• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
But you've just said that you're not particularly concerned about EU migrants?

I’m not concerned about EU migrants per se - but I am concerned that their presence in the U.K. should be determined by the U.K. government, and that government alone.

Not foisted upon us by the EU.

I’m generally pro immigration, as I say.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
ID cards have very little in the way of negatives, unless you are trying to hide something. In this brave new world of international terrorism etc, it is essential we know exactly who our "neighbours" are. I would have thought Brexiteers and their obsession with illegal immigrants would be all in favour.

The above smacks of extreme paranoia and suggests the makings of a police state. It also sounds profoundly illiberal and rather authoritarian.

Should the police be able to burst into your property at random, then, to check you have nothing to hide?

I don’t know who my neighbours are. Should I be able demand that they prove their identity to me? Should they be able to demand the same of me?

Of course not.
 

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,581
I’m reminded that comprehension isn’t a strong point of yours.

.

I'm reminded your writing skills are poor.


Putting existing British citizens first in the queue yes - God forbid.

Alot of British citizens need the competition.

No it wouldn’t. By definition. If there was a skills shortage for drs, nurses etc (and there is). then immigration is a good solution.

Yes it would. Even the government admits it.


What I’ve outlined above is the policy adopted by many first world countries.

And many of them don't

How can language be irrelevant to doing a job in the U.K.? Which jobs in this country can be done by someone who speaks no English?

Plenty. Polish lad did a brilliant job for me the other day. Barely spoke a word but worked hard and I paid him well.

Does Sharia law float your boat?

Dearie me. Sums you up. You need to get out of Bromley more.
 

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,581
The above smacks of extreme paranoia and suggests the makings of a police state. It also sounds profoundly illiberal and rather authoritarian.

Should the police be able to burst into your property at random, then, to check you have nothing to hide?

I don’t know who my neighbours are. Should I be able demand that they prove their identity to me? Should they be able to demand the same of me?

Of course not.

Over-emotional nonsense.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
I am one of the younger posters - at least in as much as the UK was in the EU for the whole of my life. I was born in 1986.

The people moaning about this are older than me.
I am also one of the younger people. I was merely explaining why people may take various rights for granted. ;)
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
Over-emotional nonsense.

That silly soundbite doesn’t address the point I was making.

I don’t think you actually understand what liberalism is, or why your statements I was responding to are incompatible with it.

Maybe you should google it?
 
Last edited:

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
I'm reminded your writing skills are poor.




Alot of British citizens need the competition.



Yes it would. Even the government admits it.




And many of them don't



Plenty. Polish lad did a brilliant job for me the other day. Barely spoke a word but worked hard and I paid him well.



Dearie me. Sums you up. You need to get out of Bromley more.

Oh do grow up. I note you’ve failed to address the points I was making, yet again.

I am going to withdraw from this now as it’s childish and adds nothing to the debate. I’m happy to debate sensible points you might make, but I’m not going to get into slagging matches.

BTW, not that it’s relevant in the slightest, but you’re wrong yet again! I haven’t lived in Bromley for years. :p
 
Last edited:

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,581
Oh do grow up. I note you’ve failed to address the points I was making, yet again.

I am going to withdraw from this now as it’s childish and adds nothing to the debate. I’m happy to debate sensible points you might make, but I’m not going to get into slagging matches.

BTW, not that it’s relevant in the slightest, but you’re wrong yet again! I haven’t lived in Bromley for years. :p

You started the silly comments. This correspondence is now terminated.
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
I am also one of the younger people. I was merely explaining why people may take various rights for granted. ;)

I take your point.

At the same time, some us of a younger age group do not take these “rights” for granted. Quite the opposite! Some of us recognise that the “rights” come with corollaries that are undesirable for those who wish to continue to live in a self determining parlimentary democracy.

Our ability to determine our own destiny as a nation is written in blood, was hard fought for and is woefully under appreciated: particularly by those of my generation and below who tend to be a little lazy of thought.

More’s the pity. Our benign, mature democracy is something to be cherished. If we don’t get a lot better at defining it, valuing it, defending it, we may just lose it in future.
 
Last edited:

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,788
On ID cards, I would much rather have one for travelling around Europe, simply due to the convenience over a passport which takes up considerable space compared to a credit-card sized ID. I wouldn't make it compulsory though, just as a passport isn't (unless you want to travel).

For those who think it SHOULD be compulsory....what ID would you have to show to prove yourself to get your card? So why won't that do...??!!

However I think by 2030-35 passports will be a thing of the past when crossing borders- we will have our eyes scanned, with those unfortunate enough not to have any eyes will have their seperate ID instead.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Justice Minister Philip Lee has resigned from the cabinet after saying he will vote for the House of Lord's amendments to the EU withdrawal bill.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,599
There is no real ability to control free movement - as Angela Merkel has made abundantly clear on many occasions. The four freedoms are part and parcel of the common market and the choice appears to be accepting all of them or leaving entirely.

We are required to accept as many EU migrants as wish to settle here, so long as they are capable of self sufficiency, with no ability to restrict or control their numbers: just as we saw when the then Labour Government lied to the country about the potential scale of Eastern European migration in the middle of the last decade and we ended up receiving a large multiple of the number predicted.

The controls you note above are limited in scope, applying only to those who are not self sufficient, and I suspect they are virtually unenforceable anyway once people are already living here. In any case they do nothing to address the fundamental concern of many leave voters, or indeed those remain voters who are open minded enough to acknowledge that the EU is far from perfect! The issue isn’t just about migrants who “take the mic” (most don’t).

All rubbish sorry.

As I said, we do have the ability to restrict it. Our government just decided not to implement any.

Now, the restrictions that we are able to implement may not be strong enough for you (and that is a legitimate debate we can have), but that is totally different to them not existing at all, and to argue that "there is no real ability to control free movement" is simply false.

Now, if you want to have a discussion about how much we should be able to restrict it (and that you probably feel what we could do, but choose not to, isn't enough) then fine. But first of all you do have to accept that actually, within EU law, we can actually have some restrictions and controls on EU freedom of movement into this country.

You don’t get to just live in any country you like as an absolute right. It’s always been a conditional right.

And that also applies to others settling in the UK. Once again, it is not an absolute right that EU citizens can settle in the UK. The only reason it has ended up feeling like it is is because our government has failed to implement any of the measures the EU allows to restrict it.

The Blair government tried to introduce an ID card system, it was massively controversial and legislation to introduce a non-compulsary system was introduced and passed. None of it was implemented, and the legislation repealed.

No politician is going to try and resurrect it unless they want to lose!

And yet, according to recent polls and research, the majority of the public would be happy with the idea.
Now, of course that is not to say it is a good idea, or that it would 100% pass a referendum if one were to take place.
But ID cards, especially among younger people who are used to having a driving license on them 100% of the time anyway (or those who don't have a driving license and so have to faff with taking their passport out with them!), are not as vote losing as you may think.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,788
How will "restricting free movement" actually benefit our lives? I've pointed out the negative, ie. us facing restrictions on living, working and possibly even studying in the EU, so how will we all be better off?
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,956
Location
York
Justice Minister Philip Lee has resigned for the cabinet after saying he will vote for the House of Lord's amendments to the EU withdrawal bill.
Good for him — one MP at least with some principles.
It's an interesting situation where May asks the Tory MPs to stop thinking for themselves and blindly follow her wishes so as not to weaken her negotiating position (as if that already were not weak enough).
But is there in both main parties a serious constitutional question? MPs are sent to Westminster as the representatives of their constituencies, not as the delegates, the difference being that they are not supposed to do just what they are told but rather to exercise their own intelligence and judgement on behalf of their constitutents to do what they see as best for their country and their constituency. As others have remarked, a referendum result sits very uneasily with this view of what MPs are for. So should all those MPs, both Tory and Labour, who strongly believe that Remain is best for country and constituency now resign their seats? Or should they just abandon their principles and troop meekly through the division lobbies to support a Brexit government policy that they themselves see as actually harmful for their country and constituents?
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
All rubbish sorry.

As I said, we do have the ability to restrict it. Our government just decided not to implement any.

Rubbish, is it?! You appear to be in denial of basic facts.

We have no ability to restrict free movement of EU citizens (and their families) into the U.K. in terms of overall numbers. You’re confusing an ability to require them to be self sufficient and to register with an ability to restrict numbers.

Under Directive 2004/38 EC (fully transposed into UK law) the U.K. could require EU citizens to register, but doesn’t currently.

If they stay in the U.K. for more than three months they must be “self sufficient”.

After five years they must be granted permenant residency.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_4.1.3.html

Rights and obligations:
  • For stays of under three months: the only requirement for Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country.
  • For stays of over three months: EU citizens and their family members — if not working — must have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. Union citizens do not need residence permits, although Member States may require them to register with the authorities. Family members of Union citizens who are not nationals of a Member State must apply for a residence permit, valid for the duration of their stay or a five-year period.
  • Right of permanent residence: Union citizens acquire this right after a five-year period of uninterrupted legal residence, provided that an expulsion decision has not been enforced against them. This right is no longer subject to any conditions. The same rule applies to family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who have lived with a Union citizen for five years. The right of permanent residence is lost only in the event of more than two successive years’ absence from the host Member State.
  • Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence: Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Guarantees are provided to ensure that such decisions are not taken on economic grounds, comply with the proportionality principle and are based on personal conduct, among others.
Angela Merkel has stated:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-uk-will-pay-price-eu-immigration-restricted/
“But you cannot expect to enjoy all the benefits and then say there will be an upper limit of 100,000 or 200,000 EU citizens, no more, or we’ll only accept researchers, but nobody else. This will not work.”
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,599
Rubbish, is it?! You appear to be in denial of basic facts.


