Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

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...

 

Ah, that hoary old chestnut, eh! We’re all descendants of immigrants. Yes , maybe 250,000 years ago, but not last Tuesday, and no, we didn’t all vote to keep Pakistanis out because some of us did know that Theresa May, as Home Secretary and Prime Minister, was letting them all in regardless. 

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.

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