Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

A Little Pony

steddyeddy wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Would they not want to stay in Dublin or the Republic?

Well fair enough if they do! The more taxpayers the better. The UK has been the primary go to point for immigrants in Europe.

Maybe the UK is the best in the world. :D

steddyeddy

A Little Pony wrote: »

Commonwealth immigration is great,  not so with the EU, the bastard institution that it is.

Trust me when I say that some people in NI wouldn't like some of the ethnicity from the commonwealth. Peter Robinson backed an anti Muslim hate preacher not long ago. I can't see commonwealth immigration going down well.

ArmaniJeanss

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They are all Schengen countries though.

Fair point Frederico.
Though there was a 4 year period in the last decade where Poland was a member of EU but not yet Schengen. And Bulgaria and Romania are both EU but not Schengen and have land borders with nonEU members so maybe these are better examples for my point.

I'd be fairly shocked if the EU membership rules don't specify certain obligations for the latter two (and Poland before them) regarding their border controls, obligations which surely go beyond what some people are suggesting Ireland would have do re people checking (close to absolutely nothing is what some are suggesting because its not our issue and/or it's too difficult).

MrPudding

A Little Pony wrote: »

Communities being inundated with mass migration, all over England. I would be surprised if it is 'just' 300k. Probably double that.

is there any point in asking for evidence of this?

MrP

A Little Pony

MrPudding wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Communities being inundated with mass migration, all over England. I would be surprised if it is 'just' 300k. Probably double that.

is there any point in asking for evidence of this?

MrP

No but it is just my opinion.

Ted_YNWA

On that 650000, 44% were EU citizens, so the majority were non-EU which is under the control of UK.

Just heard that % on BBC news.

Capt'n Midnight

A Little Pony wrote: »

No but it is just my opinion.

[Citation needed]

Capt'n Midnight

demfad wrote: »

David Davis has conceded that the UK might consider paying for access to the single market. That would mean being under ECJ rules in many areas and ofcourse free movement of people.

Don't forget that the Norway model doesn't allow you to passport financial services.

demfad

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

On that 650000, 44% were EU citizens, so the majority were non-EU which is under the control of UK.

Just heard that % on BBC news.

Yes and the curbs so far has amounted to trying to stop the odd fake marriage. If immigration was such a huge thing why has Britain not sought to curb the 56%?

Anita Blow

So the Brexit minister is now suggesting the UK may stay in the single market by paying into the EU. IE- Remaining in the EEA, subject to EU regulations, ECJ jurisdiction and free movement of people. Boris had hinted at retaining single market access earlier.
First of all it begs the question, what is the point in even leaving? They will have lost almost every argument in the Leave campaign (restoring control of immigration, not paying into the EU, not subject to ECJ jurisdiction) and yet lost a massive amount of political influence by having no say in EU policy.
Secondly, his speech in the parliament shows just how little a plan they have for Brexit. Not only does it contradict the previous position that it was hard brexit, but he also said there will be no transitional deal required while just a month ago Teresa May said they would negotiate a transitional deal after the 2 years is up. They have no clue what they are doing

demfad

Anita Blow wrote: »

So the Brexit minister is now suggesting the UK may stay in the single market by paying into the EU. IE- Remaining in the EEA, subject to EU regulations, ECJ jurisdiction and free movement of people. Boris had hinted at retaining single market access earlier.
First of all it begs the question, what is the point in even leaving? They will have lost almost every argument in the Leave campaign (restoring control of immigration, not paying into the EU, not subject to ECJ jurisdiction) and yet lost a massive amount of political influence by having no say in EU policy.
Secondly, his speech in the parliament shows just how little a plan they have for Brexit. Not only does it contradict the previous position that it was hard brexit, but he also said there will be no transitional deal required while just a month ago Teresa May said they would negotiate a transitional deal after the 2 years is up. They have no clue what they are doing

They seem to be freely telling their EU counterparts what their plan is so the previous secrecy was clearly to avoid local hard Brexiteer rage and to pretend they have a coherent plan. It has nothing to do with hiding their negotiating position from Europe. It was politics not strategy.

