• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
Do you know why this is the case? (Legislative history, or fasttracking the process?)

Seems to me (and I'm making this up right now, didnt research) like if you try to set up a political union, where people are supposed to see each other as equals, it would be counter productive to expose them to "extensive background checks - to find out if their relationship status was genuine" if they wanted to bring their spouse or family over.

To get rid of the notion, that you - the serve, ask the british state to grant your familiy right of residency - and make it a less formal process. So yes, in a sense political unification seems like the driver behind this, I'd think.

That others would then still be stuck in the conventional system, and have to pay fees might be seen as somethig like a wilful oversight.

I dont think the intention of the law was to demean or financially harm the people that get ranked back (or on the flipside, financially better europeans). I think that that would be an outcome that people glanced over (newer regulation not completely replacing older one - and causing problems in implementation).

I don't think any european would feel 'better' than a UK citizen, because they got fasttracked in the process, and didn't have to pay that one time fee. But thats me.

The point I tried to make is, that - stuff like that should not be applicable to services like social security (money equivalent benefits),which would be a huge cause for upset in any country - and is often used colloquially by the populist right to stir the pot. ("Those migrants get more than you do.") If stuff like that would verifyably be true (apart from lets say charity (donated clothing, ..) ), you could close down society tomorrow - as enough people would be angry enough to cause an uproar. So those in general are popular myths - as I've come to understand them.

Your example doesnt seem to be that. Its probably bad law making. (The downranking part at least (in the least?) seems ill conceived to me..) I dont see malice. Yet I guess, yes, structural discrimination could be argued.
 
Last edited by notimp,

Reiten

Well-Known Member
Newcomer
Joined
Feb 28, 2014
Messages
81
Trophies
1
XP
2,292
Country
Germany
you mention that EU nationals shouldn't get more than British citizens in benefits and we've heard EU officials saying they want a equal playing field in the negotiations for a deal. pity this doesn't apply in all cases.

I think you know that you cannot exercise your treaty rights in the country you were born in. so being a British citizen if I married someone from outside the EU I would have to apply for a spouse visa, and earn at least the minimum income threshold, provide evidence the relationship is genuine, pay £1,500 fee, wait weeks and even months for the result

yet a EU citizen can exercise their treaty rights in the UK and if they marry someone from outside the EU they can apply for a EU Settlement scheme family permit. which is FREE, the British Embassy has to treat this application as a priority over other (British ) applications and unlike the British citizen they don't have to meet the minimum income threshold or prove their relationship is genuine and they virtually have a legal right to this visa.

so why don't we have the same rights as EU citizens in this case ? oh sure if I go to another EU country but should people have to?

and yes a British citizen could try and use the Surinder Singh route to bring their partner to the UK. but really again should they have to !
The question is, when was this piece of legislation created? Is it something that was created before the EU or after, though if you think about it, it really doesn't matter when it was created. Looking at it from the side it looks like this:
  • if it is legislation from the time before the EU, then it's the UK that has failed to adjust legislation, so that it doesn't screw the UK citizens. Don't see a fault with the EU here;
  • if it is legislation that was created while being a EU member, then the UK purposely set up legislation that screws over UK citizens. Again I don't see why the EU should be at fault;
And even if you have to follow the EU legislation it's not like you can't make laws on top of that.
 
D

Deleted User

Guest
Bravo les Anglais !

You give us a glimpse of light in this dark time...
We french spent a WHOLE YEAR fighting against EU law enforcers that relenlessly attack our industry and loot our social security system.

You showed us a way out, thanks :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: CORE

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
Tired of those right wing sickos catering to idiots.

Correcting it anyhow. Idiot far right sicko posts propganda - 2 minutes out of that persons day - me correcting it, 15 minutes out of mine.

PM8303u.png


zCP2AcL.png

src: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/external/html/budgetataglance/default_en.html#france

Half of what France was spending on top of what they receive from the EU budget was paying for Britains rebate (so the UK had to pay less).

3 billion netto expenses for a functioning EU is pocket change.

Famous UK "print a lie on a bus ad" at least claimed 21 billion (yearly) for the NHS by leaving the EU. Get your sense of dimensions of whats needed for your argument right. You handed over 1.3 billion in rebate money over to your good friend the UK just for better foreign relations. Now France doesnt have 1.7 billion to ensure good political and business relations with 26 other countries? Remind me the next time you have a different position on syria, or some former african colony.

Speaking of african colonies, here is the yearly total revenue of one of frances oil companies - 210 billion USD a year:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268764/revenue-of-total-sa/

So if that company alone spent 1.4% of total revenue for european relations, you'd have the entirety of frances netto expenses for the EU covered. And thats with paying for poor Britains rebate.

Guy above me is delusional, but just the right amount of moron to replicate extreme right myths on a gaming forum.

Causes more work, than anything.

If people dont care - they help propagating lies. A forum isn't facebook, where you just ignore all the uninformed rightwing recruitment postings.

(And thats me, so someone that very much has sympathies for the gilet jaunes. Any guy in business or politics sees that number and laughs you off the stage. But on the internet every opinion is equal. The brightest most enlightening thought (usually also not coming from me) stands right next to the measliest of ideological burps.)

edit: Also, almost forgot... France staffs most of the EU bureaucracy. So double lol.
 
Last edited by notimp,
  • Like
Reactions: Ev1l0rd

JoeBloggs777

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
854
Trophies
0
XP
1,726
Country
United Kingdom
You handed over 1.3 billion in rebate money over to your good friend the UK just for better foreign relations.

and I thought the UK rebate was because in the early 80s the UK became a large net contributor to the EU budget despite getting little back and the rebate was to fix this imbalance, nothing to do with foreign relations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Doran754 and CORE

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
There is a logical incongruence in your statement. ;) But you are not wrong on the first part. :)

(Stuff like this always has to do with transnational/foreign relations, imho. Otherwise you wouldnt be spending that kind of money.

Also how much you are profiting from what was mostly an economic union is up to your businesses. (Which then in return you can tax. It is entirely possible, that you spend more than you would have without EU spending, but that you gain more in taxes overall, than you would have without the trading union. 'EU costs me moneys "wäääh" is not a zero sum game - thats part of the lie that was on that bus. It never has been a zero sum game (what do I pay for EU funds, what do I get out of them). (UK, as one of the bigger economies, outside of the eurozone, has less relative benefits. Than lets say a smaller country that gets a more favourable trade deal, because its part of the EU.)) So the logic behind 'we 'bribe' you to become a large net contributor' is flawed at first glance. Its mostly that britains economy was rather large and therefore they had an advantage in negotiations. Hence rebate (in terms of what you should have payed in relations to your economic status/gains. (Theoretical gains, that is, 'economic potential of your industries within a trading union.' would be the better phrase.))

You are correct though that expenses dont necessarily go down, because the UK left the EU. They were a net contributor.

edit: Also, in terms of how the EU budget works there are structural funds, that dont get tapped into because of national political reasons. (Funds usually are structured as co-payments for new developments.) So in a rather plain example - if britain would have done more on energy policy - it would have gotten more payouts from the EU. Actually I wanted to make that example with france, but that would have made me loose the argument in principal. ;) (Because france had riots based on how they wanted to reform their energy policy.)

EU fund money is 'political' so to speak. But its soft power (take it or leave it). And for the larger countries, thats mostly irrelevant. (Amounts small compared to their GDP.) It keeps the smaller ones in line though. (Hence foreign relations stuff.)

So for the smaller countries it is 'how much do I get out of the funds' (very easy to swallow politically if you get more moneys).
For the larger ones its 'how much do I get out of it based on economic gains' (very easy to swallow for industries, because they get more moneys).

Lets say Brexit was mostly about growth perspectives in british low income economies/sectors (highest growth potential in second and third world economies - new britain wants them as partners), and fear of further (european) political integration. And you have a better idea of what happened.

Now if you take france on the other hand - them isolated (sovereign), really doesnt benefit them at all. Regardless of what their right wing politicians tell their voters. Then they are isolated and what? Sell more cars, wine and cheese?

At least britain has former common wealth and five eyes relations.

But you see that the idiot bait, for british far right voters and french ones is exactly the same. So what does the far right gain out of it? Political power. So more growth for their ventures nationally. (So while they get bigger (yay), the nation economically does not.)

