What a colossal waste of time.
Err... I hope...
Of course, this doesn't stop No Deal from happening, because it happens automatically on March 29th unless something changes... but it does ensure that it will be a complete and utter shitshow which will naturally be blamed entirely on Brexit supporters by the UK press.
So that's basically the state of UK politics.
NB I have no idea what is going to happen over the next while.
You’re not alone, FWIW. I’m pretty sure literally nobody knows how this is going to play out.
So what happens now? If half the torys are already against this, there doesn't seem much of a chance of this passing. May has ruled out a second referendum (I know I shouldn't take her word for it, but I cant see her now announcing a 2nd referendum). So what now? She steps down/ is pushed. Then A) A Brexiteer takes us out without a deal. B) No one wants to take responsibility for removing us and calls a 2nd ref. C) election called. Then back to square one? This is the option I'm most worried about. Labour doesn't seem ready to stand on a manifesto of remain. The lib Dems wont be able to get a majority, so brexiting parties will win by default, except we have no idea who. And they wont have anytime to do anything.
Did I miss one?
Edit: Spellong
But since May won't get anything through parliament, it's probably a moot point.
I'm torn on Brexit.
If Britain stays in the European Union, then it won't have a lot of power to manage her borders. The "liberalness" of Britain's immigration policy ends up being at minimum the liberalness of each of the other 27 EU countries. Germany could let in 1 million immigrants (good for them), all of them would get citizenship, all of them can go to the UK, the UK can't say to any of them "Hold on a minute. Are you even a fit?"
Also, this kind of unrestricted immigration is a historical anomaly. 100s of years ago, it took too long to travel from one place to another, and so people who lived far away were more different to each other. It's not clear whether throwing all the borders open will result in something stable that will last for centuries.
It's also a colossal experiment. If the experiment doesn't work out (see the above paragraph) then 28 countries pay the price. The UK will be deeply affected because it's an immigrant magnet, due to its high living standards, a lot of employment opportunities, and a widely spoken national language; something might happen to Romania and Poland, given that much of their population has apparently emigrated. If the experiment turns out bad, then multiply the impact by 28 for each of the 28 countries.
And there was a recent article on HN about an EU law that says newspaper headlines are going under copyright. Again, mistakes like this affect 500 million people (the citizens of the EU) and 28 different countries. This is a monoculture, which is bad in nature; why not in politics? The Ottoman monoculture might have been one of the things that set the Middle East / North Africa back. For instance, the Ottomans banned printing (in Arabic). How would that have been good for science? And China's another famous empire/union (monoculture), in which one emperor dissolved their fleet, which was the most advanced at the time, impacting their trade, and preventing them from settling elsewhere. How is a European, or even a globalised monoculture, any better?
On the other hand, I can see how the immediate economic impacts of Brexit might be bad.
YouGov poll on labour voters would suggest caution on Mr Corbyn's part.
I voted remain mainly because I could not see how UK could dis-engage from local markets and just-in-time processes without significant turbulence. Corbyn gave EU 6.5/10 marks, I personally would score around 5.5/10 or 6/10 mainly because of the treatment of Greece.
Basically, like on Slackware when you misconfigure something, 'stormy weather ahead'
He should have the self awareness that trying that could result in Labour collapsing like the LibDems did.
There is a lot said about Jeremy Corbyn and I've noticed that a lot of the mainstream media (even left-wing like the Guardian) are very against him and have been vocal about everything he stands for, which I find interesting. This article,
https://www.politico.eu/article/jeremy-corbyn-brexit-referen...
from 2016 says that he thought at that time we should stay in EU and this does align with what I remember of that time. He was widely quoted as saying that although EU needs to change, we should stick with it and help change it from within.
The UK has (and always has had) complete exemption from EU common immigration policy. The EU is not able to dictate immigration controls to the UK. If you have a problem with how the UK handles non-EU immigration then it is the fault of UK government policy, not the EU.
The complete exception from common immigration policy of the UK (along with Ireland and in some matters Denmark) is laid out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (2009).
EDIT: to clarify -- I am referring to non-EU immigration here, not freedom-of-movement for EU citizens.
That's patently false. The EU doesn't prohibit (justified) immigration restrictions, and that sort of immigrant wave would be grounds for imposing restrictions.
This only applies to workers, which roughly means that if they have a genuine job there. Historically, the UK has had more relaxed rules, I believe allowing pretty much indefinite leave to remain without work for EU citizens, but there is no requirement for the UK to allow that under the EU's "Freedom of movement".
Well, I was about to upvote you, because I thought it's unfair your reasonable comment is grayed out. Until I read this. Then I did the opposite.
Downvote complaints become self-fulfilling prophecies.
I take your point though. Not great style.
He’s been a Euroskeptic since the 70’s he sees the EU as a neoliberal capitalistic endeavor which stands against everything he stands for.
Over the past 2 years now he showed no opposition to Brexit which goes against the wishes of his party members and their constituents and against the ideals of being an opposition party.
I really don’t see him changing his tune now as he showed he is incapable of letting his own ideals take the backseat to the will of the party.
A trait that has garnered him many followers.
'Moral Hazard' is something I have reservations about.
It’s difficult to remain neutral, but… there’s realistically no feasible way to deliver Brexit without medium-term economic damage, or alternatively accepting essentially all EU rules while having minimal influence on them. Few serious politicians wanted it, and they don’t want to step into a role where they have to deliver it. The idea seems to be to let her take the blame for the inevitable failure first.
The UK manages to both have influence over EU immigration policies AND also have exemption to it for non-EU immigration, AND can apply its own limitations even for when immigrants get citizenship for a limited period. Yet many brexiters spout on about how the EU just dictates everything to us and it's all out of our control. Absolute rubbish.
Corbyn wants socialism, he want to nationalize the industries he wants to get rid of the neoliberal keynesian economics which the EU and every other social democracy in Europe promotes and follows he doesn’t want to be in the EU he was against the U.K. joining the EU in the first place and he didn’t do anything to prevent it from leaving.
Why? It hasn't been agreed at conference.
There's a party for Remainers that want to ignore the referendum result they're called the Liberal Democrats or the SNP if you are up in Scotland.
If Corbyn wants to run his own personal personality cult he should go form another party.
So either the Labour isn’t for socialists or they are hiding it to be palletable to their wide voting base.
The average Labour voter wants Denmark not Venezuela they want a better social democracy not breadlines and shooting people in the street.
You are also aware that the EU specifically allows to limit the freedom of movement on "grounds of public policy, public security or public health"?
You are also aware that the recent migrant crisis of the past few years has caused these kinds of barriers to be raised in response? Proving that such restrictions are not just mere hypotheticals?
The European Union is, after all, not a suicide compact.
For comparison, the impact of banning the printing presses only materialised quite a lot later than it happened. Remember that Europe used to be a lot of independent (and feuding) nations, rather than a union of any sort. There were unions of sorts under the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but England for instance was not part of those unions. it was in those times that Europe went through the scientific and industrial revolutions, while the empires I mentioned slowly stagnated.
British immigration policy is British immigration policy because as per European law it has mechanisms to prevent benefit immigration that is isn’t exercising
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:...
The fact is successive governments have rightly identified that both skilled and cheap labour from immigration is keeping our economy afloat. Otherwise we’d see them at least tap the brakes. But they haven’t.
OK, so a politician living a comfortable life thinks one thing. Individual voters thought something else.
I believe the document above refers to emergency powers to stop immigration control under limited conditions. It doesn't solve any long-term impacts that an experiment like "free movement" between 28 countries can have.
[edit]
I can see why certain things are more nuanced. Somebody mentioned that immigration from outside the EU into the EU, and then into the UK, has certain restrictions. These exemptions seem to be in place for the UK and Ireland and some other countries.
By TPM:
> It can get into 27 countries depending on their terms for immigration, but then cannot simply use free movement to move to the UK. This is incorrect. As a non-EU national, your rights in this regard are severely restricted. After five years in the EU, with a means of support, you are entitled to move freely within EU with the exception of some countries, notably the UK. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_resident_(European_U....
[edit 20:40]
My comment wasn't just its first paragraph though. There's the problem that monocultures (like in crop species) might be better in the short-term, but can create long-term risk (combine your strengths together on the one hand, but make the same mistakes and have all the same weaknesses). I gave the copyright example. It's a lot easier for the copyright lobby to take over one entity, the EU, than over 28 countries each with disconnected regulatory systems. Even regulatory treaties don't result in monoculture, because somebody can leave a treaty much more easily than they can leave a superstate like the EU.
The only problem in preventing illegal immigration since internal border checks are reduced, but UK cash have the border restored to higher scrutiny without running afoul of Schengen.
What the Brexit move actually does is prevent influx of Polish, Czech, Greek, Spanish, Italian etc. citizens into UK... Move of German immigrants into UK is almost certainly of no concern.
Although given the global inverse correlation between financial prosperity and birth rates, we’ll be back on our feet within a generation!
Which countries practice this?
EU nationals can even vote in municipal politics in their new place of residence even if they're not citizens of that country; another big argument of the opposing party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Single_Market#Free_mo...
1) You have a right to stay in another member state (host) for three months without any restrictions.
2) After three months, if you are not (self-)employed, restrictions can be placed on you. In particular, hosts will require you to prove sufficient resources to support yourself, including health insurance. If you are not employed and cannot prove sufficient means, you can be removed.
3) If you lose your job, you have a right to remain as a job seeker for six months. If you do not find a job within six months, you have to prove to the host that you are actively seeking a job, and that you have a realistic chance to get one. If you cannot prove that, you can be removed.
4) You get a right to permanent residence in the host after legally staying there for five years.
5) It is currently unclear if you have a right to the six months of job seeking before you've had an employment contract in the host state.
While I'm not a lawyer, I have used these rights myself three times now so I've read through them carefully as well as the local regulations in the countries I worked in.
[0]http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/41/free-mo...
That inverse property doesn't seem to be holding up for Japan.
I'm pro-Remain but I think Corbyn has been misrepresented by our media and colleagues so much that he's not going to do well no matter what. Christ, he was criticised for wearing a coat in typical British weather laying a wreath at the cenotaph.
That said, there is a section of the Labour party that has formed a dangerous echo chamber. I was routinely attacked by "friends" after saying Assad is an oppressive dictator. I was called names like "white supremacist imperialist" and, almost as bad, a Blairite. I left the party because it's a festering whole of negativity, anger and irrationality. I have misgivings about those people influencing policy, which it would invariably would via conference if Labour attained power.
The fact that Labour MPs had to rebel against their leader to support things like the 2nd referendum or a people’s vote on the deal does not bode well for what they are supposed to stand for.
I'm a remainer. I think the party should back remain and Corbyn is mistaken for not backing a second vote. But after the past behaviour of these rebellious MPs, I don't believe they're any better.
The other issue is that the majority of Labour votes come from leave areas. That's the other part of the 52% problem. We can placate the members at the potential loss of our core voters.
Officially the were supposed to support remain, their members support remain, their MPs support remain, their voters support remain and all overwhelmingly.
Corbyn is a Eurosceptic and that's the problem the are supposed to oppose the Tories and Brexit but Corbyn does whatever he can other than gleefully dancing in the street in support of finally leaving.
He didn't support his party in opposition leading to the referendum, in fact he went MIA during the critical weeks and days leading to it, he turns down the option for a 2nd referendum which the majority of his party supports and turns down the option for a people's vote on the final deal.
He did absolutely nothing as the leader of the opposition to bring forth legislation that would support the retraction of Article 50, a soft-Brexit with the possibility of rejoining the EU or anything that actually opposes the shit show that has been going on for the past 2 years.
The only thing he did it marginalize his party in the eyes of many Labour voters.
>The other issue is that the majority of Labour votes come from leave areas. That's the other part of the 52% problem. We can placate the members at the potential loss of our core voters.
The majority of labour voters want to remain, this was always the case now it's even more as over 1.4M labour voters that voted leave in the election now want to remain.
The crazy socialists that want the UK to leave the EU in order to get rid of the EU competitive laws so they could nationalize everything and finally have their venezuela are not the core of the Labour party they never were and hopefully never will be because that would be a dark day for the UK.
In the Brexit referendum 65% of Labour voters voted remain, 68% of LDs vote to remain, LD wasn't any more pro-remain than the Labour, both of them are now at around 80% support for remain.
Non-EEA nationals who are here long term just pay a surcharge for the right to use the NHS, but that's not allowed by the EU rules. In fact, the European Commission's position is that since the NHS is free, this rule should be interpreted as allowing everyone who comes here from other EU states to use it for free even if they're not working and not paying into the NHS, and that this should fulfil the insurance requirement.
There was a bunch of press controversy over the UK enforcing the rule as written in some cases a year or so back too.
Moreover the migrant worker has to pay tax in the country they're living in, so tax statement may be good enough.
Most of EU has "single payer, free at point of use" healthcare rather than US model of insurance.
And if they're not working, they can be elected after three months. Is three months slip enough to even put a dent in NHS budget? I'd say not at all. It's not like people are migrating to UK to get temporarily better healthcare. (It sucks compared to almost every other EU country.)
Additionally, for temporary stays, UK can probably demand reimbursement from the member country of origin.