Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

I've a theory on voting Don. It's only a theory but I reckon the biggest demographic which voted to leave on immigration grounds would never vote Tory if their lives depended on it. That demographic I believe votes Labour and to narrow it down further, I reckon it's what's traditionally known as "working class". It's these folk who I believe have seen their jobs taken by manual labourers, shop workers, warehouse and factory staff, etc coming in from the EU.

So, in short if Teresa May reckons Immigration is a vote-winner she's right - but only for Brexit. These guys ain't gonna vote Tory and proof of the pudding is in the rapid decline of UKIP who sucked up a lot of disaffected working-class voters in the previous General Election. Once they got what they wanted with the Referendum they naffed - off back to Labour as the post-General Election stats suggested.

You are no doubt correct Jonners.

I mentioned a few pages back that my brothers and cousins ( and their wives) who all live in the NE voted to Leave. (and the NE was a big "Leave" demographic, both Conservative and labour). To a man (and woman) they all cited immigration as the issue or giving Cameron a kick up the proverbial a*se. Funny thing is :-

a) they all vote Conservative

b) they accept there are very, very few (recent *) immigrants living in the NE - (let's face it, who would want to !)

c) they all regret voting to leave.

* many of us are Scandinavian immigrants who arrived between the Romans and the Normans........

For sure, come the next General Election, nobody in the NE who traditionally votes Labour, will vote Conservative in support of T May. Just illustrates how disconnected the woman is.

Florestan posted:

If I understand the need to stay, the remainers (remoaners?) [spell check is having issues?] want the dominant EU to continue dishing out the rules for how things are going to be.  ie: unbelievable regulation / control / costs but most importantly - open borders.  Is their anything else here I have missed?  Without getting into specifics maybe most of the arguments of why 'the majority' voted to Brexit can probably fit somewhere within this overall rubric?

Mostly incorrect, the remainers want the U.K. to have a large say (the U.K. has a voting bloc’ approx 3x the power per citizen of the average) in setting common rules for the good of the U.K. and the rest of the EU.  While the Brexiteers want the U.K. to just have to abide by whatever the EU (as well as US, and others) say without us to trade with the major part of the UKs export market (don’t forget that not only do EU rule apply to the EU market but are also mutually recognised with other nations and trading blocks).

As for open borders, well did you know that the U.K. could require anyone moving to the U.K. who are not working to have sufficient means to not be a burden on the state (ie. not require benefits) and also to have private medical insurance?  But aside from that countries such have India have already mooted that any trade deal could be dependent on opening the U.K. to Indian nationals more.

To be picky. According to the EU free-movement rules anyone can stay for 90 days. If you can not show you have a full supporting job after this you can be asked to leave the country. Exception (as you stated) either if you can show you are independently wealthy with your own full-coverage private health insurance or if you came to the country  to study at an approved school (and you can show you have sufficient means incl. tuition fees and have a private health insurance). And if you lose that job - tough luck!!

When you have worked in a country for five years you have the right to apply to stay permanently, This include wife/registered partner and children up to 19. 

These are the EU rules on "free movement" - it is not the same as free immigration. But any country can decide locally to have more open borders (like the UK-government did in the early 2000:s trying to get more political support in the EU from Poland and and others from the eastern bloc). 

But this can hardly be news for anyone in the UK? These rules are clearly posted on the EU website in all languages,

jlarsson posted:

To be picky. According to the EU free-movement rules anyone can stay for 90 days. If you can not show you have a full supporting job after this you can be asked to leave the country. Exception (as you stated) either if you can show you are independently wealthy with your own full-coverage private health insurance or if you came to the country  to study at an approved school (and you can show you have sufficient means incl. tuition fees and have a private health insurance). And if you lose that job - tough luck!!

When you have worked in a country for five years you have the right to apply to stay permanently, This include wife/registered partner and children up to 19. 

These are the EU rules on "free movement" - it is not the same as free immigration. But any country can decide locally to have more open borders (like the UK-government did in the early 2000:s trying to get more political support in the EU from Poland and and others from the eastern bloc). 

But this can hardly be news for anyone in the UK? These rules are clearly posted on the EU website in all languages,

 

I doubt that the majority of people in Britain have ever even thought of looking up the rules, just taking what is said by UK Gov or the media. As peviously indicated, the whole immigration thing surrounding Brexit was full of lies, deceipt, media hype, and false assumption (and, worse, pandered to, and was fuelled by nationalism and latent racism in some sectors of society).

Innocent Bystander posted:

jlarsson posted:

 

I doubt that the majority of people in Britain have ever even thought of looking up the rules, just taking what is said by UK Gov or the media. As peviously indicated, the whole immigration thing surrounding Brexit was full of lies, deceipt, media hype, and false assumption (and, worse, pandered to, and was fuelled by nationalism and latent racism in some sectors of society).

 

Agreed. And post-Brexit, when HMG has 'taken back control' of our borders etc and nothing has really changed in many peoples' perception of what they don't like about 'immigration, I wonder what happens then? Who will that section of the electorate and media blame? The government won't be able to point to Brussels.  Dissatisfaction could reach even higher levels. Not a happy prospect.  

jlarsson posted:

To be picky. According to the EU free-movement rules anyone can stay for 90 days. If you can not show you have a full supporting job after this you can be asked to leave the country. Exception (as you stated) either if you can show you are independently wealthy with your own full-coverage private health insurance or if you came to the country  to study at an approved school (and you can show you have sufficient means incl. tuition fees and have a private health insurance). And if you lose that job - tough luck!!

When you have worked in a country for five years you have the right to apply to stay permanently, This include wife/registered partner and children up to 19. 

These are the EU rules on "free movement" - it is not the same as free immigration. But any country can decide locally to have more open borders (like the UK-government did in the early 2000:s trying to get more political support in the EU from Poland and and others from the eastern bloc). 

But this can hardly be news for anyone in the UK? These rules are clearly posted on the EU website in all languages,

Not to be picky but I just don't think the above replies and those always putting down the supporters of Brexit understand what they are criticizing.

This above quoted explanation is reasonable for an explanation for free-movement of current EU citizens.  I don't think the emphasis behind Brexit was entirely focused on this aspect as much as the issue of an immigration, emigration, or refugee system (from outside the EU to within it).

Back to the explanation above though first.  Second sentence states that an EU citizen has 90 days stay in another EU country.  Fine, but someone who knows please tell me that this is actually enforced?  What are the statistics on the abuse of this?

Secondly, from the second paragraph, what happens to the 20th child and beyond ?  Do they have to stay behind or find another country to emigrate to ?   

So, please tell me what 'free-movement' of EU citizens has to do with immigration, emigration, or refugee claims?  Was a million plus Syrian refugees into Germany considered 'free-movement?'

When one refers to 'open borders' these days, I think most would consider this in the context of 'non-citizens' as the first meaning.  In the case of the EU, the secondary meaning could mean the movement of citizens within EU countries.  As for Brexit, both definitions become a concern because Britain cannot control what Germany or another EU country decides and eventually these matters effect Britain and elsewhere.

My view is that people here saying they were lied to is wrong.  There is some truth and history to provide enough evidence that Britain (or those who want Brexit) want more control over their own border.  What is unreasonable about this?  You are not much of a country anymore if you want the current status quo to continue.

Heads up, Don. My weekend i paper told me that papers will be released this week by the British government on subjects including aviation, and which include contingency planning for  a no-deal Brexit. R4 news just now have said it will be Thursday.

The newspaper said there were about seventy subject areas, and that we should not expect papers to be released on all at once.

C.

*on all of them at once.

[@mention:1566878603872495] the point is that everything that is blamed on the EU (well most of it) is actually the fault of the U.K. Government...

Maybe also to some extent blame lies on the British public, who, as a generalisation never seemed to take EU politics seriously: Turnout to vote for MEPs typically has been only half that as turnout for UK Gov (“general”) elections, and that is despite running the the MEP elections concurrently with local authority elections - I suspect turnout would have been even lower if they had been on their own. I don’t know if reversal of British apathy to/disinterest in, and disengagement from, EU politics would have made any difference, but the position as it was is unlikely to have provided positive influence.

