Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Aber]

There is no answer to the Northern Ireland question.

Up to a point.

The Irish work on "de-dramatizing" the border issue has highlighted that the only checks that MUST be at the border are phytosanitary ie animal and food checks. All other can be performed away from the border.

If "no hard border" means only no physical checks at the border, then an All-Ireland approach to agriculture removes checks on the North-South border, and introduces no new regulatory checks on the East-West border.

It would require NI to accept Single Market rules for agriculture and the EU to accept NI agriculture inside the Single Market.

However given the fallout from Salzburg, I can't see any agreement being reached.

 

[Belz...]

This is article 45 of the Lisbon treaty (bolding by me):


Would you please comment?

Sounds reasonable enough. A bit vague, as these things tend to be, by design, but it sounds good on paper. Ceptimus seems to think otherwise, but assuming that this is applied as it sounds when I read it, this could be a case of reasonable but incorrect opinion.

I am sure those calling brexiteers gullible fools and idiots would agreee, in a sense.

I don't know. If you've stooped to calling people who disagree with you fools, I doubt you'll allow that their opinions, while wrong from your perspective, or even objectively incorrect, could be reasonable.

 

[ceptimus]

Did you read the main point, number 1, before reading the vague bolded exceptions bit in point 3?

Try to prevent free movement from an EU country unless you can prove the individual is a criminal, terrorist, or carrying some infectious disease, and you'll find yourself in a European court.

 

[Belz...]

Did you read the main point, number 1, before reading the vague bolded exceptions bit in point 3?

I did, actually. Doesn't it talk about not restricting on nationality? What does thathave to do with point 3?

Try to prevent free movement from an EU country unless you can prove the individual is a criminal, terrorist, or carrying some infectious disease, and you'll find yourself in a European court.

Do you have examples of that?

 

[Information Analyst]

People afraid of change caused Brexit?

Well, to a degree, certainly. Particularly a change from mostly white to still mostly but not as large a majority white.

A change that really has nothing to do with the EU.

 

[Information Analyst]

Did you read the main point, number 1, before reading the vague bolded exceptions bit in point 3?

Try to prevent free movement from an EU country unless you can prove the individual is a criminal, terrorist, carrying some infectious disease, or not an EU citizen, and you'll find yourself in a European court.

FTFY.

 

[Arcade22]

This is what happens when you rhetorically ask people to "tell you their concerns" after they have already repeatedly told you their concerns.

 

[ceptimus]

FTFY.

Thanks. Of course it's EU citizens that have the right of free movement within the EU. Generally, if a visitor from outside the EU is already legally inside an EU country, then they'll be able to travel freely to other EU countries - though the rules about not being able to permanently live, work, or stay within the EU for more than a limited time will still apply to them.

The point remains that an EU country has no legal way of preventing any healthy, non-criminal, EU citizen from another EU country from moving into their country to live and work for an indefinite period - perhaps for their whole lifetime.

 

[fagin]

Thanks. Of course it's EU citizens that have the right of free movement within the EU. Generally, if a visitor from outside the EU is already legally inside an EU country, then they'll be able to travel freely to other EU countries - though the rules about not being able to permanently live, work, or stay within the EU for more than a limited time will still apply to them.

The point remains that an EU country has no legal way of preventing any healthy, non-criminal, EU citizen from another EU country from moving into their country to live and work for an indefinite period - perhaps for their whole lifetime.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

 

[Wudang]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well it was a good thing for the economy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rexit-migrants-british-citizens-a8542506.html

(EU migrant workers..) over their lifetimes, they pay in £78,000 more than they take out in public services and benefits - while the average UK citizen’s net lifetime contribution is zero.

 

[Belz...]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well, it really depends on the person. You might want to disallow someone who has shown that he could be the next Lenin to come into France, for instance, because you consider him a security risk even if he's never committed a crime. We're talking individual cases, of course.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Nobody said this. That has nothing to do with my argument. I'm not surprised you said that, however, because ANY argument that is critical of immigration in ANY way is characterised on this forum has being anti-foreigner. This just goes to illustrate what I said earlier: dissent from the ideology is not allowed.

This was in response to your suggestion that worrying about immigration is legitimate when we are talking about different cultures. Different culture literally means 'not like us'. I wonder what exactly you are objecting to?

What kind of reasons are we talking about? If you have your EU passport as a Greek citizen, what are the reasons to be denied entry in the UK to live there?

UK Border Agency can deny you entry to the country entirely at their discretion as far as I know.

It was AN EXAMPLE of a general principle re immigration! Did you even understand the point?

And it was a bad example. i would think if you were wanting to make reasonable arguments in favour of something you would probably want to start with sound, reasonable and enlightening examples rather than a bad one.

Wow. Are you really saying that the argument I gave amounts to that? Are you serious? If you think so, then you didn't read my post. No one 'destroyed' the argument. Disagreeing is not destroying, especially when you show that you didn't understand it.

The argument that it is reasonable to believe we should leave so that we can have control over who enters the country is immediately destroyed by the fact that we already do have that control within the EU.

 

[Belz...]

This was in response to your suggestion that worrying about immigration is legitimate when we are talking about different cultures.

Where did I say this?

UK Border Agency can deny you entry to the country entirely at their discretion as far as I know.

We seem to be in general confusion as to their actual ability to do so, however.

And it was a bad example. i would think if you were wanting to make reasonable arguments in favour of something you would probably want to start with sound, reasonable and enlightening examples rather than a bad one.

Could you explain why it's a bad example? That would help, because otherwise you can just call every example I come up with 'bad' and thereby refuse to give my point a fair hearing. In my example, the UK government doesn't want to allow a person who has shown to engage in questionable business practices. How is that a bad example?

 

[Wudang]

Well, it really depends on the person. You might want to disallow someone who has shown that he could be the next Lenin to come into France, for instance, because you consider him a security risk even if he's never committed a crime. We're talking individual cases, of course.

That's going to be harder now in the absence of a framework for sharing data between UK and European police and security services.
There's a detailed analysis of some of the factors here

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

British culture isn't one thing, though they're all recognisably British.

Nonsense. 'British culture' is simply a narrow view of a particular sub set of an imagined middle class Little England from long ago.

Or what they imagined was happening

Yes you said it. Fuelled by the Daily Mail and idiots like Farage pandering to people's fears. It lead people to think stupid things like...

People voted to leave because the level of immigration was too high for too long

because the Daily Mail kept telling them that.

and there's a threshold above which people get the gut feeling that their high street doesn't feel like home any more and they don't like it. You can dismiss that as racism but... oh, wait, that's exactly what happened, and it did the opposite of helping. People who were upset about their own area changing (or were upset about all the stories they read about other areas changing) and read over and over that there was nothing the government could do about it because of EU rules, wanted a way to change it. And if they complained they were dismissed as racists.

People were racists and got upset at being called racist so they voted for racist politicians to enact racist policies and you know who is to blame? Yeah, the non-racists.

We sleepwalked into this catastrophe by dealing with people's concerns by telling them only horrible evil people have concerns like those then asking them to vote on it and expecting them to be all nice and reasonable.

Yeah asking idiots and racists to vote was a mistake. But it was only done because the idiot racist Tories were trying running scared of idiot racist UKIP and trying to pander to their idiot racist MPs and idiot racist voters.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I have. In fact that's partly my point.

Seriously? You want to argue that an argument that is provably wrong is reasonable and should be given genuine and serious consideration as a good reason to leave the EU?

I'd love to try that in court. "Your honour, I would like to seek a divorce from my wife as she has murdered three people, committed adultery 9 times and tried to cut my legs off in my sleep. "

"Is any of that true?"

"No, but I don't think that makes my position unreasonable, your honour"

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Wrong! EU member countries do NOT have the ability to control immigration from other EU member countries.

Wrong.

EU members do not have the ability to impose numerical limits on immigration from other member states but they can and do control entry of individuals.

And in the case of the Bulgarians and Romanians we could have even decided to impose limits if we wanted to but chose not to.

 

[Belz...]

Seriously? You want to argue that an argument that is provably wrong is reasonable and should be given genuine and serious consideration as a good reason to leave the EU?

No, that is known as a strawman. As I responded earlier, I'm arguing that a position can be reasonable even if it turns out to be incorrect.

I'd love to try that in court.

You actually see that all the time in court, where a person's belief or reasonable expectations are used to judge their actions even when those beliefs and expectations turned out to be wrong.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ok, who's right here? Can someone post the relevant information or are we all just speculating here?

https://fullfact.org/europe/border-security-eu/

UK is not in Schengen and therefore everyone entering the UK has a passport check regardless of whether they are from the EU or not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36101449

6,500 EU Nationals denied entry to UK between 2010 and 2016 with the number rising.

Mind you even being British isn't a guarantee of getting in sometimes...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ry-uk-emergency-passport-latest-a8526101.html

 

[ceptimus]

UK Border Agency can deny you entry to the country entirely at their discretion as far as I know.

No. They can't. If you are an EU citizen then you have the legal right to free movement to the UK. You can enter as a visitor and you have the right to find work and settle permanently. The UK Border Agency can question you on entry, but they can prevent your entry only if they have reasonable suspicion that you are:

• Not an EU citizen
• A terrorist
• A criminal
• Carrying an infectious disease

And there's no using made-up 'suspicions' to prevent legal entry as that will ultimately lead to the UK being punished by an EU court.

If you enter but don't find work or have independent means after some period (six months I think) then you can, in theory, be ejected.