The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.4K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 31 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 362 Fun & Games
- 83 BA Predictor Threads
- 28 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 280 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 109 Current West Ham
- 198 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 10 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 24 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 379 Match Threads
- 53 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 35 Transfers
- 45 Transfer Speculation
- 86 Completed Transfers
- 53 Internationals
- 46 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 107 Football Chatter
- 42 Football Chatter
- 260 Other Teams & Matches
- 23 Other Players & Staff
Comments
I am assuming (in the absence of any contradictory info, and based on what I have been able to find out about dual nationality/passport entitlements) that the people in the example you give are entitled to dual nationality as 'Russians' and some other EU state. And that they have taken up this entitlement.
I have no problem with this, and don't see it as a negative of being in the EU.
I also don't have a problem with individual member states having sovereignty over what criteria and requirements they place on people seeking citizenship. Ireland can offer passports to anyone who had a parent or grandparent born in Ireland and nobody in the EU is allowed to insist on stricter rules, residency requirements nor indeed say how much the Irish government can charge applicants for passports.
I think it would be wrong for states to start laying down the law to other member states on this - and am fine with Ireland and Romania giving passports to folks who meet their requirements.
You impute certain motives to the people who have taken advantage of their entitlements - the express purpose of circumventing the rules on freedom of movement which apply to non EU citizen . That seems debatable to me, but even so, I don't care.
I have no problem with EU citizens (as they are now, not what they were at some arbitrary cut-off point in the past) going to other places in the EU to earn a living. They are working, paying taxes, buying stuff - all things that bolster the economy.
I think it's great! It's one of the big advantages, for me, of EU membership.
You've benefited from it, Expat has, I have ... and who says what is the right thing or wrong thing to do with our earnings. If we want to buy a flat somewhere else, great.
tbh, this example reflects our fundamental difference of thinking on this, it seems to me.
No factual proof exists about anything in the future, but I would say that the key issue is the link between freedom of movement within the EU and the single market., which is basically the freedom of movement of goods and services without national tariffs and taxes etc.
When Boris idiotically said that the Italians might like to come to a separate deal so that Brits can continue to buy their prosecco, although Britain would reserve the right to limit people's movement from elsewhere in the EU (including Italy) the response from the Italian Commisioner was very simple and very correct - with our vote (or perhaps its interpretation) we have decided that we dont want people from the EU coming to the UK but we do want cheap goods (made cheap becuase they come from the EU).
There is no way these two can be separated, and we now face barriers to our goods from 26 countries that previously did not apply them to us and for 26 countries will have some or other item made more expensive (like prosecco from Italy) that Brits like to consume.
The reasoning doesn't work, we are threatening to cut off our nose, in effect, except if it is to conclude that Boris is a drivelling fool who seems to enjoy his little England playground prep school antics of baiting the foreigner and sniggering behind his fingers. We have gone back at least 50 years with the vote and another 25 with the politicians selected by Teresa M to implement it with their inane, abusive and damaging comments.
It depends what you call the long term future, 1 year, 5 years, 20 years, 50 years?? I know that there will undoubtedly be some short term volatility, but I don`t think this will be in any way worse than what The UK and The EU have suffered over various times over the course of the past 40 years + anyway. You only have to look at recent history to know how volatile "free markets" and capitalism generically are. Boom and bust. I think this cycle of boom and bust is not sustainable, the booms seem to be getting bigger, but inherently more fragile, they are consumer led and generally rely on burgeoning credit, and the busts, as we have seen, are getting deeper and longer. At the same time the gap between rich and poor (both from an individual and national level) widens, this cannot go on forever. As part of The EU we have very little influence over European social, political or economic policy, if we stay in I guarantee we will one day HAVE to join the Euro, the idea of a common currency is fine in principle, but has proved almost catastrophic for certain member states. We will also be sucked into a European army, we should be looking to demilitarise, not look to add another layer of (armed) bureaucracy. We will also be bound (some see this as a good thing) by trade deals negotiated on our behalf by The EU which may actually be detrimental to OUR economy, they may shut out markets and opportunities which we wish to pursue for OUR benefit. The larger an organisation gets the harder it becomes to please everybody. If we remain members of The EU we are bound forever to the social, political and economic doctrines of an organisation we may end up vehemently opposing. Central planning, however it is dressed up, never works. At some point "the plan" will be opposed by a number of people, if that number of people becomes significant, you have a problem. To put it simply, if The EU receives reports that there is a crisis in the supply of carrots, the crops have failed and peoples eye sight will damaged irreparably, then it would deem it right and proper to pass a dictat that from next spring all farmers should turn over 80% of their land to carrot production. Seems logical. However, The UK crop didn`t fail, we have plenty of carrots, Spain positively despises carrots, what are The UK and Spain to do?? Every instance of large scale "control" has proved historically to have failed, The EU by its very nature is failing, and it wants its member states to cede more and more of their sovereignty, their long standing, hard fought for powers to Brussels. Just. Plain. Wrong. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity, if we don`t leave now, we will forever be bound by the whims and wishes of Brussels, all member states will gradually relinquish their ability to not only make decisions, but influence in any meaningful way, what happens in their own backyards. As a coherent, co-operative trading bloc, The EU as a concept is fine, as an all encompassing social, economic, political "one size fits all" ideology it will fail. If we suffer 5, 10 or 15 years of "hardship" then so be it, at least we will have the choice and chance of shaping our own futures and on our own terms. From the people I have spoken to, the reasons for leaving are not economic ones, they are ideological ones, which is why I have always said, put up as many graphs and pie charts as you like, they make no difference at all from my perspective.
https://www.facebook.com/billybraggofficial/photos/a.249499147470.158205.44905697470/10153884943752471/?type=3
http://brendanoneill.co.uk/
So instead of "the plebs" perhaps we should put our trust in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/01/tony-blair-sets-new-institute-tackle-brexit-populism/
Still, if democracy fails, at least there is still the courts to fall back on..........
I wouldn't trust most of the plebs I grew up with with my pint while I went to the loo.
Not sure why you think I should trust them to inform themselves well enough to make complex decisions about national issues.
Possibly some did, but I'd be more sure that many of them didn't, and won't, and will trust whatever narrow world view-supporting nonsense they are spoon-fed by the right wing meejah and the impeccable source which is 'my mate reckons'.
And if you imagine they will be with you at the barricades come the revolution, I fear you may be disappointed.
The EU is falling apart but I understand why you, living in Greece, would be happy for the UK to stay and keep pumping in money to bail you out. If all the countries in the EU were treated as equals it wouldn't be so bad but they're not. Greece is a basket case and Italy, Spain and a few others are not far behind.
So if you voted leave on that basis, I'm afraid you were voting on the basis of misinformation.
I wonder how that could have happened?
Edit, I wonder if the 3 people who agreed with your comment are also labouring under the delusion that the UK is, though the EU, bailing out Greece.
That sort of thing doesn't really do anything to disabuse me of my belief that many voters in the referendum made decisions based on false info put out by the press.
As soon as you question "eligibility" you may as well give up on any idea of democracy at all. It sets such a dangerous precedent, the liberal left in the "meejah" (as you put it) are no better than The White Supremacists who they would so gleefully sneer at. Just thought of another, what about Downs Syndrome people? Surely not.
And as for the revolution and manning the barricades, if Katy Perry was true to her word, I`d be there, if not, I`d rather be watching "I`m A Celebrity" with a nice cup of tea.
For people like Blair to be questioning "populist" views is the biggest insult of all. The bloke is a mass murderer, but (to some) obviously carries a lot more credence than Fred down the pub who grew up on a council estate, had a poor inner city education, does nothing more controversial than work hard to support his family, but "struggles" to grasp the complexities of the next G8 summit.
The left wing luvvies in the media are talking about humanity regressing 50 years in terms of the progress we have made as regards to womens rights, human rights, multiculturalism etc etc because of the Brexit vote and the Trump vote, yet seem more than happy to take us back 200+ years in terms of universal suffrage.
What on Gods earth gives anyone the right to judge another human being in terms of "eligibility" to vote. I wouldn`t let Fred down the pub perform open heart surgery on me, but I would defend his right to vote against anybody that challenged it.
For hundreds of years "normal" people have fought for their right to vote, have died in the trenches to protect "democracy" , and yet the same men who fought and died at The Somme may have been "too thick" to vote. Good enough to die for their country, but "too thick" to have a say in its future! Unbelievable.
They say we wouldn't have any human rights laws, equality, workers rights etc without the EU but why. Our parliament should be capable of passing laws which cover all of these and did pass laws before we joined the EU. If they're not then they shouldn't be there.
If you're only interested in making stuff up, I suggest you write a novel.
Madcap
You've imputed so many things to my comment that I never intended, it's probably not worth the bother of replying, since you will presumably choose to read into this what you choose, but hey-ho.
This is a thread about the referendum. My comment referred to the referendum, and made no implication about which side of the vote the 'plebs' might be on.
I said nothing abut eligibility to, or removal of, the right to vote.
Nothing.
So your replies have nothing to do with me, or, I suspect, with anyone.
How about dialling down the grandstanding rhetoric and actually discussing what is said?
Kick to the establishment to only feed the establishment more to keep them around.
Honestly I think Brexit will turn out to be a hypocrisy, I can see the so called "establishment" wielding more power by the end of the 2 year deal.
The eligibility issue as regards to voting on "complex issues" has been brought up time and again by remainers, so I think my points are perfectly justified.
I think I have answered the points made and been on topic.
Short enough?
I have no idea if your points are justified in terms of others (though I have my doubts), I was simply pointing out they are not justified with regard to me, and I was the one you referenced in your post.
Suit yourself whether you believe me or not.
Mrs G as regards paying in separately to bail out Greece, no we didn't make an additional payment and I think most if not all people who voted leave knew that but we contribute vast amounts to the EU and most of that isn't for our benefit. If and when we are out then that money has to be made up from somewhere so the contributions will increase for the other members.
Remainers just dont seem to get why people voted leave.
That inference comes from you, not what I said. I didn't say anything about what side of the argument they might be on, and didn't intend one to be read.
I have never suggested that every Leave voter was stupid or racist, but I would suggest that every stupid racist who voted, voted for Leave, and you'd have to wonder why that is.
I said before the vote was taken that I was against the idea of a referendum for such a complex and emotive issue.
I don't think the majority of those voting, either way, had the opportunity to be properly informed, if that was even possible in the maelstrom of misinformation that was flying about and which is still being propagated.
As to your comment: that would imply that all Leavers shared the same reasons, something I don't believe for a second.
I have no idea what Brendan O Neill stands for, but for me that article hits the nail on the head.
And, like him, I find the views expressed on behalf of the backlash to Trump and Brexit are far more dangerous than the results themselves.
I would normally stand against Farage and Trump and would be arguing from the same side of the fence as most on here, including NE ;biggrin , but the "liberal elite" cannot ignore the "populist" view forever, although Blair seems determined to fight against the "populist" view as if nothing has happened. However unpalatable some of these views are, they are genuine, heartfelt concerns. I am lucky, I have never needed a food bank and never been made homeless. The referendum for so many people was one chance to express their dissatisfaction. Someone living on the edge, on benefits, relying on the good humour of their landlord and the charity of the local food bank (can`t believe we have food banks in the 21st century) couldn`t give a monkies about exchange rates and trade deals, they just want to be listened to. Some of the "elite" are now suggesting that the one thing they have left, a voice, a vote, may also be taken away. I honestly, genuinely, think that is scandalous and it really, really does get me angry ;devil so apologies if some of that anger has spilled over onto here. What makes it worse is that the only other thing worth talking about on here, West Ham, is currently not really worth talking about. So a half hearted COYI and lets beat the Gooners. ;scarf
I don`t really think that is going to happen.
And do you think (if that is what you think?) that these people who used the vote as a way to give 'authority' a punch on the nose, all voted Leave? Or do you think some of them voted Remain? ;hmm
Finally, with reference to your comment in the previous post and allowing for voice=vote, who is suggesting it be taken away? I haven't seen that anywhere.
^^^^^
THIS
;wahoo the pointy uppy thing works
right. lets stick to Football, much more interesting.
coyi
Regarding your comments about the construction industry and Eastern European workers - I too work extensively in the Construction Industry and can say I have seen the same thing. Even to the extent that some of them have 'questionable' qualifications and experience, I have actually raise sanctions on some sites as it was clear that the workers did not understand the information that had been given to them (as they did not understand either verbal or written English or the language provided by interpretation - as supplied and paid for by the Company based on the information provided by agencies), but this also includes some from Asian countries.
This includes some where I have witnessed the person being inducted being told which box of the multiple choice questions to tick (so I had the interpreter and the agency supervisor taken off site as well), and also where it was clear, one operative who was trained and skilled instructing his unskilled/unqualified friend what to do - who was supposedly to have had five years experience.
However, my opinion is that the industry has bought it on itself, rather than maintain a well trained pool of UK professionals and bringing in new blood to keep it, supplemented with overseas workers where needed, they decided to save themselves all those training costs (not to mention redundancy payments or retention costs when time were lean) and just hire in from the overseas agencies, getting workers already qualified at a lower costs (wage) - so basically they let greed get the better of them.
Some of the legal stuff is a bit ;puzzled for a non-specialist, but I am finding it very interesting.
Not least this, which is what the then govt Minister for Europe said in the House of Commons. (he was referring to a request to amend the bill to specify various % etc)
So whatever they printed on their leaflets, the govt knew, and Parliament knew, that the referendum vote was not binding by law. Even if the govt said they would act as if it was. It has only advisory status. As has been pointed out many times.