Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
It seems they appear to be really going for it
- control on movement as a red line
- coupled with a "good" deal for trade
It almost sounds like our trade/economy is second fiddle to controlling immigration. That could be a negotiating tactic to show the EU they mean business, but it does seem they are heading headlong towards the "a la carte" menu.
Interesting times. Let the poker begin!
- control on movement as a red line
- coupled with a "good" deal for trade
It almost sounds like our trade/economy is second fiddle to controlling immigration. That could be a negotiating tactic to show the EU they mean business, but it does seem they are heading headlong towards the "a la carte" menu.
Interesting times. Let the poker begin!
///ajd said:
It seems they appear to be really going for it
- control on movement as a red line
- coupled with a "good" deal for trade
It almost sounds like our trade/economy is second fiddle to controlling immigration. That could be a negotiating tactic to show the EU they mean business, but it does seem they are heading headlong towards the "a la carte" menu.
Interesting times. Let the poker begin!
- control on movement as a red line
- coupled with a "good" deal for trade
It almost sounds like our trade/economy is second fiddle to controlling immigration. That could be a negotiating tactic to show the EU they mean business, but it does seem they are heading headlong towards the "a la carte" menu.
Interesting times. Let the poker begin!
Those dark ideas again 
London424 said:
The front pages make for interesting reading. Not so much for the remainers.
Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
I have to admit that Theresa May has got some balls. Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
It's a shame her premiership will be defined by Brexit as I think she would make a good job in a different political atmosphere.
It's a strange situation when we have the general public rejoicing in the fact that MP's might not get to vote on something.
It's a big poker game from now on. It would be interesting if I didn't expect it to cost me so much money.
London424 said:
The front pages make for interesting reading. Not so much for the remainers.
Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
Thanks for posting, interesting article and despite the rhetoric I think it's basically achievable. I can't see why the FMOL aspect needs to be a sticking point with the EU, other than a dogmatic "it's been in our rules since 1957 so we're keeping it" stance. Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
Edited by London424 on Wednesday 31st August 23:51
FMOL is great when everyone has the same standards of welfare, economy, etc and worked with the original 7 member states. But it's not the 1950's any more, Europe isn't rebuilding it's populations and infrastructure in the aftermath of WW2 and the world has moved on. 60 years later people aren't only moving to fill jobs but to get what they perceive as a better personal deal for themselves. Understandable of course but this just makes lousy countries regress more as their best talents leave, which is sort of counter-productive to the aims of the EU as a whole.
Plus of course the unstated reason for FMOL is to dilute nationality, "EU citizens can live anywhere within the EU" and over time this breaks down the perception of borders and nation states which makes the ever closer union and EU superstate more likely. So perhaps in that context it still makes sense for the EU to hold onto the 1950s.
But if you're not an EU member but simply a trading partner then the concept is flawed. It's logical if the trading partner might subsequently join the EU as it prepares the way for full membership, but for an ex-member this U-turn is unlikely and even less likely to go back and join with the EU superstate dream.
Hence the need for breaking down borders becomes irrelevant and if you're exporting the youth of your country to outside of the EU towards an essentially a competitor nation and leaving yourself poorer, well that's even siller.
To save face for the EU we'll still have immigration which they will call FMOL. But it will be just that, movement of labour rather than movement of people. Longer residence time before benefits kick in, proof that you have resources to sustain yourself for a year or more, only coming if you have a job lined up, there are all sorts of ways that this could happen and be acceptable to both sides on paper.
I think she'll get it. Some folks won't like it because we'll still have immigration, but it will be back to the original concept of "Labour" and not "people".
London424 said:
The front pages make for interesting reading. Not so much for the remainers.
Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
I have to say this is the most sensible comment I have read so far:Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, said immigration controls meant Britain’s Brexit deal would not be along the lines of that used for Norway or Switzerland. Instead, it put the UK on track for a Canada-style agreement, with free trade for manufactured goods but not necessarily for services.
“People have been assuming there will have to be restrictions on immigration of some sort, either an emergency brake, or an Australian-style points system for European workers,” he said.
“Whatever system we go for it is going to be unacceptable to our partners if we want access to the single market. We will only have limited access to the single market and have to content ourselves with a free trade agreement, which would not cover many of our key services sectors including financial services.”
Of interest to those remainians who believe that leave voters were all idiots and believed Farage et al and their £350 million a week could be spent on the NHS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37238641
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37238641
BBC said:
It said voters had viewed both sides as increasingly negative, and many "simply did not trust" their key claims. These included Remain saying households would be on overage £4,300 worse off outside the EU and Leave claiming an extra £350m could be spent on the NHS.
The government's controversial mail-shot to every household in the UK had "little effect on people's levels of informedness", it said, and towards the end of the campaign nearly half of voters thought politicians were "mostly telling lies".
I'm amazed it's only half of voters. The government's controversial mail-shot to every household in the UK had "little effect on people's levels of informedness", it said, and towards the end of the campaign nearly half of voters thought politicians were "mostly telling lies".
///ajd said:
It seems they appear to be really going for it
- control on movement as a red line
- coupled with a "good" deal for trade
It almost sounds like our trade/economy is second fiddle to controlling immigration. That could be a negotiating tactic to show the EU they mean business, but it does seem they are heading headlong towards the "a la carte" menu.
