UK's May seeks more time to find Brexit deal, tells lawmakers: Hold your nerve

[billd766]

30 minutes ago, rixalex said:

"It's a postulation backed by convincing empirical data."

 

OK, so you made it up.

 

How about, "factoid". Have you come across that?

Just for Grouse. Looked up copied and pasted by one of the untermensch or the ignorant, uneducated, unwashed and unwanted persons who voted for Brexit.

 

fac·toid

Dictionary result for factoid

/ˈfakˌtoid/

noun

noun: factoid; plural noun: factoids

NORTH AMERICAN

a brief or trivial item of news or information.

an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.

[Loiner]

Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dick dasterdly]

35 minutes ago, Loiner said:

You've previously shown that you don't listen to anything you're told if it does not fit with your agenda. This is quite long, but 'The Spectator' gives a detailed analysis of her alleged 'deal' and how it was only Brexit In Name Only. Hope its good enough for you:

 

In theory, Britain is leaving the EU on 29 March 2019. But the legal small print, published by Brussels, shows what this means. Parliament will be asked to ratify a deal which clearly admits that ‘all references to ‘Member States’ and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.’ (Article 7). So the UK will be bound by EU laws, at least during a transition period. But this ‘transition period’ can be be made to last forever (Article 132).  And even if a successor deal is agreed, the UK will have signed away other rights for years to come.

 

In summary: The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or, more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (“up to 31 December 20XX”, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

Should it end within two years, as May hopes, the UK will still be signed up to clauses keeping us under certain rules (like VAT and ECJ supervision) for a further eight years. Some clauses have, quite literally, a “lifetime” duration (Art.39). If the UK defaults on transition, we go in to the backstop with the Customs Union and, realistically, the single market. We can only leave the transition positively with a deal. But we sign away the money. So the EU has no need to give us a deal, and certainly no incentive to make the one they offered ‘better’ than the backstop. The European Court of Justice remains sovereign, as repeatedly stipulated. Perhaps most damagingly of all, we agree to sign away the rights we would have, under international law, to unilaterally walk away. Again, what follows relates (in most part) for the “transition” period. But the language is consistent with the E.U. imagining that this will be the final deal.

The top 40 horrors:

1.     From the offset, we should note that this is an EU text, not a UK or international text. This has one source. The Brexit agreement is written in Brussels.

2.     May says her deal means the UK leaves the EU next March. The Withdrawal Agreement makes a mockery of this. “All references to Member States and competent authorities of Member States…shall be read as including the United Kingdom.” (Art 6). Not quite what most people understand by Brexit. It goes on to spell out that the UK will be in the EU but without any MEPs, a commissioner or ECJ judges. We are effectively a Member State, but we are excused – or, more accurately, excluded – from attending summits. (Article 7)

3.     The European Court of Justice is decreed to be our highest court, governing the entire Agreement – Art. 4. stipulates that both citizens and resident companies can use it. Art 4.2 orders our courts to recognise this. “If the European Commission considers that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaties or under Part Four of this Agreement before the end of the transition period, the European Commission may, within 4 years after the end of the transition period, bring the matter before the Court of Justice of the European Union”. (Art. 87)

4.     The jurisdiction of the ECJ will last until eight years after the end of the transition period. (Article 158).

5.     The UK will still be bound by any future changes to EU law in which it will have no say, not to mention having to comply with current law. (Article 6(2))

6.     Any disputes under the Agreement will be decided by EU law only – one of the most dangerous provisions. (Article 168). This cuts the UK off from International Law, something we’d never do with any foreign body. Arbitration will be governed by the existing procedural rules of the EU law – this is not arbitration as we would commonly understand it (i.e. between two independent parties). (Article 174)

7.     “UNDERLINING that this Agreement is founded on an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Union and the United Kingdom” No, it should be based upon the binding legal obligations upon the EU contained within Article 50. It is wrong to suggest otherwise.

8.     The tampon tax clause: We obey EU laws on VAT, with no chance of losing the tampon tax even if we agree a better deal in December 2020 because we hereby agree to obey other EU VAT rules for **five years** after the transition period. Current EU rules prohibit 0-rated VAT on products (like tampons) that did not have such exemptions before the country joined the EU.

9.     Several problems with the EU’s definitions: “Union law” is too widely defined and “United Kingdom national” is defined by the Lisbon Treaty: we should given away our right to define our citizens. The “goods” and the term “services” we are promised the deal are not defined – or, rather, will be defined however the EU wishes them to be. Thus far, this a non-defined term so far. This agreement fails to define it.

10.            The Mandelson Pension Clause: The UK must promise never to tax former EU officials based here – such as Peter Mandelson or Neil Kinnock – on their E.U. pensions, or tax any current Brussels bureaucrats on their salaries. The EU and its employees are to be immune to our tax laws. (Article 104)

11.            Furthermore, the UK agrees not to prosecute EU employees who are, or who might be deemed in future, criminals (Art.101)

12.            The GDPR clause. The General Data Protection Regulation – the EU’s stupidest law ever? – is to be bound into UK law (Articles 71 to 73). There had been an expectation in some quarters that the UK could get out of it.

13.            The UK establishes a ‘Joint Committee’ with EU representatives to guarantee ‘the implementation and application of this Agreement’. This does not sound like a withdrawal agreement – if it was, why would it need to be subject to continued monitoring? (Article 164). This Joint Committee will have subcommittees with jurisdiction over: (a) citizens’ rights; (b) “other separation provisions”; (c) Ireland/Northern Ireland; (d) Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus; (e) Gibraltar; and (f) financial provisions. (Article 165)

14.            The Lifetime clause: the agreement will last as long as the country’s youngest baby lives. “the persons covered by this Part shall enjoy the rights provided for in the relevant Titles of this Part for their lifetime”. (Article 39).

15.            The UK is shut out of all EU networks and databases for security – yet no such provision exists to shut the EU out of ours. (Article ????

16.            The UK will tied to EU foreign policy, “bound by the obligations stemming from the international agreements concluded by the Union” but unable to influence such decisions. (Article 124)

17.            All EU citizens must be given permanent right of residence after five years – but what counts as residence? This will be decided by the EU, rather than UK rules. (Articles 15-16)

18.            Britain is granted the power to send a civil servant to Brussels to watch them pass stupid laws which will hurt our economy. (Article 34)

19.            The UK agrees to spend taxpayers’ money telling everyone how wonderful the agreement is. (Article 37)

20.            Art 40 defines Goods. It seems to includes Services and Agriculture. We may come to discover that actually ‘goods’ means everything.

21.            Articles 40-49 practically mandate the UK’s ongoing membership of the Customs Union in all but name.

22.            The UK will be charged to receive the data/information we need in order to comply with EU law. (Article 50)

23.            The EU will continue to set rules for UK intellectual property law (Article 54 to 61)

24.            The UK will effectively be bound by a non-disclosure agreement swearing us to secrecy regarding any EU developments we have paid to be part. This is not mutual. The EU is not bound by such measures. (Article 74)

25.            The UK is bound by EU rules on procurement rules – which effectively forbids us from seeking better deals elsewhere. (Articles 75 to 78)

26.            We give up all rights to any data the EU made with our money (Art. 103)

27.            The EU decide capital projects (too broadly defined) the UK is liable for. (Art. 144)

28.            The UK is bound by EU state aid laws until future agreement – even in the event of an agreement, this must wait four years to be valid. (Article 93)

29.            Similar advantages and immunities are extended to all former MEPs and to former EU official more generally. (Articles 106-116)

30.            The UK is forbidden from revealing anything the EU told us or tells us about the finer points of deal and its operation. (Article 105).

31.            Any powers the UK parliament might have had to mitigate EU law are officially removed. (Article 128)

32.            The UK shall be liable for any “outstanding commitments” after 2022 (Article 142(2) expressly mentions pensions, which gives us an idea as to who probably negotiated this). The amount owed will be calculated by the EU. (Articles 140-142)

33.            The UK will be liable for future EU lending. As anyone familiar with the EU’s financials knows, this is not good. (Article143)

34.            The UK will remain liable for capital projects approved by the European Investment Bank. (Article 150).

35.            The UK will remain a ‘party’ (i.e. cough up money) for the European Development Fund. (Articles 152-154)

36.            And the EU continues to calculate how much money the UK should pay it. So thank goodness Brussels does not have any accountancy issues.

37.            The UK will remain bound (i.e coughing up money) to the European Union Emergency Trust Fund – which deals with irregular migration (i.e. refugees) and displaced persons heading to Europe. (Article 155)

38.            The agreement will be policed by ‘the Authority’ – a new UK-based body with ‘powers equivalent to those of the European Commission’. (Article 159)

39.            The EU admits, in Art. 184, that it is in breach of  Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which oblige it to “conclude an agreement” of the terms of UK leaving the EU. We must now, it seems, “negotiate expeditiously the agreements governing their future relationship.” And if the EU does not? We settle down to this Agreement.

40.            And, of course, the UK will agree to pay £40bn to receive all of these ‘privileges’. (Article 138)

Thank you.

 

I was tired at the thought of explaining to someone (with apparently, little "cognitive ability") - how May's deal is even worse than BRINO.....

[Laughing Gravy]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

It's a postulation backed by convincing empirical data.

 

[remainers are more knowledgeable than leavers]

Not that old chestnut again. You are hitting the gutter today with replies like that.

 

Reminds me of old school ground banter. "My dad is bigger than your dad".

[simple1]

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you.

 

I was tired at the thought of explaining to someone (with apparently, little "cognitive ability") - how May's deal is even worse than BRINO.....

There is an article that rebuts all 40 claims made in the cut & paste blog content from Loiner, unfortunately blocked by a paywall. Accordingly how do you go about assessing the accuracy of the quoted blog as opposed to presumedly blind acceptance. An example...

 

The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or, more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (“up to 31 December 20XX”, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

 

Downing Street: Article 132 has a blank date because the date has not yet been agreed between the two sides. The date will represent a maximum length.

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-brexit-deal-40-rebuttals-to-mr-steerpikes-40-horrors/

[Loiner]

Just for Grouse. Looked up copied and pasted by one of the untermensch or the ignorant, uneducated, unwashed and unwanted persons who voted for Brexit.
 
fac·toid
Dictionary result for factoid
/ˈfakˌtoid/
noun
noun: factoid; plural noun: factoids
NORTH AMERICAN
a brief or trivial item of news or information.
an assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact.

So that would be most of the Remain mantra. Probably why they become so obsessed with it, like a cult.
He’s just not widely ‘listened’ enough. (Doesn’t listen at all, truth be told.) Steve Wright in the Afternoon has some every day.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sawadee1947]

I said it several times: May got the same attitudes as many third world countries....clinging to power whatever it costs....And even the British people are acting similar to Thai: believing the Government and HOPING that something better will happen, but being quiet, not protesting in the streets.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Thank you.

 

I was tired at the thought of explaining to someone (with apparently, little "cognitive ability") - how May's deal is even worse than BRINO.....

So, you don't want a transition period; even one that can be unilaterally terminated after an initial fixed period? OK, idiotic, but fine.

 

But what about May's deal? Why is that BRINO? If you don't know, ask a friend. Or withdraw.

 

Quoting The Spectator without accreditation or qualification is not on. Also, The Spectator specifically edited their article to sow disinformation; the Brexiter way....

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

And you think voting should be based on "cognitive ability"????

 

If you don't understand how her 'agreement' is BRINO, then I recommend you change your opinion on those that should be 'allowed' to vote.....

 

 

 

sheit DD, you just screwed up formidably, shouldn't have posted the above

 

you were about to trick the bird into preventing itself from future voting rights

 

now, the bird is alert (as grouses are) and will ensure future voting rights

 

 

[Loiner]

So, you don't want a transition period; even one that can be unilaterally terminated after an initial fixed period? OK, idiotic, but fine.
 
But what about May's deal? Why is that BRINO? If you don't know, ask a friend. Or withdraw.
 
Quoting The Spectator without accreditation or qualification is not on. Also, The Spectator specifically edited their article to sow disinformation; the Brexiter way....

Love it. Grouse does not like it, so it’s disinformation.
Suck it up buttercup.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[evadgib]

This 'Cognitive' lark would return the electorate to pre WW1 in one fell swoop. Would you deny DD the vote altogether Grouse, given she's (only) a woman?

[Grouse]

5 minutes ago, evadgib said:

This 'Cognitive' lark would return the electorate to pre WW1 in one fell swoop. Would you deny DD the vote altogether Grouse, given she's (only) a woman?

Dick?

[evadgib]

13 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Dick?

Yep, & then there's all of us 'comprehensive' types in the cheap seats.

[Krataiboy]

Gerard Batten got it right when he described the marathon Brexit talks as an "elaborate charade", aimed at ensuring Britain remains tied to the EU.

 

This is becoming increasingly obvious as Remain poacher-turned-Leave-gamekeeper Theresa May and her EU cohorts take the faux "negotiations" down to the wire and the mass media dutifully hypes the fear of "crashing out".

 

Only at the last possible moment, when enough Parliamentary sphincters have started twitching, will the people's elected representatives be allowed their say.

The Brexit leader who burnished her Brexit credentials by declaring "No deal is better than a bad deal" will shamelessly ask them to vote for the same lousy deal - possibly tweaked with a few face-saving clauses - they overwhelmingly rejected last month. 

 

It will be a defining moment in the history of our democracy.

 

Anyone going to bet me they won't bite her hand off?

 

 

 

 

 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

14 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Time for the PM and her cabinet to place this in the hands of Parliament.

 

She and every member of her cabinet have failed, while the Brexit zealots on her back benches have sat and done nothing, knowing they want her to take the blame for a Brexit that cannot be delivered.

It can and WILL be delivered, despite your enthusiasm for the EU.  Sorry to disappoint you.

[Retiredandhappyhere]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

Gerard Batten got it right when he described the marathon Brexit talks as an "elaborate charade", aimed at ensuring Britain remains tied to the EU.

 

This is becoming increasingly obvious as Remain poacher-turned-Leave-gamekeeper Theresa May and her EU cohorts take the faux "negotiations" down to the wire and the mass media dutifully hypes the fear of "crashing out".

 

Only at the last possible moment, when enough Parliamentary sphincters have started twitching, will the people's elected representatives be allowed their say.

The Brexit leader who burnished her Brexit credentials by declaring "No deal is better than a bad deal" will shamelessly ask them to vote for the same lousy deal - possibly tweaked with a few face-saving clauses - they overwhelmingly rejected last month. 

 

It will be a defining moment in the history of our democracy.

 

Anyone going to bet me they won't bite her hand off?

 

 

 

 

 

The EU will give way on the back-stop, but the change will be announced in a way in which they save face, since they, along with the UK, want to avoid a "no-deal" scenario at all costs.  The EU profess to be on Eire's side, (as a continuing EU member)

and want the so-called back-stop to secure no return to controls at the border with N.I., but fail to realise that now that the British Parliament have rejected the back-stop, failure to agree an alternative will inevitably result in the dreaded "no-deal". 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

  10 hours ago, Grouse said:

"I have yet to hear from any Brexiter how they will benefit personally; short term or long term. The average Brexiter has no idea. At all. Idiot savants at best. I should clarify that I exclude most, but not all, Brexiters here. Many have strongly held, cogent views. But en masse, My opinion stands.

 

We need to change our electoral system in many ways. One is to limit those that are allowed to vote not by age or wealth or breeding but by cognitive ability."

 

 

And,of course, your arrogance automatically, in your eyes, puts you into the category which is allowed to vote, as opposed to the "idiot savants" group?

[baboon]

2 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Gerard Batten got it right when he described the marathon Brexit talks as an "elaborate charade", aimed at ensuring Britain remains tied to the EU.

 

This is becoming increasingly obvious as Remain poacher-turned-Leave-gamekeeper Theresa May and her EU cohorts take the faux "negotiations" down to the wire and the mass media dutifully hypes the fear of "crashing out".

'Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence'.

They are fumbling around in the dark, all of our British lot. And that is our fault, not the EU's. Apportion blame where it is due, and it isn't in Brussels, no matter where one stands in the debate.

[Krataiboy]

3 minutes ago, Retiredandhappyhere said:

The EU will give way on the back-stop, but the change will be announced in a way in which they save face, since they, along with the UK, want to avoid a "no-deal" scenario at all costs.  The EU profess to be on Eire's side, (as a continuing EU member)

and want the so-called back-stop to secure no return to controls at the border with N.I., but fail to realise that now that the British Parliament have rejected the back-stop, failure to agree an alternative will inevitably result in the dreaded "no-deal". 

Obviously, this is one of the face-saving 'tweaks' which I fear will see May's sell-out deal squirm through Parliament.

 

Incidentally, the "dreaded" no-deal scenario you refer to is to be dreaded as a result of the Government's failure to prepare the nation for the economic and social consequences of a situation which May herself told us was preferable to a bad deal.

 

The current mess could have been avoided entirely if our leaders had acted expeditiously after the Brexit verdict to repeal the legislation relating to our EU membership and offered to negotiate a new relationship.

 

As a chastened David Cameron made it crystal clear before stepping down, Parliamentarians -  irrespective of their personal feelings - were duty bound to deliver what the Brexit majority had voted for. 

 

 

Theresa May, among others, has paid lip service to his forthright words, while insidiously conniving to ensure our continued membership of an organisation which has outgrown its original purpose and, to put it in layman terms, has got too big for its own boots.

 

Say one thing and do another appears to be the mantra of the modern political leader and helps explain why so many of them are reviled, along with the pathetic mass media poodles who yap out their propaganda. With Brexit, the tarnished reputations of both have hit a new low.

 

 

[Krataiboy]

34 minutes ago, baboon said:

'Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence'.

They are fumbling around in the dark, all of our British lot. And that is our fault, not the EU's. Apportion blame where it is due, and it isn't in Brussels, no matter where one stands in the debate.

"All the (political) world's a stage and all the men and women merely players".

You seem to be more inclined than I am to believe that the current situation - which clearly has enormous global as well as domestic implications - has been arrived at by fault, rather than by grand design.

 

Have you ever wondered who despatched the late, unlamented, smooth-talking Democrat POTUS hot-foot to London in a vain bid to persuade those darned Lymies to do as their own government urged them to do in a nine-million-pound leaflet campaign and vote Remain in the referendum?

 

Well, we got Brexit and they got Trump instead of Hillary. Maybe those darned Ruskies are smarter than we thought. . . 

[baboon]

4 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

"All the (political) world's a stage and all the men and women merely players".

You seem to be more inclined than I am to believe that the current situation - which clearly has enormous global as well as domestic implications - has been arrived at by fault, rather than by grand design.

 

Have you ever wondered who despatched the late, unlamented, smooth-talking Democrat POTUS hot-foot to London in a vain bid to persuade those darned Lymies to do as their own government also told them in a nine million pound leaflet campaign and vote Remain in the referendum?

Well, we got Brexit and they got Trump instead of Hillary. Maybe those darned Ruskies are smarter than we thought, eh?

Nothing to do with Trump or Obama and all about the civil war in the CON party. And that is what this mess is all about.

[Krataiboy]

Just now, baboon said:

Nothing to do with Trump or Obama and all about the civil war in the CON party. And that is what this mess is all about.

That's just more theatre to keep our eye off the ball. Got to start looking behind, and lifting, that green curtain.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

 

As a chastened David Cameron made it crystal clear before stepping down, Parliamentarians -  irrespective of their personal feelings - were duty bound to deliver what the Brexit majority had voted for. 

 

Why would any parliamentarian give a damn about that loser Cameron? 

[tebee]

UK only 'pretending to negotiate' over Brexit impasse

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/13/kicking-up-dust-little-sign-of-progress-in-uk-eu-talks

[tebee]

Her approach to Brexit is daily looking less like a coherent policy and more like the despairing tactics of the Imperial Japanese Navy in late 1944, resorting increasingly to Kamikaze strikes. There is no way that this ends well.

 

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=87146

[katana]

It's been 2 years 8 months since the 23rd June 2016 referendum decision to leave and Britain still hasn't left. All we have is May's deal negotiated so far, possibly the worst deal in history.

