In message , at 20:32:11 on Wed, 9 Nov 2016,
tim... remarked:
Yes, I know that we can enforce a set of minimum conditions, but
experience is that it is hard for TPTB to enforce them. IMHO it's
oh so much easier to make sure that conditions improve by taking
away the supply of workers willing to work like slaves.

Unless, of course, freeing ourselves from Brussels Red Tape allows
us to have even worse minimum conditions.

which I believe that it wont

come back in 10 years to prove me wrong

Yawn.

well it was your decision to rerun a discussion we have already had

You brought up the minimum conditions (09 Nov 17:37:54)
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 23:37:32 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 23:19:51 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:47:10 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:42:30 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 08:52:13 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



I see that you snipped the bit where I explained that that is not caused
by
the actual act of leaving but by the Remoaners not accepting the
situation,

The people who have not "accepted the situation" are the Brexiteers
who organised the Leave campaign based greatly on fear and loathing of
foreigners and who promptly buggered off and left others to clear up
the resultant mess when the vote actually went their way.

What nonsense. "Brexit" is not about "fear and loathing of foreigners"

You missed the many people being interviewed on the television who
clearly weren't bothered about much else ?

I don't recall anyone on TV expressing "fear and loathing of foreigners" - unless you are referring
to the desire to have proper control of immigration which is already running at over 600,000 (1% of
the population) a year and we are already one of the most densely populated countries on the planet.


but about reverting to being self-governing like most other countries in the world.

So why are Brexiteers banging on about getting stuck into trade deals
which will shackle us to the USA ? At least that's the Brexiteers who
actually want to get involved unlike those who left it to others to
clear up after them.

Terms of FTAs crucial, EU / US TTIP pretty terrible, it's dead in the water now (by the way there's
an excellent video by Irish MEP Luke "Ming" Flanagan illustrating the secrecy that surrounded this
deal - copies of the document were severely restricted!). We can negotiate FTAs with countries all
over the world - China, USA, EU, Japan. S. Korea, many Commonwealth countries. How are Brexit
campaigners supposed to get involved unless the Prime Minister appoints them? Parliament even
excluded the one UKIP MP from the Brexit committee!


Also the exit process is being deliberately
drawn out by the current PM who was a Remainer. Had the government started the exit process
straight away, as Cameron said he would during the campaign, we could have the whole thing sewn up
in months not years.

Not possible with all the treaties etc. which have to be undone or
re-arranged.

All the more reason then to invoke Article 50 immediately rather than dither around (nearly 5 months
now). I can perfectly understand the frustration of the other EU countries with the UK faffing
about rather than getting on with Brexit.

On 09/11/16 23:19, Optimist wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:47:10 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:42:30 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 08:52:13 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



I see that you snipped the bit where I explained that that is not caused
by
the actual act of leaving but by the Remoaners not accepting the
situation,

The people who have not "accepted the situation" are the Brexiteers
who organised the Leave campaign based greatly on fear and loathing of
foreigners and who promptly buggered off and left others to clear up
the resultant mess when the vote actually went their way.

What nonsense. "Brexit" is not about "fear and loathing of foreigners" but about reverting to being
self-governing like most other countries in the world. Also the exit process is being deliberately
drawn out by the current PM who was a Remainer. Had the government started the exit process
straight away, as Cameron said he would during the campaign, we could have the whole thing sewn up
in months not years.

No. What you have said is nonsense.

I know people that did vote divorce solely to "get rid of the
foreigners". They would be quite happy to remain in the EU without
foreigners. It is quite obvious from the racial harassment which
followed the referendum why many people voted for divorce.

How can the exit process start when the divorce people left the
government with no plan for negotiation with the EU? You cannot come
with such a plan in days and you are seeing. There is only 2 years to
negotiate the divorce which is precious little even when there is a plan.

I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

In message , at 08:15:08 on
Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

I don't recall anyone on TV expressing "fear and loathing of
foreigners" -

Vox pop from places like Wisbech and Boston which they claim are
overwhelmed by Lithuanians and Poles.

Here's the same kind of sentiments in print:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...anger-wisbech-
cambridgeshire-insecurity-immigration

unless you are referring to the desire to have proper control of
immigration which is already running at over 600,000 (1% of the
population) a year and we are already one of the most densely populated
countries on the planet.

