Brexit thread - what happens next

Status
Not open for further replies.
joeyjojo said:
You and footman have made good points. It's true that the England is more densely populated than Liechtenstein (420 v 227 per sq km, I was surprised by this). The difference is that Liechtenstein is just really, really small.

For its population density to double it would only need to bring in about 37,000 people. That's the population of one small town. Or 50 Eurostar trains. In other words they need to keep a really tight grip on the number of people permitted to reside there or it could end up undergoing some really radical changes in literally weeks or months. It could easily end up with population densities 4-10 times higher, as is the case in similarly sized places like Jersey or Malta.

You're right that England 'cannot absorb unlimited numbers', but the difference is that for little Liechtenstein it's a much more acute concern, so presumably the EU decided the exceptional circumstances warranted exceptional immigration controls.

In contrast, for England's density to go up by even just 10 people per sq km (say from the current 420 to 430) requires an influx of 1.3 million people. In the long run it might be a problem, but even with the current high (historically speaking) levels of immigration, it's not really obvious that the UK deserves special treatment.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, however its not a homogenous blob - nations -, but areas, towns and cities.

Where did almost all the refugees get assigned to live in the England?

Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Liverpool... etc etc nothing in the South East, all these medium to high levels of deprivation and racism.

The real problem here is Westminster wanting this situation, forcing the issue.
 
thep02 said:
I note that yet again the disgusting tories are putting party before country and democracy.
Click to expand...

You could say they are carrying out the will of the people, with a proven mandate to do so, so they are in fact upholding democracy. Could you imagine the outcry if this hadnt have happened

I dont think the Tories need to need to worry about the party given its a one horse race for any future election at the moment
 
The thing about iceland and lichenstien is they just implimented the controls without asling didnt they?

While the uk has followed proper protocol.


Would have been far more interesting to see Britain just impliment controls without consultation then negotiate from the position of already having controls.


The EU would never have severed ties/treaties or deals in response and we could have dragged out the immigration negotiations for decades as the likes of Switzerland joined in
 
Tefal said:
The thing about iceland and lichenstien is they just implimented the controls without asling didnt they?

While the uk has followed proper protocol.


Would have been far more interesting to see Britain just impliment controls without consultation then negotiate from the position of already having controls.


The EU would never have severed ties/treaties or deals in response and we could have dragged out the immigration negotiations for decades as the likes of Switzerland joined in
Click to expand...

And how would those immigration controls have been implemented whilst still a member of the EU? On a practical level, how does it work at the ports and airports when you have EU citizens passing through in large numbers daily? You can't issue visas because there's no legal basis for this. You can't introduce a points system and stop employers employing EU citizens because there's no legality in that either. There would be legal challenges galore. So how do you implement such a thing?
 
Cern said:
And how would those immigration controls have been implemented whilst still a member of the EU? On a practical level, how does it work at the ports and airports when you have EU citizens passing through in large numbers daily? You can't issue visas because there's no legal basis for this. You can't introduce a points system and stop employers employing EU citizens because there's no legality in that either. There would be legal challenges galore. So how do you implement such a thing?
Click to expand...

The exact same way lichenstien did.

They just ignored eu law and implimented imigration quotas.
Employment is very easy to stop.
Don't give them a national insurance number unless they apply and get a visa.

The point being legal challenges can happily be ignored and negotiated later

The legal basis would be

Article 112(1) of the EEA Agreement reads: ‘If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.’
Click to expand...

For lichenstine, not sur eif we could blag simmilar being full members rather than just eea members though
 
Tefal said:
The exact same way lichenstien did.

They just ignored eu law and implimented imigration quotas.
Employment is very easy to stop.
Don't give them a national insurance number unless they apply and get a visa.

The point being legal challenges can happily be ignored and negotiated later

The legal basis would be



For lichenstine, not sur eif we could blag simmilar being full members rather than just eea members though
Click to expand...

That's EEA rules. Try finding a similar clause in the EU rules.

"Blag"? "Happily ignore legal challenges"? Are you just having a bit of fun with this, in which case fine. But if you're serious, then that's even funnier.

Besides, the EU turning a blind eye to tiny Lichtenstein is hardly the same as ignoring Britain blocking free movement on a much more massive scale. It just wouldn't wash at any level and would actually make future negotiations harder not easier due to issues of trust.

If the UK wants to end free movement, then full Brexit is how it happens. That's pretty clear from what the EU has said and from what Theresa May has said too.
 
Cern said:
A serving Prime Minister who lots of people wanted to punish. He was a liability to the Remain campaign, not an asset, and he compounded the problem with Project Fear and weak leadership when it most mattered. Add to this a labour leader who was at best lukewarm about the EU and the Remain campaign was always fighting an uphill battle even before all the lies, threats and distortions were thrown into the equation (by both sides).

I don't feel Cameron will be judged well by history. He cost this country a lot more than EU membership. He cost this country something far more important, unity and cohesion. Ironic that the man who once championed the "big society" and "we are all in it together" actually did more than anyone to split and divide this country in ways that extend far beyond Brexit.
Click to expand...

The one thing that jumped out at me in the BBC report is the one politician that changed peoples opinions was Donald Trump :eek: What on earth does that tell us about the British in general and the Brexit voters in particular?????
 
Eh? Donald Trump? I'm so bored by the relentless coverage of him by the BBC - I don't know anyone who was persuaded to vote leave by him. The notion seems ridiculous. You'd probably find more people were turned off by Obama.
 
Moses said:
Jesus wept. That's a completely retarded interpretation of reality. As Dougan said in his select committee evidence, the idea that we could do the same as Liechtenstein is an armchair lawyer argument.
Click to expand...

But could you genuinely see the EU severing all treaties with the uk?

Seriously?

Or could you see a long drawn out negotiation.

I never said it was a good idea simply it would have been interesting if the uk instead of following the correct procedure like we have (negotiation, breakdown of negotiations, withdrawl) we'd have just done it.

But rhen when it comes to international law, law doesnt seem to actually matter.

Take the iraq war we're alwayd told is illegal, or Russian annexation of the crimea or china building islands in the south china sea despite the un throwing out thier claim.


All illegal all still happened, no one got punished.
 
Cern said:
That's EEA rules. Try finding a similar clause in the EU rules.

"Blag"? "Happily ignore legal challenges"? Are you just having a bit of fun with this, in which case fine. But if you're serious, then that's even funnier.

Besides, the EU turning a blind eye to tiny Lichtenstein is hardly the same as ignoring Britain blocking free movement on a much more massive scale. It just wouldn't wash at any level and would actually make future negotiations harder not easier due to issues of trust.

If the UK wants to end free movement, then full Brexit is how it happens. That's pretty clear from what the EU has said and from what Theresa May has said too.
Click to expand...


Yeah its not a serious suggestion but it eould be interesting.

The EU forving the uk to leave (obviously there would have been no brexit vote with this course) would have been a msssive disaster for the world economy and a huge shock.

Effectively such a shock that the EU could not do it.

Thus, law or not they'd have to work something out, some form of compromise out of self preservation if nothing else.
 
Moses said:
The single biggest difference there is the enforcement mechanisms available. Who deals with international security/war and peace? The UNSC. What's the single most important aspect of the UNSC? The fact the P5 each have a veto.
Click to expand...

Greece ever get any punishment for faking its books to get EU membership?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom