Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[///ajd]

jsf said:

///ajd said:

Is it? The official campaigns never declared a number, for obvious reasons.

Wasn't May down to get non-EU immigration down below 100,000? With all the controls and points systems in place, how is that going?

Hmmm, perhaps we need the migrants anyway? Brexiteer favourite the express seems to think so:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/n...

Looks like limiting to a low number could fuel a jobs crisis......

read page 30 onwards.

Yes, page 30 - no cap on EU, stuff about the welfare reform and 20.7k cap on non-EU - lower than I recall.

So what? Do you plan / expect the same low cap on EU under brexit?

[anonymous-user]

I expect a system which is flexible and based around need and sustainability.

What I don't expect is an open door policy with no control over numbers.

I expect the government to be held to account if they don't meet their manifesto pledge. The excuse of not having control will have been removed.

[don4l]

Why are you all wasting your time trying to communicate with ajd?

He is just a troll.

Stop feeding him and he will go away and find another bunch of people to irritate.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

I expect a system which is flexible and based around need and sustainability.

What I don't expect is an open door policy with no control over numbers.

I expect the government to be held to account if they don't meet their manifesto pledge. The excuse of not having control will have been removed.

So if the 'need' sees EU/non-EU numbers at broadly current levels, that will be OK, or do you expect the 'need' to drive big reductions?

Are the tories meeting their 20.7k pledge?

Would you be happy to see numbers of UK citizens being able to work in the EU being limited?

[don4l]

Derek Smith said:

Just saying that we will definitely leave dosen't make it so. No one knows what May meant by brexit means brexit. It was a soundbite, a necessity after the vote. But, as I have said, nothing is set in stone. It is politics; anything is possible. Many a slip and suchlike. You can shout that it is done and dusted but that changes nothing.

I'm not going around in circles. I'm not the one predicting anything. I am, however, saying that history shows us that political machinations are present at all times. There is no legal requirement for the government to conform to the vote. Whilst there is pressure to follow it, we don't know.

I think it is probable that we will leave, very probable, but I am not silly or conceited enough to say that I know what MPs will do. I posted a quote from an emeritus Oxofrd law professor's suggestion that a/ a vote was needed to activate article 50, that if it was done without a vote then it could be challenged, and that activating it did not mean we were committed to leave. It was challenged by those who were not retired law professors, their decision being he was wrong.

I tend to go with professors.

So it would appear that a vote is required. That alone is enough to make anyone open-minded think that it isn't a done deal.

I agree with you.

However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.

We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.

As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.

This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.

The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

I expect a system which is flexible and based around need and sustainability.

What I don't expect is an open door policy with no control over numbers.

I expect the government to be held to account if they don't meet their manifesto pledge. The excuse of not having control will have been removed.

So if the 'need' sees EU/non-EU numbers at broadly current levels, that will be OK, or do you expect the 'need' to drive big reductions?

Are the tories meeting their 20.7k pledge?

Would you be happy to see numbers of UK citizens being able to work in the EU being limited?

I thought you would do that.

I expect a system which is flexible and based around need and sustainability

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

I agree with you.

However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.

We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.

As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.

This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.

The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.

Even if it did go to a vote in Parliament, there is no requirement to pass this to the Lords as it meets all the requirements of the first and second parliament act and the Salisbury Convention.

[anonymous-user]

don4l said:

Why are you all wasting your time trying to communicate with ajd?

He is just a troll.

Stop feeding him and he will go away and find another bunch of people to irritate.

Well only for the amusement of seeing him tie himself in knots over his moronic statements which have no substance

[don4l]

jsf said:

don4l said:

I agree with you.

However, I don't think that the opinion of professors is relevant.

We live in a Parliamentry democracy. The people get to elect a government every so often. Once the MP's are elected, they reign supreme.

As has been pointed out many times, the referendum has no legal basis. Therefore I think that a vote in Parliament will be needed.

This should not provide any solace to Remainers. The vote will only go one way.

The House of Lords won't block the triggering of Article 50 either. They would be replaced by an elected second chamber in the drop of a hat. They know this.

Even if it did go to a vote in Parliament, there is no requirement to pass this to the Lords as it meets all the requirements of the first and second parliament act and the Salisbury Convention.

That is very good news.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

I thought you would do that.

I expect a system which is flexible and based around need and sustainability

How do you expect sustainability (I guess in relation to school places/NHS) to affect numbers?

Will a job visa only be granted then within sustainability limits? So for example an Airbus backed permit/visa could be turned down if the sustainability limit has been used up?

Looks like non-EU net immigration was way over 150,000 last year - bit more than 20k promised, unless I'm mixing numbers.

Will you be OK UK citizens have restrictions on working in the e.g. EU?

[WinstonWolf]

///ajd said:

jsf said:

I thought you would do that.

I expect a system which is flexible and based around need and sustainability

How do you expect sustainability (I guess in relation to school places/NHS) to affect numbers?

Will a job visa only be granted then within sustainability limits? So for example an Airbus backed permit/visa could be turned down if the sustainability limit has been used up?

Looks like non-EU net immigration was way over 150,000 last year - bit more than 20k promised, unless I'm mixing numbers.

Will you be OK UK citizens have restrictions on working in the e.g. EU?

We're not going to overturn the referendum.

I've just saved you loads of typing...

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

How do you expect sustainability (I guess in relation to school places/NHS) to affect numbers?

Will a job visa only be granted then within sustainability limits? So for example an Airbus backed permit/visa could be turned down if the sustainability limit has been used up?

Looks like non-EU net immigration was way over 150,000 last year - bit more than 20k promised, unless I'm mixing numbers.

Will you be OK UK citizens have restrictions on working in the e.g. EU?

Where did you get the 20k limit promise for non eu immigrants from?

[///ajd]

bmw535i said:

Where did you get the 20k limit promise for non eu immigrants from?

Can't you even work that out? And you say my statements are moronic.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

bmw535i said:

Where did you get the 20k limit promise for non eu immigrants from?

Can't you even work that out? And you say my statements are moronic.

Thanks for your answer. a good way to reinforce the stereotype.

[FiF]

Elysium said:

In this case the link to the Guardian article was simply intended to illustrate the lack of depth in the daily telegraph piece.
.

Having read both, including the withdrawn / rewritten article, IMHO it's the Guardian piece(s) which seemed the shallower and clearly more biased. This is in reference to the recent pieces, not the one from a over a month back.

[///ajd]

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

bmw535i said:

Where did you get the 20k limit promise for non eu immigrants from?

Can't you even work that out? And you say my statements are moronic.

Thanks for your answer. a good way to reinforce the stereotype.

Exactly, I'm afraid.

[anonymous-user]

///ajd said:

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

bmw535i said:

Where did you get the 20k limit promise for non eu immigrants from?

Can't you even work that out? And you say my statements are moronic.

Thanks for your answer. a good way to reinforce the stereotype.

Exactly, I'm afraid.

He got it by either misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the contents of a document, a common occurrence.

[anonymous-user]

jsf said:

///ajd said:

bmw535i said:

///ajd said:

bmw535i said:

Where did you get the 20k limit promise for non eu immigrants from?

Can't you even work that out? And you say my statements are moronic.

Thanks for your answer. a good way to reinforce the stereotype.

Exactly, I'm afraid.

He got it by either misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the contents of a document, a common occurrence.

Indeed, true to form. Ajd makes a vague statement which can't be substantiated or explained - standard stuff.

[///ajd]

jsf said:

He got it by either misunderstanding, or misrepresenting the contents of a document, a common occurrence.

you responded to a discussion about limiting immigration - a number of 100,000 was quoted by s2.

I said I hadn't seen that in any official leave documents.

you invited us to read page 30 of your link in a reply - the 2015 tory manifesto

this includes a single number in relation to an immigration limit.

maybe you thought it relevant.

despite me quoting your page 30 and 20,700 in the same sentence, some still can't make the link

Edited by ///ajd on Monday 29th August 20:31

[Elysium]

FiF said:

Elysium said:

In this case the link to the Guardian article was simply intended to illustrate the lack of depth in the daily telegraph piece.
.

Having read both, including the withdrawn / rewritten article, IMHO it's the Guardian piece(s) which seemed the shallower and clearly more biased. This is in reference to the recent pieces, not the one from a over a month back.

Perhaps, but I am not defending the guardian article.

I linked to it purely because it dealt with the specifics of the governments undertaking to the court regarding article 50.

All newspapers have bias generally and most, including the guardian, are highly biased on Brexit.

That said, I have seen nothing to rival the express for swivel eyes manic pro-Brexit propaganda.