The Brexit Thread

[Hamish McPanji]

Leave won, so the UK must just leave the European Union.

Seems they are trying to leave but let some parts stay, that's not ' leave '.

What a monumental mess.

So how are they going to solve the Ireland problem? The troubles is noone has provided a viable hard brexit solution for that.

They can't 'leave' without solving that . Maybe you should read up a bit on that. They want a soft border, but you can't have a soft border if you leave.

Either you have a hard border between UK and NI, or a hard border between NI and Ireland

 

[Verde]

Norway is in the single market (but not customs union); restrictions on freedom of movement are about the same as those that the UK could have applied but chose not to.

Norway deal without customs union doesn't fix the Irish border issue, nor coping with the amount of traffic and goods trade between the UK and the mainland.

Why would a Norway style deal (single market) not fix the Irish border issue?

As I understand it May's deal allowed UK to temporarily stay in single market until future trade relationship with Europe is negotiated. A Norway style deal would be an agreement to permanently stay in single market (free movement of goods and people, but UK will lose decision making powers.)

"A single market involves the free movement of goods and services, capital and labour.
In addition to a common external tariff, a single market also tries to cut back on the use of non-tariff barriers such as different rules on product safety and environmental standards replacing them with a common set of rules governing trade in goods and services within the common market."
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/customs-unions-and-single-markets

 

[Verde]

Yes there is a Twitter account based on the EFTA4UK model: https://mobile.twitter.com/EFTA4UK?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

Honestly I haven't read all the stuff about EFTA, but I am amazed it hasn't been at all pursued by Traitor May and funnily enough the UK was a founding member of EFTA.

To me EFTA is perfect outcome. Nothing actually changes on the ground, but utter humiliation for English nationalists.

 

[The Voice]

So how are they going to solve the Ireland problem? The troubles is noone has provided a viable hard brexit solution for that.

They can't 'leave' without solving that . Maybe you should read up a bit on that. They want a soft border, but you can't have a soft border if you leave.

Either you have a hard border between UK and NI, or a hard border between NI and Ireland

I imagine it would have to be run like any other hard border. Or, they could just maintain the original terms of the Common Travel Area, which is how it was handled before the EU even existed (today we have a modified version thanks to EU free movement laws).

 

[JayM]

View attachment 664994

Why would a Norway style deal (single market) not fix the Irish border issue?

As I understand it May's deal allowed UK to temporarily stay in single market until future trade relationship with Europe is negotiated. A Norway style deal would be an agreement to permanently stay in single market (free movement of goods and people, but UK will lose decision making powers.)

"A single market involves the free movement of goods and services, capital and labour.
In addition to a common external tariff, a single market also tries to cut back on the use of non-tariff barriers such as different rules on product safety and environmental standards replacing them with a common set of rules governing trade in goods and services within the common market."
https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/reference/customs-unions-and-single-markets

Norway is not in a customs union with the EU. Thus there are border and customs checks (and tariffs on some goods in either direction), something which the GFA won't allow, and no one in NI or Ireland wants.

Norway + CU would 100% solve the issue though. Unfortunately, this means the UK loses flexibility in negotiating their own trade deals and can't control immigration as some Brexiters want.

 

[JayM]

I imagine it would have to be run like any other hard border. Or, they could just maintain the original terms of the Common Travel Area, which is how it was handled before the EU even existed (today we have a modified version thanks to EU free movement laws).

CTA applies to people, not goods, and is going to remain in place regardless. No border checks without a customs union is a smuggler's paradise.

To add - there are over 300 roads which cross the border. There are even houses where you could enter the front door in one country and leave the back into another. They can't all be policed.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Nice one Boris! The NHS £350 million lie may come back to bite him after all.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ying-prosecution-nhs-vote-leave-a8934451.html

Publicity stunt. Don't think it's gonna go anywhere apart from making the news. Don't think it would be legally sound either.

 

[dw...]

Publicity stunt. Don't think it's gonna go anywhere apart from making the news. Don't think it would be legally sound either.

It must be legally sound, he’s been summonsed to court for the case to be referred to the Crown Court on September 19th.

The actual court decision is on Twitter, the charge is misconduct in public office.

Boris Johnson has been ordered to appear in court over claims he lied by saying the UK gave the EU £350m a week.

The Tory leadership candidate has been accused of misconduct in public office after making the claim during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.

It is a private prosecution launched by campaigner Marcus Ball, who crowdfunded £200,000 for the case.

Mr Johnson's representatives have called the case a "stunt" that is being "brought for political purposes".

The preliminary hearing will take place at Westminster Magistrates' Court and the case will then be sent to the Crown Court for trial.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48445430

 

[dw...]

Publicity stunt.

Having read the rest of the BBC article and it looks like this is just a bad coincidence for Johnson. The prosecution was lodged with the court in February .

Mr Johnson faces three allegations of misconduct in public office, between 21 February 2016 and 23 June 2016 - after he had announced he was backing Leave, up until the referendum vote - and 18 April 2017 to 3 May 2017 - during the general election that year.

Mr Ball's lawyers lodged an application in February to summons Mr Johnson, claiming the MP had deliberately misled the public during the first campaign, and repeated the statement during the second.

Lewis Power QC, who represents Mr Ball, said Mr Johnson's conduct had been "both irresponsible and dishonest".

But Mr Johnson's representatives said the case was about "the desire on the part of individuals, such as Mr Ball, to undermine the referendum result".

In her written ruling, District Judge Margot Coleman said: "I accept that the public offices held by Mr Johnson provide status, but with that status comes influence and authority.

"I am satisfied there is sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of an issue to be determined at trial of this aspect."

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

The "emergency brake" is the only mechanism for EEA countries to limit immigration, but it has never been used. Is this what you are referring to?

not quite, can't recall the specific clauses off-hand, but in terms of free movement of goods:
- EFTA countries still apply their own customs duties on products
- EUCU countries do not (and can not)

in terms of free movement of people:
- EFTA countries restrict residence status
- "proper" EU members do not (and can not)

the clearest proof of this from memory was when Cameron went hat in hand to the EU to push through his idea of limiting social benefits to EU migrants to please the UK citizens back home, he was straight up told he cannot

hence the conclusion: an EFTA country has significantly more control than a full EU member

 

[dw...]

in terms of free movement of people:
- EFTA countries restrict residence status
- "proper" EU members do not (and can not)

the clearest proof of this from memory was when Cameron went hat in hand to the EU to push through his idea of limiting social benefits to EU migrants to please the UK citizens back home, he was straight up told he cannot

Doesn’t this article indicate that EU migrants can be restricted?

Can EU migrants easily claim benefits when they arrive in another EU country?

No - there are conditions, depending on an individual's circumstances.

They can stay for three months, but to stay longer after that they have to be: in work; or actively seeking work with a genuine chance of being hired; or be able to show they have enough money not to be a burden on public services. Apart from that, evidence of benefit abuse or fraud is grounds to exclude or expel a person.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25134521

 

[JayM]

not quite, can't recall the specific clauses off-hand, but in terms of free movement of goods:
- EFTA countries still apply their own customs duties on products
- EUCU countries do not (and can not)

in terms of free movement of people:
- EFTA countries restrict residence status
- "proper" EU members do not (and can not)

the clearest proof of this from memory was when Cameron went hat in hand to the EU to push through his idea of limiting social benefits to EU migrants to please the UK citizens back home, he was straight up told he cannot

hence the conclusion: an EFTA country has significantly more control than a full EU member

Under both the EU and EEA, foreign citizens exercising treaty rights cannot be treated differently from local citizens. The problem in the UK is how the social benefits system is structured: people can claim them without having contributed, and that is what opens up abuse. EEA/EFTA won't solve the problem; restructuring the way the benefits system works is the only solution. Unfortunately the idea is unpopular with both Labour and Conservative supporters, so there has been no will to change them.

Norway has exercised some of their rights regarding residence: if you plan to go there >3 months, you need to register with the police. If you haven't found a job in 6 months they have the right to ask you to leave. The UK was well within their rights to implement these restrictions as well, but never did so. These are equally available across the single market and are not EFTA/EEA specific.

 

[noxibox]

The "emergency brake" is the only mechanism for EEA countries to limit immigration, but it has never been used. Is this what you are referring to?

There is also a provision for old members of the EU to impose restrictions on workers from a new member. This applies to both members of the EU like the UK and members only of the EEA like Norway. Otherwise workers have free movement and Norway cannot prevent them from coming to and working in the country. The only requirement is that they register within 3 months of arriving and they are required to leave after six months if they don't find work, but they're allowed to go back to Norway so the six month restriction doesn't amount to much. Other EU countries have a registration requirement and if those that don't can implement one if they wish. They can also send you home if you haven't found work and they feel you have no prospect of finding work.

There are even houses where you could enter the front door in one country and leave the back into another.

Could be amusing in arguments. Storming off to Northern Ireland.

 

[JayM]

There is also a provision for old members of the EU to impose restrictions on workers from a new member. This applies to both members of the EU like the UK and members only of the EEA like Norway. Otherwise workers have free movement and Norway cannot prevent them from coming to and working in the country. The only requirement is that they register within 3 months of arriving and they are required to leave after six months if they don't find work, but they're allowed to go back to Norway so the six month restriction doesn't amount to much. Other EU countries have a registration requirement and if those that don't can implement one if they wish. They can also send you home if you haven't found work and they feel you have no prospect of finding work.


Could be amusing in arguments. Storming off to Northern Ireland.

It is extremely frustrating that all this information is freely available yet people are so ignorant. But Brexit means Brexit, so let's trash the economy and break up the union.

 

[noxibox]

The problem in the UK is how the social benefits system is structured: people can claim them without having contributed, and that is what opens up abuse.

The issue I think is that the UK's benefits are somewhat more generous than some other countries. UK citizens can claim benefits in other EU countries too. However the solution is simply to require people to work in the country or go home.

It is extremely frustrating that all this information is freely available yet people are so ignorant. But Brexit means Brexit, so let's trash the economy and break up the union.

Even more ridiculous is that the immigrants they complain about forming ethnic enclaves, becoming radicals and so on don't come from the EU.

 

[JayM]

Even more ridiculous is that the immigrants they complain about forming ethnic enclaves, becoming radicals and so on don't come from the EU.

Immigration from Pakistan and the like is going to replace EU immigrants. I'd wager the reason for a good many people voting for Brexit was 'too many brown people' - Farage played on the whole 'refugees becoming EU citizens then moving to the UK' thing, when in reality it was always going to be a tiny drop in the ocean compared to non-EU immigration.

 

[The Voice]

Immigration from Pakistan and the like is going to replace EU immigrants. I'd wager the reason for a good many people voting for Brexit was 'too many brown people' - Farage played on the whole 'refugees becoming EU citizens then moving to the UK' thing, when in reality it was always going to be a tiny drop in the ocean compared to non-EU immigration.

Think the angle was that because the UK is part of the EU, it means that all those refugees could potentially walk from one end of Europe to the other, and straight into England, where they'd get the best handouts.

Considering the thousands still in and around Calais, he wasn't exactly far off, because that's just what they did. Of course, they're not too good at swimming it seems, and are making slow work of stowing away on trucks going through the tunnel, so it's still going to take them a while to get here, and by that time the channel will have been filled with great white sharks with laser beams attached to their heads.

Jokes aside, they don't seem to be able to stem the flow from the Commonwealth. The difference between them and the EU is that it's more common for an EU citizen to come over here to work or study for a few years and then go back home. People from the Commonwealth rarely go back, though, as their aim is to settle here.

And I suppose I understand where the negative rhetoric comes from: all terror attacks on British soil (IRA excluded), and even all the grooming gangs (going back almost 30 years), have been carried out by people of Pakistani/Muslim heritage - it's almost a 100% record. And that really hasn't done any of the honest immigrants any favours.

 

[JayM]

Think the angle was that because the UK is part of the EU, it means that all those refugees could potentially walk from one end of Europe to the other, and straight into England, where they'd get the best handouts.

Brexit or not, UK was never in Schengen so passing through border control would be required, so the only reason this would have been a threat is if border controls were inadequate. UK also had an opt-out to not accept refugees for permanent settlement, but they still agreed to take 26K.

 

[The Voice]

Brexit or not, UK was never in Schengen so passing through border control would be required, so the only reason this would have been a threat is if border controls were inadequate. UK also had an opt-out to not accept refugees for permanent settlement, but they still agreed to take 26K.

Stick a picture of a thousand refugees heading your way on a billboard, and does any of that even matter to the people voting? Like Remain, Leave also (quite effectively) played on peoples' emotions.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Doesn’t this article indicate that EU migrants can be restricted?

The reality says different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015–16_United_Kingdom_renegotiation_of_European_Union_membership