Brexit survey - Impact of the Greek crisis

[Varinia]

If you voted to LEAVE the EU in last year’s referendum, please give up 2 minutes of your time to complete a very short survey conducted by the University of Bedfordshire (demographics and two questions only) on the effect of the Greek crisis on your decision to vote leave.
If you can, please also share with friends and family where relevant as we're looking for as large a sample as possible.
Thank you very much in advance

bedshealthsciences.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_ebT7Lg8u33L3ctn

No, not all leave voters, a significant majority, with many not willing to actually say that.

As referenced by the reactions across a whole swathe of media sites like this one when the High Court and Supreme Court rulings were handed down. It wasn't about British Judges, British Laws and the British Parliament having power to make decisions because there were huge amounts of vocal dissent and name calling of others when that was shown to be the legal way that proceedings must occur.

Those who want to control immigration need to present valid reasons for that, otherwise they are operating from a position of prejudice yes.

Those who want to control immigration need to present valid reasons for that, otherwise they are operating from a position of prejudice yes

People who want to control immigration will have come to that conclusion for, probably, a variety of reasons. Whether these people are or are not able to articulate their reasons such that you are satisfied that their reasons are acceptable and "valid" is not, whatever you might think, the measure of whether they are "operating from a position of prejudice".

You seem to consider yourself as having some sort of racism adjudication role, odd. People don't have to explain themselves to you to receive a non-racist annointing

And you still haven't addressed the remain voters who want to control immigration.

You seem to consider yourself as having some sort of racism adjudication role, odd. People don't have to explain themselves to you to receive a non-racist annointing

That made me actual lol 😂

Well, if people are saying that they are voting for control of immigration because of the reasons that have been repeated here and in other places over and over again, yet have been shown to be factually incorrect, one can only decide that they are making their decisions based on prejudice not fact.

That's a valid conclusion to take isn't it?

If a decision is made on prejudice the validity of it is also easy to question.

Remainers wanting control over immigration? I've no idea, but there are also leavers that seem to prioritise access to the single market over immigration control, there will be anomalies in the logic of voters all over.

The thing that made me start posting in the first place was a week or so ago when there seemed to be lots of people on here AGAIN repeating untruths regarding immigration, and a huge majority of leave voters here failing to challenge this, and nodding on saying oh quite right.

I'm not an adjudicator of anything, just stating what the avaliable evidence indiactes.

I may have been guilty of not including the caveat, not all, when discussing leavers, and its true not all leave voters did so because of their dislike of immigration, but it was the driving force behind the vote.

"People don't have to explain themselves"

Yet they take part in online debate?

"Those who want to control immigration need to present valid reasons for that,"

Do they? The alternative being?

I voted leave, I genuinely do think the treatment of Greece was appalling, I find it very offensive to be told this is faux concern.

To expand an institution should not put the needs of the institution above the needs of the people it exists to serve.

I missed a ; after expand

"Do they? The alternative being?"

Then the conclusion must be drawn that the decision to vote leave was made based on prejudice regarding immigration rather than valid concerns.

The treatment of Greece was a difficult situation, one major problem is that the Greeks have failed to collect enough in tax, whilst spending far more than the NATO standard of 2% on defence, having very low retirement ages, short working weeks and an economy which is 50% informal so goes untaxed.

Greece's national government decisions are mainly responsible for Greece;s situation, without a bailout it would be far, far worse, as in pensions not paid, hospitals closing, army going unpaid etc.

Another reason, albeit more latterly, is that countries like the UK have failed to their fare share of refugees. Which of course a large number of leave voters do not want us to do either.

I

"Then the conclusion must be drawn that the decision to vote leave was made based on prejudice regarding immigration rather than valid concerns. "

You can keep repeating that all you like Danny, but you still refuse to answer the questions. Let me try new words, why does anyone need to justify a need for immigration control? Its a tad obvious why immigration controls are needed, anywhere, any country. Yet, you persist in the 'unless we have open borders and welcoming arms we're all racist.. (cause you still refuse to grasp how racism and immigration are completely different concepts).

Youre being given opportunities to make your case, yet swerve the issue every time. I wont ask again.

You are now conflating all immigration control, with freedom of movement from the EU.

You've been offered chances to justify the reasons for voting to leave the European Union, to control the immigration from there, and yet you've never managed to do so.

All you've done is twisted and turned the question in an attempt to justify it, yet have failed to do so.

I can tell the differece between immigration and racism, I've I think mainly used the word prejudice. In fact its easy to justify why there is prejudice in this. If you are scapegoating a particular section of society and blaming them for the ills of the nation, when there is little evidence of this, then you are behaving with prejudice and in this case actually rather than racism it would be xenophobia.

If people are going to vote to leave the EU and put such a lot at risk based on their concerns regarding immigration then these must be justified, if you don't want to, then you can keep them to yourself, but it has no place in a section of website dedicated to debating the issues.

Im conflating? Lol.

So to be clear, youre now retracting your racism slurs, despite using them persistantly, and are replacing it with prejudice and xenophobia. But that 'prejudice' is also only directed at EU state europeans moving here under the FOM? Remain voters who wish for EU immigration control, have your courtesy of being asked to explain themselves before being labelled 'prjudiced' or 'xenophobic'?

I think I pretty clearly laid out my reasons for voting leave, indeed it was my post last week, (or whenever it was) that dragged you "out of your lurking mode as it got you so angry being filled with 'inaccurate facts!"

Its very simple, I was asked to vote. The fact the EU refused to give any other options on any issues is not the fault of the voter or the UK government. There was no third option. It was an in or out vote. It was an all or nothing demand from the EU. No ifs or buts from the EU. All or nothing.

I and many voted 'nothing'. Many voted 'all'. Some voted, on both sides, hoping with fingers crossed, that a 3rd way was possible. A 3rd way, wasnt on the ballot. Thats not leave voters fault, its not the UK governments fault, (DC tried to negotiate) its squarely on the EU. All or nothing. Once you grasp that, you may find a more realistic reason for the outcome.

The only 'fact' you do keep presenting is leave voters voted leave because theyre racist. This evening, theyre now prejudiced and xenophobic.

Asking someone to explain why theyre calling me a racist, prjudiced or xenophobic, is not unreasonable Danny, and you demanding that firstly I am all of the above, and therefore its clearly my place to prove to you otherwise, is utterly warped thinking. Offensive . And downright ignorant.

You are conflating because the immigration from the EU was all that could be effected by the EU vote.

The EU didn't set the question in the referendum, the government, and the electoral commission did. It wasn't actually anything to do with the EU so your whole "no ifs or buts" point is incorrect. There was no third option because of a decision made by the national government.

DC got almost all of his requests from the EU agreed to, the only one he failed to get was the emergency break on immigration, so saying the EU wasn't willing to negotiate is clearly incorrect too.

Yet you accuse me of ignorance when these basic points have passed you?

See there are more of your inaccurate facts.

Oh and a 3rd way is possible, just the UK government has chosen to ignore those options.

If it really was about the freedom to trade with other countries etc, why not take the Norway option?

I have also, repeatedly added caveats to the analysis that I'm making.

IF you claimed democracy and sovereignty, then complained about the supreme court etc, then it wasn't really about democracy so there has to be another reason.

IF you are saying that its the Greek crisis, yet not accepting the realities of the Greek national government decisions for the last decade on Greece, and at the same time objecting to refugees coming here which would help Greece, then actually there has to be a reason.

I've said that a large amount of the leave vote was motivated by prejudice, I did correct my self from saying leavers, and then saying some etc.

Danny I see you have failed to make the case for control of immigration of refugees from outside the EU into the EU (not necessarily the UK) is valid, but controlling immigration into the UK from the EU is racist. unless you can square that circle you are talking nonsense.
Lala I quote from this Independent article:

Valéry Giscard D’Estaing was the first to say it frankly in 2002: Turkey must never be a member of the European Union. It was not a matter of time, of Turkey’s adjusting to the political culture of Europe, of economic or legal harmonisation. For Giscard, never meant never, because Turkey is not a European country. To admit this huge Muslim, non-European state, he said, would mean the end of the EU.

that were Turkey to join the European Union this would represent the triumph of economics over culture. The speaker was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI. For him, that “culture” certainly included Europe’s Christian inheritance.

Or this Grauniad article:

Almost the first thing Sarkozy did after he was elected in 2007 was block talks with Turkey on the key area of economic and monetary policy.

Sarkozy argued that Turkey was geographically not part of Europe and had no place in the EU. François Hollande, Sarkozy’s successor, is similarly unsympathetic. More importantly, perhaps, Angela Merkel, Germany’s long-serving chancellor, also opposes Turkish membership.

And you wonder why Erdogan is turing its back on Europe and to the Middle East, where he is considered welcome.

" but controlling immigration into the UK from the EU is racist. unless you can square that circle you are talking nonsense."

But I'm not am I. You are conflating the two, freedom of movement of labour is not the same as accepting refugees. Frankly I think we should be accepting more refugees into this country, but that's a different matter from controlling immigration of workers from the EU.

Your desperation to make the EU seem racist is hilarious, especially after many EU countries have been far more supportive and accepting of refugees over the last three years than we have.

Danny we do not have free movement on labour in the EU, we have free movement of people. People moving from within the EU to the UK is no different to people moving from outside the EU into the EU.
If you state there is no downside to unlimited immigration into the UK, why is there a downside to immigration into the EU. Refugees or economic migrants, workers or not?
If there is no downside to the EU, why not have open borders?

We have freedom of movement of labour, the UK can send you home after 6 months of looking for work if its decided that you have no real chance of gaining employment. These are part of the regulations introduced in 2006.

The same with the wives of UK nationals having to prove they have private medical insurance if they haven't worked here for a certain amount of time etc.

That we haven't enforced those rules is down to national government decisions. In other countries its down to their national government decisions.

I didn't state that there was a downside to unlimited immigration to the UK, FOM is not "unlimited immigration". What I've said is that the supposed negatives of immigration that are repeated are in the most untrue, or incredibly over stated.

People moving from the UK from the EU is different from people moving from other countries because of all the different agreements to do with the EU on health care, reciprocal rights, benefits etc.

It isn't free movement of people, and it isn't the same as refugees or open borders policy.

"And you wonder why Erdogan is turing its back on Europe and to the Middle East, where he is considered welcome."

Turkey is in a state of emergency at the moment and Erdogan is practically ruling by decree. He is in the process, by referendum, of giving his office huge powers (without many if any checks and balances) that will make this de facto powerful situation continue and allow him to remain in office for much longer. There isn't really a free press. He wants to bring back the death penalty. Opposition is quashed. There have been incidents of people campaigning for a 'no' vote being arrested. Maybe middle eastern countries think he is the biz.

Although many issues make Turkey incompatible with EU membership, Greece would most probably veto it.

You needn't worry on Turkey's behalf, I'm sure. If it's human rights abuses (and near dictatorship) are a cause of concern for the EU, it may have a friend indeed in the UK. With ne'er a bother about human rights, Theresa May headed over there very quickly to talk arms deals. In the brave new world of Brexit, I'm sure a bilateral can be thrashed out. Visa's will probably be required, though as people are finding out that even non-EU free trade deals seem to come with people too .

EU citizens have a right to stay after 3 months only if they are exercising a treaty right.

In this context, a treaty right means one is working, self-employed, self-sufficient or a student.

There are restrictions on this freedom of movement. "The Treaty allows a Member State to refuse an EU national the right of entry or residence on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health."

www.europarl.europa.eu/atyourservice/en/displayFtu.html?ftuId=FTU_3.1.3.html

Thanks Cail. Not freedom of movement of people.

Lets be clear to my point,someone who has worked and paid enough NI has the right to claim benefits for 6 months and not go home, after that, they can be told to leave.

Oops. Sorry. Didn't read back properly.

Its very simple, I was asked to vote. The fact the EU refused to give any other options on any issues is not the fault of the voter or the UK government. There was no third option. It was an in or out vote. It was an all or nothing demand from the EU. No ifs or buts from the EU. All or nothing.

Did you have a different ballot paper to mine? As far as I am concerned the Referendum had a Remain or Leave question. It was wholly prompted by the cat fight in the Conservative party, with enabling legislation to hold the Referendum passed by the UK Parliament. Some sensible amendments were ignored, because the whole thing was legally advisory, although politically not. I couldn't see anything which suggested that EU organisations had anything to do with the Referendum. But then I missed the PTO, (because it was obviously written in invisible ink on my ballot paper), saying, 'if Leave which of these options do you prefer'. And don't forget Farage himself was championing the Norway option, which many would construe as a third option. Something he would probably like to forget, but the internet and social media now make that difficult.