Apparently not all Brexiters are geriatric "Heartbeat"
fans or are knuckle draggers living on Welsh Council Estates.
(How things have changed; when in the 30's unemployed
Welsh miners, Chapel to a man, patiently queued up every
day to read the newspapers in their local Library. Good
to see what a good dose of Margaret Thatcher and Richard
Dawkins can do for community morale)

They simply seem to have problems, in thinking things through.

quote

Anne Main, Tory MP and Brexit backer, said: "Nobody on the official Leave
campaign raised the prospect of sending people away and deporting people.
"This has been raised by the home secretary and it is a catastrophic error of
judgment for someone who wishes to lead this country to even suggest those
people who are here legally, working with families and settled, should be even
part of the negotiations."

Labour MP and Brexit campaigner Gisela Stuart - who tabled the Commons
question - said the UK should not "retrospectively change the rights of its
citizens" , and that anything other than a guarantee was "a failure of this
government to protect its people".

She said EU nationals "are not bargaining chips" - an argument that has
separately been made by Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom.

Immigration minister James Brokenshire defended the government's position,
saying there would be "no immediate change" affecting EU citizens, but
that whether to offer an absolute guarantee would be a decision for the
next prime minister.

/quote

Passing the buck in time honored fashion IOW.

This was all in response to an earlier BBC interview with Phil Hammond

quote



In a BBC interview, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond - who is backing
Mrs May to be the next leader and prime minister - said he thought it "most
unlikely" that EU nationals already living in the UK would be told they could
not stay, and called for informal talks before the UK officially triggers its
departure from the EU.

But he said to fully guarantee EU citizens' rights to remain in the UK, without
commitments from other countries towards Britons abroad, now risked "selling
our people out too cheap".

"You can't say anything until we have had the negotiation because clearly this
has to be a bilateral agreement.

quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36707573

Now obviously Hammond was laying it on a bit thick, for the benefit
of softies such as Main and Stuart who never seemed to have realised
what they, potentially, were voting for.

There is an inexorable logic to this.

Just as there's an inexorable logic to the American Criminal Justice
System in seeking to be scrupulously fair, consigning individuals
to Death Row for 10 or 20 years to contemplate their possible fate
before finally being executed

Just as there's an inexorable logic in any Final Solution to the
Jewish problem in having to gas each last child for as Himmler **
patiently explained, when they grow into adults they'd only
come seeking revenge for the murder of their parents

So there's and inexorable logic in the possibily, if the EU want to
play hardball, of the UK, and indeed the EU having to deport people,
whole families perhaps against their will in the full gaze of the
media. And all because the UK decided it wanted to leave.

A pariah - the UK ? No way!

And yet only three weeks ago anyone daring to suggest such a thing -
the possibility of EU nationals being deported from the UK, would
have been accused of scaremongering*.

Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.


michael adams


* A Straightforward Question for Outers

** I'll see Timmy's Stalin, and raise him a Himmler

....

"michael adams" wrote in message
...
Apparently not all Brexiters are geriatric "Heartbeat"
fans or are knuckle draggers living on Welsh Council Estates.
(How things have changed; when in the 30's unemployed
Welsh miners, Chapel to a man, patiently queued up every
day to read the newspapers in their local Library. Good
to see what a good dose of Margaret Thatcher and Richard
Dawkins can do for community morale)

They simply seem to have problems, in thinking things through.

quote

Anne Main, Tory MP and Brexit backer, said: "Nobody on the official Leave
campaign raised the prospect of sending people away and deporting people.
"This has been raised by the home secretary and it is a catastrophic error
of
judgment for someone who wishes to lead this country to even suggest those
people who are here legally, working with families and settled, should be
even
part of the negotiations."

Labour MP and Brexit campaigner Gisela Stuart - who tabled the Commons
question - said the UK should not "retrospectively change the rights of
its
citizens" , and that anything other than a guarantee was "a failure of
this
government to protect its people".

She said EU nationals "are not bargaining chips" - an argument that has
separately been made by Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom.

Immigration minister James Brokenshire defended the government's position,
saying there would be "no immediate change" affecting EU citizens, but
that whether to offer an absolute guarantee would be a decision for the
next prime minister.

/quote

Passing the buck in time honored fashion IOW.

This was all in response to an earlier BBC interview with Phil Hammond

quote



In a BBC interview, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond - who is backing
Mrs May to be the next leader and prime minister - said he thought it
"most
unlikely" that EU nationals already living in the UK would be told they
could
not stay, and called for informal talks before the UK officially triggers
its
departure from the EU.

But he said to fully guarantee EU citizens' rights to remain in the UK,
without
commitments from other countries towards Britons abroad, now risked
"selling
our people out too cheap".

He's right.

"You can't say anything until we have had the negotiation because clearly
this
has to be a bilateral agreement.

quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36707573

Now obviously Hammond was laying it on a bit thick, for the benefit
of softies such as Main and Stuart who never seemed to have realised
what they, potentially, were voting for.

There is an inexorable logic to this.

Just as there's an inexorable logic to the American Criminal Justice
System in seeking to be scrupulously fair, consigning individuals
to Death Row for 10 or 20 years to contemplate their possible fate
before finally being executed

Even sillier than you usually manage.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

So there's and inexorable logic in the possibily, if the EU want to
play hardball, of the UK, and indeed the EU having to deport people,
whole families perhaps against their will in the full gaze of the
media. And all because the UK decided it wanted to leave.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

A pariah - the UK ? No way!

And yet only three weeks ago anyone daring to suggest such a thing - the
possibility of EU nationals being deported from the UK,

No one is suggesting anything of the sort, ****wit.

would have been accused of scaremongering*.

Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess.

Wrong, it is never going to happen, even if other countrys
in the EU do send all the Brits in their country back and
they aren't going to do that anyway. Spain wouldn’t be
that stupid, it would damage the Spanish economy
severely if they did that. Greece isnt going to do that
either, they are in very deep economic **** and arent
actually stupid enough to make it any worse. Italy and
France have always been happy to have Brits show up
since LONG before the EU has even been invented.

However what's truly scary

Only for terminal ****wits such as yourself.

is that soft lummocks such as Main and Stuart in voting for out, not only
won for themselves the unexpected bonus of wrecking the UK economy

The economy will not be wrecked, you silly little pathological liar.

but the possibily of people being used as bargaining chips.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

When they never ever thought any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

Even sillier than you usually manage.

* A Straightforward Question for Outers

Obvious lie.

There's nothing wrong with having sex with your cousin in your
parents' bed.

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some areas
would be fixed by leaving. As well as hyping up any possible future
immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only will
they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being generally the
poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the inevitable recession.

--
*24 hours in a day ... 24 beers in a case ... coincidence? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 14:09:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some areas
would be fixed by leaving. As well as hyping up any possible future
immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only will
they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being generally the
poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the inevitable recession.

At least the problem won't get any worse.

On 05/07/2016 18:52, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 14:09:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some areas
would be fixed by leaving. As well as hyping up any possible future
immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only will
they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being generally the
poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the inevitable recession.

At least the problem won't get any worse.


It could.
With the UK in the EU we could veto any new members.
With the uK out of the EU we may still have free movement and no say
over new members.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
michael adams wrote

Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the
unexpected bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the
possibily of people being used as bargaining chips. When they
never ever thought any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

You never said anything about people being used as bargaining chips, liar.

And it remains to be seen if any of your lies
and FUD about the economy actually happens.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration
problems in some areas would be fixed by leaving.

More of your lies.

As well as hyping up any possible future immigration.

More of your lies.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because
not only will they almost certainly not get their wish,

Bet they do on Britain being able to decide for itself which
EU citizens are allowed to move to Britain in future.

but they, being generally the poorest in society,
will be the hardest hit by the inevitable recession.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Not only is there
no inevitable recession with Britain leaving the EU,
there isnt a shred of evidence that the poorest in
society will be the worst affected even if there is
a recession given that the poorest in society are
those whose entire income is benefits.

And there isnt any evidence that those whose entire
income is benefits were those who voted to leave
anyway. Even you should have noticed that 52% of
those who bothered to vote are unlikely to actually
be the poorest in society. Those generally are too
feckless to even bother to register, let alone vote.

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/07/2016 18:52, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 14:09:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However what's
truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and Stuart in voting
for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected bonus of
wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people being used as
bargaining chips. When they never ever thought any of this could
ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some
areas would be fixed by leaving. As well as hyping up any possible
future immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only
will they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being
generally the poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the
inevitable recession.

At least the problem won't get any worse.


It could.

It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free movement until we are
officially out of the EU. So at least two years.

With the UK in the EU we could veto any new members.
With the uK out of the EU we may still have free movement and no say
over new members.

It's looking like we won't sign to any agreement which allows free
movement. So bye bye to a free trade deal with the EU. Until we get a more
sensible government.

--
*If a thing is worth doing, wouldn't it have been done already?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/07/2016 18:52, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 14:09:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However what's
truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and Stuart in voting
for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected bonus of
wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people being used as
bargaining chips. When they never ever thought any of this could
ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some
areas would be fixed by leaving. As well as hyping up any possible
future immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only
will they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being
generally the poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the
inevitable recession.

At least the problem won't get any worse.


It could.

It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free movement until we are
officially out of the EU. So at least two years.

With the UK in the EU we could veto any new members.
With the uK out of the EU we may still have free movement and no say
over new members.

It's looking like we won't sign to any agreement which allows free
movement. So bye bye to a free trade deal with the EU. Until we get a more
sensible government.

Not to worry, Dave. Plenty more fish in the sea. Common Fisheries Policy,
that means we'll now be able to have cod'n'chips for about 20 quid.
Or 40 quid if you go to Padstow.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/07/2016 18:52, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 14:09:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However what's
truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and Stuart in voting
for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected bonus of
wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people being used as
bargaining chips. When they never ever thought any of this could
ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some
areas would be fixed by leaving. As well as hyping up any possible
future immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only
will they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being
generally the poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the
inevitable recession.

At least the problem won't get any worse.


It could.

It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free
movement until we are officially out of the EU.

Not necessarily. Britain is free to proclaim that
new conditions apply to new arrivals and that
they won't allowed into Britain from now unless
they meet the new conditions.

So at least two years.

You don’t know that either on when Britain is officially out
of the EU. Britain is free for example to repeal the original
legislation and leave the EU right now and let the negotiation
on the detail of what happens after it has left to the negotiators
or just make an obscene gesture in the general direction of the
EU if the EU decides that say the 4 freedoms are non negotiable
to get an agreement on what happens after Britain has left.

With the UK in the EU we could veto any new
members. With the uK out of the EU we may still
have free movement and no say over new members.

It's looking like we won't sign to any agreement which allows
free movement. So bye bye to a free trade deal with the EU.

The Britain will be free to trade under WTO rules with
the EU, just like all of the USA, Japan, China, India,
Australia, Canada etc etc etc all do fine right now.

Until we get a more sensible government.

Which isnt going to happen any time soon given that
Labour has made itself completely unelectable to govt
any time soon, and UKIP is now completely politically
irrelevant and doesn’t even have Farage running it anymore.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...
**** snipped

I know I should't be too eager to get passionate, but I can't help
myself.

In article om,
bm wrote:
It's looking like we won't sign to any agreement which allows free
movement. So bye bye to a free trade deal with the EU. Until we get a
more sensible government.

Not to worry, Dave. Plenty more fish in the sea. Common Fisheries
Policy, that means we'll now be able to have cod'n'chips for about 20
quid. Or 40 quid if you go to Padstow.

Given the vast majority of the fishing grounds are in Scottish waters, you
might be lucky. And without quotas, there'd have been no cod left anyway.

--
*I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free
movement until we are officially out of the EU.

Not necessarily. Britain is free to proclaim that
new conditions apply to new arrivals and that
they won't allowed into Britain from now unless
they meet the new conditions.

Dream on. That would certainly be a way to show the rest of the world the
UK isn't to be trusted. Just what's needed for new trade agreements.

There are countries which do this sort of thing. North Korea springs to
mind. An example of a very successful country ignoring the rest of the
world. I'm surprised you haven't moved there - given you think its the way
forward.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free
movement until we are officially out of the EU.

Not necessarily. Britain is free to proclaim that
new conditions apply to new arrivals and that
they won't allowed into Britain from now unless
they meet the new conditions.

Dream on.

Taint a dream, Britain can certainly do that.

That would certainly be a way to show the
rest of the world the UK isn't to be trusted.

Even sillier than you usually manage.
Britain was always free to leave the EU.

reams of your even sillier **** flushed where it belongs

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free
movement until we are officially out of the EU.

Not necessarily. Britain is free to proclaim that
new conditions apply to new arrivals and that
they won't allowed into Britain from now unless
they meet the new conditions.

Dream on.

Taint a dream, Britain can certainly do that.

That would certainly be a way to show the
rest of the world the UK isn't to be trusted.

Britain was always free to leave the EU.

By following the procedure it agreed to in law, yes. Anything else would
make it the laughing stock of the civilised world. The bit you know
nothing about.

--
*A cartoonist was found dead in his home. Details are sketchy.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article , michael
adams writes
Apparently not all Brexiters are geriatric "Heartbeat"
fans or are knuckle draggers living on Welsh Council Estates.
(How things have changed; when in the 30's unemployed
Welsh miners, Chapel to a man, patiently queued up every
day to read the newspapers in their local Library. Good
to see what a good dose of Margaret Thatcher and Richard
Dawkins can do for community morale)

They simply seem to have problems, in thinking things through.

quote

Anne Main, Tory MP and Brexit backer, said: "Nobody on the official Leave
campaign raised the prospect of sending people away and deporting people.
"This has been raised by the home secretary and it is a catastrophic error of
judgment for someone who wishes to lead this country to even suggest those
people who are here legally, working with families and settled, should be even
part of the negotiations."

Labour MP and Brexit campaigner Gisela Stuart - who tabled the Commons
question - said the UK should not "retrospectively change the rights of its
citizens" , and that anything other than a guarantee was "a failure of this
government to protect its people".

She said EU nationals "are not bargaining chips" - an argument that has
separately been made by Tory leadership contender Andrea Leadsom.

Immigration minister James Brokenshire defended the government's position,
saying there would be "no immediate change" affecting EU citizens, but
that whether to offer an absolute guarantee would be a decision for the
next prime minister.

/quote

Passing the buck in time honored fashion IOW.

This was all in response to an earlier BBC interview with Phil Hammond

quote



In a BBC interview, Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond - who is backing
Mrs May to be the next leader and prime minister - said he thought it "most
unlikely" that EU nationals already living in the UK would be told they could
not stay, and called for informal talks before the UK officially triggers its
departure from the EU.

But he said to fully guarantee EU citizens' rights to remain in the UK, without
commitments from other countries towards Britons abroad, now risked "selling
our people out too cheap".

"You can't say anything until we have had the negotiation because clearly this
has to be a bilateral agreement.

quote

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36707573

Now obviously Hammond was laying it on a bit thick, for the benefit
of softies such as Main and Stuart who never seemed to have realised
what they, potentially, were voting for.

There is an inexorable logic to this.

Just as there's an inexorable logic to the American Criminal Justice
System in seeking to be scrupulously fair, consigning individuals
to Death Row for 10 or 20 years to contemplate their possible fate
before finally being executed

Just as there's an inexorable logic in any Final Solution to the
Jewish problem in having to gas each last child for as Himmler **
patiently explained, when they grow into adults they'd only
come seeking revenge for the murder of their parents

So there's and inexorable logic in the possibily, if the EU want to
play hardball, of the UK, and indeed the EU having to deport people,
whole families perhaps against their will in the full gaze of the
media. And all because the UK decided it wanted to leave.

A pariah - the UK ? No way!

And yet only three weeks ago anyone daring to suggest such a thing -
the possibility of EU nationals being deported from the UK, would
have been accused of scaremongering*.

Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.


michael adams


* A Straightforward Question for Outers

** I'll see Timmy's Stalin, and raise him a Himmler

...




Bit of light reading for you
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969

--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some areas
would be fixed by leaving.
Implication is in the mind of the beholder. They said no such thing.
As well as hyping up any possible future
immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only will
they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being generally the
poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the inevitable recession.

But they will benefit most from the tightening of the labour market as
future immigration is restricted to economic need. I can't understand
why trade unionists don't welcome that.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 05/07/2016 18:52, harry wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 July 2016 14:09:15 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However what's
truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and Stuart in voting
for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected bonus of
wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people being used as
bargaining chips. When they never ever thought any of this could
ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some
areas would be fixed by leaving. As well as hyping up any possible
future immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only
will they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being
generally the poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the
inevitable recession.

At least the problem won't get any worse.


It could.

It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free movement until we are
officially out of the EU. So at least two years.

With the UK in the EU we could veto any new members.
With the uK out of the EU we may still have free movement and no say
over new members.

It's looking like we won't sign to any agreement which allows free
movement. So bye bye to a free trade deal with the EU. Until we get a more
sensible government.

Until we get a sensible president of the EU commission. Merkel is
working on it. Give them time.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free
movement until we are officially out of the EU.

Not necessarily. Britain is free to proclaim that
new conditions apply to new arrivals and that
they won't allowed into Britain from now unless
they meet the new conditions.

Dream on. That would certainly be a way to show the rest of the world the
UK isn't to be trusted. Just what's needed for new trade agreements.

Ever tried to get in to the USA or Australia or Canada?
There are countries which do this sort of thing. North Korea springs to
mind.
No NK stops people getting out.
An example of a very successful country ignoring the rest of the
world. I'm surprised you haven't moved there - given you think its the way
forward.


--
bert

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free
movement until we are officially out of the EU.

Not necessarily. Britain is free to proclaim that
new conditions apply to new arrivals and that
they won't allowed into Britain from now unless
they meet the new conditions.

Dream on. That would certainly be a way to show the rest of the world the
UK isn't to be trusted. Just what's needed for new trade agreements.

There are countries which do this sort of thing. North Korea springs to
mind. An example of a very successful country ignoring the rest of the
world. I'm surprised you haven't moved there - given you think its the way
forward.

Simply laughable.

--
Les

On Wednesday, 6 July 2016 16:22:36 UTC+1, bert wrote:
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some areas
would be fixed by leaving.
Implication is in the mind of the beholder. They said no such thing.
As well as hyping up any possible future
immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only will
they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being generally the
poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the inevitable recession.

But they will benefit most from the tightening of the labour market as
future immigration is restricted to economic need. I can't understand
why trade unionists don't welcome that.
--
bert

They are in pursuit of the international socialist dream.
It's years since they represented the workers rights/benefits.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote

It certainly can. EU citizens will still have free
movement until we are officially out of the EU.

Not necessarily. Britain is free to proclaim that
new conditions apply to new arrivals and that
they won't allowed into Britain from now unless
they meet the new conditions.

Dream on.

Taint a dream, Britain can certainly do that.

That would certainly be a way to show the
rest of the world the UK isn't to be trusted.

Britain was always free to leave the EU.

By following the procedure it agreed to in law, yes.

The Lisbon Treaty isn't law, it is JUST a treaty.

And Article 50 doesn’t even say that that is the
only way that Britain can leave the EU anyway.

In fact it points out very unambiguously that the
leaving country is free to use its own constitutional
process to leave the EU and only spells out the
detail of how the negotiation with the EU on
what happens between that country and the EU
after it has left is done.

Anything else would make it the
laughing stock of the civilised world.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you usually manage.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Whether this is likely to happen is anybody's guess. However
what's truly scary is that soft lummocks such as Main and
Stuart in voting for out, not only won for themselves the unexpected
bonus of wrecking the UK economy but the possibily of people
being used as bargaining chips. When they never ever thought
any of this could ever happen. Boo, Hoo, Hoo.

And it's exactly what I (and others) pointed out from the start.

UKIP were implying that the existing immigration problems in some areas
would be fixed by leaving.
Implication is in the mind of the beholder. They said no such thing.
As well as hyping up any possible future
immigration.

More fool those who voted out after believing them. Because not only will
they almost certainly not get their wish, but they, being generally the
poorest in society, will be the hardest hit by the inevitable recession.

But they will benefit most from the tightening of the labour market as
future immigration is restricted to economic need. I can't understand why
trade unionists don't welcome that.

Because they are too stupid to work out the basics.

That's why they killed so many viable industries with their demands.