Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
From memory of reading various pieces of Flexcit information, EFTA/EEA was always transitory not permanent. It could last for a number of years but would not be the end point for a post-EU membership UK. FiF and others will doubtless recall more detail and correct the above if necessary. To which must be added, the negotiators aren't bound by Flexcit or any other pre-referendum publications.
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
I'm not so sure many remainers will be happy with a EFTA norway option.
Happiness of remainers and leavers is neither here nor there, happily.Negotiators looking for the best deal won't be holding happiness parties to monitor attendance.
FiF said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
I'm not so sure many remainers will be happy with a EFTA norway option.
Happiness of remainers and leavers is neither here nor there, happily.Negotiators looking for the best deal won't be holding happiness parties to monitor attendance.
FiF said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
I'm not so sure many remainers will be happy with a EFTA norway option.
Happiness of remainers and leavers is neither here nor there, happily.Negotiators looking for the best deal won't be holding happiness parties to monitor attendance.
And this tranistory flexcit dream is just that - a dream. It tries to rely on an emergency measure to control immigration. Pie in the sky. If we go Norway, we're stuck there. Dream over!!
You are welcome to other opinions, but you'll need to provide convincing arguments as to how we'll get FMOL controls once we've jumped into the SM & are paying - without a veto!
This is the u turn thread.
///ajd said:
This is the u turn thread.
It doesn't look likely that Theresa May will U-turn on anything she's said, whether it's Brexit (yes) or an early election (no). She's not from the Cameron mould, and acted swiftly to remove most of the Cameroons from her Cabinet as PM.The PM has no appetite to stymie Brexit, Scotland et al have no veto (according to the attorney general) and the EU side can't prevent the UK leaving the EU, so out we go.
Whether people who voted one way or the other are delerious or mildly vexed by the outcome of negotiations is of interest to them but not material otherwise.
///ajd said:
FiF said:
turbobloke said:
///ajd said:
I'm not so sure many remainers will be happy with a EFTA norway option.
Happiness of remainers and leavers is neither here nor there, happily.Negotiators looking for the best deal won't be holding happiness parties to monitor attendance.
And this tranistory flexcit dream is just that - a dream. It tries to rely on an emergency measure to control immigration. Pie in the sky. If we go Norway, we're stuck there. Dream over!!
You are welcome to other opinions, but you'll need to provide convincing arguments as to how we'll get FMOL controls once we've jumped into the SM & are paying - without a veto!
This is the u turn thread.
Secondly, this often repeated twaddle about it's only an emergency measure. It can be used in emergencies, yes, but is of widespread application and can be used to deal with long-term issues – and without any time limit. Typically of many you just repeat the errors parroted by the ignorant. If the UK is an EFTA/EEA member there is no question of dumbly sitting there waiting for permission by full EU members to do something, we could take it, unilaterally, by right, then negotiate a more permanent deal. Not stuck there with no veto, not able to go anywhere, but that won't stop your tiresome rubbish.
SFW if it's the u turn thread. As someone else once said, "you turn if you want to."
You are entitled to think something like Norway wouldn't be desirable, not that people are suggesting a Norway copycat arrangement, it's simply been adopted by some as shorthand for the EFTA/EEA agreement. If you'd been paying attention it's always been clearly stated that the first stage is sub optimal and is not a desired end point. There's been a lot written and available in public domain how why it's been chosen and how to proceed away from that in various areas. Excuse me for not rewriting any of if here, people would fall asleep. It's certainly got more weight and consideration behind it than any of your negative bleating. With respect.
However we are now in a changing situation and it needs more work to respond to that, work is ongoing. By that I mean, work is ongoing to provide information and opinion in response to the developing situation, not to provide a response to you, which isn't going to happen.
FiF said:
It was a question about opinions related to an option, one of many options, covered by other questions. Not a leading question at all as it didn't prompt an answer in a particular way.
Secondly, this often repeated twaddle about it's only an emergency measure. It can be used in emergencies, yes, but is of widespread application and can be used to deal with long-term issues – and without any time limit. Typically of many you just repeat the errors parroted by the ignorant. If the UK is an EFTA/EEA member there is no question of dumbly sitting there waiting for permission by full EU members to do something, we could take it, unilaterally, by right, then negotiate a more permanent deal. Not stuck there with no veto, not able to go anywhere, but that won't stop your tiresome rubbish.
SFW if it's the u turn thread. As someone else once said, "you turn if you want to."
You are entitled to think something like Norway wouldn't be desirable, not that people are suggesting a Norway copycat arrangement, it's simply been adopted by some as shorthand for the EFTA/EEA agreement. If you'd been paying attention it's always been clearly stated that the first stage is sub optimal and is not a desired end point. There's been a lot written and available in public domain how why it's been chosen and how to proceed away from that in various areas. Excuse me for not rewriting any of if here, people would fall asleep. It's certainly got more weight and consideration behind it than any of your negative bleating. With respect.
However we are now in a changing situation and it needs more work to respond to that, work is ongoing. By that I mean, work is ongoing to provide information and opinion in response to the developing situation, not to provide a response to you, which isn't going to happen.
It is a leading question as it presumes we are leaving. If you asked a remainer whether they'd rather stay or have Norway option, it wouldn't be 80% norway would it. I can't make it any simpler.Secondly, this often repeated twaddle about it's only an emergency measure. It can be used in emergencies, yes, but is of widespread application and can be used to deal with long-term issues – and without any time limit. Typically of many you just repeat the errors parroted by the ignorant. If the UK is an EFTA/EEA member there is no question of dumbly sitting there waiting for permission by full EU members to do something, we could take it, unilaterally, by right, then negotiate a more permanent deal. Not stuck there with no veto, not able to go anywhere, but that won't stop your tiresome rubbish.
SFW if it's the u turn thread. As someone else once said, "you turn if you want to."
You are entitled to think something like Norway wouldn't be desirable, not that people are suggesting a Norway copycat arrangement, it's simply been adopted by some as shorthand for the EFTA/EEA agreement. If you'd been paying attention it's always been clearly stated that the first stage is sub optimal and is not a desired end point. There's been a lot written and available in public domain how why it's been chosen and how to proceed away from that in various areas. Excuse me for not rewriting any of if here, people would fall asleep. It's certainly got more weight and consideration behind it than any of your negative bleating. With respect.
However we are now in a changing situation and it needs more work to respond to that, work is ongoing. By that I mean, work is ongoing to provide information and opinion in response to the developing situation, not to provide a response to you, which isn't going to happen.
And it IS an emergency measure. Read the bloody clause yourself, don't parrot dreams from those who wish it meant something it doesn't.
If its so easy, the swiss would be using it instead of having a crisis between SM access and their own sorry "no more foriegners" based referendum.
They aren't though are they? Why is that? Have they not read the clause with the wisdom that suggests that it could be used permanently to keep "nasties" out?
Or does it prove my interpretation? The swiss government, its lawyers and experts back my interpretation. Yours is supported by a blogger who the whole leave campaigb ignored.
I hope you didn't vote leave believing this guff might be true. North can be another candidate for the Bretrial is so!
s2art said:
///ajd said:
If its so easy, the swiss would be using it instead of having a crisis between SM access and their own sorry "no more foriegners" based referendum.
If the Swiss are not in the EEA how can they use it? They cant invoke a treaty option they are not party to. Why do none of the EEA members invoke these emergency measures as routine permanent ways to get the control they want? Its because they know they won't be accepted and the EU will implement sanctions.
Anyway. This is another angle.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/27/b...
I hadn't read May as being immigration as no1 issue but only if single market acces is fine. Is this on record for her? If so maybe she is prodding Davis down the "mutually incompatible" plank of SM and FMOL that Hammond discussed all those weeks ago.
Jump!!
bmw535i said:
Already posted in the economic thread.I see you are so desparate for good news you are repeating it
See despite smears to the contrary, I'm actually glad to see some positive investment in the UK has been unaffected by brexit.
///ajd said:
bmw535i said:
Already posted in the economic thread.I see you are so desparate for good news you are repeating it
See despite smears to the contrary, I'm actually glad to see some positive investment in the UK has been unaffected by brexit.
I'm sure it this sort of news is a bit of an inconvenient truth to your apocalypse vision, despite you claiming to be glad of it above.
bmw535i said:
Has it? Unlike you I haven't dedicated every spare minute of my time to contribute to every Brexit thread. Not sure what you mean by desperate for good news - it's just news relevant to the thread. There's plenty of it out there.
I'm sure it this sort of news is a bit of an inconvenient truth to your apocalypse vision, despite you claiming to be glad of it above.
Yes you're sure I really want the UK to fail even though I say I don't.I'm sure it this sort of news is a bit of an inconvenient truth to your apocalypse vision, despite you claiming to be glad of it above.
I don't doubt you want whats best for the UK, but we differ in our opinions of what will lead to that. If you really think remainers want harm to come to the UK, you need to think a bit harder.
///ajd said:
Yes you're sure I really want the UK to fail even though I say I don't.
I don't doubt you want whats best for the UK, but we differ in our opinions of what will lead to that. If you really think remainers want harm to come to the UK, you need to think a bit harder.
Where have I said you want it to fail?I don't doubt you want whats best for the UK, but we differ in our opinions of what will lead to that. If you really think remainers want harm to come to the UK, you need to think a bit harder.
jsf said:
Elysium said:
jsf said:
So are you saying that unlike 2008 in southern Europe, the worst that will happen in London, in your opinion because of Brexit, is profits potentially wont be as high as they may have been?
No, as it currently stands developers may make heavy losses on projects if they do not have a a pre-sale. Values are reducing and this could easily get to a point where there is no profit left. At that point businesses may fold. But it depends on their exposure.In most cases large London projects will have agreed funding and developers / contractors will have legal obligations to complete. Landlords / property funds will lose money as these will not lease up quickly enough.
The big problem is future schemes, which will be delayed until the market outlook improves. This means that builders are competing over a reduced pool of projects. If anything material prices are increasing, so they will take a cut in margin and try to push the pain down the supply chain. That will then impact specialist subcontractors.
Ultimately, a loss of profit and value at the top of the food chain will lead to tradesmen / labour earning less at the bottom. Less prepared contractors will fold and people will potentially be laid off.
Edited by Elysium on Tuesday 26th July 07:41
This is where the RICS are on the issue, which is in line with the mood as I am seeing it:
http://www.rics.org/uk/news/news-insight/press-rel...
In summary .. it's not as bad as expected, because we are not rushing headlong into an uncontrolled Brexit. However, there is still a lot of caution / concern, particularly in the London office market. This will be hit badly if we lose passporting.
I have seen transactional evidence of reductions in values at a level that would stall planned projects, so there will be a ripple down to the 'real economy' to some extent.
As I have said before, you also have to look at this as an early 'storm warning' of what will come in the wider economy as property is a barometer of market confidence.
Elysium said:
I am just illustrating the way that a lack of confidence in the property market directly translates to lost jobs for 'ordinary' people in the construction industry.
This is where the RICS are on the issue, which is in line with the mood as I am seeing it:
http://www.rics.org/uk/news/news-insight/press-rel...
In summary .. it's not as bad as expected, because we are not rushing headlong into an uncontrolled Brexit. However, there is still a lot of caution / concern, particularly in the London office market. This will be hit badly if we lose passporting.
I have seen transactional evidence of reductions in values at a level that would stall planned projects, so there will be a ripple down to the 'real economy' to some extent.
As I have said before, you also have to look at this as an early 'storm warning' of what will come in the wider economy as property is a barometer of market confidence.
Under normal circumstances I would agree but at present is it not just an indication of demand ? Less immigration will require less property, along with changes in the way business is done, Lloyds have just cut lots of jobs for that very reason,along with the associated property.This is where the RICS are on the issue, which is in line with the mood as I am seeing it:
http://www.rics.org/uk/news/news-insight/press-rel...
In summary .. it's not as bad as expected, because we are not rushing headlong into an uncontrolled Brexit. However, there is still a lot of caution / concern, particularly in the London office market. This will be hit badly if we lose passporting.
I have seen transactional evidence of reductions in values at a level that would stall planned projects, so there will be a ripple down to the 'real economy' to some extent.
As I have said before, you also have to look at this as an early 'storm warning' of what will come in the wider economy as property is a barometer of market confidence.
///ajd said:
s2art said:
///ajd said:
If its so easy, the swiss would be using it instead of having a crisis between SM access and their own sorry "no more foriegners" based referendum.
If the Swiss are not in the EEA how can they use it? They cant invoke a treaty option they are not party to. Why do none of the EEA members invoke these emergency measures as routine permanent ways to get the control they want? Its because they know they won't be accepted and the EU will implement sanctions.
Anyway. This is another angle.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/27/b...
I hadn't read May as being immigration as no1 issue but only if single market acces is fine. Is this on record for her? If so maybe she is prodding Davis down the "mutually incompatible" plank of SM and FMOL that Hammond discussed all those weeks ago.
Jump!!
hidetheelephants said:
Beware of strawmen; North does not claim that 112 offers a permanent or even a longterm means of controlling immigration.
Better tell FIF then:FiF said:
....this often repeated twaddle about it's only an emergency measure. It can be used in emergencies, yes, but is of widespread application and can be used to deal with long-term issues – and without any time limit. Typically of many you just repeat the errors parroted by the ignorant. If the UK is an EFTA/EEA member there is no question of dumbly sitting there waiting for permission by full EU members to do something, we could take it, unilaterally, by right....
PRTVR said:
Under normal circumstances I would agree but at present is it not just an indication of demand ? Less immigration will require less property, along with changes in the way business is done, Lloyds have just cut lots of jobs for that very reason,along with the associated property.
All the high street banks and building socieities have for years been whittling down branch numbers. Branches are expensive to operate, and increasingly irrelevant to customers who use the PC's and Smart Phones to interact with their bank. Politically it's always unpopular, so I'm not surprised LBG cutting more branches is being linked to BREXIT ( easy excuse ). But the branch closures have absolutely nothing what so ever to do with BREXIT and are part of a rolling programme planned years ago. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff