Opinions on Brexit

[Bantamzen]

By 'not strong enough to win' you mean 'not littered with lies plastered on the sides of busses'?

I mean not strong enough to counter the lies on sides of buses, instead being drawn into a petty name calling battle.

At the time the referendum was called, I much preferred the remain option. For me the leave campaign simply didn't have any real counter arguments to many of the objections that the leave side could have thrown at them. But they didn't, well at least nowhere near well enough and so the debate descended into a slanging match and the real debate died a death. So in many ways the remain camp as just as responsible for Brexit as the leave one. In the end so disillusioned was I at it all, there seemed little point voting. Because we'd either get a badly run Brexit, or a badly run Remain. Or in other words damned if we do, and damned if we don't, such is the sorry state of UK politics circa 21st century.

 

[duncanp]

Citizenship is costly, time consuming and at the time was unimportant as they had the right to live here with no restrictions. There was literally no advantages to gaining British citizenship for a national of another EU country prior to brexit.

Except that they would then have the right to vote in UK local and national elections.

Presumably those EU nationals who didn't apply for citizenship were not bothered about not being able to vote.

 

[Doppelganger]

Because I don't want to be associated politically with countries that think it is fine to stop people going outside at all even to exercise (Spain) or require a permit to do so (France), that think it is fine to fine people for not undergoing a medical procedure (Greece, Austria), that think it is fine to effectively lock people in their homes that are unable to wear useless masks (Germany), that think it is fine to stop people going to a restaurant or cinema without showing government permission papers (Ireland, Italy, France again) or even food or medicine (Lithuania). If these governments have an ideology that those things are acceptable, that's something I want absolutely nothing to do with. Yes, it was bad here in the UK too, but fortunately not that bad.

You can't divorce the EU from the countries that make up the EU, or the governments of those countries.

And in contrast Sweden did pretty much nothing when it came to COVID restrictions, but you don't mention them as it doesn't suit your narrative.

 

[Howardh]

Because I don't want to be associated politically with countries that think it is fine to stop people going outside at all even to exercise (Spain) or require a permit to do so (France), that think it is fine to fine people for not undergoing a medical procedure (Greece, Austria), that think it is fine to effectively lock people in their homes that are unable to wear useless masks (Germany), that think it is fine to stop people going to a restaurant or cinema without showing government permission papers (Ireland, Italy, France again) or even food or medicine (Lithuania). If these governments have an ideology that those things are acceptable, that's something I want absolutely nothing to do with. Yes, it was bad here in the UK too, but fortunately not that bad.

You can't divorce the EU from the countries that make up the EU, or the governments of those countries.

I didn't particulary enjoy being associated with a country that kept you inside for all but one hour a day, forced you to wear masks in public (shops, transport etc), wouldn't (at first) let you visit your parents lying in a cemetery, wouldn't let you go down the pub despite being able to go shopping, and wouldn't even let you watch a county cricket game in what would have been an almost deserted stadium anyway!!

As alluded to, our lockdown proceedures were bizarre and probably unhelpful (as discussed on other threads) but as an EU thing, each country was sovereign and allowed to make their own decisions, good or bad. Funny that, the EU keeping well out of it.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The problem is that systems like ETIAS, ESTA, and the UK equivalent, are unwelcoming and seem to be based on the premise that foreigners are fundamentally suspicious. It doesn't make you feel welcome. Many of us have long bemoaned the US's unwelcoming attitude to visitors, and it's sadly being replicated all around the western world. Thanks, Mr Bush.

I have to say, the last time I visited the US, I didn't feel in the slightest bit less welcome in the country because I had to spend a few minutes a home filling out an online ESTA form before I travelled there[*].

Slightly different but very analogous: If you apply for a job, and the company you're applying to insists on doing some background checks on you, or getting a reference, before it employs you: Does that make you feel any less welcome working for the company? For my part, it's more likely to make me feel reassured that the company is doing proper due diligence.

Might I suggest you're possibly being a little over-sensitive?

[*] If I wanted to complain about something, it would be the more-than-an-hour wait to get through passport control that seems typical whenever I arrive there. Compared to that, applying for ESTA is trivial.

 

[ainsworth74]

Presumably those EU nationals who didn't apply for citizenship were not bothered about not being able to vote.

Or couldn't afford to...

It costs £1,330 for an adult to apply for citizenship and £1,012 for children. You also have to pay £50 to a "Life in the UK" test. Send the wrong documents, fill out the form incorrectly? Fee wasted. No refund. Get refused. No refund. So then you're probably wanting to engage an immigration solicitor to make sure that your documents and forms are all correct which is yet more cost.

Considering that, until Brexit, basically the only benefit of going through that rigmarole was the ability to vote I can see why a lot of people didn't "bother".

 

[GS250]

I didn't particulary enjoy being associated with a country that kept you inside for all but one hour a day, forced you to wear masks in public (shops, transport etc), wouldn't (at first) let you visit your parents lying in a cemetery, wouldn't let you go down the pub despite being able to go shopping, and wouldn't even let you watch a county cricket game in what would have been an almost deserted stadium anyway!!

As alluded to, our lockdown proceedures were bizarre and probably unhelpful (as discussed on other threads) but as an EU thing, each country was sovereign and allowed to make their own decisions, good or bad. Funny that, the EU keeping well out of it.

Agreed. Some European governments effectively saw this as an opportunity to show their true nature.

I voted for Brexit but I do not blame the EU for everything that happens in Europe.

However, what the likes of Spain, Italy, France and Germany did only inflamed the likes of MAGA and conspiracy theorists. Implementing actions as opposed to what they may do in the future.

 

[Howardh]

Agreed. Some European governments effectively saw this as an opportunity to show their true nature.

I voted for Brexit but I do not blame the EU for everything that happens in Europe.

However, what the likes of Spain, Italy, France and Germany did only inflamed the likes of MAGA and conspiracy theorists. Implementing actions as opposed to what they may do in the future.

Again this is wandering off topic, but while I can't comment on France/Germany, I recall that the first countries to be hit, and hit badly, were Spain and Italy and as they/we were in unchartered territory, harsh as it was I can understand the total lockdown they had. If it proved to be correct or an over-reaction is completely for the other thread!

On topic- with the EU having open borders* therefore citizens travelling between it was slightly surprising that the EU didn't put down international rules to cover all countries (barring islands possibly) but the * refers to the fact that I think many borders were "closed" at the start for anything but necessary travel- meaning countries inside the EU were at liberty to close borders as and when they feel fit (pandemic/terrorism etc).

So because of the latter point, the EU didn't have to intervene?

It would be interesting to ask the general public in which way they felt the EU intervened negatively in their lives before we left.

 

[MikeWM]

And in contrast Sweden did pretty much nothing when it came to COVID restrictions, but you don't mention them as it doesn't suit your narrative.

I've probably mentioned Sweden on here more often than pretty much anybody else! But yes, you're right - if the EU was made up entirely of the Nordic countries then my point would clearly be invalid, but of course it isn't.

--

I didn't particulary enjoy being associated with a country that kept you inside for all but one hour a day, forced you to wear masks in public (shops, transport etc), wouldn't (at first) let you visit your parents lying in a cemetery, wouldn't let you go down the pub despite being able to go shopping, and wouldn't even let you watch a county cricket game in what would have been an almost deserted stadium anyway!!

As alluded to, our lockdown proceedures were bizarre and probably unhelpful (as discussed on other threads) but as an EU thing, each country was sovereign and allowed to make their own decisions, good or bad. Funny that, the EU keeping well out of it.

I didn't enjoy it either, as I'm sure most people noticed!

Perhaps people haven't really grasped my point - other than the wretched Green Pass, yes the EU didn't dictate the approach that its constituent countries followed, as (for now at least) they retain sovereignty over such issues. But that's not what i'm saying - rather I'm saying basically this

Some European governments effectively saw this as an opportunity to show their true nature.

and I was dismayed by that, particularly countries such as Germany which previously I'd admired for what I thought was sensible, logical, and scientifically-driven government. As such, any enthusiasm I had for being part of a political organisation that constituted countries, that showed they weren't what they had appeared to be, fell away. (Not just an EU countries thing of course - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and much of the USA had the same issue).

