Still dont get the point
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
It's not, it's a visa waiver.
That sounds pedantic, but it's purpose is to avoid the hassle of visas.
In My opinion it is. I travelled the world and I don't need any paper to travel to many countries and no need to play anything. ESTA is a very easy to get visa (like there are others for some countries more diffiicult like there are others even more difficult for other countries) but it doesn't matter how they name it but is a visa. I got denied the ESTA and I couldn't fly because a layover in the US because a problem with my passport. I took a next day flight direct to Mexico and allowed me to travel and checked me there and let me go after 15 min.
Canada was without a visa till 2 years ago for european countries, and now they have ETA (similar to ESTA). If is not a visa, what is it? (even if is just for money)
EU is planning to do the same, so if it happening, Uk will have to do the same. 5 minutes and no biggy, but forget to spend the whole year in any Mediterranean villa
you can call it what you want (and you're technically right) but something that requires you to fill in a form with your passport details in order to gain entry to a country for a set amount of time is a visa in my eyes.
Doesn't look like there'll be a November summit.
I'd love if Andrew Bridgen was among the 15,000 rejected.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pol...or-irish-passports-in-double-digits-1.3679783
I enjoyed that.
What he failed to mention was that Dorries even used her ignorance as a reason to leave.
He nails it but the sad thing is that it's not limited to Brexit or British politicians. I still can't believe that at one point the french labour minister had no idea about how contracts worked in France, It's a sad state of affair when the people making the rules know far less than the people following them.
Tell me a powerful group somewhere isn't trying to feck up this country.
I've banged on for quite some time that Labour should have put out a very strong message on immigration. They were in the perfect position to implement measures in a fair and non-aggressive manner but they didn't want to talk about it and here we are.
Blair and Brown started this feeling of poor immigration control and set up the tories to win votes on it usually in a cruel manner.
Pretty much why Remain did lose and will lose if there is a another referendum. Remain has to make a moral, ethical, progressive(In terms of moving the country forward) argument to why the country should remain. Stating facts about why leaving would be awful(Or worse stating that actually it's to difficult/impossible to leave)is never going to work.
Fair comment. Remainers need to spend more time explaining how countries in the EU will benefit from membership over the next 20 to 40 years and why the UK should be one of them. Leavers say negative things about the EU of course, but they also seem better at putting a positive spin on leaving, 'control', saving contributions, new trade deals and so on.
I feel fingers twitching at keyboards about to tell me the Leavers are wrong, which is kind of the point, we need to hear more about why the EU is a good thing.
Surely the reasons as to why it would be awful and detrimental pretty much serve as the compelling reasons to stay. Nothing negative about that, just the plain facts.
Also, those who’s heads are firmly embedded in Brexit land would probably easily dismiss the virtues of remaining as they would the fears of leaving so it wouldn’t make a difference anyway.
On the other hand leave won last time and they still can't tell anyone what the benefits are.
They lie, you mean. Should Remain just lie about everything, maybe they'll get more votes.
The sales pitch true or not was pretty clear: sovereignty, millions not sent to the EU and control over immigration.
Most of the EU benefits stated during the debates were just rebuffed as possible to get outside the EU namely trade and defence.
Remain did not sell the benefits of the EU they focused on risks and threats and true or not that's harder to get across to the public without substantial evidence
The sales pitch for Leave was easy, just lie about everything without backing it up. After all the voters didn't care or check whether it was true or not. They heard what they wanted. Moreover, the Leave campaign knew this. Just get the gullibles to do their work for them.
I don't know why I bother sometimes.
But all the benefits of Remain have been listed thousands of times, no-one listens and they won't listen again, they'll still listen to Farage, the campaigns will be exactly the same.
Well on the face it all those things are true the devil is in the detail though.
There aren't many benefits of the EU that theoretically couldn't be replicated outside it through arrangements. The positive benefits of maintaining the status quo without using negatives is a hard sell.
I see that she's using that same argument that someone used with me here, "The laws will just all be the same".
The EU is the arrangements, that's the entire issue with this debate. You have people benefiting from hundreds of arrangements built during the last 50 years and asking why they can't have the same arrangements but outside the arrangements. It's incredibly stupid.
Yes agreed.
Education about the how the EU works and how it benefits people may have been a good subject to teach in the UK. But not in the government's interest to do such things.
