OK thanks. The short point is that he should never have been let into the country. That decision was IMO far worse than many other Home Office decisions, which have received far more publicity, because it was the state failing in its most basic and primary duty - to try and keep us safe. Heads should have rolled.
Absolutely. We all saw the photos and went they aren't akin to "Kinder Transport" kids, which the law was dubbed as the equivalent of.
Cameron's approach was the correct one i.e assess those in Refugee camps in countries surrounding Syria, checking out the stories of those people and accept suitable families. Those people have been made homeless and then done the right thing and deserve help.
OK thanks. The short point is that he should never have been let into the country. That decision was IMO far worse than many other Home Office decisions, which have received far more publicity, because it was the state failing in its most basic and primary duty - to try and keep us safe. Heads should have rolled.
Absolutely. We all saw the photos and went they aren't akin to "Kinder Transport" kids, which the law was dubbed as the equivalent of.
Cameron's approach was the correct one i.e assess those in Refugee camps in countries surrounding Syria, checking out the stories of those people and accept suitable families. Those people have been made homeless and then done the right thing and deserve help.
There was - and is - one big criticism of Cameron’s policy. Many Syrian Christians and Yazidis are not in refugee camps, in many cases because they are harassed within those camps, and so have not been considered for refuge by the UK. To this day, I believe the UK has failed to give refuge to any Syrian Christians, who have been one of the most persecuted of all groups by IS. And, therefore, one of the most needy and deserving. That is a decision which shames the UK.
No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".
No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.
Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.
If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country
What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?
Go and speak to any business involved with the practicalities of trade. They will tell you everything you refuse to know. "What effects" is you saying that you have your fingers jammed into your ears insisting that the detailed factual descriptions of how trade doesn't physically work with no deal aren't real.
OK thanks. The short point is that he should never have been let into the country. That decision was IMO far worse than many other Home Office decisions, which have received far more publicity, because it was the state failing in its most basic and primary duty - to try and keep us safe. Heads should have rolled.
Absolutely. We all saw the photos and went they aren't akin to "Kinder Transport" kids, which the law was dubbed as the equivalent of.
Cameron's approach was the correct one i.e assess those in Refugee camps in countries surrounding Syria, checking out the stories of those people and accept suitable families. Those people have been made homeless and then done the right thing and deserve help.
There was - and is - one big criticism of Cameron’s policy. Many Syrian Christians and Yazidis are not in refugee camps, in many cases because they are harassed within those camps, and so have not been considered for refuge by the UK. To this day, I believe the UK has failed to give refuge to any Syrian Christians, who have been one of the most persecuted of all groups by IS. And, therefore, one of the most needy and deserving. That is a decision which shames the UK.
Fear of being seen as racist, not only has it meant thousands of girls being raped by Muslim grooming gangs, it also means non-Muslims in Muslim countries are doomed to a life of persecution and few to no rights.
Don't worry though, I'm sure there will be a few remainers happy to condemn anyone who speaks out against such acts as racist...
No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".
No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.
Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.
If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country
What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?
Go and speak to any business involved with the practicalities of trade. They will tell you everything you refuse to know. "What effects" is you saying that you have your fingers jammed into your ears insisting that the detailed factual descriptions of how trade doesn't physically work with no deal aren't real.
OK thanks. The short point is that he should never have been let into the country. That decision was IMO far worse than many other Home Office decisions, which have received far more publicity, because it was the state failing in its most basic and primary duty - to try and keep us safe. Heads should have rolled.
Absolutely. We all saw the photos and went they aren't akin to "Kinder Transport" kids, which the law was dubbed as the equivalent of.
Cameron's approach was the correct one i.e assess those in Refugee camps in countries surrounding Syria, checking out the stories of those people and accept suitable families. Those people have been made homeless and then done the right thing and deserve help.
There was - and is - one big criticism of Cameron’s policy. Many Syrian Christians and Yazidis are not in refugee camps, in many cases because they are harassed within those camps, and so have not been considered for refuge by the UK. To this day, I believe the UK has failed to give refuge to any Syrian Christians, who have been one of the most persecuted of all groups by IS. And, therefore, one of the most needy and deserving. That is a decision which shames the UK.
It did stick in the throat the other day to hear our government talking about protecting persecuted christians overseas
Whilst at same time denying asylum to the pakistani lady sentenced to death for ... blasphemy and who is currently hiding in a safe house.
apparently community relations might be affected by taking her in.
Gutless feckers who would rather let in hate preachers and known IS sympathisers than those in genuine peril.
I'm sure the idea of extending the discussion for several months more will meet a wave of popular enthusiasm, not. But I have the nasty feeling that it may well happen. It fits exactly with May's SOP of kicking the can down the road if all else fails, and the EU has a long tradition for stopping the clock in such circumstances. And, as the article points out, the determination of MPs to prevent a No Deal Exit coupled with the failure by the Government to prepare for anything else except May's deal may force it to happen.
In which case European elections are potentially back on in the UK, presumably with redundancy packages for the winners if we leave a few weeks later. What larks!
I'm sure the idea of extending the discussion for several months more will meet a wave of popular enthusiasm, not. But I have the nasty feeling that it may well happen. It fits exactly with May's SOP of kicking the can down the road if all else fails, and the EU has a long tradition for stopping the clock in such circumstances. And, as the article points out, the determination of MPs to prevent a No Deal Exit coupled with the failure by the Government to prepare for anything else except May's deal may force it to happen.
In which case European elections are potentially back on in the UK, presumably with redundancy packages for the winners if we leave a few weeks later. What larks!
While I would think the EU would almost certainly agree to a small extension of A50, as it costs them nothing and causes them little inconvenience, I cannot see them extending it beyond the inauguration of the newly elected EU parliament after the end of May elections, as that would cause considerable inconvenience.
I'm sure the idea of extending the discussion for several months more will meet a wave of popular enthusiasm, not. But I have the nasty feeling that it may well happen. It fits exactly with May's SOP of kicking the can down the road if all else fails, and the EU has a long tradition for stopping the clock in such circumstances. And, as the article points out, the determination of MPs to prevent a No Deal Exit coupled with the failure by the Government to prepare for anything else except May's deal may force it to happen.
In which case European elections are potentially back on in the UK, presumably with redundancy packages for the winners if we leave a few weeks later. What larks!
While I would think the EU would almost certainly agree to a small extension of A50, as it costs them nothing and causes them little inconvenience, I cannot see them extending it beyond the inauguration of the newly elected EU parliament after the end of May elections, as that would cause considerable inconvenience.
The legislation to cope with an extension into the next parliament has already been passed so I don't think it would be a show-stopper.
What effects. Crash out, smashed on the rocks, crashing all around, chaos, collapsing into pieces - you've treated us all to quite a long post with lots of horror-filled metaphor, but you haven't actually enumerated anything that you think will go wrong. I thought you people were meant to be the intelligent side? You know, the 'experts' who like 'fact based' arguments?
Well, if you put it like that, how can I resist?...
PART 1 ==== The problem with listing bad effects from a no-deal Brexit is that they end up weirdly specific (eg a specific cream may be disrupted because one of the ingredients is highly perishable and imported) or grossly macroeconomic (eg predictions of £1=$1.15). So the list you require may not exist and cannot be compiled without serious work. However I have done a quick skim and the broad strokes are as follows:
* UK standards and practices will no longer be recognised by the EU * EU standards and practices will no longer be recognised by the UK * Funding provided by the EU will cease * Rights that were guaranteed by the EU will cease * Things that were previously free or easy involving the EU will now be costly or difficult * And so on.
Some of these can be easily mitigated. The UK government will recognise EU standards and practices, will continue funding that has been allocated to the EU from the UK, will continue to uphold workplace rights, and so on. But to do this requires legislation and legislation has to be passed and does not happen overnight. So the danger of a logjam exists.
However some things cannot be mitigated by a no-deal. For example, UK standards and practices may no longer be recognised by the EU. Some specific instances were discussed here recently and EU recognition legislation is wending its way from the Council and Commission thru the Parliament. But not everything is covered.
PART 2 ====== Let us look at a specific example. A haulier wishing to transport other's goods over 3.5 tonnes thru the EU must hold the following:
* A Standard International Operator’s Licence * A Community Licence or a European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) permit * A Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC).
In the event of no-deal Brexit the Community Licence may not be recognised. An ECMT permit may substitute in some (but not all) cases *but* the amount allocated to the UK is finite: 984 annual Euro 6 ECMT permits, 2,592 monthly Euro 6 ECMT permits and 240 monthly Euro 5 ECMT permits in total are available. The UK is assigning them to applicants on a case-by-case basis (the deadline is day after tomorrow, apparently), so not all applicants will get one.
PART 3 ====== So. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, things will become more expensive and difficult overnight. Some mitigation processes are in place, both by the EU and UK, and more are being added. But some things cannot or will not be mitigated, and other things are dependent on the citizen filling out forms or applying for licences, and time is short.
I anticipate you will respond to this by saying something like "Ah, nothing specific then" or "Typical Remoaner!" or fisk the example looking for a specific mistake ("Hah! It's 3.6 tonnes, not 3.5!"). I really don't care at this point. You as a citizen (assuming you are a UK citizen) are responsible for finding out about the world and preparing thereof. If you disdain this and rely on sophistry and abuse instead of preparation, then that is your responsibility not mine.
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What will the tariffs be on exports from the UK to the EU27 on day one of No Deal? The answer to the question should demonstrate that Leavers are not being proved right at all.
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What will the tariffs be on exports from the UK to the EU27 on day one of No Deal? The answer to the question should demonstrate that Leavers are not being proved right at all.
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What will the tariffs be on exports from the UK to the EU27 on day one of No Deal? The answer to the question should demonstrate that Leavers are not being proved right at all.
The tariffs will be the CET tariffs, we have posted them to the WTO already.
Edit and it will be the same tariffs on EU exports to the UK.
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What will the tariffs be on exports from the UK to the EU27 on day one of No Deal? The answer to the question should demonstrate that Leavers are not being proved right at all.
The tariffs will be the CET tariffs, we have posted them to the WTO already.
Edit and it will be the same tariffs on EU exports to the UK.
So CET tariffs apply overnight and this is supposed to indicate that the mythical German carmakers argument has been proven to be correct?
No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".
No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.
Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.
If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What will the tariffs be on exports from the UK to the EU27 on day one of No Deal? The answer to the question should demonstrate that Leavers are not being proved right at all.
The tariffs will be the CET tariffs, we have posted them to the WTO already.
Edit and it will be the same tariffs on EU exports to the UK.
So CET tariffs apply overnight and this is supposed to indicate that the mythical German carmakers argument has been proven to be correct?
According to Deloittes Germany will lose 800,000 car sales per year to the UK if CET is applied.
Here is the IFO on what Brexit means for Bavaria (BMW and Audi)
Here is another from IFO which states "sentiment among German exporters weakened markedly . Why well "German exporters are beset by fears of a hard Brexit."
No Deal planning (and spending) is accelerating. The more we spend, the more it becomes clear that we can't spend enough to avoid any of what will be severe and painful effects of no deal Brexit. The government trying to deal with the impact of this will no longer be able to bleat "will of the people" as the people - faced with the reality start shouting "I didn't vote for this".
No Deal cannot happen. Even by accident or inaction. By the time we get to late March with nothing in place and the economy collapsing into pieces at the realisation of what is about to happen, actually voluntarily letting that happen because "will of the people" will not be an option.
Right now politically I get that revocation is politically difficult. But with no deal imminent and increasing chaos as it's abundantly clear just how fucked we are both from what no deal means and the UK's lack of preparation, politically it will be less difficult than allowing chaos to continue.
If we get to late March. With no political solution. And no deal crashing all around her, May will revoke. Yes, it will kill her political career and probably that of her party. But she knows both of those are guaranteed if we crash out and get smashed on the rocks. And whatever her faults, May has a sense of duty to the country
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What will the tariffs be on exports from the UK to the EU27 on day one of No Deal? The answer to the question should demonstrate that Leavers are not being proved right at all.
The tariffs will be the CET tariffs, we have posted them to the WTO already.
Edit and it will be the same tariffs on EU exports to the UK.
So CET tariffs apply overnight and this is supposed to indicate that the mythical German carmakers argument has been proven to be correct?
According to Deloittes Germany will lose 800,000 car sales per year to the UK if CET is applied.
Here is the IFO on what Brexit means for Bavaria (BMW and Audi)
Here is another from IFO which states "sentiment among German exporters weakened markedly . Why well "German exporters are beset by fears of a hard Brexit."
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly. The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle. The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc. It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
What will the tariffs be on exports from the UK to the EU27 on day one of No Deal? The answer to the question should demonstrate that Leavers are not being proved right at all.
The tariffs will be the CET tariffs, we have posted them to the WTO already.
Edit and it will be the same tariffs on EU exports to the UK.
So CET tariffs apply overnight and this is supposed to indicate that the mythical German carmakers argument has been proven to be correct?
According to Deloittes Germany will lose 800,000 car sales per year to the UK if CET is applied.
Here is the IFO on what Brexit means for Bavaria (BMW and Audi)
Here is another from IFO which states "sentiment among German exporters weakened markedly . Why well "German exporters are beset by fears of a hard Brexit."
Jaw dropping delusion from our Potemkin defence sec, Chris Williamson. He wants to rip up "West of Suez" so the UK can strut the post-Brexit world stage from forward based in the Caribbean and the Far East. Be a truly global player without the distractions of the EU and provide moral leadership to Australia, Canada and African countries.
Jaw dropping delusion from our Potemkin defence sec, Chris Williamson. He wants to rip up "West of Suez" so the UK can strut the post-Brexit world stage from forward based in the Caribbean and the Far East. Be a truly global player without the distractions of the EU and provide moral leadership to Australia, Canada and African countries.
I do like Gavin Williamson (I'm the only one who does) and this is the kind of stuff I like. But I doubt the money will be there for it soon, and possibly never.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
...Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system...
That discussion has been going on for years, and easily predates the EU. It's usually been held that the UK, in specific contradistinction to Europe, is not a registration culture and this has informed many things such as the right not to identify oneself when asked (so you don't have to carry ID), hotels don't give your name to the police when you check in, you may travel freely within the UK, and so on.
But over the years that stance has been whittled away (sadly IMHO): doctors give their patient lists to the NHS, ID must be provided for many transactions, big data makes massive datagathering trivial, and we are not as free nor unobserved as we once were.
Well, dear old Bromptonaut has come up with another example.
One of the problems of coming here in the 1950s, living in the UK without ever getting a British passport is ... you can't vote in Brexit referendums.
It looks as though Remain could have won the referendum-- all they needed was to get the endless examples of people who lived for ages in the UK without getting a British passport to have wised up !
Well, dear old Bromptonaut has come up with another example.
One of the problems of coming here in the 1950s, living in the UK without ever getting a British passport is ... you can't vote in Brexit referendums.
It looks as though Remain could have won the referendum-- all they needed was to get the endless examples of people who lived for ages in the UK without getting a British passport to have wised up !
Nor could they vote in general elections. All the rights they needed indeed.
I'm sure the idea of extending the discussion for several months more will meet a wave of popular enthusiasm, not. But I have the nasty feeling that it may well happen. It fits exactly with May's SOP of kicking the can down the road if all else fails, and the EU has a long tradition for stopping the clock in such circumstances. And, as the article points out, the determination of MPs to prevent a No Deal Exit coupled with the failure by the Government to prepare for anything else except May's deal may force it to happen.
In which case European elections are potentially back on in the UK, presumably with redundancy packages for the winners if we leave a few weeks later. What larks!
Sounds to me like the EU are not going to consider an extension if Theresa May is still in charge. She will want to reopen negotiations, not back a second referendum.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
No, but that's because no other EU country is leaving which necessitates such a change in status.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
isn't that exactly what this is? A passport would not be sufficient proof, as there is no evidence they arrived before we left, hence the register.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
isn't that exactly what this is? A passport would not be sufficient proof, as there is no evidence they arrived before we left, hence the register.
I’m suggesting a blanket grandfathering of current rights not linked to residency.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
isn't that exactly what this is? A passport would not be sufficient proof, as there is no evidence they arrived before we left, hence the register.
I’m suggesting a blanket grandfathering of current rights not linked to residency.
Continuing freedom of movement for another 80 or so years?
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
isn't that exactly what this is? A passport would not be sufficient proof, as there is no evidence they arrived before we left, hence the register.
I’m suggesting a blanket grandfathering of current rights not linked to residency.
Continuing freedom of movement for another 80 or so years?
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
isn't that exactly what this is? A passport would not be sufficient proof, as there is no evidence they arrived before we left, hence the register.
I’m suggesting a blanket grandfathering of current rights not linked to residency.
Continuing freedom of movement for another 80 or so years?
Why not?
You may have missed the last three years of debate regarding EU membership.
They don't have EU passports - they have passports issued by an EU country. Which one? The complainant doesn't seem willing to confirm that. The EU is not a nation and thus unable to issue passports. Why not just stick to the facts.
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
Many, many EU countries have a system of suddenly demanding you apply to be allowed to stay after having lived there for more than 60 years?
Many EU countries insist you register within 3 months of arrival.
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Not letting Theresa May be in charge.
There'd still need to be a status to replace the existing one that will lapse when the UK leaves the EU.
Grandfather free movement rights for any EU citizen on the day we leave. Then a passport would be enough.
isn't that exactly what this is? A passport would not be sufficient proof, as there is no evidence they arrived before we left, hence the register.
I’m suggesting a blanket grandfathering of current rights not linked to residency.
Continuing freedom of movement for another 80 or so years?
Why not?
Because as Mr Meeks is always pointing out Brexit was about controlling immigration.
In order to remain in the EU, the withdrawal act will eventually need to be repealed, yes. Could be done in a day. Two, if the Lords decides to be troublesome.
In order to remain in the EU, the withdrawal act will eventually need to be repealed, yes. Could be done in a day. Two, if the Lords decides to be troublesome.
Because as Mr Meeks is always pointing out Brexit was about controlling immigration.
Leavers don't like foreigners, and we have discovered that there is no act of economic self-destruction, petty spite or cruel ignominy that leavers won't support in order to avoid seeing a foreigner.
In order to remain in the EU, the withdrawal act will eventually need to be repealed, yes. Could be done in a day. Two, if the Lords decides to be troublesome.
That requires a government to propose it.
Which government do you have in mind?
Theresa May's, late March. Or Jeremy Corbyn's, somewhat sooner.
I'm hoping for No Deal, but May's a terrible bluffer and she doesn't have the guts to go through with it. She'll remain before she drives the UK over the cliff edge.
Firstly it's probably not true; statement lacks all context. No details, no background story
Secondly, if it was legal for them to move to the UK in 1957, nothing about Brexit changes this. They didn't move to the UK under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the UKs withdrawal from the treaty doesn't seem relevant.
In order to remain in the EU, the withdrawal act will eventually need to be repealed, yes. Could be done in a day. Two, if the Lords decides to be troublesome.
That requires a government to propose it.
Which government do you have in mind?
Theresa May's, late March. Or Jeremy Corbyn's, somewhat sooner.
The Theresa May you confidently predicted would be out by Christmas? That one?
Comments
Cameron's approach was the correct one i.e assess those in Refugee camps in countries surrounding Syria, checking out the stories of those people and accept suitable families. Those people have been made homeless and then done the right thing and deserve help.
Don't worry though, I'm sure there will be a few remainers happy to condemn anyone who speaks out against such acts as racist...
Whilst at same time denying asylum to the pakistani lady sentenced to death for ... blasphemy and who is currently hiding in a safe house.
apparently community relations might be affected by taking her in.
Gutless feckers who would rather let in hate preachers and known IS sympathisers than those in genuine peril.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/29/cross-party-stop-the-clock-hard-brexit-no-deal-29-march
I'm sure the idea of extending the discussion for several months more will meet a wave of popular enthusiasm, not. But I have the nasty feeling that it may well happen. It fits exactly with May's SOP of kicking the can down the road if all else fails, and the EU has a long tradition for stopping the clock in such circumstances. And, as the article points out, the determination of MPs to prevent a No Deal Exit coupled with the failure by the Government to prepare for anything else except May's deal may force it to happen.
In which case European elections are potentially back on in the UK, presumably with redundancy packages for the winners if we leave a few weeks later. What larks!
PART 1
====
The problem with listing bad effects from a no-deal Brexit is that they end up weirdly specific (eg a specific cream may be disrupted because one of the ingredients is highly perishable and imported) or grossly macroeconomic (eg predictions of £1=$1.15). So the list you require may not exist and cannot be compiled without serious work. However I have done a quick skim and the broad strokes are as follows:
* UK standards and practices will no longer be recognised by the EU
* EU standards and practices will no longer be recognised by the UK
* Funding provided by the EU will cease
* Rights that were guaranteed by the EU will cease
* Things that were previously free or easy involving the EU will now be costly or difficult
* And so on.
Some of these can be easily mitigated. The UK government will recognise EU standards and practices, will continue funding that has been allocated to the EU from the UK, will continue to uphold workplace rights, and so on. But to do this requires legislation and legislation has to be passed and does not happen overnight. So the danger of a logjam exists.
However some things cannot be mitigated by a no-deal. For example, UK standards and practices may no longer be recognised by the EU. Some specific instances were discussed here recently and EU recognition legislation is wending its way from the Council and Commission thru the Parliament. But not everything is covered.
(continued on next post)
PART 2
======
Let us look at a specific example. A haulier wishing to transport other's goods over 3.5 tonnes thru the EU must hold the following:
* A Standard International Operator’s Licence
* A Community Licence or a European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) permit
* A Certificate of Professional Competence (CPC).
In the event of no-deal Brexit the Community Licence may not be recognised. An ECMT permit may substitute in some (but not all) cases *but* the amount allocated to the UK is finite: 984 annual Euro 6 ECMT permits, 2,592 monthly Euro 6 ECMT permits and 240 monthly Euro 5 ECMT permits in total are available. The UK is assigning them to applicants on a case-by-case basis (the deadline is day after tomorrow, apparently), so not all applicants will get one.
PART 3
======
So. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, things will become more expensive and difficult overnight. Some mitigation processes are in place, both by the EU and UK, and more are being added. But some things cannot or will not be mitigated, and other things are dependent on the citizen filling out forms or applying for licences, and time is short.
I anticipate you will respond to this by saying something like "Ah, nothing specific then" or "Typical Remoaner!" or fisk the example looking for a specific mistake ("Hah! It's 3.6 tonnes, not 3.5!"). I really don't care at this point. You as a citizen (assuming you are a UK citizen) are responsible for finding out about the world and preparing thereof. If you disdain this and rely on sophistry and abuse instead of preparation, then that is your responsibility not mine.
Some links are below:
* https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/how-to-prepare-if-the-uk-leaves-the-eu-with-no-deal
* https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/commercial-road-haulage-in-the-eu-if-theres-no-brexit-deal/commercial-road-haulage-in-the-eu-if-theres-no-brexit-deal
* https://www.techuk.org/insights/reports/item/13957-summary-of-brexit-no-deal-notices
* https://www.architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/resources-landing-page/riba-guidace-brexit-technical-notices-2018
What us leavers believe is that it is mutually assured bad times for trade if the EU is silly.
The remainers think that the EU will be stupid and disrupt trade because of principle.
The leavers think the EU countries, the EU27 will want trade to continue and will act accordingly. Leavers are being proved right because of the time limited contingency measures the EU has proposed in the case of no deal. i.e deals for planes to fly, HGV's to continue etc.
It may not be all we have now but the question is how much will continue as normal with these EU contingency plans?
Here is the IFO on what Brexit means for Bavaria (BMW and Audi)
http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/presse/Pressemitteilungen/Pressemitteilungen-Archiv/2018/Q4/pm_20181220_Brexitfolgen-Bayern.html
Here is another from IFO which states "sentiment among German exporters weakened markedly . Why well "German exporters are beset by fears of a hard Brexit."
http://www.cesifo-group.de/ifoHome/facts/Survey-Results/Konjunkturtest/Exporterwartungen/Archiv/2018/Exporterwartungen-20181219.html
It is very clear that the German exporters want trade to continue as is.
https://twitter.com/euflagmafia/status/1079063318592139264?s=21
Or is this just a pathetic excuse to make us feel guilty about a registration process almost every other EU country already puts into place?
Oh of course - to satisfy your wanky nationalist peculiarities.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1079177054476795904?s=21
Synopsis here to save paying the Sunday telegraph sub:
https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/5830295/post-brexit-uk-looks-to-add-military-bases/?cs=7660
They arrived before we joined the European Community - and thus well before the EU.
Why didn't they sort out their status at any other point since the time they arrived in the UK?
Why is it unreasonable to have a registration system - like the ones operating in many, many EU countries? The answer is - IT ISN'T.
I am not saying any of this as a Leaver. I voted to Remain. I am just fed up with the hyperbole that is being thrown around in the place of facts or rational discussion.
But over the years that stance has been whittled away (sadly IMHO): doctors give their patient lists to the NHS, ID must be provided for many transactions, big data makes massive datagathering trivial, and we are not as free nor unobserved as we once were.
perhaps you should put the cooking sherry to one side........
One of the problems of coming here in the 1950s, living in the UK without ever getting a British passport is ... you can't vote in Brexit referendums.
It looks as though Remain could have won the referendum-- all they needed was to get the endless examples of people who lived for ages in the UK without getting a British passport to have wised up !
So presumably in the 16 years before we joined the EU they regularised their immigration status.
Of the 61 years they've been here they've had EU Citizenship for 26.....
What alternative to this do you suggest?
Which government do you have in mind?
I'm hoping for No Deal, but May's a terrible bluffer and she doesn't have the guts to go through with it. She'll remain before she drives the UK over the cliff edge.
Secondly, if it was legal for them to move to the UK in 1957, nothing about Brexit changes this. They didn't move to the UK under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the UKs withdrawal from the treaty doesn't seem relevant.