Brexit matters

[Busaholic]

Andrew Neil asked David Davis if there were any Brexit benefits, Davis couldn’t give one.

When Rees-Mogg was asked exactly the same question, his sole example was the ability not to charge VAT on gas and electricity bills. The obvious rejoinder 'why haven't you done that then?' was just met with bluster and the usual pitying, condescending look.

 

[RT4038]

Exactly! Do the easy thing, rather than the difficult one.

I think that is what most people do, isn't it?

And to think there was a time, not that long ago, when the UK education system was - quite literally - the envy of countries around the world.

Not that long ago (compared to Alfred the Great) but plenty of water has passed under the bridge since then! It might have been the envy of countries around the world, but it didn't educate everyone to a standard to compete with large quantities of FoM immigrants on home turf, nor did it make many multilingual. Our success abroad did rather rely on other factors.......

 

[SynthD]

Natives should not be having to learn new foreign languages in order to work in their home country.

That is new to me. Where was this? How has this been reduced by permitting fewer Europeans and more non Europeans?

I don't think that FoMers that weren't actively working or engaged in the search for work was any particular problem, was it?.

It was, migrants on benefits was a big deal. Brexiteers did not explain why using this EU power would not solve the issue in reality, preferring to stick to abstract ideas like sovereignty.

 

[RT4038]

That is new to me. Where was this? How has this been reduced by permitting fewer Europeans and more non Europeans?

Perhaps you don't live in an area with large quantities of FoMers and distribution warehouses? As far as influencing the Brexit vote result, whether this has been reduced or not doesn't really come into it - did it influence the vote - more than likely.

It was, migrants on benefits was a big deal. Brexiteers did not explain why using this EU power would not solve the issue in reality, preferring to stick to abstract ideas like sovereignty.

If the UK wants to change the benefit rules to discriminate against immigrants from former FoM countries they now can. Whether they will or not is another matter entirely.

 

[Cloud Strife]

When Rees-Mogg was asked exactly the same question, his sole example was the ability not to charge VAT on gas and electricity bills. The obvious rejoinder 'why haven't you done that then?' was just met with bluster and the usual pitying, condescending look.

But we don't have VAT on gas and electricity bills right now in Poland...

 

[Busaholic]

But we don't have VAT on gas and electricity bills right now in Poland...

It was he who cited it as a benefit....

 

[JamesT]

But we don't have VAT on gas and electricity bills right now in Poland...

So the Polish government are risking fines from the EU for breaking the rules then.

 

[reddragon]

So the Polish government are risking fines from the EU for breaking the rules then.

Herein is the problem. Only the UK followed all the rules to the letter and didn't apply for exemptions or waivers! Nobody else did!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2022 ==

Apparently the British Government rejected request by Dover to upgrade immigration controls to deal with border issues!

The Guardian view on Brexit and the border: all jammed up | Editorial

Editorial: The chaos in Kent may have eased for now, but the problems it revealed are far from being solved

www.theguardian.com

Predictably, Ms Truss and others blamed the French for the situation, and pointed to the lack of staff at passport control booths on Friday as a trigger for the immense traffic jams that built up during the day. But given that Dover’s owners put in a bid for £33m of government funding to help them manage the changed circumstances, and particularly the post-Brexit requirement for passports to be stamped, it is clear that they anticipated issues beyond one-off delays. So far the government has not explained its decision against the upgrade, apart from noting that there were more bids than funds. The obvious conclusion is that warnings were not taken seriously enough by a government determined to minimise negative effects of quitting the EU – and to blame anyone but itself when these become too obvious to ignore.

 

[AlterEgo]

But the EU and its member states are backing to a hilt a country part of whose historic territory (the 6 counties) remains under British occupation.

Sorry but as an Irish nationalist and big unification fan myself that's hogwash.

Northern Ireland is not "occupied" by the British, it is a sovereign part of the United Kingdom as a province of the same, and this is agreed by all governments under the Belfast Agreement.

The EU is backing Ireland because Ireland is a member of the EU. It is not that difficult.

 

[Cloud Strife]

So the Polish government are risking fines from the EU for breaking the rules then.

Not really. The EU has never worked like that when consumers are concerned, as it's generally acknowledged that protecting consumers is more important than the single market rules. Businesses are a different story.

About the booths in Dover: I think that's also the Port of Dover being idiots too. It could have been handled on the cheap by handing over the UK Customs booths to the PAF, then reorganising the layout within the existing Frontier Control building there. It would be possible, for instance, to install a traffic light system that directed traffic to either the first or second rows of booths, with the outside (right side) lane being for exit from the building. It would be a little bit messy traffic-flow wise, but it would provide for an additional 8 booths at least.

It's interesting to see how no-one is taking the blame for the mess in Dover, despite it being clearly obvious that the infrastructure simply wasn't fit for purpose.

 

[RT4038]

Not really. The EU has never worked like that when consumers are concerned, as it's generally acknowledged that protecting consumers is more important than the single market rules. Businesses are a different story.

About the booths in Dover: I think that's also the Port of Dover being idiots too. It could have been handled on the cheap by handing over the UK Customs booths to the PAF, then reorganising the layout within the existing Frontier Control building there. It would be possible, for instance, to install a traffic light system that directed traffic to either the first or second rows of booths, with the outside (right side) lane being for exit from the building. It would be a little bit messy traffic-flow wise, but it would provide for an additional 8 booths at least.

It's interesting to see how no-one is taking the blame for the mess in Dover, despite it being clearly obvious that the infrastructure simply wasn't fit for purpose.

I expect the root will be the Port of Dover asking for too much, and HMG trying to get away with too little?

 

[najaB]

I don't think that's a reasonable standard, and it's also very one-sided. Look at it the other way. Suppose we'd stayed in the EU and we were trying to assess whether staying in the EU had worked. Would you think it was reasonable to only count things as a success for staying in the EU if they could not have been achieved outside the EU?

Yes. I would. Something that could have happened regardless of if we were in or out of the EU doesn't count for either side of the argument.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Herein is the problem. Only the UK followed all the rules to the letter and didn't apply for exemptions or waivers! Nobody else did!

The UK has a long history of either gold plating EU regulations or ignoring the option of opt outs / additional restrictions and then complaining about issues that wouldn't have been issues if it wasn't for that gold plating or would have been solved by those opt outs / additional restrictions. Freedom of movement is a great example actually where a lot of other EU countries require you actually register with them or the local government if you are moving there (as opposed to just visiting). Did we bother doing that? Of course not (which has resulted now in the issue of EU citizens living here having to apply for be allowed to stay here rather than being granted it automatically).

 

[Cloud Strife]

I expect the root will be the Port of Dover asking for too much, and HMG trying to get away with too little?

Both of them seem to be equally useless here. The Port of Dover didn't bother to build new facilities after the big revamp in 2011-2015, and the current Frontier Control building is hopelessly non-compliant with Schengen rules. They could easily have built a proper border crossing in the area where containers are currently stored (next to the old Speedferries linkspan that is unused AFAIK), which would allow for security controls to take place before the border.

Even if you look at the current system, it would have been possible to build a new UK Customs area before the Frontier Control building, which could just have been some barriers and a small building for operations next to it, similar to the Gibraltar exit controls. The UK Customs booths could then be given to the French, and while it wouldn't be a doubling in capacity, it would at least represent a 50% increase in numbers.

 

[JamesT]

Not really. The EU has never worked like that when consumers are concerned, as it's generally acknowledged that protecting consumers is more important than the single market rules. Businesses are a different story.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/08/uk-faces-fine-eu-chinese-imports - The EU is quite happy to fine countries for failing to enforce VAT rules. They also have form for penalising Poland for breaking the rules - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-1m-a-day-over-controversial-judicial-reforms
https://businessinsider.com.pl/twoj...wy-vat-na-gaz-energie-i-cieplownictwo/sqbt7pz - the translation of that says they know reducing below 5% isn't allowed. But I expect the process of doing anything about it will take so long the Polish government probably reckon it's worth it.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The judicial reforms are much more serious, as are the ignoring of other verdicts. But when it comes to consumers, the EU generally has a pro-consumer attitude and won't interfere here. It's obvious that there's an energy crisis looming, and the EU won't want to force higher prices on domestic consumers.

