EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[trash80]

I believe there are ways to find out who your MEP is these days, something called the internets

 

[AlterEgo]

I believe there are ways to find out who your MEP is these days, something called the internets

The problem is exactly this - that very few people who their MEP is, certainly fewer than know who their MP is. I’ve no idea who my local MEP is.

People just don’t care.

 

[trash80]

Well yes thats always been the problem in a nutshell. People are generally quite lazy/ignorant about issues of governance which is why politicians (at all levels) get away with so much.

 

[NSEFAN]

Well yes thats always been the problem in a nutshell. People are generally quite lazy/ignorant about issues of governance which is why politicians (at all levels) get away with so much.

Democracy is only as good as the voters

 

[EM2]

I’ve no idea who my local MEP is.

I know who two of my MEPs are.
Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan

 

[Typhoon]

Why would I want to contact an MP who wasn't mine? (And it's very easy to "contact" all three of those, in the same way as every MP. You won't hear back from them, you might get a form letter back at best). It's a better system than MEPs though - I don't have an MEP, who should I write a letter to for them to ignore?

I have TEN (apparently), one very famous, several I know by name but I'm not aware that any one 'represents' the area where I live*, which to me is the reason why people don't think they have an MEP - the constituencies are so large and diverse. Scotland is one constituency represented by 6 MEPs - how can anyone cover Orkney and Shetland, the Highlands, Aberdeen and the oil industry, Glasgow, Edinburgh, the Borders, and other distinct areas doubtless I will be reminded of. All because of the ridiculous PR system. If we had to have this system then each MEP should have been allocated to a distinct geographic area so we would have one MEP to contact, not a whole brigade who can decide whether they are going to deal with my enquiry or not.

* I have tried looking on the internet

 

[Typhoon]

I know who two of my MEPs are.
Nigel Farage and Daniel Hannan

Snap!
And Diane James (leader of UKIP for 5 minutes) and Janice Atkinson (mouthy woman they have on radio and TV if they want someone to be controversial).

 

[dosxuk]

It's yet more Project Fear. Along the same lines as people on here suggesting that "the EU" might unilaterally decide to require British people to apply for visas to travel into the EU come March. It's all blatant nonsense.

Do you understand what a no-deal situation entails, because it doesn't sound like it. No-deal means we have no agreement over anything with the EU, not just we couldn't agree over minor details. Every single thing we take for granted goes, and we fall back to only the international agreements that the EU and us (excepting the ones we have joined as part of our EU membership) have both signed up to.

UK driving licenses stop being accepted, not because the EU is being difficult, but because their international recognition is via the EU. Yes, it will be a pain for the EU too, and they will want to get it sorted, but until we come to an agreement (a "deal"), they won't be recognised. Visa's - why can we travel to the EU visa free currently? Because we're part of the EU obviously. If we leave, with no-deal though, there is no international agreement allowing all nations to enter visa free, so until we get some sort of deal, into the visa system we go. Planes - again, most of our aviation rules and recognition are via the EU, so we lose that until a deal can be made.

Under no-deal we lose everything, until we get around to making a deal. There's no middle ground where we can pick and choose which things will be a major issue and keep hold of them - by it's very definition, that would be some sort of deal! Stop bleating about project fear when you hear something you don't like the sound of, go and look up what they're saying and see if it's true - with these latest statements, they are simply a statement of what international law will require, not some marketeer's attempt to exaggerate and attract your vote.

 

[Howardh]

Can those who voted to leave who think lower immigration from the EU will improve conditions (overcrowding/traffic) in the south-east please explain why Brexiteer-in-chief Weatherspoon's boss Tim Martin says, on Radio 4 today, "We'll need a significant level of immigration over the next 10, 20, 30 years to keep growing the economy."

Which do you want, increasing immigration - and in the case of Weatherspoons probably cheap, low-paid immigration; or decreasing immigration (as in the decreasing rates from the EU)? If Mogg/Rab etc explain that we DO need more and more cheap labour, therefore higher immigration rates than today, is that consistent with your vote?

I'm confused.

 

[nlogax]

I'm confused.

I've been similarly confused since the morning of June 24th 2016.

 

[pemma]

The problem is exactly this - that very few people who their MEP is, certainly fewer than know who their MP is. I’ve no idea who my local MEP is.

People just don’t care.

Of course you don't have one MEP but multiple MEPs who represent your region.

 

[pemma]

It was in the news today about fears that British driving license holders may have to seek to obtain an International driving permit to drive to EU countries. Given that, according to the list on the AA website, there seem to be only be around six developed countries [1] that actually require an International driving permit for those with a British photocard driving license wishing to rent or drive a car there on holiday, I'm not sure whether the EU would really want to be lumped in with the likes of Iran, Pakistan and Russia who require British license holders to have such a permit.

