Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

So there's no power to send home EU residents who've failed to get a job or support themselves within 3 months?

Nor were there any changes to the Citizens Rights Directive agreed on Feb 19th, 2016 (before the referendum)?

I must be mistaken then, sorry.

Here's an article explaining those fictional options, anyway: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/richard-bird/immigration-blame-the-uk-_b_13120104.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer_us=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_cs=Xw4PlYDJDTgEwfwD3b9f2A

Those powers should completely irradicate the "foreigners coming and taking all the benefits" narrative, but won't do much for the "and all our jobs" part. They'd still be allowed to come here if they managed to get a job that supports themselves., which will still be "bad news" for the people complaining that we're full, or houses prices are too high or the roads/busses/schools/hospitals are too busy.

As per you are not reading what someone tells you.

You can show me all the rules and existing powers you want. It doesn’t make any difference because I am dealing with actual reality not theory.

Just think about it logically. Why has no-one figured out the same as you appear to have?
Not one civil servant, MP, journalist, political advisor, campaigner.
None of them have proposed using existing powers and shutting this whole issue down.

Jezza could stand in front of conference today and spell it out exactly like you say and he’d be PM in a shot. Why doesn’t he?

The only logical explanation is that you are much much cleverer than all those other people.

mrginge

Lungboy wrote: »

The UK has always had the power to kick out anyone from the EU after 6 months if they didn't have a job. The government never chose to use those powers, but they were there. If they had been enacted, i think people would have been an awful lot happier.

Why don’t they announce they will enact them from today then and we can stay in the SM via the EEA, still make our own trade deals and at the same time deal with FOM in a way that keeps the majority happy. Then we can all get on with our lives.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

Spain's dispute stems from the invasion of its territory by the British and Dutch 300 years ago. People like you decry illegal occupations like the invasion of Iraq but are prepared to defend the imperialism of 1704....

The War of the Spanish Succession. Didn't Spain try to invade us at some previous point?

BobQ wrote: »

As to the Falklands in 1982, the EU did not exist. There was an economic alliance but that was the EEC with the emphasis on trade not political unity.

The EU is just the post Maastricht name for the EEC. Ever closer union has always been the objective dating back to the Treaty of Rome.

Enterprise_1701C

mrginge wrote: »

Why don’t they announce they will enact them from today then and we can stay in the SM via the EEA, still make our own trade deals and at the same time deal with FOM in a way that keeps the majority happy. Then we can all get on with our lives.

The eu will say that does not deal with the NI question. Whatever we come up they will say the same. They are using NI as a cosh to try to force us to remain in the eu, either that or they are simply trying to take over NI for their own reasons.

Herzlos

It's a valid point though isn't it. The EU didn't enact the GFA that's got Mays hands tied?
Realistically her only options are to remain in the customs union or violate the GFA.

Mays nonsense about just moving the location of the border checks may satisfy the wording of the rules if you squint hard enough but still violates the principle.
Personally I think she should just scrap the GFA and give the people of NI a referendum on where they want the border to be, even if it means Irish reunification and a restart of the troubles.

mrginge wrote: »

You can show me all the rules and existing powers you want. It doesn’t make any difference because I am dealing with actual reality not theory.

The actuality is that the rules existed long before the referendum. There's no theory about it.

Just think about it logically. Why has no-one figured out the same as you appear to have?
Not one civil servant, MP, journalist, political advisor, campaigner.
None of them have proposed using existing powers and shutting this whole issue down.[/quote


These powers were pointed out many times in the run up to the referendum, in the Remain campaign (Cameron mentioned it a few times), the press and on here but ignored, likely because it didn't suit and something about being "sick of experts".

There's an article on fullfact.org from Feb 2016, one on the BBC from 6th June 2016.


So your 'reality' statement is indisputably wrong.


Why didn't it make a difference? I'm not actually sure. To be honest by the time June 2016 rolled around I think everyone was largely set in their views and facts were become less relevant as the emotive arguments were swaying everyone in the middle. Some people were/are set on blaming the EU for everything despite all the evidence in front of them.

andrewf75

mrginge wrote: »

Why don’t they announce they will enact them from today then and we can stay in the SM via the EEA, still make our own trade deals and at the same time deal with FOM in a way that keeps the majority happy. Then we can all get on with our lives.

Because its politically toxic. For politicians its much more about *being seen to* solve problems than actually solving them.

mrginge

Herzlos wrote: »

The actuality is that the rules existed long before the referendum. There's no theory about it.

These powers were pointed out many times in the run up to the referendum, in the Remain campaign (Cameron mentioned it a few times), the press and on here but ignored, likely because it didn't suit and something about being "sick of experts".

There's an article on fullfact.org from Feb 2016, one on the BBC from 6th June 2016.

So your 'reality' statement is indisputably wrong.

Why didn't it make a difference? I'm not actually sure. To be honest by the time June 2016 rolled around I think everyone was largely set in their views and facts were become less relevant as the emotive arguments were swaying everyone in the middle. Some people were/are set on blaming the EU for everything despite all the evidence in front of them.

You can’t have it both ways matey.
You said that the existing powers argument will make the leavers switch sides.
Now you are saying that the argument was made during the referendum when it apparently didn’t make leavers switch sides :doh:

And of course it’s all the press’ fault lol.

Why isn’t anyone still making it?
Why aren’t the grauniad or Indy banging the drum?
Why isn’t jezza?

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Unfortunately, yes. I really should ignore the news and internet until about May when we'll see what's actually going on. What part of my statement do you disagree with?





I don't remember anyone from the Leave campaign even implying there would be compromise on our side; it was very much a case of cherry picking on the basis that "they need us more than we need them", and people were being promised everything. No immigrants, more jobs, more money, no EU regulations.






There has been very little analysis of how to satisfy everyone without leaving, that's true. It's a shame because I think that would likely be the best option, albeit one that'd cause outrage in the right wing rags, the Tory rebels etc and would likely see the Tories losing power for a while (which I think will happen anyway - there's no clean way out of this).

But from what I can see there are 3 camps unwilling to compromise: The Eurosceptics (Farage, Mogg et al.), the diehard remainers (of whom there are precious little), and the EU (who at this stage, don't have anything to compromise on).

If we were presenting a uniform front the EU might be more likely to relax on some if it's red lines especially if they thought we would. But I get the distinct impression they think we will back down and remain, they could have made a concession on FOM to Cameron then we would not be in this impression, but they were convinced we wouldn't leave.

.string.

andrewf75 wrote: »

Most clearly did, but they were told they could have their cake and eat it, i.e freed from all the obligations with continued access to the single market.

"we could be like Switzerland"
"only a madman would propose leaving the single market"
etc etc

Soft and hard Brexit's are very simply defined, the trouble is people wanted the best of both worlds! People wanted hard in terms of the freedom from rules, but a soft in terms of our economic relationship and keeping an open border in Ireland. Even now, our government are STILL not making the choice, pretending there is some middle ground and that's why we're in the mess we're in.

I come from a similar direction, no doubt with some differences of course. I voted remain and thought the result was born out of knuckle dragging jingoism even though some had indeed thought it through and come to their conclusion. But the decision was made, I accept it and want the best result out of it.

During the referendum period, the Irish Border was mentioned and indeed not given enough thought but nevertheless I think it has assumed an unwarranted importance and is, as has just been remarked, being used by the EU as a tool to "capture" the UK in a trade situation of most benefit to the EU.

I don't go along with the idea that the Irish Border is automatically an insoluble problem. As an Engineer, I don't believe in problems that can't be solved. But up to now it has been made so by the EU and only recently have we seen cracks in that approach with the possibility of remote control being mooted.

But the rigid dogma of the EU has, up to now, spawned the Chequers scheme. It, or a scheme like it, is indeed the only solution. But if cracks appear in the EU dogma, it would open the door to a Free Trade approach and there may well be a sudden shift to the so-called Canada +×+×+× approach. It will probably be called "Chequers with a Canadian accent".

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

If we were presenting a uniform front the EU might be more likely to relax on some if it's red lines especially if they thought we would. But I get the distinct impression they think we will back down and remain, they could have made a concession on FOM to Cameron then we would not be in this impression, but they were convinced we wouldn't leave.

Our broken front doesn't help, but I honestly don't think the EU would be backing down anyway. If they gave us what we're asking it'd be the end of the EU, and as they've said from day 1: no cherry picking.

mrginge wrote: »

You can’t have it both ways matey.
You said that the existing powers argument will make the leavers switch sides.
Now you are saying that the argument was made during the referendum when it apparently didn’t make leavers switch sides :doh:

No, I said we should be looking into using the existing rules to satisfy leavers that their concerns will be met whilst remaining in the EU. That means addressing their actual concerns and showing how they'll be sorted. Just pointing out that these powers already exist is clearly not sufficient. But since we don't know what the concerns actually are, it's pretty hard to counter.

And of course it’s all the press’ fault lol.

It's not entirely the press' fault, but they certainly don't help. People have been conditioned to hate the EU over decades of propaganda. Some valid, some not.

Why isn’t anyone still making it?
Why aren’t the grauniad or Indy banging the drum?
Why isn’t jezza?

Honestly I've got no idea. They either think it's not sufficient, or they think it's politically toxic to even suggest remaining.



None of that alters the facts that the rules do exist, and are being used by other countries whilst the UK ignores them.