And then you have idiots, that complain that they spend 1.7 billion a year for the EU (but get a multiple of that in larger tax revenues, through industries). Heck france will go through a managed economic shock, just because britain left the EU. But according to the one guy - thank you, you showed us the way? Next stop isolated france competing and losing against germany, without any political restrictions, again? I mean, how stupid can you get?

This is 'make it simple and emotional' ('merica!!!1!!!!) being on the outlook for people with no education whatsoever again. There is no logic that goes 'because I loves me fellow country just as much as the britsman - we haves so much in common - and he will help me economically'. Britsman wont care about france one iota - regardless if they are in the EU or not. ;) (As long as germany doesnt get too big, what do they care. They be island. Control the channel, have a nice day frenchie.)

edit: Also - they havent 'shown anyone the way' because Brexit negotiations are still unfinished. We still dont know what it means (hard brexit, yes - no, f.e.). The party the UK just celebrated was bullshit. Somone ordered balloons for emotional fluff. All decisions still missing.

Not that the average gbatemp political forum contributer would have noticed. Because - look, they had party on streets, so it must be over.

(If you only ever look at what face said to other face publically - you will have no idea of what politics is, ever in your life. "Nigel said, we done good, guys, we be voted for the winner! He pays us balloons and champagne, and cheap event with speeches for the masses!" ;) )
 
Last edited by notimp,
  • Like
Reactions: Ev1l0rd and Henx

Ev1l0rd

(⌐◥▶◀◤) girl - noirscape
Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,004
Trophies
1
Location
Site 19
Website
catgirlsin.space
XP
3,441
Country
Netherlands
Also - they havent 'shown anyone the way' because Brexit negotiations are still unfinished. We still dont know what it means (hard brexit, yes - no, f.e.). The party the UK just celebrated was bullshit. Somone ordered balloons for emotional fluff. All decisions still missing.
I guess the only formality to be said for certain is that nobody can walk out of any Brexit procedure anymore/any plans of a second referendum on the matter are off the table.

Which for people that care about Leave probably seems like a positive.
 

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
Regarding non-EU spousal immigration specifically: This is more than a one time fee. It is a five year process that requires two visa applications, an application for leave-to-remain, and optional application for British citizenship. On top of the fees for each application there is also an NHS surcharge of equivalent amount, three total payments in excess of £3,000.00 and then more for citizenship, and of course expenses on top of that to satisfy the evidence requirements of appropriate accommodation etcetera. This is the bare minimum requirement for any non-EU spouse, the costs are raised significantly if children are involved or become involved at any step during the process.

All of which EU spouses have been exempt from. For those of us who do have non-EU spouses it has been quite a sore point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeBloggs777

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
Rotten. But I dont think that thats a structural issue. (At least not one thats - because of the darn EU -- but htat would be the easy out.)

The thing is, that you can always point at one minor thing that goes worng (think of our UK imported spouses! (sorry.. ;) I'm agitating for no reason), and with that mask the other thing thats going wrong (mass inter EU migration having been an issue caused by UK politics, not EU politics (even germany currently is 'fine' in terms of numbers - inter EU migration has trickled down to next to nothing -- which doesnt mean, that you will get your jobs back - if they are now done cheaper by an EU migrant).

The last part of the logic goes as follows.

Migrants (if migration as a process is well managed) add and dont substract to national economic wealth.

First generation might be structurally unemployed for half or even more of their lives (if they get asylum granted and are allowed to stay) -- you still let them into your country for a net gain - because of the percentage that will work their asses off (for no real reason), and because of their children. (Who could get higher education, ...)

Those actors alone will hike up economic growth, and better social systems in the long run. (Essentially - more 'competition' amongst people who have to worry for job security. So exactly what britain voted for.. ;) )

So the out for someone that didn't make it, because of cheaper work competition - is always "to get a better education". Otherwise society - economically doesnt care. (Social care and charity aside, but those wont give you dignity back.)

But. And this is a big but. If you now say - no structural growth whatsoever ("western societies have matured"), outside of certain sectors - you end up with companies mostly growing based on the growth outside of your country. That makes companies then far harder to tax in your country ('there is no worker solidarity anymore').
As a result you now have much more bullshit jobs, and less job security structurally. So in a sense, there is no obvious big next thing.

So - I'm sorry - but the job that some migrant took for less pay - wont be yours anymore - just because you voted right wing. Its either 'get a better one through that political movement growing' or still be fucked.

And if you look at structural (not political - but in terms of economic growth f.e.) 'growth potential on the far right' - there is none. And if you look at 'growth potential' with the climate kids - there is none (that isn't in africa).

So both movements are competing on 'sectoral growth' (can I fuck over my fellow citizens faster, than they can fuck over me - because we both realize, that there are very limited 'good jobs' to be had, from us mattering a little more.).

How you solve that is unclear. :) Davos is more frightened from right wing uprisings than from left wing ones. ;)

All I can tell you is, that international elites are trying to fuck you over on the PR front big time - currently. (Davos 'stakeholder capitalism' and 'corporate social responsibility').

So - the same as with climate stuff, far right 'solution' only is interesting as long as it grows. But growth potential under "we want nationalism" is very limited (under we want energy solutions that cost more than conventional ones (only in terms of profitability, not cost), to then consume less energy overall - just the same.. ;) ).
 
Last edited by notimp,

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
It's an issue with our own government, absolutely. I understand the necessity of something like the NHS surcharge, but the actual processing fees for each application are inflated above actual cost by something like 800% last time I checked. It's quite scandalous. You can imagine how something like that could fuel anti-EU sentiment particularly with EU migrants not having to pay into the health system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JoeBloggs777

JoeBloggs777

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
854
Trophies
0
XP
1,726
Country
United Kingdom
Regarding non-EU spousal immigration specifically: This is more than a one time fee. It is a five year process that requires two visa applications, an application for leave-to-remain, and optional application for British citizenship. On top of the fees for each application there is also an NHS surcharge of equivalent amount, three total payments in excess of £3,000.00 and then more for citizenship, and of course expenses on top of that to satisfy the evidence requirements of appropriate accommodation etcetera. This is the bare minimum requirement for any non-EU spouse, the costs are raised significantly if children are involved or become involved at any step during the process.

All of which EU spouses have been exempt from. For those of us who do have non-EU spouses it has been quite a sore point.

So true, I use to be a mod on a Immigration forum many years ago, it's crazy that a EU citizen has a virtual legal right to bring their non EU spouse and family to the UK for free while it's so costly for a British citizen and you also face the possibility of the visa being refused.

cost of a settlement visa £1,523. then FLR (M) £1,033 and for ILR £2,389 and finally Naturalisation £1,330
total cost £6,275 :angry: and it's all Free for a EU citizen, yet we all know nothing is ever free, the Brits with non EU spouses are paying for them :O
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
It's an issue with our own government, absolutely. I understand the necessity of something like the NHS surcharge, but the actual processing fees for each application are inflated above actual cost by something like 800% last time I checked. It's quite scandalous. You can imagine how something like that could fuel anti-EU sentiment particularly with EU migrants not having to pay into the health system.
Processing fees dont matter.
They are processing fees. :)

They arent even taxes. ;)

Amount of money you are talking about it is so small, you could as well complain about 'videogames costing more'. You having an issue with fees (what you pay for government operational expenses), doesnt even count in the big picture at all.

If somone told you it would, because you were attached emotionally, they were lying. :) You arent fighting to pay government workers much less in direct payments, so they'd have to increase taxes, are you?

Also - thats not the EUs fault. Implementation of those laws was UK juristiction. Preamble was - probably fuck over EU migrants less, we want them in our industries (the qualiied ones), without them not coming - because their wives are "stuck in customs". What the UK then created in terms of fee structures was not the EU fucking you over.

Get it? Good. :)
 
Last edited by notimp,

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
Perhaps if you were looking at the fees from the perspective of a national economy. Look at them from the perspective of an individual, particularly a low to middle income worker and these are large sums of money that make a difference in life. It's a given that such things will breed discontent.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
Yes - and the individual doesnt count. :) (Only ever aggregated they do. (At least in politics.) As individuals, if they take over a movements paradigm, and become a leader or something. :) )

What does it cost you to mobilize them emotionaly (the subset that things it is a big issue) for political gains? Nothing. Ok. max 3000 pounds for something they will do once in their lives. For less than 1% of the population. In case you follow up with "now everyone gets theirs free". Which is very unlikely.

It doesnt add up to be a real political issue. (Except on fringe cases).

If you go into politics, because the fees for an administral act are too high - in a western economy. Something is wrong. That only should become a political issue (as in you win elections by), if you are dealing with mass corruptions and failed states.

You arent.

So its much more likely, that some right wing populist told you what you wanted to hear, and you were so very greatful, because of that one time, you complained about high fees.

And now you are doing political recruitment work based on 'the fees are too high".

(Please daddy state, be more daddy state, to be less daddy state, so you dont make me pay as much.) There is no structural logic, behind you getting an emotional payoff from someone that tells you, yes - your idea that the fees are too high is very important to our political movement...
 
Last edited by notimp,

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
I see...

I don't really understand the necessity of that rant. But if you want more recruitment for "right wing populism" you can continue telling individuals that they don't matter and you'll get plenty of it.
 

notimp

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
I'm not mad. I'm just little confused. ;)

So lets say that law was implemented, to have companies get their EU qualified worker imports faster. Without them being all bummed, that their wives are 'stuck in customs' (fast tracking).

One of those workers costs them 3-10+ million in lifetime expenses. Opportunity cost is probably 2-3 years pay. (If that position cant be staffed, because a qualified job applicant decided not to come.) (For the state thats at least an entire work year equivalent in taxes in every such case.) Then those companies turn around and ask the state - hey would you mind waving 3000 pounds (edit: or even 6000 (just read it)) and fast tracking them? And the state shrugs with their shoulders and tells them - sure, there have some.

Mystery solved. :) And yes its still unjust. But politics were probably banking on 'no one is changing their political believe, because of a onetime 6000 GBP fee for something they need from their government. :)

(Straw man argument (not important in relation) comes to mind pretty fast. ;) But then for the individual it might matter very much.

And giving them the idea, that you are behind them politically all the way on such a comparatively small issue (simply because not everyone is personally affected) - usually is populism. (Promises alone don't cost much. Issues that dont affect many (rich ;)) people will be tackled last.))
 
Last edited by notimp,

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
You're not the only one, believe me. This is what I'd call a tangent. The economics are largely irrelevant when you're dealing with people with non-economic concerns. The majority of what you've said in this thread is completely meaningless because people don't care about economics unless it affects them on an individual level and they can see real, tangible effects. What people do care about is fairness, justice, and social cohesion. Plus it's so much simpler to understand.
 

Ev1l0rd

(⌐◥▶◀◤) girl - noirscape
Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,004
Trophies
1
Location
Site 19
Website
catgirlsin.space
XP
3,441
Country
Netherlands
What people do care about is fairness, justice, and social cohesion.
I mean, notimp does cover that argument, and the conclusion there is that the EU didn't screw up, it was the UK themselves who sloppily implemented EU laws.

To draw a parralel, imagine someone telling you not to shoot yourself in the foot, then you shoot yourself in your hand and then you go and complain to them that they didn't tell you to not shoot in your hand.
 

FGFlann

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2015
Messages
664
Trophies
0
XP
1,422
Country
That would be a matter of perspective wouldn't it? Is the implementation sloppy or is the law unjust? In either case the imposition of the law comes from the same source. It's fairly obvious where the ire of those affected will turn.
 

Ev1l0rd

(⌐◥▶◀◤) girl - noirscape
Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
2,004
Trophies
1
Location
Site 19
Website
catgirlsin.space
XP
3,441
Country
Netherlands
That would be a matter of perspective wouldn't it? Is the implementation sloppy or is the law unjust? In either case the imposition of the law comes from the same source. It's fairly obvious where the ire of those affected will turn.
I mean, in a sane situation, the ire should turn to the lawmakers who half-assed the implementation and caused the weird situations.

Which in this case would be the Thatcher government if I'm not mistaken...?
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    SylverReZ @ SylverReZ: @salazarcosplay, Morning