Brexit discussion thread III

^^^
I grew up in the UK and there was a distinct start of negativity towards the EU from the British press - probably from the late 1980s and certainly from the bendy banana law in 1994, with the papers reaction to it. Facts weren't required and nearly everyone was convinced that the EU was meddling due to the way it was incorrectly reported. Even I was at the time. It was a common consensus by a vast amount of people was that the EU was bad. Certainly seemed to sow the seed and perhaps hasten the dislike for the EU. The Conservatives were in power at this time as well ('79-'96) and they did nothing as I recall to try and change the perception of the EU by the British public.

As Sam says, there was never any real public acknowledgement of any grant/infrastructure project etc being part funded by the EU - maybe a small plaque hidden someplace. I only recall education trumpeting partial funding by the EU during those years. It's as if the British Gov at the time didn't want to admit that it was getting money from the EU.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Yes Minister episode Party Games is always quite a good time guide to when this sort of thing happened.
In the episode there's an invention of an almost wholly untrue bit of EEC bureaucracy (the Euro Sausage/Offal Tube), built up to be a big deal in the press purely so that a pm candidate can be the hero when he wins out over the 'bureaucracy'.
This was in 1984 so a good few years before you estimated.

I was far too young (ahem cough) to be interested in politics then....

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Rjd2 wrote: »

That Windrush story is a scandal.

It won't inspire confidence in other people who intend to stay on in the UK the their situation won't change in future. Add in bureaucratic incompetence and bias and it's one more problem that EU citizens don't need.

The Home Office has been sending thousands of identical 'get out' letters to decades-settled EU immigrants since June 2016, just as illegally/"in error".

Though it would have been difficult for the HO to burn EU immigrants' ID cards and passports, like it allegedly did with the Windrush landing cards under May's ministerial stewardship 4 years ago or so.

Any EU and non-EU immigrant still in the UK, who can't see the font size 100, day-glo writing on the wall, urgently needs an eyesight check.

This won't get any better soon (the HO will just turn to the next target of convenience in the name of political expediency) and exiting the ECHR is next for May & Co.

EdgeCase wrote: »

I tend to agree, these 'accidents' are getting a bit ridiculous.
This is the same agency that put out "Go Home Vans" in areas with high levels of immigration a few years ago.

And it’s part of the same policy.

The treatment of the Windrush generation isn’t an error in the system; it is the system. May promised a “hostile environment”. This is what a hostile environment looks like.

On edit: Just to be clear, "hostile environment" isn't a pejorative term used by critics of the policy; it's the government's own term, and it turns up in lots of official documents. This is a government with a policy of hostility. The policy mainly consists of a variety of measures which requires people to prove their immigration status in contexts where this wasn't previously necessary - when applying for a driving licence, opening a bank account, applying for a job, signing a lease, registering at a GP practice, etc. If you can't document your status, this gets reported to the Home Office. Basically, if the government has failed over the years to keep records which establish your immigration status (or if it had those records but destroyed them some years ago) then this becomes your problem. You may actually have indefinite leave to remain in the UK; you may have settled status; you may indeed be a British citizen. But if you can't prove the circumstances that give you this status, you're treated as an illegal immigrant. You lose your job, have your bank accounts frozen, are denied healthcare, cannot rent a home, get threatening letters from the Home Office, get picked up and put in in immigration detention, get deported. The government admits that it does not know how many people with a right to remain in Britain have been deported, nor how many British citizens have been deported.

There has been no evaluation of the policy since it started to be rolled out (in 2014). Indeed, evaluation is hardly possible, since the policy never had any announced targets or outcomes. Nor was it based on any evidence that pre-existing measures were insufficient or ineffective. The government's justification for the policy has never been evidence-based in this way; the justification asserted is simply that the policy is right in principle, and that it is popular.

In short, if you set about designing a policy guaranteed to turn into a train wreck, you'd come up with something quite like this. In the context of Brexit, the timing of the train wreck is, um, inauspicious. Given the barely-concealed xenophobia that underpinned at least a significant part of the Brexit campaign, the EU is understandably concerned about the status and rights of EU nationals in the UK after Brexit. The UK has already made a number of concessions to try to reassure the Union about this, but the current circumstances must call into question the competence and the dependability of the British government to follow through on and honour the commitments it makes with regard to EU citizens. And offers of indefinite leave to remain and/or settled status for EU nationals won't carry the heft they should, given this vivid demonstration of how the UK, as a matter of current policy, treats people who already have those statuses.

The draft withdrawal agreement already contains language providing for an "independent authority" to monitor and enforce EU citizens rights post-Brexit, with the powers that the European Commission now has in this regard. Expect renewed focus on this, and a desire on the EU side to see it beefed up.

Its a little scary that the architect of the policy is in charge of the country right now. Is it any surprise the person she saw fit to replace her at a debate for leaders is in her previous role. She trusts Amber Rudd to continue the work she started, just like she trusted her to be her voice in a TV debate.

I don't expect a change in policy from the Home Office at least. Is there actually, if there is an election and the Conservatives stay in power but get rid of Theresa May, any chance of a change in strategy?

Agree with the above. I'd wonder what measures May is going to actually put in place to right this wrong. I wouldnt be too surprised if they continued to judge this on a case by case basis and that the comments seen by May in the media recently are just PR to dampen the media storm and mobilisation by the affected communities.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It won't inspire confidence in other people who intend to stay on in the UK the their situation won't change in future. Add in bureaucratic incompetence and bias and it's one more problem that EU citizens don't need.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43794366

Its pure racism, and its a direct result of the scare tactics that May has been at for years now. Any EU citizen would be smart to get out now. The UK has embraced its Xenophobia.

In the Express today they have a clip of Farage in the EU complaining that May has sold out the EU, that they never wanted a transition deal etc.

Not quite sure why he thinks that giving such a speech has any relevance in the EU, surely he would be better giving this speech at home (although I suppose that is what it is aimed at)

Anyway, looking at some of the comments below the article, the number of posts about May being weak, the UK having no real politicians etc etc. There are few (I didn't read them all) that ask why Farage did not make all this a possibility prior to the vote. Surely as an EU politician he must have known the approach the EU would have taken?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm still thinking about my own future here. I'd ruled a return to Ireland out years ago but it's something I find myself thinking more and more about.

The 2014 immigration act which caused this only had 18 MP's vote against it so anyone expecting Labour to be the heroes here are in for disappointment:

https://twitter.com/AllyFogg/status/986528249651126273

But who were those that voted against it? We have an internal Labour fight where lots of people want to get rid of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott, yet they were the ones to vote against the act. People would rather see those that abstained take control in the Labour party. So is it any wonder Labour under Milliband was so soundly defeated at the polls. They were just Tories light but Milliband doesn't look like Cameron. But it doesn't seem like either Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn will be fit to lead. So what the hell now?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The 2014 immigration act which caused this only had 18 MP's vote against it so anyone expecting Labour to be the heroes here are in for disappointment:

Aren't those the exact Labour MPs you are always complaining about being too extreme and left wing to ever be in Goverrnment? Including Jeremy Corbyn that you think is so useless?

You yourself prefer the bit of the Labour Party that voted for this mess.