Hard or Soft Brexit?

[Tangled up in Blue]

I see multi-millionaire Jeremy Hoskins is going to fund a political campaign to try and oust 140 Remain MPs....a) This is not democracy and b) Makes you wonder why the very rich are so keen for a hard Brexit? I'm sure it's got nothing to do with making the life better of the common man or woman and everything to do with feathering their own already over-plump nests.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/13/millionaire-brexit-donor-targets-remain-mps

Funnily enough, a couple of friends of mine in Southend said to me recently that, they "loved Europe but not the EU."

I really should have asked them when was the last time they'd had a holiday in Europe, as they usually go the US.

 

[Bielzibubz]

I see multi-millionaire Jeremy Hoskins is going to fund a political campaign to try and oust 140 Remain MPs....a) This is not democracy and b) Makes you wonder why the very rich are so keen for a hard Brexit? I'm sure it's got nothing to do with making the life better of the common man or woman and everything to do with feathering their own already over-plump nests.

Oh, and the EU is democratic is it? The hypocrisy is astounding!

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Oh, and the EU is democratic is it? The hypocrisy is astounding!

I imagine you prefer "strong and stable government" instead? :winking:

 

[callan]

My answer was why can't the UK,which is only one country (as far as the EU is concerned), commit unilaterally to protect EU citizens living and working in the UK? After all there are far more of them than UK citizens living in other EU countries.We're also told that EU workers in the UK are essential to the smooth running of the NHS,care homes etc

Roll on September!

Edit.Yet again you seem to be ignoring the fact that it's the UK which has decided to leave the EU.Why not take the moral high ground here?

As you point out there are far more EU citizens in the UK than the other way round, so it is surely in the interests of the EU to reach an agreement early.

There have been offers by the UK govt prior to negotiations to resolve this, which so far have been snubbed by the EU who prefer to deal actually in the framework of negotiations....so from that point of view we already have the moral high ground.

Any agreement should take into account ALL citizens affected by Brexit not just a proportion of them which a unilateral deal could only offer.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

As you point out there are far more EU citizens in the UK than the other way round, so it is surely in the interests of the EU to reach an agreement early.

It is,apparently,the first issue on the agenda when talks begin in earnest in September.

There have been offers by the UK govt prior to negotiations to resolve this, which so far have been snubbed by the EU who prefer to deal actually in the framework of negotiations....so from that point of view we already have the moral high ground

.

At no time since Article 50 was finally triggered has the UK government made a formal unilateral offer to resolve the issue of EU citizens working (and living ) in the UK.

Any agreement should take into account ALL citizens affected by Brexit not just a proportion of them which a unilateral deal could only offer.

We appear to be in agreement on this,which is precisely why no agreement can possibly be reached until September ,at the earliest, (more than a year after the Brexit vote).

 

[callan]

We appear to be in agreement on this,which is precisely why no agreement can possibly be reached until September ,at the earliest, (more than a year after the Brexit vote).

Which brings us full circle to a reciprocal deal, and why the Govt havent offered a unilateral one.

Good to see you got there in the end :winking:

 

[Bielzibubz]

I imagine you prefer "strong and stable government" instead? :winking:

Answer a question with a question, no more than I expect from you though. Avoid, evade and turn it round.

This may have escaped you in your blinkered and myopic little world you live in but we live in a democracy whereby we can elect to power those that govern us and if we like get rid of them too. All those that head up the EU and want to rule this European Superstate they clammer for aren't. It's that simple and so simple in fact that it's one of the very reasons 52% of the country have chosen to leave and give the whole dictatorial European Federalist Superstate ideal the middle finger.

 

[rigsby]

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ritain-terrorists-schengen-information-system

You might want to think about the implications for the UK of pulling out of the EU's SIS system.

One absolute fact about Brexit is that Britain will be much safer when we are finally out. Even intelligence services in the USA have commented on how bad some of their European counterparts have been with the UK as per usual paying far to much.

Countries like Belgium had a look the other way policy as long as the known muslim terrorists headed off to France to commit murder. In the end ordinary Belgians paid high price for that irresponsible attitude. In future not only will we be able to refuse any EU citizen who has appeared on watch lists but those convicted of any other serious crime.

By the way I'm still waiting for your answer on the Lithuanian rapist

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Answer a question with a question, no more than I expect from you though. Avoid, evade and turn it round.

This may have escaped you in your blinkered and myopic little world you live in but we live in a democracy whereby we can elect to power those that govern us and if we like get rid of them too. All those that head up the EU and want to rule this European Superstate they clammer for aren't. It's that simple and so simple in fact that it's one of the very reasons 52% of the country have chosen to leave and give the whole dictatorial European Federalist Superstate ideal the middle finger.

IMO,FWIW,a small majority of the British people have made an historic mistake.I expect this to become clearer over the next few years.

One absolute fact about Brexit is that Britain will be much safer when we are finally out. Even intelligence services in the USA have commented on how bad some of their European counterparts have been with the UK as per usual paying far to much.



Countries like Belgium had a look the other way policy as long as the known muslim terrorists headed off to France to commit murder. In the end ordinary Belgians paid high price for that irresponsible attitude. In future not only will we be able to refuse any EU citizen who has appeared on watch lists but those convicted of any other serious crime.

By the way I'm still waiting for your answer on the Lithuanian rapist

"Unlike in Alice in Wonderland, simply saying something is so does not make it so."

If we pull out of the SIS, how do you imagine we'll have access to EU "watch lists" in the future?

PS Told you before I don't do hypotheticals.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/15/jp-morgan-landmark-office-dublin-brexit

"And we're all off to Dublin in the green, in the green."

 

[rigsby]

IMO,FWIW,a small majority of the British people have made an historic mistake.I expect this to become clearer over the next few years.



"Saying something is so does not make it so." Alice in Wonderland.

PS Told you before I don't do hypotheticals.

I'm asking you for an opinion on fact not hypotheticals so stop acting like the Mad Hatter in order to avoid a simple question.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

I'm asking you for an opinion on fact not hypotheticals so stop acting like the Mad Hatter in order to avoid a simple question.

My opinion,FWIW,is that anyone who commits a crime like rape should be locked up for it.

It's also my opinion that Mrs May will have to come to some agreement with the EU about remaining in the SIS and paying the price required.

 

[rigsby]

My opinion,FWIW,is that anyone who commits a crime like rape should be locked up for it.

It's also my opinion that Mrs May will have to come to some agreement with the EU about remaining in the SIS and paying the price required.

That's not what I asked is it.....Come on Tangled don't go all 'Dianne' on me

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Saulius Zilinkas thinks the same thing. He has just been sentenced to 20 years for terrifying young women in Essex and East London with rapes and attempted murder.

The whole sorry case follows a familiar pattern. He was wanted for Raping a 16 year old girl in his native Lithuania so he does what lots of EU criminals do, he flees to Britain. We catch him and send him back and he goes to prison. When he comes out what does he do......Back to Britain for a life of benefits, rape and free health care.

When is inevitably released early from his sentence do you think he should be able to stay ?

I'm asking you for an opinion on fact not hypotheticals so stop acting like the Mad Hatter in order to avoid a simple question.

That's not what I asked is it.....Come on Tangled don't go all 'Dianne' on me

Your original question is clearly a hypothetical one.My answer would be no,however.Didn't Hannibal Lecter come from Lithunania.Just saying.:winking:

 

[rigsby]

Your original question is clearly a hypothetical one.My answer would be no,however.Didn't Hannibal Lecter come from Lithunania.Just saying.:winking:

Its clearly not hypothetical as he is in a British Prison serving a sentence for attacking several women here in Essex. The good news is you don't think he should stay once he is released, therefore you agree 100% that we can't guarantee, nor should we, the current EU rights of all 3m that are here all ready.

Good to see you take the moral high ground to protect women in Britain. :thumbsup:

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Its clearly not hypothetical as he is in a British Prison serving a sentence for attacking several women here in Essex. The good news is you don't think he should stay once he is released, therefore you agree 100% that we can't guarantee, nor should we, the current EU rights of all 3m that are here all ready.

Good to see you take the moral high ground to protect women in Britain. :thumbsup:

Actually,I misunderstood your original post.I thought you were talking about a Lithuanian national who'd been sent back to prison in Lithuania.

I'd be extremely suprised if this guy is allowed to stay in the UK once released.Nor should he.

I would certainly agree that the rights of all law abiding EU citizens in the UK should be respected.Your conclusion is of course a non sequiter.:winking:

 

[Bielzibubz]

What about the free movement rights of other EU nationals that have long and sometimes violent criminal records. Do you respect his/her rights to come here regardless of the obviously high than normal potential to do harm to a UK national?

Shouldn't that person be classified as an undesirable and barred from entering just like we are barred from entering certain other countries?

 

[Bielzibubz]

Actually,I misunderstood your original post.I thought you were talking about a Lithuanian national who'd been sent back to prison in Lithuania.

I'd be extremely suprised if this guy is allowed to stay in the UK once released.Nor should he.

I would certainly agree that the rights of all law abiding EU citizens in the UK should be respected.Your conclusion is of course
a non sequiter.:winking:

If he's put down roots here, ie wife and kids, then more than likely he'll get to stay. The European Court of Human Rights have deemed that 'forced repatriation' that deprives that person of a stable home life and the ability to see and interact with his/her direct and immediate family (wife/kids etc) violates his/her human rights and therefore cannot be enforced.

Under current EU law and under those circumstances no matter what the crime we cannot deport or repatriate that person. Crazy I know but thems the rules. We don't make em, we just abide by them regardless of the potential harm it can cause.

 

[londonblue]

What about the free movement rights of other EU nationals that have long and sometimes violent criminal records. Do you respect his/her rights to come here regardless of the obviously high than normal potential to do harm to a UK national?

Shouldn't that person be classified as an undesirable and barred from entering just like we are barred from entering certain other countries?

You do realise that you've swallowed one of the biggest Leave lies here don't you? You might want to read this:

DIRECTIVE 2004/58/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 29 April 2004

In fact leaving the EU will make this more likely as we might (note I only said might) not be able to access this information in future.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What about the free movement rights of other EU nationals that have long and sometimes violent criminal records. Do you respect his/her rights to come here regardless of the obviously high than normal potential to do harm to a UK national?

Shouldn't that person be classified as an undesirable and barred from entering just like we are barred from entering certain other countries?

All I know is that my current UK passport, (issued in Madrid), is always checked on computer -both in Spain and elsewhere- when I fly, (not when I travel by car from Spain to France or vice versa).I assume this is for a standard SIS check.

If he's put down roots here, ie wife and kids, then more than likely he'll get to stay. The European Court of Human Rights have deemed that 'forced repatriation' that deprives that person of a stable home life and the ability to see and interact with his/her direct and immediate family (wife/kids etc) violates his/her human rights and therefore cannot be enforced.

Under current EU law and under those circumstances no matter what the crime we cannot deport or repatriate that person. Crazy I know but thems the rules. We don't make em, we just abide by them regardless of the potential harm it can cause.

I see we're back to hypotheticals here.I certainly don't know the details of this case.You don't appear to either.