Brexit discussion thread II

mountaintop · 20-09-2017 08:52AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the article,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/16/biggest-problem-soft-brexit-not-attainable/

Its just a re-hash of why the UK should leave the EU, easier trade deals and the UK is at the front of the queue for trade deals. How trade has gone from 60% with the EU to around 40%. A factor that trade has lessened with the EU to other countries because of the EU trade deals is not looked at (is that a factor at all). But this is playing with figures, trade has increased with the EU in money terms, but in terms of overall trade it is down. So the UK has more trade in money terms with the EU than before, but they are trading more with other countries outside of the EU at the same time.

Seems a good thing to me, and I wait in anticipation for anyone to show me how trade would have been better if the UK wasn't in the EU in that same time period.

I agree fully with this. And in reply, can the illusionists please stop using the fallacy that 90% of world trade within fifteen years will be outside the EU. It's 90% of the increase in world trade, about 90% of 4%, and that's a figure which could change. Also, another fallacy that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, because 27 nations combined (naturally) will have a trade surplus with any one nation: that's because they're a combined 27 economies of course. But break it down and when you do, you will see that Ireland, for example, is Britain's fifth biggest EXPORT market. Yes, that's EXPORT, not IMPORT.

murphaph · 20-09-2017 09:03AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I agree. It isn't intended to be easier for those arriving after Brexit because the Government wants to control immigration from the EU. However, offering those here the permanent right to stay is generous when one thinks about what they could have proposed.

As for the Lord Ashcroft poll. I voted remain for the top reason on the remain side. I now support leaving for all three reasons on the leave side plus trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

It's not generous at all. The EU is home to a million Brits, many of whom are retired elderly people who have higher dependency on medical services. The NHS is already stretched. The UK needs to be generous to EU nationals in the UK or their own expats will be coming home in droves.

Anyway... the UK needs the labour, for now.

ambro25 · 20-09-2017 09:04AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Pretty much everyone who came before Brexit day will have the right to settled status. To those who don't have five years accrued there will be a grace period. In and of itself that is better than Tier 2 General criteria. There is no restriction on earnings. There is no restriction in respect to accessing the NHS or recourse to public funds.

It isn't true to suggest that EU citizens here today will not have a significant advantage to those who have Tier 2 visas. For the latter there is always the risk that their visas will not be continued before they leave. The vast majority of those I know who work as IT Consultants in India are sent back to India before they reach 5 years.

It isn't true to say that the terms given under "settled status" are not preferential. EU citizens living in the UK today (others will have to comply to the same rules as everyone else because free movement will end) will be able to get indefinite leave to remain far more easily (without the risk of not being able to renew a visa) than their non-EU counterparts with continued recourse to public funds whilst waiting for it (Tier 2 General prohibits this).

Well, since all of this is still only at the proposal stage...then I can equally claim that this is all well and good, until Ms Rudd -or her replacement- bows to MSM-whipped popular sentiment in the same usual way as the past 18+ months, and does an about-turn about any and all of this under Henri VIII powers post-March 2019.

In that context, I don't think you've acquainted yourself with the UK's leaked immigration policy post-Brexit. I doubt that they reflect Ms May's political wishes. Equally however, I don't doubt that they reflect the political wishes of the harder Tory line looking to replace her with Davis or Johnson before too long.

Nor do I think that, as an Irish living in the UK (if I'm not mistaken?) and benefitting from all advantages under the UK-IE bilateral freedom of movement as a given, you've given much thought about how such policy changes could impact the lives of long-settled non-Irish EU immigrants. So much in terms of balance of power in employment contexts, as continuing access to credit/mortgages, continuing access to healthcare and other public services (what will be left of them), continuing this-that-the other, each and every one of which has the potential to upend someone's life overnight at the stroke of a decree'ing pen.

Political debate and lofty ideals are all well and good, until you stop every now and then to take stock of what effects others' ongoing choices can have on your own situation in Real Life: what if the HO refuses me IRL? I]as they have repeatedly done, and still are, to EU immigrants longer-settled than me[/I

Then we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, because I'm the EU immigrant bringing in 6 figures, but my British wife 'only' brings in a lot of love, so under third-party national rules, she can't support me and therefore I'm out.

Personally, I've given it a good year from the referendum, now. But the way things still are, and looking like -generally, professionally and personally- it's not a risk I'm willing to run anymore. I'm currently interviewing to GTFO. Stat. I'm fresh out of f**** to give, and I'm not re-stocking anymore.

This is playing out at the micro-economical level, exactly like the macro level: accidentally or purposefully, the UK has been making all the wrong noises to get rid of me [ND: most EU immigrants, by the regular reading of expatriates' forums...and we're not talking fruit pickers here], instead of looking after its goodwill and resources to maintain activity levels post-Brexit.

So now the UK can do without my economical activity and support my secretary when they make her redundant. I've just finished conducting performance reviews and more recently signed off on the 2016 accounts, so I know that my departure will put the business into the red, unless they shed another one or two loss-making fee earners (and their secretaries) whom my co-Director and I have been carrying all along.

See, EU immigrants can vote about this whole Brexit thing after all: with their feet.

Peregrinus · 20-09-2017 09:15AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Here is the article,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/16/biggest-problem-soft-brexit-not-attainable/

Mmm. I'm unimpressed. They note that the EU has no trade deal with the US, China, India or Japan, while not discussing why this might be so, or what the trade policies of those countries are, or their attitudes to trade agreements. They also omit to mention (and are perhaps unaware?) that the EU is currently negotiating agreements with the US and India. And they assert or assume that the UK will be able to negotiate trade agreements where the EU has so far failed, without any exploration of why this is taken to be so.

And they rhetorically ask "If the single market is so good for the UK, why do we trade less with the EU than with the rest of the world? Why is our EU trade shrinking and our non-EU trade expanding?" without offering the correct and obvious answer; because developing economies develop faster than developed economies. If they think that this is going to be in any way altered, for good or ill, by Brexit, they do not say why.

This is not really the kind of analysis I had in mind; I was hoping for something a bit more robust. If solodeogloria finds this persuasive, I don't see why.

A bit of googling tells me that Liam Halligan is a columnist for the Sunday Telegraph and Gerard Lyons is an adviser to Boris Johnson. So, maybe not entirely dispassionate in their approach, then.

Jim2007 · 20-09-2017 09:37AM

murphaph wrote: »

It's not generous at all. The EU is home to a million Brits, many of whom are retired elderly people who have higher dependency on medical services. The NHS is already stretched. The UK needs to be generous to EU nationals in the UK or their own expats will be coming home in droves.

Anyway... the UK needs the labour, for now.

This is a misconception in the case of pensioners, the rule on medical services is as follows: unless you are a citizen of the member state you are resident in, the member state paying the bulk of your pension is also responsible for the cost of your medical services.

For instance if I were to retire to Ireland I could avail of the public health services, but if I retire to any other EU/EEA/CH country I must continue to pay Swiss health insurance as Switzerland has no public health services.

demfad · 20-09-2017 10:03AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think this reflects reality a lot better than some of the posters here who are now defending Brexit.

Virtually nobody voted Brexit because of the economic benefits. This makes sense, because there aren't any - it is going to cost the UK an Imperial Ton of money, between barriers to trade, loss of inward investment, devaluation and inflation.

Sovereignty, control and boo-sucks to the EU superstate are the real reasons for Brexit, and there is very little point in us explaining to Solo that Brexit will cost the UK 6% of GDP or whatever. The actual Brexit voters think the price will be worth paying.

Obviously in the modern world resources and rules have to be pooled, air traffic being an obvious example but many abound, trade obviously. That's modernity.
It is tempting for local politicians (particularly acute in UK) to blame the EU for its own failings. After decades of this amplified by the media there was a base for a serious Brexit campaign.
Genuine thoughtful Brexiters (although still influenced by nationalism IMO) want to remove the political influence of Brussels while minimising economic impact. EFTA clearly their preference.
The hard Brexiters paint Brexit as some kind of a liberation against foreign tyranny. The pushers of this, millionaire posh educated Tories, hardly believe it but its populism is useful.
A responsible UK govt taking advice from its people to Brexit could not go harder than EFTA.

Jim2007 · 20-09-2017 10:10AM

mountaintop wrote: »

I agree fully with this. And in reply, can the illusionists please stop using the fallacy that 90% of world trade within fifteen years will be outside the EU. It's 90% of the increase in world trade, about 90% of 4%, and that's a figure which could change. Also, another fallacy that the EU needs Britain more than Britain needs the EU, because 27 nations combined (naturally) will have a trade surplus with any one nation: that's because they're a combined 27 economies of course. But break it down and when you do, you will see that Ireland, for example, is Britain's fifth biggest EXPORT market. Yes, that's EXPORT, not IMPORT.

