Forum menu
dazh
Full Member
I can only think of one EU national living in the UK under withdrawal agreement terms on STW and he’s a Brexiteer who hadn’t appplied for UK nationality the last time asked and has since been evasive.I know a few EU nationals living and working in the UK and their lives haven’t changed. The fear of what leaving the EU would result in and the reality are very different. Almost like project fear was exactly that.
I’m a Brit living in Finland and most likely know many more EU nationals than you with a different experience, and also Brits being forced to leave Finland or being denied residency status post Brexit.
Have they?
Not as far as I've seen, but @Edukator may have different info. It would have to be a singular deal for the UK though, as last I did read about it, 1. the current members of EFA weren't keen on having an economy the size of the UK joining their wee club that suits them all just fine thanks, and 2. The rabid Brexiteers would never stand for it, the Norway option was always a lie, they didn't want it back when it was on the table and they sure as shit don't want it now.
I know a few EU nationals living and working in the UK and their lives haven’t changed. The fear of what leaving the EU would result in and the reality are very different. Almost like project fear was exactly that.
My life hasn't changed either.
But then I left the UK pre-Brexit and haven't tried moving anywhere since. Do you think I might have a different experience moving to another EU country now?
Or is that just Project Fear?
andytherocketeer
There were several other annoying acquaintances that used to cling on like a turd stuck to your butt-beard, and brexshit/trump was the perfect event to wipe them away for good.
quote of the day right here, chapeau (chapoo?)
If a majority in the UK wish to rejoin, why isn’t Starmer getting in front of that crowd?
Because the ensuing shit-show would ruin politics for another decade or more and cause even more of a breakdown of politics than we have. We need to get politics and government functioning again before we can even start.
Die thread die, why won't you ****ing die 😠
Previously I needed a trailer license to tow a decent trailer behind my van dispute having a licence to drive 20ton HGV. Now I don't.
It's nice, but not as nice as being able to work abroad.
I'm having trouble finding the articles I want because Norway-Uk trade deal dominates Google results. The most recent EU offer I could think of that key words produced what I was looking for was the offer of a Swiss type deal:
The EU’s Brexit negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič, offered a Swiss-style trading agreement last June but it was rejected by Frost. The move is reportedly being considered by some in government, particularly while Sunak seeks to avoid a trade war with the EU and strike a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol.
As Barnier has consistently pointed out a better deal depends on Britain dropping its red lines and accepting the EU's terms.
Bit of a tenuous one this.
Like it or not Brexit showed that the democratic process worked. More people voted leave than stay, so we left.
That ignores the fact that lots of people who voted leave believed the leave campaigns BS about the benefits and lots of people didn't vote one way or the other.
So the other two benefits are hopefully that more people are inclined to vote in future and we're all even more disinclined to believe politicians.
But I am clutching at straws here 🙁
Scottish / Welsh / Yorkshire independence anyone ?
Or that referendums will require 50% of voters rather than just 50% of voters who vote. And that everyone body gets a vote because voter supression is a real thing.
Now that we are out of the EU we can do a lot of stuff that we couldn’t do before
Such as?
You finally recognise the problem... ... but it had bugger all to do with being in the EU.
I agree with you on this. Our current state is due to the Tory governments we have had for the past decade or so. Without them there would have been no Brexit and with out Brexit there would have been no Tory government beyond 2016, propped up as it was by flag waving nationalists. Let's hope the electorate see sense at the next election and get rid of this shower of shit before Scottish devolution plunges us into an even further right little England.
Like it or not Brexit showed that the democratic process worked
For a referendum but not how it works for a general election.
But I am clutching at straws here
Not really. The fact that politicians gave the people a choice on an issue as big as this goes against the popular view that politicians do what the hell they like and don't listen to the voters. On this occasion, the people were given the decision and they decided. You can argue about the pros and cons of leaving, but you can't really argue against giving people the power to make the decision. We need a lot more of it IMO.
But that's where the devolution of decision making powers ended*. At no point since has any decision on what Brexit actually should mean been made with reference to what the population as a whole want, only what a small proportion of them want.
[* of course that devolution never actually happened, it was all advisory and decision making powers stayed with government and parliament, but hey, let's pretend it did happen ]
As Barnier has consistently pointed out a better deal depends on Britain dropping its red lines and accepting the EU’s terms.
Exactly. And those red lines have never been voted on, and are not based on the wishes of the UK population. Only a minority in the UK has ever wanted to be outside the single market, or to do away with freedom of movement. None of this shows that our democracy is functioning well in the UK, only that it can be played and abused.
You can argue about the pros and cons of leaving, but you can’t really argue against giving people the power to make the decision.
Nonsense. Of course you can.
In fact the vast majority of stable democracy depends on some sort of qualified democracy - whether that’s FPTP, a qualified proportional representation (its always qualified in some way) or similar.
I am trying to think of a good example of successful direct democracy - probably because asking people the outcomes they’d like is generally sensible, but asking them to chose right the mechanism to achieve those outcomes less so.
When we do we get the mess we’re in delivering none of the outcomes any of the voters actually said they wanted.
Que rampant post-rationalisation.
Direct democracy requires constantly going back to the populous with refined and qualified questions to work out exactly what to do. One referendum a decade is not direct democracy in any meaningful way.
When we do we get the mess we’re in delivering none of the outcomes any of the voters actually said they wanted.
Well put.
On this occasion, the people were given the decision and they decided
With none of the checks and balances that an official referendum would have, like the leave campaign being allowed to tell a pack of lies and present several versions of what brexit might be.
So basically we had remain or about 7 different brexit varients... on what planet is that a level playingfield?
A threshold of 50% is also frankly crazy for such a fundamantal change given the above.
The fear of what leaving the EU would result in and the reality are very different. Almost like project fear was exactly that.
Can anyone actually remember what project fear was?
As I recall it was the Brexy claim that the remain advocates were trying to scare you with the benefits of remaining in the EU.
That about right?
It certainly seems to have been rewritten many times to claim remain folk said things they never did.
And amazingly some folk actually believe this Brexiteer nonsense.
4 pages in and there clearly are none, except towing trailers possibly.
Mods, can you close this thread now please.
We need a lot more of it IMO.
Hmmm. there's a reason we've never been offered a referendum on bringing back capital punishment. Besides which the Brexit referendum was by far and away the worst version that we could've been offered. It didn't even define what leaving meant, it didn't offer qualification, didn't say what would happen after the vote, no EU national living in the UK was allowed to vote, but British folks living in Australia and New Zealand somehow were?
We need to do much better if were going to ask the public for any more of their opinions.
…and so another thread has descended into a socialist rebuke of capitalism. People of the left and right detest what Brexit has done to this country.
Wait a few years when even more people aren't benefiting from capitalism, because they've no capital - and this "socialism", that's the very thing YOU benefited from with your free-at-point-of-use healthcare, education, law & order etc etc.
At the risk of being shouted at, i'm going to try + be impartial.
Some cheap EU labour was undermining UK salaries from the late 1990's. However, we were left with a huge labour shortage that wasn't being filled by African/Asian workers, domestic workers or new technology. So lots of retail/hospitality/factories/farms closed. A wasted opportunity.
It's difficult to assess the costs/benefits, though, as you have to compare the current position of the UK to an imaginary scenario where we are still in the EU, 4 years later. Would we still have high inflation, for example? Probably, yes.
For me, it's the lack of planning and consideration given to our long-term prospects which is the most frustrating. There was far too much emphasis on 'Getting Brext done' instead of 'Making Britain better'!
The private sector will always act in it's own interests. A classic example is the Freeport at Redcar - this will be a gold standard in corruption and misappropriation.
Leaving the EU allows the UK to restructure its railways, but that would require a competent government that actually wanted to achieve something rather than just put out press releases.
You can argue about the pros and cons of leaving, but you can’t really argue against giving people the power to make the decision. We need a lot more of it IMO.
Surely it's a warning of what will happen if you give people the power to make a decision, when they aren't provided with the information needed to make that decision, and aren't blessed with the skills to analyse that information even if they had it?
there’s a reason we’ve never been offered a referendum on bringing back capital punishment.
Capital punishment is a fringe issue. You wouldn't ask the population to vote on something that trivial. You might however get the population to vote on taxation levels, budgets, NHS, schools reform and other big stuff that directly affects them. Yes the brexit vote was poorly organised and a terribly implemented example of a referendum, which is why we need to do more of them to get them right. The tories won an election on the promise of a referendum on EU membership, then won another because the results of it weren't being implemented or could even be overturned. That shows they have a place in our legislative system, and an improvement on our corrupt and venal system of representative democracy.
Surely it’s a warning of what will happen if you give people the power to make a decision
If you want a functioning democracy you need to trust the people to make decisions. If you want good decisions you need to maximise opportunities for involving voters in them. You can't have it both ways. Either we believe in democracy or we don't, and with patronising comments such as this the remain/rejoin lobby sounds more and more anti-democratic. That's one of the (main) reasons people voted out, because of a perceived political establishment which wields power without accountability.
You might however get the population to vote on taxation levels, budgets, NHS, schools reform and other big stuff that directly affects them.
Then you'd have an absolute tyranny of the majority. How do you think, say, cyclists would fare if relevant issues were decided by a majority?
Sorry Dazh, I don’t think you’ve made the case. I’m going to disagree.
My life has changed and I'm a dual national. CRC closed my account which dated to back to when they first launched the site, it's easier to buy stuff from China than the UK and the border is an absolute random shit show pain in the butt. It's absolutely pointless booking any transport on the other side because you have no idea how long it's going to take to get through customs. The customs people seem to make life especially difficult for dual nationals and airport staff randomly refuse access to flights people have every right to be on (that's no longer a problem, I've given up flying). My last effort to leave the UK, we did catch the boat but I did begin to wonder:
"Do you have any proof you are British?" my national insurance number is ......... check. "A British passport?" I'm travelling on my French passport because it's a good idea to enter and leave a country on the same passport, besides my British one is out of date. "Driving license" - French. "Adresse?" - French, the one on this ID card is correct as is all the other information including place of birth, Birmingham, same as on my passport. "Wait there"
On junior's last trip he arrived over an hour early in St Pancras for Eurostar as advised and missed it. On the way in they wanted proof of where he was going to stay, since when did a Brit need proof of where he is going to spend the night in Britain?
I've dusted off my birth certificate, the English one before I was born again French, maybe that will help.
Rant to be continued.... 😉
So a personal benefit is that it's really made me appreciate how easy it is to get around Shengen.
The customs people seem to make life especially difficult for dual nationals and airport staff randomly refuse access to flights people have every right to be on
MrsJ is one of them dirty forriners like the majority decided we don't want. Last time around she was asked to show her UK residence card. Her what ????????
If you want a functioning democracy you need to trust the people to make decisions. If you want good decisions you need to maximise opportunities for involving voters in them. You can’t have it both ways.
A functioning democracy needs people to indicate preferences, not make decisions (that’s what governments are for - if the population makes the decision you just need a civil service not a government)
And the preferences should be preferred outcomes, not preferred mechanisms.
PS - I think you might find (with your time machine I’ve supplied) Brexit was more of a fringe issue than capital punishment in 2010ish.
Then you’d have an absolute tyranny of the majority. How do you think, say, cyclists would fare if relevant issues were decided by a majority?
You'd have checks and controls to prevent a tyranny of the majority situation. And do you really think we'd have referenda on cycling/roads policy?? Seriously that's clutching at straws and doesn't help your argument. Look, if you don't want more democracy then fine, but don't dress it up by pretending fringe issues would result in some sort of tyrannical mob rule. The flip side is also true though, don't then complain when corrupt representatives like tory MPs make stupid policy which harms you.
You’d have checks and controls to prevent a tyranny of the majority situation.
Like the checks and controls that were abscent from the brexit referendum?
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html
Wait a few years when even more people aren’t benefiting from capitalism, because they’ve no capital – and this “socialism”, that’s the very thing YOU benefited from with your free-at-point-of-use healthcare, education, law & order etc etc.
Except this isn't what this thread is about - is it? Spare your lectures on the benefits of socialism and start a new thread on the subject.
You’d have checks and controls to prevent a tyranny of the majority situation.
So it wouldn't actually be the people's choice, then, it would be modified by some non-democratic actors.
And do you really think we’d have referenda on cycling/roads policy?? Seriously that’s clutching at straws and doesn’t help your argument.
Err, no but I thought STW readers would be sensitive to the impact of what a majority believe, and that it would be a clear example around a shared concern.
Look, if you don’t want more democracy then fine, but don’t dress it up by pretending fringe issues would result in some sort of tyrannical mob rule.
And yet they have. That's exactly what this thread is about. A small problem of the Tories and UKIP has led to an ignorant majority messing everyone's life up.
And do you really think we’d have referenda on cycling/roads policy??
If you gave any group of folks the chance to dictate the local transport issues, I would happily wager your money it would not be safe and separated cycling infra, and that's precisely the sort of local and popular "more democracy" you're advocating.
Capital punishment is a fringe issue.
A decade ago so was leaving the EU. No one but no one saw it as the issue that should be a national referendum.
A functioning democracy needs people to indicate preferences, not make decisions (that’s what governments are for – if the population makes the decision you just need a civil service not a government)
Semantics. Expressing a preference is making a decision. The govt decides which outcomes are presented to the people on a particular issue, then enable a debate and a referendum to make the decision. I really don't see what's so controversial about that.
And the preferences should be preferred outcomes
Like being in the EU or out of it? If you're arguing that referenda should have simple to understand outcomes, the EU referendum was a good example.
And do you really think we’d have referenda on cycling/roads policy??
Are you paying attention to Rishi "culture warrior" Sunak and sundry other muppets in parliament? Of course we would and Sir Starmer would not be any better at not pandering to the nutters. (See panic about ULEZ for an example of flip-flop policy making).
some non-democratic actors
They're not undemocratic, the idea of a referendum is to get an idea of the majority view without oppressing the minority. Without losers consent the process is undemocratic no matter what the majority require and the danger is that revolution and heads on stakes becomes more likely.
Expressing a preference is making a decision
What? No it's not!
A decade ago so was leaving the EU. No one but no one saw it as the issue that should be a national referendum.
Don't be daft. EU membership was an issue which directly affected everyone in the country. Capital punishment affects a tiny few people who commit or are victims of murder. Clearly you wouldn't have a referendum on an issue that only impacts a negligible percentage of the population.