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

[sandyf]

21 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

An excellent post canterbrigian. 

 

> Currency union without political union is disastrous for many, as we have seen. It's a major structural faultline, with no solution short of the United States of Europe. Add to that, the

 

> inability to form a migrant/refugee policy - this is a major issue which people seem to have forgotten about. It's not going to go away, the pressure from Africa can only increase, and the differences within the EU will not diminish.

 

> the CAP, which consumes nealy 50% of the EU budget though agriculture contributes less than 2% of EU GDP, and inflates food prices by an estimated 17%.

 

> no agreement about where "ever closer union" is taking the EU.

 

> the dependence on just 1 or 2 key players within the EU.

 

These are not small issues!

A lot smaller than a government in crisis, obviously the fence got uncomfortable.

[jayboy]

On 8/24/2018 at 10:44 AM, rixalex said:

For a lot of people I think the issue of immigration isn't simply about reducing numbers, it's about us being in control of who comes in and being able to turn on and off the tap dependent on the country's needs. It's also about treating ALL immigrants in the same way.

In this age of great focus on equality, it's bizarre how unquestioned it has become that what is required of say an Italian wanting to move to the UK, is so different from that of say an Indian. We shouldn't be discriminating immigrants in this way. They should ALL have an equal chance and ALL be judged on their individual merits.

Now whether or not the politicians make this sort of change to the system, we'll have to wait and see. Leaving the EU doesn't guarantee it, and nor does it guarantee a fairer immigration policy. It does however make it much more easily achievable.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

There is not the slightest sense that all potential immigrants should be treated the same way, nor should they be.

 

There are legal obligations and some moral obligations.As matters now stand citizens of the EU have rights to enter and work.From time to time there are moral obligations to admit people, for example the Asians expelled from Uganda under Idi Amin.Britain has a long and proud tradition of admitting political refugees and this should be continued.Many thought - including me - that Hong Kong citizens who wanted it should have been given right of UK citizenship in 1997.Then there are the Gurkhas and other special cases.

 

These obligations apart the emphasis should be on admitting those with skills that will make a contribution.This would for example include Indian IT professionals and other qualified groups.

 

Now we get onto the more controversial stuff.

 

There should be favorable consideration of those with special links to the UK - for example African,West Indian, South Asian armed service families.Then there are those from New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Zimbabwe  with "ancestral" links.

 

Those who form no part of the groups above and essentially economic immigrants should be admitted strictly according to specific shortages in the labour market.These should be immigrants on license though with an option to stay if all goes well.

 

All immigrants should adhere to British values though I would ditch the silly current citizenship test.Adhering to British values does however imply compromise and integration.

 

So in answer to your question about the Indian and the Italian I would agree that all things being equal applicants from these two great countries with traditional British ties should be treated equally.

 

 

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

45 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Another emotional rant and I doubt I am the only one that finds them a bit tedious. 

 

"No one in the UK (or other EU member states) ever voted for this 'pooled sovereignty' nonsense,"

356 MP's voted - not my words just a fact.

 

"Laughable. 'Pooled sovereignty', right, sounds excellent, seems to be working ever so well too."

"The gains from pooling sovereignty speak for themselves."  not my words just a quote from the FT.

 

Sandyf is an ideal name for you, as your head seems to be buried in the stuff ? .

 

Sounds to me like you have no proper rebuttal, yet again, so the best we can expect is that old stalwart response, 'you're post is full of emotion, I can't reply to that kind of low quality comment'... keep talking mate, I doubt I'm the only one who is finding this knee-jerk reaction 'tedious' either. Oh and, keep ignoring the solid facts and information I'm attempting to disseminate to you and anyone else interested. Seems to be your speciality. I'm not going to waste anymore time trying to inform / debate with you or your cohorts on here. If you disagree with me then that's fine, I could care less. Proper debate is limited when you're interacting with people who are limited in their knowledge of the subject under discussion and when they willfully distort counter arguments to suit their own views - case in point - 

 

"No one in the UK (or other EU member states) ever voted for this 'pooled sovereignty' nonsense,"

 

'356 MP's voted - not my words just a fact.'

 

It might be a fact that 365 MPs voted (no apostrophe required ? ) I'd have to check your figure there, but in any case, how does that refute my original point re: the British public? I'm not discussing corrupt MPs or their acquiescence, I was referencing the British public who they supposedly represent. But, that point went right over your head, again...

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[My Thai Life]

18 minutes ago, sandyf said:

A lot smaller than a government in crisis, obviously the fence got uncomfortable.

Actually I would say that the 5 factors I mentioned are all existential threats to the EU, and far more significant than most of the scare stories about exit. 

 

And no, I haven't gotten off the fence. I'm equally happy with leave or remain, though I am not impressed with the way that many of the remainers comport themselves on this thread. I thought it was the exiters who were supposed to be churlish and boorish and uneducated - doesn't seem so from this thread.

 

 I'm just putting a different case from the one inside your echo chamber.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by My Thai Life

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

I missed that article, so would appreciate a link.

 

I'm not doubting you as you're a reasonable poster - but would appreciate reading the article/s.

May's visit to South Africa.  Even Muttley must have read about it.?

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

pretty good start me thinks,

no reason to be critical as Independent is

 

Oh, I don't know.  It just means the same as now.  How will that boost trade?

[melvinmelvin]

9 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Oh, I don't know.  It just means the same as now.  How will that boost trade?

 

it is a UK deal man, its a start of the after Brexit life, no boost, but also no loss, in that sector, following Brexit

[aright]

57 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Actually I would say that the 5 factors I mentioned are all existential threats to the EU, and far more significant than most of the scare stories about exit. 

 

And no, I haven't gotten off the fence. I'm equally happy with leave or remain, though I am not impressed with the way that many of the remainers comport themselves on this thread. I thought it was the exiters who were supposed to be churlish and boorish and uneducated - doesn't seem so from this thread.

 

 I'm just putting a different case from the one inside your echo chamber.

 

 

You have to remember that, as was mentioned, in an earlier post, Remainers views are entrenched and when something like Brexit comes along their self trained mindset sees only costs and risk and is  blind to  opportunities and alternatives.

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Some of you might recognise this... even the most prescient of forecasters can never be 100%... don't take it too seriously.

Keep me out of the pink bits. Thanks! (Peasants)

[My Thai Life]

Just now, Grouse said:

Keep me out of the pink bits. Thanks! (Peasants)

Yes, I know, you want to be with the pheasants!

[Grouse]

10 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

You keep saying this Grouse. And I've answered this point many times: it's academic to talk about tangible benefits in  the absence of a tangible agreement. But the benefits can be grouped into several categories:

 

> political benefits of sovereignty

> benefits of increased domestic policy control

> benefits of reduced prices, especially food prices, which are estimated to be artificially higher by 17% due to the CAP

> benefits of freeer trade and trade liberalisation

> benefits of trade deals with faster growing regions

> benefits to the City of less regulation

> less red tape for the vast majority of SMEs (small to medium businesses) who don't trade with the EU.

 

Tangible used to mean perceptible by touch

 

Money for example

 

Reduced food prices you say. Have you considered UK farmers? Quality? Food safety? Animal husbandry? No.

 

Trade liberalisation? CE a problem for you? IEC?

 

why would trade deals with "faster growing areas"

 

WHERES MY CHARGER?

 

FOUND IT

 

be easier outside the EU than within unless we lower our requirements on labour andconditions to maintain a level playing field?

 

I'm a consultant engineer. Believe me, red tape is good. Ask the Grenfell Tower residents. Oh, yes. You need red tape to protect the synaptically challenged AND non specialists everywhere.

 

So I want MEGA upside TANGIBLE benefits to compensate for the REAL TANGIBLE losses coming in exchange for some wispy dreamy ideas of a bygone age when men were gentlemen and women were grateful!

 

Gin anyone?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Grouse

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

I have answered a number of times to no avail either. ? 

See below

[Grouse]

Just now, Grouse said:

See below

Or above in this situation

[Grouse]

8 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

As usual you are talking at cross purposes to my post. As per my original post, the red tape was about SMEs (small to medium enterprises) who don't trade with the EU,  yet are burdened with EU regulations (red tape) currently.

 

I didn't say the problem with the UK is overregulation. I said one of the categories of benefits (in answer to Grouse's questions about benefits of brexit) is less regulation to the City. I had exactly the same dialogue with you a few weeks ago, and reminded you that one of the issues that triggered brexit was Cameron's discussions with the EU about the EU's plans to increase Financial Services regulation.

 

People on this thread regularly post from such an entrenched position that they cannot see the whole picture, or even seem to be interested in trying to. Both options have pluses and minuses. To pretend that there is no upside to leave is just dogma.

 

I seem to be one of the very few posters on this thread who would have been equally happy with a remain or a leave result. And yes, I do try to see both sides of the argument.

 

Unlike many of the posters on this thread, I accept the vote to leave, and I recognise the potential benefits.

I feel more secure with EU oversight

 

Sad, but true

[waaayouwaaan]

We never had a referendum on joining a european political union, and at the first time of asking it was rejected. Democracy at work.

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, sandyf said:

More brexit expense  - beware the autumn statement.

 

Ministers will launch a major study to design an independent satellite programme, warning the UK could face costs spiralling to a billion pounds from major disruption to navigation systems.

The government will allocate £92m to design the alternative to the European Galileo system which Brussels has said the UK can no longer take part in after Brexit.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-navigation-satellites-study-mps-uk-costs-european-galilleo-a8511206.html

We COULD do it, but why?

 

Giz a job...

[melvinmelvin]

4 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

This is not the whole story at all. The EU harmonised pre-existing European standards. It facilitated the development of new standards. And some would say that it introduced quite a lot of unnecesssary standards just to make sure the salaried bureaucrats were kept busy.

 

All developed countries have standards, and most developing countries too. Standards are not an EU invention or monopoly!

give me a b

very large portions of the standards are produced outside of the EU

[Guest]

10 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

You keep saying this Grouse. And I've answered this point many times: it's academic to talk about tangible benefits in  the absence of a tangible agreement. But the benefits can be grouped into several categories:

 

> political benefits of sovereignty

> benefits of increased domestic policy control

> benefits of reduced prices, especially food prices, which are estimated to be artificially higher by 17% due to the CAP

> benefits of freeer trade and trade liberalisation

> benefits of trade deals with faster growing regions

> benefits to the City of less regulation

> less red tape for the vast majority of SMEs (small to medium businesses) who don't trade with the EU.

 

I honestly think that the only political benefit (which is in reality the only benefit) UK gains from Brexit is, that the UK members of the parliament can no longer blame EU for their lack of work for their people. 

 

The sovereign UK will have ability to blame their own MP's directly, so that they no longer can defer the blame to EU.

 

The people of UK are not that bad. Their representatives were. 

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

This is not the whole story at all. The EU harmonised pre-existing European standards. It facilitated the development of new standards. And some would say that it introduced quite a lot of unnecesssary standards just to make sure the salaried bureaucrats were kept busy.

 

All developed countries have standards, and most developing countries too. Standards are not an EU invention or monopoly!

But we have the gold standard generally. This the way to go. You want third world standards? Be my guest but include me out ?

[melvinmelvin]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

We COULD do it, but why?

 

Giz a job...

 

sure,

you could

if you have 10 years and 5-10 billion quid to spare - go ahead

 

for the purpose of pmtm being able to say that UK has 100% control of the nitty gritty

 

 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, waaayouwaaan said:

We never had a referendum on joining a european political union, and at the first time of asking it was rejected. Democracy at work.

So wonderful first or 2nd post with a fast like from @malagateddy

 

Coincidence? One can not ever be 100% sure.. 

 

Any chance of getting rid of these accounts?

[RuamRudy]

28 minutes ago, waaayouwaaan said:

We never had a referendum on joining a european political union, and at the first time of asking it was rejected. Democracy at work.

Good point - under the same principle, let's also rip up the Treaty of Union.

[Chomper Higgot]

On 8/10/2018 at 9:39 AM, vogie said:

No it wasn't, 

 

 

That was Cameron's government right?

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

I feel more secure with EU oversight

 

Sad, but true

Why you should be sad?

 

I think it's better that we have people who have different ways to see the world, on our oversight. The variety of thoughts don't allow nepotism to flourish, like it flourishes so often in local and country or county politics. 

 

If we have strong enough people, participating in the politics, we can be assured there is always the ones, who will not approve self serving purposes.

 

In a way Nigel Farage was was of them. He was also an arse. There are far more intelligent people like him, who keep our EU in shape. One loud Englishman doesn't make a difference. Many representatives around EU countries does.

 

EU keeps on evolving and become a better country. Without UK's input from now on.

 

[Guest]

There is no reason why EU should give any special partnership deal to UK after Brexit.

 

Well, if this deal means that EU would allow UK to use our previously made deals around the world  to allow UK to function after brexit, I guess that's ok. 

 

If this means that UK would have access to our single market and customs union... that's not going to happen. 

 

Quote

 

Barnier: EU Ready to Offer Unprecedented Partnership (3:27 p.m.)
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, says the bloc is ready to offer the U.K. an unprecedented relationship which aims to keep ties as close as possible -- the kind of agreement the EU has not had with “any third country.”

 

The pound rallied to a three-week high on Barnier’s remarks. The currency had tumbled in recent weeks as senior ministers stepped up warnings that Britain was at risk of crashing out of the bloc without a deal.

 

Future relations are to be based on a free-trade deal and special agreements in areas including aerospace and security, Barnier says after a meeting with German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas in Berlin.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-29/u-k-s-raab-to-meet-barnier-for-talks-on-friday-brexit-update?cmpid%3D=socialflow-facebook-brexit&utm_content=brexit&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic

[welovesundaysatspace]

26 minutes ago, oilinki said:

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-29/u-k-s-raab-to-meet-barnier-for-talks-on-friday-brexit-update?cmpid%3D=socialflow-facebook-brexit&utm_content=brexit&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic

Can’t wait to hear the response from the U.K. Theyll be stupid enough to let this chance pass too. 

[Guest]

I'm not sure why Bloomberg has an urge to say that EU wishes to keep close ties with UK. Why should we? 

 

What's the carrot for EU for not treating UK as any other physically close foreign power like Turkey or Libya?

 

 

Quote

 

EU Wants to Keep U.K. Ties as Close as Possible: Brexit Update

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-29/u-k-s-raab-to-meet-barnier-for-talks-on-friday-brexit-update?

[mommysboy]

7 hours ago, oilinki said:

I'm not sure why Bloomberg has an urge to say that EU wishes to keep close ties with UK. Why should we? 

 

What's the carrot for EU for not treating UK as any other physically close foreign power like Turkey or Libya?

 

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-29/u-k-s-raab-to-meet-barnier-for-talks-on-friday-brexit-update?

What's the carrot for EU for not treating UK as any other physically close foreign power like Turkey or Libya?

 

In short, a huge trade surplus.

 

And as I posted earlier, not creating a very sharp competitor on its doorstep.

 

But if you'd prefer to strike up something better with Libya, go for it!?

[whatsupdoc]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-barnier-raab-lidington-no-deal-eu-berlin-pound-sterling-spike-jump-a8513226.html

 

Barnier: “We are prepared to offer a partnership with Britain such as has never been with any other third country,”

 

"But Theresa May’s unofficial Brexit minister David Lidington, who coordinates Cabinet activity around leaving the EU, said the UK would only accept the Chequers deal or a no-deal".

 

No-deal it is then.

[mommysboy]

9 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Can’t wait to hear the response from the U.K. Theyll be stupid enough to let this chance pass too. 

My impression is the millions that voted leave will hold the government to the promises made by the Leave camp- cake and eat it.  It won't wash with them.  Even if the government strikes a deal, it'll flounder.