UK General Election 2017 |OT2| No Government is better than a bad Government

Status
Not open for further replies.
MrMysterio said:
These are separate issues, though, as the UK is still part of the EU, and therefore has different policies depending on the nationality of the immigrant.

The UK currently has no legislation regarding immigration post-Brexit. Post-Brexit Britain does not yet exist, apart from vague bill promises that lack work-able detail.

The case of EU citizens in the UK is notable due to the fact that they have come to the UK with a full set of rights, which is now under discussion of how much of it is being stripped away.

Also, whatever the UK think their "immigration problem" is, it's not rooted in "insufficient EU treaties".
Click to expand...
The UK is still a part of the EU yes. Nothing has changed. Until it leaves the EU. When legislation will change.

The significant thing to understand is that people are always under the mercy of the government's legislation. EU citizens won't gain clarity until the regulation gets established and that will still be subject to new governments changing it. It is an issue and one that I can't expect T. May to actually resolve in good faith.

Now, with regards to CSI, that is a direct problem in the EU treaties to account for the NHS. Under the self-sufficiency requirements, you need comprehensive sickness insurance such that you do not burden the state. That makes sense in say Germany where they have social insurance but not in the UK. T. May took advantage of this legal loophole to target EU students and people working part-time. There is active litigation going on but it would be hard to argue now. Having said that being in possession of the EHIC at the time is a decent workaround for this.
 
ferrasvansen said:
Yeah had a feeling the companies who invested in UK while in the EU would do this, may well end up costing taxpayers billions, cannot blame them really after all it's not their fault it happened.
Click to expand...

At the same time, shit happens. Costs of doing business. Better than suing the UK, they should just leave.
 
jelly said:
That's the odd thing, she could have implemented better rules for EU migrants that other countries have done while she was Home Secretary for 6 years but didn't bother. Was it a long game to make people hate immigration and force Brexit?
Click to expand...

It is really weird. I don't think implementing them would have made any difference to attitudes on immigration. The only two answers I can think of are a) incompetence b) a recognition that failing to reach the immigration cap was better for the weakly recovering economy.
 
War Peaceman said:
It is really weird. I don't think implementing them would have made any difference to attitudes on immigration. The only two answers I can think of are a) incompetence b) a recognition that failing to reach the immigration cap was better for the weakly recovering economy.
Click to expand...

Good points, to add, there was always jobs to fill so it would make no difference. You wouldn't be sending many people back, they would be employed. It would have helped to show the public there is good rules in place though and they weren't all on benefits nonsense.
 
Theonik said:
The UK is still a part of the EU yes. Nothing has changed. Until it leaves the EU. When legislation will change.

The significant thing to understand is that people are always under the mercy of the government's legislation. EU citizens won't gain clarity until the regulation gets established and that will still be subject to new governments changing it. It is an issue and one that I can't expect T. May to actually resolve in good faith.

Now, with regards to CSI, that is a direct problem in the EU treaties to account for the NHS. Under the self-sufficiency requirements, you need comprehensive sickness insurance such that you do not burden the state. That makes sense in say Germany where they have social insurance but not in the UK. T. May took advantage of this legal loophole to target EU students and people working part-time. There is active litigation going on but it would be hard to argue now. Having said that being in possession of the EHIC at the time is a decent workaround for this.
Click to expand...

Quick fix for EU citizen gaining clarity: do not change their rights, and keep them under the European Court of Justice. Easy.

Anything other than that and you're basically keeping a lot of people in legal limbo.

Not a very great start for a country trying to attract more foreigners post-Brexit.
 
MrMysterio said:
Quick fix for EU citizen gaining clarity: do not change their rights, and keep them under the European Court of Justice. Easy.

Anything other than that and you're basically keeping a lot of people in legal limbo.

Not a very great start for a country trying to attract more foreigners post-Brexit.
Click to expand...
Why would a government wishing to repatriate control of its policy surrender its policy to the ECJ?
The whole point of Brexit as the government interprets it is to restore the supremacy of British law.
 
jimbobsmells said:
If Brexit results in the UK walking away or moving the goal posts on any contractual obligations with multinationals then you bet they will sue. Every right to do so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not questioning their whether they have rights to sue, but this isn't something that will get resolved quickly. Maybe the payout would be worth it in the long run, but maybe not.
 
Theonik said:
Why would a government wishing to repatriate control of its policy surrender its policy to the ECJ?
The whole point of Brexit as the government interprets it is to restore the supremacy of British law.
Click to expand...

Then the government should admit that giving EU citizens clarity isn't actually a priority.
 
CCS said:
Then the government should admit that giving EU citizens clarity isn't actually a priority.
Click to expand...
It is among the first items to be negotiated.
Most parties in the UK also wished to guarantee the right to stay unilaterally. The only party that disagrees here is T. May herself.
Which of course makes her hypocritical, and a terrible person but there we go.
 
Which brings us back to: If that's what you wish your sovereignty to be like then you are backing a government that cares very very little for the citizens within its borders.

A very short-sighted strategy as well, when trying to gain the trust of future business, social and cultural partners.

What won't this country do to regain the fantasy of sovereignty?
Especially if this fantasy is propped up by delusions of grandeur - so, why shouldn't the UK surrender its policy to the ECJ if that means giving people the same rights they had before Brexit?
Because of an inflated sense of ego of nationalists.

Who gave the Tory/DUP the mandate to negotiate that kind of Brexit?
 
SlipperyFishes said:
She clearly despises migrants from Europe and was never on the Remain Train.

Played the game right up until she could steal the Premiership.
Click to expand...

And she's done such a good job of it now that she has it! It's kind of incredible how bad Theresa May's political instincts really are, especially for someone who survived one of the more controversy-prone cabinet positions. But it's all landing on her head now.
 
MrMysterio said:
Who gave the Tory/DUP the mandate to negotiate that kind of Brexit?
Click to expand...
That's what i've never understood. 48% of people didn't want brexit at all yet T.May constantly spouts that she is trying to enact the 'will of the people'. So is she suggesting everyone that voted leave voted for this hard Tory / UKIP version of brexit?
 
Newline said:
That's what i've never understood. 48% of people didn't want brexit at all yet T.May constantly spouts that she is trying to enact the 'will of the people'. So is she suggesting everyone that voted leave voted for this hard Tory / UKIP version of brexit?
Click to expand...
What do you mean, once a decision is made everyone who disagreed with you disappears and suddenly everyone agrees with you.

Didnt you know that?

I cant stand that whole 'will of the people' bollocks, half the country didn’t want this
 
Newline said:
That's what i've never understood. 48% of people didn't want brexit at all yet T.May constantly spouts that she is trying to enact the 'will of the people'. So is she suggesting everyone that voted leave voted for this hard Tory / UKIP version of brexit?
Click to expand...

It's not even that, 48%/52% of the people that voted. It's disgusting to go with whatever comes up.
 
Halph n Halph said:
Those that didn't vote have no right to complain.
Click to expand...
And thats a fair enough point but in the context of why this stat was brought up, its not 'the will of the people' when there was only a 4% difference between those who wanted to leave or stay and then those numbers only make up 70% of the population as a total.

Its "For the will of the people who turned up and the few extra who voted for leave".
 
Had European nationals in the UK and Brits living abroad for 15+ years been able to vote it would have been 52/48 the other way and Farage would be demanding a second referendum to this day. The fruitcakes wouldn't have shut up about this issue so I don't see why we should now.
 
Dirtyshubb said:
And thats a fair enough point but in the context of why this stat was brought up, its not 'the will of the people' when there was only a 4% difference between those who wanted to leave or stay and then those numbers only make up 70% of the population as a total.

Its "For the will of the people who turned up and the few extra who voted for leave".
Click to expand...
And even then T.May seems to think it's only for those who wanted to eject us out of the single market at any cost. I can't believe thats everyone who voted brexit.
 
Newline said:
And even then T.May seems to think it's only for those who wanted to eject us out of the single market at any cost. I can't believe thats everyone who voted brexit.
Click to expand...
Yep, so its actually more like:
"For the will of the people who turned up and the few extra who voted to leave the EU and get a good deal, im willing to throw all deals out the window and the country off a cliff"
 
Something for Huw to chew on, 33% of Lib Dem Remain voters went to Labour. Labour also got a huge chunk of "other" Remainers and were clearly seen as the party of Remain. The Lib Dem campaign might have very quietly managed to be even worse than Theresa May's.
cyberheater said:
So what are we at now. Day 12 and still no deal on the table?
Click to expand...

Somehow this complete fuckup of negotiations has slipped down the newsworthiness pecking order. It's worthy of constant mockery and derision:
If you can't sort out a simple deal with the tiny DUP, how do you expect to negotiate with a block of 27 countries that dwarfs you in every respect?​
 
Par Score said:
Something for Huw to chew on, 33% of Lib Dem Remain voters went to Labour. Labour also got a huge chunk of "other" Remainers and were clearly seen as the party of Remain. The Lib Dem campaign might have very quietly managed to be even worse than Theresa May's.


Somehow this complete fuckup of negotiations has slipped down the newsworthiness pecking order. It's worthy of constant mockery and derision:
If you can't sort out a simple deal with the tiny DUP, how do you expect to negotiate with a block of 27 countries that dwarfs you in every respect?​
Click to expand...

I have as much issue with the Lib Dems as anyone, but the Tories self-owning feels like one of those once in a lifetime levels of fucking up.

Good to see TM still trying to push for some sort of hard brexit when the country has made it pretty apparent it's the last thing anyone wants. Keep taking L's.
 
Halph n Halph said:
Those that didn't vote have no right to complain.
Click to expand...

What about the people who weren't allowed to vote?

Dirtyshubb said:
Yep, so its actually more like:
"For the will of the people who turned up and the few extra who voted to leave the EU and get a good deal, im willing to throw all deals out the window and the country off a cliff"
Click to expand...

"The will of the people voted for a very vague plan to leave the EU on an extremely broad question, won by a very thin margin, so now we have unanimous support for whatever the unelected PM coalition/minority decide to do afterwards"

Par Score said:
Something for Huw to chew on, 33% of Lib Dem Remain voters went to Labour. Labour also got a huge chunk of "other" Remainers and were clearly seen as the party of Remain. The Lib Dem campaign might have very quietly managed to be even worse than Theresa May's.
Click to expand...

Has there been any analysis on how much of the vote the LDs gained as a consequence of FPTP encouraging tactical voting?

I've always wondered how much of their support is actually supporters of other parties voting for them to keep out someone else they hate more
 
I'm not sure what Labour plan to do honestly, they hover between hard and soft Brexit with a little sprinkling of jobs first which alludes to staying in the EU to some degree. I don't think they are remainers at all though. Maybe they just don't want to commit publicly as they would get the against the will of the people crap.
 
jelly said:
I'm not sure what Labour plan to do honestly, they hover between hard and soft Brexit with a little sprinkling of jobs first which alludes to staying in the EU to some degree. I don't think they are remainers at all though. Maybe they just don't want to commit publicly as they would get the against the will of the people crap.
Click to expand...

Sitting there and watching the Tories eat themselves at the moment. Nobody wants to take any more responsibility for Brexit than they have to. In an ideal world they get to watch the whole process self destruct and revert to staying in the EU, without having to take any of the flak for 'betraying the will of the people'.
 
May's 'offer' really isn't good at all. People who can't accumulate the 5 years residence in the 2 year grace period will either have to ask for the appropriate work permit or leave the country if they can't get one. So some people will be forced to leave. I know of people who moved from EU to UK this year, for example. They will be forced out if that 'offer' stands. Retail and call centres aren't employers that can apply for work permits anyway.
 
Crab said:
Yes, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought.

This is a genuine question and not just baiting: Do we think there should be limits on devolution when the devolved assemblies and parliaments do things we don't want them to? Or, rather, what's the point in devolving the jurisdiction over abortion if we're going to just say "Yeah, but not that" when they do something Westminster doesn't agree with?
 
DBT85 said:
They can complain just fine.

If you have a right and don't use it then hush up.
Click to expand...

I brought that up as a hypothetical really

When people make the point that it was only the electorate who decided this, they're not really making the point on behalf of the abstainers, they're making the point on behalf of everyone who is affected by it, but weren't able to vote for whatever reason (so, under 18's/EU residents/UK residents living in the EU/etc etc)

CyclopsRock said:
This is a genuine question and not just baiting: Do we think there should be limits on devolution when the devolved assemblies and parliaments do things we don't want them to? Or, rather, what's the point in devolving the jurisdiction over abortion if we're going to just say "Yeah, but not that" when they do something Westminster doesn't agree with?
Click to expand...

Times change. I don't really have a problem with the idea that just because it was acceptable whenever devolution happened, it therefore has to be forever

I thought the whole point of devolution is that their power is still ultimately derived from Westminster, so if there is an issue big enough then yeah they do still have to follow what Westminster doesn't agree with
 
DBT85 said:
They can complain just fine.

If you have a right and don't use it then hush up.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. A lot of people complain about the things that the party they did vote for do. At an election you only have one vote, so you have to hold your nose and vote for the one you hate the least. If you decide you hate them all equally, I don't think that means you lose the right to complain about the things they do. It just means no one was successful at fulfilling your desires as a voter.
 
We're getting one section of the electorate making decisions on behalf of another section of the electorate on the rights they can possess. In this case the rights afforded by holding EU citizenship. This is unprecedented since the fall of the Soviet Union. I wish international law made that illegal to be honest. It's an injustice.
 
CyclopsRock said:
That's what I thought.

This is a genuine question and not just baiting: Do we think there should be limits on devolution when the devolved assemblies and parliaments do things we don't want them to? Or, rather, what's the point in devolving the jurisdiction over abortion if we're going to just say "Yeah, but not that" when they do something Westminster doesn't agree with?
Click to expand...

Well, that's a fair enough point and gets into a wider debate on how far devolution can go without basically being the ceding of central governance in all but name.

Thing is, in this case it's not strictly a matter of devolved powers. The amendment isn't trying to force the Northern Irish government to permit abortions wholesale in the country. It's about allowing Northern Irish citizens to be able to receive abortions in England - which can be argued as one of the things they're entitled to as citizens of the UK.

Now, is it a spit in the DUP's face? Absolutely. But it's not a matter of devolution.
 
CyclopsRock said:
That's what I thought.

This is a genuine question and not just baiting: Do we think there should be limits on devolution when the devolved assemblies and parliaments do things we don't want them to? Or, rather, what's the point in devolving the jurisdiction over abortion if we're going to just say "Yeah, but not that" when they do something Westminster doesn't agree with?
Click to expand...

I mean, my personal opinion is that abortion is a basic human right that ought never to have been devolved in the first place. I do think that Westminster broadly ought to respect the devolved domains, but this ought not to have been a devolved domain to begin with; I have no problem that it being 'repatriated' and then legislated on by Westminster accordingly. Otherwise, I do generally agree with the principle of non-interference even in those things you disapprove of.

This isn't really relevant though, since this isn't changing NI abortion law, it's adjusting English law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[UK] Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row
2
76
5K
Paasei replied
Grok is so much better than ChatGPT now
45
1K
sono replied
Was there a better stage diver than Eddie Vedder?
25
2K
UltimaKilo replied
Are the people ready to be governed by AI
Science 
31
615
ReasonBeing replied
Is there a better flavor combo than Grilled cheese and tomato soup?
2
93
3K
CokeDiet replied
Top Bottom