Yep I think this is the best way although it's such a difficult argument considering it's a far easier sell to a smaller country like my country(Ireland), to be a part of a wider european project etc then Britan who have a history of being a world power. It's in some way a argument of defeat, that in todays global capitalistic world a country can't ''stand on it's own''(Which is true), it has to be one of many. Which I think the voting shows is a very hard argument for older voters to take compared to younger voters who already see themselves as part of this global world.
As for the positive spin, a big problem(of their own making)is that the most pro eu politicians are the same ones who have for the past 20 odd years being the one who have lied and destroyed the lives of people of all over this country. Even if they put a great spin on the EU why should anyone believe what Tony Blair & David Cameron say ? There's no Obama like figure who is loved and respected but also quite conservative.
And finally the EU it self is a problem for the remain campaign. The EU has massive faults(In my view those fault being essential to how it functions), it's struggling dealing with new far right governments and acting out in anti - democratic ways, it's treatment of people from the global south etc. Again a far easier argument to make if your new to joining rather than having decided to leave after spending decades in it.
So it's one hell of a tough sell(And we didn't talk about the amount of ammo Leave will have.)
It should be but it doesn't work as a way to win votes. I think there's two arguments
The firstly one being a great example the economist Mark Byith uses, that during the referendum a remain politician went to Sunderland to give a talk about the dangers of leaving and was talking about the potential loss of GDP to the country and a audience member interrupted the politician and said - ''No your GDP''. The UK is in such a shit state that for large parts of the country graphs on a piece of A4 paper showing the potential GDP losses are just that, there's no connection between the economy being destroyed and these people lives getting worse because how can it get any worse. And I say this as someone who completely fecking broke, I'm worried about the NL border but if the UK economy goes to compete shite it really makes no difference to me, so I get the appeal.
The second more simply argument being this is Britain, the last time there was huge national crisis effecting the core functions of the country was during the second war. The idea of things going to complete shit is very hard to image let alone take seriously.
''Difference'' being we haven't left yet. Yes of course those benefit leave said are bollocks but until it's final happened, it won't resonate with most leaver voters.
Last edited:
Exactly and some of those arrangements we'd be better out of the EU, some we could replicate and some not. Now try simplifying that into a net benefit of the EU, you can't because its too complicated and you can't predict which arrangements are which of the above either.
In comparison getting sovereignty back and getting control of immigration is a simple benefit.
I'm not sure it was my original point but i don't think there was a positive side to sell. Once this went to a public vote with an open ended mandate we were doomed to leave.
Yes agreed. If the UK held a referendum a year after the UK leaves completely , Remain would probably walk it. Seems the UK has to feel the pain first.
The same can be said about the NL border. The border issue will only becomes a issue to people in England & Wales when the violence appears again or the I.R.A start blowing up building in England again. Until then it's ''scare mongering''
Or the border's in the Irish sea and the Loyalists start up. I've had the impression they're potentially worse than the IRA, but I'm not Irish, I may have fallen for British government spin over the years.
I agree, you can't simplify it and at the same time it should be easy to see that you can't simplify it. For example being a full member of the EU means that your national court has the power to impose common rules(the arrangement) to anyone that is interacting with a british citizen/company wherever the other side is from, the british court is also free to interpret common rules too, and the important part is that every members recognize those principles. This is something that most people won't care about, it doesn't concern them, they don't have litigations and they most likely never left their country but for millions of people and companies this is a daily issue, that is made easy because there is a single multinational agreement.
You can't sell these things to the public, it's not catchy, not sexy. You end up with a debate that is by nature unbalanced because the lies/ truth distortions will be more appealing almost 100% of the time.
BBC reporting that the cabinet has not been shown a draft deal today, but members must remain available for 36 hours, in case an emergency cabinet meeting is needed.
The only was out of this is for a GE to be called and for all remainers in the UK to vote LibDem.
They, at least, are the only UK party with their colours nailed firmly to the mast on the EU.
If there was a chance of them getting in I'd vote for them on that issue alone.
They, at least, are the only UK party with their colours nailed firmly to the mast on the EU.
If there was a chance of them getting in I'd vote for them on that issue alone.
I voted Liberal last time on that basis. I don't know how the Caf's Labour supporters feel about Corbyn's ambition of an early general election. They voted for Brexit last time, would they do so again?
Oh yeah there's that as well and from what I know the loyalists are god awful(I'm a bit of a Irish nationalist so I'm more than bias about who I think are worse). Although I do think even if there's a return to something like the troubles it will take the deaths in England to really move people into possibly having another referendum. Until then the violence will just be seen as something that happens far away.
Refreshing honesty here:
feck. Me.