Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

Malthusian

phillw wrote: »

AFAICT they didn't bother because people weren't coming from the EU and not getting a job.

Nearly half of all rough sleepers in the UK are from the EU. There are slightly more of them than UK-born rough sleepers.

As Sir Humphrey said about EU rules: "The Germans love them, the French ignore them, the Italians are too chaotic to enforce them, only the British resent them." Same applies to immigration rules. The UK Government could enforce EU provisions on unproductive and criminal migrants but never will. That is what the British public resent, not immigration itself.

trf1960

I keep questioning what it was that David Cameron got so miffed off with the EU for, when he went asking for reform/changes and they told him where to go, for him to then put it to Parliament and for them to agree to a referendum in the first place!

lisyloo

Herzlos wrote: »

How often to EU ex-cons come here and murder native Brits? I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head. I had thought the Lee Rigby killer but despite a foreign name he was born in London.

I’m not sure numbers matter when we are talking about perceived unfairnesses.
There are spouses who cannot see their children but we let ex-cons in.

If one MP gets a fine for fiddling expenses and one benefits claimant gets put in jail for the same, its not the numbers it’s the perceived unfairness.

phillw

lisyloo wrote: »

I’m not sure numbers matter when we are talking about perceived unfairnesses.
There are spouses who cannot see their children but we let ex-cons in.

Right, it's much easier to be prejudiced against ex-cons if you're the kind of person that lets themselves be prejudiced.

The whole point of rehabilitation of offenders is that ex-cons are supposed to be left alone to get on with their lives. If you've done the time, then you should not be made into a lower class. Partly from a fairness point of view, but also if you keep at it then they'll perceive there is no point in staying out of trouble.

You can't have perceived fairness all your own way.

What spouses can't see their children?

gfplux

BobQ wrote: »

I have no problems with the aspirations stated in the political declaration. Were this implemented I would be content that it is least worse Brexit option. My objection is that it not agreed, it is aspirational, so can be changed.

May will go when this gets through Parliament, The rules for the election of Tory leader mean that about 150,000 members will elect a leader who is not as pragmatic as May and will take a more hardline approach and will not agree with this aspirational document.



I agree it needs to end. Just not sure how it will happen if the agreement cannot be made Boris-proof.

I can see why the EU is bemused by our behavior and our lack of clarity on what we want. What they have perhaps misunderstood is that blindly sticking to TFEU and not getting on with a trade deal before the exit is agreed is not helping the UK reach agreement.

If two sides negotiate and agree a way they will work together in the future even if it is not legally binding it is at least a strong signpost as to the way forward. What is not to like about that.

It will never a legally binding document whatever the name of the British Prime Minister. It will only turn into a legal framework if Britain sits down to negotiate it in detail opposite 27 friends.

It will not happen if Britain leaves without a deal at the end of October 2019 and sits down (after some delay) opposite 27 EX FRIENDS who have been financially and politically damaged by Britain’s actions.

gfplux

movilogo wrote: »

Businesses are adjusting to Brexit. In this manner, soon No Deal would not be a major problem.

What a shocking misunderstanding of what businesses have been doing for the last 33 months and complete madness to suggest a no deal will not be a huge problem for both sides that will destroy jobs and sour our future relationship with 27 countries.

I am tempted to ask what you and your close family members do for a living but I will not.

Herzlos

lisyloo wrote: »

I’m not sure numbers matter when we are talking about perceived unfairnesses.

I think that's the crux of the problem - people have been told that being in the EU is bad because of a list of spurious reasons, and since it matches their prejudice they are happy to go along with it, despite most of the reasons either being (a) not the EU's fault (local issues), (b) fictional (£350 for the NHS, the refugee poster) or (c) blown out of all proportion (being full up, EU criminals etc).

As mentioned - once a criminal has served time their debt to society is assumed to be paid off and they are free to live a normal life wherever they were born. If we don't allow them to do that, we essentially produce a caste of outlaws who have no incentive to play along. Sort of like the US system where ex-cons struggle to find work/accomodation and have no choice but to go back to crime, coupled with the 3 strike policy which means you may as well go to jail for murder rather than stealing bread. Though that seems set up to fund the for-profit prison system.


You can claim we need to leave the EU to stop EU criminals coming over here and murdering people, but it seems to hold the same merit as claiming that EU citizens contributing here is the reason the Dodo went extinct. It does confirm the idea that Brexit was an ideological deal and is immune to facts and reasoning.

trf1960 wrote: »

I keep questioning what it was that David Cameron got so miffed off with the EU for, when he went asking for reform/changes and they told him where to go, for him to then put it to Parliament and for them to agree to a referendum in the first place!

He's not in any way miffed with the EU (with the exception of the tax evasion laws, since his dad was implicated in the Panama papers) - he wanted to stay, and campaigned to stay. The referendum was purely about killing off the euro-skeptic Tories and UKIP, and it's failed spectacularly.

lisyloo

phillw wrote: »

What spouses can't see their children?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35552289

lisyloo

You can claim we need to leave the EU to stop EU criminals coming over here

These are not my personal views.
I’m talking about why other people voted to leave.
I cannot and do not defend their views as logical or even right but I observing and accepting that other voters hold these views.
Not much point telling me they are wrong or illogical - I know that - but whether you like it or not they got a vote that counted as much as yours.

fWIW I voted to stay and I am pro immigrantion (I believe my views are different because I spend time in London where the value of immigration is very clear).

Herzlos

lisyloo wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35552289

Isn't he one of the immigrants we want to keep out?


Seriously though, I agree with you in that the immigration system in the UK is a joke - windrush, pensioners being denied settled status, invites being issued for hundreds of Indian doctors the NHS desperately needed and being cancelled because that months quota was used up.


Or this horror show a new baby born in the UK, to settled parents, was denied settled status and only given a 6 month tourist visa: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/apr/20/uk-born-baby-of-parents-with-right-to-remain-given-six-month-tourist-stamp


The rules seem to be enforced with no common sense and really targetting the low hanging fruit.


The immigration system is a joke, and is only done to pretend to be hard on migrants to placate the right wing.