Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
andymadmak said:
W124 said:
There's absolutely zero chance of us leaving the single market.
I disagree. I think we will leave, but we will have a deal that essentially lets us back in on different terms. The net result might be that we have not really left, but we have control over immigration (FMOP) , passporting rights etcBoth sides will claim victory.
However, securing the above will definitely require some movement / softening on the EU side. It's clear to me that UK Govt is already pushing in this direction.
Hammond's (and others, the names of whom currently evade me) trailing of comments about paying to be in bits of the single market certainly suggest, at least to me, that the British Govt has in mind an arrangement along the same lines as the Norwegian model.
grantone said:
I was a leave voter, in 10 years my fully perfect outcome would be:
Somehow the UK government was able to communicate & consult with UK citizens about the end goal without undermining it's negotiation position and people that were initially worried about the future were reassured and listened to (I have zero idea how to square this circle).
The EU shorn of it's least committed large member gets on with being a proper political union with common fiscal policy, maybe a couple more of the other less committed members also drop out so the EU can get on with it quickly.
The Northern EU countries who do well from having an undervalued currency start sending fiscal transfers to the Med. (Much like London & the South East do to the rest of the UK). The Med countries are then able to start to tackle their youth unemployment and long term structural problems that come from having an overvalued currency. (Much like the rest of the UK is able to do/mitigate with the fiscal transfers from London & the South East).
The EU starts to have proper economic growth again and it's great because we want our neighbours to be prosperous and not waste their human resources like they do today.
The EU and UK agree a low barrier trade agreement that has a net cost of 1-2%. Even in my perfect future I don't think it's wise to have zero barrier access between 2 different countries as I think you at least need the option at times to protect culturally important industries. I think we will also have to accept some barriers if state-aid and nationalisation rules come under UK control as the EU may need a way to protect against that if we choose to use them in the future.
The UK continues to have access to semi-skilled & skilled workers from the EU with almost no restrictions and this is reciprocated the other way.
The UK continues to have access to unskilled workers from the EU, but there are restrictions that can be set by the UK government, debated by our political parties and can be changed to suit what the UK population votes for at general elections. I would personally favour low restrictions as I think it's almost impossible for someone central to set the right criteria to properly suit the economy, but I know that other UK citizens disagree with me and I think it should be a UK choice. This is also reciprocated.
Any EU nationals already settled in the UK are able to stay and this is reciprocated the other way.
EU nationals have almost unrestricted access to visit the UK for leisure / holidays / retirement, etc... and this is reciprocated.
UK & EU continue to co-operate on defence, intelligence, energy, science, R&D, standards, etc...
The UK still sends some funds to the EU to help with joint projects, the funds are accounted for transparently and the EU accounts even get audit sign off.
The European Health Insurance Card system actually starts to work for UK citizens elsewhere in Europe!
The UK has a decent number of low-barrier trade deals with non-EU countries that were not possible within the EU and benefit all parties. Non-EU immigration & emigration increases as either an absolute number or as a percentage.
The majority of the UK is eventually happy with the compromises, but some people continue to campaign for less co-operation with the EU and others campaign for us to join again.
I'm happily retired in Costa Rica.
i think you and andymadmak should get a job on the brexit negotiating team . a couple of things in there i would disagree with but overall a very good post,imo.Somehow the UK government was able to communicate & consult with UK citizens about the end goal without undermining it's negotiation position and people that were initially worried about the future were reassured and listened to (I have zero idea how to square this circle).
The EU shorn of it's least committed large member gets on with being a proper political union with common fiscal policy, maybe a couple more of the other less committed members also drop out so the EU can get on with it quickly.
The Northern EU countries who do well from having an undervalued currency start sending fiscal transfers to the Med. (Much like London & the South East do to the rest of the UK). The Med countries are then able to start to tackle their youth unemployment and long term structural problems that come from having an overvalued currency. (Much like the rest of the UK is able to do/mitigate with the fiscal transfers from London & the South East).
The EU starts to have proper economic growth again and it's great because we want our neighbours to be prosperous and not waste their human resources like they do today.
The EU and UK agree a low barrier trade agreement that has a net cost of 1-2%. Even in my perfect future I don't think it's wise to have zero barrier access between 2 different countries as I think you at least need the option at times to protect culturally important industries. I think we will also have to accept some barriers if state-aid and nationalisation rules come under UK control as the EU may need a way to protect against that if we choose to use them in the future.
The UK continues to have access to semi-skilled & skilled workers from the EU with almost no restrictions and this is reciprocated the other way.
The UK continues to have access to unskilled workers from the EU, but there are restrictions that can be set by the UK government, debated by our political parties and can be changed to suit what the UK population votes for at general elections. I would personally favour low restrictions as I think it's almost impossible for someone central to set the right criteria to properly suit the economy, but I know that other UK citizens disagree with me and I think it should be a UK choice. This is also reciprocated.
Any EU nationals already settled in the UK are able to stay and this is reciprocated the other way.
EU nationals have almost unrestricted access to visit the UK for leisure / holidays / retirement, etc... and this is reciprocated.
UK & EU continue to co-operate on defence, intelligence, energy, science, R&D, standards, etc...
The UK still sends some funds to the EU to help with joint projects, the funds are accounted for transparently and the EU accounts even get audit sign off.
The European Health Insurance Card system actually starts to work for UK citizens elsewhere in Europe!
The UK has a decent number of low-barrier trade deals with non-EU countries that were not possible within the EU and benefit all parties. Non-EU immigration & emigration increases as either an absolute number or as a percentage.
The majority of the UK is eventually happy with the compromises, but some people continue to campaign for less co-operation with the EU and others campaign for us to join again.
I'm happily retired in Costa Rica.
Greg66 said:
andymadmak said:
W124 said:
There's absolutely zero chance of us leaving the single market.
I disagree. I think we will leave, but we will have a deal that essentially lets us back in on different terms. The net result might be that we have not really left, but we have control over immigration (FMOP) , passporting rights etcBoth sides will claim victory.
However, securing the above will definitely require some movement / softening on the EU side. It's clear to me that UK Govt is already pushing in this direction.
Hammond's (and others, the names of whom currently evade me) trailing of comments about paying to be in bits of the single market certainly suggest, at least to me, that the British Govt has in mind an arrangement along the same lines as the Norwegian model.
230TE said:
andymadmak said:
FMOP
I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.
As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.
The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.
The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).
Greg66 said:
don'tbesilly said:
Blah blah, hubris, blah blah blah.
Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein. 
Send me your address and I'll send through a bulk supply of some Poundland tissues, along with some nappies and a waterproof bed sheet.
What a numpty you must be,not knowing that leaving the EU meant the UK leaving the single market.
Apparently, it's the leavers who are thick, at least we have some brain cells, you have none!
wc98 said:
grantone said:
I was a leave voter, in 10 years my fully perfect outcome would be:
Somehow the UK government was able to communicate & consult with UK citizens about the end goal without undermining it's negotiation position and people that were initially worried about the future were reassured and listened to (I have zero idea how to square this circle).
The EU shorn of it's least committed large member gets on with being a proper political union with common fiscal policy, maybe a couple more of the other less committed members also drop out so the EU can get on with it quickly.
The Northern EU countries who do well from having an undervalued currency start sending fiscal transfers to the Med. (Much like London & the South East do to the rest of the UK). The Med countries are then able to start to tackle their youth unemployment and long term structural problems that come from having an overvalued currency. (Much like the rest of the UK is able to do/mitigate with the fiscal transfers from London & the South East).
The EU starts to have proper economic growth again and it's great because we want our neighbours to be prosperous and not waste their human resources like they do today.
The EU and UK agree a low barrier trade agreement that has a net cost of 1-2%. Even in my perfect future I don't think it's wise to have zero barrier access between 2 different countries as I think you at least need the option at times to protect culturally important industries. I think we will also have to accept some barriers if state-aid and nationalisation rules come under UK control as the EU may need a way to protect against that if we choose to use them in the future.
The UK continues to have access to semi-skilled & skilled workers from the EU with almost no restrictions and this is reciprocated the other way.
The UK continues to have access to unskilled workers from the EU, but there are restrictions that can be set by the UK government, debated by our political parties and can be changed to suit what the UK population votes for at general elections. I would personally favour low restrictions as I think it's almost impossible for someone central to set the right criteria to properly suit the economy, but I know that other UK citizens disagree with me and I think it should be a UK choice. This is also reciprocated.
Any EU nationals already settled in the UK are able to stay and this is reciprocated the other way.
EU nationals have almost unrestricted access to visit the UK for leisure / holidays / retirement, etc... and this is reciprocated.
UK & EU continue to co-operate on defence, intelligence, energy, science, R&D, standards, etc...
The UK still sends some funds to the EU to help with joint projects, the funds are accounted for transparently and the EU accounts even get audit sign off.
The European Health Insurance Card system actually starts to work for UK citizens elsewhere in Europe!
The UK has a decent number of low-barrier trade deals with non-EU countries that were not possible within the EU and benefit all parties. Non-EU immigration & emigration increases as either an absolute number or as a percentage.
The majority of the UK is eventually happy with the compromises, but some people continue to campaign for less co-operation with the EU and others campaign for us to join again.
I'm happily retired in Costa Rica.
i think you and andymadmak should get a job on the brexit negotiating team . a couple of things in there i would disagree with but overall a very good post,imo.Somehow the UK government was able to communicate & consult with UK citizens about the end goal without undermining it's negotiation position and people that were initially worried about the future were reassured and listened to (I have zero idea how to square this circle).
The EU shorn of it's least committed large member gets on with being a proper political union with common fiscal policy, maybe a couple more of the other less committed members also drop out so the EU can get on with it quickly.
The Northern EU countries who do well from having an undervalued currency start sending fiscal transfers to the Med. (Much like London & the South East do to the rest of the UK). The Med countries are then able to start to tackle their youth unemployment and long term structural problems that come from having an overvalued currency. (Much like the rest of the UK is able to do/mitigate with the fiscal transfers from London & the South East).
The EU starts to have proper economic growth again and it's great because we want our neighbours to be prosperous and not waste their human resources like they do today.
The EU and UK agree a low barrier trade agreement that has a net cost of 1-2%. Even in my perfect future I don't think it's wise to have zero barrier access between 2 different countries as I think you at least need the option at times to protect culturally important industries. I think we will also have to accept some barriers if state-aid and nationalisation rules come under UK control as the EU may need a way to protect against that if we choose to use them in the future.
The UK continues to have access to semi-skilled & skilled workers from the EU with almost no restrictions and this is reciprocated the other way.
The UK continues to have access to unskilled workers from the EU, but there are restrictions that can be set by the UK government, debated by our political parties and can be changed to suit what the UK population votes for at general elections. I would personally favour low restrictions as I think it's almost impossible for someone central to set the right criteria to properly suit the economy, but I know that other UK citizens disagree with me and I think it should be a UK choice. This is also reciprocated.
Any EU nationals already settled in the UK are able to stay and this is reciprocated the other way.
EU nationals have almost unrestricted access to visit the UK for leisure / holidays / retirement, etc... and this is reciprocated.
UK & EU continue to co-operate on defence, intelligence, energy, science, R&D, standards, etc...
The UK still sends some funds to the EU to help with joint projects, the funds are accounted for transparently and the EU accounts even get audit sign off.
The European Health Insurance Card system actually starts to work for UK citizens elsewhere in Europe!
The UK has a decent number of low-barrier trade deals with non-EU countries that were not possible within the EU and benefit all parties. Non-EU immigration & emigration increases as either an absolute number or as a percentage.
The majority of the UK is eventually happy with the compromises, but some people continue to campaign for less co-operation with the EU and others campaign for us to join again.
I'm happily retired in Costa Rica.
Everything else becomes academic long-term while that bit is unresolved. I wonder if they could have virtual floating Euros within the Eurozone somehow, with Fiscal transfers justified as a mechanism to balance the different values of the Euro? I suppose even if that was workable, it wouldn't address the part of the problem that is culture driving economics, though it might be a step in the right direction.
It's an interesting debate about payment for access to the Single Market. What's the justification for payment, beyond the fact that we already pay to be in the EU? Surely the argument to be made is that there should be payments both ways and proportional to the flow of trade?
Fundamentally, isn't paying to access a market the very opposite of 'free' trade though? Just because the cost isn't loaded onto the goods you buy, but paid out of general taxation, doesn't make the cost go away. Obviously there are mechanisms and running costs to pay for, but I can't see that that costs the billions of pounds that are quoted. Especially when you scale those billions up by all the other countries that pay for the single market.
How daft would it sound if we were trying to negotiate trade deals but insisting that those countries pay a percentage of our overall civil service budget and then establishing a trade surplus with those countries anyway. Yet that's roughly what's being proposed.
Mrr T said:
230TE said:
andymadmak said:
FMOP
I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.
As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.
The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.
The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).
don'tbesilly said:
Send me your address and I'll send through a bulk supply of some Poundland tissues, along with some nappies and a waterproof bed sheet.
Thanks, but you really don't need to share your "stuff" with me. (I suppose it never occurs to you that most of your posts just make you sound like a massive t
t, does it? I'm reasonably sure you're probably not a massive tt in real life, so why you work so hard to appear as one here is a bit of a mystery. Hey-ho). don'tbesilly said:
Send me your address and I'll send through a bulk supply of some Poundland tissues, along with some nappies and a waterproof bed sheet.
What a numpty you must be,not knowing that leaving the EU meant the UK leaving the single market.
Apparently, it's the leavers who are thick, at least we have some brain cells, you have none!
And what did that post add to the discussion?What a numpty you must be,not knowing that leaving the EU meant the UK leaving the single market.
Apparently, it's the leavers who are thick, at least we have some brain cells, you have none!
Greg66 said:
Thanks, but you really don't need to share your "stuff" with me.
(I suppose it never occurs to you that most of your posts just make you sound like a massive tt, does it? I'm reasonably sure you're probably not a massive tt in real life, so why you work so hard to appear as one here is a bit of a mystery. Hey-ho).
You've got to admit,you are the sort of Unrepentant replacement.(I suppose it never occurs to you that most of your posts just make you sound like a massive t
t, does it? I'm reasonably sure you're probably not a massive tt in real life, so why you work so hard to appear as one here is a bit of a mystery. Hey-ho). Deptford Draylons said:
Mrr T said:
230TE said:
andymadmak said:
FMOP
I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.
As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.
The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.
The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).
So which bit of the rule book does not translate into reality?
paulrockliffe said:
It's an interesting debate about payment for access to the Single Market. What's the justification for payment, beyond the fact that we already pay to be in the EU? Surely the argument to be made is that there should be payments both ways and proportional to the flow of trade?
I think its is fair enough for us to contribute where we get things back, so the Erasmus programme, pan-European security, standards setting where we are happy to go with the CE route and so on.It isn't a tariff by the back door. If it were, they owe us for the net deficit of goods and we would pay for passporting.
Mrr T said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Mrr T said:
230TE said:
andymadmak said:
FMOP
I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.
As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.
The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.
The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).
So which bit of the rule book does not translate into reality?
andymadmak said:
Elysium said:
No one voted to leave the single market. You voted to leave the EU. I voted to remain in it.
Could you point out in my post where I said we were not leaving?
And there you go again. Making my point for me.Could you point out in my post where I said we were not leaving?
The primary players on both sides of the debate ( you know, the PM, the Chancellor, Gove etc) made it absolutely clear that a vote to leave the EU was a vote to leave the SM. It was also made clear in the official leaflet circulated (at great expense) to every household in the land. It was broadcast on TV and Radio, But hey, ardent Remainers claim it's not clear. Ardent Remainers will find someone somewhere that said SM exit was not mandatory and suddenly that's the kiddie we were all supposed to be listening to. Ardent Remainers point out that because it did not say explicitly on the ballot paper that we would also be voting to leave the SM then we did not vote for it. I could point out that that the ballot paper also did not say that the vote to leave the EU would result in 2 years of negotiation and uncertainty - but we all knew it did BECAUSE THE SAME BLOODY PEOPLE WHO TOLD US THIS WOULD BE THE CASE ALSO TOLD US WE WOULD BE VOTING TO LEAVE THE SM IF WE VOTED TO LEAVE THE EU!
I've come to realise that it really is just a few people on the Remain side who are the problem. Of the Remain voters I know, practically all of them have accepted the outcome (including exiting the SM) and are focussed on making the best of the future. It's just a few who have that devious little smile on their faces, who think they are being clever and playing some grand game, wilfully doing everything they can to obfuscate and delay, to talk down and wail like bereaved folk whenever anything appears in the media that they can celebrate as bad news.
Exit voters are not insecure, it's just that some exit voters are getting a little pissed off with those few Ardent Remainers with their transparent agenda, doublespeak and never ending tantrums. We've come to realise that the slights, insults, smears and general nastiness from them will never go away completely (witness slasher AJD and his constant returning to his "racist" meme) , but I suppose that it does still come as something of a shock to realise just how far the few Ardent Remainers will go in terms to trying to wreck the UK chances of negotiating a sensible exit deal, just so they can claim some sort of victory or "I told you so" moment.
Conceding that we are actually leaving (as you have done) means nothing.. what is important now is HOW we leave, and it's in that field of play that people like you are doing all you can to wreck it.
andymadmak said:
W124 said:
There's absolutely zero chance of us leaving the single market.
I disagree. I think we will leave, but we will have a deal that essentially lets us back in on different terms. The net result might be that we have not really left, but we have control over immigration (FMOP) , passporting rights etcBoth sides will claim victory.
However, securing the above will definitely require some movement / softening on the EU side. It's clear to me that UK Govt is already pushing in this direction.
I think we will leave the Single Market as it is currently defined, but will enter into an almost identical arrangement with a different name. Either as an EFTA state (as Gove suggested pre-referendum) or with a bespoke single market deal based on three freedoms.
Edited by Elysium on Friday 9th December 13:25
Deptford Draylons said:
Mrr T said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Mrr T said:
230TE said:
andymadmak said:
FMOP
I've noticed that when Remainers talk to Leavers about the Single Market they use the term "free movement of labour" (FMOL). When they are talking to each other it's free movement of people (FMOP). I had a look at the relevant EU treaties and they split the difference - free movement of workers (FMOW).As far as I can see, FMOL is more or less compatible with controlled immigration. FMOP isn't. FMOW might be, depending on how you define "workers". That term doesn't seem to be defined in the treaties. I'd say there is a fair amount of room there for a negotiated compromise, if both the UK govt and the EU were interested in achieving one.
As to what the freedom means there has been German case law which makes it clear it not freedom for everyone. You will need to search Eureferendum.com for the links.
The freedom is restricted to:
a) Those seeking work.
b) Those looking to set up a business.
c) Those who are self-sufficient.
The freedom is not available to those looking only to move to claim benefits (in the UK an immigrant can claim job seekers allowance and child benefits so long as they are actively seeking work but no other benefits).
So which bit of the rule book does not translate into reality?
No one needs to kick you out. Since an EU immigrant has very limited access to benefits they either properly exercise the freedom or you have no money and you have to leave.
It’s the market solution, low cost and efficient.
paulrockliffe said:
The only problem with that is that bit about Fiscal transfers. Without everyone considering themselves European rather than German etc there's no chance of that happening. Do the Germans even acknowledge that there's already a fiscal transfer the other way via the shared currency and it's trading value?
Everything else becomes academic long-term while that bit is unresolved. I wonder if they could have virtual floating Euros within the Eurozone somehow, with Fiscal transfers justified as a mechanism to balance the different values of the Euro? I suppose even if that was workable, it wouldn't address the part of the problem that is culture driving economics, though it might be a step in the right direction.
It's an interesting debate about payment for access to the Single Market. What's the justification for payment, beyond the fact that we already pay to be in the EU? Surely the argument to be made is that there should be payments both ways and proportional to the flow of trade?
Fundamentally, isn't paying to access a market the very opposite of 'free' trade though? Just because the cost isn't loaded onto the goods you buy, but paid out of general taxation, doesn't make the cost go away. Obviously there are mechanisms and running costs to pay for, but I can't see that that costs the billions of pounds that are quoted. Especially when you scale those billions up by all the other countries that pay for the single market.
How daft would it sound if we were trying to negotiate trade deals but insisting that those countries pay a percentage of our overall civil service budget and then establishing a trade surplus with those countries anyway. Yet that's roughly what's being proposed.
looking at the eurozone there is only two ways it can go now, imo of course. complete integration with all that entails including fiscal transfers, or complete collapse. now if it is the former that should, imo again, make it far easier to overcome the issues with trade between the uk and the eurozone .i completely agree with your views on free trade. personally i would like to see trade both ways completely tariff free along with no payments either way for accessing markets. possibly pie in the sky but i do believe in free trade and free market capitalism .the problem is neither of those exist in reality anywhere in the world today.Everything else becomes academic long-term while that bit is unresolved. I wonder if they could have virtual floating Euros within the Eurozone somehow, with Fiscal transfers justified as a mechanism to balance the different values of the Euro? I suppose even if that was workable, it wouldn't address the part of the problem that is culture driving economics, though it might be a step in the right direction.
It's an interesting debate about payment for access to the Single Market. What's the justification for payment, beyond the fact that we already pay to be in the EU? Surely the argument to be made is that there should be payments both ways and proportional to the flow of trade?
Fundamentally, isn't paying to access a market the very opposite of 'free' trade though? Just because the cost isn't loaded onto the goods you buy, but paid out of general taxation, doesn't make the cost go away. Obviously there are mechanisms and running costs to pay for, but I can't see that that costs the billions of pounds that are quoted. Especially when you scale those billions up by all the other countries that pay for the single market.
How daft would it sound if we were trying to negotiate trade deals but insisting that those countries pay a percentage of our overall civil service budget and then establishing a trade surplus with those countries anyway. Yet that's roughly what's being proposed.
i think the germans are more than aware of just how much the current situation benefits them, i have a hard time believing they think the situation will continue for ever though. i read something along the lines of 60% of ecb money printed in recent times ends up in german banks . sooner or later the disparity of benefits of eu/eurozone membership is going to cause some serious unrest if not addressed. that may be the route the eu think will achieve their aims in the shortest possible time though i have a funny feeling that it might not go quite the way they thought it would.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff