homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | Register | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Shake it all about: Brexit thread II (Page 21)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But how is soft Brexit possible?


I'm increasingly of the opinion that it isn't. I was until recently clinging to the hope that something was being cooked up - EFTA membership, for example - but I don't think that's politically possible domestically, and even if it were, the EU do not seem to be in any mood to give it to us.

The latest predictions I've seen put the impact of hard Brexit at 4% of GDP on us, 1% on the EU (because of the relative sizes of our economies), and I think the EU may have decided they'll just take that hit.

The negotiations may well be very short, consisting of them asking us for moneys owing and wishing us all the best. Or maybe, when we refuse to pay, they'll just tell us to fuck off.

Posts: 224 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I would think that the EU dare not allow the UK to stay in the single market and restrict immigration. And May dare not not restrict immigration.

--------------------
clarity eats into freedom. (Bellow).

Posts: 8723 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Kinnock/Reynolds proposal on immigration seems sensible:

"Two tier" immigration system proposal

But like everything else to do with Brexit, it's a castle in the air really. It's unlikely that the EU will allow any restrictions to freedom of movement if we are to keep access to the single market. And I agree, the Torys' corporate backers won't want their labour pool reduced.

Posts: 224 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Labour are being stretched in two directions. The Lib Dems are supporting another referendum, and UKIP of course, are pushing for restrictions on immigration.

The Labour right wing will go for UKIP-lite, to avoid carnage in Leave areas. They may also lose votes though, with this policy.

--------------------
clarity eats into freedom. (Bellow).

Posts: 8723 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So really this whole contortion of the cerebral cortex brought on first by the Brexit debate, second by the referendum and third by the outcome is just going to on and on and on Further polarisation, further entrenchment of attitudes.

Regrexiters may scurry back to the liberals, whereas Brexit hardcore voters dissatisfied at the pace by which Britannia is being restored to it's former glory will continue to go for UKIP .

--------------------
The future will be arriving shorty

Posts: 2617 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But how is soft Brexit possible?


I'm increasingly of the opinion that it isn't. I was until recently clinging to the hope that something was being cooked up - EFTA membership, for example - but I don't think that's politically possible domestically, and even if it were, the EU do not seem to be in any mood to give it to us.

The latest predictions I've seen put the impact of hard Brexit at 4% of GDP on us, 1% on the EU (because of the relative sizes of our economies), and I think the EU may have decided they'll just take that hit.

The negotiations may well be very short, consisting of them asking us for moneys owing and wishing us all the best. Or maybe, when we refuse to pay, they'll just tell us to fuck off.

This has long been my point. The EU is a group of member states with rules, set out by international treaties. In the grown up world, states that want to be treated as members have to be members and behave like members. There is not an option for not meeting the obligations of membership but being treated like a member (Norway has put itself in the curious situation of meeting the financial and other obligations of membership without actually being a member, which is an idiosyncratic choice to put it mildly but fits with my scheme). Not meeting the obligations of membership but having its benefits was never an option to anyone other than the deluded. Switzerland, for a while, got away with something not a million miles away, but that was to do with its neutrality and its very long-standing ambivalent diplomatic status. There never was any evidence on which to hang the supposition that a similar status would be available to the UK. The best we could have hoped for was Norway's curiously self-defeating compromise.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 1792 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are two points for negotiation.

1. The terms of the UK leaving the EU, which is basically a deal on how much money the UK continues to send to the EU, for how long these payments would need to continue etc.

2. The relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit. Which, though this would be good if this could be agreed during the exit negotiations it isn't essential for the EU to have this agreed. Most people are in agreement that this part of the Brexit negotiation won't be concluded in the 18 months after A50, and will probably take at least 10 years.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
So really this whole contortion of the cerebral cortex brought on first by the Brexit debate, second by the referendum and third by the outcome is just going to on and on and on Further polarisation, further entrenchment of attitudes.

Regrexiters may scurry back to the liberals, whereas Brexit hardcore voters dissatisfied at the pace by which Britannia is being restored to it's former glory will continue to go for UKIP .

Well, the opposition to Brexit is triangulating itself into oblivion! I mean that Labour (or at least its right wing) are trying to sound anti-foreigner, so as to avoid implosion in the Leave areas. How much more irrelevant can they become?

--------------------
clarity eats into freedom. (Bellow).

Posts: 8723 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are two points for negotiation.

1. The terms of the UK leaving the EU, which is basically a deal on how much money the UK continues to send to the EU, for how long these payments would need to continue etc.

2. The relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit. Which, though this would be good if this could be agreed during the exit negotiations it isn't essential for the EU to have this agreed. Most people are in agreement that this part of the Brexit negotiation won't be concluded in the 18 months after A50, and will probably take at least 10 years.

Given the standard of political discourse in the UK, I wouldn't like to be Mrs May having to justify continuing to send money to the EU after we've left. Although there may be good and valid reasons for having to do so, these will be shouted down by the gutter press, egged on by Farage and the Tory headbangers.

Given that, the relationship between the EU and the UK after Brexit is likely to be poor, to say the least. They won't be inclined to give us anything much in the exit negotiations. I suspect their position will be "first you leave, then we'll talk about trade deals". I agree we'll then be talking for a very long time before we get anything.

Posts: 224 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
Given the standard of political discourse in the UK, I wouldn't like to be Mrs May having to justify continuing to send money to the EU after we've left. Although there may be good and valid reasons for having to do so, these will be shouted down by the gutter press, egged on by Farage and the Tory headbangers.

I guess that's why she would want some form of deal on free trade or something in the negotiations. It'll be a lot easier to say "we'll be sending some money to the EU, but we have a free trade deal that is good for British business" than "we're out of the EU but we'll still have to be paying money to the EU for the next [x] years". Though, the latter is far more likely as there simply isn't time to negotiate any sort of trade deal with the EU, and the on the EU side their priority will be ensuring there is enough money from the UK to maintain the funding for ongoing projects. I guess if she really wants to get a trade deal then the only option Mrs May has is to say yes to whatever number the EU negotiators put on the table on day one of negotiations so that there can be time for a substantial part of the what happens after Brexit negotiating. But, that won't happen.

Though, to be fair, whatever she manages to arrange Mrs May is going to have to justify it, and there will be a sizeable number of people who will be vocally opposed to it. If she manages something that actually keeps the Tories together with enough support to get through the 2020 election with a majority I'd be surprised, but admit that she would have marked herself out as an outstanding politician and would have my respect (though, still not my vote).

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Russ
Old salt
# 120

 - Posted      Profile for Russ   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There are two points for negotiation.

1. The terms of the UK leaving the EU, which is basically a deal on how much money the UK continues to send to the EU, for how long these payments would need to continue etc.

2. The relationship between the UK and EU after Brexit. Which, though this would be good if this could be agreed during the exit negotiations it isn't essential for the EU to have this agreed.

Sounds backwards to me.

The important thing is to agree the principles of what sort of relationship happens after. What it means for Britain to be a good neighbour to and continued trading partner for the EU.

Then once we know where we're trying to get to we talk about the transitional arrangements of how to get there (and yes it may be that these involve a temporary deal for a 5 to 10 year period whilst the full details of the new arrangement are worked out).

I'd expect the default position to be that Britain becomes an ineligible recipient for any EU spending on Independence Day but not before, and stops contributing to the EU budget on Independence Day but not before, with the one being conditional on the other. So that any winding-down of EU spending in the UK in anticipation is matched by a winding-down in the UK contribution...

On trade the starting point would be that any tariffs or restrictions that the EU places on imports from the UK will be matched by UK tariffs and restrictions on goods from the EU.

Such a trade war benefits neither side, so there should be plenty of incentive to agree something better...

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posts: 2692 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll be a lot easier to say "we'll be sending some money to the EU, but we have a free trade deal that is good for British business" than "we're out of the EU but we'll still have to be paying money to the EU for the next [x] years".



Why would we be sending money to the EU? What would we be paying for?

quote:
If she manages something that actually keeps the Tories together with enough support to get through the 2020 election with a majority I'd be surprised.

Who's standing in her way?
Posts: 3443 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It'll be a lot easier to say "we'll be sending some money to the EU, but we have a free trade deal that is good for British business" than "we're out of the EU but we'll still have to be paying money to the EU for the next [x] years".



Why would we be sending money to the EU? What would we be paying for?

EU projects tend to be long term. For example, Horizon 2020 funds work for upto 7 years. That means that there are various projects currently ongoing or due to start in the next few years with budgets allocated. Those budgets would have been set assuming contributions to the EU budget from the UK. The UK, therefore, still has financial obligations to the EU, how much and for how long is going to depend on a lot of details but the EU side in the negotiations is going to make sure there's the money from the UK needed to meet committed expenditure.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
EU projects tend to be long term. For example, Horizon 2020 funds work for upto 7 years. That means that there are various projects currently ongoing or due to start in the next few years with budgets allocated. Those budgets would have been set assuming contributions to the EU budget from the UK. The UK, therefore, still has financial obligations to the EU, how much and for how long is going to depend on a lot of details but the EU side in the negotiations is going to make sure there's the money from the UK needed to meet committed expenditure. [/QB]

I guess there's stuff that could be done.

We could keep paying, explicitly, but some of it might be environmental or good for Britain and that wouldn't be popular with certain papers.

We could possibly firmly promise to take full responsibility for something the right size for the right length, in exchange for losing our part responsibility. Although it wouldn't make much difference to the budget (and having already breached one commitment, not exactly having the best reputation) it might appease enough.

France and Germany, etc... might be persuaded to cough up a bit more, on the basis that it will go to employing a few more of their engineers and technicians, etc... That their factories will get a slightly higher proportion of the benefits of any improvements. That their universities will be leading more potential Nobel prize projects.

Alternatively, according to some Tory MP's, France, Ireland and Germany may pay for us to have new roads if we put on an Irish accent at the dole office.

Posts: 1427 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
If she manages something that actually keeps the Tories together with enough support to get through the 2020 election with a majority I'd be surprised.

Who's standing in her way?
If you are referring to Tories, no one is actively standing in her way at the moment, but that's mainly because the there is no policy.

But part of the reason for this is because the Tory party is divided on exactly what the outcome should be. Up to a few months before the referendum even harder line figures like Hannan were using Switzerland and Norway as possible post-EU examples for the UK to follow, until Gove torpedoed that and Farage and the newspapers ran with it.

So we have the current situation where ministers from all sides try to control debate by briefing against any indications of policy that they are not happy with.

Posts: 3105 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:

quote:
If she manages something that actually keeps the Tories together with enough support to get through the 2020 election with a majority I'd be surprised.

Who's standing in her way?
If you are referring to Tories, no one is actively standing in her way at the moment, but that's mainly because the there is no policy.
I was thinking more of electoral prospects for the party. I think it's certain that she'll lead the Tories into the 2020 general election.

I think that whatever happens with Brexit there will be enough disatisfaction with the outcome that the Tories would lose votes, and I also expect that there won't be any significant economic improvement (even without the referendum I wouldn't have expected much with ill-advised austerity policies). Where those votes go would depend on exactly what Brexit deal is cooked up - a soft Brexit would be a gift to UKIP, a hard Brexit would alienate a large portion of the Tories potentially defecting to the Lib Dems, even Labour if they can get their act together. Worst case scenario for the Tories, and the end of Mrs May's political career, would be a complete split in the Tories with a new "soft Brexit" party.

Much though I like the policies of Corbyn, I think Labour are not going to challenge the Tories by 2020. So, I expect that the Tories would be the largest party in the 2020 Parliament. However, I also expect a LibDem resurgence, ongoing SNP dominance in Scotland (especially in Sturgeon manages to force May into significant concessions, or at least be seen to have fought hard for Scottish interests), some additional gains by smaller parties (UKIP in event of a soft Brexit, the Greens, PC). All in all, enough to stop the Tories having an outright majority - and no clear options for a coalition.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's fascinating to see how May uses language. After an interview, widely interpreted as favouring hard Brexit, (Sky TV), she then says, 'I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit'. 'We are going to get an ambitious, good and best possible deal for the UK'.

Owen Jones has been doing a pastiche of it: 'Have you done the dishes?'. 'It's important that dishes are clean and that we have the right washing up liquid'.

Or it's curiously like Sovietspeak, 'today tractor production reached new heights, and we anticipate a new kind of tractor coming out, which will be the best possible one for the needs of all the people'.

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/818051488706686976

[ 09. January 2017, 14:30: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
clarity eats into freedom. (Bellow).

Posts: 8723 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Something I always forget: the EEA has an emergency brake allowed on immigration (article 112), which gives a kind of illusion of 'taking back control'. I think Cameron had mentioned this, but May of course, in her Delphic manner, has not. Maybe it would provoke fury among Tory MPs, UKIP, and so on, but it might permit a kind of soft/hard Brexit.

--------------------
clarity eats into freedom. (Bellow).

Posts: 8723 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's fascinating to see how May uses language. After an interview, widely interpreted as favouring hard Brexit, (Sky TV), she then says, 'I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit'.

I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.
Posts: 3443 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.

Go on then, explain how you are going to get a better deal than Switzerland by going the 'Hard Brexit/Brexit' route. Dan the-oratory-man said the former was possible after all:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being -a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html

Posts: 3105 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's fascinating to see how May uses language. After an interview, widely interpreted as favouring hard Brexit, (Sky TV), she then says, 'I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit'.

I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.
May is working very hard to keep the parliamentary Conservative party intact. The membership is predominantly pro-leave now but there are many in favour of remaining in Westminster. The last thing the PM is going to do is make policy statements that divide the party. Look what happened to the last PM to do that.

I suppose the government will invoke Art.50 in March, and enter the leaving procedure, but as has been said, that has nothing to do with trade and associated relations after we leave the EU.

Posts: 23286 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
.... And in other news the labour party has dedicated itself to the xenophobic fuckwit vote. What are internationalist voters on the left to do????

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 1792 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
What are internationalist voters on the left to do????

Vote Green?

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've been extremely disappointed by the response of the Labour party to the referendum result. They have been presented with a golden opportunity to Oppose the government (you know, what they're supposed to be doing as the Opposition), to push for rapid clarity on the plans of the government, to criticise each little tit-bit that falls out of government ... and, they've been practically silent. A major embarrasment to the government like their EU ambassador resigning with a letter highly critical of the government and I didn't see Corbyn say anything.

The LibDems have been all over the issue, taking every opportunity to get in front of a TV camera and make a statement critical of the government. The SNP have also been highly visible in their campaigning. Even the Greens seem to have had more to say than Labour. At the moment it seems that Labour are not only portraying themselves unfit for Government, they don't even seem fit for Opposition.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I've been extremely disappointed by the response of the Labour party to the referendum result. They have been presented with a golden opportunity to Oppose the government (you know, what they're supposed to be doing as the Opposition), to push for rapid clarity on the plans of the government, to criticise each little tit-bit that falls out of government ... and, they've been practically silent. A major embarrasment to the government like their EU ambassador resigning with a letter highly critical of the government and I didn't see Corbyn say anything.

The LibDems have been all over the issue, taking every opportunity to get in front of a TV camera and make a statement critical of the government. The SNP have also been highly visible in their campaigning. Even the Greens seem to have had more to say than Labour. At the moment it seems that Labour are not only portraying themselves unfit for Government, they don't even seem fit for Opposition.

Jeremy Corbyn was paying his first visit to the ITV breakfast TV show this morning, and getting slagged off for generally being invisible by the presenter before they even got going.

quote:
Jeremy Corbyn accused Good Morning Britain presenter Piers Morgan of being "jealous" of the local media after the Labour leader was accused of avoiding appearances on national television.

Fellow host Susanna Reid told Mr Corbyn: "You haven't been here to answer questions...we've had strikes, we've got the NHS experiencing a humanitarian crisis."

But Mr Corbyn insisted he had been busy doing "a vast amount of local media".

Asked why he had not spoken out more in the national media in the face of a tumultuous year in British politics, Mr Corbyn said: "Well, I'm here now."



--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 758 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't think this is so strange. Many on the right reject the terms 'hard' and 'soft' because (they say) 'Hard Brexit' is just a pejorative way of saying 'Brexit' and 'Soft Brexit' isn't really Brexit at all.

Go on then, explain how you are going to get a better deal than Switzerland by going the 'Hard Brexit/Brexit' route. Dan the-oratory-man said the former was possible after all:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/10/daniel-hannan-mep-norways-relationship-with-the-eu-is-better-than-being -a-member-but-we-could-do-even-better-than-that.html

And, of course, if there was "controlled migration", we'd not have a deal like Switzerland or Norway (and the whole idea is preposterous anyway - Norway had something everyone wanted and Switzerland is in the centre of the continent).

The part that gets me is that all these idiots are on the one hand pussy-footing about whether-or-not EU workers can stay in the UK post-brexit whilst at the same time as saying absolutely nothing about British OAPs who have retired to the sun.

They don't seem to compute the idea that the EU (and/or countries within the EU) are only going to agree to conditions that are equal in both directions. If there are no EU workers in the UK, there will be no UK workers in the EU. If we want UK pensioners to continue living in Spain, Cyprus and elsewhere, then we have to allow EU pensioners to move to the UK - although I've no idea why they'd want to move to this unblessed isle.

The reality is, in my opinion, that there will be increasing pressures on British pensioners abroad. For a start, outside of the EU they'd not get inflationary increases. Outside of the EU they'd not get transfered healthcare payments. And at present sterling is dipping against the Euro.

That's even before decisions are made by the Spaniards etc about British pensioners. As they're not working, they have no right to abode within the EU anyway, so any assurances they have about continuing to live there are likely dust.

Which gets us to the nightmare scenario where we've done enough (actively or by default) to lose many of our EU workers - who are holding up the NHS and other public services, who are paying taxes etc - and replace them with angry, miserable OAPs who are flooding back from apartments in the sun and have complex health and social needs.

--------------------
Pass me a book I've read
Pass me a fresh cut flower
And ask me what I dread
That the good in me is dead

Posts: 7043 | From: da wales | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:
It's fascinating to see how May uses language. After an interview, widely interpreted as favouring hard Brexit, (Sky TV), she then says, 'I don't accept the terms hard and soft Brexit'. 'We are going to get an ambitious, good and best possible deal for the UK'.

For exactly the same reason that Tory MP's invariably referred in the late 1980s to 'The Community Charge' and, during Cameron's first term, to 'The Abolition Of The Spare Bedroom Subsidy'. You don't want a pejorative term for your flagship policy becoming common currency.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9448 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618

 - Posted      Profile for betjemaniac     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


The part that gets me is that all these idiots are on the one hand pussy-footing about whether-or-not EU workers can stay in the UK post-brexit whilst at the same time as saying absolutely nothing about British OAPs who have retired to the sun.


According to last week's Spectator this is a strategy suggested by Sir Ivan Rogers (and to be scrupulously fair, the Spectator, despite being pro-Brexit, have been screaming about the point you raise for exactly the same reasons in leading articles and editorials since June - but they are from the "out and into the world" wing rather than the "out and pull up the drawbridge" one)

--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....

Posts: 1003 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
According to last week's Spectator this is a strategy suggested by Sir Ivan Rogers (and to be scrupulously fair, the Spectator, despite being pro-Brexit, have been screaming about the point you raise for exactly the same reasons in leading articles and editorials since June - but they are from the "out and into the world" wing rather than the "out and pull up the drawbridge" one)

But it isn't a "negotiating strategy" when you've accepted rhetoric about limiting EU migration - and have already begun to tell EU workers (who have applied for residency) that they must leave even though (a) they're working (b) they've been here a long time with family and (c) as long as the UK is a member of the EU, they've still every right to be here.

In contrast, the vast majority of British OAPs in the EU are not working and do not have residency.

There really isn't anything to negotiate.

May tells the EU that we want to continue being allowed to retire to the sun. The EU tells May that's fine, but there must be recipical arrangements. These would essentially mean that freedom to live in the UK by EU migrants would have to be retained.

May says no that's not possible, the EU says fine, British passport holders have no right to live in the EU.

May can't have it both ways. And given that the British migrants are largely not working, is holding a weak hand.

--------------------
Pass me a book I've read
Pass me a fresh cut flower
And ask me what I dread
That the good in me is dead

Posts: 7043 | From: da wales | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

Which gets us to the nightmare scenario where we've done enough (actively or by default) to lose many of our EU workers - who are holding up the NHS and other public services, who are paying taxes etc

Back in 2004 the North East voted against devolution; in 2016 they voted for Brexit.

One - fairly uncharitable - way of narrating the two votes would be to say that they wanted the fiscal transfers to continue, but didn't want to have immigrants generating the surplus those came from.

Posts: 3105 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In contrast, the vast majority of British OAPs in the EU are not working and do not have residency.

At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.

Wrong. It is a freedom to move for work based on the idea that within the free market there should be no restrictions about which nationality you should be to get a job anywhere.

There is absolutely no right to retire anywhere you like in the EU if you are not working.

Whilst it is true that British retirees in Spain and elsewhere have been given to understand that they can stay for an extended period despite not working. This is not possible in all EU states, for example the UK.

And residency is only given if (a) you apply for it and (b) you meet the criteria set by the government of the country you are in. Some EU workers in the UK have applied for residency but have been rejected even though they've been here legally far longer than 5 years.

Whether the 5 years thing is even relevant when your country is no longer in the EU is obviously an open question.

--------------------
Pass me a book I've read
Pass me a fresh cut flower
And ask me what I dread
That the good in me is dead

Posts: 7043 | From: da wales | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.

Wrong. It is a freedom to move for work based on the idea that within the free market there should be no restrictions about which nationality you should be to get a job anywhere.
You are right that freedom of movement of labour is an integral part of the common market, for the reasons you stated. But, you're link is misleading as it's specific to workers and their dependents (if you can get a job somewhere but your dependents can't live with you that's a restriction on your movement, so they need to be included).

For pensioners, and more generally, "As an EU national, you can live in any EU country". I was wrong about there being no pre-requisites, as that page indicates there are two:
  • comprehensive health insurance cover in your host country
  • sufficient income to live there without needing income support.
But, having a job or being dependent upon someone with a job is not a requirement.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
"As an EU national, you can live in any EU country". I was wrong about there being no pre-requisites, as that page indicates there are two:
  • comprehensive health insurance cover in your host country
  • sufficient income to live there without needing income support.
But, having a job or being dependent upon someone with a job is not a requirement.
The difference is that freedom of movement within the EU for work is a fundamental right. Freedom to move and retire somewhere isn't.

Hence some countries, like the UK, restrict the ability of EU migrants to come and live in the UK if they're not working.

[ 10. January 2017, 12:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
Pass me a book I've read
Pass me a fresh cut flower
And ask me what I dread
That the good in me is dead

Posts: 7043 | From: da wales | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE]And given that the British migrants are largely not working, is holding a weak hand.

[Citation needed]

The EU countries with the highest number of UK expats are Spain, France, and Ireland. This source gives the percentage of pensioners in the last two as 33%ish and 18% for the last two and this one has a third for Spain.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6764 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Each time a new member country joins, the budgets and allocations get recalculated. New members start from scratch and aren’t expected to pay towards existing obligations. There is an argument that once the 2 years is up, the UK’s monetary contributions are at an end unless both sides manage to agree terms and, say, a fee for single market access.

But the UK is a net contributor to the EU budget rather than a recipient. To balance the books, the EU will either have to ask net contributors to pay more OR change the threshold for being a net contributor / recipient OR cut budgets. Neither is going to be popular.

The EC doesn’t want to cut budgets or cancel projects. Net contributors don’t want to pay more. And none of the net recipients want the thresholds changed so they pay in rather than get out. One of the slogans in the recent Hungarian referendum was “We hate your rules, but we love your money. Something will have to give.

The fate of expats is unclear. Migration Watch (sorry!) says there are around 1.2 million British born people living in another EU country, according to figures provided by the UN. Around 800,000 will be workers and their dependants. This is much less than the estimated 3.3 million people born in another EU country who now live in the UK, of which 2.1 million are working.

Both
The Telegraph and The Guardian discuss what could happen to expats after Brexit. I included both sources for balance. Both articles have similar content. The point about the Vienna Convention is interesting and not one I’d come across before.

Tubbs

[ 10. January 2017, 12:56: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12400 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Tubbs

Miss Congeniality
# 440

 - Posted      Profile for Tubbs   Author's homepage   Email Tubbs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
At the moment, they do have residency. Freedom of movement means that anyone in the EU is able to live anywhere else in the EU, there is no pre-requisite that they have a job or anything else to qualify for residency. It seems very unlikely that UK citizens will continue to automatically enjoy that right post-Brexit. Even if the UK ends up with a recipricol agreement on free movement of labour (which I would be surprised at) that wouldn't extend to those not working - whether OAPs, or family members of workers.

Wrong. It is a freedom to move for work based on the idea that within the free market there should be no restrictions about which nationality you should be to get a job anywhere.
You are right that freedom of movement of labour is an integral part of the common market, for the reasons you stated. But, you're link is misleading as it's specific to workers and their dependents (if you can get a job somewhere but your dependents can't live with you that's a restriction on your movement, so they need to be included).

For pensioners, and more generally, "As an EU national, you can live in any EU country". I was wrong about there being no pre-requisites, as that page indicates there are two:
  • comprehensive health insurance cover in your host country
  • sufficient income to live there without needing income support.
But, having a job or being dependent upon someone with a job is not a requirement.

From memory, the original treaties talked about the freedom of movement of workers. This was later changed to people, but it could be argued that although the wording changed, the intent didn't.

EU citizens have the right to move anywhere within the EU to for work or to find work. But if they don't find a job within x months, they can be deported. Entitlement and access to benefits varies between countries. Usually they have to have lived somewhere for x months / years or have had a job before they can claim.

This has been decided by case law rather than treaties though.

Tubbs

--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am

Posts: 12400 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
According to full-fact there are

600,000 "non-active" EU citizens in the UK
of which about
168,000 are jobseekers
170,000 are retired

There are said to be 800,000 UK citizens just living in Spain, of which 125,000 are said to be non-active.

But who knows if this is correct, some say that there are 300,000 British pensioners just in Spain. How many are living in Cyprus, Portugal and elsewhere?

--------------------
Pass me a book I've read
Pass me a fresh cut flower
And ask me what I dread
That the good in me is dead

Posts: 7043 | From: da wales | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Come to think of it, is there any reason why Spain should see British pensioners as a problem? These people are receiving British state pensions, and probably private pensions as well, and spending the money in Spain. They are therefore an efficient way of transferring money from the British to the Spanish economy. Yes they draw on the Spanish health service, but Spain can then reclaim that money off the NHS, so there is no real loss there either.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6764 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Come to think of it, is there any reason why Spain should see British pensioners as a problem? These people are receiving British state pensions, and probably private pensions as well, and spending the money in Spain. They are therefore an efficient way of transferring money from the British to the Spanish economy. Yes they draw on the Spanish health service, but Spain can then reclaim that money off the NHS, so there is no real loss there either.

Yes, state pensions will drop in value (no inflationary increases, £ dropping against EUR) and the NHS funding will not be available if the UK leaves.

With the UK outside of the EU, increasingly Spain looking after large number of not-very-rich British pensioners looks like a liability.

--------------------
Pass me a book I've read
Pass me a fresh cut flower
And ask me what I dread
That the good in me is dead

Posts: 7043 | From: da wales | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that if people were motivated purely by considerations of economic rationality we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. If reasonably large numbers of Spanish nationals are forced to leave the UK, post-Brexit, the Spanish will feel obliged to reciprocate.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9448 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Come to think of it, is there any reason why Spain should see British pensioners as a problem? These people are receiving British state pensions, and probably private pensions as well, and spending the money in Spain. They are therefore an efficient way of transferring money from the British to the Spanish economy. Yes they draw on the Spanish health service, but Spain can then reclaim that money off the NHS, so there is no real loss there either.

Yes, state pensions will drop in value (no inflationary increases, £ dropping against EUR) and the NHS funding will not be available if the UK leaves.

With the UK outside of the EU, increasingly Spain looking after large number of not-very-rich British pensioners looks like a liability.

I'll assume that the same effects on local economies in the UK where a significant proportion of housing is taken up by incoming retired people, and holiday/weekend second homes, will apply in Spain (and elsewhere in the EU where Brits retire). Some influx of outside money spent in local shops etc, some new work (eg: renovation of property, maybe hiring a cleaner) and so a boost to the economy. But, also significant house price inflation to points where local people struggle to afford a place to live, and potentially development of services to suit the incomers which might not benefit the local community (eg: if the local hospital expands it's capabilities to respond to the ailments of the elderly, and in the process loses the maternity ward that's good for the local elderly, not so for young people wanting to start a family).

As for the pensioners in Spain post Brexit. I assume that Spain will require them to take out medical insurance to replace the existing reciprocal arrangements within the EU. Which is going to add extra costs on the pensioners, who have already seen a significant loss in income from their UK pensions due to the devaluation of the pound. The combination of currency devaluation and potentially large numbers selling up will mean that the value of their property will have fallen - so selling up and returning to the UK may not be an option if they can't recover enough of their investment in their home to buy in the UK. There will be a richer set of people who can manage on reduced income and increased insurance costs, who can therefore stay. The rest will either have to find some way to struggle on or sell up and move back to the UK. The poorest of those coming back may find that they've lost so much that they can't afford to buy in the UK, which will add additional burdens on the UK over and above the sudden increase in the population mean age.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
[QUOTE] and the NHS funding will not be available if the UK leaves.

That presupposes that reciprocal healthcare agreements won't be part of any Brexit deal.

Which seems possible but unlikely. Ending those agreements has no obvious upside for anyone. They're not part of the fundamental freedoms so there's no 'integrity' issue.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6764 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

Which seems possible but unlikely. Ending those agreements has no obvious upside for anyone. They're not part of the fundamental freedoms so there's no 'integrity' issue.

It may always fall to stealth cuts on the part of the Tories (funding a reciprocal arrangement when your currency falls gets more expensive over time), who could always blame the Europeans (which I fully expect to be the standard line afterwards).

[ 12. January 2017, 15:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posts: 3105 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think that if people were motivated purely by considerations of economic rationality we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place. If reasonably large numbers of Spanish nationals are forced to leave the UK, post-Brexit, the Spanish will feel obliged to reciprocate.

Yes, but I was responding specifically to an argument that drew significance from the fact that many of the British expats are pensioners.

FWIW I don't think there's any real political obstacle to some kind of reciprocal grandfathering arrangement for people who are already 'over here' or 'over there', but the sheer logistic challenge of processing special statuses for three million people does scare me somewhat.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6764 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A special status for 3 million people doesn't seem all that special. A simple commitment to grant, free of charge, citizenship or permanent right of abode to anyone who wants it who can show they were resident in the UK since June 2016 until whenever the UK leaves the EU would be a good start.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
By 'grandfathering' and 'special status' I mean something that would preserve the existing rights of the three million despite the withdrawal of the basis of those rights.

I don't think citizenship is the answer because not all EU countries allow dual citizenship. I know the Czech Republic doesn't (officially anyway - enforcement is another matter).

I'd be fine with permanent right of abode but as has been pointed out above, that is technically more than they currently have.

[ 13. January 2017, 09:07: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 6764 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I'd be fine with permanent right of abode but as has been pointed out above, that is technically more than they currently have.

Yes, it is more. And, possibly in some cases not what EU citizens currently living in the UK would want. Freedom of movement is different from right of abode - it grants less rights (eg: access to state welfare without having supported the state system through employment), but also in some cases greater rights (right to abode tends to become void if you move out of the country for an extended period, freedom of movement allows you to return when you want). Some form of grandfathering of rights is the right and just thing to do, it's common decency (though I wonder whether that's one of the much vaunted British values that we're ditching). But, it will need a bespoke solution from the UK government - and some form of reciprocal bespoke arrangement by the EU.

--------------------
Citizen of the world

Posts: 30901 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  18  19  20  21 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools