Brexit Referendum Superthread

123shooter wrote: »

Yeah right. So an un-elected minority who we cannot remove impose their will over the other 500+ million. Where is that in the treaty of Rome.

That only exists in your head mate.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's less than the EU citizens concerned currently have. Their position is being altered to their disadvantage. I still say it's very hard to spin that as "generous".

in what way is it less?

Peregrinus wrote: »

A pretty basic starting point for "generous" is that you respect the accrued rights of EU nationals already in the UK, and guarantee that they will be no worse off after Brexit.

this is what is being offered:

we guarantee that qualifying individuals will be granted settled status in UK law (indefinite leave to remain pursuant to the Immigration Act 1971). This means they will be free to reside in any capacity and undertake any lawful activity, to access public funds and services and to apply for British citizenship;

EU citizens with settled status will continue to have access to UK benefits on the same basis as a comparable UK national under domestic law;

Should they also get a free turkey at Christmas?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The EU's objective hasn't changed at all. It's the UK that has changed it's collective mind about what it wants.

Sorry I was in UK in 1975 and they were asked if they want to be part of a trading block - The common Market. They were not asked if they wanted to be 100% ruled by Brussels and have no control over their own country or their own destiny which is now the case.

123shooter wrote: »

That is hilarious. What are you trying to do rewrite history?

No, I'm perfectly serious. The Nazis felt the destiny of the German Volk was expansion to the East; Poland and points beyond. They had no animus against the British, whom they considered to be fellow Aryans, and they quite admired the British Empire, though they felt it was past it's use-by date and destined to decline. They had no aspirations to conquer the British Empire or replace Britain as an Imperial power, because they felt having more non-Aryan subjects than required for menial labour was a problem, not an advantage.

Basically, they would have been quite happy to leave the British alone, if only the British had left them alone. We should all be very glad that the British didn't leave them alone, but that doesn't change the fact that the UK didn't go to war for altruistic reasons, but to protect British status and interests.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way is it less?

this is what is being offered:

Should they also get a free turkey at Christmas?

Its going to be a long and interesting few months for some people.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/uk-s-brexit-negotiators-only-starting-to-understand-eu-catherine-day-1.3134701

First Up wrote: »

That only exists in your head mate.

Oh right. If so when the next election comes around for me to vote against what I do not agree with being imposed on us and also the other parties policies which I may agree with to give them a chance to improve our lives. Then you get in touch and let me know because I appear to have missed all those chances so far.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, I'm perfectly serious. The Nazis felt the destiny of the German Volk was expansion to the East; Poland and points beyond. They had no animus against the British, whom they considered to be fellow Aryans, and they quite admired the British Empire, though they felt it was past it's use-by date and destined to decline. They had no aspirations to conquer the British Empire or replace Britain as an Imperial power, because they felt having more non-Aryan subjects than required for menial labour was a problem, not an advantage.

Basically, they would have been quite happy to leave the British alone, if only the British had left them alone. We should all be very glad that the British didn't leave them alone, but that doesn't change the fact that the UK didn't go to war for altruistic reasons, but to protect British status and interests.

Agreed there was a lot in common between Germany and the British but France Belgium and Holland are west of Germany.

But your points of it being ok to invade, murder and pillage other countries just because they are to the east of you, doesn't actually sound very nice.

I am sure if some country decided to invade Ireland tomorrow you would think it's ok for the nearest neighbour who may worry if they could be next or have their trading and supply routes threatened to sit on their hands and do nothing?

First Up wrote: »

......elected majorities.

Who are they and who are the others who may have better ideas and policies.

123shooter wrote:

Oh right. If so when the next election comes around for me to vote against what I do not agree with being imposed on us and also the other parties policies which I may agree with to give them a chance to improve our lives. Then you get in touch and let me know because I appear to have missed all those chances so far.

You complained earlier about being "ruled by an unelected minority". Now you seem to be complaining about elected majorities.

I think your problem lies elsewhere

123shooter wrote:

Who are they and who are the others who may have better ideas and policies.

Dunno, but when you find them you can vote for them.

First Up wrote: »

Dunno, but when you find them you can vote for them.

