Brexit: Now What? Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Darat said:
And there is nothing in us being an EU member that stops us applying "equal" rights to every single person in the world in regards to immigration to the UK right now.
Click to expand...
That's right - but only providing you want to give unrestricted free immigration from every country in the world. No EU country does this.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
So open up to everyone then rather than restrict?
Click to expand...
Wilfully missing the point. The idea is to give EQUAL rights to prospective immigrants from all other countries. Providing those rights are equal, they can be restrictive or open. Either way, they are still fair.

We currently have the situation that the EU grants additional immigration rights only to those countries that happen to be overwhelmingly white and non-muslim - and they then have the temerity to accuse anyone that disagrees with their policy of xenophobia! It's hypocritical beyond belief - you couldn't make it up!
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
Wilfully missing the point. The idea is to give EQUAL rights to prospective immigrants from all other countries. Providing those rights are equal, they can be restrictive or open. Either way, they are still fair.

We currently have the situation that the EU grants additional immigration rights only to those countries that happen to be overwhelmingly white and non-muslim - and they then have the temerity to accuse anyone that disagrees with their policy of xenophobia! It's hypocritical beyond belief - you couldn't make it up!
Click to expand...

So after Brexit that should include the Republic of Ireland?
 
ceptimus said:
Wilfully missing the point. The idea is to give EQUAL rights to prospective immigrants from all other countries. Providing those rights are equal, they can be restrictive or open. Either way, they are still fair.
Click to expand...

Except the point of being part of the EU is that you get extra benefits for belonging to it. The UK, for example, has been taking advantage of the extra benefit of passporting rights for their finance industry, something that countries outside of the EU don't get.

We currently have the situation that the EU grants additional immigration rights only to those countries that happen to be overwhelmingly white and non-muslim - and they then have the temerity to accuse anyone that disagrees with their policy of xenophobia! It's hypocritical beyond belief - you couldn't make it up!
Click to expand...

Is it? The EU grants these additional rights to countries that are members of the EU. Fact of the matter is Europe is primarily white and non-Muslim. Thing is though, non-white and/or non-Christian people within those countries get the same immigration rights as white Christians do.

I'd say it's only hypocritical if one believes that the EU should be extending the rights of membership to everyone, which begs the question: what would be the point of the EU then? Besides this suggestion seems a bit silly when we're talking about a country leaving who has benefited immensely from these additional rights now most likely losing them.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So after Brexit that should include the Republic of Ireland?
Click to expand...

That would require the overturning of the Good Friday Agreement. We should get Brexit out of the way first, see what border restrictions the EU decide to impose on the Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland border, and take it from there.

I don't know what immigration restrictions, if any, the UK intend to apply to the Republic of Ireland after Brexit: I know that free movement of people across the border is enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, but I don't know whether or not this free movement includes the right to settle and live in the UK. If and when this becomes an issue I can vote on, I shall then take the time to research the situation.
 
So special treatment for Ireland?

You can't have all countries equal but then give extra rights to the Irish. That goes directly against what you are advocating further up the thread.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
So special treatment for Ireland?

You can't have all countries equal but then give extra rights to the Irish. That goes directly against what you are advocating further up the thread.
Click to expand...

I'd like to give all countries equal rights - but at the moment that is precluded by the Good Friday Agreement. At least we will only have one "special rights" country after Brexit, instead of twenty-seven, so that will make our immigration policy much fairer than it currently is, and much fairer than the countries that remain in the EU.
 
ceptimus said:
I'd like to give all countries equal rights - but at the moment that is precluded by the Good Friday Agreement. At least we will only have one "special rights" country after Brexit, instead of twenty-seven, so that will make our immigration policy much fairer than it currently is, and much fairer than the countries that remain in the EU.
Click to expand...

provided you ignore commonwealth citizens and dont worry about the fact that we extend visa free entry to a limited number of countries

which country do you think has immigration policy most right?
 
This claim about the EU being xenophobic because it allows unrestricted movement of EU citizens between EU member states is some of the highest grade dishonesty I've ever read. Well done!

It's becoming more apparent that pro-Brexit equals bigot tho.
 
uke2se said:
This claim about the EU being xenophobic because it allows unrestricted movement of EU citizens between EU member states is some of the highest grade dishonesty I've ever read. Well done!

It's becoming more apparent that pro-Brexit equals bigot tho.
Click to expand...

Poor critical thinking to admit something is true but call it dishonest. And then tack on a bigot insult for good measure.
 
ceptimus said:
Poor critical thinking to admit something is true but call it dishonest. And then tack on a bigot insult for good measure.
Click to expand...

???

The argument is dishonest, because the proposed solution is xenophobic in nature. What you are doing is quite transparent, and not as clever as you think.
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
You missed the point. A FAIR immigration policy treats all foreign countries equally. EU membership forbids that - unless you wish to allow unrestricted immigration from every country in the world.

No current EU member country has a fair immigration policy.
Click to expand...

So you are for a hard Irish border then.
 
ceptimus said:
I'd like to give all countries equal rights - but at the moment that is precluded by the Good Friday Agreement. At least we will only have one "special rights" country after Brexit, instead of twenty-seven, so that will make our immigration policy much fairer than it currently is, and much fairer than the countries that remain in the EU.
Click to expand...

Then it should be overturned just like EU membership. It is what the people voted for after all.
 
dudalb said:
Brexit has confirmed my opinion the "government by referendum" is not a good idea,and that at times you need to save the people from themselves.
Click to expand...

Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
- Winston Churchill, probably​

The interest, at the beginning of the twentieth century, in developing post-democratic systems of government, is somewhat understandable. Fascism's "leader principle" can be seen as an answer to the dilemma of how to save the people from themselves. And as your comment indicates, there is still interest even today at figuring out some way to temper democracy with something... other than democracy.
 
theprestige said:
Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
- Winston Churchill, probably​
Click to expand...

Just for some clarity, Churchill did say it, but framed it as a quotation - which may have just been a rhetorical device; opinions differ. He certainly didn't claim to have originated it, but may have done so.

Clear as mud ;)

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time
Click to expand...
(Hansard: 11 Nov 1947)
 
theprestige said:
Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
- Winston Churchill, probably​

The interest, at the beginning of the twentieth century, in developing post-democratic systems of government, is somewhat understandable. Fascism's "leader principle" can be seen as an answer to the dilemma of how to save the people from themselves. And as your comment indicates, there is still interest even today at figuring out some way to temper democracy with something... other than democracy.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's unique to democracy. There are two schools of thought on governance: advocate and stewardship (IIRC correctly, I know stewardship is right, can't recall if advocate is right for the other). The advocate model takes the position that the rulers/governments job is to implement the will of the people, period. Stewardship holds the position that the ruler/government should work towards doing what's best for the ruled, whether they want it or not.

Same problem, basically, and that's been around for a long time.
 
The EU set terms for the internal movement of citizens of member countries within the EU, it had zero effect on UK rules as regards the rest of the world. Those who voted Leave because of concerns about migrants did so because they don't want any, not because of some concern about the fairness of the rules.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom