Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[anonymous-user]

Genuine question. I thought parliament are planning to entrench all existing EU laws into UK law as of the first day after the two years post article 50 is invoked. Thus nothing will change in the short term.

Parliament then goes through a long and tedious exercise to decide which EU laws we want to keep and which ones we want to null and void and entirely, it's replaced with a new post brexit version.

[AJL308]

jonnyb said:

s2art said:

jonnyb said:

Even when we leave the EU, we won't be leaving the ECHR

Its certainly being discussed. Remember the 'British Bill of Rights'? So we might well leave the ECHR.

You're barely going to get Artical 50 through Parliament, you can forget about ditching the ECHR.

Article 50 doesn't need to "go through Parliament". An Act authorising its use does. And, I hate to disappoint you, but such an Act most certainly will get through. Easily as well.

[AJL308]

pablo said:

Genuine question. I thought parliament are planning to entrench all existing EU laws into UK law as of the first day after the two years post article 50 is invoked. Thus nothing will change in the short term.

Parliament then goes through a long and tedious exercise to decide which EU laws we want to keep and which ones we want to null and void and entirely, it's replaced with a new post brexit version.

This is already the case. EU law is current UK law. Not because it is EU law but because they have been enacted into UK law by Parliament.

[Mrr T]

bmw535i said:

Mrr T said:

You said EU laws.

The human rights act. – UK Law

The European convention on human rights - article 8 quite often – UK treaty and nothing to do with the EU.

UN convention relating to refugee status - UK treaty and nothing to do with the EU.

EU law is used to resist deportation far more than the HR act. Shock – So provide some evidence so far you have quoted UK law and international treaties when you said EU laws.

Have a read

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-and-human-rights/

Well done you did the research and I salute you.



I did know about it so was being a bit disingenuous.




So I agree leaving the EU might make a marginal difference to being able to deport criminals.

It is very marginal the document says only 5 cases where referred to the court in 2014 and I believe none related to the UK.

[don4l]

bmw535i said:

That's probably true - shame that MrT couldn't answer it. I wonder if those already here who purport to have suffered hate crimes and say they're leaving will cancel out this possible surge. We'll have to wait for the figures I guess.

I find it difficult to believe that there has been a surge in "hate" crimes.

I've just had some painting and decorating done by a Polish chap. I asked him what he thought about the Brexit vote. He wasn't in the least bit bothered. He doesn't think that the vote affects his right to live here.

I also asked him about feelings in Poland. He was over there about a month ago. His answer was that people were a bit sad. This is similar to what I picked up in Spain. I have to say that in Spain, the sadness seemed to be tinged with a small amount of fear, but no anger. However, this is little better than anecdotal evidence, because the samples are very small.

My decorator has been here for 12 years. I don't think that he has ever experienced any discrimination.

[anonymous-user]

AJL308 said:

pablo said:

Genuine question. I thought parliament are planning to entrench all existing EU laws into UK law as of the first day after the two years post article 50 is invoked. Thus nothing will change in the short term.

Parliament then goes through a long and tedious exercise to decide which EU laws we want to keep and which ones we want to null and void and entirely, it's replaced with a new post brexit version.

This is already the case. EU law is current UK law. Not because it is EU law but because they have been enacted into UK law by Parliament.

And the second paragraph is an accurate assessment of the situation too?

[anonymous-user]

Mrr T said:

So I agree leaving the EU might make a marginal difference to being able to deport criminals.

Well we got there in the end

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

I find it difficult to believe that there has been a surge in "hate" crimes.

I've just had some painting and decorating done by a Polish chap. I asked him what he thought about the Brexit vote. He wasn't in the least bit bothered. He doesn't think that the vote affects his right to live here.

I also asked him about feelings in Poland. He was over there about a month ago. His answer was that people were a bit sad. This is similar to what I picked up in Spain. I have to say that in Spain, the sadness seemed to be tinged with a small amount of fear, but no anger. However, this is little better than anecdotal evidence, because the samples are very small.

My decorator has been here for 12 years. I don't think that he has ever experienced any discrimination.

Well I did mean to add that I'm fairly confident that I'd happily bet that the figures would show this alleged hate crime surge wouldn't reduce overall immigration. There is only one way to control it and that's to leave. How many days was it again?

[don4l]

pablo said:

Genuine question. I thought parliament are planning to entrench all existing EU laws into UK law as of the first day after the two years post article 50 is invoked. Thus nothing will change in the short term.

Parliament then goes through a long and tedious exercise to decide which EU laws we want to keep and which ones we want to null and void and entirely, it's replaced with a new post brexit version.

This is the only practical way forward.

It is also worth noting that we will not be obliged to implement new directives. As time goes on, we will be able to choose whether we burden ourselves with unnecessary costs.

[don4l]

bmw535i said:

Well I did mean to add that I'm fairly confident that I'd happily bet that the figures would show this alleged hate crime surge wouldn't reduce overall immigration. There is only one way to control it and that's to leave. How many days was it again?

833 and a 1/2.

[jonnyb]

AJL308 said:

pablo said:

Genuine question. I thought parliament are planning to entrench all existing EU laws into UK law as of the first day after the two years post article 50 is invoked. Thus nothing will change in the short term.

Parliament then goes through a long and tedious exercise to decide which EU laws we want to keep and which ones we want to null and void and entirely, it's replaced with a new post brexit version.

This is already the case. EU law is current UK law. Not because it is EU law but because they have been enacted into UK law by Parliament.

Your EU citizenship will change, weather you wanted it to or not.

[///ajd]

Lots of posts today.

Nearly all about immigration.

Interesting to see some struggle with some very very basic ideas and facts.

- Some still can't work out that the UK controls non-EU immigration 100%. And the government has been letting in 282,000 non-EU immigrants to March 2016

- That's more than from the EU. Not trying very hard to cut the numbers are they? It seems we want 282,000 to come in. They are presumably welcome immigrants who bring the right skills and have jobs.

- On this basis where is the evidence that we wouldn't let in the 268,000 who came in from the EU? None. As they nearly all come for jobs, it is quite possible they would ALL get work permits too in the future. LOL! Fancy spending millions and hiring thousands of civil servants to control something that won't actually make any difference. How stupid would that be!

- The whole Syria refugee issue - and how the EU has "forced" us to take them in. We would take them in anyway due to international pressure - the US are taking thousands and they aren't in the EU are they? Who is "forcing" them? Being in or out of the EU will make NO difference to what we do for refugees and how many we take in. It'll be the same!

And still we have the insults, and even now threats. Well that does reveal ones character, does it not. C word you say?

Still one thing I learnt today about brexit - its new name.

New Vote Leave badges now in the shops:

[jonnyb]

AJL308 said:

jonnyb said:

s2art said:

jonnyb said:

Even when we leave the EU, we won't be leaving the ECHR

Its certainly being discussed. Remember the 'British Bill of Rights'? So we might well leave the ECHR.

You're barely going to get Artical 50 through Parliament, you can forget about ditching the ECHR.

Article 50 doesn't need to "go through Parliament". An Act authorising its use does. And, I hate to disappoint you, but such an Act most certainly will get through. Easily as well.

Semantics

And I agree it will go through, just not as "easily" as you may think. Don't forget, Parliament consists of the House of Lords as well as Commons.

[John145]

You're forgetting one very important statistic.

What's the net migration of non eu and eu migrants?

[don4l]

I'd like to share a video.

It shows the most powerful machine that man has ever produced. It is a slow motion video of the launch of a Saturn V rocket. This produced 85 GW of power. The UK produces about 45 GW in winter peak times, and about 30GW in the summer.

This machine generates more than twice as much power as is used by every electric train, every tram, every kettle, every fridge... and every other electric device in the country put together.

Do not click "reveal" if you voted "Remain". I promise you that the video is impressive, and IMHO, the music is excellent. You will enjoy it.


The three guys who sat on top of this rocket had the biggest balls imaginable.

They really were patriots, and they were definitely not "bedwetters".

I would not have sat up there for all the tea in China.



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da6_1223380358

[saabster14]

don4l said:

I find it difficult to believe that there has been a surge in "hate" crimes.

I've just had some painting and decorating done by a Polish chap. I asked him what he thought about the Brexit vote. He wasn't in the least bit bothered. He doesn't think that the vote affects his right to live here.

I also asked him about feelings in Poland. He was over there about a month ago. His answer was that people were a bit sad. This is similar to what I picked up in Spain. I have to say that in Spain, the sadness seemed to be tinged with a small amount of fear, but no anger. However, this is little better than anecdotal evidence, because the samples are very small.

My decorator has been here for 12 years. I don't think that he has ever experienced any discrimination.

I think it was reported in sections of the media that "hate crimes" had increased port referendum. I never place too much faith in statistics purely because that can be manipulated in many ways.

I'll counter your anecdotal account with what I've seen: whilst not having witness actual violence, I have discussed the subject with my former colleagues in A+E who informed me that they have seen an increase in minor injuries due to assault, and I'm told that it's been reported to them as hate crimes. Also they report an increase in racism/islamophobia/xenophobia, whatever you want to call it, in young drunk males attending a+e, and seemingly emboldened by the referendum result.
There was a similar emboldnment in a section of Scottish society port independence referendum.

You make some good observations about how other Europeans view brexit.

[John145]

jonnyb said:

Here's the thing about immigration. We need it, desperately!

Without it, our country will collapse, and that's not an overstatement. We don't need 10s of thousands, we need 100s of thousands, if not millions.

Why? We desperately need tax payers. It doesn't matter at this point how much tax they pay, just that they are paying it.

Our population is ageing, our birth rate is falling. There is not a huge pot of money that's going to pay pensions or for the NHS, let alone defence, roads, ect. It's all got to come out of current taxation, and that means we need tax payers.

We can argue about which kind of tax payers we want all we like, were past that point. At this point we just need people to pay the bills.

Scientists think the first person to live to 1000 is alive today, just think what that means, even if they are half right.

If all we need is tax payers if we imported one millionaire we wouldn't need 3 million minimum wage workers.

Stupid post as you miss a major point.

We need valuable immigrants. Ie those who put a st load more in than they take out. We don't need 100,000 labourers every 6 months.

[saabster14]

jonnyb said:

Here's the thing about immigration. We need it, desperately!

Without it, our country will collapse, and that's not an overstatement. We don't need 10s of thousands, we need 100s of thousands, if not millions.

Why? We desperately need tax payers. It doesn't matter at this point how much tax they pay, just that they are paying it.

Our population is ageing, our birth rate is falling. There is not a huge pot of money that's going to pay pensions or for the NHS, let alone defence, roads, ect. It's all got to come out of current taxation, and that means we need tax payers.

We can argue about which kind of tax payers we want all we like, were past that point. At this point we just need people to pay the bills.

Scientists think the first person to live to 1000 is alive today, just think what that means, even if they are half right.

Well all the signs of a massive impending war is come are there... either that or a mass extinction event caused by climate change. That'll take care of the aging population

[don'tbesilly]

saabster14 said:

jonnyb said:

Here's the thing about immigration. We need it, desperately!

Without it, our country will collapse, and that's not an overstatement. We don't need 10s of thousands, we need 100s of thousands, if not millions.

Why? We desperately need tax payers. It doesn't matter at this point how much tax they pay, just that they are paying it.

Our population is ageing, our birth rate is falling. There is not a huge pot of money that's going to pay pensions or for the NHS, let alone defence, roads, ect. It's all got to come out of current taxation, and that means we need tax payers.

We can argue about which kind of tax payers we want all we like, were past that point. At this point we just need people to pay the bills.

Scientists think the first person to live to 1000 is alive today, just think what that means, even if they are half right.

That'll take care of the aging population

Hello Peter Pan

[jonnyb]

John145 said:

jonnyb said:

Here's the thing about immigration. We need it, desperately!

Without it, our country will collapse, and that's not an overstatement. We don't need 10s of thousands, we need 100s of thousands, if not millions.

Why? We desperately need tax payers. It doesn't matter at this point how much tax they pay, just that they are paying it.

Our population is ageing, our birth rate is falling. There is not a huge pot of money that's going to pay pensions or for the NHS, let alone defence, roads, ect. It's all got to come out of current taxation, and that means we need tax payers.

We can argue about which kind of tax payers we want all we like, were past that point. At this point we just need people to pay the bills.

Scientists think the first person to live to 1000 is alive today, just think what that means, even if they are half right.

If all we need is tax payers if we imported one millionaire we wouldn't need 3 million minimum wage workers.

Stupid post as you miss a major point.

We need valuable immigrants. Ie those who put a st load more in than they take out. We don't need 100,000 labourers every 6 months.

I deleted the post as there's just no point.

But we are way past valuable or otherwise. We need immigration in the 100s of thousands, and then hope they all have a st load of kids.

By all means bury your head in the sand..