I don't think it matters where the growth is or isn't the fact is that the U.K. has failed to produce a positive balance of trade in over 25 years and this despite having preferential treatment to a large relatively wealthy market.

There is nothing there to suggest U.K. firms have the skills or the attitude required to open up and develop new markets after BREXIT. Even the simple argument that EU red tape is holding them back pales in comparison to dealing with the red tape involved in trading via multiple agreements.

solodeogloria · 20-09-2017 10:23AM

ambro25 wrote: »

Well, since all of this is still only at the proposal stage...then I can equally claim that this is all well and good, until Ms Rudd -or her replacement- bows to MSM-whipped popular sentiment in the same usual way as the past 18+ months, and does an about-turn about any and all of this under Henri VIII powers post-March 2019.

In that context, I don't think you've acquainted yourself with the UK's leaked immigration policy post-Brexit. I doubt that they reflect Ms May's political wishes. Equally however, I don't doubt that they reflect the political wishes of the harder Tory line looking to replace her with Davis or Johnson before too long.

Nor do I think that, as an Irish living in the UK (if I'm not mistaken?) and benefitting from all advantages under the UK-IE bilateral freedom of movement as a given, you've given much thought about how such policy changes could impact the lives of long-settled non-Irish EU immigrants. So much in terms of balance of power in employment contexts, as continuing access to credit/mortgages, continuing access to healthcare and other public services (what will be left of them), continuing this-that-the other, each and every one of which has the potential to upend someone's life overnight at the stroke of a decree'ing pen.

Political debate and lofty ideals are all well and good, until you stop every now and then to take stock of what effects others' ongoing choices can have on your own situation in Real Life: what if the HO refuses me IRL? I]as they have repeatedly done, and still are, to EU immigrants longer-settled than me[/I

Then we're up the proverbial creek without a paddle, because I'm the EU immigrant bringing in 6 figures, but my British wife 'only' brings in a lot of love, so under third-party national rules, she can't support me and therefore I'm out.

Personally, I've given it a good year from the referendum, now. But the way things still are, and looking like -generally, professionally and personally- it's not a risk I'm willing to run anymore. I'm currently interviewing to GTFO. Stat. I'm fresh out of f**** to give, and I'm not re-stocking anymore.

This is playing out at the micro-economical level, exactly like the macro level: accidentally or purposefully, the UK has been making all the wrong noises to get rid of me [ND: most EU immigrants, by the regular reading of expatriates' forums...and we're not talking fruit pickers here], instead of looking after its goodwill and resources to maintain activity levels post-Brexit.

So now the UK can do without my economical activity and support my secretary when they make her redundant. I've just finished conducting performance reviews and more recently signed off on the 2016 accounts, so I know that my departure will put the business into the red, unless they shed another one or two loss-making fee earners (and their secretaries) whom my co-Director and I have been carrying all along.

See, EU immigrants can vote about this whole Brexit thing after all: with their feet.

Good morning!

Obviously I agree people can decide with their feet. But I think most of your fears are unfounded.

Firstly - settled status grants continued access to employment. It provides eligibility to work.

Secondly - access to credit is ensured provided you can provide proof of continued residence in the country. Non-EU colleagues I know have applied for mortgages on this basis, and on the basis of EU citizenship I applied for a mortgage post-Brexit last year. All lenders care about is continued residency rights if you're seeking a residential mortgage.

Thirdly - continued access to healthcare and public services has been agreed.

Fourthly - the comments about your right to stay being contingent on your wife is also wrong.

The fact that so many people have liked this baseless fearmongering is also a worrying sign. It shows that people aren't committed to an honest debate on the basis of what Britain has actually proposed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25 · 20-09-2017 10:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

But I think most of your fears are unfounded.

There's a surprise.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Firstly - settled status grants continued access to employment. It provides eligibility to work.

And reciprocally, not having it means no right to work, short of a working visa with an expiry date.

So what have you got with either of the above? Free and enormous leverage for the employer to name their terms for renewing an employment contract, which is required to maintain that settled status or renewing a working visa with an expiry date.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Secondly - access to credit is ensured provided you can provide proof of continued residence in the country. Non-EU colleagues I know have applied for mortgages on this basis, and on the basis of EU citizenship I applied for a mortgage post-Brexit last year. All lenders care about is continued residency rights if you're seeking a residential mortgage.

and earnings, perchance? See reply to your first point in that respect.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - continued access to healthcare and public services has been agreed.

Has it?

I must have missed the memo, as there was me thinking the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" approach of the UK is still in force?

In any case, none of the above even begins to consider the malleability of whatever is 'agreed' pre-Brexit, in a post-Brexit context wherein the domestic electorate endures economical hardship...the same sort of hardship last seen around 2008-2010 on the basis of which nationalistic passions were stoked to where-we-are.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Fourthly - the comments about your right to stay being contingent on your wife is also wrong.

Are they now...care to explain how?

2 years ago, I walked my wife's stepsister (British, NHS theatre nurse) through the UK visa system to get her US husband (-of 3 years at the time) into the UK.

That was her 3rd go (which this time was successful, I'm happy to say).

The 1st time, refused on an imbecilic technicality (one or two forms filed out of time - I'm talking a day or two, not weeks). The 2nd time, refused for the sake of earnings insufficient by £13 per annum relative to the threshold (I s**t you not).

So -if I may say so myself- I have a fairly in-depth understanding of and familiarity with UK immigration rules and procedures as they apply, and are applied, to third party nationals, including from 'friendly countries' such as the US. Including salary thresholds and more.

But don't take my word for it. You might want to point your browser at e.g. Mumsnet, before you reply: there's a whole sub-forum dedicated to the matter of the MIR and its application by the UK, which has been around for many years indeed. It's merely symptomatic of longstanding practice by the UK (the Brit tabloids' haranguing and dog-whistling notwithstanding).

And then, there's this and this.

Ah, but the UK would not exercise restrictive prerogatives retroactively, you say? Well, it looks like powers-that-be at the HO didn't get the memo either.

You might come to wish that the UK doesn't bin its longstanding bilateral agreements with Ireland in the wake of Brexit.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The fact that so many people have liked this baseless fearmongering is also a worrying sign. It shows that people aren't committed to an honest debate on the basis of what Britain has actually proposed.

Nice strawman. I'll let you face the post-likers' challenges about it in due course because, personally, I don't have the temerity or the arrogance to claim to know their motivations or debating honesty. Case in point, your own, which makes not the least bit of sense to me, for a remain voter immigrated into the UK.

solodeogloria · 20-09-2017 11:04AM

Good morning!

You need to read the Government's proposals.

Your right to remain in the UK is based on your personal status. Not your wife's. If you've been living in the UK for 5 years you've got indefinite leave to remain.

You also don't need a work permit if you've got indefinite leave to remain which you will be definitely eligible for provided you're not a criminal.

Sure - mortgages are issued at a maximum of 4.5 times your earnings but your salary won't be based on issuing a visa you don't need.

There is really no need for unfounded fearmongering.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ambro25 · 20-09-2017 11:34AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Where are you?

solodeogloria wrote: »

You need to read the Government's proposals.

Would it surprise you greatly to learn that I have? Both the official and the other ones?

They are just that, solodeogloria: proposals.

No different in scope, relevance and likelihood of implementation, to the government's other proposals about every other aspect of Brexit.

I.e. at this point in time, pie-in-the-sky stuff.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Your right to remain in the UK is based on your personal status. Not your wife's. If you've been living in the UK for 5 years you've got indefinite leave to remain.

The wholly conditional nature of the government's proposals notwithstanding, tell that to the 18,300 EU nationals already refused permanent residency since Brexit.

The point you are completely missing -still- is that if my "right to remain" cannot be enforced for whatever reason post-Brexit (be it the absence of any deal by March 2019 or sooner, immigration rules yardstick-shifting by the government, admin f**ups by the HO, <etc.> all of which are eminently possible still), my only option would be by reference to my wife's nationality and status. Wherein the MIR provisions would kick in.

solodeogloria wrote: »

There is really no need for unfounded fearmongering.

You can perfectly well believe, and argue, that none of the above will happen, that the UK government will not allow it to happen, that <...> and so that it's unfounded. Your prerogative and suit yourself.

But you have no firmer basis for your beliefs, than I have for mine - and I run my life on certainties and quasi-certainties over timescales. The certainties currently are that-

Brexit (or not, as the case may be) has started to damage the British economy and this damage will take along time to repair,
there is a large popular sentiment against the EU and EU immigrants,
the government is letting itself be guided by that ideology more than by the economic interests of the UK,
the Article 50 period ends on 29 March 2017.

and the historical evidence is that economic downturns always result in increased animosity against immigrants.

Everything else is conjecture. So I have taken a decision not to wait to find out the factuality or otherwise of that 'fearmongering'.

Calina · 20-09-2017 11:34AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Pretty much everyone who came before Brexit day will have the right to settled status. To those who don't have five years accrued there will be a grace period. In and of itself that is better than Tier 2 General criteria. There is no restriction on earnings. There is no restriction in respect to accessing the NHS or recourse to public funds.

You are naive.

The UK is already turning down permanent residency for EU citizens who are applying.

blanch152 · 20-09-2017 11:36AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The point is that the British public didn't want to be a part of a union which has a dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Voting out is the best way to ensure that you won't be a part of that.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Imagine that you are right about the EU's dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Let us roll on thirty or forty years. The EU has now expanded to include Russia, Turkey and the Northern countries of Africa. It dominates world trade and is the most prosperous trading bloc. The UK is still on the outside looking in.

It is ironic that if the worst predictions of the EU superstate come true, the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU superstate because it will have no other choice.

Sam Russell · 20-09-2017 11:51AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

The UK is a group of territories with a common government. London does not "rule".

And the poll tax?? Everyone is paying it now. Its called council tax. How else is stuff going to be paid for.

Poll tax was introduced as a 'per head' tax (hence poll tax). Its intention was to raise property tax on a per head basis to cause poorer (hence Labour) voters to not pay it and therefore be knocked off the voting register (voter suppression). It was also set so that poorer councils had to raise more with the tax than richer councils, again to suppress voter registration. Tower Hamlets had a higher tax rate than Westminster or Chelsea and Kensington.

Council tax is charged per property, with a reduction for single occupancy.

murphaph · 20-09-2017 12:00PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Imagine that you are right about the EU's dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Let us roll on thirty or forty years. The EU has now expanded to include Russia, Turkey and the Northern countries of Africa. It dominates world trade and is the most prosperous trading bloc. The UK is still on the outside looking in.

It is ironic that if the worst predictions of the EU superstate come true, the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU superstate because it will have no other choice.

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

Professor Moriarty · 20-09-2017 12:32PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Imagine that you are right about the EU's dangerous ambition to be a superstate. Let us roll on thirty or forty years. The EU has now expanded to include Russia, Turkey and the Northern countries of Africa. It dominates world trade and is the most prosperous trading bloc. The UK is still on the outside looking in.

It is ironic that if the worst predictions of the EU superstate come true, the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU superstate because it will have no other choice.

I think that the UK will become a vassal state of the US who will want a presence on the border of a competing world power. In many ways, an Israel Lite.

mountaintop · 20-09-2017 12:38PM

murphaph wrote: »

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

Excellent. Fully agree!

Fratton Fred · 20-09-2017 02:07PM

murphaph wrote: »

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

You are presuming it will be European. The Russians, Chinese and Americans may disagree on this.

demfad · 20-09-2017 02:45PM

murphaph wrote: »

It's not that far from what will happen some day. Ultimately there will be a world government. Progress (if you call it progress) towards this has been pretty slow to a modern observer but back in the stone age there weren't even nation states. Heck, just over a century ago Germany wasn't even a nation state! It's all a process.

If we discover proof of life on other planets, we'll fairly quickly reassess our priorities. Ultimately we will need to work together as a species to ensure humanity continues because some day, the earth will be destroyed by a catastrophic event. Latest when our own sun does it.

Of course these events are in the far far distant future, but they are coming and they demand that we cast nation states aside and work as one human kind. I see the EU as a phase of this transition towards a state where we can ensure our survival beyond the earth.

In this regard, the UK is marching against the tide of history.

Globalisation is a precursor to this. I guess at this point you can either shelter against its affects by protectionism or by agreeing world standards for employmen, environmental protection, production etc. or both in phases.
It will take a body like the EU to withstand the powers of big data and corporations so that these rules can be created fairly and reproduced etc.. Nation States cannot do this clearly, neither can empires.

solodeogloria · 20-09-2017 03:26PM

Good afternoon!

ambro25 wrote: »

They are just that, solodeogloria: proposals.

No different in scope, relevance and likelihood of implementation, to the government's other proposals about every other aspect of Brexit.

I.e. at this point in time, pie-in-the-sky stuff.
The wholly conditional nature of the government's proposals notwithstanding, tell that to the 18,300 EU nationals already refused permanent residency since Brexit.

It's not really pie in the sky. The EU are hardly going to object to such arrangements and the UK are making plans to implement them.

It's worth pointing out that "settled status" is a different thing to the "permanent residence" that existed previously. All EU citizens will need to apply for "settled status" irrespective.

Confusing both isn't accurate.

ambro25 wrote: »

The point you are completely missing -still- is that if my "right to remain" cannot be enforced for whatever reason post-Brexit (be it the absence of any deal by March 2019 or sooner, immigration rules yardstick-shifting by the government, admin f**ups by the HO, <etc.> all of which are eminently possible still), my only option would be by reference to my wife's nationality and status. Wherein the MIR provisions would kick in.

Why wouldn't it be implemented?

The UK are keen to implement a deal. If the EU aren't this isn't something you can blame the UK for.

ambro25 wrote: »

You can perfectly well believe, and argue, that none of the above will happen, that the UK government will not allow it to happen, that <...> and so that it's unfounded. Your prerogative and suit yourself.

I believe it won't because there is no evidence that it will. If anything the evidence points to the contrary.

ambro25 wrote: »

But you have no firmer basis for your beliefs, than I have for mine - and I run my life on certainties and quasi-certainties over timescales.

Yes I do. I make clear reference to what the British government are planning to do and what they have offered to date.

ambro25 wrote: »

The certainties currently are that-
Brexit (or not, as the case may be) has started to damage the British economy and this damage will take along time to repair,

there is a large popular sentiment against the EU and EU immigrants,

the government is letting itself be guided by that ideology more than by the economic interests of the UK,

the Article 50 period ends on 29 March 2017.

and the historical evidence is that economic downturns always result in increased animosity against immigrants.

The only "certainty" in this list is the Article 50 end date.

ambro25 wrote: »

Everything else is conjecture. So I have taken a decision not to wait to find out the factuality or otherwise of that 'fearmongering'.

I wish you the best. I'm staying put because I don't believe the fearmongering and the UK is actually quite a good country to live in.

Each to their own!

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred · 20-09-2017 03:29PM

demfad wrote: »

It will take a body like the EU to withstand the powers of big data and corporations so that these rules can be created fairly and reproduced etc.. Nation States cannot do this clearly, neither can empires.

aah, right, so corporations, particularly big pharma, has no influence in Brussels.

10 million vapers would disagree.

listermint · 20-09-2017 03:51PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, right, so corporations, particularly big pharma, has no influence in Brussels.

10 million vapers would disagree.

I think he said 'withstand', did he not?

Is it your assertion that the EU have not been one of the leaders in the globe of holding large business to task ?

Genuinely...

demfad · 20-09-2017 03:52PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

aah, right, so corporations, particularly big pharma, has no influence in Brussels.

10 million vapers would disagree.

I said that Brussels can withstand these influences. Its dealing (legislating against) with big data while the US and UK capitulated is case in point.

Fratton Fred · 20-09-2017 04:15PM

demfad wrote: »

I said that Brussels can withstand these influences. Its dealing (legislating against) with big data while the US and UK capitulated is case in point.

The eu can be influenced by big corporations, the TPD clearly shows this. Hell, pharma companies spend €40m per year lobbying Brussels so they can influence legislation. To think Brussels is any better at controlling big corporations is naive in the extreme. As for big data, how do you know what they're up to?

listermint · 20-09-2017 04:19PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu can be influenced by big corporations, the TPD clearly shows this. Hell, pharma companies spend €40m per year lobbying Brussels so they can influence legislation. To think Brussels is any better at controlling big corporations is naive in the extreme. As for big data, how do you know what they're up to?

Again

"Is it your assertion that the EU have not been one of the leaders in the globe of holding large business to task ?"

Genuinely...

Fratton Fred · 20-09-2017 04:25PM

listermint wrote: »

Again

"Is it your assertion that the EU have not been one of the leaders in the globe of holding large business to task ?"

Genuinely...

To a degree, but so have various governments. The big fines handed out for libor manipulation, for example, were done by the US and UK governments. The eu is also one of the leaders in allowing big companies avoid corporation taxes by facilitating tax avoidance schemes.

The eu is no better or worse than anyone else.

ancapailldorcha · 20-09-2017 04:28PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu is also one of the leaders in allowing big companies avoid corporation taxes by facilitating tax avoidance schemes.

This isn't true. Member states set their own taxation structures, not the EU.

Fratton Fred · 20-09-2017 04:46PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't true. Member states set their own taxation structures, not the EU.

but it is eu rules on cross border trade that facilitate these loopholes and eu leaders that have blatantly frustrated attempts at closing them.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show

Which makes you wonder why, a man who helped create such a tax haven became the president no one wanted
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

ambro25 · 20-09-2017 04:48PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Them's short days, wherever you live in the UK. It was still only "evening" mere hours ago.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's not really pie in the sky.

It is, because nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU are hardly going to object to such arrangements and the UK are making plans to implement them.

Do you have details? Links, please.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's worth pointing out that "settled status" is a different thing to the "permanent residence" that existed previously. All EU citizens will need to apply for "settled status" irrespective.

Confusing both isn't accurate.

"Settled status" is "permanent residence" re-badged for (qualifying) EU immigrants. There is no confusion.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Why wouldn't it be implemented?

Please read the links I posted in my recent replies to you. Because, by the evidence of your question, you haven't.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK are keen to implement a deal. If the EU aren't this isn't something you can blame the UK for.

The UK are keen to implement what they want. Unsurprisingly.

That is not 'a deal'.

'A deal' is whatever eventually gets agreed with the EU. And negotiations on that front are at a standstill.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I believe it won't because there is no evidence that it will. If anything the evidence points to the contrary.

What is this evidence which points to the contrary, solodeogloria?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes I do. I make clear reference to what the British government are planning to do and what they have offered to date.

And I make clear references -with links- to what the British government are actually doing. Where does that leave us?

solodeogloria wrote: »

The only "certainty" in this list is the Article 50 end date.

Brexit (or not, as the case may be) has started to damage the British economy and this damage will take along time to repair,

>How do you explain the UK's spectacular tumble from fastest-growing economy to red lantern inside one year of the referendum result? [to simply skimp on copy-pasting the Himalaya of evidence of same, since accepted by pro-Leave Ministers themselves]

there is a large popular sentiment against the EU and EU immigrants,

>representative sample of another Himalaya of evidence in respect of the above.

the government is letting itself be guided by that ideology more than by the economic interests of the UK,

>see point about the UK's economical tumble above.

The best economic interests of the UK were at all times to remain in the EU. Again, even [sensible, not frothing] pro-Leavers accept that.

That is now not going to happen, Ms May saw to that with triggering Article 50.

Anything short of that is de facto following an ideology (of whichever flavour or orientation) which runs contrary to the economic interests of the UK.

If you're going to push the bias to hand-waving irrefutable facts, I'm not sure there's any mileage in discussing with you further, tbh. Perhaps that's your intended aim.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I wish you the best. I'm staying put because I don't believe the fearmongering and the UK is actually quite a good country to live in.

If you substitute 'UK' for 'Dublin' the above, so said a fair few posters to me in the economy/housing threads on here in late 2007 to early 2008. I was gone lock, stock, and barrel by August.

Might be case that economic migrants have a bit of knack for sensing the wind more keenly than locals. My theory is that it's a perception of amplifying nationalistic/jingoistic/anti-immigrant rumbles around, iteratively built and refined over time: basically, the louder the rumbles get, the closer the s***storm is. Now I stand on the shoulders of 2 earlier generations of economic migrants, so you could say it's a genetic ability by now

Enough with the quote Ping-Pong. I'll take my gut feel (and the certainty of the destination situation relative to staying put) over your naivety: you'll have to forgive me for taking the one in the hand, rather than the two in the bush which you're peddling.

Sam Russell · 20-09-2017 04:53PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

but it is eu rules on cross border trade that facilitate these loopholes and eu leaders that have blatantly frustrated attempts at closing them.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/01/jean-claude-juncker-blocked-eu-curbs-on-tax-avoidance-cables-show

Which makes you wonder why, a man who helped create such a tax haven became the president no one wanted
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/27/eu-democratic-bandwagon-juncker-president-wanted

Taxation is not an EU competence, so NO the EU are not involved in taxation. That may change, but it will require a treaty change, and Ireland has a veto.

Luxembourg and the Netherlands, as well as Ireland have been accused of being tax havens, but other countries do sweetheart deals on corporation taxation. The USA are also party to tax fiddles, allowing off-shore profit hoarding - waiting for a repatriation amnesty.

The real problem are the corporations that are not tax resident ANYWHERE, and so pay no tax at all.

The EU are on the case though.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments