Is this what you voted Brexit for?
#11
(08-19-2019, 06:01 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote:
(08-14-2019, 10:42 AM)baggy1 Wrote: In fairness to Fenland I'd say that the two issues mentioned are the main reasons. The problem is that the immigration issue wasn't bottomed out - there were (dare I say) fear tactics used with the images of queues of refugees being used that didn't hold water. Also if there had been a decent discussion about the subject it would have very easily been shown that immigration from the EU is 'good' immigration.

Democracy is the other point whereby it wasn't discussed, and has been mentioned on here a few times. Appointments to certain EU bodies appear very undemocratic but again this needed to be discussed to see how it actually impacted on our lives - I'd say very little but am willing to listen to arguments.

Bottom line is that the EU discussion is a convenient sideshow for the government to cover up their mess - it's them nasty foreigners fault aint it guv.

I am very much in favour of immigration but the system we have now because of being in the EU denies family members and friends from Commonwealth countries from coming and living and working in the UK. I have had employees from Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth countries who haven's met the criteria to stay. I've even had a worker from New Zealand married to a brit doing a PHD at Cambridge in some high end science being refused a visa because he didn't quite earn the threshold amount to support his spouse! He has since jacked in his course and they have gone to live in New Zealand! So for me the system doesn't work as i would like it to.

(08-14-2019, 07:36 AM)Derek Hardballs Wrote:
(08-13-2019, 09:26 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote: Personally i think many voted leave for issues of democracy and immigration and not so much always the economy. All anyone seems to  bang on about in the remain camp is the economy. Of course it's extremely important, we can never pretend it isn't but life isn't just about money. Maybe a better quality of life can be had outside of the EU even if we are slightly poorer anyway!

In what way? What has hindered your quality of life as a consequence of the E.U.?

It has hindered the lives of good working people denied the right to live here if they don't live in the UK even though many have much closer ties with the UK than many of the millions who have come to work here or not work here but claim benefits and take advantage of our systems - i don't blame them for that, people shouldn't be blamed for wanting a better life for themselves and their families, but our govts (and the vote of the people) have the right to change the systems we have accepted. I personally know of 1 family alone who have cost the taxpayer more than £1m in benefits. How many hardworking brits does it take to generate £1m of taxes to pay for that one family? The quality of life I mention relates to our independence and choice, less easy options for crims from russia and other eastern european countries to come and settle here, less people taking from our support systems who haven't yet put into those systems of benefit.

Russia isn’t in the EU and migrants are net contributors to the economy.
Reply
#12
(08-19-2019, 06:01 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote:
(08-14-2019, 10:42 AM)baggy1 Wrote: In fairness to Fenland I'd say that the two issues mentioned are the main reasons. The problem is that the immigration issue wasn't bottomed out - there were (dare I say) fear tactics used with the images of queues of refugees being used that didn't hold water. Also if there had been a decent discussion about the subject it would have very easily been shown that immigration from the EU is 'good' immigration.

Democracy is the other point whereby it wasn't discussed, and has been mentioned on here a few times. Appointments to certain EU bodies appear very undemocratic but again this needed to be discussed to see how it actually impacted on our lives - I'd say very little but am willing to listen to arguments.

Bottom line is that the EU discussion is a convenient sideshow for the government to cover up their mess - it's them nasty foreigners fault aint it guv.

I am very much in favour of immigration but the system we have now because of being in the EU denies family members and friends from Commonwealth countries from coming and living and working in the UK. I have had employees from Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth countries who haven's met the criteria to stay. I've even had a worker from New Zealand married to a brit doing a PHD at Cambridge in some high end science being refused a visa because he didn't quite earn the threshold amount to support his spouse! He has since jacked in his course and they have gone to live in New Zealand! So for me the system doesn't work as i would like it to.


The problem with your point is that the points based system is a UK requirement and not an EU one. I'm a bit rusty on this one but I implemented it in a company I worked for about 10 years ago IIRC, it's not based on EU rules, the UK border agency and home office designed the requirements.
Reply
#13
(08-19-2019, 06:01 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote: It has hindered the lives of good working people denied the right to live here if they don't live in the UK even though many have much closer ties with the UK than many of the millions who have come to work here or not work here but claim benefits and take advantage of our systems - i don't blame them for that, people shouldn't be blamed for wanting a better life for themselves and their families, but our govts (and the vote of the people) have the right to change the systems we have accepted. I personally know of 1 family alone who have cost the taxpayer more than £1m in benefits. How many hardworking brits does it take to generate £1m of taxes to pay for that one family? The quality of life I mention relates to our independence and choice, less easy options for crims from russia and other eastern european countries to come and settle here, less people taking from our support systems who haven't yet put into those systems of benefit.

As said above the tier based system is a UK one and not EU driven.

And more to the point of your comment here - unfortunately the rules implemented make it difficult to define or discriminate against people based on race etc- I have a family member who has just had a house given to her and her boyfriend at subsidised rental because she is expecting a baby. She has never put into the system and has found herself in a position that she needs help. If rules were in place to say that only people that had paid into the system got help then she wouldn't have had an option available to her (well she would but that's a different argument).

And the original negotiated position that Cameron brought back included a period of time whereby we could restrict these payments, but that was thrown out in the referendum. If that is your main point I would argue that we should stay in using the original agreed terms and look to influence and change from within the EU, and therefore not causea ll the other mayhem around us currently.
Reply
#14
What a monumental fuck up, to be honest the people who supposedly run our country haven't got a Danny. Trouble is it wont be them that suffers, they will be cocooned as usual while TSHTF.
The likes of Cameron and that utter trollop May have created a total dog turd of a no win at all costs situation. And what do we have when the Country most needs a viable opposition, fucking Corbyn a total fuckwit. I fear for the future, I really do.
Reply
#15
"a total dog turd of a no win at all costs situation..." is the perfect summation and deserves to become part of the board legend.

This, from today's Mash, might have made me smile if it wasn't so close to reality: "A cornucopia of demanding jobs will become vacant, including care home assistant, Amazon warehouse worker and delivery driver. If you are unemployed with the Tories in charge of benefits sanctions, now is an entirely appropriate moment to sh*t your pants..."
Reply
#16
Dreaming of sunlit uplands... 

It’s all going to be great...
Reply
#17
Dreaming of dogshit pavements.
Reply
#18
(08-20-2019, 10:36 AM)baggy1 Wrote:
(08-19-2019, 06:01 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote:
(08-14-2019, 10:42 AM)baggy1 Wrote: In fairness to Fenland I'd say that the two issues mentioned are the main reasons. The problem is that the immigration issue wasn't bottomed out - there were (dare I say) fear tactics used with the images of queues of refugees being used that didn't hold water. Also if there had been a decent discussion about the subject it would have very easily been shown that immigration from the EU is 'good' immigration.

Democracy is the other point whereby it wasn't discussed, and has been mentioned on here a few times. Appointments to certain EU bodies appear very undemocratic but again this needed to be discussed to see how it actually impacted on our lives - I'd say very little but am willing to listen to arguments.

Bottom line is that the EU discussion is a convenient sideshow for the government to cover up their mess - it's them nasty foreigners fault aint it guv.

I am very much in favour of immigration but the system we have now because of being in the EU denies family members and friends from Commonwealth countries from coming and living and working in the UK. I have had employees from Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth countries who haven's met the criteria to stay. I've even had a worker from New Zealand married to a brit doing a PHD at Cambridge in some high end science being refused a visa because he didn't quite earn the threshold amount to support his spouse! He has since jacked in his course and they have gone to live in New Zealand! So for me the system doesn't work as i would like it to.


The problem with your point is that the points based system is a UK requirement and not an EU one. I'm a bit rusty on this one but I implemented it in a company I worked for about 10 years ago IIRC, it's not based on EU rules, the UK border agency and home office designed the requirements.

Yes aimed to reduce immigration because we are over supplied by peeps coming from the EU. Once we have left the EU there can be a re-balancing of this. If the govt implement such a system of course!

(08-20-2019, 10:45 AM)baggy1 Wrote:
(08-19-2019, 06:01 PM)FenlandBoing Wrote: It has hindered the lives of good working people denied the right to live here if they don't live in the UK even though many have much closer ties with the UK than many of the millions who have come to work here or not work here but claim benefits and take advantage of our systems - i don't blame them for that, people shouldn't be blamed for wanting a better life for themselves and their families, but our govts (and the vote of the people) have the right to change the systems we have accepted. I personally know of 1 family alone who have cost the taxpayer more than £1m in benefits. How many hardworking brits does it take to generate £1m of taxes to pay for that one family? The quality of life I mention relates to our independence and choice, less easy options for crims from russia and other eastern european countries to come and settle here, less people taking from our support systems who haven't yet put into those systems of benefit.

As said above the tier based system is a UK one and not EU driven.

And more to the point of your comment here - unfortunately the rules implemented make it difficult to define or discriminate against people based on race etc- I have a family member who has just had a house given to her and her boyfriend at subsidised rental because she is expecting a baby. She has never put into the system and has found herself in a position that she needs help. If rules were in place to say that only people that had paid into the system got help then she wouldn't have had an option available to her (well she would but that's a different argument).

And the original negotiated position that Cameron brought back included a period of time whereby we could restrict these payments, but that was thrown out in the referendum. If that is your main point I would argue that we should stay in using the original agreed terms and look to influence and change from within the EU, and therefore not causea ll the other mayhem around us currently.

I'm glad that the people got a vote on staying in or leaving - but also that as our politicians clearly had very little intention of delivering on the vote; why didn't they get support which was there from other EU politicians to force changes from within at the same time the withdrawal agreement was being discussed? A movement on even slight restrictions on immigration and a tweaking of benefits rules and it would probably have been enough for the majority.
Reply
#19
That was exactly what Cameron brought back as the original deal if we stayed in. So you’d have accepted that but still voted to leave - and they say we’re being condescending when we say people didn’t understand what they were voting for.
Reply
#20
Here you go Fen - this is what you wanted:

A movement on even slight restrictions on immigration and a tweaking of benefits rules and it would probably have been enough for the majority.

And this is what we had in place if we'd have voted to stay in the EU:

He got the four-year "emergency brake" on in-work benefits he had set such store by - but new arrivals will have their tax credits phased in over four years. The brake will be in place for a maximum of seven years, rather than the 13 years Mr Cameron is thought to have wanted - but the EU has agreed it would be "justified" to trigger it without delay after the referendum if the UK votes to stay in the EU.
Mr Cameron failed in his original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home. Payments will instead be linked to the cost of living in the countries where the children live. The new rules will apply immediately for new arrivals, and for existing claimants from 2020.
The UK government has already reached an agreement on out-of-work benefits. Newly arrived EU migrants are banned from claiming jobseeker's allowance for three months. If they have not found a job within six months they will be required to leave. EU migrant workers in the UK who lose their job, through no fault of their own, are entitled to the same benefits as UK citizens, including jobseekers allowance and housing benefit, for six months.
Neither the draft deal nor the final agreement mention changes to social housing entitlement but they were never part of Mr Cameron's preliminary negotiations.

Do you see remainer's frustration when after nearly 4 years since this was being discussed and the vote to jump off a cliff has happened that all you wanted was what we had got in place anyway.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)