Florestan posted:

My view is that people here saying they were lied to is wrong.  There is some truth and history to provide enough evidence that Britain (or those who want Brexit) want more control over their own border.  What is unreasonable about this?  You are not much of a country anymore if you want the current status quo to continue.

Perhaps you should take a look at the facts and bare in mind we do have control of immigration from none EU countries. Although not all leave voters know this. I was actually told by brexiteer on the eve of the vote, they where voting to leave the EU to “keep the Pakistanis out”.

 https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

I recall you live in the USA, presumably you or your ancensters are/where immigrants. So, why are you so against immigrants?

fatcat posted:

Florestan posted:

 

. I was actually told by brexiteer on the eve of the vote, they where voting to leave the EU to “keep the Pakistanis out”.

 

And I recall hearing similar statements in TV coverage of some of the rallies in the run-up to the referendum? 

As for immigrants, everyone in the UK if not an immigrant themselves a descendant of an immigrant, just so e go back more generations than others, and some have obvious physical characteristics that mark some aspect of heritage. And the UK is actually dependant on immigrants to keep certain professions and industries going...

Innocent Bystander posted:

fatcat posted:

Florestan posted:

 

. I was actually told by brexiteer on the eve of the vote, they where voting to leave the EU to “keep the Pakistanis out”.

 

And I recall hearing similar statements in TV coverage of some of the rallies in the run-up to the referendum? 

As for immigrants, everyone in the UK if not an immigrant themselves a descendant of an immigrant, just so e go back more generations than others, and some have obvious physical characteristics that mark some aspect of heritage. And the UK is actually dependant on immigrants to keep certain professions and industries going...

 

I'm aware of this, but I, unlike you, don't gave a problem with immigration.

Given your statement above, why on earth do you think ANY UK citizen would have a problem with immigration.

Out of interest, where did you/your ancestors immigrate from.

fatcat posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

fatcat posted:

Florestan posted:

 

. I was actually told by brexiteer on the eve of the vote, they where voting to leave the EU to “keep the Pakistanis out”.

 

And I recall hearing similar statements in TV coverage of some of the rallies in the run-up to the referendum? 

As for immigrants, everyone in the UK if not an immigrant themselves a descendant of an immigrant, just so e go back more generations than others, and some have obvious physical characteristics that mark some aspect of heritage. And the UK is actually dependant on immigrants to keep certain professions and industries going...

 

I'm aware of this, but I, unlike you, don't gave a problem with immigration.

Given your statement above, why on earth do you think ANY UK citizen would have a problem with immigration.

Out of interest, where did you/your ancestors immigrate from.

You seem to have interpreted my statement as meaning I have a problem with immigration. I don’t and that was my point!!!!!!!!  I don’t know how you read it differently - my post was echoing yours: please have another read (though please read the question mark at the end of the first para as the exclamation mark it was supposed to be!) 

as for my own ancestry, it depends how many generations (and actually. Don’t know further than 3. My shildren are more mixed than I am, and one son, with a distinct hint of Chupinese heritage, has odd orange hairs in his beard - Viking, no doubt, from known Orcadian heritage...

Innocent Bystander posted:

fatcat posted:

Florestan posted:

 

. I was actually told by brexiteer on the eve of the vote, they where voting to leave the EU to “keep the Pakistanis out”.

 

And I recall hearing similar statements in TV coverage of some of the rallies in the run-up to the referendum? 

As for immigrants, everyone in the UK if not an immigrant themselves a descendant of an immigrant, just so e go back more generations than others, and some have obvious physical characteristics that mark some aspect of heritage. And the UK is actually dependant on immigrants to keep certain professions and industries going...

 

Well evidence suggests that my family came to Britain from Pont de l'Arche (or possibly actually Le Vaudreuil) in Normandy and arrived 14 October 1066.

I suppose that does make us immigrants of a sort!

Innocent Bystander posted:

You seem to have interpreted my statement as meaning I have a problem with immigration. I don’t and that was my point!!!!!!!!  I don’t know how you read it differently - my post was echoing yours: please have another read (though please read the question mark at the end of the first para as the exclamation mark it was supposed to be!) 

 

Apologies.

I got confused about who was posting. I was using my mobile at the time, with posters names a couple of scrolls up the screen.

Huge posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

fatcat posted:

Florestan posted:

 

. I was actually told by brexiteer on the eve of the vote, they where voting to leave the EU to “keep the Pakistanis out”.

 

And I recall hearing similar statements in TV coverage of some of the rallies in the run-up to the referendum? 

As for immigrants, everyone in the UK if not an immigrant themselves a descendant of an immigrant, just so e go back more generations than others, and some have obvious physical characteristics that mark some aspect of heritage. And the UK is actually dependant on immigrants to keep certain professions and industries going...

 

Well evidence suggests that my family came to Britain from Pont de l'Arche (or possibly actually Le Vaudreuil) in Normandy and arrived 14 October 1066.

I suppose that does make us immigrants of a sort!

As I intimated, UK is a mongrel nation, composed of imigrants coming here wherther in small numbers or large waves over centuries.

And if England had had a stronger border force in 1066 your various ancestors would likely never have even met!

fatcat posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

You seem to have interpreted my statement as meaning I have a problem with immigration. I don’t and that was my point!!!!!!!!  I don’t know how you read it differently - my post was echoing yours: please have another read (though please read the question mark at the end of the first para as the exclamation mark it was supposed to be!) 

 

Apologies.

I got confused about who was posting. I was using my mobile at the time, with posters names a couple of scrolls up the screen.

No probs. 

Florestan posted:

jlarsson posted:

To be picky. According to the EU free-movement rules anyone can stay for 90 days. If you can not show you have a full supporting job after this you can be asked to leave the country. Exception (as you stated) either if you can show you are independently wealthy with your own full-coverage private health insurance or if you came to the country  to study at an approved school (and you can show you have sufficient means incl. tuition fees and have a private health insurance). And if you lose that job - tough luck!!

When you have worked in a country for five years you have the right to apply to stay permanently, This include wife/registered partner and children up to 19. 

These are the EU rules on "free movement" - it is not the same as free immigration. But any country can decide locally to have more open borders (like the UK-government did in the early 2000:s trying to get more political support in the EU from Poland and and others from the eastern bloc). 

But this can hardly be news for anyone in the UK? These rules are clearly posted on the EU website in all languages,

Not to be picky but I just don't think the above replies and those always putting down the supporters of Brexit understand what they are criticizing.

This above quoted explanation is reasonable for an explanation for free-movement of current EU citizens.  I don't think the emphasis behind Brexit was entirely focused on this aspect as much as the issue of an immigration, emigration, or refugee system (from outside the EU to within it).

Back to the explanation above though first.  Second sentence states that an EU citizen has 90 days stay in another EU country.  Fine, but someone who knows please tell me that this is actually enforced?  What are the statistics on the abuse of this?

Secondly, from the second paragraph, what happens to the 20th child and beyond ?  Do they have to stay behind or find another country to emigrate to ?   

So, please tell me what 'free-movement' of EU citizens has to do with immigration, emigration, or refugee claims?  Was a million plus Syrian refugees into Germany considered 'free-movement?'

When one refers to 'open borders' these days, I think most would consider this in the context of 'non-citizens' as the first meaning.  In the case of the EU, the secondary meaning could mean the movement of citizens within EU countries.  As for Brexit, both definitions become a concern because Britain cannot control what Germany or another EU country decides and eventually these matters effect Britain and elsewhere.

My view is that people here saying they were lied to is wrong.  There is some truth and history to provide enough evidence that Britain (or those who want Brexit) want more control over their own border.  What is unreasonable about this?  You are not much of a country anymore if you want the current status quo to continue.

Well, actually being a Citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, seems to place me in a better position to understand what I am criticizing than a view from >4000 kM away!

As you pointed out much of the paranoia of concerning the 'Free Movement regulations' clauses of the EU constitution was centred around immigration, particularly of people from the Indian sub-continent and of Middle Eastern and North African refugees - precisely the people to whom the 'Free Movement regulations' clauses of the EU constitution do not apply.  This was one of the deceptions unofficially, but widely, promulgated by the Vote Leave campaign.  In other words you have been the subject of this misdirection just as the Vote Leave campaign intended!

Just to end, two other points:
Your comment about the 20th child is another intentional misinterpretation (as you well know this was referring to age not number).
In terms of lies or not, do you actually believe the headline claim of an extra £350M per week for the NHS as was promised by the Vote Leave campaign?

Don Atkinson posted:

 

What do I have to do, what do you have to do, in order to get a vote, and from my point of view, hopefully put an end to this disastrous episode in our history (by Remaining part of the EU).

One thing you might consider is joining (and possibly publicising where possible) the planned march by the people’s vote organisation, which I figure is the organisation you mentioned that you support. If not, perhaps chip in a bit, as they do accept donations - a recent very large donation will be used to conduct a huge poll to really find out whether the public backs a second referendum.

I've been saying there must be a confirmatory referendum since shortly after the dawn of time (many, many pages back on this thread). I still believe that there must be in order for leaving to have any democratic legitimacy. Which is quite a big deal. So I’m strongly considering going on the march myself.

There is more information here (not a commercial link afaik) - https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march

As you pointed out much of the paranoia of concerning the 'Free Movement regulations' clauses of the EU constitution was centred around immigration, particularly of people from the Indian sub-continent and of Middle Eastern and North African refugees - precisely the people to whom the 'Free Movement regulations' clauses of the EU constitution do not apply.

Huge, I'm not sure that reflects the truth... much of the debate (debate?) at the time was centred on movement from within Europe - Eastern Europe in particular, which was quite ironical as those European citizens largely contributed to revitalising areas which were dying... The very same people were also subjected to an increased level of xenophobic violence in the months that followed the referendum.

That's another thing our friend Florestan does not seem to realise.

Dave***t posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

 

What do I have to do, what do you have to do, in order to get a vote, and from my point of view, hopefully put an end to this disastrous episode in our history (by Remaining part of the EU).

One thing you might consider is joining (and possibly publicising where possible) the planned march by the people’s vote organisation, which I figure is the organisation you mentioned that you support. If not, perhaps chip in a bit, as they do accept donations - a recent very large donation will be used to conduct a huge poll to really find out whether the public backs a second referendum.

I've been saying there must be a confirmatory referendum since shortly after the dawn of time (many, many pages back on this thread). I still believe that there must be in order for leaving to have any democratic legitimacy. Which is quite a big deal. So I’m strongly considering going on the march myself.

There is more information here (not a commercial link afaik) - https://www.peoples-vote.uk/march

Unfortunately for the Peoples Vote campaign, we don't live in a democracy.

And the only sure way to guarantee that we continue to live without democracy, if we currently do, is for everyone to do nothing to support initiatives for increased democracy.

SamClaus posted:

As you pointed out much of the paranoia of concerning the 'Free Movement regulations' clauses of the EU constitution was centred around immigration, particularly of people from the Indian sub-continent and of Middle Eastern and North African refugees - precisely the people to whom the 'Free Movement regulations' clauses of the EU constitution do not apply.

Huge, I'm not sure that reflects the truth... much of the debate (debate?) at the time was centred on movement from within Europe - Eastern Europe in particular, which was quite ironical as those European citizens largely contributed to revitalising areas which were dying... The very same people were also subjected to an increased level of xenophobic violence in the months that followed the referendum.

That's another thing our friend Florestan does not seem to realise.

I think that what Huge says was true, in that whilst the thrust overall wasn’t centred around non-EU immigrants, that did become tge focus in certain sectors of the public. With them the facts were, whether deliberately or through ignorance I don’t know, distorted to at least soecifically include non-caucasian immigrants, leading to quotes before the referendum publicly on TV by people saying things like they’d be voting to leave because it would reduce the number of Pakistanis in their neighbourhood.