The Consequences of Brexit [Part 6] READ FIRST POST BEFORE COMMENTING

[Top Cats Hat 10]

16 minutes ago, Lex Luthor said:

By not respecting the results of the referendum, as was promised. 

Promised by what Act of Parliament?

[ez8004 10]

21 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Promised by what Act of Parliament?

I think Lex doesn’t know how our Parliament works. 

[WiseOwl182 10]

49 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Really? Point me to the rules that say that people are free to move anywhere in the EU for any purpose

Rights and obligations:

• For stays of under three months: the only requirement for Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country.
• For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.
• Right of permanent residence: Union citizens acquire this right after a five-year period of uninterrupted legal residence, provided that an expulsion decision has not been enforced against them. This right is no longer subject to any conditions. The same rule applies to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have lived with a Union citizen for five years. The right of permanent residence is lost only in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State.
• Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are not taken on economic grounds, comply with the proportionality principle and are based on personal conduct, among others.

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The majority of highly paid people in Broughton in North Wales voted to leave. Unfortunately many of them work for Airbus. Not only will they lose their jobs but the whole area will take a hit when it loses the spending power that Airbus workers provided.

With a population of less than 6,000 I doubt it will matter much.

 

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

 

In Ebbw Vale, the town which recieves more EU money than any other small town in the UK the peopl voted to leave by the highest margin in Wales. Included in that leave vote were many people who are actually employed by EU projects. They too will now lose their jobs.

Because some of the EU projects there cost a fortune and dont  benefit the local people that much, again I doubt it will matter much to them.

 

1 hour ago, Top Cats Hat said:

It may be democratic but it is also very, very dumb. So are all these people stupid or were they lied to? 😡

Who knows, but I think calling the Welsh very, very dumb and making out they are stupid is a bit is a bit off... As for the last sentence.. its called a democratic choice. 

[Baron99 801]

It should be remembered that the question on the EU referendum ballot paper came about after a lengthy consultation process, as required under the Political Parties, Refendums & Elections Act 2000, requiring the Electoral Commission to consider the wording of the referendum question.  (It wasn't draw up on a slack afternoon on the back of a beer mat!).  The question was then put to & accepted by Parliament on 7 September 2015.

 

Here is a partial breakdown of the result (source: BBC). England voted for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%. Wales also voted for Brexit, with Leave getting 52.5% of the vote and Remain 47.5%. Scotland and Northern Ireland both backed staying in the EU. Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% leave. 

 

Now it does seem that at anytime during the initial consultation process MPs could at any stage have introduced a number of conditions to the referendum such as, for example, only accepting leave result if say, 66% had voted this way but the didn't did they? 

 

Watching both Kier Starmer & Liang Fox on the Andre's Marr show this morning, I've got to agree with the sentimenta of Fox who declared that the democratic wishes of the majority are in danger of being overturned by a minority who never wanted to leave the EU & are now using the current stalemate as a opportunity to try to keep us in the EU. 

 

Listening to Starmer, (ardent Reminder), he only sees 2 options, basically keeping the status quo by scrapping Article 50 or offering a second referendum with the question being do you want May's Brexit or do you want to remain with the EU? 

 

So not advancing on from the original vote then & ignoring 52% of the voting population then in one fell swoop. 

 

We've had the clear, decisive vote, (cost £129 million), decided to leave & that should be the starting point that drives the MPs forward to work on what the people want. 

 

[I1L2T3 10]

5 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

Rights and obligations:

• For stays of under three months: the only requirement for Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country.
• For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.
• Right of permanent residence: Union citizens acquire this right after a five-year period of uninterrupted legal residence, provided that an expulsion decision has not been enforced against them. This right is no longer subject to any conditions. The same rule applies to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have lived with a Union citizen for five years. The right of permanent residence is lost only in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State.
• Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are not taken on economic grounds, comply with the proportionality principle and are based on personal conduct, among others.

Well done.

 

So what it really means is you can move if you have work, studies, or the means to support yourself if not working. If not a 3 month cut-off takes effect. 

 

other EU countries implement these rules to the letter, effectively preventing benefits and healthcare tourism. 

 

We didn't. We could have but we didnt.

 

So, imagine a scenario where we tightened our own rules in line with the EU rules. Imagine also that right to work for workers from accession countries is limited for a time after accession, like what the EU put in place for Poland but the U.K. government ignored.

 

We are in this situation precisely because we didn’t use the tools the EU allowed for. 

10 minutes ago, apelike said:

With a population of less than 6,000 I doubt it will matter much.

 

Because some of the EU projects there cost a fortune and dont  benefit the local people that much, again I doubt it will matter much to them.

