We did not end freedom of movement. The only people we ended fom for is ourselves and our children.

[Kendodd]

I don't know why we would celebrate this.
The children of our EU friends living here still have their fom, when they leave school they'll be free to live and work in any one of 31 countries (I'm pleased for them) our children won't be. I've heard 'EU passport holder' is starting to appear on CVs now as it makes people a more attractive employee in certain sectors.

Oh and I grew up in one of the most deprived areas in the country on state benefits attending a failing school. I made use of fom in my youth and it gave me opportunities young people in my situation won't have anymore. It's not just for rich people.

@turquoisewaters so now it's just metaphors? I see you're unlikely to comment on my lived experience as it doesn't align with your train of thought, but in this context 'sovereignity' must surely be simply a feeling, rather than something concrete, if all the examples you give defending it are simply metaphors.

For what it's worth, I think it will be a while before we see the true positives and negatives of Brexit. I'm here on this thread because I wondered what more there was to discuss about FoM now that there is no going back. It's when I see comments that make very little logical sense that I feel the need to comment.

Airbus is part owned by the French, German and Spanish states, so I think it’s a bit unlikely that it will close any major European sites.

I, and most of my circle voted remain.

The funny part is, we are actually not negatively affected by BREXIT. In fact, BREXIT has provided opportunity me an opportunity to make more money.

I suspect that the people who voted for BREXIT in England , are also mostly the ones most likely to be the victims of it as well.
(Exlcluding fisherman, and the other countries/parts of UK)

but in this context 'sovereignity' must surely be simply a feeling, rather than something concrete

The Government’s own Brexit white paper stated that sovereignty had never been lost, it just felt like it had.

@LostToucan

but in this context 'sovereignity' must surely be simply a feeling, rather than something concrete

The Government’s own Brexit white paper stated that sovereignty had never been lost, it just felt like it had.

That is true.

So the one thing that cancels out all the real, tangible negative effects quoted, here, there and everywhere is... an abstract concept that even ardent brexiters cannot define or explain beyond nonsensical "metaphol" and that the government itself admitted was there all along anyway.

sovereignty had never been lost, it just felt like it had

There must be a reason for the majority of voters feeling this. Something obviously wasn't working. And not only for the UK.

Take Covid vaccines, for instance. Each EU country in theory is 'allowed' to source their own. Hungary is exercising their 'sovereignty' and they are quickly singled out as an outlier. Why?

Perhaps people perceived a desire by the EU to continuously and increasingly encroach on members' sovereignty (either through legislation or in practice).

So are Leavers all homogeneous now and voted because of “sovereignty”?

Or was there a myriad of reasons and the sovereignty myth was just one of them?

real, tangible negative effects quoted, here

There are have been real, tangible, negative effects of remaining in the EU quoted upthread (before some took issue with my metaphors). But some have chosen to ignore them

@turquoisewaters

real, tangible negative effects quoted, here

There are have been real, tangible, negative effects of remaining in the EU quoted upthread (before some took issue with my metaphors). But some have chosen to ignore them

Which are? Or just post a timeframe for posts we should be looking for?

Take Covid vaccines, for instance. Each EU country in theory is 'allowed' to source their own. Hungary is exercising their 'sovereignty' and they are quickly singled out as an outlier. Why?

That’s a bit arse about face.

Health is a joint competency between member states and the EU, and primary competency for public health lies with member states, so there’s no question of a member state being “allowed” to fulfil its primary competency role.

@LostToucan I think it’s difficult to put facts and balance to someone who seems to get information from third-hand sources, where it’s already been ‘translated’ away from reality

@DoubleTweenQueen I know, it’s almost like a relentless misinformation campaign is still being waged.

There must be a reason for the majority of voters feeling this. Something obviously wasn't working. And not only for the UK

Imo decades of negativity and downright hostility from likes of the Sun, dm and the torygraph played a big part. Those three papers make up most of the papers sold in this country by quite a large margin.

if Airbus closed down in Toulouse and relocated to UK bringing 10s of 1000s of new jobs and BMW etc did similar

You can obviously never say anything won't happen, but looking at probabilities and taking one of those examples given above there's much much more to the whole Airbus setup across the EU/France than just "Toulouse".

As a result I'd say there's much more chance of me landing on the Moon than "Airbus" upsticking from Toulouse and relocating that part of the operation to the UK ....

^ Andante57

turquoisewaters
Also, how do you define 'rich world'? Could China or Russia have been forced by the UN to take refugees?
That’s a good point.
Do Russia and China take in refugees?
If not, is it because Russia and China won’t have them or the refugees don’t want to go there?^

Yes, they do
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_China

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugees_and_asylum_in_Russia

Actually I think 'sovereignty' can be quite dangerous. Well, the jingoistic way it's used lately. The idea that we (or any other country) can just do whatever it wants and the rest of the world can stfu and do nothing about it. Cooperation and alinement is much better in my book. The interests of different countries do rub up against each other, they always have, they always will. The traditional method of solving these disputes has been to go to war. One day, some bright spark thought "I know, instead of going to war, why don't we have treaties and international courts to solve disputes?" This of course means countries do give up a bit of sovereignty and the ability to do whatever they want, and agree to be bound by the rulings of an international court (which Leaves will insist on painting as a 'foreign' court).

So how much sovereignty do you want @turquoisewaters? The power for our government (that most of us didn't vote for) to do anything? Pollute the sea? Introduce the death penalty? Any limitations?

@Tommika

I think this was about the OP saying the UN should have exhorted (=pushed/mandated) all 'rich' countries to take refugees in 2015.

As per your links, China appears to mainly give asylum to the Vietnamese (i.e. retaining sovereignty and doing as they see fit) and in Russia it seems to be a very difficult process (again, as per your link)

Both countries are 'rich', they are rightly exercising their sovereignty but no one seems to be pointing fingers at them (yet the UK gets all the slack because we are not 'generous' enough apparently even if resources here are already very scarce)

@DoubleTweenQueen

There isn’t anyone on here that can evidence or even suggest a tangible benefit of Brexit, is there? Plenty of generalisation and ‘metaphors’, but zero substance. Brexit means Brexit, I suppose. Leavers don’t care, as it’s done, and it’s what ‘they’ wanted; they knew they wanted ‘it’, have a few suggestions of why they wanted ‘it’, but asking the question and hoping for some sort of real information as to what ‘it’ might manifest as is still like trying to nail blancmange to the wall. The few that brazen it out here have vague metaphors, which are nonsensical and mean absolutely jack, but really understand very little. I wonder why they bother at all.

I wonder why they bother at all. Presumably it's just the other side of the same coin - why bother posting 2/3/4 threads a month saying there are no benefits to Brexit? What does it achieve exactly?

Thank you Tommika.

As Turquoisewaters says the Russians make it very hard for refugees and asylum seekers, and it’s shocking how the Chinese send back refugees to North Korea knowing full well what their fate will be.

@DynamoKev Having not started a thread of that sort myself, I’m not in a position to say. However, I have seen a few that seem to be on the lookout for benefits as and when they might arise? Or alternatively changes/repercussions, good or bad. Discussion on any subject is generally a good thing.

I don’t understand your ‘other side of the same coin’ comment. How is posting untrue and generalised nonsense the same as starting a thread requesting comment?

The EU is based on the principle of Subsidiarity
Decisions are taken at the most local level feasible.
Town
County
Region
Country
Alliance
UN

Brexit rejects that
but provides no alternative
as the UK Governmental system is the most centralised in Europe.

I don't know much about how Russia treats refugees but completely agree about China. Appalling.

Brexit isn’t pain free. Kids having to pay more too travel to the E U....can’t get too worked up about it, small compromise to me.

Actually I think 'sovereignty' can be quite dangerous

I think your argument implies that unless the UK are 'governed' by some kind of global supranational body we cannot be trusted and we will become a menace to others.

I don't agree with that view at all. You can retain sovereignty and still do the right thing.

Why would you trust some random person sitting on the European Parliament, the UN or the WHO for instance over your fellow nationals? Do you think their motives are always wholesome and unbiased?

But a compromise for what?