Support NeoGAF

[SporeCrawler]

I am saying my point (there are EU countries other than the UK who want control over migration, it's a normal thing to want to control, example: Hungary having a referendum because they want control). You say a side thing that does not counter my point (Hungary support freedom of movement and the UK don't). I detail my point trying to show that what you said is a side thing and the point is about something else (Hungary is only fine with having no control over migration in the area where the UK want to have it, because it benefits Hungary currently, they don't support having no control, they support benefits from an arrangement that happens to currently give them no harm from not having such control). You repeat again your thing about freedom of movement, etc.

Yes, it's a circle. Let's not continue.

so lets make the problem a bit clearer.

you think that freedom of movement includes the freedom of refugees to go where they want when refugees are from third nations and therefore do not enjoy freedom of movement. freedom of movement is a right to EU citizens.

hungary had a referendum about restricting refugees not about restricting EU citizens.

you claimt hat restricting EU citizen and restricting refugees is the same when it isnt and you still are not delivering any evidence why this is the same thing.

Unless you deliver that evidence you are just plain wrong.

 

[Zaph]

Free movement of EU members and refugee policy have absolutely no bearing on one another. Using evidence of one to insinuate the opinion of the other is a waste of time.

 

[norinrad]

For the record, Hans van Baalen is a lazy shitstain of a man who was bought a long time ago by European industrial leaders.

So I'm not entirely surprised by this.

I'm surprised he's not in jail with his friend Guy for what they did to Ukraine.

 

[accel]

so ...

Free ...

Guys, you don't read what I write. I can copy-paste the thing you reply to and it fits as a reply to your posts. I am invoking article 890 of the codex of forum conduct unilaterally and stop replying in order to save those who will read the exchange their sanity.

 

[Frankfurter]

Guys, you don't read what I write. I can copy-paste the thing you reply to and it fits as a reply to your posts. I am invoking article 890 of the codex of forum conduct unilaterally and stop replying in order to save those who will read the exchange their sanity.

They may be confused, because you just don't make sense. Your whole point about Hungary is just bullshit. Freedom of movement has nothing to do with the refugee situation, therefore a point about Hungary wanting to limit the latter has nothing to do with the former.

 

[Jisgsaw]

I am saying my point (there are EU countries other than the UK who want control over migration, it's a normal thing to want to control, example: Hungary having a referendum because they want control). You say a side thing that does not counter my point (Hungary support freedom of movement and the UK don't). I detail my point trying to show that what you said is a side thing and the point is about something else (Hungary is only fine with having no control over migration in the area where the UK want to have it, because it benefits Hungary currently, they don't support having no control, they support benefits from an arrangement that happens to currently give them no harm from not having such control). You repeat again your thing about freedom of movement, etc.

Yes, it's a circle. Let's not continue.

... or they're fine with it because it is one of the basic principle of the EU?
I'm sure a lot of countries would like to control the entry of EU citizen in their country; it just isn't how this works in the EU. The single market in parts depends on the freedom of movement for the citizen of the member states to work correctly.

So yes, we're back to the initial point: control over non-EU citizen movements is not the same as control over EU citizen movements. Be it only because it is written like that in the EU treaties.

 

[accel]

... or they're fine with it because it is one of the basic principle of the EU?

Let's do a simple thought experiment:

Suppose, say, Germany agrees to make all refugees that Hungary has to accept their citizens. The refugees will still have to settle in Hungary and nothing else will change, but all of them will automatically be German citizens, so that would now be "immigration from EU", not refugees. Do you think the Hungarian people will be fine with that? No. (Because the settling people would still be the same, they aren't well-educated law-abiding Germans.)

So, they are not supporting immigration from EU just because it's the basic principle - they are supporting it because it brings them people they like, does not bring people they don't like, and they themselves can go to other countries in the EU. They are supporting freedom of movement not because of the big words about principles, but rather because it brings them tangible results. Once that changes - ie, if, like in the above example, results will turn from positive to negative and all that's left is the basic principle - the support will evaporate. The question in the Hungarian referendum will read "do you really want to have no control over migration of non-Hungarian citizens from the EU?". And then we might have Huexit.

 

[nabil2199]

Let's do a simple thought experiment:

Suppose, say, Germany agrees to make all refugees that Hungary has to accept their citizens. The refugees will still have to settle in Hungary and nothing else will change, but all of them will automatically be German citizens, so that would now be "immigration from EU", not refugees. Do you think the Hungarian people will be fine with that? No. (Because people would still be the same, they aren't well-educated law-abiding Germans.)

So, they are not supporting immigration from EU just because it's the basic principle - they are supporting it because it brings them people they like, does not bring people they don't like, and they themselves can go to other countries in the EU. They are supporting freedom of movement not because of the big words about principles, but rather because it brings them tangible results. Once that changes - ie, if, like in the above example, results will turn from positive to negative and all that's left is the basic principle - the support will evaporate. The question in the Hungarian referendum will read "do you really want to have no control over migration of non-Hungarian citizens from the EU?". And then we might have Huexit.

So now you're saying that Germany will make refugees living in another country its citizens by decree? Say what?

 

[accel]

So now you're saying that Germany will make refugees living in another country its citizens by decree? Say what?

LOL

It looks like I should stick to posting 2+5=7 and links to cat pictures.

 

[hodgy100]

LOL

It looks like I should stick to posting 2+5=7 and links to cat pictures.

your posts in here read more like:

1. Freedom of movement in EU for EU citizens
2. Asylum seekers arent EU citizens
3. ???????
4. Asylum seekers have freedom of movement in the EU.

 

[George Oscar Bluth II]

I've been out of the loop for a while (because everything was just too much). Can anyone give me a brief rundown of what's currently happening?

 

[2MF]

Let's do a simple thought experiment:

Suppose, say, Germany agrees to make all refugees that Hungary has to accept their citizens. The refugees will still have to settle in Hungary and nothing else will change, but all of them will automatically be German citizens, so that would now be "immigration from EU", not refugees. Do you think the Hungarian people will be fine with that? No. (Because the settling people would still be the same, they aren't well-educated law-abiding Germans.)

So, they are not supporting immigration from EU just because it's the basic principle - they are supporting it because it brings them people they like, does not bring people they don't like, and they themselves can go to other countries in the EU. They are supporting freedom of movement not because of the big words about principles, but rather because it brings them tangible results. Once that changes - ie, if, like in the above example, results will turn from positive to negative and all that's left is the basic principle - the support will evaporate. The question in the Hungarian referendum will read "do you really want to have no control over migration of non-Hungarian citizens from the EU?". And then we might have Huexit.

Interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't really prove that freedom of movement applies to non-EU citizens, except within the thought experiment itself.

I could also say: "imagine German scientists come up with a way to turn goats into people and give them German citizenship. So EU = freedom of movement for goats, any country that doesn't want to be invaded by goat-people should exit the EU so that they can control migration".

 

[accel]

Interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't really prove that freedom of movement applies to non-EU citizens, except within the thought experiment itself.

I could also say: "imagine German scientists come up with a way to turn goats into people and give them EU citizenship. So EU = freedom of movement for goats, any country that doesn't want to be invaded by goat-people should exit the EU".

I did not intend to prove it.

Start of the subthread is here (I'd recap, but this was done several times already) - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=211188186&postcount=11172

Your example is one more illustration of the point I am making - the support (in Hungary, at least) is not for the principle, the support is there only as long as the results are.

 

[Jisgsaw]

Let's do a simple thought experiment:

Suppose, say, Germany agrees to make all refugees that Hungary has to accept their citizens.

I'll stop here.
Why the hell would Germany do that???????????

Your complete argumentation hinges on an idea that is mindbogglingly absurd.

And EVEN IF Germany would do that (it will never, ever, ever, ever do that).... why the hell would the refugees go to Hungary, and not Germany?


