• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

galeforce said:
wow, I didn't know that

surely increasing that customer base could be a good earner?
Click to expand...
It would be huge.

Couple of examples - non EU friend came here on student visa (post graduate), then transferred onto work visa, then 7 years after entering the UK workforce married her UK national husband. At which point she had to pay the aforementioned £600 per year for three years despite having already funded the NHS is well paid jobs for 7 years and still paying for the next 3 (so effectively triple paying).


Once a non EU migrant gets permanent leave to remain they also have get, and renew, a biometric residency permit (£250, or £600 if you require the express service).
Alternatively you can pay £1.5k for citizenship. (5 years ago it was £400)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
milo said:
£600 is the thin end of fudge all once you've put in place the infrastructure to process the payments and we certainly would not want EU states putting a reciprocal arrangement in place.
Click to expand...

I guess, I was basing it on the assumption that the "average person" costs the NHS less than £200 annually
 
milo said:
There is a long way to go yet and positions will change. On becoming Prime Minister May needed to convince Brexit supporters that she was serious about taking us out of the EU. I think that the Tory conference was about reinforcing this message and they used immigration to do this because it plays well with their heartlands. I suspect that the economic reality will win out and we will find a middle way that each party can sell to their voters.
Click to expand...
It's win-win
She blames the EU for insisting on freedom of movement or negatively affecting our economy.
She gets migrants to be blame our failures on.
And gets to syphon off £350m a second (or whatever it!) to friends balance sheets

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
milo said:
£600 is the thin end of fudge all once you've put in place the infrastructure to process the payments and we certainly would not want EU states putting a reciprocal arrangement in place.
Click to expand...
I don't think it's that labour intensive and fits in with existing home office processes.

That said, this is the civil service we are talking about

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
monkeybarry said:
It would be huge.

Couple of examples - non EU friend came here on student visa (post graduate), then transferred onto work visa, then 7 years after entering the UK workforce married her UK national husband. At which point she had to pay the aforementioned £600 per year for three years despite having already funded the NHS is well paid jobs for 7 years and still paying for the next 3 (so effectively triple paying).


Once a non EU migrant gets permanent leave to remain they also have get, and renew, a biometric residency permit (£250, or £600 if you require the express service).
Alternatively you can pay £1.5k for citizenship. (5 years ago it was £400)

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

i'm embarrassed by that, that's more than long enough to get the same deal as a native imo
 
monkeybarry said:
It's win-win
She blames the EU for insisting on freedom of movement or negatively affecting our economy.
She gets migrants to be blame our failures on.
And gets to syphon off £350m a second (or whatever it!) to friends balance sheets
Click to expand...

You're right about the £350m, Nissan have shown us quite clearly where that will be going and we'll still have to stump up for access to European markets. Taking back control.
 
milo said:
You're right about the £350m, Nissan have shown us quite clearly where that will be going and we'll still have to stump up for access to European markets. Taking back control.
Click to expand...

it would appear that incentivising a foreign company to create jobs in a factory making cars is fine but years of incentivising foreign companies to create jobs in factories making money required the govt. being given a kick up the arse
 
milo said:
I think that we will end up with freedom to work (retire). It is only a small step from Cameron's January deal and can be sold to all sides.
Click to expand...
I still don't get how freedom of movement is on the table without the same consequences as no Brexit at all.

If the argument is we have to Brexit otherwise you will be unelectable would the same not be true regarding freedom of movement. How politically can you spin the Norwegian model for example to those voting ukip and the right of the tories as these were the people the referendum was pandering to.
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
I still don't get how freedom of movement is on the table without the same consequences as no Brexit at all.

If the argument is we have to Brexit otherwise you will be unelectable would the same not be true regarding freedom of movement. How politically can you spin the Norwegian model for example to those voting ukip and the right of the tories as these were the people the referendum was pandering to.
Click to expand...

Because no one form of Brexit has a mandate from the referendum. The Tory right and UKIP have tried to spin the result as a mandate for completely leaving the EU sphere but they were intentionally vague on this during the campaign, so no mandate exists. EEA membership has as much of a mandate as any other form of Brexit. Whatever the outcome someone is going to be unhappy, so why pander to the swivel eyed?
 
milo said:
Because no one form of Brexit has a mandate from the referendum. The Tory right and UKIP have tried to spin the result as a mandate for completely leaving the EU sphere but they were intentionally vague on this during the campaign, so no mandate exists. EEA membership has as much of a mandate as any other form of Brexit. Whatever the outcome someone is going to be unhappy, so why pander to the swivel eyed?
Click to expand...
Because the only reason for any Brexit is the political consequences, as far as I can see continued freedom of movement will have the same negative impact(politically) than no Brexit.

In that case just don't put the country through it, put it to Parliament and let them vote it down
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
Because the only reason for any Brexit is the political consequences, as far as I can see continued freedom of movement will have the same negative impact(politically) than no Brexit.

In that case just don't put the country through it, put it to Parliament and let them vote it down
Click to expand...

The leaders of the Brexit campaign were repeatedly asked which type of relationship with the EU we should seek and they refused to answer.

Assuming that we do not seek an exit to WTO terms, we are going to have an ongoing political relationship with EU and this will involve us continuing to make contributions, follow (at least some of) its rules and have some form of freedom of movement.
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
Because the only reason for any Brexit is the political consequences, as far as I can see continued freedom of movement will have the same negative impact(politically) than no Brexit.

In that case just don't put the country through it, put it to Parliament and let them vote it down
Click to expand...
If you put it to Parliament you go against the "people have spoken" faux mantra

If you create a position where as little information is possible and defined you can "negotiate" with EU and come out claiming we needed to retain single market access to safeguard the economy and as such we have accept FoM as a concessionary position (EU get the blame). But we still have Brexit - no longer an EU member and tied to Brussels burocracy
 
monkeybarry said:
If you put it to Parliament you go against the "people have spoken" faux mantra

If you create a position where as little information is possible and defined you can "negotiate" with EU and come out claiming we needed to retain single market access to safeguard the economy and as such we have accept FoM as a concessionary position (EU get the blame). But we still have Brexit - no longer an EU member and tied to Brussels burocracy
Click to expand...

It just makes no sense to me, even if it is just playing politics without blocking immigration you will get a similar backlash as no Brexit, why bother.
 
r-u-s-x01 said:
It just makes no sense to me, even if it is just playing politics without blocking immigration you will get a similar backlash as no Brexit, why bother.
Click to expand...
"brexit" is going to morph into so many different things in the next 2.5 years it's irrelevant and the dissenting voices will be small and sound like they are being disruptive for the sake of it.
Most people will be bored of it by June 2017 and into 2018 no one will remember what was voted for in the first place

Sent from my Nexus 5X using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back