[stephenterry]

18 hours ago, simple1 said:

There is an article that rebuts all 40 claims made in the cut & paste blog content from Loiner, unfortunately blocked by a paywall. Accordingly how do you go about assessing the accuracy of the quoted blog as opposed to presumedly blind acceptance. An example...

 

The supposed ‘transition period’ could last indefinitely or, more specifically, to an undefined date sometime this century (“up to 31 December 20XX”, Art. 132). So while this Agreement covers what the government is calling Brexit, what we in fact get is: ‘transition’ + extension indefinitely (by however many years we are willing to pay for) + all of those extra years from the ‘plus 8 years’ articles.

 

Downing Street: Article 132 has a blank date because the date has not yet been agreed between the two sides. The date will represent a maximum length.

 

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/11/the-brexit-deal-40-rebuttals-to-mr-steerpikes-40-horrors/

I doubt anyone on here, or the overwhelming majority of the UK's population would comprehend the many hundred pages of the Withdrawal agreement, as it appears to me to be too complex to come to any rational reasoning as to why Brexit would ultimately benefit the UK.

 

By pursuing the 'will of the people' to the detriment of all, the UK government is about to destroy the economy, and further devalue the pound, in the vain blue-sky thinking that new trade agreements will offset the damage. Not that there will be many in place after Brexit according to government sources, at a running cost of billions of income lost.

 

And don't mention immigration - it has been mooted by government sources that immigration figures will significantly rise after Brexit, not from EU citizens but from everywhere else outside the EU. 

 

I have reason to believe that Brexit will be renamed Britanic 2 in due course, with the UK hitting the EU iceberg on 29 March - or on whatever date the withdrawal finally takes place. 

 

 

 

[rixalex]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

By pursuing the 'will of the people' to the detriment of all, the UK government is about to destroy the economy, and further devalue the pound, in the vain blue-sky thinking that new trade agreements will offset the damage.

 

I have no doubt that if there were to be another referendum and remain won, you'd no longer see people like Stephen referring to the will of the people in speech marks.

 

It would be amusing if there were another referendum and remain won, if only to see remainers doing a complete overnight about-turn, from, the will of the people should be ignored, to, the will of the people must be upheld.

[rixalex]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

And don't mention immigration - it has been mooted by government sources that immigration figures will significantly rise after Brexit, not from EU citizens but from everywhere else outside the EU. 

 

Not sure what the evidence for that is, but supposing that does happen, if British people don't like it they can vote on election day for whatever party campaigns to reduce immigration, and the government will no longer be able to blame the EU's open door immigration policy if they don't do anything about it.

 

Personally though, for me, my issue isn't so much with the numbers, it's with control and rights. Britain should be able to choose which immigrants come in on a level playing field, and choose the ones most needed for fields of work where there is a shortage.

 

If remainers really were pro-immigration as many of them claim, they would welcome Brexit as an opportunity to make British immigration much less discriminatory and much fairer.

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

<snip>

And don't mention immigration - it has been mooted by government sources that immigration figures will significantly rise after Brexit, not from EU citizens but from everywhere else outside the EU. 

 

 

I've snipped your post, and hope this is ok.

 

20 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Not sure what the evidence for that is, but supposing that does happen, if British people don't like it they can vote on election day for whatever party campaigns to reduce immigration, and the government will no longer be able to blame the EU's open door immigration policy if they don't do anything about it.

 

Personally though, for me, my issue isn't so much with the numbers, it's with control and rights. Britain should be able to choose which immigrants come in on a level playing field, and choose the ones most needed for fields of work where there is a shortage.

 

If remainers really were pro-immigration as many of them claim, they would welcome Brexit as an opportunity to make British immigration much less discriminatory and much fairer.

"Not sure what the evidence for that is, but supposing that does happen, if British people don't like it they can vote on election day for whatever party campaigns to reduce immigration, and the government will no longer be able to blame the EU's open door immigration policy if they don't do anything about it".

 

Exactly.

 

Edit - Re. the rest of your post, I'd prefer that the brit. government started to fund places at universities for brit. students in the shortage fields.