 

[jon0844]

I've probably mentioned Sweden on here more often than pretty much anybody else! But yes, you're right - if the EU was made up entirely of the Nordic countries then my point would clearly be invalid, but of course it isn't.

The point is how individual member states reacted to Covid really has little to do with EU, or whether we were better in or out of it. We could have done exactly what we did either way. We didn't even have the issue of protecting our borders within the Schengen Area to worry about.

 

[coppercapped]

Except that they would then have the right to vote in UK local and national elections.

Presumably those EU nationals who didn't apply for citizenship were not bothered about not being able to vote.

I would point out that when I was living and working in Germany some dozen years ago at a time when the UK was still a member of the EU I could vote, and did vote, in local elections although I do not have German nationality.

The rule was that EU citizens could vote in local elections but not national ones.

Why should it be any different here?

I've probably mentioned Sweden on here more often than pretty much anybody else! But yes, you're right - if the EU was made up entirely of the Nordic countries then my point would clearly be invalid, but of course it isn't.

--



I didn't enjoy it either, as I'm sure most people noticed!

Perhaps people haven't really grasped my point - other than the wretched Green Pass, yes the EU didn't dictate the approach that its constituent countries followed, as (for now at least) they retain sovereignty over such issues. But that's not what i'm saying - rather I'm saying basically this



and I was dismayed by that, particularly countries such as Germany which previously I'd admired for what I thought was sensible, logical, and scientifically-driven government. As such, any enthusiasm I had for being part of a political organisation that constituted countries, that showed they weren't what they had appeared to be, fell away. (Not just an EU countries thing of course - Australia, New Zealand, Canada and much of the USA had the same issue).

You have completely and utterly misunderstood the position in Germany and the EU.

Apart for the overarching issues of law and structure, health issues in Germany are devolved to the individual states and there was a complete mishmash of rules and advice given by the different states at different times to the great confusion of the population.

There was never a consistent approach - the early attempts to track and trace infected people were country-wide and successful - but delivered by the Health units in the local authorities - until the numbers overwhelmed the system which was never laid out or staffed to cope with the numbers of cases arising in a pandemic.

The EU as an organisation has no say in the way that the individual countries run their health systems or on the advice and guidelines given. It did try to purchase vaccines in the early days but as it, as an organisation, had never previously tried to buy anything centrally for supply to the member states it all went pear shaped and has not been repeated.

If one is trying to see a difference in the way the EU countries approached the Covid pandemic I would suggest that the pattern long predates the EU: the countries making up the catholic south do seem to have had different policies and implementation compared to the protestant north.

Luther greets you all!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would point out that when I was living and working in Germany some dozen years ago at a time when the UK was still a member of the EU I could vote, and did vote, in local elections although I do not have German nationality.

The rule was that EU citizens could vote in local elections but not national ones.

Why should it be any different here?

As I recall, it wasn't any different here. EU citizens could vote in local, but not national elections. @duncanp's point remans valid though to the extent that if an EU citizen cared about being able to participate in UK democracy at national level (which is the level the referendum was at) then you'd expect that they would apply for UK citizenship. (With a proviso that, as @ainsworth74 pointed out, the cost of applying for citizenship does seem excessive and aspects of the process are unfriendly).

 

[RT4038]

I would point out that when I was living and working in Germany some dozen years ago at a time when the UK was still a member of the EU I could vote, and did vote, in local elections although I do not have German nationality.

The rule was that EU citizens could vote in local elections but not national ones.

Why should it be any different here?

Was it any different here? I think EU citizens resident in the UK could go on the voters roll for Local elections. The referendum was a national election though, so they were ineligible to vote.

Citizenship is costly, time consuming and at the time was unimportant as they had the right to live here with no restrictions. There was literally no advantages to gaining British citizenship for a national of another EU country prior to brexit.

Except it did turn out to be quite important, and an advantage.....

As I recall, it wasn't any different here. EU citizens could vote in local, but not national elections. @duncanp's point remans valid though to the extent that if an EU citizen cared about being able to participate in UK democracy at national level (which is the level the referendum was at) then you'd expect that they would apply for UK citizenship. (With a proviso that, as @ainsworth74 pointed out, the cost of applying for citizenship does seem excessive and aspects of the process are unfriendly).

Countries don't usually just give citizenship easily or cheaply. They want to know that your application is serious and not just for convenience.

 

[MikeWM]

You have completely and utterly misunderstood the position in Germany and the EU.

Apart for the overarching issues of law and structure, health issues are devolved to the individual states and there was a complete mishmash of rules and advice given by the different states at different times to the great confusion of the population.

I am aware of this. However, it is worth mentioning that there are *national* mandates too - eg. (even now!) masks on long-distance trains.

The EU as an organisation has no say in the way that the individual countries run their health systems or on the advice and guidelines given. It did try to purchase vaccines in the early days but as it, as an organisation, had never previously tried to buy anything centrally for supply to the member states it all went pear shaped and has not been repeated.

Yes, I know, I never said anything different. Yet again, this wasn't my argument.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Countries don't usually just give citizenship easily or cheaply. They want to know that your application is serious and not just for convenience.

Sure. To my mind, that is very reasonable, and I agree that part of applying for citizenship should be showing that you are seriously committed to the country concerned (for example, showing that you've learned the language and about the local culture/way of life/etc.). Paying lots of money doesn't seem to me a very good or fair test of that though. But that's another argument not really related to Brexit.

 

[duncanp]

As I recall, it wasn't any different here. EU citizens could vote in local, but not national elections. @duncanp's point remans valid though to the extent that if an EU citizen cared about being able to participate in UK democracy at national level (which is the level the referendum was at) then you'd expect that they would apply for UK citizenship. (With a proviso that, as @ainsworth74 pointed out, the cost of applying for citizenship does seem excessive and aspects of the process are unfriendly).

I do wonder how the cost of applying for UK citizenship compares with the cost for applying for citizenship of any of the EU member states.

If you think the process of applying for UK is unfriendly, look at considerable amount of red tape involved in applying for French citizenship, to use just one example, even if you are an EU national.

applying for French citizenship

Applying for French citizenship is a big decision. our information will help you make it and give you some pointers for the journey.

www.francerights.org

These are the conditions you have to meet before you can even start an application

• You must be 18 years old. You can apply once you reach the age of 17, and if your application is successful you will become a French citizen when you're 18 (although in most departments the process will take longer than a year).
• If you have a child who is under 18, they can be naturalised alongside you if (a) they habitually live with you, and (b) you have requested that their name appears on the decree.
• You must be resident in France at the moment you apply for naturalisation and at the moment the decree is signed.
• You must have have lived in France for at least 5 years unless you meet the conditions for one of the following exceptions, when the 5 year period is reduced to 2 years: (a) if you have obtained a diploma after 2 years study in a higher education establishment in France; (b) you can render or have rendered important services to France because of your special abilities or talents; or (c) because of your exceptional scientific, sporting, cultural, economic or civic activities you are deemed to have integrated in an exceptional way.
• You must have a titre de séjour which is valid at the time of your application. For UK nationals this will be either your WA residence permit or another relevant carte de séjour (for example, spouse of a French or an EU citizen). If you are a citizen of an EU country no residence card is required - your passport acts as your titre de séjour.
• You must demonstrate that you are integrated and assimilated into French society. Notably you must (a) be in agreement with the essential values and principles of the French republic; and (b) be knowlegeable about French history, culture and society. See the paragraph 'Preparing for your citizenship application' below for more about this.
• You must prove that you can understand, speak and write French to B1 level (see below).
• You must show that you have 'sufficient and stable resources' for yourself and your fiscal household. If you are working or self-employed, you'll be expected to earn the majority of your money in France to show that you are professionally integrated.
• You're expected to show 'good moral conduct' and to not have committed any acts that are contrary to public order. In particular: you must not have received a penal sentence in France of more than 6 months or have been convicted of a crime or offence that breaches or attacks the interests of the French state.

Then after filling in some forms, you have an "assimilation interview".

You'll be required to attend an 'assimilation interview' by appointment at your regional platform, where you'll be asked about your personal (and possibly your financial) situation, why you want to become French, how often you have returned to the UK, how you have integrated into French society since you've been here, and about your knowledge of French culture, history and citizenship rights and responsibilities. The interview will be conducted in French and you can't take an interpreter (sounds obvious, I know, but the question has been asked). At the end of the interview, the you'll sign a charter of rights and duties of French citizens.

You'll need to spend a considerable amount of time preparing for the interview, which may last up to 90 minutes (although usually considerably less).

Looking at this, I don't see that it is any less "unfriendly" than applying for UK citizenship, and I think it is right that a balance needs to be struck between making applying for citizenship of any country too easy and too difficult.

Perhaps people could allowed to register to vote in a country if they have been resident for a continuous period of 5 years, even before they become a citizen.

 

[RT4038]

Perhaps people could allowed to register to vote in a country if they have been resident for a continuous period of 5 years, even before they become a citizen.

That is what gaining citizenship confers. So apply for it - jump through the hoops, pay the money. Or if you are not really serious about your country of residence, take the risk of impermanence. Why should residency confer the same rights as citizens?

 

[coppercapped]

I am aware of this. However, it is worth mentioning that there are *national* mandates too - eg. (even now!) masks on long-distance trains.



Yes, I know, I never said anything different. Yet again, this wasn't my argument.

Yes, at the moment because long-distance trains (Fernzügen) are financed and specified by the German state - as part of the Constitution - and not by the Länder. As a result the DBAG has been required by the Government - which is in health matters risk averse probably because the Health Minister is a professional medical man, he was the director of the Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology (IGKE) at Cologne University.

From 2nd February however it will no longer be required to wear a mask in a Fernzug. On the other hand buses are a local matter and here the Länder are making individual decisions.

I really don't understand your concerns - when Covid was spreading in the early days people were dying in their hundreds. Until the science better understood the issues and worked out ways of countering the disease of course different countries made different decisions. Nobody, but nobody, knew how it would pan out but the one thing all Governments knew was that it was necessary to slow the rate of spread - and so they introduced all these restrictions about which you complain.

Were they wrong - judged by the knowledge at the time?

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, at the moment because long-distance trains (Fernzügen) are financed and specified by the German state - as part of the Constitution - and not by the Länder. As a result the DBAG has been required by the Government - which is in health matters risk averse probably because the Health Minister is a professional medical man, he was the director of the Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology (IGKE) at Cologne University.

Yes, I know who Lauterbach is, I've been reading eugyppius's substack for the last couple of years (https://www.eugyppius.com/).

Were they wrong - judged by the knowledge at the time?

Yes, totally wrong - but that's not really a topic for this thread. My point here is that the fact these European governments (and states and regions and cities) implemented these measures showed that they had a different ideology from what I thought they had, indeed one I find very problematic.

 

[Annetts key]

This is a sensible statement. I think the majority of brexiteers were happy with our relationship with the EEC/EU back then. I certainly was.

However the only problem is since then numerous basket case countries have joined the club.

I think most European countries (not just the ones in the E.U.) now regard the U.K. as a basket case country. We don’t even have the excuses of being poor or being a former part of the USSR…

 

[GS250]

Yes, totally wrong - but that's not really a topic for this thread. My point here is that the fact these European governments (and states and regions and cities) implemented these measures showed that they had a different ideology from what I thought they had, indeed one I find very problematic.

'European Governments' indeed got their policy on lockdown wrong. Just proving the point that we should all be very suspicious of big government. However...they do get a lot of other things right too.

 

[jon0844]

Remaining within the EU wouldn't mean having to say everything is great. At least in the EU we had a say, and a veto, and actually steered an awful lot of policy.

Outside, we have difficulty importing goods and exporting, and no say on what the EU does.

If the EU begins to do any of the things we were all told was about to happen (Turkey joining in a matter of weeks, an EU army etc) then how can we stop them? Write a firm letter? Ask nicely?

 

[RT4038]

I think most European countries (not just the ones in the E.U.) now regard the U.K. as a basket case country. We don’t even have the excuses of being poor or being a former part of the USSR…

If they do, they'd be wrong and anyway, who cares what they think. We are going to take a few years to adjust to the new circumstances.

Remaining within the EU wouldn't mean having to say everything is great. At least in the EU we had a say, and a veto, and actually steered an awful lot of policy.

The veto had gone a long time ago. We had a say, but it could be ignored, and I'm not sure what policy we steered an awful lot of, but it didn't seem to have much effect on what mattered to us.

If the EU begins to do any of the things we were all told was about to happen (Turkey joining in a matter of weeks, an EU army etc) then how can we stop them? Write a firm letter? Ask nicely?

Why do we particularly care about these things now - we are not taking part nor having them foisted on us?

 

[Doppelganger]

Why do we particularly care about these things now - we are not taking part nor having them foisted on us?

They weren't ever really going to happen anyway.

It was used by Brexiteers to hoodwink the public into voting for leave.

Incidentally, the UK steered a lot of EU policy and either helped shape or agreed with 95% of it. The fact the British public didn't know this, is no surprise.

 

[Howardh]

If they do, they'd be wrong and anyway, who cares what they think. We are going to take a few years to adjust to the new circumstances.


The veto had gone a long time ago. We had a say, but it could be ignored, and I'm not sure what policy we steered an awful lot of, but it didn't seem to have much effect on what mattered to us.


Why do we particularly care about these things now - we are not taking part nor having them foisted on us?

Turkey, if and when they join the EU, will be able to send it's citizens to Ireland under freedom of movement and then they can cross the border into the UK totally unchallenged. And don't say ireland can keep them out, if Turkey becomes EU then they can't. 84,000,000 of them if I remember Farage's poster? All queuing up to come in. Couldn't possibly be wrong, could he now??

 

[jon0844]

Immigration was the thing people were upset about most for Brexit, and online you can see just how many are still angry about immigration today (perhaps even more so).

It's useful that whether on Twitter or Facebook, the ones making the most noise about immigrants and suggesting we 'look after our own' usually have a fair few Union flags and Brexit comments/hashtags in their profile, or show their views from things they like and share.

Brexit didn't even solve the thing voters cared about most, so it's no wonder they're so unhappy. It clearly wasn't the EU foisting laws on us that got people voting leave, as when asked to give some examples nobody can ever provide any.

 

[Yew]

Erm, within the EU they do and indeed when the UK was a member, they took advantage of the both the free movement of people and goods. The UK economy is now hamstrung by not being able to recruit and small business in particular are finding it more difficult to export, so I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to say...

The EU has nothing to do with the free movement of people, that was under the European Economic Area. A seperate organisation which includes nations not inside the EU, but who have free movement of goods and people with the EU nations.

 

[Doppelganger]

The EU has nothing to do with the free movement of people, that was under the European Economic Area. A seperate organisation which includes nations not inside the EU, but who have free movement of goods and people with the EU nations.

Almost...

The EU's 4 freedoms are the free movement of:

Goods
Services
Capital
People

This was established from 1st January 1993.

To say the EU has nothing to do with it is clearly rubbish.

The free movement of people was phased and was brought into what was the EEC, rather than the EEA and of course the EEC morphed into the EC and then the EU.

 

[Bevan Price]

Because the Conservatives have demonstrated how entirely competent they are with the economy haven't they?

Thankfully they're destined to 15 years in the wilderness after the next GE.

I only wish you were right. But I fear that it may take more than one election for Labour to recover from the effects of Corbyn & company. And however justified some of the current strikes may be, the Tory media will do its best to blame Labour for industrial unrest - and all too many voters may believe them. And remember that many believed what the pro-Brexit media told them before the referendum.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Brexit didn't even solve the thing voters cared about most, so it's no wonder they're so unhappy.

Eh? As I recall the thing that most motivated people to vote Leave was that Freedom of Movement meant there was basically no way to control how many people from Europe were coming to live in the UK. As far as I'm aware Brexit has completely solved that problem!

As for people still being unhappy... Well it's the usual thing in politics that as soon as you solve one problem people will get unhappy about the next problem