Will Brexit really be good for Britain?

CLAPTON

LHW99 wrote: »

IMHO the scheme has merits, but is too narrow, for example what about people who wish to study elsewhere - China, Japan, India, Middle East (when not a war zone) for example - interesting cultures, but little encouragment for cultural exchange.

Eramus is a propaganda pork barrel exercise to influence Uni's in favour of the EU : it has been amasingly successful as about 99.99% of uni people are in favour of the EU
so it would be mad to extend it elsewhere as that wouldn't benefit the EU hegemony

cogito

CLAPTON wrote: »

for very limited people that might be true, but we can't have a blanket order deporting all EU criminals

If we can't, we should be able to.

Mind you, the biggest problem is criminal gangs from the Balkans which are not EU countries. But then, they're not safe are they?

leveller2911

CKhalvashi wrote: »

We can do that now. The fact the UK chooses not to is a different matter.

It would be interesting to know why we apparently don't deport EU criminals. Could the ECHR have any bearing when we hear the defence of "Right to a family life" being trawled out endless times?. When a EU resident moves to the UK who's job is it to notify whom with regards to existing criminal record. The reason I is in the past there have been EU citizens who have moved to the UK committed crimes including murder and the UK had no previous knowledge of their criminal records and I'm sure this also happens in the EU with British citizens who have criminal records.

I don't expect you to answer btw ,I'm just thinking aloud.

Just reading the terms of Camerons deal it does seem there were major issues with the definition of the reasons where EU member states could deport criminals.

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/

If the UK turns into the car crash you describe in late 2018 to early 2019 what will be your plan then? What if there's a 10% decrease in GDP, 7-8% inflation and 20% unemployment as a worst case scenario?

Then very simply we need to deal with it, after having made the decision to leave the EU there would be no turning back imo. If the EU continues to act like a child and carry on with the threats to actively make sure the UK suffers for leaving this will not go down well in any future possible negotiations on re-entering membership. Personally I don't think or want the EU will be around in 20yrs time. I'm very open about my views ,If they had just left it as a "common market" pre 2004 it would have survived but now I hope it dies asap for the benefit of all Europeans.

I'm not trying to say it's going to, just trying to sensibly debate the matter to see where the concensus on red line is

Fair question and if things do go t*ts up we will all need to work together to make it work, no going back for me.

But the point is the decisions would have been made by us and not the EU elite.

The_Last_Username

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I'd argue that wouldn't be legally possible, as we are committed to FoM until the date we leave.

Hmm.

May I suggest that "legally" binding parts of our membership of the EU apply to both sides?
Because if the EU persist in (just for example, mind) ignoring and/or preventing UK participation in affairs of the EU up until such time as we actually cease membership, would that not mean that the EU will have already broken the terms of the treaty with the UK?
And could that not therefore be construed as in effect ceasing the membership of the UK to the EU?

Alternatively, if the UK were simply to impose severe restrictions on FOM of EU residents what could the EU do?
Revoke our membership, perhaps?

leveller2911

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Hmm.

May I suggest that "legally" binding parts of our membership of the EU apply to both sides?
Because if the EU persist in (just for example, mind) ignoring and/or preventing UK participation in affairs of the EU up until such time as we actually cease membership, would that not mean that the EU will have already broken the terms of the treaty with the UK?
And could that not therefore be construed as in effect ceasing the membership of the UK to the EU?

Alternatively, if the UK were simply to impose severe restrictions on FOM of EU residents what could the EU do?
Revoke our membership, perhaps?

You make a fair point but the UK has always played a straight bat with the EU and haven't abused the morality of EU membership in the same way other countries have.

One example was in 2004 when the Eastern European accession countries joined and even though they became full members it was only the UK,Eire and Sweden who opened their doors to their citizens from day 1.

Some would say the UK should have kept the door closed in the same way France and Germany did but we at least accepted them as full members from day one. If I remember correctly Germany kept their doors shut for a further 6 years and they claim to be at the heart of the EU..

Maybe thats our problem , we played fair..............

CKhalvashi

LHW99 wrote: »

IMHO the scheme has merits, but is too narrow, for example what about people who wish to study elsewhere - China, Japan, India, Middle East (when not a war zone) for example - interesting cultures, but little encouragment for cultural exchange.

Then there is nothing stopping the British government self-funding that, or paying into a pot with a bunch of non-EU countries to fund it, in a similar way to how Erasmus works now.

The fact is though that the UK has chosen not to.

This would probably (in practice) be a private arrangement between universities, sponsored by respective governments.

Would all of you that have commented on Erasmus mind me sharing these posts with someone who is currently on the programme (a Romanian citizen in Croatia for complete transparancy), to get the view on any specific points you've raised?

This will of course be on an 'opt in' basis, rather than opt out.

leveller2911 wrote: »

It would be interesting to know why we apparently don't deport EU criminals. Could the ECHR have any bearing when we hear the defence of "Right to a family life" being trawled out endless times?. When a EU resident moves to the UK who's job is it to notify whom with regards to existing criminal record. The reason I is in the past there have been EU citizens who have moved to the UK committed crimes including murder and the UK had no previous knowledge of their criminal records and I'm sure this also happens in the EU with British citizens who have criminal records.

I don't expect you to answer btw ,I'm just thinking aloud.

Just reading the terms of Camerons deal it does seem there were major issues with the definition of the reasons where EU member states could deport criminals.

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-deporting-eu-immigrants/

I'm more than happy to answer what my thoughts are on this (although for full transparancy I have spent the last few hours in a pub). If I've missed anything, let me know and I'll answer in the morning when not half drunk

If there is nothing that would allow us to stop certain privilages, in the same way as we can to our own criminals, then yes, I have a problem with that. I would, therefore, fully expect a foreign criminal (with certain criteria) to be banned from the UK for a period of time (probably to coincide with the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act) in the same way as if I'd served a prison sentence, I'd be subjected to similar laws in the EU.

In doing so, I would like to see compassionate reasons taken into consideration, and for this to be wide ranging. This means someone who was convicted of begging for example to show that their circumstances have changed, they have enough money to live in the first month, and a job to walk into, before being allowed entry. This, again, is whether from the EU or not, although much more flexible if yes.

I think to an extent, the UK has possibly taken ECHR judgements too literally. This could be deemed to be playing fair (certainly some Brexiteers on this thread, plus myself are in agreement on this), although it could also be that the particular cases should have been referred upwards, for legal opinion and judgement, on whether the individual could be deported. This is ultimately a matter for the British government to decide, and there is no evidence of anything bad coming from the EU on this, although I do understand how some could see this to be the case.

Then very simply we need to deal with it, after having made the decision to leave the EU there would be no turning back imo. If the EU continues to act like a child and carry on with the threats to actively make sure the UK suffers for leaving this will not go down well in any future possible negotiations on re-entering membership. Personally I don't think or want the EU will be around in 20yrs time. I'm very open about my views ,If they had just left it as a "common market" pre 2004 it would have survived but now I hope it dies asap for the benefit of all Europeans.

I think the EU will be around in some form in 20 years. The USA was part of NAFTA, there is the new Russian 'Eurasian Economic Union' (which in addition to the EU, I have protested against Georgia joining as a separate matter, because I feel the geographical and political positioning is somewhere between the two, not either/or), and ASEAN.

Countries are moving closer in a globalised world, and it makes sense to trade more with our neighbours (especially as I keep being told they're rich, culturally similar countries) than looking further afield. This in no way means we can't be a global countries, just that some businesses (like mine, and I think we're all in agreement with that too) are better placed to offer services on one continent than globally.

This isn't necessarily right, it's not necessarily wrong, but I think in my own opinion that this is the way we should be going.

Fair question and if things do go t*ts up we will all need to work together to make it work, no going back for me.

But the point is the decisions would have been made by us and not the EU elite.

Any possible referendum (and again, not saying there will be one, even though it is what I'd like if it looks really bad) should take this into account.

Personally, at around that stage if I was pro-leave would be the time to go back, at least temporarily. I'm in the minority (in a heavily pro-leave thread) and that's fine.

