Please sign the petition!

[karatekid]

I was recently working in Aldershot for a few days and was surprised to see the numbers of Nepalese people walking around the town centre and generally just hanging around. Young and old with very little to do. Upon enquiring with the local business I was working for I was told this was a result of the campaign by Joanna Lumley to allow former Gurkha members and their families to settle in the UK.
I remember the campaign and fully supported it, but looking at these desperate people without jobs, homes and any sort of direction I could only feel sorry for them and suspected quite a few of them would rather be back in Nepal instead of sitting in a cold damp parks all day, getting turned out of shops where they go to keep warm and generally just walking the streets.
They are living in near poverty it seems and the dream sold to them by Joanna Lumley turned out to be a bit of a red herring. It's a real shame for them as they deserve more than some others to have a share of what this country has to offer.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm not doubting that the local shop owners of Aldershot as a credible source but the argument here is that should former British Military personnel and their families be allowed to settle in the Uk after they have finished serving?

Its got to be a "yes, of course" surely?

EDIT - see you are not arguing against that! Apologies, and yes, they deserve better than that

[evensteadiereddie]

If our politicians actually got together to improve the lot of ordinary folk instead of themselves, we might not need celebrities doing their ******* job for them.

[RingoMcCartney]

Rowling should put her bedrooms where her mouth is.

[evensteadiereddie]

Rowling should put her bedrooms where her mouth is.

********, you really are moronic. The woman has given millions away to the causes she supports, she doesn't owe you or anybody else anything.
What have you ever done apart from sneer from the sidelines ?
And, whether you like it or not - in the spirit of free speech you purport to believe in - she is entitled to her opinion.

[Lancasterclaret]

See the points I was making earlier in the thread Ringo.

[Flatline]

Yes I see that Lancaster, and JK Rowling probably has more right to speak to/for the nation than most given her background. It's the likes of Lilly Allen that annoy people more.

When did JK Rowling get elected?

[dsr]

No, because we've left.

"No deal" would essentially be (this is my reading of it) WTO rules on all types of trade, and I haven't a clue about travel, immigration and everything else.

"No deal" would be a disaster, and the only other realistic option is that court case in Dublin in which people are arguing that you can decide to pull out of triggering Article 50 at anytime means we'd stay in the EU.

That wouldn't solve anything though, as we've voted to leave (unless massive change of opinion, particularly in England) so its back to whatever deal we get being better than "No deal".

Off topic, I know, but "no deal" would mean (under WTO rules) that our imports from and exports to the EU become on average about 3% more expensive, but the government makes a profit on tariffs; our imports and exports to the rest of the world will be subject to new agreements which means (if we and our trading partners go for free trade) would make imports from and exports to the rest of the world, 3% cheaper.

[RingoMcCartney]

********, you really are moronic. The woman has given millions away to the causes she supports, she doesn't owe you or anybody else anything.
What have you ever done apart from sneer from the sidelines ?
And, whether you like it or not - in the spirit of free speech you purport to believe in - she is entitled to her opinion.

Absolutely she's entitled to her opinion. But she should back up her words with actions.

Also , I'm not sneering. And, just like Rowling. I have the right to pass opinion . Ideally without being called
moronic.

[nil_desperandum]

Once Article 50 is triggered, we will be out of the EU in 2 years time (unless the EU states agree to extend this). So if we have no deal at the end of those 2 years, we will be out, and in the absolute worst possible circumstances. It will be a disaster for this country.

I understand this "John", but realistically and from a practical point of view it can't happen - can it?
Let's say we have 2 years from March 31st 2017 and no deal is reached. Presumably we enter WTO rules from April 1st. (No problem some would say)
Ok, but - to give one example, what happens to the Irish border on April 1st? Presumably it stays open, so there's no immediate end to "free movement".
Do we still use our EU passports? (Presumably yes, as nothing else will have been negotiated, or are our borders closed and our EU passports invalid?).
Will there be any co-operation on immigration at the channel ports from April 1st?
That's what I meant when I was questioning what "no deal" actually means.
So yes technically / legally we would be out after 2 years, but at that point we would have to either accept some kind of deal or keep negotiating (IMO). I really don't see how we could just say we're not making a deal and we're out. There are too many areas where that wouldn't work.
As it happens, my EU passport expires at the end of 2018. When I re-apply will my new EU passport be valid beyond March 31st 2019? There'll have to be a deal on stuff like that, or it will have to stay as it is. Otherwise we really will start to look like "Little Britain"

[dsr]

You don't have an EU passport, you have a British passport issued to EU specifications. It will stay valid until expiry.

The Irish border will be officially closed but practically open. Control of borders means more than physically keeping people out (or in); it also means having the right to deport people who have got in and we don't want them. I have little doubt that Irish people will be allowed free movement, quite possibly without passports, as always happened before the open-border policy started in the 1990's or whenever.

[Bacchus]

Can't help wondering how many refugees RingoMcCartney has taken in.

To be honest, if I was a refugee and I was offered a bed at Ringo's place I'd probably turn around and head back to the war zone.

[nil_desperandum]

You don't have an EU passport, you have a British passport issued to EU specifications. It will stay valid until expiry.

The Irish border will be officially closed but practically open. Control of borders means more than physically keeping people out (or in); it also means having the right to deport people who have got in and we don't want them. I have little doubt that Irish people will be allowed free movement, quite possibly without passports, as always happened before the open-border policy started in the 1990's or whenever.

You are probably correct on the above points, but for this to happen it means, by definition, that a deal of sorts will have been struck.
"..... issued to EU specifications" suggest to me that if we walk out of the EU, don't make any agreement and refuse to co-operate in anyway -including paying what we owe, then it would be a matter for the EU whether they choose to honour it.

I would also mention that waving a UK passport in the air was central to Farage's campaign.

[evensteadiereddie]

Absolutely she's entitled to her opinion. But she should back up her words with actions.

Also , I'm not sneering. And, just like Rowling. I have the right to pass opinion . Ideally without being called
moronic.

What words should she back up ? So if you were to support the eradication of, say, ISIS, you'd go and fight alongside any forces attempting to do that ?
No ? Oh dear. You wouldn't back up your words ? Sign a ******* petition, everybody.
Maybe you aren't moronic or such a **** but your lazy and rather ignorant response to this pathetic petition is. And I'm afraid sneering is exactly what you are doing.
As I said, she's done a damn sight more to change the world than you ever will. I'm delighted people like her have the guts to stand up for their views, it's a nice change - greedy, devious politicians and their blind supporters are getting us nowhere.

[RingoMcCartney]

What words should she back up ? So if you were to support the eradication of, say, ISIS, you'd go and fight alongside any forces attempting to do that ?
No ? Oh dear. You wouldn't back up your words ? Sign a ******* petition, everybody.
Maybe you aren't moronic or such a **** but your lazy and rather ignorant response to this pathetic petition is. And I'm afraid sneering is exactly what you are doing.
As I said, she's done a damn sight more to change the world than you ever will. I'm delighted people like her have the guts to stand up for their views, it's a nice change - greedy, devious politicians and their blind supporters are getting us nowhere.

Calm down mate.

[RingoMcCartney]

To be honest, if I was a refugee and I was offered a bed at Ringo's place I'd probably turn around and head back to the war zone.

How very dare you turn up your nose up at the chance to a luxury filled night at Ringo Towers!

[aggi]

Off topic, I know, but "no deal" would mean (under WTO rules) that our imports from and exports to the EU become on average about 3% more expensive, but the government makes a profit on tariffs; our imports and exports to the rest of the world will be subject to new agreements which means (if we and our trading partners go for free trade) would make imports from and exports to the rest of the world, 3% cheaper.

Which is easy enough on the face of it, once you drill down though there are multiple rates which would vastly increase the amount of red tape, particularly for areas like car manufacturing where components are going in and out of the UK in various stages of completion. Add to that a large part of the City would be hamstrung as it would no longer be able to conduct business in the EU from the UK offices.

[timshorts]

Playing the man. Not the ball. Good effort mate.

You're not Kevin Ball are you!?

Hmmm. Kevin Ball grew up within 20 miles of McCartney's house.

No wonder he was a skinhead.

[dsr]

Which is easy enough on the face of it, once you drill down though there are multiple rates which would vastly increase the amount of red tape, particularly for areas like car manufacturing where components are going in and out of the UK in various stages of completion. Add to that a large part of the City would be hamstrung as it would no longer be able to conduct business in the EU from the UK offices.

I suspect the majority of the car parts movement is outside the EU anyway, which means it won't be made more complicated and it might well be made simpler. As for the City, financial services aren't part of the Single Market anyway, which doesn't mean they won't be affected if the EU wants to start a financial services trade war, but makes it less inevitable.

[dsr]

You are probably correct on the above points, but for this to happen it means, by definition, that a deal of sorts will have been struck.
"..... issued to EU specifications" suggest to me that if we walk out of the EU, don't make any agreement and refuse to co-operate in anyway -including paying what we owe, then it would be a matter for the EU whether they choose to honour it.

I would also mention that waving a UK passport in the air was central to Farage's campaign.

A UK passport is still a UK passport, and won't be affected. It had to be changed to include the words EU and to become standard size and red, but legally it's still a UK passport; for travel purposes, you need it now to get into Europe and that won't change; they could in theory insist on visas, but probably won't.

[aggi]

I suspect the majority of the car parts movement is outside the EU anyway, which means it won't be made more complicated and it might well be made simpler. As for the City, financial services aren't part of the Single Market anyway, which doesn't mean they won't be affected if the EU wants to start a financial services trade war, but makes it less inevitable.

I'm not sure, look at the plants we have making engines for Germany for instance.

I'm pretty certain that financial services are part of the Single Market, I'd be interested to see anything you have to the contrary.

[dsr]

This is the single market for services, but it then goes on to say that there are specific laws for financial services (because they aren't covered under the services directive).

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services_en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Siddo]

I suspect the majority of the car parts movement is outside the EU anyway, which means it won't be made more complicated and it might well be made simpler. As for the City, financial services aren't part of the Single Market anyway, which doesn't mean they won't be affected if the EU wants to start a financial services trade war, but makes it less inevitable.

The biggest supplier of components to Toyota in Derbyshire is right here in Burnley. The pressure on suppliers to keep costs down means most car components for cars made in the UK are actually manufactured in the UK.
Aerospace is more like the model you mention.

[nil_desperandum]

A UK passport is still a UK passport, . ........ for travel purposes, you need it now to get into Europe and that won't change; they could in theory insist on visas, but probably won't.

So - as you have just admitted, you don't actually know. (Just like me). And whether it is decided that we need some kind of visa. (most unlikely), or not, it still will have to be an agreed decision, which by my definition is a "deal".
And again, I would question what all the fuss was about when Farage kept going on the television etc. with a blue passport, promising to get rid of the "EU passport". He must attach some significance to it - unless it was like the £350 million NHS claim that was plastered over his bus, which he later dismissed.

[aggi]

This is the single market for services, but it then goes on to say that there are specific laws for financial services (because they aren't covered under the services directive).

https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/services_en" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But this is still all in relation to the single market, there isn't a separate European single market for financial services that we'll still be a member of if we leave the EU on a "no deal" basis.

[dsr]

So - as you have just admitted, you don't actually know. (Just like me). And whether it is decided that we need some kind of visa. (most unlikely), or not, it still will have to be an agreed decision, which by my definition is a "deal".
And again, I would question what all the fuss was about when Farage kept going on the television etc. with a blue passport, promising to get rid of the "EU passport". He must attach some significance to it - unless it was like the £350 million NHS claim that was plastered over his bus, which he later dismissed.

Farage didn't like the plasticy red passport and preferred the more rigid, larger blue one that we used to have. It's a barely relevant issue - all it means is that currently our passports have to be the same coulour as the rest of the EU, in future we can choose our own colour. It's Farage's illustration of our lack of independence, but in real terms it means zilch.

I don't know what rules the world's governments will operate in two years' time. I didn't realise that was what you were asking. What I am telling you is that a passport is a passport, and just because ours is currently ordered to be red and in two years it might be blue, changes nothing about how a passport works. But whether we need a visa, or whether foreigners coming here need a visa, is entriely a matter for the government concerned. The UK will have the option to say no visitors of any nationality without a visa, or anyone can come without even a passport, or no visitors at all, or Irish can come without a passport but the rest of the world needs passport and visa, or any combination of rules they like. But they can do it unilaterally, no agreement needed. (Retaliation could be taken, of course.)

[dsr]

But this is still all in relation to the single market, there isn't a separate European single market for financial services that we'll still be a member of if we leave the EU on a "no deal" basis.

True, but there isn't now either. But it's also relevant that joining EFTA (as some people advocate) wouldn't get us a single financial market, either.

[nil_desperandum]

dsr - I'm simply trying to prove the point that in practical terms there's no such thing as "no deal". There are certain areas of our relationship that have to be resolved within the 2 year framework, even if it's a simple agreement that says, UK / EU passport holders will continue to use the lanes for EU passport holders at airports, or of course, to decide that we use the other lane. It still has to be agreed.
Likewise, will the current agreement for paying income tax and NI in the EU be retained, or might someone working in (e.g.) France end up being taxed and paying NI twice?.
It's not that I don't want a good Brexit that benefits the UK, it's just that I find this "no deal" concept to be utter nonsense. In voting for Brexit we committed ourselves to a lengthy process of negotiation, and at the end of it there will have to be some kind of deal, even if it's a very simple one.

[dsr]

Double taxation treaties aren't done on an EU basis, they're done nation by nation, so that's not an issue.

A lot of the deals will be simple. The one the Lords stuck their oar in about, will EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU be able to continue as before? That would be an easy yes, quid pro quo. (Though the House of Lords has complicated that one.)

Will EU passport holders be able to use the UK/EU lanes in the UK? UK decision, no agreement needed. And vice versa for us in France, Germany, etc. It can be talked about, but it's not an issue if it isn't agreed.

[nil_desperandum]

No real disagreement, but Mrs May was acclaimed by the tabloid press, and many on the right, for saying "no deal" is better than a "bad deal", but as you have just admitted there will have to be deals. It would be almost impossible to go into a post-Brexit phase with nothing agreed, but there are a significant number of people who seem to think we can just negotiate for 2 years and if we aren't happy we can just walk away and that's it. There are in fact massive implications if we were simply walk out of negotiations with nothing resolved, and Mrs May should admit that.

[ClaretMoffitt]

How many refugees live in your house?

I don't go around preaching that other people should do it you ******* melt. I've no interest in taking in thousands of people, she does. She just doesn't want to take any responsibility or use any of her massive resources to do so. I don't have 16 unoccupied bedrooms, a net worth in the billions and still try to influence public money to be used for my virtue signalling. So if she wants to be the worlds nanny, she can use her own money to do it.

[joey13]

I'm not doubting that the local shop owners of Aldershot as a credible source but the argument here is that should former British Military personnel and their families be allowed to settle in the Uk after they have finished serving?

Its got to be a "yes, of course" surely?

EDIT - see you are not arguing against that! Apologies, and yes, they deserve better than that

Last count there was about 10,000 Nepalese, no jobs , and living in old run down army barracks, not sure how Joanna Lumley took in .

[nil_desperandum]

Last count there was about 10,000 Nepalese, no jobs , and living in old run down army barracks, not sure how Joanna Lumley took in .

Of course I have sympathy for the Gurkhas, many of whom are living in miserable conditions, but they aren't being held in the UK against their wishes are they? Aren't they as free as you or I to go anywhere in the world to seek out new opportunities.?.. or to return to their own country without fear?
The bigger issue for the ex-Gurkhas is that they are mainly old and have inadequate pensions. but their situation can't be compared to that of refugees.

[RingoMcCartney]

The Labour government had a racist attitude to the brave gurkhas. Disgraceful.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... rkhas-vote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[evensteadiereddie]

At least you're consistent, ringo. Mind-bogglingly stupid but very consistent. Remind me, who is in power now and have been for the past few years ?
And have our present government stepped in to ease the plight of "Our (Ghurka) Boys" ? Oh no, they haven't, there's a surprise..........

[aggi]

True, but there isn't now either. But it's also relevant that joining EFTA (as some people advocate) wouldn't get us a single financial market, either.

The rules aren't fully harmonised (although getting there) but we access through the Free Movement of Capital. This would be removed if we went with "no deal". UK firms wouldn't be able to operate in the EU.

[dsr]

The rules aren't fully harmonised (although getting there) but we access through the Free Movement of Capital. This would be removed if we went with "no deal". UK firms wouldn't be able to operate in the EU.

We don't have any sort of trade deal with the USA. It doesn't mean there are no US companies, or for that matter US banks, operating in the UK.

[Greenmile]

I don't go around preaching that other people should do it you ******* melt. I've no interest in taking in thousands of people, she does. She just doesn't want to take any responsibility or use any of her massive resources to do so. I don't have 16 unoccupied bedrooms, a net worth in the billions and still try to influence public money to be used for my virtue signalling. So if she wants to be the worlds nanny, she can use her own money to do it.

Neither does JKR, any more, because she did a bit more than just sign an internet petition to practise what she preaches.

https://factualfacts.com/celeb-facts/j- ... o-charity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Probably just "virtue signalling", I suppose, but it's a lot better than "heartless-b@st@rd signalling".

[Flatline]

Neither does JKR, any more, because she did a bit more than just sign an internet petition to practise what she preaches.

https://factualfacts.com/celeb-facts/j- ... o-charity/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Probably just "virtue signalling", I suppose, but it's a lot better than "heartless-b@st@rd signalling".

Not taking in any refugees then?

[Imploding Turtle]

Someone should start a counter-petition to demand Ringo personally goes to Calais and physically prevents refugees from entering the UK if he wants us to stop accepting them. Of course it's a stupid suggestion but i thought this was a thread for stupid suggestions.

[joey13]

The Labour government had a racist attitude to the brave gurkhas. Disgraceful.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theg ... rkhas-vote" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I suggest you go down to aldershot and have a look at the consequences of the decision to let them in

[aggi]

We don't have any sort of trade deal with the USA. It doesn't mean there are no US companies, or for that matter US banks, operating in the UK.

But not operating from the US, they need to have offices here that comply with the relevant legislation. Just like we'd have to shift jobs from the UK to Europe.