One of the problems with the stats is counting foreign students (whose
fees many Universities depend on) as immigrants. Another is the
notoriously poor handle we have on the number of economic migrants
returning home.
--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 08:22:48 +0000, Martin Coffee wrote:

On 09/11/16 23:19, Optimist wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:47:10 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:42:30 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 08:52:13 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



I see that you snipped the bit where I explained that that is not caused
by
the actual act of leaving but by the Remoaners not accepting the
situation,

The people who have not "accepted the situation" are the Brexiteers
who organised the Leave campaign based greatly on fear and loathing of
foreigners and who promptly buggered off and left others to clear up
the resultant mess when the vote actually went their way.

What nonsense. "Brexit" is not about "fear and loathing of foreigners" but about reverting to being
self-governing like most other countries in the world. Also the exit process is being deliberately
drawn out by the current PM who was a Remainer. Had the government started the exit process
straight away, as Cameron said he would during the campaign, we could have the whole thing sewn up
in months not years.

No. What you have said is nonsense.

I know people that did vote divorce solely to "get rid of the
foreigners". They would be quite happy to remain in the EU without
foreigners.

That's fascism. Oswald Moseley wanted Europe to be united under Hitler, when that failed his Union
Movement supported the EEC as a prelude to full political union which the EU is aiming for now.

No-one I know voted to leave for that reason. Many ethnic minority people voted to leave because
they object to the current immigration policy of favouring Europeans over non-Europeans. One very
nice couple, originally from India, who run a fish & chip shop near me helped the campaign by
putting Leave leaflets on the counter for their customers to take away with their suppers.

It is quite obvious from the racial harassment which
followed the referendum why many people voted for divorce.

ALL those attacking ANYONE must be caught and prosecuted, and remember that Brexiters have been
attacked as well!


How can the exit process start when the divorce people left the
government with no plan for negotiation with the EU? You cannot come
with such a plan in days and you are seeing. There is only 2 years to
negotiate the divorce which is precious little even when there is a plan.

Hang on, it was Cameron who called the referendum. Despite promising to implement our decision, he
had no plans at all for dealing with a Leave vote, and is said to have forbidden the civil service
from working on a plan!

But there are plans if the government want to pick them up, produced by various Brexit groups. You
can find them on the web. But here's an outline:

Legislation to remove EU competence (i.e. power) over UK affairs but adopting current EU laws into
UK law so we can change, repeal or leave unchanged as required AFTER we leave.

Start discussions on tying up loose ends (staff costs, pensions etc.).

Inform the EU we are leaving on a particular date and say we intend to carry on trading with the EU
tariff-free as long as the other countries reciprocate.

EU governments are unlikely to refuse as adopting WTO/MFN rules would damage their businesses far
more than ours (German businesses in particular are lobbying to maintain tariff-free access to their
biggest market). We will no longer obliged to pay into the EU budget, so that will save us about
£10 billion a year net, and FTAs with non-EU countries will give us access to cheaper imports.


I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC. Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old). We had a thriving fishing industry which the EU ruined
(compare it to Norway & Iceland which sensibly kept out), our own regional policy (no need for
regions to lobby in Brussels against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU),
transport policy, immigration policy - everything. And when we went to the polls, we knew that the
process could sack one party from government and put in another.

In message , at 10:38:40 on
Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

I'll pick out a few of the worst howlers:

Legislation to remove EU competence (i.e. power) over UK affairs but adopting current EU laws into
UK law so we can change, repeal or leave unchanged as required AFTER we leave.

(1) Is that for EU Laws brought into force up to the day of exit, or
some other milestone. This isn't hypothetical, there's a huge Data
Protection shake-up due to be in force by May 2018. Which is just after
current predictions of Brexit. Assuming we do exit my April 2018, what
will the Data Protection law in the UK be in June 2018, given that if
it's the old law we won't be a "safe harbour" and many EU companies will
be in difficulty working through UK datacentres. Further to that, if we
brought the new law into force by March 2018 [there's no prohibition on
being early] what if there's a European Court ruling in 2020
'clarifying' what the law means, as has happened recently with the old
law and the so-called "Domestic Exemption"? Will we adopt the revised
law.

(2) What of the laws which provide for regulatory decisions to be made
by the EU equivalent of OFCOM[1], whatever the Monopolies Commission is
called this week, and so on? What if the laws have other pan-European
aspects, like the ones on Copyright and Patents.

[1] eg Will UK mobile phone companies have to abide by EU decisions on
roaming costs.

Start discussions on tying up loose ends (staff costs, pensions etc.).

Who pays those wages and pensions for the duration of the discussions?