But I expect the process of doing anything about it will take so long the Polish government probably reckon it's worth it.

In this particular case, I very much doubt that anything will be done.

 

[daodao]

Sorry but as an Irish nationalist and big unification fan myself that's hogwash.

Northern Ireland is not "occupied" by the British, it is a sovereign part of the United Kingdom as a province of the same, and this is agreed by all governments under the Belfast Agreement.

The EU is backing Ireland because Ireland is a member of the EU. It is not that difficult.

The Belfast agreement is merely a medium-term truce that was agreed by all parties to bring relative peace to a region where there had been armed conflict for nearly 30 years, which is in itself a good thing. It is an agreement accepted by all major parties to the conflict to allow the UK to administer the 6 counties for the time being, until such time that the majority of the population there wish to support Irish re-unification. The EU is weaponising the current trade dispute and border issues in league with Ireland to accelerate this process, as post Brexit it naturally sides with Irish aims rather than with the UK. The majority of people in Northern Ireland wished to remain in the EU at the time of the Brexit referendum, and the EU's long-term aim is clearly for this territory to rejoin the EU. The EU is an expansionist organisation, which is why it loathes the UK, and has fomented conflict elsewhere, in particular in the former Yugoslavia and former Soviet Union.

 

[Cloud Strife]

The EU is weaponising the current trade dispute and border issues in league with Ireland to accelerate this process, as post Brexit it naturally sides with Irish aims rather than with the UK.

That's simply not true in the slightest. The EU and USA both want peace on the island, and it was obvious to anyone who knew anything about Ireland that it was politically impossible for the UK to put up barriers there. For all Johnson's posturing, there's a reason why he didn't back out of the Protocol: because the consequences are just too severe to contemplate.

The EU is not weaponising anything, they simply don't want to see a return to violence on the island, and nor does the Irish government.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes. I would. Something that could have happened regardless of if we were in or out of the EU doesn't count for either side of the argument.

That's consistent. But I fear if that's your requirement for an argument, then you would have very few arguments left for either Remain or Brexit.

I think I'd rather be (as I see it) more sensible/pragmatic and regard something as a good argument for Brexit (or for Remain) if Brexit (or Remain) makes it substantially easier/more likely that you could achieve some good result/avoid something bad/

 

[najaB]

I think I'd rather be (as I see it) more sensible/pragmatic and regard something as a good argument for Brexit (or for Remain) if Brexit (or Remain) makes it substantially easier/more likely that you could achieve some good result/avoid something bad/

The problem is that my "substantially easier" is your "barely any difference".

 

[reddragon]

When you divorce, you have maintenance liabilities, you cannot ask your ex if you can pop over on a Friday night for dinner and a quickie but you can expect confrontation that lasts a lifetime.

Why was anyone remotely thinking that leaving the EU would be any different?

In this case the poor kids are citizens that chose to work, live or marry taking advantage of FoM but are now treated as some evil aliens in both countries.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

When you divorce, you have maintenance liabilities, you cannot ask your ex if you can pop over on a Friday night for dinner and a quickie but you can expect confrontation that lasts a lifetime.

Why was anyone remotely thinking that leaving the EU would be any different?

Yes.

Analogies only work so far. With an actual divorce, both sides are likely to have huge emotional issues arising from whatever issues broke down the marriage/their feelings of betrayal/any hurt that came from any sexual infidelities/etc. Because divorce is such a personal thing that profoundly affects someone's personal life.

Brexit is more akin to two professional organisations ending an association: A business decision, maybe influenced by the different directions that the two organisations wish to move in. You wouldn't normally expect that to lead to a lifetime of hostility if the managers of both organisations are acting professionally. There's no reason for the people involved on either side of the Brexit negotiations to feel any sense of lifetime betrayal etc.: They are simply doing their jobs. Besides, in terms of the political dimension, the average time that someone spends near the top of politics isn't very long. Looking at the national leaders who were in place at the time of Brexit: Boris Johnson is on his way out, Angela Merkel is gone, Emmanuel Macron has just under 5 years before his 2nd term expires and he's not allowed to stand again. Give it another 5 years from today, there'll probably be very few (if any) politicians in senior positions in any EU country who had any involvement with Brexit and therefore any personal reason to feel significantly hurt by it.

So completely unlike a divorce really as far as emotions and long term confrontation are concerned.

In this case the poor kids are citizens that chose to work, live or marry taking advantage of FoM but are now treated as some evil aliens in both countries.

That's nonsense. UK citizens wishing to move to the EU are now treated (roughly) the same way as any other non-EU citizens. And likewise, EU citizens wishing to move to the UK are treated (roughly) the same as any other non-UK citizens. We're not going out of our way to make life specially hard for them just because they are citizens of the EU rather than - say - the USA or Canada or any other comparable country. Indeed, the UK took special steps to ensure that EU citizens already in the UK at the time of Brexit would be able to continue living here.

 

[Doppelganger]

That's nonsense. UK citizens wishing to move to the EU are now treated (roughly) the same way as any other non-EU citizens. And likewise, EU citizens wishing to move to the UK are treated (roughly) the same as any other non-UK citizens. We're not going out of our way to make life specially hard for them just because they are citizens of the EU rather than - say - the USA or Canada or any other comparable country. Indeed, the UK took special steps to ensure that EU citizens already in the UK at the time of Brexit would be able to continue living here.

Non EU citizens who are married to EU citizens are treated a lot better than non UK citizens married to UK citizens.

For the most part you can't just bring to the UK your husband or wife who isn't a UK citizen, yet the EU have very good provisions for a non-EU spouse.

 

[reddragon]

Yes.

Analogies only work so far. With an actual divorce, both sides are likely to have huge emotional issues arising from whatever issues broke down the marriage/their feelings of betrayal/any hurt that came from any sexual infidelities/etc. Because divorce is such a personal thing that profoundly affects someone's personal life.

Brexit is more akin to two professional organisations ending an association: A business decision, maybe influenced by the different directions that the two organisations wish to move in. You wouldn't normally expect that to lead to a lifetime of hostility if the managers of both organisations are acting professionally. There's no reason for the people involved on either side of the Brexit negotiations to feel any sense of lifetime betrayal etc.: They are simply doing their jobs. Besides, in terms of the political dimension, the average time that someone spends near the top of politics isn't very long. Looking at the national leaders who were in place at the time of Brexit: Boris Johnson is on his way out, Angela Merkel is gone, Emmanuel Macron has just under 5 years before his 2nd term expires and he's not allowed to stand again. Give it another 5 years from today, there'll probably be very few (if any) politicians in senior positions in any EU country who had any involvement with Brexit.

So completely unlike a divorce really.



That's nonsense. UK citizens wishing to move to the EU are now treated (roughly) the same way as any other non-EU citizens. And likewise, EU citizens wishing to move to the UK are treated (roughly) the same as any other non-UK citizens. We're not going out of our way to make life specially hard for them just because they are citizens of the EU rather than - say - the USA or Canada or any other comparable country. Indeed, the UK took special steps to ensure that EU citizens already in the UK at the time of Brexit would be able to continue living here.

You have totally missed the points.

The EU Brexit is not a business, it affects millions of peoples lives who are significantly affected by emotional issues resulting from the exit and it profoundly affects their lives.

There are millions of UK citizens living in the EU or owning property there where they intended to retire to. Those who live in countries that do not permit dual nationality have a stark choice. Go back to the UK or give up UK nationality to remain working in the EU. That is one hell of a profound effect on someone's life! Then there are the estimated 250,000 UK citizens married to EU citizens who are now trapped in the EU or the UK unable to live together in one or other due to pointless rules & barriers. I am sure the emotional impact of not going to the other place to care for elderly relatives, or to live with their partner or continue their life is a huge emotional hit. Or those who bought a retirement home in Spain or wherever who are now unable to live in their own home because of Brexit.

If you don't understand that you have a serious problem

 

[AlterEgo]

The EU is weaponising the current trade dispute and border issues in league with Ireland to accelerate this process, as post Brexit it naturally sides with Irish aims rather than with the UK.

The EU is a guarantor of the Belfast Agreement, not an interested party.

Irish unification, which requires the consent of unionists and the don't knows, won't happen while Sinn Fein are a political force and I do not see it happening within the next 25 years. The Irish state has not even sketched out what it will look like properly and does not consider it a priority.

The majority of people in Northern Ireland wished to remain in the EU at the time of the Brexit referendum, and the EU's long-term aim is clearly for this territory to rejoin the EU.

On the one hand, where it is convenient to your argument, the EU is a proud upholder of democracy.

The EU is an expansionist organisation, which is why it loathes the UK, and has fomented conflict elsewhere, in particular in the former Yugoslavia and former Soviet Union.

And a few sentences later the EU is anti-democratic, warmongering, and disrespectful of a referendum.

I am sceptical of the EU but cannot say I agree with this assessment.

 

[SynthD]

Perhaps you don't live in an area with large quantities of FoMers and distribution warehouses? As far as influencing the Brexit vote result, whether this has been reduced or not doesn't really come into it - did it influence the vote - more than likely.


If the UK wants to change the benefit rules to discriminate against immigrants from former FoM countries they now can. Whether they will or not is another matter entirely.

Do you have reports about those areas?

They could change the rules, to match the rest of the EU, before Brexit. They didn’t, and we still don’t know why.

 

[najaB]

Indeed, the UK took special steps to ensure that EU citizens already in the UK at the time of Brexit would be able to continue living here.

Hahahahahaha.... oh, wait. You're actually serious.

Tell that to people I know who still don't actually have any guarantee of their right to live in the UK.

 

[alex397]

Honestly this thread is just getting pathetic now. It’s quite tragic seeing people trying to justify Brexit.

 

[reddragon]

Honestly this thread is just getting pathetic now. It’s quite tragic seeing people trying to justify Brexit.

Justifying Brexit is as hard as Putin justifying his special military operation in the Ukraine!

 

[tomuk]

You have totally missed the points.

The EU Brexit is not a business, it affects millions of peoples lives who are significantly affected by emotional issues resulting from the exit and it profoundly affects their lives.

There are millions of UK citizens living in the EU or owning property there where they intended to retire to. Those who live in countries that do not permit dual nationality have a stark choice. Go back to the UK or give up UK nationality to remain working in the EU. That is one hell of a profound effect on someone's life
Then there are the estimated 250,000 UK citizens married to EU citizens who are now trapped in the EU or the UK unable to live together in one or other due to pointless rules & barriers. I am sure the emotional impact of not going to the other place to care for elderly relatives, or to live with their partner or continue their life is a huge emotional hit. Or those who bought a retirement home in Spain or wherever who are now unable to live in their own home because of Brexit

There a a couple of million at most not 'millions'. Retiring to the Costas or your French gite isn't using your FoM right to work in another EU country its taking advantage of said countries lax implementation of FoM and you are completely unprotected from any changes said state may make.

To me if you are making such a life changing decision as to move and live in another country and you are not willing to become a citizen their its just wanting to have your cake and eating it too.

Just being married to an EU citizen doesn't automatically give the spouse EU citizenship there are various rules and requirements that vary from state to state some being more or less onerous than the one that apply in the UK.
Ironically the UK requirements might well have been less onerous if it wasn't for FoM.

Anyway due to Brexit there is the EU Settlement Scheme and the EU countries equivalent so if you were resident in another country you can obtain\work towards settled status and citizenship.

And finally on not living in your Spanish villa, Spain like many other countries issues residency visas for those owning properties in said countries, of course there are qualifying.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2022 ==

Honestly this thread is just getting pathetic now. It’s quite tragic seeing people trying to justify blame Brexit.