The Brexit Thread

It has always been the U.K, the Irish visa policy and never the EU one.
Free movement has always been imposed by the EU, if it was never an issue why is the EU holding the UK to ransom on that very topic during "negotiations" ...

That little clause in the EU agreement that states members shall implement XYZ legislation passed by the EU is where it's at: written into UK law because the EU said so.
 
Free movement has always been imposed by the EU, if it was never an issue why is the EU holding the UK to ransom on that very topic during "negotiations" ...

That little clause in the EU agreement that states members shall implement XYZ legislation passed by the EU is where it's at: written into UK law because the EU said so.
Which the UK can veto at anytime.

Now it is likely that the UK will still have to abide by EU regulations if it wants to continue participation in its largest trade market, but will now have no say in the matter.

Read the twitter thread I linked a few posts up that explains what a typical UK export bussiness will have to deal with post-Brexit.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Last edited:
Which is what I said. But they knew that for decades (this freedom started in 1951), it existed before UK even became a member, it has nothing to do with being a new condition being imposed on the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_for_workers_in_the_European_Union

Visa rules (as in rules for citizens of countries for which a visa is compulsory) and border controls have always been in full control of the UK:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schengen_Agreement
You're doing gymnastics now...

You claimed they had FULL control of their borders (They didn't not when it comes to the EU passport holders)
You then claim they agreed to it when they signed up (Irrelevant as they want to not be bound by that agreements no more and the reason for Brexit)
Schengen agreement is irrelevant also.

Them leaving the EU means they have 100% full control of who enters and who exits, on their terms, irrespective any EU agreement. That is the fact of the matter. Nothing more nothing less.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
You're doing gymnastics now...

You claimed they had FULL control of their borders (They didn't not when it comes to the EU passport holders)
You then claim they agreed to it when they signed up (Irrelevant as they want to not be bound by that agreements no more and the reason for Brexit)
Schengen agreement is irrelevant also.

Them leaving the EU means they have 100% full control of who enters and who exits, on their terms, irrespective any EU agreement. That is the fact of the matter. Nothing more nothing less.
No, you put words in my mouth by cherry picking one sentence without the one just before. Big difference.

I have never said they have full control of their EU immigration. And border control and immigration control are complete different thing when it comes to EU citizens and EU treaties, as I’ve always said.

Maybe an introduction to the treaties would be a good thing for you.

IMG_5497.JPG
IMG_5498.JPG
IMG_5499.JPG
IMG_5500.JPG
 
Last edited:
It’s been proven that limiting immigration through Brexit will not happen. It was a fake reason to appeal to voters.

UK always had the powers (especially since not on Shengen) to limit immigration.

And the most immigrants come from China and India.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gen...he-Britains-migrants-coming-from-and-why.html
No, you put words in my mouth. Big difference.

I have never said they have full control of their EU immigration.

Yes, I guess it depends on what you're trying to say. So I'll admit you didn't say it in so many words, you were being deceitful though in saying they "always had the power to limit immigration" because sure, they could "limit" it, but never had control over all facets of it. They are wanting 100% full control, you are 100% aware of that, and that is the reason they wanted Brexit, to leave the EU. They have an issue with not being able to control EU immigration to an extent they are happy with.

Trying to play gymnastics around "But other countries" is not really relevant. Those immigrants they had control over and ALLOWED them in. Unlike the EU nationals in the UK.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Yes, I guess it depends on what you're trying to say. So I'll admit you didn't say it in so many words, you were being deceitful though in saying they "always had the power to limit immigration" because sure, they could "limit" it, but never had control over all facets of it. They are wanting 100% full control, you are 100% aware of that, and that is the reason they wanted Brexit, to leave the EU. They have an issue with not being able to control EU immigration to an extent they are happy with.

Trying to play gymnastics around "But other countries" is not really relevant. Those immigrants they had control over and ALLOWED them in. Unlike the EU nationals in the UK.
Hence why I chose limit and not eradicate. They always have had the power to reduce by +/-50% their immigration (roughly the share of non EU immigration), and could have started immediately by reducing this if immigration was an issue.

They’ve never done so, proving that the immigration motive was utter BS.
 
They’ve never done so, proving that the immigration motive was utter BS.
The UK government has never done so, that doesn't mean the immigration motive on the part of their citizens is BS.

We all know the UK government has always been (and remains) pro-EU, but previously they had an excuse on the immigration front in EU policy. That excuse disappears with brexit and the citizens can demand action from a government that no longer gets to hide behind someone else's laws.

Any way you spin it, it is vital that the UK be in control 100% so that they can be held 100% accountable.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
The UK government has never done so, that doesn't mean the immigration motive on the part of their citizens is BS.

We all know the UK government has always been (and remains) pro-EU, but previously they had an excuse on the immigration front in EU policy. That excuse disappears with brexit and the citizens can demand action from a government that no longer gets to hide behind someone else's laws.

Any way you spin it, it is vital that the UK be in control 100% so that they can be held 100% accountable.
I don’t really see the usefulness of paying billions and losing many advantages to be in control of something that is not an issue.

I just find it mind-boggling (and it’s not BS, I don’t see what it is):
- if it’s an issue, why nothing was done about it?
- it it’s not an issue, why pay and lose so much for a right you don’t plan on using?
 
Hence why I chose limit and not eradicate. They always have had the power to reduce by +/-50% their immigration (roughly the share of non EU immigration), and could have started immediately by reducing this if immigration was an issue.

They’ve never done so, proving that the immigration motive was utter BS.
Again, how so?

Just answer me this: As an EU passport holder, can you get into the UK without a very valid reason for denying you entry (interpol or what not) and are you allowed to work on an EU passport in the UK.

If you answer to the 2 questions above are yes. Then how the hell can you say immigration angle is bullshyte? That is exactly what they want to stem...
 
I don’t really see the usefulness of paying billions and losing many advantages to be in control of something that is not an issue
It IS an issue for the people, the fact that their government hasn't acted doesn't make the issue disappear in a puff of reverse psychology. But you are right that there's no point in paying billions, if May had any backbone whatsoever she would simply refuse.

- if it’s an issue, why nothing was done about it?
Ask the UK government, they have used the EU policy to hide behind and explain away their own inaction.

- it it’s not an issue, why pay and lose so much for a right you don’t plan on using?
Separate the concepts: it IS an issue, but no billions need to be paid to leave the EU.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Again, how so?

Just answer me this: As an EU passport holder, can you get into the UK without a very valid reason for denying you entry (interpol or what not) and are you allowed to work on an EU passport in the UK.

If you answer to the 2 questions above are yes. Then how the hell can you say immigration angle is bullshyte? That is exactly what they want to stem...
Obtuse will remain obtuse.

Read again my message, I have stated EXCEPT PUBLIC ORDER.

According to the treaties (you know the piece of paper having the value of law), border policies and visa policies are different. Border policies are merely the right to have a hard border with a border post (and the UK always had that unlike Schengen countries).

In terms of these treaties, UK has control of its borders (which is why there are border posts), but not of its EU immigration and full control of its non EU immigration.

Seems difficult to grasp for you. Last time I answer, repeating the same thing in 5 different ways is tiring. You can go read the treaties on your own.
 
Last edited:

f2wohf

Honorary Master
It IS an issue for the people, the fact that their government hasn't acted doesn't make the issue disappear in a puff of reverse psychology. But you are right that there's no point in paying billions, if May had any backbone whatsoever she would simply refuse.


Ask the UK government, they have used the EU policy to hide behind and explain away their own inaction.


Separate the concepts: it IS an issue, but no billions need to be paid to leave the EU.
She can try to say no. The EU can also say no to British trade.
 
She can try to say no. The EU can also say no to British trade.
That's perfectly fine, the whole negotiation is a farce anyway. Perhaps the adults will return to the negotiating table with clear minds after a hard brexit.

Time to say F-em, no divorce settlement, no free movement, no free trade, f-all. Then once reality sets in on both sides, get together and plan the way forward, currently they're going nowhere fast.
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
That's perfectly fine, the whole negotiation is a farce anyway. Perhaps the adults will return to the negotiating table with clear minds after a hard brexit.

Time to say F-em, no divorce settlement, no free movement, no free trade, f-all. Then once reality sets in on both sides, get together and plan the way forward, currently they're going nowhere fast.
Totally agreed. Sitting at the table with no plan isn’t useful at all.
 
Obtuse will remain obtuse.
Yes you are and I'm trying to understand your motive for it.

I will say this one last time as it seems you fail to understand what Brexit is. Britain wants to leave the EU. Not close itself off from the world. This discussion is about Britain and the European Union. So they want to leave in order to be able to control the ins and outs of EU nationals coming and going across it's borders. Why you're trying to make the water murky I don't know.

Brexit = Britain leaving the EU. EU passport holders are the focus here. It's not science, can't be that hard to grasp :eek:
 

f2wohf

Honorary Master
Yes you are and I'm trying to understand your motive for it.

I will say this one last time as it seems you fail to understand what Brexit is. Britain wants to leave the EU. Not close itself off from the world. This discussion is about Britain and the European Union. So they want to leave in order to be able to control the ins and outs of EU nationals coming and going across it's borders. Why you're trying to make the water murky I don't know.

Brexit = Britain leaving the EU. EU passport holders are the focus here. It's not science, can't be that hard to grasp :eek:
You focus on one little word (border control), which is the reality, without dissociating it with access control (or visa policy), which are two different things. It’s not something I would pay billions for, as a person or as a ruler, but it’s not my money or my way.

Mechanically, the UK closes itself to the world for a few years since there are going to be gaps between the EU and new UK the trade agreements.

As I’ve always said, I’m very happy with the UK out and wish them the best out.
 
You focus on one little word (border control), which is the reality, without dissociating it with access control (or visa policy), which are two different things. It’s not something I would pay billions for, as a person or as a ruler, but it’s not my money or my way.

Mechanically, the UK closes itself to the world for a few years since there are going to be gaps between the EU and new UK the trade agreements.

As I’ve always said, I’m very happy with the UK out and wish them the best out.
You brought up the border control issue, not me. And secondly, I think it's up to Britain to determine how much they are willing to spend on this exit. Not for me or you to even try and comprehend :p
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Yes you are and I'm trying to understand your motive for it.

I will say this one last time as it seems you fail to understand what Brexit is. Britain wants to leave the EU. Not close itself off from the world. This discussion is about Britain and the European Union. So they want to leave in order to be able to control the ins and outs of EU nationals coming and going across it's borders. Why you're trying to make the water murky I don't know.

Brexit = Britain leaving the EU. EU passport holders are the focus here. It's not science, can't be that hard to grasp :eek:
You're talking past each other.

He's saying that if immigration (as a whole) is considered a problem, they've been able to reduce that if they wanted to. They haven't, ergo...

Or is only EU immigration specifically considered a problem?

The 'having control' over EU immigration is a separate point.
 
Top