Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Cheesy]

A very optimistic view of it.
The recent changes to what EU migrants can / can't claim in the UK has only changed in the last 2/3 years as the anti-EU movements have taken off IMO.

ps. wasn't there also instances of folks popping over to the UK and getting child benefit paid-for by the UK for kids that weren't even in the UK, as an example?

It's not an optimistic viewpoint - it's quite literally the definition of EU freedom of movement in that it's freedom of movement for workers.

Not sure on the latter point - would need examples.

 

[C3Pique]

Here's the crux of it, what is the net inflow / outflow.
I agree with you, the Govt should (and hopefully will) then use the net cash for projects within the UK like we have been used to.

There won't be any 'net cash' once the government have paid for new customs set ups, replacements for the EMA, CAP payments and subsidies to keep the likes of Nissan here.

The key argument of the Brexit voter, seems to hinge on the fact that in national economic terms, £350m isn't actually a lot of money. Hence asking your average man on the street if the EU is worth 350m a week is stupid in the first place.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Appreciate your point and perhaps I came across too strong re: the English thing.
Ofcourse I am not saying only people that speak English are valuable. But what do you make of student visas explicitly asking for English proficiency - and the likes of Canada and Australia using it as a criteria for their immigration.

I genuinely believe you upset the balance of society when you have a sudden mass influx of folks into a nation whether they be of different religion, language, culture etc. That's why most non-Western nations are so strict, and for that matter so are most western democracies where immigration is not such a hot topic (i.e. Canada based on my experience).

I agree that people should integrate as much as possible into the country where they propose to live. The difference between countries outside the EU and countries within the EU is that the condition of belonging to the EU is the freedom of movement no matter which language they speak. What is forgotten is that if the EU citizens are a burden on the country or that they are criminals they can be sent back, May likes to hide this fact as her performance as Home Secretary was so appalling.

There was mass influx of commonwealth citizens in the 50s and 60s who on the whole integrated well - the Uk encouraged them then no matter what language they spoke because they desperately needed them, the British people weren't always quite so welcoming.

Despite the false information to the contrary immigrants are as a whole a benefit to the UK and a large reversal of the trend will cause massive problems to the UK economically.

The Uk likes to pride itself on being it's a multi-cultural nation but is it really.

 

[Member 5225]

Translation: we can use the short term economic turmoil to shrink the welfare state and cut taxes and regulations - which will be 'better' in the long term.

Well apparently some constituencies had a 70%+ decrease of unemployment as the Tories cut all the benefits for not being fit to work. Can't be a coincidence. Perhaps even shows how the system was being milked for so long?!

 

[Member 5225]

I agree that people should integrate as much as possible into the country where they propose to live. The difference between countries outside the EU and countries within the EU is that the condition of belonging to the EU is the freedom of movement no matter which language they speak. What is forgotten is that if the EU citizens are a burden on the country or that they are criminals they can be sent back, May likes to hide this fact as her performance as Home Secretary was so appalling.

There was mass influx of commonwealth citizens in the 50s and 60s who on the whole integrated well - the Uk encouraged them then no matter what language they spoke because they desperately needed them, the British people weren't always quite so welcoming.

Despite the false information to the contrary immigrants are as a whole a benefit to the UK and a large reversal of the trend will cause massive problems to the UK economically.

The Uk likes to pride itself on being it's a multi-cultural nation but is it really.

With all due respect, since when has that become a thing? Only in the last 2/3 years I believe since all these anti-EU movements / moods have taken off in Europe, and they panicked and had to appease them (rightly IMO).

 

[Cheesy]

Well apparently some constituencies had a 70%+ decrease of unemployment as the Tories cut all the benefits for not being fit to work. Can't be a coincidence. Perhaps even shows how the system was being milked for so long?!

And plenty of the people being deemed not fit to work by the DWP quite clearly aren't fit to work and are being treated horrendously. Not to mention that plenty of people in work are still fairly poor financially and are often having to rely on foodbanks and the like.

 

[Member 5225]

I agree that people should integrate as much as possible into the country where they propose to live. The difference between countries outside the EU and countries within the EU is that the condition of belonging to the EU is the freedom of movement no matter which language they speak. What is forgotten is that if the EU citizens are a burden on the country or that they are criminals they can be sent back, May likes to hide this fact as her performance as Home Secretary was so appalling.

There was mass influx of commonwealth citizens in the 50s and 60s who on the whole integrated well - the Uk encouraged them then no matter what language they spoke because they desperately needed them, the British people weren't always quite so welcoming.

Despite the false information to the contrary immigrants are as a whole a benefit to the UK and a large reversal of the trend will cause massive problems to the UK economically.

The Uk likes to pride itself on being it's a multi-cultural nation but is it really.

e.g.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36467725

 

[Member 5225]

And plenty of the people being deemed not fit to work by the DWP quite clearly aren't fit to work and are being treated horrendously. Not to mention that plenty of people in work are still fairly poor financially and are often having to rely on foodbanks and the like.

Absolutely agree, there's a fine line. And the debate re: should that number have been 40-50-60% instead because the Govt was being way too harsh, is a whole different discussion.

 

[JPRouve]

A very optimistic view of it.
The recent changes to what EU migrants can / can't claim in the UK has only changed in the last 2/3 years as the anti-EU movements have taken off IMO.

ps. wasn't there also instances of folks popping over to the UK and getting child benefit paid-for by the UK for kids that weren't even in the UK, as an example?

That's a UK problem, benefits criteria are made at national level, not by the EU. And like Paul said EU rules stipulates that EU migrants cannot be a burden on public services(welfare included), they have three months to find a job or demonstrate that they can finance themselves.

 

[Member 5225]

There won't be any 'net cash' once the government have paid for new customs set ups, replacements for the EMA, CAP payments and subsidies to keep the likes of Nissan here.

The key argument of the Brexit voter, seems to hinge on the fact that in national economic terms, £350m isn't actually a lot of money. Hence asking your average man on the street if the EU is worth 350m a week is stupid in the first place.

Disingenuious to say people voted purely based on a dumb notion of 'oh we'd have £350m available every week instantly!'
Well, I didn't anyway - I didn't even know it was a thing until it was all over the news, and even then wouldn't have believed it anyway.

I didn't want to get down into the tactics, but the strategy of it.

 

[Member 5225]

That's a UK problem, benefits criteria are made at national level, not by the EU. And like Paul said EU rules stipulates that EU migrants cannot be a burden on public services(welfare included), they have three months to find a job or demonstrate that they can finance themselves.

Very very new rules. In fact I'll stick my neck out and say, if that had been in place 10 years ago, we wouldn't have had Brexit.

 

[Sweet Square]

Well apparently some constituencies had a 70%+ decrease of unemployment as the Tories cut all the benefits for not being fit to work. Can't be a coincidence. Perhaps even shows how the system was being milked for so long?!

While at least I know where you got your ''research'' from

 

[Cheesy]

Very very new rules. In fact I'll stick my neck out and say, if that had been in place 10 years ago, we wouldn't have had Brexit.

But this inherently isn't a problem related to the EU. It's quite literally a UK-government issue. The EU don't have anything to do with it.

 

[Member 5225]

A substantial number of unemployed people suddenly finding jobs and being fit to work as their income leeching off the state came undone?!
indeed

 

[Drainy]

And plenty of the people being deemed not fit to work by the DWP quite clearly aren't fit to work and are being treated horrendously. Not to mention that plenty of people in work are still fairly poor financially and are often having to rely on foodbanks and the like.

How many people have killed themselves because of it?

 

[Member 5225]

That's a UK problem, benefits criteria are made at national level, not by the EU. And like Paul said EU rules stipulates that EU migrants cannot be a burden on public services(welfare included), they have three months to find a job or demonstrate that they can finance themselves.

Very very new rules. In fact I'll stick my neck out and say, if that had been in place 10 years ago, we wouldn't have had Brexit.

But this inherently isn't a problem related to the EU. It's quite literally a UK-government issue. The EU don't have anything to do with it.

Apologies, am confused. It seems it is EU rules, as per above?

 

[Cheesy]

Apologies, am confused. It seems it is EU rules, as per above?

He's saying that EU roles state that migrants cannot be a burden on their government's public services. Which means that if they are it's an issue related to UK government policy.

 

[Member 5225]

How many people have killed themselves because of it?

Sickening agreed.
I am not sure what the immediate solution is though. You can't not enact an obviously correct strategy (of ensuring people aren't just selfishly leeching off the state) without collateral damage IMHO.
If I was in Govt ofcourse you'd want to phase it all in slowly (but I don't know the financial catastrophe that was, behind the scenes).

Continuing as-is because some people might get caught up incorrectly is rather irresponsible IMO.

 

[Member 5225]

He's saying that EU roles state that migrants cannot be a burden on their government's public services. Which means that if they are it's an issue related to UK government policy.

And I'm saying those EU rules were only due to such a high pressure and that too very recently.
Until recently you couldn't do anything (from what I understand). Case of too little, too late perhaps.

 

[Member 5225]

Right, I need a cuppa!
Thanks all

 

[Cheesy]

And I'm saying those EU rules were only due to such a high pressure and that too very recently.
Until recently you couldn't do anything (from what I understand). Case of too little, too late perhaps.

I'm not sure if that's the case at all. Would need a source for that one. But even then...if it's a positive reform then surely that's good?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Whether you are or not Paz I can't help but picture you as a sheltered rich kid whose grown up in incredible privilege and never had to think about why people less fortunate than you might not have done so well in life. Describing the 120,000 people (by one estimate this week) who have died as a result of austerity as 'collateral damage' is outrageous.

I can't help but feel that also impacts your view of Brexit because, ultimately, if it is the clusterfeck that we all warned it would be, you're privileged enough that you can swan off to Canada or wherever and leave those less fortunate to clean up the giant turd you left on the floor.

 

[C3Pique]

Disingenuious to say people voted purely based on a dumb notion of 'oh we'd have £350m available every week instantly!'
Well, I didn't anyway - I didn't even know it was a thing until it was all over the news, and even then wouldn't have believed it anyway.

I didn't want to get down into the tactics, but the strategy of it.

So far in the last 2 days in this thread Bretards have claimed they didn't vote leave because they thought there'd be £350m a week to spend, or because they thought Turkey was joining the EU, or because they are worried about the prospect of an EU army, or because they're just massive racists.

Which just leaves one question... Why did they vote Leave?

 

[Drainy]

So far in the last 2 days in this thread Bretards have claimed they didn't vote leave because they thought there'd be £350m a week to spend, or because they thought Turkey was joining the EU, or because they are worried about the prospect of an EU army, or because they're just massive racists.

Which just leaves one question... Why did they vote Leave?

FISH

 

[Member 5225]

Whether you are or not Paz I can't help but picture you as a sheltered rich kid whose grown up in incredible privilege and never had to think about why people less fortunate than you might not have done so well in life. Describing the 120,000 people (by one estimate this week) who have died as a result of austerity as 'collateral damage' is outrageous.

I can't help but feel that also impacts your view of Brexit because, ultimately, if it is the clusterfeck that we all warned it would be, you're privileged enough that you can swan off to Canada or wherever and leave those less fortunate to clean up the giant turd you left on the floor.

I appreciate your point of view, and yes perhaps you are semi-correct in your observation.
However, I did / do try to analyse the situation the best and as fairly as I can, so I hope you don't think I'm taking a view lightly and shrugging shoulders if all goes pear-shaped. Every single decision in life has pros and cons, every situation in the world has winners and losers and it's upto us as individuals to ensure we attempt to choose what is best for society.

Maybe it'd amuse you to know some of my friends (some quite conservative) actually think I'm a 'champagne socialist' because I do appreciate the world is not JUST about money, it's about human lives too. I fully get it. But the choices are super super hard.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

With all due respect, since when has that become a thing? Only in the last 2/3 years I believe since all these anti-EU movements / moods have taken off in Europe, and they panicked and had to appease them (rightly IMO).

The rules have been there all along, it's just that the government never implemented them and as we've been saying all along, the government use the EU as the scapegoat for their own failings. Wonder who'll be the scapegoat if and when the UK leaves.

Imagine if Le Pen had won in France, which a lot of Brexiters were keen to see happen, forget the EU, France would have been in serious trouble, she is even more incompetent than Davis and Hollande and loads of other politicians currently stealing a living in governments.

 

[Member 5225]

I'm not sure if that's the case at all. Would need a source for that one. But even then...if it's a positive reform then surely that's good?

Agreed - but it had to take so much effort of likes of Cameron telling the EU 'look guys, please, do SOMETHING. Atleast acknowledge there is a problem however small, this arrogance is what is killing us' - we can't be doing that for every single decision.

 

[Cheesy]

Agreed - but it had to take so much effort of likes of Cameron telling the EU 'look guys, please, do SOMETHING. Atleast acknowledge there is a problem however small, this arrogance is what is killing us' - we can't be doing that for every single decision.

But it's just been pointed out above it wasn't the EU's fault at all and was the choice of the UK government.

 

[Member 5225]

So far in the last 2 days in this thread Bretards have claimed they didn't vote leave because they thought there'd be £350m a week to spend, or because they thought Turkey was joining the EU, or because they are worried about the prospect of an EU army, or because they're just massive racists.

Which just leaves one question... Why did they vote Leave?

FISH

Fair immigration for a start!

jokes aside, yes, I want a very qualified nurse from Indonesia or Australia or Nepal or wherever to be have a very good chance to coming (see, I'm still a Brit at heart) to the UK, rather than an unqualified person from any old EU country and treating it like their own.

 

[Member 5225]

I'm not sure if that's the case at all. Would need a source for that one. But even then...if it's a positive reform then surely that's good?

The rules have been there all along, it's just that the government never implemented them and as we've been saying all along, the government use the EU as the scapegoat for their own failings. Wonder who'll be the scapegoat if and when the UK leaves.

Imagine if Le Pen had won in France, which a lot of Brexiters were keen to see happen, forget the EU, France would have been in serious trouble, she is even more incompetent than Davis and Hollande and loads of other politicians currently stealing a living in governments.

But it's just been pointed out above it wasn't the EU's fault at all and was the choice of the UK government.

Sounds like we need clarity on that, I'm not sure tbh. Not what I understood.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Fair immigration for a start!

jokes aside, yes, I want a very qualified nurse from Indonesia or Australia or Nepal or wherever to be have a very good chance to coming (see, I'm still a Brit at heart) to the UK, rather than an unqualified person from any old EU country and treating it like their own.

Well better hope they start applying soon because you've succeeded in gutting the number of EU nurses coming!

 

[JPRouve]

Very very new rules. In fact I'll stick my neck out and say, if that had been in place 10 years ago, we wouldn't have had Brexit.

2004 isn't exactly new.

Look for (10) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2004.158.01.0077.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2004:158:TOC

 

[Member 5225]

Well better hope they start applying soon because you've succeeded in gutting the number of EU nurses coming!

Not entirely true is it?
This is what I mean, let's have a grown up debate as adults rather than spewing random fake-facts that you want to believe:

 

[C3Pique]

Fair immigration for a start!

jokes aside, yes, I want a very qualified nurse from Indonesia or Australia or Nepal or wherever to be have a very good chance to coming (see, I'm still a Brit at heart) to the UK, rather than an unqualified person from any old EU country and treating it like their own.

Despite the fact that non 'Western' immigrants are less likely to integrate into the local community, and much less likely to speak English.

Contradicting your own argument a little there, chief.

 

[Member 5225]

Despite the fact that non 'Western' immigrants are less likely to integrate into the local community, and much less likely to speak English.

Contradicting your own argument a little there, chief.

Are you being racist and disingenuous to folks living in these places by saying they don't have people that can speak English?! Surely not!

 

[Member 5225]

Right, I really have to go now! This has been fun tbh.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Not entirely true is it?
This is what I mean, let's have a grown up debate as adults rather than spewing random fake-facts that you want to believe:

I mean, did you deliberately post something that doesn't provide a proper source for its claims to be ironic or do you genuinely not see the issue with what you've just done?

 

[Drainy]

2004 isn't exactly new.

look for (10) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2004.158.01.0077.01.ENG&toc=OJ:L:2004:158:TOC

Thank you! I was looking for that

Basically after 3 months an EU member state can deport a migrant if they are not in work or cannot prove that they have the capital to sustain themselves without state assistance.

For years the UK decided it wasn't cost effective to implement because EU immigrants are net contributors to the wealth of the country, and this is where it got us...

 

[Member 5225]

I mean, did you deliberately post something that doesn't provide a proper source for its claims to be ironic or do you genuinely not see the issue with what you've just done?

I believe source is written clearly at the bottom of the stats mate....

 

[Member 5225]

Thank you! I was looking for that

Basically after 3 months an EU member state can deport a migrant if they are not in work or cannot prove that they have the capital to sustain themselves without state assistance.

I had no idea! So where did it go wrong? Basically you are saying the EU rules had it built-in, but the UK Govts of the day refused to enact?!