EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[AlterEgo]

How did you get here without a passport?

They “lost it”.

 

[EM2]

They “lost it”.

Then they cannot register. And if they cannot register, then they cannot remain.

 

[HSTEd]

How can it be, when the directive states 'in many countries', not 'in all countries'? Surely the UK can adopt whatever principle it likes in relation to the carrying of ID, since it is not a requirement in all member states?

Because it only requires registration in countries that require registration and carriage of documents by everyone?
You will not be required to in the UK because the UK does not require it's own citizens to do so.

 

[fowler9]

Again, if we believe this directive is not subject to the no-discrimination requirement, then perhaps, but I (and apparently the UK government) believes it is subject


Because I believe, and the UK Government apparently does too, that EU law would not permit the steps being recommended here unless they were extended to all citizens, which is not at all acceptable to the British public.

What steps? They have ID cards in the EU. You reckon we don't want them. You don't mind freedom of movement. What the hell is it you want. I am stuck with Brexit (Which sounds like a bad breakfast cereal) and the only people who can agree on what it is are the racists who want no foreigners and BoJo and Rees-Mogg who want a tax haven for rich people. Meanwhile no one else can agree on what they want. I'm also being told that as I voted remain it meant I wanted Schengen, the Euro and an EU army, none of which was ever going to happen anyway at least for us unless we voted for it. Plus you have BoJo with his "F*ck Business" as if the right wing have suddenly become socialists. What the hell is it you people want? Taking back control is just fudge if that is your answer.

 

[EM2]

Because it only requires registration in countries that require registration and carriage of documents by everyone?
You will not be required to in the UK because the UK does not require it's own citizens to do so.

It doesn't!
https://www.sachsen.de/en/1454.htm - It is a requirement to register in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_identity_card - It is not compulsory to carry a German ID card.

 

[fowler9]

I actually almost feel sorry for Theresa May being called a traitor by the Murdoch press for not delivering something that is pretty much impossible. It makes Gareth Southgates job look easy.

 

[HSTEd]

It doesn't!
https://www.sachsen.de/en/1454.htm - It is a requirement to register in Germany.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_identity_card - It is not compulsory to carry a German ID card.

Is it a requirement for EU citizens resident in Germany to carry their registration documents at all times?
If not, then the requirement for the EU citizens is the same as for Germans.

Which exactly supports my position.

What steps? They have ID cards in the EU. You reckon we don't want them. You don't mind freedom of movement. What the hell is it you want. I am stuck with Brexit (Which sounds like a bad breakfast cereal) and the only people who can agree on what it is are the racists who want no foreigners and BoJo and Rees-Mogg who want a tax haven for rich people. Meanwhile no one else can agree on what they want. I'm also being told that as I voted remain it meant I wanted Schengen, the Euro and an EU army, none of which was ever going to happen anyway at least for us unless we voted for it. Plus you have BoJo with his "F*ck Business" as if the right wing have suddenly become socialists. What the hell is it you people want? Taking back control is just fudge if that is your answer.

The position being suggested here is that registration and deportation of EU citizens who do not find jobs is a practical and effective method for resolving concerns over immigration of the populace.
I very much doubt that that would be the case

Personally I want to use state powers to improve the lives of the populace in a manner forbidden by EU laws that would be de-facto impossible to change.

 

[northwichcat]

Is it a requirement for EU citizens resident in Germany to carry their registration documents at all times?
If not, then the requirement for the EU citizens is the same as for Germans.

You might be subject to ID checks in Germany but you don't need to have that document with you at all times.

You don’t have to carry your passport with you while in Germany, but the police are currently carrying out more frequent ID checks. If you’re asked to show your passport and you don’t have it with you, the police may escort you to wherever your passport is being kept so that you can show it to them.

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/germany/local-laws-and-customs

 

[HSTEd]

https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/germany/local-laws-and-customs

That is for people who are visiting Germany, what is the position for EU citizens resident in Germany.

 

[EM2]

Is it a requirement for EU citizens resident in Germany to carry their registration documents at all times?
If not, then the requirement for the EU citizens is the same as for Germans.

Which exactly supports my position.

So your position is that if 'native' residents are not required to carry ID, then neither can non-native residents be required to do so.
Which is the point that I made about any putative UK registration system, and which you disagreed with!

 

[3141]

I actually almost feel sorry for Theresa May being called a traitor by the Murdoch press for not delivering something that is pretty much impossible. It makes Gareth Southgates job look easy.

"Traitor" is too strong a word, but increasingly I feel that David Cameron deserves a huge amount of blame for making this situation possible, when he undertook to run a referendum on EU membership, hoping to solve his problems with warring Tory MPs, and apparently failing to consider the risk that the outcome might be Leave. And even if the outcome had been Remain, I doubt that would have silenced those who want to go.

It's not surprising it has taken so long to get to a formulation of what we are aiming for, since there was no clear definition of what Brexit should consist of. Over the past two years it's become clear that some of the consequences of leaving are ones most people who think about the situation would prefer to do without. Theresa May's compromise is an attempt to avoid the disaster that I think a really hard Brexit, or an exit without any deal at all, would lead to.

It's not just the Murdoch press, in my opinion: the Labour Party can obviously make scornful comments about the government's disarray, but they are dead lucky not to be having to grapple with the issues themselves. From their perspective, the best thing is to let the Conservatives tear themselves apart and hope to move in afterwards. I hope there are still some pieces to pick up.

There is still a risk of a no deal exit. If there's a competition to cut off your nose to spite your face, we're well in the lead over the EU, and stand to lose much more from no deal. The ideology of the Rees-Moggs, the misrepresentations of the Sun/Mail/Express, and the general tendency of human beings to let their pride override commonsense, all make an outcome that benefits Britain uncertain.

 

[AM9]

"Traitor" is too strong a word, but increasingly I feel that David Cameron deserves a huge amount of blame for making this situation possible, when he undertook to run a referendum on EU membership, hoping to solve his problems with warring Tory MPs, and apparently failing to consider the risk that the outcome might be Leave. And even if the outcome had been Remain, I doubt that would have silenced those who want to go.

It's not surprising it has taken so long to get to a formulation of what we are aiming for, since there was no clear definition of what Brexit should consist of. Over the past two years it's become clear that some of the consequences of leaving are ones most people who think about the situation would prefer to do without. Theresa May's compromise is an attempt to avoid the disaster that I think a really hard Brexit, or an exit without any deal at all, would lead to.

It's not just the Murdoch press, in my opinion: the Labour Party can obviously make scornful comments about the government's disarray, but they are dead lucky not to be having to grapple with the issues themselves. From their perspective, the best thing is to let the Conservatives tear themselves apart and hope to move in afterwards. I hope there are still some pieces to pick up.

There is still a risk of a no deal exit. If there's a competition to cut off your nose to spite your face, we're well in the lead over the EU, and stand to lose much more from no deal. The ideology of the Rees-Moggs, the misrepresentations of the Sun/Mail/Express, and the general tendency of human beings to let their pride override commonsense, all make an outcome that benefits Britain uncertain.

Well put. No doubt there will be a hardliner along here soon to tell us that the EU really need us more than we need them and will come back with everything we want if we just play hard ball. It's beginning to look like a bit of an embarassment to those who thought leaving would be a good thing.

 

[bramling]

"Traitor" is too strong a word, but increasingly I feel that David Cameron deserves a huge amount of blame for making this situation possible, when he undertook to run a referendum on EU membership, hoping to solve his problems with warring Tory MPs, and apparently failing to consider the risk that the outcome might be Leave. And even if the outcome had been Remain, I doubt that would have silenced those who want to go.

It's not surprising it has taken so long to get to a formulation of what we are aiming for, since there was no clear definition of what Brexit should consist of. Over the past two years it's become clear that some of the consequences of leaving are ones most people who think about the situation would prefer to do without. Theresa May's compromise is an attempt to avoid the disaster that I think a really hard Brexit, or an exit without any deal at all, would lead to.

It's not just the Murdoch press, in my opinion: the Labour Party can obviously make scornful comments about the government's disarray, but they are dead lucky not to be having to grapple with the issues themselves. From their perspective, the best thing is to let the Conservatives tear themselves apart and hope to move in afterwards. I hope there are still some pieces to pick up.

There is still a risk of a no deal exit. If there's a competition to cut off your nose to spite your face, we're well in the lead over the EU, and stand to lose much more from no deal. The ideology of the Rees-Moggs, the misrepresentations of the Sun/Mail/Express, and the general tendency of human beings to let their pride override commonsense, all make an outcome that benefits Britain uncertain.

The idea that Cameron proposed the referendum to appease his own party is wide of the mark. At the time the party was pleased to be in power for the first time in 13 years with a credible leader, but still lacking the confidence that they would gain a majority.

What was an issue was UKIP were a thorn in the side, and at the time it was thought that they were taking Conservative votes - only subsequently has it been realised that UKIP were possibly just as much of a threat to Labour. The LibDem collapse was also unexpected. The referendum was an attempt to attract UKIP votes, and may well have been instrumental in Cameron gaining that majority.

Perhaps people may wish to blame Farage if looking for someone to blame, but at the end of the day the referendum came about because increasing numbers of people were finding the EU salient, which is borne out by the eventual result.

I think people forget that it was the electorate which voted to leave, not a warring party nor Farage. Cameron can’t be blamed for identifying and responding to public opinion - quite the opposite. What he can be blamed for is failing to make any plans for a potential leave outcome, and then throwing in the towel despite having pledged to serve a full term.

 

[bnm]

"(the issue) was certainly poisoning politics in my own party."

David Cameron after resigning, 2016.

Tory MPs and members were worried during the coalition about the rise of UKIP. Not that UKIP would get close to power, or any great number of seats in Parliament, but that they'd take Tory votes and let in Labour across more seats. Forgetting of course that UKIP's raison d'etre meant they were just as likely to garner votes from those who'd usually vote Labour. A status quo that could easily have lead to a tory win in 2015 without a referendum pledge. So, to appease those Tory MPs and members, Cameron promised them an EU Referendum, selling to his party the idea that the issue would be resolved by getting the electorate to fight the battle on his behalf. This was a complete lack of leadership or foresight. The mark of a weak leader. He was blinded by an overstated UKIP threat and too spineless to stand up to the small minority of eurosceptics in his party.

The UK is a representative democracy. Despite the referendum manifesto pledge the make up of Parliament after the 2015 election was overwhelmingly pro-EU.

So calling the referendum was nothing to do with tory infighting? I think not.

 

[bramling]

"(the issue) was certainly poisoning politics in my own party."

David Cameron after resigning, 2016.

Tory MPs and members were worried during the coalition about the rise of UKIP. Not that UKIP would get close to power, or any great number of seats in Parliament, but that they'd take Tory votes and let in Labour across more seats. Forgetting of course that UKIP's raison d'etre meant they were just as likely to garner votes from those who'd usually vote Labour. A status quo that could easily have lead to a tory win in 2015 without a referendum pledge. So, to appease those Tory MPs and members, Cameron promised them an EU Referendum, selling to his party the idea that the issue would be resolved by getting the electorate to fight the battle on his behalf. This was a complete lack of leadership or foresight. The mark of a weak leader. He was blinded by an overstated UKIP threat and too spineless to stand up to the small minority of eurosceptics in his party.

The UK is a representative democracy. Despite the referendum manifesto pledge the make up of Parliament after the 2015 election was overwhelmingly pro-EU.

So calling the referendum was nothing to do with tory infighting? I think not.

So if anything it was a response to Tory cold feet about UKIP, and to be fair they probably weren’t the only ones who thought UKIP was more of a threat to Conservative votes than Labour ones. And it’s hardly unreasonable for Conservatives to worry that they might lose seats in the event of the Conservative vote being split by UKIP, especially at a time when an overall majority was felt unlikely. He certainly shouldn’t be criticised in my view for offering a path to something which people clearly wanted. What he shouldn’t have done is offered an option which he had no intention of delivering.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Personally I want to use state powers to improve the lives of the populace in a manner forbidden by EU laws that would be de-facto impossible to change.

What specifically do you want to do?

 

[HSTEd]

So your position is that if 'native' residents are not required to carry ID, then neither can non-native residents be required to do so.
Which is the point that I made about any putative UK registration system, and which you disagreed with!

Well then we've misunderstood each other.
My point is that registration is impossible because registration of British citizens is an anathema to the British people.

What specifically do you want to do?

Use very very low yield government bonds (index linked bonds show negative real yields) to purchase long lived infrastructure that will substantially improve the quality of life of the british people.

Tidal barrages, nuclear power plants, high speed rail lines and other long lived, heavy infrastructure.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Use very very low yield government bonds (index linked bonds show negative real yields) to purchase long lived infrastructure that will substantially improve the quality of life of the british people.

Tidal barrages, nuclear power plants, high speed rail lines and other long lived, heavy infrastructure.

Two issues:

1) Find the EU legislation that prevents this specifically;

2) More importantly, your wish is a political one that would need to part of a future government policy. To vote for Brexit on the back of a fantasy policy is beyond belief.

 

[Bromley boy]

The UK is a representative democracy. Despite the referendum manifesto pledge the make up of Parliament after the 2015 election was overwhelmingly pro-EU.

The 2016 referendum result would suggest otherwise.

 

[Bromley boy]

So if anything it was a response to Tory cold feet about UKIP, and to be fair they probably weren’t the only ones who thought UKIP was more of a threat to Conservative votes than Labour ones. And it’s hardly unreasonable for Conservatives to worry that they might lose seats in the event of the Conservative vote being split by UKIP, especially at a time when an overall majority was felt unlikely. He certainly shouldn’t be criticised in my view for offering a path to something which people clearly wanted. What he shouldn’t have done is offered an option which he had no intention of delivering.

Absolutely. UKIP performed badly in terms of elected MPs but they scored more votes overall than the SNP and I believe would have been third largest party overall in at least one recent GE.

Re. your last point, there was always a certain smug arrogance about David Cameron which rather blew up in his face with the referendum result. The intention was always to use the referendum to shut the ignorant working class oiks up once and for all.

 

[HSTEd]

Two issues:

1) Find the EU legislation that prevents this specifically;

State AId rules most definitely prohibit the use of public money on such a basis (at actual rather than 'commercial' interest rates) for infrastructure like a power plant as that wil definitely be of benefit to a specific undertaking and most certainly will distort competition in a competitive marketplace.

The electricity directive demands that a competitive marketplace must exist at all times and so we can't just recreate a traditional vertically integrated utility to more efficiently distribute electricity and escape the state aid provisions.
So such a policy is certainly forbidden - I have been trying to find a way around it since about five years before the referendum.

2) More importantly, your wish is a political one that would need to part of a future government policy. To vote for Brexit on the back of a fantasy policy is beyond belief.

The chance of my preferred society emerging within the EU is much closer to zero (it being zero) than it emerging outside the EU.

 

[bnm]

The 2016 referendum result would suggest otherwise.

The referendum result didn't largely change whether particular MPs were 'Remain' or 'Leave'. One or two may have changed allegiance since the result, but the numbers across the house in June 2016 show that 479 MPs were in the 'Remain' camp and 158 were for 'Leave'. 13 didn't declare a position before the referendum.

I think it's safe to work back from that and say that before dunderhead Cameron decided to abrogate any semblance of leadership, by resorting to letting the country fight it out rather than those elected to do the political stuff, the numbers would have been similar.

There was no "This referendum is a stupid idea" box to tick on the ballot, so I had only one way to protest at Cameron's idiocy. Vote leave.

At least I helped remove him from office. That was the only positive I could use to form my decision. Abstaining was not an option, I believe the right to vote is important. Even if referendums are an unnecessary blunt instrument in our representative democracy.

I have to live with that voting decision. But I shouldn't, and neither should the country, have even been asked. Leave or Remain should have been manifesto pledges. If that meant only UKIP were offering a Leave manifesto then so be it.

 

[Bromley boy]

At least I helped remove him from office. That was the only positive I could use to form my decision. Abstaining was not an option, I believe the right to vote is important. Even if referendums are an unnecessary blunt instrument in our representative democracy.

I have to live with that voting decision. But I shouldn't, and neither should the country, have even been asked. Leave or Remain should have been manifesto pledges. If that meant only UKIP were offering a Leave manifesto then so be it.

So in other words you were/are confused about your own decision to vote leave. Maybe you should have abstained or simply voted remain?

I know many remain voters, but I don’t think I know a single one who actually likes the EU or what it stands for - they were all scared of their London house prices dipping. That is a perfectly valid pragmatic approach (and I share their concern!), but it strikes me as somewhat cowardly and intellectually lazy.

EDIT: and abstaining absolutely was an option. Voting is not compulsory in the U.K.

 

[HSTEd]

For the record I did not vote Brexit in the end because I don't like the EU but the leave campaign was somewhat problematic.

I cast a blank ballot.

 

[bnm]

I thought about my decision long and hard. I listened/watched all the debates, read widely about the EU and its history. Looked long and hard at what each political party was saying. Met my local (Con) MP. Talked with friends and family. For me, there was just one positive to the referendum. Taking the opposing view to that of the idiot who'd instigated the referendum.

And, in my mind, abstaining from voting is a dereliction of civic duty. But then again, perhaps you'd prefer more abstain. It allows for the more extreme view to hold sway.

As for pragmatism, that too is a perfectly reasonable reason for a voting decision. I trust these 'pragmatists' you know are merely acquaintances and not close friends. I certainly wouldn't want a friend who called me intellectually lazy and a coward. But wait, you agree their pragmatic approach is perfectly valid. Perfectly valid but intellectually lazy and cowardly? Now, that is confusing! People choose how they vote for a multitude of reasons. Emotional, financial, historical... just some. All perfectly valid reasons that aren't lazy or cowardly. There is no one 'right' reason. Not mine, not theirs, and certainly not yours.

How dare you denigrate my opinion with suggestions of confusion. That's just a personal attack on someone you disagree with. Not surprising though, it's a regular occurrence from you.

 

[Bromley boy]

I thought about my decision long and hard. I listened/watched all the debates, read widely about the EU and its history. Looked long and hard at what each political party was saying. Met my local (Con) MP. Talked with friends and family. For me, there was just one positive to the referendum. Taking the opposing view to that of the idiot who'd instigated the referendum.

As did I, in fact I studied EU law during my law degree (at a Russell Group institution, which I did rather well in. I’m not saying that to brag, rather than to avoid being dismissed as an intellectual lightweight - we leave voters are all stupid, right!? Not this one! I flatter myself ). I was no fan of Cameron either but was glad the referendum was offered - albeit for the wrong reasons.

And, in my mind, abstaining from voting is a dereliction of civic duty. But then again, perhaps you'd prefer more abstain. It allows for the more extreme view to hold sway.

“Extreme views” meaning views you don’t agree with, perchance?

How dare you denigrate my opinion with suggestions of confusion. That's just a personal attack on someone you know nothing about and disagree with. Not surprising though, it's a regular occurrence from you.

You’re the one saying your reason for voting leave was down to your dislike of the person proposing the referendum. That strikes me as a completely arbitrary position: a viewpoint that lacks intellectual rigour and reveals a woeful lack of insight into the wider issues in question.

You might as well have tossed a coin!

 

[Bromley boy]

As for pragmatism, that too is a perfectly reasonable reason for a voting decision. I trust these 'pragmatists' you know are merely acquaintances and not close friends. I certainly wouldn't want a friend who called me intellectually lazy and a coward. But wait, you agree their pragmatic approach is perfectly valid. Perfectly valid but intellectually lazy and cowardly? Now, that is confusing! People choose how they vote for a multitude of reasons. Emotional, financial, historical... just some. All perfectly valid reasons that aren't lazy or cowardly. There is no one 'right' reason. Not mine, not theirs, and certainly not yours.

In which case you presume very wrongly indeed.

The pragmatist remain voters in my circle include my best mate (I consider him virtually family) and my own mother.

I still consider their positions to be intellectually lazy. And have told them so on many occasions.

How do you like them apples?!

 

[bnm]

Well done.

You've replaced 'confusion', with a 'lack of intellectual rigour'.

Can't help yourself can you? So, if you can't beat them...

You chose the wrong smiley in that last post. I'll see if the forum mods can add a 'blowing my own trumpet' one just for you.

As you brought up your Russell Group education in EU law. To what end? Not much use after 29th March 2019.

My planned OU degree course will be of no use in this thread though. Just thought I'd mention it despite level of education being irrelevant to this discussion, excepting narcissistic bragging.

How do you like them apples?!

Crushed in a traditional 'cheese' to produce a strong Somerset Scrumpy. Wassail!!!

 

[Bromley boy]

Well done.

You've replaced 'confusion', with a 'lack of intellectual rigour'.

Can't help yourself can you? So, if you can't beat them...

You chose the wrong smiley in that last post. I'll see if the forum mods can add a 'blowing my own trumpet' one just for you.

As you brought up your Russell Group education in EU law. To what end? Not much use after 29th March 2019.

My planned OU degree course will be of no use in this thread though. Just thought I'd mention it despite level of education being irrelevant to this discussion, excepting narcissistic bragging.

What a strange and somewhat hysterical response.

I note you’ve not addressed any of the points I raised above. Never mind. I doubt the forum mods are interested either.

You seem somewhat brittle, easily offended, and quick to threaten to report posts? Why?! You should grow a thicker skin.

I wish you good luck with your OU degree (they’re a decent institution, aforementioned best mate did his maths degree there - struggled to a first and now has a far better job as a result - so there’s no need for your reverse snobbishness!).

Mine was a UK qualifying law degree - EU law was one of the required subjects - Van Gend En Loos, Cassais de Dijon etc. Rest assured I’ve learned the whole EU “law” shebang from the ground up. I could recite it verbatim, and probably backwards!

It was long, tortuous and exceptionally boring. One potentially positive outcome of Brexit is that future law students won’t have to sweat over that quasi/fake law nonsense subject any longer.

Crushed in a traditional 'cheese' to produce a strong Somerset Scrumpy.

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

[bnm]

You seem somewhat brittle, easily offended, and quick to threaten to report posts? Why?!

I've threatened to report, and actually reported, precisely one post in the last few months. Which presumably the moderators agreed was offensive - it was removed. That's one. Singular. In the more distant past I can use one hand to count the reports I've made. Slow I'd say. But then I would be slow, what with being confused and lacking intellectual rigour.

I take offence at those who are unable to state an opinion without also denigrating the person with whom they are engaging. When it happens I will point it out. Be it directed at myself or another forum member. It lowers the tone of debate and demonstrates perfectly intellectual laziness (argumentum ad hominem), going for the cheap shot rather than the reasoned rebuttal.