Brexit matters

[RT4038]

They literally said that "nobody is talking about leaving the single market" and campaigned on the idea of us being like Norway etc etc.
Now yes there is being naiive, but there's also politicians simply lying through their teeth and misleading the general public.
Surely you can see that here?
People would have voted for Brexit based on what these people were saying. And it isn't much of a reach to say, given the close vote, that maybe those people are the ones who made the difference in the result.

Nope there were no caveats. Brexiteers were literally saying we were not voting to leave the single market. At all. No ifs or buts.
Unless of course you are saying they lied and misled people.

Politics is not a legal selling of goods game - it is full of nuances and caveats, said and unsaid. Just about never are politicians telling us the full legal text or implication of any law or policy. No politician is going to tell you why you shouldn't vote their way - caveat emptor.
I think all or most of the politicians who supported Brexit genuinely wanted to remain in / have access to (which is a different nuance but similar to the ordinary voter) the Single Market , but without FoM and adhering to EU laws/rules governing areas other than trade. And frankly, that is what we got (access, rather than 'in'). We would have been 'in' if the EU would have agreed to it (without FoM etc), but understandably they weren't having any of that.

So it is fair to say that maybe some people who voted for Brexit wanted to stay in the single market too.
And thus it is likely there was never a majority for leaving it, despite what Brexiteers say.

So what - it is done now - no point in crying over spilt milk. There were no doubt others who voted remain for whatever reason (Project Fear?) who are pleased that we have left. All unquantifiable.

As I recall the Remain camp, and the main opposition party, produced a fairly feeble campaign to convince voters for the EU. Maybe if they had been a little more convinced and convincing then the vote would have gone their way. A really divided electorate.

 

[nw1]

But they didn't "resoundingly voted for a pro-Brexit government" in 2019 did they.
The Tories got 43.6% of the vote.
Now yes, that isn't how our elections are run, but that is exactly why you can't use that election result as a judgement on how the electorate felt about Brexit.
Yet more historical revisionism from Brexiteers. No surprise there!

Also, there are other reasons for the Johnson win in 2019. Fear of Corbyn, and, rightly or wrongly, love of Johnson's personality, for starters. People saw Johnson as the least worst option on average. Why else would strongly-Remain areas in the south vote Tory?

But once the priority was placed on restricted FoM and the EU insisted the 4 freedoms are indivisible then hard Brexit was inevitable.

And there was the problem. Who insisted on restricted freedom of movement? Not the EU. If the UK Government had not done this, then likely all 4 freedoms would have been granted.

I'm pretty sure there were other moral arguments for Brexit. One obvious one is the discrimination against non-EU citizens when it came to things like travel to the UK that EU membership entailed.

Restricting freedom for all is not somehow better than restricting freedom for some. While I would actually be in favour of more freedom of movement to the UK, not less (and increasing the range of countries with FoM to the UK beyond the EU/EEA: who knows, we might get a reciprocal response if we did that), I don't think it's a valid reason to stop EU citizens coming to the UK freely.

To give an analogy: some landowners open up access to private woodland for local residents, rather than the general public (for whatever reason, the actual reasons are off-topic). While an "open access" person like myself might prefer the woodland to be open to all, I would still agree that access to local residents is better than access for no-one. Thus, local residents would be right to be up in arms if such a landowner suspended their access because the general public as a whole cannot access it.

Another one would be the issue of involvement with EU agricultural subsidies that (according to credible reports) significantly damage the environment.

Not convinced the UK cares more about the environment than the EU, as EU countries seem to have more in the way of green energy (look at the wind turbine count in Germany, for instance) than the UK.

You don't really do your case much credibility when you deny that there are arguments on the other side - because that just looks ridiculous. With most things in politics, there are perfectly valid arguments on both sides, and you have to decide which side has the stronger case - and Brexit is no exception to that.

It just seems obvious to me that whatever advantages there are, the disadvantages much, much outweigh them. I know we disagree on this but freedom of movement is a big deal and has been a right we have enjoyed throughout the modern era. To wind the clocks back 50 years is a very retrograde step. And also the well-documented increase in trade bureaucracy, which I have again personally experienced.

Do you also believe we should do everything that Islamic terrorists demand? I mean, it's a trade off... if we don't don't do what any Islamic terrorists and potential terrorists demand of us, then we could have a risk of terrorism, which would obviously affect the UK mainland.

Well of course not. But like the defecating dogs example from yesterday, this is an example of comparing something really bad (e.g. being lenient on terrorists who commit mass murder) with something not bad (wishing to stay in the customs union/single market, for a whole host of reasons, one of which is a desire not to fan the flames in NI).

 

[RT4038]

Also, there are other reasons for the Johnson win in 2019. Fear of Corbyn, and, rightly or wrongly, love of Johnson's personality, for starters. People saw Johnson as the least worst option on average. Why else would strongly-Remain areas in the south vote Tory?

No doubt you are right. But as has been pointed out earlier, no politician/party comes with everything that you like, so you have to prioritise. With the 2019 election result, clearly anti-Brexit was not that much of a priority at that point.

And there was the problem. Who insisted on restricted freedom of movement? Not the EU. If the UK Government had not done this, then likely all 4 freedoms would have been granted.

The ability to restrict inward FoM was a cornerstone UK demand.

While I would actually be in favour of more freedom of movement to the UK, not less (and increasing the range of countries with FoM to the UK beyond the EU/EEA: who knows, we might get a reciprocal response if we did that), I don't think it's a valid reason to stop EU citizens coming to the UK freely.

You might not, but lots of people do. Hence the referendum result (for good or bad)

It just seems obvious to me that whatever advantages there are, the disadvantages much, much outweigh them. I know we disagree on this but freedom of movement is a big deal and has been a right we have enjoyed throughout the modern era. To wind the clocks back 50 years is a very retrograde step. And also the well-documented increase in trade bureaucracy, which I have again personally experienced.

It might seem obvious to you, but not so to others, particularly those who have not partaken (nor intend to) in any of the (your suggestion) niche activities for which FoM is a substantive advantage. The EU was unable to deal with the UK concerns on this subject (save to suggest further Europeanisation of our National systems, which would have been politically impossible) and this contributed to the referendum result.

 

[nw1]

No doubt you are right. But as has been pointed out earlier, no politician/party comes with everything that you like, so you have to prioritise. With the 2019 election result, clearly anti-Brexit was not that much of a priority at that point.

I will admit that fear of Corbyn trumped fear of Hard Brexit for many. Personally (and I am not a fan of Corbyn, I think he was weak and ineffectual) I think the fear of Corbyn was misplaced (in the coalition that would have resulted, any of his more militant demands would have been quickly neutralised) but I accept that others think otherwise.

The ability to restrict inward FoM was a cornerstone UK demand.

From whom? It was not explicitly stated in the referendum. This was just something that came from the Government.

It might seem obvious to you, but not so to others, particularly those who have not partaken (nor intend to) in any of the (your suggestion) niche activities for which FoM is a substantive advantage.

I don't consider immigration between neighbouring countries a niche activity these days; it was commonplace up to 2019 and still is within EU countries.

To class it as niche is a viewpoint that might have been valid 50 years ago, but not sure about today.

 

[JamesT]

From whom? It was not explicitly stated in the referendum. This was just something that came from the Government.

I previously quoted the official vote leave campaign who had leaving the single market as one of their aims.
One of the concessions Cameron tried to negotiate before the referendum was the ability to place restrictions on FoM.
Remember that the position of the Government during the referendum was for Remain.

I don't consider immigration between neighbouring countries a niche activity these days; it was commonplace up to 2019 and still is within EU countries.

To class it as niche is a viewpoint that might have been valid 50 years ago, but not sure about today.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ has at the most 2.2m UK nationals living in other EU countries before Brexit. Which is something like 4% of the population? I'd suggest that something describing something less than 10% of the population do as 'niche' is entirely reasonable.

 

[AndrewE]

Now we have a trade treaty with Australia which seems to give them carte blanche, and our governmant has abandoned its plans to inspect incoming goods (https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jul/05/portsmouth-border-control-post-eu-imports-brexit) says

Portsmouth’s £25m border post stands empty after minister’s imports U-turn​

At least £450m of taxpayers’ money has been spent on facilities to handle post-Brexit checks, now delayed
Next to the container terminal at Portsmouth International Port, just a few hundred metres from the water’s edge, stands a new hi-tech border control post.

Built over the past 18 months at a cost of £25m, a cost shared by the taxpayer and the port’s owner, Portsmouth city council, the high-specification facility should be in its inaugural week of use, handling post-Brexit checks on imports of animal, plant and forestry products arriving from the EU.
The building stands empty and silent, however, following the government’s decision in April to delay, probably for good, the introduction of physical inspections of fresh meat, fruit, vegetables and plants from the EU.

then this should be a warning siren:https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/austr...isease-detected-in-meat-products-in-australia saying

Foot and mouth disease detected in meat products in Australia​

The devastating foot and mouth disease, which threatens to decimate Australia’s livestock industry, has been detected in goods coming into Australia from both Indonesia and China.
If one positive case of foot and mouth were detected on an Australian farm it could shut the A$27 billion (NZ$29b) livestock export trade down for months or even years.
Pork products that were for sale in the Melbourne CBD were also found during routine inspections to contain viral fragments of both foot and mouth disease and African swine fever – another livestock disease that has not previously circulated among animals in Australia.
“We have detected foot and mouth disease and African swine fever viral fragments in a small number of pork products for sale in the Melbourne CBD that were imported from China,” Watt said on Wednesday.
“Several other pork products for retail sale have tested positive for African swine fever viral fragments.

 

[najaB]

I think all or most of the politicians who supported Brexit genuinely wanted to remain in / have access to (which is a different nuance but similar to the ordinary voter) the Single Market , but without FoM and adhering to EU laws/rules governing areas other than trade. And frankly, that is what we got (access, rather than 'in').

Well, every country in the world has 'access to' the EU market, assuming they're not sanctioned, so saying that we have better access than Russia or Myanmar isn't really saying much.

 

[RT4038]

I don't consider immigration between neighbouring countries a niche activity these days; it was commonplace up to 2019 and still is within EU countries.

To class it as niche is a viewpoint that might have been valid 50 years ago, but not sure about today.

Apart from for holidays (which are not really affected anyway), there are comparatively few voters from the UK who have done it / do it / are contemplating it. Even if that is 15% of the population have at some time in their life, it is pretty niche. Obviously if some of those were abroad at the time of the vote, they probably didn't vote anyway, and you can assume that some who did it years ago are not so concerned now. This could well be one of the reasons that giving up FoM was not seen as a massive loss in the round.
However, I do understand that its loss is detrimental to some, the magnitude ranging wide, and I have sympathy with them.

 

[najaB]

Apart from for holidays (which are not really affected anyway), there are comparatively few voters from the UK who have done it / do it / are contemplating it. Even if that is 15% of the population have at some time in their life, it is pretty niche.

Not directed specifically at yourself, but I have never understood the argument that the loss of a right isn't a major issue because only a small number of people actually made use of it.

Losing a right means losing choice about how you will live your life in the future, and even a right you never intended to use still represents a loss of freedom. Ironic that those who were most in favour of Brexit also raise a stink at slightest idea of the Government telling them what they can and cannot do.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm pretty sure there were other moral arguments for Brexit. One obvious one is the discrimination against non-EU citizens when it came to things like travel to the UK that EU membership entailed. Another one would be the issue of involvement with EU agricultural subsidies that (according to credible reports) significantly damage the environment.

Restricting freedom for all is not somehow better than restricting freedom for some. While I would actually be in favour of more freedom of movement to the UK, not less (and increasing the range of countries with FoM to the UK beyond the EU/EEA: who knows, we might get a reciprocal response if we did that), I don't think it's a valid reason to stop EU citizens coming to the UK freely.

To give an analogy: some landowners open up access to private woodland for local residents, rather than the general public (for whatever reason, the actual reasons are off-topic). While an "open access" person like myself might prefer the woodland to be open to all, I would still agree that access to local residents is better than access for no-one. Thus, local residents would be right to be up in arms if such a landowner suspended their access because the general public as a whole cannot access it.

Not convinced the UK cares more about the environment than the EU, as EU countries seem to have more in the way of green energy (look at the wind turbine count in Germany, for instance) than the UK.


It just seems obvious to me that whatever advantages there are, the disadvantages much, much outweigh them. I know we disagree on this but freedom of movement is a big deal and has been a right we have enjoyed throughout the modern era. To wind the clocks back 50 years is a very retrograde step. And also the well-documented increase in trade bureaucracy, which I have again personally experienced.


Well of course not. But like the defecating dogs example from yesterday, this is an example of comparing something really bad (e.g. being lenient on terrorists who commit mass murder) with something not bad (wishing to stay in the customs union/single market, for a whole host of reasons, one of which is a desire not to fan the flames in NI).

Sure, and some of your points are fair ones, and may well be reasonable counter-arguments. But remember, the context was that I had taken issue with your comment, 'the only moral argument for Brexit which is legitimate is the "respect the referendum result" one', and was presenting those arguments as counter-examples.

An argument for Brexit that you personally disagree with/think is outweighed by counter-arguments is not the same thing as, no argument for Brexit!

 

[RT4038]

Not directed specifically at yourself, but I have never understood the argument that the loss of a right isn't a major issue because only a small number of people actually made use of it.

Losing a right means losing choice about how you will live your life in the future, and even a right you never intended to use still represents a loss of freedom. Ironic that those who were most in favour of Brexit also raise a stink at slightest idea of the Government telling them what they can and cannot do.

I was explaining why I believe people were prepared to give up the right of FoM (because only a small number of people actually made use of it), in this case in exchange for (a) other people not exercising their right of FoM to come to the UK, and (b) to permit the UK to exercise its right to make own laws/rules on other issues (i.e. not bound by rules of SM/CU membership). Basically a trade-off.

Clearly it would not be sensible to give up FoM right if there was nothing in exchange, and of course some people understandably will have the view that their own FoM is more important than the exchange.

 

[najaB]

I was explaining why I believe people were prepared to give up the right of FoM (because only a small number of people actually made use of it), in this case in exchange for (a) other people not exercising their right of FoM to come to the UK, and (b) to permit the UK to exercise its right to make own laws/rules on other issues (i.e. not bound by rules of SM/CU membership). Basically a trade-off.

I'm firmly of the opinion that many people who voted to give up their FoM rights because they didn't understand what FoM actually was. Witness the people who voted Leave and then were surprised that they lost the ability to spend months at a time in their second homes.

 

[RT4038]

I'm firmly of the opinion that many people who voted to give up their FoM rights because they didn't understand what FoM actually was. Witness the people who voted Leave and then were surprised that they lost the ability to spend months at a time in their second homes.

Quite possibly, but the Remain camp did not do a very good job of educating them. However, foreign holiday home owners who did that is a very niche activity and unlikely to be statistically significant.

 

[najaB]

Quite possibly, but the Remain camp did not do a very good job of educating them.

The problem is that once formed, opinions are very hard to change. Many people had bought the line that "All the problems are the foreigners, innit?" and almost nothing could convince them otherwise.

 

[XAM2175]

then this should be a warning siren:https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/austr...isease-detected-in-meat-products-in-australia saying

There's a difference between finding traces of those diseases in imported products (noting that the article describes viral fragments rather than viable live virus) and actually finding those diseases circulating in live animals in Australia. Realistically, the odds of those diseases actually being introduced to Australia and then circulating sufficiently to be exported in viable form to the UK without being detected are very very small.

That doesn't, however, detract from the argument that deferring physical checks has 1) wasted the money spent so far on preparations, and 2) presented an opportunity for the import of potentially damaging threats from any number of other countries.

 

[nw1]

Sure, and some of your points are fair ones, and may well be reasonable counter-arguments. But remember, the context was that I had taken issue with your comment, 'the only moral argument for Brexit which is legitimate is the "respect the referendum result" one', and was presenting those arguments as counter-examples.

An argument for Brexit that you personally disagree with/think is outweighed by counter-arguments is not the same thing as, no argument for Brexit!

OK fair point, poor choice of words on my part originally.

I'm firmly of the opinion that many people who voted to give up their FoM rights because they didn't understand what FoM actually was. Witness the people who voted Leave and then were surprised that they lost the ability to spend months at a time in their second homes.

I had an ex-colleague, now retired, who was a really militant Brexiter, as well as having strident anti-Labour views. He had a second home in France, which, as a retired person, he could spend a significant amount of time at should he have desired. Really strange that he stridently supported policies restricting his visits to France to 90 days at a time (and he was a "hard" Brexiter, rather than someone who voted for Brexit but wanted to keep the EU freedoms).

Ex "live music performer" Peter Lilley is of course similar. Brexiter, but owns second home in France.

