Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Alf Bentley]

15 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

You aren't the only ones to say this and it always leaves me baffled as it's the total opposite of what I hear.

 

At the Vote Leave event I attended in Leicester there was a speech on the growing African economies - on Any Questions just a couple of months ago a leaver (think it was Dale) specifically mentioned "Indian or Pakistani doctors". Jacob Rees-Mogg always mentioned non white countries on the issue.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/149de13e-44aa-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b

 

Michael Gove:

 

“Outside the European Union, we can have a truly colour-blind migration policy that, if the British people want to, treats people from the Bahamas in the same way we treat people from Bulgaria,” Michael Gove, environment secretary, said earlier this week.

 

When people mention the commonwealth they often mention this, for some bizarre reason so many Remain voters seem incapable of taking it in. I think it's subconsciously deliberate, another myth in the heads of people that gives them license to again try and smear political opponents as racist for whatever reason.

 

Fine, but anecdotal. I've not heard many such comments - but will listen with interest in future.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, bovril said:

Theresa May making a point that it's difficult for non-EU citizens to come to the UK is up there with Kissinger Peace Prize levels of irony.

 

"Hostile environment" was the name of her policy for them, as I recall.... 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Nobody's getting wound up, just expressing disapproval. If you'd exercised a legal right to take a job, would you then think it fair for people to describe you as "jumping the queue"?

 

I understand the policy - equalising employment rights between EU and non-EU immigrants. She could have said that "engineers from Sydney, Paris, Berlin or Delhi would now have equal rights". Instead, she chose to refer to "jumping the queue", which clearly implies cheating to gain UNFAIR advantage. She did so to appeal to those who are actively hostile to foreigners.

 

I do not understand how an engineer in Sydney or a software developer in Delhi have been more helpful to us as a country than an engineer or software developer who came here from the EU and has been working in this country.

Are you referring back to days of British Empire or World Wars or something? If the latter, presumably we should be offering better terms to French citizens than to Germans? 

Anyone who came here legally should be treated as such, but I don't think the Prime Minister or anyone should shy away from what many people thought, those laws were unfair and were biased in favour of EU migrants. I wouldn't have said queue jump but I in terms of parliamentary language it's low down in terms of offence. 

 

I'm not referring to the Wars or Empire no, but at a time when immigration figures were important and in the public eye, public services faced pressure, uncontrolled unskilled migration was a crazy policy for us to engage in when it possibly came at the expense of skilled migration from other nations. 

Edited 20 November 2018 by MattP

[bovril]

None of my friends or family were that wound up about it, there's more of a grudging acceptance from EU citizens that they are easy targets and it probably won't change. Personally I'm just hoping there are at least some bridges left unburned when all of this is over as I would still like to live and work in mainland Europe at some point in the future.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, MattP said:

Do people really get that wound up about someome using the term "queue jumpers" - it's not ideal language but it's pretty clear surely the point she was intending to make was it was easier for EU nationals to get here than others who may have been more helpful to us as a country.

Agree with you here.

 

A queue jumper is a queue jumper whatever nationality they are. I don't really see this as much of a point. Your nationality shouldn't allow you to move ahead of whatever the relevant law states.

 

Alf talked about the French. My son has lived here for over 25 years - he was 1 year old when he arrived. He's been through the entire education system and now works for "the community". He's been waiting for his Fench nationality for 4 years already and it seems the list is stil at least 3 years long.

 

My daughter is married to a French guy and her nationality will take at least 2 more years.

 

As for me and my wife - we shan't bother. Whatever they decide, they decide. I'm a Brit.

 

 

Edited 20 November 2018 by Guest

[simFox]

My wife is African, met her in Africa. She's settling in just fine now we've got a house etc. The only difficult bit was the trip over, it took ages and my feet were killing me.

[FoxNotFox]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Do people really get that wound up about someome using the term "queue jumpers" 

For my part, I'm not getting wound up by it, I'm deconstructing it to try and understand what is being alluded to. Particularly, what queue is being talked about.

 

For me, the use of the phrase conflates so it's important to unpack it again since it's at the heart of what is meant. As has been remarked, there isn't an immigration queue for EU citizens to jump - because they have the right not to queue. If May is suggesting EU citizens are advantaged over non-EU citizens when it comes to immigration policy then I'd agree with her. There's no secret there, indeed it's policy. So are we talking about a 'job queue'? Or a 'benefits queue'? Or a 'health queue'? Or all of the above and more besides. Is May suggesting that EU citizens are jumping the queue ahead of British citizens? Well, that'd be a rather more contentious assertion. One that, perhaps, a politician ought be careful about making because it potentially stokes all kind of unpleasantness.... unless, of course, they are intending to deliberately be vague, for whatever reason. A kind of plausible deniability perhaps? 

