The Positive Brexit Thread

[Hook's-Walk-Canary 213]

22 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

He was reporting on the reaction of the media in the area, their response was a collective 'Meh'. That's actual substance.

 

Yeah right - The EU loving media, especially the BBC, 'actual substance'... 🙃 I'll have some of the substances you're on please 😃 

Here's a more accurate summary regarding the CPTPP deal https://capx.co/cptpp-membership-is-worth-much-more-to-britain-than-0-08-of-gdp/

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

8 minutes ago, Hook's-Walk-Canary said:

Yeah right - The EU loving media, especially the BBC, 'actual substance'... 🙃 I'll have some of the substances you're on please 😃 

Here's a more accurate summary regarding the CPTPP deal https://capx.co/cptpp-membership-is-worth-much-more-to-britain-than-0-08-of-gdp/

The media in Asia are 'EU loving'?

You're so far into this nonsense you can't read anything without shouting b0ll0x.

The Centre for Policy Studies is a right wing think tank, which explains why that link is full of fantasy.

Adding the United States as well (assuming no prior deal between the UK and US) multiplied the benefit by a further three and half. The benefit then is worth nearly £20bn.

In November 2022, the funding transparency website Who Funds You? gave the CPS an E grade, the lowest transparency rating (rating goes from A to E)

Every time you try and justify this deal you make it even more irrelevant. 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by A Load of Squit

[Barbe bleu 833]

8 hours ago, Herman said:

Oh I give up.We're not talking about citizenship, we're talking about FOM. Deliberately obtuse/semantic just to have an argument.

A light bulb moment there Herman? 

There's lots of things to do in Hertfordshire that are better than spending a lot of time arguing here dor the sake of it. Even a trip to the galleria has to be better than getting involved in these endless arguments about the EU, surely?

Take yourself to Hatfield House, It's really close and i bet you haven't been there since Halloween 3 years ago, have you?

Edited July 18, 2023 by Barbe bleu

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

4 hours ago, Surfer said:

There is no such thing in nature as a "right". Especially an "inalienable right", even more "rights granted by our creator"

All "rights" come from political accommodation i.e. we invent them to serve our society - for good or bad. 

So F the Brexiters who knowingly removed the right of British Citizens to work, travel, and retire in Europe without government interference.... from the "party of small government" no less. 

Actually, the  aim of rights in law is supposed to be creating a legal idea of an individual right that's inalienable, as I illustrated with the mention of war crimes still applying even if the victim isn't associated with a Geneva convention signatory.

If you take the Putin/Xi Jinping approach, then sure, there's no such thing as rights at all, but in terms of the ideals of rights regarding citizenship, the quasi-citizenship that the EU offers doesn't make the grade.

Once again, it was in the EU's choice as to whether we retained the EU citizenship we had been granted as individuals. EU representatives like Verhofstadt made the valid arguments why we should have kept them if EU citizenship was a true citizenship, but it was ignored in favour of the argument that these were only a bundle of privileges afforded to people if they happened to be a citizen of an EU-member state.

I noted that my question over Scottish and British citizenship if Scotland was to leave the UK was ignored? What would people think if the view was taken that those who happened to be in Scotland at the time automatically became Scottish citizens and had their British citizenship revoked en masse, or maybe those geographically born in Scotland instead? Would that be fair seeing as it was Scotlands decision to leave, regardless of whether people individually may or may not have voted for Scotland to leave the UK?

Edited July 18, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Well b back 3,282]

‘ Deluded nonsense. ‘

Now this is what you really call deluded nonsense, from the self proclaimed saviour of the United Kingdom.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66240298

 

[Herman 9,837]

38 minutes ago, Well b back said:

‘ Deluded nonsense. ‘

Now this is what you really call deluded nonsense, from the self proclaimed saviour of the United Kingdom.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66240298

 

So he's officially skint and a **** according to Coutts. What took them so long?

[Well b back 3,282]

Polls just released for yougov are showing the highest ever regret, and this is growing every month. Love the word ‘ BREGRET ‘

How widespread is ‘Bregret’?

Currently, 57% of Britons say that the country was wrong to vote for Brexit in 2016 – the highest figure YouGov has recorded to date. By comparison, one in three (32%) think it was the right call. One in five Leave voters (19%) now say it was the wrong decision.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

2 hours ago, Well b back said:

‘ Deluded nonsense. ‘

Now this is what you really call deluded nonsense, from the self proclaimed saviour of the United Kingdom.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66240298

 

You know, if it wasn't for people who claim to be unable to stand him sharing stories about him, I'd have no idea at all what Nigel Farage was up to now.

Talk about living rent free in other people's heads...

Edited July 18, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

6 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You know, if it wasn't for people who claim to be unable to stand him sharing stories about him, I'd have no idea at all what Nigel Farage was up to now.

Talk about living rent free in other people's heads...

Yes, it's very difficult to find out what a man who is always on TV and on the front pages of the right wing press is doing.

You seem to want to take your stupidity to new levels every time you post.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

3 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

Yes, it's very difficult to find out what a man who is always on TV and on the front pages of the right wing press is doing.

You seem to want to take your stupidity to new levels every time you post.

My point was I'm not interested in finding out, stupid. I simply wonder why people who can't stand him seem so keen to actively keep him in the public consciousness outside of GB News.

[A Load of Squit 5,223]

38 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

My point was I'm not interested in finding out, stupid. I simply wonder why people who can't stand him seem so keen to actively keep him in the public consciousness outside of GB News.

You're so stupid you can't recognise sarcasm.

[Barbe bleu 833]

2 hours ago, A Load of Squit said:

You're so stupid you can't recognise sarcasm.

You're stupid for not realising just how much he has fallen for you.   Go and get him bud!

[Surfer 1,547]

17 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Actually, the  aim of rights in law is supposed to be creating a legal idea of an individual right that's inalienable, as I illustrated with the mention of war crimes still applying even if the victim isn't associated with a Geneva convention signatory.

If you take the Putin/Xi Jinping approach, then sure, there's no such thing as rights at all, but in terms of the ideals of rights regarding citizenship, the quasi-citizenship that the EU offers doesn't make the grade.

Once again, it was in the EU's choice as to whether we retained the EU citizenship we had been granted as individuals. EU representatives like Verhofstadt made the valid arguments why we should have kept them if EU citizenship was a true citizenship, but it was ignored in favour of the argument that these were only a bundle of privileges afforded to people if they happened to be a citizen of an EU-member state.

I noted that my question over Scottish and British citizenship if Scotland was to leave the UK was ignored? What would people think if the view was taken that those who happened to be in Scotland at the time automatically became Scottish citizens and had their British citizenship revoked en masse, or maybe those geographically born in Scotland instead? Would that be fair seeing as it was Scotlands decision to leave, regardless of whether people individually may or may not have voted for Scotland to leave the UK?

You just confirmed what I said. The right of British citizens to live, work, retire anywhere in the EU was a result of the negotiated political accommodation of EU membership. It was the Brexiteer side that destroyed those rights.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

2 hours ago, Surfer said:

You just confirmed what I said. The right of British citizens to live, work, retire anywhere in the EU was a result of the negotiated political accommodation of EU membership. It was the Brexiteer side that destroyed those rights.

The EU would say they were 'rights' of EU citizenship. Rights pertain to the individual.  In the EU's own reckoning it was therfore it which stripped us of rights we had previously been granted as individual.

The way the EU actually handled it means EU citizenship isn't a real thing is my point, in which case we never had any citizens rights, in which case we lost no rights; just a few perks of some treaties.

Citizenship is in the gift of the body which awards it; nobody else. Scots are British citizens on the back of the act of union. If Scots lost their British citizenship on the back of leaving the UK, nobody would say Scotland had deprived them of their British citizenship; they'd say it was Britain. And there would be a much more rigorous discussion about whether it was fair and just than compared to this nonsense idea that the EU always does the right thing.

Just don't pretend EU citizenship was a real thing in itself or involved any 'rights' in the first place and everyone's in agreement. Leaving the EU meant UK citizens could no longer enjoy a few perks of the treaties is a more realistic way of putting it.

Edited July 19, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,837]

Freedom Of Movement!!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

Just now, Herman said:

Freedom Of Movement!!

A lovely perk of being a citizen of an EU member state; not a right.

[Herman 9,837]

Which was lost by the British thanks to voting for brexit. What a bunch of stupid fools.

[Surfer 1,547]

Perk = privilege = right. Yes, leave the club and lose your privileges. That is the club's fault.... Brexit logic for you.

[Well b back 3,282]

Clearly Mr Farage is in heads far more than he is mine.

He was a main question in parliamentery questions.

The law will look to be changed for banks ‘ due to Mr Farage’s experience.

The likes of Mogg are calling for an enquiry, there’s a few million of tax payers money to be thrown down the drain.

The FCA are investigating.

I would say that he speaks and his puppets like Sunak, all jump and will do anything he demands.

[Herman 9,837]

Russia was mentioned 144 times, far more than brexit, in the dossier that Farage plopped out. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

2 hours ago, Surfer said:

Perk = privilege = right. Yes, leave the club and lose your privileges. That is the club's fault.... Brexit logic for you.

No. If freedom of movement was a perk/privilege of EU membership, then there's no 'fault' anywhere. It's simply a consequence of a collective decision and a bit of a nuisance. If EU citizenship is a real thing with associated rights then the EU is the ultimate arbiter of what is or isn't an EU citizen, in which case it was up to them whether they felt we as individuals should have our rights as EU citizens protected individually, regardless of the collective decision.

The EU itself calls them rights though and the EU isn't only treaties. It's also a body with its own democratically elected parliament and its own courts to make judgements on issues. They even make judgements on the rights of EU citizens. There is a charter of fundamental rights of EU citizens. If all of us were EU citizens as a distinct and meaningful thing, then it has to be the case that the EU stripped us of it.

Seems to me that the only reason the validity of this point isn't being acknowledged is because nobody wants to admit the EU wasn't basically petty in its callous handling of our rights as bona fide EU citizens; literally millions of people had their EU citizenship taken away overnight because the EU chose the interpretation it did, even the ones that wanted to stay EU citizens and voted to remain in the EU. Where's the justice in that?

Edited July 19, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

Great page here:

https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/eu-citizenship_en#:~:text=Any person who holds the,and does not replace it.

 

Quote

EU citizenship

Any person who holds the nationality of an EU country is automatically also an EU citizen. EU citizenship is additional to national citizenship and does not replace it.

Additional to, i.e.  something separate to national citizenship rather than a consequence of national citizenship. So the courts deciding that we couldn't continue to be EU citizens because the UK had left completely contradicts this. Basically, the EU just makes it up as it goes along.

Edited July 19, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Herman 9,837]

Here's the actual facts.

https://iasservices.org.uk/mps-vote-to-end-freedom-of-movement/

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2714

[Herman 9,837]

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

Here's the actual facts.

https://iasservices.org.uk/mps-vote-to-end-freedom-of-movement/

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2714

Okay, we'll stick with your view then: EU citizenship isn't a real thing and so-called EU citizens rights were just perks available to UK citizens consequent of those treaties, so as you exercised your right to vote to remain in the EU as a UK citizen were part of free and fair votes that led to the UK leaving the EU by a legitimate process allowed for in treaty,  nobody took anything away from you. The UK simply left the EU, resulting in some treaties no longer applying to the UK; you have nothing to reasonably feel bitter or resentful about.

Edited July 20, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

Here's the facts about the decision by the ECJ on our so-called EU citizenship. https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-uk-relations/news/brits-cannot-keep-citizenship-rights-eu-top-court-confirms/

@herman and @Surfer, this is a fact sheet of the EU, produced by the EU.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/145/the-citizens-of-the-union-and-their-rights

Here are some interesting passages:

Quote

For a long time, the legal basis for citizens’ rights at EU level consisted essentially of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the EUCFR, the legal basis has been expanded to true European citizenship.

Quote

...Union citizenship assumes nationality of a Member State but it is also a legal and political concept independent of that of nationality. Nationality of a Member State not only provides access to enjoyment of the rights conferred by Community law; it also makes us citizens of the Union. European citizenship is more than a body of rights which, in themselves, could be granted even to those who do not possess it. It presupposes the existence of a political relationship between European citizens, although it is not a relationship of belonging to a people. […] It is based on their mutual commitment to open their respective bodies politic to other European citizens and to construct a new form of civic and political allegiance on a European scale.

Quote

That is the miracle of Union citizenship: it strengthens the ties between us and our States (in so far as we are European citizens precisely because we are nationals of our States) and, at the same time, it emancipates us from them (in so far as we are now citizens beyond our States).

To paraphrase this statement, we were UK citizens, but at the same time, our EU citizenship emancipated us from the UK. Emancipation from our state literally means to free us from the legal, social, or political control. How can that possibly be true if the decision of our state to leave the EU automatically revokes our supposed right to even be EU citizens regardless of our individual will?

All the text describes EU citizenship as being complementary to, not a consequence of, national citizenship and not a replacement for national citizenship. It's supposed to create a relationship between the EU and the individual independent of the member-state of which they're a national. The text says you must be a citizen of a member state to be granted EU citizanship in the first place, but nowhere in any text does it say you can't be an EU citizen without being a member of an EU member state. That ambiguity meant the ECJ had to make a decision. The ECJ's decision that we can't continue to be EU citizens after EU citizenship had already been granted to us after our member state chose to leave the EU flies in the face of everything the EU says about EU citizenship creating an individual relationship between us and the EU and EU membership 'emancipating us' individually from our national citizenship.

Ultimately the EU ditched its so-called individual relationship with us as EU citizens independent of our national citizenship without a second thought because of political expedience in the face of a sound legal case based on the proclamations of the EU itself about EU citizenship. So the ECJ agrees with your view while the EU spouts what turns out to be a load of rubbish that would support my view if it meant anything.

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,603]

@Barbe bleu, noting your disinterest in the distinction between a right and a privilege on the other thread, I thought I'd answer here to keep it tidy.

The protection of rights and the idea of citizenship are massively important topics at the moment, especially where the ability of law  to protect them is concerned. Fortunes are being spent on challenging whether Shamima Begum, one woman who betrayed her country by going to Syria to support a terrorist organisation, was lawfully stripped of her British citizenship. This is not even in international courts; our own courts have considered the question extremely carefully, making sure there has been no misinterpretation of the law in ensuring it's lawful.

There's no question that the ECJ had a question to answer about whether it was fitting for a good 60,000,000 or so people to be automatically stripped of what the EU calls 'a true citizenship' with associated rights; that's why there was a court case in the ECJ on that very question. It answered that question by asserting it was no business of the EU to protect individual rights associated with EU citizenship for EU citizens, dismissing all of the reasonable points about why our EU citizenship should be considered independently of the UK's decision to leave the EU and endorsing stripping everybody, whether they'd wished to remain EU citizens or not, of their EU citizenship.

It's not like the EU is reluctant to assert its interests regarding Britain where it interests it. It was quick to threaten closing the border on the island of ireland to further its interests in a dispute over vaccines, just as it has been strongly insistent on asserting the right of the ECJ to have primacy on trade matters in Northern Ireland. The simple fact is that the EU walked away from protecting our rights as EU citizens because it didn't consider it in its interest to do so. It dismissed it by choosing to assert that the absence of any words saying EU citizenship could be held without being a citizen of an EU member state meant that we couldn't continue to be EU citizens.  they've cheapened all their big words about 'rights' and 'true EU citizenship' and cheapened the concepts of rights and citizenship in the process.

48% of those who voted in the EU referendum wanted to stay in the EU, but they were stripped of their 'true citizenship' of the EU en masse along with those who did, amounting to a form of collective punishment. The ECJ was asked to clarifyand the ECJ said yes it was. I don't see any justice in that if we're to go by the EU's words about the rights of EU citizens.

I wouldn't characterise myself as 'angry' about any of this. I'm old and cynical enough to accept realpolitik for what it is. But it irritates me how the EU is characterised as so noble and worthy when it showed itself to be anything but on the question of our so-called citizens rights.

 

[Barbe bleu 833]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

@Barbe bleu, noting your disinterest in the distinction between a right and a privilege on the other thread, I thought I'd answer here to keep it tidy.

 

I wouldn't characterise myself as 'angry' about any of this. I'm old and cynical enough to accept realpolitik for what it is. But it irritates me how the EU is characterised as so noble and worthy 

No need to provide an answer ro the first bit. I just don't care if it was a right or a privilege and I have no wish to get into a multiday discussion on the semantics of it...It was what it was and putting a label on it ain't going to give it no magic.

To the second bit in agree with you. The extremists on both sides see in the EU what they want to see, not what is actually there.   To some it was a meddling wannabe superstate, to others it was joyful banner underwhich we all held hands,  sang Ode to joy and slowly solved every problem in the world whilst enjoying 'rights' of the type that never existed before. 

[Yellow Fever 3,839]

35 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

To the second bit in agree with you. The extremists on both sides see in the EU what they want to see, not what is actually there.   To some it was a meddling wannabe superstate, to others it was joyful banner underwhich we all held hands,  sang Ode to joy and slowly solved every problem in the world whilst enjoying 'rights' of the type that never existed before. 

Yes - but there are very few Europhile 'extremists' singing 'Ode to Joy' as you describe - I can hardly think of any - most are pragmatic realists. 

The very much larger number were the 'extremists' seeing things that actually weren't there were by and large, thinking it was some 'meddling wannabe superstate'. Ever closer union had already been removed, we had our vetoes etc and oddly we hadn't lost any sovereignty (possibly shared it with others) as we were allowed to 'leave' and didn't have to ask permission for a vote so to do (c.f. Scotland).

Edited July 21, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Herman 9,837]

I love the honesty of some brexiters, pretending they aren't brexiters, while sticking up for brexit at every available chance. 😉