Junkyard Tom

Title change suggestion:

5.2 out of 10 cats prefer Brexit.

Ted_YNWA

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

On that 650000, 44% were EU citizens, so the majority were non-EU which is under the control of UK.

Just heard that % on BBC news.

demfad wrote: »

Yes and the curbs so far has amounted to trying to stop the odd fake marriage. If immigration was such a huge thing why has Britain not sought to curb the 56%?

Whisht the two of you highlighting outstanding facts about immigration to Britain. Repeat after me: It's all the evil EU's fault... It's all the EU's fault... It's all the EU's fault...

Ted_YNWA

Deleted User wrote: »

Whisht the two of you highlighting outstanding facts about immigration to Britain. Repeat after me: It's all the evil EU's fault... It's all the EU's fault... It's all the EU's fault...

Sorry, I get so much bullsh1t paperwork that I don't like from the EU, I must have filed it away.

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

Commonwealth immigration is great,  not so with the EU, the bastard institution that it is.

Have to admit, I never had you for being pro Muslim immigration.

Enzokk

Watching Question Time it seems the anti-immigration sentiment is still strong in the UK. It in fact seems like it is stronger than ever and the public wants to curb immigration, economic recovery or growth be damned. I guess if that is the case the politicians should just give the public what they want, if that means years of economic strife then so be it.

FrancieBrady

Enzokk wrote: »

Watching Question Time it seems the anti-immigration sentiment is still strong in the UK. It in fact seems like it is stronger than ever and the public wants to curb immigration, economic recovery or growth be damned. I guess if that is the case the politicians should just give the public what they want, if that means years of economic strife then so be it.

Will the Brexiters of NI be consolable when Brexit doesn't manage to cure England's immigration problem and can they recover to generally save the world? That's the real question.

Billy86

Billy86 wrote: »

Have to admit, I never had you for being pro Muslim immigration.

hehe. I've now lost track of who the enemy is for A Little Pony in 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' but I'm sure it must be the Tadhgs - with this newfound support for Islam he's just going a really circuitous route to get there. It was all so much easier in the old days before the EU came in and complicated it...

ballsymchugh

Enzokk wrote: »

Watching Question Time it seems the anti-immigration sentiment is still strong in the UK. It in fact seems like it is stronger than ever and the public wants to curb immigration, economic recovery or growth be damned. I guess if that is the case the politicians should just give the public what they want, if that means years of economic strife then so be it.

i don't think i've watched as much question time before as i have in the past few months. the best way to watch it is with twitter open, you'll see the phrase empty vessels make the most noise is so apt. it's just hilarious!

Peregrinus

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Fair point Frederico.
Though there was a 4 year period in the last decade where Poland was a member of EU but not yet Schengen. And Bulgaria and Romania are both EU but not Schengen and have land borders with nonEU members so maybe these are better examples for my point.

I'd be fairly shocked if the EU membership rules don't specify certain obligations for the latter two (and Poland before them) regarding their border controls, obligations which surely go beyond what some people are suggesting Ireland would have do re people checking (close to absolutely nothing is what some are suggesting because its not our issue and/or it's too difficult).

The question is what Ireland has to do re people checking as regards people coming from the UK. Brexit has no effect on our obligations as regards people travelling between Ireland and the rest of the EU, or between Ireland and the rest of the world; just Ireland and the UK.

And I think there are two dimension to that question. First, what would the EU require Ireland to do? Secondly, what will Ireland's own interests require us to do.

On the first question, as long as Ireland remains outside the Schengen area, the EU will require us to do nothing. Why? Because there are already checks in place to ensure that people travelling from Ireland to the Schengen area are entitled to enter the Schengen area. Why would the departur of the UK from the EU suddenly render those checks inadequate? It wouldn't.

As regards our own interests, it's really not very likely that we will want to do very much. There's a theoretical risk that the UK could admit all kinds of undesirables, and they would then travel to Ireland, but that risk already exists, since the UK (also not in the Schengen area) can admit anyone it likes. And I don't see that risk getting any bigger after Brexit; the UK are far more likely to use their new found "control" over migration to restrict the categories of people who can enter the UK, not to broaden them.

In short, Brexit in itself doesnt' seem to me to require Ireland to start heavy policing of people coming in from the UK. The UK doing bizarre, unpredictable and wildly improbably things with its own migration policy might requires us to do something, but that's the case even now, and I really don't see Brexit making that possibility more likely to become a reality.

Lib Dems win the Richmond Park by election in London. They fought it on an anti-Brexit platform mainly. Hardly going to cause a reversal of the tide of idiocy engulfing the country since June. But one can hope.........

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

Lib Dems win the Richmond Park by election in London. They fought it on an anti-Brexit platform mainly. Hardly going to cause a reversal of the tide of idiocy engulfing the country since June. But one can hope.........

Twas an area whose vote to remain was over 70% to be fair. Lib Dems to their credit made it about Brexit and it was pretty obvious that Zac was going to rejoin the tories as many of them were campaigning with him so he didn't even have the moral high-ground he should have had when he quit.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

hehe. I've now lost track of who the enemy is for A Little Pony in 'My enemy's enemy is my friend' but I'm sure it must be the Tadhgs

You only have to look at the North to clarify that.

SF have been rabidly anti-EU and have actively campaigned against the EU over sovereignty since the 1970s'. And yet they joined the Ulster Unionist Party on the Remain side. And the DUP want to leave the EU but are insisting there won't be a border.


It's kinda like

“Are you confused by what is going on in the Middle-East? Let me explain. We support the Iraqi government in its fight against Islamic State (IS/ISIL/ISIS). We don’t like IS but IS is supported by Saudi Arabia whom we do like. We don’t like President Assad in Syria. We support the fight against him, but not IS, which is also fighting against him.

“We don’t like Iran, but the Iranian government supports the Iraqi gov’t against IS. So, some of our friends support our enemies and some of our enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting our other enemies, whom we don’t want to lose, but we don’t our enemies who are fighting our enemies to win.

“If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by people we like even less. And, all this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists who weren’t actually there until we went in to drive them out – do you understand now?”

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Lib Dems win the Richmond Park by election in London. They fought it on an anti-Brexit platform mainly. Hardly going to cause a reversal of the tide of idiocy engulfing the country since June. But one can hope.........

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38184119

The vote saw Labour's Christian Wolmar losing his £500 deposit as he trailed a distant third.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38184119

Not just labour. Conservative didn't contest it and everyone else list their deposit.

Strange times.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Lib Dems win the Richmond Park by election in London. They fought it on an anti-Brexit platform mainly. Hardly going to cause a reversal of the tide of idiocy engulfing the country since June. But one can hope.........

No real surprise, considering the result of the referendum there.

Richmond upon Thames: REMAIN 75,396 LEAVE 33,410.

Just gave the electorate a second chance to reaffirm their vote.

Rjd2

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Not just labour. Conservative didn't contest it and everyone else list their deposit.

Strange times.

Yes and No. Their was plenty of conservative politicians campaigning with him over the last few weeks, as I said earlier it was wildly expected he would return to the tories in a year or two.

osarusan

Supreme Court hearing the case today on whether the power to enact Brexit lies with the government or needs to approval of parliament.

In the event that approval from Parliament is needed (I believe a majority of MPs were Remainers), what would likely happen next?

catbear

osarusan wrote: »

Supreme Court hearing the case today on whether the power to enact Brexit lies with the government or needs to approval of parliament.

In the event that approval from Parliament is needed (I believe a majority of MPs were Remainers), what would likely happen next?

Who knows? If the tories force the whip then they could face rebellion and possible hung government.

A Little Pony

I wonder how many brown envelops have been passed around.