Still Not the Brexit Arms

[Bearbehind]

Gosh the old thread has been busy today!

Not got time to catch up just yet but putting this one here for later.

any responses?

What do you think?

DaisyTwirl They only here and see what they want, positive re the EU negative re U.K., shame they can’t have a unbiased debate

They can't Rosstac.
The only reason they've got these threads is as an outlet to lash out at Leave voters.
It's no surprise that very few Leavers still bother to post on MN.

And you all think the EU doesn’t want to punish you, They don’t want a deal

Aviation is based on a series of LEGAL agreements. As leavers wanting a positve outcome for the UK when we leave the EU what do you see needs to be done BY THE UK LEAVE GOVERNMENT to ensure that the UK has a positive outcome, in this case, for aviation - from any part made in the UK to UK service/maintenance regulatory oversight to UK pilot qualifications. We are leaving the EU - that means no longer being a member of EASA, no longer being subject to the ECJ as court of final decision on matters aviation, having the opportinity/need to agree new LEGAL agreements with third party countries direct rather than as part of the EASA group.

The EU is not blocking any of this. The UK is leaving EASA so it is up to the UK to be that independent nation and make new LEGAL agreements. We cannot just expect Brazil, for example, to just say "OK feel free to carry on as before when you were a member of EASA". Why should they? If something went wrong there would be no LEGAL agreement in place to deal with that situation.

God JWIM why must you be so negative?

I'm focusing on aviation as it is relatively straightforward to identify how it works with the UK in and then out of the EU. But the same LEGAL agreement issues will apply across countless areas of UK activity - starting with the 700+ LEGAL agreements with 3rd party countries/organsations that the UK currently has rights under as an EU Member State.

Ha Ha Elements! Let's see if the leave supporters are able to pick up that baton of positivity and say what they and the UK Leave Government needs to be doing then!

JWIM what is stopping any nation agreeing to carry on under existing terms on a temp basis to a new deal is agreed, I’m sure all the exporters don’t want to lose business however small it may be,

JWIM you need to up your management speak, Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions

Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions

First - the UK needs to have those discussions - is our UK LEAVE Government doing that, or hoping 'something will turn up'?
Second - how do we know what 3rd party countries want? Is it right that we assume they will go with 'agreeing to carry on under existing terms on a temp basis'?
Third - is any of this new to LEAVE voters who knew what they were voting for?
Honest answer for me, who voted remain, is that I had a feel for the LEGAL complexity but the extent and depth of 3rd party agreements is more than I knew about.

I love that cartoon Buteo

I have a solution - remain an EU Member State and have a Government that gets on with UK domestic issues such as housing, education, the health and social care services, welfare and universal credit, improving productivity, an industrial strategy for the 21st century (at least), a defence strategy that doesn't include aircraft carriers but no aircraft and reconsiders Trident, understanding and communicating the rules on migration to the UK and implementing them to the benefit of UK citizens (not as a stick to beat minorities/hostile environment). None of those are matters for the EU.

I want to see the positive outcome solutions from LEAVE voters who knew what they were voting for.

Perhaps there is a shift in LEAVE voters who knew what they were voting for in asking for solutions not problems. If you are asking for a solution you have identified that there is actually a problem that needs a solution.

Remember, as LEAVE voters who knew what you voted for, none of the aviation, and 700+ other agreements, have suddenly occurred since 23 June 2016, so all these LEGAL agreements you would have known about, so I imagine you had a feasible solution or two worked out. Now would be a good time to share.

JWIM I have a solution leave the EU or at the least FOM then you can have a vague idea how many people you are likely to have in your country, then adjust the housing ,education,the health service to fit, Train are own people instead of cherry picking of other countries, stop the flow of cheap unskilled labour that the bosses are happy to exploit, to the detriment of existing local labour, implement a visa based job application system, then the rules of immigration would be obvious and easy to administer, I don’t know what hostile environment you are on about, perhaps people don’t like the fact that they are housed before others on a housing list, take over in large numbers and stick together in what used to be happy local economies, where people get beaten with a stick for saying anything remotely negative about uncontrolled unskilled immigration ( racist, bigot, etc) all of these could of been helped by the EU, by seeing the mass immigration problem was and is causing a problem, we have all seen the rise of anti immigration parties. We seen how they react to countries who dare challenge them, Hungry is now being taken to court by the EU, judged at ECJ, I wonder what the outcome will be

JWIM and I sure none of these aftercome of a surprise to Parliamentthat gave the vote to the people by 5-1

JWIM sorry, I was trying to say I’m sure none of this will come as a surprise to parliament who would have know this before giving the people the vote but 5-1

Rosstac I was posing my question to LEAVE voters who knew what they were voting for.

All of those issues you list at 13.55 are already within the current, as an EU Member State, powers of the UK Sovereign Parliament. We can manage immigration, we can manage our borders, we can manage our training and education already. There is no EU legislation that prevents us.

Mrs May introduced the concept of 'hostile environment' at the Home Office - adverts on vans to migrants to hand themselves in, families in UK detention centres, Windrush generation etc.

All your comments on immigration - abuse of housing/education/health/jobs ahead of the UK indigenous population is hearsay and not supported by any fact based evidence - I know for some LEAVE voters its the 'feel' not the truth that matters.

Please also stop conflating how countries deal with illegal immigration and those with a legal right to migrate to the UK.

And, whatever the Prime Minister (DC) said at the time - so politics- the Referendum Act legally provided for an Advisory Referendum. That is what Parliament voted for. There was no vote on how the Advisory Referendum would be interpreted.

Rosstac my apologies. I was forgetting that as a LEAVE voter who knew what they were voting for, you would already know the ins and outs of what the EU and what the UK powers to legislate cover so already know the points I have made.

So is it immigration (all/some/a few/white/brown/black?) that you really want to address/stop but dressed up in the cloak of acceptability that is the result of the Advisory referendum?

Rosstac, I think you are confusing immigration in general (the refugee crisis, and non EU immigration) and the concept of freedom of movement. Freedom of movement does not mean open borders with the rest of the world. Putting aside the ethical question of whether European countries should take on more refugees, those refuges once they arrive in Hungary or Germany for example still face a very long journey to citizenship-probably a decade all in. Most will either be sent back or will never become EU citizens anyway. For those who do manage, by the time they are actually EU citizens, they will most likely have no appetite to uproot themselves yet again and come here - or if they do it won't be statistically significant. And before they become citizens, they don't benefit from the EUs FOM rules (couldn't come here to work or claim benefits). Plus, the UK is not part of shengen so still has its borders.

JWIM see this is where the difference lies , I know for a fact that EU families have been given housing associations houses before local people with the same criteria, I know the difference between legal and illegal immigration, There is nothing wrong in trying to deport illegal immigrants,
Re schooling my grand daughters class had 10 none English speaking children at the start of school term, they had to hire an interpreter, as you can imagine this is not helpful to the rest of the class, holding back their education, yet again don’t believe something I know as fact,
Please tell me how we can control immigration from the EU, Don’t mention the 3 month rule as that is none sense, or a deadly health out break or national interest of security as has been quoted before

Rosstac - can you tell us how you know for 'a fact' that homes were given to immigrants first? Do you work in housing?

The school had to hire an interpreter - just the one? Did all 10 of them speak the same language?

Quietrebel Thank you I do know the difference between illegal and legal, I’m suggesting that the EU has not got a handle on all types of immigration. I remember labour saying that the number of people coming to us would be very small, all most unnoticeable, that didn’t work out to be true. Same question to you how do we control numbers coming from the EU , as tomorrow the whole of Poland could come here ( a bit far fetched, I know) how would we control it ?