Crosswords1 min ago
Brexit
not sure if I trust the leave side ..if we exit and want to trade with EU then we will still have to accept the free movement EU citizens.so immigration will not alter
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dosset. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Access to the single market would almost certainly mean having to accept free movement of labour…”
Dozens of non-EU countries have access to the single market, Ickky. None has to accept the free movement of people as a condition.
“Does anyone seriously believe that we can walk out of the EU , and then demand and get the same or better trade conditions we had before we left…”
Nobody I know is suggesting we demand anything, Eddie. What will happen is what happens with normal countries that trade between each other – they either trade without a trading agreement (and it does happen, incredible as it may seem, just as the USA trades with the UK) or they will negotiate a mutually agreeable deal that suits them both. At present the UK cannot do this. It can only hold on to the coattails of the EU after they have (at great length) negotiated a deal on behalf of 28 very disparate nations. The sorrow should be reserved for people who believe that in two days’ time trade between the rest of the EU and the UK will grind to a halt in the event of Brexit.
“…what's more demand that their citizens are not allowed to come and work here, while our citizens who have moved into other EU states can stay there on the same terms as their own citizens.”
No EU citizens settled here will be removed and no UK citizens settled elsewhere in the EU will be forced to return. Nobody is suggesting that, not even the Remainers. All those people have “reserved rights” under the UN Convention on Treaties and in any case it would be in nobody’s interest to do so. All that will happen is that movement will be controlled. People could and did move between European nations before the EU existed and before the UK joined it. Furthermore people move between EU countries and elsewhere. This is not about preventing movement but moving away from the highly undesirable notion of complete freedom of movement. The free movement principle was established when the EEC (as it then was) consisted of half a dozen nations which were fairly similar economically. A few brickies moved to Germany when there was no work here and Germany needed them. The situation now is completely different. Vast swathes of the extended EU have average wages between a fifth and a tenth of those here. The victims of this folly are ordinary working folk who have seen their pay depressed by employers willing to take on people from those places. It is unsustainable even disregarding the numbers that arrive with no job and no skills.
Dozens of non-EU countries have access to the single market, Ickky. None has to accept the free movement of people as a condition.
“Does anyone seriously believe that we can walk out of the EU , and then demand and get the same or better trade conditions we had before we left…”
Nobody I know is suggesting we demand anything, Eddie. What will happen is what happens with normal countries that trade between each other – they either trade without a trading agreement (and it does happen, incredible as it may seem, just as the USA trades with the UK) or they will negotiate a mutually agreeable deal that suits them both. At present the UK cannot do this. It can only hold on to the coattails of the EU after they have (at great length) negotiated a deal on behalf of 28 very disparate nations. The sorrow should be reserved for people who believe that in two days’ time trade between the rest of the EU and the UK will grind to a halt in the event of Brexit.
“…what's more demand that their citizens are not allowed to come and work here, while our citizens who have moved into other EU states can stay there on the same terms as their own citizens.”
No EU citizens settled here will be removed and no UK citizens settled elsewhere in the EU will be forced to return. Nobody is suggesting that, not even the Remainers. All those people have “reserved rights” under the UN Convention on Treaties and in any case it would be in nobody’s interest to do so. All that will happen is that movement will be controlled. People could and did move between European nations before the EU existed and before the UK joined it. Furthermore people move between EU countries and elsewhere. This is not about preventing movement but moving away from the highly undesirable notion of complete freedom of movement. The free movement principle was established when the EEC (as it then was) consisted of half a dozen nations which were fairly similar economically. A few brickies moved to Germany when there was no work here and Germany needed them. The situation now is completely different. Vast swathes of the extended EU have average wages between a fifth and a tenth of those here. The victims of this folly are ordinary working folk who have seen their pay depressed by employers willing to take on people from those places. It is unsustainable even disregarding the numbers that arrive with no job and no skills.
Since we buy far more from the EU that it buys from us, it won’t be in a position to impose rules – in fact it would be self-defeating. Markus Kerber, the head of the influential BDI has said that it would be "very, very foolish" if the EU imposes trade barriers on the UK in the event it votes to leave the EU. There is no reason for us to accept an imposition of the free movement of people.
http://
http://
I wish people would stop citing Norway and Switzerland as models that we would/should follow.
Their political classes/establishments are strongly in favour of the EU. Despite repeatedly holding referendums, they can't persuade their 'subjects' to vote for it, so they have imposed EU-lite on their people, which the people have no say in.
Their political classes/establishments are strongly in favour of the EU. Despite repeatedly holding referendums, they can't persuade their 'subjects' to vote for it, so they have imposed EU-lite on their people, which the people have no say in.
“Access to the single market would almost certainly mean having to accept free movement of labour…”
Dozens of non-EU countries have access to the single market, Ickky. None has to accept the free movement of people as a condition.
“Does anyone seriously believe that we can walk out of the EU , and then demand and get the same or better trade conditions we had before we left…”
Nobody I know is suggesting we demand anything, Eddie. What will happen is what happens with normal countries that trade between each other – they either trade without a trading agreement (and it does happen, incredible as it may seem, just as the USA trades with the UK) or they will negotiate a mutually agreeable deal that suits them both. At present the UK cannot do this. It can only hold on to the coattails of the EU after they have (at great length) negotiated a deal on behalf of 28 very disparate nations. The sorrow should be reserved for people who believe that in two days’ time trade between the rest of the EU and the UK will grind to a halt in the event of Brexit.
“…what's more demand that their citizens are not allowed to come and work here, while our citizens who have moved into other EU states can stay there on the same terms as their own citizens.”
No EU citizens settled here will be removed and no UK citizens settled elsewhere in the EU will be forced to return. Nobody is suggesting that, not even the Remainers. All those people have “reserved rights” under the UN Convention on Treaties and in any case it would be in nobody’s interest to do so. All that will happen is that movement will be controlled. People could and did move between European nations before the EU existed and before the UK joined it. Furthermore people move between EU countries and elsewhere. This is not about preventing movement but moving away from the highly undesirable notion of complete freedom of movement. The free movement principle was established when the EEC (as it then was) consisted of half a dozen nations which were fairly similar economically. A few brickies moved to Germany when there was no work here and Germany needed them. The situation now is completely different. Vast swathes of the extended EU have average wages between a fifth and a tenth of those here. The victims of this folly are ordinary working folk who have seen their pay depressed by employers willing to take on people from those places. It is unsustainable even disregarding the numbers that arrive with no job and no skills.
The oft-cited comparison with the “Norwegian Model” is specious. Norway (along with Iceland and Switzerland) are members of the European Economic Area (EEA). This was designed as a “waiting room” for prospective EU members but the Norwegian electorate refused their government permission to join and the Icelandic government withdrew its application. Switzerland r a signatory to the European Free Trade Area until 1992. The EEA is nothing more than an arrogant mechanism to impose EU conditions on non-EU members who had the temerity to decline membership and is unlikely to be offered or taken up by the UK.
Personally I’ll be glad when tomorrow is over because I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve countered these (sometimes ridiculous) arguments.
Dozens of non-EU countries have access to the single market, Ickky. None has to accept the free movement of people as a condition.
“Does anyone seriously believe that we can walk out of the EU , and then demand and get the same or better trade conditions we had before we left…”
Nobody I know is suggesting we demand anything, Eddie. What will happen is what happens with normal countries that trade between each other – they either trade without a trading agreement (and it does happen, incredible as it may seem, just as the USA trades with the UK) or they will negotiate a mutually agreeable deal that suits them both. At present the UK cannot do this. It can only hold on to the coattails of the EU after they have (at great length) negotiated a deal on behalf of 28 very disparate nations. The sorrow should be reserved for people who believe that in two days’ time trade between the rest of the EU and the UK will grind to a halt in the event of Brexit.
“…what's more demand that their citizens are not allowed to come and work here, while our citizens who have moved into other EU states can stay there on the same terms as their own citizens.”
No EU citizens settled here will be removed and no UK citizens settled elsewhere in the EU will be forced to return. Nobody is suggesting that, not even the Remainers. All those people have “reserved rights” under the UN Convention on Treaties and in any case it would be in nobody’s interest to do so. All that will happen is that movement will be controlled. People could and did move between European nations before the EU existed and before the UK joined it. Furthermore people move between EU countries and elsewhere. This is not about preventing movement but moving away from the highly undesirable notion of complete freedom of movement. The free movement principle was established when the EEC (as it then was) consisted of half a dozen nations which were fairly similar economically. A few brickies moved to Germany when there was no work here and Germany needed them. The situation now is completely different. Vast swathes of the extended EU have average wages between a fifth and a tenth of those here. The victims of this folly are ordinary working folk who have seen their pay depressed by employers willing to take on people from those places. It is unsustainable even disregarding the numbers that arrive with no job and no skills.
The oft-cited comparison with the “Norwegian Model” is specious. Norway (along with Iceland and Switzerland) are members of the European Economic Area (EEA). This was designed as a “waiting room” for prospective EU members but the Norwegian electorate refused their government permission to join and the Icelandic government withdrew its application. Switzerland r a signatory to the European Free Trade Area until 1992. The EEA is nothing more than an arrogant mechanism to impose EU conditions on non-EU members who had the temerity to decline membership and is unlikely to be offered or taken up by the UK.
Personally I’ll be glad when tomorrow is over because I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve countered these (sometimes ridiculous) arguments.
The comparison with the Norway model is more relevant than NJ gives it credit for. If nothing else it shows that it is fundamentally dishonest to guarantee that leaving the EU means leaving its architecture. For sure we might get a different deal, but it does depend rather on who leads the negotiations for that deal, does it not? The Norway etc deals were, says NJ, negotiated by closet Europhiles. So if that happened here we'd have the same sort of thing.
As I said to start with, though, it's equally wrong to insist that we *will* have a deal requiring free movement of EU workers, and the like. But we might. Nobody knows. It's not even obvious that a deal without those terms would necessarily be better; what might we have to give in return as part of the compromises that such negotiations inevitably involve?
The whole thing is clouded in massive uncertainty. For all the problems the EU may have, there is hardly any reason to suspect that leaving will necessarily solve them.
As I said to start with, though, it's equally wrong to insist that we *will* have a deal requiring free movement of EU workers, and the like. But we might. Nobody knows. It's not even obvious that a deal without those terms would necessarily be better; what might we have to give in return as part of the compromises that such negotiations inevitably involve?
The whole thing is clouded in massive uncertainty. For all the problems the EU may have, there is hardly any reason to suspect that leaving will necessarily solve them.
Svejk
"I wish people would stop citing Norway and Switzerland as models that we would/should follow."
Yes, i heard it cited by Leavers as an example of a successful model. Perhaps they were going off-script.
So does that leave any example of countries in Europe that have an successful arrangement outside the EU?
Or will we model ourselves on USA/China/Australia/Russia/India/Canada?
"I wish people would stop citing Norway and Switzerland as models that we would/should follow."
Yes, i heard it cited by Leavers as an example of a successful model. Perhaps they were going off-script.
So does that leave any example of countries in Europe that have an successful arrangement outside the EU?
Or will we model ourselves on USA/China/Australia/Russia/India/Canada?
There is no need to model ourselves on anybody. The beauty of independence is that we can do exactly as we choose, what suits us best.
As I keep saying, many nations outside the EU trade perfectly well with those within it, with no trading agreement and no necessity to accept freedom of movement or any other conditions. The UK is Canada 's biggest trading partner in Europe. No trading agreement exists (the UK could not negotiate one even if it wanted to); neither country has to accept the unfettered settlement of the other's population. Business is conducted perfectly well.
Many people are so bamboozled by the politicians telling them that if we don't belong to the EU we must belong to something like it that they seem to have lost all sense of reason. Most of the world’s best performing trading nations are outside the EU. Some of them are in loose trading organisations, some are not. But a number of things are common to them all: none have to accept freedom of movement in order to trade; none of them has to accept their legislation being made by their partners; none of them has to accept the final arbitration of much of their legislation being made by a foreign court; none of them has to pay huge subscriptions for the privilege of trading.
The EU is a relic from a model that is sixty years old and well past its sell by date. Some of its disastrous policies have caused enormous damage to millions of people yet it refuses to accept its major shortcomings and seems incapable of addressing the problems it has caused. There is no need for the UK to adopt any model similar to anything that currently exists in Europe (which is, incidentally, the slowest growing economy of any area in the world other than Antarctica).
As I keep saying, many nations outside the EU trade perfectly well with those within it, with no trading agreement and no necessity to accept freedom of movement or any other conditions. The UK is Canada 's biggest trading partner in Europe. No trading agreement exists (the UK could not negotiate one even if it wanted to); neither country has to accept the unfettered settlement of the other's population. Business is conducted perfectly well.
Many people are so bamboozled by the politicians telling them that if we don't belong to the EU we must belong to something like it that they seem to have lost all sense of reason. Most of the world’s best performing trading nations are outside the EU. Some of them are in loose trading organisations, some are not. But a number of things are common to them all: none have to accept freedom of movement in order to trade; none of them has to accept their legislation being made by their partners; none of them has to accept the final arbitration of much of their legislation being made by a foreign court; none of them has to pay huge subscriptions for the privilege of trading.
The EU is a relic from a model that is sixty years old and well past its sell by date. Some of its disastrous policies have caused enormous damage to millions of people yet it refuses to accept its major shortcomings and seems incapable of addressing the problems it has caused. There is no need for the UK to adopt any model similar to anything that currently exists in Europe (which is, incidentally, the slowest growing economy of any area in the world other than Antarctica).
The EU is broken and in melt-down. We managed to stand on our own two proud feet for centuries before we joined the EEC (note the actual body we voted to join as not a United States of Europe) and we can do so again, along with our own democratic Parliament which we can hold to account. How can we even contemplate staying with an organisation that has not had its accounts ratified in years? Of course the EU will want to trade with us, they sell more to us than we sell to them.
