Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus · 20-10-2017 09:10AM

First Up wrote: »

And you can bet the Asian population of Rochdale happily voted to keep out the Polish and Romanian competition.

If so, that would at least be rational. Voting for Brexit because you're unhappy about migration in general would just be bizarre.

solodeogloria · 20-10-2017 09:14AM

Good morning!

I'm questioning whether or not you're actually interested in listening to what I've got to say.

Enzokk wrote: »

The EU wants the UK to agree what costs it will pay. This is NOT for access to the single market or a trade deal but costs that the UK previously agreed to. The UK keeps asking and now begging for talks to start on a trade deal yet somehow they have already started talking of the cost of what a trade deal would be. I think the UK needs to pick which one it is, ask for talks to start or commit to the talking point that the EU wants to get paid for a trade deal.

Also, the UK agreeing to paying into the EU budget for institutions that they will continue to use is not a compromise, its good freaking manners. I don't go to a restaurant/repair shop/makes use of a tradesman and expect to get their services for free, which it seems what you are suggesting.

The UK is in a negotiation. It's perfectly entitled to insist that the money is a trade off for trading terms. The EU can say sod off, but the UK is entitled to use this as a card to get something in return. That's in Britain's interests. In the UK the money argument is seen in a very different way to how it is seen in the EU.

The UK isn't going to simply bend to the EU on this one, and rightly so.

This isn't a "bill". It's money that the UK has freely chosen to give to the EU for EU programmes. I think it should follow through with this, but only if the EU are willing to give consideration to British interests.

Enzokk wrote: »

And yet this is a lie that has been spread. There is something the UK can do about EU workers in the UK. They cannot do nothing as Priti Patel is saying. She was the employment minister and she didn't know the laws or she was lying. Either way its doesn't look good for her or the Vote Leave camp. But project fear, right?

And nice try in moving the goal posts. The UK could have dealt with EU citizens that don't have the prospect for work, but they didn't. This is what people were upset by, not by increasing the visa services to add more work for more visas.

Immigration can't be controlled effectively under EU rules. I'd agree with you that the 6 month limit may help, but it wouldn't stop an oversupply of labour in certain sectors undercutting wages. That's the real issue that you highlighted in the quote you posted.

Enzokk wrote: »

I see you didn't read my link though. Low skill workers pay is influenced by about 0.2% for every 1% increase in immigration into semi-skilled or unskilled service sector. The influence is also mainly on other EU migrants and not the local UK population.

The concerns of the electorate still need to be heard and acted upon. I only propose light touch checks and quotas on contested sectors. If freedom of movement rules were modified to allow for more control on low wage labour this wouldn't have been an issue. There are obviously low wage sectors which don't fall under this strain, but there are those that do.

Enzokk wrote: »

For non-EU immigrants the influence is greater on the local population. Yes, the immigration the UK government allows has a greater impact on the local population. They purposefully allow immigration that undercut their own countrymen and countrywoman in the workforce. But leaving the EU will solve all this.

I also see you posted about non-EU immigrants only allowed to stay for 2 years. You obviously either haven't heard or are just ignoring a new visa for said worker that allows them to stay longer and then probably settle in the UK and cost the state more as they start laying down their lives with a family. But get those Polish and Romanians out!

Again you've not really engaged with my reasoning as to why non-EU migration is different. Namely non-EU immigrants on Tier 2 visas aren't allowed to make recourse to public funds. Non-EU immigrants are also subject to wage thresholds before being permitted to come to the country. If a non-EU immigrant has received permanent residency and citizenship then that's a matter for the Home Office. Provided that immigrants don't strain the labour market and public services I'm more than happy to welcome new arrivals. I think there needs to be a level of control on low wage labour.

The same is true for EU immigrants post-Brexit. I don't argue that immigrants aren't required or indeed welcome. What I am saying is that we need controls.

Enzokk wrote: »

No, you don't get to do that. You stated the reasons for voting leave still remains solid. Even with all the lies, one which I have now pointed out on here, you still think the reasons for leaving the EU is solid. If you think it you should be able to show what you think are solid reasons for leaving the EU that has not turned out to be a lie, like project fear.

As a solid leave voter you should be able to list the reasons why leaving the EU is still better for the UK.

Yes, I do. If I've posted this several times already and you've ignored them then that's not my problem. It's yours for being unwilling to listen and engage with other posters.

Edit: if you read my previous posts you'd know I voted remain for example.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up · 20-10-2017 09:18AM

Peregrinus wrote:

If so, that would at least be rational. Voting for Brexit because you're unhappy about migration in general would just be bizarre.

Very rational on their part. Jaw-droppingly stupid on the part of native Brits.

But there is lots of evidence to say it is exactly what happened and we seem to have posters here suffering from the same delusion.

listermint · 20-10-2017 09:21AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I'm questioning whether or not you're actually interested in listening to what I've got to say.

Immigration can't be controlled effectively under EU rules. I'd agree with you that the 6 month limit may help, but it wouldn't stop an oversupply of labour in certain sectors undercutting wages. That's the real issue that you highlighted in the quote you posted.

Yes, I do. If I've posted this several times already and you've ignored them then that's not my problem. It's yours for being unwilling to listen and engage with other posters.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Very snide response for someone who ignored questions about the Bombardier deal for about 2 weeks and then gave an off the cuff response that wasnt really a response at all.

So tell me again how under EU rules immigration cant 'really' be controlled.
I mean details specific details.

considering the UK government never implemented anything to curb any immigration.

Details please and i promise i wont call you out for ignoring questions and responses as you have done multiple times.

murphaph · 20-10-2017 09:27AM

First Up wrote: »

So the well-informed denizens of Rochdale voted to leave the EU because they dislike Pakistanis, West Indians and Africans?

Go figure indeed

The irony is that EU migrants are being put off by the xenophobia surrounding Brexit and these jobs will need to be filled with people of a darker complexion. Oh well...

Peregrinus · 20-10-2017 09:40AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is in a negotiation. It's perfectly entitled to insist that the money is a trade off for trading terms. The EU can say sod off, but the UK is entitled to use this as a card to get something in return. That's in Britain's interests. In the UK the money argument is seen in a very different way to how it is seen in the EU.

The UK isn't going to simply bend to the EU on this one, and rightly so.

This isn't a "bill". It's money that the UK has freely chosen to give to the EU for EU programmes. I think it should follow through with this, but only if the EU are willing to give consideration to British interests.

I think it's a bit more nuanced that that, solo.

I think it's fair enough for the UK to aim to trade off the financial settlement for good trade terms. But, equally, it must be fair for the EU to seek to trade off good trade terms for a satisfactory financial settlement.

The issue here is not whether the UK will commit to paying a financial settlement satisfactory to the Union whether or not they get a trade deal; nobody is asking them to make that commitment. The issue is whethe they will commit to paying a satisfactory settlement in any circumstances.

What the EU is seeking, in other words, is a statement from the UK as to the basis on which a financial settlement will be computed, if it is agreed to pay one. On the "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" principle, that doesn't commit the UK actually to pay a settlement calculated on that basis; it just confirms that they would be willing to agree to that, if mutually acceptable trade terms can also be agreed. But May won't do this - and possibly can't.

The problem here is the weakness of May's position domestically, and the open divisions in the UK government. The fear is that May won't say on what basis she thinks a financial settlement ought to be calculated because she lacks support from her own government and party for adopting any particular basis. And, obviously, if that is May's position, it's very difficult to negotiate with her, because she'll either be unable to agree to anything, or there's at least a risk that she'll be unable to deliver whatever she does agree to.

And this is just a particular instance of a larger problem. The BBC's political editor is reporting that the British Cabinet is yet to have a proper discussion about the long-term relationship that the UK should be seeking with the EU. I don't know whether that's accurate or not, but the fact that the report is circulating at all is extremely damaging to the UK's strategic position in the Brexit talks. How can the EU possibly negotiate with somebody who doesn't yet know what they themselves want out of the negotiations? The fear in Brussels is that, if they concede anything at all to the UK at this point, before much longer May will be dumped and a new leader will simply trouser what has already been conceded and then use that a baseline from which to seek further concessions. To be blunt, the EU cannot show its hand when, as yet, the UK doesn't even have a hand to show in return.

I'm not sure how to get out of this impasse. One way would be for the party and government to rally behind May and give her a mandate to go out and do a deal. That probably requires the ritual sacrifice of Boris Johnson as a token of sincerity and commitment. Another is for the party to lance the boil, dump May, choose a new leader and get behind that leader. But neither of these things are within the procurement of the EU.

ambro25 · 20-10-2017 09:41AM

First Up wrote: »

And you can bet the Asian population of Rochdale happily voted to keep out the Polish and Romanian competition.

I've certainly seen plenty of evidence of that voting pattern on local Forums here in South Yorkshire (posters known to be Asian, and strongly pro-Leave in their posts), both before the referendum and since.

Peregrinus · 20-10-2017 09:42AM

murphaph wrote: »

The irony is that EU migrants are being put off by the xenophobia surrounding Brexit and these jobs will need to be filled with people of a darker complexion. Oh well...

This is in fact the thinking of many Britons from South Asian communities who voted for Brexit. Migration from south Asia has dropped off sharply since the enlargement of the EU, and there hope is that it can be increased again post-Brexit. It's not that south Asians don't like Poles; it's that they'd like their cousins and more remote relatives to have the opportunities that they themselves have, and the see the superior rights of EU citizens as the principal barrier to that.

LeinsterDub · 20-10-2017 09:47AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is in a negotiation. It's perfectly entitled to insist that the money is a trade off for trading terms. The EU can say sod off, but the UK is entitled to use this as a card to get something in return. That's in Britain's interests. In the UK the money argument is seen in a very different way to how it is seen in the EU.

Correct the UK was entitled to insist 'insist that the money is a trade off for trading terms' they then conceded that point and agreed the money was part of the EU big 3.

demfad · 20-10-2017 09:57AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

The UK is in a negotiation. It's perfectly entitled to insist that the money is a trade off for trading terms. The EU can say sod off, but the UK is entitled to use this as a card to get something in return. That's in Britain's interests. In the UK the money argument is seen in a very different way to how it is seen in the EU.

The UK isn't going to simply bend to the EU on this one, and rightly so.

Wrongly so. No matter how it is seen anywhere the only alternative to a deal is the default leave with no-deal. That would mean trading off default WTO rules which would destroy the UK economy. Nobody on the planet trades solely off these. The US and China use bilateral and multilateral deals to trade with other nations. So they deal quite a bit with the EU but only in certain goods. So they have limited access. The UK who now trade a massive range of goods and services in great depth within the EU wont even have the access the US has. It wont even have the access Venezuala has.
So what will happen to its E220 billion trade to the EU?
(Also note that the UK loses all other FTA,s multilateral and bilateral deals it has with every other nation on Earth, not just EU, Norway, Turkey etc but Switzerland, Brazil and everyone else.
It should be simple for the UK. Give citizens rights they had before, pay what you signed up to pay and go for a 7 year transition if you want a deep FTA, or better still take the off the shelf EEA and negotiate the FTA as a stage 3.
Better still remain and change the EU from within.

Please address these points when implying the UK has options.
As usual you will ignore this and keep pretending the UK can walk away if they please. THey can but not without destroying their country.

murphaph · 20-10-2017 10:01AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

This is in fact the thinking of many Britons from South Asian communities who voted for Brexit. Migration from south Asia has dropped off sharply since the enlargement of the EU, and there hope is that it can be increased again post-Brexit. It's not that south Asians don't like Poles; it's that they'd like their cousins and more remote relatives to have the opportunities that they themselves have, and the see the superior rights of EU citizens as the principal barrier to that.

Yeah I agree. A very good mate of mine is of Indian extraction and reckons this was a common theme in that community. He himself voted leave.

I believe the UK government is terrified of even conceding any liabilities in writing for fear these could be enforced somehow (WTO? ICJ?) even if the wider talks fail and no deal is agreed.

I find it deeply dishonourable (as will the Germans) that the UK might even consider welching on its commitments, even if not legally due. Hanging the EU civil servant pensioners out to dry will go down very poorly in continental Europe which is generally fairly socialist in outlook.

Anyway...if the UK really wants there to be a correlation between exit "bill" and future trade with the largest market in the world then you could expect the price to reflect just that and be necessarily very high.

The whole thing is such a sorry mess.

LeinsterDub · 20-10-2017 10:12AM

The Irish Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, said Theresa May told Europe’s leaders she will not accept a physical border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. He commended her address at the summit and said her language on the issue had strengthened.

She specifically referenced the unique situation for both Ireland and Northern Ireland, which I think was very positive. She strengthened her language in relation to the border. She said the UK would not accept a physical border on the island of Ireland - again very positive language.

But Varadkar repeated his call for more detail on the border question.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/oct/20/brexit-theresa-may-angela-merkel-hopeful-deal-europe-politics-live

May still in having their cake and eating mode. They don't seem to know or accept that the border and leaving the customs union are intertwined

Firblog · 20-10-2017 11:07AM

Enzokk wrote: »

You were saying I was minimizing the concerns of Brexit voters because I don't live where they live. Can you explain how some areas that voted to leave the EU had some of the lowest migration figures?

I never said you were minimizing their concerns, I believe you looked at economic studies and dismissed them out of hand, once the studies show a positive balance sheet.

I've not read any studies that explain what you ask me to explain, but I'll hazard a guess.

Some of the areas that had some of the lowest migration that voted leave are also some of the poorest areas in the UK with the lowest household income, and poorest employment prospects, not affluent areas with full employment. Now if someone in the poorer area is going to be competing with the person who migrated for a job, or a house or other local service; if they get refused and it is given to a person who is not native, they are going to be pissed off, their family is going to be pissed off, all their friend are going to be pissed off, even people they don't know, when they hear of it, are going to be pissed off (these people prob don't like non natives anyway, but will spread the news of the 'injustice'). Then came the chance to put an end to this happening with the referendum, and they took it.

As I said, this is just my reading of the results, and have no report or study to support my view.

Roanmore · 20-10-2017 11:20AM

ambro25 wrote: »

I've certainly seen plenty of evidence of that voting pattern on local Forums here in South Yorkshire (posters known to be Asian, and strongly pro-Leave in their posts), both before the referendum and since.

Sky News are doing an excellent report on this at the moment.
There is approx a million illegal immigrants of Asian extraction in the UK at present.
A lot of them are working, kept in the background in restaurants, hotels and living in awful conditions.
Since Brexit they have seen an increase in demand for their services so the jobs the East Europeans are leaving behind are being filled by these immigrants not the UK citizens.
They are also not paying tax.
Some of there were interviewed and saw Brexit as a positive and are hoping for an amnesty once the UK leaves the EU.

LeinsterDub · 20-10-2017 11:32AM

Theresa May has privately agreed to double Britain's Brexit divorce bill in an attempt to progress talks that have stalled over Britain's financial contribution to the EU.

May has already agreed to pay Britain's full contributions to the current budget round, amounting to some €20 billion.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/theresa-may-privately-agrees-to-pay-40-billion-brexit-divorce-bill-2017-10

Some "progress" but the UK is still guessing the bill before getting it itemised

ambro25 · 20-10-2017 11:52AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK is in a negotiation. It's perfectly entitled to insist that the money is a trade off for trading terms.

Complete and utter bobbins:

Britain and the EU agreed to focus the first stages of negotiations over Brexit on divorce proceedings from the bloc in a meeting that both sides hailed as constructive after an early concession from London on the sequence of talks.

The two sides agreed to prioritise negotiations on Britain’s exit bill and a settlement on rights for EU citizens living in the UK and Britons on the continent, in line with Brussels’ longstanding demands for the structure of the discussions.

19 June 2017. Secondary source if required.

I'm ever so mindful of Mods comments on the thread, but it takes some level of abnegation not to attack the player, when solo is being so consistently disingenuous.

Sam Russell · 20-10-2017 12:09PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2017/oct/20/brexit-theresa-may-angela-merkel-hopeful-deal-europe-politics-live

May still in having their cake and eating mode. They don't seem to know or accept that the border and leaving the customs union are intertwined

The solution to the Irish border is one of several approaches:

1. A united Ireland - obvious political problems so very unlikely and basically impossible.

2. UK stays in the customs union and possibly the single market - Labour are going that way but Tory loopers want out. This is easiest if the join the EEA.

3. NI stays in the customs union and the EU border is the Irish sea.

4. The UK goes for a long transition deal (like 5 to 10 years) and remains in the SM and CU.

To not discuss these options at this stage is bonkers as it colours the possible trade deals. To say the trade deals come first is begging the question. The NI/Ireland border is a vital interest to NI and Ireland, and should be grounds for Ireland to take a very strong position.

But if the UK cannot even discuss the divorce bill at this stage (despite agreeing to the sequence) then I think the current negotiations are doomed and will not move on to the second stage, without even getting to EU citizens rights post Brexit.

I would predict a GE before Christmas.

FrancieBrady · 20-10-2017 12:15PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The solution to the Irish border is one of several approaches:

1. A united Ireland - obvious political problems so very unlikely and basically impossible.

2. UK stays in the customs union and possibly the single market - Labour are going that way but Tory loopers want out. This is easiest if the join the EEA.

3. NI stays in the customs union and the EU border is the Irish sea.

4. The UK goes for a long transition deal (like 5 to 10 years) and remains in the SM and CU.

To not discuss these options at this stage is bonkers as it colours the possible trade deals. To say the trade deals come first is begging the question. The NI/Ireland border is a vital interest to NI and Ireland, and should be grounds for Ireland to take a very strong position.

But if the UK cannot even discuss the divorce bill at this stage (despite agreeing to the sequence) then I think the current negotiations are doomed and will not move on to the second stage, without even getting to EU citizens rights post Brexit.

I would predict a GE before Christmas.

Living on the border I think it has to be our strong position that before a hard border is re-imposed that the people of northern Ireland be asked what they want.

A border poll so to speak with an open frank discussion of what it will mean if northern Ireland is outside the EU.
Then vote on it. If they decide to stay in the UK and opt out of the EU, we can see how they feel about it in 7 years as per the GFA

ambro25 · 20-10-2017 12:15PM

Second prong of today's pincer movement on May & Co: Ben Bradshaw MP calls for inquiry into Arron Banks and 'dark money' in EU referendum

Speaking in parliament, Ben Bradshaw said there was “widespread concern over foreign and particularly Russian interference in western democracies”. He described as “very worrying” a series of investigative reports published this week by the Open Democracy website into the funding of the Leave campaign.

The money given by Banks to Leave.EU in the run-up to the referendum was the biggest donation in British political history. The Bristol-based businessman says he contributed almost £9m in cash, loans and services to pro-Brexit causes. It is impossible to determine what impact – if any – his donations had on the result.

<...>

The analysis by Open Democracy says that in September 2013 Banks’s financial affairs were in trouble. His underwriting business Southern Rock was under scrutiny from financial regulators in Gibraltar and had reserves below what was required. Banks said he invested £40m in the business to plug any shortfall and resigned as a director.

“A year later, these financial worries seem to have completely evaporated. Banks had begun buying diamond mines, investing millions into chemical companies and wealth management firms, setting up loss-making political consultancies, and most famous of all – funding Ukip,”

It's about time.

Although I'm not holding my breath, either about the timescale of the inquiry or about its outcome.

demfad · 20-10-2017 12:24PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/19/world/europe/russia-brexit-arron-banks.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Speaking in Parliament, the lawmaker, Ben Bradshaw of the Labour Party, said there was “widespread concern over foreign, and particularly Russian, interference in Western democracies.” He asked for assurances that “all the resources spent in the referendum campaign were from permissible sources.”

Mr. Bradshaw’s intervention follows the publication of what he called “very worrying” reports “on the role of dark money” in the plebiscite, which was held in June 2016 and in which 52 percent of those who voted opted to leave.

Arron Banks ploughed £10 million into Leave between funding the Leave.eu campaign the 'grassroots' campaign as well as bailing UKIP out with a couple of million.

UKIP have just voted with other far-right parties (Russian funded mostly) in the EU parliament against a new rule for transparency of payments to EU election campaigns in order to stop outside subversion.

Banks is obviously pals with Farage. He has also known Steve Bannon for years, and Robert Mercer. Mercer has been laundering hate speech through his vast network of websites and media outlets (eg Breitbart news, The Gateway Pundit). He also owns Cambridge Analytica the big data firm that all leave campaigns seem to be involved with. Official Leave infact paid over half its allocated £7 million to aggregateIQ the back office to CA in which Mercer owns the Intellectual Property.
Cambridge also carried out extensive work for UKIP for free (UKIP now denies) stating that Mercer and Farage are pals/was a favour.
Cambridge were the big data firm behind Trump and are under investigation for their role in the Trump-Russia scandal particularly in how the Russians were able to microtarget Facebook fake news and dark posts at particular voters in US swing states.

Leadsom in the Commons said the inquiries should be addressed to the electoral commision. But their powers are no longer fit for purpose in the UK: Putin himself could legally completely bankroll a campaign as long as he did it via a company he owned in the UK.

Despite UK silence this isnt going to go away.
Given Trump-Russia and Russian attempts to interfere in Dutch, French, German and every other relevant EU election: the UK silence on Brexit-Russia is now suspiciously astounding.

Gerry T · 20-10-2017 02:01PM

solodeogloria wrote:

Paying a "bill" between â‚¬60bn - â‚¬100bn as some in Germany seem to expect is unreasonable. It is especially unreasonable without any trade terms at all. I don't support paying anything without trade terms being agreed. In this scenario the money would be better spent in Britain making contingency plans for no deal.

Just catching up on the thread and came to this nugget.
This really sums up the disconnect from both sides.
You seem to think that the Bill is like a divorce, husband leaves and wife gets the house and half the bank account. That's NOT what the other side think IMO.
The "bill" or "divorce fee" is neither a bill or fee. The UK has committed to paying projects, it also owes monies to people that are going on pension/drawing pensions for services to the UK for the past 40yrs. The EU is trying to get agreement from the UK on what portion of these costs the UK will pay. Let's make up a case, say 24,428 civil servants the EU may say 5,000 have been there for the uk, then the UK demonstrates it's actually 2,000. If agreed then the pension costs for the next 20, 30 or 40 yrs is paid for those people by the UK. Or an actuary works out the current value and that's paid to the EU today and the EU pays the peoples pensions that worked for the UK for 40 yrs.
What your suggesting is, if the EU doesn't give the UK the deal they want then the UK won't pay anything????
Don't you see how dishonest that would be. People that work in Europe looking after the UKs interests for decades end up with no pension?

Brexit and the settlement payment is wrapped together, one and the same thing. They need to be settled together, with the rights of EU nationals living in the UK and the Irish border.

Any trade discussions are secondary to separating. Both groups want to trade with each other so a deal will be struck, one that benefits both. But the UK is the minor partner, so shouldn't expect the same terms the EU will get.

Gerry T · 20-10-2017 02:19PM

solodeogloria wrote:

This isn't a "bill". It's money that the UK has freely chosen to give to the EU for EU programmes. I think it should follow through with this, but only if the EU are willing to give consideration to British interests.

Wrong wrong wrong. You continually ignore what people say. Address the comments.
The money is for UK liabilities, signed legal contracts, pensions.

Gerry T · 20-10-2017 02:21PM

solodeogloria wrote:

The concerns of the electorate still need to be heard and acted upon. I only propose light touch checks and quotas on contested sectors. If freedom of movement rules were modified to allow for more control on low wage labour this wouldn't have been an issue. There are obviously low wage sectors which don't fall under this strain, but there are those that do.

You have that control at present. Mentioned umpteen times in this thread. The UK can remove EU migrants that don't secure work

murphaph · 20-10-2017 02:34PM

Let's be quite honest. The very low end jobs done on farms picking the harvest will not be done by Brits on the dole at present. Not. A . Chance.

The food would fit in the fields before the Jeremy Kyle crew that voted for Brexit would go pick it for minimum wage!

Enzokk · 20-10-2017 02:37PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Immigration can't be controlled effectively under EU rules. I'd agree with you that the 6 month limit may help, but it wouldn't stop an oversupply of labour in certain sectors undercutting wages. That's the real issue that you highlighted in the quote you posted.

The concerns of the electorate still need to be heard and acted upon. I only propose light touch checks and quotas on contested sectors. If freedom of movement rules were modified to allow for more control on low wage labour this wouldn't have been an issue. There are obviously low wage sectors which don't fall under this strain, but there are those that do.

How do you know it cannot be controlled if its never been tried as per the rules that the UK can enforce?

I also don't really know why you should listen and act on concerns if they are not something that needs to be acted upon. The fear of clowns is probably quite high at the moment but I don't see the UK government acting on it because it is ridiculous. The same way if immigration hasn't had an overall negative effect on the country and in fact had positive impacts all over, why should they act?

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again you've not really engaged with my reasoning as to why non-EU migration is different. Namely non-EU immigrants on Tier 2 visas aren't allowed to make recourse to public funds. Non-EU immigrants are also subject to wage thresholds before being permitted to come to the country. If a non-EU immigrant has received permanent residency and citizenship then that's a matter for the Home Office. Provided that immigrants don't strain the labour market and public services I'm more than happy to welcome new arrivals. I think there needs to be a level of control on low wage labour.

The same is true for EU immigrants post-Brexit. I don't argue that immigrants aren't required or indeed welcome. What I am saying is that we need controls.

Yet it seems that non-EU migration costs the tax payers more and you want more of them in the country? This is with the visas they have to apply for to get the jobs they are qualified for.

Do EU immigrants contribute £1.34 for every £1 received from the UK?

Immigrants here for longer contribute less to public funds

The same research looked at all immigrants living in the UK between 1995 and 2012—these people could have arrived decades ago in some cases. For EU immigrants the contributions were smaller and those from outside the EU took out more than they put in.

EU immigrants living in the UK are thought to have contributed £1.05 for every £1 received and, for non-EU immigrants, 85 pence for every £1.

Non-EU immigrants are more likely to have had children while in the UK than EU immigrants. Counting the cost of those children’s education is one reason why the contributions are lower than the receipts for this group.

So you are in favour of allowing people in that cost the state more but want to control those that make up some of those losses. I feel as though that kind of thinking will only cause more strain on the UK social services as they will have even less money to work with.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, I do. If I've posted this several times already and you've ignored them then that's not my problem. It's yours for being unwilling to listen and engage with other posters.

Edit: if you read my previous posts you'd know I voted remain for example.

And that is why I am pushing you for an answer, you were in favour of remain but now you have switched to leave. You remarked the case for leaving is still solid but you admit there were some lies. So it should be easy to confirm which ones of the reasons given for leaving the EU is still solid and doesn't fall in the lies told. You already dismiss one complete lie as shown in my previous post about the UK not being able to control EU immigration and moved the goalposts that the time required to wait before you chuck someone out is too long. But no-one knew about it before the election or they would have brought it up (I am being very generous here to Vote Leave and will assume they didn't do their homework instead of lying).

Firblog wrote: »

I never said you were minimizing their concerns, I believe you looked at economic studies and dismissed them out of hand, once the studies show a positive balance sheet.

I've not read any studies that explain what you ask me to explain, but I'll hazard a guess.

Some of the areas that had some of the lowest migration that voted leave are also some of the poorest areas in the UK with the lowest household income, and poorest employment prospects, not affluent areas with full employment. Now if someone in the poorer area is going to be competing with the person who migrated for a job, or a house or other local service; if they get refused and it is given to a person who is not native, they are going to be pissed off, their family is going to be pissed off, all their friend are going to be pissed off, even people they don't know, when they hear of it, are going to be pissed off (these people prob don't like non natives anyway, but will spread the news of the 'injustice'). Then came the chance to put an end to this happening with the referendum, and they took it.

As I said, this is just my reading of the results, and have no report or study to support my view.

So it comes down to the fear of immigrants and not the impact they have on society. An EU citizen may be able to come and do the work I do and I will be out of a job, so that is a reason to leave the EU. Fear of someone from a different country is xenophobia, which is one form of racism.

Problems with society is not on the EU. If people are still poor they need to vote for better people instead of privately educated career politicians who hasn't struggled a day in their live. How John Redwood who works for a private bank can have a meaningful opinion and be helpful to someone struggling in a small town in the north of the UK is anyone's guess, yet there he is and people like him. So if people are struggling its not due to the EU, even if the newspapers and politicians shout it as loudly as they can.

Gerry T · 20-10-2017 02:39PM

Sam Russell wrote:

But if the UK cannot even discuss the divorce bill at this stage (despite agreeing to the sequence) then I think the current negotiations are doomed and will not move on to the second stage, without even getting to EU citizens rights post Brexit.

Im not sure I understand the above. One of the 3 things to be agreed at this stage is the separation settlement payment. Until that's agreed there's no moving forward.

As for the border the UK could say as things stand there will be a hard border. There that's that sorted

On EU rights let the UK offer these people UK citizenship, that might sort it.

Actually engage and agree the payment, put a position paper forward saying what you will pay and I don't mean a value. I mean what current commitments they will pay and which they won't.

Now the UK can move onto trade talks, and they could start by saying removing the border as part of the discussions is a priority.

flatty · 20-10-2017 02:47PM

First Up wrote: »

flatty wrote:

The thing is, and I'll get shouted at here, but it's true, it is non Europeans who tend to ghettoise and refuse to integrate. I think k half the vote was against that. Go figure.

So the well-informed denizens of Rochdale voted to leave the EU because they dislike Pakistanis, West Indians and Africans?

Go figure indeed

Rochdale is more than 50% Asian. I have no idea how they voted. I do know that some elderly white people I have met there are afraid to walk in town at night because they fear that being white makes them a target for violence. Whether it does or not, I have no idea, but that's what more than one think (our business is on a busy thoroughfare, and several have spontaneously remarked that they wouldn't dare walk there after dark due to being white)
You can argue against the rights, wrongs and morals. You can strawman til you're blue in the face, but it is just a fact.
Have you ever been there, as a matter of interest?

flatty · 20-10-2017 02:49PM

I'd add, that I'm so pro brexit that I'm visiting schools in Ireland next week with a view to getting out of the UK, despite being a relatively wealthy, happy and settled family.

flatty · 20-10-2017 02:56PM

Apologies, I should clarify that the area of Rochdale (a large one) in which our business is based has a higher proportion of people identifying as Asian than British.

Blowfish · 20-10-2017 05:18PM

flatty wrote: »

I do know that some elderly white people I have met there are afraid to walk in town at night because they fear that being white makes them a target for violence. Whether it does or not, I have no idea, but that's what more than one think (our business is on a busy thoroughfare, and several have spontaneously remarked that they wouldn't dare walk there after dark due to being white)

So why exactly did they vote to leave then? Leaving pretty much guarantees more non EU immigration than currently exists.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments