Jump to content
Cheshire-Cat

UK Teresa May's post-brexit immigration policy

Recommended Posts

iff
17 hours ago, michaeld said:

The EU isn't a country, true, but EU citizenship definitely exists. It entitles one to reside in any EU country.

 

I don't know if removing EU citizenship is covered by the Geneva Convention though.

There is also if a person is travelling outside of the EU and end in trouble (lost passport, robbed, bitten by rabid dog and need rabies shots etc etc), if their EU country is not represented in the country, another EU country who have am embassy there would be obligated as a member of EU to assist the person

 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/eu-citizenship/eu-citizenship_en

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blaiddmelyn
On 12/30/2018 at 9:22 PM, michaeld said:

The EU isn't a country, true, but EU citizenship definitely exists. It entitles one to reside in any EU country.

 

I don't know if removing EU citizenship is covered by the Geneva Convention though.

There's a concept of EU citizen and EU citizenship but it's not really the same as traditional citizenship, and is designed to be supplemental.

 

In any event, the suggestion that revoking citizenship without consent is a war crime is bizarre. The UK has the power to revoke British citizenship in certain extreme circumstances under S.40 British Nationality Act 1981 - without the person's consent. 

 

In any event, I think the convention you're all thinking of may be the UN Convention on Statelessness 1961- which doesn't come into play because the EU isn't a contracting state so... Not sure where the reference in the Geneva Conventions is, though I must confess I didn't read through them in detail.

 

https://ijrcenter.org/thematic-research-guides/nationality-citizenship/ for a list of international treaties etc addressing deprivation of citizenship/nationality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
44 minutes ago, Blaiddmelyn said:

There's a concept of EU citizen and EU citizenship but it's not really the same as traditional citizenship, and is designed to be supplemental.

 

In any event, the suggestion that revoking citizenship without consent is a war crime is bizarre. The UK has the power to revoke British citizenship in certain extreme circumstances under S.40 British Nationality Act 1981 - without the person's consent. 

 

In any event, I think the convention you're all thinking of may be the UN Convention on Statelessness 1961- which doesn't come into play because the EU isn't a contracting state so... Not sure where the reference in the Geneva Conventions is, though I must confess I didn't read through them in detail.

Thanks for the info, Blaidd and iff!

 

I don't know any of the details here; all I'm saying is that EU citizenship exists at least in a certain sense, at minimum that of free movement within the EU and a few other countries. Anything further is new to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld

There's more discussion on EU citizenship in this BBC article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44871876

 

Under "What is EU citizenship?", the article states

 

Quote

EU citizenship is described in Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and includes the rights to:

  • Travel and live anywhere in the EU
  • Vote and stand as a candidate in European and local elections in another EU country
  • Get diplomatic protection and consular help from any other EU country in another part of the world.

The EU treaties say EU citizenship "does not replace national citizenship" but "is additional to it". So EU citizenship cannot be acquired by giving up UK citizenship.

The article also mentons a "European Citizens' Initiative" attempting to change EU law to make EU citizenship permanent, for the benefit of those of us who stand to lose it.

 

As this was almost 6 months ago and I haven't heard anything about it since, I assume it didn't get anywhere. Even if they did somehow get the required number of signatures, I very much doubt the other EU countries would be happy about a setup in which UK citizens are free to travel and work in the EU (and EEA) but not vice versa...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acing It
On 12/23/2018 at 9:20 AM, Skycaptain said:

It's a bit off topic, but many people don't trust Labour after the Blair/Brown years of unfettered borrowing, wars of questionable legality etc. The Lib-dems lost credibility by jumping into coalition with the Tories. UKIP got us into this mess. 

