British public opinion has shifted sharply against Brexit, according to a Sky Poll

[sasguru]

On a side note, I wouldn't be surprised if the Turkey's economy goes tulip in the next 6 months. TRL depreciated quite a lot and there is a huge amount of other problems boiling there and will burst for sure. EU countries will never have Turkey in.

That's what happens when you get a populist semi-dictator in power. Turkey was one of the fastest growing economies prior to Erdogan's meddling.
Populists always put the kibosh on successful economies - they start running them for their base ignoring the big picture.
At first it seems like boom freebie time - till the bill comes due.

[Sagara]

That's what happens when you get a populist semi-dictator in power. Turkey was one of the fastest growing economies prior to Erdogan's meddling.
Populists always put the kibosh on successful economies - they start running them for their base ignoring the big picture.
At first it seems like boom freebie time - till the bill comes due.

Exactly.

[Mordac]

It doesn't matter who joins the EU. That's not the issue. The issue is that the UK fooked up in not using EU mandated rules to keep out those it didn't want.
Something as simple as requiring private health insurance for 5 years would have done it.

I wonder how many EU rules that policy would have contravened. I don't see how we can provide a free NHS health service to some EU citizens*, but not others**. The EU would have our balls for breakfast.
Apart from anything else, it would never get voted through the UK Parliament.

*Eg, all the Brits

**Everyone who isn't British

[Mordac]

Ok let me get this straight - we can just agree to these 4 freedoms in principle - but in reality make it so clearly no one can actually make use of these 4 freedoms because of the caveats put in place.

And this is acceptable why?

To be fair, that is what most of the rest of the EU member states actually do. Don't expect to move freely in France, for example, if you don't have fluent written and spoken French.
The irony is that we in the UK, despite having the most widely spoken language in the world, bend over backwards to translate official documents into just about every known language on the planet. The trouble is we are playing by the rules of cricket, whereas everyone else is playing by the rules of Australian football (i.e. there aren't any actual rules to speak of).

[sasguru]

I wonder how many EU rules that policy would have contravened. I don't see how we can provide a free NHS health service to some EU citizens*, but not others**. The EU would have our balls for breakfast.
Apart from anything else, it would never get voted through the UK Parliament.

*Eg, all the Brits

**Everyone who isn't British

Your low IQ and inability to understand a point makes you hard work
What part of Switzerland gets away with it and so would we (if we had the nous to do so) as we are more important than Switzerland, is your brain cell struggling to understand?

[original PM]

The point is the UK could have done something about many things, but chose not to, and instead blamed the EU.

Why should it not be acceptable? It's about applying the rules for the benefit of your own people. What puzzles me is why the UK is so unutterably crap at it?

To be fair, that is what most of the rest of the EU member states actually do. Don't expect to move freely in France, for example, if you don't have fluent written and spoken French.
The irony is that we in the UK, despite having the most widely spoken language in the world, bend over backwards to translate official documents into just about every known language on the planet. The trouble is we are playing by the rules of cricket, whereas everyone else is playing by the rules of Australian football (i.e. there aren't any actual rules to speak of).

I guess this is the difference between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law.

Main problem with the letter of the law is it seems to attract politicians and lawyers all thinking they are dead clever by finding loopholes and ways to not apply the law in the spirit but in some other nefarious way which will benefit them and not others.

Honestly it's like watching kids argue over who puts the lolly stick in the dog turd.

[sasguru]

Honestly it's like watching kids argue over who puts the lolly stick in the dog turd.

And that, folks, is about as good a description of Brexit as you're ever likely to get. Except there is no lolly stick.

[BlasterBates]

The Swiss are very thorough when it comes to implementing the law, not only have they implemented freedom of movement to the letter of the law they have also implemented it in the spirit of the law. I worked in Switzerland for a number of years and it was clear. They also implemented Schengen and I didn't have to show my passport coming in.

The fact that the UK is sh*t at implementing laws doesn't mean that other countries are cheating it simply means the UK are sh*t at implementing laws.

[sasguru]

The Swiss are very thorough when it comes to implementing the law, not only have they implemented freedom of movement to the letter of the law they have also implemented it in the spirit of the law. I worked in Switzerland for a number of years and it was clear. They also implemented Schengen and I didn't have to show my passport coming in.

The fact that the UK is sh*t at implementing laws doesn't mean that other countries are cheating it simply means the UK are sh*t at implementing laws.

This is the relevant direct quote from EU legislation (Directive 2004/38/EC) :

"... the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence."

Why was this not implemented by the UK? Would there have been such a backlash in the UK if the simple rules above had been applied?

[BlasterBates]

This is the relevant direct quote from EU legislation (Directive 2004/38/EC) :

"... the right of residence depends on their having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the host Member State’s social assistance system, and having sickness insurance. EU citizens acquire the right of permanent residence in the host Member State after a period of five years of uninterrupted legal residence."

Why was this not implemented by the UK? Would there have been such a backlash in the UK if the simple rules above had been applied?

The fact is, is that the UK is a haven for illegal immigrants because no-one needs to be registered, so even when the UK leaves the EU and shoves up walls at Folkstone illegal immigrants will still flood in on holiday visas. Vans with megaphones telling them to leave don't cut it.