 

Who knows, but I think calling the Welsh very, very dumb and making out they are stupid is a bit is a bit off... As for the last sentence.. its called a democratic choice. 

Broughton is effectively a suburb of Chester which has a population of 120,000 and is part of a wider urbanised area spanning West Cheshire and Deeside with 300,000+ people.

 

That cleared up, your original argument is stupid. Huge job losses in a small town would have a disproportionate effect. You can see the effect of that in villages all around Sheffield.

[apelike 10]

1 hour ago, Lex Luthor said:

I don't want globalisation, and the EU is partly responsible for that.

You are not on your own as its becoming more apparent that many now also do not want any more expansion of globalisation. 

1 hour ago, Lex Luthor said:

I don't want a European Army, 

According to Nick Clegg any idea of an EU army is just pure fantasy and it will never happen.

1 hour ago, Lex Luthor said:

The EU parliament is a ridiculous waste of money.  

When an organisation gets so big that is inevitable especially as the wages the top people earn are very over inflated.

 

Junker   = €392,400 PY + extremely good allowances and a Christmas bonus
Tusk        = €392,400 PY + extremely good allowances
Barnier = €241,265 PY + extremely good allowances

[WiseOwl182 10]

9 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Well done.

 

So what it really means is you can move if you have work, studies, or the means to support yourself if not working. If not a 3 month cut-off takes effect. 

 

other EU countries implement these rules to the letter, effectively preventing benefits and healthcare tourism. 

 

We didn't. We could have but we didnt.

 

So, imagine a scenario where we tightened our own rules in line with the EU rules. Imagine also that right to work for workers from accession countries is limited for a time after accession, like what the EU put in place for Poland but the U.K. government ignored.

 

We are in this situation precisely because we didn’t use the tools the EU allowed for. 

What it really means is you are free to move between countries for any reason, as I said. I never mentioned benefit or health tourism. That just adds fuel to the fire though - personally I don't believe in freedom of movement for any reason, I think we should have control.

[apelike 10]

12 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Broughton is effectively a suburb of Chester which has a population of 120,000 and is part of a wider urbanised area spanning West Cheshire and Deeside with 300,000+ people.

But as you know I was replying to this from TCH

 

Quote: "The majority of highly paid people in Broughton in North Wales voted to leave. Unfortunately many of them work for Airbus. Not only will they lose their jobs but the whole area will take a hit when it loses the spending power that Airbus workers provided.

 

Quote

Huge job losses in a small town would have a disproportionate effect. You can see the effect of that in villages all around Sheffield.

You mean the ones that voted leave!

Edited January 20, 2019 by apelike

[Hots on 10]

9 minutes ago, I1L2T3 said:

Well done.

 

So what it really means is you can move if you have work, studies, or the means to support yourself if not working. If not a 3 month cut-off takes effect. 

 

other EU countries implement these rules to the letter, effectively preventing benefits and healthcare tourism. 

 

We didn't. We could have but we didnt.

 

So, imagine a scenario where we tightened our own rules in line with the EU rules. Imagine also that right to work for workers from accession countries is limited for a time after accession, like what the EU put in place for Poland but the U.K. government ignored.

 

We are in this situation precisely because we didn’t use the tools the EU allowed for. 

Broughton is effectively a suburb of Chester which has a population of 120,000 and is part of a wider urbanised area spanning West Cheshire and Deeside with 300,000+ people.

 

That cleared up, your original argument is stupid. Huge job losses in a small town would have a disproportionate effect. You can see the effect of that in villages all around Sheffield.

The likes of you and Halibut et-al would be up in arms had the UK exercised such restrictions as xenophobic.  

[Cyclone 10]

2 minutes ago, WiseOwl182 said:

What it really means is you are free to move between countries for any reason, as I said. I never mentioned benefit or health tourism. That just adds fuel to the fire though - personally I don't believe in freedom of movement for any reason, I think we should have control.

Why?

What's the difference between the freedom to move between the UK and France and the freedom to move between Yorkshire and Lancashire?

1 minute ago, Hots on said:

The likes of you and Halibut et-al would be up in arms had the UK exercised such restrictions as xenophobic.  

The point is that the EU didn't stop us, EU rules don't and never stopped us.  We chose not to stop it, and then you fell for it when politicians told you it was the EU's fault.

[WiseOwl182 10]

1 minute ago, Cyclone said:

Why?

What's the difference between the freedom to move between the UK and France and the freedom to move between Yorkshire and Lancashire?

Different countries rather than movement within the same country. I would have thought you would've known Yorkshire and Lancashire were in the same country?