But that was my point. The EU doesn't cater for any view but their own and we can do sod all about it if we disagree with it. So it is totally undemocratic.

First Up wrote: »

Its going to be a long and interesting few months for some people.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/uk-s-brexit-negotiators-only-starting-to-understand-eu-catherine-day-1.3134701

that;s nice and all, but what has that got do to with my post?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

in what way is it less?

Those who haven't already completed five years residence in the UK will have to complete that before they get the new "settled status". Regardless of whether they have completed five year by Brexit day or complete it some time after that, they'll have to apply for settled status, as compared to the status they currently enjoy as of right, without having to make any application at all. The White Paper is silent about whether, when you apply for settled status, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you have completed the residence requirement, or on the Home Office to demonstrate that you have not. And even if you get settled status, you won't enjoy the same rights to be joined by your spouse and family that EU citizens enjoy under EU law.

People with settled status will enjoy the same rights in respect of social security and healthcare as UK nationals. There's no commitment that they will enjoy parallel rights in other respects. In particular, it's not clear to what extent people with settled status will be entitled to to "home student" fees in British universities.

123shooter wrote:

But that was my point. The EU doesn't cater for any view but their own and we can do sod all about it if we disagree with it. So it is totally undemocratic.

Maybe you should spend some time figuring out who "we" and "they" are.

First Up wrote: »

Maybe you should spend some time figuring out who "we" and "they" are.

Quite simple.

They are the ones who rule over us with their policies.

We are the people who get ruled over. Some may call us the electorate except in in this case we cannot elect anybody except the same ones who are already there in power imposing their ideology over all of us whether it is right or wrong.

Whether it causes hardship or not. It is their will. It is simply a dictatorship no different than Stalin or Sadam Hussain except they haven't started killing dissenters.....yet. But destroying things they do not agree with yes.

Enzokk

123shooter wrote: »

Sorry I was in UK in 1975 and they were asked if they want to be part of a trading block - The common Market. They were not asked if they wanted to be 100% ruled by Brussels and have no control over their own country or their own destiny which is now the case.

123shooter wrote: »

Oh right. If so when the next election comes around for me to vote against what I do not agree with being imposed on us and also the other parties policies which I may agree with to give them a chance to improve our lives. Then you get in touch and let me know because I appear to have missed all those chances so far.

Can you list the laws and policies that you find has been imposed against you that you don't agree with from the EU?

Enzokk wrote: »

Can you list the laws and policies that you find has been imposed against you that you don't agree with from the EU?

Open Borders.

Unchecked immigration.

I would take this imposed against ME and my family & friends because of the danger of undesirables and terrorism.

I ain't got all day for anything else as got to work now.

But honestly mate it's a no brainer

123shooter wrote: »

Open Borders.

Unchecked immigration.

The UK doesn't have open borders or unchecked immigration. (Except with respect to Ireland.)

123shooter wrote: »

But honestly mate it's a no brainer

Yes. But not in a good way.

Fratton Fred wrote:

that;s nice and all, but what has that got do to with my post?

That the UK's understanding of its negotiating position might need to be amended.

Enzokk

123shooter wrote: »

Open Borders.

Unchecked immigration.

I would take this imposed against ME and my family & friends because of the danger of undesirables and terrorism.

I ain't got all day for anything else as got to work now.

But honestly mate it's a no brainer

Name the European countries where those that commit terrorist attacks come from. Show me how immigration from the EU will have stopped British born terrorists or British Citizens from outside the EU is now the EU open borders policy.

123shooter wrote:

We are the people who get ruled over. Some may call us the electorate except in in this case we cannot elect anybody except the same ones who are already there in power imposing their ideology over all of us whether it is right or wrong.

Time to start your own party maybe?

this is from here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-in-the-eu/the-united-kingdoms-exit-from-the-european-union-safeguarding-the-position-of-eu-citizens-living-in-the-uk-and-uk-nationals-living-in-the-eu

Peregrinus wrote: »

Those who haven't already completed five years residence in the UK will have to complete that before they get the new "settled status". Regardless of whether they have completed five year by Brexit day or complete it some time after that, they'll have to apply for settled status, as compared to the status they currently enjoy as of right, without having to make any application at all.

the UK is leaving the eu. Things are changing

Peregrinus wrote: »

The White Paper is silent about whether, when you apply for settled status, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you have completed the residence requirement, or on the Home Office to demonstrate that you have not.

