Jump to content

The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

Recommended Posts

This whole situation is quite simple. The British people voted to LEAVE . That mean OUT , totally , no half measures, no deals with the foreigners in Brussels ,no keeping certain parts of the EU . Out means Out . Walk away , goodbye and good riddance to the foreign dictators in Brussels.

 

I dont think a lot of our MP`s get it . OUT means OUT.

 

Was this you?

 

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/listeners-labelled-call-from-a-ukipper-greatest/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chances of a hard Brexit are now practically zero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
got it.

 

a hard irish border.

 

out of Horizon 2020

 

no access to the CAP.

 

etc.

 

at least it's coherent strategy, i think we'd all be grateful if the government had half that clarity!

 

Not sure how this happened, but an amendment to keep us in single market appears to have been passed

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/jun/13/brexit-parliament-wont-be-allowed-to-take-charge-of-talks-in-no-deal-scenario-minister-tells-tory-rebels-politics-live?page=with:block-5b2119ede4b06f2cac87b74d#block-5b2119ede4b06f2cac87b74d

 

Perhaps this is what happens when you don’t allocate enough time to debate things properly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The EU side have said that we can't stay in the SM or CU without excepting free movement. So why are people advocating this ? If this is the outcome we will have to do what the EU say with no choice in the matter. If the UK needs certain skills to work here then make them welcome but we must be able to choose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The EU side have said that we can't stay in the SM or CU without excepting free movement. So why are people advocating this ? If this is the outcome we will have to do what the EU say with no choice in the matter. If the UK needs certain skills to work here then make them welcome but we must be able to choose.

 

*accepting.

 

I am going to drag a very, very old point that I have made an awful lot, out of the bag of surprises: The Dutch, who are very much in Europe, have a fully accepted system whereby EU migrants have to contribute into the system before being entitled to state benefits. They also have the right, again, fully accepted, to tell people who can not sustain themselves, despite being EU citizens, are no longer welcome.

 

Here is an even bigger surprise, it is not just the Dutch with that system, it is the vast majority of EU countries. Biggest exception - the UK. Reason the UK is the biggest exception? Because the government (The UK government!) did not understand or wilfully ignored the fact that they had that choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

the Bit he says about an open door being to the EU is an open door to the rest of the world, made me chuckle, where we are about to open our doors to the rest of the world :hihi:

 

its funny as hell listening to these videos

https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/which-eu-law-are-you-looking-forward-to-losing/

Edited by melthebell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The EU side have said that we can't stay in the SM or CU without excepting free movement. So why are people advocating this ? If this is the outcome we will have to do what the EU say with no choice in the matter. If the UK needs certain skills to work here then make them welcome but we must be able to choose.

 

At the end of the day the EU is our biggest trading partner, and very likely will be for many decades to come.

 

The much hoped for EU collapse hasn’t happened, shows no signs of happening, and even if it did collapse then the chances of that resulting in the end of the SM/CU are nil.

 

The biggest free trade area in the world is on our doorstep. People are advocating staying in because it is the most rational solution.

 

As for free movement, we’ve always had the power to strongly influence that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*accepting.

 

I am going to drag a very, very old point that I have made an awful lot, out of the bag of surprises: The Dutch, who are very much in Europe, have a fully accepted system whereby EU migrants have to contribute into the system before being entitled to state benefits. They also have the right, again, fully accepted, to tell people who can not sustain themselves, despite being EU citizens, are no longer welcome.

 

Here is an even bigger surprise, it is not just the Dutch with that system, it is the vast majority of EU countries. Biggest exception - the UK. Reason the UK is the biggest exception? Because the government (The UK government!) did not understand or wilfully ignored the fact that they had that choice.

Sorry about the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of whether people pay into the system that's for another discussion. I said the Eu say to stay in the SM or CU you have to eccept free movement. My argument is this I can't understand why anyone would say that we should stay in either and have no input in any discussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of whether people pay into the system that's for another discussion. I said the Eu say to stay in the SM or CU you have to eccept free movement. My argument is this I can't understand why anyone would say that we should stay in either and have no input in any discussions.

 

People would advocate it because it keeps things very similar to now, and would make reversal of Brexit less painful.

 

It avoids economic harm and gives us more short to medium term options, one of which of course could be to move further away from the EU.

 

Be wary of any politician who argues for the most extreme possible break with the EU. They’re most likely doing it because there is a big pot of gold for them if we have a chaotic hard Brexit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry about the spelling mistake. I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of whether people pay into the system that's for another discussion. I said the Eu say to stay in the SM or CU you have to eccept free movement. My argument is this I can't understand why anyone would say that we should stay in either and have no input in any discussions.

 

The principles of the European Economic Area have been agreed upon by the UK, throughout the different iterations. One of the key principles is free movement of people. My answer attempts to reflect the fact that free movement of people has been interpreted in a particular way by the UK that allowed EU citizens not just free movement but also access to state benefits etc.

 

So it was the interpretation of the UK government, not that of the EU.

 

Without lowering the discussion to platitudes - The UK agreed to the principles of the EU and now wants to alter those principles unilaterally, whilst ignoring the options already available to it. The EU isn't telling the UK to stay in, it isn't telling the UK it has no input. It is telling the UK that the UK voted to leave the EU so it is the UK that has to try and reach an agreement with the EU rather than vice versa. This is where the annoyance of 'have cake and eat it' comes from.

 

I don't know how long you've been following these debates, before the Consequences thread and since, but I have repeatedly explained, very clearly, that Cameron went to the EU to 'get some sort of arrangement' with a list of demands that he could already implement. It seems the Tories haven't grasped this simple fact yet.

 

The only reason the UK is still in the EU is because the EU hasn't pulled the plug yet, not the other way around. The reason the EU hasn't pulled the plug? Because it knows that millions of EU citizens, like me, will be left in political limbo if it does, and because it knows that on top of that tens of millions of British citizens will suffer the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People would advocate it because it keeps things very similar to now, and would make reversal of Brexit less painful.

 

It avoids economic harm and gives us more short to medium term options, one of which of course could be to move further away from the EU.

 

Be wary of any politician who argues for the most extreme possible break with the EU. They’re most likely doing it because there is a big pot of gold for them if we have a chaotic hard Brexit.

To reverse brexit would be a total betrayal of the people. I don't want to move further away from the Eu and I'm pretty sure most people don't either. I voted to remain but now I just want to trade with the Eu fairly and the rest of the world as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To reverse brexit would be a total betrayal of the people. I don't want to move further away from the Eu and I'm pretty sure most people don't either. I voted to remain but now I just want to trade with the Eu fairly and the rest of the world as well.

 

No it wouldn't.

It would go against a minority of the population - yes a majority of those who voted, but not a total betrayal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.