brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

Interesting that the IMF has slashed the UK growth forecast, but it still appears we will outstrip Germany, France and Italy.

Are the IMF back tracking on their doom laden predictions?

If so, it would be a rather odd way in which to do it. IMF's hardly alone in expressing concern about finance and economy post-Brexit even though what they're doing now in that respect can only be regarded as warnings rather than commentary on actuality, since A50's nowhere near being pressed and, if ever it is, it will take years to sort out the ensuing mess, if indeed it can ever be sorted out.

What's so sad is that UK's economy has indeed been faring somewhat better than most in recent times and to witness its decline because of Brexit would be a matter of no small disMay.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

What's so sad is that UK's economy has indeed been faring somewhat better than most in recent times and to witness its decline because of Brexit would be a matter of no small disMay.

There MAY well have been a decline if the referendum had gone the other way. We will simply never know.

Again, we need to look at the long term prospects and should expect hiccups along the way.

If it is sad for you to witness the decline, you know where the nearest ferry terminal is.

Thal

[ahinton]

There MAY well have been a decline if the referendum had gone the other way. We will simply never know.

No, we won't - except that there might have been some decline regardless of the referendum but that, too, is of course speculation.

Again, we need to look at the long term prospects and should expect hiccups along the way

Well, someon ecertainly needs to try to do that but it's a pity that no one appears to have seen fit to do so and laid down some plans for Brexit in advance of the referendum; had that occurred, we'd not be in so confused and confusion a state right now. There are probably quite a few distinct reasons why Ms May declined to press the A50 button this year but I daresay that such shortcoming in preparation and planning are among them.

I have every confidence that, on past form, you will personally provide more than your fair share of those hiccups!

If it is sad for you to witness the decline, you know where the nearest ferry terminal is.

It would be sad to witness it from wherever I might be, so knowing the location of the nearest ferry terminal (which of course I do) would make no difference to that (not that such knowledge would be of practical use for accessing more than a small handful of the other EU member states).

That said, there is likely to be movement in the opposite direction if the pound fails to recover; many of the less well off ex-pats living elsewhere in EU on fixed sterling incomes will find it increasingly harder to make ends meet (especially those living in France and Spain, which represent a substantial proportion of the total) and, if too many of them try to sell their properties at the same time, prices will inevitably fall, making their return to UK all the more onerous financially. They will also swell UK population figures in just the same way as would immigrants and, as some of them are in the upper age groups, they will be more of a burden upon UK services such as NHS.

That any UK government would promise a referendum on so important an issue rather than debating and voting on it in Parliament (which is what happens in almost every other case) without there even having been evidence in the first place of a public call for the matter to be addressed is bad enough; not even to inform the electorate that its result would be no more than that of an opinion poll and therefore not legally binding was deceitful in the extreme and has only added insult to injury.

For said government also to have made no effort to prepare well in advance for the event of a Brexit is simply the last straw; we should surely have expected that at the very least, n'est-ce pas?

Is it therefore any wonder that some Leavers, Remainers and abstainers have accordingly lost a good deal of faith in government, the rule of law, democratic procedure and Parliamentary process?

The fact that this omnishambles has also routed all UK party leaderships other than the LibDems (who have only 8 HoC seats anyway) seems to reflect the instabilities and uncertainties that the government has created as a direct consequence of its irresponsible gambling with the nation's future.

It's not only the possible economic decline that saddens me; it's the fact that UK is becoming on the one hand the laughing stock of Europe but on the other a butt of European exasperation, irascibility and near-contempt. Did UK deserve that? No, it didn't - and it wouldn't be suffering it had its government not blithely acted with such wilful carelessness and disregard for UK's citizens.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

That any UK government would promise a referendum on so important an issue rather than debating and voting on it in Parliament (which is what happens in almost every other case) without there even having been evidence in the first place of a public call for the matter to be addressed is bad enough

You appear not to have heard the call, I did. Depends on the company you keep, the groups you belong to, the papers you read and the TV channels you watch.

UKIP have been calling for it for years and attracted a lot of voters in European elections.

You must be cut off from the World in your remote farmhouse.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

It's not only the possible economic decline that saddens me; it's the fact that UK is becoming on the one hand the laughing stock of Europe but on the other a butt of European exasperation, irascibility and near-contempt. Did UK deserve that? No, it didn't - and it wouldn't be suffering it had its government not blithely acted with such wilful carelessness and disregard for UK's citizens.

I do not care if we are the laughing stock of Europe. In a few years when that worthless shambles is on the brink of collapse, we will be trading with the World.

The government acted in accordance with the wishes of many of its UK citizens or it would not have been part of its manifesto. They appeared to have heard the call, that your ears were deaf to.

Thal

[ahinton]

You appear not to have heard the call, I did. Depends on the company you keep, the groups you belong to, the papers you read and the TV channels you watch.

UKIP have been calling for it for years and attracted a lot of voters in European elections.

But for all that it got a lot more votes in the last UK General Election than it did in the previous one in 2010, it still has just one seat in HoC whose future is as much in doubt as is the question of who if anyone might lead that party henceforward.

You must be cut off from the World in your remote farmhouse.

As I mentioned before, I do not have a farmhouse, but that's hardly the point; I'm no more "cut off" from what's going on than you are in les fins de graves.

I repeat (and apologies for so doing!)...

1. No official quantifiable and demonstrable demand for addressing the issue of UK's continued EU membership
2. Only one UK party promised a referendum on it (and it would all have gone away in any case had that party lost the election concerned)
3. No reason given by that party as to its choice of a referendum rather than the customary Parliamentary debate and vote
4. No advance plans hatched in the event of a Brexit
5. A disgraceful campaign in which both sides could and did lie their hearts out and mislead the electorate when Parliamentary debate could and would have avoided all of this
6. An apparent contentment that 37% in favour of either side represents "the will of the people".

If that's democracy in action as far as you are concerned, I would no more recommend anyone's chances of continued life in UK than I would the possibilites of realistic democracy there; it's a terrible mess that's arisen solely because the UK government of the day thought that it could gamble with UK's future and now it's had its come-uppance in realising that the gamble, far from paying off, has left all UK political parties but one minority one in leadership disarray and the rest of us in an unpredictable, unstable and uncertain situation.

If you believe that this is all acceptable, then so be it, I guess.

I realise that you love what you call "your Country". Whilst I cannot share your sentiments entirely, I see exactly where you're coming from and why; the only reason that I don't entirely share them is that I do not see UK as "my" country in that I don't "own" it and it doesn't owe me anything - I'm just a citizen of it with a right of abode therein. I consider myself an European first, a Scot next and a UK citizen next; I would like it all to stay that way.

For the record and for the avoidance of doubt (as the lawyers say), I am no adherent of any particular newspapers or TV or other channels and the company that I keep has exerted no influence upon my thoughts either on Leave or Remain or on the manner in which this entire omnishambles has been hatched and conducted.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

But for all that it got a lot more votes in the last UK General Election than it did in the previous one in 2010, it still has just one seat in HoC whose future is as much in doubt as is the question of who if anyone might lead that party henceforward.
As I mentioned before, I do not have a farmhouse, but that's hardly the point; I'm no more "cut off" from what's going on than you are in les fins de graves.

I repeat (and apologies for so doing!)...

1. No official quantifiable and demonstrable demand for addressing the issue of UK's continued EU membership
2. Only one UK party promised a referendum on it (and it would all have gone away in any case had that party lost the election concerned)
3. No reason given by that party as to its choice of a referendum rather than the customary Parliamentary debate and vote
4. No advance plans hatched in the event of a Brexit
5. A disgraceful campaign in which both sides could and did lie their hearts out and mislead the electorate when Parliamentary debate could and would have avoided all of this
6. An apparent contentment that 37% in favour of either side represents "the will of the people".

1. There was, but you seem to have missed it.
2.  The party won the election and no doubt the promise of a referendum was sufiicient for some to vote for it. Certainly was for me.
3. Was consodered to be sufficiently important to put before the people aad rightly so.
4. Up until the last few weeks, i doubt if many thought it would happen, so a plan was not produced.
5. To decide by parliamentary debate would have been undemocratic with the result a forgone conclusion.
6. More people voted leave than remain. That is a majority and all that was required. END OF.

Thal

[ahinton]

1. There was, but you seem to have missed it.

Well please provide the written documentary evidence for it then; how would you specifically indentify and quantify it in legalistic terms (the only ones that can be relevant here since it's lawmaking that's under discussion)?

2.  The party won the election and no doubt the promise of a referendum was sufiicient for some to vote for it. Certainly was for me.

Yes, it did, but no party of government is happy to operate in UK without a credible and tangible opposition and, as (unlike now) there was such an opposition at the time of the last UK General Election but neither it nor any of the fringe parties included such a promise in their respective election manifestos, does it not bother you that only the Tories included a promise to address this issue in its election manifesto? - in other words, don't you think that, if there was a real public demand for this at that time, at least one other party might reasonably have been expected to include such a promise in its manifesto as well? Even UKIP didn't do that!

3. Was consodered to be sufficiently important to put before the people aad rightly so.

But that doesn't answer the question, which was why a referendum rather than Parliamentary debate and voting as happens in almost all other lawmaking instances? In other words, it's not just about how important the Tories rightly or wrongly (the latter, in my view and as supported by absence of evidence for it) thought it to be but about why it chose the referendum route rather than the Parliamentary debate route that it and other governments would usually be expected to adopt for it. Come on - what's your take on that?

4. Up until the last few weeks, i doubt if many thought it would happen, so a plan was not produced.

You're absolutely right there; no one on either side of the arguments thought that Brexit could possibly emerge as the result of the referendum - but do you see that fact as a legitimate excuse for such woeful lack of advance planning on anyones part? If so, what you appear to be contending is that, if the vote went to Remain, no planning would be necessary because that would endorse maintenance of the status quo but, if the vote went to Leave (as it has done, albeit my a tiny margin), whoever had thereafter to deal with the outcome could reasonably be expected to have been be left with the obligation to make it up as they go along, as is now having to happen as a direct consequence of that very lack of advance planning?

5. To decide by parliamentary debate would have been undemocratic with the result a forgone conclusion.

If you believe that, irrespective of whether the reason that you provide in support of such belief is credible and/or legitimate, why would you ever accept the outcome of any Parliamentary debate and voting on other matters of statute? In other words, what makes the referendum route an acceptable one for this issue when you're presumably happy for Parliamentary debate and voting to pertain in all other aspects of lawmaking in UK? The "for(e)gone conclusion" of which you write is down to the fact that, as you know, the majority of MPs supported Remain, which would not have become a problem had the government of the day not set up a referendum on this issue, thereby bypasing itslf and passing the buck to the electorate which it would never otherwise do and indeed hasn't done.

6. More people voted leave than remain. That is a majority and all that was required. END OF.

END OF nothing; whilst what you say in your first sentence in undeniable, what you claim in your second is false, since an overall majority was not achieved, so both sides "lost" because neither side could attract as much as 40% of the electorate; furthermore, had this issue instead been debated and voted on in both houses of Parliament, the outcome would have been as demcratically achieved as any other law made therein by that due process.

Given Ms May's reluctance to make any move for the foreseaable future and given the legal challenges in preparation, can you imagine what would happen if, say, UK government decided to press the Article 50 button at the beginning of 2018 and then the legal challenges revealed its move to do so as illegal in 2023, thereby obliging the next government or its successor not only to undo all the undoing of the last 43 years of lawmaking at taxpayers' expense (which is what will have to happen once the A50 button's pressed) but also all the lawmaking that would have been done since? I cannot imagine how UK could possibly afford to do all of this and survive.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It is simple. Many people wanted a referendum, the Tories promised one and delivered on their promise. Whatever legal documentation you are rattling on about, i have no idea and i will not waste a second in looking for it.

The referendum was duly held and more people voted to leave than remain. You could be voting until the end of time and not get a 60/40 vote either way. It was a majority by more than the population of Birmingham.

The situation was of sufficient importance to consult the people and rightly so.

It is time to stop grizzling and move forward.

Thal

[ahinton]

It is simple. Many people wanted a referendum

So you say, but where's the evidence? And can you prove that sufficient numbers of them preferred this issue to be address via referendum to having it debated and voted on in both houses of Parliament?

the Tories promised one and delivered on their promise.

Yes, the Tories only; why do you suppose that, should such public interest in the matter and its resoaltion via referendum at the time been as widespread as you appear to imply, none of the other parties - not even UKIP - include this in their manifestos?

The referendum was duly held and more people voted to leave than remain. You could be voting until the end of time and not get a 60/40 vote either way. It was a majority by more than the population of Birmingham.

I agree, but since, as you rightly observe below, the matter was of such importance, nothing less than around 60/40 on a 75+% turnout shjould have sufficed; the turnout was indeed quite good, but supposing there'd been less than a 50% turnout - would you still regard the "winner", irrespective of the margin, as representing "the will of the poeple"? How many such people?

The situation was of sufficient importance to consult the people and rightly so.

When the death penalty was finally removed in UK, the matter was first debated in both houses of Parliament and then voted on; do you consider that this was a matter of importance? If so, why subject it to Parliamentary debate and vote and not just have another referendum with no turnout or majority minima?

UK has a distinguished record of Parliamentgary lawmaking processes compared to many countries and its history is a long one; it is very rare that any such processes be subjected to referendum and it's far from obvious why Parliament chose to do this with the UK/EU issue rather than handle it using the professional MPs for whom we pay.

It is time to stop grizzling and move forward.

No one's "grizzling" here - but "move forward" how and to what and where? No one seems yet to know, despite the referendum having been held four weeks ago; all that seems certain right now is that A50 won't be invoked this year and, as we know, no formal negotiations can commence until it has been. What kind of "moving forward" is that?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You can prattle on about what has happened if you wish, I do not. I accept the result as the will of the majority and if you don't, then that is your problem. I am now only going to interest myself on future developments and will not read your overlong essays.

Unemployment is below 5% for the first time in over 10 years and even the Bank of England admits that there is no post Brexit economic slowdown. So much for all the Project Fear lies.

Thal

[ahinton]

You can prattle on about what has happened if you wish, I do not. I accept the result as the will of the majority and if you don't, then that is your problem. I am now only going to interest myself on future developments and will not read your overlong essays.

Unemployment is below 5% for the first time in over 10 years and even the Bank of England admits that there is no post Brexit economic slowdown. So much for all the Project Fear lies.

I am more concerned with what is about to happen; this is not "my problem" at all but everyone's problem. You appear to be supremely confident that because "the will of the people" has been given in the referendum, what happens next can't begin soon enough and will be all plain sailing because UK will tell EU what it wants and get it.

So - let's look at the present and future, as you suggest and put to one side for a moment the events that have led to where we are now (wherever that might be).

As you know, there are several legal challenges and the 5 September 2016 debate of the petition that's now attracted 4,139,837 signatures (hardly a small number); do you not agree that it would be sensible to get these out of the way first, whatever their outcomes, before invoking A50? Ms May seems to agree on that and other issues because she's clarified that she won't invoke it this year; this will mean that nothing can even be arranged to commence in respect of negotiations to leave EU until some 6 months after the referendum was held.

We cannot know for how long those legal challenges will continue, nor can we predict the results of any of them. They might all achieve nothing but, if one of more of them is successful in either forcing Parliamentary debate (if indeed it has to be forced) or overturning the referendum result as having been obtained illegally, it will be a good thing that Ms May will have exercised due prudence and caution in not rushing into progressing the necessary procedures.

However, this is not the only "unknown unknown" (as a certain American used to say). Let's examine some others.

Since you have total faith in the referendum and its outcome, what is you view on the announced intent of Mr Owen Smith, contender for Labour leadership, to hold it again if in office? OK, that would presume several preconditions; firstly, that Mr Smith wins the leadership election (à propos which Labour has just attracted nearly £5m in new membership subscriptions in order to enable  some quarter of a million more people to vote on it), secondly that there's a General Election, thirdly that Labour wins it and fourthly that, having won it, Labour endorses Mr Smith's intent, so it's a pretty long shot but does at least demonstrate the preparedness of at least one Parliamentarian to conduct a re-run if in office.

Not all Leavers have the same view about future trading arrangments. Some believe that UK can continue in a "business as usual" manner, extracting all the advantages of being in the single market as now but without agreeing to free movement of people as now. Others believe that some negotiation will have to be done on this and some compromises reached on both sides. Others again would put two fingers up to the single market and hope to manage without it.

I don't know to which of these you personally subscribe (although I suspect that it may be the last). The fact, however, is that UK's continued membership of the single market as a non-EU member state will incur costs (which is not the case for EU member states) and require agreement to free movement of people; this is what Norway does; pay up and accept free movement of people, &c. Do you really imagine that an already aggrieved 27-state group will bow down to UK (which they didn't want to leave EU in the first place) and waive these two crucial rules in its favour?

Severance of UK from EU will not in any case be only about trading arrangments; there are many other considerations as well.

In UK itself, hundreds if not thousands of lawyers will be required to unravel all laws passed and repealed in UK since it joined what was then the "Common Market" 44 years ago; new lawmaking and repealing cannot simply be postponed while this is done. Do you believe that UK has sufficient lawyers willing and qualified to do this for the government without - ironically - having to drag in rafts of them from elsewhere in EU? Have you thought of the cost of this moumental operation alone?

EHICs will become invalid in UK (though how soon is yet to be decided) and these, all passports and every other item of documentation that includes any reference to EU will ultimately have to be scrapped and/or amended; this again will all take vast amounts of time and money.

In sum, as I wrote previoulsy, once A50's invoked, UK will be sailing into a most expensive, long drawn out and uncertain ocean of unknown and unpredictable negotiations; only a fool would assume that these will all go in UK's interests and proceed without bitter argument, not least because they will all be conducted on a one nation against 27 basis. It would not surprise me if the entire process occupies a decade at least; it will certainly not surprise me if UK comes out of all of it regretting the steps that it will have taken in order to satisfy "the will of the people".

Yes, UK unemployment has indeed reduced in recent times but that's nothing to do with the referendum or its result. Whilst the UK stock market seems for the time being to have recovered from the shock, the pound has fallen sharply and, if employers relocate their operations to elsewhere in EU as a consequence of moves towards Brexit, unemployment will rise again, as a consequence of which tax revenues will fall just when so much extra money will be needed to deal with all the issues that Brexit will bring on us all should it proceed. It's far too early to pronounce upon what will happen to unemployment as a consequence of Brexit, not least because the effects of Brexit on that and on the economy in general are unlikely to materialse until after A50's been invoked.

These are just some of the reasons why I cannot even begin to share your confidence. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to assume that, just because A50's invoked (if and when it is), UK will tell the rest of EU what it insists upon and EU will just give in to its demands. I find that most improbable; why should EU cave in to a member state that it didn't want to leave just because "the will of (its) people" has nevertheless determined that it must leave?

Sorry about the length of this, but the future is so far from cut and dried in UK's favour that it's impossible to dismiss it all in a handful of words if it's to be taken as seriously as it deserves; if nothing else, you ought to be able to deduce from this that my concerns are by no means confined to what's already happened.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Sorry, but I have got better things to do than read all that crap. You need to be more concise.

You are indeed like Sorabji. Loads of words with little meaning.

Thal

[ahinton]

Sorry, but I have got better things to do than read all that crap

How can you be sure that any or all of it is "crap" if you've not read it?! In any case, although in reply to your post, what I wrote is intended to be read by anyone who might choose to, not just you.

You need to be more concise.

I would if I could and did apologise for the length of what I'd written but, with so many spanners in the works in terms of how all of this might pan out over the next months and years, the concision that you seek would be possible only by omitting reference to most of them and then the entire point would thereby be lost.

You are indeed like Sorabji. Loads of words with little meaning.

Have you read his two books of essays, then?

"Loads of words"? How many words constitute a "load"? and at what point does such a "load" become overly large? Each of those two books contains some 30 essays occupying around 250 pages in all; what's so excessively prolix about that?

Moreover, I cannot see how any of the words therein are possessed of less meaning than is the case when any other authors writing in English use the same ones!

That said, this is about Brexit, not Sorabji so, if you really must have everything broken down into bite-sized chunks, let's do that now by merely mentioning the various issues that I raise in my previous post without actually discussing them.

Here goes.

1. Various legal challenges to the referendum procedure and the fact that it lacks legal validity.

2. The petition.

3. The timescale for 1. & 2. to run their respective courses and the wisdom in ensuring that all of this happens before the A50 button's presssed (if indeed it ever is).

4. Whether any party might include in its future election manifesto a promise to re-run the referendum (which would presumably be at least as legitimate in principle as the one just run).

5. The fundmental differences between what some Leavers want and what others want as the outcome of Brexit negotiations (i.e., they're by no means all after the same rainbow's end).

6. The other considerations besides trading arrangements that will arise if Brexit proceeds and the timescales and costs to be incurred by UK in dealing with them.

7. The difficulties that UK might encounter in getting acceptable deals from a 27-member group that didn't want it to leave that group.

8. The risk of Brexit to UK's economy, its currency and its interest rates, of which the last have been unprecedentedly low for some 7 years but which might eventually go negative for the first time in British history.

That short enough for you?

Even this list is put to you for the principal purpose of pointing out that the prospect that Brexit negotiations be all plain sailing leading to everything working out in UK's best interests is at best improbable and at worst pie in the sky.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread.

Good to hear that David Davies is eager to start things moving with trade deals. Under EU Law, we are not yet officially able to do so. But as he says, they can hardly chuck us out.

Well done that man.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread.

By you, you mean; your loss, not mine. If you're unwilling to address and consider the whole matter with the gravity that it merits and if you can only accept anything to do with it if it manifests itself in the simplest and briefest of terms, then that speaks for itself and is, again, your loss.

Good to hear that David Davies is eager to start things moving with trade deals. Under EU Law, we are not yet officially able to do so. But as he says, they can hardly chuck us out.

The minister for Brexit (mon Dieu, what a poisoned chalice that will be!) can do nothing, for all his avowed eagerness, to "start things moving with trade deals" or anything else until A50's been invoked - i.e. not before some time next year, according to the PM - and, should it be so invoked and he is then freed to commence structuring and commencing to make such negotiative inroads, there remains no guarantee whatsoever - and I wrote previously - that any of them will turn out as you or anyone else might hope.

Well done that man.

Neither "well done" nor otherwise, for he hasn't done anything yet and cannot because his hands are tied by the fact that no negotiations can commence until next year at the earliest (if they ever commence at all).

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread. Too long.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread. Too long.

By you, perhaps but, as I wrote earlier, posts are for anyone who wants to read them, not just you.

If you can't be bothered to address the issues seriously - which requires some words - that's your prerogative. Pity, though.

Short enough for you?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread.

Good to hear that the Brexit vote has boosted support for the Far Right in France.

No doubt they want their Country back as a majority of us Brits do.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread.

Too many unnecessary words.

Good to hear that the Brexit vote has boosted support for the Far Right in France.

I rather doubt that it has; support for the dreadful le Pen's been rising anyway, well before the referendum result was known. There might have been something of a temporary blip but if Brexit falls over for any reason I don't suppose that it will make much difference, although it might just take some wind out of her xenophobic sails.

No doubt they want their Country back as a majority of us Brits do.

This is one of the more unpleasant and unrealistic sentiments that I've heard in all of the to-ing and fro-ing; Farage uttered it before saying that now he wants his life back (an odd wish given that he's also announced his intention to stay on as an MEP for two more years!).

France is no more one of its permanent residents' country than it is any of its others'. UK isn't "my" country; it's the one in which I live and of which I am a citizen as well as being an EU citizen. I don't "own" it and it doesn't "own" me.

France is reorganising its internal borders, as you may know. Who knows? - perhaps those living in each of its new constituent parts will want their bit for themselves rather than continuing as part of France, rather as people speak of Yorkshire as "God's own country".

I just don't get this posssessiveness about the country in which one lives and/or of which one is a citizen. I'm a European first, Scot second and Brit third, but none of them's "my" continent or country; I don't own shares in any of them.

If indeed there is such sentiment in France (albeit arguably in part whipped up by le Pen and her followers), what makes you think that it's not shared by immigrants to France who live there permanently (some of whom have done so for generations)?

Even Farage announcing that he wanted his life back illustrates that, for once, he had his priorities right.

Even if Brexit occurs, will you feel that it has helped you to get "your" country back if at least as many immigrants continue to live in it thereafter?

Whatever the answer to that might be, I have no doubt that you could preserve concertos as brilliantly as you do whether in UK or anywhere else and regardless of how many immigrants were in your vicinity!

Anyway, in the meantime, https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-legal-idUKKCN10119V .

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread.

The Armageddon has not happened, nor has the predicted recession. Project fear was lies and those that spouted it knew it was.

Long live England and death to free movement.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Well done to our new PM for securing a pledge from the Frogs to maintain border controls in Calais post Brexit. Not that I trust those buggers. Far too many illegals seem to make it into UK.

Hopefully, the far right will take control of France and all these camps will be destroyed and the inhabitants deported. Hopefully, we will eventually be able to do the same far more easily when all this Euro Human Rights crap is thrown in the bin.

Thal

[ahinton]

Well done to our new PM for securing a pledge from the Frogs to maintain border controls in Calais post Brexit. Not that I trust those buggers. Far too many illegals seem to make it into UK.

Hopefully, the far right will take control of France and all these camps will be destroyed and the inhabitants deported. Hopefully, we will eventually be able to do the same far more easily when all this Euro Human Rights crap is thrown in the bin.

There you're mistaken. A Brexited UK and Frexited France (should either ever occur) will remain subject to ECHR because each will remain a member state of Council of Europe (which comprises 47 states including all those in EU).

You clearly advocate the dismantling of EU. Were that to happen, UK would have far more trading competition than it has now. It will bring about immense disruption for the whole of Europe, too. The total cost of it will be incalculably high.

What you and other Brexiters seem not to bear in mind is that, even if Brexit goes ahead, there's no certainty that the subsequent negotiations will go in UK's favour of be in its interests; UK can't just leave - it has to undergo squilions of pounds' worth of negotiations on many issues before the process can be completed and no one can know what the outcome of any of them will be.

Be careful what you wish for.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Last post unread.

You're getting very lazy, it seems.

The Armageddon has not happened, nor has the predicted recession. Project fear was lies and those that spouted it knew it was.

Most people don't believe that "Armageddon" will happen, but that's not to say that predictions of adverse conditions of UK may be dismissed; in any case, the referendum result was only announced four weeks ago and nothing's been done since to start negotiations and is unlikely to do so until next year, so anyone or any employer reconsidering his/her/its position will obviously wait to see what does happen when and if it does. I don't think that most people would expect instant disaster, especially given that no moves have yet been made.

Long live England and death to free movement.

I don't see EU letting UK get away with imposing restrictions on free movement; don't forget that UK leaving EU involves both, not just UK.

Why only England? I thought that UK had voted for Brexit.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Well done to our new PM for securing a pledge from the Frogs to maintain border controls in Calais post Brexit. Not that I trust those buggers. Far too many illegals seem to make it into UK.

Just one illegal immigrant is one too many; however, they don't all enter UK via France and, if border controls in France were to be tightened, it's surely obvious that determined illegal immigtants will enter UK via some other route. After all, there's plenty of rrelatively easy alternatives, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Germany and Denmark, for starters.

That said, if you don't trust the French (and, if FN wins next year, why would you?!), why are you pleased that its present President has for the time being agreed to make no changes to border controls in Calais? That agreement is in any case not worth the paper it's still probably not yet been written on, since no negotiations on anything to do with Brexit can commence until the A50 button's been pressed.

Border controls between France and UK, as well as those between Ireland and UK (the only land border) and others, can only be subjected to promises or lack thereof once negotiations on them have been completed; the assurance given to Ms May yesterday by the French President is therefore of little consequence, since it has about as much legal validity as had the referendum.

Hopefully, the far right will take control of France and all these camps will be destroyed and the inhabitants deported.

IF it does (and I think it unlikely but possible), do you suppose that such action will end there, or do you imagine that France will start throwing out immigrants already living there? If the latter, a whole brace of Brits will be coming back to UK, sewlling its population. Should other EU member states follow suit, they might likewise deport Brits back to Britain; how would you feel about that?

Hopefully, we will eventually be able to do the same far more easily when all this Euro Human Rights crap is thrown in the bin.

I reminded you that 47 European nations are and will remain subject to ECHR through their membership of Council of Europe; you would also do well to bear in mind that each individual nation has its own human rights legislation which will not suddently disappear overnight - or indeed at all - just because it's leaving EU. On top of that, almost every country in the world is subject to UDHR, which is an instrument of the United Nations.

There are many commonalities between UK's HRA, Europe's ECHR and the UN's UDHR. Unless you foresee UK (or France under le Pen) ditching its own human rights legislation as well as leaving Council of Europe and United Nations, such human rights legislation is here to stay so, as some of the more vociferous Brexiters would say, "live with it!".

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last posts unread.

Under our new PM, it looks just possible that us Brits might actually be put first for a change.

Hopefully, gone are the days when our prime ministers would do anything for anyone as long as they were not British. Cancel the foreign aid budget, stop ploughing money into the failed EU experiment and LONG LIVE BRITAIN.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last posts unread.

Again, by you, perhaps. Not my problem.

Under our new PM, it looks just possible that us Brits might actually be put first for a change.

By whom? You surely aren't intending to imply that EU will fall all over us as we leave (against its wishes) and let it have more or less whatever it wants, are you? And "Brits" don't include Nortern Irelanders; do you mean to exclude them or did you mean "UK citizens"?

Hopefully, gone are the days when our prime ministers would do anything for anyone as long as they were not British. Cancel the foreign aid budget, stop ploughing money into the failed EU experiment and LONG LIVE BRITAIN.

I see no evidence that the present UK government will cancel its foreign aid budget (although I do believe that it should look carefully at the possibilities of trimming it, especially where the money's being spent unwisely or unhelpfully or is getting into the wrong hands); a foreign aid budget should in principle embrace at least some degree of investment content rather than being a case of simply chucking cash away indiscriminately.

UK will still be ploughing some money into EU whether or not we're in it, either by way of contributions to single market membership or, if UK leaves that as well, by losing the subsidies that UK receives from EU.

Should UK try to cancel its foreign aid budget altogether (and very little of that goes to EU, of course), I'd question how much longer Britain could live but it wouldn't be that long. This, along with following the possible line of the French should FN win next year, will encourage one thing only - war in Europe; other countries leaving EU purely because extreme right wing governments have taken them over will make that even more likely and widespread.

There's little appetite for extreme right wing government in UK. UKIP is the only party that goes anywhere near that status and even it is nowhere near as extreme as FN and certain other European right wing parties; UKIP would in any case have to do rather better than just one HoC seat if it wants to take charge of government. How Ms May would deal with an FN government in France (should one be elected next year) will be an interesting prospect; I fear that, however skilfully the pragmatic Ms May and our delightful circus buffoon of a foreign secretary will manage that, the death of liberté, égalité, fraternité in France itself will soon led to the demise of entente cordiale between France and UK.

Have you considered that, if EU does evenutally disintegrate, some of its ex-member states might themselves start to split up?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/691589/Britain-BOOMS-EU-vote-economy-economic-news-Brexit

Time for me to post a link.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread.

And you accuse me of repetition!

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/691589/Britain-BOOMS-EU-vote-economy-economic-news-Brexit

Time for me to post a link.

Well, if you will read the Daily Express!...

Here's more or less the opposite, but from rather more than one source - and don't forget that no negotiations have even begun yet, so the full impact cannot be known:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/britains-economy-shrinking-at-fastest-rate-since-2009-says-survey

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/22/britains-economy-shrinking-at-fastest-rate-since-2009-says-survey
(but then what does the Chancellor know? He's only been in the post five minutes!)...

https://next.ft.com/content/50436fde-39bb-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7

https://newfinancial.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/The-potential-impact-of-Brexit-on-European-capital-markets-New-Financial-Apr-2016.pdf

https://next.ft.com/content/aed45e82-4cd5-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/25/george-soros-says-eu-referendum-brexit-vote-is-likely-to-damage/
(but then what does HE know?)...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36864273

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-shock-pushes-uk-services-and-manufacturing-into-contraction-says-new-survey-a7149901.html

https://next.ft.com/content/4b5701ca-4f14-11e6-88c5-db83e98a590a

https://next.ft.com/content/bd2f8996-4e8a-11e6-8172-e39ecd3b86fc

https://uk.businessinsider.com/rightmove-july-house-price-index-brexit-impact-on-uk-and-london-property-prices-2016-7

Funny how the Daily Express can so often be relied upon to be so far out on a limb as to suggest that it inhabits a land all its own!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread due to excessive link spamming.

Quality is better than quantity.

Long live England and death to the EU.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread

Repetition! (again). You'd get no points at all on Just a Minute...

due to excessive link spamming.

What parameteres determine "excessive" And if you've not read any of it, how can you tell whether or not it's "spamming"? The point, quite obviously, is that a single Daily Express piece of contrived and baseless euphoria does not a whole story make, but if you don't read many other papers you'll not avail yourself of balanced viewpoints between them.

Quality is better than quantity.

Sure, but the "quality" is in the content of the links, not in the number of them that I posted.

Long live England and death to the EU.

Once again, why do you single out "England"? The referendum was UK-wide (with Gibraltar); would you advocate the break-up of UK as well as of EU? If so, why and how far would you go with that? - i.e. just into its four current constituent parts or farther than that?

"Death to the EU" would have immense adverse repercussions for all member states including UK were it to come about; as a statement, it sounds almost like one that's come from ISIS. What good do you suppose that the break-up of EU (should it ever occur) would do anyone of its member states?

Do you also advocate the break-up and dissolution of the 47-state Council of Europe (even if only to get rid of ECHR)?

Just curious to know how far you'd go with your European reorganisation were you able to implement it.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread due to excessive length and encapulation.

Here is a nice link   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/22/polish-uk-brexit-dont-think-many-will-stay-poland-immigration

It appears the Polish population in UK might shrink. Might have to wash me own car.

This simply will not do.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread due to excessive length and encapulation.

I think that you mean encapsulation; I've corrected my typo (thanks for the prompt), so now you can correct yours. Your repetitive habit is turning from the Schubertian into the veritably Glass-blown!

Here is a nice link   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/22/polish-uk-brexit-dont-think-many-will-stay-poland-immigration

It appears the Polish population in UK might shrink.

I doubt that very much. Some might fear anti-Polish aggression from yobbos but, since many of the near 1m Poles in UK have been there for a long time, it's unlikely that there'll be a mass exodus, especially as there are fears that Poland might go like France threatens to do, namely towards en extreme right wing administration; if that's not a discouragement to return to Poland I don't know what would be.

Might have to wash me own car.

My heart bleeds for you! Can't you get a Lithuanian or a Bulgarian to do it?

There remain a lot of question that you've yet to answer, not least your references to England rather than UK...

It would be good if others resumed contributing to this thread rather than it turning into a concerto for banjo and composer...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I enjoyed reading that the far-right Polish party was PiS. However nothing is as amusing as making Boris Foreign Secretary. I hope he's looking forward to playing (un)diplomatic whiff-whaff with 'piccaninnies'.

[ahinton]

I enjoyed reading that the far-right Polish party was PiS.

That's almost certainly all that's enjoyable about it or any of its equivalents elsewhere.

However nothing is as amusing as making Boris Foreign Secretary. I hope he's looking forward to playing (un)diplomatic whiff-whaff with 'piccaninnies'.

Indeed; giving that rôle to the Court Jester's almost as funny as putting out one of the most important pieces of legislation since WWII to the amateurs to "decide" (which they can't anyway, because their votes in a referendum carry no legal weight) - except that, in both cases, the outcome will be anything but amusing.

At least the government seemed to know who they were appointing, though - except in one case, where it gave Greg Clark MP the wrong gig by mistake and has now "corrected" its error with the result that, having just given it to my own MP, it's taken it away again and made him Under Secretary of State for the same department (Business, &c.) instead. Embarrassing or what? Certainly not funny.

I wonder if and when UK will have a credible opposition again? It does have one, but instead of opposing the government of the day as is customary, it seems to be devoting most of its considerable energies to opposing itself.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

However nothing is as amusing as making Boris Foreign Secretary.

Well you Scots have got one of the Krankies as leader. Now that is amusing.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

The Krankies are anti-independence. 

[ahinton]

Well you Scots have got one of the Krankies as leader. Now that is amusing.

I don't think so - but that's hardly the point. Do you advocate the break-up of UK, not least given that almost all Scots MPs are SNP (i.e. not parties available in England) and most Scots voted to remain in EU? Would you prefer the wholsale break-up of UK, including that of England itself if that might seem to be on the the cards?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

While our Thal has a think about the above (or not), here's a link that he should enjoy:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/exclusive-interview-with-frances-youngest-and-most-controversial/

Now whilst it's by no means a foregone conclusion that FN will win in France next year and form its government, it's not impossible, especially given the derision meted out to the current President by so many Franch citizens (a parallel might be Trump in US who could get in on the back of failures and lack of credibility on the part of his opponent).

If le Pen does indeed form the next French government and moves to implement a Frexit, I wonder if she'll do it the proper way or follow UK's appallingly undemocratic example and leave it to the French electorate to "decide"?

Either way, Frexit would be a far harder task than Brexit; after all, there would be the additional considerations that France is a signatory to Schengen and is a Eurozone country so would have to form a new currency should it leave EU. France was also one of the original founding members of the forerunner to EU so has been part of it for more than 60 years.

It's unlikely that UK would repatriate immigrants should Brexit be seen through but, as the present UK government is a very different animal to what an FN one would be in France, who knows? - might FN expel foreigners and, if so, on what scale? If it were to serve notice on the Brits in France, UK's population would suddenly increase because they all came home. You can just hear it, can't you? - "all those Brits, coming over here and taking our jobs!"...

Interesting times indeed!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Do you advocate the break-up of UK, not least given that almost all Scots MPs are SNP (i.e. not parties available in England) and most Scots voted to remain in EU?

Personally: yes!

In case I've not stated it earlier, my position on the EU is that, in principle, it is an excellent idea. It makes a lot of sense to have a common trading area. Where it has overstepped its remit is in the ceaseless attempt to harmonise and homogenise everything from legal systems to tax and financial matters. The latter, in particular, woudln't be so bad if all countries were beginning from approximate economic parity, but they aren't. Essentially, I'm a sceptical remainer and only voted the way I did because I felt the alternative was worse. I'm quite happy, however, to be pragmatic and hope that events will result in separation of Scotland from the rUK.

Re your other comment, if France leaves, the whole thing will collapse, imo.

[thalbergmad]

Sad to see the event in Germany following the events in France, but this is what happens when you let crap into your Country and the people have the weak EU and their non borders over a period of many years to blame.

The French have rightly flattened a tent City in Paris, but this is simply shifting the problem to another area. These so called immigrants, a large percentage of whom are young men, should be rounded up, imprisoned and then deported. The rights of the public should come first.

The EU and the idiots who run it have made a huge mistake letting in millions.

Thal

[ahinton]

Personally: yes!

In case I've not stated it earlier, my position on the EU is that, in principle, it is an excellent idea. It makes a lot of sense to have a common trading area. Where it has overstepped its remit is in the ceaseless attempt to harmonise and homogenise everything from legal systems to tax and financial matters. The latter, in particular, woudln't be so bad if all countries were beginning from approximate economic parity, but they aren't. Essentially, I'm a sceptical remainer and only voted the way I did because I felt the alternative was worse. I'm quite happy, however, to be pragmatic and hope that events will result in separation of Scotland from the rUK.

Re your other comment, if France leaves, the whole thing will collapse, imo.

I fear that you're right about France. I'm not sure about whether UK should break up but, if NI and Scotland leave, they'll almost certainly only do so in order to remain within EU so, should Brexit be stopped, I doubt that there'd be the same appetite for secession that would pertain otherwise. That said, if those two nations did leave UK, do you suppose that Wales and England would wish to separate just becuase of that? Another case being put forward now is independence for London; in the most unlikely event of that gathering any kilometrage, I imagine that the other large cities (where Remain was the majority) might want to consider following suit, but I think that this would lead to a colossal mess.

Like you, I think that where EU's gotten too big for its boots and acted prematurely is respectively in trying to press for "ever closer union" between its member states (which not all EU advocates have ever wanted, incidentally) and launching the Euro before the end of the last century when it wold have been premature to do that even today, especially given the very different economies of some of the more recent EU entrant states. EU ought to take a step back from itself and consider first how large it eventually wants to be and then base some of its actions upon recognition of those large economic diffeences between states when deciding when to let aonter one in and when to adopte a common currency. I don't have a problem with the common currency in principle but only when the time is right for it to be viable in all members states and only if, as now, those states that want to remain outside the Eurozone may do so. As a common trading area, I do agree that EU and its forerunner organisations is an excellent idea, although not one that I could imagine working successfully without free movement of people.

EU will be less able to reform without UK and even less again should France leave.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Sad to see the event in Germany following the events in France, but this is what happens when you let crap into your Country and the people have the weak EU and their non borders over a period of many years to blame.

Sad indeed, but this is not the reason for it. Ask any Norwegian about Breivik, who was Norwegian himself.

The French have rightly flattened a tent City in Paris, but this is simply shifting the problem to another area. These so called immigrants, a large percentage of whom are young men, should be rounded up, imprisoned and then deported. The rights of the public should come first.

But they are "the public" too. Does your stance on immigration include advocating, for example, that the French should chuck out all their immigrants, including the Brits?

The EU and the idiots who run it have made a huge mistake letting in millions.

But people move today far more than they used to do because they can get around far more easily. Lots of Poles, for example, came to UK before the forerunner of EU was ever founded. If you came from and lived in a very poor country, wouldn't you want to get out and try to make a better life for yourself elsewhere, especially if your country were oppressed and war-torn?

Look at the Mexicans and Canadians in US, the Colombians in Argentina and Brazil, the Congolese in Kenya. This entire business of "my country" can never be anything but divisive and negative, because it always comes across as though "I'm better than you" and "I have something that you don't". I love my native Scotland but would never talk like that about it.

Anyway, never forget that "immigration" was never on the minds of the Brits, Portuguese, Spanish, French and Dutch when they became immigrants by virtue of their colonising activities, so they ill deserve to complain about it now that the movement of people is in the opposit direction!

The problem with "Muslims" in Britain and France (and doubtless elsewhere) is that a few of them make insufficent efforts to absorb themselves into the cultures of their chosen immigrant country, although many of them do; however, this issue is by no means confined to Muslims but applies to all immigrants everywhere. For example, a part Greek part Turkish friend and colleague who was born and still lives in Germany is able to think and act like a German but has not lost his sense of being Greek / Turkish; OK, he's not come to Germany as an immigrant but is still technically a foreigner there but, if it's easy enough for him, it is so for others.

Implementing borders to keep people out results in ever fewer opportunities for cultural absorption and integration; how, therefore, can it ever be "a good thing" in principle?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread.

And so it appears that prior to the referendum, Cameron appealed to Merkel for limits on the free movement nonsense. This exposes his pathetic weakness as he should have demanded it.

The problem with free movement is that people will desert Countries with crap economies and will suck the blood out of those with strong economies, taking jobs from the locals and putting massive strain on resources. Whilst we welcome controlled levels of hard workers, we don't want to import criminals and layabouts that clog up our prisons and leech benefits.

The EU is destined to fail.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread.

Schubert has indeed morphed into Glass in a certain part of le fin des graves...

And so it appears that prior to the referendum, Cameron appealed to Merkel for limits on the free movement nonsense. This exposes his pathetic weakness as he should have demanded it.

But if he had demanded it (and, as you know, I hold him responsible for this entire omnishambles so am the very opposite of an apologist for him) he would not have gotten it; why should EU make such an exception for UK alone?

The problem with free movement is that people will desert Countries with crap economies and will suck the blood out of those with strong economies, taking jobs from the locals and putting massive strain on resources. Whilst we welcome controlled levels of hard workers, we don't want to import criminals and layabouts that clog up our prisons and leech benefits.

The free movement of people that is a tenet of the EU single market is not at all analogous to that of people from all over the world going where they want to and can manage to, be they genuine refugees, economic migrants or otherwise and I suspect from the way in which you write that you are at least as exercised by the latter as by the former but find it more convenient to cite EU as the whipping boy for all of it.

As I wrote previously, if you were born in and a citizen of a very poor country, would you just accept your lot and stay put or would you try to do something about bettering your life?

The EU is destined to fail.

If Britain leaves it, the likelihood of this increases; if France also does so, it might be inevitable. But can you imagine the devastating effect on the whole of Europe, EU included, should it all fall apart? Who will trade with whom and under what trade agreements? What will happen to the economies of rich and poor European nations alike? What attempts at repatriations might be made? Factor in the Turkish problem and the words hell and handcart come all too easily to mind.

Let us hope, then, that UK and France do not leave EU, for it will stand a better change of being reformed with those two nations as members than it ever will without them. Who knows, if Britain puts the skids under Brexit before any negotiations commence, the European Parliament and Commission might heave such a sigh of relief after the shock that the ultimate outcome will be that UK gets more power to reform EU from inside than it has had so far; undue optimism, you might say (and you could of course be right) but not impossible, methinks.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last post unread.

Watching Border Security Australia on the TV. Now there is a country who knows how to deal with illegal immigration.

Leave EU and take back control.

Thal

[ahinton]

Last post unread.

How can you tell? Are you, or do you officially represent, all the other forum members?

Watching Border Security Australia on the TV. Now there is a country who knows how to deal with illegal immigration.

They might be able to deal with illegals but what of the legals? Only this morning I received an email from a Polish friend who's lived in Sydney for many years, profoundly distressed as we all are at the events of this past week or so (of which the most recent in Munich now turns out to have been committed by a Breivik-obsessed loner rather than a member of any religious or other terrorist organisation).

She wrote this:

We've just heard about the Munich shooting - when is this going to stop? There was the axe wielding maniac on the train, the murder in Nice. These dreadful incidents are happening in closer proximity and nobody seems to want to stand up and do something about it. Apparently the police presence in Nice was very poor; I expect they were all in Paris!

We have had some ghastly things happening here caused by Muslim youth, yet the Prime Minister will not get the Muslim leaders together around the table and sort things out. We are almost banned from saying that Muslims are causing trouble in this country. Pauline Hanson, who is the leader of the One Nation party and of whom you may have heard, is saying that she wants people in Australia to feel safe. What's wrong in that? There is a huge outcry; how dare she say that?!

There are Muslim clerics here who have been banned from America, yet allowed in here to radicalise the youth, to preach sermons of hate in their mosques, etc. And they are allowed to stay. Words fail me. No wonder America is turning toward Donald Trump; he may have some very strong views and some mad ones but overall he wants to get his country back to where it was, I feel. It would not surprise me if he does become President Trump. If Reagan got in, then there's every chance this one will too.

It would seem that Australia might actually be having worse problems with this kind of thing than UK is; I wonder if what you've been watching is more propaganda than substance?...

Leave EU and take back control

I have no intention of doing the first of these and am in no position to do the second; "take back control" of what, in any case? In writing this, you sound like Mr Farage himself!

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

P.S...

Sad to see the event in Germany following the events in France, but this is what happens when you let crap into your Country...

...The EU and the idiots who run it have made a huge mistake letting in millions.

Breivik was Norwegian (OK, I know that Norway's outside EU but it has a long border with it and contributes substantially to EU's single market). The perpetrators of Nice, near Würzburg and Munich - and possibly some of those invovled in the other attacks in France and Belgium - were not "let in; as far as I understand, they were born in the countries in which they committed their atrocities. To that extent, EU or anywhere else "letting people in" had nothing to do with these atrocities. Yes, that kind of thing can and does happen, but a large proportion of such attacks are "home grown" in that sense.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Last posts unread.

Here an interesting article about liberal hysteria https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/the-liberal-hysteria-over-brexit-shows-exactly-why-we-need-to-le/   

Thal

[ahinton]

Last posts unread.

By you again, but you ae only one member of this forum and at least you appear to be able to count!

Here an interesting article about liberal hysteria https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/22/the-liberal-hysteria-over-brexit-shows-exactly-why-we-need-to-le/   

It's a viewpoint, to be sure. There are, however, so many stages to go through even before A50's invoked that we'll just have to wait and see; the petition debate, a raft of legal challenges, starting to plan for how and what to negotiate, figuring out how best to deal with the 1 against 27 issue, the Scotland and NI questions and so on. The only thing that's certain right now is uncertainty.

If UK does put the skids under proceeding with Brexit and le Pen becomes President of France next year, it will be interesting to observe whether her appetite for withdrawing France from EU will be unchanged and what effect Frexit without Brexit will have on EU.

Best,

Alistair