agreement.
Yes that's true enough. If we had been given that right then we might not be in this mess that we're in today.
DigitalGhost is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 6:57 pm
  #3005  
Who - me?
 
Red Eric's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Arcos de Valdevez "Onde Portugal se fez"
Posts: 11,339
Red Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond reputeRed Eric has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Talking of democracy and the will of the people :
A YouGov poll found 57 per cent of Britons believe the Government should consider a deal with the EU similar to Norway's.

This would involve retaining freedom of movement and some EU regulations in exchange for full access to the single market.

Just 24 per cent said the option should be off the table if Britons vote to quit the 28-member bloc in two weeks' time...

..."Voters are clear that the European Economic Area (EEA) option should be on the table for a post-Brexit government."
That was published a week or so before the referendum.

It was the Express though, so obviously hopelessly pro Brexit.
Majority of UK voters SUPPORT Norway-style deal with EU after Brexit, poll reveals
Red Eric is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 7:10 pm
  #3006  
Reasonable Bitch
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 16,811
amideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

As long as it's called "Brexit", few will know the difference. Until of course, the swivel-eyed Brexiteers and their accomplice tabloids figure it out and tell everyone what to believe, sending the country back into false premise convulsions about nonexistent threats.
amideislas is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 8:01 pm
  #3007  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Steerpike's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA / Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 7,296
Steerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

I'm searching for a post in this (Or the other, similar) thread today that said, basically, that the UK could have implemented greater controls on migrant movements, and greater controls on the use of healthcare (or other social?) services by migrants, but chose not to. Can someone point me to that thread? I'm curious to learn more about that particular slice of recent history.
Steerpike is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 8:33 pm
  #3008  
Resident Cynic
 
macliam's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: Suffolk,UK; Alentejo, Portugal
Posts: 4,204
macliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by Steerpike View Post
I'm searching for a post in this (Or the other, similar) thread today that said, basically, that the UK could have implemented greater controls on migrant movements, and greater controls on the use of healthcare (or other social?) services by migrants, but chose not to. Can someone point me to that thread? I'm curious to learn more about that particular slice of recent history.
Sounds like my post #2729, but it has all been discussed before. When the EU expanded into Eastern Europe ( Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) the UK placed no restrictions on migration. Only Ireland and Sweden followed suit - all other EU states placed restrictions on immigration and or working. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_e...European_Union). This meant that these three countries were the target for initial migration ..... and these initial migrants built communities that encouraged others to follow.
With regard to greater controls on migrants, Portugal (which I know well) requires anyone staying more than 90 days to register for residency. As part of the process, candidates may be asked to prove they are not a burden on the state and have the means to support themselves. Other EU states have similar requirements, which comply with FoM rules - the UK has no such process.
Finally, the UK refused to change any of the rules relating to access to social welfare and/or health - even when it was apparent that this meant no controls could be placed on migrants or visitors. Most other states have rules which mitigate against abuse. Belatedly, changes are now being made in access to NHS.services........

So, that nasty EU wasn't really the problem, was it?
macliam is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 8:49 pm
  #3009  
Democracy advocate
 
Cape Blue's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 11,061
Cape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond reputeCape Blue has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by macliam View Post
Sounds like my post #2729, but it has all been discussed before. When the EU expanded into Eastern Europe ( Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) the UK placed no restrictions on migration. Only Ireland and Sweden followed suit - all other EU states placed restrictions on immigration and or working. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_e...European_Union). This meant that these three countries were the target for initial migration ..... and these initial migrants built communities that encouraged others to follow.
With regard to greater controls on migrants, Portugal (which I know well) requires anyone staying more than 90 days to register for residency. As part of the process, candidates may be asked to prove they are not a burden on the state and have the means to support themselves. Other EU states have similar requirements, which comply with FoM rules - the UK has no such process.
Finally, the UK refused to change any of the rules relating to access to social welfare and/or health - even when it was apparent that this meant no controls could be placed on migrants or visitors. Most other states have rules which mitigate against abuse. Belatedly, changes are now being made in access to NHS.services........

So, that nasty EU wasn't really the problem, was it?
Yes, the UK was a shining beacon of openness and welcome to the A10 (and A2), whilst the vast majority of EU countries like Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Holland etc showed what bad Europeans and thoroughly xenophobic types they are (per EMR, anyone who doesn't welcome mass migration is a xenophobe). But that's history.

Today, if an EU citizen has a job (or is looking for one) the UK cannot stop them moving to the UK.
Cape Blue is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 8:52 pm
  #3010  
Reasonable Bitch
 
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Mallorca
Posts: 16,811
amideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond reputeamideislas has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

What a spin. It still doesn't illustrste how the EU is the culprit for Britain's newfound xenophobia.
amideislas is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 8:59 pm
  #3011  
Oscar nominated
 
BristolUK's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB, CANADA
Posts: 30,124
BristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond reputeBristolUK has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by Cape Blue View Post
And I've just linked to the two many People's Vote websites showing you exactly where they are pushing for a remain option in the vote.
Yes I saw that. But when you posted about it originally it was as if it had been agreed that was the form it would take. I believe you were asked for confirmation at the time but it was merely a proposal.You also said there would be no second referendum anyway, so it was a bit surprising to see you posting the form it would take.
BristolUK is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 9:05 pm
  #3012  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Steerpike's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA / Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 7,296
Steerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by macliam View Post
Sounds like my post #2729, but it has all been discussed before. When the EU expanded into Eastern Europe ( Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) the UK placed no restrictions on migration. Only Ireland and Sweden followed suit - all other EU states placed restrictions on immigration and or working. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_e...European_Union). This meant that these three countries were the target for initial migration ..... and these initial migrants built communities that encouraged others to follow.
With regard to greater controls on migrants, Portugal (which I know well) requires anyone staying more than 90 days to register for residency. As part of the process, candidates may be asked to prove they are not a burden on the state and have the means to support themselves. Other EU states have similar requirements, which comply with FoM rules - the UK has no such process.
Finally, the UK refused to change any of the rules relating to access to social welfare and/or health - even when it was apparent that this meant no controls could be placed on migrants or visitors. Most other states have rules which mitigate against abuse. Belatedly, changes are now being made in access to NHS.services........

So, that nasty EU wasn't really the problem, was it?
As far as I can tell, the above issues were one of the main 'inspirations' for the 'leave' vote. I have some good friends in UK who are well educated and not in the least bit 'racist' or 'xenophobic', but who were concerned about the impact of immigration on the social welfare system, from a pure 'supply and demand' perspective. They implied this was a result of EU policies, but you are suggesting otherwise. Can you point me to some reasonable articles about the topic, as I'd like to pursue this discussion with them armed with some quality info.

Ah ha - is this a reasonably accurate assessment? http://theconversation.com/the-huge-...-britain-66077
In May 2004, the EU welcomed ten new member states – the majority from Central and Eastern Europe – in what was the largest expansion in the history of European integration. The UK was one of only three member states, alongside Sweden and Ireland, to open its labour market to these new EU citizens immediately.
(looking now for info on the unwillingness to restrict access to NHS services ...)

I am personally in favor of 'movement of people' - I 'moved' to the US in pursuit of my career, so how could I not be - but I'm also in favor of common-sense restrictions. It seems blatantly obvious (and reasonable) to me that you don't move anywhere without a plan, and that plan has to include a means to support yourself in your new location.

Last edited by Steerpike; Oct 22nd 2018 at 9:21 pm.
Steerpike is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 9:11 pm
  #3013  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Steerpike's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA / Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 7,296
Steerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by Cape Blue View Post
Yes, the UK was a shining beacon of openness and welcome to the A10 (and A2), whilst the vast majority of EU countries like Germany, Italy, France, Spain, Holland etc showed what bad Europeans and thoroughly xenophobic types they are (per EMR, anyone who doesn't welcome mass migration is a xenophobe). But that's history.

Today, if an EU citizen has a job (or is looking for one) the UK cannot stop them moving to the UK.
But is it prevented from implementing such restrictions by the EU, or are such restrictions absent because the UK chose not to implement them? 'Macliam's post suggests other EU countries have implemented such restrictions, so why doesn't the UK do likewise? (or why didn't ...)?
Steerpike is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 9:50 pm
  #3014  
BE Forum Addict
 
Joined: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 4,789
materialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond reputematerialcontroller has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by macliam View Post
Sounds like my post #2729, but it has all been discussed before. When the EU expanded into Eastern Europe ( Cyprus, Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia) the UK placed no restrictions on migration. Only Ireland and Sweden followed suit - all other EU states placed restrictions on immigration and or working. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_e...European_Union). This meant that these three countries were the target for initial migration ..... and these initial migrants built communities that encouraged others to follow.
With regard to greater controls on migrants, Portugal (which I know well) requires anyone staying more than 90 days to register for residency. As part of the process, candidates may be asked to prove they are not a burden on the state and have the means to support themselves. Other EU states have similar requirements, which comply with FoM rules - the UK has no such process.
Finally, the UK refused to change any of the rules relating to access to social welfare and/or health - even when it was apparent that this meant no controls could be placed on migrants or visitors. Most other states have rules which mitigate against abuse. Belatedly, changes are now being made in access to NHS.services........

So, that nasty EU wasn't really the problem, was it?
All of that stuff is just tinkering around the edges. Even as a remain voter, what I want to see is:

a) an end to FOM.
b) the ability to stop, detain, refuse entry and deport ALL foreigners (including EU, but not Irish, citizens) for ANY reason at points of entry into the UK.

As things stand being a member of the EU prevents this from being implemented and, for purely political rather than practical purposes, the EU is unwilling to allow it.
materialcontroller is offline  
Old Oct 22nd 2018, 9:57 pm
  #3015  
Resident Cynic
 
macliam's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2013
Location: Suffolk,UK; Alentejo, Portugal
Posts: 4,204
macliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond reputemacliam has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Post EU Referendum...Part II

Originally Posted by Steerpike View Post
But is it prevented from implementing such restrictions by the EU, or are such restrictions absent because the UK chose not to implement them? 'Macliam's post suggests other EU countries have implemented such restrictions, so why doesn't the UK do likewise? (or why didn't ...)?
Isn't it strange that the other EU countries don't appear to have the problems the UK does - and before anyone says about migration in Germany or problems in France, those are to do with external migration into the EU and/or historic links with north Africa, not infra-EU migration of EU citizens. Ireland has a percentage of immigrants slightly higher then the UK (though obviously far less in number), it has gone from being a net exporter of people to an importer...... at one time there were 3 Polish language newspapers in Dublin!! However, immigration is not seen as the issue it is in the UK.

You would almost think there were people in the Tory party UK who never wanted British membership of the EU to work...........
macliam is offline  

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.