UKC

Theresa seems to be having a torrid time at the G20. The rest of the world seem astonished at the UK's total lack of preparation for Brexit. What on earth were we thinking of? We don't even have a Plan A.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

It's an odd position to be placed in, since everyone knows that she thinks it's a shit idea anyway, but some total plonkers landed us in it. I don't mean the voters, I mean Cameron, Johnson and Pob.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I take it you mean the ones that voted the current Tory government in.
I'm thankful that I've only got another 25 years left, it's my poor children that I despair for.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
I must say that I am surprised at the the lack of replies to this post from the pro-Leavers who scoffed at every argument I and others posted on here before the vote. The G20 shows that the message is finally sinking in that we can't have curbs on free movement AND be part of the tariff-free single market (warnings from Japanese and others). And that to leave the single market would mean a drop in GDP and a recession (May warns of stormy times ahead). The £350 million for the NHS is accepted by everyone as a lie - the figure is more like a £100 million, which is about what we would pay to remain in the single market. I hate to say it: I told you so. But then I still suspect that in the end we won't leave.

In reply to Pekkie:

Apart from being disappointed about the leave vote, I am still flabbergasted at how stupid the whole debate was right from its initial premise. No Brexiter can claim they know what Brexit actually means. Many Brexiters have contradictory notions of a Brexit Britain which put them almost as far apart as they are from Remain.
There are some shrewd and principled Brexit proponents, I am sure, but the majority who voted to exit haven't a clue , (apart from thinking it was something to do with "Freedom") and don't know that we haven't actually left yet.
It was like voting to go to war then asking afterwards who we were actually fighting.

In reply to Pekkie:


No one cares about the Tories ruining our country, everyone's far too interested in whether Jeremy Corbyn walked past an empty seat or not.

In reply to RyanOsborne:

I said in a previous post that I suspected that we would never leave. Well how about this?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-article-50-eu-referen...

In reply to Pekkie:

My thoughts a little bit too, where are all the confident posts by the Leave voters?

There was a lot before voting day.

In reply to Lusk:


Probably not. This unholy pile of shit was voted for by people across the spectrum. It happens to fall to a Tory prime minister to try to sort it out (or more realistically miimise the damage).

Looking on the bright side though we will be able to set up a trade agreement with Australia which is going to boost our GDP no end. Although possibly all the bar staff will have gone.

In reply to GrahamD:


True. But the tories and tory voters are responsible for us having a referendum in the first place.


They scheduled the referendum for early in their five years - it was always going to be a Tory left to clean it up

In reply to Pete Pozman:



Agree re the stupidity, no to mention the downright lies, but look at it another way. Did we, or any other country joining the EU, believe it was irreversible ? And if countries can't leave the EU smoothly and without punitive consequences, then maybe we should be worried about the rise of a super-state.

Yes the prevailing mood at the G20 was "How could you be so stupid?", but the purpose of the G20 is ensure stability and growth, so it's hardly a surprise. It's would be easier and better all round if GB was in the EU, but has anyone told Japan for example, that any trade deals are dependent upon it's immigration policy ?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

http://newsthump.com/2016/09/05/nigel-farage-accuses-theresa-may-of-breakin...

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:



All I can say in Cameron's defence is that he totally overestimated the intelligence of the British public. Calling a referendum was (in hinsight) stupid but calling the referendum on its own didn't cause the mess.

I suppose the feckless always need to point the finger somewhere though.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Anyone who voted for Brexit in the face of all the warnings and with the lack of any game plan was a total plonker. Sorry if that upsets some folk, but what the hell were you thinking!?

In reply to Trangia:

Those with something to gain convinced people who felt they had nothing to lose

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Ouch! Terrifyingly true.

In reply to Trangia:
You and your fellow 'remainers' just can't let it go can you.
We had a vote and one side lost.
If the case for remain had been so convincing then your side would have won.
Even after all the years of EU membership your side couldn't convince a majority of those who voted to stay.
One of the reasons that there isn't a plan is that the EU in all its maturity refuses to begin any form of negotiation till article 50 is invoked.
The reason why there wasn't a plan is that people ( the remainers led by Cameron) were too arrogant to consider that they might lose.
Time to stop moaning and calling people names and get on with it.
As I type this it appears that the service industry has bounced back from its immediate post vote slump according to just released figures.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
I read something interesting, about how the narrative of the relatively poorer being those who made Brexit happen not being the whole picture, I'll see if I can find it. A relative, who is pretty open minded with friends of different races/nationalities/creeds etc (and who isn't hard up), was vaguely pro Brexit because of how undemocratic he thought the EU had become, and how 'the rules' were fudged to allow Greece to join, and then there being hell to pay for Greece when things went pear shaped, partly as a result of the rules having been fudged to allow it to join in the first place (in his point of view). In the end he didn't get around to voting.

In reply to baron:

Why would it be incumbent upon the Remainers to have a plan for something they don't want to happen - isn't the responsibility for that more one for Leave-ers?

In reply to baron:

I usually resist getting involved

Badly thought out ground rules IMHO

Debateable. The UK habit of protest voting has caught quite a few by surprise I would suggest.

It is not unreasonable for the exiters to have had plans in place if they won.

Unfortunately, yes.

Why can't folk think long term? One set of figures may be pleasing but so what, its just a snapshot.

In reply to baron:

You still haven't explained why you voted that way in the face of all the warnings and in the absence of any game plan?

And I am not being "wise after the event", if you followed my pre-eferendum posts you will have seen that I was asking these questions on this forum prior to that vote. So I ask again, what the hell were you thinking?

In reply to baron:
PS: As a pondering on human nature, there's people who still grumble about Thatcher, so I don't know how realistic it is to expect people to 'stop moaning' and get on with it?

( I'm a Sheffielder bred (since age three) but not born, and even I'm vaguely bored by people who still grumble about Thatcher. I can kind of see why some people do though, with 1 in 5 house holds having both parents out of work at some point during the early 80's, for some people it's a scar on their psyche almost, where as I'm too young to remember it. )

In reply to Pete Pozman:


You really need to calm down.

Australia and several other important countries express their desire to achieve a trade deal,.Japan expresses its wish that we get a good deal with the EU so that they can maintain their investments here. The outgoing US President says he wants to achieve a deal with Europe (which most UKCers seemed not to want) before dealing with US. Given that TIPP is dead in the water, what chance that his successor decides instead to cut a deal with a State that is actually capable of cutting a deal?

Meanwhile the financial turmoil and short term economic armageddon that we were promised has come to nought.

No doubt they'll be bumps along the road and some economic impact whilst negotiations take place but nothing that has happened since June 23rd has been worse than anticipated and much has been better.

Cheer up, it'll be fine.

In reply to Postmanpat:
Did you know that the UK has traded access rights to the EU with other countries as 'a commodity', in return for favourable terms (for whatever it is) in return/getting something else back? Once we leave that'll be something we'll no longer have to trade with.

In reply to Timmd:


Spot on. The Remainers were content to carry on with the stats quo, it was the Leavers who voted for change when there was no plan as to how that would be implemented and how the UK would deal with the inevitable repercussions. I am sorry if Leaver's feathers are being ruffled by this, but I am bloody angry that people could be so stupid as to vote like that in the dark. What kind of irresponsible idiot votes blind like that? The repercussions of this are going to have a long term effect on my children and grandchildren.

If the Leavers had come up with a game plan prior to the vote I would have respected them, but there was no plan.

In reply to baron:
Do you think there is a case for complaint if some defrauds you or should you just let it go? Is there not a bit of you that thinks that a lot of people were either conned, e.g. Lies about Turkey joining the EU and £350 million per week for the NHS?

Not really, propaganda wars have been won with a less strong hand than the Brexiters had

It's very rare to find an institution that people whole heartedly endorse be it work, the incumbent govt or the EU. When the alternative it is being compared to is just a made up utopia then efforts to defend it are going to look half hearted:
Remainers:"It's not prefect"
Brexiters: "but the alternative is!"
Remainers: "No it isn't"
Brexiters: "Project fear!"

This was always known, why would anyone show their hand in a negotiation before the negotiation begins? If the case for Leave is so strong why are we not invoking Article 50 and just taking our chances? There are WTO defaults that can be used for trade, we can still use EU standards or reject them as we want, we were told the EU would bend over backwards to give us a good deal, why the reticence from the senior leavers on the day of the result?

Well in the three months since there's been no hint of a plan either, let's see there is one in the next three.

I disagree, the vote was meant to be non binding yet we are now being told it's not even up for debate in parliament, there definitely something to moan about there.

Yep, over a three month period things are back to where we were, is that a good thing? We might have had three months growth were it not for this, let's remember a) things haven't begun yet, b) 60 billion being pumped into the economy in the form of QE to see it stagnate is neither good nor normal.

In reply to Tyler:



Exactly.

In reply to Timmd:

>
Where was the remainers' plan? Was it the Corbyn plan? Or the Cameron plan? Or the Tim wotisname plan or the Green plan?

The brexiters were not a political party any more than the remainers. They were a loose alliance that agreed on one thing. There is no more reason that they should have a joint policy than the remainers

In reply to Postmanpat:


The Remainers accepted the status quo. Why does that need a plan??

In reply to Timmd:


Can you rephrase that?

In reply to Postmanpat:
The UK has access rights to the EU market, and has traded some of these access rights in return for something else, be that getting something cheaper from another country than if it hadn't given them some of these access rights, or just getting something else in return. Obviously, we won't have this 'chip' to trade with once we've left the EU.

( I'm off for my tea/dinner )

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yep, this is good, we have a trade surplus with them although this might change as they have a lot of commodities they need to dump.

How are you spinning this as a good thing? They've said they are going to withdraw investment and jobs if we don't get a similar deal to that which we now have, so at best things will stay the same but very likely get worse!

TIPP is a terrible deal and it looks like the EU might resist, will the UK be able to hold out against it, especially when the U.S. Knows we are desperate to cut a deal, any deal.

Well apart from the plummeting pound the credit rating and QE. Oh, and the fact we're in a phoney war where many are hedging that we won't leave. I disagree that things will be apocalyptic but equally we've not fired the starting pistol on the real economic turmoil this will induce.

Weren't a lot of the worst predictions predicated on Article 50 being invoked?

In reply to Trangia:
The remainers were led by the Prime Minister. A man so sure of himself that he had no idea of how to cope with losing. As Prime Minister he had a duty to the country to hope for the 'best, and prepare for the 'worst'. This he failed to do. His fellow remainers, yourself included, failed to ask what we would do should we vote to leave. Is this how you run your life - when your plan A goes wrong you don't have a plan B?
The leavers were a disparate group of people who had many and varied reasons for leaving. What they didn't have was an actual leader. Instead they had politicians who had somehow managed to become the face of the leave campaign without many leavers actually supporting them.
People didn't vote to leave because of Messers Gove, Johnson or Farage persuading them. They voted because they didn't like the status quo and for many of them it was indeed a protest vote. Your point about there not being a plan is a good one however I'm not convinced that the EU has a workable plan for coping with ongoing and possible upcoming events and that the status quo as it was pre vote was sustainable.
Now we need a leader to lead the country out of the EU. Do we have such a person? Time will tell

In reply to Tyler:

'Double exactly'. How bad TIPP is deserves a new thread, it's a complex issue.

In reply to Trangia:


Because they all had diferent visions of what the EU should look like and how the UK should relate to it.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I don't agree. I think things like honour and integrity, mean that Farage and Boris and Gove (or Farage and Boris at least) should have had some kind of plan for the possibility of the Leave vote winning, but instead Boris looked rather pale and shaky on the Friday when it appeared that Brexit had won, and Farage resigned in search of having his life back (!) You don't run a business like that, why should politics/the destiny of a country be any different?

In reply to Tyler:
>
No they haven't. The ambassador clarified that they don't want to withdraw (not that the government makes suh decisions anyway). They find the UK a great base for their European bases and are therefore putting pressure on to get the sort of deal that we want to achieve anyway.

>
Well if it's a terrible deal it's good that we can make out own choice on it.


>
No. There were short term predictions: which hare turning out to be largely wrong, medium term predictions (between now and actual brexit or the announcemnt of terms) , and long term predictions. There is obviously a risk that some investment is put on hold in period 2 and that this has a knock on negative effect but the risks of other things like an Italian banking crisis or probably much greater.

You'll have noticed that Mervyn King, amongst others, has acknowledged of the negative longs terms forecasts that "The mistake was to portray these extreme outcomes in the future as almost inevitable rather than what they were, which were highly speculative forecasts,”

In reply to Postmanpat:

So did/do the Brexit collective...

In reply to Timmd:

>

Well yes. It may maintain access rights to the UK and also get flexibility in achieveing deals with other States.

In reply to Timmd:


Why wouldn't it have been incumbent upon them? Cameron et al, i.e. remainers, put the referendum on the table, only an idiot would not have considered that voting to leave was a realistic possibity. During the campaign Cameron said he wouldn't resign if he lost so in theory it should have been up to him to deal with a leave vote and therefore incumbent upon him to prepare for it.
Anyway, what's the rush? Nothing changes until we do leave and the sky isn't falling in, waiting 6 months to trigger article 50 to devise a strategy seems a highly sensible thing to do in the circumstances.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The vote was simple enough - Remain or Leave. In answer to that question no plan was required so far a remain was concerned. Whether or not the staus quo needed tweaking was not the issue, but if at some future dated it needed that, only remaining would have given the UK a future voice.

In reply to pec:
I don't think you can say 'remainers' put the referendum on the table - and thus blame remainers for not having a plan if the Leave vote won, it was Cameron who put the referendum on the table - and then didn't have a plan (silly old him you might say), but neither did the people campaigning for Brexit after turning out to get what they'd been asking for (wouldn't you have a plan for when you've got what you've been asking for? I certainly would). Farage got what he'd been asking for and then promptly resigned. He's still taking his pay from the EU through being an MEP though, last I heard. I can't see any integrity in him.

In reply to Timmd:


Er, that's exactlythe exactly point I'm making. We don't expect the remainers to agree on everything so we shouldn't expect the brexiters to.

In reply to Trangia:


Many of the leavers did have a plan, the problem is they weren't on the ballot paper and since nobody knew who would be in charge we couldn't pick which of their plans we happened to fancy most. As it turns out we've got a remainer in charge (sort of) who is taking her time to formulate a plan and funnily enough the world is still spinning while she does.

In reply to Trangia:


Of course there was. Even most remainers agree that the EU is deeply flawed as is the UK's relationship with it. How did we plan to improve it? Never saw a plan.....

In reply to Postmanpat:
How about agreeing on something! Outers have no plan at all and have largely vanished anyway, but insist "something" happens. May does at least seem sane...

In reply to Tyler:


Who told you that? Legally its not binding but nobody from any side at any point in the campaign ever said it wasn't going to be binding. Everybody assumed the result would be repected just as the result of all ten previous referendums held in the UK have been respected.
If there was one thing that would undermine public trust in politicains more than anything else it would be to say "yes you can have a referendum on this matter but if we don't like your answer you can all piss off 'cos we're going to do what we want anyway."

In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes we all know the type of deal the UK wants to achieve and presumably Japanaese banks and car manufacturers are quite happy with the deal we currently have so far so cordial. But what happens if we don't achieve that deal? That's worse for the UK as far as Japanese investment is concerned so, like I said, things may stay the same or may get worse, there's no scenario where things get better on this particular issue.

There's no point having the power to make decisions independently of the EU if we are immediately cowed into making disadvantageous deals with other trading partners, do you honestly think the UK will be in a position to negotiate with the U.S. on this? This is one are where Europe is stronger together I expect the EUs ability to stand firm is also diminished by the UK leaving the EU

Eh? There wasn't just one prediction? For the apocalyptic to 'meh' but before we can say any of them were right or wrong we need to at least have invoked Article 50.

All forecasts speculative and he's not saying they are necessarily wrong just that they cannot be considered definite, that's axiomatic and doesn't alter anything. Brexiters seem to be in denial that because things aren't as bad as the worst predictions this is somehow a good thing. Surely for Brexiters to be vindicated things need to be better not just 'only mildly worse, so far'? I've not heard any speculation lately around how things will improve.

In reply to Tyler:
So now the 52% of us who voted leave have been persuaded by the remainers arguments and have realised what a huge mistake we made and how foolish we were to be so easily duped. We'd like to remain in the EU.
How would that work?

In reply to pec:
Everyone, it's the truth.

See?

I voted on a simple in or out question, there is still plenty to discuss and that should be done through parliament, there are still many shades of grey between the "Norway model" and "kick the fekkers out" and the referendum question didn't cover that.

Maybe for you, but for me what's undermining my trust in politicians is them standing by and allowing the country to be lead into this based on a vote they know to have been carried by lies and deceit. I want my politicians to have the courage of their convictions, so those in favour of remain to do so (and be allowed to do so). Of the country doesn't like it they'll be voted out at the next GE but to meekly surrender on the most important issue the country has faced in a generation is what undermines my faith in them (obviously this goes both ways).

In reply to baron:



Nope, the majority of those 52% would vote the same way regardless. What was your point?

In reply to Tyler:
>
Actually there is. We will have greater ability to cut deals with would be investors. But I'm making the point that the Japanese aren't "threatening" but trying to protect their best interests by encouraging the UK to cut a deal we want anyway.

>
Well it's pretty clear the EU can't agree on anything so it's unlikely we'll do worse.

>
Why? You're surely not imagining we'll change our minds?


When Gove pointed this out he was ridiculed!

It sounds as if you would be happier if if things were "as bad as your the worst predictions". Personally I would think it is rather a good thing, yes. So far there appears to have been bugger all negative effect.

Obviously the brexiters haven't been "vindicated. It'll be decades before anyone is "vindicated" and then we'll never know because we won't know the counterfactuals. I'm just tired of remainers throwing about as if they have been vindicated. It's going to be a long road and I for one don't intend to get sucked into a debate over every twist and turn (although not doubt I will )

In reply to Tyler:

I was thinking that if some of the leavers changed their mind (due to the persuasive arguments of the remainers) and if there was another referendum (as some people have argued for) and the new vote was to remain would the EU welcome us back with open arms? (not that we ever actually left!). And how would the leavers who still wanted to leave but were now in the sizeable minority and now had to remain, react?

In reply to Postmanpat:
It's a deal we already have and it is at risk. Just because we want it doesn't mean we'll get it!

Well that depends if you think a deal based on TIPP is better or worse than no deal, I'm not sure we're in a position to judge.

Not sure what you mean? I'm not on about what people think but the actual effects of Brecit on the economy, something that will remain unknown until (at least) Article 50 is invoked.

I don't remember this, I remember him being ridiculed for saying people are tired of experts. You seem to be implying that all negative predictions were at the hysterical end of the spectrum. Sentiment was overwhelmingly negativ and still is, but only a small minority's were of the magnitude the Brexiters are now pointing to and are saying were wrong.

Where do you get this from? I'm saying things haven't started yet but there is more bad news than good, the good news is things weren't as bad as the worst prediction!

I think on this we are both agreed.

I see it differently, Brexiters saying "look, the economy hasn't tanked therefore everything is wonderful."

In reply to Postmanpat:



No it won't.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/09/05/britains-brexit-hate-crime-problem
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-hate-idUKKCN1021KC
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/22/race-hate-crime-uk-railways-s...

Wally

In reply to Tyler:

I think Parliament needs to ratify the decision - I'm fairly sure that a clause in European Laws concerning countries exiting the EU requires parliament to have a vote even if a referendum has taken place. What surprises me is that more is not being made of this, both in Westminster and in Brussels.

I personally think the vast majority of the UK electorate were (and are) in no position to make such a decision - the referendum should not have taken place and parliament (who are elected by all of us) are in a better position to vote on such matters.

M

In reply to Timmd:


I said it was Cameron et al, i.e. his close political allies who were remainers. Clearly they had a responsibilty to plan for a leave vote because it was blindingly obvious that such a result was always going to be a realistic possibilty. I'm not suggesting that all remainers should have had a plan because they were never going to have to deal with it.

Which brings me to the next point


I'm sure many of them did have plans but since nobody knew which, if any of them, would be in charge after the referendum (none of them as it turns out) and none of them was in a position to force all the machinery of government to make such plans how could they have put specific detailed plans on the table before the referendum? You can be pretty sure that Johnson, Fox, Davis and other senior leavers are bouncing plans around like ping pong balls at the moment and that May will be listening carefully whilst making some of her own and since the predicted armageddon has failed to materialise what's the rush?

Furthermore, since "no plan survives first contact with enemy" (to borrow a military expression), leaving the EU was never going to be about rolling out a pre determined sequence of events. It was always going to be about entering a period of lengthy negotiation the outcome of which could never be entirely predicted by anyone.

Farage was never ever going to get within a mile of having his hands on the levers of power in a post referendum world, he wasn't on the ballot paper and he isn't even an MP. Would you prefer him not to have resigned? What role would you like to see Farage play in our exit negotiations exactly? He's still taking his MEP's pay because he's still doing the MEP's job he was elected to do by his constituents.

You're just moaning for the sake of moaning. We've voted to leave and our PM is making it pretty clear that's what's going to happen. Why not try something more constructive like debating what a leave deal might look like i.e. soneting that is still up for grabs not something that has happened and can't be changed.
Let go, you might actually feel a bit better for it.

In reply to Tyler:
>
Article 50 just pulls the trigger on starting negotiations so doesn't mean we will "know" anything more than we know now.

>
King was referring to the Treasury's own forecasts as "speculative", not those at the hysterical end. Essentially Gove was making the same point but used the wrong language.

>
What bad news? A very very shorted lived downturn in sentiment, which has immediately reversed itself and more, positive news on consumption, house prices (if rises are positive), and employment, rising stock markets and we've achieved a currency devaluation that every country in the world envies.

But I absolutely acknowledge that it won't be plain sailing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

BTW no one used the word threatening until it appeared in your answer here, so if it's this your objecting to you must have misread.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


Well actually it will. True Vision, the official monitor of such things has told the BBC that hate crimes, after a short blip around the referendum have now subsided to "normal" ie.2015 levels. Basically such a blip is apparently quite common around any such event eg.an election. The BBC sounded very disappointed that it spoilt their story.

In reply to Tyler:


"Warning", "threatening" are they that different? But, whatever.....

In reply to Postmanpat:

Which is why I said at least.

Goves point was to appeal to the thick and make out that Brexit was some sort of anti-elite revolution that would empower the non-experts and the dispossessed, fair play it worked.

That's what I'm saying, it's as you were because we are in a phoney war, like you say we can't know the 'counterfactuals' so we'll never know if this is good or bad or whether we have skewered three months growth. House price rises are a disaster for me, I've just sold mine, I need a collapse now Why did we not try to devalue sooner if it is such a good thing? Why is it a good thing for a country with a trade deficit?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Its not a particularly useful point though. Since of course the UK would want all of those things its just has the minor problem of whether the EU will play along.
Japan stating this is what they want if anything goes against the UK interests and gives the EU an extra bargaining chip. Increasing the chances we will end up with all the downsides of the EU currently and fewer positives.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Essentially Gove was making the same point but used the wrong language.'

No; Gove was expounding his personal philosophy, honed over years as a journalist, that 'gut feel' (typically after a few beers) trumps rational discourse, research and consideration of evidence. He managed to f*ck up education in ways that are only working their way through the system now, at incalculable cost to teachers and kids who have had no idea what they are supposed to be doing. We are well shot of him.

Carl Sagan was asked for his gut feeling about the likelihood of extra terrestrial intelligence. 'I prefer not to think with my gut' was his reply.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Well I guess not and neither are too different to what the Japanese ambassador said/did/indicated hinted at. Do you think there is a risk to Japanese investment into the UK if we don't get a free trade deal with the EU and that risk would not be there if we didn't leave the EU? All other things being equal.

In reply to Tyler:

>
Actually I think he'd just run out of answers to questions on the economic views of the experts......


It's good because it makes exports cheaper and imports more expensive so encourages the former and discourages the latter this reducing the trade deficit (all other things being equal).
It wasn't a major policy imperative but if record low interest rates and unprecedented QE don't weaken a currency then what will? Brexit I guess......!

In reply to Tyler:


Yup. It was probably my single biggest reason to remain ( I voted out). It doesn't have actually to be "free trade" but a fudge that is close enough. But I think that we are on the best grounds on autos because the German auto companies aren't going to want their UK market buggered up. The Japanese banks are crap anyway

In reply to Timmd:


No one wants a pandemic to happen, but it'd be pretty daft not to plan for one. The Govt should have, (and may well have), explored the options in the event of a Leave vote.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Bravo.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Davies has said we need to proceed on the basis of a consensus. That's wise. 48% is a big enough mandate for that at least.
Brexiters are demanding Article 50 NOW. As if that will be some sort of catalyst that will jump us into all the marvellous opportunities that will arise in a bright buccaneering future. In my view it's time to turn down the heat and go for the back burner. Things that have taken 70 years to build up are in grave danger of being smashed irreversibly through England's recklessness. We need to get some grown ups back in charge. May's caution at the G20 and the fact she's not afraid to upset that sheetpot Farage bode well?

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


The Tories are, yes, since they put it in their manifesto, and then insisted they had to abide by that 'pledge', when manifesto promises are routinely forgotten once elected.

Tory voters are not to blame; general elections are not single-issue votes, and voters have to weigh up the entire manifesto.

I did not vote Tory.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I'm surprised that you of all people, Nick, should put this so simplistically. I thought it was quite a lot more complicated than that, in that many (most?) exports require some (or a lot) of imported raw materials. Also, demand isn't particularly 'elastic' etc.

For example, one of the largest printing costs for the publishing industry is that of paper (typically, the best value high quality paper has come from France ... I know from various books of mine ... in fact all, that the English alternatives were rejected by the publishers).

I suppose a few things like our real ale will not be affected ... but, hang on, I remember now that many of our real ales in fact use imported hops ... (absurdly, there is a hop shortage in our country now, whereas we grew all our own up to the late 70s. Just like our apples ... we just gave up on that for no good reason whatever. British public conned by brilliant French 'Golden Delicious' marketing strategy).

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/02/currencies-and-economics

In reply to Pekkie:



Yup. Love that speech by May - never heard anyone sound so much like they haven't the first f*cking clue how to approach an entirely impossible job. Written all over her face is, "is there a way that I can stay PM, but not have to deal with this ridiculous bullshit? There isn't, is there? Oh bollocks."

In reply to captain paranoia:

The absurdity of manifestos is the idea that if you vote for a party you agree with every single thing written in the small print their manifestos. The vast majority of UK voters vote out of loyalty to a party, and never even bother to look at the small print of a manifesto. There were, I'm sure, huge numbers of Tory voters who supported about 80-90% of their manifesto, but did NOT want to leave the EU.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

I read in the Economist, to my incredulity, that we are only a part of the WTO through the EU. , and according to the bloke who runs the WTO we can only accede to the WTO by the unanimous vote of its current members.

I've screwed some things up in my life, but this is in a completely different universe.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Gordon,he asked the question and that is the simple answer ,the one acknowledged by all economists (and the reason why countries all over the globe have been indulging in a competitive devaluation strategy) for most of the last eight years . It is incidentally also one of the benefits that King referred to in his recent intervention. ( in the UK's case the main counter argument is that we don't export much that will benefit from lower prices, but Lord King seems either to have overlooked this or to disagree)

The reason I put "all other things being equal" was to pre-empt a discussion of the complications, which I am very well aware of having, for my sins, spent half of my listening to economists wittering on about the pros and cons

In reply to baron:



No, no, no!! The remain team insulted everyone in the run up to the vote, calling them "Daily Mail Readers", "EDL supporters", and "Little Englanders", and now that they lost the vote, they're relying on the insults to make people change their minds.

Let's see how that works for them.

The whining from the remain supporters can be heard as far away as Australia

In reply to Timmd:


I'm sure they didn't want the Titanic to sink, that's why they didn't have enough lifeboats.

How did that work out for them?

In reply to Big Ger:


An apt metaphor.

In reply to Big Ger:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/eu-referendum-which-type-of-pers...

In reply to Big Ger:

Ah, Mr Ger. We've been expecting you! The stats show that Leave voters were predominantly: old, less well-educated, Mail/Express readers. Do you fit that profile?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/22/eu-referendum-which-type-of-pers...

In reply to Big Ger:




There's a lot of anger about Brexit expressed by defeated Remainers and a lot of concern about the future which David Davies, for instance, did nothing to allay. It's not whining to get frustrated when you ask what Brexit means and get a Trumpish "the future is bright "type answer.
What I've heard from my contact in Australia is that nobody there can believe how stupid we've been. Except you of course.

In reply to Pekkie:

I must be more educated than someone that posts the same insults twice, while replying to someone who accused remainers of insulting others, (thanks for proving me right BTW.)

Not only that, but someone who manages to cock up the formatting on one of them.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


Amazing, can you put me on to your "contact" please? I'd love to get to know someone who knows everyone in Aus.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm pretty agnostic on the economic arguments. I don't think Brexit will destroy us, and maybe economic hardships in some areas will be balanced out by gains in others. But there will undoubtedly be winner and losers, and frictions that result. The fears, tensions, uncertainties and hardships from this churn are all too often overlooked by economists. People don't just move from one economic sector to another, they don't just retrain to where the new jobs are, or move from one failing employer to one that is recruiting. Its not that simple. All these changes carry costs, some of which might not be affordable and carry risk that cannot be supported.

But as I have said before, what irks me is that my membership and freedom of movement within a larger European entity has been snatched from me, for good.

An Alaskan who's state's colleagues vote for Alaska to leave the USA might be rightly pissed off that they are no longer "American" and now simply "Alaskan", that they can no longer live, study, work or travel in any of the other states that make up the country they were once part of with relative ease. They are no longer so free to marry or engage in relationships with those outside of their immediate borders.

That's how I feel about us leaving the EU. My ability to work, retire, study and generally eek out an existence in a much wider section of the planet than little England has been seriously curtailed.

In the near future, I will no longer be European. What am I likely to gain by no longer being European? How is that going to "be fine"?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Don't forget the reckless Welsh as well now will you.

In reply to David Martin:

Prior to the EU was travel to mainland Europe, for work, for holidays etc. banned. Did people have visas to go to Costa del Whatever? I'm young (45), perhaps that's the reason we went to Scarborough as a kid etc.. ??

I live in EU, I will still live in the EU in post Brexit, I don't see any reason why I won't be able keep on living, working or retire etc...

You are European by the very nature you reside within that Continent. Not some arbitrary political notion. Were people in the UK not European prior to the 70s?

In reply to Big Ger:



I wasn't insulting you. I simply referred you to a Telegraph summary of the standard Brexit voter: old, less educated, Mail/Express reader. I apologise if I touched a nerve.

In reply to summo:

It was lot harder. I remember a train journey from Holland to Switzerland with endless passport check - both sides of each border.


Why do you think you can retire where you want without an EU-like agreement (assuming you aren't a multi millionaire)


It is (or was) both You clearly fell no attachment mtona European political identity (many) others do.

In reply to summo:

Very likely you will be able to stay, but not guaranteed . For us in the UK, more uncertain when it comes to work. US citizens get 3 months visa free in Spain, but must apply for a work permit for longer stays, which can be complicated, according to their own embassy website.


He obviously meant EU citizen.

In reply to MG:

>

Bloody hell, that brings back memories. My family travelled frequently to Italy during the early 1950s. I remember the passport checks at Folkestone - the boat train went down to the docks. Then the checks at Boulogne, boarding the overnight sleeper train which went via Paris. Being shunted around Paris in the middle of the night, and the long journey down through France with frequent interruptions from drunken French Army Conscripts trying to get into our compartment. Poor blokes, they were en route to join boats to places like Algeria and Indo-China where the faced costly and bitter fighting. The checks at the Swiss Border (as you say both sides), and again at the Italian Border (both sides). The highlight of the journey was getting glimpses of snow covered mountains and glaciers in Switzerland from the train window, and because unlike the British steam trains, Swiss trains were electric and clean, with no smoke obscuring the views..Then the return trip with the boat being packed with DPs with their worldly belongings tied up with string in brown paper parcels, the better off ones had cardboard suitcase. The Channel crossings always seemed to be very rough - no stabilisers in those days with a mass of vomiting miserable humanity on board. Then the boat train back up to London, and finally the tube home.

Sorry to the OP. No hijack intended it's just that MG's post triggered a lot of old memories.

In reply to MG:

But they don't have any internal borders (currently) so nothing will change from now. You enter Schengen and then have free movement.

>
It's a trade off. One can feel attachment without wanting to hand over large elements of sovereignty.

In reply to David Martin:
Negotiations haven't begun so while your vision of the future might be correct it isn't a certainty.
Ongoing events such as external migration into the EU are as likely to curtail freedom of movement within the EU as Brexit.

In reply to Pekkie:


LOL!! Good try, but 3/10.

You may have got away with it if you hadn't included;

In reply to Lusk:



I am afraid after a lifetime of being interested and even at times active, I have withdrawn reluctantly to the same position. When the (grown-up) children enter into a discussion into which they would welcome my sagely contribution, I don't even know who the 'good guys' are any more!!!

In reply to Big Ger:

LOL!! Good try, but 3/10. You may have got away with it if you hadn't included;


Just trying to lighten things up a little. That's just gentle teasing.

In reply to MG:


With terrorism etc.. checks on borders are going to be the only way to control the travel of people in the future, it's the EU in denial that is currently helping their free movement.

Once the UK brexits and you get on a train in Holland to Switzerland, will the driver know you are on and stop for passport checks? Plus, would he continue without stopping if there we no Brits on board? How would he know?


Why can't I draw a smaller pension from the countries that I've contributed in? Plus there is nothing forecast to stopping someone living overseas on their UK pension. The guidelines have yet to be decided.


Why would anyone feel some attachment to the EU political organisation, it's barely started and with no notable history or culture. If anything it wants to eliminate each country's existing individual culture and have them think of themselves as only in the EU.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

No EU country has said those living and working there will be asked to leave. Also no person knows what agreements will be in place after.


What is there to be proud of in being an EU citizen over your own nationality, an artificial organisation with no history, culture or achievements. I'll always be British and then European regardless of political system come and go, or where I live.

In reply to summo:

No need to ban anything. You can simply make it difficult: the requirement to purchase visas, the prospect of an interrogation or refusal by immigration officials on visiting, a layer of bureaucracy and uncertainty. The requirement to have a work permit prior to seeking employment in a country, the prospect that if you do happen across work in a European country that you won't be able to obtain suitable visas, that they'll cost a fortune, or won't be granted for months (by which time said opportunity has vanished). All work to close off opportunities. Want to work on a ski slope in France during your university holidays? A bar in Italy or Portugal over summer in your early 20s? That web developer position in Berlin? A year in Europe learning Spanish? Without the benefits of EU free movement rules these simple things we take for granted suddenly become incredibly difficult.

These restrictions are the very essence of what most Brexit voters seem to want. I see no reason why Europe won't impose similar on us.

I posted a few months back about the experience I had getting in to Gatwick on my New Zealand passport. That is a passport that allows a visa on arrival, technically no questions asked, valid for 3-6 months. I was refused, for no apparent reason. It was only once the immigration officer was convinced that I did in fact also hold an EU passport that I was eventually allowed to enter. That same experience may soon be shared with Europeans, and in return UK citizens attempting to travel to Europe. It wasn't pleasant. It doesn't take much to regress to that sort of backward bureaucratic awkwardness.

In reply to summo:




Europe has a culture which goes back thousands of years. Britain is part of that. I love the fact that I was lucky enough to be born and raised in Europe at this time in history.
"After two thousand years of mass, we’ve got as far as poison-gas.” wrote Thomas Hardy, despairingly, soon after WWI.
After all the horror of that and the next war I think he might have been cheered up a bit by an international project for peace and cooperation that was more than just a dream; a modern, secular ideal of "Christendom" if you like.
We've turned our back on it, because of ignorance and lies. This is a low point in our island story.
Look at the Brexit standard bearers, Farage et al. In the eyes of the world that's who we are now. How do we get over that?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Very, very well summed up. Cheers.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

As you point out, we were part of Europe before 1975. We were part of Europe post 1975 and we'll also be part of Europe post brexit. Are Swizerland and Norway not part of Europe and its culture?

You really need to stop romanticising a deeply dysfunctional organisation.

In reply to GrahamD:

Of course, Cameron wouldn't have called the referendum if he thought he'd lose - I didn't think he'd lose either so can't judge him for that. But, 1. he must have known that there was a risk of losing and that his own judgement was fallible; 2. he called it for partisan, party political reasons; 3. his judgement that the referendum would 'lance the boil' is completely ridiculous - for that he would need to be sure they'd win by a big margin as a close win wouldn't have resolved anything.

Completely irresponsible, selfish behaviour .

Am I the finger pointing feckless here?

In reply to captain paranoia:


Well, the majority of tory voters who thought a referendum was a good idea are!

And this is a pretty big issue - bigger than one parliament's worth of government.

In reply to David Martin:

Well said, I lost out on jobs in both the US & Australia in the past - the jobs eventually going to a second candidate who was already in the country with the necessary papers, documents etc. But when I was offered a post in France in the early 90s there were no such problems

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


These days you can get the same at good value from Sweden, Poland, Italy and many other European countries. Which only strengthens your point.

In reply to Pete Pozman:
You've got a very skewed view of recent European history. During the 20th century the continental europeans managed to get themselves ruled by a series of dictators and engaged in warfare and genocide on a scale never previously seen.
Only by the sacrifice of soldiers and civilians from (mainly) outside continental europe (with not a little help from the soviets) did europeans throw off the yoke of these dictators. I can understand the French wanting the EU as it stops the Germans invading them and the Germans ease their collective guilt over two wars by 'helping' other countries.
Now Britain has turned its back on europe - except it hadn't! We are still a member of Nato in case we need to help our allies out, again!

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Deeply dysfunctional' or 'Flawed, made significant blunders over the Eurozone and expansion but has learned and will continue to learn from past mistakes'.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Re. TTIP


Well the Tory position appeared to be significantly in favour of the 'terrible deal' as was. I guess they'll be tripping over themselves to sign the worse one America tosses back our way knowing full well we're desperate to reach out beyond the EU.


The short term consequences start when we start leaving. For now at least we're barely even talking about it and there's a real possibility it will never happen and even if it does it will exit in name only. There's also the possibility of course that we'll cock it up royally.

jk

In reply to Postmanpat:



I call it idealism.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


I think you mean "idealising"

In reply to Pete Pozman:

That is exactly my point Europe has the culture, the history, not the eu. No one voted to leave Europe, only the eu.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Surely the moment is a waiting game to see exactly how the rest of Europe react. There can be no laid down plan right away as they need to wait and judge just what this means in the minds of those we have separated from. We have heard alsorts of reports from this being the beginning to many others leaving, to being rushed up, get your bags and get out kind of attitude.
Surely we all know there is no direct line drawn until negotiations have taken place, what it actually means will come out slowly as they figure it our themselves. I am sure they are not even sure just how much of their ideal will be realised.

Listening to May I don't think this will benefit the leavers as much as they first figured, or were sold. People who wanted out expected complete control over our borders, and now I hear May using language such as 'negotiation of free movement', which does not spell complete control to me. This just tells me that we are going to be on our own with probably a little bit more control over our borders, something we could have accomplished while remaining with the threat of leaving.

The entire year would have been better if we could have removed it and started again. And somehow after all this, with the term democratic decision being thrown around as the reason for it. 'I believe the people deserve the right to make these decisions democratically, and I trust in you to make the right decision' I think is what Cameron said. And then it backfires those we expected to take us into Brexit with a firm plan stand down, and we end up with a new Prime Minister thrust on us that was anti decision, which contradicts the entire principle that the referendum was given to us for.

I have lived in some of the most openly corrupt nations on the planet, and expect better from the UK, but when things like this go on you can't help but wonder what the hell is going on behind closed doors as there were obviously a hell of a lot of discussions, decisions and offers accepted where we were simply bypassed. And so the entire circus has really damaged us, how can we be taken seriously after this.

In reply to summo:


Many many people think they have voted to leave Europe. When they say "Control our borders" they mean "Keep the Europeans out". There are still people out there who think you can't trust the French, Germans, Belgians etc. just because they speak a different language. Farage thinks he's made a good point when he tells the MEPs in the European Parliament that nobody has ever heard of them, and he's applauded for it by his ad hoc supporters at home.
What do you suppose "culture... history" mean to them?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Quite. At the extremes this attitude results in murdered Poles. The EU is in part the result.of a shared social, cultural and historical heritage. Pretending we haven't voted to walk away from this is nonsense. It's vastly more than common widget rules.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


So does that mean when French farmers blockade their ferry terminals, or their fishing boats block ports, they are being uneuropean because they are blocking a border between two EU countries?


Well you can't trust their leaders with UK matters, because they should be out to get the very best deal for their own population, those that elected them. It would no good for merkel to give the UK a fantastic brexit deal saying we all European, even if it disadvantage's Germany in the future. But, individual people of each European country are as trustworthy as anyone else in your own country.

The Brexit vote was against the leaders of the EU and some other EU nations, it wasn't a vote against European people. They aren't the same. As the vote in Germany just showed, a great many there aren't so happy with Merkel either and they need to listen, as no sane person wants the far right in Germany back in power.

In reply to MG:


Does any country need to be controlled by Brussels to share it's culture, history or heritage? People voted against the EU leaders and some country's leaders, their policies. I don't think many people voted because they dislike Europe or it's people.

In reply to summo:


No, and none is.


I think you are wrong.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-racism-uk-post-referen...

In reply to summo:


Not according to my social media feeds.

Wally

In reply to Pete Pozman:
It's not about keeping europeans out, it's about vastly reducing the number of people who migrate here, wherever they migrate from. If that means europeans can't move here freely then so be it. And you can't trust the european politicians any more than our home grown ones, it's about distrusting european politicians and there great socialist project not about distrusting the people.
I can see that if your a socialist then the EU is a positive thing, for those of us who have a different political belief then being out of the EU but not out of europe is the ideal.
One might have hoped that the UK voting to leave might have allowed the EU to consider why this should be but it seems nothing can stop the EU juggernaut.
While the EU seems keen for us to go quickly it's interesting that they're still happy to take our net contributions.
I wonder if they'd be as keen to pay us if, like most EU countries, we were taking more than we pay in?

In reply to Pete Pozman:
WTF sort of nonsense is the situation between David Davis and Theresa May? Davis's single market position that he, as Secretary of State for exiting the EU , gave before parliament is not, according to number 10, the government policy but rather his opinion?

Is he incompetent or simply impotent, irrelevant to the process?

In reply to baron:

I'm puzzled by your suggestion that the EU is a socialist project. It started out vaguely social- democratic but for decades now has been a monetary project forcing friedmanite constraints on any economy that doesn't measure up to the German prototype. Part of the tension comes from the fact that it has social policies designed to protect workers. Probably the reality is that it tries, imperfectly, to do both so that nearly everyone will think it's wrong about something.

Big Capital though, seems to want us to adopt third world approaches to workers (and the unwaged) and Brexit is only going to hurt this along....

In reply to summo:


They don't seem to give much of a f*ck about the Europeans living in the UK, who are now, as a result of this vote, left without knowing what is going to happen to them, whilst they are used as bargaining chips.

In reply to Pete Pozman:


You really believe this is the reason and what they mean by controlling our borders?
I think there would be a minority of idiots which voted for these reasons, but surely the intelligent majority voted out to control our borders in terms of who we are able to deport. I know that was my reason. Brussels told us we had to allow convicted terrorists to remain in the country because if we deported them they would be in danger in their native land and so in breach of their human rights. They told us we had to allow convicted criminals from all over Europe in without question, because it was their right. And not only that but up until very recently pay them support for the 45 kids they had spread out across Eastern Europe.
When people mention to me controlling our borders this is more about who we can reject, rather than accept, we should not be obligated to accept any and all. And we certainly should not have Brussels dictating decisions as we are supposed to be living in a democracy, a democracy headed by dictatorship does not work imo and is enough of a reason to leave.

I still feel very strongly that none of this was required to get what was needed though, Cameron screwed us by being so disconnected from the people and their feelings on these issues, and this alone was what ruined us and him. Funny how for years he rejected accusations he has no idea how the little man truly feels, and then he goes out and manages to monumentally prove those who said so right.

In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't think anyone who has settled and has made a stable life for themselves has anything to worry about. And like I said above I think many many people have got the complete wrong end of the stick about border control. This is not about not wanting those genuine good people here, this is all about being able to boot out those who are not.

In reply to Bogwalloper:


People seem to show their true colours commenting on UKIP posts on Facebook. Disturbing.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Do you think it would be okay to treat our home grown terrorists, as the terrorists we might deport will be treated if we deport them?

Assuming you don't: why do you think it's okay to send them to that fate?

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:


I believe that people who make decisions have options and if it is clear they will be deported if caught, then this is just a plus works in our favour and is an extra deterrent to stop them going ahead with terror intentions over here.
Our home grown terrorists are lucky, we treat people better, but I do strongly believe they should be sent to a guantanamo type site and live an entirely solitary life if committing a crime of terror or the proven intent.

And my reason for sending them back to face their fate is they had options and we are a soft target because they feel safe enough knowing they will be put up in a nice one bedroomed apartment with TV and good meals surrounded by friends, at worst if they are caught (HMP).
And I strongly believe that the biggest problems this country faces are from Brits who sympathise with these criminals/terrorists and consider them equals, they are not and should not be treated as such. There is a line drawn where people feel insulted that we are to support people who want to kill us.

In reply to Pekkie:


Just flicked through hundreds of comments responding to a Facebook post praising Enoch Powell. I think a lot of people have learned not to make racist comments at work and in social situations. But is it just a veneer masking something quite sinister?

In reply to Big Ger:




Who also, like the rest of the sentient world, don't want us to leave.

In reply to Bulls Crack:
The few antipodeans that I know couldn't care less about the UK economy since we abandoned them to join the EU

In reply to Dominicandave:

I don't sympathise with them, I don't support them. I just wouldn't send them to be tortured.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

Even if they came to the country specifically with the intention to cause harm to anyone and all, strangers just trying to get on with our lives?
Instead you would rather donate part of your salary to their comfortable upkeep?

In reply to Pete Pozman:

Britain has it's own culture, which can be celebrated along with those of the other EU countries. We do not need to subsume it into that bureaucratic melange of incompetence known as the EU


No we haven't. We've just decided to keep our politics to our elves.


LOL!! If you think that is the case, then you either think very little of people in other countries, or your own perspectives are so warped as to believe it to be true.


Dear god, with such a talent for melodramatic hyperbole, you should get a job writing scripts for Disney.

In reply to Big Ger:

>No we haven't. We've just decided to keep our politics to our elves.
>Dear god, with such a talent for melodramatic hyperbole, you should get a job writing scripts for Disney.

Elves? Maybe you should be writing the Disney scripts.

In reply to Pekkie:

LOL!! Whoopsy!!

In reply to Dominicandave:

Wishful thinking, EU nationals have ZERO guarantees at the moment, and given the pressure on T May to reduce net migration and her past record on treating migrant, nobody would be suprised at all if she tries to push out as many as possible.
Regardless, any permanent residence for EU national will have conditions attached and there will be conditions to satisfy previous residence. At the moment the only way to do it is an 85 pages form designed to elicit information to provide grounds for refusal. Many people are getting rejected because of stupid administrative issues, like not having comprehensive sickness insurance for the first couple of weeks when they arrived in the UK, or not being able to provide proof of residence from years int the past... If that's the template (and it look like it may be) a significant % of the EU nationals will have to leave. And I'm not even talking about the problems of their dependants, those who lived part time in different countries, or the other "soft" ways they could be pushed out such as making them pay for NHS or not making them eligible for state pension, even if they worked all heir lives in the UK.


Bollocks. We could, can, and did boot out those who are not already. It's all about reducing net migration, and that is going to mean rejecting "good" people, there is no way around it. And that's exactly why May rejected a point system, it's because it lets good people in but does not let you control number. I think we are going instead towards a work permit system, with a certain number allocated every year, with the main criteria being the UK employer not being to able recruit anybody else in the UK. That would protect industries relying on foreign low skills workers whilst controlling numbers.

The more worrying thing I hears from May though, is that she doesn't want "criteria" to let people in, but she wants the government to be able to chose who comes in. I think she is hinting at even more power for the home office officials to decide who can and cannot come in, instead of having clear rules decided in parliament, again, very much in the style of her time at the home office.

In reply to RomTheBear:

As I understand things the Australian s abandoned a points system, and established a pool system. Whereby immigrant applications go into a pool from which employers can pick.

The supposed advantage being that in a model of limited immigration, the unskilled do not displace the skilled, purely because they applied earlier.

In reply to RomTheBear:


There are no guarantees at the moment, there is nothing at the moment and sos peculation is all it is. I feel May will have to work within reasonable boundaries and part of those will be not to disrupt those who have made a good solid life for themselves and a genuine contribution to being a part of society will be fine. And you do not need tot tell me how difficult it is getting into the UK, I've been there, it should be the same for all and not just for Europeans.


And rightly so.


Well that's not true is it. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/06/eu-rules-stopped-britain-deporti...


I think this is the right way forward, it stops those looking for back doors or people who are able to work the system from doing so. God knows Eastern Europeans have the entire system worked out, have the worst record for benefit fraud and working us the way it is and so why not take more personal control.

In reply to RomTheBear:
The existing (and presumably any potential future) points based system does already restrict numbers of non EU migrants. Each year UKBA has a limited number of Certificates of Sponsorship to allocate and they are pre-distributed to employers each April, being reallocated but not increased as needs develop over the course of the year. For example, I have had between 2 and 4 to hand out in each of the last 5 years. Call it what T May likes, but this is a already a work permit system in practice since you can't apply for residency without a sponsoring employer.

There are one or two exceptions, an entrepreneur with a minimum of £150k to invest immediately doesn't need a sponsor, and nor should he/she, but must still meet other criteria.

I don't believe existing EU migrants who are making a proper contribution to the UK, be that as employees or parents, artists or students, have anything to fear. But if my assumptions about your qualifications are correct, Rom, you would qualify under the existing system because of your linguistic skills. Happy to explain further offline.

In reply to Dominicandave:


Sorry but you got lied to it seems (what a surprise !), not being able to deport some terrorists has nothing to do with the EU, it was the ECHR - a separate institution from the EU - which we haven't voted to leave.

I'm not surprised, many people seem to have voted around these kind of issues, which technically had nothing to do with the EU, thanks to a leave campaign of blatant lies.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No this has nothing to do with having to accept convicted criminals from across Europe because of the free movement (maybe I could have put a more relative link in there). We can not stop convicted criminals from entering in the first instance (Ii believe that if we are lucky enough to have their info shared with us and they are flagged up as then the they are still granted access until a decision is made and by then they are in and off under the radar, which is the problem), this is besides the ECHR which I understand we are making steps to try to change, or already have I dunno. I think there is a presumption that leaving the EU will give us more strength to manipulate the standing law concerning deportation and the ECHR, maybe misplaced but we'll see. I am aware things have changed slightly since we made a stink about it, but the damage was already done, peoples minds were made up. People are tired of our lives being consumed by the issues that really should not affect us.

Like I said to start with, the amount of change we are likely to see I do not think we needed to leave, we could have made the changes required while staying in with only the threat of leaving. But we have seen the power of people when they really want change, none more than this year with what has happened here and the circus over in the states. It looks like we are all making radical decisions and for the wrong reasons, which is exactly what you'd expect when the people are led round in circles and treated like idiots. We'll see.

In reply to BnB:


True.



I can't see why you say that. No guarantees have been given. Many of my friends have been refused permanent residence because of administrative mistakes.
I don't see the government deporting million of EU citizens, of course, bit I can definitely see then making the system convoluted, and restrictive enough that many would leave by themselves.

As far as I am concerned, I am fine given that I have citizenship, but my partner doesn't, we basically decided to leave he UK because we want to buy a house, and we cannot commit all of our hard earned life savings somewhere where we don't know whether she'll be able to stay or enjoy the same rights as now. I know many other people making similar plans of leaving because of the uncertainty.

In reply to RomTheBear:


And leaving things uncertain for as long as possible is already working in the governments favour, which takes the decisions out of their hands, and that is obviously what they would prefer.

In reply to BnB:

Echoing Ron's post, that is not how things are seen. *You* might believe EU immigrants have nothing to fear, conversations I have had with numerous EU colleagues suggests they don't think that. Overnight they went from a situation where they believed they and their family could live here without restriction, to one where they have no idea what the rules will be. Will they be allowed to stay? Their spouses? Their partners? What happens if they have no job for six months? No one knows. If you were from another EU country and were say 30, well educated, and with a similar partner (i.e. just for sort of person we need for a successful economy), do you not think the UK has suddenly become much less attractive in comparison to say Germany or Denmark? Would you risk buying a house etc here?

In reply to MG:
The people who have migrated here did so, I presume, because it suited them to do so.
If/when conditions change and the UK is no longer so attractive to them then they can exercise their rights to free movement and move somewhere else.
When they've gone to a 'better' place then maybe our government will stop blaming the EU and migrants and sort out many of the 1.5 million(or whatever the number is) UK citizens who are currently unemployed.
Migration down, unemployment down. What's not to like?

In reply to baron:




Exactly. You're going to lose many of the good people making a contribution, whilst the desperate ones will probably fight their way through the system to stay.
Good luck with that.

In reply to RomTheBear:
It would be sad if people are forced to leave jobs, homes, etc and it's true that the 'good' people will look for somewhere better but I feel that they'll struggle to find such a place for if one exists they would be there now.
No doubt the desperate will seek to remain but that doesn't mean that they'll be successful.
I fear that there are difficult times ahead for all countries in Europe and the failure of the EU to address the migration crisis in any meaningful way combined with Mrs Merkel's open door policy will see many countries both within and ouside of the EU having to make equally difficult decisions.
It would be nice to have bumbled along with the EU with some people loving it and some hating it and most people being ambivalant.
But the large and ever increasing number of migrants from outside the EU combined with an ever inreasing global economy has changed the status quo.
Individual countries will, in the absence of any over arching coherent, enforcable policy, have to do what is in their best interests.
Europe will be a less attractive, less fair place but that is the looming reality.
Unless some organisation (like the EU?) comes up with a masterplan that deals with these issues.

In reply to baron:

And there, in a nutshell, is the utter f*cking stupidity of brexiters. Attract some the most capable people in the world here with promises of a stable, open, positive environment; benefit from their economic, social, and cultural contributions; use the network of links with business, government, and education that they bring Then change your mind, f*ck up their lives, lose their talent and retreat to relying on the unemployable who whose vision extends no further than the end of their road. What a policy!

In reply to RomTheBear:



I think that's arse about tit. The good contributing ones are those who can feel secure. And the desperate ones are the very ones that have little to offer and may be going. I think much of this could depend on employers contribution to the process, just how valuable are these individuals, much the way it is done all over the world. And I see nothing wrong with that being a major part of the process.
There will be no desperate way through the system anymore if we are able to control our own, that is the whole point, is it not.

In reply to Dominicandave:


I've yet to experience any situation or organisation where that's what happens. The able and confident are the first to leave when things get uncomfortable because they can always find something better. The last to hang on are those who know they are on to a good thing and are unlikely find anything as good again.

If you think dead wood is the issue you need to selectively prune it, not stop watering in the hope it will fall off.

In reply to MG:


But it isn't is it? Nothing that you just said is a policy, it is just words from your mouth, or do you know something the rest of us don't. Because last I checked this whole thread was about there being no policy in place just yet, we do not know. There can be no benefit in sending those who are of value away and so why would they do that. They have said over and over again they want to take it case for case and so surely this is good news for those who are good contributors no?

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Which is the very problem, because of free movement we couldn't.

In reply to Dominicandave:


But they don't. They have been given zero guarantees.




You get the illusion of control. The UK is (was ?) one of the best country in the world at attracting the highest proportion of skilled workers, doing better than Australia or the US. In fact, non-eu immigration, which we do "control" attracts a smaller proportion of skilled and qualify workers than those who come under EU free movement.

In the meantime, the good ones who can get opportunities elsewhere won't bother with complicated and expensive visa system and immigration lawyers, whilst the ones desperate to stay will do everything they can to stay, including clogging up the courts with appeals.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Correct, no guarantees because how they are going about it has not been decided yet. But rather than thinking that decisions will be made in order to damage us, I would have hoped people would have a little faith that they were valued enough to be treated fairly.


That is because it is very difficult to get a visa or citizenship for the UK, and even with a good chance the process is very tight and mind boggling. Those from the EU can just come without reason, and is now being addressed. Again I said earlier it should be the same for all and not just Europeans. I don't see the negatives in this. I have had to be a legal resident or hold a working visa in order to live and work in countries outside of the EU. This allows countries to keep an eye on who is in the country and overall better policing of foreigners. I do not understand why there is such fear about requiring a visa to go and work elsewhere, or those wanting to come work here needing one either. If the job is genuine there will be no issues, what is the big panic about this?


Well this is down to personal preference. The UK offers a very very secure lifestyle to people, it is very attractive and up to the individual if it worth the hassle or not. And yes the courts will be clogged up initially while the appeals are processed, but within a few years they will have freed up and with the system being in place that suits us and word out that we are not just a soft touch any more things should begin to run smoothly again. It is not a bad thing that the UK is not as attractive to all as it once was.

In reply to RomTheBear:



But a key reason for this shortfall is the lower limit placed on skilled migration from non-EU sources as a consequence of the perceived overload of less highly skilled EU migrants. The Brexit argument, which has yet to be proved or countered, is that limits on unskilled labour create more room for skilled workers from around the world.


You don't need either of these things if you are one of the "good ones". Your employer does the admin.

In reply to Dominicandave:


What, so you think we'll now be able to exile our home-grown unemployed?!

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Ridiculous comment.

In reply to BnB:


I think that would only be the case for Tier 2 visas. Although I can't imagine it is hassle free even if your employer is handling the application.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Yes. As with our home grown terrorists. Small price to pay for our own humanity.

Just to confirm - do you think it's okay to torture and kill UK born terrorists ourselves?

In reply to Rick Graham:


It was for the Government (and the Prime Minister ) who called the Referedum ( which had only two possible outcomes) to have plans for either result.

However, it was Cameron who told civil servants NOT to make any plans for a leave vote , and then resigned when the result that he failed to plan for came about.

I think we all know where the blame lies here.

In reply to sebastian dangerfield:

This is the attitude that makes us a very soft target for those contemplating bringing us harm. Absolutely no consequence for them if they get caught.
Nope, I have explained what I believe we should do with home grown terrorists.

In reply to Dominicandave:

It's not that I don't understand the issue, I just think that we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater in leaving the EU.

It's pretty obvious if you visit the perceived targets of intra-EU/EEA migration (I've been in Munich and Oslo recently) that there is a highly visible and increasing issue with (apparent) homelessness and begging. In the conversations I had with women begging in Oslo, they were all Romanian. It's an evitable (or, at least, entirely predictable) problem that results from the premature accession to the EU of states that were economically nowhere near ready. Free movement is predicated on approximate economic equivalence.

However, it seems to me that the much-quoted 'free movement of labour' is not the problem. As far as I can see, there is no right of free (permanent) migration within the EU if you don't have either a job or economic independence:

Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3....

Of course, for those who simply don't like EU workers taking jobs they feel should be reserved for nationals who are neither qualified nor inclined to take them, I can see that Art 45 TFEU is indeed an inconvenience.

In reply to Dave Garnett:



This is where they failed miserably. Unable to get a clear cut law in order and police it successfully. There were always loop holes, people constantly finding new ways against the new regs to remain without any purpose other than to improve their standard of life without contributing. If they had managed to police this or at least make it airtight then I do not think we would be where we are right now.
I don't believe any reasonable person would deny someone who had a genuine reason and was contributing the right to live here. I know there are some, but I said reasonable. Nor do I think this is where the government will attack, but we'll see, I don't trust Mays language, she has said some very vague things over recent days which make me wonder where this is going.

In reply to Jim C:


This assumes you could come up with a good plan.
Its easy to make shit up, as the leave campaign did throughout, but unfortunately declaring everyone will be begging to trade with us doesnt quite work in reality.

In reply to KevinD:



Where is the evidence that no one wants to trade with us? On this particular aspect there is far more evidence post-referendum that the Leave campaign was more far-sighted (albeit against type).

What is this fear people have of change? It seems perfectly plausible to me that when things settle down we'll be in better shape where trade opportunities are concerned.

In reply to BnB:


Where did I say that? I said "begging to trade". There is a rather significant difference between the two.


No it has been going exactly the way the in campaign said. Of course agreements will be reached but they will take considerable time.
If we look at David Davis claim that most of the trade agremeent negotiations will be completed with 12-24 months and before the agreement with the EU is complete. There is no evidence supporting that.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/david-davis-trade-deals-ta...


Considering you were unable to quote me correctly I would suggest that trying to understand peoples motivation is beyond you.

In reply to BnB:


People will want to trade with a post-Brexit UK, but the deal we will get with countries outside the EU will be dependent on how good our trading deal with the EU is, and whether we are members of the single market. Given that, as Australia have said, they won't do a deal with us until our deal with the EU is clarified, what will happen in the meantime, between us leaving the EU and us forming trade agreements with every other country on earth? And what sort of TTIP like trade deals are we likely to end up singing up to?

In reply to Dominicandave:


This is an imaginary problem, not supported by evidence, so of course there could never be a solution to an imaginary problem.
They made it more "airtight" for example by making it impossible for EU migrants to claim JSA for more than a few months and things like that, and Cameron's "deal" was aiming at stopping child benefits.
But at then end of the day it concerned so few people that it didn't really matter whatsoever, not to mention that it works both ways with many British people abroad also benefiting from welfare in other eu countries.



Then why oppose free movement given that according to all studies, Eu migrants contribute way more than non-eu migrant who fall under the visa system. Not only that but under that system we managed to attract a higher proportion of qualified and skilled workers than almost any other countries in the world.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Well, my German and Norwegian friends (all liberal to a fault) don't think the current levels of street begging (some of it actually highly orchestrated in a way that looks suspiciously like pimping to me) is an imaginary problem.

In reply to KevinD:





That's a somewhat emotional response with an ad hominem attack thrown in for good measure. I guess we see things differently. I'm busy seeing opportunities while you seem to want us to crash and burn just to prove you right. I'd say that the ROW has been almost comprehensively welcoming of the world's 5th largest economy sudden arrival at the independent trade table. At least I think we're back in 5th place now the shock has abated.

In reply to BnB:


It wasnt adhom. It was a simple statement of fact. It really is dumb to try and decide what peoples motivations are based on a couple of lines. Particularly when you fail to understand what was explicitly written.

The ROW hasnt been particularly welcoming. That would be kicking off trade agreement negotiations immediately. Instead they have done what the In campaign has predicted. Namely say yes they are interested in trade agreements but no they are not going to rush into them and in most cases wanting to wait until after the EU negotiations have completed. That is a long, long way away from what the out campaign were stating.

In reply to Dave Garnett:

You are right, the organized street begging, mostly by Bulgarian and Romanian Sinti and Roma carrying EU passports is not an imaginary problem. In fact, it is even worse in Sweden, where you will find a begging lady at any single Coop from Malmö to Kiruna.

However, it is also not a problem that poses such a threat to our societies that it even come close to justifying closing our borders. The large number of refugees in 2015 arguably was, but even then I would have argued for retaining open borders within Schengistan. What would have been the alternative? Let them all die, or let Italy and Greece carry the entire burden?

CB

In reply to RomTheBear:


What rubbish, obviously it is not an imaginary problem this is why they have tried so many different ways to combat it.


So you just contradicted yourself within the space of two lines. And they proposed many things, each of which seemed never to be air tight enough. The 'deal' about people sending benefits to children not even living in the country was just one of the many loop holes that should have been airtight from the start. But they always find a way to keep raping the system for it's benefits which makes people very angry.


Brits abroad in no way benefit anything like those moving to the UK to claim benefits, that is utter nonsense. I never heard of anyone moving abroad because they could live better on benefits than they can in the UK. They tried to sell the importance of having free movement as being important to those Brits who wanted to work in Europe, as if they couldn't if we were not part of the EU, which is just nonsense also. We just need a working visa as we do anywhere else in the world, no big deal.


Like has been mentioned several times, free movement brings with it issues not relating to employment that we seem unable to get a grip of because we are a part of the free Europe. Are we going in circles here......................

In reply to Dominicandave:
"Brits abroad in no way benefit anything like those moving to the UK to claim benefits, that is utter nonsense. I never heard of anyone moving abroad because they could live better on benefits than they can in the UK. They tried to sell the importance of having free movement as being important to those Brits who wanted to work in Europe, as if they couldn't if we were not part of the EU, which is just nonsense also. We just need a working visa as we do anywhere else in the world, no big deal."


This is pretty false. I know of couples who moved to Germany and benefited from the fairer income tax regime for families there. (The rule that allows the unused tax allowance of one partner to be used for the benefit of the whole family) - OK there may have been other motivations but the male spouses in those cases were British.


These were not "tax exiles" - just ordinary families.

In reply to wercat:



Not what we are talking about and I think you know that. Obviously people move abroad to work as it is more rewarding, I am one of them and have been for the last 20 odd years, but this is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about the motivations to come to the UK and just benefit. Yes the benefits in Germany are very attractive also and is why that is the most desirable country to immigrants.

What I fail to get here is why everyone is so afraid of work visas, why do we require free movement if it works out all equal? I'd guess because it is not in reality.

Can anyone tell me what they have against keeping track of who is in and out and who is working and not by simply controlling borders better. Meaning take each case as it comes and not just have an open door. Why is this such a worry to people?

Infact this argument does not even need to be that complicated as those moving to the UK and benefitting from our system by far outweighs those moving out and benefitting from other European countries. This much is very obvious and so what more needs to be said.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Sorry but this is so laughable.... It was never a problem, every report or study shows it never was.
They set up different ways to combat an imaginary problem, just to try to keep UKIP at bay and frame the debate in terms of benefits, on which they could and did negotiate concessions from the EU, and not net migration overall numbers, on which they couldn't and did not get any concessions.


Absolutely not, they implemented measure to curb abuse that was statistically insignificant, and in money term, peanuts. As expected, it didn't make any difference, and probably cost more. It was done for purely political reasons.


The problem is that you hear only what you want to. According to estimations, around 2.5% of Brits claim benefits in other EU countries, about the same level as EU nationals in the UK. Not only that but benefits in the countries Brits tend to move to are way more generous than the UK's.


Yes they couldn't, the vast majority of Brits expats in the EU wouldn't qualify under the existing visa rules of other EU countries. Same vice versa.


And it's pretty depressing to have to debunk again and again the same stupid myths around immigration.

In reply to Dominicandave:

If this is so obvious, where is your evidence ? You seem to like to just make things up.
All I've seen is that there is no authoritative statistic in this area, but the little we have suggest it's fairly balanced.

In reply to RomTheBear:
If you are arguing what I have stated then it is up to you to provide evidence to counter my claims. If your info is accurate and you can show me this then I have no problem backing down, I love to see facts on these matters as it clears doubts up. I am not in an argument against reality here, I am discussing reasons and future.

No one has yet explained to me why they are so afraid of entry case by case, which is the meat of this whole issue. If you genuinely have reason to be here then you will be here, no on will stop that. If there is doubt on your contributions then obviously these reasons will be tested. Why is this an issue for you?

In reply to Dominicandave:
The point being Dave that the actual number of EU immigrants claiming benefits and 'raping the system' is very , very low and far lower than you seem to imagine. Thus the comment it is an imaginary problem. It is well documented

I live in Norway and can also tell you there are currently a lot of UK citizens here claiming a lot of benefit money. That's how it is right now, but it is still perceived that a free moving labour market is still a good thing and vital to the economy.

For BnB et al: Actually a more interesting question comes from Theresa Mays pronouncements in the Commons today that she will not be providing a running commentary on negotiations. You will not be getting upfront information on where she wants to end up as that will weaken her negotiating position.
Q1. Does the fact that you don't know what she wants impact your business planning as it maintains uncertainty?
Q2 . Do you think the negotiations should be adversarial, as she clearly perceives, or should they be a negotiation to 'win' for all parties?
Q3. Do you think this is a result of her inherent secrecy and 'mother knows best' attitude?

In reply to wbo:


Is the point that no matter how many there are, those that are able to, are. Not allowing this to be an issue in the first place seems to be what has happened and so there was enough people in the country that felt this was an issue.
I am aware that financially this is a no issue, the figures are so low it is not worth worrying about, but the people feel it enough of an issue, that is obvious.
People seem hell bent on making this all about finance and trade when there are the people who feel that some things just should not be acceptable. The government failed to address the issue that were brought to them and this is where we are now.

No matter what, there were enough people who felt the need to leave was the right move, and not all of them did so because they were lied to.


I don't trust May and find it a strange situation that she is running things. Saying that I do understand why she will not be giving a running commentary, because she is winging it, as we all are.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Ho ok, is that how it works, you just make up something and then the burden of proving the contrary is on me ? I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm saying we do not know, there is incomplete and contradictory evidence.
If you say it is "obvious" those moving to the UK and benefitting from our system by far outweighs those moving out and benefitting from other European countries, without actually even having the slightest clue as to whether this is true or not, you are basing your opinion on myths and fantasies. I'm not surprised, given that the debate on immigration has been dominated by those myths.

The only thing I could ever find is this survey : https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jan/19/-sp-thousands-britons-claim...
Anyway this is pretty much an irrelevant and the question not even worth the time, as the number of Brits claiming benefits in the EU, and vice versa is so small, it's barely worth noticing, this is very much a sideshow.

People may "feel" this is a problem, it doesn't mean this is actually one, nor that we should address it, and certainly not by doing something as radical as fucking with the lives of millions of EU migrants and British expats.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Are we just talking out of work benefits/job seekers allowance here? or are we including tax credits, housing benefit etc in the mix of benefits? (I agree it's probably still not a large number in the scheme of things)

In reply to RomTheBear:
Well I can base my understanding on whole bag of factors including net EU migration and the benefits of our country being one of the best in the EU, peoples determination to remain here and those that are not here hell bent determined to get here. My own personal experience of knowing people from all over Europe and that which I see and hear in the media.
What do you base your understanding on?

And I think we agree this is not the main factor in the decision to leave, just one of the smaller contributors. Financially it is very small and so in terms of financing it is not a huge deal.

In reply to Dominicandave:

If you rely on what you hear and see in the British media, that probably explains why your posts have been a series of inaccuracies and unproven claims.


Raw data from statistical sources, reading various reports from difference reputable sources, such as the migration advisory committee, migration observatory, NIESR... to name a few, as well as following parliamentary debates and parliamentary group reports on various issues relating to immigration, being part of a charity that helps migrants rights across the UK, and the personal experience of being an European migrant in the UK myself. And still there is a lot I don't know, simply because there is no data, but at least I (try to) not make shit up.

In reply to RomTheBear:
I did say 'which includes'................ but you take it as you like, you have an opinion and I also.

Yet you seem unable to show me any solid facts/stats while calling my lack of will to produce data talking shit or making stuff up. Quite to double standard.is it not.

In fact full of these double standards, when it is convenient for your agenda politicians are accurate, when not they are lying, amazing observations you have.

Show me the data you have of these reputable sources, is this because they may like you have an agenda and show bias? If not then produce them.

Anyway, we disagree and I can see that there will never be a debate with you as you are agenda driven on this, and so lets disagree and still have left the EU. Time to stop whining and get on with it.

In reply to Dominicandave:




Issues around benefits are quite negligible indeed, glad you admit this at least.
However, the net positive fiscal contribution of migration, is far from negligible, at around +0.46% of GDP more than the average fiscal impact of migration across the countries studied (+0.35% of GDP), more than Canada and Australia. That's pretty much consistent with the finding that through freedom of movement, the UK attracts more valuable and more skilled people than through the visa system.

In reply to Dominicandave:


No it's not a double standard, you made an unverifiable claim, I simply pointed out that you have no evidence for it. The burden of proof is on you not me, if you claim ghosts exists, it's up to you to prove it, it's not up to others who are a bit more humble and just say they don't know to disprove you.


Be more specific ? On the issues of benefits, I've already given you the only survey ever conducted, which tells us nothing because it's incomplete.

In reply to RomTheBear:


It is not up to me to prove anything, you are stating the people have been sold a myth on many occasions, it is up to you to support that. I'm not in this to answer your issues, we have left, people found sufficient reason and I don't believe everyone was sold a myth, no matter how strongly your agenda drives you that will not be changed.

In reply to RomTheBear:

That's pretty much consistent with the finding that through freedom of movement, the UK attracts more valuable and more skilled people than through the visa system.

Along with those less desirable. It appears we prefer to take a chance on this and I'm confident we will get along quite healthily without those who lack motivation to go through a visa process.

In reply to Dominicandave:


You're finally showing your true colours.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Nice shifting of the goal posts, but doesn't fly. It was about your claim that EU immigrant claim more benefits in the UK than vice versa. I say this is unproven made up crap, all I need to do to prove this is unproven is expose your inability to show any evidence of it.


I wasn't expecting to change your mind, talking to many of the leavers, it's often like trying to convince a religious person out of their faith, it NEVER works. When you give them evidence, they shrug it off or ignore it, and then they put the burden of proving that their god doesn't exist on you.

In reply to wbo:



I think I do know what she wants, but in any case it has only taken the global business world the grand period of about 3 weeks to work out that Brexit will drag on for so long and probably make not a lot of difference to much in the end that we'll all just get on with life as usual and forget special planning.


All successful negotiations start adversarial and end win-win. If they don't collapse of course. That's the format. It's an unfamiliarity with the moves of this dance that seems to be upsetting many people on this forum. When the EU spent the summer saying "no single market without free movement", most readers saw this as a full stop in the process. Instead May countered last week with "if you want to trade with us tariff free, there will be no free movement". It was a well crafted response in my opinion. As ever, the meeting ground is in the middle.


No. I don't think we should hurry to pigeon-hole her style.

In reply to BnB: Q1 - has it. I'm not so sure she knows. But certainly she has chosen to ignore part of what, for example, the Japanese wanted last week which was clarity, deciding to play it obtusely for her own political reasons.

Q2 - The meeting ground might be in the middle, but it might not. I need to look exactly where Switzerland has ended up but I think they've needed to yield, but have worded the end result quite cleverly.
I would certainly prefer a less adversarial style.

Re. Q3 - she has considerable form from the Home Office for this sort of controlling behaviour, so is not really a snap judgement.

In reply to BnB:

I contract for two large UK banks, and that's not the impression I have. They are changing their plans big time.


I can think of plenty of example of adversarial negotiations that ended lose-win, or lose-lose. We're in uncharted territory.


Actually it's a very poor response, it's a sidestep. Of course trade (presumably of goods) tariff-free is mostly easy (well relatively, it woudl still take years) and would be of a massive advantage to the EU, so easy to negotiate without freedom of movement. The EU already has tariff-free of goods with other countries.

This has nothing to do, though, with the single market, with which we don't necessarily have "trading" relationship, we are an integral part of it, moving capital, goods, people and services almost as seamlessly as you move them between say, England and Scotland.

What I read in the response of May is mostly an attempt to confuse free trade with single market, to claim victory when they finally agree free trade (regardless of the fact that free trade was always quite easy and not really the point)

In reply to cb294:

try any supermarket, or large store of any type. Although there are less in recent months. Most (used loosely) are not that poor, you'll see smart phones, died hair with only 1cm of root showing etc.. dropped off and picked up by their gang masters morning and evening. Plenty footage recording of them walking normally at 6am in Stockholm, before taking their crutch out and standing on their corner looking frail. They do normally rotate them every few weeks though. We normally just give them a piece of fruit. If you are in real need, you'd still be grateful. They usually work until it's about -5 or so, then give up in proper winter.

In reply to wbo:


Lol, the Japanese demanding "clarity". They know the game better than anyone and are just giving in nudge in the direction they want. Japanese demanding clarity...chuckle....

In reply to Postmanpat:

The MPs should be the ones demanding clarity. So far it seems like Number 10 is making all decisions in the background and keeps parliament and the devolved administration in the dark. So much for "parliamentary sovereignty"... All we hear it that they'll make Brexit "work for everyone "and other platitudes... well it won't there will be trade-offs, winners and losers, it should be up to parliament to decide, or at least know what's going on.

In reply to Postmanpat: That's absolutely true.... but if you were planning to build/expand in the UK now then political risk would be a bigger variable than it was or should be.

The MP's will soon tire of this - there is no point David D reporting anything to them if it all turns out to be 'opinion'. I doubt either side will tolerate this for long. Boris keeping his head down by the way.

In reply to RomTheBear:


What, that I am confident we will get along fine without those none Brits who want to work in the UK yet not so much they are prepared to get a work visa to do so. Like those from the rest of the world have to do.
I'm such a wrong'un for having confidence that we can make our own decisions, and believing all should be treated equal, EU and none EU alike. Were you at the Black Lives Matter protest in the UK today by any chance?

In reply to Dominicandave:

It's not that they are not prepared to get s work visa, it's that they don't need to bother, they have the choice between 27 countries.


You'll be able to chose those who come in the UK, from the pool of those desperate enough to bother applying for a visa. The rest is going to be family reunion visa so again not much of a choice.

And in the process deny the right to your kids to move, work and settle freely in Europe, narrowing their future to little Britain.

But I agree, it was a bit unfair to non-EU that they were not treated as well as EU migrants. The right way to fix this would have been to agree more reciprocal freedom of movement with more countries, starting with some commonwealth countries where there is support for it.
Instead you chose to go backwards, reduce the freedom and mobility of everybody in the uk, and slam the door in the face of your neighbours.


I have no idea what you are on about. Probably some anti-leftie obsession I guess.

In reply to RomTheBear:


You're right and I should have pointed out that the banks are probably more nervous than manufacturers or engineers or software firms. And with good reason as the passporting of services is under threat. Banks do however have a lot of form for going to great lengths to put pressure on governments with threats of relocation etc. Rather effective threats I would imagine given the estimated £65bn pa tax revenues. It would however be horrendously expensive to the banks themselves to move, not just in capital terms but also in terms of their human capital. Every single bank worker invited to move to Frankfurt or Luxembourg will take the opportunity to test the water with other banks in London or Europe, and moving HQ could easily kill many institutions for good. I would suggest that Plan A for every bank in London is to apply sufficient pressure on the government to maintain the status quo. Every other plan is a backup.


You're not wrong but read the segment you just replied to again and see if you spot the word "successful" this time. I wasn't talking about failed or unbalanced negotiations. Your point sits beside mine, not in opposition.




Then we disagree. I saw a clever rhetorical device to remind Europe of the €100bn trade surplus the EU was endangering with their posturing. Governments, not the EU, will shape the deal.

Surely what enlightened Brexiters (can we describe May thus?) want is a form of single market access to include services and capital with a re-drawing of the concept of free movement of people to focus on skills and the job market rather than the purple of their passport. That's somewhere in between and would include cementing the historical settling, via free movement, of a high proportion of EU citizens. I stop short of saying all because I do anticipate some headline friendly populist measures to remove a few late arriving Eastern European "terrorist sympathisers" or similar.

In reply to RomTheBear:


They had the choice between those countries before, and I think your point that it was free movement that was the main attraction to the UK is not accurate, obviously the UK has alot more than just ease of being here to offer. If the visa process is such a hindrance then their motivation to be a part of the UK is probably not as strong as it could be and so not a bad thing imo. Like I said we can survive just fine without those who can not be bothered to go through the visa process.


Desperate? So those who work in none EU countries are desperate? The world is alot larger than Europe and it is not the be all and end of most peoples options in life. Maybe you put too much value on this, infact the referendum has proven that none Brits put a higher value on us being a part of the EU than Brits do. Applying for a work visa to work abroad or a residency to live elsewhere is really just a part of a process for most who have chosen to play further afield than our own doorsteps, and there are many.


If they can't be bothered to go through the above then maybe, but I'd hope our children have more motivation for their future than making these decisions based on the legalities being a little more complex. Like I have said, it is the norm for the rest of the world and this doesn't appear to stop people, infact the figures show that people are settling in the UK in great numbers from all over the world, so much so that they are struggling to reduce them.


Sounds like a completely counter productive move imo. Trying to reduce the numbers and so open up our windows as well as our doors.


Really, go backwards, you don't know that, it is just words from your mouth.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Does it ever occur to you that persuading people really isn't your forte? If your endless attempts to do so by browbeating, boring and insulting are so ineffective, why don't you stop and do something useful?

Would you ever be open to being convinced by leavers that leaving was the correct thing to do, if not, why would you think that they should be open to being convinced to stay by you?

The fault may lie with you not them, because of your endless hectoring preaching and dogmatism, and above all because you are output only, completely incapable of listening to anyone with a different view or trying to understand where they are coming from. For that matter, are you capable of admitting that on at least some tiny, unimportant aspects, THEY MAY BE RIGHT AND YOU MAY BE WRONG? Have you also considered that British people are fairly unlikely to take advice about the future of their country from someone who seemingly has managed to obtain a British passport, but without acquiring any liking or sympathy for either Britain or the British people, rather seems to hate both the country and its population, regarding the passport simply as a flag of convenience, possibly about to get a little less convenient?

In reply to KevinD:


This is not the point though, the point is that the Government who called the refrendum should have plans for either outcome, it is just the right thing to do (irrespective if the government is in favour of one result or not. )

In reply to Simon4:



May I suggest you read your own post, and take a look in the mirror.


Actually, yes, there are many good arguments for Leave. Unfortunately most of the leavers don't make them, it seems they prefer to stick to their myths and fantasies. Probably they are right, it's more effective, in politics, when you need to explain or use reason, you've lost.



And here we go... Did it occur to you that maybe it's because I care about the country and it's population that I'm interested in this issue ?
You're the only one here being hateful.

In reply to Dominicandave:


Of course you'll "survive" fine. The question is whether visa of free movement is the best system at attracting the highest proportion of skilled migrants, and the most beneficial migrants.
So far, looking at the data, it seems that freedom of movement not only works better at that than the visa system, but it seems to work better than the visa system of pretty much every other country in the world. (With the added benefit of being reciprocal).
If you can convince me that the new visa system will be as good as that, ok, but so far I haven't seen any suggestion or plans.

In reply to RomTheBear:

That's cos' it's a secret

In reply to RomTheBear:




But the message that came through from the public in June wasn't that the British want a better system for attracting highly valued migrants, desirable though that may be to you or I.

It was that they want a better system for keeping less skilled migrants out.

You and I doubtless see eye to eye on the benefits of migration. Not least because my father was an asylum seeker and my grandmother on my mother's side an eastern european immigrant, and even more so because my business today moves hundreds of highly skilled migrants around the world.

But sometimes you gotta do what the people want, not what's best for them. That's democracy.

In reply to BnB:

Do you mean less skilled workers or workers that are enthusiastic to do the manual labour that the anti migration crowd arent ever going to do themselves?

In reply to BnB:


My point is, in all likelihood, they are going to get exactly the opposite of what they wanted. But it doesn't really matter does it, because all that matters is the "perception" that they have a better system.



What you describe is not democracy, it's more like tyranny of the majority, worse, a majority whose perceptions of immigration are vastly out of sync with reality.
Regardless, the idea is that we can discuss the issues anyway, even if we are in the minority.

In reply to timjones:

I'm not trying to capture the precise demographic that's offensive to a majority of voters (maybe). Just pointing out that the vote wasn't a clarion call for more French bankers.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Very possibly true, and thank goodness for that.



We can indeed, but let's be sensitive to other's wishes.

In reply to BnB:


The maybe is significant. Whilst I think that migration tipped the vote in favour of Brexit we really need to know how many people genuinely want migration to be curbed.

I was at a meeting this morning where the need for willing fruit and veg pickers and packers was discussed and it seems clear that we need to move away from the "low skill" label and recognise that it is essential that we have enthusoastic workers that are willing to do jobs that require a consistent high level of manual dexterity.

In reply to BnB:

Actually, no, you don't always have to be sensitive to other's wishes. If someone's wish is to strip away from you something that's dear, such as you and your kid's right to move around freely, or kick your friends out of the country, the only thing you can do is defend it with all you've got.

In reply to RomTheBear:


But "they" think you (and my father for that matter) have taken something dear to them, their jobs, their culture, their homes. And in some instances, they are sure to be right.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Its not quite that simple. Work permits and the applications required for them are not just a matter of paperwork. They often have quotas and pre-requisites required (i.e. the Aussie points based system). Its quite likely our children won't even be eligible to work in the EU and, even if they have some particularly sought after skill that makes them so, the hoops they'll need to jump through may be impractical for their potential employer.

So this isn't simply a case of having to do the legwork to fill out the paperwork, to pay the fees and to wait the many months they usually take to be processed. Rather, the door is quite explicitly being closed on potentially millions of people. Only those in highly sought-after professions may now be able to reside in the UK, or UK citizens in Europe. There may be requirements to renew these items of paperwork each year and failure to follow the instructions to the letter may carry extreme consequences - that is to say, in addition the the visa fee you are probably best also getting an immigration lawyer involved. I have first hand experience through work of a highly skilled and newly recruited staff-member who was dismissed after 6 months due to a technicality in their passport renewal and re-visa process - they are now back in Hong Kong, at our loss, through no malice on anyone's part and to the great disappointment of all involved...except presumably for the institution that has gained them as an employee instead. Lots of bad blood, lots of cost, substantial knock-on effects to customers, our institution and clients, and all for nothing. Not unusual apparently too as the government seeks to "look tough" in any perceived dodgy immigration/foreign worker cases.

If you are unskilled or simply want to dip your toe in to an EU country and see what work is on offer ....those options are probably closed entirely. Over a certain age? Chances are "working holiday" visas aren't even available so work is simply not an option - even if you are retired and just want to do some volunteer work or perhaps a bit of English teaching. Or you potentially all you are allowed is two years of part-time work.

Seriously, the bureaucracy and petty restrictions that go with work permits can be mind boggling. Stories abound of non-EU citizens being turned back at Heathrow because immigration officers suspect they are arriving to live and work rather than holiday; suspicions based on little more than not responding to an officers questions as expected, being found to be in possession of a CV, or a suit in their baggage, or perhaps having a partner currently working in the UK.

It would appear the vast majority of Brexit voters were most specifically concerned with freedom of movement within the EU. If the Brexit voting electorate is to get what it wants having won the referendum, EU citizens will likely need to go through the same kinds of work permit hurdles as Australians, Americans, Indians and Colombians presently go through. Background checks, criminal record checks, the exchange of over £1,000, etc. I see no reason why EU states won't reciprocate with the same restrictions on UK citizens.

In reply to BnB:


And I've been listening to them, and asked them to show me evidence of it. I'm still waiting.

In reply to David Martin:


Very true, one of my Cambodian friend can't even get a visitor visa to come see me, simply because the Home Office wants her to prove that she has no intention of staying in the country, which of course is impossible. £300 wasted on two rejected applications. It's a brave new world.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Is this the same guy who has the argument that people can just go 'somewhere else' and only the desperate will remain? Interesting.
Just to add that your idea of defending is my idea of whining. There is nothing to defend, once a decision is made, those who continue to fight a losing battle are not considered to be defending, you already lost.

In reply to Dominicandave:

A disgraceful overstatement of my case, but anyway, I'm not sure why you seem to think it doesn't fit in the argument. Whatever.


Exactlyt the kind of authoritarian tone I'm worried about. Just FYI, no clear decision has been made yet on what shape the new immigration system will take, in case you didn't know. Pardon me, I shouldn't bother with facts, that's the new paradigm, I forgot.

In reply to RomTheBear:

Worse, my old employer had a multi million dollar scholarship programme to bring Cambodians and other Southeast Asians to the UK to study. It was fully funded from an American philanthropist so no cost to anyone in the UK and was actually direct investment in to Britain with the added benefit of cultural capital when the students went back to their home countries.

Yet we had circumstances where students in receipt of the scholarships couldn't actually come. Because the UKBA was suspicious of them and wouldn't grant a visa.

In reply to timjones:



So we need to address the problem of gangmasters and exploitation. I can't see farmers offering permanent employment and pension rights, but the current model in veg and soft fruit means insecurity, illegal practices and agency working will continue. I've had the PR tour of the big spanish tomato plasticos and I've seen people pulling leeks/ cutting cabbage/picking soft fruit in the UK and all of them are migrant labour and very good at what they do, but there is a gulf between what people are saying in meetings and what is happening in the packing sheds, fenland and the backstreets of Boston.

In reply to David Martin:


You know as much as the rest of us about how this will pan out, and that is nothing, but speculation is fine.


Obviously there are requirements to renew visas and residencies, that is the point of not being a citizen. And if your employee lost their because the rules were not followed of the renewals completed on time then that is entirely down to the employer and employee. There is a certain amount of responsibility that you take on when investing in such a process, and meeting requirements is part of it.


Again, speculation based on absolutely nothing. We have never been here before and have not gone through negotiations and so you have absolutely zero to base this speculation on.


This is how illegals are kept out, they are so cautious because so many do not return, it is a good thing they have learned. illegals should not be tolerated or encouraged, end of.


Following the trend of this entire post you sign off with more unfounded speculation.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Rejecting perfectly innocent people at the border on grounds of pure speculation and dubious legality, is not a way to stop illegals, it's the mark of a proto-fascist state. But it looks like it doesn't even worry you.

In reply to malice2:

They are trained to spot tell tale signs and doing a job. They are so strict because they have been abused in the past. That is just how it is. Do you suggest they allow them in and wait for them to head underground before refusing them entry? Or hang on maybe they need to sit and wait for the ones coming through with a big sign above their head? They can never get it right every time, but who in their job can, mistakes are made and some suffer for this, but those they do get who were with intentions to stay illegally I think the balance probably works out somehow.

In reply to malice2:


No one is punished, I think I can assure you if that.

In reply to Pete Pozman:

I'm surprised we still get invited to the G20 - surely we won't still be getting an invite in 15 years time...

In reply to Dominicandave:


Being rejected at the border when your innocent is not a punishment ?

In reply to Dominicandave:

Actually I don't think there is balance to have between punishing innocent people and catching criminals. Not punishing innocents should always prevail. It's quite worrying that you seem comfortable with the idea that we can go as far as screwing with innocent people just in order to guard the border.
I can think of better ways to stop illegal immigrants than being nasty to tourists.

In reply to RomTheBear:


No.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Thankfully it doesn't matter what you or I think, it is how it is for a good reason. I would fear the day the likes of yourself gets to make the calls on our border security.



Being nasty to tourists? Sorry, you have completely lost me with this last exchange. I think it's best you sit in your candy floss thrown and I'll carry on in economy with the realists.

In reply to bouldery bits:


We'll stick with the G8.

In reply to Lusk:


Nice.

In reply to Dominicandave:



You are the one advocating sending tourists back for having a suit!

In reply to Dominicandave:

I think wouldn't feel that way if it happened to you. But I guess you don't really care as long as it happens to some foreigner.

Ok, we disagree on immigration, but at least can we agree that refusing tourists visas to genuine tourists and basically steal their money, and rejecting people at the border who have their paper in order, based and nationality or facies, is wrong ?

In reply to MG:


Where did I say this, please quote the post so I can recall saying this.

Can't? Because I never said such a thing.

Please go back through the thread and correct your silly little mind about what has been said.

In reply to Dominicandave:

Another session of back-pedalling ?


You basically defended it.


Your post at 19:16. I'm not sure why you feel the need to insult other posters either.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Haha, not the first time I have seen you presume you know complete strangers. I have first hand experience. And can you provide any specifics about people who have been turned away for merely having a suit with them.


There are many reasons a visa may be refused, and it is unlikely that a visa from a poor or developing nation will even be granted, purely based on the fact that they know they have no reason to return, and so many have done the same in the past. Being turned away at the border? Well please provide some substance to show people get turned away for having a suit.

In reply to RomTheBear:




When did I defend people being turned away for carrying suits? You are just a plain liar. If I said this then instead of sitting there just lying about what others have said 'quote' it in a reply.

It makes me laugh that you mention insulting poster, you really are in a world of your own aren't you.

In reply to Dominicandave:


Ok

" [...] to an officers questions as expected, being found to be in possession of a CV, or a suit in their baggage, or perhaps having a partner currently working in the UK."

You : " This is how illegals are kept out, they are so cautious because so many do not return, it is a good thing they have learned. illegals should not be tolerated or encouraged, end of."

Maybe it's wasn't what you meant, that's fine, but don't accuse me of being a liar.


Listen, I've not resorted to insults. I don't care that much really if you do, but at least try something a bit more imaginative.

In reply to Dominicandave:

You have first hand experience of being refused entry in a country for no real reason despite having all you paperwork in order ? If yes, how did you like it ?


Exactly, you're being turned away simply on the presumption that you will commit an immigration offence before you even enter the country. Presumed guilty based on origin and wealth. If find it quite amazing that you think it's acceptable. I thought we would at least agree on this, but apparently not.

In reply to RomTheBear:






You are a liar. You said I defended the idea tourists are rejected for being tourists or having a suit. I did not say anything along the lines of what you and the other insinuated.
I did not for one second consider anyone was serious about people being refused entry for just having a suit with them (did you?, then you are mad). I took it into consideration that the person making this remark had absolutely no info to back it up purely because it does not happen, and so ha no substance to back it, which funnily is the case.

If someone turns up from a developing nation and tells them they are just here to go to see the zoo, and just have a vacation, while there is no social assistance in their native land, and unemployment is as high is it is in most developing nations, you expect them not to be suspicious?
If someone has a CV and a suit and tells the border agency they are coming for 1 week vacation from Haiti, then they have to consider this person is here for a job interview. The threat comes as they are possibly not going to go back even if they don't get the job. Why? because Haiti is a shit hole, along with so many other developing nations. If you do not understand why some are regarded as a threat then refer to my opening line.

But you stated I said something that I did not say and therefor you are a liar. Based on your bias for sure, but does not change the fact you stated something I did not say.


Have you ever lived outside of the EU, more importantly in developing nations? I guess not.

I would guess not based on your idea that if a guy from the Haiti turned up at heathrow with a pair of flip flops and a sombrero with £200 in the bank you would just consider he is here for a vacation.

Naive at best!

Again, I am so glad you are not responsible for understanding the big picture.

In reply to RomTheBear:


Was a pain in the ass, but I am confident they are extremely tight here in the UK which fills me with confidence.


How old are you? You seem extremely naive.

In reply to Dominicandave:
I think you are missing my point.

Employers and employees are served brilliantly by the open borders arrangement of the EU. It just works. It makes the need for visas and paperwork amongst neighbouring countries look ludicrous and reminds me of the visa theatrics I have to go through in the 3rd world. Why not go the whole hog and create work permit requirements for people moving between England and Scotland? Or perhaps someone moving from Manchester to London? Keeping those non-Londoners out is exactly what we need to keep the housing market in check down here afterall.

As for the example I gave; all parties involved believed they were following the regulations to the letter. It turned out they weren't quite doing it right (it is different for every country you deal with). But as part of being a "trusted institution", one that can hire internationally with relative ease, the UKBA runs a zero-tolerance arrangement on any miss-step in the lengthily bureaucratic hurdles involved in employing a non-EU national. The result is essentially instant removal of that staff member when the problem is discovered - and that might simply be a form not quite filled out correctly, or even the result of issues at the UKBA end itself. It is over the top and wrecks havoc in an institution, but I suppose it keeps lawyers in a job and provides employment for multiple HR staff to manage. It doesn't lend towards a functioning economy though. Fortunately it isn't, or at least wasn't, a situation we had to fear when employing EU nationals.

Keeping illegals out? I went through the same issue at the border recently. I'm not an illegal. Yet I was told by the immigration officer I was being refused entrance. How is that useful? Expand that out to include the access granted to millions of EU citizens...it really is like pulling up the drawbridge.

And with regards to speculation, I suspect many here have spent their entire adult/travelling lives as EU members and perhaps are unaware of the benefits they have experienced as part of it. As a non-EU national for much of the last 40 years I've had to obtain visas to live and work here. It was a long process, with a great deal of uncertainty, was hugely restrictive to what I could do and where I could go, but I undertook it at a time when the process was much easier and cheaper than it is now.

Now, if the post-Brexit visa process, which now includes EU nationals, is made as relatively easy as I have experienced then I'm afraid the Brexit voters are not going to have the changes they wished for. It will result in just as free movement of people, if not more, but will require a huge and slow bureaucracy to administer. On the other hand, if the Brexit voters are to get what they want, the hurdles to entry/work will have to be so much higher. Based on my experience, if the visa requirements were more onerous than they were when I applied, I simply wouldn't bother - the costs, uncertainty and restriction they make to your life chances is just too much (for example, it even impacts who you can choose to marry).

So, yes, its speculation. But not altogether unfounded. I've been through the other side of being a non-EU national, a Commonwealth member, in an EU country. And I've seen this from the side of an organisation that NEEDS to employ internationally and whose very existence and quality of its work depends on doing so. Its a hugely regressive move, that will have profound negative impacts on the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. What improvements will it bring? I'd be surprised if you notice any improvements. Perhaps come back in a decade and tell me if you've noticed any.

In reply to Dominicandave:


You realise RtB just quoted the passage where you did it verbatim? It's all upthread if you want to check. Maybe after some thought you now realise it was a stupid thing to do, or you didn't need mean it, but that's what you did.

In reply to Dominicandave:


Really ? Where was it you were rejected at the border ?

In reply to David Martin:

I think it may be one of the issue, many base their experience of on themselves or their friend getting a visa to Oz or the US 10 or 20 years ago... It's a totally different game now, and the reality is, easily 3/4 of Brits would not qualify for even a short work visa in most EU countries.

In reply to MG:


OK, so you want to spin this all out of context. If you are referring to where I said they have a job to do and this was how they keep illegals down., you have to take into consideration that I presumed no one actually believed the other poster in that people are refused entry because they were carrying a suit. If this is not the case then please provide me with some kind of proof that people are being refused for such things.
My response was to say I agree that people do not have to have committed a crime before being refused entry. I absolutely nowhere said I think people should be refused entry for having a suit, that is just a lie, or at best spun out of context.
Either way I think it is unreasonable and naive to believe people should only be refused entry if they have committed a crime once in the country