UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, nauseus said:

 There are certain conditions and restrictions but these are difficult to control or are not well applied.

Of course it is down to the EU when rules are "not well applied". We on this forum are perfectly aware how the UK can apply the rules on "sufficient resources" when it suits them.

 

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. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Could it?

 

A tailored version is what we have now, isn't it?

Where does that come, as far as I am aware the UK is in the EU and Norway is not.

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

Only a Brexiteer would fail to understand the idiom!

 

And only a remainer would use one that infers EU membership to be akin to being fried to a crisp! But I agree with that, so well done.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

OK, I should have said workers not labour, it is certainly not "people"

 

Free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the Treaty enshrined in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and developed by EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens are entitled to:

• look for a job in another EU country   
• work there without needing a work permit
• reside there for that purpose
• stay there even after employment has finished
• enjoy equal treatment with nationals in access to employment, working conditions and all other social and tax advantages

EU nationals may also have certain types of health & social security coverage transferred to the country in which they go to seek work (see coordination of social security systems).

Free movement of workers also applies, in general terms, to the countries in the European Economic Area: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457&langId=en

 

So these "workers" can just say they are just that! 

 

From the EU itself:

 

EU citizens have the right to travel, live and work throughout the Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/chapter/212/citizens-fundamental-rights-security-and-justice

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

So these "workers" can just say they are just that! 

 

From the EU itself:

 

EU citizens have the right to travel, live and work throughout the Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/chapter/212/citizens-fundamental-rights-security-and-justice

We all have differing opinions on the subject - but one of my main dislikes about the eu is that people from very poor eu countries are allowed into the uk - to keep the pay for the lowest paid as low as possible...

 

[rixalex]

3 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

This is a claim, not a fact (unless you can prove your claim). 

 

Actually, my response was that I asked what you are actually referring to. Because, as far as I am aware, it’s common practice for all countries in this world that visa rules vary depending on nationality of the applicant. So claiming this is “largely because of the EU” isn’t true; you must be dreaming if you believe the UK after Brexit will offer the same visa rules to everyone (or any country in the world would ever do that). 

 

You cannot even call that practice racism as it’s not based on race but rather on visa rules that vary based on groups of countries. Everyone in this world, regardless of his race or nationality, can get a Schengen Visa as long as he fulfills the requirements. 

 

Again, maybe you are referring to something else, but since you seem to prefer to avoid answering my question it’s difficult to understand what you actually mean. 

On the one hand you are arguing that all countries have a discriminatory immigration system, and on the other you demand that i prove that Britain does.

 

And regarding the EU having no bearing on the level of discrimination and inequality that currently exists in Britain's immigration policy, you only have to look at how Britain's immigration policy has changed since it joined the EU to know that that is complete nonsense.

 

And no, i'm not arguing that Britain's immigration system prior to 1975 was totally non-discriminatory, and nor am i arguing about how non-discriminatory Thailand or any other country's immigration system is. I'm arguing that the current immigration system in Britain is far too discriminatory for the 21st century, and that anybody who places value in equality and fairness, would not think that it wasn't.

 

Immigrants who come to work in Britain, should all be given an equal opportunity based on what skills they have. Nationality should not come in to it. Being a member of the EU makes that an impossible aim.

[kwilco]

More fromthan "project fear" or to use the secret code word - "project critical thinking" (we can use this secret code word publicly as no Brexiteer knows what it means) ...

 

 

https://www.cer.eu/insights/cost-brexit-june-2018

 

 

 

[kwilco]

6 minutes ago, rixalex said:

On the one hand you are arguing that all countries have a discriminatory immigration system, and on the other you demand that i prove that Britain does.

 

And regarding the EU having no bearing on the level of discrimination and inequality that currently exists in Britain's immigration policy, you only have to look at how Britain's immigration policy has changed since it joined the EU to know that that is complete nonsense.

 

And no, i'm not arguing that Britain's immigration system prior to 1975 was totally non-discriminatory, and nor am i arguing about how non-discriminatory Thailand or any other country's immigration system is. I'm arguing that the current immigration system in Britain is far too discriminatory for the 21st century, and that anybody who places value in equality and fairness, would not think that it wasn't.

 

Immigrants who come to work in Britain, should all be given an equal opportunity based on what skills they have. Nationality should not come in to it. Being a member of the EU makes that an impossible aim.

"Immigrants who come to work in Britain, should all be given an equal opportunity based on what skills they have. Nationality should not come in to it. Being a member of the EU makes that an impossible aim."

 

What a totally irrational think to say!

[tebee]

4 minutes ago, rixalex said:

....

 

Immigrants who come to work in Britain, should all be given an equal opportunity based on what skills they have. Nationality should not come in to it. Being a member of the EU makes that an impossible aim.

 

But it's not an even playing field for non-EU citizens now - those from the US and former colonies like  Canada and Australia have a much easier time than those from third world countries.  

[aright]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

OK, I should have said workers not labour, it is certainly not "people"

 

Free movement of workers is a fundamental principle of the Treaty enshrined in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and developed by EU secondary legislation and the Case law of the Court of Justice. EU citizens are entitled to:

• look for a job in another EU country   
• work there without needing a work permit
• reside there for that purpose
• stay there even after employment has finished
• enjoy equal treatment with nationals in access to employment, working conditions and all other social and tax advantages

EU nationals may also have certain types of health & social security coverage transferred to the country in which they go to seek work (see coordination of social security systems).

Free movement of workers also applies, in general terms, to the countries in the European Economic Area: Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=457&langId=en

Perhaps you should have said citizens. Are EU citizens people? How petty do you want to make this?

 

EU citizens have the right to travel, live and work throughout the Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/chapter/212/citizens-fundamental-rights-security-and-justice

Edited October 2, 2018 by aright

[nauseus]

40 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

We all have differing opinions on the subject - but one of my main dislikes about the eu is that people from very poor eu countries are allowed into the uk - to keep the pay for the lowest paid as low as possible...

 

 

That's why so many businesses support it.

[melvinmelvin]

15 minutes ago, aright said:

Perhaps you should have said citizens. Are EU citizens people? How petty do you want to make this?

 

EU citizens have the right to travel, live and work throughout the Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/chapter/212/citizens-fundamental-rights-security-and-justice

 

he is what we call a petty meter

 

never mind,

if you for the moment skip the work bit, the citizens family is also included in the remaining rights

 

sandyf and nauseous? and you ad others tend to quote these factsheets - dont

they are spin doctor stuff - bit  better  though but  not more than views on what the relevant acquis stipulates

 

look in celex - all relevant acquis are there - and that's law

 

[rixalex]

53 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

But it's not an even playing field for non-EU citizens now - those from the US and former colonies like  Canada and Australia have a much easier time than those from third world countries.  

Yes i agree.

 

Being in the EU or being out, doesn't guarantee an equal and fair immigration policy. It all depends on the inclinations of the government in power. But being in the EU DOES guarantee that achieving that aim is impossible. Out of the EU it's not.

 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, rixalex said:

Yes i agree.

 

Being in the EU or being out, doesn't guarantee an equal and fair immigration policy. It all depends on the inclinations of the government in power. But being in the EU DOES guarantee that achieving that aim is impossible. Out of the EU it's not.

 

I don't care either way - as long as cheap labour is not allowed into the uk to keep the lowest paid wages as low as possible.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

he is what we call a petty meter

 

never mind,

if you for the moment skip the work bit, the citizens family is also included in the remaining rights

 

sandyf and nauseous? and you ad others tend to quote these factsheets - dont

they are spin doctor stuff - bit  better  though but  not more than views on what the relevant acquis stipulates

 

look in celex - all relevant acquis are there - and that's law

 

 

I use the EU's own official sites in hope that the remainers will actually credit them.  

 

Give us a link to celex then. Sounds like a ceiling repair compound. ????

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

On the one hand you are arguing that all countries have a discriminatory immigration system, and on the other you demand that i prove that Britain does.

I wasn’t argueing, and I wasn’t demanding. I simply asked what you are referring to. 

 

Quote

 

Immigrants who come to work in Britain, should all be given an equal opportunity based on what skills they have. Nationality should not come in to it. Being a member of the EU makes that an impossible aim.

During the time I was working in Germany, I actually met quite some non-EU citizens who worked there. And just today, I saw in the news the German government announced they would change their immigration policy to a Canada-style model. So how exactly does “Being a member of the EU make that an impossible aim”? AFAIK Germany IS an EU member. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by welovesundaysatspace

[melvinmelvin]

22 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

I use the EU's own official sites in hope that the remainers will actually credit them.  

 

Give us a link to celex then. Sounds like a ceiling repair compound. ????

 

yeah yeah EU stuff, but views - not laws

 

celex is the real stuff - ce---> community europe (in french) lex (law latin)

 

eur-lex.europa.eu   this is the real juice and what courts and red-tapers act upon

 

[rixalex]

38 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I wasn’t argueing, and I wasn’t demanding. I simply asked what you are referring to. 

 

During the time I was working in Germany, I actually met quite some non-EU citizens who worked there. And just today, I saw in the news the German government announced they would change their immigration policy to a Canada-style model. So how exactly does “Being a member of the EU make that an impossible aim”? AFAIK Germany IS an EU member. 

So because you have met some non-EU citizens working in Germany, you think that means that the immigration policy treats them equally and fairly as compared to EU citizens?

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, rixalex said:

So because you have met some non-EU citizens working in Germany, you think that means that the immigration policy treats them equally and fairly as compared to EU citizens?

Well, you claimed something, but since then you are refusing to explain what you are actually referring to (for the third time in a row now, despite me asking again and again). Since you cannot prove your claims, and I saw examples that might prove it wrong, I’m afraid that’s the only information I have. 

[rixalex]

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Well, you claimed something, but since then you are refusing to explain what you are actually referring to (for the third time in a row now, despite me asking again and again). Since you cannot prove your claims, and I saw examples that might prove it wrong, I’m afraid that’s the only information I have. 

No idea what you are going on about.

 

I said that Britain's immigration policy was unfair, unequal and discriminatory and that that was to a large degree thanks to the EU. What part of that do you disagree with?

[welovesundaysatspace]

17 minutes ago, rixalex said:

I said that Britain's immigration policy was unfair, unequal and discriminatory and that that was to a large degree thanks to the EU. What part of that do you disagree with?

I generally can’t agree to accusations unless they’re proven, especially not in a debate like Brexit that has been full of lies and disinformation. So unless you can prove your claim, I disagree to the statement as a whole. 

Edited October 2, 2018 by welovesundaysatspace

[CG1 Blue]

6 hours ago, brewsterbudgen said:

You could be right. Having another vote is a good way to find out. Let the people decide.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

And what options would you propose go on the ballot paper?  Because if Remain is on the ballot paper the EU will offer us the worst Brexit deal possible.

 

I'm yet to see a Remainer provide a valid argument on this point. So go for it!

[adammike]

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

And what options would you propose go on the ballot paper?  Because if Remain is on the ballot paper the EU will offer us the worst Brexit deal possible.

 

I'm yet to see a Remainer provide a valid argument on this point. So go for it!

If the Tory's elect another leader before. Brexit then there will almost certainly have to be another general election, they could give the voters two ballot papers one for their choice of MP/party and one for brexit,if they could agree what would be on that ballot paper.

[CG1 Blue]

5 minutes ago, adammike said:

If the Tory's elect another leader before. Brexit then there will almost certainly have to be another general election, they could give the voters two ballot papers one for their choice of MP/party and one for brexit,if they could agree what would be on that ballot paper.

But how can 'Remain' be an option on any ballot paper without it incentivising the EU commission to give us a really bad deal? I don't think it can.

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

And what options would you propose go on the ballot paper?  Because if Remain is on the ballot paper the EU will offer us the worst Brexit deal possible.

 

I'm yet to see a Remainer provide a valid argument on this point. So go for it!

 

I agree with that.   But surely the peoples vote would be after the negotiations are completed and would be based on the options at that point. Not at a point where the EU can still move the goalposts. I don't think that remaining in the EU should be on the list though.  What would be sensible would be the choice of two deals.  One, a softer Brexit allowing for free trade, some form of customs union to accommodate the Northern Ireland issue and keep foreign investors here, and secondly, a harder Brexit with all that that entails.

 

That way the people could see what Brexit would mean without all the spin.  They would still be voting to leave but with the advantage of seeing what they are getting.

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, nauseus said:

EU citizens have the right to travel, live and work throughout the Union

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/chapter/212/citizens-fundamental-rights-security-and-justice

That is the shorthand version, the detail is in the TFEU.

You can argue the toss on the terminology but this is what brexiteers would prefer to forget.

" 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."

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

We all have differing opinions on the subject - but one of my main dislikes about the eu is that people from very poor eu countries are allowed into the uk - to keep the pay for the lowest paid as low as possible...

 

So EU migrant workers are now responsible for setting the minimum wage, that's a new one.

[tebee]

25 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

But how can 'Remain' be an option on any ballot paper without it incentivising the EU commission to give us a really bad deal? I don't think it can.

 

There is no deal in the offing that seems acceptable to both sides - indeed there is no deal in the offing that seems acceptable to both sides of the Conservative party!

 

We are heading towards no deal   anyway - the government is preparing us for that.

 

So should we have a vote on the choice between no deal and remain?

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, sandyf said:

Phillip Hammond said in his speech that it was the job of the UK government to convince the EU that they are wrong and should agree to the Chequers plan, a plan that attempts to keep the UK in the SM without the obligations.

 

So the UK wants to leave the club but they want the club committee to change the club rules so the UK can retain the club benefits without any obligation.

 

About as close to a definition of arrogance as I have ever seen.

The question now is, was Phillip Hammond referring to the Chequers plan that we know about or the one that has yet to be agreed.

 

Theresa May will seek approval from her cabinet soon after conference for further tweaks to her Brexit plans in a bid to secure a deal from the EU.

The prime minister is set to reshape her customs proposals and also look at whether there is scope to make an offer to Brussels on the alignment of future regulation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-plan-uk-eu-tory-party-conference-theresa-may-chequers-2-cabinet-a8564051.html

 

 

 

[CG1 Blue]

27 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

 

I agree with that.   But surely the peoples vote would be after the negotiations are completed and would be based on the options at that point. Not at a point where the EU can still move the goalposts. I don't think that remaining in the EU should be on the list though.  What would be sensible would be the choice of two deals.  One, a softer Brexit allowing for free trade, some form of customs union to accommodate the Northern Ireland issue and keep foreign investors here, and secondly, a harder Brexit with all that that entails.

 

That way the people could see what Brexit would mean without all the spin.  They would still be voting to leave but with the advantage of seeing what they are getting.

I'd be happy with that - a 2nd referendum with the only options on the ballot paper being different versions of leaving the EU.

With regard to your comment: "But surely the peoples vote would be after the negotiations are completed", the thing is, the EU would still know during the negotiations that we're going to have a 2nd referendum. Unless we keep it a secret from them until negotiations are complete? ????