The Consequences of Brexit [part 4]

[Lockdoctor]

Learn some history fella, really. Take those Union Jack goggles off and look up the missions in Mali, to begin with. The French have more boots on the ground abroad than the Brits at the moment.

You need to learn or understand English, I clearly stated most EU members. How many missions are Latvia involved in through out the World?

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2017 at 16:15 ----------

 

I know,that's why I asked you the question,why would I want to ask it to EZ?

Because EZ started this particular discussion.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2017 at 16:17 ----------

 

The point is the UK have interests all over the World, while most of the other current EU members don't. It would be ludicrous it the UK had to negotiate with all the other EU members, in order to take military action against another country who invaded or attacked British territory or Commonwealth territory.

See the quote again, tzijlstra

[chalga]

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2017 at 16:15 ----------

 

[/color]

Because EZ started this particular discussion.

 

 

So if EZ said black was white,and you said black was white,the only way you can explain why you said black was white is to ask why he said it?................Absolutely crazy.

[tzijlstra]

You need to learn or understand English, I clearly stated most EU members. How many missions are Latvia involved in through out the World?

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2017 at 16:15 ----------

 

Because EZ started this particular discussion.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2017 at 16:17 ----------

 

See the quote again, tzijlstra

 

Fair enough, still irrelevant though, Latvia currently has troos in Iraq and Mali, for example. Most EU nations are also NATO members, operating abroad on the same mandate as Britain.

 

Your point is largely irrelevant.

[Lockdoctor]

So if EZ said black was white,and you said black was white,the only way you can explain why you said black was white is to ask why he said it?................Absolutely crazy.

EZ brought the issue of a EU army up. I am assuming he or she knows more than I do about the implications of a EU army. I am assuming a EU army would replace the armies of individual EU members. If you know better, then please enlighten me, because I am not an expert about the EU army, which from my understanding does not exist at the moment.

 

---------- Post added 09-12-2017 at 16:37 ----------

 

Fair enough, still irrelevant though, Latvia currently has troos in Iraq and Mali, for example. Most EU nations are also NATO members, operating abroad on the same mandate as Britain.

 

Your point is largely irrelevant.

I was just adding input to a discussion. I appreciate you did say most EU nations are also NATO members, which rightly acknowledges some EU members are not members of NATO.

[tzijlstra]

I was just adding input to a discussion. I appreciate you did say most EU nations are also NATO members, which rightly acknowledges some EU members are not members of NATO.

 

The issue I have with that is the discussion is muddled enough. I appreciate Brexiteers who do not want further involvement with an ever closer Union, but that battle has been had, let's concentrate on a way to work with the EU optimally that ensures the UK does not become part of the Federation (or whatever you want to call it) whilst maintaining a sensible approach to things like trade and movement of people.

[Lockdoctor]

The issue I have with that is the discussion is muddled enough. I appreciate Brexiteers who do not want further involvement with an ever closer Union, but that battle has been had, let's concentrate on a way to work with the EU optimally that ensures the UK does not become part of the Federation (or whatever you want to call it) whilst maintaining a sensible approach to things like trade and movement of people.

They are fair comments, but the fact is the UK voted to leave the EU because many people, who voted to leave were unhappy about the free movement of people, but did not have a problem with the UK mutually trading with all EU members. Any Brexit agreement has to end the free movement of people between the UK and the remaining EU members, otherwise the EU referendum result delivered by the democratic UK electorate will not be respected or honoured.

[I1L2T3]

They are fair comments, but the fact is the UK voted to leave the EU because many people, who voted to leave were unhappy about the free movement of people, but did not have a problem with the UK mutually trading with all EU members. Any Brexit agreement has to end the free movement of people between the UK and the remaining EU members, otherwise the EU referendum result delivered by the democratic UK electorate will not be respected or honoured.

 

It’s not free movement of people. It’s free movement of workers.

 

And it has never been entirely free. We have a physical border and opted out of Schengen.

 

The problem is we never used any of the provisions (permitted by the EU) to control the flow of workers, rights to benefits, proof that a worker or potential worker can sustain themselves, and rights to stay. None of that failure is the fault of the EU.

[Lockdoctor]

It’s not free movement of people. It’s free movement of workers.

 

And it has never been entirely free. We have a physical border and opted out of Schengen.

 

The problem is we never used any of the provisions (permitted by the EU) to control the flow of workers, rights to benefits, proof that a worker or potential worker can sustain themselves, and rights to stay. None of that failure is the fault of the EU.

It's irrelevant if previous UK Governments haven't used the provisions you mention to control the flow of people. The fact is the democratic people of the UK voted to leave the EU and it is not disputed one of the main reasons the majority of the people voted to leave the EU was to stop the free movement of people from the EU to the UK. It makes no difference whether it is the fault of the EU or the fault of previous UK Governments the flow of people hasn't been controlled to the satisfaction of the UK electorate.

[I1L2T3]

It's irrelevant if previous UK Governments haven't used the provisions you mention to control the flow of people. The fact is the democratic people of the UK voted to leave the EU and it is not disputed one of the main reasons the majority of the people voted to leave the EU was to stop the free movement of people from the EU to the UK. It makes no difference whether it is the fault of the EU or the fault of previous UK Governments the flow of people hasn't been controlled to the satisfaction of the UK electorate.

 

Why doesn’t it make a difference?

 

As part of our now All but guaranteed soft Brexit we could choose to implement the controls that we haven’t previously. We’d have greater control of migration and actually still be managing it in a way consistent with other EU countries. That way transition from a soft Brexit back into the EU becauses easier. It seems to be entirely sensible.

[Flanker7]

It's irrelevant if previous UK Governments haven't used the provisions you mention to control the flow of people. The fact is the democratic people of the UK voted to leave the EU and it is not disputed one of the main reasons the majority of the people voted to leave the EU was to stop the free movement of people from the EU to the UK. It makes no difference whether it is the fault of the EU or the fault of previous UK Governments the flow of people hasn't been controlled to the satisfaction of the UK electorate.

 

*my bold

 

I don't dispute it either.

It was one of the biggest and most sucessful and misleading impressions that the Leave campaign implied that voting out would give us.

 

If thats what you want. It could have been, and maybe will be, achieved by other means without chucking the baby out with the bath water.