EU referendum are you in or out

[merman]

Perhaps I'm wrong about the details,

Yes, you are. I pointed out the details in the text you quoted. So you have no excuse for continuing to spout this ill-informed bullshit:

people had to start using the "Others" queue at customs after the UK joined the EU.

Fact: The UK joined the EEC (not the EU, it didn't exist at that point) in 1973
Fact: NZ and other "colonials" were allowed to travel freely to the UK as British Citizens until the UK government passed the 1981 Nationality Act.
Fact: Since 1981, NZ and other "colonials" benefit from a much "lighter" immigration regime than other nationalities, and many benefit from visa waivers.
Fact: The EU only came into being in 1993 after Maastricht (this introduced the concept of European citizenship)
Fact: Free movement across borders for EU citizens (not "workers") only started after Schengen in 1995.
Factoid: 95% of barmen in London are kiwis.

Fact: the UK had an opt-out of Schengen anyway

Somehow we've been eating millions of pounds worth of New Zealand lamb every year since we joined the EEC/EU. The EU didn't stop us trading with the Commonwealth.

[korruptor]

Pfft, we don't need no facts where we're going.

[Little stoned kiwi]

But yeah, there's nothing special enough about NZ lamb to warrant schlepping sheep carcasses halfway across the planet.

Somehow we've been eating millions of pounds worth of New Zealand lamb every year since we joined the EEC/EU.

Facts?

[Little stoned kiwi]

Australia demands equal immigration rights to EU citizens after Brexit
Tufty needs to advise these ill-informed bullshitters that EU membership has nothing to do with the UK not wanting these sorts of people in their country. They clearly have the wrong end of the stick and are wasting their time.

[Little stoned kiwi]

*

[Harlequin]

But yeah, there's nothing special enough about NZ lamb to warrant schlepping sheep carcasses halfway across the planet.

Somehow we've been eating millions of pounds worth of New Zealand lamb every year since we joined the EEC/EU.

Facts?

Millions of pounds' worth in February alone last year, it seems, (4,200 tonnes from NZ of the 5,800 tonnes total of imported lamb). And that was much less than usual: https://www.farminguk.com/News/Boost-to ... 46305.html.

Australia demands equal immigration rights to EU citizens after Brexit
Tufty needs to advise these ill-informed bullshitters that EU membership has nothing to do with the UK not wanting these sorts of people in their country. They clearly have the wrong end of the stick and are wasting their time.

In what way are they ill-informed or bullshitters? If anything there suggests that anyone mentioned believes the UK does not want Kiwis or Australians in this country (as previously mentioned by others, that is patently untrue) then please quote the relevant line. I register nothing in the article.

Also, If anything there suggests that anyone mentioned believes the EU has ever had any connection with our non-EU right of abode laws then please quote the relevant line. I register nothing in the article.

BTW, although this is unrelated to the EU, did you know that some British restrictions on right of abode are contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights? This is why the U.K., unlike every other EU country bar one, has never ratified Protocol 4 on the free movement of nationals.

[KlaxonCow]

Well, I called it earlier.

That if you voted Brexit because of "immigrants" and not wanting "hijabs on the high street" - those appeals that the Leave campaign made to fears over Islamic terrorists - then you were in for a nasty surprise.

And so it begins.

My point being that most British Muslim come from Pakistan. Which is part of the Commonwealth and not the EU. So Brexit will have absolutely zero effect on any of that.

But the real point is, why did Britain invite over waves of Commonwealth migration - such as "the Windrush generation", as well as other previous arrangements, such as that with the Kiwis already mentioned - in the first place?

We called in the Commonwealth like this, after the War. We called them in - a number of times - when we were in economic troubles and needed the assistance.

And, after Brexit, with no trade deals - and, today, Liam Fox has rated the chances of "no deal" as 60%, so more likely than not and we won't even have an arrangement with the EU either - then our economy will tank and we may well be forced to - you guessed it - invite immigration to make up the difference.

The Aussies and Kiwis have a point. In this new arrangement, why should EU citizens get a preferential deal, in comparison to our old Commonwealth allies? And, hey, we can't concede to them alone, just because they're mostly white. Why should any Commonwealth country - like Pakistan - suffer a worse deal than an EU citizen?

"Take back control", they said. "Get rid of them immigrants", they said.

Oh, boy, are they in for a very big shock.

[merman]

Well, I called it earlier.

That if you voted Brexit because of "immigrants" and not wanting "hijabs on the high street" - those appeals that the Leave campaign made to fears over Islamic terrorists - then you were in for a nasty surprise.

And so it begins.

My point being that most British Muslim come from Pakistan. Which is part of the Commonwealth and not the EU. So Brexit will have absolutely zero effect on any of that.

But the real point is, why did Britain invite over waves of Commonwealth migration - such as "the Windrush generation", as well as other previous arrangements, such as that with the Kiwis already mentioned - in the first place?

We called in the Commonwealth like this, after the War. We called them in - a number of times - when we were in economic troubles and needed the assistance.

And, after Brexit, with no trade deals - and, today, Liam Fox has rated the chances of "no deal" as 60%, so more likely than not and we won't even have an arrangement with the EU either - then our economy will tank and we may well be forced to - you guessed it - invite immigration to make up the difference.

The Aussies and Kiwis have a point. In this new arrangement, why should EU citizens get a preferential deal, in comparison to our old Commonwealth allies? And, hey, we can't concede to them alone, just because they're mostly white. Why should any Commonwealth country - like Pakistan - suffer a worse deal than an EU citizen?

"Take back control", they said. "Get rid of them immigrants", they said.

Oh, boy, are they in for a very big shock.

Precisely. India has already stated that any trade deal with the U.K. after Brexit is dependent on an increased number of visas and easier access to the UK for Indian businessmen. Australia already held talks with the EU on allowing more Australians in as part of increased trade, and are demanding the same of the U.K.

Immigration won't go down after Brexit. Someone will be needed to pick the crops and serve the coffees, and if EU nationals will no longer have freedom of movement here then it will be people from other countries.

[tufty]

Why oh why didn't we have Norway as our Empire, rather than darkieland!

[Little stoned kiwi]

Australia demands equal immigration rights to EU citizens after Brexit
Tufty needs to advise these ill-informed bullshitters that EU membership has nothing to do with the UK not wanting these sorts of people in their country. They clearly have the wrong end of the stick and are wasting their time.

In what way are they ill-informed or bullshitters? If anything there suggests that anyone mentioned believes the UK does not want Kiwis or Australians in this country (as previously mentioned by others, that is patently untrue) then please quote the relevant line. I register nothing in the article.

British immigration laws used to allow Australians and New Zealanders to live and work in Britain as British citizens.

British immigration laws used to allow Australians and New Zealanders to live and work in Britain as British citizens.

Indeed they did. Until the Nationality Act of 1981 (18 years before the Schengen agreement), persons born in Britain or the British Empire were automatically entitled to British citizenship. This was decided by the UK, alone, without the help of the EU.

The reason people from outside the EU need a visa to visit is independent of the the EU, the UK placed those limitations. While citizens can enter the country and that freedom will continue for them after Brexit.
According to Tufty's facts, the snub is deliberate.

Much like how it doesn't make sense to "slog sheep carcasses" from New Zealand, even though the UK still does as it isn't self-sufficient for prime cuts...there's a double standard or misunderstanding in a number of 'facts' here. If the EU doesn't let the UK export the offcuts to them then the UK will potentially end up downsizing it's flock and slogging even more carcasses from the other side of the planet.

Brexit is happening in March. Surely it's time to start thinking and talking about the shape you'd *like* the post-EU country to be, instead of wishing it to go bad to justify a previous political position.

[VNVObit]

*snip*
Brexit is happening in March. Surely it's time to start thinking and talking about the shape you'd *like* the post-EU country to be, instead of wishing it to go bad to justify a previous political position.

Given the leading lights of Brexit haven’t been able to give anyone a coherent (or even plausible) explanation of what needs to be done for Brexit to minimise impact on people in this generation (rather than waiting 50 years for some “benefits” to be seen) and what it could look like.

The more rational plan would be to cling to what is already have rather than chucking it all away for no benefit.

The EU is not perfect (and no one would describe it as such) but remaining a member isn’t as risky as plowing headlong into an exit from the club with a government that’s taken 18 months to work out it cannot agree with itself and an opposition that’s preoccupied with fighting itself more than the government it’s allegedly opposing.

Really is a dearth of political leadership in Westminster at present

[Little stoned kiwi]

Really is a dearth of political leadership in Westminster at present

Absolutely. That's what I kicked off about a few pages back where I was questioning why the UK didn't seem to be talking about trading with partners outside the EU and reestablishing connections (which seems to be happening on the quiet and low, perhaps too quietly). Brexit is happening and the UK needs to be doing it from a place of strength, even if some of it is bluster.
The EU needs the UK one way or another...isn't that why the UK is a heavyweight in the EU as people have been saying here? Didn't it enter the EU from a position of strength? Weak leadership doesn't do the UK any favours if it stays in the EU, you effectively become ruled by the EU. Perhaps that's the real problem that needs to be addressed.

[KlaxonCow]

Well, we did cover that a few pages back as well.

Whilst still a member of the EU until Brexit day, then EU law is UK law. And members are not allowed to have their own separate and independent trade deals, apart from the EU. It would be illegal to negotiate any such thing at this time.

And I did also cover the reason why we're, at least publicly, obeying that law. Because if we started doing the "fuck you" in the midst of our negotiations with the EU, then that would demonstrate a lot of "bad faith" to them. It also demonstrates a lot of "bad faith" to the whole world, with whom we'd like to later have trade deals, if we're so quick and easy to the "fuck you" and breaking our promises and being that unpredictable "rogue nation" out of nowhere. Trade deals require a trust that the other partner is going to actually do what they say they're going to do.

Besides, we're British and that would just not be cricket. It would be very impolite. In 1215, we invented the idea of the supremacy of law and that no-one - absolutely no-one, the Monarch and government most especially - is above the law. I would hope that we retain our values and principles, regardless of the provocation. Stiff upper lip and all that.

Besides, that'll come soon enough. The more interesting thing is to consider what the EU will become post-Brexit, as that's more of a mystery and, besides, egos aside, what the largest trading bloc on the planet will become has more consequences than what a single now-isolationist island will be doing.

For example, they'd have no obligation to speak English anymore. Indeed, France would still be members and you know what the French are like on linguistical matters concerning their own tongue.

France and Germany - who've always been pro political union - will then rule the roost, without the annoyance of the UK getting in their way anymore. Without the UK there, the Napoleonic consensus of who's left will have no counterpoint anymore (well, some counterpoint from Eastern Europe, perhaps, but they don't have the weight to stand up to France and Germany).

The EU could become a different animal.

If, in our absence, they truly became "the United States of Europe" - sorry, I mean, "Les Etats-Unis d'Europe", of course, as this discourse will not be conducted in English anymore - then that'll have quite the profound geopolitical effect and, whether in or out, we'll all still have to deal with the largest trading bloc on the planet, one way or another.

The EU doesn't magically disappear, just because the UK's left it.

[Ollie]

I can understand a rule saying we're not allowed to have our own independent trade deals whilst we are a member of the EU. But not allowing us to negotiate future deals with other countries in advance of leaving, so we at least have deals ready to go one we've left and don't have to start from scratch, is ridiculous. I'd imagine the only reason there's no exception to the rules for this particular situation is because they never anticipated that this particular situation would arise.

[Little stoned kiwi]

Or a deliberate barrier to make it more difficult to leave. And something they can't prevent at the lowest level. The UK might not be able to have independent representation in the WTO and sign agreements, but there's no way to stop people from governments, industry boards, and businesses from talking to each other about what they would like.
Something that must be happening with examples such as the EU and UK talking about splitting quotas with WTO members, the UK indicating a desire to allow EU citizens to visit without visas (with Commonwealth countries saying they want the same), etc.