Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 7:26:01 GMT
The problem is that in order to 'get control' it was necessary to throw the baby out with the bathwater, when it would have been far less disruptive just to implement the sanctions provided for in the FoM Directive, and harmonise labour market regulations and benefit systems with continental norms thereby eliminating most of the magnetic 'pull factors'. Yes but those changes were politically untenable in the UK. Politics is the art of the possible and any significant changes as you propose were never going to materialise. Are we to understand that you are, in effect, admitting that Brexit was not necessary but for politics? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 13, 2023 7:27:07 GMT
by a remain supporting organisation...  Non-argument ^. The operative word in the statement is reliable. Which not one single Brexit supporting organisation or individual can challenge. Can't challenge? Won't challenge.  Its easy to challenge. If this forecast was true then since 2016 the UK would have grown at twice the rate of Germany. Now you will have to remind me what it was about the UK economy in 2016 that would have generated such terrific growth rates? - because I certainly cannot remember anything. But perhaps Cameron and Osbourne were economic geniuses who had revolutionized the UK economy - who knew?.. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 13, 2023 7:29:03 GMT
Yes but those changes were politically untenable in the UK. Politics is the art of the possible and any significant changes as you propose were never going to materialise. Are you saying that the public would not have been in favour of eliminating the 'black' economy and returning to a contributions-based benefits system?
Did anyone put it to them?
Blair wanted to introduce ID cards for precisely the reason you highlight - but the political opposition was simply too high. You are perfectly correct that there were things that in theory could have been done - practically there was hardly anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jun 13, 2023 7:29:46 GMT
Yes but those changes were politically untenable in the UK. Politics is the art of the possible and any significant changes as you propose were never going to materialise. Are we to understand that you are, in effect, admitting that Brexit was not necessary but for politics? Brexit was a political decision - the EU is a political organisation. Of course its all politics. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 13, 2023 7:36:14 GMT
Are you saying that the public would not have been in favour of eliminating the 'black' economy and returning to a contributions-based benefits system?
Did anyone put it to them?
Blair wanted to introduce ID cards for precisely the reason you highlight - but the political opposition was simply too high. You are perfectly correct that there were things that in theory could have been done - practically there was hardly anything. You're answering a different question to the one I asked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 7:52:09 GMT
Are we to understand that you are, in effect, admitting that Brexit was not necessary but for politics? Brexit was a political decision - the EU is a political organisation. Of course its all politics. Oh?! Nothing to do with democracy and the pursuit of democracy, reclaiming "lost independence" and "sov'renteeee..." or deciding our own fate then. Effing Brexit gasligthers!!! The island is not full!!! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 7:53:17 GMT
Non-argument ^. The operative word in the statement is reliable. Which not one single Brexit supporting organisation or individual can challenge. Can't challenge? Won't challenge. Its easy to challenge. If this forecast was true then since 2016 the UK would have grown at twice the rate of Germany. Now you will have to remind me what it was about the UK economy in 2016 that would have generated such terrific growth rates? - because I certainly cannot remember anything. But perhaps Cameron and Osbourne were economic geniuses who had revolutionized the UK economy - who knew?.. By challenge, I meant, successful challenge. Start again, please. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jun 13, 2023 8:09:58 GMT
Having control of immigration is a prudent and sensible policy , not a nationalistic ‘ desire’ lol. Freedom of movement is freedom of movement. Once you control freedom of movement it ceases to be free . But FoM in the EU context is something very different from freedom of residence. The former only provides for a three-month temporary stay in another member state, it does not allow for permanent residence unless an EU national is able to claim 'treaty rights'.
That was the blunder successive British governments made - failing to remove individuals who did not qualify under the terms of the Directive. Allied to the traditional laisser-faire approach to labour market regulation and the largely non-contributory benefits system 'FoM' was always going to be problematic for the UK, to an extent it has not been for other EU states who exercised more control over the process.
Obviously inapplicable to thousands from mainly Africa and the Middle East |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jun 13, 2023 8:22:26 GMT
As Brexit has painfully confirmed for thousands of Brits, only EU nationals can benefit from the FoM Directive. Third country nationals, whether from the UK or Niger, are not entitled to it even if permanently resident in an EU member state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 13, 2023 9:58:50 GMT
"Non-EU workers outnumber EU ones" Indeed, and thanks to the EU they have all arrived in this country via the EU. That's not true. Rubbish. The vast majority of refugees, foreign criminals, asylum seekers, illegals, economic migrants call them what you will, arrive in England from the safe EU state of France. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 10:00:39 GMT
Rubbish. The vast majority of refugees, foreign criminals, asylum seekers, illegals, economic migrants call them what you will, arrive in England from the safe EU state of France. You said all. Now you've changed your position. There are direct flights from Asia and Africa, you know. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 13, 2023 10:06:15 GMT
Rubbish. The vast majority of refugees, foreign criminals, asylum seekers, illegals, economic migrants call them what you will, arrive in England from the safe EU state of France. You said all. Now you've changed your position. There are direct flights from Asia and Africa, you know. Behave yourself. I said: "The vast majority of refugees, foreign criminals, asylum seekers, illegals, economic migrants call them what you will, arrive in England from the safe EU state of France". Which is correct. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 10:08:02 GMT
You said all. Now you've changed your position. There are direct flights from Asia and Africa, you know. Behave yourself. I said: "The vast majority of refugees, foreign criminals, asylum seekers, illegals, economic migrants call them what you will, arrive in England from the safe EU state of France". Which is correct. You behave yourself, young man. You said "Indeed, and thanks to the EU they have all arrived in this country via the EU." Hope this helps. I won't tell you again. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jun 13, 2023 10:16:57 GMT
Behave yourself. I said: "The vast majority of refugees, foreign criminals, asylum seekers, illegals, economic migrants call them what you will, arrive in England from the safe EU state of France". Which is correct. You behave yourself, young man. You said "Indeed, and thanks to the EU they have all arrived in this country via the EU." Hope this helps. I won't tell you again. LOL...  |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jun 13, 2023 10:33:24 GMT
If the EU had remained in the EU, with exports to the EU remaining as they were when we were in, we'd be selling £302 billion a year to them. You take the export figures from when we were in and put them through an inflation calculator. |
|