I think if we were to be looking at years of extreme economic conditions that we should ask the electorate for an opinion, however that is solely my opinion. At least then the government could decide it was decided to be too risky for the population, and (for a while, at least) leave it at that.

The_Last_Username wrote: »

Hmm.

May I suggest that "legally" binding parts of our membership of the EU apply to both sides?
Because if the EU persist in (just for example, mind) ignoring and/or preventing UK participation in affairs of the EU up until such time as we actually cease membership, would that not mean that the EU will have already broken the terms of the treaty with the UK?
And could that not therefore be construed as in effect ceasing the membership of the UK to the EU?

Alternatively, if the UK were simply to impose severe restrictions on FOM of EU residents what could the EU do?
Revoke our membership, perhaps?

I know you were joking, but there is no way for the EU to revoke our membership.

On the other hand, I do agree (and this will possibly work to my personal advantage) that it will work both ways if it is necessary.

I think that this will be challenged in the ECHR, and there is already a campaign to ensure that British citizens don't lose out. Wherever you stand on this, I'd encourage you to give your support to this, as whether a leaver or remainer, it will benefit you in the long run, in acting as a safety net if nothing else.

I'm cautious, and that isn't to say that those that want a fresh start are reckless, it's just saying that we have different risk tolerances.

Also, see how nice we all are now we've got that heated moment out the way? This is exactly what I wanted to discuss and how I wanted to go about it and we're finally there.

We may not agree, but I'm still happier playing devils advocate than pretending I'm completely happy, when I have many questions and want viewpoints of others.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Then there is nothing stopping the British government self-funding that, or paying into a pot with a bunch of non-EU countries to fund it, in a similar way to how Erasmus works now.

The fact is though that the UK has chosen not to.

This would probably (in practice) be a private arrangement between universities, sponsored by respective governments.

Would all of you that have commented on Erasmus mind me sharing these posts with someone who is currently on the programme (a Romanian citizen in Croatia for complete transparancy), to get the view on any specific points you've raised?

I've explained the purpose of EU funding like Erasmus

If there is nothing that would allow us to stop certain privilages, in the same way as we can to our own criminals, then yes, I have a problem with that. I would, therefore, fully expect a foreign criminal (with certain criteria) to be banned from the UK for a period of time (probably to coincide with the UK Rehabilitation of Offenders Act) in the same way as if I'd served a prison sentence, I'd be subjected to similar laws in the EU.

garbage

In doing so, I would like to see compassionate reasons taken into consideration, and for this to be wide ranging. This means someone who was convicted of begging for example to show that their circumstances have changed, they have enough money to live in the first month, and a job to walk into, before being allowed entry. This, again, is whether from the EU or not, although much more flexible if yes.

more garbage

I think to an extent, the UK has possibly taken ECHR judgements too literally. This could be deemed to be playing fair (certainly some Brexiteers on this thread, plus myself are in agreement on this), although it could also be that the particular cases should have been referred upwards, for legal opinion and judgement, on whether the individual could be deported. This is ultimately a matter for the British government to decide, and there is no evidence of anything bad coming from the EU on this, although I do understand how some could see this to be the case.

so your moral compass says that people that obey the law should be ridiculed
and those that don't praised (well as long as the first is the UK and the rest are the EU27;
you are nothing but consistent in your distain of the country in which you live

Countries are moving closer in a globalised world, and it makes sense to trade more with our neighbours (especially as I keep being told they're rich, culturally similar countries) than looking further afield. This in no way means we can't be a global countries, just that some businesses (like mine, and I think we're all in agreement with that too) are better placed to offer services on one continent than globally.

This isn't necessarily right, it's not necessarily wrong, but I think in my own opinion that this is the way we should be going.

so in a global world that is moving together , you wish to maintian your place in a protectionist white christian european grouping.

Good thinking.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

I've explained the purpose of EU funding like Erasmus

And I've explained what an alternative in addition would be.

garbage

more garbage

I said it's what should happen, not what does.

so your moral compass says that people that obey the law should be ridiculed
and those that don't praised (well as long as the first is the UK and the rest are the EU27;
you are nothing but consistent in your distain of the country in which you live

No, my moral compass said that if there's doubt, it should be referred up for an ECJ opinion.

If the government believes such a court is depriving the UK or rights it should have, it should challenge that court to decide on facts, not hearsay. There is no evidence the EC ruled in that way because it didn't, so it can't be ruled wrong. There is no evidence UK PLC took the right action, because it didn't ask.

so in a global world that is moving together , you wish to maintian your place in a protectionist white christian european grouping.

Good thinking.

I didn't say that, I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that, and you know I didn't mean that.

I also stated explicitly that we should be looking globally within a local pairing. I can't be any more explicit than that.

We've calmed this thread down and actually had a decent discussion tonight. Don't ruin it.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

And I've explained what an alternative in addition would be.

you clearly didn't read what I posted. Pork Barrel politics as the American would say.

No, my moral compass said that if there's doubt, it should be referred up for an ECJ opinion.

If the government believes such a court is depriving the UK or rights it should have, it should challenge that court to decide on facts, not hearsay. There is no evidence the EC ruled in that way because it didn't, so it can't be ruled wrong. There is no evidence UK PLC took the right action, because it didn't ask.

really you believe that governments should break the rules and laws until some-one spends huge sums of money challenging that in the courts; certainly very popular in many many coutnries of the world.

I didn't say that, I didn't say that, you know I didn't say that, and you know I didn't mean that.

I also stated explicitly that we should be looking globally within a local pairing. I can't be any more explicit than that.

We've calmed this thread down and actually had a decent discussion tonight. Don't ruin it.

You believe the best way of enbracing a increasingly global world is by ever closer union with a white, christian europe grouping.

Please don't spoil the thread by changing your mantra that the holy EU is right in all and every way and the UK is wrong: easy to remember.

gfplux

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Look, FWIW I quite understand how your repeated attempts at misleading readers by suggesting your political bias regarding the UK whilst being (and more importantly WANTING to be) outside the UK would be bought to task.
I have done so with you in the past myself.
If you don't like to be pointed out as being deceitful perhaps you could try not being deceitful?

So I have to agree with TLU.
Perhaps you could explain how - as you reside in Luxembourg - you actually obtained a right to vote in a UK referendum?
Further, how (given your stated assertion never to return to the UK as stated as in that post) you felt it morally correct to vote in the UK referendum?

Note that this is not "picking a fight" or "in anger" but a genuine attempt to understand how you think your deception is acceptable.

Oh & I note the lack of response regarding the question of Juncker.

OK Jock, first I read that you say you are not angry but to me anger seems to be seeping out between your words. I also see that there is a lot of anger on this thread and given most of the posters had voted for Brexit that anger is almost overwhelming the discussion and posts from remainders.

At this stage my uppermost emotion is sadness. The anger and disappointment about the result will you have seen from my various recent posts has now almost disappeared.

I sincerely hope that all posters, including MYSELF carefully read their own post to try to minimise the angry words.

I have tried to make my posts calm and not confrontational but might have slipped like others occasionally. I will try to do better in future.

Now to your post.
I am not trying to mislead or be deceitful but have been (more than) honest about my personal situation.
I have no political bias against the UK but as the place of my birth want what in my opinion is best for Britain.
The decision to leave the EU had saddened and frightened me but I am over that. I am very happy that since the referendum six months ago Britain has continued to prosper. Wether that is because or in spite of its continuing membership of the EU is of course for debate.
I do not intend to return to the UK because my primary family commitments are in Luxembourg. I hope you would have understood that from previous posts.
There are clear rules on who can or can not vote in Elections/referendums in the U.K. Fortunately I came in just under the deadline. I had no moral qualms in taking part in the referendum that could (and now may) effect my future.
I have in many recent posts excepted that Britain is leaving the EU and now find myself agreeing with all Brexiteers that the sooner the better.
I am not prepared or knowledgable enough about Political corruption to debate with you or anyone about it. I only know it is everywhere and not confined to "foreign" politicians.

Hopefully Jock I have answered your post as carefully as I can and perhaps by doing that any anger anyone has will NOT be directed at me.