 

'Freedom of movement' is, as ought be clear to all by now, hugely important to the EU - a non-negotiable item even. It's a benefit of EU membership that's advantageous to individuals and businesses, from a number of different perspectives. It's a right. By all means challenge the right but don't to try imply there's something underhand about it.

Edited 20 November 2018 by FoxNotFox

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, FoxNotFox said:

For my part, I'm not getting wound up by it, I'm deconstructing it to try and understand what is being alluded to. Particularly, what queue is being talked about.

 

For me, the use of the phrase conflates so it's an important to unpack again since it's at the heart of what people mean. As has been remarked, there isn't an immigration queue for EU citizens to jump - because they have the right not to queue. If May is suggesting EU citizens are advantaged over non-EU citizens when it comes to immigration policy then I'd agree with her. There's no secret there, indeed it's policy. So are we talking about a 'job queue'? Is May suggesting that EU citizens are jumping the job queue ahead of British citizens? Well, that'd be a rather more contentious assertion - one that, perhaps, a politician ought be careful about making... unless, of course, they are intending to deliberately be vague, for whatever reason. A kind of plausible deniability perhaps? 

 

'Freedom of movement' is, as ought be clear to all by now, hugely important to the EU - a non-negotiable item even. It's a benefit of EU membership that's advantageous to individuals and businesses, from a number of different perspectives. It's a right. By all means challenge the right but don't to try imply there's something underhand about it.

Can't disagree with any of that, it's exactly why she shouldn't have used the word queue and instead talked about how we will now reconstruct what was an unfair system. 

 

On the importance to the EU - I agree freedom in movement of Labour is completely necessary with regards to the single market, but I don't accept that extends to full freedom of movement and I think people would have found the former more tolerable and may have been less likely to see mass movement from poorer nations to wealthier ones with a few protocols in place. 

[FoxNotFox]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I agree freedom in movement of Labour is completely necessary with regards to the single market, but I don't accept that extends to full freedom of movement and I think people would have found the former more tolerable and may have been less likely to see mass movement from poorer nations to wealthier ones with a few protocols in place. 

I'm inclined to agree with the final implication of what you say. Freedom of movement has created problems (I was going to say issues but I think problems is a more accurate word) for certain regions/nations. Perhaps freedom of movement should also include protocols/facilities to enable such places to manage the change in numbers and the knock-on effect for things like local services.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Anyone who came here legally should be treated as such, but I don't think the Prime Minister or anyone should shy away from what many people thought, those laws were unfair and were biased in favour of EU migrants. I wouldn't have said queue jump but I in terms of parliamentary language it's low down in terms of offence. 

 

I'm not referring to the Wars or Empire no, but at a time when immigration figures were important and in the public eye, public services faced pressure, uncontrolled unskilled migration was a crazy policy for us to engage in when it possibly came at the expense of skilled migration from other nations. 

 

"Those laws were unfair and biased in favour of EU migrants" is a valid opinion. Saying EU migrants were "jumping the queue" suggests misconduct on their part. A minor slur, I agree, but in the context of a febrile atmosphere around immigration, with a small minority ready to abuse or attack foreigners, it was irresponsible - and probably deliberate.

 

If you weren't referring to Wars or Empire, out of curiosity what were you referring to when you said that non-EU nationals may have been more helpful to us as a country than EU nationals?

 

52 minutes ago, FIF said:

Agree with you here.

 

A queue jumper is a queue jumper whatever nationality they are. I don't really see this as much of a point. Your nationality shouldn't allow you to move ahead of whatever the relevant law states.

 

Alf talked about the French. My son has lived here for over 25 years - he was 1 year old when he arrived. He's been through the entire education system and now works for "the community". He's been waiting for his Fench nationality for 4 years already and it seems the list is stil at least 3 years long.

 

My daughter is married to a French guy and her nationality will take at least 2 more years.

 

As for me and my wife - we shan't bother. Whatever they decide, they decide. I'm a Brit.

 

 

 

So, under current rules on reciprocal arrangements, British and French citizens are allowed free healthcare in one another's countries within certain limits - but Americans, Russians or whoever are excluded from this. Are we jumping the queue?

Oh, enough of that argument! 

 

I hope all this doesn't cause you or your family major hassle. Presumably a No Deal scenario would be the main concern - and I'd be pretty hopeful that won't happen.

So, you'll hopefully just have French bureaucracy to deal with - reputedly much worse than in most countries. In the 90s, I remember spending about 3 hours at a Paris police station, waiting to apply for.....an application form (phase 2: use said form to apply for residency).  

[hackneyfox]

22 hours ago, davieG said:

Restrictions or not the biggest impact was having to share our fishing grounds with rest of the EU.

Most trawlers out of places like Hull had been fishing off Iceland not British waters. European fishermen had been fishing closer to our coasts than our own fishermen for years (centuries in some cases) as we didn't eat Hake and sprats etc. When we the cod wars it was decided that it would be unfair to also take away the traditional fishing grounds from European fishermen.

[Alf Bentley]

30 minutes ago, FoxNotFox said:

I'm inclined to agree with the final implication of what you say. Freedom of movement has created problems (I was going to say issues but I think problems is a more accurate word) for certain regions/nations. Perhaps freedom of movement should also include protocols/facilities to enable such places to manage the change in numbers and the knock-on effect for things like local services.

 

With hindsight, the Blair Govt made a major error in not taking up the option to restrict the numbers of eastern and central Europeans arriving after the EU expansion. Only UK, Ireland and one another country (Sweden? Denmark?) didn't take up that option. To be fair, I think they were genuinely taken by surprise at the numbers who arrived (1m Poles?), which nobody had predicted - and back then the economy was doing better, spending on public services was increasing etc. The combination of that unexpectedly high influx, the 2008 crash and then years of austerity, public spending cuts, stagnant pay and insecure employment has proven a toxic cocktail in the less prosperous regions of the UK.

 

In the unlikely event that Brexit doesn't happen and freedom of movement continues, any govt (particularly any Labour govt) will need to prioritise actions to counteract the anxiety and resentment caused, even if much of it is unjustified - and even if that just involves national measures, such as expanding public services, preventing firms just recruiting European labour on the cheap, improving income security, access to affordable housing etc. In fact, much of that will be necessary if Brexit does happen, too.

[Carl the Llama]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-46280468/downing-street-s-larry-the-cat-gets-a-helping-hand-from-police

[fuchsntf]

6 hours ago, FIF said:

Agree with you here.

 

A queue jumper is a queue jumper whatever nationality they are. I don't really see this as much of a point. Your nationality shouldn't allow you to move ahead of whatever the relevant law states.

 

Alf talked about the French. My son has lived here for over 25 years - he was 1 year old when he arrived. He's been through the entire education system and now works for "the community". He's been waiting for his Fench nationality for 4 years already and it seems the list is stil at least 3 years long.

 

My daughter is married to a French guy and her nationality will take at least 2 more years.

 

As for me and my wife - we shan't bother. Whatever they decide, they decide. I'm a Brit.

 

 

Just out of interest,why is it taking so long.???

 

.Here in Germany,my English young aquaintences,within 1-2 yrs.My English Son-in-law,took 18 months

Myself,I took it,because of duel Nationality being  on the table,My German citizenship,took 16 months...ok I am over 60,so after

15yrs,in Germany,a certain acceptance is on the table,my Wife is German,so there were no tests needed.My children though of duel parents,are firstly German,but have German and English Birth-certificates...

 

Forgot to add,my younger cousin,took on French-British duel Nationality...many years ago.Took him 3yrs.

 

Edited 20 November 2018 by fuchsntf

[WigstonWanderer]

On 19/11/2018 at 19:14, simFox said:

How are you getting on over there without EU membership?

Australia is highly dependent on trade with China, but yes, there is life outside the EU, if that’s what you’re asking. However, Australia hasn’t had 40 years of European entanglement.

 

Surely the issue isn’t whether it’s possible to exist outside the EU, but rather whether it’s worth the cost in terms of disruption (possibly lasting decades) of making the transition.

Edited 20 November 2018 by WigstonWanderer

[simFox]

1 hour ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Australia is highly dependent on trade with China, but yes, there is life outside the EU, if that’s what you’re asking. However, Australia hasn’t had 40 years of European entanglement.

 

Surely the issue isn’t whether it’s possible to exist outside the EU, but rather whether it’s worth the cost in terms of disruption (possibly lasting decades) of making the transition.

Surely the answer would be to minimise the disruption to both the UK and the EU. It's a no brainer. If we leave hard, it would be in the interest of both parties to soften the landing, but you have to go hard to start with. There's no other way.

[Guest MattP]

So the Tories are now accepting amendments from Labour and even the SNP as the DUP effectively go on strike.

 

They aren't even a functional government now. Can't see how this can carry on.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

So the Tories are now accepting amendments from Labour and even the SNP as the DUP effectively go on strike.

 

They aren't even a functional government now. Can't see how this can carry on.

 

The DUP are presumably seeking to maximise their influence over the Brexit deal, while they still have a chance and with May meeting Juncker etc.

They might play a part in voting the deal down in parliament (though it sounds as if it'll fall even with their support). But I cannot imagine them wanting to bring down the govt and trigger a general election.

The parliamentary numbers cannot possibly get better for them in terms of influence. If the Tories got 6 MPs more or fewer in an election, the DUP's influence would be greatly diminished.

 

So, I don't see there being a majority to bring down the govt in a confidence vote - at least not until this phase of Brexit is sorted. Conceivable that one or other Tory faction could trigger an election, I suppose.

 

Assuming parliament rejects May's deal, I don't know what happens next. Labour will presumably try for an election and fail. Starmer said he'll try to get No Deal ruled out somehow - which might work.

Perhaps the ERG will get their 48 letters and a Tory confidence vote in May as leader at that stage.....though it must still be doubtful that they could win that.

Then there's the prospect of attempts to get the govt to call a second referendum - or perhaps to send May back to negotiate an Article 50 extension and a Norway-type deal that could be passed with the votes of Labour & Tory Remainers, effectively splitting the Tory party.....all with the ECJ ruling on Article 50 revocation intervening in the next couple of weeks....

 

What a mess! I'm still expecting something to intervene to prevent No Deal, though. I just don't know exactly what!

[Mike Oxlong]

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

The DUP are presumably seeking to maximise their influence over the Brexit deal, while they still have a chance and with May meeting Juncker etc.

They might play a part in voting the deal down in parliament (though it sounds as if it'll fall even with their support). But I cannot imagine them wanting to bring down the govt and trigger a general election.

The parliamentary numbers cannot possibly get better for them in terms of influence. If the Tories got 6 MPs more or fewer in an election, the DUP's influence would be greatly diminished.

 

So, I don't see there being a majority to bring down the govt in a confidence vote - at least not until this phase of Brexit is sorted. Conceivable that one or other Tory faction could trigger an election, I suppose.

 

Assuming parliament rejects May's deal, I don't know what happens next. Labour will presumably try for an election and fail. Starmer said he'll try to get No Deal ruled out somehow - which might work.

Perhaps the ERG will get their 48 letters and a Tory confidence vote in May as leader at that stage.....though it must still be doubtful that they could win that.

Then there's the prospect of attempts to get the govt to call a second referendum - or perhaps to send May back to negotiate an Article 50 extension and a Norway-type deal that could be passed with the votes of Labour & Tory Remainers, effectively splitting the Tory party.....all with the ECJ ruling on Article 50 revocation intervening in the next couple of weeks....

 

What a mess! I'm still expecting something to intervene to prevent No Deal, though. I just don't know exactly what!

 

What a selfish little man  that Noel Edmonds is, heading off to the jungle just when his country needs him most. 

Edited 21 November 2018 by Mike Oxlong

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Mike Oxlong said:

 

What a selfish little man  that Noel Edmonds is, heading off to the jungle just when his country needs him most. 

 

A deeply sinister individual. It was The Banker who caused all our problems back in 2008 - and has anyone seen Mr. Blobby and Cameron in the same place at the same time, the chubby pink-faced grinning goon(s)?

[FoxNotFox]

I know (some in) Labour are trying to leverage this situation to orchestrate a general election but I genuinely don't know how that'd help with the Brexit situation - short of a majority voting Lib Dem!

 

Yes, sure, they could win what with the Tories so divided but divisions exist amongst the Labour ranks equally. A change of government (to Labour) would not resolves this and, tbh, I think it pretty shameless for some Labourites to suggest it could somehow. Corbyn would be as ineffectual as May, perhaps more so. At least May, you know what path she wants to take and you know she has the belligerence to follow it to the bitter end - that might or might not be a good thing, depends on your perspective. To paraphrase May, 'May is May'. With Corbyn, you just don't know. I find it difficult to get a handle on exactly what he believes (he seems to constantly couch it in caveats and terms) and I suspect he keeps his own personal beliefs and agenda obscured. Whether he believes that a great socialist state could happen or whether he simply wants a go at being PM before he shuffles off, I don't know. What I do know, with all conviction, is that I don't think I could bring myself to vote Labour with him as leader.

[WigstonWanderer]

Every time I see Jacob Rees-Mogg I am reminded of Monty Python’s Upper Class Twit of the Year.

[Alf Bentley]

Interesting analysis from Robert Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-21/theresa-mays-cunning-plan-to-get-brexit-deal-through-parliament/

 

"Amber Rudd on the Today Programme gave the game away on Wednesday morning about how the Prime Minister and the Cabinet expect to get the Government's divisive Brexit plan through Parliament. She did not demur from what seems right now a self-evident truth, that MPs will reject the deal when given their "meaningful vote" on it. But MPs would then stare into the "abyss", she said, recognise that a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster and another referendum too risky, and would then approve the deal - perhaps slightly modified - when brought back to them a second time. This is what ministers refer to as the "TARP model" - as recently coined by former government aide Rupert Harrison. For the uninitiated, TARP was the US scheme to bail out bust banks after the Crash in 2008. The initiative was initially rejected by Congress, which caused the stock market to collapse, and at that point, senators and members of the House of Representative panicked and voted through a modified version of the scheme.

 

So what May, her ministers and her chief whip are banking on (to coin a phrase) is that as and when MPs reject her Brexit plan, the stock market and sterling (in particular) would tank - which would so scare Tory rebel MPs (the Cabinet hopes) that they would at that juncture be persuaded to recant and back May's deal. It is all very plausible. It is also dangerous. Brexit was supposed to be all about taking back control, forever. If a Brexit deal that a majority of MPs currently reject as being an affront to the UK's right to democratic self-determination were to be passed because of fear that otherwise the country would be punished by international investors, by big capital, this would be rich and fertile territory for extremists and populists to exploit. Brexit was billed by its proponents as being a moment of freedom. It would be profoundly unhealthy for confidence in our democracy if what many see as a degraded Brexit was adopted merely because our MPs panicked in the face of a market rout".

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Interesting analysis from Robert Peston: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-11-21/theresa-mays-cunning-plan-to-get-brexit-deal-through-parliament/

 

"Amber Rudd on the Today Programme gave the game away on Wednesday morning about how the Prime Minister and the Cabinet expect to get the Government's divisive Brexit plan through Parliament. She did not demur from what seems right now a self-evident truth, that MPs will reject the deal when given their "meaningful vote" on it. But MPs would then stare into the "abyss", she said, recognise that a no-deal Brexit would be a disaster and another referendum too risky, and would then approve the deal - perhaps slightly modified - when brought back to them a second time. This is what ministers refer to as the "TARP model" - as recently coined by former government aide Rupert Harrison. For the uninitiated, TARP was the US scheme to bail out bust banks after the Crash in 2008. The initiative was initially rejected by Congress, which caused the stock market to collapse, and at that point, senators and members of the House of Representative panicked and voted through a modified version of the scheme.

 

So what May, her ministers and her chief whip are banking on (to coin a phrase) is that as and when MPs reject her Brexit plan, the stock market and sterling (in particular) would tank - which would so scare Tory rebel MPs (the Cabinet hopes) that they would at that juncture be persuaded to recant and back May's deal. It is all very plausible. It is also dangerous. Brexit was supposed to be all about taking back control, forever. If a Brexit deal that a majority of MPs currently reject as being an affront to the UK's right to democratic self-determination were to be passed because of fear that otherwise the country would be punished by international investors, by big capital, this would be rich and fertile territory for extremists and populists to exploit. Brexit was billed by its proponents as being a moment of freedom. It would be profoundly unhealthy for confidence in our democracy if what many see as a degraded Brexit was adopted merely because our MPs panicked in the face of a market rout".

So the Walkers Bowl approach.

[bovril]

Just now, davieG said:

So the Walkers Bowl approach.

I was thinking this the other day, that I wondered if the whole thing was a Walkers Bowl approach. Offer something so bad at first that the (also crap) alternative seems palatable.