Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Given I was canvassing for some of it yes I did have a few conversations with real people

 

I met lots of people who wanted to control their own borders, I didn't meet a single person, not one, who told me they were voting to leave because they wanted to deport foreigners

 

I spoke to a lot of idiots as well doing this, more than I would want to speak to again in a lifetime and the voting intention of those was mixed, people who thought the big bus was Labour's because just it was red, people who didn't want to vote for Jeremy Crobin, people who thought leaving the EU meant they couldn't go on holiday to Spain if we left and people who thought Donald Trump would bomb us if we voted to remain, but no one who was so openly racist they stated they wanted to forcibly remove people from the country for not being British.

Well I hate to break it to you but those people do exist and to a man they always assure you they aren't being racist so I guess you're right about the not being openly racist bit but wrong in your belief that absolutely nobody wanted people of specific nationalities to go home for arbitrary and poorly thought out reasons.  I'm happy to admit this issue isn't everybody's be all and end all but I find it strange that you're unable to even accept the legitimate existence of these folk... it's all a bit BBC and child abuse... or labour council overseeing a borough with high levels of child grooming.

 

I would suggest people are more likely to be expansively candid about their views with a peer down the local than with a stranger in a suit knocking on their door on behalf of an official organisation.

 

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Anti-immigration is a catch all thought isnt it?  I do believe a majority are anti completely open unrestricted immigration, and that only racist twats oppose sensibly managed immigration of people who bring their skills and talents to our nation where they are needed, and who dont have criminal backgrounds.  We have had nigh on 20 years of anyone at all coming in from Europe at the expense of lots of talent from the rest of the World.

It is that's a very fair point.  We can't rely on official statistics to give us the right answer here so we can only go on what we perceive from the world around us so obviously the conclusions I draw on this matter are all based on the inhabitants of my particular slice of the planet and according to the arguments of some on here that slice is so significantly anomalous to the mean as to be a unique region where people have thoughts that don't occur anywhere else in the country.

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Corbyn stated that lower Corporation Tax would be a race to the bottom and cost the treasury over 120 billion pounds. 

 

A quick glance showed Corporation Tax revenues are just a bit over 40 billion, he can't even get the most basic of facts right. - https://web.archive.org/web/20160304221555/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456459/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2015.pdf#8

 screw the NHS not paying our membership can cover most of that.

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Slightly controversial I think, no one in Leave said "we'd be getting lot of foreigners" either, they said we would be controlling our borders. That's a big difference. As you say wanting fewer here isn't wanting rid of those here. I'd happily get behind a Spaniard who would want less English there ruining and often colonising the beautiful South Coast with bars watching Eastenders etc, but I wouldn't get behind them forcibly removing them.

 

I don't think she is playing to the media, I think she genuinely means it, her decision of a hard Brexit was effectively forced upon her by Europe and now she has to go hard or go home, she was put on the ropes and she has to fight back.

 

P.S Have you got any further with researching article 50? I can't find anything at all that confirms or denies outright that once we enact it that means we are definitely leaving, it's something that needs to be cleared up very quickly and I'm surprised no one yet in parliament has asked the question.

 

 

"Controlling our borders" sounds so much nicer than having "fewer foreigners in the UK" or "getting rid of lots of foreigners", doesn't it?

That's why I deliberately used that language. People shouldn't be able to hide behind such nicey-nicey euphemisms.

 

I reckon that most Brexit voters (probably including you) want there to be fewer foreigners in the UK. Am I wrong?

I also reckon that @Carl the Llama is correct and a small but significant number would like to "kick out" foreigners already here. Some of them might get squeamish if they saw people being dragged screaming to the airport, but not all of them. Like Carl, I've certainly heard people say they wanted to "get rid of" foreigners, "kick them out" etc. Some will have been just mouthing off, but not all.

 

Get real, Matt. Most Brexit voters want there to be fewer foreigners here - and they want it to happen reasonably soon. Only a tiny, crazy minority want no foreigners or mass deportations. I'm sure the majority position is as I described: keep some, allow some to serve out their notice, carefully select some more who are allowed in (for skills/sectoral shortages) but ensure that the number of foreigners falls overall. Am I wrong?

 

Would most Brexit voters be happy if all the foreigners already here chose to stay? I don't think so.

 

Polarising the issue into the euphemistic "border control" v. "forcibly removing them" is dishonest, particularly when you were responding to a post in which I explicitly said that most Brexit supporters wouldn't want to see " law-abiding, legitimately-employed foreigners dragged off to the airport for deportation".

 

Most Brexit supporters want there to be fewer foreigners in the UK. I assume that you do. Am I wrong?

 

Re. your last point: No, I can't see any confirmation as to whether the UK could rescind its Article 50 notice to leave. I assume that it is not being discussed any more because it seems an unlikely scenario at the moment....but that might not be the case in 18 months time. And the answer to the question could have a massive impact on negotiating stances. I'm astonished this isn't being debated by politicians/media.

[Innovindil]

Just out of curiosity, are there any remainers about who are pro immigration control but feel the economical burdens outweigh that? 

[Carl the Llama]

Have to say I thought the whole point of article 50 is that there's no turning back once activated.  I'm sure that was a key part of pre-ref debate, am I mis-remembering or something?

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Just out of curiosity, are there any remainers about who are pro immigration control but feel the economical burdens outweigh that? 

Of course not, they're all to smart and making far too much money to be concerned about the poor thickos over here 

[Innovindil]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Have to say I thought the whole point of article 50 is that there's no turning back once activated.  I'm sure that was a key part of pre-ref debate, am I mis-remembering or something?

I honestly thought the same but Alf posted quite a few links in regards to being able to stop it once active. If you happen to find any links post them up please because it's doing my head in not knowing where I read it. 

[Alf Bentley]

22 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We often don't get exactly what we want when we vote, did labour voters want Blair to take the country into two wars? Did everyone who vote in Tory and Lib Dem get what they want? 

 

True. Governments doing stuff their supporters don't like or not doing some stuff they promised is par for the course for all parties.

 

Threatening to take money or services from the British people in order to offer low taxes to global corporations takes it a bit further, though. It's almost diametrically opposite to what Brexit supporters would hope for, surely?

A closer equivalent would be the Lib Dems promising to get rid of tuition fees and then helping to send them through the roof under the Coalition. 

 

 

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Corbyn stated that lower Corporation Tax would be a race to the bottom and cost the treasury over 120 billion pounds. 

 

A quick glance showed Corporation Tax revenues are just a bit over 40 billion, he can't even get the most basic of facts right. - https://web.archive.org/web/20160304221555/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456459/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2015.pdf#8

 

To be fair to Corbyn (which I find hard as he's a deeply damaging, incompetent, narcissistic buffoon), maybe his £120bn figure related to more than just a year (your figure is £43bn per year).

If he's saying it would cost £120bn per year, then he's talking bollocks or doing some massively creative accounting, obviously.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"Controlling our borders" sounds so much nicer than having "fewer foreigners in the UK" or "getting rid of lots of foreigners", doesn't it?

That's why I deliberately used that language. People shouldn't be able to hide behind such nicey-nicey euphemisms.

 

I reckon that most Brexit voters (probably including you) want there to be fewer foreigners in the UK. Am I wrong?

I also reckon that @Carl the Llama is correct and a small but significant number would like to "kick out" foreigners already here. Some of them might get squeamish if they saw people being dragged screaming to the airport, but not all of them. Like Carl, I've certainly heard people say they wanted to "get rid of" foreigners, "kick them out" etc. Some will have been just mouthing off, but not all.

 

Get real, Matt. Most Brexit voters want there to be fewer foreigners here - and they want it to happen reasonably soon. Only a tiny, crazy minority want no foreigners or mass deportations. I'm sure the majority position is as I described: keep some, allow some to serve out their notice, carefully select some more who are allowed in (for skills/sectoral shortages) but ensure that the number of foreigners falls overall. Am I wrong?

 

Would most Brexit voters be happy if all the foreigners already here chose to stay? I don't think so.

 

Polarising the issue into the euphemistic "border control" v. "forcibly removing them" is dishonest, particularly when you were responding to a post in which I explicitly said that most Brexit supporters wouldn't want to see " law-abiding, legitimately-employed foreigners dragged off to the airport for deportation".

 

Most Brexit supporters want there to be fewer foreigners in the UK. I assume that you do. Am I wrong?

 

Re. your last point: No, I can't see any confirmation as to whether the UK could rescind its Article 50 notice to leave. I assume that it is not being discussed any more because it seems an unlikely scenario at the moment....but that might not be the case in 18 months time. And the answer to the question could have a massive impact on negotiating stances. I'm astonished this isn't being debated by politicians/media.

Well it sounds nicer because it's different, controlling borders doesn't mean getting rid of foreigners, the two things are completely different.

 

Do I want there to be fewer foreigners in the UK? Not necessarily, No. I think we have to control the amount of people coming into the country, I don't think we have the finances or the infrastructure to maintain the level of net (key word) migration into the UK we currently are doing, we should be taking skilled migration that benefits us at a level we see fit and can cope with, rather than just committing ourselves to allowing any one of 450 million in as part of a club of open borders, even more so when a vast proportion of those arriving are low skilled workers who hit the poorest hard and only benefit the rich who want a cheap nanny or to take advantage of desperate people willing to work for next to nothing.

 

If a situation occurs where we all of a sudden have an upsurge of British people leaving and we need jobs to fill, we'll be replacing those people with foreign workers and I would do that like a shot, So no, I don't subscribe to any theory that accuses me of having a blanket position of wanting less foreigners in the country.

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Well I hate to break it to you but those people do exist and to a man they always assure you they aren't being racist so I guess you're right about the not being openly racist bit but wrong in your belief that absolutely nobody wanted people of specific nationalities to go home for arbitrary and poorly thought out reasons.  I'm happy to admit this issue isn't everybody's be all and end all but I find it strange that you're unable to even accept the legitimate existence of these folk... it's all a bit BBC and child abuse... or labour council overseeing a borough with high levels of child grooming.

You don't seem to getting what I'm saying, immigration was a HUGE part of the leave vote, controlling the borders was a HUGE part of the leave vote, deporting people wasn't, hence why no one in the debate said anything about doing it, had Vote Leave said we were going to start deporting European Europeans Remain would have won by a landslide, I would even have voted Remain myself in that circumstance.

 

But I suppose saying they want to "kick out the foreigners" makes those Leave voters sound a lot nastier than just saying they want to control the borders with a managed migration policy.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, MattP said:

You don't seem to getting what I'm saying, immigration was a HUGE part of the leave vote, controlling the borders was a HUGE part of the leave vote, deporting people wasn't, hence why no one in the debate said anything about doing it, had Vote Leave said we were going to start deporting European Europeans Remain would have won by a landslide, I would even have voted Remain myself in that circumstance.

 

But I suppose saying they want to "kick out the foreigners" makes those Leave voters sound a lot nastier than just saying they want to control the borders with a managed migration policy.

No you don't seem to get what I'm saying if your response to that quote is to talk about the official stance of an official organisation and continue to insist that there was no such thing as regular people voting leave having interpreted taking back control to mean less foreigners in their immediate vicinity in the near future.

[Guest MattP]

Do you think every country in the World that has border control have it because they want less foreigners in the country? 

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Do you think every country in the World that has border control have it because they want less foreigners in the country? 

No (and I'll resist going on a rant about the border control fallacy).  I think people who tell me they want less foreigners in the country want less foreigners in the country.

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

No (and I'll resist going on a rant about the border control fallacy).  I think people who tell me they want less foreigners in the country want less foreigners in the country.

Unfortunately people who want less foreigners in the country are still allowed to vote/breed/think/shop/converse and until we find a way of dealing with this problem, we still have to accept the democracy presented.

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Unfortunately people who want less foreigners in the country are still allowed to vote/breed/think/shop/converse and until we find a way of dealing with this problem, we still have to accept the democracy presented.

Not debating that at all, just trying to get a few posters to accept the reality of the situation and stop living in a little bubble of denial where everything done by everyone deemed to be on their side of an arbitrarily defined political spectrum is always to an entirely well-informed and reasonable end.

[Guest MattP]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldselect/ldeucom/138/13804.htm

 

Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed?

10.We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final. Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.”10 Professor Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis:

“There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind.”11

11.Professor Wyatt clarified that “a Member State remains a member of the European Union until the withdrawal agreement takes effect”, so would continue its membership on the same legal terms as before the decision to withdraw.12

12.Both witnesses drew a distinction, however, between the law and the politics of such a scenario. While the law was clear, “the politics of it would be completely different”, according to Professor Wyatt.13 Likewise, Sir David did not think that the politics “were as easy as saying, ‘The negotiations are over and we are back to where we started’”.14

13.We note in this context that the Conclusions of the 18–19 February 2016 European Council, at which the terms of the ‘New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union’ were agreed, stated that “should the result of the referendum in the United Kingdom be for it to leave the European Union, the set of arrangements referred to [regarding the ‘New Settlement’] will cease to exist”.15 In other words, the outcome of the recent renegotiation of the UK’s membership terms will, in the event of a vote to leave the EU, fall the moment the result of the referendum is known.

 

Conclusions

14.If a Member State decides to withdraw from the EU, the process described in Article 50 is the only way of doing so consistent with EU and international law.

15.There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial.

16.Withdrawal from the EU is final once the withdrawal agreement enters into force. Article 50 makes clear that if a State that has withdrawn from the EU seeks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the same procedures as any other applicant State.

17.We note that the European Council has stated explicitly that the changes to the terms of the UK’s membership of the EU, agreed in February 2016, will automatically fall in the event of a vote to leave on 23 June.

[Guest MattP]

I'd say on that if it does go tits up another legal minefield awaits.

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Corbyn stated that lower Corporation Tax would be a race to the bottom and cost the treasury over 120 billion pounds. 

 

A quick glance showed Corporation Tax revenues are just a bit over 40 billion, he can't even get the most basic of facts right. - https://web.archive.org/web/20160304221555/https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456459/Corporation_Tax_Statistics_August_2015.pdf#8

Over the course of the remaining duration of this parliament perhaps? Seems weird May or any journalists would not pick up on that fact.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Over the course of the remaining duration of this parliament perhaps? Seems weird May or any journalists would not pick up on that fact.

Why would he claim it's over the remaining duration of this parliament when we aren't leaving the EU until 2019?

[Sharpe's Fox]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Why would he claim it's over the remaining duration of this parliament when we aren't leaving the EU until 2019?

Oh I thought he was referring to the lowering in corporation tax announced in the autumn statement

[Strokes]

Just now, Sharpe's Fox said:

Oh I thought he was referring to the lowering in corporation tax announced in the autumn statement

It still couldn't cost us £120 million, unless i missed him saying he was reducing it to near zero.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Oh I thought he was referring to the lowering in corporation tax announced in the autumn statement

We're not reducing it to zero. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Just out of curiosity, are there any remainers about who are pro immigration control but feel the economical burdens outweigh that? 

 

I might fit into that category.

 

With hindsight, the way that the "free movement" policy was introduced was a mistake. I suspect that everyone under-estimated how many people would be prepared to move to other countries (as when the number of East Europeans arriving under the Blair Govt massively exceeded expectations). Large and rapid influxes of immigrants almost inevitably cause fears, resentments and a few problems. That was made worse by the combined impact of the 2008 Global Crash and the mismanagement of the Eurozone. This left many parts of the EU stagnating with high unemployment, whereas in the UK the employment situation was better, although real pay and job security suffered. That produced another bigger-than-expected wave of EU immigration into the UK, which clearly had a big impact on the Brexit vote. 

 

In that context, the Govt had to seek a new deal allowing greater immigration control. I have no problem with that, but see it as massively important to our economy and society that we maintain a close trading relationship with the EU, with minimum costs and barriers to trade. If we lose significant investment, competitiveness and opportunities for trade in Europe, we'll find it very hard to replace that with trade deals elsewhere in the world, for a number of years. I'd have liked us to stay in the Single Market but negotiate some concessions on free movement.....though it's questionable whether that would have been possible. If it wasn't possible, I'd have wanted us to prioritise the Single Market above immigration control. There still would have been ways of offsetting the real and perceived negative impacts of high EU immigration: restore special funds for areas affected by high immigration (the Tories got rid of those); boost public services in those areas; pursue measures to encourage integration (I support the suggestion that English classes should be compulsory); force employers to advertise jobs to locals and not to recruit foreign teams en masses (e.g. East Europeans in seasonal agriculture); inspect employers to avoid illegal pay & conditions etc.

 

I'm dubious as to how much we'll be able to reduce net immigration, anyway. It would take a concerted effort over many years. I simply don't believe that there are hundreds of thousands of Brits out there champing at the bit, wanting to replace immigrants doing low-paid or unpleasant work, often with unsociable hours, in care homes, hotels, seasonal agriculture etc. Plus, it would obviously take a number of years to train up locals to replace all the skilled workers - foreign doctors, nurses, teachers, plumbers etc. 

 

I genuinely fear for the state of our society if economic times get tougher for several years. Enough people have already been having a tough time for years, many since the 2008 Crash. Ensuring a manageable immigration flow is important, but is trumped by the economic and social wellbeing of the nation for me. If life gets worse for a lot of people due to us leaving the Single Market and immigration can't be reduced significantly, that's even worse....and that's what I expect to happen, I'm afraid.

[Alf Bentley]

 

Here's an interesting quote re. global trade deals replacing any loss of trade with the EU:

 

"It is tempting to look at developing countries' economies, with their high growth rates, and see them as an alternative to trade with Europe. But just look at the reality of our trading relationship with China - with its dumping policies, protective tariffs and industrial-scale industrial espionage. And look at the figures. We export more to Ireland than we do to China, almost twice as much to Belgium as we do to India, and nearly three times as much to Sweden as we do to Brazil. It is not realistic to think we could just replace European trade with these new markets. And while we could certainly negotiate our own trade agreements, there would be no guarantee that they would be on terms as good as those we enjoy now. There would also be a considerable opportunity cost given the need to replace the existing agreements - not least with the EU itself - that we would have torn up as a consequence of our departure."

 

 

Think about that for a minute....we export more to Ireland than to China, twice as much to Belgium as to India, nearly three times as much to Sweden as to Brazil.....

 

Do you know who that quote is from?

 

 

Theresa May (April 2016)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38653681

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

48 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'd say on that if it does go tits up another legal minefield awaits.

 

Legal and political minefield.

 

I know some people reckoned that UK couldn't rescind Article 50 once it is triggered, but it's certainly not clear - and most of the credible opinion seems to suggest that we could rescind it, in theory.

I wonder if that will be discussed again in the coming days or if we'll have to wait and see if circumstances occur that make it a real possibility....could be massively controversial if it's not sorted out early on.