Brexit: EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
The difficult position of the leaders of the EU is a double-edged sword. Their negotiators will be restricted by the need to keep the rest of the EU happy and this means not appearing to allow the UK favourable terms. Similarly, the UK needs to come out of the negotiations with something they can spin as rather bullish. If the EU blocks any Norwegian/Swiss style option then this might help them encourager les autres. The UK might be seen as important to them as an admiral to the navy, but there are times when importance is not persuasive.
If other members of the EU are bothered if we get favourable terms that would indicate that they consider the current terms unfavourable.Given that we're not the only country that has issues with EU Immigration policy, free movement of labour etc. perhaps they should consider giving favorable terms to their other members rather than maintaining the current inflexible regime.
Free movement of labour is a flawed policy that should be addressed across the EU.
The EU has existing and forthcoming trade deals that don't include labour laws.
king arthur said:
Isn't this the "Liechtenstein" option as espoused by Richard North? EEA membership with an emergency brake on immigration?
It's similar but not exactly. My understanding from reading his Liechtenstein stuff is that Liechtenstein are not "allowed" to have or utilise the so called emergency brake, it is their right to do so unilaterally. Likewise the other members - Iceland implemented the financial brake when their banks collapsed, as Dr North reminds us.The EEA/EfTA emergency brake is much better than the one in the EU as the former can be triggered unilaterally but the latter requires a number of states to agree.
This sounds to me more like a starting offer to head us off at the pass - I suspect there is much more room for negotiation to come.
Many posters on here go on about trade deals but leaving the EU has always been more than that - one of the most powerful cards in our hand is defence - neither European States nor the USA will want to put us in a position where we have to cut defence spending due the bear in the East waking up.
I think the temporary bit is just the way the EU justifies introducing something they say is impossible. Temporary really means permanent through indefinite extensions. We've all seen how the completely impossible is accommodated. Strict fiscal rules for Eurozone countries are suspended when France, Germany, Italy and Greece breach them. The rules forbidding bailouts of EZ members are forgotten when the alternative is Greece leaving the EZ. Greece for goodness' sake!
There is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
There is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
richie99 said:
I think the temporary bit is just the way the EU justifies introducing something they say is impossible. Temporary really means permanent through indefinite extensions. We've all seen how the completely impossible is accommodated. Strict fiscal rules for Eurozone countries are suspended when France, Germany, Italy and Greece breach them. The rules forbidding bailouts of EZ members are forgotten when the alternative is Greece leaving the EZ. Greece for goodness' sake!
There is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
So what you are saying is that the EU are lying bThere is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
d's and should not be trusted.
richie99 said:
I think the temporary bit is just the way the EU justifies introducing something they say is impossible. Temporary really means permanent through indefinite extensions. We've all seen how the completely impossible is accommodated. Strict fiscal rules for Eurozone countries are suspended when France, Germany, Italy and Greece breach them. The rules forbidding bailouts of EZ members are forgotten when the alternative is Greece leaving the EZ. Greece for goodness' sake!
There is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
The Lisbon treaty received an amendment to it in December 2010 to enable the creation of the European Stability Mechanism. http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/docum...There is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
When it really matters, the EU can change the treaties, despite what they and Cameron said during the pre referendum negotiations.
They chose in the instance of their dealings with Cameron, to gamble on the UK swallowing the new deal, they lost the gamble.
PRTVR said:
richie99 said:
I think the temporary bit is just the way the EU justifies introducing something they say is impossible. Temporary really means permanent through indefinite extensions. We've all seen how the completely impossible is accommodated. Strict fiscal rules for Eurozone countries are suspended when France, Germany, Italy and Greece breach them. The rules forbidding bailouts of EZ members are forgotten when the alternative is Greece leaving the EZ. Greece for goodness' sake!
There is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
So what you are saying is that the EU are lying bThere is nothing so ephemeral as a fixed EU rule.
d's and should not be trusted.GoodOlBoy said:
If other members of the EU are bothered if we get favourable terms that would indicate that they consider the current terms unfavourable.