I agree with part of this but I think a lot of what we now think of parties other than the tories is the result of gameplay and clever manipulating/marketing by the tories. I think it's not necessarily all ukip that got us into this mess but Cameron/the tories giving in to them. the lib dems were stupid to join the conservative boat (but not sure if sharing power with labour would have been an excellent idea either - we will never know). An example is their push for a change to proportionate representation. The tories manipulated that to such an extent that the only option was stay as it is or a rubbish representative system that would never get through. Labour - you've got a point. However, Labour under blair was far to the centre, which got a lot of people to vote for them. Whereas now, it's so far to the left that a lot of centrist will have to be really disappointed with the tories to vote for them. Ukip - enough said... IMO they are/were poison to a healthy modern society and rooted in a Britain that doesn't exist and never existed in the past. When it comes down to it, nationhood is a fiction, but there's fiction and Fiction.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acing It
On 12/23/2018 at 11:46 AM, Anthracite_Impreza said:

I'd vote for Corbyn, he's a decent bloke. The media has done an excellently biased job painting him as an anti-semetic, 'evil communist' though, and people are stupid enough they won't do any thinking for themselves on the matter.

I agree that Corbyn is a decent bloke, but a decent bloke does not a successful polititian make... sadly and unfortunately... 😞 I think the anti semitic thing has been grossly manipulated and used by the tories to discredit him and to make themselves look better. That kind of manipulation makes successful politicians unfortunately, as a lot of people seem to fall for this bumph and other things that happened in the past, like the 350 million thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ortac
21 minutes ago, Acing It said:

An example is their push for a change to proportionate representation. The tories manipulated that to such an extent that the only option was stay as it is or a rubbish representative system that would never get through.

I know I have said what I am about to say several times before, but I make absolutely no apologies for repeating it: The UK's first past the post system of electing politicians is an absolute disgrace and needs to be changed. It amazes me how most Brits are oblivious to this fact and how poorly it reflects on how the UK is perceived by other nations. 

 

Proportional representation is definitely the fairest and most democratic, but that would be a seriously complicated and no doubt controversial overhaul. What the UK could do extremely easily however is implement preferential and transferable voting, or alternatively a two round system with a run off vote. It beggars belief that they have never done that. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acing It

As a personal view on this: I will be one of those people who will lose out, no matter what. I’ve lived in the UK since 2001 and have an EU nationality and yes… apparently I can get settled status, but that doesn’t mean in reality that I will be able to stay. That will depend on a lot of things. I’m likely to lose my job next year as our contract with the local council ends and because they are really strapped for cash, it will not be renewed. I have one of those jobs that is really misrepresented and misunderstood, however necessary what I do is. It’s also not protected, so any fool is allowed to do what I do (badly). In addition, I’m of an age where it’s generally more difficult to find work and I’m physically incapable of doing quite a few lower end jobs, the ones they don’t want me in this country for. So employers are likely not to give me a job (my name will be a giveaway when applying for jobs). These are just a couple of reasons why I’m fearing looking for a new job this year…

 

A consequence may be that I lose my house. You may say, you can use the money to get by… that money is part of my pension pot and if I have to pay £600 out of my pension I’ll have a miserable life. I’m also of an age where my parents have a good pension and the people younger than me were/are told to save, having enough time to do so, I don’t have that luxury and saving now is very, very difficult anyway.

So… in the ultimate bad case I may be forced to leave a country that’s been my home for so long, with nowhere else to go as I don’t have a stake in any other country and the one I have the nationality of makes me ill, which is part of the reason why I left and which is why I can’t move there – if there was anything of a foothold there anyway.

 

In addition to this, the pound has dropped so far that I can only buy a hovel there, if that – likely nothing at all. This is on a very different scale than people having their holidays affected by a lower pound.

 

Professionally, the situation is worse in that my profession is appreciated in some countries but I have a degree in the wrong subject, so I will struggle getting in. The other reasons why it will be difficult to find a job here, will apply there as well.

 

I loved living in the UK and always had links with the UK. I loved the people and really felt at home here, until the referendum. Although I have had very little nastiness, I’ve switched off from the UK to quite an extent and feel for the first time I live in a foreign country where quite a few people would rather see me go than stay. I treat every new encounter and every visit to another part of the country with caution, which I didn’t feel I had to do before. Part of this is an anxiety condition and so far all of it has been subjective, but still, the feeling is real and not ‘put on’. As a further bit of background, my one neighbour, who is in her 80s and with whom I got on with well in a neighbourly way, voted out and I don’t know what to think. My other neighbour doesn’t bring up the subject which makes me think she also voted out and doesn’t want to jeopardise our relationship as neighbours.

I have now about 11 months at most to come up with a plan A, B, C and so on and don’t even know where to start. Every solution is sh*t as far as I can see and I’m tired and fed up with it all, not knowing how I’m going to get through the next year. I don’t have the physical and emotional energy to make all these challenges easy to cope with.

 

BTW – I don’t earn £30000, like many others whose jobs require significant skills and qualifications to do. You used to have to have a postgraduate qualification to do my job, and that’s what I have from a UK university. I don’t think that wage level is any indicator of skill level. Maybe it is when you’re a deluded tory, I don’t know.

 

Why don’t you apply for UK citizenship, some people will think. You need two people to vouch for you and I have one, our company’s accountant, I don’t have a second one and I’m on the one hand scared to ask (my neighbours for instance) and on the other hand I don’t have any friends I can ask.

Others in the country will have a similar situation going on, which is why I decided to post this to provide an inside view as it were.

For me personally, this is on top of my difficulty being an asexual non-binary person and associated real difficulties finding friends who take me as I am without me having to put on a mask (not literally of course! 😊)

 

This is not intended to be a moan or a ‘pity story’ btw… and I know that a lot of people will come up with lots of reasons why it won’t turn out that way and about what I should do next, it’s a realistic possibility and I only sketched broad lines on here, not a lot of detail.

 

So... 2019: sh*tstorm or lucky escape with only minor mess?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acing It
42 minutes ago, Ortac said:

I know I have said what I am about to say several times before, but I make absolutely no apologies for repeating it: The UK's first past the post system of electing politicians is an absolute disgrace and needs to be changed. It amazes me how most Brits are oblivious to this fact and how poorly it reflects on how the UK is perceived by other nations. 

 

Proportional representation is definitely the fairest and most democratic, but that would be a seriously complicated and no doubt controversial overhaul. What the UK could do extremely easily however is implement preferential and transferable voting, or alternatively a two round system with a run off vote. It beggars belief that they have never done that. 

I agree. It's a backward system (in the sense of not of this time and age) that in an effective two party system creates a lot of instability and to and fro-ing in policy where each of the two parties feels they have to put their own stamp on everything. I deal with the fall out of this in my job all the time. Especially now, but generally always, a more significant proportion of the population won't feel represented at all in what the government does if there's a first past the post system. Being the first (arguably) and having the 'mother of all parliaments' doesn't mean you've got the best system and that you have a system 'to be proud of'. An analogy is IT systems. Companies tying themselves into a new IT system when it's very new soon find themselves outdated after the 'bugs' have been ironed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben8884

we should all adopt the French system. It might take a bit longer but at least its more representative. 

When is the deal being voted? In a week or so yes?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acing It
7 minutes ago, ben8884 said:

When is the deal being voted? In a week or so yes?

I don't know and frankly and paradoxically don't care! (no offence intended). Nothing we can do anyway and frankly again, the referendum should never have happened the way it was with all the manipulation and lies. The european question is far too complex as it is, without coaxing a lot of people to vote on simplistic or naive terms and ideas.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
2 hours ago, Acing It said:

the lib dems were stupid to join the conservative boat (but not sure if sharing power with labour would have been an excellent idea either - we will never know).

They could not have made a majority with Labour - the numbers didn't add up. They would have had to make a coalition with not only Labour but also the Greens and Plaid Cymru, and even that would only just have got them over the line. I think these parties did look into making a coalition at first, but realised it would be too unstable to work. So the Lib Dems had to make a coalition with the Conservatives - the only other option was to let the Tories try to form a minority government, i.e. give up the chance of even faintly influencing government policy. That may well have got the Lib Dems destroyed at the next election just as badly as they actually did. In hindsight, it was a lose-lose situation.

 

This is just going from my memory of 2010 - I welcome correction if I misremembered something.

 

2 hours ago, Acing It said:

An example is their push for a change to proportionate representation. The tories manipulated that to such an extent that the only option was stay as it is or a rubbish representative system that would never get through.

I disagree - the proposal (AV = alternative voting) is actually a very good system. If anything the problem was it wasn't explained properly. I voted for the change and was very surprised the status quo won so emphatically.

 

One major advantage AV would have had over FPTP is it reduces the need for tactical voting. For example (ironically) the Tories would not have had to worry so much about UKIP "stealing" their votes, since if someone puts UKIP first they are fairly likely to put Tories second, so as long as UKIP don't win the constiituency vote (which would be unlikely) the vote still effectively goes to the Conservatives. The Tories' calculation was that, despite this, FPTP was better for them because it allowed the same thing to happen in reverse, with the Lib Dems and Greens "stealing" Labour's votes. I wonder if any of them, including Cameron, regret this stand now...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Acing It
9 hours ago, michaeld said:

They could not have made a majority with Labour - the numbers didn't add up. They would have had to make a coalition with not only Labour but also the Greens and Plaid Cymru, and even that would only just have got them over the line. I think these parties did look into making a coalition at first, but realised it would be too unstable to work. So the Lib Dems had to make a coalition with the Conservatives - the only other option was to let the Tories try to form a minority government, i.e. give up the chance of even faintly influencing government policy. That may well have got the Lib Dems destroyed at the next election just as badly as they actually did. In hindsight, it was a lose-lose situation.

 

This is just going from my memory of 2010 - I welcome correction if I misremembered something.

 

I disagree - the proposal (AV = alternative voting) is actually a very good system. If anything the problem was it wasn't explained properly. I voted for the change and was very surprised the status quo won so emphatically.

 

One major advantage AV would have had over FPTP is it reduces the need for tactical voting. For example (ironically) the Tories would not have had to worry so much about UKIP "stealing" their votes, since if someone puts UKIP first they are fairly likely to put Tories second, so as long as UKIP don't win the constiituency vote (which would be unlikely) the vote still effectively goes to the Conservatives. The Tories' calculation was that, despite this, FPTP was better for them because it allowed the same thing to happen in reverse, with the Lib Dems and Greens "stealing" Labour's votes. I wonder if any of them, including Cameron, regret this stand now...

On your first point, you may be right. I was also speaking from memory and not remembering the detail, I remember there being a choice for the lib dems, hence my comment. Even there was no good choicd for the lib dems, the tories still made the most of it imo to effectively 'get rid' of the lib dems as 'competition' as they are doing with labour now imo in a very manipulative way.

 

On your second point, we have to agree to disagree i think, although I agree on the plus point you mentioned. Although AV has its advantages over first past the post especially, it's a very niche system taken up by very few countries, indicating the initial point I made about the tories insisting on this as a choice. In essence, proportional representation is simple to explain and understand (some of the implications maybe less so), so if their intnetions were honest they could have left the specifics open as has happened with the brexit referendum, where paradoxically it would have been essential to be specific, but not in the way that accentuates the downsides or where the plus side was almost complete fantasy 'on the side of a bus' as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
timewarp
11 hours ago, michaeld said:

One major advantage AV would have had over FPTP is it reduces the need for tactical voting. For example (ironically) the Tories would not have had to worry so much about UKIP "stealing" their votes, since if someone puts UKIP first they are fairly likely to put Tories second, so as long as UKIP don't win the constiituency vote (which would be unlikely) the vote still effectively goes to the Conservatives. The Tories' calculation was that, despite this, FPTP was better for them because it allowed the same thing to happen in reverse, with the Lib Dems and Greens "stealing" Labour's votes. I wonder if any of them, including Cameron, regret this stand now...

See, this is where it all went wrong. AV might have been acceptable for the Tories, but I can't see how it could have been acceptable for supporters of small parties. They wouldn't have had a chance to get "their" party into parliament with the new system, so why bother? The only way to allow people to get represented by a party they actually (more or less) want, without any tactical voting involved, is proportional representation. (To give you an example, in German general elections there is currently a realistic choice between six different parties, and most people find at least one of those they are actually okay with.) There is still tactical voting in proportional representations, but it's about likely coalitions. Let's say someone would like a Labour/Green government and they're okay with both Greens and Libdems, they would vote Greens because it increases the chances of said coalition.

 

On the other hand first past the post would be an excellent system, and so would AV be, if and only if there were no parties. It's a good idea to vote for someone who represents a local area, but then that person needs to be completely independent and act only in the interest of their constituents.

 

Realistically only a permanent split in the Tory party (and ideally Labour too) can change this. If both major parties split up, they suddenly get an incentive to change the voting system. To be honest I think if the voting system was different the major parties would not exist in the current form any more, and that's a good thing. You and I might not like where parts of those parties would be going, but that's democracy. I don't see anything bad in parties like UKIP being represented in parliament - let them show how they manage to cope with everyday politics. Either they do well and thereby justify their existence, or they don't, which is more likely, and will be punished by the electorate sooner or later.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
6 hours ago, Acing It said:

On your first point, you may be right. I was also speaking from memory and not remembering the detail, I remember there being a choice for the lib dems, hence my comment. Even there was no good choicd for the lib dems, the tories still made the most of it imo to effectively 'get rid' of the lib dems as 'competition' as they are doing with labour now imo in a very manipulative way.

I looked up the numbers and it was even worse than I thought for the Lib Dems. Numerically it was impossible for Labour and Lib Dems to make the required majority of 326 unless they brought on board either the DUP or the SNP. Neither of those would have been remotely viable.

 

Their options really were either make a coalition with the Tories, or leave the Tories to try to form a minority government.

 

3 hours ago, timewarp said:

See, this is where it all went wrong. AV might have been acceptable for the Tories, but I can't see how it could have been acceptable for supporters of small parties. They wouldn't have had a chance to get "their" party into parliament with the new system, so why bother?

The Tories didn't find it acceptable but in my opinion they were being shortsighted.

 

I agree - AV certainly does not favour smaller parties. (Though it would definitely help moderate-sized parties outside the big 2, such as lib dems. Possibly Greens.) This has its advantages as well as disadvantages given the nature of some of these parties, as you'll be acutely aware (and indeed alluded to later). I'd simply be happy having a few more viable choices, obviating the second-guessing required when tactically voting under FPTP, and yet still voting for a local MP as well as a party.

 

Actually even PR disfavours smaller parties in a way, albeit not as much. Each individual still has to assign their entire vote to a party. To be truly proportionate, each voter should be able to split their vote as a percentage for each option. Of course the voters could vote randomly, based on their preferred distribution, and it would average out over the population to be equivalent to the split-vote system, but I'd be willing to bet that almost no-one would behave like that, even under PR. So in practice they'd be most likely to vote for their preferred candidate, which will disfavour smaller parties overall, compared to the split-vote system.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
timewarp
1 hour ago, michaeld said:

I'd simply be happy having a few more viable choices, obviating the second-guessing required when tactically voting under FPTP, and yet still voting for a local MP as well as a party.

This sounds like you would like the German system (I believe also implemented in a few other countries by now)? Because it's almost exactly like that. The first vote is for a local MP (direct mandate) and the second one for a party. The uneven distribution caused by the first vote gets completely compensated by additional seats, so it is indeed a fully proportional system that still has local MPs. There's also a "5% hurdle" that means parties that don't reach at least 5% of the vote share can't get into parliaments unless they get direct mandates. The latter is a precaution so the more extreme parties have more difficulties getting in.

 

In practice most people don't care a lot about the first vote, unless there are some important local issues or there is a prominent politician in that constituency. For example my "local" MP (expats vote in their last place of residence) is Wolfgang Schäuble, arguably one of the most hated politicians worldwide, so I was quite keen to vote against him (in vain, he still got 70% of the votes).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iff
On 1/3/2019 at 1:54 PM, michaeld said:

Actually even PR disfavours smaller parties in a way, albeit not as much. Each individual still has to assign their entire vote to a party. To be truly proportionate, each voter should be able to split their vote as a percentage for each option.

Could adopt the Irish system where we use a mix of alternate vote and proportional representation but with individual candidates on ballot than a list system, as an example

 

https://electionsireland.org/counts.cfm?election=2016&cons=105&ref=

 

So it combines

- alternative vote

- individual candidates

- multi seat constituencies (in parliament elections, seats are 3, 4 or 5. In locals, it is possible for 5 - 10 seat constituencies)

- days of fun counting ballot papers and transferring and recounting votes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

There's only one solution. I will have to take control and run the country as a Skytatorship.😋 😋 😋 😋 

 

Stay in Europe 

Cut the drink-drive limit 

No maximum speed limits 

Encourage migration and investment from overseas by making people welcome 

Legalise cannabis to free up prison space and police time 

Renationalise infrastructure 

Replace HS2 with a maglev train, it's stupid spending £50 billion on obsolete technologies 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iff
8 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

No maximum speed limits

Pointless anecdote - prior to France introducing a speed limit  Laurent fignon and a team mate were travelling to some race hurtling along the road at a high speed, up ahead fignon sees a traffic light on green. He slows down, to the surprise of the team mate. He explains to team mate that at the speed they were going, they would get to the light at red.  Sure enough, when they reach the light it is turning back to green.

 

Any on topic, You have my vote

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

The government suffered a minor defeat in Parliament yesterday, basically MP's saying that they don't want a no deal Brexit 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben8884

shes suffered another one today-if her deal doesn't pass she now will only have 3 days to come up with an alternative 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46805269

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld

Question I'm asking myself is whether I want the deal to pass parliament. The deal being rejected could lead to the worst outcome (no deal Brexit) but it could conceivably also lead to the best outcome (a cancellation of Brexit).

 

A second referendum (the "people's vote") would cause a very toxic atmosphere indeed, and unless remain won by a huge margin it wouldn't settle anything. And if leave won we'd be back to square one. The latter could even be taken as an endorsement of a "no deal Brexit". (Which it shouldn't, but then the 2016 referendum should never have been taken as an endorsement of leaving the single market, but it is widely interpreted exactly that way.)

 

I think the best hope is that at some point May says "right! You've voted down my deal and you've ruled out no deal. No option but to cancel Brexit - and it's your fault (MPs)." That way she could blame MPs and maybe save face.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben8884
1 hour ago, michaeld said:

I think the best hope is that at some point May says "right! You've voted down my deal and you've ruled out no deal. No option but to cancel Brexit - and it's your fault (MPs)." That way she could blame MPs and maybe save face.

Or hold a referendum and then blame the people and save face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld

The problem with another referendum is what the heck do we do if leave wins again? Crash out without a deal? And if remain wins with less than 55% (or perhaps even 60%), leavers will want a best of 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben8884

this referendum would be a best of 3 but regardless, I see your point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iff
On 1/9/2019 at 10:30 PM, ben8884 said:

Or hold a referendum and then blame the people and save face.

What would the ballot paper look like for a second vote?

 

A straight leave v remain

A vote with 3 choices - remain, leave with deal on table, leave +no deal

A preferendum with those three choices

2 votes, one to accept May's deal and a contingent vote, if rejected then choice between remaining and leave with no deal

 

I think options need to be worded in way that means politicians can't go and say "we'll go back and get a better deal" as that I think is a false promise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ben8884

Seeing as how Parliament has said they refuse to back a no deal Brexit, and the EU has said they are done negotiating I think a simple May's deal vs no Brexit would suffice. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyenAutowegCaptain

Never mind a referendum, this debate is becoming a neverendum 

 

Besides, at the end of the day, the government has no obligation to heed the outcome of the vote anyway. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
michaeld
7 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

Never mind a referendum, this debate is becoming a neverendum

It is and I'm tired of it too, and wish it was over. The problem is though the ramifications of a hard Brexit will continue for decades, no matter how long the debate lasts.

 

I'm dreading the idea of an extension to the negotiations (which will only happen if every EU country agrees to it). I'd be all in favour of it if I thought the time was going to be used constructively, but I fear it will just be more of the same and will only make the entire thing drag on...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iff
13 hours ago, ben8884 said:

Seeing as how Parliament has said they refuse to back a no deal Brexit, and the EU has said they are done negotiating I think a simple May's deal vs no Brexit would suffice. 

So that would be forcing the hard brexit mps to accept the deal on the table?

 

42 minutes ago, michaeld said:

It is and I'm tired of it too, and wish it was over. The problem is though the ramifications of a hard Brexit will continue for decades, no matter how long the debate lasts.

 

I'm dreading the idea of an extension to the negotiations (which will only happen if every EU country agrees to it). I'd be all in favour of it if I thought the time was going to be used constructively, but I fear it will just be more of the same and will only make the entire thing drag on...

And to make it worse, the current deal is only the transitional arrangements for when the UK leaves the EU, not the final final agreement for when the transition period ends

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...