Inform the EU we are leaving on a particular date and say we intend to carry on trading with the EU
tariff-free as long as the other countries reciprocate.

You can inform until you are blue in the teeth. They can ignore us.

EU governments are unlikely to refuse as adopting WTO/MFN rules would damage their businesses far
more than ours

That strategy's not working so well with UK & India.

(German businesses in particular are lobbying to maintain tariff-free access to their
biggest market). We will no longer obliged to pay into the EU budget, so that will save us about
£10 billion a year net,

Chicken feed compared to the financial benefits of the single market.

and FTAs with non-EU countries will give us access to cheaper imports.

After a decade of negotiations.

I do admit that many did vote divorce to become self-governing again.

I am old enough to remember politics before we went into the EC. Contrary to the alarmist reports
of some, we had human rights, equal pay, maternity pay etc. We had a health service (the NHS came
into existence when I was a few months old).

Yes, but a great deal of today's consumer/employee protection has been
added on top of that rather low base by the EU.

We had a thriving fishing industry which the EU ruined
(compare it to Norway & Iceland which sensibly kept out),

They limited our fishing to avoid extinction in the North Sea.

our own regional policy (no need for regions to lobby in Brussels
against each other for a small slice of the money we pay into the EU)

It's far easier to get that sort of money from the EU than from
Westminster.

transport policy, immigration policy - everything. And when we went to the polls, we knew that the
process could sack one party from government and put in another.

--
Roland Perry

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:14:03 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 08:15:08 on
Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

I don't recall anyone on TV expressing "fear and loathing of
foreigners" -

Vox pop from places like Wisbech and Boston which they claim are
overwhelmed by Lithuanians and Poles.

Ah, I thought you were referring to Brexit politicians.


Here's the same kind of sentiments in print:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...anger-wisbech-
cambridgeshire-insecurity-immigration

A good article.

UK employers take advantage of eastern Europeans by lowering wage rates. Criminality by gangmasters
is rife.

Things are made worse through benefit and housing policies. As benefits for children not living in
the UK are payable, EU workers can afford to work for wages undercutting British workers. Social
housing rules means those who have been here a short time are entitled to housing ahead of those who
have been waiting years. Other countries do not have these rules.

These issues are not the fault of the migrants, who are acting perfectly rationally. Successive
British governments have failed to tackle these issues. But British people in low-paid jobs and in
rented housing feel they are disadvantaged.


unless you are referring to the desire to have proper control of
immigration which is already running at over 600,000 (1% of the
population) a year and we are already one of the most densely populated
countries on the planet.

One of the problems with the stats is counting foreign students (whose
fees many Universities depend on) as immigrants. Another is the
notoriously poor handle we have on the number of economic migrants
returning home.

The ONS likes to obfuscate the statistics. But from what I can make out, immigration, emigration,
birth and death rates mean that the population is increasing by at least 10,000 a week. I also
think we'll have to bite the bullet and introduce a proper ID system.

As millions of people voted to leave, obviously there were
some who were motivated primarily by a wish to rid our
country of foreigners. "Remainers" pretend that most "leavers"
fall into this category without any evidence to that effect. I voted
to leave and I believe that large scale immigration has done our
country great damage, both directly and indirectly, but I don't
want to eject anyone who is here legally. I'm certainly not frothing
at the mouth and insulting foreigners.

As the previous Prime Minister wanted to remain, it is difficult to
see how politicians like Michael Gove could have used the Civil
Service to draw up a detailed exit strategy. For politicians who
were not in the government like David Davies, Liam Fox, Boris
Johnson and Nigel Farage it was obviously impossible.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 12:28 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), (Paul Cummins)
wrote:

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

Social
housing rules means those who have been here a short time are
entitled to housing ahead of those who
have been waiting years.

Where are these rules?

According to my local council, as long as you are legally in the country and have lived in the
district for 6 months, then you are eligible to bid for a property when one comes up suitable for
your family's needs. The applicant with the most housing points gets the property.

In message , at 15:47:10 on
Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
Social
housing rules means those who have been here a short time are
entitled to housing ahead of those who
have been waiting years.

Where are these rules?

According to my local council, as long as you are legally in the country and have lived in the
district for 6 months, then you are eligible to bid for a property when one comes up suitable for
your family's needs. The applicant with the most housing points gets the property.

Yes, it's the perceived need, rather than length of wait, which is the
primary qualification at that stage.
--
Roland Perry