Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[JPRouve]

Whichever people the member state decides it wants to grant residency status.

It's already the case, residency status is granted by member states.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It's already the case, residency status is granted by member states.

We were talking about a hypothetical world where there was no automatic right of free movement of labour between EU member states.

 

[JPRouve]

We were talking about a hypothetical world where there was no automatic right of free movement of labour between EU member states.

But this has nothing to do with residency which was my point. As for your suggestion, it only works if you have systematic border checks.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Whichever people the member state decides it wants to grant residency status.

No, I mean if there were restrictions or opt outs, not talking about the total end of freedom of movement. I don't think any EU member state is complaining currently about UK citizens moving to their country. If the Uk had restrictions of incoming numbers of other EU citizens wouldn't the UK in theory be restricting UK citizens in leaving in a reciprocal manner.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

But this has nothing to do with residency which was my point. As for your suggestion, it only works if you have systematic border checks.

Residency might have been the wrong word. My basic point is that the EU’s unnecessary dogmatism/absolutism on the principle of freedom of movement of labour is what fundamentally cost them one of the most important countries leaving the block.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

No, I mean if there were restrictions or opt outs, not talking about the total end of freedom of movement. I don't think any EU member state is complaining currently about UK citizens moving to their country. If the Uk had restrictions of incoming numbers of other EU citizens wouldn't the UK in theory be restricting UK citizens in leaving in a reciprocal manner.

I’m struggling to follow what you mean. Sorry, it’s been a long day!

 

[diarm]

So you apologise then deliver an insult. Great.

I can't help it if you're insulted by me pointing out childish arguments for what they are.

With regards to the other part there you go again making judgements (despite saying you haven't).

I literally made that observation with a disclaimer and asked you to engage on the subject. You haven't, preferring to hide behind an imaginary victim card.

I think it's pretty obvious you have some deep rooted issues with the British which supercede Brexit and the past three years. That's your prerogative I guess and understandable given the history.

Yes of course. The point that there are deep rooted issues between Ireland and Britain which supercede Brexit and the past three years is precisely the point it seems we are being asked to forget about while compromising on Britains behalf.

I just don't think it's healthy to have an 'us vs them' mindset, especially when the average bloke like me (and the millions of others in the UK) had nothing to do with what went on in Ireland and have lots of love and affection for the Irish in general. It's very unfair and unnecessary.

I don't have an 'us vs them' mindset. I simply expect Britain to abide by its responsibilities and obligations. Nobody is blaming you or anyone else in modern Britain for "what went on in Ireland". We are simply pointing out that what happened had and still has consequences for our island and that you as a nation agreed to responsibilities and obligations recognising your part in it all.

The average bloke like me and millions of others like me in Ireland had nothing to do with Britains brexit decision. Yet we are being expected to compromise on Britains behalf and release it from those responsibilities and obligations it agreed to. Brexit will not result in a hard border division across a large part of the island of England, Scotland and Wales, yet Britain is expecting us to accept one across a large part of ours. Even when we all know it will lead to violence and unrest.

 

[JPRouve]

Residency might have been the wrong word. My basic point is that the EU’s unnecessary dogmatism/absolutism on the principle of freedom of movement of labour is what fundamentally cost them one of the most important countries leaving the block.

But that's wrong for at least two reasons first EU citizenship and freedom of movement of Labour is treaty based, it's totally wrong to talk about the "EU" when in reality it's a right that was directly given by member states through treaty, it has nothing to do with a dogmatism of the EU. And it's also worth noting that this right was already granted pre-Maastricht, that's why they didn't veto or demanded an opt out.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I’m struggling to follow what you mean. Sorry, it’s been a long day!

You were talking of restrictions or opt outs of freedom of movement. Why would the UK have an opt out or be able to restrict the number of EU citizens if they already have the ability of sending back EU citizens who are a burden to the state.
If they did have such an opt out why should UK citizens be entitled to be able to move wherever they liked in the EU provided they satisfied the same conditions.
Whereas other EU states don't have a problem, it feels like they should in turn restrict UK citizens to be fair, even though they don't want to.

If you see what I mean. Yes, it is late.

But we're now told it's nothing to do with foreigners, just the wrong type of foreigner and is really about parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control of borders or not as the case may be.

 

[Honest John]

Really ?





Plus you seem to be taking criticism of the British Empire and its crimes personally. No one has called you names or insulted you. You just feel bad.

State of this

 

[stevoc]

Not so much Ireland but Brussels.

Perhaps bending their rules on the single market and customs union regarding trade between Southern and Northern Ireland without trapping the rest of the UK. It's difficult but I do get the feeling the EU has decided they want to be tough on a deal and not be seen to give anything to the UK which is fine but there should have been an acceptance that there's a quite precarious situation in Ireland and perhaps some special dispensation could be made?

I am far from happy with how the UK have gone about negotiations but I think it's naive to think the EU have been angels throughout.

I think you should try looking at this from a different perspective. Instead of asking why doesn't the EU compromise their single market, ask why can't the UK compromise to sort this problem out?

A problem after all they themselves created. The 2016 referendum was organized with little or no thought given to Northern Ireland and how a leave vote would affect it, the GFA and the peace process. Before the referendum even took place there should have been measures built in to ensure the GFA was protected. Perhaps a second NI only referendum giving people here the choice of whether or not to stay in the CU/SM in the event of a leave vote. This could have even been offered after the leave vote won when the problems the GFA presented to implementing Brexit became apparent. But no neither of these things happened instead we got the DUP and Tories making decisions for the people of NI that endanger the GFA and the peace here. And all without the people of NI even being consulted, which is disgraceful when you consider what the GFA actually is. It's a peace treaty designed to give the people of NI the power to decide their own future, thats what people here voted for it's what the peace of the last 20 years was built upon.

It is the fact the UK signed a peace treaty enshrined in international law that is making Brexit complicated not the EU. It seems unfair to ask the EU and 27 other nations to compromise their single market to fix a problem the UK government created itself through incompetence and short sightedness. By the way the EU did compromise and offered an NI only backstop that would have solved this problem. But it was rejected by the Conservative and Unionist party. They then agreed to a deal that would have seen the whole of the UK remain in the CU with only NI staying in the SM. That would have also solved this problem that one was rejected by parliament. So i think it's easy to see here who should be trying harder compromise.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

It is not slagging off the English to remind them that they have responsibilities and historic accountability for a region they themselves destabilised.

The UK is not being treated any differently to any other country who have left, apart from in the very specific and unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and a peace agreement the UK was an equal partner in designing and agreeing to.

Just because something happened a long time ago, doesn't mean you can ignore your responsibilities. You are expecting Ireland to compromise on something which we know will hurt us economically, politically and most significantly, will jeopardise peace and security on our island - just to make your wish of breaking clear of the European Union easier for you to accomplish. Then you are resenting us for not agreeing to it.

Britain decided to leave the European Union so Britain should be the one who compromises. It is as simple as that. The idea that we should simply get over the history of what happened between our countries might be valid if there was an ocean border between us but there isn't, there is a land border which results directly from that historic invasion and occupation.

I can't get my head around the idea that someone could refuse to accept the relevance and importance of this. How anyone could be so self-centered and self-interested as to expect Ireland or the other EU members to bend to such school yard bully tactics.

1st bold, Many things happened a long time ago, the Republic of Ireland agreed to the border which created it for example a long time ago. I think the reason many people are so upset about this, is that history starts where you want it to as a means to an end.

2nd bold, The GFA does not say that UK can not leave the EU, the Single Market or The Customs Union. In fact the EU has a mechanism to leave it. What you argue in this post is that no matter what the EU becomes the UK must always remain within it. That is nonsense and by compromise you mean do as I say.If you feel that people in the UK owe you something, I would prepare to be shocked by the lack of fecks they give about what you think they owe you or your idea of history.

3rd bold, They can't understand how they can't vote to leave the EU without people outside their country deciding they are not allowed to do so. How can anyone be so self centered and self interested as to expect Britain to be bullied into staying in the EU SM CU when they voted to leave. You see the counter argument?

I wanted to avoid this whole debate and the shit that goes with it so I voted remain in a referendum I didn't want.

That doesn't mean that I think your views about how history, means you get to tell me or my countrymen that they can or can't decide about their own fate for themselves. After all isn't that the reason we are not fellow countrymen?

People often say they are nor being listened to when what they really mean is that they are not being obeyed. Isn't that really the means to an end here? People want to use their take on history to keep the UK bound to the EU in a way that suits them that's all that is important to them.

 

[diarm]

1st bold, Many things happened a long time ago, the Republic of Ireland agreed to the border which created it for example a long time ago. I think the reason many people are so upset about this, is that history starts where you want it to as a means to an end.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make here? I don't want to appear rash so I'll just ask you to give a clearer explanation of your point.

2nd bold, The GFA does not say that UK can not leave the EU, the Single Market or The Customs Union. In fact the EU has a mechanism to leave it. What you argue in this post is that no matter what the EU becomes the UK must always remain within it. That is nonsense and by compromise you mean do as I say.

I have argued no such thing. The UK is free to leave the EU as it sees fit - I am simply arguing that it abides by its obligation to ensure there is no hard border implemented on the island of Ireland. The backstop allowed for this.

If you feel that people in the UK owe you something, I would prepare to be shocked by the lack of fecks they give about what you think they owe you or your idea of history.

On the contrary, the fact there are those in Britain who give no "fecks" about what I think of their obligations to peace on this island is entirely the point I have been making all along.

3rd bold, They can't understand how they can't vote to leave the EU without people outside their country deciding they are not allowed to do so. How can anyone be so self centered and self interested as to expect Britain to be bullied into staying in the EU SM CU when they voted to leave. You see the counter argument?

That is not a valid counterargument because nobody is deciding Britain cannot leave the EU. They are simply pointing to the obligations Britain signed up to with regards the unique and delicate issue of Northern Ireland and expecting Britain to adhere to them. The backstop was an agreed upon compromise which allowed Brexit to happen and avoided a hard border. Britain suggested it, agreed to it and then reneged on that agreement.

I wanted to avoid this whole debate and the shit that goes with it so I voted remain in a referendum I didn't want.

That doesn't mean that I think your views about how history, means you get to tell me or my countrymen that they can or can't decide about their own fate for themselves. After all isn't that the reason we are not fellow countrymen?

What disturbs me the most is this idea that being able to decide your own fate is so all important, regardless of the impact it has on a neighbouring island of which your own nation occupies a significant area. I can't imagine feeling so selfish and uncaring as to argue for something, even when I know that getting it will put the safety of others in jeopardy.

The reason we are not fellow countrymen is that our ancestors fought and died for our independence. An independence from an occupation their ancestors never wanted or signed up for. Britain now wants an independence from a union they did willingly sign up for, but it won't be English, Welsh or Scottish people with their lives on the line to earn that right - it will be once again Irish people on both sides of the border along with British people north of border, the overwhelming majority of whom, didn't vote for Britains brexit.

People often say they are nor being listened to when what they really mean is that they are not being obeyed. Isn't that really the means to an end here? People want to use their take on history to keep the UK bound to the EU in a way that suits them that's all that is important to them.

Ireland is not looking to be obeyed. We are not Britain. We are simply looking to maintain the fragile peace and security on our island - you trying to paint it as some sinister attempt to suit our selfish needs is shameful.

I would be interested to hear your take on the history between Britain and Ireland. Just for balance.

 

[Wibble]

So you apologise then deliver an insult. Great.

With regards to the other part there you go again making judgements (despite saying you haven't).

I think it's pretty obvious you have some deep rooted issues with the British which supercede Brexit and the past three years. That's your prerogative I guess and understandable given the history. I just don't think it's healthy to have an 'us vs them' mindset, especially when the average bloke like me (and the millions of others in the UK) had nothing to do with what went on in Ireland and have lots of love and affection for the Irish in general. It's very unfair and unnecessary.

We killed millions after invading and occupying Ireland. This eventually led to the shit show that was the troubles. When we eventually helped make things a bit better with the GFA we were finally taking a bit of responsibility.

Fast forward a few years and now we are saying "feck Ireland, it isn't our problem". I think I'd have a bit of an issue with that.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

But that's wrong for at least two reasons first EU citizenship and freedom of movement of Labour is treaty based, it's totally wrong to talk about the "EU" when in reality it's a right that was directly given by member states through treaty, it has nothing to do with a dogmatism of the EU. And it's also worth noting that this right was already granted pre-Maastricht, that's why they didn't veto or demanded an opt out.

I’m afraid I’ve lost count how many times I’ve heard the phrase ‘indivisibility of the four freedoms’ come out of the mouths of EU leaders.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/27/brexit-the-four-freedoms-and-the-indivisibility-dogma/

 

[Massive Spanner]

It's amazing to see the sheer amount of posters over the last few pages essentially saying "hey c'mon guys, don't blame us for this, compromise so we can sort it out".

It's like if you cheated on your wife, and she wanted a divorce, and you went back to her and said "heeey c'mon,, it doesn't matter who cheated here, let's compromise to get a fair divorce!"

 

[MikeUpNorth]

You were talking of restrictions or opt outs of freedom of movement. Why would the UK have an opt out or be able to restrict the number of EU citizens if they already have the ability of sending back EU citizens who are a burden to the state.
If they did have such an opt out why should UK citizens be entitled to be able to move wherever they liked in the EU provided they satisfied the same conditions.
Whereas other EU states don't have a problem, it feels like they should in turn restrict UK citizens to be fair, even though they don't want to.

If you see what I mean. Yes, it is late.

But we're now told it's nothing to do with foreigners, just the wrong type of foreigner and is really about parliamentary sovereignty and taking back control of borders or not as the case may be.

The ability to send back or refuse migrants who are a ‘burden on the state’ is highly restrictive.

B. Case law on free movement of workers

Since the introduction of EU citizenship, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CoJ) has refined the interpretation of the directive in a range of case law on the free movement of workers. A dedicated Commission online database presents case law in this area.

As regards residence, job seekers have the right to reside for a period exceeding six months (CoJ, Case C-292/89 Antonissen) without having to meet any conditions if they continue to seek employment in the host Member State and have a ‘genuine chance’ of finding work.

Other cases relate to access to social benefits. The CoJ has extended access for EU citizens residing in another Member State (Cases C-184/99 Grzelczyk, C-224/98 D’Hoop). The status of first-time job seekers has been the subject of intense discussion, as they do not have a worker status to retain. In Cases C-138/02 Collins and C-22/08 Vatsouras, the CoJ found that such EU citizens had a right of equal access to a financial benefit intended to facilitate access to the labour market for job seekers; such a benefit consequently cannot be considered to be ‘social assistance’, to which Directive 2004/38/EC excludes access. However, Member States may require a real link between the job seeker and the labour market of the Member State in question.

B. Restrictions on freedom of movement

The Treaty allows a Member State to refuse an EU national the right of entry or residence on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Such measures must be based on the personal conduct of the individual concerned, which must represent a sufficiently serious and present threat to the fundamental interests of the state. In this regard, Directive 2004/38/EC provides for a series of procedural guarantees.

Under Article 45(4) TFEU, free movement of workers does not apply to employment in the public sector, although this derogation has been interpreted in a very restrictive way by the CoJ, according to which only those posts involving the exercise of public authority and of responsibility for safeguarding the general interest of the state concerned (such as its internal or external security) may be restricted to its own nationals.

During a transitional period after the accession of new Member States, certain conditions can be applied that restrict the free movement of workers from, to and between those Member States. There are currently transitional periods for Croatian nationals, which must be lifted by July 2020 at the latest.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers

And a nation may want to refuse whatever it deems excessive immigration regardless of whether someone has been successful in finding employment, but this is not permitted by current EU law. This is particularly a concern for poorer people in Britain as there is a perceived (but somewhat disputed) feeling that the massively expanded labour pool necessarily acts as downward pressure on workers’ wages in low skill fields.

If nations has an opt out from free movement of labour, each could set their own immigration criteria as they see fit. There could be an element of reciprocity on migration numbers if both nations agreed to it, but there wouldn’t have to be.

(As an aside, you probably couldn’t allow Euro area states to opt out of free movement as it’s pretty well accepted that free movement of labour is integral to the economic functioning of a currency block. Insisting on free movement of labour for states outside the Euro currency is pure dogma. I’m not even saying I disagree with the dogma - I’m broadly pro immigration - but inflexibility on this is one of the major root causes of Britain voting to leave the EU.)

 

[MikeUpNorth]

It's amazing to see the sheer amount of posters over the last few pages essentially saying "hey c'mon guys, don't blame us for this, compromise so we can sort it out".

It's like if you cheated on your wife, and she wanted a divorce, and you went back to her and said "heeey c'mon,, it doesn't matter who cheated here, let's compromise to get a fair divorce!"

It’s more like we (Britain) thought our wife had cheated on us (even though she hadn’t) so we demanded a divorce. Our wife said fine, but what about the kids (Ireland)? We said ‘I’ll take the little kid, you keep the big kid’. They said no, the little kid should live with us too or the brothers will fight all the time, but you can still technically be the primary carer from a legal perspective. The kid though has bi-polar disorder and can’t really decide where it wants to live. And we owe our wife £39bn.

Something like that.

 

[horsechoker]

It’s more like we (Britain) thought our wife had cheated on us (even though she hadn’t) so we demanded a divorce. Our wife said fine, but what about the kids (Ireland)? We said I’ll take the little kid, you keep the big kid. They said no, the little kid should live with us too or the brothers will fight all the time, but you can still technically be the primary carer from a legal perspective. The kid though has bi-polar disorder and can’t really decide where it wants to live. And we owe our wife £39bn.

Something like that.

Bloody good lawyer she's got, should have signed a pre-nup!

 

[Massive Spanner]

It’s more like we (Britain) thought our wife had cheated on us (even though she hadn’t) so we demanded a divorce. Our wife said fine, but what about the kids (Ireland)? We said ‘I’ll take the little kid, you keep the big kid’. They said no, the little kid should live with us too or the brothers will fight all the time, but you can still technically be the primary carer from a legal perspective. The kid though has bi-polar disorder and can’t really decide where it wants to live. And we owe our wife £39bn.

Something like that.

I prefer my one.

 

[JPRouve]

I’m afraid I’ve lost count how many times I’ve heard the phrase ‘indivisibility of the four freedoms’ come out of the mouths of EU leaders.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/11/27/brexit-the-four-freedoms-and-the-indivisibility-dogma/

Yes, in 2019 they are materially indivisible because they are linked with other agreements and realities, legally they aren't indivisible but the consequences of dividing them aren't palatable for member states which is demonstrated by the GFA issues. You tried to make the point that member states should have had an opt out, which is fine but done before the treaty is even in place and doesn't apply to your link, it's also done by member states not the "EU". The reality is that if you want an opt out which could have been a thing in 1992, you wouldn't be the EU member that you were in 2016 and that's the issue here because you seemingly want to be that member.

And that link is fairly bad in the context that you are mentioning because the author is only looking at it from the standpoint of Economy, from a theoritical standpoint and in isolation. He isn't talking about the EU member states, their dynamic or the borders and flow management. Without freedom of movement for Labour, you will need systematic borderc checks, the GFA wouldn't have been a thing even with the CTA, this costs a lot of money that's why continental member states aren't interested in the picking and choosing, that's why Schengen was created, nothing else.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Yes, in 2019 they are materially indivisible because they are linked with other agreements and realities, legally they aren't indivisible but the consequences of dividing them aren't palatable for member states which is demonstrated by the GFA issues. You tried to make the point that member states should have had an opt out, which is fine but done before the treaty is even in place and doesn't apply to your link, it's also done by member states not the "EU". The reality is that if you want an opt out which could have been a thing in 1992, you wouldn't be the EU member that you were in 2016 and that's the issue here because you seemingly want to be that member.

And that link is fairly bad in the context that you are mentioning because the author is only looking at it from the standpoint of Economy, from a theoritical standpoint and in isolation. He isn't talking about the EU member states, their dynamic or the borders and flow management. Without freedom of movement for Labour, you will need systematic borderc checks, the GFA wouldn't have been a thing even with the CTA, this costs a lot of money that's why continental member states aren't interested in the picking and choosing, that's why Schengen was created, nothing else.

Regarding the bold, would you? Wouldn’t it just be a case of mandating employers check the immigration status of workers at the point of hiring, like we do already for people outside the EU? People could still move around as much as they want, but they would need permission to work in another member state.

 

[JPRouve]

Regarding the bold, would you? Wouldn’t it just be a case of mandating employers check the immigration status of workers at the point of hiring, like we do already for people outside the EU? People could still move around as much as they want, but they would need permission to work in another member state.

Yes, you would unless you don't really care about who is, isn't in your country and how to manage them which is the case for people from outside the EU, they are systematically checked. To actually deal with the concerns that you mentioned you would need to know who is within your borders and why, illegal employment is extremely common and is something that will actually lower wages at the base.

 

[Smores]

I dismay that nearly 1500 pages in we've still got people saying the EU should be the ones to compromise for our decision.

There's plenty of compromise the UK can make to solve the conflict with the GFA just because we don't like any of the options doesn't mean the EU are obliged to create new ones by damaging their own principles.

If we want a deal put a border down the irish sea.

 

[stevoc]

It's amazing to see the sheer amount of posters over the last few pages essentially saying "hey c'mon guys, don't blame us for this, compromise so we can sort it out".

It's like if you cheated on your wife, and she wanted a divorce, and you went back to her and said "heeey c'mon,, it doesn't matter who cheated here, let's compromise to get a fair divorce!"

Hopefully at some stage for most the penny will finally drop. And they'll move on from the ''Yeah we created this mess but the EU are being dicks for not bending over backwards to fix it.''

 

[Wibble]

Bloody good lawyer she's got, should have signed a pre-nup!

We did. This is what is due according to the prenup.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Yes, you would unless you don't really care about who is, isn't in your country and how to manage them which is the case for people from outside the EU, they are systematically checked. To actually deal with the concerns that you mentioned you would need to know who is within your borders and why, illegal employment is extremely common and is something that will actually lower wages at the base.

Again, I’m not sure I follow.

In the current system, Spain can issue a work-visa to a non-EU citizen for a job in Spain. Later, that person can move to Germany, without permission, as within Schengen. At what point is that person ‘systematically checked’ in Germany? For sure they are checked if they try to take up legal work, and they will be found to not have the right to work in Germany. Where else are they checked? Not at the border.

 

[TheReligion]

Who has said the EU should bend over backwards to accommodate the UK leaving? Certainly wasn't me and I must have missed the initial comment saying so.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Who has said the EU should bend over backwards to accommodate the UK leaving? Certainly wasn't me and I must have missed the initial comment saying so.

I never accused you of that, but you've said on numerous occasions that the EU are unwilling to compromise and should be more open to it, and that Ireland shouldn't play the "blame game".

then you've other posters claiming that if Ireland really cared about the GFA we'd leave the EU to honour it.

I'm sure your intentions and other posters intentions are good but it's no surprise to see such unwilful ignorance from English posters when it comes to the situation on our island. No offense.

 

[TheReligion]

I think you should try looking at this from a different perspective. Instead of asking why doesn't the EU compromise their single market, ask why can't the UK compromise to sort this problem out?

A problem after all they themselves created. The 2016 referendum was organized with little or no thought given to Northern Ireland and how a leave vote would affect it, the GFA and the peace process. Before the referendum even took place there should have been measures built in to ensure the GFA was protected. Perhaps a second NI only referendum giving people here the choice of whether or not to stay in the CU/SM in the event of a leave vote. This could have even been offered after the leave vote won when the problems the GFA presented to implementing Brexit became apparent. But no neither of these things happened instead we got the DUP and Tories making decisions for the people of NI that endanger the GFA and the peace here. And all without the people of NI even being consulted, which is disgraceful when you consider what the GFA actually is. It's a peace treaty designed to give the people of NI the power to decide their own future, thats what people here voted for it's what the peace of the last 20 years was built upon.

It is the fact the UK signed a peace treaty enshrined in international law that is making Brexit complicated not the EU. It seems unfair to ask the EU and 27 other nations to compromise their single market to fix a problem the UK government created itself through incompetence and short sightedness. By the way the EU did compromise and offered an NI only backstop that would have solved this problem. But it was rejected by the Conservative and Unionist party. They then agreed to a deal that would have seen the whole of the UK remain in the CU with only NI staying in the SM. That would have also solved this problem that one was rejected by parliament. So i think it's easy to see here who should be trying harder compromise.

We killed millions after invading and occupying Ireland. This eventually led to the shit show that was the troubles. When we eventually helped make things a bit better with the GFA we were finally taking a bit of responsibility.

Fast forward a few years and now we are saying "feck Ireland, it isn't our problem". I think I'd have a bit of an issue with that.

I seem to have caused a shit storm by simply suggesting both sides of the discussion, EU and UK, need to compromise more. I've never said the EU should bend over backwards or cave in to the UK but I think it's naive to think Brussels couldn't take a softer stance in view of the uniqueness of the situation in Ireland. In my opinion it's been clear with the rhetoric from day one that the EU wanted to appear tough and be seen to make the UK pay for leaving so as to prevent other countries from considering the same and essentially the EU facing the risk of capitulation - I fully get that. As in any negotiation you must keep all positions of strength firmly on the table (much like the threat of a no deal Brexit) but now we are at a point where, in my opinion, everyone needs to do more (irrespective of the blame game) to resolve this issue and to help prevent serious issues within Ireland. By everyone I also mean the UK government. I'm simply offering the opinion that this is very much a two way thing and you can't absolve the EU totally just because they didn't want the UK to leave. That would be silly and wouldn't constitute a negotiation.

In view of Ireland I've never said feck them it isn't our problem. Who has?

 

[TheReligion]

I never accused you of that, but you've said on numerous occasions that the EU are unwilling to compromise and should be more open to it, and that Ireland shouldn't play the "blame game".

then you've other posters claiming that if Ireland really cared about the GFA we'd leave the EU to honour it.

I'm sure your intentions and other posters intentions are good but it's no surprise to see such unwilful ignorance from English posters when it comes to the situation on our island. No offense.

I think there is a distinct attitude amongst some Irish posters to play the blame game and allow their anti British/Establishment/Government feelings to totally cloud their judgement moving forwards. I understand why this is the case however I don't think it's right to continually throw history in the face of British posters in order to silence them or their opinions.

My point is how is calling a large chunk of the UK self righteous cnuts for voting to leave the EU justified or productive? Then when being pulled on this guilt shaming about the occupation of Ireland and the British Empire comes out.

I didn't vote leave but I hardly think that's a fair or reasonable mindset.

 

[balaks]

The ability to send back or refuse migrants who are a ‘burden on the state’ is highly restrictive.


https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers

And a nation may want to refuse whatever it deems excessive immigration regardless of whether someone has been successful in finding employment, but this is not permitted by current EU law. This is particularly a concern for poorer people in Britain as there is a perceived (but somewhat disputed) feeling that the massively expanded labour pool necessarily acts as downward pressure on workers’ wages in low skill fields.

If nations has an opt out from free movement of labour, each could set their own immigration criteria as they see fit. There could be an element of reciprocity on migration numbers if both nations agreed to it, but there wouldn’t have to be.

(As an aside, you probably couldn’t allow Euro area states to opt out of free movement as it’s pretty well accepted that free movement of labour is integral to the economic functioning of a currency block. Insisting on free movement of labour for states outside the Euro currency is pure dogma. I’m not even saying I disagree with the dogma - I’m broadly pro immigration - but inflexibility on this is one of the major root causes of Britain voting to leave the EU.)

My understanding is that the UK or any other EU member still is able to restrict immigration if they choose to. The UK just didn't do it.

https://brexit853.wordpress.com/201...-to-control-eu-freedom-of-movement-directive/

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/201...uced-eu-immigration-by-82-under-eu-rules.html

 

[JPRouve]

Again, not sure I follow.

In the current system, someone from a non-EU country is given a visa for a job in Spain. Later on they move to Germany, without permission, and without checks as within Schengen. At what point are they ‘systematically checked’ in Germany? For sure they are checked if they try to take up legal employment and would be discovered to not have the right to work in Germany. Where else are they checked? Not at the border.

How do you know who entered your country? This system works well when there are no land borders when your point of entry is an airport or a port but it doesn't work when you go from France to Poland, the geography of Europe means that the scale of potential illegal immigration and administration would be a lot higher than from non-EU immigrants. And if I go back to your point about downward pressure on worker's wage, if you don't prevent illegal immigrants from entering your country, you are basically doing nothing to fix that issue because they will work illegally(unregistered), they will be employed and actually lower wages, in order to avoid that they need to either not enter your country or be registered and protected by employment and minimum wage laws.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I think there is a distinct attitude amongst some Irish posters to play the blame game and allow their anti British/Establishment/Government feelings to totally cloud their judgement moving forwards. I understand why this is the case however I don't think it's right to continually throw history in the face of British posters in order to silence them or their opinions.

My point is how is calling a large chunk of the UK self righteous cnuts for voting to leave the EU justified or productive? Then when being pulled on this guilt shaming about the occupation of Ireland and the British Empire comes out.

I didn't vote leave but I hardly think that's a fair or reasonable mindset.

Nobody was playing the blame game until you came along and accused us of playing the blame game.

The stance of Irish posters has been simple - the UK caused this mess so the UK are the ones who should be coming up with solutions, which they are NOT doing. That's not playing the blame game, that's simple negotiations. You fecked up, you fix the mess.

The EU have already compromised by agreeing to the backstop (something they said at the start they would not agree to), which was suggested by the fecking UK only for the UK to go and reject it three times!

you're really taking the self righteous cnuts thing to heart aren't you? It was clearly a tongue in cheek comment, I love the UK, I love going there, and I have loads of British friends, but I think a lot of the people who voted Brexit did so for really, really awful reasons, maybe unknowingly in the case of some of them.

 

[balaks]

I seem to have caused a shit storm by simply suggesting both sides of the discussion, EU and UK, need to compromise more. I've never said the EU should bend over backwards or cave in to the UK but I think it's naive to think Brussels couldn't take a softer stance in view of the uniqueness of the situation in Ireland. In my opinion it's been clear with the rhetoric from day one that the EU wanted to appear tough and be seen to make the UK pay for leaving so as to prevent other countries from considering the same and essentially the EU facing the risk of capitulation - I fully get that. As in any negotiation you must keep all positions of strength firmly on the table (much like the threat of a no deal Brexit) but now we are at a point where, in my opinion, everyone needs to do more (irrespective of the blame game) to resolve this issue and to help prevent serious issues within Ireland. By everyone I also mean the UK government. I'm simply offering the opinion that this is very much a two way thing and you can't absolve the EU totally just because they didn't want the UK to leave. That would be silly and wouldn't constitute a negotiation.

In view of Ireland I've never said feck them it isn't our problem. Who has?

I think the issue is that although you are right that in any negotiation there does need to be compromise on both sides to get a deal - as it is the UK who has initiated this and want to leave the EU all the power in the negotiations is squarely with the EU. In the current situation the onus is on the UK to move rather than the EU - it's not going to be a fair situation and the UK need to accept that. In fact it is the EU who until this week had given all the possible workable suggestions in the form of the withdrawl agreement (obviously with the help of the UK with compromise on both sides) - the problem was that the UK politicans are deluded.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

My understanding is that the UK or any other EU member still is able to restrict immigration if they choose to. The UK just didn't do it.

Each EU member state controls its own immigration policy with regards to non-EU citizens. However, EU citizens have the fundamental right of Freedom of Movement of Workers, as set out here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers

When a new country joins the EU there is typically a short period where other member states can somewhat limit the migration of their citizens through transition controls. The only other significant limits on free movement are if an EU jobseeker has been unsuccessful in finding employment for a period of over 6 months (though they can remain if they are genuinely seeking work), or tightly restricted grounds of national security or public health.

EU law is absolutely clear - citizens have the right to live and work in other member states.

 

[Wibble]

I seem to have caused a shit storm by simply suggesting both sides of the discussion, EU and UK, need to compromise more. I've never said the EU should bend over backwards or cave in to the UK but I think it's naive to think Brussels couldn't take a softer stance in view of the uniqueness of the situation in Ireland. In my opinion it's been clear with the rhetoric from day one that the EU wanted to appear tough and be seen to make the UK pay for leaving so as to prevent other countries from considering the same and essentially the EU facing the risk of capitulation - I fully get that. As in any negotiation you must keep all positions of strength firmly on the table (much like the threat of a no deal Brexit) but now we are at a point where, in my opinion, everyone needs to do more (irrespective of the blame game) to resolve this issue and to help prevent serious issues within Ireland. By everyone I also mean the UK government. I'm simply offering the opinion that this is very much a two way thing and you can't absolve the EU totally just because they didn't want the UK to leave. That would be silly and wouldn't constitute a negotiation.

In view of Ireland I've never said feck them it isn't our problem. Who has?

As a nation abdicating responsibility for past wrongs, by not caring about the effect of Brexit on Ireland/Northern Ireland, we all have.

 

[balaks]

Each EU member state controls its own immigration policy with regards to non-EU citizens. However, EU citizens have the fundamental right of Freedom of Movement of Workers, as set out here: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-movement-of-workers

When a new country joins the EU there is typically a short period where other member states can somewhat limit the migration of their citizens through transition controls. The only other significant limits on free movement are if an EU jobseeker has been unsuccessful in finding employment for a period of over 6 months (though they can remain if they are genuinely seeking work), or tightly restricted grounds of national security or public health.

EU law is absolutely clear - citizens have the right to live and work in other member states.

Live and work yes - live and sit on benefits (which I think is what a lot of people's concern was) no.

 

[MikeUpNorth]

Live and work yes - live and sit on benefits (which I think is what a lot of people's concern was) no.

People generally aren’t coming to the UK for the shitty benefits. They’re coming for employment.

I think the concern from low-skill British workers has been about downward pressure on wages. Certainly that’s how it’s been portrayed in the British press.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dom-movement-euroep-foreign-posted-workers-eu

 

[balaks]

People generally aren’t coming to the UK for the shitty benefits. They’re coming for employment.

I think the concern from low-skill British workers has been about downward pressure on wages. Certainly that’s how it’s been portrayed in the British press.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...dom-movement-euroep-foreign-posted-workers-eu

I know that, you know that but many people feel that they are because they have been sold racist lies.