Brexit: EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK
Discussion
Brexit: EU considers migration ‘emergency brake’ for UK for up to seven years
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brex...
Cameron back in Jan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/came...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/24/brex...
Cameron back in Jan.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/came...
stripy7 said:
The reality of Brexit is that we are now in a position of strength, we will end up with a far better deal.
You're right, the EU isn't in good shape at the moment and that's in our favour.I don't think we should agree to anything temporary though.
If the EU manages to sort itself out in the next few years any future negotiations will be much more difficult.
legzr1 said:
///ajd said:
Is this to make us stay in?
Interesting.
The start of gentle persuasion and real politics.Interesting.
I expect tears from a narrow majority under the impression the results of a rushed referendum were legally binding
What you're seeing is the inevitable softening of those initial messages now they've realized the way the vote has gone. Now it's a damage limitation exercise. The EU is in a much more precarious position and really can't afford to see big financial hits without the whole lot crumbling down.
Imho this is an attempt to set up a two tier EU, end up with Eurozone in one and others in a second class membership.
The latter would mean that anyone in that wouldn't have the ability to move on. Uk shouldn't touch this with a barge pole.
Flexcit and variants on that theme are the sensible way forward.
The latter would mean that anyone in that wouldn't have the ability to move on. Uk shouldn't touch this with a barge pole.
Flexcit and variants on that theme are the sensible way forward.
Anything is worth considering, but we voted to leave the EU and that should still be the case. Whether we like it or not, and whether we are all called racists as a result, a large number of those voting for Brexit were worried about our inability to restrict immigration from within the EU - perhaps even more so in future years, after further entrants to the EU.
Mr_B said:
They would have won the referendum had they tried to buy it with this bribe during the campaign.
I don't see how the UK exits the EU and still abides by EU rules on free movement.
Once they've exited they don't need to. I don't see how the UK exits the EU and still abides by EU rules on free movement.
But have you not noticed how all kinds of rules with the EU just get changed/amended/added/deleted when they feel like it anyway?
Sylvaforever said:
...electoral suicide.
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?
The politicians have a duty to act in the best interests of national security and prosperity. So even if they forge a new relationship with the EU, still be part of it but at the same time not being governed by it... some call this Brexit-light, then this is surely the way to go if it means upsetting some 'leavers' but at the same time secure Britain's national and foreign interests.
Hang on though - this looks like a EU-tastic fudge.
They won't allow a permanent stop to free movement (that's sacrosanct), but they will allow a long term emergency brake that can of course be extended if the situation merits it. And the situation that merits it will be the UK saying it wants the brake to be extended otherwise it will leave.
The EU still gets to say that free movement is still a founding principle, and we get to not have free movement while we remain in the single market and cut trade deals with all and sundry. Doesn't seem that bad.
They won't allow a permanent stop to free movement (that's sacrosanct), but they will allow a long term emergency brake that can of course be extended if the situation merits it. And the situation that merits it will be the UK saying it wants the brake to be extended otherwise it will leave.
The EU still gets to say that free movement is still a founding principle, and we get to not have free movement while we remain in the single market and cut trade deals with all and sundry. Doesn't seem that bad.
///ajd said:
Is this to make us stay in?
Interesting.
It has confused me. I doubt it is an olive branch though. They have no reason to offer one at this stage. Is it to confuse? They might see it as pressure on the negotiators, but I'm not sure how. Interesting.
We can't, I think, stay in. I know some suggest we could, and theoretically the argument is correct. But politically it is all but impossible. If we accept that that option is out:
It must be something they will use as a ploy in negotiations. They've publicised it early so by the time negotiations start they might feel it is something that will be seen by the public as a minimum.
For our negotiators it might seem that they will have to give up some desires for this 7-year hiatus.
As I say, I am confused now. It might be clearer when negotiations start.
GoodOlBoy said:
stripy7 said:
The reality of Brexit is that we are now in a position of strength, we will end up with a far better deal.
You're right, the EU isn't in good shape at the moment and that's in our favour.I don't think we should agree to anything temporary though.
If the EU manages to sort itself out in the next few years any future negotiations will be much more difficult.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff