trellheim wrote: » Doesnt the UK pay Spain for health treatment for expats in residence
CelticRambler wrote: » There is no requirement to treat non-citizens from other EU states the same as the natives unless they have already acquired rights of permanent residence.
Sam Russell wrote: » Can they be sure that their driving licences will be valid if a hard hard Brexit is triggered? Trade wars have no winners, only losers and collateral damage, most of which is unexpected and unforeseen.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » Without certainty about what sort of Brexit the insurance companies will either have to swallow or pass on possible future costs.http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43434085
It's only two weeks until the annual policies insurers sell will need to provide cover beyond Brexit day, the 29 March next year. ... They could start warning motor policyholders that they will need a Green Card - an international document proving you have insurance - when they drive their cars into the EU after Brexit. And if travellers can't depend on their European Health Insurance Cover (EHIC) cards, which entitle them to medical treatment across the EU, the price of travel insurance will be affected.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » What they fail to understand is that nobody in Brussels is going to care one whit about nonsense like this.
listermint wrote: » I assume he is referring to workplace ergonomics guidelines for businesses you might assume by the name guidelines that they are guidelines and you would be correct too.
Tropheus wrote: » Brexiteers threaten EU.https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/933239/brexit-news-jacob-rees-mogg-leave-means-leave-letter-EU Do they not understand their place in the modern world? They'll be threatening Russia next
flutered wrote: » they have, rees mogg posted that britan should have a permenant force in the baltic, to keep russia in its place, the link to the tweet is over on ds
Sam Russell wrote: » I think that failing to pay their dues will be tantamount to declaring a trade war. That will not go well for the UK, and as is said often 'No one wins a trade war'. The exit payment is only paying for those charges that they had already agreed to, so welshing on them would be considered a hostile act and result in retaliation. Now the UK want to continue as best mates as far as Russia and defense/security is concerned, I think refusing to pay your debts will not end well.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » That's not a threat to be honest. It's empty posturing for the benefit of looking strong. A paper tiger if you will. What they fail to understand is that nobody in Brussels is going to care one whit about nonsense like this.
Jim2007 wrote: » On the EU side the requirement to threat all EU citizens the same as your own makes it hard to argue the they have to leave on economic grounds when their entitlement to benefits means they can live the same way a sizable block of the population do.
Strazdas wrote: » The idea too that putting an X on a ballot paper can somehow miraculously solve all the UK's problems is clearly nonsensical. If anything, Brexiteers and the 17m Leave invested way too much importance into the referendum. It was only a silly advisory referendum dreamt up by a motley crew of populists, opportunists and cranks - it will do next to nothing to improve their lives.
Tropheus wrote: » Brexiteers threaten EU.https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/933239/brexit-news-jacob-rees-mogg-leave-means-leave-letter-EU "A LEADING group of Brexiteers has warned the EU to stop bullying Britain and “get on with Brexit” – or face losing our multi-billion pound “divorce” payment."
ancapailldorcha wrote: » This is quite facile to be honest. If you want to see the truth, follow the money. Take Britian First who've recently been banned by Facebook. Sure, you have your racists there who like the page on Facebook but behind that you have people like Jim Dowson who has fingers in many pies and has even had the page advertise property in Hungary with it's ethnographics or perhaps lack thereof advertised as a selling point. Ultimately though, it's overblown and the media loves to make hay with it to sell papers and ad space. The left-wing press loves to slag the righjt off for racism while the right-wing press in turn likes to slag off the lefties for things like wanting free handouts and being naive. The two ultimately feed off each other, offering ever more populist policies while the moderates who ask questions like "How do we pay for this?" or "What will this do to the economy?" get drowned out.Here's a good BBC documentary about Britain First if anyone is interested. Sand states that Blair was hoping to bin the Tories by letting in so many EU migrants. If there's any more info on this, I would be very interested. Perhaps Blair had plans to streamline citizenship applications and was confident of winning the next election so that the requisite 5 years could pass for these EU nationals to be eligible to vote. Only Ireland, Sweden and the UK declined to put restrictions on Eastern EU migration in place following their accession to the EU. The other thing to bear in mind is that most people aren't terribly interested in Politics so a lot of people voting for Leave, or indeed Remain for that matter probably made up their minds very quickly based on the messages that went into their houses or devices. That's not a good thing but it's ubiquitous across the world. Too many people just look for the party they usually vote for on the ballot paper and put an "X" in the corresponding box and on they get with their lives. Ultimately though, I think Brexit was the result of a perfect storm: [*]NHS: Successive Blair governments were responsible for the PFI scandal which is still a major drain on NHS finances. Factor in the fact that the state seems to have no interest in evolving the service to meet the demands of an ageing population and a lack of interest in properly increasing its funding or specialising hospitals further and it's no surprise that it was a major talking point during the debate.[*]Immigration: As with the NHS, various governments involving all 3 major parties really should have done better with managing immigration. Houses were not built in sufficient quantities while existing social housing stock continued to be sold off. New Garden cities could have been built during the boom, more could have been invested in social housing to protect the poorest Britons from homelessness or the government could have restricted it for years while developing a long term strategy. Instead, a laissez-faire attitude was adopted. Things were going fine so nobody rocked the boat and northern towns which are quite poor and received no support for Westminster voted to Leave when given the chance.[*]Sovereignty: Ultimately, I think that much of the British establishment was hoping for a "Remain" win from the referendum, even among Leave leaning but not pro-Leave contingents within and without the Conservative party. It would have settled the question for a generation. However, the narrative that the UK is actually run by Brussels has permeated deep into the minds of many voters. The Ashcroft polls ascribe 49% of the Leave vote to Sovereignty which is massive, especially compared to the 33% who say they were primarily concerned about immigration. I do not know what is going to happen next. I don't think that a second referendum yielding a slight win for remain will fix anything. British society is deeply unequal and divided. Many cosmopolitans resent being dragged out of the European project by the lower classes while said lower classes struggle to see the EU and the establishment as a fixed game with the odds being stacked overwhelmingly against them. This needs addressing urgently. The right Brexit might do that. I don't know how that might happen but if the elites finally see that this schism needs addressing then that might lead to some progress and perhaps even a re-entry to the EU.
I think that failing to pay their dues will be tantamount to declaring a trade war. That will not go well for the UK, and as is said often 'No one wins a trade war'. The exit payment is only paying for those charges that they had already agreed to, so welshing on them would be considered a hostile act and result in retaliation. snip
murphaph wrote: » The thing is the UK could have controlled non-EU migration completely and they could have indirectly controlled EU migration by enforcing existing EU laws which allow them to send EU migrants home if they are freshly (<5 years) arrived and become a burden on the state.
trellheim wrote: » They are technically correct ref the divorce payment but since that implies a hard Brexit , so much the worse for them. There is narrative in the past, did we ourselves not have to pay certain sums regularly to the British post Independence
First Up wrote: » So is Brexit just a cock up caused by the geographically challenged who thought it would keep "the darkies" out? Worth mentioning that many of these simpletons spend their saturdays cheering football teams dominated by foreign players and often managed by them too.
A LEADING group of Brexiteers has warned the EU to stop bullying Britain and “get on with Brexit” – or face losing our multi-billion pound “divorce” payment.
