In message , at 09:08:25 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016,
Graeme Wall remarked:

I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the
main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought
"leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave".

Too many thinks it means *all* immigrants have to leave, now.

That was never going to happen because the majority have either
permanent residency papers, have naturalised as UK citizens, or are on
some form of work visa which means they'd be leaving at the end of their
secondment anyway.

What's different about the EU workers is they don't need any permission
to arrive, or to stay, any more than the Scots currently do to live in
London, and vice versa. It's that "permissionless" stay which has the
prospect of being annulled, although I doubt it will be applied
retrospectively to people who arrive before whenever the Brexit happens
in ~2.5yrs
--
Roland Perry

On 04/07/2016 10:54, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:08:25 on Mon, 4 Jul 2016,
Graeme Wall remarked:

I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the
main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought
"leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave".

Too many thinks it means *all* immigrants have to leave, now.

That was never going to happen because the majority have either
permanent residency papers, have naturalised as UK citizens, or are on
some form of work visa which means they'd be leaving at the end of their
secondment anyway.

You know that, I know that, try telling it to the morons going up to
"Muslims" & "Poles" and demanding they leave immediately.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:28:01PM +0100, Hils wrote:

Indeed. Most of the population of the Middle East are staying in the
Middle East. It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless
who are moving to Europe.

Actually it's mostly the middle class who have the resources to move.

--
David Cantrell | Official London Perl Mongers Bad Influence

If I could read only one thing it would be the future, in the
entrails of the ******* denying me access to anything else.

David Cantrell wrote:
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:28:01PM +0100, Hils wrote:

Indeed. Most of the population of the Middle East are staying in the
Middle East. It's mostly Middle Eastern retards, criminals and feckless
who are moving to Europe.

Actually it's mostly the middle class who have the resources to move.

I suppose that, to Hils, those are the equally evil rentiers and parasites.

In article , (Graeme
Wall) wrote:

On 04/07/2016 07:59, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:14:44 on Sat, 2 Jul 2016,

I'm not sure what debating point that is - but it's undeniable that the
main driver for the Leave campaign was immigration, I think they thought
"leave" meant "now all the EU immigrants have to leave".

Too many thinks it means *all* immigrants have to leave, now.

It makes me ashamed to be British the way many Brexiters have unleashed a
disgusting, and very un-British, wave of xenophobia.

To cap it all, a recent opinion poll shows overwhelming support for Britons
to have free travel to the rest of the EU while wanting to limit the rights
of other EU citizens to come here. Utterly inconsistent and typical of the
British sense of entitlement.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

It's not a muddle at all, except for those bad losers
who are scratching around for some way to discredit
the result and to smear those who voted to leave.

I voted to leave and I have long recognised that
large-scale immigration was bringing far more problems
than advantages for our country. Most of my friends and
acquaintances hold similar views, and none of us believed
that voting leave would mean a general expulsion of
immigrants from our country. Most of us will oppose any
such nonsense in the extremely unlikely event of it being
attempted. The suggestion that most "leave" voters were
sufficiently ignorant, idiotic and depraved to want such a
policy is just part of the smear campaign being conducted
by fair weather democrats who don't like losing.

I knew exactly what I was voting for. I knew that we were
voting on one issue only, and that the following day we would
still have our Parliamentary democracy and that the political
parties would develop different policies about how to quit the EU.
The fact that we "leave" voters did not yet have detailed policy
statements in no way invalidates the referendum. In any General
Election we are given scant information about how the parties
intend to indulge their preoccupations, but that does not mean
the election results are not valid.

On 04/07/2016 09:37, Recliner wrote:

So, with Brexit, the first vote should have been to choose between several
(legally possible, viable, rather than fantasy Boris-style) alternative
scenarios. There are at least three, and the population could have chosen
whether they preferred immigration control over the single market, etc.

Would there be any possibility of the masses (rather than the
uk.railway-reading elite) understanding such options? "I like oil and
hats with horns[1] more than I like cheese with holes and
misunderstandings about the origins of novelty clocks" wouldn't be much
to go on.


[1] their ancestors might not have done, but they do now.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On 04/07/2016 16:29, Robin9 wrote:

Martin Coffee;156680 Wrote:
[...]
The problem is that there are so many divorce possibilities that no
leave person actually knew what they did vote for. It's a monumental
muddle created by the leave political people. The stay political people
are no better, they were just complacent.

In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.. It's an absolute muddle.

It's not a muddle at all, except for those bad losers
who are scratching around for some way to discredit
the result and to smear those who voted to leave.

I voted to leave and I have long recognised that
large-scale immigration was bringing far more problems
than advantages for our country. Most of my friends and
acquaintances hold similar views, and none of us believed
that voting leave would mean a general expulsion of
immigrants from our country. Most of us will oppose any
such nonsense in the extremely unlikely event of it being
attempted. The suggestion that most "leave" voters were
sufficiently ignorant, idiotic and depraved to want such a
policy is just part of the smear campaign being conducted
by fair weather democrats who don't like losing.

I knew exactly what I was voting for. I knew that we were
voting on one issue only, and that the following day we would
still have our Parliamentary democracy and that the political
parties would develop different policies about how to quit the EU.
The fact that we "leave" voters did not yet have detailed policy
statements in no way invalidates the referendum. In any General
Election we are given scant information about how the parties
intend to indulge their preoccupations, but that does not mean
the election results are not valid.


Therefore going by the letter of the referendum, you didn't actually
vote to end free movement of people between the UK and the (rest of the)
EEA.

Of course migration that was one of the main points of the leave
campaigners, so that's going to change.

If you want to see a muddle, see Boris Johnson's muddle of a column the
Monday after the referendum, promising the land at the end of the
rainbow. He was one of the main figureheads for the official Vote Leave
campaign.

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 08:37:49 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:01:05 on Mon, 4 Jul
2016, Martin Coffee remarked:
In my view political people do not actually have a mandate to negotiate
any particular "settlement" with the rest of the EU as none was offered
for the electorate to vote on.

There were a whole set of so-called promises, most of which were
retracted the day after the referendum.

Perhaps we should have used a two-stage mechanism like New Zealand did for
choosing its flag? The first stage was a national vote to choose the
favourite one of five alternatives (whittled down from a very long list by
a committee). The second vote was to choose between the existing flag and
the most popular alternative one. The existing flag won.

Dunno how they 'whittled down' the list, but Kiwis ended up choosing
from a miserable group of look-alikes... black and blue and silvery
ferns... and an obsession with retaining four stars, which is the
confusion point with Oz they were trying to break.

At least, amongst kicking and screaming, the Federal Gummint of the
time made a political decision to give Canada the Maple Leaf. You try
to change that now!

Of course I didn't vote directly for a huge reduction in
immigration from the EU. I voted for the means to reduce it,
amongst other things.

I have no interest in anything Boris Johnson writes or says
and I can well believe his column is confused and incoherent.
I'm glad we Londoners are rid of him and I believe Michael Gove
did the nation a great service.