[1] I may have missed one or two in the debate over whether a country is developed or not; I counted Bahrain, Brunei, South Korea, Japan, Singapore & Russia.

That's in the event of a no deal Brexit i.e. one where Britain cannot agree any kind of future relationship with the EU - countries like Canada, America and Australia all have some form of relationship with the EU.

 

[pemma]

Sort of like Karen Bradley the The Northern Ireland secretary who admits she knows nothing about Northern Ireland yet will be making decisions which impact the Provence.

Or is it part of a political game and she knows her brief but the right thing conflicts with what the DUP want?

 

[nidave]

But non EU migration is completely within the the UK government's control.

I'm permanently surprised (well, no I'm not after two years of this) that so much of the pro-EU argument is about immigration. Apparently Britain never let any nasty foreigners in before the EU, seems to be the argument.

I am not the one who keeps saying they voted to leave the EU to stop EU immigration. I am responding to the point raised saying that once we leave we can stop all these nasty EU people coming over here and taking our jobs. Pointing out the fact that Non EU immigration would be an easier thing to solve if we wanted to and it accounts for a larger % of immigration.

 

[pemma]

But non EU migration is completely within the the UK government's control.

Is it? Countries outside the EU are well aware that the number of immigrants arriving in Britain will go down post-Brexit so they are demanding that Britain gives their citizens more working visas if Britain wants a post-Brexit trade deal.

 

[Geezertronic]

Can those who voted to leave who think lower immigration from the EU will improve conditions (overcrowding/traffic) in the south-east please explain why Brexiteer-in-chief Weatherspoon's boss Tim Martin says, on Radio 4 today, "We'll need a significant level of immigration over the next 10, 20, 30 years to keep growing the economy."

Normal immigration has never been the issue. The open door German Immigration policy of letting in anyone without even the most basic of checks has been, and has been what the likes of UKIP have focused on and what the mainstream parties should have focused on too

 

[bramling]

Can those who voted to leave who think lower immigration from the EU will improve conditions (overcrowding/traffic) in the south-east please explain why Brexiteer-in-chief Weatherspoon's boss Tim Martin says, on Radio 4 today, "We'll need a significant level of immigration over the next 10, 20, 30 years to keep growing the economy."

Which do you want, increasing immigration - and in the case of Weatherspoons probably cheap, low-paid immigration; or decreasing immigration (as in the decreasing rates from the EU)? If Mogg/Rab etc explain that we DO need more and more cheap labour, therefore higher immigration rates than today, is that consistent with your vote?

I'm confused.

If Tim Martin find he has trouble recruiting then the answer is simply supply versus demand economics - he will have to raise the wage level he pays to make it more competitive.

If that means I have to pay a bit more then so be it - I’m quite content with that if it means the south-east doesn’t have to have every inch of space built over to provide flats, and with the added benefit that the amount we pay to subsidise welfare payments to the unemployed goes down. Alternatively Tim Martin’s profits may have to take a hit - a business model shouldn’t be based on taking in cheap foreign labour and expecting the rest of society to bear the burden.

A bit of upward pressure on wages in the hospitality industry certainly wouldn’t amiss - in a traditionally very poorly paid sector.

 

[bramling]

Is it? Countries outside the EU are well aware that the number of immigrants arriving in Britain will go down post-Brexit so they are demanding that Britain gives their citizens more working visas if Britain wants a post-Brexit trade deal.

They can demand what they like but we don’t have to agree to it. That’s the beauty of being out of the EU.

 

[Howardh]

If Tim Martin find he has trouble recruiting then the answer is simply supply versus demand economics - he will have to raise the wage level he pays to make it more competitive.

If that means I have to pay a bit more then so be it - I’m quite content with that if it means the south-east doesn’t have to have every inch of space built over to provide flats, and with the added benefit that the amount we pay to subsidise welfare payments to the unemployed goes down.

A bit of upward pressure on wages in the hospitality industry certainly wouldn’t amiss - in a traditionally very poorly paid sector.

That doesn't answer the question (and I'm not so sure the voting public would be as accepting as you regarding price increases whether it be beer, hotel prices or fuel duty which is due to rise) - if Brexit meant net immigration rose, ie. under control but we need more, maybe substantially more, would you be OK with it?

 

[Mojo]

That's in the event of a no deal Brexit i.e. one where Britain cannot agree any kind of future relationship with the EU - countries like Canada, America and Australia all have some form of relationship with the EU.

It sounds very far-fetched when we consider that hardly any other developed countries actually have this barrier.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It sounds very far-fetched when we consider that hardly any other developed countries actually have this barrier.

That is because basically every other developed country has come to an agreement with the EU about the issue. Aka a deal.

If we leave the EU without an agreement or deal (which is what a "no deal" scenario is), then we wouldn't have an agreement on the issues of visa free travel / driving licenses etc etc etc.

It really isn't that hard to understand.