Not directed specifically at yourself, but I have never understood the argument that the loss of a right isn't a major issue because only a small number of people actually made use of it.

Losing a right means losing choice about how you will live your life in the future, and even a right you never intended to use still represents a loss of freedom.

That's the thing, as I have said upthread - as a supporter of freedom in general (with obvious exceptions, there need to be laws to stop genuine bad behaviour with appropriate penalties) I believe suspension of FoM is a big, big deal.

To me it also seems symptomatic of the way western society in general (not just the UK) appears to be drifting, towards (on the one hand) authoritarian state control, and (on the other hand) economic conservatism and cutbacks. The latter includes suggestion of things previously considered unthinkable (see the thread titled something like "should we close some railways?").

I'm not sure what it will take to reverse this trend but I hope we move into a new era soon; certainly the 2016-22 era has been politically by far the worst of my adult life.

Ironic that those who were most in favour of Brexit also raise a stink at slightest idea of the Government telling them what they can and cannot do.

That is ironic, because Hard Brexit to me is a perfect example of Government authoritarianism. It's strange some self-proclaimed libertarians in the Tory Party support Hard Brexit, but I often find with right-wing libertarians that their libertarians applies rather more to a belief in a laissez-faire economic approach and lack of regulation for big business, than personal freedom which many don't care so much about (or only care about in certain selected, right-wing cases which suit their agenda, such as the right to bear arms). David "libertarian" Davis did absolutely zilch to preserve FoM, for example.

I previously quoted the official vote leave campaign who had leaving the single market as one of their aims.

But the Government was not the Vote Leave campaign. So the Government had no moral obligation to follow their demands.

https://fullfact.org/europe/how-many-uk-citizens-live-other-eu-countries/ has at the most 2.2m UK nationals living in other EU countries before Brexit. Which is something like 4% of the population? I'd suggest that something describing something less than 10% of the population do as 'niche' is entirely reasonable.

Not sure, 4% is quite significant. And anyway, anti-FoM-ers were constantly complaining about 1 in 20 British residents being EU migrants, so for them, a similar figure was a big deal. Can't have it both ways.

I was explaining why I believe people were prepared to give up the right of FoM (because only a small number of people actually made use of it), in this case in exchange for (a) other people not exercising their right of FoM to come to the UK, and (b) to permit the UK to exercise its right to make own laws/rules on other issues (i.e. not bound by rules of SM/CU membership). Basically a trade-off.

Clearly it would not be sensible to give up FoM right if there was nothing in exchange, and of course some people understandably will have the view that their own FoM is more important than the exchange.

I certainly think there is nothing in exchange. We haven't, for example, gained FoM to go to some other part of the world freely, like Canada or the USA. So it seems a very, very raw deal to me.

 

[birchesgreen]

I certainly think there is nothing in exchange. We haven't, for example, gained FoM to go to some other part of the world freely, like Canada or the USA. So it seems a very, very raw deal to me.

We've exchanged FoM for the right to buy less efficient vacuum cleaners, seems fair right?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That's the thing, as I have said upthread - as a supporter of freedom in general (with obvious exceptions, there need to be laws to stop genuine bad behaviour with appropriate penalties) I believe suspension of FoM is a big, big deal.

Out of interest: You seem to regard Freedom of Movement as a huge right that everyone should have - but in that case, why do you only apparently apply it to EU countries? How do you justify that someone from - say - Romania - should be able to freely move to the UK pretty much on a whim, but someone from neighbouring Moldova faces incredibly tough visa restrictions if they wish to do likewise. Should anyone from - say - Vietnam or Russia or Iraq or Ethiopia or the USA or China or Turkey be permitted to come and live in the UK whenever they want without any significant restrictions?

 

[nw1]

Out of interest: You seem to regard Freedom of Movement as a huge right that everyone should have - but in that case, why do you only apparently apply it to EU countries? How do you justify that someone from - say - Romania - should be able to freely move to the UK pretty much on a whim, but someone from neighbouring Moldova faces incredibly tough visa restrictions if they wish to do likewise. Should anyone from - say - Vietnam or Russia or Iraq or Ethiopia or the USA or China or Turkey be permitted to come and live in the UK whenever they want without any significant restrictions?

To be fair, I will accept that some countries have specific concerns, often related to security or terrorism (Russia being the most obvious one from your list) which might necessitate some controls.

But, as I hinted above, I do believe FoM should be extended to a range of further countries, outside the EU, those which to my mind there would be no issue with allowing free movement. Why not allow FoM from Canada, the USA, Japan or South Korea, for example? Why not Serbia (which previously had issues, but seems to be OK now) or Albania?

Also, the absolutely key thing, and my main point, is that EU countries (as well as Norway, Iceland etc) had it before. I strongly object to removal of freedom of movement rights that existed before, in the same way that I would strongly object to an attempt by the Government to close public footpaths running through farm land because some influential landowners were complaining about them.

Likewise, a railway closure is much worse than never building the railway in the first place. If I had been alive, and old enough, in the 1960s, believe you me I would be complaining about Beeching every bit as stridently as I complain about suspension of FoM rights. Beeching was, to my mind, the same kind of anti-progressive action as Brexit - but I can at least understand the economic arguments for Beeching, unlike Brexit.

 

[RT4038]

We've exchanged FoM for the right to buy less efficient vacuum cleaners, seems fair right?

We've given up our right to emigrate to Daugavpils in exchange for being able to set our own laws on whatever we like (and not having our towns overrun with Europeans).

Or we could look at the exchange in a more mature way?

 

[nw1]

We've given up our right to emigrate to Daugavpils

Had to look that one up, but it seems like you deliberately chose somewhere obscure where people probably won't want to emigrate to. How about choosing somewhere in say France, Spain or Italy for a more realistic example?

in exchange for being able to set our own laws on whatever we like (and not having our towns overrun with Europeans).

Besides this sounding, to my mind, really quite xenophobic (and certainly not "mature"), our towns are actually, still "overrun with Europeans". British people, mostly.

And as for "set our own laws", is it fair that we will, by the next election, have had a particular party, with particular attitudes, and thus prone to creating certain types of laws, in power for 71% of the 1979-2024 period when it has never even had 45% of the vote? That is my main point against the oft-made "sovereignty" argument; it's only valid if you support the party currently in power, which in modern times, has generally been the Tories.

 

[RT4038]

The problem is that once formed, opinions are very hard to change. Many people had bought the line that "All the problems are the foreigners, innit?" and almost nothing could convince them otherwise.

You are quite right, it is very difficult, but they did not make much of an effort! Either through complacency or sheer difficulty, probably both.

Part of the problem was that the arguments for continued membership were quite intangible - FoM was practically used by such a small proportion of the population, and holiday homes or the take over of the Loire Valley etc would be seen as privileged activities [even if that was not quite true].

Unlike elsewhere in the EU, there were never large quantities of boards advertising 'funded by the EU', due to Margaret Thatcher and the rebate. (I'm not blaming her, paying the EU large sums for them to decide where to spend it in the UK (or not) rather offends sensibilities, and also would contribute to the 'Europeanisation' of the UK - however this meant that the UK did not have so much visible EU benefit).

Relatively few EU institutions located in the UK also contributed to the lack of visibility.

On the other hand, there was plenty of visibility of the downsides (or believed downsides) stretching from the quantity of Eastern Europeans on the streets, in schools, doctors surgeries, claiming benefits to light bulbs, vacuum cleaners, building regulations, working time directive administration, whatever. And whenever the need or rationale for these was queried by voters/constituents, it was always easiest for the politicians and officials to deflect by blaming the 'new EU rules'. even then these were interpreted more strictly in our legal system than elsewhere [example - compare the application of the Working Time Directive Night working regulations between the UK and Italy, both coming from the same base directive] , coupled with the UK being one of the few 'contributing' member states.

It is not really surprising to see how 'Leave' got such traction.

Had to look that one up, but it seems like you deliberately chose somewhere obscure where people probably won't want to emigrate to. How about choosing somewhere in say France, Spain or Italy for a more realistic example?

Because @birchesgreen was comparing the whole of FoM with one obscure advantage? Just turning the tables!

Besides this sounding, to my mind, really quite xenophobic (and certainly not "mature"), our towns are actually, still "overrun with Europeans". British people, mostly.

You have your opinion, I have mine. We have already discussed this, so no need to go there again.

And as for "set our own laws", is it fair that we will, by the next election, have had a particular party, with particular attitudes, and thus prone to creating certain types of laws, in power for 71% of the 1979-2024 period when it has never even had 45% of the vote? That is my main point against the oft-made "sovereignty" argument; it's only valid if you support the party currently in power, which in modern times, has generally been the Tories.

This is the system of our democracy, and until it is changed by that democratic process, the voting system is the legitimate manifestation. (Like anything else, if you don't like it, campaign for change]. There are plenty of laws that I would like to see changed, but not a hope of getting a democratic mandate - so I have to put up with it.

 

[AlterEgo]

But, as I hinted above, I do believe FoM should be extended to a range of further countries, outside the EU, those which to my mind there would be no issue with allowing free movement. Why not allow FoM from Canada, the USA, Japan or South Korea, for example? Why not Serbia (which previously had issues, but seems to be OK now)

Serbia is OK now? You do know they are supporting Russia, right? Serbia is a bonkers place and has been for a very long time.

or Albania?

Why on earth would we want FoM with Albania? It is a terribly poor country. Also very bonkers, sort of an anti-Serbia.

 

[RT4038]

Serbia is OK now? You do know they are supporting Russia, right? Serbia is a bonkers place and has been for a very long time.

Why on earth would we want FoM with Albania? It is a terribly poor country. Also very bonkers, sort of an anti-Serbia.

Quite.

I expect the FoM we'd really like would be with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA .......

 

[AlterEgo]

Quite.

I expect the FoM we'd really like would be with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA .......

Yes, this would be much more pragmatic, but CANZUK FoM is but a distant pipe dream. It won't happen, for lots of other good reasons.

 

[roversfan2001]

On the other hand, there was plenty of visibility of the downsides (or believed downsides) stretching from the quantity of Eastern Europeans on the streets, in schools, doctors surgeries, claiming benefits...

Of course, these aren't downsides to anyone who isn't xenophobic.

 

[daodao]

Besides this sounding, to my mind, really quite xenophobic (and certainly not "mature"), our towns are actually, still "overrun with Europeans". British people, mostly.

Have you ever visited Lisbech (pronounced Visbeck), a town in the Fens? It is otherwise known as Wisbech (pronounced Wizbeech).

 

[nw1]

Serbia is OK now? You do know they are supporting Russia, right? Serbia is a bonkers place and has been for a very long time.

I have to admit I was unaware of Serbia supporting Russia, which does seem a strange decision given they are one of the EU candidate countries. I had the impression (from talking to some Serbians I've met, who didn't seem militant or overly-nationalist to me) that it had become a more moderate and reasonable country.

Have you ever visited Lisbech (pronounced Visbeck), a town in the Fens? It is otherwise known as Wisbech (pronounced Wizbeech).

No.

My comment was really directed towards the use of the word "overrun", which sounds provocative and perhaps, to some, xenophobic. There are other ways of saying the same thing e.g. "in my opinion there are too many continental Europeans resident in the UK and they are taking jobs from British people" (which I also disagree with, because under FoM, British people have a reciprocal right to go abroad; but it's a kinder and less inflammatory way of making the same point).

 

[Cloud Strife]

I have to admit I was unaware of Serbia supporting Russia, which does seem a strange decision given they are one of the EU candidate countries.

Generally speaking, Serbia under Vucic has been trying to play a balancing act. They've sold the country to the Chinese so that Vucic can boast about all the new infrastructure, the Serbians themselves have some weird affinity (based on religion and the Kosovo War) with Russia, but they're also moving gradually towards the EU because there's really no alternative for them. It's quite tragic, because Serbia historically always rejected the East and wanted to be part of the West. We also have ourselves to blame, because a lot of moderate anti-Milosevic Serbs turned away from the West after the bombings in 1999.

Then there's the victim complex (found also in Poland and Hungary) that leads themselves to portray themselves as Europe's biggest victims and that everyone else is to blame. The Serbs do genuinely seem to believe that they were victims in 1990-1995, for instance!

 

[nw1]

This is the system of our democracy, and until it is changed by that democratic process, the voting system is the legitimate manifestation. (Like anything else, if you don't like it, campaign for change].

I would if I believe it would have any effect. The trouble is, it seems our whole system is set up to keep the Tories in power (thanks to the marked bias in the printed media) and thus the retention of FPTP, that I am becoming increasingly despondent that things will never change in the UK within my lifetime.