Brexit View

[TheCat]

>

> All of which is currently available (if not

> applied by the UK Govt) under our EU membership.

The key emphasis being on the word 'planning'. Sure the Govt can currently measure. But cant control (at least the Eu component), and thus has more limited ability to forward plan.

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To be fair Cat, as you yourself posted earlier,

> you do have 'other options' to remain here should

> FOM end, with those safety nets you weren't really

> voting against your own self-interest...

Fair enough, I'll concede, that is true

But...2 points....

1) Anyone from any EU country who has been living here for a few years will also have other options available to them as well to stay.

2) This is all moot now anyway, as no one who has moved here as an EU citizen whether 15 years ago or 2 years ago should have any problem anyway other than filling out a few forms.

Anyway, as much as I love to talk about myself, my own situation and nationalities have probably been discussed enough:)

[diable rouge]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 2) This is all moot now anyway, as no one who has

> moved here as an EU citizen whether 15 years ago

> or 2 years ago should have any problem anyway

> other than filling out a few forms.

Try saying that to the Windrush Generation.

On the subject of ''can't control the EU component'' in your response to snowy, there is something called the '3-month directive' which allows EU member states to repatriate EU nationals after 3 months if they have not found a job or do not have the means to support themselves. For some reason successive Govs haven't used it.

Since the referendum non-EU immigration, which incidentally was more than EU immigration pre-ref, has increased further, while EU immigration has dropped. The UK economy relies heavily on immigration and the reality of ''taking back control of our borders'' will actually be replacing an EU immigrant with a non-EU immigrant, yet Leave voters were led to believe it meant lowering immigration per se. As I've mentioned before, for Brexiters immigration 'control' was simply a convenient stick with which to beat the EU...

[Jenny1]

..

[diable rouge]

From the BBC...Theresa May has told MPs attempting to delay Brexit that it would not "solve the situation"... says Theresa May who recently delayed the process by a month. What have we done to deserve this shower of shite...

[JoeLeg]

I think there?s a real ?head in the sand? mentality with some Leave voters where immigration is concerned.

One thing that no one has been able to e plain to me - and I?ve asked repeatedly, here and elsewhere, online and in person, is WHO is going to do the low-skilled jobs if it?s not immigrants?

We have record levels of employment, and yet there seem to be a lot of non-British people in the workforce. And we haven?t left the EU yet. I somehow doubt those foreigners are going to go away.

Look, I know that people voted Leave for many reasons, but it?s the immigration argument that sticks in my throat like a dirty fish bone. Economic migrants don?t go where they can?t get work, and as Diable says, govts have repeatedly failed to implement their right to deport people who are just hanging around being a drain on the system.

Frankly too many Leave voters were happy to look the other way while Nigel and Boris lied (and lied is the word) about Turkey, because it got them what they wanted. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas. Cummings reckoned it was good for 650,000 votes.

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Since the referendum non-EU immigration, which

> incidentally was more than EU immigration pre-ref,

> has increased further, while EU immigration has

> dropped. The UK economy relies heavily on

> immigration and the reality of ''taking back

> control of our borders'' will actually be

> replacing an EU immigrant with a non-EU immigrant,

> yet Leave voters were led to believe it meant

> lowering immigration per se. As I've mentioned

> before, for Brexiters immigration 'control' was

> simply a convenient stick with which to beat the

> EU...

"try telling that to the windrush generation"

I would hope that with computers and other such technology, as well as learning lessons of the past, that this wont be an issue. Call me an optimist. Also, I genuinely think if we're being balanced, criticism of the governments plan for EU settled status applications is just kicking for the sake of kicking. Surely most would agree it seems a relatively straightforward and easy to use process, which should remove any concern/uncertainty for those EU citizens who currently reside here. There's so many other things you can legitimately kick regarding this government's very poor brexit negotiations, this is one area (particularly after making it free) that they've probably got reasonably right in my mind.

JoeLeg.....I know you are referring to 'some Leave' voters. But I will say again that for 'this' leave voter, I genuinely dont think that 'control' means 'less'. If low-skilled immigrants are needed to fill various roles, then by all means the government should increase the number of low skilled working visas it issues and let them in. Control shouldn't mean the labour market is hurt by putting the brakes on. Again, perhaps I have too much misplaced faith in agood government to be able to recongise what and where skills (or low skills in this case) are needed and act in a relatively friction-less fashion. Again, using my Australian experience...fruit gets picked and houses get cleaned in Australia...because the government allows an appropriate amount of low skilled migration as required. Also...to Diable's point....im not a subscriber the the view that migrants are a drain or generally layabouts, so im not interested in the repatriation provision....I'm just interested in better coordination with other government departments on immigrant number so as to provide a better experience for those new immigrants, older immigrants and natives alike in how public funds are spent and allocated (i.e.e funds go where they are most needed based on expected population and deomgraphic shifts). Some might say im being naive that a government can actually do all this well - well I would agree - this government cant - but I think a good one can.

If all this makes me differentiated from 'some leave voters' then so be it. I cant speak for them or their reasons

[alex_b]

I?ve still never heard a coherent explanation of the outcome that leave voters wanted to achieve other than some mythical situation where we have all of the benefits and none of the costs. Perhaps someone could explain this to me? Not general ?future gravity outside of Europe? or ?ambitious future relationship? nonsense but specifics about the trade offs they expected to make in any future deal, and the costs that they expected we?d incur for those.

[JoeLeg]

TheCat

I use the phrase ?some Leave voters? because I?m aware not every Leave voter thinks the same, and immigration is a hugely divisive issue. Some people voted Leave for racist reasons, though we have no way of knowing how many. It was likely a small minority, although I suspect the number who voted to stop FOM for legitimate reasons is far higher.

I would say you?re different from the perception of the immigration issue that the Leave campaign was happy to propagate in order to win votes (Remain was just as bad in its own ways, ergo my oft-repeated view that both sides behaves abysmally).

Hardly anyone on the Leave side put the argument about economic low-skilled migrants in the terms you just did - there was an awful lot of commment about how British firms didn?t pay enough for Brits to take the jobs, or that these migrants were taking up school places and welfare payments that should be for Brits. Very little was spoken about the benefits of migration - Leave literally ONLY had ?points-based system, Like Australia?, which they spouted loudly and was the FIRST thing shot down by May when she took office.

I agree with you that a sensible govt would speak plain truth to it?s citizens about what we need and how we will manage it, but know govt has done it thus far. People on both sides of the debate need to wake up to certain realities, and it concerns me because there?s a lot of hostile feeling regarding foreigners, which is historically something this country has been good at, going all the way back to the Hugeonots.

Remain screwed up by painting all immigration discussion as racist, and Leave openly lied about Turkey. Immigration is so central to many people?s vision of what we should be post-Brexit, and I?m personally worried that the govt is hoping no one notices that it?s basically not doing anything about it.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Brexit is going jolly well isn't it?

[TheCat]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat

>

> I use the phrase ?some Leave voters? because I?m

> aware not every Leave voter thinks the same, and

> immigration is a hugely divisive issue. Some

> people voted Leave for racist reasons, though we

> have no way of knowing how many. It was likely a

> small minority, although I suspect the number who

> voted to stop FOM for legitimate reasons is far

> higher.

>

> I would say you?re different from the perception

> of the immigration issue that the Leave campaign

> was happy to propagate in order to win votes

> (Remain was just as bad in its own ways, ergo my

> oft-repeated view that both sides behaves

> abysmally).

>

> Hardly anyone on the Leave side put the argument

> about economic low-skilled migrants in the terms

> you just did - there was an awful lot of commment

> about how British firms didn?t pay enough for

> Brits to take the jobs, or that these migrants

> were taking up school places and welfare payments

> that should be for Brits. Very little was spoken

> about the benefits of migration - Leave literally

> ONLY had ?points-based system, Like Australia?,

> which they spouted loudly and was the FIRST thing

> shot down by May when she took office.

>

> I agree with you that a sensible govt would speak

> plain truth to it?s citizens about what we need

> and how we will manage it, but know govt has done

> it thus far. People on both sides of the debate

> need to wake up to certain realities, and it

> concerns me because there?s a lot of hostile

> feeling regarding foreigners, which is

> historically something this country has been good

> at, going all the way back to the Hugeonots.

>

> Remain screwed up by painting all immigration

> discussion as racist, and Leave openly lied about

> Turkey. Immigration is so central to many people?s

> vision of what we should be post-Brexit, and I?m

> personally worried that the govt is hoping no one

> notices that it?s basically not doing anything

> about it.

A lot of sense in this post mate.

I agree the public discourse from both sides tries to appeal to some of the most divisive elements associated with each campaign. Which is a shame - as a rational and less emotive driven populace (on both sides) might actually be able to make this whole thing manageable!

[DulwichFox]

My decision to vote to leave had NOTHING to do with immigration.

Long before there was any inkling of Brexit I supported the idea of Turkey joining the E.U. (60 million)

to the extent that way back in 2000-2002 (3 years) I went to Evening Classes to learn the Turkish Language.

I was just fed up with the EU telling me I could no longer buy Potatoes by the pound.

and all the other trivial rules and regulations.

My vote was a protest vote. I never thought for one minute Brexit would ever actually happen.

If there were to be a second referendum I would not take part.

DulwichFox

[rendelharris]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I was just fed up with the EU telling me I could

> no longer buy Potatoes by the pound.

> and all the other trivial rules and regulations.

The EU did not actually ban selling spuds by the pound. They mandated that prepackaged goods had to be sold in metric weight (though it was permissible to have the imperial weight displayed on the packaging as well as long as it was the same size font or smaller). There was no rule about loose veg; it was, in fact, the Tory government of 1994 that, deciding they didn't want two systems running at the same time, passed legislation banning selling loose veg in imperial measures that came into force in 2000. Yep, it was actually the British government, and a Tory one at that, that told us we couldn't buy spuds by the pound.

More info here if you're interested: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3258360/Metric-vs-imperial-How-the-law-stands.html

[JoeLeg]

Jesus Foxy...potatoes by the pound? Trivial? Seriously?

I?d genuinely like to know some of the other rules and regulations you objected to.

[DulwichFox]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jesus Foxy...potatoes by the pound? Trivial?

> Seriously?

>

>

> I?d genuinely like to know some of the other rules

> and regulations you objected to.

I was being facetious..

I have no real desire to enter into debate on the matter.

Fox

[edcam]

I have yet to come across anyone who voted leave who has a good reason for doing so.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jesus Foxy...potatoes by the pound? Trivial?

> > Seriously?

> >

> >

> > I?d genuinely like to know some of the other

> rules

> > and regulations you objected to.

>

> I was being facetious..

>

> I have no real desire to enter into debate on the

> matter.

>

>

> Fox

[TheCat]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jesus Foxy...potatoes by the pound? Trivial?

> > Seriously?

> >

> >

> > I?d genuinely like to know some of the other

> rules

> > and regulations you objected to.

>

> I was being facetious..

>

> I have no real desire to enter into debate on the

> matter.

>

>

> Fox

I think what you call being facetious, the kiddies might call 'trolling' a debate....

[Sue]

A protest vote.

About potatoes.

OK ......

And then there was the young woman I saw interviewed who said she voted for Brexit because it sounded like Biscuit.

[JoeLeg]

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JoeLeg Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jesus Foxy...potatoes by the pound? Trivial?

> > Seriously?

> >

> >

> > I?d genuinely like to know some of the other

> rules

> > and regulations you objected to.

>

> I was being facetious..

>

> I have no real desire to enter into debate on the

> matter.

>

>

> Fox

This is why people get annoyed at you.

Back to the kids table with you...

[keano77]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have yet to come across anyone who voted leave

> who has a good reason for doing so.

Because they won?t give us gateau and strudel and let us eat it

[TheCat]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I have yet to come across anyone who voted leave

> who has a good reason for doing so.

>

I'd suggest you haven't really looked very hard then. Sure, on balance you might be of the view that Remaining is the clear and obvious choice, I respect that...there are many, very good reasons to remain. But if you cant read and listen widely enough (and look past utter crap like potatoes or red bus slogans) to think of just one good reason that might be supportive of leaving the EU, then you might perhaps be as ignorant of the broader issues issues as those people who im guessing you would purport to be 'better' than....

[edcam]

Believe me, I've looked very hard indeed, almost constantly since the referendum was announced, yet still no good reasons that I've seen. I have however seen many similar posts to yours. Angry and defensive.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> edcam Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I have yet to come across anyone who voted

> leave

> > who has a good reason for doing so.

> >

>

> I'd suggest you haven't really looked very hard

> then. Sure, on balance you might be of the view

> that Remaining is the clear and obvious choice, I

> respect that...there are many, very good reasons

> to remain. But if you cant read and listen widely

> enough (and look past utter crap like potatoes or

> red bus slogans) to think of just one good reason

> that might be supportive of leaving the EU, then

> you might perhaps be as ignorant of the broader

> issues issues as those people who im guessing you

> would purport to be 'better' than....

[malumbu]

JC, if Canada and Ireland can manage with the metric system why on earth can't we. Wny are we so backward - can't we just leave that to the Americans? Metrification should have nothing to do with the debate. In the early 70s Kellogs ran a campaign on their packets to help us convert - 45 years later we are still stuck in the dark ages. Why why why why why. Anti metrification gets me even more angry than Brexit.

[diable rouge]

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And then there was the young woman I saw

> interviewed who said she voted for Brexit because

> it sounded like Biscuit.

How about Brexit the breakfast muesli bar, packaging looks good but inside it's stale and crumbly and guaranteed to give you the shits...

[TheCat]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Believe me, I've looked very hard indeed, almost

> constantly since the referendum was announced, yet

> still no good reasons that I've seen. I have

> however seen many similar posts to yours. Angry

> and defensive.

nice deflection there, painting me as the bad guy for calling attention to your narrow focus, rather than actually attempting to debate the numerous 'good reasons' which i've posted across the pages of this very thread.

If you disagree with those reasons, then that's your opinion. But most reasonable remain voters who I have spoken to would acknowledge there are at least a couple of rational and reasonable reasons to Leave the EU, even if on balance they are strongly against it overall. And frankly, I refuse to believe that you cant see even one good reason, unless you really just would prefer not to.