Results

[walm]

sidicks said:

Simply importing large numbers is creating a massive Ponzi scheme.

It's already a massive Ponzi scheme (seriously - we just pay pensioners from current tax income - there is no "pot").

It's just a question of how we pay for it.
An net contributing immigrants will help, obviously.

I know you are sceptical that EU immigrants do contribute but your "£35k earning to contribute" figure is likely too high for an immigrant but applies to UK natives.
EU immigrants tend to be economic - i.e. they come to work not to sponge (despite what the DM would have you believe).
And they are younger and healthier, so are less of a burden on the NHS.

Personally I think the limit would be lower than £35k when they start to contribute, but that is just a hunch not data-driven.

Either way we need increasing amounts of income to pay for the aging population, that's not in question. Where it comes from - that's the problem!!

[Mrr T]

smithyithy said:

Sway said:

Just a quick point - if we go for EFTA over EEA, then there is no conversation with the EU, as it's not an organisation that the EU have any influence over...

Indeed the free trade deal EFTA has with the EU were driven by the fact that we were a Founding member of EFTA, and did not want to lose our FTA with Norway/Switzerland/etc. when we joined the EU - so the EU signed a FTA with the EFTA nations.

Iceland's top dog has said that he would welcome us back into EFTA, I'd strongly suggest both Norway and Switzerland would too. The EU have no ability to block that joining (unlike EEA membership).

Interestingly, in theory (I've not yet done the research) that may well be a handy mechanism to achieve FTA with the EU without the EU's direct consent. By default any EFTA member has an FTA with the EU, there is no requirement for an EFTA member to adopt Schengen or any of the non-trade related compliances.

This is very interesting. A quick read of the EFTA website does make it seem like this could a good route the UK.


1. What is the European Economic Area?

The European Economic Area (EEA) brings together the EU Member States and three of the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway). It was established by the EEA Agreement, an international agreement which enables these three EFTA States to participate fully in the Single Market. It covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, capital, services and persons, plus competition and state aid rules and horizontal areas related to the four freedoms (see point 4 for an overview of what is included in the EEA Agreement).
The objective of the EEA Agreement is to create a homogenous European Economic Area. All relevant EU legislation in the field of the Single Market is integrated into the EEA Agreement so that it applies throughout the whole of the EEA, ensuring uniform application of laws relating to the Single Market.

4. What is included in the EEA Agreement?

The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation in all policy areas of the Single Market. This covers the four freedoms, i.e. the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as well as competition and state aid rules, but also the following horizontal policies: consumer protection, company law, environment, social policy, statistics. In addition, the EEA Agreement provides for cooperation in several flanking policies such as research and technological development, education, training and youth, employment, tourism, culture, civil protection, enterprise, entrepreneurship and small and medium-sized enterprises. The EEA Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Single Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA. Through Article 6 of the EEA Agreement, the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union is also of relevance to the EEA Agreement, as the provisions of the EEA Agreement shall be interpreted in conformity with the relevant rulings of the Court given prior to the date of signature (i.e. 2 May 1992).

5. What is not covered by the EEA Agreement?

The EEA Agreement does not cover the following EU policies: common agriculture and fisheries policies (although the EEA Agreement contains provisions on trade in agricultural and fish products); customs union; common trade policy; common foreign and security policy; justice and home affairs (the EEA EFTA States are however part of the Schengen area); direct and indirect taxation; or economic and monetary union.

I don't know if the inclusions / exclusions are set in stone, but it could be favourable.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-fe...

Your close but not quite there. We are already members of the EEA so all we need to do is leave the EU and join EFTA. Google "flexit" for the detailed plan.

[Halb]

Sway said:

Just a quick point - if we go for EFTA over EEA, then there is no conversation with the EU, as it's not an organisation that the EU have any influence over...

Indeed the free trade deal EFTA has with the EU were driven by the fact that we were a Founding member of EFTA, and did not want to lose our FTA with Norway/Switzerland/etc. when we joined the EU - so the EU signed a FTA with the EFTA nations.

Iceland's top dog has said that he would welcome us back into EFTA, I'd strongly suggest both Norway and Switzerland would too. The EU have no ability to block that joining (unlike EEA membership).

Interestingly, in theory (I've not yet done the research) that may well be a handy mechanism to achieve FTA with the EU without the EU's direct consent. By default any EFTA member has an FTA with the EU, there is no requirement for an EFTA member to adopt Schengen or any of the non-trade related compliances.

Do you think that is what the UK will do?

[Sway]

Trabi601 said:

smithyithy said:

I don't know if the inclusions / exclusions are set in stone, but it could be favourable.

http://www.efta.int/eea/eea-agreement/eea-basic-fe...

It looks like the worst of everything!

That's the EEA agreement, which is separate to EFTA membership.

EFTA is a free trading club, nothing more. Some (three nations with very strong trade surpluses into the EU) have also become EEA members, effectively getting some of the worst elements of the EU control freakery. It's worth it for them, note none want to be full members.

What could be an interesting path to follow would be cessation of EU membership, rejoin the six nations of EFTA without the baggage of EEA, then entice key trading partners of the 27 EU members to also join EFTA as well as remaining members of the EU.

That way we could create the 'Northern Alliance' of similar economy and cultured nations such as the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Sweden, possibly France - as a pure trading bloc without customs union nor political Union, whilst the EU carries on with its path of political and social integration.

[FredClogs]

ash73 said:

Interesting question raised in PMQ about replacing the UK commissioner, I don't fully understand why he resigned while we are still a fully paid up member of the EU.

He was a politician, not a civil servant. He didn't like the lie of the green so he walked off the course, typical spoiled child, bully, senior Tory old boy type politician behaviour.

[RichB]

FredClogs said:

ash73 said:

Interesting question raised in PMQ about replacing the UK commissioner, I don't fully understand why he resigned while we are still a fully paid up member of the EU.

He was a politician, not a civil servant. He didn't like the lie of the green so he walked off the course, typical spoiled child, bully, senior Tory old boy type politician behaviour.

Sorry MrCloggs, are you saying it's only Tories who walk off in a strop and resign?

[sidicks]

walm said:

It's already a massive Ponzi scheme (seriously - we just pay pensioners from current tax income - there is no "pot").

Not sure you need to tell me that!!

walm said:

It's just a question of how we pay for it.
An net contributing immigrants will help, obviously.

Agreed - but restricting immigration to those who are genuinely net contributors (once all costs are taken into account) would improve that!

walm said:

I know you are sceptical that EU immigrants do contribute but your "£35k earning to contribute" figure is likely too high for an immigrant but applies to UK natives.
EU immigrants tend to be economic - i.e. they come to work not to sponge (despite what the DM would have you believe).
And they are younger and healthier, so are less of a burden on the NHS.

Personally I think the limit would be lower than £35k when they start to contribute, but that is just a hunch not data-driven.

I agree 100%

walm said:

Either way we need increasing amounts of income to pay for the aging population, that's not in question. Where it comes from - that's the problem!!

Indeed!

[FredClogs]

RichB said:

FredClogs said:

ash73 said:

Interesting question raised in PMQ about replacing the UK commissioner, I don't fully understand why he resigned while we are still a fully paid up member of the EU.

He was a politician, not a civil servant. He didn't like the lie of the green so he walked off the course, typical spoiled child, bully, senior Tory old boy type politician behaviour.

Sorry MrCloggs, are you saying it's only Tories who walk off in a strop and resign?

No, not at all, but it's only Tories who strop off because the jobs getting too difficult, the Labour party strop off into dark corners to work out how to stab each other in the back.

[fluffnik]

Jockman said:

You missed the bit about......and if the majority of Scotland voted to remain......

People in Scotland seem to be more keen to keep their EU citizenship (62%) than their British citizenship (55%).

It's not that surprising really, you get stuff like EHIC with your EU citizenship, but British is basic and bonus free.

[sidicks]

fluffnik said:

People in Scotland seem to be more keen to keep their EU citizenship (62%) than their British citizenship (55%).

It's not that surprising really, you get stuff like EHIC with your EU citizenship, but British is basic and bonus free.

Where do they get most cash from...?

[HappyMidget]

This article from before the referendum show one very good path to safely exit the EU whilst being in the best interest of all parties now that we are leaving the EU: http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution

I am sure I also read elsewhere that something along those lines would be along the following timescale:

• Day 1 - Cameron resigns - no A50
• September - New PM - no A50
• December A50 is served as we request to move to the EEA/EFTA

Once we are in that soft exit position, we then have a safe position to negotiate trade deals outside of the EU.

[Sway]

HappyMidget said:

This article from before the referendum show one very good path to safely exit the EU whilst being in the best interest of all parties now that we are leaving the EU: http://www.adamsmith.org/evolution-not-revolution

I am sure I also read elsewhere that something along those lines would be along the following timescale:

• Day 1 - Cameron resigns - no A50
• September - New PM - no A50
• December A50 is served as we request to move to the EEA/EFTA

Once we are in that soft exit position, we then have a safe position to negotiate trade deals outside of the EU.

Yep.

Couple of benefits - qualified majority voting (as much as I dislike it being applied to overcome pesky negotiated vetos) will apply to the EU Parliament vote to accept the outcome of the negotiation.

I'll be honest and would personally be a little more bombastic - sod the EEA Framework, EFTA alone will do fine. Germany can then figure out for itself how to protect it's market to us - whilst we gain several very tasty FTAs the EU doesn't have, as well as FTAs with the majority of valuable European trading partners...

EU has no ability to get involved in EFTA, they are completely separate. EEA is effectively the agreement between the EU and EFTA, and is optional for EFTA members.

[Stickyfinger]

ash73 said:

Interesting question raised in PMQ about replacing the UK commissioner, I don't fully understand why he resigned while we are still a fully paid up member of the EU.

And keep an eye out for his next job in the private sector

[maffski]

ash73 said:

Interesting question raised in PMQ about replacing the UK commissioner, I don't fully understand why he resigned while we are still a fully paid up member of the EU.

Part of his job for this term was to make several changes to regulations for financial services. He'd be creating legislation that the EU would be bound by, but the UK would not. Leaving saves an accusation that he might promote rules which would advantage the city.

And it saves any risk that he would stop them the EU coming up with rules that advantage the city.

[BlueHave]

fluffnik said:

Jockman said:

You missed the bit about......and if the majority of Scotland voted to remain......

People in Scotland seem to be more keen to keep their EU citizenship (62%) than their British citizenship (55%).

It's not that surprising really, you get stuff like EHIC with your EU citizenship, but British is basic and bonus free.

I just don't get it.

In a few years the UK will ultimately be better off and with much stronger trade deals with world economies than anything the EU could have negotiated on our behalf if we had stayed.

Everyone in Scotland (if you believe Nicola Krankie ) on the other hand wants to become an independent nation, but surely that independence would be thrown out the window if they joined the EU. They would have little to offer the EU and would obviously not have as much clout to negotiate new trade deals with the EU as the UK would

[Robertj21a]

sidicks said:

1. How much tax does an employee earning minimum wage pay?
2. How much do they receive in benefits?
3. What is the value of public services they receive?

You don't need a complicated model to deduce that 1 << 2+3.

Whether this is the case on average is a quite different question.

Hence why (the majority) of those in favour of leaving the EU have not suggested that immigration will be stopped, just that we can be more choosy about who to accept to reduce those that are a net cost, thereby improving outcomes for everyone!

Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th June 14:54

So, the large numbers of Polish girls and boys working hard all over the UK are assumed to be earning minimum wages and claiming benefits ? I think you may be surprised if you check your facts.

[walm]

BlueHave said:

I just don't get it.

In a few years the UK will ultimately be better off.

Not sure many economists would agree.


We obviously won't know for a while if any of them are right.
But it is numbers like this that made many people want to Remain, as far as I can tell.
Certainly among my friends and colleagues.

[Stickyfinger]

Robertj21a said:

sidicks said:

1. How much tax does an employee earning minimum wage pay?
2. How much do they receive in benefits?
3. What is the value of public services they receive?

You don't need a complicated model to deduce that 1 << 2+3.

Whether this is the case on average is a quite different question.

Hence why (the majority) of those in favour of leaving the EU have not suggested that immigration will be stopped, just that we can be more choosy about who to accept to reduce those that are a net cost, thereby improving outcomes for everyone!

Edited by sidicks on Monday 27th June 14:54

So, the large numbers of Polish girls and boys working hard all over the UK are assumed to be earning minimum wages and claiming benefits ? I think you may be surprised if you check your facts.

ridiculous comment/question made to confirm your own opinion....

[Jimbeaux]

Since the U.S. is the U.K.'s largest trading partner (US$66.5 billion-14.5% of total UK exports) Just join NAFTA.

Edited by Jimbeaux on Monday 27th June 18:16

[sidicks]

Robertj21a said:

So, the large numbers of Polish girls and boys working hard all over the UK are assumed to be earning minimum wages and claiming benefits ? I think you may be surprised if you check your facts.

I've said no such thing - please read what I actually wrote. Thanks.