Yes, if all of a sudden, for whatever reason, non-EU citizen (the refugees in your case) get EU citizen rights, that could change the support for free movement. But that won't happen, and it isn't happening right now.
This scenario has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit, it is a completely, immensely absurd thought experiment from your side, that you someone project onto the real world. Get some grip on reality.

I did not intend to prove it.

Start of the subthread is here (I'd recap, but this was done several times already) - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=211188186&postcount=11172

Your example is one more illustration of the point I am making - the support (in Hungary, at least) is not for the principle, the support is there only as long as the results are.

EU migration is considered a positive.
The Hungarian referendum is about non-EU migration.

Your argument that Hungary is only ok with EU migration because it has a net negative immigration (if this is true) is just you projecting yourself into them; France, Germany, Italy, Sweden show that UK was some special case (not that there aren't some far right voices in those countries, mind you).

 

[2MF]

I did not intend to prove it.

Start of the subthread is here (I'd recap, but this was done several times already) - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=211188186&postcount=11172

Your example is one more illustration of the point I am making - the support is not for the principle, the support is for results.

In general I agree that immigration policy is becoming more important for many EU countries. If Brexit does not turn out to be a big disaster for the UK, I expect more countries to leave the EU over this as well. For the moment it seems those feelings have calmed down given polls in Denmark, but perhaps that could bounce back into anti-EU sentiment.

Some more terrorist attacks by refugees / foreigners and economic crises should result in some nice blaming or in some cases scapegoating that will lift up right-wing parties. History always rhymes in that sense. More left-wing parties need to do something about this or the result is very predictable.

 

[Joni]

If refugee migration becomes a real sticking point, they'll just start changing their collective migration policy. Merkel can't force her opinion on everyone if she is in the minority.
That is assuming there is still a lot of migration happening.

 

[accel]

That is assuming there is still a lot of migration happening.

Regarding this - we have Ukraine and Russia right out the door. When this blows up, we'll all remember how easy it was today. And it can blow up in so many ways, I don't even want to start counting, it might really be a question of when rather than if.

 

[Joni]

Regarding this - we have Ukraine and Russia right out the door. When this blows up, we'll all remember how easy it was today. And it can blow up in so many ways, I don't even want to start counting, it might really be a question of when rather than if.

When a nuclear nation starts a war on our frontdoor, refugees will be the least of our worries.

 

[accel]

When a nuclear nation starts a war on our frontdoor, refugees will be the least of our worries.

I am obviously talking about things smaller than a full-scale war, there are plenty of ways to end up with a huge stream of refugees from the countries I mentioned and their neighbors without that.

The larger point is that - yes, current crisis with refugees is a crisis. But that wonderful time where there wouldn't be a similar crisis either happening or looming is kind of hard to see from where we are. It's not short-term.

 

[Joni]

I am obviously talking about things smaller than a full-scale war, there are plenty of ways to get a huge stream of refugees from the countries I mentioned and their neighbors without that.

Ukraine is big enough to handle internal streams, especially as parts of the population in attacked areas is bound to be Russian in the first place.

 

[accel]

Ukraine is big enough to handle internal streams, especially as parts of the population in attacked areas is bound to be Russian in the first place.

That all goes out the door if they fail as a state.

 

[Joni]

That all goes out the door if they fail as a state.

Again, than we are in a situation where Russia made such a large move that it isn't important, we'd be at war.

 

[accel]

Again, than we are in a situation where Russia made such a large move that it isn't important, we'd be at war.

I am not even talking about Russia making big moves, I am talking about Ukraine possibly failing to pick it up and falling once again to corruption and internal struggles between supposedly new political blood (some of which is new, but the majority isn't). Bam, it all collapses inwards, then blows up in all directions and a big part of the however many million they have hit the road, because they are effing tired of government after government that keeps failing.

 

[2MF]

I am obviously talking about things smaller than a full-scale war, there are plenty of ways to end up with a huge stream of refugees from the countries I mentioned and their neighbors without that.

The larger point is that - yes, current crisis with refugees is a crisis. But that wonderful time where there wouldn't be a similar crisis either happening or looming is kind of hard to see from where we are. It's not short-term.

The EU is largely organized and planned for the good times mostly. See for example the greek financial crisis... When the shit hits the fan, the tools are not there to deal with it.

 

[Joni]

I am not even talking about Russia making big moves, I am talking about Ukraine possibly failing to pick it up and falling once again to corruption and internal struggles between supposedly new political blood (some of which is new, but the majority isn't). Bam, it all collapses inwards, then blows up in all directions and a big part of the however many million they have hit the road, because they are effing tired of government after government that keeps failing.

That is simply not a good enough reason for mass-acceptance of refugees. We are only accepting so many Syrian refugees because of the war. People from Iraq, Afghanistan, African countries, ... get sent back in droves because their life is not in danger.

 

[Kathian]

BBC providing terrible coverage of the G20 meeting. Not even mentioning it's a G20 meeting at first.

Hardly mentioning the fact giving China access to the UK financial market is a poor idea and sweeping over dumping of goods.

 

[Kabouter]

BBC providing terrible coverage of the G20 meeting. Not even mentioning it's a G20 meeting at first.

Hardly mentioning the fact giving China access to the UK financial market is a poor idea and sweeping over dumping of goods.

Yeah, I imagine the dumping of steel way below cost by China (and Russia) is going to be a major topic at the meeting. EU has already set tariffs on some types of steel because of it, I imagine that unless China reduces the dumping at least to some degree, more will follow.

 

[Kathian]

Yeah, I imagine the dumping of steel way below cost by China (and Russia) is going to be a major topic at the meeting. EU has already set tariffs on some types of steel because of it, I imagine that unless China reduces the dumping at least to some degree, more will follow.

Don't worry the Brexit chiefs are going to accept all trade deals that come their way is the impression I get.

 

[SporeCrawler]

So boris johnson apprently said that UK will not loose the EU Passport for banks

http://faz.net/aktuell/finanzen/johnson-banken-behalten-eu-pass-nach-dem-brexit-14355697.html

 

[Tyaren]

Cap on immigration, full access to the single market and banking passport. Why, the UK really got an amazing deal! Now they only have to tell the EU about that.

 

[KingSnake]

https://www.facebook.com/GuyVerhofstadt/posts/10154823164070016

What would stop other countries from asking the same exceptional status? Do we really want eurosceptics elsewhere in Europe to invoke the British example of ‘having their cake and eating it’? Everyone can see that this position is irresponsible because it’s not sustainable in the long run.
The only new relationship between Britain and the European Union can be one in which the UK has an associated status with less obligations but equally less rights. And if this is not feasible, the fall back position will be an ordinary trade agreement between Britain and the EU.

 

[daviyoung]

Cap on immigration, full access to the single market and banking passport. Why, the UK really got an amazing deal! Now they only have to tell the EU about that.

lol

 

[nabil2199]

Cap on immigration, full access to the single market and banking passport. Why, the UK really got an amazing deal! Now they only have to tell the EU about that.

Any cap on immigration will be seen as a hostile move by eastern european nations thus rendering any such deal dead in the water.

also LOL

 

[Tak3n]

Being reported that the eu is considering a emergency brake type deal

Plans to allow the United Kingdom an exemption from EU rules on freedom of movement for up to seven years while retaining access to the single market are being considered in European capitals as part of a potential deal on Brexit.

Senior British and EU sources have confirmed that despite strong initial resistance from French president François Hollande in talks with prime minister Theresa May last week, the idea of an emergency brake on the free movement of people that would go far further than the one David Cameron negotiated before the Brexit referendum is being examined.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

Being reported that the eu is considering a emergency brake type deal





https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

So, essentially it'll be a modified EEA deal, with some extra powers but presumably some drawbacks?

 

[Xando]

Being reported that the eu is considering a emergency brake type deal





https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

We discussed it this morning EU sources are some random advisor and a dutch MEP

 

[DavidDesu]

Being reported that the eu is considering a emergency brake type deal





https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brexit-deal-free-movement-exemption-seven-years

Yeah I fully expect this is bollocks from someone in the UK government. Surely the EU would be inviting catastrophe from any nation verging towards right wing leadership who will see this as a deal anyone can get if they play chicken with their own EU referendums.

 

[Lime]

"Theresa May 'to replace Downing Street artworks with framed quotations of her own speech'"

 

[pswii60]

"Theresa May 'to replace Downing Street artworks with framed quotations of her own speech'"

Why not go the extra mile?

 

[gerg]

Why not go the extra mile?

The best joke about that was (on Have I Got News for You, I believe) that Ed Milliband could never say, regarding his pre-election promises, that "it wasn't like they were set in st-".

 

[KingSnake]

https://twitter.com/tarapalmeri

EU Commission spox @MargSchinas new IF tone when referring to #Brexit: "ahem if and when the United Kingdom departs"

That's interesting as it mirrors the feelings of the financial markets.

.@MargSchinas on UK winning 7yr freeze on free movement if joins EU single market post #brexit: "we do not comment on any wishful thinking"

As expected.

 

[Guileless]

The best joke about that was (on Have I Got News for You, I believe) that Ed Milliband could never say, regarding his pre-election promises, that "it wasn't like they were set in st-".

What happened to that tablet after the election?

 

[QuicheFontaine]

What happened to that tablet after the election?

It was sliced three-ways and used as a work surface for one of Ed's many Poggenpohl kitchens.

 

[Halph n Halph]

Leave won 52%- 48%, not an insignificant margin. It would be a disgusting violation of democracy if they were ignored.
Not sure what UK / Eu could do to change the minds of the public.

 

[Maledict]

Leave won 52%- 48%, not an insignificant margin. It would be a disgusting violation of democracy if they were ignored.
Not sure what UK / Eu could do to change the minds of the public.

Um, that *is* an insignificant margin. You are also rounding up there.

It's so insignificant that based on the demographic changes if we ran the referendum at the end of the two year article 50 period Remain would win simply because of the larger number of young voters and the smaller number of very old voters.

Making a fundamental constitutional change that literally strips away the citizenship and rights that people were born with is not something that should happen on a 3% margin.

 

[daxy]

Leave won 52%- 48%, not an insignificant margin. It would be a disgusting violation of democracy if they were ignored.
Not sure what UK / Eu could do to change the minds of the public.

A disgusting violation of democracy is what's taking place in Turkey right now. Not listening to a demographic that is, on false premises, telling you to amputate your arms because they ardently believe you'll be more aerodynamic while running is just common sense.

 

[D4Danger]

Leave won 52%- 48%, not an insignificant margin. It would be a disgusting violation of democracy if they were ignored.
Not sure what UK / Eu could do to change the minds of the public.

Yeah I'm not a fan of that at all. You can say the vote was only advisory until you're blue in the face but the idea that 17m are too stupid and voted wrong is insulting. For better or worse leave won and we have to move forward with that decision. (voted remain)

 

[NZerker12]

Leave won 52%- 48%, not an insignificant margin. It would be a disgusting violation of democracy if they were ignored.
Not sure what UK / Eu could do to change the minds of the public.

Oh please a 4 point difference is insignificant, if we were talking a 10point difference like 55% - 45% fair enough but this is basically forcing the other half of the country who voted remain to jump off the bridge as well.

 

[Maledict]

Yeah I'm not a fan of that at all. You can say the vote was only advisory until you're blue in the face but the idea that 17m are too stupid and voted wrong is insulting. For better or worse leave won and we have to move forward with that decision.

If 52% of the population voted to ban homosexuality would that be okay?

If 52% voted to bring back the death penalty would that be okay? (Which would be likely!).

When the American Supreme Court made mixed race marriage legal in all states, despite a majority of people being against it, was that not okay?


Democracy is not, and never has been, about the unrestrained will of the majority. That's the entire reason we have parliament.

 

[D4Danger]

I'm not getting into hypotheticals