Brexit

Lucien wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lucien wrote:but at the same time people moving here, or to any other EU state, should be aware of that possibility.

Yeah I am sure the French guy that moved here in 2004 thought to himself "Hmm I wonder if in 12 years time Britain will vote to leave the EU and then deport me?".

You're right, he has no responsibility when it comes to his own interests.

You move to Australia. You have a full working visa provided by your company. You live quietly and responsibly for 10 years, contributing to society through taxation and by putting your wealth back into the economy through purchases and investments.

On the 11th year, you get told to strawberry float off. Your company still wants you, but the government has arbitrarily decided to remove you.

In this situation, you're saying the fault would be yours?

If I moved there I'd know my rights, while knowing they could deport any foreign person at any time. If you move to any country you're loaded with the risk; that's just how it is in reality.

That's not what I asked. After 10 years of contributing to a society, if you were told at relatively short notice to strawberry float off after a government's seemingly arbitrary decision to remove you, you would be at fault because you didn't prepare for that specific scenario?

I wouldn't be at fault. I'd have thought going in that I could be deported though, and wouldn't defend myself with "I didn't think about it" like Moggy's lazy Frenchman.

I remember I once tried debating with a hard right Republican* the legitimacy of people being held in Guantanamo Bay indefinitely with no public evidence. He ended this argument with "I would agree to be locked up, with no charges, no reasoning and no timeline of release if it meant securing the security of my country." Sort of killed the conversation.

Anecdote unrelated to anything quoted above. I mean, obviously.

*In person, this wasn't any old online shitfest.

Lucien wrote:and wouldn't defend myself with "I didn't think about it" like Moggy's lazy Frenchman.

I can only assume you are on the windup.

Lucien wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Lucien wrote:and wouldn't defend myself with "I didn't think about it" like Moggy's lazy Frenchman.

I can only assume you are on the windup.

I said people moving countries should be aware, you said (para) "they're not thinking". They should be. That's literally it.

That is a different point from what's fair, what the UK should do with EU citizens, etc.

If the rules are "You can move to this country, work and stay here forever" then no you shouldn't have to think about what may happen if those rules change. Why would anybody?

Of course it would have been possible, it just wasn't something anybody would have seriously thought about or considered.

This is the most stupid debate I've read in a long time, and that's saying something. strawberry float me man.

Moggy wrote:If the rules are "You can move to this country, work and stay here forever" then no you shouldn't have to think about what may happen if those rules change. Why would anybody?

Please contact my council. When I bought our house, the road that ran alongside it had a 3.5 tonne weight restriction in place. This was never enforced and after several years of complaints, the council took the simple option of removing the restriction rather than dealing with their lack of planning that brought the HGVs there in the first place.

Unfortunately, things change and normally there is strawberry float all the affected can do.

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:If the rules are "You can move to this country, work and stay here forever" then no you shouldn't have to think about what may happen if those rules change. Why would anybody?

Please contact my council. When I bought our house, the road that ran alongside it had a 3.5 tonne weight restriction in place. This was never enforced and after several years of complaints, the council took the simple option of removing the restriction rather than dealing with their lack of planning that brought the HGVs there in the first place.

Unfortunately, things change and normally there is strawberry float all the affected can do.

In your case nothing really changed did it, HGVs went beside your house when you moved in and they still do.

Also a little different from making your life in a country for a decade before getting chucked out.

If we're speaking honestly, anyone who moved to another country in the EU years ago really wouldn't have thought about getting deported unless they were engaged in some criminal activity. That's the reality of the situation, to suggest anything else is utterly disingenuous.

From Tristram banana split today at PMQs

The government must now deliver a settlement that works for the city's residents and others like them across the country who feel they have been left behind by the decline and disappearance of manufacturing industries and don't have the skills to make the most of a rapidly changing world.

Don't you and them strawberry floating understand. The industry is dead for a reason and that reason is not the EU. It's our own strawberry floating government.

Death's Head wrote:

Moggy wrote:If the rules are "You can move to this country, work and stay here forever" then no you shouldn't have to think about what may happen if those rules change. Why would anybody?

Please contact my council. When I bought our house, the road that ran alongside it had a 3.5 tonne weight restriction in place. This was never enforced and after several years of complaints, the council took the simple option of removing the restriction rather than dealing with their lack of planning that brought the HGVs there in the first place.

Unfortunately, things change and normally there is strawberry float all the affected can do.

Yeah that sounds like a very similar situation to the one we were talking about.

There will be no measures brought in to curb immigration. For one thing, predictions on the growth of the UK economy are predicated on certain number of immigrants arriving and the government probably rightly assumes that negative headlines on the economy are going to more damaging than missed immigration targets. For another, more than half of immigration to the UK comes from outside the UK and we have full control of that even now, yet the government has not acted to curb that significantly even though it could have dramatically reduced the amount of immigration quite easily whilst in the EU. There's no reason why being outside the EU would trigger change in this attitude.

I predict a lot of rhetoric on immigration and not a whole lot of action, which suits me just fine; I fully support the Conservative party in this course of action. I will never support immigration caps that damage the economy and job creation on the misguided notion that immigration is to blame for all our ills (rather than the epic mismanagement of the Tories and New Labour). If they have to placate the clueless masses with a lot of bluster to maintain current levels of immigration then so be it. My worry is that Brexit will deter the kind of highly skilled and motivated newcomers we desperately need from coming here in as great a number as they otherwise would.

You'll all be pleased to know that The Murdoch love-in continues as May is writing in tomorrow's Sun.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Grumpy David wrote: We were told by both sides that Brexit meant leaving the single market. So it's no surprise that is what we get.

You are talking demonstrable nonsense. Boris, who people have already forgotten was the face of the Leave campaign, was constantly referring to special deals where we would stay in the Single Market without free movement caveats. Other prominent Leavers are on record, as in TV, radio and interviews, saying that leaving the single market would be madness. There's also a May speech from June that's gone viral, stating just how important the single market is.

I dunno, maybe you're just not intelligent enough to remember.

EDIT: Here, have a list:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/o ... 25ba310fce

Andrew Neil had the creator of that video on Sunday Politics and adds context to it:



Financial Times article from May 2016 with Gove saying Leave meant leaving single market. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0c5c74bc-151e-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e?client=ms-android-google









So my clips are from 2016 April to June.

Perfectly clear both sides agreed that Leave meant Leaving single market.

Maybe you're not intelligent enough to remember?

Interesting commentary on May's recent speech. Can't say I disagree with much of it.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/eur ... 30529.html

I have cleaned up an argument from this page. During this argument, I posted something aimed at one member, which should have been aimed at all members. Sorry about that.

The message I wish to convey, however, is this: Behaviour in this thread has been extremely poor over the past couple of days. Any further name-calling of other members will result in a thread-ban.

Grumpy David wrote:
So my clips are from 2016 April to June.

Perfectly clear both sides agreed that Leave meant Leaving single market.

Maybe you're not intelligent enough to remember?

It's 1215 so like strawberry float am I watching those now, but as I remember it:

Remain said we would likely leave the single market if we left the EU. This is because they did not believe the EU would kowtow to our demands, otherwise known as PROJECT FEAR, apparently.

Some members of Leave said that if we left there would be negotiations to see whether we could have access to the single market without subscribing in full to the basic freedoms of the EU (spoiler: lol). See below:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegr ... e-sin/amp/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indepe ... -orange-gb

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co ... p/36500747

Some other members of Leave campaigns said the UK should leave the whole lot, as you posted. They were the ones who argued against the first lot of Leavers who potentially advocated the Norway and Switzerland models (why would they be in the news if they were never on the table?)

The fact that I (and Taf) can look for five minutes and find one of the most prominent Brexiteers disagreeing with another one on this point means that nothing was agreed. We've also had (or will have had by March) the best part of a year of hard vs soft Brexit, which, if everything was agreed as you said, would be a pretty stupendous waste of everyone's time, wouldn't you agree?!

I'll admit I have only skimmed those articles because I'm meant to be in bed, but you are absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, the one who's mistaken here.

Grumpy David wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Grumpy David wrote: We were told by both sides that Brexit meant leaving the single market. So it's no surprise that is what we get.

You are talking demonstrable nonsense. Boris, who people have already forgotten was the face of the Leave campaign, was constantly referring to special deals where we would stay in the Single Market without free movement caveats. Other prominent Leavers are on record, as in TV, radio and interviews, saying that leaving the single market would be madness. There's also a May speech from June that's gone viral, stating just how important the single market is.

I dunno, maybe you're just not intelligent enough to remember.

EDIT: Here, have a list:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/o ... 25ba310fce

Andrew Neil had the creator of that video on Sunday Politics and adds context to it:

Financial Times article from May 2016 with Gove saying Leave meant leaving single market. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0c5c74bc-151e-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e?client=ms-android-google

So my clips are from 2016 April to June.

Perfectly clear both sides agreed that Leave meant Leaving single market.

Maybe you're not intelligent enough to remember?

So, your list trumps mine because... I dunno. You said so?

Parties from sides absolutely said Brexit would not mean leaving the SM. As you've now pointed out, parties from both sides also said it would. The conclusion we can now come to is that the message was muddled and confused, without any sort of agreement or consensus, meaning May's comments about "eyes wide open" is absolute nonsense.

Or maybe you're just not respectful or intelligent enough to recognise that?

EDIT: or you know, see Dowbocop's post as it's better constructed than mine.

It’s never been clear if the UK leaving the EU meant leaving the single market. I don’t need to produce any evidence for that other than the last 8 or 9 months of confusion and arguing over that subject.

You will find quotes of Remain/Leave people saying it meant leaving the single market and you will find quotes of Remain/Leave people saying it doesn’t necessarily mean that. The whole issue has been confused and ill thought out from the start. To be fair to May, Boris and the others, that’s not really their fault, Cameron called the referendum but never really properly set out the terms of what it would actually mean (mainly because he didn’t think he would lose).

The Leave campaign are in full control now though and they have taken the Leave vote to mean that they know exactly what the country wants, even though the country was never asked about immigration, single market access or the European Courts. There should have been an optional questionnaire with the referendum where we could have stated our preference in the event of a Leave vote, at least then the government might have some justification for telling everyone that they know what we think.

It doesn't trump your but it does prove you wrong.

You said they all claimed we would leave and have some examples, taf gave an example where leavers claimed we may stay in single marked but eu, thus proving your claim that "hard brexit" was what the leave side had claimed the whole time.

Karl wrote:Any further name-calling of other members will result in a thread-ban.

Tafdolphin wrote:Or maybe you're just not respectful or intelligent enough to recognise that?

Thread-banned for a week.

Stop name-calling in this thread. I don't care who started it or why it's a meme -- end it.

Dowbocop wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:
So my clips are from 2016 April to June.

Perfectly clear both sides agreed that Leave meant Leaving single market.

It's 1215 so like strawberry float am I watching those now, but as I remember it:

Remain said we would likely leave the single market if we left the EU. This is because they did not believe the EU would kowtow to our demands, otherwise known as PROJECT FEAR, apparently.

Some members of Leave said that if we left there would be negotiations to see whether we could have access to the single market without subscribing in full to the basic freedoms of the EU (spoiler: lol). See below:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegr ... e-sin/amp/

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.indepe ... -orange-gb

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co ... p/36500747

Some other members of Leave campaigns said the UK should leave the whole lot, as you posted. They were the ones who argued against the first lot of Leavers who potentially advocated the Norway and Switzerland models (why would they be in the news if they were never on the table?)

The fact that I (and Taf) can look for five minutes and find one of the most prominent Brexiteers disagreeing with another one on this point means that nothing was agreed. We've also had (or will have had by March) the best part of a year of hard vs soft Brexit, which, if everything was agreed as you said, would be a pretty stupendous waste of everyone's time, wouldn't you agree?!

I'll admit I have only skimmed those articles because I'm meant to be in bed, but you are absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, the one who's mistaken here.

If you can watch the videos when you are less tired and have more time, that would be nice. My post is less useful without watching even a single one.

Lamont's article makes it sound like being in the Internal Market is a bad thing: "Non-EU countries do, of course, have to pay the external tariff to the EU. But Britain has to pay £8-£9 billion into the EU budget, the equivalent of a tariff of about 7 per cent on our goods. Our free access is not free access at all. Arguing for the single market on the grounds that you can avoid a 3 per cent tariff by actually paying 7 per cent fee is mis-selling on a scale that dwarfs the PPI scandal." It reads to me as trading with the single market is different to being a member of the internal market. And that there are advantages to the UK of not being in it.

BJ article also says access to single market rather than being members of the internal market.

BBC article is from neither leave or remain.

I do agree hard/soft Brexit is a waste of time. Soft is an attempt to effectively keep us in the EU by the back door.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:

Grumpy David wrote: We were told by both sides that Brexit meant leaving the single market. So it's no surprise that is what we get.

You are talking demonstrable nonsense. Boris, who people have already forgotten was the face of the Leave campaign, was constantly referring to special deals where we would stay in the Single Market without free movement caveats. Other prominent Leavers are on record, as in TV, radio and interviews, saying that leaving the single market would be madness. There's also a May speech from June that's gone viral, stating just how important the single market is.


EDIT: Here, have a list:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/o ... 25ba310fce

Andrew Neil had the creator of that video on Sunday Politics and adds context to it:

Financial Times article from May 2016 with Gove saying Leave meant leaving single market. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/0c5c74bc-151e-11e6-b197-a4af20d5575e?client=ms-android-google

So my clips are from 2016 April to June.

Perfectly clear both sides agreed that Leave meant Leaving single market.

So, your list trumps mine because... I dunno. You said so?

Parties from sides absolutely said Brexit would not mean leaving the SM. As you've now pointed out, parties from both sides also said it would. The conclusion we can now come to is that the message was muddled and confused, without any sort of agreement or consensus, meaning May's comments about "eyes wide open" is absolute nonsense.


EDIT: or you know, see Dowbocop's post as it's better constructed than mine.

My first video certainly does trump your Huffington post video! Huffpo video takes quotes out of context and often years old, some even from 2009. What matters is what was said during the referendum campaign. My other videos are from the referendum campaign too.

My original post remains accurate: We were told by both sides that Brexit meant leaving the single market. So it's no surprise that is what we get.