How do we think EU negotiations will go?

[ORD]

Garvin said:

Why? Everyone else? I do not understand such statements. If the EU is such a spiffing club then a) why is a penalty necessary; and b) why would everyone else drop out? These are question asked many times before but nobody, as yet, has been able to craft a credible answer. Can anyone here satisfy my curiosity on these questions?

Easy. If 'access to the Single Market' was a thing (which it isn't), it would obviously be a better choice than membership. All the benefits; none of the costs.

'Access' was never a thing, however, unless you are prepared to pay billions for it.

[b2hbm]

mx5nut said:

Brexiteers and Corbyn's mob:

Both absolutely convinced that the solution to all their problems is travelling back to the 70s and hoping the world hasn't changed in the meantime.
Both absolutely convinced that the rest of us should pay for it.
Both cultlike in their devotion to the cause.

Edited by mx5nut on Wednesday 25th October 08:43

Whereas the EU are absolutely convinced that steadfastly maintaining rules devised in the 50s & 60s and operating policies which haven't changed in decades whilst expecting that we (and others) subsidise this antiquated dream is clearly the way forward, isn't it ?

In fact you could almost say that the EU commision is cult like in their devotion to the cause.

[JagLover]

sidicks said:

You mean the net benefits of certain types of immigration. Which is why we need to be able to control immigration to help ensure that it is indeed a net benefit and can adapt to our changing requirements. HTH

Exactly

Immigration might well be a net benefit overall as skilled doctors, bankers, engineers and scientists outweigh the hundreds of thousands who are net takers from the system.

What we need is a system that lets in the good and keeps out the bad.

[sidicks]

ORD said:

Easy. If 'access to the Single Market' was a thing (which it isn't), it would obviously be a better choice than membership. All the benefits; none of the costs.

'Access' was never a thing, however, unless you are prepared to pay billions for it.

Yes, the EU is the paragon of ‘free trade’. Providing you pay billions to access it...

[///ajd]

JagLover said:

Exactly

Immigration might well be a net benefit overall as skilled doctors, bankers, engineers and scientists outweigh the hundreds of thousands who are net takers from the system.

What we need is a system that lets in the good and keeps out the bad.

And this system, do you expect it will have no effect on how appealing we are to the good as well as the “bad”?

Can you clarify who the “bad” are? We seem set to take fruit pickers in the numbers needed, and who will argue we don’t want the NHS to have the staff they need?

[anonymous-user]

Funkycoldribena said:

problemchild1976 said:

An

I'm educated and i knew i didn't have the knowledge to make an informed decision and i'm afraid the UK public in general also don't have the knowledge.



JJ

So did they in the seventies when taking us in?

Accession was debated for much of the 1960s. It was a big talking point during several governments. Heath's Tory government took the UK into the EEC in 1973. The Wilson Labour government elected in 1974 re negotiated the terms of membership, and held a remain/leave referendum in 1975. The debate at that time was well informed and the issues of sovereignty and self determination were well canvassed. The Government funded both the remain and leave campaigns, and there were mass mailings to all households of yes, no and government (also yes) leaflets.

At that time Heath had been replaced by Thatcher as Tory leader and she campaigned enthusiastically for remain. Wilson and Jenkins for Labour promoted remain, with Benn and Castle of Labour promoting leave. The Liberals (Grimond) promoted remain. Libdems: not yet invented. UKIP: not yet invented, although the fringe right wing parties backed leave. SNP and Plaid Cymru and Ulster Unionists backed leave. The unions divided (most supported leave), but the TUC chair and the NFU and the CBI supported remain. The remain campaign won by a large margin.

The significance of all that to the current debate is that it punctures the suggestion made by some Brexiteers that the public were ill informed or misled at accession or in the 75 referendum. It is often said that the UK joined a common market and that it later changed to something else. This isn't the case. The direction of travel for the EEC/EU was clear from the outset.

Oddly, although it used to be argued "common market yes, EU no", nowadays the Brexiteer position seems to extend to "common market no".

[mike9009]

sidicks said:

ORD said:

Easy. If 'access to the Single Market' was a thing (which it isn't), it would obviously be a better choice than membership. All the benefits; none of the costs.

'Access' was never a thing, however, unless you are prepared to pay billions for it.

Yes, the EU is the paragon of ‘free trade’. Providing you pay billions to access it...

Pure conjecture ... but would the EU 'work' if each country made an equal, per capita payment to keep it running? I accept 'now' it would not work but if on its initial inception, this was the deal?

[mx5nut]

Robertj21a said:

you're really not doing very well at understanding the views of many of the electorate).

I really wish I had the crystal ball that some here seem to possess that tells them exactly why people voted!

[mx5nut]

///ajd said:

And this system, do you expect it will have no effect on how appealing we are to the good as well as the “bad”?

Can you clarify who the “bad” are? We seem set to take fruit pickers in the numbers needed, and who will argue we don’t want the NHS to have the staff they need?

Presumably by "the bad" they mean people who won't work/support themselves - you know, the ones we already had the power to keep out.

But that doesn't fit the narrative.

[sidicks]

mx5nut said:

I really wish I had the crystal ball that some here seem to possess that tells them exactly why people voted!

Says the person who continually make claims about what ‘Brexiters’ believe.
Are you really this stupid in real life?

[sidicks]

mx5nut said:

Presumably by "the bad" they mean people who won't work/support themselves - you know, the ones we already had the power to keep out.

But that doesn't fit the narrative.

Presumably you’re wrong. Again.

[anonymous-user]

It is maybe worth mentioning that EU free movement rights depend on being economically active, or being related to someone who is economically active. Free movement of persons is not an end in itself, it is an adjunct to the common market.

[sidicks]

Breadvan72 said:

It is maybe worth mentioning that EU free movement rights depend on being economically active, or being related to someone who is economically active. Free movement of persons is not an end in itself, it is an adjunct to the common market.

Which is quite important.

It might also be worth mentioning that being economically active doesn’t necessarily mean making a net positive (economic) contribution.

[anonymous-user]

If making a net contribution is to be a test for residence rights, why apply this only to people not born here? Also, over what period do you measure contribution? I contributed Jack Diddly to the UK until I was about 25. I was a totes sponger of education and healthcare and even dole in student hols. Since then (30 years tomorrow, 'kinnell) I have been a net contributor.

[Zod]

Can we have votes weighted depending on level of net contribution, please?








(this is a joke to illustrate the irrelevance of net contribution to this thread - few immigrants come with a plan not to become a net contributor)

[sidicks]

Breadvan72 said:

If making a net contribution is to be a test for residence rights, why apply this only to people not born here? Also, over what period do you measure contribution? I contributed Jack Diddly to the UK until I was about 25. I was a totes sponger of education and healthcare and even dole in student hols. Since then (30 years tomorrow, 'kinnell) I have been a net contributor.

I’d have thought that was fairly obvious.

[citizensm1th]

Breadvan72 said:

If making a net contribution is to be a test for residence rights, why apply this only to people not born here? Also, over what period do you measure contribution? I contributed Jack Diddly to the UK until I was about 25. I was a totes sponger of education and healthcare and even dole in student hols. Since then (30 years tomorrow, 'kinnell) I have been a net contributor.

That's why it is such a ste argument, the majority of the uk's working population fall below sidekicks measure

unless he is arguing for a Scandinavian pay and tax model he will never achieve a model where the uk has a majority of people being net contributors

this is why we have a blended tax model between personal tax and business tax and he would be far more productive arguing for less tax avoidance by businesses

[hyphen]

sidicks said:

Breadvan72 said:

If making a net contribution is to be a test for residence rights, why apply this only to people not born here? Also, over what period do you measure contribution? I contributed Jack Diddly to the UK until I was about 25. I was a totes sponger of education and healthcare and even dole in student hols. Since then (30 years tomorrow, 'kinnell) I have been a net contributor.

I’d have thought that was fairly obvious.

[JagLover]

///ajd said:

Can you clarify who the “bad” are? We seem set to take fruit pickers in the numbers needed,

You mean under the old Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme, where the employer has to provide accommodation and pay the agricultural minimum wage?

[sidicks]

citizensm1th said:

That's why it is such a ste argument, the majority of the uk's working population fall below sidekicks measure

No the ‘ste argument’ is those making blanket statements about immigration being a positive benefit.

citizensm1th said:

unless he is arguing for a Scandinavian pay and tax model he will never achieve a model where the uk has a majority of people being net contributors

Neither was I suggesting any such thing.

citizensm1th said:

this is why we have a blended tax model between personal tax and business tax and he would be far more productive arguing for less tax avoidance by businesses

You’d be far more productive addressing the actual issue being discussion not an entirely different one.

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 25th October 10:37