Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

Can I just check which of the May deal or No Deal you expect Parliament to approve?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

No I am not wrong. I stand by what I say. The EU Referendum was the largest Democratic Mandate this country has ever seen. You work in % all you like, the actual physical numbers speak otherwise and they disagree with you.



I am not re-spinning anything, a fact is a fact, the number of voters beat the tally in 1975 for staying in the ECC, so it is the biggest mandate, the ECC, as it was known as in 1975, it certainly was not the EU as it as known as today, it is vastly different, exceedingly more corrupt and power hungry and becoming a heavy dictatorship entity.



Nope again, I am not incorrect. I think we should just agree to disagree.

You look up when the EU as it is known as was formed, you will see 1992, 1993, when the Maastricht Treaty was signed, is when the EU became to be.

From Wikipedia:





I never said I was, I was asking a rhetorical question, you was or seemed to be being quite insulting with your post earlier on describing your illogical reasons why folk voted to leave, however, it was harmless material, quite weak, seen before.

But let me make this abundantly clear. As much as we fundamentally disagree with each other on this issue. You're safe. I don't ban people willy nilly or because I simply don't agree with them, hell, this forum would be a dull place if we all agreed with each other.

If this was my M.O, you and others would have been long gone by now. In reality, I've banned just two people outright in the last couple of years and only because they were really really abusive to me personally, swearing and using derogatory language. Noone should tolerate this, I don't think you would, in my position. As one of the owners, this forum, this virtual place, partly belongs to me, so I am not going to stand there and take any disrespectful shit from anybody and it would be the only reason, and cross my grounds checklist to ban somebody, so, like I said, you're safe.

---------- Post added at 11:42 ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 ----------



The whole process of delivering the Brexit I voted for, I have absolutely no confidence in this current government to deliver it, hell, we got a Prime Minister, former Home Secretary, in direct conflict with the Met Chief over the reduction in Police officers, with the PM saying the increase in knife crime is not linked to reduction of officers and the Met Chief today saying there is a link with the reduction in officers and the increase in deaths from stabbings and knife crime. I think May needs to go. She has made a right mess of everything she's had her hands on or in.

Again we're in agreement to a degree. (this is starting to get disconcerting) May has made an absolute mess of much of her premiership. But the mess she has made around Brexit is hers to own, it's not due to parliament trying to subvert democracy or remainers trying to force a new referendum it's because of her incompetence.

The question now begs do we want to try and hold, take stock, perhaps delay whilst we attempt to recover from the damage that Mays incompetence has led us too, Or, is being out that important that we're willing to potentially risk the country and peoples future livelihoods.

There will be some of us on this board for whom regardless of the option that we take that may be able to support themselves and ensure they ride out all but the worst case scenarios. In the wider population i have my doubts that people can do the same.

---------- Post added at 12:18 ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I wouldn't bet money on that if I were you, although that date could potentially slip by a few weeks to permit implementation.

---------- Post added at 12:08 ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 ----------


David Cameron tried that, and look where it got him. Had he won the crumbs he was seeking to achieve, the referendum would never have happened. The EU is totally inflexible, and in your heart, you know that.

Macron is only saying now that something has to change, but that's all thanks to Brexit.

I don't see Brexit as distancing ourselves from other nations. On the contrary, we want to forge new trade deals with the rest of the world, including with the EU.

Thats why i said continue to try regardless of how frustrating it is, we should not simply give in because something gets too hard.

We're distancing ourselves because we're going to limit in certain circumstances the workforce that we need (see earlier posts regarding fruit picking/migration) for just one example.

And it's not just about how we view Brexit and our leaving of the EU it's how the rest of the world views it. With a couple of exceptions it's almost entirely viewed as a bad move on our part. (I'd also wager that the countries who are pro us leaving have ulterior motives and are licking their lips)

[RichardCoulter]

Last nights Inside Out London had an interesting report about Eastern Europeans living rough and how, since the EU said it went against Freedom Of Movement regulations, for over a year Westminster council has been powerless to move them on or send rhem home.

It's the first segment of the programme and lasts about 9 minutes if anybody wants to watch it:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0071mkv

Originally Posted by RichardCoulter

Last nights Inside Out London had an interesting report about Eastern Europeans living rough and how, since the EU said it went against Freedom Of Movement regulations, for over a year Westminster council has been powerless to move them on or send rhem home.

It's the first segment of the programme and lasts about 9 minutes if anybody wants to watch it:

ttps://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b0071mkv

It is part of the EU rules that if someone moves to another country under Freedom of Movement of Workers, and don't have a job in 3 months, they can be sent home - the fact that our Government doesn't do this isn't the fault of the EU.

Migrant workers’ right to reside for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions, which vary depending on the citizen’s status: for EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed, the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It is part of the EU rules that if someone moves to another country under Freedom of Movement of Workers, and don't have a job in 3 months, they can be sent home - the fact that our Government doesn't do this isn't the fault of the EU.

A point conveniently ignored by many!

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Don't tempt providence! He could impose sanctions because you are way off topic. This debate is about Brexit. You are advocating that we stay in. That's not Brexit.

I think you have lost the plot slightly if you think what had posted is not related to the UK leaving the EU.

BTW, I know you are joking ..

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

A point conveniently ignored by many!

Perhaps they came here under freedom of movement rather than freedom of movement for workers.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Perhaps they came here under freedom of movement rather than freedom of movement for workers.

Can you point out the EU directives or legislation that creates a distinction? If such a distinction exists what rights does one have, that the other doesn’t?

What restrictions (on either group) can a Government choose to implement but ours doesn’t?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Perhaps they came here under freedom of movement rather than freedom of movement for workers.

Surely you're not saying that Freedom of Movement grants higher status than Freedom of Movement for workers? Just to make sure you understand please see the below

Originally, the EU gave free movement rights only to people who moved to another member state to seek work there or become self-employed. Once an individual is in employment and satisfies certain conditions, he or she has the same rights as nationals of that country to access benefits such as health care, education, and incapacity benefit. Workers and self-employed EU citizens may also bring their family members, who have access to the same benefits as nationals of the host country.

Free movement rights have been extended to other categories of EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed. However, these citizens have fewer rights because they are not contributing in the same way to the host country’s economy.

Any EU citizen can move to and remain in another EU country for up to three months. EU citizens who are students may remain for the duration of their studies, but must show that they have sufficient financial support for their period of study. Other EU citizens who wish to stay longer than three months must have comprehensive sickness insurance and prove that they have financial resources to support themselves.

Because finding a job from abroad is often difficult, EU citizens who are job seekers can move to another EU country and claim the same out-of-work benefit (but not other benefits) available to nationals of that country while they are looking for employment. This means that the point at which EU job-seekers can access this benefit will depend on each country’s rules for its own citizens. This varies between EU member states.

In some countries job seekers can only claim out-of-work benefits if they have previously worked (e.g., Austria and Belgium); in others a waiting period of several months is imposed (e.g., France and the Netherlands), and in some countries there is immediate entitlement to out-of-work benefits (e.g., the UK, Germany, and Ireland). However, a job seeker must prove that he or she is actively looking for a job and stands a real chance of being given employment.
Why is freedom of movement important in an open society?

The European Union embodies many principles of an open society. The EU’s overarching aim is to “promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.” These values include equality, respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Member states have recognized that they are interdependent and use the EU to cooperate to achieve a greater, collective good.

Freedom of movement is an important part of this cooperation, encouraging tolerance and understanding among people of different cultures. This can help to break down harmful stereotypes and prejudices. It can also help to build solidarity between people and governments of different countries. This will make EU countries more likely to pull together to solve shared problems, such as the Euro crisis.
Why are some governments calling for freedom of movement rules to be changed?

In April 2013, four EU governments called on the EU to change its rules on free movement to make it harder for EU citizens to claim benefits when moving to another member country. These governments argue that higher standards of living and a generous system of state benefits in their countries have attracted large numbers of EU citizens from the newer EU member countries (in particular, the eight Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004).

UK Home Secretary Theresa May has claimed that these citizens are “benefit tourists.” That is, they are not workers or self-employed, and have come merely to access public services and the host state’s benefits system.

These governments also argue that this problem is likely to become significantly worse once restrictions on free movement for Romanian and Bulgarian nationals are lifted in January 2014. However, there is no evidence to back these claims.
What impact will restricted freedom of movement have in the European Union?

The existence of a mobile workforce has allowed workers to relocate to fill job vacancies in different EU countries. The OECD estimates that free movement has lowered the average unemployment rate across Europe by up to six percent.

According to the European Commission, between 2004 and 2009 free movement from newer member countries increased the GDP of the old EU member countries by almost one percent. Restricting free movement rights may slow economic recovery, making austerity last longer and weakening the overall economic power and influence of the EU. This in turn will undermine the EU’s ability to promote open society values in its relations with countries outside Europe.

Research also shows that free movement has not had a negative effect on the employment rates and wages of nationals of the host country. Workers from the newer EU countries generally take lower skilled jobs in sectors such as agriculture, care services, catering, cleaning, and construction. In practice, this puts them in competition for jobs with lower skilled workers from outside the EU, rather than nationals. Restricting free movement could lead to a shortage of workers in certain sectors.

Free movement rights have not only been used by citizens from newer EU member countries. Research shows that free movement is a two-way street. The top five EU countries with nationals living in other EU member states are: Romania (2.3 million), Poland (1.9 million), Italy (1.7 million), Germany (1.5 million), and the UK (1.4 million—with around 800,000 living in Spain alone). Any new restrictions will disadvantage EU citizens from all over Europe.

[pip08456]

Don't put words in my mouth I merely pointed out a difference which exists.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Don't put words in my mouth I merely pointed out a difference which exists.

Which has no relevance at all to the conversation.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Don't put words in my mouth I merely pointed out a difference which exists.

Where, in legislation, does it exist? What rights do one group have, but not the other?

[RichardCoulter]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It is part of the EU rules that if someone moves to another country under Freedom of Movement of Workers, and don't have a job in 3 months, they can be sent home - the fact that our Government doesn't do this isn't the fault of the EU.

Westminster council are saying that, up until just over a year ago, they, the police and immigration officials could move them on or send them home. They say that since this EU ruling all that they can do is ask them to go home. This rarely achieves the desired result.

The relevant section of the programme explains this, i'm sure that if what you are saying was doable that they'd use this to achieve their aims.

---------- Post added at 14:25 ---------- Previous post was at 14:24 ----------

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Surely you're not saying that Freedom of Movement grants higher status than Freedom of Movement for workers? Just to make sure you understand please see the below

Originally, the EU gave free movement rights only to people who moved to another member state to seek work there or become self-employed. Once an individual is in employment and satisfies certain conditions, he or she has the same rights as nationals of that country to access benefits such as health care, education, and incapacity benefit. Workers and self-employed EU citizens may also bring their family members, who have access to the same benefits as nationals of the host country.

Free movement rights have been extended to other categories of EU citizens who are not workers or self-employed. However, these citizens have fewer rights because they are not contributing in the same way to the host country’s economy.

Any EU citizen can move to and remain in another EU country for up to three months. EU citizens who are students may remain for the duration of their studies, but must show that they have sufficient financial support for their period of study. Other EU citizens who wish to stay longer than three months must have comprehensive sickness insurance and prove that they have financial resources to support themselves.

Because finding a job from abroad is often difficult, EU citizens who are job seekers can move to another EU country and claim the same out-of-work benefit (but not other benefits) available to nationals of that country while they are looking for employment. This means that the point at which EU job-seekers can access this benefit will depend on each country’s rules for its own citizens. This varies between EU member states.

In some countries job seekers can only claim out-of-work benefits if they have previously worked (e.g., Austria and Belgium); in others a waiting period of several months is imposed (e.g., France and the Netherlands), and in some countries there is immediate entitlement to out-of-work benefits (e.g., the UK, Germany, and Ireland). However, a job seeker must prove that he or she is actively looking for a job and stands a real chance of being given employment.
Why is freedom of movement important in an open society?

The European Union embodies many principles of an open society. The EU’s overarching aim is to “promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.” These values include equality, respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. Member states have recognized that they are interdependent and use the EU to cooperate to achieve a greater, collective good.

Freedom of movement is an important part of this cooperation, encouraging tolerance and understanding among people of different cultures. This can help to break down harmful stereotypes and prejudices. It can also help to build solidarity between people and governments of different countries. This will make EU countries more likely to pull together to solve shared problems, such as the Euro crisis.
Why are some governments calling for freedom of movement rules to be changed?

In April 2013, four EU governments called on the EU to change its rules on free movement to make it harder for EU citizens to claim benefits when moving to another member country. These governments argue that higher standards of living and a generous system of state benefits in their countries have attracted large numbers of EU citizens from the newer EU member countries (in particular, the eight Central and Eastern European countries that joined the EU in 2004).

UK Home Secretary Theresa May has claimed that these citizens are “benefit tourists.” That is, they are not workers or self-employed, and have come merely to access public services and the host state’s benefits system.

These governments also argue that this problem is likely to become significantly worse once restrictions on free movement for Romanian and Bulgarian nationals are lifted in January 2014. However, there is no evidence to back these claims.
What impact will restricted freedom of movement have in the European Union?

The existence of a mobile workforce has allowed workers to relocate to fill job vacancies in different EU countries. The OECD estimates that free movement has lowered the average unemployment rate across Europe by up to six percent.

According to the European Commission, between 2004 and 2009 free movement from newer member countries increased the GDP of the old EU member countries by almost one percent. Restricting free movement rights may slow economic recovery, making austerity last longer and weakening the overall economic power and influence of the EU. This in turn will undermine the EU’s ability to promote open society values in its relations with countries outside Europe.

Research also shows that free movement has not had a negative effect on the employment rates and wages of nationals of the host country. Workers from the newer EU countries generally take lower skilled jobs in sectors such as agriculture, care services, catering, cleaning, and construction. In practice, this puts them in competition for jobs with lower skilled workers from outside the EU, rather than nationals. Restricting free movement could lead to a shortage of workers in certain sectors.

Free movement rights have not only been used by citizens from newer EU member countries. Research shows that free movement is a two-way street. The top five EU countries with nationals living in other EU member states are: Romania (2.3 million), Poland (1.9 million), Italy (1.7 million), Germany (1.5 million), and the UK (1.4 million—with around 800,000 living in Spain alone). Any new restrictions will disadvantage EU citizens from all over Europe.

That's out of date eg it talks about 2014 as a future point in time.

Scrapping freedom of movement need not affect anyone wanting to come here to do hard to fill vacancies or to work in skill shortage areas. It's their right to come here that is so objectionable.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by ianch99

I think you have lost the plot slightly if you think what had posted is not related to the UK leaving the EU.

BTW, I know you are joking ..

Good, I was a bit worried when I read your first paragraph!

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Good, I was a bit worried when I read your first paragraph!

I love a good joke, not enough humour on here ! Brexit is of course the biggest joke