BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…122123125127128…2110

Comments

  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Why do you say it isn't an option? The other European countries have not ruled out Britain being part of the single market in exchange for continued freedom of movement, it's only our government which has been making noises about this.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,423
    finchy wrote:
    Why do you say it isn't an option? The other European countries have not ruled out Britain being part of the single market in exchange for continued freedom of movement, it's only our government which has been making noises about this.
    I meant continuing full EU membership. TM has made it clear she will carry out the referendum decision so the possibility of Article 50 not being triggered is no longer feasible.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    finchy wrote:
    Why do you say it isn't an option? The other European countries have not ruled out Britain being part of the single market in exchange for continued freedom of movement, it's only our government which has been making noises about this.

    now reverse it - The other European countries have ruled out Britain being part of the single market without continued freedom of movement.

    I assume you have inadvertently omitted the word "labour" . I am not being pedantic as if you continually remind yourself that there are 4 pillars or free movement - capital, goods, services and labour then you understand why they will not let us pick and chose.

    The opposite side of the coin is that Theresa May only has a working majority of 16. There are more than enough hard Brexiteers sitting behind her who would drag down their own Govt over the issue of immigration.

    Frankly if I was an Outer I would not see the point in leaving but keeping all four free movement.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Frankly if I was an Outer I would not see the point in leaving but keeping all four free movement.

    So what? Sounds good to me.

    If they can persuade Labour (or whatever groupings are left) to support it, it can pass, and we would have fulfilled what was voted for in the referendum. I think more than 50% would be happy with that so democracy lives.

    On the down side, UKIP probably grow stronger.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,423
    I don't think anyone was major issues with free movement of goods, services or capital - I would think most people want this. On the freedom of movement, wonder whether a compromise might be possible to make it free movement of labour, as opposed to people (i.e. if you are coming in to fill a job)? Bit of an off the cuff idea I admit, so flame suit on :)

    Possibly Juncker etc will see this as removing their finger from the leaky dam, but has its plus sides from allowing businesses to get people in. Clearly there are issues, such as what happens if they lose their job etc.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    On the freedom of movement, wonder whether a compromise might be possible to make it free movement of labour, as opposed to people (i.e. if you are coming in to fill a job)? Bit of an off the cuff idea I admit, so flame suit on :)

    I've wondered about this. The East Europeans are apparently uncompromising on the issue of free movement of people. But if they don't compromise then the UK making a hard exit becomes a much greater possibility. In this scenario, it's reasonable to assume that the UK would then tell the East Europeans not already living here to f*** off. So the choice in respect of free movement to the UK is really between none and something negotiated sensibly. There is no option to realistically keep things as they are. (Whilst technically the UK could leave the EU whilst retaining free movement, this doesn't seem politically feasible in the UK as it would simply take us back to where we've been for the last 10 years, but Farage will have a legitimate claim that his supporters have had their democratic mandate ignored. Not sure Farage with a genuine grievance is what the UK needs!)

    Granting the UK some relatively modest special terms surely wouldn't create a precedent, as the rest of the EU are all good Europeans, dedicated to the European ideal and they couldn't possibly want something other than the religion of free movement, could they? After all, it is fundamental to civilisation etc.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,918
    The Visegrad four wants free movement for its people, no migration (from outside the EU although inside hasn't really been tested) to its countries and continuing funding of infrastructure projects.

    The UK could complain about the reasonableness of this, but then part of the problem is that it was the UK that pushed for the inclusion of these countries to begin with as a policy to prevent federalisation.

    Right now, I can't see the EU managing to agree on anything from refugees to the Euro or to Brexit, so it sounds like it will be a hard Brexit.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Right now, I can't see the EU managing to agree on anything from refugees to the Euro or to Brexit, so it sounds like it will be a hard Brexit.

    And of course, if anything is to be agreed re the UK leaving the priority will be:

    1) How to get Germany to make up the UK's foregone contribution.

    2) How to ensure pension guarantees / expenses are safeguarded if (1) isn't entirely successful.
  • TheBigBean
    TheBigBean Posts: 21,918
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Right now, I can't see the EU managing to agree on anything from refugees to the Euro or to Brexit, so it sounds like it will be a hard Brexit.

    And of course, if anything is to be agreed re the UK leaving the priority will be:

    1) How to get Germany to make up the UK's foregone contribution.

    2) How to ensure pension guarantees / expenses are safeguarded if (1) isn't entirely successful.

    Germany is already concerned that the UK may not pay its part of the EU's credit card debt / funding promises. That's going to be a pretty thorny issue.
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    TheBigBean wrote:
    Germany is already concerned that the UK may not pay its part of the EU's credit card debt / funding promises. That's going to be a pretty thorny issue.

    Ultimately, free movement is one thing. Hard cash is something entirely different. It will be interesting when Article 50 is triggered and cards start to be played.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I don't think anyone was major issues with free movement of goods, services or capital - I would think most people want this. On the freedom of movement, wonder whether a compromise might be possible to make it free movement of labour, as opposed to people (i.e. if you are coming in to fill a job)? Bit of an off the cuff idea I admit, so flame suit on :)

    Possibly Juncker etc will see this as removing their finger from the leaky dam, but has its plus sides from allowing businesses to get people in. Clearly there are issues, such as what happens if they lose their job etc.

    Not off the cuff, really. I posted this link just before the referendum.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36500747

    German and Dutch businesses are willing to make concessions of free movement of people in order to keep the UK in the single market. The article estimates that UK completely withdrawing will cost the Netherlands 1.2% of GDP. If other countries make similar calculations, there is the possibility on compromise of free movement of people. However it is a hard sell, as it requires the UK to continue making some contributions.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Stevo666 - the freedom of movement isn't just about economics, it's also about citizenship, so the freedom of movement is for European citizens, not workers.

    Surrey Commuter - Only freedom of movement of people will be a sticking point in negotiations.

    Wallace and Gromit - What the East Europeans really wouldn't want is a points-based immigration system in the UK. If we did that, then their brain drain would become even worse, because they'd be losing a whole load of highly-skilled, essential workers, but not the people who are dependent on them. So for every doctor they lose, they'll want to shift 300 patients, for every teacher 30 children, etc. If the UK did get a system under which they can take only the most highly-educated/-skilled workers, then other countries might get the same idea, and that could devastate places like Poland.

    Couple of thoughts on this - it's utterly ridiculous that all of this talk about "taking back control" and "democracy", and we are now in a position in which Parliament might not get a say in how we proceed with negotiations. Also, anyone noticed how the £ has been faring since all the talk about hard Brexit began. It was around €1.18 - 1.19 a couple of weeks ago, and even spiked at €1.20, but since a hard Brexit's being mooted, it's now down to €1.14 for the first time in 3 years. I wonder if it will fall even further if the government maintains its stance?
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Better not.

    My pre-brexit booked honeymoon is looking chuffing expensive as it is.
    _
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Better not.

    My pre-brexit booked honeymoon is looking chuffing expensive as it is.

    Where are you off to?
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I honestly think that people with negative, defeatist attitudes rarely get into positions of influence. Because its based in what I observe in my business career.

    I am actually quite risk averse and tend to weight up the risks pretty carefully in my line of work as the cost of getting it wrong can be substantial.

    Really? looks like your so called sector, doesnt tend to agree with you.

    http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2016/09 ... ces-s.html
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    finchy wrote:
    If the UK did get a system under which they can take only the most highly-educated/-skilled workers, then other countries might get the same idea, and that could devastate places like Poland.

    But the other countries wouldn't get the same idea would they? They are all Good Europeans, committed to the European ideal and it's only the Brits standing in the way of European utopia. Or have I missed something? :wink:

    Interesting point about the implications of a points-based system on the East Europeans. What would stop the UK enticing the skilled Poles to work in the UK after a "hard" departure? If the UK leaves on bad terms it would be free to plunder the Polish workforce as it plunders the workforces of other countries for doctors etc with the only way to stop such skilled workers leaving being restraints by the Polish authorities themselves. The Poles could do themselves a favour by making a few compromises, I think...
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    If the UK leaves on bad terms it would be free to plunder the Polish workforce as it plunders the workforces of other countries for doctors etc
    So the best way to get what we want from Brexit is to aggressively push immigration? That'll go down well with the 'kippers...
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Wallace and Gromit wrote:
    finchy wrote:
    If the UK did get a system under which they can take only the most highly-educated/-skilled workers, then other countries might get the same idea, and that could devastate places like Poland.

    But the other countries wouldn't get the same idea would they? They are all Good Europeans, committed to the European ideal and it's only the Brits standing in the way of European utopia. Or have I missed something? :wink:

    Interesting point about the implications of a points-based system on the East Europeans. What would stop the UK enticing the skilled Poles to work in the UK after a "hard" departure? If the UK leaves on bad terms it would be free to plunder the Polish workforce as it plunders the workforces of other countries for doctors etc with the only way to stop such skilled workers leaving being restraints by the Polish authorities themselves. The Poles could do themselves a favour by making a few compromises, I think...

    That's why the Visegrad 4 are using access to the single market as a weapon to stop hard Brexit happening.
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    The Polish economy is on the up, 3.6% gdp increase last year, our economy may not be able to afford them, and there is the
    fact that after the Brexit vote, we are not seen as migrant friendly as we once were.

    of course unskilled labour will always want to come here but that has proven to be the issue for the english.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,423
    Lookyhere wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I honestly think that people with negative, defeatist attitudes rarely get into positions of influence. Because its based in what I observe in my business career.

    I am actually quite risk averse and tend to weight up the risks pretty carefully in my line of work as the cost of getting it wrong can be substantial.

    Really? looks like your so called sector, doesnt tend to agree with you.

    http://pwc.blogs.com/press_room/2016/09 ... ces-s.html
    What bit of my post above don't they agree with?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,423
    finchy wrote:
    Stevo666 - the freedom of movement isn't just about economics, it's also about citizenship, so the freedom of movement is for European citizens, not workers.
    It is at present. I'm saying that maybe we should look at it differently and see if there is any room for compromise.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,229
    Erm, can I raise again the concept of changing UK to a contribution based benefits system?

    If you are Polish, Indian, USAnian or whatever, if you've paid taxes / NI, then you have entitlement; if you have not, then FRO.

    Wouldn't be too popular with native born lard a4re benefit junkies, but as they probably voted Leave anyway, xxxx them, they helped get us into this omnishambles.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    orraloon wrote:
    Erm, can I raise again the concept of changing UK to a contribution based benefits system?

    If you are Polish, Indian, USAnian or whatever, if you've paid taxes / NI, then you have entitlement; if you have not, then FRO.

    Wouldn't be too popular with native born lard a4re benefit junkies, but as they probably voted Leave anyway, xxxx them, they helped get us into this omnishambles.

    I really don't get why the Tories did. Not push for this at the time of the renegotiation.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I don't think anyone was major issues with free movement of goods, services or capital - I would think most people want this. On the freedom of movement, wonder whether a compromise might be possible to make it free movement of labour, as opposed to people (i.e. if you are coming in to fill a job)? Bit of an off the cuff idea I admit, so flame suit on :)

    Possibly Juncker etc will see this as removing their finger from the leaky dam, but has its plus sides from allowing businesses to get people in. Clearly there are issues, such as what happens if they lose their job etc.

    Because we would have to accept common standards which would be done by accepting EU laws. As this is a Norwegian model they would ask us to chip in. as I say why bother leaving but as I say that question could be applied to the obsession with trade deals.

    You have to remember that a lot of Brexiteers care so much that they are prepared to accept economic pain to escape the EU yoke. They will not fall in behind a plan that involves "pretending" to leave.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Surrey Commuter - Only freedom of movement of people will be a sticking point in negotiations.

    Free movement of goods, services and capital depend as much on common standards as they do no tariffs. When the clowns realise we would have to adopt all EU laws on common standards it will become a sticking point
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    orraloon wrote:
    Erm, can I raise again the concept of changing UK to a contribution based benefits system?

    If you are Polish, Indian, USAnian or whatever, if you've paid taxes / NI, then you have entitlement; if you have not, then FRO.

    Wouldn't be too popular with native born lard a4re benefit junkies, but as they probably voted Leave anyway, xxxx them, they helped get us into this omnishambles.

    I really don't get why the Tories did. Not push for this at the time of the renegotiation.

    a contributory benefits system is something i ve raised here before and one i d want to see but what it means is that those at the very bottom, who havent or wont contribute, get even less, or do you want staving kids and people?
    and those who have contributed get far far more, if you ve a house, pay no rent and have no kids, you get bugg3r all from the DWP if you lose your job, regardless of how much tax you may have paid in.

    this is in contrast to most of europe and a big surprise to a french couple we chatted to recently on hols when they started talking about why uk voted Brexit.

    Gov policy over decades has been to reduce the contributory benefits, the latest one to go is SERPs. and its all been done to reduce costs, to re introduce it would cost billions.
  • joelsim
    joelsim Posts: 7,552
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    Stevo 666 wrote:
    I don't think anyone was major issues with free movement of goods, services or capital - I would think most people want this. On the freedom of movement, wonder whether a compromise might be possible to make it free movement of labour, as opposed to people (i.e. if you are coming in to fill a job)? Bit of an off the cuff idea I admit, so flame suit on :)

    Possibly Juncker etc will see this as removing their finger from the leaky dam, but has its plus sides from allowing businesses to get people in. Clearly there are issues, such as what happens if they lose their job etc.

    Because we would have to accept common standards which would be done by accepting EU laws. As this is a Norwegian model they would ask us to chip in. as I say why bother leaving but as I say that question could be applied to the obsession with trade deals.

    You have to remember that a lot of Brexiteers care so much that they are prepared to accept economic pain to escape the EU yoke. They will not fall in behind a plan that involves "pretending" to leave.

    Just for comparison the Norwegian cost per head capita is 85% of what we are paying.

    Surely we could just take a leaf out of the Leave campaign's book, and tell Leavers that we have left? Half of them already think we have, so they're no problem. All we would then need to do is take 20% of their earnings off them and tell them that's what Brexit means, perhaps throw a couple of hundred thousand onto the soup kitchen queue just for authenticity.

    Job done. Remainers happy, Leave voters get what they voted for too.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,423
    orraloon wrote:
    Erm, can I raise again the concept of changing UK to a contribution based benefits system?

    If you are Polish, Indian, USAnian or whatever, if you've paid taxes / NI, then you have entitlement; if you have not, then FRO.

    Wouldn't be too popular with native born lard a4re benefit junkies, but as they probably voted Leave anyway, xxxx them, they helped get us into this omnishambles.
    Fine with me.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    When the clowns realise we would have to adopt all EU laws on common standards it will become a sticking point

    I don't think there's any issue about complying with standards when selling to the EU. The UK has to comply with local standards when selling to the US, Australia, China etc.

    The issue is that small, local business are compelled to comply with EU standards when they have no intention of exporting to the EU. An obvious, though financially insignificant example is the requirement to price food in. This is of no benefit to the customers of our local butcher, where 99.9% of the trade is with locals and 99% of the customers order in imperial measures. If there is a demand for metric pricing then local traders will either price in metric or go out of business. But it should be the customers who make this choice not some pencil pusher in Brussels.

    Another example is the classification of fruit and. I don't care whether my carrots are class I, class II or whatever. I inspect them, check the prices against alternatives and buy the carrots that look good and are good value.

    Whether compliance with these regulations is a major burden I know not but imposing them on a Eurosceptic / Euroneutral public was a bit of an own goal for the EU as it provided the tabloids endless ammunition about "unelected bureaucrats ruling the UK" and made "taking back control" so seductive.

    In reality, the UK should simply not enforce laws EU regulations that clearly serve no real benefit other than keeping pencil pushers employed. I believe the French do this to great effect!
  • wallace_and_gromit
    wallace_and_gromit Posts: 3,618
    Joelsim wrote:
    Surely we could just take a leaf out of the Leave campaign's book, and tell Leavers that we have left? Half of them already think we have, so they're no problem.

    There's some mileage in this I think! In fact, the more I think about it, it is a brilliant suggestion. No-one would actually be able to prove we hadn't left.

    We could also increase the net contribution to say £250m per week and the Leave faction would think it had been reduced by £100m per week.

Categories