RayC

Another example of Two-tier Britain ... oh, wait ....

It's the same old irrational nonsense: 'Starmer wants to damage the UK'. In the unlikely event that 500k young EU nationals wanted to live in the UK at any one time, how are they going to damage the country? They will not bring dependents and will presumably be in good health, so won't be drain on the nations' infrastructure and resources. The scheme is simply an opportunity for young people - Brits and EU nationals alike - to broaden their horizons. The reaction on this thread simply reinforces the view that for some people, any deal with the EU - no matter its' objective or scope - is a bad deal. The fact that these individuals cannot provide any constructive alternatives doesn't seem to concern them.

What absolute nonsense. If evidence exists to support your claims there will be more than one source to prove it. I'll be generous in my terminology: You are providing misinformation.

Assuming such an organisation exists, what makes you think that they are reading these posts? There is no evidence to support your claims.

Your comment about the use of 'Europe' and 'EU' is pedantic: Moreover, I have not mentioned either the ECHR or the ECJ until this post, and I know the difference. Food sold in the EU will need to meet EU food regulations. Where there is a dispute about EU law, the ECJ - the Supreme Court of the EU - will adjudicate. Are these shocking revelations? Why would the judiciaries from 3rd-country should be involved? You are sniping around the edges. There is nothing of substance in your objections.

I rate the chances of there being a link to support that claim at virtually zero. If only I could find a bookie where I could lay that bet.

Ridiculous hyperbole with a dose of self-pity thrown in for good measure. To vanquish means to defeat. It does not imply or infer genocide. If 17 million voters are all singing from the same hymn sheet, then surely there must be one posting on ASEAN who can detail what Brexit should look like? Clearly not the case to date. The truth is that the 17 million voters didn't want the same thing. Many now have 'buyers regret' and would vote differently; many others would welcome more cordial relations with the EU, and do not have a problem with this latest deal. Sadly, there remain (no pun intended) a significant number of Brexiters for whom, as Dunt correctly points out: "There is simply no deal that these people will support. There is no arrangement with Europe, no matter how benign and non-committal, which (they) would not call surrender". These are the people who need to be defeated.

The author obviously views further conversation as being pointless for various reasons. His last paragraph is telling: "Why are the Brexiters so upset? .. It can’t really be about such tiny, inoffensive ideas as a youth mobility scheme or health regulations on agri-foods. It’s something deeper. It’s the manner and existence of the deal itself. This is why they’re so outraged ... There is simply no deal that these people will support. There is no arrangement with Europe, no matter how benign and non-committal, which (they) would not call surrender."

An opinion from The i: https://link.news.inews.co.uk/view/662be3d5948726eba903a187ns9qu.18qk/f3fa25d5

"Was it against the law to make me fly in broken seat?" Airlines have a legal obligation to ensure your safety. Speaking as a layman, it would appear that you would have a much stronger case if you had been injured as a direct result of this broken chair (sorry about that😁) However, it would seem a perfectly good argument to me to suggest that making you fly in a broken chair increased your risk of sustaining an injury and the airline therefore knowingly failed to meet their legal obligation to ensure your safety. However, that's my layman's argument. I think that you need a professional legal opinion. Google AI suggestions given below. Good luck. _----++;;;;;;---- Examples of UK firms specializing in flight compensation: Bott and Co Solicitors: Known for winning landmark cases and claiming large amounts of compensation for clients. JMW Solicitors: Experienced in helping passengers with in-flight injuries and other airline-related injuries. Versus Law Solicitors: Provides free consultations and helps clients claim compensation for flight delays.

The scheme will not allow millions into the UK. If 2015 figures are anything to go by, in all probability there will be 100k EU nationals or so heading to the UK annually, and +/-30k Brits heading in the opposite direction. No one will have the right to permanent residency through this scheme. I can't understand why there is an objection to this scheme which will allow young people to broaden their horizons. It's an objection for objection's sake.

Pedantic. I'm sure that it could be relabelled, 'Young Persons ...'

Globalists? I thought the EU were Protectionists? I do wish Brexiters could decide which one it is.

It has clearly by-passed you but the rules governing any youth mobility scheme will not be the same as those covering wider immigration. Firstly, to state the blindingly obvious, any youth mobility scheme will be limited to those under a certain age (in all probability no more than 35; possibly 30). In the year ending June 2015, 270,000 EU nationals of all ages had immigrated to the UK for more than a year, so the idea that millions of young EU citizens will take advantage of this scheme and descend upon the UK is clearly nonsensical. Notwithstanding the opportunity this initiative affords British youngsters to live and work in Europe, it may well help the hospitality sector - amongst others - in the UK who - like pre-Brexit times - will be able to employ young EU nationals on short-term contracts: A move that will satisfy both parties.

You consider 0.06% and 0.4% of GDP to be significant? I eat fish but I much prefer eating it in Thailand rather than Europe. Because the other EU member states bow to pressure from France and Spain, who in turn are reacting to domestic pressure. As I said previously, why the other EU member states are so acquiescent to France and Spain is a mystery to me as the fishing industry's role in any EU - UK negotiations is completely out of all proportion to its' economic significance. Really? Any data to back that up? Fish imports to the EU are declining. One can speculate on the reasons why. The inference being that the UK fleet is environmentally sound? Again, any data to support your assertions (and inference)? Allegedly. (1) Easier access to the EU market for farming products (2) Easier passage for UK travellers at EU ports (3) Job opportunities for young Brits in the EU (tbc) (4) Possibility of billion Euro contracts being awarded to UK defence companies (tbc) Price paid: Loss of 0.4% of UK GDP if UK fishing industry were to disappear completely (It won't). How are you going to replenish fishing stocks while at the same time increasing the volume of sales? At least .... 😂. No doubt 'The Terror' would pale in comparison. What ridiculous hyperbole. Agreed but fishing is of less symbolic importance in the UK now compared with France, so imo a shrewd negotiating ploy by the UK to use it.

I'm pleased that you - like me - seem to view youth mobility as a positive; many Brexiters do not. Hopefully negotiations can be concluded quickly. Seems like we won't have to wait too long https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/advice/britons-to-gain-access-to-european-airport-egates/#:~:text=When will UK passport holders,rolled out from October 2025. Given that the UK helped draft the EU's phytosanitary and animal welfare regulations and is still aligned with them, this would only become a problem if we decided to adopt lower standards in the future. I wouldn't have thought that this was in the UK public's best interests. Strictly speaking, true but plenty to look forward to.

I agree that Europe's fishing grounds (including the UK's) have been raped to death. This is reflected in the decline in importance of fishing as an industry Europe-wide, something that has been happening since the mid-90s. Whether this decline can (or should) be reversed is probably a question for a separate thread. The fishing industry's importance in EU-UK negotiations - both now and previously - is completely out of proportion to its' economic significance. That fishing rights are an issue is solely down to the influence of the French and Spanish. Why the other EU member states have been so acquiescence in this matter is a mystery to me, given that fishing contributes an insignificant 0.06% to the EU's GDP (0.4% to the UK's). Imo the UK has been quite shrewd in using fisheries as a bargaining chip in these negotiations e.g. you want fishing rights, we want reduced phytosanitary checks. I accept that there will be further damage to what's left of the UK's fishing industry, but imo it is a price worth paying given what we have got in return.

Make it 100s+1 please. I promise to pay very close attention this time. What does this ideal Brexit look like? Why is it beneficial for the UK public? In what ways is it an improvement on the current 'oven ready' deal (or being in the EU)? How is it going to be achieved? What's the timescales for reaping the benefits ? Thanks in advance.

Facts. That will be inconvenient for some. Unfortunately, not for all.

Spot on. The 'hard' Brexiters don't like the existing deal but complain when any changes are made to it. When challenged to define what a good Brexit deal should look like, there is deafening silence.

So what happened? Did they return your wallet and politely ask you to carry more money next time?

The usual Brexiter excuse for failure: Brexit has failed because either (a) it wasn't done right and/or (b) it was undermined by the forces of the 'Deep State'. The truth is more prosaic: Brexit has failed because no one knows how to make it succeed. It was - and remains - a bad idea. In common with the overwhelming majority of economists, Carney was a Remainer and didn't hide the fact. However, he had no responsibility for implementing Brexit. His job as Governor of the BoE was twofold: (1) keep inflation below 2% (2) help ensure financial stability within the UK. During Carney's 7-year spell as Governor, inflation exceeded 2% only once on an annual basis (2.3%), so I'd say that's a pretty good batting average. How successful Carney was in meeting the second objective is less quantifiable. Overall, the UK's financial and monetary system were fairly stable during Carney's tenure, but there was a period during mid-2016 when sterling's value fell off a cliff. Remind me what caused that to happen? Anyway, it will be interesting to learn how you believe Carney's actions have undermined the success of Brexit.

Nothing to hear. The silence in response to my questions is deafening. A pint? Good grief! You must be a plebeian. A gentleman doesn't drink claret from pint jugs😉

" ... not ideal, clearly"😂 Poor old Diddy. No doubt prior to his relationship with Ventura he was a caring, loving, strictly monogamous man. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't a virgin. His kids were probably adopted and/or conceived without coitus having occurred. The witch Ventura pushed him over the edge. They should swop places. She should be in the dock🤦 I make no apologies for the overblown sarcasm. It's perfectly justified.

And yet you casually ignore Combs' infidelity. Hypocrisy and misogyny. Nothing more, nothing less.