We have no ability to restrict free movement of EU citizens (and their families) into the U.K. in terms of overall numbers. You’re confusing an ability to require them to be self sufficient and to register with an ability to restrict numbers.

Under Directive 2004/38 EC, could require EU citizens to register, but don’t currently.

If they stay in the U.K. for more than three months they must be “self sufficient”.

After five years they must be granted permenant residency.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_4.1.3.html

Angela Merkel has stated:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...-uk-will-pay-price-eu-immigration-restricted/

Not control by numbers no, but as you admit, there are measures that we could put in place that we have decided not to, that would in effect, reduce the numbers of EU citizens living in this country.
If immigration and freedom of movement was such an issue, why haven't we implemented what we are able to?
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
Not control by numbers no,

This, and this alone, is the issue.

but as you admit, there are measures that we could put in place that we have decided not to, that would in effect, reduce the numbers of EU citizens living in this country.

They wouldn’t necessarily reduce numbers! They are de minimis restrictions around a requirement to be self sufficient. As far as I’m concerned the restrictions should have been implemented.

You appear to be arguing that the fact that they weren’t somehow means that the freedom of movement can’t be seen as an problem in its own right when clearly it is an issue, for a great many people.

Bizarre.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,788
I'll try again - How will "restricting free movement" actually benefit our lives? I've pointed out the negative, ie. us facing restrictions on living, working and possibly even studying in the EU, so how will we all be better off?
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,518
Location
Southampton
I'll try again - How will "restricting free movement" actually benefit our lives? I've pointed out the negative, ie. us facing restrictions on living, working and possibly even studying in the EU, so how will we all be better off?
Because for some people, having total sovereign control over something is better than accepting less control in exchange for being better off in some ways. Any other benefits are secondary to having self-determination.
 
Last edited:

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
Because for some people, having total sovereign control over something is better than accepting less control in exchange for being better off in some ways. Any other benefits are secondary to having self-determination.

Precisely.

I was born and brought up in the U.K. My life is here, family and friends here etc. I have no intention of living, working or studying in the EU. Therefore, for me, the right to free movement isn’t a benefit at all.

Sacrificing national sovereignty in exchange for rights I have never asked for and have no intention of using is an unacceptable trade off in my view.

This also answers @Howardh ‘s question above.
 
Last edited:

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
9,788
Precisely.

I was born and brought up in the U.K. My life is here, family and friends here etc. I have no intention of living, working or studying in the EU. Therefore, for me, the right to free movement isn’t a benefit at all.

Sacrificing national sovereignty in exchange for rights I have never asked for and have no intention of using is an unacceptable trade off in my view.

This also answers @Howardh ‘s question above.
Still doesn't answer how I, as an individual, will be better off? Parliament will be no more or less "soveriegn" than it is now - tell me any laws that "Brussels" has brought in that (a) we wouldn't have done ourselves and (b) negatively impacts our lives. In fact, the loss of the ECHR means that we have to accept everything our governments and courts - the supreme court if necessary - so with thet backstop gone it could argue we move form a democracy to a dictatorship!

Anyhow, that aside, still can't work out how much better off I will be after Brexit. If I were Rees-Mogg I could, I'd be rubbing my hands in glee at the UK becoming some sort of tax haven for my fortune, but if I were on the car production line? Maybe not as confident. We'll see, and if it all goes wrong at least we know where the blame lies.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
4,274
I'll try again - How will "restricting free movement" actually benefit our lives? I've pointed out the negative, ie. us facing restrictions on living, working and possibly even studying in the EU, so how will we all be better off?

That's been answered multiple times by multiple people who believe that ending freedom of movement will be beneficial. Just because you don't agree with their (any my) opinion doesn't mean their reasoning goes away. Going around in circles asking them over and over won't change their opinion either!
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
Still doesn't answer how I, as an individual, will be better off? Parliament will be no more or less "soveriegn" than it is now - tell me any laws that "Brussels" has brought in that (a) we wouldn't have done ourselves and (b) negatively impacts our lives. In fact, the loss of the ECHR means that we have to accept everything our governments and courts - the supreme court if necessary - so with thet backstop gone it could argue we move form a democracy to a dictatorship!

It comes down to a value judgement. I would consider that you will be better off by virtue of having sovereignty of your own government restored, even if the cost of this is loss of free movement. You are free not to agree with that, of course.

As for EU laws - the EU has had a massive impact on UK legislation 50,000 + new laws introduced since 1990 according to Thomson Reuters.

https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en/p...llenge-facing-lawmakers-following-brexit.html
LONDON – A total of 52,741 laws* have been introduced in the UK as a result of EU legislation since 1990, according to the Legal business of Thomson Reuters,
The issue for me isn’t whether you or I agree or disagree with them (I disagree with many, including free movement!), it’s the fact they affect my life and were not passed by my own government.

I’m a bit confused by the rest of your statement above. Are you referring to the ECJ or the ECHR? (you do realise the latter is not an EU institution?!)
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,956
Location
York
According to the Guardian, a comment from Downing Street in response to Phillip Lee's resignation was: “We will get a good Brexit deal that works for everybody in the UK.” How can any Brexit deal work for the 48% who believe that our only good future is to remain in the EU?
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,460
Location
LBK
How will "restricting free movement" actually benefit our lives? I've pointed out the negative, ie. us facing restrictions on living, working and possibly even studying in the EU, so how will we all be better off?

For a start, it means that poorly qualified British citizens won’t be undercut in the labour market by people from much less aspirational European cultures.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
For a start, it means that poorly qualified British citizens won’t be undercut in the labour market by people from much less aspirational European cultures.

There are certainly instances where a company in another country e.g. Poland can get a contract to provide something like fruit pickers or warehouse workers and then the people used on that contract would be Polish workers employed through a Polish company getting working terms based on Polish law. However, I'm not aware of anyone saying they really want to spend their summer picking Strawberries for minimum wage and then have no work for the rest of the year and then finding the price of British strawberries is higher than the price of Strawberries imported from other countries so they don't buy British strawberries anyway.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
According to the Guardian, a comment from Downing Street in response to Phillip Lee's resignation was: “We will get a good Brexit deal that works for everybody in the UK.” How can any Brexit deal work for the 48% who believe that our only good future is to remain in the EU?

The 48% who voted remain are still U.K. citizens, so surely they should be in favour of the government negotiating the most favourable possible Brexit deal?

Their opposition to Brexit happening in the first place has nothing to do with their vested interest in getting the best possible deal, surely?
 

Bromley boy

Established Member
Joined
18 Jun 2015
Messages
4,609
There are certainly instances where a company in another country e.g. Poland can get a contract to provide something like fruit pickers or warehouse workers and then the people used on that contract would be Polish workers employed through a Polish company getting working terms based on Polish law. However, I'm not aware of anyone saying they really want to spend their summer picking Strawberries for minimum wage and then have no work for the rest of the year and then finding the price of British strawberries is higher than the price of Strawberries imported from other countries so not buying British strawberries anyway.

I assume you mean they fly a load of “self employed” Polish workers over to the U.K. and put them to work in the fields for a fraction of what U.K. workers would demand?

That sounds like a prime example of free movement being abused in order to introduce exploitative employment practices!
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,460
Location
LBK
There are certainly instances where a company in another country e.g. Poland can get a contract to provide something like fruit pickers or warehouse workers and then the people used on that contract would be Polish workers employed through a Polish company getting working terms based on Polish law. However, I'm not aware of anyone saying they really want to spend their summer picking Strawberries for minimum wage and then have no work for the rest of the year and then finding the price of British strawberries is higher than the price of Strawberries imported from other countries so they don't buy British strawberries anyway.

This is exactly what I mean about less aspirational cultures. Picking strawberries is too good for British people, right?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
For a start, it means that poorly qualified British citizens won’t be undercut in the labour market by people from much less aspirational European cultures.

All well and good in principle, but if those poorly qualified British citizens don't want to do the jobs that EU citizens were doing, eg fruit picking.

A shortage of fruit pickers means British farmers are having to accept anyone with “two hands and two legs", a recruitment agency has said.

More than half of recruiters could not find fruit and vegetable pickers even in the "quiet" first months of this year, according to the Association of Labour Providers.

Unpicked fruit has been left to rot in the fields as a result.

Ninety-nine per cent of seasonal workers on British farms come from Eastern Europe, with many arriving from Romania and Bulgaria.

Last year, 17 per cent fewer seasonal workers came to the UK, the National Farmers Union said.

(article continues behind paywall)

The 48% who voted remain are still U.K. citizens, so surely they should be in favour of the government negotiating the most favourable possible Brexit deal?

Their opposition to Brexit happening in the first place has nothing to do with their vested interest in getting the best possible deal, surely?

For a large part of the 48% though, the most favourable deal is to remain, as even staying in the SM & CU post brexit are something of a downgrade if we don't have a voice at the table. It's a bit like asking them to choose between having their left or right leg amputated - they're both pretty rubbish outcomes and I'd personally like to keep both of them.

It does then also come back to what is the best possible deal. Is that the best possible deal for the manufacturing sector, the best possible deal for services, the best possible deal for people who are anti-immigration, etc...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top