Of course, in reality what is more likely to happen is either a last minute extension to the deadline so a deal can be reached, or a last minute "emergency" deal just to keep things going. But that then wouldn't be a no deal scenario, and it is prudent for government, businesses etc to plan for a no deal scenario (especially as the big failing of Cameron's government was to not plan for a leave vote).

Normal immigration has never been the issue. The open door German Immigration policy of letting in anyone without even the most basic of checks has been, and has been what the likes of UKIP have focused on and what the mainstream parties should have focused on too

Officially yeah fine. But unofficially, and in the minds of many of UKIP's supporters - hah!

 

[Howardh]

It sounds very far-fetched when we consider that hardly any other developed countries actually have this barrier.

It also sounds far-fetched that when we leave without a deal we will have exactly the same footing in the world as Mauritania with almost zero trade deals, but I understand that would be exactly the position and all our trade deals are either with or via the EU, which due to our vote will be torn to shreds next March if we leave deal-less.
We will be finding an awful lot of barriers will need breaking down!

 

[Groningen]

Another thing about a No Deal:

Eurostar trains would be turned back from Europe if Britain crashes out of the EU without a deal, a leading French minister has warned. Nathalie Loiseau, the minister for European affairs, said it was “correct” that both trains and planes from the UK would be barred without an exit agreement.

Source: Independent

 

[bramling]

That doesn't answer the question (and I'm not so sure the voting public would be as accepting as you regarding price increases whether it be beer, hotel prices or fuel duty which is due to rise) - if Brexit meant net immigration rose, ie. under control but we need more, maybe substantially more, would you be OK with it?

I can’t see how it could lead to an increase over and above what we have seen with free movement. However I’m happier with *any* arrangement where there is scope to turn down entry, unlike being committed to having an open floodgate to the entire population of 27 countries, some of which are very much more economically out of step with Britain.

For as long as we have levels of unemployment in Britain (barring a few minor and unavoidable types like frictional) then I find it hard to accept that high levels of immigration are an inevitability we should simply tolerate.

 

[bramling]

Another thing about a No Deal:

Source: Independent

I love the emotive language. Like a Eurostar is really going to get as far as the tunnel and then have to return to Britain!

 

[pemma]

I love the emotive language. Like a Eurostar is really going to get as far as the tunnel and then have to return to Britain!

It wouldn't leave London in the first place - remember the French checks occur before boarding the train in the UK not after alighting in France.

As I mentioned in the passport thread it's strange that the 'No deal Brexit' guidance does not give any advice to those planning to enter an EU country pre-Brexit and leave post-Brexit. I'm sure thousands of Britons will be doing just that unless Brexit scares them off doing it.

 

[pemma]

They can demand what they like but we don’t have to agree to it. That’s the beauty of being out of the EU.

We need trade deals though and other countries will use that fact to their advantage. We won't be in a position to say no to trade deals with China, India, America etc so we'll have to compromise to get them.

 

[Howardh]

I can’t see how it could lead to an increase over and above what we have seen with free movement. However I’m happier with *any* arrangement where there is scope to turn down entry, unlike being committed to having an open floodgate to the entire population of 27 countries, some of which are very much more economically out of step with Britain.

I can. "You want to trade with us...then we demand 10,000 visas, thank you" multiplied by the number of countries we need to trade with. Also, people won't accept price rises (see under "railway tickets!" meaning industry will have to employ people happy with minimum wages - so in those industries you ahve alluded to they will be demanding immigrants who are happy to accept a low wage (could be a relative fortune to them) to keep their costs low.
Otherwise, higher wages = more costs for the consumer and as you have mentioned pubs and hotels, some would go out of business (as would farmers) = more unemployment = more taxes to pay for it.
Plus it appears the top-line hard Brexiters want a deregulated work industry, which can only mean reductions in workers rights?
Anyhow, if having rising prices to pay for reduced immigration was going to be so popular, shouldn't it have been written on the side of a bus?

 

[NSEFAN]

"You want to trade with us...then we demand 10,000 visas, thank you" multiplied by the number of countries we need to trade with. Also, people won't accept price rises (see under "railway tickets!" meaning industry will have to employ people happy with minimum wages - so in those industries you ahve alluded to they will be demanding immigrants who are happy to accept a low wage (could be a relative fortune to them) to keep their costs low.
Otherwise, higher wages = more costs for the consumer and as you have mentioned pubs and hotels, some would go out of business (as would farmers) = more unemployment = more taxes to pay for it.
Plus it appears the top-line hard Brexiters want a deregulated work industry, which can only mean reductions in workers rights?

I suppose an alternative is that the British just lower their own wage expectations?

 

[Groningen]

I have found this in the comments of that article. If it already mentioned here or out of bounce, than please remove it.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sit...ort-future-relationship_21february2018_en.pdf

Source: Ec.uropa.eu