How does that work now?

Peregrinus wrote: »

And even if you get settled status, you won't enjoy the same rights to be joined by your spouse and family that EU citizens enjoy under EU law.

if they enter the UK before the cut off date you will. After that, eu citizens will have the same right for their family to join them as a British citizen will, or are you suggesting they get better rights than British citizens?

Peregrinus wrote: »

People with settled status will enjoy the same rights in respect of social security and healthcare as UK nationals. There's no commitment that they will enjoy parallel rights in other respects. In particular, it's not clear to what extent people with settled status will be entitled to to "home student" fees in British universities.

the UK will ensure qualifying EU citizens who arrived in the UK before the specified date will continue to be eligible for Higher Education (HE) and Further Education (FE) student loans and ‘home fee’ status in line with persons with settled status in the UK3. Such persons will also be eligible to apply for maintenance support on the same basis they do now;

Sam Russell

Democracy is implemented differently in every country where it is practised, and it has come late to some countries. It is normally expected that democracy based on 'one person, one vote'. The UK were late coming to the party (pardon the pun) by only introducing votes for women on the same basis in 1928. In NI, votes for local elections only went 'one person one vote' in the 1970s. So the UK is not the gold standard for democracy.

The EU has been based on the Council of Ministers as the executive decision maker and every member of that council is the representative of their democratically elected government. The Commission is made of people appointed by their government but they could be elected but no government has chosen to do that. The EU Parliament is directly elected has has gown in power and now can affect policy.

So, saying that the EU is undemocratic is basically wrong. There is a democratic deficit, of that there is no doubt. However, the problem is that the media does not report the EU fairly, and that does not only apply to the UK.

I think that the UK will find out that the hidden things the EU does will become apparent when they discover that mobiles roaming does not apply to them, or the the E111 card is no longer valid, or that the delay at the airport is not compensated for because they are not in the EU, medicines need extra approval, etc, etc.

As the unelected bureaucrats become loyal civil servants, doing the same job but costing more because they have to do all of the work for the UK that used to be shared out among 28 nations, where will the £350 million a week come from?

In a democracy, the choice is between one set of options, most of which one disagrees with, or another set of options, most of which one disagrees with.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

the UK is leaving the eu. Things are changing

Yes. And the issue is whether the changes will be "generous" or not.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

How does that work now?

It's not an issue now. EU citizens have rights by virtue of being EU citizens, so the question of whether they have spent five years in the UK doesn't come up.

It does come up in a variety of immigration contexts for non-EU citizens, and the general rule is that they have to show that they have satisfied the requirement. But there would be a problem, and arguably an injustice, in applying that to EU citizens because, up to now, their movements in and out of the UK haven't been documented - they don't need visas, they don't get their passports stamped. So you'd be retrospectively imposing on them a requirement to reconstruct a documentary trail for their past movements. Which, obviously some could do quite easily, some not so easily and some might have great difficulty.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if they enter the UK before the cut off date you will. After that, eu citizens will have the same right for their family to join them as a British citizen will, or are you suggesting they get better rights than British citizens?

They currently have better rights than UK nationals. They have the same rights that UK citizens have in EU countries, which in this particular regard are more extensive than the rights than UK citizens have in the UK.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes. And the issue is whether the changes will be "generous" or not.

why should they be generous? Surely they should be at worst, adequate.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not an issue now. EU citizens have rights by virtue of being EU citizens, so the question of whether they have spent five years in the UK doesn't come up.

how does an eu citizen apply for settled status at the moment? the UK is leaving the eu. There needs to be a process.

I registered for job seekers allowance a few years ago, I had to demonstrate that I had been resident in the CTA for two years. it isn't difficult..

Unless of course someone has been living in the uk completely off the radar, which is extremely unlikely.

Peregrinus wrote: »

They currently have better rights than UK nationals. They have the same rights that UK citizens have in EU countries, which in this particular regard are more extensive than the rights than UK citizens have in the UK.

Is it? an eu national bringing non eu family members in to the UK would have to go through the same process as a British citizen, would they not?

In future, a British citizen who wants to bring (for example) a French Spouse in to the UK would have to go through the same process as a settled French citizen would.

demfad

Dark money finally catching up with the BBC (Newsnight) in a more substantial way last night.
The relevent section on Cambridge Analytica here :

It was disappointing that they focused on psychograohics and only on Leave.EU (UKIP/Banks/Wigmore).
The fact is that the illegal payments are well...illegal and a subversion of democracy.
George Monbiot has stated in todays Guardian article that Brexit should be put on hold while a a full investigation is required. If the referendum was found to be subverted it should be annulled:

BBC were right to use Cadwalladrs excellent investigating. They missed the big big question for CEO Nix though: Cambridge Analytica's connection to tiny Canadian company AggregateIQ who received millions (total)in donations from all campaigns..

ALL 5 leave campaigns (including DUP) paid money to this firm. The Official Vote Leave campaign paid almost half of its entire budget to them.
Who are they? A sister company to CA providing the database structure for them. They work hand in hand on all projects. A WHOIS on their IPs also shows the IPs are owned by CA owner Robert Mercer.
(Steven Bannon was Vice Pres Of CA from its foundation until recently, Mercer also controls Breitbart)

If CA were not involved why was its conjoined twin company paid so many millions by all campaigns? (Looks like a back payment for CA)
And does this not demonstrate campaign coordination which is illegal?? I dont think Nix could not have explained this easily nor the fact that two CA employees worked for official Vote Leave.

This is starting to grow and If CA/Aggregate involvement exposed in Trump/Russia scandal before EU exit then it may pose and existential threat to Brexit.

(AggregateIQ, Vote Leave employee for Leave sources HERE)

Sam Russell wrote: »

Democracy is implemented differently in every country where it is practised, and it has come late to some countries. It is normally expected that democracy based on 'one person, one vote'. The UK were late coming to the party (pardon the pun) by only introducing votes for women on the same basis in 1928. In NI, votes for local elections only went 'one person one vote' in the 1970s. So the UK is not the gold standard for democracy.

The EU has been based on the Council of Ministers as the executive decision maker and every member of that council is the representative of their democratically elected government. The Commission is made of people appointed by their government but they could be elected but no government has chosen to do that. The EU Parliament is directly elected has has gown in power and now can affect policy.

So, saying that the EU is undemocratic is basically wrong. There is a democratic deficit, of that there is no doubt. However, the problem is that the media does not report the EU fairly, and that does not only apply to the UK.

I think that the UK will find out that the hidden things the EU does will become apparent when they discover that mobiles roaming does not apply to them, or the the E111 card is no longer valid, or that the delay at the airport is not compensated for because they are not in the EU, medicines need extra approval, etc, etc.

As the unelected bureaucrats become loyal civil servants, doing the same job but costing more because they have to do all of the work for the UK that used to be shared out among 28 nations, where will the £350 million a week come from?

In a democracy, the choice is between one set of options, most of which one disagrees with, or another set of options, most of which one disagrees with.

Well I have never heard of democracy with one set of opinions and only one party to vote for. I always thought that was a dictatorship.......every days a learning day it seems.

First Up wrote: »

Highly unlikely, but if a majority of the electorate did, I wouldn't go bleating about not getting my way.

Hey I disagree there with that and in Brexit no matter how skewed the vote was with the stay side the majority voted to leave.

Enzokk

123shooter wrote: »

Ireland

Go read the news your fighting a losing argument and I aint here to explain it to you.

Not really. You haven't shown anything that immigration from the EU is responsible for terrorism. Your main problem with the EU seems to be only open borders and unchecked immigration because it allows in undesirables and makes you and your family unsafe.

The problem you have is that the people that perpetrated those terrorism acts were all from either outside the EU or British born. This is immigration that is controlled by the UK government. So in effect you have only shown so far that you are xenophobic and this is a reason for causing great harm economically to yourself and others.