Interesting times. Let the poker begin!
This really is you...- control on movement as a red line
- coupled with a "good" deal for trade
It almost sounds like our trade/economy is second fiddle to controlling immigration. That could be a negotiating tactic to show the EU they mean business, but it does seem they are heading headlong towards the "a la carte" menu.
Interesting times. Let the poker begin!
Elysium said:
London424 said:
The front pages make for interesting reading. Not so much for the remainers.
Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
I have to admit that Theresa May has got some balls. Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
It's a shame her premiership will be defined by Brexit as I think she would make a good job in a different political atmosphere.
It's a strange situation when we have the general public rejoicing in the fact that MP's might not get to vote on something.
It's a big poker game from now on. It would be interesting if I didn't expect it to cost me so much money.
The UK was promised a referendum by Cameron.
The UK had the referendum as promised by Cameron.
Cameron promised to stay as PM regardless of the result.
Within hours of the result which was to leave the EU, Cameron did what he accused the leavers of being, he became the quitter.
The people voted to leave, no-one suggested at any time pre-referendum that the result of the referendum could be subject to a second referendum, or a decision by MP's on what the people had voted for, which was to leave the EU.
Not everyone who voted to leave did it for selfish reasons, unlike apparently you.
PurpleMoonlight said:
London424 said:
The front pages make for interesting reading. Not so much for the remainers.
Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
I have to say this is the most sensible comment I have read so far:Eta: here's the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/31/re...
Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, said immigration controls meant Britain’s Brexit deal would not be along the lines of that used for Norway or Switzerland. Instead, it put the UK on track for a Canada-style agreement, with free trade for manufactured goods but not necessarily for services.
“People have been assuming there will have to be restrictions on immigration of some sort, either an emergency brake, or an Australian-style points system for European workers,” he said.
“Whatever system we go for it is going to be unacceptable to our partners if we want access to the single market. We will only have limited access to the single market and have to content ourselves with a free trade agreement, which would not cover many of our key services sectors including financial services.”
Zod said:
hat would be a terrible result. Canada provides little by way of services to EU countries. The UK's service industries have massive exposure to the EU.
Good if you are a manufacturer bad if you are a banker.There are going to be some, possibly a lot, disappointed people post Brexit. It's just a matter of who.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Zod said:
hat would be a terrible result. Canada provides little by way of services to EU countries. The UK's service industries have massive exposure to the EU.
Good if you are a manufacturer bad if you are a banker.There are going to be some, possibly a lot, disappointed people post Brexit. It's just a matter of who.
Fastdruid said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Zod said:
hat would be a terrible result. Canada provides little by way of services to EU countries. The UK's service industries have massive exposure to the EU.
Good if you are a manufacturer bad if you are a banker.There are going to be some, possibly a lot, disappointed people post Brexit. It's just a matter of who.
Personally I think the government is still underestimating the complication involved and my preference is still for a holding position where trade in goods and services can proceed pretty much as now and make compromises in other areas. Essentially we are still in the phoney war stages so let's wait and see.
Fastdruid said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
Zod said:
hat would be a terrible result. Canada provides little by way of services to EU countries. The UK's service industries have massive exposure to the EU.
Good if you are a manufacturer bad if you are a banker.There are going to be some, possibly a lot, disappointed people post Brexit. It's just a matter of who.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Zod said:
hat would be a terrible result. Canada provides little by way of services to EU countries. The UK's service industries have massive exposure to the EU.
Good if you are a manufacturer bad if you are a banker.There are going to be some, possibly a lot, disappointed people post Brexit. It's just a matter of who.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Mrr T said:
Since financial services (not just banking) employs about 2m people in the UK and pays directly 11% of total UK tax revenue. Bad for financial services is bad for most people.
How many work in cross boarder services though?You may be able to separate the sales and even customer services if these are organised by country. However, the operations, risk etc etc will just serve the EU customer base. So its much more difficult to estimate how many jobs will be effected. A guide would be the fact the UK is 21% of EU GDP which is a good guide to the need for financial services. I am not suggesting 79% of jobs will go but a good guess might do 30% and as much as 50% of tax revenue since we know much of the UK domestic financial services are not very profitable.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Mrr T said:
Since financial services (not just banking) employs about 2m people in the UK and pays directly 11% of total UK tax revenue. Bad for financial services is bad for most people.
How many work in cross boarder services though?Mrr T said:
That's not the right question. The question is how many people in London are selling or providing financial services to customers in the rEU. The answer is a lot.
It's the same question and financial services extends far beyond London you know. I would say only a small proportion are involved in cross boarder services (or selling if you will). The vast majority provide just UK based services, including me.There is a consultation by the Scottish Government about Brexit being run at the moment. You can read the submissions on the Scottish government website. It's an interesting read in itself, but there's a very interesting submission that touches on the legal position comparing the Lisbon Treaty with the EEA Agreement. It's worth a read.
It explains that EEA membership is possible without free movement of labour and why Switzerland can't achieve that because of they don't access the single market via EEA.
It explains that EEA membership is possible without free movement of labour and why Switzerland can't achieve that because of they don't access the single market via EEA.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff