Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Innocent Bystander posted:

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.

You're right, but you can't deny that there was a lot of anti-Eastern-European sentiment at the time.

SamClaus posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

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.

You're right, but you can't deny that there was a lot of anti-Eastern-European sentiment at the time.

I was unaware of any participularly strong swell of anti-Eastern-European sentiment BEFORE the run-up to the election - it seemed to be fuelled by the very process of the Brexit campaign. However, I imagine that in some localities there may have been more resentment of the presence of Polish or whatever immigrants than in others, even if that was not the case in others.

However, once the campaigning got under way, it seemed to create or fuel anti-immigrant sentiments, creating increasing tension as the campaigning progressed, to the point where it was reported that there were threats and possibly worse against Eastern European immigrants (maybe others). And in some places I understand that many such immigrants, who were here because there was work for them here and they had originally felt welcome, decided to go elsewhere, leaving some sectors short of, variously, skilled staff and manual workers. 

The who,e thing has been a mess.

The reasons why a majority of people voted to leave the EU are now a secondary issue.  What matters now is the terms on which the UK leaves. The growing campaign for a confirmatory referendum has a logical argument on both grounds of substance (e.g. nobody knew just how complicated it would be to leave the EU or the terms on which that exit might take place at the time of the referendum so it's right to confirm that decision with the electorate when both aspects are clear), and on democratic grounds (the referendum was presented as an act of democracy and the UK parliament repatriating powers from Brussels, so it is right that parliament and the electorate have the opportunity to vote to confirm what HMG has negotiated). However, 'logic' and 'reasoned argument' are not going to sway those politicians with an idealogical hatred of the European Union. Those politicians will constantly shift their arguments to preserve their idealogical goal of leaving the EU, regardless of the consequences. 

With the divisions in both major political parties, coupled with Corbyn's 'non-policy' on Brexit, I cannot see the current Parliament agreeing to a confirmatory referendum.  An impasse on the eventual deal is more likely in which case Parliament will then be confronted with a grim choice: allow the Article 50 'clock' to expire and accept that the UK crashes out of the EU with no deal with the consequential awful impacts (which Brexiteers would support), or MPs on both sides of the House collaborate to prevent such an outcome by voting against the Government's 'deal' and for a motion that seeks to extend or withdraw Article 50 while new options are explored, including the possibility of another referendum. The Brexiteers MPs don't have the numbers in Parliament to prevent this. The latter option would, of course, likely lead to a general election.   My guess is the rest of the EU would agree to the time-frame for Art 50 being extended or suspended if it prevented economic damage to the 27 member states, and even more if there were a prospect of the UK changing its mind.     

I think MDS sums up the current situation nicely.

Its in both sides of the negotiations to reach an agreement and i am sure thats what the politicians will do - they are after all experts in compromise.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

I think MDS sums up the current situation nicely.

Its in both sides of the negotiations to reach an agreement and i am sure thats what the politicians will do - they are after all experts in compromise.

Ray

Let's hope you are right !

After reading this thread and following the news for the last couple years I think a better title for this thread might have been “Are We Walking Out Of Europe Kicking, Screaming, Gouging, Poking, and Hurling Invective”.

In the end, I think you will have no choice but to leave and in the end, after some period of adjustment, perhaps painful adjustment, I think you’ll do fine. You folks are made of some pretty tough stuff.

Your suggested alternative title is better suited to the way some of our politicians are behaving, Clay.  That said, I think Don's original suggestion was aimed more at those ordinary folk who have been intuitively attracted to leaving the European Union, thinking it would be a straightforward process like cancelling club membership but actually had a very shallow understanding of how interwoven the fabric of the UK is with that of the EU.  Perhaps the thought was many of those people who had voted to leave would later think "What! I had no idea that [insert hundreds of examples] would happen when we left the EU. Had I known at the time I'm not sure I would have voted to leave."

 Still, your confidence in the UK's ability to roll-with-the-punches is welcome. 

Clay Bingham posted:

After reading this thread and following the news for the last couple years I think a better title for this thread might have been “Are We Walking Out Of Europe Kicking, Screaming, Gouging, Poking, and Hurling Invective”.

In the end, I think you will have no choice but to leave and in the end, after some period of adjustment, perhaps painful adjustment, I think you’ll do fine. You folks are made of some pretty tough stuff.

You might well be right, Clay, but i'm not going to ask Richard to change the title.

At the time I started this thread, we had 4 months to run to the referendum and as I stated in my opening post, the  references in the news bulletins were few and far between and concentrated on a couple of trivial (and in my opinion irrelevant) subjects. There was no exposition of any significant issues and so far as I could tell, many people felt that leaving or remaining was no big deal ie easy to implement, easy to make a good deal prior to leaving, easy to remain as exceptionally good friends with the rest of the EU. There was no indication that the UK could be so nebulous about what Leaving would look like nor so politically divided about what we would like to achieve. As a Nation, we were sleepwalking.

As significant issues have come to light, there has been the inevitable lies and counter-lies (or facts and counter facts - it's often difficult to decipher !) We are now in a position where (to my mind) we have a 3-way discussion (argument ?)

       Remain (with a peoples' vote.......although such a vote could go either way)

       Leave with a decent deal (seems to be the hope of most politicians)

       Leave with no deal (seems to be the delight of some and the nightmare of many)

(somehow, I have put these 3 options in my order of preference !!)

Political debate and news media coverage seem to indicate kicking, screaming, gouging etc and to a certain extent that has developed in this thread. However,, dinner party discussion, work and Pub chatter have, in my circle of life at least, still remained satisfyingly civilised. I hope it stays that way.

I have always been fascinated by our own gypsies, the strong wily Irish type that have been around since I can remember.

Have noticed they have been setting up at large within those council areas that voted remain.

Here at Cambridge they seem to be everywhere.   Good on them I say.

MDS posted:

Your suggested alternative title is better suited to the way some of our politicians are behaving, Clay.  That said, I think Don's original suggestion was aimed more at those ordinary folk who have been intuitively attracted to leaving the European Union, thinking it would be a straightforward process like cancelling club membership but actually had a very shallow understanding of how interwoven the fabric of the UK is with that of the EU.  Perhaps the thought was many of those people who had voted to leave would later think "What! I had no idea that [insert hundreds of examples] would happen when we left the EU. Had I known at the time I'm not sure I would have voted to leave."

 Still, your confidence in the UK's ability to roll-with-the-punches is welcome. 

Hi Mike, you seem to have captured my thoughts better than myself !

Cheers

Don

Don - I'd go with you order of preferences too.

That said, in wishful thinking moments, I sometimes wonder whether I'm going to have a 'Bobby Ewing in the shower moment' and wake-up one day to find that all this Brexit/Trump stuff is just some bad dream.  

M

The notification pasted below, probably suggests to some Brexiteers (and I don't blame them) that the sooner we extract ourselves from such gobbleygook the better.

But it isn't EU gobbleygook, it's UK CAA text and on careful reading, it does make sense. Up until now, the ICAO rules required pilots to hold licence(s) issued by the state in which their aircraft is registered. For example, I have both UK and Canadian licences. For the past 15 years the EU has been trying to standardise European licences and my UK issued EASA licence is good to fly EASA registered aircraft anywhere in the EU (+4) states. Many of us, including some airlines, thought our EASA licences were good to fly any EASA registered aircraft worldwide.

It seems that some Ramp Inspectors thought otherwise. ICAO has modified the rules in favour of the airlines, not the Ramp Inspectors. However, the EU has made it clear that only EU states are covered by the EASA RSOO Agreement, not the +4 (Iceland Norway etc).

Clearly the UK is included.................at present !

How many more "trivial" little issues like this, across the whole breadth of our everyday lives, need to be considered before we reach a "deal" with the EU or indeed will potentially screw us up on the 1st April 2019 ?

Automatic validation of UK flight crew licences issued in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 as amended

History

In response to several ramp inspections outside the territory of the European Union (EU)

Member States, when the flight crew members were found operating aircraft registered in a Member State other than the one that had issued their pilot licences, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has amended Annex 1 to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation to cater for automatic validation of licences through Regional Safety Oversight Organizations (RSOOs) agreements.

The ICAO Amendment 174 to Annex 1 -Personnel Licensing-enables, within a group of States, the automatic validation of licences issued by any State of the group when those States are party to a formal agreement under common licensing regulations. Such formal agreements can be implemented in various regions and improve the mobility of licensed personnel. It can be introduced with the support of a regional safety oversight organization, as appropriate.

Those affected

All pilots holding a licence issued by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the UK), in accordance with Commission Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 as amended, operating commercially for a European Operator, whose aircraft are on the register of a EU Member State which is also a member of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). A list of EASA Member States is available on its website.

It should be noted that Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland are excluded from the list, whilst they are member of EASA, they are not EU member States.

Actions for the CAA and licence holders

As of the 19th August 2018, the Civil Aviation Authority, will print on all EASA Part-FCL that it issues, this additional remark at Section XIII

“This licence is automatically validated as per the ICAO attachment to this licence”.

It is the responsibility of the individual licence holder to print off this attachment Automatic validation of Pilot licenses - ICAO registration number 5950, if operating an aircraft registered with another EU Member State, and to carry it with their licence document.

This Aeronautical Agreement facilitates the automatic validation of pilot licenses (Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the field of aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

From Alex Edelman at the Edinburgh Fringe:

Why are they calling it Brexit when they could be calling it The Great British Break Off?

Florestan posted:

Was a million plus Syrian refugees into Germany considered 'free-movement?'

 

I don't know, but it was certainly a wonderful thing.

"Twit to Leave EU"

One of the Bath owls - and as tradition holds... a wise old owl!

HMG's new papers now reveal the most awful consequences of a no-deal Brexit. No, I don't mean the Chancellor's suggestion of an additional £80bn in borrowing, rather a shortage of sperm!

When the headline first caught my eye I wondered whether some official at the Department of Health was predicting that we male Remoaners would become so depressed that we would no longer be able to..............well, I'd best leave it there. But, no. It seems that we Brits don't meet the country's full need and those virile Danes make up the shortfall. However the importation of said Danish 'contribution' may get tied up in red-tape (ouch) leaving us short!

Upon learning this shocking revelation I frantically searched the rest of my newspaper seeking to find some contingency plan but found nothing. Surely in the face of this existential threat it's only fair to expect male Brexiteers to step-up and commit to filling the gap? Given his many children, Rees-Mogg looks to have it in him. So come on you Brexiteers, do your patriotic duty for Queen and Country.  What say you, Resurrection?

Florestan posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Florestan posted:

Was a million plus Syrian refugees into Germany considered 'free-movement?'

 

I don't know, but it was certainly a wonderful thing.

...and one other kooky person liked this statement even (...a wonderful thing)?

What is wonderful, Winky?  Are you celebrating the mass rapes and increases in crime and a general destruction and dismantling of a Western society and culture as a result of 'open borders'?

The facts as reported from January 2018 in the Irish Times (two snippets):

But Germany is traumatised by how its warm welcome for refugees was plunged into darkness two years ago with the mass groping and rape of young women at New Year’s Eve celebrations in Cologne and other cities. A series of terrorist attacks followed in the summer of 2016, some committed by asylum-seeking sympathisers of so-called Islamic State. Berlin’s Christmas market attack of December 2016, in which 12 died, exposed massive failings by politicians and police. Since then there has been a steady flow of young male asylum seekers and refugees involved in killings, rapes and thefts. The term “criminal foreigner” is now firmly cemented in public discourse and contributed to 12.6 per cent support for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) last September.

First, the total number of asylum seekers in Germany by the end of 2016 was up 490 per cent compared with 2014. 
Almost 300,000 crimes (9 per cent of the total) were linked to refugees/asylum-seekers in 2016, up 42 per cent year-on-year. 
Federal statistics indicate that, of almost 4,000 rapes recorded in the years 2015 and 2016, the percentage of non-national perpetrators jumped in that time from 33 to 38 per cent. 
A new study this week showed that, in the two-year period to end-2016, the number of refugees in the state of Lower Saxony (population 7 million), jumped by 117 per cent to 163,000, while refugee crime suspects jumped by 242 per cent. Put another way, crimes with a refugee suspect jumped from four per cent in 2014 to 13 per cent two years later. 

I can only surmise that people who cheer the flooding of a country in a dramatic, uncontrolled way as with Germany is the SJW's way to virtue signal how righteous and unblemished the leftist vision is.  (but of course it is OK to hate whites !).  The problem is that these clueless eggheads vote and put clueless, kooky eggheads like them into government and of course these things are occurring.  Doesn't matter if these actions are reckless and irreversible and ultimately destroy the countries future.

Then you end up with an EU, UK, Britain, and USA as it is now and where it is heading to faster than anyone might believe.  And you poor, feckless UK men who want to remain in the EU to cover your sperm shortages.  What a sad lot and situation you are in.

I presume you disagree with winky ?

I don’t consider your evidence is sufficient to secure a conviction, in fact it’s severely limited. But somewhat aggressive and over-the-top when it comes to stating a disagreement.

From the same article:

How big is the problem?
Impossible to say, because of the sheer numbers and because Germany’s decentralised federal states have their own rules and methods of collating refugees and crimes, combined with a chronic inability to communicate with each other – and Berlin. Strict limits on what information police can release about crimes, suspects and victims has complicated matters further, as has a lack of clarity over just how many asylum seekers have vanished without trace. This has been a boon to populists who, in their social media echo chambers, suggest the subjective rise in refugee criminality is more accurate than the hard data.

MDS posted:

... a shortage of sperm!

....Surely in the face of this existential threat it's only fair to expect male Brexiteers to step-up and commit to filling the gap? Given his many children, Rees-Mogg looks to have it in him. So come on you Brexiteers, do your patriotic duty for Queen and Country.  

What say you, Resurrection?

In the, continuing, absence of rational debate on my part.

"What can I do to make light of this dull dull day?
What switch can I pull to illuminate the way?

Show me one direction
I will not question again
For a warm injection
Is all I need to calm the pain

We all need a love (Resurrection, just a little divine intervention)
We all need a love (Resurrection, just a little divine intervention)

What seed must I sow to replenish this barren land
Teach me to harvest, I want you to grow in my hand
Let's be optimistic, let's say that we won't toil in vain
If we pull together we'll never fall apart again

We all need a love (Resurrection, just a little divine intervention)
We all need a love (Resurrection, just a little divine intervention)
We need love

Resurrection
(We need a love)
Just a little divine (intervention)

Show me one direction
I will not question again, no, no
For a warm injection
Is all I need to calm the pain

We all need a love (Resurrection, just a little divine intervention)
We all need a love (Resurrection, just a little divine intervention)"

Not my words - I hasten to add,

John Galt  (who he?)

And sung, and I believe written (?) by one of my fave 80’s singers, Alison Moyet along with Tony Swain and Steve Jolley. 

I knew there must be a connection... Alison was born in Billericay in SE Essex.. a strong pro Brexit area I believe... I’m sure I’ll be corrected if wrong...

Brexit is very simple, if you think deeply about it, it is all about immigration, that is all.

Frank Yang posted:

Brexit is very simple, if you think deeply about it, it is all about immigration, that is all.

How can you possibly  know the thoughts and motives of nearly 20 million people.

There are some quite effective  anglers on this thread 

thebigfredc posted:

Frank Yang posted:

Brexit is very simple, if you think deeply about it, it is all about immigration, that is all.

How can you possibly  know the thoughts and motives of nearly 20 million people.

As I stated a few pages back, the PM is convinced that immigration was the single most important element behind the “Leave” vote.

so regardless of what c.20m people thought or motivated them, immigration will be top of the current list of Government thinking and action. Regardless of what the Government says or the media reports.

But for sure, the Gov will want the media to highlight immigration.

And in the meantime, while immigration from the EU has fallen somewhat, immigration from outside the EU has risen to compensate, and the overall level of immigration is slightly up.

So the ****ing idiots who voted for Brexit for the motives so amply demonstrated by Florestan above will probably believe it when they’re told that Brexit has had the effect they wanted. When in fact the effect seems likely to have increased the numbers of the kind of incomers they stupidly thought they were getting rid of (ie brown ones).

I can barely wait for the visionary ideological powerhouse that is TM’s team to get further stuck into the same topic. Utopia must be mere weeks away.