Brexit

First topic message reminder :

Dolphin Ziggler wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Duty281 wrote:He doesn't have to 'prove his innocence', that's not how the justice system in this country works.

But it's how the world intends it to work.................... it's probably called neo-socialism - ooh, sex-Y!.  
Anti establishment thought crimes to be punishable by no trial and a bullet down some cavernous prison complex dedicated to 're-education' of political dissidents.

Sex crimes as well? I don't see many people one here leaping to Weinstein's defence.

Yep. I would, until and unless he's convicted. Otherwise it's just hearsay and rumour.

So would Arron Banks

Meaning?

El Radar wrote:

Samo wrote:Facts are that illegal immigration is bad, but migrants on the whole are net contributers to the economy and do vital work in the health services, agriculture and labour industries.

Not quite that simple, net contributors do include Billionaires who pump a lot of money into the economy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

Samo wrote:

El Radar wrote:

Samo wrote:Facts are that illegal immigration is bad, but migrants on the whole are net contributers to the economy and do vital work in the health services, agriculture and labour industries.

Not quite that simple, net contributors do include Billionaires who pump a lot of money into the economy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

Cheers for this Samo, this is the kind of thing that needs more exposure in a calm concise manner rather than being screamed about on the news. Although are we really at a point where it matters anymore what any of us feel/think etc?

(It's still good info to have though either way)

Derbymanc wrote:

Samo wrote:

El Radar wrote:

Samo wrote:Facts are that illegal immigration is bad, but migrants on the whole are net contributers to the economy and do vital work in the health services, agriculture and labour industries.

Not quite that simple, net contributors do include Billionaires who pump a lot of money into the economy.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-workers-uk-tax-treasury-brexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

Cheers for this Samo, this is the kind of thing that needs more exposure in a calm concise manner rather than being screamed about on the news. Although are we really at a point where it matters anymore what any of us feel/think etc?

(It's still good info to have though either way)

I think it matters a great deal what people think/feel if people are using preconceived prejudices and ill-thought out opinions rather than facts and evidence to dictate public policy which affects everyone in the country.

It's ultimately one study that does include the super wealthy who are not entitled to the same tax breaks as British citizens, it's something that tries to make out that lower income migrants contribute more than lower income British citizens. A break down of contribution for each social class would be a more significant statistic.

Noone is listening to either side at the minute as it's a bunch of bickering idiots sounding like kids at every turn (i'm sure i've said that more than once).

I'm not sure if any public perception is dictating public policy at the minute as we're still no further ahead and in fact we're making our position worse with each passing day

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Regardless of result why is it that the politicians can't get together and try to negotiate whats best for the country (as a 2nd ref has been taken off the table) and come up with a position of strength?

That's an easy one - because what's best for the country doesn't suit the purposes or beliefs of too many of the politicians.

Another reason is the stance that this government and prime minister have taken from the outset, which is to treat Brexit, which is as big an issue as the UK has faced in decades, as if it was theirs to own and shape, and to exclude almost everyone who wasn't an insider, even if they had constructive ideas and wanted to help. They wanted a Tory Brexit - and for better or worse, that's what they've got. Parliament's toxic now. I think it's possible that this withdrawal agreement would have passed with cross-party support (if without the ERG and DUP) if the government had seen that Brexit was too important to treat as a party thing, and behaved accordingly. Theresa May likes citing the stat that a high percentage of the population (don't ask me the exact figure) voted for parties with a pro-Brexit manifesto, but she's behaved as though it's Tories-only. She's as isolated and friendless as she deserves to be.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Regardless of result why is it that the politicians can't get together and try to negotiate whats best for the country (as a 2nd ref has been taken off the table) and come up with a position of strength?

That's an easy one - because what's best for the country doesn't suit the purposes or beliefs of too many of the politicians.

Another reason is the stance that this government and prime minister have taken from the outset, which is to treat Brexit, which is as big an issue as the UK has faced in decades, as if it was theirs to own and shape, and to exclude almost everyone who wasn't an insider, even if they had constructive ideas and wanted to help. They wanted a Tory Brexit - and for better or worse, that's what they've got. Parliament's toxic now. I think it's possible that this withdrawal agreement would have passed with cross-party support (if without the ERG and DUP) if the government had seen that Brexit was too important to treat as a party thing, and behaved accordingly. Theresa May likes citing the stat that a high percentage of the population (don't ask me the exact figure) voted for parties with a pro-Brexit manifesto, but she's behaved as though it's Tories-only. She's as isolated and friendless as she deserves to be.

It doesn't help when the only worthwhile opposition is coming from people like Cooper, Benn and Umunna, who are themselves in internal conflict with their party leader, the government is failing and the shadow cabinet is offering nothing.

Oh the shambles isn't limited to the Conservative party, I agree with that; but had the prime minister consulted and sought parliamentary consensus as to what kind of Brexit we wanted, instead of the government deciding for itself what Brexit would be, and not telling anyone else for as long as possible, she could well have taken parliament with her. (An alternative theory is that the government never really knew what kind of Brexit it wanted and was too embarrassed to say so.)

El Radar wrote:

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Derbymanc wrote:Regardless of result why is it that the politicians can't get together and try to negotiate whats best for the country (as a 2nd ref has been taken off the table) and come up with a position of strength?

That's an easy one - because what's best for the country doesn't suit the purposes or beliefs of too many of the politicians.

Another reason is the stance that this government and prime minister have taken from the outset, which is to treat Brexit, which is as big an issue as the UK has faced in decades, as if it was theirs to own and shape, and to exclude almost everyone who wasn't an insider, even if they had constructive ideas and wanted to help. They wanted a Tory Brexit - and for better or worse, that's what they've got. Parliament's toxic now. I think it's possible that this withdrawal agreement would have passed with cross-party support (if without the ERG and DUP) if the government had seen that Brexit was too important to treat as a party thing, and behaved accordingly. Theresa May likes citing the stat that a high percentage of the population (don't ask me the exact figure) voted for parties with a pro-Brexit manifesto, but she's behaved as though it's Tories-only. She's as isolated and friendless as she deserves to be.

It doesn't help when the only worthwhile opposition is coming from people like Cooper, Benn and Umunna, who are themselves in internal conflict with their party leader, the government is failing and the shadow cabinet is offering nothing.

The Shadow Brexit Secretary is on his 4th opponent...Not bad for no opposition...

The Govt was found in contempt of Parliament for the first time In centuries a couple of months ago...

Labour also forced the Attorney General to come to the Commons to tell the House the tell the legal advice on the backstop.....Starmer has been excellent and he works for Corbyn.

Wouldn't believe everything the right wing MSM feeds you buddy.

The shadow Brexit secretary doesn't have to do anything, most of that was orchestrated by Yvette Cooper so proving my point.

Samo wrote: Its also a fact that the EU gave us the powers we needed to control FoM migrants, but the UK chose not to enforce them.  

This is not a fact as proved through the links I provided earlier in the thread when Hero brought up the same thing.

Can you provide the links again?

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote: Its also a fact that the EU gave us the powers we needed to control FoM migrants, but the UK chose not to enforce them.  

This is not a fact as proved through the links I provided earlier in the thread when Hero brought up the same thing.

Article 7.

It's easy enough to look this up and find that, contrary to Samo's false claim, the UK does deport EU migrants for a variety of reasons. And thinking about it, this supposed 'fact' below is also false, as post-Brexit the UK will have a kinder immigration system to high-skilled migrants meaning the country won't turn away as many potential non-EU migrants as it currently does.

Samo wrote:Its also true that leaving the EU wont affect immigration from outside the EU.

Duty281 wrote:It's easy enough to look this up and find that, contrary to Samo's false claim, the UK does deport EU migrants for a variety of reasons. And thinking about it, this supposed 'fact' below is also false, as post-Brexit the UK will have a kinder immigration system to high-skilled migrants meaning the country won't turn away as many potential non-EU migrants as it currently does.

Samo wrote:Its also true that leaving the EU wont affect immigration from outside the EU.

I made the claim that the EU gives us the power to control EU migration but various governments have chosen not to use it for the most part, a few examples of them using the powers doesnt dispute that. Its also aimed more at the people who claim we just let anyone in to stay where they abuse and bleed the system, which IS blatantly false.

There is also nothing stopping us now from introducing kinder immigration system with other countries. I’ve yet to see a report of high skilled workers of any nationality being turned away. If you want to provide evidence to the contrary then feel free. I look forward to reading it.

El Radar wrote:The shadow Brexit secretary doesn't have to do anything, most of that was orchestrated by Yvette Cooper so proving my point.

I refer you back to my post..

The only Cooper amendment that past was Cross Party...

Boles...Woollason..Grieve...Were all part of it.

Only reason Cooper gets the credit is Centrist papers like The Observer..Independent want her to challenge Corbyn..

Starmer has been an excellent Brexit Secretary.

He hasn't done anything yet he's been excellent, easy to look competent when your job entails absolutely nothing, the centrists are the ones opposing the government not the left wing.

Just out of interest Truss, the Shadow Brexit Secretary caused the resignations of the various Tory Brexit Secretaries how, exactly? Isn’t it actually the case that they resigned as a result of Tory infighting?

Samo wrote:a few examples of them using the powers doesnt dispute that.

I’ve yet to see a report of high skilled workers of any nationality being turned away. If you want to provide evidence to the contrary then feel free. I look forward to reading it.

Yes, a few examples of them using such powers does dispute a claim that the UK does not enforce such powers. And the second one is easy enough to find if you just type in 'skilled workers turned away UK':

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44113324
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/18/uk-hits-skilled-worker-visa-cap-third-month-home-office-refuses-applications

I said he was on his 4th Secretary which means there is trouble in that dept....Politics is a results orientated business..

Forced Davis into a corner and to lie in Commons about there being reports on Brexit scenarios...

The Govt were found in contempt of Parliament...The first time in Centuries..

The Attorney General (against protocol) was forced into the Commons to tell mps what advice he gave over the backstop..

Starmer has run rings around all the Brexit Secretaries...No doubt being a top barrister helps..

He is now 2nd favourite for the Leadership which gives credence to the fact he has shadowed well and is appreciated.

Starmer himself has done very little towards that and has had no hand in any of the Brexit secretaries resigning; Grieve and Cooper are the two who have been a constant thorn in the side of the government while May has alienated large portions of the party.

Duty281 wrote:

Samo wrote:a few examples of them using the powers doesnt dispute that.

I’ve yet to see a report of high skilled workers of any nationality being turned away. If you want to provide evidence to the contrary then feel free. I look forward to reading it.

Yes, a few examples of them using such powers does dispute a claim that the UK does not enforce such powers. And the second one is easy enough to find if you just type in 'skilled workers turned away UK':

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-44113324
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/18/uk-hits-skilled-worker-visa-cap-third-month-home-office-refuses-applications

Thanks for that, although I havent been able to find anything that says its the EU who set and enforce the cap on non-EU skilled workers, neither in those two articles you gave me or anywhere else. Infact, quite to the contrary, Germany recently passed a law which relaxes restrictions on non-EU workers to help plug the gaps, and they didnt have to leave the EU to do it.

Hmm. OK. Apart from the fact there’s only been Davis, Raab and the current one, Barclay, I could have sworn Davis quit after Chequers meeting when May tabled her plan/deal/whatever to her Cabinet of the time and Raab quit over the Withdrawal Agreement.
I’m not sure Starmer had anything to do with either, for all that I think he’s been impressive and I’d rather him than Corbyn in charge of Labour any day.

navyblueshorts wrote:Hmm. OK. Apart from the fact there’s only been Davis, Raab and the current one, Barclay, I could have sworn Davis quit after Chequers meeting when May tabled her plan/deal/whatever to her Cabinet of the time and Raab quit over the Withdrawal Agreement.
I’m not sure Starmer had anything to do with either, for all that I think he’s been impressive and I’d rather him than Corbyn in charge of Labour any day.

Starmer has a bright future that's for sure, cross party appeal but how that sits with the left wing Labour membership is another matter.

Cba to go through everything above again. Couple of points

1) Migration. The people with most influence on immigration into this country, and in particular where people are settled, is not the EU - it is the government
2) Leaver/Remainer bias. It is hugely frustrating when equal billing is given to people spouting lies than to people spouting facts. Beyond that there are nutters on both sides (though I'd argue that the worst are leavers - just look at the protests for and against). There are a lot of people who voted for what they thought was right for them and the country.
3) A bigger problem with the referendum was how it was interpreted by the government Triggering article 50 was the biggest single act of political stupidity in this country in the last 50 years, possibly longer. And it was driven by the Tories and Corbyn.
4) The circumstances bringing the vote about, the actions of some of our politicians and the way in which it is all being reported, particularly on mainstream BBC, is highly questionable. But our politicians (and that means magic feckin grandpa in particular) are not asking those questions.
5) The whole process has already caused serious damage to this country. The damage may take years to come out, but it is there.

navyblueshorts wrote:Hmm. OK. Apart from the fact there’s only been Davis, Raab and the current one, Barclay, I could have sworn Davis quit after Chequers meeting when May tabled her plan/deal/whatever to her Cabinet of the time and Raab quit over the Withdrawal Agreement.
I’m not sure Starmer had anything to do with either, for all that I think he’s been impressive and I’d rather him than Corbyn in charge of Labour any day.

If you aren't sure Starmer had anything to do with either...Perhaps find out before making blanket statements..

He is still there while his opposite numbers keep changing and he keeps getting concessions out of the Tories..

Must be doing something right.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Hmm. OK. Apart from the fact there’s only been Davis, Raab and the current one, Barclay, I could have sworn Davis quit after Chequers meeting when May tabled her plan/deal/whatever to her Cabinet of the time and Raab quit over the Withdrawal Agreement.
I’m not sure Starmer had anything to do with either, for all that I think he’s been impressive and I’d rather him than Corbyn in charge of Labour any day.

If you aren't sure Starmer had anything to do with either...Perhaps find out before making blanket statements..

He is still there while his opposite numbers keep changing and he keeps getting concessions out of the Tories..

Must be doing something right.

Only because they need someone convincing to talk to remainers while they pretend to carry on sitting on the fence.

Starmer is like that guy in the film Idiocracy. Pretty average but a genius compared with the majority of politicians on both front benches

Damning with faint praise....

lostinwales wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Hmm. OK. Apart from the fact there’s only been Davis, Raab and the current one, Barclay, I could have sworn Davis quit after Chequers meeting when May tabled her plan/deal/whatever to her Cabinet of the time and Raab quit over the Withdrawal Agreement.
I’m not sure Starmer had anything to do with either, for all that I think he’s been impressive and I’d rather him than Corbyn in charge of Labour any day.

If you aren't sure Starmer had anything to do with either...Perhaps find out before making blanket statements..

He is still there while his opposite numbers keep changing and he keeps getting concessions out of the Tories..

Must be doing something right.

Only because they need someone convincing to talk to remainers while they pretend to carry on sitting on the fence.

Starmer is like that guy in the film Idiocracy. Pretty average but a genius compared with the majority of politicians on both front benches

Former Director of Public Prosecutions and head of the Crown Prosecution Service labelled "average". Let me guess, there are plenty of Labour and Tory MPs with plenty more qualifications and experience than Starmer?

I don't see what relevance that has to do with anything?

I dont think anyones doubting Starmers qualifications, but questioning what he has achieved as Shadow Brexit Secretary. Its easy to get praise while in the shadow cabinet as you’re not actually responsible and working purely with hypotheticals.

Was responding to the "pretty average" comment. He's clearly not average.

As a Barrister clearly not but as a politician we don't have a lot to go on, he's got potential but seems hamstrung by incompetency around him, the best thing for British politics would be for either he, Cooper or Benn to be Labour leader, say goodbye Tory government.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:Hmm. OK. Apart from the fact there’s only been Davis, Raab and the current one, Barclay, I could have sworn Davis quit after Chequers meeting when May tabled her plan/deal/whatever to her Cabinet of the time and Raab quit over the Withdrawal Agreement.
I’m not sure Starmer had anything to do with either, for all that I think he’s been impressive and I’d rather him than Corbyn in charge of Labour any day.

If you aren't sure Starmer had anything to do with either...Perhaps find out before making blanket statements..

He is still there while his opposite numbers keep changing and he keeps getting concessions out of the Tories..

Must be doing something right.

He had nothing to do with either, but I guess we don’t agree. Not a problem.

Donald Tusk has in one fell swoop highlighted why people voted leave.

Tusk may have used strong language, but he's absolutely right, and despite the interpretation that the childish UK press will put on this, he was referring to 'promoters (not voters!) of Brexit with no plan deserving a place in hell'.

Tusk is stupid.....Lord knows I am no fan of May and the Tories but any chance of breaking the resolve of the Brexiteers and passing a deal next week is off with the fairies.

Whatever the merits of his statement (I agree with it) it is just risible to release it at such an important time.

May is furious and rightly so..

MrInvisible wrote:Tusk may have used strong language, but he's absolutely right, and despite the interpretation that the childish UK press will put on this, he was referring to 'promoters (not voters!) of Brexit with no plan deserving a place in hell'.

MrInvisible wrote:Tusk may have used strong language, but he's absolutely right, and despite the interpretation that the childish UK press will put on this, he was referring to 'promoters (not voters!) of Brexit with no plan deserving a place in hell'.

Stupid language and undermines his entire message of 'compromise'.

What Tusk said certainly isn't helpful, but it's completely true, sadly.

MrInvisible wrote:Tusk may have used strong language, but he's absolutely right, and despite the interpretation that the childish UK press will put on this, he was referring to 'promoters (not voters!) of Brexit with no plan deserving a place in hell'.

That's the problem - he should have known how it would be spun.

Speaking of those promoters of Brexit: I'd have a lot of respect for the first one of them that admitted they hadn't thought of Northern Ireland at all, never mind its border with the Republic, when they cooked up the idea.

Well, maybe not a lot of respect; I'd just be slightly less furious with them.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

MrInvisible wrote:Tusk may have used strong language, but he's absolutely right, and despite the interpretation that the childish UK press will put on this, he was referring to 'promoters (not voters!) of Brexit with no plan deserving a place in hell'.

That's the problem - he should have known how it would be spun.

You think he doesn’t?

If he does, then I don't know what he's playing at.

Reserving judgement on the rights and wrongs of Tusk's comments, I'd like to point out that the Brexiteers spout endless BS about the EU without correction or censure, Woe betide any in the EU who point that out..

The faux outrage from some Pro Brexit politicians over Tusk’s comments are pretty tough to take given Boris has compared the EU to Hitler in the past!

Pretty apt comparison in fairness.

JDizzle wrote:Boris has compared the EU to Hitler in the past!

He has said that both the EU and Hitler (and others) want/wanted a European superstate, albeit they have pursued this through different methods. A perfectly valid point.

As is Tusk's. Bojo uses stupid language as well. Thank goodness he's no longer in the cabinet.

JuliusHMarx wrote:As is Tusk's. Bojo uses stupid language as well. Thank goodness he's no longer in the cabinet.

Coco the Clown shall return. Of that I am certain.