Given that we're not the only country that has issues with EU Immigration policy, free movement of labour etc. perhaps they should consider giving favorable terms to their other members rather than maintaining the current inflexible regime.
Free movement of labour is a flawed policy that should be addressed across the EU.
The EU has existing and forthcoming trade deals that don't include labour laws.
This is exactly the way I think, and it always goes unanswered by those who advocated "remain".Given that we're not the only country that has issues with EU Immigration policy, free movement of labour etc. perhaps they should consider giving favorable terms to their other members rather than maintaining the current inflexible regime.
Free movement of labour is a flawed policy that should be addressed across the EU.
The EU has existing and forthcoming trade deals that don't include labour laws.
Tin foil hat time (only a thin one), but they could possibly manouver this to a position where we are offered a choice of being in the EU with a temporary block on freedom of movement but full access to the single market, or being outside the EU but having access to the single market with the condition of freedom of movement.
This would probably split the hardcore leavers who would say bks to it all away from the middle ground who voted to leave but don't want too much disruption.
This would probably split the hardcore leavers who would say b
ks to it all away from the middle ground who voted to leave but don't want too much disruption.AJS- said:
...where we are offered a choice of being in the EU with a temporary block on freedom of movement ...
That was already offered and rejected by the majority...nice as it was of the EU to offer us the ability to yank a brake on for a period of time under certain circumstances (the details of which I don't recall seeing), the majority would seem to have wanted more control over our own entry requirements than that. All this new muttering seems to do is extend it by another 3 years or maybe 6. Which would seem to be totally missing the point. And as GoodOlBoy notes, if complete control is deemed such a positive for all nations that they might also want to leave the EU if it could be secured, why is a lack of it there in the first place? How did it ever get to that position in the first place too?!
Jockman said:
legzr1 said:
Jockman said:
If the EU were to come back with an outstandingly brilliant bespoke deal, better than anything that has ever been on the table before, a deal that was acceptable to the majority of voters........would you thank the Brexiteers?
You think that's how the idea of ignoring the referendum result would be sold?Oh, and thank you
You're more than welcome.
With a second referendum.
See, that's the thing about the "democratic will of the people". It's fine as long as it agrees with you...
Boris said that the referendum result was not entirely overwhelming. Whilst there might not be the political or democratic will to remain in the EU, I'm not convinced that there's popular support for the sort of hard Brexit that the Tory right wing or UKIP are proposing.
The chances are that whatever deal is cooked up is going to be a compromise.
There's been talk of a new Associate Membership to the EU, which would be somewhere between being fully in and part of the EEA. It's being talked about for Norway, Iceland, and possibly Switzerland, but might suit the UK too.
So what if that was offered to the UK, along with the enhanced emergency brake, and possibly reformation of the European Commission (I think it's in the Steinmeier and Ayrault paper)? It would counter some of the concerns from the Leave camp, and could find favour with the Remainers.
The chances are that whatever deal is cooked up is going to be a compromise.
There's been talk of a new Associate Membership to the EU, which would be somewhere between being fully in and part of the EEA. It's being talked about for Norway, Iceland, and possibly Switzerland, but might suit the UK too.
So what if that was offered to the UK, along with the enhanced emergency brake, and possibly reformation of the European Commission (I think it's in the Steinmeier and Ayrault paper)? It would counter some of the concerns from the Leave camp, and could find favour with the Remainers.
My speculation: it would satisfy enough of those who voted leave to reverse the vote if re-run. It (and nothing short of annihilation of the EU and all those who work for it) will satisfy the True BeLeavers, but my money is that they are a relatively small (but vocal) part of the Leave voters.
Greg66 said:
My speculation: it would satisfy enough of those who voted leave to reverse the vote if re-run. It (and nothing short of annihilation of the EU and all those who work for it) will satisfy the True BeLeavers, but my money is that they are a relatively small (but vocal) part of the Leave voters.
Not convinced. An emergency brake for a limited period of time triggered presumably only when we can prove to the EU we need to is not control of borders. And I think the desire for that control will only have increased as more events like those in Germany and France post referendum happen (whether our own border control could actually prevent it or not).
Anyway, a second vote is moot as it's not happening. There is far more to deal with than just control of borders.
Murph7355 said:
GoodOlBoy said:
If other members of the EU are bothered if we get favourable terms that would indicate that they consider the current terms unfavourable.
Given that we're not the only country that has issues with EU Immigration policy, free movement of labour etc. perhaps they should consider giving favorable terms to their other members rather than maintaining the current inflexible regime.
Free movement of labour is a flawed policy that should be addressed across the EU.
The EU has existing and forthcoming trade deals that don't include labour laws.
This is exactly the way I think, and it always goes unanswered by those who advocated "remain".Given that we're not the only country that has issues with EU Immigration policy, free movement of labour etc. perhaps they should consider giving favorable terms to their other members rather than maintaining the current inflexible regime.
Free movement of labour is a flawed policy that should be addressed across the EU.
The EU has existing and forthcoming trade deals that don't include labour laws.
- It's not about 'favourable' or 'unfavourable'. It's about accepting rules on which the game is based. Other members of the EU would be, quite rightly imo, bothered as they can't pick and chose that they think would suit them. You can negotiate new rules, but they'll have cons as well. (IIRC Hollande said that would be open to 'full access' with 'immigration control' if 'no passporting'.
- See above, Swiss have voted in ref to limit freedom of movement, and yet have to implement it, because it would mean additional conditions on their access to sm.
- FML is a flawed policy in your opinion. Lot of people happen to think otherwise. I do think that EU has issues, I don't think that FML is one of them.
- Labour laws or free movement of labour stipulations?
jjlynn27 said:
It was answered many times. From the top;
Just to clarify. If exiting free movement of labour is seen by the EU as giving the UK a favourable outcome, then being in it is, by definition, seen as unfavourable. That was my point.- It's not about 'favourable' or 'unfavourable'. It's about accepting rules on which the game is based. Other members of the EU would be, quite rightly imo, bothered as they can't pick and chose that they think would suit them. You can negotiate new rules, but they'll have cons as well. (IIRC Hollande said that would be open to 'full access' with 'immigration control' if 'no passporting'.
- See above, Swiss have voted in ref to limit freedom of movement, and yet have to implement it, because it would mean additional conditions on their access to sm.
- FML is a flawed policy in your opinion. Lot of people happen to think otherwise. I do think that EU has issues, I don't think that FML is one of them.
- Labour laws or free movement of labour stipulations?
Free movement of Labour is a flawed policy. That's the reason the UK, amongst others, would like to see it removed or at least revised. Of course there are those that think otherwise. It would be strange if Poland, for example, were against it.
You don't see FML as an issue, but others certainly do. The only reason FML is defended, especially by the likes of Hollande, is that it forms one of the pillars of the Federalist dream of a United States of Europe. Otherwise would it be so bad to have a more sensible policy based on supply and demand ?
The EU rules aren't the ten commandments. They've been changed and modified in the past. I'm suggesting that more flexibility would be beneficial to the organisation as a whole.
Subsidies are not applied equally across the EU, they target specific needs in specific countries. What's wrong with applying the same logic to other aspects of EU regulations ?
Murph7355 said:
That was already offered and rejected by the majority...nice as it was of the EU to offer us the ability to yank a brake on for a period of time under certain circumstances (the details of which I don't recall seeing), the majority would seem to have wanted more control over our own entry requirements than that.
All this new muttering seems to do is extend it by another 3 years or maybe 6. Which would seem to be totally missing the point. And as GoodOlBoy notes, if complete control is deemed such a positive for all nations that they might also want to leave the EU if it could be secured, why is a lack of it there in the first place? How did it ever get to that position in the first place too?!
I agree, and hope it does all fall apart. All this new muttering seems to do is extend it by another 3 years or maybe 6. Which would seem to be totally missing the point. And as GoodOlBoy notes, if complete control is deemed such a positive for all nations that they might also want to leave the EU if it could be secured, why is a lack of it there in the first place? How did it ever get to that position in the first place too?!
We got here through lack of democratic control, and people who have unchecked control hate relinquishing it.
GoodOlBoy said:
Just to clarify. If exiting free movement of labour is seen by the EU as giving the UK a favourable outcome, then being in it is, by definition, seen as unfavourable. That was my point.
I understood your point first time. I think you didn't understand mine, so I'll try again.The four founding principles (the four freedoms), are the base for being full member of the club. To have a full - not just limited by tariffs, access to sm
you accept those founding principles, 'full member of the club' type of thing. If you want different access, (CAN, NOR, SWI) you negotiate those different deals. It would be seem 'favourable' if any participant was allowed to pick-n-mix the set of those to their own liking. If we want full, free access then we have to accept others. Not sure how to explain my view differently.
GoodOlBoy said:
Free movement of Labour is a flawed policy. That's the reason the UK, amongst others, would like to see it removed or at least revised. Of course there are those that think otherwise. It would be strange if Poland, for example, were against it.
Again, not everyone in UK, well if you even look on this pages, not every leave supporter is bothered about immigration and FML. Define others, from 'amongst others' please.I did explain why I don't think that it's flawed policy at all.
GoodOlBoy said:
You don't see FML as an issue, but others certainly do. The only reason FML is defended, especially by the likes of Hollande, is that it forms one of the pillars of the Federalist dream of a United States of Europe. Otherwise would it be so bad to have a more sensible policy based on supply and demand ?
Again, see above. I think it's quite sensible to get allow people in, and if they can't find the job within 3 or 6 months, they are out. It's quite sensible. I've posted evidence that immigration from EU is more economically beneficial than non-EU immigration, almost by order of magnitude. And yet we have full control over non-EU immigration with points based system. As for 'supply and demand', isn't that exactly what current system is doing, if there is a demand for EU-immigration, they'll be able to get jobs, if there isn't they wont be able to get jobs and will be out?GoodOlBoy said:
The EU rules aren't the ten commandments. They've been changed and modified in the past. I'm suggesting that more flexibility would be beneficial to the organisation as a whole.
Subsidies are not applied equally across the EU, they target specific needs in specific countries. What's wrong with applying the same logic to other aspects of EU regulations ?
They are most certainly not ten commandments. Subsidies are not part of the 'four freedoms'. For the rest, see above.Subsidies are not applied equally across the EU, they target specific needs in specific countries. What's wrong with applying the same logic to other aspects of EU regulations ?
GoodOlBoy said:
You don't see FML as an issue, but others certainly do. The only reason FML is defended, especially by the likes of Hollande, is that it forms one of the pillars of the Federalist dream of a United States of Europe. Otherwise would it be so bad to have a more sensible policy based on supply and demand ?
I'd argue that FoM is far more a supply and demand based solution to immigration than a visa system. A visa system is at the whim of Government policy, if we decide there's the demand for labour but the Government don't want people to come for other reasons such as not having the services or infrastructure to cope or indeed, simply to appease those who want less immigration they can put limits in place that mean the demand isn't being satisfied.With FoM this isn't possible. People in Europe will therefore move to the countries in which there are jobs, from those where there aren't. This is why the UK, which produces more new jobs than the rest of Europe, sees comparitively high levels of immigration from the EU. This is why we have twice the number as France, despite France having an equally good (or better) welfare State than us.
347Andy said:
"I've heard this term many times now... what does it actually mean in the here and now?
People at the next election will all vote for Corbyn?"
Probably not most people are not that stupid, but UKIP would certainly pick up a few votes !
Enough to be 'political suicide' for the government? I would hazard a guess not anywhere near it.People at the next election will all vote for Corbyn?"
Probably not most people are not that stupid, but UKIP would certainly pick up a few votes !
Even with Brexit-light, I think UKIP are done and dusted. Their whole purpose is now a non-event.
Seems pointless for them to continue as a political party, unless they wish to rename themselves as "Labour-version 2" and go after the anti-corbyn vote, for whatever good that would do them?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff