How will BREXIT affect the immigrants in UK and Poland.

The EU didn't exist in 1973.

The common market, a total different entity is what we joined.

It's the same thing. The UK signed Maastricht, after all.

Either way, the UK would have been begging to join because of the dire financial situation. It was the 2nd poorest country in the EEC at the time.

Should the UK suffer a devastating collapse in the financial industry, the UK might have no choice but to rejoin the EU on their rules along with Schengen and the Euro.

The U.K. joined the European Community (Communities) - one of the pillars of the European Union - and later signed the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties. Now you have left and proven that de Gaulle's scepticism was justified.

And the Treaty of Nice too. Three separate chances to block things and yet every time, the UK went along with it.

Yeah, Farage and his ilk forgot to mention a few details...

I'm still waiting for the raging in British airports and ports when the Leavers realise that the limit on imported cigarettes is now 200 along with 1 litre of spirits, and how they need to prove their income when entering Schengen.

No doubt they'll...er...blame the EU.

No John Major signed the Maastricht not the people, the people were not given a vote unlike the leave stay vote. Also Gordon Brown and his Polish ilk Miliband signed the Lisbon treaty, again no vote given to the people. So you're​ wrong saying the UK did, it was one man.

That was the beginning of Brexit and the Maastricht rebels, with the anti federalist league, which is modern UKIP.

Yes the French were right i will give them that. The Americans even interfered in Brexit too.

They voted for the Conservative Party and their leader, John Major, didn't they?

Britain could possibly survive the Euro (maybe) but there's no way that Britain would survive Schengen, the population would increase massively in a tidal wave devastating the natural (and human) environment.

the UK in Schengen means a population rivalling Bangladesh....

There was an election just prior to Maastricht and Nice. Lisbon was largely negotiated by Blair, not Brown, and Blair had won election in 2005.

Either way, it's going to be interesting. The EU is not going to be walked over, and if no deal is reached regarding financial services, the UK is going to be in a terrible place. There's no real industry left in the UK, utilities are largely in foreign hands and so on, so it's hard to see how the UK can gain from a hard Brexit.

Time to step back and accept the Four Freedoms with limits on immigration in exchange for EEA membership. The voice before that was blocking some degree of immigration control - Poland - is now marginalised and unlikely to succeed in any future attempts to block it.

No they voted for Margret Thatcher who wouldn't sign the Maastricht Treaty, Major and Heseltine challenged her to leader and internally Major was voted in , he then signed the treaty.

Both Major and Brown were never voted in to office by the public, yet both signed treaties anbd with it the people and country away, Brown also went on to sell the country's gold reserves away cheaply to his banking buddies.

Take good look at Greece for that is Poland in 10 years. If you think you'll be ok you are seriously wrong.

And two months later, he won a General Election on the back of having signed it.


Poland will be fine as long as this useless government goes. There's no culture of widespread tax evasion here for a start, nor is Poland heavily indebted.

It could turn out as you predict but somehow I don't think so. I think Brexit will go ahead. If the UK re-enter the EU it will be a few years down the road, maybe ten years and it will be an overhauled new EU, not the present arrangement which is becoming more and more unwieldy and messy. Next thing we'll have is Israel wanting to join! The EU has become like the Eurovision song contest.

I'm fairly sure that what happens will surprise everyone.... things are hard to predict accurate, especially the future.

Yes, that's why it's called the future and not the past :)) But I think that what will emerge during the negotations is the degree of division and lack of real unity between the various EU members as each will be fighting their own corner, naturally. Every nation will be looking at how Brexit will affect their country. For some like Ireland, the impact is huge, for others who don't have the same ties to Britain, less so. Already in the draft guidelines Ireland's 'special' status has been acknowledged with the proposal that the Common Travel Area be maintained and no hard border imposed, and now the Latvian EU Commissioner Valdis Dombrowskis has intimated that Ireland may be granted certain borrowing and spending exemptions based on the fact that the Irish economy may lose up to 20 billion over the next decade as a result of Brexit. I think quite a lot of other members won't like that even though some of them already benefit from the 'exceptional circumstances' clause for other reasons.

Not sure why TicTacToe still has a beef. He got a hard brexit that he wanted and now it is up to Britain to prove that was a good move. That will be difficult as everyone who promoted has run a mile from the promises they made.

The tales of Britains largesse are getting a bit boring - the cost of access to the single market was 12 billion a year - roughly 200 quid per head. A coalition of pensioners, thick people, ideologues and plain racists meant that 52 percent of people thought this was a bad deal - let them get on with it and stop telling the rest of the us that the organisation will disintegrate without them.

And that's why Brexit won. People don't vote for people (or policy decisions) that lecture at them.
The remain side needed ringing emotional arguments that resonated with people. Instead it lectured and threw around numbers that didn't mean anything to most people.

What are some appeals to emotion that could have helped the remain side?

You don't win referendums with emotional arguments. That might work in America (witness Donald Trump's load of old waffle speech at his inauguration) but in the Islands, you need to present logical arguments.

I think the problem was twofold. The Remain side were confident that it was already a done deal, that the referendum was just a formality. The other problem is that the Brits have no history of referendums and neither the government nor the electorate are expereinced with or accustomed to them. Before the Brexit one, they'd only had two in which the whole of the UK was required to vote and one of those was back in the 1970s.

Over the years we've had loads of referendums in Ireland and we always receive detailed information delivered to the door, in which the government explains clearly and unemotionally what you're being asked to vote for and the consquences of either a yes or not vote. Of course there's lots of discussion and debate on television and various materials sent to the voters by each side but the government does a great job of explaining it in the first place and knows how to present its own case effectively.

So what were the logical arguments put forth by the Leave side?

- final protection from the toxic Euro pseudo-currency?

- final protection from pressure to join Schengen?

- freedom from the burdensome nonsense regulations that Brussels produces on an industrial scale?

Also what were the logical arguments that convinced Ireland to vote against enlargement? And what were the logical arguments that convinced them when they were told to redo the election and come up with the right result?

As far as Brexit goes the Leave side didn't need any logical arguments because they didn't need to win, they just needed the other side to lose!

As for the Lisbon Treaty, the No side had campaigned on the basis that it would mean abortion and the end of Irish neturality amongst other things. The government got the EU to agree to certain concessions for Ireland to ensure that we could opt out of those unpopular aspects thus the Treaty was accepted second time round.

The Brexit referendum was decided on emotion. There were no facts put forward by the Leave campaign as they didn't have any so they used fear as their trump card. The Remain campaign had to try and polish a turd and make out that the EU in it's current form is something that we should all want to be a part of.

When people think that things are going t*ts up then it's easier to persuade people to change the status quo rather than work within the establishment and make marginal changes that usually turn out to be hollow victories.

The Leave campaign just injected a few key words into the debate and the people filled in the blanks with their own fears, prejudices and hopes.

The over riding theme was immigration. People fed up of failed multiculturism even though voters failed to join up the dots and realise that creeping Islamification would not be affected by a Brexit. It's better to expel Poles and Hungarians who are "taking your jobs" than the muslim families where the women don't threaten your job because she's too busy claiming benefits for the rest of her life.

All of this against a backdrop of seeing thousands of migrants arrive illegally on the shores of Europe and the EU telling member countries that they HAVE to house them.

Except that none of the higher ups in the EU seem to realize that.


I'm expecting islamification to rapidly increase after Brexit because if the government can't import relatively cheap labor from within the EU it will try from outside. Employers don't care how many deadbeats are brought in along with the small number that can be channeled into jobs (the old 'privatize profits and socialize expenses' mantra of neoliberalism). And muslim countries over-produce people who cannot succed in their own (or any) country and so of course they want to export them.


And the knowledge for every migrant actually on the way there are twenty more back home deciding whether or not to give it a go (and NGOs helping people smugglers in the Mediterranean doesn't help either).

"The Leave campaign just injected a few key words into the debate and the people filled in the blanks with their own fears, prejudices and hopes"

How do you know that excalty, were you one of them or is it you mix with those like that or are you just presuming after your daily read, of the Guardian ?

To be fair, it's not only Muslim countries.


It might well do. There's going to be a huge shortage of labour if real restrictions are imposed against Europeans, especially in the badly paid service industries.

Of course there's no such thing as a labor shortage (99% of the time) there's a shortage of people who want to work for below substinence wages while living in their own country. But applying the law of supply and demand to labor for some reason is economic heresy to the neoliberal order.

I don't disagree with you, but the British problem is that people are basically still hungover from Thatcherism - so the neoliberal way of doing things is deeply rooted in the English mindset, just in the same way as socialism is deeply rooted in the Polish mindset.

But do bear in mind that the UK also has a terrible problem with people thinking that they're too good for certain jobs.

Not only the UK though! Nearly every industrialized nation on the Continent still believes across the board that Caucasians are meant to be architects, professors, lawyers, doctors, engineers etc., and brown aka dark-skinned non-Europeans are meant to be support staff:-)

I realize that those from India are technically Caucasian as well, they are nevertheless treated far differently.

Then limited and controlled immigration as needed (and require the jobs be paid well enough that those that take them aren't incentivized to quit as soon as possible).

Seems a no-brainer:-)